Q for Non-God/Bible Believers

[canpakes]

Hi, Jersey Girl -

I think that Doc has it right; such a requirement would be Trump’s way of humiliating people. It would also serve as a loyalty test, and Trump would expect his servile evangelical base to push their discomfort aside in order to transact in normal daily activities, like those Marcus has listed. How else are we going to pay for that Chic-fil-A, right?

oh please. Leave my name out of your nonsense.

OK. I’ll scratch you off the list for my next frosted lemonade run.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Two people are having an argument about a moral quandary. They both say God told them their position was the correct one. Both say the Spirit confirmed their position. Who is right?

[Chap]

Two people are having an argument about a moral quandary. They both say God told them their position was the correct one. Both say the Spirit confirmed their position. Who is right?

Simple. Just pray to the Lord to send you his holy spirit to enlighten you about which one of them is right. That should settle matters!

.... Oh, wait ...

[huckelberry]

Two people are having an argument about a moral quandary. They both say God told them their position was the correct one. Both say the Spirit confirmed their position. Who is right?

Simple. Just pray to the Lord to send you his holy spirit to enlighten you about which one of them is right. That should settle matters!

.... Oh, wait ...

Or one could try and think carefully about the results of choices. One could think about the values contained in goals.

Sorry to just up and state the obvious.

[Limnor]

If “God told me” can justify a moral issue like murdering Laban, then something other than revelation has to decide whether it was valid.

There does seem to be a “revealed” answer—though arguably someone could counter-reveal that reveal and it’s turtles: Deuteronomy 13 says to reject a prophet who leads you into wrongdoing—even if they claim to speak for God.

[canpakes]

Note: I am NOT assuming that Trump is the Anti-Christ of Revelation. It could be a successor or someone we haven't even thought of or know about yet.

The fellow at the link below has put together a helpful guide on identifying potential antichrists, assuming that they’re not making it easy by wearing a nametag:

https://www.benjaminlcorey.com/could-am ... edictions/

[Some Schmo]

Two people are having an argument about a moral quandary. They both say God told them their position was the correct one. Both say the Spirit confirmed their position. Who is right?

Neither is in their right mind.

[Gunnar]

Two people are having an argument about a moral quandary. They both say God told them their position was the correct one. Both say the Spirit confirmed their position. Who is right?

Neither is in their right mind.

If neither position can be supported without invoking the claim of divine authority for it, neither can be rationally trusted to be true, it seems to me, so the argument is completely useless.

[canpakes]

Neither is in their right mind.

If neither position can be supported without invoking the claim of divine authority for it, neither can be rationally trusted to be true, it seems to me, so the argument is completely useless.

We can always do rock, paper, scissors.

[Res Ipsa]

If neither position can be supported without invoking the claim of divine authority for it, neither can be rationally trusted to be true, it seems to me, so the argument is completely useless.

We can always do rock, paper, scissors.

I think we need Lizard and Spock.