What if you seek and don't find?

[Oncedeceived]

Yes.

In my view, the only action that precludes one from entering heaven is not being covered by Jesus Christ's gift of salvation.

 

[Athée]

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
Exodus 21:7-11, 20-21 ESV
http://bible.com/59/exo.21.7-21.ESV

 

[Davian]

In my view, the only action that precludes one from entering heaven is not being covered by Jesus Christ's gift of salvation.

So what's wrong with being a serial killer, if you still can go to heaven?

 

[Athée]

Sorry all. My last post seems to have been deleted. I will respond later tonight. Off to work again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So what's wrong with being a serial killer, if you still can go to heaven?

Ok. So we have support that even someone as evil as a serial killer can actually honestly repent and accept Christ and go to heaven. True and honest repentance is what you seem to be missing here. Someone that is actually evil enough to be a serial killer will most likely never truly repent and accept Jesus as His Lord and Savior. Someone that thinks ok, I'm going to do whatever evil I wish and then when I am about to die I will ask Jesus Christ to be my Savior will not make it. Someone doing evil is blinded by that evil and they do not actually believe God exists and going from unbelief to belief is not likely and going through the motions without a true calling from God will not cut it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
Exodus 21:7-11, 20-21 ESV
http://bible.com/59/exo.21.7-21.ESV

Ok...and?

 

[Davian]

Ok. So we have support that even someone as evil as a serial killer can actually honestly repent and accept Christ and go to heaven. True and honest repentance is what you seem to be missing here. Someone that is actually evil enough to be a serial killer will most likely never truly repent and accept Jesus as His Lord and Savior. Someone that thinks ok, I'm going to do whatever evil I wish and then when I am about to die I will ask Jesus Christ to be my Savior will not make it. Someone doing evil is blinded by that evil and they do not actually believe God exists and going from unbelief to belief is not likely and going through the motions without a true calling from God will not cut it.

You didn't address my question.

Assuming for the moment that your god exists, and the killer becomes a believer, and gets this 'true calling' and goes to Heaven. Now, what was wrong about his [killing etc] actions in life?

I am trying to get a handle on what you mean by "objectively wrong", when you have no actual theological reasons against it.

 

[com7fy8]

I cannot imagine a context in which I could say to my mother "I hate you" in which it might be taken in any other way than despise/dislike/loathe/etc. It seems you are just reinterpreting the Bible as you see fit.

It means what Jesus means, not how this world's culture might have altered how it can be used so now it can only mean what you say

And I personally see He means to "hate", in the sense of hating how people are not gentle and humble and all-loving like Jesus. So, this would include hating my own self, however I am not like Christ.

But no, I would not use that word with my mother, though, since culture and her background likely would not have her aware of the meaning Jesus intended.

Also, "love" can have very bad meanings; but still we tell people we love them.

Also . . . deeper . . . Jesus could mean that we hate the ways of our parents who have not been godly people. It means to get rid of however our personalities have developed to become how our parents have been worldly and selfish and into themselves.

When we come to Jesus and trust in Him, we become new creatures, with the old things of our old personalities passed away > this includes the things we picked up from our parents' personalities > 2 Corinthians 5:17 >

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." (2 Corinthians 5:17)

So . . . Jesus did not say for us to tell our parents we "hate" them, but to "hate" them. This is what you do, but by becoming free of whatever is worldly and selfish about them, and become more like Jesus, instead. So, then, I also need to hate my old selfish self . . . not merely by guilt-tripping and condemning myself, but by getting rid of all my past things of character and ways of old personality, and become new in Jesus >

"But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts." (Romans 13:14)

We hate how people can give in to lusts which drive and waste them for useless pleasures and revenge and other vain and even obviously self-ruining stuff. So, by hating that about them, we actually are caring for them!

So, Jesus means to go through a "reversal" from evil stuff of personality, to a loving and caring and kind personality >

"Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you." (Ephesians 4:31-32)

One old way to hate, then, is how we have used people, instead of loving any and all people.

Also, Jesus says, "if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46) Selfish loving is an old way and an old thing of worldly personalities. We hate this, by loving any and all people. And we hate our selfish parents, by not going along with their favoritistic ways of loving . . . of being conceited like they are judges of who is good enough to love and who is worth their attention. By loving any and all people, we are hating their conceit.

So, what Jesus means by "hate" really means loving any and all people, by hating Satan's way of selfishly loving, and hating the personality of that stuff. But also this does not mean to be constantly and actively giving our attention to criticizing and despising and emotionally being against selfish personalities, but to hate means to have nothing to do with that stuff and stay busy instead with loving the way Jesus wants.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You didn't address my question.

Assuming for the moment that your god exists, and the killer becomes a believer, and gets this 'true calling' and goes to Heaven. Now, what was wrong about his [killing etc] actions in life?

I am trying to get a handle on what you mean by "objectively wrong", when you have no actual theological reasons against it.

And I don't know what you mean by no actual theological reasons against it.

I see you have an issue that "only good people" should be in Heaven but who decides who is really bad and how do they determine that? It is blatantly obvious to us that someone who has lived a good life, helped others and didn't do any great harm to anyone should have no trouble getting to heaven...right? And it is too blatantly obvious that if someone was a serial killer, killing people for the obscene reason of pleasure, who lived on the outside like a good person but killed when the urge came about should never step foot in Heaven. It seems when we put those standards by using our own moral code that the conclusion should be fairly easy to make. However, salvation is much more standard than that. No one, even one who lives their lives in a good way, causing no harm (in our minds anyway)thinking of others can be as righteous or good as God.

Now I understand that you believe yourself to be more righteous than God...more moral. You believe this because He has killed what you believe are innocent people, you believe He is immoral when He allows just anyone in Heaven even if they have done evil just by truly repenting. So tell me this, if your child turned to drugs and this behavior led to stealing and this behavior led to a robbery going bad and your child killed someone; but no one knew they did it. Now this child turns their lives around, gets off drugs and works for a company that is coming close to finding the cure for cancer and your child is the one leading this exciting research, the one that is responsible for being so close to a cure. Now you find out that this child killed this other person years ago while under the influence of drugs...what do you do?

 

[Davian]

And I don't know what you mean by no actual theological reasons against it.

I see you have an issue that "only good people" should be in Heaven

Not my point. I am looking to clarify your standards for who should be this hypothetical "Heaven" in your theology.

but who decides who is really bad and how do they determine that? It is blatantly obvious to us

Who is this "us" that you speak for?

that someone who has lived a good life, helped others and didn't do any great harm to anyone should have no trouble getting to heaven...right? And it is too blatantly obvious that if someone was a serial killer, killing people for the obscene reason of pleasure, who lived on the outside like a good person but killed when the urge came about should never step foot in Heaven.

Why not, if they are a believer?

It seems when we put those standards by using our own moral code

What do you mean, "our own moral code"? Are you allowing for morals that are not dictated by your god?

that the conclusion should be fairly easy to make. However, salvation is much more standard than that. No one, even one who lives their lives in a good way, causing no harm (in our minds anyway)thinking of others can be as righteous or good as God.

I only know of God as a character in a book, so I do not think of it as righteous, or good, or not. What we are discussing here is your theology.

Now I understand that you believe yourself to be more righteous than God...more moral.

Not at all. What I am calling out is the "justice" in your theology that you have alluded to in the past, which seems to evaporate when I ask for details.

It seems that your "justice" allows for serial killers to go to heaven, while others do not, for reasons beyond their control (disbelief). Is this not accurate?

You believe this because He has killed what you believe are innocent people, you believe He is immoral when He allows just anyone in Heaven even if they have done evil just by truly repenting. So tell me this, if your child turned to drugs and this behavior led to stealing and this behavior led to a robbery going bad and your child killed someone; but no one knew they did it. Now this child turns their lives around, gets off drugs and works for a company that is coming close to finding the cure for cancer and your child is the one leading this exciting research, the one that is responsible for being so close to a cure. Now you find out that this child killed this other person years ago while under the influence of drugs...what do you do?

This is situational ethics. What has this to do with your "objective" morality or your standards for whom can get into Heaven?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not my point. I am looking to clarify your standards for who should be this hypothetical "Heaven" in your theology.

Oh well then, I don't judge. I don't determine who I think should go to Heaven and who should not.

Who is this "us" that you speak for?

Commonly used us.

Why not, if they are a believer?

We don't know if they are a believer.

What do you mean, "our own moral code"? Are you allowing for morals that are not dictated by your god?

Morals are not dictated by God, WE as intelligent and moral beings created in His image have this morality instilled within us. We have the ability to by pass that morality.

I only know of God as a character in a book, so I do not think of it as righteous, or good, or not. What we are discussing here is your theology.

Oh I apologize, I thought you were making a judgement call on what you consider the Character in the book.

Not at all. What I am calling out is the "justice" in your theology that you have alluded to in the past, which seems to evaporate when I ask for details.

I don't know how it has evaporated as I have answered all that you've asked.

It seems that your "justice" allows for serial killers to go to heaven, while others do not, for reasons beyond their control (disbelief). Is this not accurate?

Why do you feel it is my justice? My justice does nothing is nothing.

This is situational ethics. What has this to do with your "objective" morality or your standards for whom can get into Heaven?

Ok. And my standards has nothing at all to do with who gets into heaven.

 

[Davian]

Oh well then, I don't judge. I don't determine who I think should go to Heaven and who should not.

I didn't say that. I am only asking you to detail your theology.

Commonly used us.

I do not share your position.

We don't know if they are a believer.

I don't know if you are a believer. Let's assume that this serial killer is, for the purposes of the hypothetical.

Morals are not dictated by God,

So you claim.

WE as intelligent and moral beings created in His image have this morality instilled within us. We have the ability to by pass that morality.

Oh I apologize, I thought you were making a judgement call on what you consider the Character in the book.

I don't know how it has evaporated as I have answered all that you've asked.

lol. And occasionally you directly answer a question.

Why do you feel it is my justice?

It's your theology.

My justice does nothing is nothing.

Ok. And my standards has nothing at all to do with who gets into heaven.

I didn't say that.

What does 'justice' mean, in your theology?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I didn't say that. I am only asking you to detail your theology.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

I do not share your position.

Noted.

I don't know if you are a believer. Let's assume that this serial killer is, for the purposes of the hypothetical.

Which I already addressed.

So you claim.

Do you have something that would counter that claim?

lol. And occasionally you directly answer a question.

Ok.

It's your theology.

It may be my theology but it is not my justice.

I didn't say that.

What does 'justice' mean, in your theology?

“Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts.

“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

 

[Athée]

OK I will try posting this again and see if it will stick this time round.
Also one note as you read through all this. I understand that you have doubts about how I can claim anything to be morally good or bad on my worldview, I will try to address this in the post. However, what I think Christians need to do is to make a serious effort to explain why all the horrific acts that God commands and those he actually does himself in the Bible are good and moral on YOUR worldview, wherein morality is objective, God given and God created. With that in mind....

Now you and I love and cherish our children and I know that I have forced them to comply with my dictates, for their own good. I can see you do the same. I also know that there are parents out there that don't love and cherish their children

I agree, both you and I would act to save the children we love,even if it violates free will, even if they end up hating us for it... But God is exactly like the parents you say yourself don't love and cherish thier children. He knows the situation, indeed he set it all up, but he won't act to save the ones made in his image. I guess you and I are better parents than God.

I would too. Yet: For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. And: I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me. And: This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

So I have to wonder, God says his plan for each of us is a good one, but this plan, the one he set up knowing ahead of time how it would all end, is a plan that ends with most of his creation facing an eternal punishment. Now at the end there we see that God supposedly wants everyone to be saved. So did he mess up? How do you reconcile this idea that God wants us all to be saved, has the power to create an entire universe exactly the way he intends it, but chooses to create it in a way that sends a bunch of people to hell?

It doesn't come to mind. It may be a concept built by various passages.

Hmmmm...it seems pretty central to your argument, maybe you could cite some of the passages that build it up. Thanks

In case you are doing this on a phone like I am and don't feel like scrolling the issue at hand in the above paragraph is based on this statement you made earlier :

Oncedeceived said: ↑
God wanted beings who could make the choice and learn to love Him rather than creating a being that had no choice in the matter.

How does Christianity harm?

To pick out one example it tells people with same sex attraction that they are an abomination.

Did Bronze Age tribesmen have any knowledge that time, matter, energy and space at one time didn't exist? Yet that is what they recorded in the Bible. It seems to me, that these men had knowledge that was not available to them at the time they put these "ideas" down.

You seem to be saying that the Bible contains advanced science that was unknkown at the time, that could only be in there because a deity told them to include it. Is this right? Could you maybe drop your best example or two on us?

Read above

So maybe my point was not clear. I see how someone could say the universe is evidence that a God created it. But Romans says all are without excuse because they have see the universe. So either you believe that just believing in any random God is close enough for salvation or the universe specifically gives evidence to the Christian God, while simultaneously excluding the possibility of other gods. How does it manage this in your opinion?

Right

So in my example pharaohs free will is clearly overturned so that God can further show off his glory. Are you agreeing that in this instance God has taken free will away from pharaoh so as to serve his good purposes?

Do you know that He could do this and still allow us free will? Would only limiting our options also limit equally important elements in all of existence?

I see your point but doesn't it seem to you like your view of God is very limiting? It seems to me that you believe god really has no choice about how he runs things. As if the universe is a computer program where God input the objective as maximum glory for God and then just ran the program. It just turns our that the result of his getting maximum glory is that humans have to suffer and he is helpless to do anything about it.

Now if a nation of people were very wicked and evil in our estimation, they took babies and dashed them against the rocks and took pregnant women and took their babies from their womb, and this was acceptable behavior in that day and age are they doing anything evil? Are they doing anything immoral? You claim that society makes that determination and in the society it was considered socially acceptable. How then do you call God evil if this is morally acceptable in your position?

Great question. So remember that I think morality is a social construct, it is based on contemporary events, values and knowledge etc. I don't think that the people in those ancient cultures thought they were doing immoral acts. Based on thier understanding of life they did the best they could. We, fortunately, are in a position to do better. Would it be moral in this day and age to dash babies on rocks... Of course not. This makes sense on my worldview because I believe that morality changes as we learn more about the world. I wonder, assuming you also think dashing babies in rocks is immoral, how you make sense of this and other events in the Bible. You believe that morality is objective, universal and therefore unchanging. So how is it that your God commands what we would now call atrocities and indeed commits them himself. Presumably God knows that these things are immoral so why command them, how is God good by his own standards when he orders and does these things?

The most charitable action was to take them and make them wives. They didn't do like other nations and take them into slavery which would not protect them and the children but making them wives would protect them and honor them. I imagine some would force themselves on them but you don't know that they would. They might let them learn to care about them before having a wife/husband relationship. You assume the worst but you have no way of knowing that.

No the most charitable thing is not to murder all of the families just because God says so. When muslims commit acts of terror do you think they are just mistaken about hearing from God? If God told you, and you were absolutely certain that it was Yahweh speaking to you, to go and murder all the LGBTQ kids at the local high school, would you do it? Why or why not?
Do you truly think it is is justified as good to kill a young girl's entire family, then take her as a wife? Do you see a scenario where that does not cause incredible emotional trauma? I would say the very best case scenario is a twisted version of the Stockholm syndrome. What do you think? To be clear I am not asking if there is some small possibility that it will all turn out like little house on the Prairie, I am asking what you think the likely effect will be on the young girl. Remember that the men taking her as spoils of war would also be sinful humans and that God allowed these young girls to fall into thier hands.
I would also like you to explain how God saying that it is OK to beat a slave (also known as another human being made in his imave) almost to death without punishment because they are just property. How is this good in your moral system?

So sucking and tearing a fetus from the womb has no immorality related to it, it is just an error of judgement according to you? Now how can you on one hand claim that taking a young girl and making her a wife to protect and care for her is immoral but sucking and tearing a fetus from the womb is not immoral? Can you explain that to me please. I really don't understand

Remember that I don't approve of abortion except in extreme cases. Are there any circumstances where you think abortion is justified? That said I think those people believe that they are terminating a lump of cells and not a human being. I disagree but I don't think the science is clear on the subject. I wonder if 500 years from now, based on a more robust understanding of the world and of humanity, we will look back on abortion as a primitive horror or as no big deal. I don't know the answer to that but for me I want to treat those cells as a potential human and this informs my position on the issue.

 

[Davian]

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

No. Are you being intentionally evasive?

It may be my theology but it is not my justice.

For the purposes of this discussion, they are the same.

“Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts.

“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

By that, serial killers that believe can still go to Heaven in this "justice". Agreed?

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK I will try posting this again and see if it will stick this time round.
Also one note as you read through all this. I understand that you have doubts about how I can claim anything to be morally good or bad on my worldview, I will try to address this in the post. However, what I think Christians need to do is to make a serious effort to explain why all the horrific acts that God commands and those he actually does himself in the Bible are good and moral on YOUR worldview, wherein morality is objective, God given and God created. With that in mind....


I agree, both you and I would act to save the children we love,even if it violates free will, even if they end up hating us for it... But God is exactly like the parents you say yourself don't love and cherish thier children. He knows the situation, indeed he set it all up, but he won't act to save the ones made in his image. I guess you and I are better parents than God.

Every child can be saved. Every one. If God is real as I claim and is the Christian God as He claims, Satan also exists and has been given a limited power here on earth. It is due to Satan that there are other false religions. It is due to Satan that unbelievers are blinded to the existence of God. Now you seem to think and as always correct me if I am wrong, that God could have created beings without free will. That would have eliminated the path that Satan took, that would eliminate people having any ability to chose anything but God so no false gods and no one sinning so no need for hell which is the consequence of sin. Now God hasn't changed, He is the same as He was when He created the universe and all living things. He may not have any reason to eliminate anyone but He is still the same God, but now you have to worship Him. You have no choice in the matter. All is good but how do we know that? How would we know if God was good or bad? God created the angels and Satan before us. Angels know God, they know He exists but their job is only to worship God and protect us.

So you tell me with as many details you can how life would be for us if we did not have free will. If we were created without a way to reproduce...no sex, no genetic defects, no need for parents, no need for husbands or wives.

So I have to wonder, God says his plan for each of us is a good one, but this plan, the one he set up knowing ahead of time how it would all end, is a plan that ends with most of his creation facing an eternal punishment. Now at the end there we see that God supposedly wants everyone to be saved. So did he mess up? How do you reconcile this idea that God wants us all to be saved, has the power to create an entire universe exactly the way he intends it, but chooses to create it in a way that sends a bunch of people to hell?

No God did not mess up. He chose to create the way He did, and I believe it has everything to do with us having a free choice to chose Him or reject Him. Satan is very good at trying to stop people from turning to God. Pride can be used against mankind to alienate them from God. It is used very well. All people need to do is accept that Christ lived and died and rose again to cover all the wrong doing of mankind. It is very simple, very easy and available to all. How do you know that God has not presented Himself to every living being but like you they have rejected it? I know by talking to many many unbelievers in my life that most that have said they were once Christians that they felt that there were experiences that they "thought" was God at the time but then realized that they just "wanted" to believe it was God and that it was all their imagination. What if everyone of these experience were God and they turned away due to the world's "wisdom"?

Hmmmm...it seems pretty central to your argument, maybe you could cite some of the passages that build it up. Thanks

In case you are doing this on a phone like I am and don't feel like scrolling the issue at hand in the above paragraph is based on this statement you made earlier :

Oncedeceived said: ↑
God wanted beings who could make the choice and learn to love Him rather than creating a being that had no choice in the matter.

I am going to come back to this if you don't mind. I need to look up some things and I don't have time right now.

To pick out one example it tells people with same sex attraction that they are an abomination.

And this harms them in what way?

You seem to be saying that the Bible contains advanced science that was unknkown at the time, that could only be in there because a deity told them to include it. Is this right? Could you maybe drop your best example or two on us?

I gave you two in the comment.

So maybe my point was not clear. I see how someone could say the universe is evidence that a God created it. But Romans says all are without excuse because they have see the universe. So either you believe that just believing in any random God is close enough for salvation or the universe specifically gives evidence to the Christian God, while simultaneously excluding the possibility of other gods. How does it manage this in your opinion?

The Bible gives a pretty specific outline of how the universe was created and life in it. I think that God gave us the ability to reason for a reason. I've researched religions quite extensively, and there is no other more reasonable narrative or one that has more evidence to support it (in my opinion)than the Christian God.

So in my example pharaohs free will is clearly overturned so that God can further show off his glory. Are you agreeing that in this instance God has taken free will away from pharaoh so as to serve his good purposes?

No, I said He used his will for His purposes.

I see your point but doesn't it seem to you like your view of God is very limiting? It seems to me that you believe god really has no choice about how he runs things. As if the universe is a computer program where God input the objective as maximum glory for God and then just ran the program. It just turns our that the result of his getting maximum glory is that humans have to suffer and he is helpless to do anything about it.

You aren't getting that from me. I see that God made it the way it is. I believe that free will is important to God due to His wanting us to actually love Him rather than being forced on us.

Great question. So remember that I think morality is a social construct, it is based on contemporary events, values and knowledge etc. I don't think that the people in those ancient cultures thought they were doing immoral acts. Based on thier understanding of life they did the best they could. We, fortunately, are in a position to do better. Would it be moral in this day and age to dash babies on rocks... Of course not.

But in this day and age we understand life better and yet worldwide 40 to 50 million a year babies are sucked from their mothers wombs or in late term abortions are torn to bits and the babies skulls are stabbed. How in the world is that doing better?

This makes sense on my worldview because I believe that morality changes as we learn more about the world. I wonder, assuming you also think dashing babies in rocks is immoral, how you make sense of this and other events in the Bible. You believe that morality is objective, universal and therefore unchanging.

It is unchanging. What is changed is our interpretation of said moral law. Lying is considered to be immoral, if everyone just lied about everything not even science would be immune. Murder is always objectively wrong, where the subjective part comes in is who is killed and why they are killed. But what ever definition is put on murder, murder is always objectively wrong.

So how is it that your God commands what we would now call atrocities and indeed commits them himself. Presumably God knows that these things are immoral so why command them, how is God good by his own standards when he orders and does these things?

Would you go to war if the United States was attacked and your family were at risk of death from the enemies attack, would you kill women and children of that enemy if that was the only way to stop them from killing your own family?

No the most charitable thing is not to murder all of the families just because God says so. When muslims commit acts of terror do you think they are just mistaken about hearing from God? If God told you, and you were absolutely certain that it was Yahweh speaking to you, to go and murder all the LGBTQ kids at the local high school, would you do it? Why or why not?

Allah tells his followers to kill. When a Muslim does acts of terror for Allah they are being true to the ways of their religion. God tells us to love our enemies and not to kill. God asked the Jews to kill for a purpose, if you are a former believer you should understand that. I would never hear God tell me to kill. If I had that "thought" I would not act upon it because I know that God would not tell me that and the thought was due to something else.

Do you truly think it is is justified as good to kill a young girl's entire family, then take her as a wife? Do you see a scenario where that does not cause incredible emotional trauma? I would say the very best case scenario is a twisted version of the Stockholm syndrome. What do you think? To be clear I am not asking if there is some small possibility that it will all turn out like little house on the Prairie, I am asking what you think the likely effect will be on the young girl. Remember that the men taking her as spoils of war would also be sinful humans and that God allowed these young girls to fall into thier hands.

I would assume then you would think it better to kill all women and children rather than give them protection and homes?

I would also like you to explain how God saying that it is OK to beat a slave (also known as another human being made in his imave) almost to death without punishment because they are just property. How is this good in your moral system?

Where does God ever say it is ok to beat a slave? It doesn't in this verse. God knew that there were slaves, the system like I've said before was for those that couldn't provide for their families they would go into service for others that could. I could cite various passages that God tells the Jews to treat their slaves kindly. In this case, God knowing that there have been times when man would not treat his slaves well and He is saying that if this happens and they kill their slave they will be put to death themselves. If they don't die, it is not that God isn't saying their should be no punishment, but that he can't be avenged (meaning the master could not be put to death). He still would have to most likely face the other options available.

Remember that I don't approve of abortion except in extreme cases. Are there any circumstances where you think abortion is justified?

Death of the baby or life or death of the mother. I don't know if the death of the mother is a moral absolute though. It would depend if the child could survive or not.

That said I think those people believe that they are terminating a lump of cells and not a human being. I disagree but I don't think the science is clear on the subject.

What could science tell us that might make it clear?

I wonder if 500 years from now, based on a more robust understanding of the world and of humanity, we will look back on abortion as a primitive horror or as no big deal. I don't know the answer to that but for me I want to treat those cells as a potential human and this informs my position on the issue.

You do realize that most babies are aborted at 12 or 13 weeks.

Does this look like a lump of cells? This is a model of the 13 week fetus. 91% of abortions are performed at this time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. Are you being intentionally evasive?

Not in the least.

For the purposes of this discussion, they are the same.

No, it isn't.

By that, serial killers that believe can still go to Heaven in this "justice". Agreed?

This is called mercy.

 

[Davian]

Not in the least.

No, it isn't.

This is called mercy.

No justice then?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No justice then?

Yes, there is justice for those who are not covered by Jesus. This is nothing you don't already know.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

We might have free will to choose between God and Satan, but for that to work they both need to make themselves known.
If I ask you to chose your favorite dish between mystery dish A and mystery dish B, but don't let you see them, smell them, taste them or know the ingredients, how can you freely make a choice?