How SICK can Christian's be...

[Czar]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Czar
But what about those who openly and vocaly judge and condamn people who have sex before marrage?

They can choose to do that if they wish.

However, advocating violence and murdering children is barbaric and is on a completely different scale.

ok, then what about those who disown their children if they find out they have had sex before marrage or even those who were unlucky enough to have kids as a result

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Czar
ok, then what about those who disown their children if they find out they have had sex before marrage or even those who were unlucky enough to have kids as a result

That is not nearly as barbaric as throwing rocks at the child until he or she dies.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Czar
ok, then what about those who disown their children if they find out they have had sex before marrage or even those who were unlucky enough to have kids as a result

That is not nearly as barbaric as throwing rocks at the child until he or she dies.

doesnt matter, what do you think about those people?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Czar
ok, then what about those who disown their children if they find out they have had sex before marrage or even those who were unlucky enough to have kids as a result

That is not nearly as barbaric as throwing rocks at the child until he or she dies.

doesnt matter, what do you think about those people?

I would find it sad that they feel that way. I wouldn't find adoption to be equal to stoning your child though. However, I would not advocate for the stoning of these parents.

Cut straight to the point - what are you trying to get at? Are you trying to support child murder and abuse in your argument in a roundabout fashion? Remember that you just said you were against Aztec human ritual sacrifices.

 

[Czar]

So parents disowning their children for having sex before marrage is sad.
Then what do you feel when parents decide who their children marry?

I'm just trying to find that line.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Czar
So parents disowning their children for having sex before marrage is sad.
Then what do you feel when parents decide who their children marry?

I'm just trying to find that line.

Here's a hint: if it involves murdering the child by throwing rocks at him or her then that is definitely way beyond 'that' line 😉

I feel that is a strange custom, but I wouldn't stone the parents or the children for such an action.

It will be impossible for you to find the line. There is an infinite number of circumstances that can be evaluated.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Czar
So parents disowning their children for having sex before marrage is sad.
Then what do you feel when parents decide who their children marry?

I'm just trying to find that line.

Here's a hint: if it involves murdering the child by throwing rocks at him or her then that is definitely way beyond 'that' line 😉

I feel that is a strange custom, but I wouldn't stone the parents or the children for such an action.

It will be impossible for you to find the line. There is an infinite number of circumstances that can be evaluated.

exactly, do you then think there is some universal line that should apply to everyone?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Czar
So parents disowning their children for having sex before marrage is sad.
Then what do you feel when parents decide who their children marry?

I'm just trying to find that line.

Here's a hint: if it involves murdering the child by throwing rocks at him or her then that is definitely way beyond 'that' line 😉

I feel that is a strange custom, but I wouldn't stone the parents or the children for such an action.

It will be impossible for you to find the line. There is an infinite number of circumstances that can be evaluated.

exactly, do you then think there is some universal line that should apply to everyone?

The line may not be the same. However, killing children with stones for having sex is so far away from any line that anyone should have.

What do you think? Do you think some people SHOULD have a line where killing children by smashing their heads with rocks is OK?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Czar
So parents disowning their children for having sex before marrage is sad.
Then what do you feel when parents decide who their children marry?

I'm just trying to find that line.

Here's a hint: if it involves murdering the child by throwing rocks at him or her then that is definitely way beyond 'that' line 😉

I feel that is a strange custom, but I wouldn't stone the parents or the children for such an action.

It will be impossible for you to find the line. There is an infinite number of circumstances that can be evaluated.

exactly, do you then think there is some universal line that should apply to everyone?

The line may not be the same. However, killing children with stones for having sex is so far away from any line that anyone should have.

What do you think? Do you think some people SHOULD have a line where killing children by smashing their heads with rocks is OK?

Why is it far away from any line that anyone should have?


I dont know.

 

[CanOWorms]

I was just thinking about this. I'd think that if Sultan's children did have sex or whatever, they probably don't believe in his religion or in that aspect of it. Yet he still wants to take out the punishment himself.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Czar
Why is it far away from any line that anyone should have?

Because it is barbaric, cruel, and inhumane.

I dont know.

Interesting response. You 'don't know' if someone should have a line where smashing a child's head with a rock because of sex is fine?

I also find it very interesting that you kept pressing me for answers - yet now when faced with a question yourself you are taking the easy way out.

If we were talking about something far less barbaric then I could understand your position. However, it seems that you're using an argument now that would make it OK for Aztec human sacrifices.

 

[Czar]

Because it is barbaric, cruel, and inhumane.

Who should judge what is barbaric cruel and inhumane and from what moral standpoint does that person judge from?

Interesting response. You 'don't know' if someone should have a line where smashing a child's head with a rock because of sex is fine?

I also find it very interesting that you kept pressing me for answers - yet now when faced with a question yourself you are taking the easy way out.

If we were talking about something far less barbaric then I could understand your position. However, it seems that you're using an argument now that would make it OK for Aztec human sacrifices.

It is not for me to judge in this case, if it was happening right at my doorstep I would not tolerate it.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Czar
Who should judge what is barbaric cruel and inhumane and from what moral standpoint does that person judge from?

Are you saying that bashing a child's head in with a rock is not barbaric or inhumane?

People that want to improve the world should judge such acts. Again, if we were dealing with a less severe act then you would have point.

It is not for me to judge in this case, if it was happening right at my doorstep I would not tolerate it.

Seems like you are now judging it and you feel it is not OK.

Your argument to this point means you have no problem with letting human rights violations, murders, rape, theft, genocide, etc. occur throughout the world. Do you really feel this way?

 

[Czar]

Are you saying that bashing a child's head in with a rock is not barbaric or inhumane?

People that want to improve the world should judge such acts. Again, if we were dealing with a less severe act then you would have point.

From my moral perspective it is but how can I be sure that I am correct and how can anyone be correct if at all ?

Seems like you are now judging it.

Your argument to this point means you have no problem with letting human rights, murders, genocide, etc. occur throughout the world.

that is not my argument

 

[RabidMongoose]

From my moral perspective it is but how can I be sure that I am correct and how can anyone be correct if at all ?

You must not be very confident in your moral perspective. I personally find bashing a child's head in with a rock to be fairly disgusting and barbaric. You apparently are not confident in saying so.

Apply your argument to genocide. It is immoral in your perspective, but how can you be sure that you are correct? Better to do nothing and let the genocide continue?

that is not my argument

Sure it is. That's what your argument ultimately boils down to. It's not OK if it happens at your doorstep, but if these atrocities are happening elsewhere then you apparently cannot judge it.

Your entire argument is basically a way of saying that genocide is OK.

 

[Czar]

You must not be very confident in your moral perspective. I personally find bashing a child's head in with a rock to be fairly disgusting and barbaric. You apparently are not confident in saying so.

Apply your argument to genocide. It is immoral in your perspective, but how can you be sure that you are correct? Better to do nothing and let the genocide continue?

That is exactly it, I am not confident in my moral perspective. And if I am going to judge and condamn people for some actions that go against my moral code I better make sure that enough people agree with my view on the subject. Through out history there have been countless numbers of "moral justice", each that was regarded as the just one at the time. How can we now have a better understanding when a few hundred years from now people will look at us as of having been barbaric?

Sure it is. That's what your argument ultimately boils down to. It's not OK if it happens at your doorstep, but if these atrocities are happening elsewhere then you apparently cannot judge it.

Your entire argument is basically a way of saying that genocide is OK.

This is not my argument either

 

[0marTheZealot]

Genocide is good. The world is crowded enough as it is. 😉

 

[RabidMongoose]

That is exactly it, I am not confident in my moral perspective. And if I am going to judge and condamn people for some actions that go against my moral code I better make sure that enough people agree with my view on the subject. Through out history there have been countless numbers of "moral justice", each that was regarded as the just one at the time. How can we now have a better understanding when a few hundred years from now people will look at us as of having been barbaric?

Interesting. Do you not condemn a number of actions? Did you just not say that you would not tolerate this happening at your doorstep? Do you not condemn a multitude of Israeli actions?

No offense, but your logic is horrible and very inconsistent with your posts.

This is not my argument either

I'm not saying that this is your argument. However, I'm saying that your argument can be used to saying that genocide is OK and should be tolerated.

You apparently do not believe in anything such as human rights violations (and you apparently debate the very existence of such a term), genocide, murder, rape, etc. as being wrong or being corrected because you are too unsure of yourself. Or is this wrong? Please clarify your position.

Thankfully many people in the world do not think like this.

You need to really evaluate your argument and think about it.

 

[Czar]

Interesting. Do you not condemn a number of actions? Did you just not say that you would not tolerate this happening at your doorstep? Do you not condemn a multitude of Israeli actions?

No offense, but your logic is horrible and very inconsistent with your posts.

I do but am I sure that I am right, no. In the case of Israel they want to be somewhat apart of Europe, they want to be apart of western society but some of their actions condradict what is considered to be moraly right for majority of the people. If they were trying to be a part of the middle east then it would be different because then they would be putting their case to a different culture.

I'm not saying that this is your argument. However, I'm saying that your argument can be used to saying that genocide is OK and should be tolerated.

You apparently do not believe in anything such as human rights violations (and you apparently debate the very existence of such a term), genocide, murder, rape, etc. as being wrong or being corrected.

If we agree to a law then we abide by them. We have agreed to human right laws so we abide by them. If we were writing new human rights laws then we would go back to the question of what human laws are. Someday we will go back to the drawing board and write new laws.

Do you assume you are correct?

 

[RabidMongoose]

I'm going to go out and get some food, but I'll respond when I come back.

 

[Czar]

right, always most enjoyable to have a discussion with you 🙂

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I was just thinking about this. I'd think that if Sultan's children did have sex or whatever, they probably don't believe in his religion or in that aspect of it. Yet he still wants to take out the punishment himself.

That is not correct. People who commit crimes know of the consequences of their action, and are therefore punishable. The religious moral code teaches people not to commit adultery or fornicate. The religious legal laws lay down the punishment.

Your comment basically implies anyone who steals or kills in the United States does not believe in the laws of the United States.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Those murderers are no more Christian than the terrrorists who flew into the WTC were Muslim (or whatever). When your religion calls you to live by peace and you murder thousands and thousands of people, there's no way in hell (haha) that you're actually part of that religion. You're just a twisted fvck.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Nik
Those murderers are no more Christian than the terrrorists who flew into the WTC were Muslim (or whatever). When your religion calls you to live by peace and you murder thousands and thousands of people, there's no way in hell (haha) that you're actually part of that religion. You're just a twisted fvck.

if this post referred to me, just where in my posts have I advocated murder of thousands and thousands of people?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Nik
Those murderers are no more Christian than the terrrorists who flew into the WTC were Muslim (or whatever). When your religion calls you to live by peace and you murder thousands and thousands of people, there's no way in hell (haha) that you're actually part of that religion. You're just a twisted fvck.

if this post referred to me, just where in my posts have I advocated murder of thousands and thousands of people?

I wasn't referring to you at all, Sultan -unless you actually believe that the Christian god, under the New Testament law, or the Muslim law would ever call for the murder of thousands and thousands of innocent people.