DangWacky answers no one. Like most athiest he has no answers other than the common talking points produced by the faith. Blind faith I might add.

ABO....DangWacky answers no one. Like most athiest he has no answers other than the common talking points produced by the faith. Blind faith I might add.


ABO,

You also answer no one. Should tomorrow an advanced civilization come over and tell you they have traveled all over the universe, visited billions of cultures and never seen a god and if they prove to you that they were the ones mistaken by a certain fictional figure for the burning bush you will not lose sleep, will you? You will not commit suicide, because you have no faith anymore if you lose your faith, will you?

You will have "faith" in other things, like thermodynamics driving your bodily functions, sunrise, etc. Life will go one. You will not need any talking points. You already have them.

Let's play an experiment tomorrow. Everyone in your family is dead (akin to your dramatic realizing there is no god). You may have depression for some time, cry your eyes out, for some time, you may have a nervous breakdown, etc. But life will go on for you and others.

If not for you or many Christians, it's OK, life will go on for secular Jews, atheists and agnostics. It's called Life.

ABO...If you're going to use a biblical scenario then produce one. I have little interest in your twisted mind.


ABO,

I am using "today's scenarios" - in today's time. So, would it be ethical and moral for let's say your minister to tell you to bring your wife and give her a poison that would cause her harm?

This is not that difficult of an answer. Let's hear it? Under which circumstances would this be considered a "moral" action? After all, morality never changes right? So, if this can be found in the Bible and in today, then both should be equally morally justifiable?

Once we establish a baseline of "moral actions" by a religious person today, we may use the same example for Biblical times.

It is interesting to see you squirming. Priceless.

[From the admin: Post deleted - attempts to point to people's real identities, or to draw in from other forums, is not permitted.]

Using a man's Wife or Family in your personal examples?

Contemptible.

"DagnyWener"]ABO...If you're going to use a biblical scenario then produce one. I have little interest in your twisted mind.

In such a scenario you would be the one following your minister not me.
Natural selection suggest morality and ethics should vary from culture to culture and pervert to pervert. Science has already shown that if you poison you wife there would be a smaller carbon footprint. Therefor taking her off would be a benefit to all mankind. After all she's just an animal.



Well lets see it in the Bible.


My question is does anybody here have a clue what point this clown is trying to establish?
You are one confused dude.

ABO writes, "My question is does anybody here have a clue what point this clown is trying to establish? "

I don't.

In such a scenario you would be the one following your minister not me.
Natural selection suggest morality and ethics should vary from culture to culture and pervert to pervert. Science has already shown that if you poison you wife there would be a smaller carbon footprint. Therefor taking her off would be a benefit to all mankind. After all she's just an animal.



ABO,

I am trying to establish if its moral to have you bring your wife to a minister and have him poison her so her insides would rot out. Would this be EVER MORAL by today's standards of this US society? Or by standards of any developed country today? Under which circumstances could it EVER HAVE BEEN MORAL?

Once we establish that, your prayers to connection to the Bible will be answered.

Our society says it is moral to bring a woman to a doctor who will give her an abortion drug which can have that affect.

Of course, this will be attributed to "error" or "unfortunate side affect" and not be considered "immoral".

DagnyWener
Believe it or not I've figured out a scenario where if my preacher told me to give my wife a particular poison for a particular reason i might do it.

And I'm going to tell you all about it as soon as you admit you're atheist propaganda is wrong about Tyre and show me where anyone who lived around 3500 years ago called a bat a mammal.

Thank You

Hopefully, it will be for a medical reason only, e.g. chemo therapy, etc, something that would do your wife hopefully more good than not. This would be just common sense of objective reality.

If your priest gives your wife some potion that is not medical and will not be of potential benefit to her in any way medically, but will harm her body, what would it mean, ABO? Would it be moral. Not to tell you to give her a poison but will give it to her himself?

DagnyWener

I did a little research for you. I don't know where you're located but you should probable consider contacting a psychiatrist in your area so he can be close. This website might help, just type in your zip code
http://psychiatrists.psychologytoday.co ... search.php

So, ABO,

Let's finish this... I would like you, ABO, to answer Yes or No to these questions?

If your priest gives your wife some potion that is not intended for medical needs of any kind to benefit the woman, but will harm her body, what would it mean, ABO? Would it be moral, ABO? Not to tell you to give her a poison the priest will give it to her himself?

Would under any circumstances you as a husband, ABO, agree to this? Will you willingly under any circumstances allow this to happen? What do you think can make you bring your wife to the priest to have this take place?

Under which circumstances would something like this EVER was moral and ethical to do?

We are getting pretty close now to the lesson of absolutely Biblical proportion derived from all of this. I think with your literal interpretation of the Bible you will be completely satisfied.

WT

ABO answered Dagny's question and now...I'll be darned...Dagny has Moved the Goalposts.

Twice!