Babies don't have free will yet. They aren't autonomous, which is why their parents have to do everything for them. All a baby knows how to do is eat, sleep, cry, laugh, coo, puke, and poop. That's it. It's impossible for a baby to do ill will to others, since they aren't even fully aware of themselves and how their actions affect others yet.
HannahBanana said:
You used the phrase "misuse their wills," so I assumed that you were referring to free will by using that phrase.
How was his intent sinful when he doesn't even have the mental capacity yet to be malicious towards others, or to have any sort of bad feelings towards others at all? All the baby in your example was trying to do was to get some food. How is that sinful at all?
HannahBanana said:
HannahBanana said:
Part of the definition of genocide also involves targeting victems because of their ethnicity. What God did doesn't fit that description.
I don't agree that what the U.S. did was a warcrime, but I agree with you that the U.S. didn't commit genocide.
Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the Bible, God has never punished people for beliefs, but but for actions. There's not one recorded instance of punishment for simple belief. Only for actions. If an unbeliever hasn't changed his/her stance by the time they die, then punishment for that will ensue.
Please next time answer in the context of the thread. Otherwise i am left with no choice but to assume you think babies have the capacity of evil that they must be killed for it. This is after all about god killing babies. Christians said he did it because they were evil or had sin. You then state how it is a baby could be evil so i can only assume you support this kind of action. I for the one trilliant time ask, if all sin is equal how can god kill one and leave another untouched.
which fallacy? and do so with quoting it or i will assume your just upset with my response. Do you support god killing babies? yes or no? or are you just going to chill on the sidelines pointing at evil sinning babies, being very unclear if you think gods actions are barbaric or not. Simply put i think god is a wretched role-model. Baby killing? Genocide? lovely.
No fallacy, that's why I am asking you if you support this notion or not. I think Evil transmitted via dna is crazy. Although David has recently come clean about what he really means, that dna can carry traits that we think are evil... but this doesn't paint god in a better light. Its immoral for god to kill someone if they may do something evil 40 years down the road. personaly i think anyone who advocates baby killing and genoside in the case of the bible is just haucking up one giant fallacy of special pleading. which is what i am getting at. No one here actually thinks killing babies is rightchus, so why defend it in the bible.
The Jews weren't wiped out because not all the Jews were evil. Conversely, only one righteous man could be found among the Sodomites (Lot), and he was spared. God punishes sin, He's not genocidal.
Learn what moving goalposts means. Earlier in this thread, someone from YOUR side of the debate refuted someone who made that same accusation against me. I never moved the goalposts, I used the SAME link, to make the SAME point I made from the beginning: that genocide requires the intent of racial or ethnic bias.
Yes, but not for ethnic or racial reasons.
God's wiped out thousands of His own people who practice HIS religion, because of sin. That proves (once again) that God doesn't care about religion, He targets sinners.
God allows Lot to live even though he knew that Lot will commit incest and leave his daughters pregnant. If that is not a sin then what is?
What mercy of what babies. The bible is full of baby killing by God! You obviously did not read my post!
Can I assume, then, that you're pro-choice? After all, according to you, "babies that are killed most likely go to be with GOD forever," so what's so bad about letting women kill those babies by getting an abortion?
That sentence should read as such: "With Christianity one is free to make up stories about GOD. That, however, does not establish a reality."
So basically, you're saying that people shouldn't use their brains at all when they read the Bible? They shouldn't think about what the Bible says at all, they should just blindly accept that what it says is true?
Why should we change the meaning of genocide just so that it seems like God wasn't guilty of it?
Yes. That is exactly what I would expect a reasonable person to say. I find it disturbing that you would so lightly brush aside indications of your religion being supportive of the ideas of genocide, infanticide, rape, slavery, etc. Are you stating that you find yourself unable to disbelieve your religion, regardless of the fact that you understand that all these terrible things re part of it?
Welcome to this public debate forum.
It's not "hypocrisy", you're just ignorant. Lot didn't commit incest, his daughters got him drunk and did it to him without his knowledge.
God doesn't command that infants be "dashed upon rocks". He says it would serve a group of people right if that happened, because they did it to other people. God never issues a command for this to happen.
Just like the ones I adressed, you're wrong, and taking things out of context.
