4 edits
Originally posted by @romans1009This argument is invalid because there's already a list of punishments for "sins", which include killing gays and stoning women for not being virgins. These threats by God aren't for "sins". In fact, not once is the word "sin" even mentioned in that entire passage.
No, dire and eternal consequences that the individuals themselves will cause - and not just for themselves but other people.
If an individual kills someone and is sentenced to life in prison, did the judge cause his lengthy prison sentence?
The threat is for not showing "obedience". For example, God commanded the Jews to commit genocide, which included the killing of children. If the Jews refused to kill children, God would then inflict his threats for their "disobedience".
You said it was a "stretch" to compare God to an abuse husband. But the Bible calls Israel God's "bride" repeatedly in the bible. And just like an abusive husband, God often calls his bride words like "whore". That's in addition, of course, to threatening to inflict all manners of horror if his "bride" doesn't obey.
Originally posted by @romans1009Not better than a direct translation from Hebrew.
BTW, the KJV, imo, is the best translation.
Originally posted by @romans1009Not really, it's just odd for you
You have an odd definition of “promise.”
Originally posted by @vivifyYou’re analogy is no good, kiddo. It’s not as bad as Ghost’s ridiculous analogy from about a week ago, but it’s pretty close.
This argument is invalid because there's already a list of punishments for "sins", which include killing gays and stoning women for not being virgins. These threats by God aren't for "sins". In fact, not once is the word "sin" even mentioned in that entire passage.
The threat is for not showing "obedience". For example, God commanded the Jews to comm ...[text shortened]... ddition, of course, to threatening to inflict all manners of horror if his "bride" doesn't obey.
You totally ignored the spiritual and eternal consequences of sinning not just for individuals who do it but for many others, and you also avoided answering my question.
Come on, tiger.
Originally posted by @romans1009Doctrines apply to everyone. But you said or at least implied that at least some doctrines (such as predestination) do not apply to everyone. So I objected.
How is that a double standard?
You think foreknowledge negates free will?
With out any reasonable doubt.
4 edits
Originally posted by @romans1009So threatening someone you call your bride with threats of physical harm for disobedience, calling them a whore, and outright stating that you are a jealous person and seeing someone else will result in incredibly violent punishments is nothing like being an abusive husband?
You’re analogy is no good, kiddo. It’s not as bad as Ghost’s ridiculous analogy from about a week ago, but it’s pretty close.
You totally ignored the spiritual and eternal consequences of sinning not just for individuals who do it but for many others, and you also avoided answering my question.
Come on, tiger.
Since you're defending this Behavior, I guess we know how you will treat your wife.
The only "consequences" are those that your God threatened to inflict.
Originally posted by @vivifyYou apparently see those as the only consequences because you deny a spiritual realm and life after death.
So threatening someone you call your bride with threats of physical harm for disobedience, calling them a whore, and outright stating that you are a jealous person and seeing someone else will result in incredibly violent punishments is nothing like being an abusive husband?
Since you're defending this Behavior, I guess we know how you will treat your wife.
The only "consequences" are those that your God threatened to inflict.
The other weak part of your analogy is a husband and wife are on more or less equal footing. Not so with God and His creation. That relationship is more akin to a father and a willful and ignorant child. I’m surprised God has as much patience as He does!
Originally posted by @apathistWho said doctrines have to apply to everyone? You don’t think God can decide to save a select group of people?
Doctrines apply to everyone. But you said or at least implied that at least some doctrines (such as predestination) do not apply to everyone. So I objected.You think foreknowledge negates free will?
With out any reasonable doubt.
I don’t see how foreknowledge negates free will, but that’s probably worth its own thread.
1 edit
Originally posted by @apathistIf you are just a moist machine predetermined in every thought and action by the fissing of molecules, you're not choosing to believe anything.
This philosophical question is the most difficult I know of. Either the universe existed forever, or it had a beginning. Neither answer works, and I've never heard of another answer.
Your atoms and chemistry are just fissing you to think in some way. You have no freedom to choose to believe what is right rather than wrong.
Originally posted by @sonshipFreedom, (free will) is bestowed on everyone
If you are just a moist machine predetermined in every thought and action by the fissing of molecules, you're not choosing to believe anything.
Your atoms and chemistry are just fissing you to think in some way. You have no freedom to choose to believe what is right rather than wrong.
Originally posted by @romans1009Dictionary?
Who said doctrines have to apply to everyone?
You don’t think God can decide to save a select group of people?
I have heard of the jews, yes.
I don’t see how foreknowledge negates free will, but that’s probably worth its own thread.
If I know what you will do before you do it, then I don't need you in the loop anymore.
Originally posted by @sonshipThat's your answer to Either the universe existed forever, or it had a beginning. Neither answer works,
If you are just a moist machine predetermined in every thought and action by the fissing of molecules, you're not choosing to believe anything.
Your atoms and chemistry are just fissing you to think in some way. You have no freedom to choose to believe what is right rather than wrong.
Maybe you need remedial discussion therapy.
Originally posted by @apathistBut what you are going to do is not determined by someone having foreknowledge.
Dictionary?You don’t think God can decide to save a select group of people?
I have heard of the jews, yes.I don’t see how foreknowledge negates free will, but that’s probably worth its own thread.
If I know what you will do before you do it, then I don't need you in the loop anymore.
Originally posted by @romans1009No "spiritual realm" is mentioned. All that's mentioned are the abuses God threatens to personally inflict.
You apparently see those as the only consequences because you deny a spiritual realm and life after death.
The other weak part of your analogy is a husband and wife are on more or less equal footing. Not so with God and His creation.
Wrong. The bible makes it clear that men are the "head" of their wives in multiple verses. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the bible knows that...except, apparently, you.
1 Timothy 2:11-13:
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;b she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve."
The bible makes it clear that women aren't equal to men. Men were made first, which puts them above women, according to the bible it also goes on to say "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." This is what the bible uses as justification for women being subservient to men.
So my analogy isn't "weak"; your knowledge of your own religious texts is poor and faulty, as you've already shown and admitted.
Originally posted by @romans1009Yeah, it is. Life isn't a page already printed.
But what you are going to do is not determined by someone having foreknowledge.