Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThanks - I read the first part of your post and was worried that I had contridicted myself (it happens all the time 😀) but then I read the last part of your post which made it clearer.
You are speaking in blatant contradictions, as you previously said:
"I respect their [b]right to 'get their freak on' if they want to"
and
"it's about respecting their right to exercise their free will"[/b]
Everybody has a 'right' to exercise their free will. However, it's not a 'right' that you earn or are born with to violate a commandment, it's a choice. They can exercise their free will and choose to violate the commandment.
Maybe we're splitting hairs here, but 'right' has a connotation of there being no consequences for violating the commandment.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesFirst of all - yes, there is no way I would have done what Abraham did. I don't have anywhere near as much faith as he did and I would have a hard time believing I wasn't going crazy if I thought God told me to sacrifice the fulfilment of His promise. I greatly admire Abraham for his ability to do what he did and trust God so unconditionally. Does that make me a bad person for not having as much faith?
Oh, thank God. If you were Abraham, you wouldn't have taken your son to the altar then, correct?
And secondly - that doesn't really illustrate the point I think you're trying to make as this is a case of God's 'commandment' condradicting the natural moral law which is the same as freaking before marriage.
1 edit
Originally posted by CritaThat's an absurd notion of "right." My notion of "right" does not imply that a right is something whose exercise has no consequences.
Maybe we're splitting hairs here, but 'right' has a connotation of there being no consequences for violating the commandment.
At any rate, does what you call the "right to exercise free will" supersede the God-given imperative to obey the Seventh Commandment?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think I just figured out where we got confused - I made a mistake in my previous in that it said I wouldn't murder someone even if God had commanded me too, when I meant to say I wouldn't murder someone even if God hadn't commanded me not to.
Oh, thank God. If you were Abraham, you wouldn't have taken your son to the altar then, correct?
Does that help?
Originally posted by CritaIt just serves to clarify that you think there is a natural moral law that supersedes God's law, that you will decide to follow God's laws only when they are consistent with what you deem to be naturally right.
I think I just figured out where we got confused - I made a mistake in my previous in that it said I wouldn't murder someone even if God had commanded me too, when I meant to say I wouldn't murder someone even if God hadn't commanded me not to.
Does that help?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYeah, I'm a fairly absurd type of guy 🙄
That's an absurd notion of "right." My notion of "right" does not imply that a right is something whose exercise has no consequences.
At any rate, does what you call the "right to exercise free will" supersede the God-given imperative to obey the Seventh Commandment?
I'm trying to say that one cannot have a 'right' as such to violate a commandment as the commandments apply to all and sundry and the people that are violating the commandments (myself included) are exercising their free will not to follow the commandment, but have not been given a right to violate the commandment (if you follow my logic).
It's not really a case of 'superseding'. Free will is not an excuse not to obey a command, in that God still expects you to obey His commands regardless of what you feel like doing. HOWEVER, people can choose not to obey His commands if they so wish. (If you can't tell, I'm finding it quite difficult to convey my meaning clearly - my lucidity has vanished once again)
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNope - back to front - I will follow God's laws when they are NOT consistent with what I deem to be naturally right (i.e. not having 'relations' with my gf before marriage). When God's law and natural law line up, you can take your pick as to which I follow, it doesn't really matter in those cases.
It just serves to clarify that you think there is a natural moral law that supersedes God's law, that you will decide to follow God's laws only when they are consistent with what you deem to be naturally right.
Sorry if I've confused you! Thanks for sticking in there 😉
Originally posted by CritaBut you just told me you wouldn't murder your son if God commanded you to.
Nope - back to front - I will follow God's laws when they are NOT consistent with what I deem to be naturally right
You are speaking with a forked tongue, because your incoherent position forces you to.