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.You're right. A debate is usually two sided, with the other trying to refute claims using evidence, not ridiculing them. If you want me to stop calling you on fallacies, then you can stop making them.
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.We're in the discussion and debate section. It's not attacking anything but the points you're making. Debate should not take emotion into account, it is supposed to be objective.
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.If someone told me that they aren't sure whether i torture babies or not, they would have to either a) have a low opinion of me, or b) not know me very well.
So it follows you either a) have a low opinion of god or b) don't know god very well.
Which one is it?
I'm sure god is delighted with you either way, and not at all insulted.
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.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.
Indeed. I wonder if this would be considered bearing false witness as well.If someone told me that they aren't sure whether i torture babies or not, they would have to either a) have a low opinion of me, or b) not know me very well.
So it follows you either a) have a low opinion of god or b) don't know god very well.
Which one is it?
I'm sure god is delighted with you either way, and not at all insulted.
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.
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.Indeed. I wonder if this would be considered bearing false witness as well.
If god doesn't have morals, which would be the case if it chose to toture babies, than why is it so important for an infant's crying to be moral...or amoral? I don't know if I could raise and expect my child to be and hold qualities I didn't have.
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?Okay, so you're not sure if the person you have chosen to worship tortures babies or not. You must be full of confidence about your leader.
If i was to worship someone, i'd want to be pretty damn sure that he doesn't torture babies. Since you can't be sure, and you indeed have admitted that you don't know whether god makes allowances for babies, aren't you in the least bit worried that you might be worshipping an evil monster? Or maybe you think torturing babies is okay?
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.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.
If there was anything substative in the conversation that would be true but there hasn't been a point to come back for biting.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.
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.Additionally, you and others (save for Wordoffaith) up to this point have demonstrated nothing but an emotionally charged reaction based upon me making a factual statement. If you have problems with how I post, you can take them to me in person from now on. A debate or discussion is no place for that.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Stan asks valid questions and you call them red herrings but they're not. And it doesn't matter if someone knows whether or not babies go to hell. It's the matter that view babies deserving hell. Stan's question can just be altered with deserve. Do toddlers who assault other toddlers deserve criminal punishment? If God's law is good enough for the spirit realm than it should certainly be good enough for the physical realm. The issue here than is that your logic falls apart when the application falls onto something real and that shouldn't be the case.
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.
Not given what you said: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.
In order to apply your analogy, you'd have to say don't, not didn't.I don't know if I could raise and expect my child to be and hold qualities I didn't have.
Wrong. Morality is not subjective, otherwise one could start excusing murder and rape.You're right, morality is subjective. Most people however would agree with me that genocide is quite immoral. If you don't think genocide is immoral then i suppose you can make a claim that god isn't immoral. Otherwise, from what we know of the bible, gods standards are no better in fact inifinitely worse than the likes of Hitler.
Wrong. Morality is not subjective, otherwise one could start excusing murder and rape.
Additionally, is it wrong to kill someone when you know that their future would have far worse consequences than if you let them live? Would that not be mercy? If not, why is euthanasia okay?
True, we can only do our best with the medium we have. And it's limited for sure.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Unimportant to you maybe. You can't expect everyone to agree with you about what's important or not.You and others have focused on the parts that are largely unimportant.
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.All of this has very little to do with psychology, but simple observation of kids and logic.
By real, I mean the physical world. Here we have way more information than we do with the spiritual.You say it falls apart when it meets something real, yet with the real thing we do not have all the information.
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.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 saying what they should get because of previous behavior, and does not take into account the future. I take both into account and say again, we do not know.
Oh, I see. I meant don't have. That should clear it up.Not given what you said:
In order to apply your analogy, you'd have to say don't, not didn't.
I think morality can be subjective. I have morals that most of society does not share.Wrong. Morality is not subjective, otherwise one could start excusing murder and rape.
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.Well i would say since not every person has the same idea of what is moral and what is not, morality is most definitely subjective. And some people do excuse murder or rape. You seem to excuse God murdering for one.
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.What this has to do with anything, i can only guess. I think it is for the individual to decide whether they want to live or die. That's why i don't have a problem with voluntary euthanasia. If you are trying to say god killed people out of mercy, i think you are mistaken. From what i understand he killed out of spite, revenge and punishment.
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?