Why does it seem that so many libs hate displays of patriotism?

[op2]

Boomer "Evil" suggests the opposite of "good". Deity isn't necessary to understand that concept you're correct, but what defines or separates one from the other?

Hitler didn't think what he was doing to the Jews was "Evil" he thought it was something necessary to establish Arian supremacy.

What made his personal ambitions "Evil". seems to me we first need to define exactly what "Evil" what it is boomer before you can just dismiss it as some abstract idea my friend.

What do you tell your kids is "Evil"?

What makes it so?

Explain.

Ask those last two questions of yourself. Lots of people will say "X, Y and Z are evil and I believe that because God says so in the Bible." And if a non-believer says "X, Y and Z are bad because I think they're bad" other people will say "You have no standard for what is bad, you say it's bad just because you say it's bad."

But the thing is, the person that says X, Y and Z is bad because the Bible says it's bad are doing the same thing. Their standard is the Bible but it is THEY that are determining the standard. They could just as easily have picked a different standard that said X, Y and Z are not evil.

 

[atlkvb]

Huh? What? Lots of what is evil to atheists is evil to you too. And atheism isn't necessarily left, unless you're taking social conservatives vs not. I suspect most atheists are not social conservatives but I think some would be called "conservatives" in other senses of the word.

Atheists deny the definition of "Evil" because it is the opposite of goodness of Holiness found in a deity called "God".

Evil is nothing to Animals because they have not been introduced to the concept of morality or goodness.

What makes us (Man) above them is our understanding of that higher morality, that higher purpose of living and that's defined in terms of good vs evil.

Where does than concept come from?

It's not found in "mother Earth". It's explained in the Bible Op2.

 

[op2]

Atheists deny the definition of "Evil" because it is the opposite of goodness of Holiness found in a deity called "God".

Evil is nothing to Animals because they have not been introduced to the concept of morality or goodness.

What makes us (Man) above them is our understanding of that higher morality, that higher purpose of living and that's defined in terms of good vs evil.

Where does than concept come from?

It's not found in "mother Earth". It's explained in the Bible Op2.

Where does the concept come from? It comes from you.

Atheists have concepts of good and bad just as believers do.

 

[atlkvb]

Ask those last two questions of yourself. Lots of people will say "X, Y and Z are evil and I believe that because God says so in the Bible." And if a non-believer says "X, Y and Z are bad because I think they're bad" other people will say "You have no standard for what is bad, you say it's bad just because you say it's bad."

But the thing is, the person that says X, Y and Z is bad because the Bible says it's bad are doing the same thing. Their standard is the Bible but it is THEY that are determining the standard. They could just as easily have picked a different standard that said X, Y and Z are not evil.

Evil is not abstract Op2 because there has to be an objective criterion to measure it. Otherwise what you say is correct and folks would just make up whatever they think it is or isn't.

That objective standard is found in the Bible. There has to be a measuring instrument to define it, otherwise it could be whatever you or I say it is, or isn't.

THAT'S what Hitler did, he didn't define his actions as Evil, but they were.

Why?

 

[atlkvb]

Atheists have concepts of good and bad just as believers do.

What does an Atheist consider "Evil" Op2?

To whom? Compared to what?

 

[op2]

Evil is not abstract Op2 because there has to be an objective criterion to measure it. Otherwise what you say is correct and folks would just make up whatever they is or isn't.

That objective standard is found in the Bible. There has to be a measuring instrument to define it, otherwise it could be whatever you or I say it is, or isn't.

THAT'S what Hitler did, he didn't define his actions as Evil, but they were.

Why?

You say there has to be an objective standard for evil and yet you SUBJECTIVELY decide what the objective standard is. Therefore you subjectively define evil.

 

[WVPATX]

Ask those last two questions of yourself. Lots of people will say "X, Y and Z are evil and I believe that because God says so in the Bible." And if a non-believer says "X, Y and Z are bad because I think they're bad" other people will say "You have no standard for what is bad, you say it's bad just because you say it's bad."

But the thing is, the person that says X, Y and Z is bad because the Bible says it's bad are doing the same thing. Their standard is the Bible but it is THEY that are determining the standard. They could just as easily have picked a different standard that said X, Y and Z are not evil.

What has always interested me is when libs complain that Christians are trying to impose their values on America. And it is most certainly true that many Christian values generally are adopted from Christ and his teachings. But libs have values too. And they too, try to impose them on the country. Those values may not be informed by Christ, but they are informed from somewhere (e.g. ideology, philosophy, school, parents, etc.). I am never understood why a liberal thinks it's ok to impose their values but a Christian should never be allowed to impose their values. Why does it matter where those values come from?

 

[op2]

What does an Atheist consider "Evil" Op2?

To whom? Compared to what?

"Atheism" doesn't define anything as evil or non-evil. Atheism is just a non-belief in God.

Individual atheists OTOH consider evil whatever each considers evil.

 

[atlkvb]

You say there has to be an objective standard for evil and yet you SUBJECTIVELY decide what the objective standard is. Therefore you subjectively define evil.

No Op2. Animal X eats Animal Y...no "evil" is implied or intended.

Why not?

Ans: No objective standard limiting animal X's consumption of animal Y.

Human X kills human Y. It is defined as Evil.

Why? What is the difference in those two scenarios Op2?

Explain?

 

[Keyser76]

There is no question that as evil regimes develop or buy weapons of mass destruction, the job of all civilized countries is made far more difficult. But that doesn't mean the actions of those countries to counter that evil is in itself bad. It gets back to Sir Edmund Burke's quote. How many lives will be lost if North Korea or Iran nuke another country? And if we stand by and let that happen, are we in any way culpable?

They got nothing to lose and we have every thing to lose, who is gonna win that game of chicken?

 

[atlkvb]

"Atheism" doesn't define anything as evil or non-evil. Atheism is just a non-belief in God.

Individual atheists OTOH consider evil whatever each considers evil.

And that's the point Op2. They're deciding for themselves what is Evil and what isn't! If it's subjectively applied, how does one know or when do you know when it is or isn't Evil?

What makes it so for one and not the other unless an objective measurement of it is utilized?

 

[op2]

No Op2. Animal X eats Animal Y...no "evil" is implied or intended.

Why not?

Ans: No objective standard limiting animal X's consumption of animal Y.

Human X kills human Y. It is defined as Evil.

Why? What is the difference in those two scenarios Op2?

Explain?

IMO it's wrong for Human X to kill Human Y because it's a violation of the rights of Human Y and plus our society as a whole is better one if we don't condone killing. In your opinion it's wrong for Human X to kill Human Y because God said so in the Bible. And the reason God said so in the Bible is because it's a violation of the rights of Human Y and plus our society as a whole is better off if we don't condone killing. Same thing but it's just that you have an extra step involving God.

 

[WVPATX]

They got nothing to lose and we have every thing to lose, who is gonna win that game of chicken?

So we let them develop their nukes and possibly use them for their own evil purposes, killing millions, while standing by and doing nothing? Or do we act to prevent them from those goals? Do we make sure they have a lot to "lose."

 

[op2]

And that's the point Op2. They're deciding for themselves what is Evil and what isn't! If it's subjectively applied, how does one know or when do you know when it is or isn't Evil?

What makes it so for one and not the other unless an objective measurement of it is utilized?

A Bible believer is SUBJECTIVELY deciding that the Bible is the objective source of morality. Right? So what's the difference.

 

[atlkvb]

IMO it's wrong for Human X to kill Human Y because it's a violation of the rights of Human Y and plus our society as a whole is better one if we don't condone killing. In your opinion it's wrong for Human X to kill Human Y because God said so in the Bible. And the reason God said so in the Bible is because it's a violation of the rights of Human Y and plus our society as a whole is better off if we don't condone killing. Same thing but it's just that you have an extra step involving God.

I'm asking you to explain the difference in the two scenarios I posted for you to compare and contrast Op2.

On the one hand you have two animals, and one consumes the other. There is no Evil implied or intended.

With the Human example in our analogy you stated it is a violation of Human Y's right to live. So Animal Y has no such right? To an Atheist a human's right to live is superior to an Animal's.

What makes that human superior to the Animal in the eyes of the Atheist Op2? Why is one Evil and the other just surviving if they're equal as living species with no higher objective morality one to another?

How does an Atheist solve this dilemma? All living things are the same to Athiests right Op2?

 

[atlkvb]

A Bible believer is SUBJECTIVELY deciding that the Bible is the objective source of morality. Right? So what's the difference.

The difference Op2 is the Bible is not open to subjective interpretation on Moral truths. It has objective moral Truths that state and define what is good and decent and correct and establishes that for Man.

Animals have no such restrictions or definitions, therefore they eat each other and feel no moral obligations to act otherwise.

Humans are held to a different objective standard, and that comes from the Bible Op2. Where else is it found if humans are restrained from eating each other as Animals do?

 

[op2]

I'm asking you to explain the difference in the two scenarios I posted for you to compare and contrast Op2.

On the one hand you have two animals, and one consumes the other. there is no Evil implied or intended.

With the Human example in our analogy you state is is a violation of Human Y's right to live. So Animal Y has no such right? to an Atheist a human's right to live is superior to an Animal's.

What makes that human superior to the Animal in the eyes of the Atheist Op2? Why is one Evil and the other just surviving if they're equal as living species with no higher objective morality one to another?

How does an Atheist solve this dilemma? All living things are the same right Op2?

First, there is no Atheist position on these things. Atheism is just a lack of belief in God. Beyond that, any Atheist could believe anything.

But speaking for myself, yes, I place human live above animal life (or non-human animal life if you prefer). That said, animals aren't automotans. There is something going on there and we shouldn't unnecessarily use and abuse them.

For example, I eat meat but OTOH I am 100% behind the efforts to create cheap, healthy synthetic meat by growing it in a lab (called "cell agriculture" or "cultured meat" or "clean meat.") I eat animals but I think if we can come up with a way to do it differently then we should.

 

[atlkvb]

First, there is no Atheist position on these things. Atheism is just a lack of belief in God. Beyond that, any Atheist could believe anything.

But speaking for myself, yes, I place human live above animal life (or non-human animal life if you prefer). That said, animals aren't automotans. There is something going on there and we shouldn't unnecessarily use and abuse them.

For example, I eat meat but OTOH I am 100% behind the efforts to create cheap, healthy synthetic meat by growing it in a lab (called "cell agriculture" or "cultured meat" or "clean meat.") I eat animals but I think if we can come up with a way to do it differently then we should.

Well OK then, eat fake meat then. You still have not defined for me the differences between the two scenarios I posted for you Op2.

Just because you Op2 subjectively decide that eating another human is not cool, what stops the next Atheist from disagreeing with you and eating you?

You might think it's moral and correct but suppose he doesn't agree and just needs your intestines to fill his gut?

You OK with him deciding that for himself with no moral protection for yourself other than your ability to either run away from his hunger or stand and fight him to preserve your right to live?

Objective morality which we live under protects your right to not be consumed by him just because he's hungry and wants to eat your head Op2!

If it's an objective morality restraining him (one he cannot override by his own personal desire to consume you) don't you have an obligation to discover its source?

Or you just prefer to claim it as your protection whenever the mood suits you?

What defines and restrains his desire to oppose your own view of morality and NOT consume you if he so desires Op2?

C'mon Man I know you're smart...think!

 

[op2]

Well OK then, eat fake meat then. You still have not defined for me the differences between the two scenarios I posted for you Op2.

Just because you Op2 subjectively decide that eating another human is not cool, what stops the next Atheist from disagreeing with you and eating you?

You might think it's moral and correct but suppose he doesn't agree and just needs your intestines to fill his gut?

You OK with him deciding that for himself with no moral protection for yourself other than your ability to either run away from his hunger or stand and fight him to preserve your right to live?

Objective morality which we live under protects your right to not be consumed by him just because he's hungry and wants to eat your head Op2!

If it's an objective morality restraining him (one he cannot override by his own personal desire to consume you) don't you have an obligation to discover its source?

Or you just prefer to claim it as your protection whenever the mood suits you?

What defines and restrains his desire to oppose your own view of morality and NOT consume you if he so desires Op2?

C'mon Man I know you're smart...think!

Nothing stops the next Atheist from deciding that eating people is okay, just as nothing stops you from deciding the Bible says eating people is okay or nothing stops you from following some holy book other than the Bible that says eating people is okay.

 

[Boomboom521]

A Bible believer is SUBJECTIVELY deciding that the Bible is the objective source of morality. Right? So what's the difference.

Thanks for take by this one. I'm exhausted trying to reason with ATL on this subject.

 

[Boomboom521]

Well OK then, eat fake meat then. You still have not defined for me the differences between the two scenarios I posted for you Op2.

Just because you Op2 subjectively decide that eating another human is not cool, what stops the next Atheist from disagreeing with you and eating you?

You might think it's moral and correct but suppose he doesn't agree and just needs your intestines to fill his gut?

You OK with him deciding that for himself with no moral protection for yourself other than your ability to either run away from his hunger or stand and fight him to preserve your right to live?

Objective morality which we live under protects your right to not be consumed by him just because he's hungry and wants to eat your head Op2!

If it's an objective morality restraining him (one he cannot override by his own personal desire to consume you) don't you have an obligation to discover its source?

Or you just prefer to claim it as your protection whenever the mood suits you?

What defines and restrains his desire to oppose your own view of morality and NOT consume you if he so desires Op2?

C'mon Man I know you're smart...think!

There are laws of nature, laws of man that need no distinct definition. We are all well aware of those laws. Look at children, they hurt and thus understand how to hurt....if they grow with pain they seek to hurt, if they grow with love they seek to eliminate hurt.

The debate of nature versus nurture is an interesting one, but imo neither stance is in need of an outside description of what's wrong... we know if without comparison to anything other than ourselves.

 

[atlkvb]

There are laws of nature, laws of man that need no distinct definition. We are all well aware of those laws. Look at children, they hurt and thus understand how to hurt....if they grow with pain they seek to hurt, if they grow with love they seek to eliminate hurt.

The debate of nature versus nurture is an interesting one, but imo neither stance is in need of an outside description of what's wrong... we know if without comparison to anything other than ourselves.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this boomer. Hurting kids won't automatically feel they're victims of Evil unless they had something else to compare it to right?

What makes them hurt? A desire for less pain? Sure.

But a Child introduced to Love and caring feels the loss of it more correct boom?

So at least in that case an objective standard has been applied. Along comes an abuser. That child now certainly knows the difference between the Loving care and abusive tormentor right?

No deity involved, but still an objective standard under which to compare the two treatments.

I'm extrapolating God's loving nature for humanity against our tendency to be abusive towards one another as an analogous example.

We know when we apply God's instruction over how we are to treat and Love each other, that objective blueprint certainly stands in stark contrast to our tendency towards doing harmful things towards one another.

It is the objective measurement we can use to then define that which is "Evil". I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this. Truth is not relative, neither is Evil.

 

[atlkvb]

Nothing stops the next Atheist from deciding that eating people is okay, just as nothing stops you from deciding the Bible says eating people is okay or nothing stops you from following some holy book other than the Bible that says eating people is okay.

Correct Op2. So why don't we just eat each other like Animals do? If I decided to have you for dinner tonight, what's stopping me?

Would I be arrested, prosecuted, punished?

Why?

I was just hungry, and I wanted some other Leftist for dinner last night. I wanted Op2 Filet Mignon tonight, and now you're telling me I can't have what I want because it's not moral?

So who changed the rules Op2?

Or you'd be OK roasted up and garnished on my dinner plate?

 

[op2]

Correct Op2. So why don't we just eat each other like Animals do? If I decided to have you for dinner tonight, what's stopping me?

Would I be arrested, prosecuted, punished?

Why?

I was just hungry, and I wanted some other Leftist for dinner last night. I wanted Op2 Filet Mignon tonight, and now you're telling me I can't have what I want because it's not moral?

So who changed the rules Op2?

Or you'd be OK roasted up and garnished on my dinner plate?

You have a tendency to ignore or maybe just not comprehend things I write and I grow weary of repeating myself.

If you killed someone you'd go to jail assuming you were caught. We have a society with laws. Historically a lot of the laws come out of religion because that was the prevailing moral code. Nowadays it's less so but then again a lot of the laws remain out of tradition.

We as a society deem murder wrong and we'll continue to do so regardless of how many or how few people follow religion. It's that simple. I get the impression you're overcomplicating things.

 

[atlkvb]

Thanks for take by this one. I'm exhausted trying to reason with ATL on this subject.

Boom both you and Op2 believe it or not are arguing against yourselves accusing me of subjectively deciding what is Evil.

Neither of you is willing to define it outside of your own personal definitions which ironically do not apply to anyone else except yourselves.

To you both, subjective morality defines what is Evil. Yet, neither of you is wiling to accept the full consequence of that philosophy as you apply it to society in general.

Why?


Because you both know it is operationally unworkable. A subjective morality inevitably leads to moral chaos because everyone defines for themselves what is or is not moral or is or is not Evil.

The only thing you two agree on is not to subscribe to any Godly objective moral Truth limiting your behavior. That to you is too restricting or too confining, but in reality it is the only way to assure someone else's decision on what is or is not Evil does not interfere with yours.

You both are free to reject God's ultimate authority on defining these moral limits, but you cannot escape the consequences of ignoring his limits on it if you just leave it up to everyone else to decide what those moral limits are or should be.

 

[atlkvb]

You have a tendency to ignore or maybe just not comprehend things I write and I grow weary of repeating myself.

If you killed someone you'd go to jail assuming you were caught. We have a society with laws. Historically a lot of the laws come out of religion because that was the prevailing moral code. Nowadays it's less so but then again a lot of the laws remain out of tradition.

We as a society deem murder wrong and we'll continue to do so regardless of how many or how few people follow religion. It's that simple. I get the impression you're over complicating things.

Nope Op2, you've just stated certain objective moral Truths we live under without being able to or willing to cite the source of what makes them so? You're not arguing subjective morality prosecuting folks for murder Op2!

You're saying "just because". I'm asking Why?

You refuse to answer, but you do recognize objective morality. You just don't want to say where it comes from.

It's just too much for you to admit it's something beyond your own sense of what it should be, but you cannot have that definition for yourself, or apply it to others "just because"

You have to have an objective superiority to your position otherwise you are being intellectually dishonest simply saying "just because we say so".

 

[op2]

Nope Op2, you've just stated certain objective moral Truths we live under without being able to or willing to cite the source of what makes them so? You're not arguing subjective morality prosecuting folks for murder Op2!

You're saying "just because". I'm asking Why?

You refuse to answer, but you do recognize objective morality. You just don't want to say where it comes from.

It's just too much for you to admit it's something beyond your own sense of what it should be, but you cannot have that definition for yourself, or apply it to others "just because"

You have to have an objective superiority to your position otherwise you are being intellectually dishonest simply saying "just because we say so".

You are either a muddled thinker or just dishonest. For the last time:

1. I think murder is wrong because I think it's wrong.

2. You think murder is wrong because God says so in the Bible.

3. We are both deciding murder is wrong but just using different justifications for it.

You may prefer your justification but I prefer mine, first because I don't believe in God and second because even if I did believe that God revealed His will in the Bible then if a new part of the Bible was found tomorrow where God said "On second thought, it is okay to murder people" then I'd have to change my views on the matter.

I'm growing very weary of this.

 

[Boomboom521]

Boom both you and Op2 believe it or not are arguing against yourselves accusing me of subjectively deciding what is Evil.

Neither of you is willing to define it outside of your own personal definitions which ironically do not apply to anyone else except yourselves.

To you both, subjective morality defines what is Evil. Yet, neither of you is wiling to accept the full consequence of that philosophy as you apply it to society in general.

Why?


Because you both know it is operationally unworkable. A subjective morality inevitably leads to moral chaos because everyone defines for themselves what is or is not moral or is or is not Evil.

The only thing you two agree on is not to subscribe to any Godly objective moral Truth limiting your behavior. That to you is too restricting or too confining, but in reality it is the only way to assure someone else's decision on what is or is not Evil does not interfere with yours.

You both are free to reject God's ultimate authority on defining these moral limits, but you cannot escape the consequences of ignoring his limits on it if you just leave it up to everyone else to decide what those moral limits are or should be.

Under that premise, that everyone decides for themselves what is moral or right, there is never any cognitive dissonance between what one desires and what one thinks is right in a certain situation. You think the Bible provides that dissonance. I believe ones conscious provides it without the need of an objective mold of which to follow. To me, love provides the positive environment for ones conscious to develop positively. A negative environment creates a negative conscious. One will deny their internal morality (as defined by what the conscious connected to true empathy tells oneself) if they have developed the ability to justify their actions by memories of the hurt they see and have felt. If developed positively, one will not be able to justify that internal dissonance. They will be forced to face their integrity (due to the positive development of empathy and understanding of how our actions echo in others lives). The Bible helps one develop a powerful motive for remaining true to the positive, but most know (through the development of positive conscious and empathy) what's right and wrong without the Bible dictating those terms.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

As nations develop, our national security interests will be challenged more and more. We can't subscribe to a constant multi-theatre war spanning lifetimes, can we?

We've been in a World War, not a multi-theater war for 35 years and longer.

 

[atlkvb]

1. I think murder is wrong because I think it's wrong.

I've asked you repeatedly in this thread to justify why you think it's wrong, and your answer is "because I say so" and you argue I'm being 'subjective'? That's my argument against you!

2. You think murder is wrong because God says so in the Bible.

This is my objective definition of it. What's your's? Why should it apply to someone who's Atheist and rejects it?

3. We are both deciding murder is wrong but just using different justifications for it.

No we aren't Op2! I've defined my objective definition of it and quoted its source...the Bible...God's Holy word forbidding it.

You have yet to quote your source or even verify your justification against it other than "we as a society have decided it". Really?

OK, suppose tomorrow we as a Society decide it's OK to murder, you OK with that too or does your subjective morality adjust to society's new normal and you'd go out killing too?

That's a world you'd be OK living in, everyone just killing anyone else "just because they say so"?

OK Op2, have at it.

 

[atlkvb]

Under that premise, that everyone decides for themselves what is moral or right, there is never any cognitive dissonance between what one desires and what one thinks is right in a certain situation. You think the Bible provides that dissonance. I believe ones conscious provides it without the need of an objective mold of which to follow. To me, love provides the positive environment for ones conscious to develop positively. A negative environment creates a negative conscious. One will deny their internal morality (as defined by what the conscious connected to true empathy tells oneself) if they have developed the ability to justify their actions by memories of the hurt they see and have felt. If developed positively, one will not be able to justify that internal dissonance. They will be forced to face their integrity (due to the positive development of empathy and understanding of how our actions echo in others lives). The Bible helps one develop a powerful motive for remaining true to the positive, but most know (through the development of positive conscious and empathy) what's right and wrong without the Bible dictating those terms.

Boomer you're free to live like that, and honestly most folks would probably be OK with your world. But what do you do with those who don't choose to conform, or would challenge your right to live as you believe?

You'd accept their debauchery, lasciviousness, disrespect for your morality? You'd allow anarchy refusing to define someone else's morality?

 

[op2]

I've asked you repeatedly in this thread to justify why you think it's wrong, and your answer is "because I say so" and you argue I'm being 'subjective'? That's my argument against you!



This is my objective definition of it. What's your's? Why should it apply to someone who's Atheist and rejects it?



No we aren't Op2! I've defined my objective definition of it and quoted its source...the Bible...God's holy word forbidding it.

You have yet to quote your source or even verify your justification against it other than "we as a society have decided it". Really?

OK, suppose tomorrow we as a Society decide it's OK to murder, you OK with that too or does your subjective morality adjust to society's new normal and you'd go out killing too?

That's a world you'd be OK living in, everyone just killing anyone else "just because they say so"?

OK Op2, have at it.

You are SUBJECTIVELY deciding that the Bible is the objective definition for why murder is illegal. Right?

 

[atlkvb]

You are SUBJECTIVELY deciding that the Bible is the objective definition for why murder is illegal. Right?

I am stating the Bible as the source of objectively declaring murder to be Evil. You can subjectively replace that standard with whatever you choose, but then someone else can just as easily subjectively replace your subjective limit against it.

The Bible's standard cannot be replaced because it is the source of the definition and orders the limit as an offense against the author of Human Life itself.

You simply reject that, then accuse me of applying it subjectively.

I am stating it as an objective Truth, and you are free to reject that. However that is where the Truth against indiscriminate murder originates, and where I cite its source of immorality...a violation against God's order, not mine, not society's!

Where's yours Op2?

 

[op2]

I am stating the Bible as the source of objectively declaring murder to be Evil. You can subjectively replace that standard with whatever you choose, but then someone else can just as easily subjectively replace your subjective limit against it.

The Bible's standard cannot be replaced because it is the source of the definition and orders the limit as an offense against the author of Human Life itself.

You simply reject that, then accuse me of applying it subjectively.

I am stating it as an objective Truth, and you are free to reject that. However that is where the Truth against indiscriminate murder originates, and where I cite its source of immorality...a violation against God's order, not mine, not society's!

Where's yours Op2?

"I am stating the Bible as the source of objectively declaring murder to be Evil."

If the Bible declaring that murder is Evil is an objective declaration then why isn't me saying that murder is Evil also an objective declaration?

 

[atlkvb]

"I am stating the Bible as the source of objectively declaring murder to be Evil."

If the Bible declaring that murder is Evil is an objective declaration then why isn't me saying that murder is Evil also an objective declaration?

Because you are not the author of Life Op2 are you?

 

[Boomboom521]

We've been in a World War, not a multi-theater war for 35 years and longer.

That's how sadly removed from it I am.

 

[atlkvb]

Because you are not the author of Life Op2 are you?

Trump placed his hand on Op2's book of "Good vs Evil"?

No wonder you hate him so much...he's violating everything you told him not to do![laughing]

 

[op2]

Because you are not the author of Life Op2 are you?

It's your SUBJECTIVE opinion that God is the author of life and I'm not. It's your SUBJECTIVE opinion that the Bible holds the truth about morality, etc.

 

[atlkvb]

It's your SUBJECTIVE opinion that God is the author of life and I'm not. It's your SUBJECTIVE opinion that the Bible holds the truth about morality, etc.

OK Op2, I won't interfere with your understanding that you are indeed the author of Human Life and the original is not.

I'll also let you continue believing is Bible is merely random thoughts with no objective Truth and no timeless or proven attributes defining the limits on human morality or behavior.

Rock on Dude.

 

[Boomboom521]

OK Op2, I won't interfere with your understanding that you are indeed the author of Human Life and the original is not.

I'll also let you continue believing is Bible is merely random thoughts with no objective Truth and no timeless or proven attributes defining the limits on human morality or behavior.

Rock on Dude.

To a Buddhist monk, the US perpetuates evil often.