KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
So you believe that homosexuality and unmarried couples are "evil".As for evil, evil is acts committed by man because man does not adhere to God's Laws.
Yikes!
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So you believe that homosexuality and unmarried couples are "evil".As for evil, evil is acts committed by man because man does not adhere to God's Laws.
In what way? Even as an attempt to accuse me of hypocrisy (good luck showing that), it makes no sense.
My point about hypocrisy was that you keep avoiding my questions about the morality of deliberately killing civilians because to condemn it in principle means condemning god, but to condone it makes you look like a monster. It's that old religious rock and a hard place again.
So if someone is driving without insurance, it is ok to kill them?
This is where my superior morality comes into play. I don't need to know "why" someone ordered the indiscriminate slaughter of women and children. I condemn it as a barbaric atrocity regardless. It's a pity that you (and many other religionists) find it so difficult.
And there lies one of the very real dangers of your kind of blind dogma. You are prepared to defend or justify (or for some, even commit) the most abhorrent acts simply because you have been ordered to. The Nuremberg Defence yet again.
You seem to be missing the point. It is difficult to justify attacks even on legitimate military targets if civilian casualties may ensue (we are now seeing this put into practice by some nations). You are saying that we shouldn't worry about civilian casualties if there is a possible military advantage to be gained - or even if we are simply ordered to do it.
meaningless platitude. Moreso because the Torah and OT repeatedly prescribe or condone killing.
Cherry-picking quotes from religious scripture to support a specific position rarely works because there is usually a contradictory passage somewhere. Killing is a perfect example. Apologists will point to one solitary passage while ignoring the dozens that contradict it. (What was that you were saying about "not studying the Bible"?)
That doesn't say that he was abolishing all the OT laws. In fact, he said that he wasn't doing that. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"
I fail to see why you think the indiscriminate and unnecessary slaughter of women and children is "a difficult issue". It is simply wrong. Period. Whatever the supposed "justification".
By the time the decision was made to carry out the purely punitive raids against Dresden and other targets in 1945, Germany was on its knees and had been all but defeated. Not doing it would have had no effect on the outcome of the war.
Well you are advocating for mass murder then, so I see no difference. The only difference is that you want them to take place out of sight.I am dubious.
I know they're subjective ideas, but I certainly don't know they are entirely arbitrary, and beyond a broad consensus there is no universal standard, so no, this is what you subjectively think, not what I know at all.
I imagine that's why we create and use reference tools like dictionaries, so we can easily access what most people understand words to mean, though of course language is constantly evolving. I fail to see how this is evidence that mass murder is as you claimed, a common sense solution to over population? Maybe my common sense differs in as much as mine must involve empathy.
If we want to address the exponentially increasing human population far more common sense solutions might involve sex education, to avoid unwanted pregnancies, free access to early terminations, freely available and affordable contraception, lifting people in the developing world out of poverty, and offering people some type of security in old age, so they didn't feel their only recourse was to have large families to take care of them etc etc....These seem like common sense solutions to me, mass murder does not.
But would it be fair to blame him for what he does do? And to criticise or condemn where appropriate?I do not think we should ever blame God for what others do. That would be unfair.
When Jesus says that he is "the first and the last", (Revelation 1:11) he is applying to himself a title of the Almighty God. "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and Israel's Redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).Jesus paid the price for Adam's sin, Not for God's sin.
Thus, Jesus balanced the Scales of Justice for us: Life for Life = equal life for equal life.
Sinner Adam, Not sinner God, brought down the Scales of Justice for us. Jesus balanced the Scales of Justice for us.
God had No beginning according to Psalms 90:2.
Thus, only God was 'before' the beginning of anything.
Whereas, pre-human heavenly Jesus was "IN" the beginning but Never ' before ' the beginning as his God was.
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him - Revelation 3;12
Not sure what you are objecting to there.
Don't think it does. In fact, it explains very little.This explains everything.
Wow! This is so good!Well you are advocating for mass murder then, so I see no difference. The only difference is that you want them to take place out of sight.
Given that they have existed for an infinite eternity, how did they keep themselves occupied?I believe that the souls of all humans come into existence at the time of conception, and later they are born with physical bodies.
However, I believe that the souls of the Prophets are different. I believe their souls had pre-existence in the spiritual world and later their souls were sent by God to earth to unite with their bodies and then they were born into this world.
The Prophets, unlike us, are pre-existent. The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world. We cannot imagine what that world is like, so words are inadequate to
picture His state of being.
(Shoghi Effendi: High Endeavors, Page: 71)
Are you high?Well you are advocating for mass murder then, so I see no difference. The only difference is that you want them to take place out of sight.
When you say "good", I take it you actually meant "bizarre"?Wow! This is so good!
Not again, Tb! I have tried to help you with this irrational thinking process of yours in the past. Let's try again. You have just made a claim ("Jesus is NOT God").Jesus is NOT God.
Lovely example of ......The Jews and the Muslims and the Baha'is all know that.
I guess you missed the part about easy access to termination of life in the womb.Are you high?
How do you equate "sex education, family planning, and a functioning welfare state" to"mass murder".
No, I did not make a claim that Jesus us not God, I stated my belief that Jesus is not God.Not again, Tb! I have tried to help you with this irrational thinking process of yours in the past. Let's try again. You have just made a claim ("Jesus is NOT God").
May we see the evidence on which you base this claim of yours?
Lovely example of ......
...........which logically fallacy?
No idea what you are trying to say there, but that "definition" does not correspond to any found in the dictionary. However, I am not entirely unfamiliar with the concept of apologists attempting to redefine words.Study is correctly dividing the word of truth. (in context of my signature.
Er, yes. And you are doing it again now. You are simply ignoring the points and question I present, and just add more non sequiturs, straw men, red herrings, etc.Actually.... no
Show me one question of yours that I have not addressed.Here is the hypocrisy. You avoid answering my questions
The connection was clear. I even explained it again in simple terms. Your inability to grasp simple concepts id the problem here.and bring up something that absolutely has no application (only in your mind)
Another non sequitur.And here, in my faith, is where the problem lies. Your position of "superior morality" makes you God... which you are not.
Which you brought up then claimed was irrelevant when I pointed out the flaw in your analogy.So... back to WWII...
As I explained already, collateral damage associated with legitimate military targets is a difficult issue. There are various methods by which to minimise any civilian casualties, which should always be utilised.are you for letting Germany continue their indiscriminate killing of innocent people by not bombing military object (which include civilians working in them and families?)
Of course I am happy to defend that position.Are you really prepared to defend that position? Or will you admit that there are reasons why one might make those "hard decisions" even if you don't like it?
I asked if you are saying that we shouldn't worry about civilian casualties if there is a possible military advantage to be gained - or even if we are simply ordered to do it.Please review my question above.
So to address the two issues here, I will ask you, once again, to explain the "why".Until you understand 'WHY" it was a difficult decision but necessary, you will continue to offer humanistic reasoning and overused mantras that have no application
Oh dear. You obviously don't understand the concept of "cherry-picking" either.Exactly... don't cherry pick quotes out of context and application and try "studying the Bible" instead of placing your bias into it.
"Fulfil" does not mean "abolish" or even "abrogate". It means to achieve or carry out.And if it is "fulfilled" - then it is no longer necessary.
Oh, I understand that Christians today have abandoned much of what god commanded. However, there is no evidence that he wanted you to do that.When was the last time one had to go to the Holy of Holies with the shedding of blood, the washing of water and all the other requirements to get there? Where is the requirement of circumcision?
Have you managed to find the passage where Jesus says that people after him can ignore Mosaic Law yet?Are you sure you studied the Bible?
Yes, I understand that you consider the indiscriminate and unnecessary slaughter of women and children to be acceptable under certain circumstances, but other than "Cuz god sed", you don't seem to have any sort of supporting argument.Again... figure out the "why" and you will understand the "justification". Are you sure you studied the Bible?
Once again, you raised the issue of Allied area bombing atrocities during WW2. You used it as an analogy for seemingly immoral behaviour that was actually acceptable - because of god's similar actions.Dresden is not the issue however hard you are trying to insert it.
Nope. That comes under "family planning".I guess you missed the part about easy access to termination of life in the womb.
Ah! In that case, I'm sorry. Can you understand that it 'sounded' like a claim (Jesus is NOT God), especially with the capitalization?No, I did not make a claim that Jesus us not God, I stated my belief that Jesus is not God.
In case you have not noticed, that is what people DO on religious forums, state beliefs.
No, the answer is that you, not Wildswanderer, see yourself as the paragon of rationality in this forum. Maybe it'd time for you to ask yourself if your opinion of yourself in this respect is too high. This is up to you, of course.Why didn't you call him out for being illogical?
I think the answer is that you are just looking for something I say to criticize.
Am I the only poster who thinks you are often illogical, Tb? Really? I think not.As soon as I see an Alert from you and BEFORE I ever even look at a post of yours, I KNOW it will be criticism of me, how you think I am illogical, etc., etc., etc.
Are you really assuming that you get along fine with everyone on this forum, Tb? But even if you did get along fine with every single person on this forum except me, have you considered the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad populum?How's this for logic? If I get along fine with everyone on this forum except one person, what does that say about the one person I cannot get along with?
All I can say is that this is not what I hear.Wherever I go you find me and find some way criticize me and in so doing you only stick out like a sore thumb and make yourself look bad to good people of this forum.
Also, apparently there is a difference between empathy and compassion according to one article I just saw. (I just posted that article in our conversation). Compassion is something that can be cultivated, and is a better quality to have than empathy.I saw it. Despite your autism, I think you have more empathy than Lewis.
No, that would be you. Arguing about the meaning of lawful and unlawful to avoid the reality of killing the innocent by the millions.Nope. That comes under "family planning".
Note: "Murder" is defined as "unlawful killing". As abortion under certain conditions is lawful, it cannot be "murder". Hope this helped.
I understand that your lack of rational argument necessitates ridiculous appeals to emotion, but you're only kidding yourself.
God does call the shots. He also gives us the ability to choose. He offered us life. Those who are here accepted that offer knowing the risks.