Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Where in the Bible does it claim that free will is paramount and that it will never be taken from someone?
Upvote
0
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.
Where in the Bible does it claim that free will is paramount and that it will never be taken from someone?...and free will goes under the bus.
Because he doesn't mess with free will.
God loves contradictions, apparently.
Where in the Bible does is say that Christians are not to contradict themselves in internet discussion forums?Where in the Bible does it claim that free will is paramount and that it will never be taken from someone?
Show me where it is a contradiction?Where in the Bible does is say that Christians are not to contradict themselves in internet discussion forums?
Says who and where? These were cities far away. Who says what they were up to? If they were all part of one big Canaanite group that the Jews were out to get, then they would know who the Jews were and what they were up to with their fake peace treaty.They also saw their own baby brothers and sisters be placed in jars and burnt as offerings to the Canaanite god by their fathers and mothers.
Says who and where? Jewish girls were sold by their fathers either to marriage or slavery, so why would these evil, despicable little girls get better treatment? The passage you quoted to me says that they were to be set free if the soldier didn't like them after had sex with her. It never asked whether the prisoner wanted to get married or have the solider "go into her".Jews could not force marriage
It's quite hard to imagine, actually, that someone capable of stabbing a baby with a sword would develop compassion for something that he views is plunder from a war. Quite hard to imagine.It isn't hard to imagine compassion for them would grow and they would give them the choice of marriage or servitude.
Interestingly enough, it wasn't all the Canaanite group as you and others seem to think. There were groups of Canaanites that were not harmed at all. In some areas they were driven out from the land and in the examples we are discussing they were wiped out. There is evidence that these people really did burn their children to the false god of their choice.Says who and where? These were cities far away. Who says what they were up to? If they were all part of one big Canaanite group that the Jews were out to get, then they would know who the Jews were and what they were up to with their fake peace treaty.
1. Slavery within the Hebrew nation was an act of desperation. Some members would be put up as servants and this would last seven years. It was done when they couldn't provide enough for the family.Says who and where? Jewish girls were sold by their fathers either to marriage or slavery, so why would these evil, despicable little girls get better treatment? The passage you quoted to me says that they were to be set free if the soldier didn't like them after had sex with her. It never asked whether the prisoner wanted to get married or have the solider "go into her".
Firstly, I don´t recall making the first claim. Could you please tell me where i did?Quatona, you are being contradictory, first you claim it was immoral of God because He commands it and then move the goalposts and claim it was an act of man so it was genocide.
So if God told you to kill a child you would do it?What evil would they do if they lived? Do you know? God did.
So if God told you to kill a child you would do it?
It´s interesting, though, that God isn´t consistent in his attempts at preventing wrongdoing by commanding people to kill the perpetrators-in-spe when they are still toddlers, or - without harming anyone at all - or just prevents them from being born.
Is "freewill" a valid God defense or isn´t it?
I don´t believe there´s objective morality. I am giving you my subjective human belief.So, you believe it is objectively immoral to kill toddlers and babies?
I´m beginning to understand where anti-theism comes from.You can only hope, these folks dont have some delusion of god telling them to wipe some people out.
Fear mongering much?You can only hope, these folks dont have some delusion of god telling them to wipe some people out.
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your position. So you don't think it was an immoral act commanded by God?Firstly, I don´t recall making the first claim. Could you please tell me where i did?
There is a difference between God the Creator who created life vs. man who is created and has no right to take life other than in self defense. You don't see the difference?Secondly, the two claims aren´t contradictory:
There´s always someone who commands genocide, and there´s always people who execute it.
I´m not sure why you think commanding genocide can´t be immoral. Hitler didn´t call a single Jew himself, after all. So even if I had made both statements, I wouldn´t see any goalposts moved at all.
This seems a little confusing. No, God would not ask me to do so. You have to understand the reasoning behind the Bible and not just read the words. Our directive is set in the Bible. There is no reason to believe that God would take the same actions today that He needed to take then because it is all finished. The purpose was completed.So if God told you to kill a child you would do it?
It´s interesting, though, that God isn´t consistent in his attempts at preventing wrongdoing by commanding people to kill the perpetrators-in-spe when they are still toddlers, or - without harming anyone at all - or just prevents them from being born.
Is "freewill" a valid God defense or isn´t it?
Now you are misinterpreting me. I've never claimed I have superior objective morality.I don´t believe there´s objective morality. I am giving you my subjective human belief.
Whereas you are the one who claims that, by your allegedly superiour objective morality, killing toddlers and babies is ok.
Your moral compass is broken.
You didn´t necessarily misrepresent my position - you put words in my mouth in order to fabricate a contradiction which wouldn´t even be there if I had said what you claimed I had said.I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your position.
Don´t drive me around with random questions - just address the points, ok?So you don't think it was an immoral act commanded by God?
Before you move on to the next point (or add some special pleading), let´s just stay with the last one you made and which I addressed. There is no such contradiction between a command being immoral and others executing it (which is also immoral).There is a difference between God the Creator who created life vs. man who is created and has no right to take life other than in self defense. You don't see the difference?
Good because there was none.You didn´t necessarily misrepresent my position - you put words in my mouth in order to fabricate a contradiction which wouldn´t even be there if I had said what you claimed I had said.
I am not assuming malicious intent.
Does this mean that you do not think that a mutual discussion includes questions of you as well as questions for me?Don´t drive me around with random questions - just address the points, ok?
Ok, so you see this as immoral and no moral reason could be behind the action, correct me if I am wrong. However, if you see it as immoral because you see no moral reason could be behind it and I see that if God is the arbitrator of life and death and created mankind and has necessary information that makes the action moral who is right? Is anyone right?Before you move on to the next point (or add some special pleading), let´s just stay with the last one you made and which I addressed. There is no such contradiction between a command being immoral and others executing it (which is also immoral).
Concede your error, and we can move on.
Ok, sorry. It seems like you are arguing for an allegedly objective morality. If the idea that committing genocide is good is just meant to be your subjective opinion...Now you are misinterpreting me. I've never claimed I have superior objective morality.
So far there´s only you here on the message board presenting these "moral" ideas. God didn´t show up.If you wish to judge God and His moral character that is fine.
Look, I came into this discussion to correct you on your idea that genocide isn´t genocide just because it´s commanded by a God.Now how is my moral compass broken?
I perceive you and your subjective ideas as a severe threat. That´s what our subjective opinions have to do with each other. (But then, I am taking comfort in the assumption that you wouldn´t actually live up to your "morality" - and that you are just talking, in order to defend an indefensible theology).So why is your subjective human belief being subjective have anything to do with me and mine?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?