-John Fox (AKA Luinnar) G2G Staff Reviewer & Forum Moderator

Sigh.

'???????? Dude, that makes no sense. Are you saying that if I had to steal the game, then it would be immoral to play it?'

Yes. It is immoral to steal a game and play it. o.0

'You said that playing a game where you break peoples' bones is immoral only if you take sadistic pleasure in it. Thus, by the same token, I can do something like that, and so long as I don't enjoy it, it's okay. That's the flaw right there.'

What you just said overlooks the patently obvious fact that if I actually do something like that, then I have injured another human being; whereas I do not injure another human being simply by playing the game.

'Dude, you said the only way to decide on a game is to consider your own conscience. Thus, there is no objective moral standard. You don't seem to realize that what you say can be taken to a greater level.'

OK. Let's try this one more time. There is an objective standard of what is and is not OK to do. However, there are some times when there is more than one morally licit course of action(should I go to Starbucks or Denny's?). There are also times when the determination of the morally correct course of action depends on the person(should I play Batman?). That doesn't mean that nothing is objectively wrong; it simply means that some things are wrong for some people based on the effect it would have on them, and if it would not have that effect on someone else, it may not be wrong for them. What part of this are you having trouble with?

'And please don't sound so childish, as if you have the upper hand with that "Please, Brandon" garbage.'

You think I sound childish…

I am a Christian Universalist theologian. I am an authority whether you like it or not.

No, not really. But it makes as much sense as what you said, for all I can tell.

'How can you tell I'm anti-scriptural if you don't even have a solid basis to stick your opinion on? I mean, if it's all interpretation, there is no "right" or "wrong". I have an authority on which to base what I say.'

Is he divinely inspired? If so, please provide evidence of that. If not, why do you not ask the same questions of him?

'He's an Israel-based Messianic Jewish theologian. If that doesn't cut being an authority, there's nothing else that can.'

Well, I'm not sure there is anything else that can, but I can think of lots of other contenders: Popes, bishops, pastors, Mormon prophets, etc. I happen to think that the Bible is an authority and we are to discern its meaning for ourselves, not accept the word of men simply because they're in Israel.

'How can it be clear if it's all interpretation. That means there is no clear language. That is to say, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer.'

Wrong again, Brandon. There is an objective truth even if no man alive today has the authority to simply declare what it is. There is an intended meaning to Scripture, and that is the correct meaning, even if none of us are infallible in interpretation. Besides, there is no authority to tell you what I mean by what I say, short of asking me for clarification; does that mean that unless you ask me for clarification, you never know what I mean?

If you're Catholic/Orthodox why do you assume that Stern is right simply because he is a Messianic Jewish theologian?