Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you don't like what someone has to say, if you don't have or can't answer a question etc, you call it a red herring. You do this with every other post.
It's not about emotion. It's your style of debate. The constant red herring, "back your claim", or that everyone is assuming isn't debate. Eh, I don't expect you to understand and that's cool.
Your sarcasm is touching. I'd go with C, part of b but not all. I know God very well, but not completely. I don't know everything.
My style of debate is usually fueled by another's inability to understand how debate actually works. Notice how up until your last big post point I've addressed every single one of your points? That's because if you don't address a point, you're conceding it. And when someone from the other side asks a question that has already been answered several more times after it was answered, that is not on topic. That is unacceptable in debate. If you don't understand someone's overall argument, it is generally best to ask rather than assume and accuse, that way it does not come back to bite you.
Indeed. I wonder if this would be considered bearing false witness as well.
Say I smoked pot when I was younger. Should I not expect any child I might raise to not smoke? [not saying I have smoked pot, it's a hypothetical] Your expectation seems a bit low.
You're not looking at the entire picture. I know plenty of other things about God to know that whatever He decides to do, it will be the right thing by the standards set down by the Bible. Based on those things, why should I not have faith that God will be upright in that area as well?
A person cannot address a post and not be conceding it either. We've both repeated ourselves several times in this thread and that has more to do with being stubborn imo. I also view the claim "red herring" to be conceding a point in some instances, and this thread it's one of them.
If there was anything substative in the conversation that would be true but there hasn't been a point to come back for biting.
Wordoffaith knows her bible and her interpretations are wise. You think you are making factual statements but you haven't been. And you did forefiet credibility in this thread with your claims of knowing what is generally accepted in psychology. A. you don't have an education in the field to make any claim with authority B. relying on 1 of dozens if not hundreds of theories in child development and then interpreting it for your agenda is poor form. That's not debate.
No, I do not. Because you've demonstrated something I've never seen Him demonstrate throughout the Bible just now, joke or no- pride. You think you know better. You hate to break it to me, yet you're judging the Bible using a subjective idea of morality. You say God didn't set high standards, yet wipes out many for not following them. That is contradictory.I hate to break this to you, but some of the standards God set in the bible weren't that high. You have read the bible, right? Noahs ark, killing every first born in Egypt, torturing people for an eternity etc etc
It seems i have higher morals than your god. Have you ever thought about worshipping me, i'm much nicer
The accurate analogy would be if you are currently smoking pot, sold pot to children (even your own) and then expected your children not to smoke.
And I have clarified my position at least a dozen times and you still think I'm doing something that I am not. You do not have a viewport into my thoughts. You and others have made assumptions based upon your own ideas of what God should be and tried to explain my belief away by saying I think babies go to hell, even though I've stated multiple times, from the beginning, that we don't know where they go. I've also shown that just because someone deserves something does not mean God will give that to them. Put two and two together to make four rather than 5. You and others have focused on the parts that are largely unimportant. All of this has very little to do with psychology, but simple observation of kids and logic. You say it falls apart when it meets something real, yet with the real thing we do not have all the information. You're dealing with one too many variables to say what someone should get while keeping all of the Bible in mind. Someone deserving something is not the same as saying what they should get to correct behavior. It's [someone deserving something = it] saying what they should get because of previous behavior [as a punishment], and does not take into account the future. I take both into account and say again, we do not know.
Not given what you said:
In order to apply your analogy, you'd have to say don't, not didn't.
Wrong. Morality is not subjective, otherwise one could start excusing murder and rape.
True, we can only do our best with the medium we have. And it's limited for sure.
I know that you have said several times that you don't know where babies go. What's at issue for me is that you believe babies are deserving of hell for whatever reason. And thus far those reasons don't really amount to much.
What I think you are failing to realize is how damaging these views are for society in general. What actually happens after death to infants is of no consequence in the here and now because nobody knows. People can speculate all they want. I take issue with raising children in a society that holds to an evil overseer. As someone that was raised in the church I have first hand experience in how damaging such world-views can be.
Unimportant to you maybe. You can't expect everyone to agree with you about what's important or not.
You brought psych to the table and attempted to speak with authority. And while you have experience working with kids, I highly doubt you have experience working with infants and it's unlikely that you've ever engaged in field work/research to come to your conclusions.
By real, I mean the physical world. Here we have way more information than we do with the spiritual.
Again, your argument falls apart because infants don't have previous behavior. And it's only intuitive and common sense to understand that we don't paint infants with the same brush as adults.
I think morality can be subjective. I have morals that most of society does not share.
God does not murder, God kills. Murder is done for sinful reasons, killing is done out of necessity (mainly, such as a war situation) or punishment. God does the latter. Morality is not subjective, it is objective (which is part of the reason you guys went off on me in the first place, I think). If we cannot set morality to a standard, we will be watching torture shows on TV before long, say 400 years. If morality is subjective, then life will do nothing but degrade.
What you understand is limited by what you do not and cannot know. Those cannot have been the base reasons for killing, else God himself would be (by admission) sinning. And that would contradict everything in the Bible. I'd like to see one instance where God killed out of 'spite' as we understand the term today. Show me what your understanding is based off, reference the verse.
