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.
You are ignoring what I am claiming. Anyone can claim what they wish but they have no outward proof of Allah as in the proof of the plagues of Pharaoh, the parting of the red sea and so forth.
Yahweh's brilliant plan included knowing what those children would have done if they lived. We don't have that necessary knowledge.
It seems you are substantiating it by using it against other's morality that you find lacking. If it is found lacking according to your standard of morality that means that you not only are claiming your morality is the correct or right one but that mine is incorrect or the wrong one. So wrong in fact, that we have no common ground as yours is so superior to mine. Even though you are misrepresenting mine, you feel morally superior and feel your standard is not based on simple opinion, because if it were then mine (or what you perceive as mine) would not bring out such adamant emotion.
Have you seen any due to Yahweh? By the way, you never answered my question about why Yahweh couldn't defend them himself? Did he exhaust his magic in Egypt?
Doesn´t follow.
Inaccurate interpretation.
Don´t tell me what I feel. Don´t base your conclusions on what you think I feel.
My emotions aren´t based on rational considerations. That´s why they are called "emotions". Don´t confuse them with arguments.
This is where we will fundamentally disagree though.
For some. We've already seen that it is permanent for women, but it was permanent for people purchased by the Israelites from the foreigners around them, and it could be made permanent for Israelites as well in some specific cases.
Well, in the instance of these "cities at a distance" we've been talking about, he commands it. Is "endorse" not a lesser form of "command"?
Right, like the ancient Israelites. There is no law or punishment ascribed for rape. There is a law about adultery that considers whether the girl is raped (the man receives the same punishment either way, rape or no rape), and there is a law about fornication/rape that does not take rape into account when it says that the man must pay the father and marry the girl. And of the laws that kind-of-sort-of-touch-on-the-subject-of-rape-but-don't-really-say-not-to, there is no protection for non-virgins. There is no law against rape in the Bible, so make sure you aren't claiming other cultures allowed it but the Israelites didn't.
We see no laws for the case of rape in the Bible and it is not a crime. Neither is there a law against pedophilia if you want to take the age of the girls into account. So again, given the definition of "condone", rape and pedophilia are condoned by the law because they are "accepted" by the law. (Hint: look up the age of consent according to the Mishnah to see what was acceptable according to the culture of the times).
I believe you've made a sincere effort. All the talk about how much worse it could have been seems a little dodgy though. So I'll let you start the next conversation, but don't ignore the points above.
So if not accidental, just plug in the word "murder" instead of "kill"? Or is that too specific? Should I just add the word "intentionally" wherever you say "kill"? Is negligence counted as intentional? For instance, you didn't set out to kill by some action, but you knew it was a possibility and did it anyways? Should a distinction be drawn between a high probability and a low probability? It isn't a simple question to answer if you just say to rule out accidents.
You are misunderstanding my position. Genocide is a word with very specific meaning.
They were being instructed by the God of all. They had first person experience of God and His actions.
Wouldn't you say that Hitler and those that followed him thought the actions they were taking was for prosperity for all of their group? Suffering was only bad if it happened to them, the suffering they caused was for the prosperity of themselves. Another problem I see with your premises is that rarely is something the same for all whether or not it is good or bad.
Well thank you for telling me, I always forget that I should let people know why I am editing.
ISIS is not using first hand experience to guide them. They are interpreting a book that instructs them. They believe the Q'uran is leading them. That is not true of the Jews. They were being instructed first hand.
Maybe this would clarify best: if I didn't know God existed and didn't understand Him to be the God of the Bible I would agree with you. However, I do have knowledge of that and so I understand that God really does know and conveyed that to the Israelites.
We have no idea what evil behavior throughout a complete culture for centuries does to people's genetic makeup. We understand more now about Epigenetics and how that can adversely affect behavior.
That is only part of the mechanics of behavior, as I said we are not understanding how Epigenetics adversely affect behavior.
How does that undermine my argument?
No one claimed they were.
What you are saying here is that there is objective morality and you know it.
No the discussion in not about people killing women and children in the name of God. It is about objective morality and abortion is very much a topic in regard to morality.
I believe that murder is wrong in all cases. I believe that is an objective moral standard. I believe murder is unjustified killing of another. I believe that rape is immoral and that it is an objective moral standard. I don't condone the action of taking captives or slavery but I realize that all of these actions were done in the past by nations all over the world. Now even those nations had the same moral objectives but they were just twisting them. Murder is what was labeled murder. Murder is unjustifiable killing of another but a whole culture can twist it and kill thinking it is justified. They still have the objective standard that murder is immoral but their definition of murder is different, or they feel the killing is justified.
If that were true, not that I feel that is the case, but if that was true the actions of killing children would be immoral. Human beings do not have the necessary information to determine life and death of others excluding self defense. Man is not the arbitrator of life and death and have no right other than self defense in taking life.
Because that is true. God didn't condone rape, He was teaching the Jews while knowing that they were unable to go against the current culture they were set in. It was the time period in which the law was established and to bring forth the birth of Christ. We currently are living in the time of the gentiles or of Grace.
I believe that God has the necessary information. God is the arbitrator of life and death and has a right to take it as He is the one that gives it. Now I know that you don't believe that God exists so this makes no sense to you but I do and so God is the judge and has the necessary information to judge.
Which is a straw man of my position.
Straw man.
The statement isn't about what we see currently.
No one experienced that.
That is your opinion based on your a priori assumption that God doesn't exist and that the accounts are not true.
I don't believe anyone ever claimed to. Thousands claimed to have seen the actions of Yahweh.
That doesn't mean that all that people claim is false.
Since we're all talking about what is or isn't genocide, I feel the need to jump in on this one to point out that your definition of genocide is wrong.
And also, since you're asking this question to someone else again, why did you stop responding to me when I pointed out that us nuking Japan fit under the definition of terrorism?
Yes, it does.
You said that you were fortunate that 99% of "us" don't have to consider my view. Is that not you claiming the 99% have the more superior morality?
It is unfortunate that all we can do is assess the wording that someone uses to determine their motivations.
Fair enough.
How? The motivation for retaliation is not the same as racial, political or cultural group is.
I thought I did. I'll take a look again when I have time. I believe it was an answer to terrorism.
It follows from your assumptions, not from what I wrote.
Yes, it is not. It´s the very opposite: it´s fortunate that I find myself in the majority. There is not mentioning nor implication of superiority, and being fortunate to be part of the majority does not imply superiority.
I find it quite fortunate. What I actually wrote is there for everyone to read, and so are your misrepresentations.
