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.
Yes of course ... you happen to have the most true truth. Everyone else is misinformed. You're amazing.
You acted as if citing a common moral code found in multiple cultures and multiple religious texts is somehow supportive of the Bible simply because it is also found in the Bible. That is what is under contention.
Sorry, but all you are doing is making stuff up.
There is absolutely no reason why the Hebrew people could not have taken the Amalekite children into their homes.
Prove it.
People doing immoral things doesn't change the fact that morality exists. You keep acting as if people act immorally because they don't know what is moral. Can you explain this position?
Can you show me where I made that argument?
There is one deity under discussion in this thread that had no problem killing children.
Then why didn't God change the situation if it would have saved lives?
In fact, we can see just the opposite with the story of the Exodus. God heartened the heart of the pharaoh so that he would not free Moses' people. Even though God took the pharaoh's free will, he still punished the entire nation by killing their first born. If you think killing unborn children is immoral, how immoral is that? ...
We have a track record of immoral acts for God that you are ignoring.
That is one of the lines from Epicurus' argument.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Epicurus
I don't have spiritual evidence of anything. That's why I'm an atheist...
So, I'll just cut to the chase. Suppose God were responsible for evil. Then what?
I understand you thought that's what I said, but I never intended to say that. So, I'm going to ask you to choose from 2 options and then let's move on:
1) Caner is lying
2) I understand what Caner meant to say
Are you asking me for a citation to support what I said?
Have you ever taken a foreign child into your home? I have, and what I will say is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Since you conceded abortion for this discussion, I don't have to. However, I will mention that I as I recall, the clinical definition of pain covers unborn children down to a certain age. I forget what age that is. Below that age they don't exhibit the clinical definition of pain. However, they do continue to exhibit a response to invasive material - a "protection mode" so to speak. Given your response that you do consider pain in other species and also consider their "stage of development", I'll again ask:
What is your basis for these judgements? Why can you dismiss pain in animals and kill them? Or dismiss the exhibited protective behavior in earlier stages of development?
I don't hold that position despite what you may have inferred. Regardless, as I understand psychology, it is rare (maybe even nonexistent) for someone to commit an act they are ready to acknowledge as immoral. Instead, they rationalize why it is acceptable for them to do it. That's the whole theme of the book Crime and Punishment. It's a topic often discussed in the context of film noir - that crime is not chaos, it's simply a different kind of order.
From what statement of mine did you draw a conclusion that God has no problem with killing?
Because as I explained, the result would have been worse (civil war that Saul would have lost ... indeed he did eventually lose).
Why didn't God stop this? And that? And that? And that? We eventually require him to remove free will.
I assume that would lead to the question: Then why didn't God create a world where free will is possible but those immoral choices can't be made? That question creates a logical contradiction.
So, I'll just cut to the chase. Suppose God were responsible for evil. Then what?
Again, based on what we've established, all you're saying is that you think these acts are immoral. Moving on to another example gives the impression you're conceding the Amalekite example. I don't think it's productive to leave this open-ended where you can continue to concede things and yet introduce example after example to try the same thing with a different story.
I assume that would lead to the question: Then why didn't God create a world where free will is possible but those immoral choices can't be made? That question creates a logical contradiction.
The question "Why didn't a god create a world where free will exists but immoral choices aren't made" does not lead to a logical contradiction.
If that were true, then they wouldn't try to cover up their crimes.
Then we would conclude that God is immoral, and people wouldn't blindly follow the edicts of an immoral deity.
Didn't you just ask me to avoid assumptions of intent?
The quote was, "I am asking you to not invent stories about what people believed or intended."
Given the power ascribed to deities, how do you plan to avoid obedience? It's probably less painful to just do what they demand.
It isn't an assumption when they are caught trying to destroy evidence, and admitting to it.
I am not talking about ancient kings who may have never existed, and inventing stories about civil wars that didn't happen as an excuse for killing children.
Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between morality and obedience.
For you there is no evidence that is how it is suppose to work. The only time an unbeliever receives direct evidence is at death when he crosses over. There are exceptions of course. Thomas the Apostle got to behold Christ because the other Apostles had prayed to Jesus for an intervention. However, this type of intervention does not end well for everyone. Paul almost single handed destroyed the Church of Christ. When Christ appeared to Him...His light blinded him and he fell down with a fever that would have killed him if Jesus had not sent Two Apostles to heal Paul. This intervention of Christ was the result of prayers and fasting.
dan
Destroying evidence is innately immoral?
If you can't address the obvious point, then this discussion isn't worth continuing.
If you don't want to continue, that's fine. Or you can tell me what the "obvious" point is. Either is fine with me.
For example, EVERYONE knows that you admit to knowing your actions are immoral when you try to cover up or destroy the evidence. You know this too. All you are trying to do is avoid the point.
I understand the point you are trying to make, and I am challenging it.
There are thousands of African kids fasting (and no doubt praying). What gives?
Not all prayers have power nor are effective. Correct teachings help things along. Like I said faith is power not a set of beliefs. A set of beliefs is a religion. And Faith the power of....is the product of a correct set of beliefs. That is why most Christians are powerless spiritually. Most of them have bypass true repentance with teachings of Grace and mercy. So these remain blind and powerless spiritually. Noting can replace the gospel of repentance and all must begin their Journey in the gospel of Repentance.
dan
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?