Bronx Zoo Elephant Not a Person Court Rules

Yes, you hold to your opinions as IF they were established truth. You ACT as if your opinions are correct and true. You behave as though I am wrong.

So once again, your actions betray you. The fact is, what you believe--at least as far as you are concerned on these questions is NOT just opinion. Once again, you want to pretend you do not believe in objective truth----when in fact, you know you do believe in objective truth. You just do not want to admit there is such a thing--because once again, doing so forces you down a road you do not want to go down.
I act as if I think I am right and you are wrong, because I do think that I am right and you are wrong. I think that my moral position is preferable to yours and that a country that abandons legal abortion is abandoning civilised values. The fact that you are fully entitled to your moral opinions does not mean that I am not entitled to oppose them. Any regressive step back to oppressive patriarchy which has been the norm for centuries, should be opposed as much as possible. This is how public opinion and views are influenced.
 
That statement is true but egregiously misleading. As I have explained this countless times on these boards--I do not want to do so again.

But if you believe in subjective moral values, who are you to sit in judgement of the God the Bible anyway?
More to the point, who are you to say that He will sit on judgement against me?
 
More to the point, who are you to say that He will sit on judgement against me?
I do not recall saying that.

I personally believe God will judge the hearts of all, but I do not see my personal religious beliefs as terribly relevant on these boards.

As I said, for the purposes of our discussion, you can assume I am atheist, just like you. One need not have a personal revelation from God to know that a civilized society cannot tolerate the senseless slaughter of unborn children.
 
All Christians say that.
I believe this, but I do not recall saying that you you or anyone else on this site.

As a Christian, I believe God will judge all people, myself included. Though I am not a fundamentalists Christian. By this I mean---I believe God will judge you, but whether you go to heaven or Hell--is entirely up to God. I do not go so far as to assert things like "You are a baby killer. You are going to Hell" like fundamentalist Christians might. Who God chooses to allow into heaven is God's business.

Sure I try to share God's truth with people, but whether they accept it or reject it is between them and God. I will not be there when they appear before God on judgement day.

But as I said--for the purposes of our discussions you can assume I am just as atheist as you are.
 
Sure they do. And as a Christian, I believe God will judge all people, myself included. Though I am not a fundamentalists Christian. By this I mean---I believe God will judge you, but whether you go to heaven or Hell--is entirely up to God. I do not go so far as to assert things like "You are a baby killer. You are going to Hell" like fundamentalist Christians might. Who God chooses to allow into heaven is God's business.

Sure I try to share God's truth with people, but whether they accept it or reject it is between them and God. I will not be there when they appear before God on judgement day.

But as I said--for the purposes of our discussions you can assume I am just as atheist as you are.
You brought up God, not I.
 
Sure they do. And as a Christian, I believe God will judge all people, myself included. Though I am not a fundamentalists Christian. By this I mean---I believe God will judge you, but whether you go to heaven or Hell--is entirely up to God. I do not go so far as to assert things like "You are a baby killer. You are going to Hell" like fundamentalist Christians might. Who God chooses to allow into heaven is God's business.
So much for repentance being enough for heaven, and non-repentance being enough for hell...
 
The way you write and explain things suggest that despite you claiming this is only your opinion, you believe it to be true, and, you believe those who do not hold to it are wrong.
"Suggests" to you.
This is called projection - you feel this way, so you assume others do as well.

Every time - every time - I express a moral opinion, it is that: an opinion.
 
You, like most moral relativists [...]
I hate to break it to you, but Christians are moral relativists too.

For example, killing people because you want to is bad, unless God wants to.

Doesn't matter if God is the absolute authority on everything: if the same action is good in one context and bad in another, that's moral relativism.
 
I hate to break it to you, but Christians are moral relativists too.

For example, killing people because you want to is bad, unless God wants to.

Doesn't matter if God is the absolute authority on everything: if the same action is good in one context and bad in another, that's moral relativism.
Indeed - there is no such thing as an absolutely immoral act because, if Yahweh did it, it would be moral.

Commanding people to sacrifice their children to you, commanding other people to kill the children - both born and unborn - of other tribes, sacrificing innocents as stand-ins for the guilty... none of these can be said to be absolutely immoral.
 
I hate to break it to you, but Christians are moral relativists too.

For example, killing people because you want to is bad, unless God wants to.

Doesn't matter if God is the absolute authority on everything: if the same action is good in one context and bad in another, that's moral relativism.
But I am not sure Christians make the claim that killing people is good.

Killing people is bad. No one wants to kill anyone. It is an opinion of last resort. The question isn't whether it is bad to kill people, the question is whether killing people is morally justifiable when there are no other options. God did not want, as in, God desired to kill people in the Old Testament. God put them to death in order to stop the spread of sin. The people had reached the point of no return--there was no possibility of their repentance. In killing them, God put them out of their misery. Sin is like a cancer. The only option you have to stop the cancer from spreading is to kill it either by burning, poison, or cutting it out.

The argument of Christians, then, is while killing is bad, and something no one likes or wants to do, while killing is always regrettable, it is morally justifiable in certain situations.

And what is more: ironically--in order for YOU to sit in judgement of God--you have to appeal to the very moral standards that same God has revealed!
 
But I am not sure Christians make the claim that killing people is good.
They generally do not - but that's not an issue. If God were to show up on the white house lawn, and in a world-wide press conference, order Christians to kill atheists, the majority of Christians would decide that killing people is good.

Killing people is bad. No one wants to kill anyone. It is an opinion of last resort. The question isn't whether it is bad to kill people, the question is whether killing people is morally justifiable when there are no other options.
That's just human opinion. A thoroughly admirable one, to be sure, but still only human, and definitely not biblical.

I assume you're familiar with the term, but in case you're not: divine command theory. Whatever God says is good/bad - is good/bad. Doesn't matter if God says one thing now and then says something different at a later date - both of God's opinions define the morality in question.

While not universally, most Christians adhere to this form of morality - which is relative at best (and evil at worst). It's worse than human relative morality, because our morality can be rightly seen as faulty on occasion.
 
Post #437, yours, precedes #443.
You mean---this?

"That statement is true but egregiously misleading. As I have explained this countless times on these boards--I do not want to do so again. But if you believe in subjective moral values, who are you to sit in judgement of the God the Bible anyway?"

That was in response to the following by Eightcrackers:

"This is the god, let's remember, that enabled - by way of laws - some humans to be considered property, at one point in history. And never once condemned the practice."

So--who was it that brought up God again? Me--or the atheist poster?

If I bring up God, it is to respond to some ridiculous remark by one of the atheist posters on the site who apparently have either never read the Bible, or if they have, do not understand it--like the above. I leave God and Faith out of the discussion on abortion unless one of the posters attempts to bring it into the discussion---with some stupid assertion like "Well, like you know, your god enabled by way of laws slavery..."

Yeah---gee, we Christians are so stupid. We have never realized before that the Bible condones slavery....we have never heard critics of the Bible make that dumb assertion before....

Commets like that are as silly as a fundamentalist who thinks evolution teaches that our grandparents were monkeys. When I see an atheist make a comment about the Bible and slavery--to me----that shows me that the atheist knows about as much about the Bible and Christianity as the the fundamentalist knows about evolution. It is hard to take such a person seriously.
 
Last edited:
But I am not sure Christians make the claim that killing people is good.
They do when their god is the one doing it.
Is he not incapable of doing anything that is not merely justified, but good?
The people had reached the point of no return--there was no possibility of their repentance. In killing them, God put them out of their misery.
Didn't they go to hell, and thus infinite misery?
 
They do when their god is the one doing it. Is he not incapable of doing anything that is not merely justified, but good?
Not all evil involves moral evil. For example: we experience hurricanes, tornados, forest fires, droughts, earthquakes, etc, as evil. Yet it turns out---those things we experience as bad---are actually seemingly necessary for life on this planet to flourish. Thus----those things we experience as bad, seem to have a greater purpose in the long term---namely----maintaining life on this planet.

Thus, I would suggest that it is impossible for God to commit a moral evil. Sin is impossible for God. This does not entail that God cannot do an action that is regrettable but necessary in order to carry out his larger purposes. And as God created a world whereby, He endowed human beings with freedom---sometimes people are going to misuse and abuse that freedom---requiring God to deal with it in ways that are not pleasant, ways that are regrettable, but ways that are necessary so God can carry out His larger purposes.
Didn't they go to hell, and thus infinite misery?
I do not know. I am not aware that the Bible tells us either way. Their eternal destiny is in God's hands.

But I will answer what I perceive your larger point to be, namely, that if they did end up in Hell---that this was somehow God's fault.

Anyone who winds up in Hell---is not there because God actively put them there. They are there as a result of their own choices. We create Hell through the choices we make in this life. We live in the afterlife as we lived in this life. If we hated God in this life, why would die and magically start loving Him? Why would we want to dwell with the one we hate in heaven? Hell is our own creation. The problem, of course, is that while the person cannot live with God, they cannot live without God---but they hate God--so---they create their own Hell by rejecting God. That is always their free choice. God did not force them to hate Him.

This is part of the larger problem in society today: people can't seem to make the connection between poor outcomes and poor choices. And herein lies, I think one of the major differences between liberals and conservatives.

Conservatives like me---see poor outcomes in life-----as a result of one's poor choices. Liberals on the other hand tend to view poor outcomes in life as the result of oppression. For liberals, there are only two kinds of people in this world: you are either an oppressor or you are oppressed. If you have a good life, that means someone else was oppressed in order for you have that good life. That means--the person whose life is less than ideal---has that life, not because of poor decision making and choices--but because they are oppressed.

Thus, for liberals, the idea of Hell--is a grave injustice---because the reason people are there---is not because they created it through their poor choices, their misuse and abuse of the freedom God gave them, but because God oppressed them.

Thus, maybe now you understand my position on abortion a little better? There is no such thing as an "unplanned" pregnancy--outside of rape or incest, or "unwanted pregnancy." Pregnancy is behavior based. Behaviors are the result of one's choices. The pregnancy happened because two people made a choice to engage in the act that leads to pregnancy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top