How do you determine your morality? (abortion, Muslim, punishment, believe)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, please do not take the Bible and twist it into something it is not. Either you are not aware of the facts and do not understand, or you are intentially twisting it and creating lies for a purpose I cant see.
Interjecting here...to say...WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT? You say "they got it wrong" when talking about the OT, but say that *others* twist the Bible into something it's not?
Good grief.
"They got it wrong"? So the OT isn't the inspired word of God after all? Just the NT is? Oh, wait, except the Ten Commandments. Come on. Say what you will but please please don't accuse others of being the ones twisting and changing the Bible around. Questioning the Bible isn't twisting it around. Deciding *you personally* know who GOT IT RIGHT OR WRONG when talking about YOUR God's inspired word is twisting things around.
Interjecting here...to say...WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT? You say "they got it wrong" when talking about the OT, but say that *others* twist the Bible into something it's not?
Good grief.
"They got it wrong"? So the OT isn't the inspired word of God after all? Just the NT is? Oh, wait, except the Ten Commandments. Come on. Say what you will but please please don't accuse others of being the ones twisting and changing the Bible around. Questioning the Bible isn't twisting it around. Deciding *you personally* know who GOT IT RIGHT OR WRONG when talking about YOUR God's inspired word is twisting things around.
This mentality blows my head!
I didnt see where he said that the Ot wasnt the inspired word of God, IF one would read the entire Bible, then they could understand the difference between old and new testament. What I see isscriputure from the old law being brought up to being applied today, which is not the law that we are under anymore, we are under grace from Christ.
I didnt see where he said that the Ot wasnt the inspired word of God
I don't either, which is why saying they got it wrong is so...so...well, I don't even know what that is! I just don't know what end to pick that up by.
I mean people. Do you believe or don't you? If it's "no, not really...not entirely...or it can change..." or what have you, then it might be best not to preach to other people what your own personal assumptions are, wouldn't you say? I see this a lot and it just drives me crazy at times.
Interjecting here...to say...WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT? You say "they got it wrong" when talking about the OT, but say that *others* twist the Bible into something it's not?
Good grief.
"They got it wrong"? So the OT isn't the inspired word of God after all? Just the NT is? Oh, wait, except the Ten Commandments. Come on. Say what you will but please please don't accuse others of being the ones twisting and changing the Bible around. Questioning the Bible isn't twisting it around. Deciding *you personally* know who GOT IT RIGHT OR WRONG when talking about YOUR God's inspired word is twisting things around.
This mentality blows my head!
When the Pharices were doing things like stoning people to death for working on the Sabath and Christ said no, that is not right. Yeah, according to Christ, the Pharices got it wrong. When they stoned people to death for disobeying the Pharices, yes they got it wrong, Christ told them let he who is without sin cast the first stone. That was part of the reason Christ came. I dont decide who was right or wrong, Christ did and he told us so. Many of the OT Jewish laws were set forth by God to keep the people focusd on him, many were rituals, and some were made by man. God said to rest on the sabath. He did not say if you do anything at all the Pharices will stone you to death. The pharices took God's command to rest on the sabath and dedcided that if anyone should do what they considered "not resting" then they would be stoned to death. When Christ came, he said I made the sabath for man, not man for the sabath. And so it is with many things from the OT. May I humbly suggest that if this is to continue, we take it to its own thread and not hijack this one.
I don't either, which is why saying they got it wrong is so...so...well, I don't even know what that is! I just don't know what end to pick that up by.
I mean people. Do you believe or don't you? If it's "no, not really...not entirely...or it can change..." or what have you, then it might be best not to preach to other people what your own personal assumptions are, wouldn't you say? I see this a lot and it just drives me crazy at times.
Well I think it's ok to discuss what you believe, it's interesting to see what others believe. If by preach you mean that you also expect others to come to believe the same I don't think too many people do that here, and the ones that do just need to be taken with a grain of salt...they really do mean well.
I don't either, which is why saying they got it wrong is so...so...well, I don't even know what that is! I just don't know what end to pick that up by.
I mean people. Do you believe or don't you? If it's "no, not really...not entirely...or it can change..." or what have you, then it might be best not to preach to other people what your own personal assumptions are, wouldn't you say? I see this a lot and it just drives me crazy at times.
I reread both post, and I see both sides, sometimes we as Christians, okay me, forget that everyone doesnt read the Bible . Jesus fulfilled the law, that means people under the old testament-Jews, were under those laws that are stated very often on here, from the old testament. When Jesus came, the jewish people were under very stict rules from not only the law, but also laws on top of laws that were made--this is from the new testament. If you read Matthew, for starters, Jesus harshly rebukes the "religious: people for all laws that they have added or made so hard to follow, it was almost impossible if not impossible to follow all the laws. Jesus intentionally broke these laws to prove a point to saducees and pharisees, diff sects of Jewish leaders. Some of these were in fact man made laws, that had been added to the origianals. These arent my assumptions, its right out of the Bible, NT.
Its like I said, either it isnt undestood or it is intentially twisted to try and discredit Christianity. If you dont understand, that is fine. I would expect an honest attempt to understand and learn what it is. If you still say its hogwash - so be it, that is your expression of God given freewill. But it is not fair to twist, misrepresent, and lie about the Bible in order to try and disprove a religion you dont believe in anyway. To those atheists/agnostics etc. who say their morality is a live and let live style, why is so much time spent trying to tear down the beliefs of someone else. Again, if this discussion is going to coninue lets move it to a new thread.
I did not imply that things existed in a vacuum, but you are linking things in a way that muddies the discourse.
No, you did not imply that. I just wanted to make my own view clear. Things do not exist in a vacuum. I'm sorry if that muddies the discourse. That wasn't my intent.
Same thing with prostitution. It can be morally good, bad, or neither. Whether or not it is taxed still does not change the moral value assigned to prostitution.
Taxing prositution gives it legitimacy above and beyond the laws legalizing it.
It makes it OK for society because society overall then can 'benefit" from it.
Is it moral to benefit from immorality?
Or, have I gone full circle and muddied the discourse again?
I see what you are saying, but I still think that the two issues are separate. A thing (prostitution, murder, feeding the homeless, eating chinese food) is inherently bad, good, or indifferent on a moral basis. That thing should be allowed, or disallowed, on that basis. Whether or not that behavior is taxed does not actually alter the moral status of the action in the first place.
This would be true under any system of moral values, religious or not.
I see what you are saying, but I still think that the two issues are separate. A thing (prostitution, murder, feeding the homeless, eating chinese food) is inherently bad, good, or indifferent on a moral basis. That thing should be allowed, or disallowed, on that basis. Whether or not that behavior is taxed does not actually alter the moral status of the action in the first place.
This would be true under any system of moral values, religious or not.
Don't you think it's a slippery slope? Once you decide that something is moral, then you allow it by legalization, then it becomes a common-place, accepted practice, and you turn around and society as you knew it has sunk a notch or two or more. You posed a similar question about murder. If murder was taxed, would that make it good, you asked. Of course not, you said. And I have no argument with that as far as it goes. However, if it were taxed it would have been *legalized* first, which is society's stamp of approval of something as being OK to do. Too many times legalization follows our behavior. If they can't control it, they give in and legalize it (then tax it, of course!)
So, then, who decides whether something is moral or not?
The tax man? We're back at square one. Dejavu.
Don't you think it's a slippery slope? Once you decide that something is moral, then you allow it by legalization, then it becomes a common-place, accepted practice, and you turn around and society as you knew it has sunk a notch or two or more. You posed a similar question about murder. If murder was taxed, would that make it good, you asked. Of course not, you said. And I have no argument with that as far as it goes. However, if it were taxed it would have been *legalized* first, which is society's stamp of approval of something as being OK to do. Too many times legalization follows our behavior. If they can't control it, they give in and legalize it (then tax it, of course!)
So, then, who decides whether something is moral or not?
The tax man? We're back at square one. Dejavu.
We decide on what things are moral all the time. Lets take my silly example of eating chinese food. It is morally neutral. We allow it. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any serious debate about not allowing it. Does this mean that we are on a slippery slope to cannibalism? No, that would be ludicrous.
As for prostitution, you were the one who brought it up and linked it to taxation. I have never made a moral judgment on prostitution one way or another. To be frank, I simply do not care about it. But my personal opinion does not color the morality either way. It is either good, bad, or neutral. Society makes a decision on whether or not to allow it based upon that morality. ONLY after that point in time is a decision made on taxing it. The taxation issue does not change the morality of the prostitution action at all.
You could also look at things another way. Al Capone was busted for tax evasion, not bootlegging. So we already tax illegal behavior. Does that make our currently illegal behavior (drug dealing, smuggling, etc) good? I would say no.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see this a lot and it just drives me crazy at times.
You posed a similar question about murder. If murder was taxed, would that make it good, you asked. Of course not, you said. And I have no argument with that as far as it goes. However, if it were taxed it would have been *legalized* first, which is society's stamp of approval of something as being OK to do. Too many times legalization follows our behavior. If they can't control it, they give in and legalize it (then tax it, of course!) 
We're back at square one. Dejavu. 
