blueAgent:


So Explain to me. the source of moral values.

No. You're claiming that every one of God's moral views is correct. Why is that? And why do you think it is wrong to be transgendered or to be gay or to abort a fetus and all of that? If you can't give the basis for your position why should I engage you?

I don't think you went through it. I'm pressed for time so I expect you to look up the passages for yourself and see how they contradict the commandment next to them.

God said don't make graven image and then he order moses to make a graven image.

God said don't commit adultery and then commanded Hosea to do so.

blueAgent:



How does this disprove God's moral laws.
One of the biggest lie in christanity is the lie that the death of Jesus did away with the ten commandments.
You can go through my profile to see my posts on the same arguement. i don't have much time to do that now.

www.the-ten-commandments.org/were-the-ten-commandments-abolished.html

www. the-ten-commandments.org/galatians_ceremoniallaw.html


www. http://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/law-and-grace/jesus-vs-paul/

blueAgent:


Not wrong in the sense of knowing what sin is.

So there are wrongs that are not sins.

PastorAIO:

So there are wrongs that are not sins.

Yes. like get angry is not a sin. but allowing anger to control one is.

PastorAIO:

So there are wrongs that are not sins.

Yes. like to get angry is not a sin. but allowing anger to control one is.

PastorAIO:
I don't think you went through it. I'm pressed for time so I expect you to look up the passages for yourself and see how they contradict the commandment next to them.

God said don't make graven image and then he order moses to make a graven image.

God said don't commit adultery and then commanded Hosea to do so.

I laugh . wat is adultery in Hosea marrying a prositute?

The term adultery refers to sexual acts between a married person and someone who is not that person's spouse.

God told Moses to make an image to represent his presence. of cos those things happened in the old covanent presently we do not need any image to remind us of God.

The Hebrew word translated
“graven image” means literally “an idol.” A graven image is an image carved out of stone, wood, or metal. It could be a statue of a person or animal,or a relief carving in a wall or pole. of cos God is not an Idol.

Eg if i ask my children to watch only one TV channel. contrary to watching all TV channel. did i contradict myself.

finofaya:


No. You're claiming that every one of God's moral views is correct. Why is that? And why do you think it is wrong to be transgendered or to be gay or to abort a fetus and all of that? If you can't give the basis for your position why should I engage you?

I laugh at you. I guess you appreciate orderliness. transgender is insanity,same with gayism. their is nothing natural about them.
most gays and Lesbians need pyscological help not transforming themseleves.

blueAgent:



I laugh at you. I guess you appreciate orderliness. transgender is insanity,same with gayism. their is nothing natural about them.
most gays and Lesbians need pyscological help not transforming themseleves.

Perhaps you're laughing because you're simple?

It's insane and unnatural to be gay or transgender, that's your case. My questions still stand.

Let me give you an example. If I have to explain why killing is bad, I can say that it is bad because every person has a right to life and killing them violates that right. I can go further to explain why everybody has a right to life. I can even say that killing is bad because the God I worship says it is bad. These are what explanations look like.

If I say killing morally wrong because it is insane or it is unnatural, that does not help anyone understand my position. Is insanity morally wrong or right? Does naturalness have any moral value?

Try to answer my questions directly so we can proceed. Thanks.

finofaya:


Perhaps you're laughing because you're simple?

It's insane and unnatural to be gay or transgender, that's your case. My questions still stand.

Let me give you an example. If I have to explain why killing is bad, I can say that it is bad because every person has a right to life and killing them violates that right. I can go further to explain why everybody has a right to life. I can even say that killing is bad because the God I worship says it is bad. These are what explanations look like.

If I say killing morally wrong because it is insane or it is unnatural, that does not help anyone understand my position. Is insanity morally wrong or right? Does naturalness have any moral value?

Try to answer my questions directly so we can proceed. Thanks.

What makes you think ,that people generally see killing as immoral? the Nazi saw it as something moral .something to be done.
Tell me wat is natural about Transgender and gay. if they were natural why do they have to undergo surgery inorder to transform themselves.do animals even pratice Sodomy?
why do gays decide to adopt kids since they cannot Concieve its that natural?

If we are to allow and accept gays as been natural, we should also accept. pedophile and
Nymphons. since they are all natural desires

Is like saying ,that one has right to drink ,as well as to drive.if the society accepts that. it means that my life and yours will be in danger becos of a drunk driver.

Total freedom is bondage.

blueAgent:



Yes. like to get angry is not a sin. but allowing anger to control one is.

matt 5:22

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

PastorAIO:


matt 5:22

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

That's your interpretation. the Hebrew word used there means to be violently angry not just mere anger.

blueAgent:




I laugh . wat is adultery in Hosea marrying a prositute?

The term adultery refers to sexual acts between a married person and someone who is not that person's spouse.

Hosea 3:1 calls it adultery. Unless you want to now say that you know pass the bible.

Then the LORD said to me, “Go again, love a woman who is loved by her husband, yet an adulteress, even as the LORD loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.”

blueAgent:



That's your interpretation. the Hebrew word used there means to be violently angry not just mere anger.

Bwahahahahahahahah!!!! God has catched you.

You are just making things up bobs. Where did you learn that the word used means only to be violently angry in hebrew? What book taught you that, or which school or pastor taught you that?

Let us even accept that Matthew was written in Hebrew, the version we use today came down to us from a GREEK translation. Further more Jesus made the point that to even diss someone and call them a 'fool' is a sin. So the point is that even the slightest tendency to anger is considered a sin.

blueAgent:



God told Moses to make an image to represent his presence. of cos those things happened in the old covanent presently we do not need any image to remind us of God.

The Hebrew word translated
“graven image” means literally “an idol.” A graven image is an image carved out of stone, wood, or metal. It could be a statue of a person or animal,or a relief carving in a wall or pole. of cos God is not an Idol.

Eg if i ask my children to watch only one TV channel. contrary to watching all TV channel. did i contradict myself.

Actually it is in the old covenant, the ten commandments, that God says don't make any graven image. and hardly a few chapters pass afterwards and when Moses is told to make the Ark of the covenant with graven images on top. And he is told to make the bronze serpent. So there is a contradiction to your claim that the moral code does not change.

There's probably no justifiable reason to appeal to a god for absolute moral. Here's why: We can start subjectively and then use that as a bases for absolute moral. You agree that life is preferable to death, I think I agree with that too except, maybe, in a situation where a person living is more painful to them than them dying. Agreeing on this, we can build a moral code that we should not do things that are anti-life; which we can, at best, consider objective. We develop our morality from rational consideration of the consequences our actions with respect to other beings around us.
The problem with the Bible's moral code is its rigidity and disregard for intent. For example, the "thou shall not kill" disregard that one can kill in self defense, unintentionally (like when a bike man runs into your can). On this count alone, it's enough to disregard it as an objective moral code. Hence we cannot appeal to a deity for absolute moral.
Also, it is important to note that morality deals with your relationship with people around you and have absolutely nothing to do with one relationship with a deity.

PastorAIO:


matt 5:22

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Your translation is not complete. The authorised version says:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Ra-ca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matthew 5:22).

Note that this is referring to brethren in Christ.

PastorAIO:


Hosea 3:1 calls it adultery. Unless you want to now say that you know pass the bible.

Then the LORD said to me, “Go again, love a woman who is loved by her husband, yet an adulteress, even as the LORD loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.”

You come yet again with your dodgy translation. She was an adulteress because she had cheated on Hosea her husband. Let's read the proper translation of the verse you misquoted, misinterpreted and misapplied in the quote above.

"Then said the Lord unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine" (Hosea 3:1).

Hosea was told by God to go again to love Gomez his wife who had forsaken him for her old lovers. Hosea was told to love her as God loves Israel. It is evident that Gomez had again committed adultery, in spite of Hosea's love for her and in spite of her marriage to Hosea - not to a former husband as your translation is implying. At this stage Gomez had already given birth to two sons and a daughter. Gomez left Hosea her husband just as Israel had again and again departed from the love of God on her behalf.

Nevertheless, Hosea was instructed to love and redeem Gomer yet again, in order to illustrate God's undying love for His own people.

PastorAIO:


Bwahahahahahahahah!!!! God has catched you.

You are just making things up bobs. Where did you learn that the word used means only to be violently angry in hebrew? What book taught you that, or which school or pastor taught you that?

Let us even accept that Matthew was written in Hebrew, the version we use today came down to us from a GREEK translation. Further more Jesus made the point that to even diss someone and call them a 'fool' is a sin. So the point is that even the slightest tendency to anger is considered a sin.

The Greek word for 'Fool' used there means a 'slowpoke' and it also an implication of rebellion. So for a believer to call a fellow brother in Christ a "rebellious slowpoke" would be imply that the perpetrator is considered to be an unbeliever. Jesus is especially talking to believers here not non believers.

PastorAIO:


Actually it is in the old covenant, the ten commandments, that God says don't make any graven image. and hardly a few chapters pass afterwards and when Moses is told to make the Ark of the covenant with graven images on top. And he is told to make the bronze serpent. So there is a contradiction to your claim that the moral code does not change.

The Decalogue did not forbid the general use of any graven image it was only against an attempt to replace the worship of the Creator God with any of those graven images or it's likeness. This is why my friend, Muafrika2 will say 'that the offspring of a snake is a snake'.

Julianyao:


There's probably no justifiable reason to appeal to a god for absolute moral. Here's why: We can start subjectively and then use that as a bases for absolute moral. You agree that life is preferable to death, I think I agree with that too except, maybe, in a situation where a person living is more painful to them than them dying.

You have just contradicted yourself by saying that not all people prefer life to death. Unless you want to impose your subjective moral value on others to make it objective, no?

Julianyao:


Agreeing on this, we can build a moral code that we should not do things that are anti-life; which we can, at best, consider objective. We develop our morality from rational consideration of the consequences our actions with respect to other beings around us.

How are you going to agree with pro choice advocates who believe that it is their right to choose to take the lives of unborn babies or those who think that is their religious right to take the lives of people of other religion or ethnicities? Why is your own moral value superior to theirs?

Julianyao:


The problem with the Bible's moral code is its rigidity and disregard for intent. For example, the "thou shall not kill" disregard that one can kill in self defense, unintentionally (like when a bike man runs into your can). On this count alone, it's enough to disregard it as an objective moral code. Hence we cannot appeal to a deity for absolute moral.

The commandment says thou shall not murder. Killing is different from murder. There is killing by negligence i.e. careless driving, manslaughter, self defense, war, capital punishment e.t.c. Get your facts right.

Julianyao:


Also, it is important to note that morality deals with your relationship with people around you and have absolutely nothing to do with one relationship with a deity.

If you believe that the laws of morality are just adopted social custom as you have posted up there, then why was what Adolf Hitler did wrong?

blueAgent:


What makes you think ,that people generally see killing as immoral? the Nazi saw it as something moral .something to be done.
Tell me wat is natural about Transgender and gay. if they were natural why do they have to undergo surgery inorder to transform themselves.do animals even pratice Sodomy?
why do gays decide to adopt kids since they cannot Concieve its that natural?

You seem to confuse nature with normalcy/morality(that which is generally endorsed).

This is not only wrong, it is equally pernicious, especially if inspired by a jaundice of religion.

Let me shock you: Anything that happens within nature is natural. Nevertheless, as a result of the evolution of the human society, not every natural item/act/occurence should be accepted or allowed.

This is the primal function of law/legality. To sanction morality and social opprobrium while disapproving that which is harmful and and injurious to the human society.

Well, this is the dicey part. And legislators(well, in this part of the world do not know any better. Law is expected to enforce morality in relation to fellow citizens and society in general and not what a subjective individual or group of people(religion is a major culprit here) think is right.


This is sufficient background for what is to come.

If we are to allow and accept gays as been natural, we should also accept. pedophile and
Nymphons. since they are all natural desires

I find this almost certainly hypocritical and ignorant( I included ignorant because i was once in the same thought train as you, so I consider it necessary to point at).

To marshal this, Let us distinctly consider the definition of homosexuality and pedophilism.

Homosexuality is a consensual sexual activity between two adults of same gender.

Conversely, paedophilism necessarily suggests that a party to the sexual activity is underage, thus unable to confer proper consent.

There's a wealth of reality to buttress this. More than 117 countries of the world population legalised gay marriage.

Has any legalised paedophilism? Totally No.

Does homosexuality corrupt public morals? Yes it does. But not more than heterosexuality does.

Are you disgusted by the act of homosexuality? Well, you're allowed to.

But if you're disgusted at the slght of a curb of corn, would you say anyone who eats a corn be punished? Your guess is as good as mine.

Check, if your religion makes you prejudicial and anti- human, drop them.

blueAgent:


What makes you think ,that people generally see killing as immoral? the Nazi saw it as something moral .something to be done.
Tell me wat is natural about Transgender and gay. if they were natural why do they have to undergo surgery inorder to transform themselves.do animals even pratice Sodomy?
why do gays decide to adopt kids since they cannot Concieve its that natural?

If we are to allow and accept gays as been natural, we should also accept. pedophile and
Nymphons. since they are all natural desires

Is like saying ,that one has right to drink ,as well as to drive.if the society accepts that. it means that my life and yours will be in danger becos of a drunk driver.

Total freedom is bondage.

Are you responding to me? I don't think you are. I haven't said anything along the lines of what you've written.

I said I can explain why I claim that killing is wrong. I didn't say that everybody must believe that killing is wrong. In any event, most people who kill know that killing is wrong, or else they would kill themselves and their loved ones too. However all of that is irrelevant to our discussion at this stage.

I haven't said anything about what is or isn't natural. I only asked you whether naturalness has a moral value.

Once again, explain why you claim that it is wrong to be transgender or to do an abortion or etc. And then explain why anything which your God commands must be morally right.

OLAADEGBU:


You have just contradicted yourself by saying that not all people prefer life to death. Unless you want to impose your subjective moral value on others to make it objective, no?



How are you going to agree with pro choice advocates who believe that it is their right to choose to take the lives of unborn babies or those who think that is their religious right to take the lives of people of other religion or ethnicities? Why is your own moral value superior to theirs?



The commandment says thou shall not murder. Killing is different from murder. There is killing by negligence i.e. careless driving, manslaughter, self defense, war, capital punishment e.t.c. Get your facts right.



If you believe that the laws of morality are just adopted social custom as you have posted up there, then why was what Adolf Hitler did wrong?

Going to reply bit by bit.
Only contradicting myself: No, I didn't do that. However,the joke's on me for not making it clear enough. What I was trying to point out there with that was situational nature of moral. I was using that point the reason we can't have absolute.

Can't see anything in your second question- maybe you'll have to put it in any way. For the third: I'm not claiming any moral superiority. And by the way, when has pointing out what's wrong with something become a claim of superiority over that thing?
Bro, The bible didn't come with a disclaimer. What you're saying there is your own interpretation (which is subject to error) and I'm probably sure there's absolutely no facts to get right there.
What Hitler did is wrong because we rational humans on the importance of well-being which forms the basis for laws against genocide.

OLAADEGBU:


You have just contradicted yourself by saying that not all people prefer life to death. Unless you want to impose your subjective moral value on others to make it objective, no?



How are you going to agree with pro choice advocates who believe that it is their right to choose to take the lives of unborn babies or those who think that is their religious right to take the lives of people of other religion or ethnicities? Why is your own moral value superior to theirs?



The commandment says thou shall not murder. Killing is different from murder. There is killing by negligence i.e. careless driving, manslaughter, self defense, war, capital punishment e.t.c. Get your facts right.



If you believe that the laws of morality are just adopted social custom as you have posted up there, then why was what Adolf Hitler did wrong?

Going to reply bit by bit.
Only contradicting myself: No, I didn't do that. However,the joke's on me for not making it clear enough. What I was trying to point out there with that was situational nature of moral. I was using that point the reason we can't have absolute.

Can't see anything in your second question- maybe you'll have to put it in another way. For the third: I'm not claiming any moral superiority. And by the way, when has pointing out what's wrong with something become a claim of superiority over that thing?
Bro, The bible didn't come with a disclaimer. What you're saying there is your own interpretation (which is subject to error) and I'm probably sure there's absolutely no facts to get right there.
What Hitler did is wrong because we rational humans on the importance of well-being which forms the basis for laws against genocide.

OLAADEGBU:


You come yet again with your dodgy translation.

Oh, my translation is dodgy. Let us leave the fact that the very existence of contradicting translations punches holes in your claims.

And instead please tell me, why is your translation superior? What is the basis of your translation?

OLAADEGBU:


The Greek word for 'Fool' used there means a 'slowpoke' and it also an implication of rebellion. So for a believer to call a fellow brother in Christ a "rebellious slowpoke" would be imply that the perpetrator is considered to be an unbeliever. Jesus is especially talking to believers here not non believers.

Actually Jesus was talking to Jews and he was saying that anger is as much a sin as murder. All this your prattlings about fools and morons and rebellions etc is just more of your typical conceits and inventions.

OLAADEGBU:

The Decalogue did not forbid the general use of any graven image it was only against an attempt to replace the worship of the Creator God with any of those graven images or it's likeness. This is why my friend, Muafrika2 will say 'that the offspring of a snake is a snake'.

Read the second commandment.

OLAADEGBU:


Your translation is not complete. The authorised version says:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Ra-ca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matthew 5:22).

Note that this is referring to brethren in Christ.

Authorised by who?


Tell me, have you ever seen someone who was angry who did not feel justified in his anger. You sef think about all the times you've been angry and tell me whether you've ever felt anger without justification/cause.

Anger by it's very nature feels justified. Apart from the fact that that addition of yours is not found in any of the early manuscripts I do not think that Jesus could say anything so daft.

finofaya:


Are you responding to me? I don't think you are. I haven't said anything along the lines of what you've written.

I said I can explain why I claim that killing is wrong. I didn't say that everybody must believe that killing is wrong. In any event, most people who kill know that killing is wrong, or else they would kill themselves and their loved ones too. However all of that is irrelevant to our discussion at this stage.

I haven't said anything about what is or isn't natural. I only asked you whether naturalness has a moral value.

Once again, explain why you claim that it is wrong to be transgender or to do an abortion or etc. And then explain why anything which your God commands must be morally right.

Nature is God's evidence of Orderliness.there is nothing right about transgender.

You will agree with me that their are natural laws that govern this Universe. like laws of gravity,Motion, Cause and effect, Rising and setting of the Sun. same way we have natural laws insistuted for our well being .same way we have moral laws that guide human conduct. the question is who established those natural laws that benefit you and me? its obvious it is God.

Research have proven , that those who transgender . that's those who undergo the Surgery still end up unhappy , and end up committing Sucide.
According to American Association of psychiatrist doctors. homosexuality and transgender are mental disorders and should be treated as one.they are habits one consciously or unconsciously forms

Let me ask you. what is the boundary or limit for you to regard something as immoral?

http://newobserveronline.com/transgender-is-a-mental-illness-and-should-be-treated-as-such-former-johns-hopkins-chief-psychiatrist/

PastorAIO:


Actually it is in the old covenant, the ten commandments, that God says don't make any graven image. and hardly a few chapters pass afterwards and when Moses is told to make the Ark of the covenant with graven images on top. And he is told to make the bronze serpent. So there is a contradiction to your claim that the moral code does not change.

Was the Ark done to represent an Idol? was it done to with any Idol in mind?

PastorAIO:


Bwahahahahahahahah!!!! God has catched you.

You are just making things up bobs. Where did you learn that the word used means only to be violently angry in hebrew? What book taught you that, or which school or pastor taught you that?

Let us even accept that Matthew was written in Hebrew, the version we use today came down to us from a GREEK translation. Further more Jesus made the point that to even diss someone and call them a 'fool' is a sin. So the point is that even the slightest tendency to anger is considered a sin.

True; the New testament was written in Greek. My earlier assertation is still right. becos JESUS gave an example by saying. anyone who calls his brother a fool is at risk of going to Hellfire .which means it is not just the mere fact of been angry, but allowing ones anger to lead to violence or use of vain words.

You are just bent on looking for loopholes in the Bible were there are not. you don't understand verse of the Bible . does not make the Bible less Authentic.

PastorAIO:


Hosea 3:1 calls it adultery. Unless you want to now say that you know pass the bible.

Then the LORD said to me, “Go again, love a woman who is loved by her husband, yet an adulteress, even as the LORD loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.”

You are contracdicting yourself. the woman was an Adulteress. not her union with Hosea.
She was not married to anybody.
God used Hosea's miarrage to the adultress woman to make a point to the children of Iseral. who were like the adultress woman unfaithful to God(Hosea) inspite if God's faithfullness and plead to them to return back to him. it would have contradicted God's moral law. if God had told Hosea to sleep with different women other than the Adultress woman who Hosea married legally.

Brigance:


You seem to confuse nature with normalcy/morality(that which is generally endorsed).

This is not only wrong, it is equally pernicious, especially if inspired by a jaundice of religion.

Let me shock you: Anything that happens within nature is natural. Nevertheless, as a result of the evolution of the human society, not every natural item/act/occurence should be accepted or allowed.

This is the primal function of law/legality. To sanction morality and social opprobrium while disapproving that which is harmful and and injurious to the human society.

Well, this is the dicey part. And legislators(well, in this part of the world do not know any better. Law is expected to enforce morality in relation to fellow citizens and society in general and not what a subjective individual or group of people(religion is a major culprit here) think is right.


This is sufficient background for what is to come.





I find this almost certainly hypocritical and ignorant( I included ignorant because i was once in the same thought train as you, so I consider it necessary to point at).

To marshal this, Let us distinctly consider the definition of homosexuality and pedophilism.

Homosexuality is a consensual sexual activity between two adults of same gender.

Conversely, paedophilism necessarily suggests that a party to the sexual activity is underage, thus unable to confer proper consent.

There's a wealth of reality to buttress this. More than 117 countries of the world population legalised gay marriage.

Has any legalised paedophilism? Totally No.

Does homosexuality corrupt public morals? Yes it does. But not more than heterosexuality does.

Are you disgusted by the act of homosexuality? Well, you're allowed to.

But if you're disgusted at the slght of a curb of corn, would you say anyone who eats a corn be punished? Your guess is as good as mine.

Check, if your religion makes you prejudicial and anti- human, drop them.

Every time people are allowed to choose their own moral values or any society where moral values are degraded. it leads to chaos and instability. just like we have Court of law that are setup to settle disputes between two or more parties.why becos it is believed the court will be unbiased. left with the parties every one of them, will want a favourable verdict. same with moral values. if each and every one of us is left to pick our moral values it will only lead to Chaos. so like the Court, God is unbaised and Neutral. his wisdom infinite and been our maker. he is the only one who knows and understands what is best for his products(Human beings)

I guess you will agree with me that , Samsung,Apple and any manufacturer has the right to design their products the way they like it. and also that , they have the moral capacity or right to instruct people on how to use their products. same with God. we are just vessels in the hand of God. we have no right to question God's descisions .

Eg of the effect of bad moral values.

Eleven states sue US government over
transgender bathroom policy. it only leads to confusion and chaos.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/25/eleven-states-sue-us-government-transgender-bathroom-laws