"Racism is not wrong and helping the poor is not right. It is only your opinion that racism is wrong and helping the poor is right."
Well, technically there is no right and wrong, but I you want to be beaten up, go ahead, be a racist.
Disagree, because I believe objective morality exists.
Well, the first part really depends on your idea of racism. Depending on the circumstances, "Helping the poor" can also be considered wrong because of the "give a man to fish" argument.
We know what ends are moral but the means are a little more grey.
Let's go to the Bible and see what t says about slavery.....
Nonsense. Morality is absolute and revealed by God.
Really what we think is right and wrong is all relative to something else. For example, your right and wrong is relative to the bible, so you would disagree with the first part of the quote.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Where is this quoted from?
Technically me - but I disagree with it
A lot of people have this mindset though.
If that is someone's opinion then it makes the statement correct
then youre incorrect because thats my opinion
I think the idea is that there are no right or wrongs, just opinions
Surprise, surprise. Some things can be objectively measured morally. 99.9% of everything is in a relativistic gray area.
Are you sure?
I'm pretty sure that doesn't align with Catholicism.
Which things can be measured morally? And can you prove there's a source for this morality?
God reveals himself everyday.
No he doesn't. If Muslims claim "Allah reveals himself everyday", you'd be skeptical as I am.
Because Islam is a false religion
I've been through this with you countless times. Why did you "quit" believing in God?
And Islam states Christianity is a false religion, Judaism states Christianity is a false religion, and Catholics state Protestants aren't true Christians. Now what? You literally haven't proven your religion is true and rather you've just said so and not expect a rebuttal.
I quit being a Christian because there's no evidence of God and Christians use circular reasoning as their evidence the Bible is true. Even if there's a god, how do we know he's the God of the Bible?
The Holy Spirit proves that Jesus Christ is the one and true God every time God regenerates a non-believer. Belief is not something that you can do by yourself. It is something that God can only do because an unregenerate soul is a slave to sin. I'll digress and ask a simple question, is your stance that there is no God or that the True God is really not the true God?
I'm sorry that's not evidence of God. I've seen people convert to Islam, Buddhism, and (leave religion) atheists and become better people for it. Their lives change. Just because Christianity does change lives, every religion does and therefore it doesn't prove the truth of your religion. If you're saying I must join Christianity to find proof of the Christian God, it would be equivalent to saying I must know poison is real by drinking it. There must be alternative ways of proving your god's existence.
I'm personally not a theist or a deist but if evidence of God's existence is presented, I'll believe in that God.
How do you address the fulfillment of prophecies by multiple eye witness accounts?
Which prophecies? List a particular prophecy and I'll do my best to explain why it's not convincing.
We'll start with this one: Micah 5:2 – “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, are only a small village in Judah. Yet a ruler of Israel will come from you, one whose origins are from the distant past.”
What do you believe that's supposed to predict? The Messiah I'm assuming?
Ephrath was a clan of Israelites that those in Bethlehem were apart of and due to mistranslation the Jews view this verse as
" But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from old, from ancient times" -Micah 5: 1 (2).
Matthew misquotes this at "And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you shall come a ruler
who is to shepherd* my people Israel".
If you look in context it predicts the Messiah will basically be from a certain clan, while Matthew quotes this as a city. This entire passage, in context is referring to the Messiah eliminating war, natural casualties, and bringing peace. It mentions smashing Assyria. In context, you could call this as a mistranslation or just simply a coincidence.
Next one: Isaiah 7:14 – “All right then, the Lord Himself will choose the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call Him Immanuel – ‘God is with us.’”
Isaiah 9:6-7 – “For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. And the government will rest on His shoulders. These will be His royal titles: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. His ever expanding, peaceful government will never end. He will rule forever with fairness and justice from the throne of His ancestor David. The passionate commitment of the Lord Almighty will guarantee this!”
Was this prophecy not full-filled?
Was this prophecy not fulfilled?
Is there an expiration date on it? On any biblical prophecy? No. Thus even if this passage is saying "the Messiah will come from Bethlehem" (which is debatable), eventually some famous leader would arise out of that area or tribe and thus his followers would say this is proof their leader is the Messiah, even if other prophecies haven't been fulfilled.
This isn't consistent with "Matthew 1:20-23 – “As he considered this, he fell asleep, and an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. ‘Joseph, son of David,’ the angel said, ‘do not be afraid to go ahead with your marriage to Mary. For the child within her has been conceived by the Holy Spirit. And she will have a son, and you are to name Him Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.’ All of this happened to fulfill the Lord’s message through His prophet: ‘Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son, and He will be called Immanuel (meaning, God is with us).’”?
The Old Testament never claims the Messiah will be born of a virgin as the original passage uses a word that can be translated as "young woman". The Old Testament as claims the Messiah will be of the line of David and as we know from Israelite tradition, the line passes through the male and this wouldn't be the case if a virgin conceived the Messiah.
Do you accept the Old Testament as true?
Parts I'm sure are historically true, but I don't believe there's evidence of proof of young earth creationism, a worldwide flood, divine prophecies being fulfilled, or evidence of Moses or Abraham as historical figures. I don't believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Jewish messiah either.
Well, is morality subjective or objective?
I said "agree" only because libs insist that morals are subjective which means every person's opinion about right/wrong is as valid as anybody else's. let them eat their own medicine.
You would think that liberals think morals are absolute from this poll.
They use the subjectivity argument when it suits them. Their morals allow them to switch back-and-forth.
How is the belief that all races are not all equal wrong? I prefer my own race, and I would like to put their interests above others in a legal system to ensure their protection. You are a hypocrite if you support Israel but denounce racism.
That's an interesting point about Israel. Couldn't someone support Israel on religious beliefs that are completely separate from race?
Religious, Ethnic, and Racial identity are usually all connected.
They are definitely similar but I would argue that they're independent of one another.
My definition of racism is hatred of other races. Race realism, in my opinion, isn't racism. This is why this entire poll depends on your interpretation of "racism".
What is your interpretation of race realism?
Jim Crow laws were not really wrong then. It's just your opinion that they were!
That's a pretty dangerous position.
I wasn't aware you were into defining truth based on what is convenient.
I do believe in defining truth subjectively, which is why I selected "disagree."
Given that disagreeing implies three objective statements, I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Excuse me. I forgot to insert the word *not*
I don't believe in defining truth subjectively.
That makes more sense. Getting back on track, my point was that the "dangerousness" of a thought is pretty irrelevant. It's still true or not regardless.
Unless you think all men are naturally good, you can't see subjective morality being good.
Again, what difference does it make whether I think it's good or not?
Because morality is dependent on your opinion
"Unless you think all men are naturally good, you can't see subjective morality being good."
This doesn't follow. I don't think everyone is naturally good, but this doesn't give my an opinion one way or another on whether subjective morality is good.
Subjective morality is govern by the individual person. If people aren't naturally good, then morality, which is formed by the individual person, can't be good either.
Ok, I see what you're saying now. And I don't disagree.
So is morality absolute?
No one said that.
What would be considered immoral?
Racism is morally and objectively wrong.
Oh - I agree.