. I could see how you thought that.
Read them then and the discussion will be more fruitful. For now, all I am doing is explaining things explained, which I fear.
Nothing new here if you take the time to search my past posts.
Let's not use secular scenarios, but Scripture. I hesitated to even make a passing reference to one, knowing your propensity to latch on to these sort of things, attempting to create secular parallels to Scripture. That was my foolish error and I won't repeat it or indulge it.
No. Paul's teaching in Romans 7:9 his subjective experience. The previous verse is the clue you miss--sin lies latent--it is not non-existent.
In your frustration, you now resort to whimsical speculations? :squint: Rather than speculate about what God could have done, I prefer to rely upon what He did do. Scripture teaches us that God created for His glory and the Scriptures are about the unfolding of His redemptive plan from eternity to exhibit that glory. For you to make the scurrilous statements you just made tells me we are not going to be discussing this much longer. It also tells me you desperately need to read Ott and Barkel as I have recommended. Right now you are embarrassing yourself among those more read on these matters.
No doubt. Of course, the issue of what "free will" means remains. For you, it is the liberty of indifference. For me, the liberty of spontaneity. These are immiscible views and therefore underlie our differences.
No they do not. By the way, the word you are looking for here is tautological, which does not apply. We are responsible because God said so. We are accountable because He is God.
Er, an unfolding plan?
Looking at the specific places in the Bible where God ordered the mass slaughter of kids, I just can’t see any where it looks like that slaughter is anything other than the Hebrew’s way of trying to make their merciless attack on an enemy into something respectable. To slather “It was part of God’s plan” on what in any civilized context was no different than what the Nazi’s did is an odious move of desperation.
I object to slaughtering infants, and I am the one that is on a ridiculous tangent?
In olden times faithful men such as yourself, living in a more barbaric society, come home at night with the blood of children dripping from their swords. Your sacred record places the blame for those massacres at the feet of your God. So it is natural that to try to keep your God as an object deserving of your praise and adoration, you need to demonize me for my not falling in lockstep and praising your God. I understand.
Amputees is a separate question, though as you note, similar in nature. I don’t see where you preemptively bringing it up lessens the dilemma it highlights.
I fully acknowledge that I apply yardsticks to the various Gods I am told I should believe in. You do too, else you would be equally accepting of myriads of Gods other than the one you believe in. As to it being an excuse, presume you were hopping mad at your neighbor for some reason, and as a result you attacked him and killed he and his wife, and then spotted his kids and hacked them to death as well. I offer that any justification you might put in your family history where that action is recounted might just be spin doctored a bit – an “excuse” for the massacre.
Read them then and the discussion will be more fruitful. For now, all I am doing is explaining things explained, which I fear.
Nothing new here if you take the time to search my past posts.
Let's not use secular scenarios, but Scripture. I hesitated to even make a passing reference to one, knowing your propensity to latch on to these sort of things, attempting to create secular parallels to Scripture. That was my foolish error and I won't repeat it or indulge it.
Replying "Mortimer says so" is no answer, and if we are going to resort to citation duels, no one is edified, especially those who are unwilling or reluctant to even read said citations. I used a pointed Scripture passage for the essence of my argument, and you need to deal with the teachings therein rather than wave them off.
No. Paul's teaching in Romans 7:9 his subjective experience. The previous verse is the clue you miss--sin lies latent--it is not non-existent.
In your frustration, you now resort to whimsical speculations? :squint: Rather than speculate about what God could have done, I prefer to rely upon what He did do. Scripture teaches us that God created for His glory and the Scriptures are about the unfolding of His redemptive plan from eternity to exhibit that glory. For you to make the scurrilous statements you just made tells me we are not going to be discussing this much longer. It also tells me you desperately need to read Ott and Barkel as I have recommended. Right now you are embarrassing yourself among those more read on these matters.
No doubt. Of course, the issue of what "free will" means remains. For you, it is the liberty of indifference. For me, the liberty of spontaneity. These are immiscible views and therefore underlie our differences.
No they do not. By the way, the word you are looking for here is tautological, which does not apply. We are responsible because God said so. We are accountable because He is God.
AMR
If you think the "court" of public opinion is a means of settling matters of Scripture, you are mistaken. It is too bad your priorities are to spend time starting polls in hopes of "revealing" all manner of things when you might set aside time to be reading the works of others, some of whom I have already recommended. Rather than busying yourself here and there with the hoi polloi, you might consider that your stewardship of the gifts God has given you is a wee bit off, no? :squint:
Are you for or against abortion? I just want to know if there is any hypocrisy and how far it goes.
How much money are you currently sending to end hunger for today's starving infants?
What then? Let them live to starve to death? This was an army, a ways from home. Can you think your way out of a paper bag? I said you are going on and on because you want an excuse. You are only proving my point. I've wrestled with these passages, can you tell? You? Nope. Why? Because you never wanted to. It is all for your convenient denial. I've addressed these objections simply because I wanted to. I already know what you'll do with them. You don't want a possible answer. You don't want a cogent explanation. You want an excuse.
Simply, that instead of answers, you've been looking for excuses and it seems found what you were looking for.
Yep, and that yardstick applies even if the object was measured in cubits. You are wise in your own eyes. Rejection with excuses isn't touchable. Didn't you know there are scriptures that address your specific scenario? War isn't the same as your neighbor, but you are looking for an excuse for that too.
You are intent on refocusing the issue so I am made to look as though I sanction the killing of infants. You approve of hacking kids to death if they otherwise would “starve to death”. So Lon sees this massacre as a form of mercy killing. You have painted it in a new light. Here at TOL I have been told by several other Christians that the “mercy” part of the infanticide was not to forestall starvation, but because these kids would have grown up to be as despicable as their parents. (I find that rationalization specious, because most children grow up internalizing the values and norms of the society they are raised in.)
Feel better now that you got that out? Can we get back to the facts, or am I personally the enemy that you feel that must be defeated?
And they are?
Hawking is free to assert whatever he likes. Known as "shooting from the lip" in some erudite circles. :jolly:
This is as speculative as mine, but I appreciate you thinking through the dilemmas. I acknowledge them but any conclusions we draw are speculative. I'm just showing that war ethics are necessarily different than civilian ethics. There are also differences between ancient cultures. My question for myself is: Where would I start? If I was suddenly made dictator over all of Africa, I'd have the same questions. Do I ease into it? Mass kill dissonants? Take food from those eating and give it to the starving? Whatever I do, won't I be subject to much accusation and blame for having taken the task regardless of my good intentions?
How would we know that? Were these written before or after the wars started?
He's not quite as kind as you. The taste in his mouth didn't leave many appreciations. Evidence, to me, suggests God took the gradual approach. I am of the opinion that cultures doing well have been influenced by Christianity. I see a lot of correlation but haven't taken it to confirmation bias (too much data).
That wasn't my specific point. I was, in as forward a manner as I perceived, pointing out that we both had prior commitments before coming to these texts and that they drove our particular contrasting agendas.
Was an either/or, or both, querry.