₦airaland Forum

Kay17:
I don't think the Nazis supported subjective standard of morality, rather a naturalist morality proving their racial superiority against other races like Jews. Their naturalist morality was supposed objective otherwise it fell apart.

So what an objective standard entails can still differ depending on the respective perspectives.

plaetton:
Listen slowpoke,

I never ever acceded the self evidence of good and evil.
Go back and read my post with better comprehension skills.

I was merely and clearly reminding you that the evil and morally reprehensible acts of Yahweh and his agents are clearly self evident in your Bible.
Do you understand that ?

logoscope:
False hope is self explanatory bro.

Logicbwoy:
Bros, please, I have one question that I need to ask you.

How are you still a christian? Your profession should have affected you- I mean, many doctors are actually atheists or agnostics, or sometimes just not religious.


You must have some colleagues that have lost faith in christianity?

Kay17:
To my understanding, objective standard is self evident and present independent of any agent. Whilst a subjective standard is dependent on an agent not necessarily for it's convenience.

thehomer:
What do you think it meant? Rape of women captured during war wasn't.



Okay. She gave her consent but it appears that she did so because she was a female slave.

thehomer:
I told you. Besides at the very least, I know that genocide is wrong. You don't. And that makes you morally bankrupt.

logoscope:
Atheism is not hope, religion is. Atheism is also very individualist.

Kay17:
Morality is like the elephant which was examined by the blind men.

plaetton:
If God is the moral law giver, and the Bible clearly shows us God's moral thresholds, re: the promotion of covetousness, looting, rape and genocide.

logoscope:
What do you mean by evil? Religion is false hope. Non of it actually exist.

Logicbwoy:
lol.....who else would it be?

plaetton:
Oh gosh,

It's just hard to believe sometimes that actually discuss and debate with moral schizophrenics who would twist anything to justify self evident evil.

Logicbwoy:
^^^


Where is Tufanja?

Thread don dry with Joshthelast's dry poetic attempts and paddies!



ps- affront is a verb/noun and not an adjective

firestar:
Loud?
Oh no Peafowl, that be you.

You aren't humble.

plaetton:
Did your Yahweh not command Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites,not to leave anything alive, especially the women and children ?

Now please try to justify it, and then tell me in what ways you are different from Boko haram and ISIS in terms of your mindset.

The Amalekites’ unrelenting brutality toward the Israelites began with an attack at Rephidim (Exodus 17:8–13). This is recounted in Deuteronomy 25:17–19 with this admonition: “Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and attacked all who were lagging behind [typically women and children]: they had no fear of God. When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!”

firestar:
Huh, and now he opens his beak.
I thought I was supposed to be the fiery one?

plaetton:
Just look at this moral schizophrenic.

He now wants to play on the word " to save" .

Saving virgins for oneself means what it means, ..for one's edification and enjoyment, obviously without the consent of the virgin victim or victims.

Again you lie Josh.

Rappists were required to marry their victims.

That is hardly a disincentive to rape.

...Critics of the Bible are quick to point to Numbers 31 (and other similar passages) in which the Israelites were allowed to take female captives from nations they conquered. Critics make the accusation that this is an example of the Bible condoning, or even promoting, rape. However, the passage says nothing about raping the captive women. It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. Again, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 condemns rape, even advocating the death penalty for perpetrators of rape. In the Numbers 31 passage the soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.

Joshthefirst:
My God never gave the order to rape anyone. So your question is invalid.

But to continue the discourse, I base my moral standards on the biblical law.

Now here's my question: By what standard do you base rape wrong? Or one reasonable or unreasonable? Wrt his opinion on rape?

No more evading please.

Kay17:
What is the difference between the objective standard and subjective standard?

Kay17:
It is difficult to say.

Yet we know morality exercises restraint. That not all acts are permitted. The standard of restraint might be on basis of excess or harm principle or self overcoming.

thehomer:
This means you're incapable of telling what is right from what is wrong.

thehomer:
I already gave you a passage about your God condoning rape. He said



Saving girls who had never slept with a man was that those girls would be raped since those girls didn't consent giving themselves over to the Israelite soldiers.

Mary never gave her consent.



As I've shown above, he did so you may want to stop deceiving yourself.

Kay17:
Jesus's death was an act of injustice which is refined as one of redemption. Seemingly an evil acts on behalf of a greater good because God deems it so?

Kay17:
An objective standard can stand without God, can't it? Otherwise it is not standard.

PastorAIO's biblical verse on the Midianite massacre touches exactly on what Zizek says. That religious groups tend to see themselves as agents and tools of God through whom all their deeds regardless how heinous are ratified and justified!

It can work the other way in the case of atheistic communists who see themselves as instruments of historical necessity or supreme justice or in the case of the French Revolution -- equality. They can act without moral restraint.

plaetton:
Cognitive dissonance, moral schizophrenia in overdrive.


So they are now magically transformed into POWs ?

This is why we mock you , and must mock you and your ilk, Josh.
It's ridiculously funny when moral schizophrenics like you pontificate on morality.

thehomer:
Actually, he gave his permission to rape and he impregnated Mary without her consent. Your God said



What do you think he meant?



You didn't answer my question. I asked a specific question on your opinions of rape not the basis of your "moral standards". Here it is again.

By what standard do you judge rape and the plunder and murder of women and children to be wrong or right? Since your God gave the order, maybe you actually think it is right.

Please specifically answer this question so we can progress.



I will answer when you actually answer my question.

I'm simply holding you to the same standards you wish to apply to me. Please stop being evasive and answer my direct question.

plaetton:
Ahhh!

The wonders of cognitive dissonance.

So individuals, a family, a community, a tribe can be judged and sentenced to looting ,rape, murder of women and children and forceful kidnapped sex slavery of underage virgins ?

And that would be justice ?

Amazing , simply amazing !!



And the Christians like Josh are the first to loudly condemn such acts as barbaric and inhuman when it is committed in the modern day by Islamic God followers like ISIS and boko haram.

Religion and moral schizophrenia.

Tufiakwa.

thehomer:
I have answered it in clear terms. Why don't you start answering my question rather than trying to evade it? Here it is again. I can clarify as we go on.

By what standard do you judge rape and the plunder and murder of women and children to be wrong or right? Since your God gave the order, maybe you actually think it is right.



Your God has been known to kill children and order the killing of children. Who is more innocent than an new born baby?



Since you don't know what it means to be a reasonable person, I'll show you what I mean when you start answering my question. Here it is again.

By what standard do you judge rape and the plunder and murder of women and children to be wrong or right? Since your God gave the order, maybe you actually think it is right.

thehomer:
No I don't know where you're headed with your questions. I'm not a mind reader.



Add them to the list of questions you want me to answer. What I want is your answer to this question.

by what standard do you judge rape and the plunder and murder of women and children to be wrong or right? Since your God gave the order, maybe you actually think it is right.

plaetton:
Mr Josh, you introduced rape as injustice on this thread.

We just had to refresh your morally schizophrenic memory that Yahweh, your God, did indeed promote rape, murder and genocide as a religious duty.

thehomer:
I answered and you asked three more questions. Start giving your answer and I will continue.

So, by what standard do you judge rape and the plunder and murder of women and children to be wrong?