Morality

[rvg]

That statement pretty much circular reasonings at its finest.

You simply just said:
Statement is divine = absolutely right
Statement being right = it is divine

You then say 'it is not the opposite' but you are actually saying the opposite as well, as well as the statement being the opposite.

It doesn't make sense.

Oh Jesus, not again. Okay, i'll make this very simple...

Absolutely right => Divine.

If statement X is absolutely right Then statement X is divine.

Get it now?

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh Jesus, not again. Okay, i'll make this very simple...

Absolutely right => Divine.

If statement X is absolutely right Then statement X is divine.

Get it now?

Uh... I think he did the first time around.

You however...

[Beskar]

Oh Jesus, not again. Okay, i'll make this very simple...

Absolutely right => Divine.

If statement X is absolutely right Then statement X is divine.

Get it now?

Okay.

There is nothing absolutely right, so nothing is divine?

Got you.

[rvg]

Okay.

There is nothing absolutely right, so nothing is divine?

Got you.

There we go... now you're getting it. Except that we differ on the question of whether or not something can be classified as absolutely right. But yeah, that's what I was trying to convey: if a moral statement isn't absolutely right, it's not divine. And that's the way to recognize something divine: it's absolutely right.

[Beskar]

There we go... now you're getting it. Except that we differ on the question of whether or not something can be classified as absolutely right. But yeah, that's what I was trying to convey: if a moral statement isn't absolutely right, it's not divine. And that's the way to recognize something divine: it's absolutely right.

Can you give an example of something absolutely right? I can honestly not.

'Thou shalt not kill' ends up falling short when you factor in things such as self-defense, the army, and other bodies. Similar scenarios can be said for a lot of other things.

Only thing which could be argued in your favour is Matthew 22:39 "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." which is my favourite phrase in the Bible.

But this is not an absolute and very wishy-washy definition.

[rvg]

Can you give an example of something absolutely right? I can honestly not.

'Thou shalt not kill' ends up falling short when you factor in things such as self-defense, the army, and other bodies. Similar scenarios can be said for a lot of other things.

'Thou shalt not kill' is a load of crap. 'Thou shalt not murder' looks a whole lot better.

[Beskar]

'Thou shalt not kill' is a load of crap. 'Thou shalt not murder' looks a whole lot better.

Exodus 20:13, King James Version.

I agree with your statement, but it isn't from the Bible. So if I am understanding you correctly, your position is pretty much "To know truth is to know the face of God" in the sense that the truth is from a divine source in itself, and if this conflicts with the Bible, dogma or various others teachings, those teachings are incorrect/not divine?

If so, that is an interesting theological position. I have no arguments with it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Exodus 20:13, King James Version.

I agree with your statement, but it isn't from the Bible. So if I am understanding you correctly, your position is pretty much "To know truth is to know the face of God" in the sense that the truth is a divine source in itself, and if this conflicts with the Bible or various others teachings, those teachings are incorrect/not divine?

If so, that is an interesting theological position. I have no arguments with it.

This has always been by understanding of truth - if it exists.

[rvg]

Exodus 20:13, King James Version.

I agree with your statement, but it isn't from the Bible. So if I am understanding you correctly, your position is pretty much "To know truth is to know the face of God" in the sense that the truth is from a divine source in itself, and if this conflicts with the Bible, dogma or various others teachings, those teachings are incorrect/not divine?

If so, that is an interesting theological position. I have no arguments with it.

I take holy scriptures with a grain of salt seeing that they were written by fallible men. The Ten Commandments might be one possible exception, but other than that it's up in the air. But yeah, you understand my position.

[Vincent Butler]

I agree with your statement, but it isn't from the Bible

It is, but not in Exodus, though the context is about murder. Jesus referencing the Ten Commandments in Matthew 19:18 quotes it as "Thou shalt do no murder".

There is nothing wrong with killing by Biblical standards or my own standards as a general rule.
רָצַח was the word used in the Torah and the Ten Commandments, and it doesn't mean "kill" as it was improperly translated.
Just killing is acceptable. It was acceptable then, it is acceptable now.

It depends on the reason for killing, God instituted the death penalty for various crimes, but did not condone murder, as that was the primary reason for the death penalty. Murder flies in the face of God, the creator of life. When one being takes an innocent's life, he forfeits his own right to life.

I take holy scriptures with a grain of salt seeing that they were written by fallible men

An understandable view. Mankind is very fallible. However, there is a doctrine of preservation, described in the book of 2 Peter 1:21 (and other places), stating the the men were writing the words as directed by God, and part of that doctrine is that the Scripture is infallible and inerrant in its recording, that is, the men were divinely helped to write without mistake, and that continues through the different translations (Tyndale, Wycliffe, Geneva, KJV, etc., there were a total of seven). The modern Bibles were translated from the Critical Texts rather than the Received Text (the traditional text), by people who did not even believe the Bible to be the Word of God. I am not including those in my list, and please do not turn this into yet another fiery debate, this time about Bible versions. There is a time and a place for that discussion, and now is neither. I will not respond to any comments regarding Bible versions. I myself use the KJV, what you use is between you and God.

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12:6,7

[ICantSpellDawg]

'Thou shalt not kill' is a load of crap. 'Thou shalt not murder' looks a whole lot better.

There is nothing wrong with killing by Biblical standards or my own standards as a general rule.
רָצַח was the word used in the Torah and the Ten Commandments, and it doesn't mean "kill" as it was improperly translated.
Just killing is acceptable. It was acceptable then, it is acceptable now.

The problem is ones interpretation of Justice.