Originally posted by Atlantis001
Killing is not necessarily a sin.... and floods happen, what to do !? The problem is that humans always have to think that bad things happen because they did something bad. Thats not true, one day my PC crashed and I didn´t saved my work, but I didn´t made anything bad. It was not God punishing me.
I know what you mean....there are many people who really really feel that if something bad happens that it's because you've sinned and god is punishing you....That YOU must of done something wrong.
OR
That this is gods way of chastising you because he loves you.. 😑
OR
That it's Satan, because you're such a good believer and he will only attack gods people...that way you know you're on the right path...because he's tempting you to give up and doubt god.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, this is different I asked you to explain...I didn't demand a proof of your claim I juist asked you how you think that incest is immoral.....
im·mor·al adj. Contrary to established moral principles; not moral.
The statement, "Incest is immoral," is not a positive claim. It literally means, "Incest is 'not moral,'" which is a negation.
A negation cannot be proven. This, for example, is the reason one is considered innocent until proven guilty in the American justice system; "Guilt," a positive claim, can be proven, whereas "not guilt," a negative claim, cannot. This is because "not guilt" is a non-state, just as "not moral" is a non-state.
ex·plain v. To offer reasons for the actions, beliefs, or remarks of (oneself); justify.
Furthermore, how is asking one to offer reasons different than asking one to offer proof?
Originally posted by Bardock42
By the same standard you would havbe to prove why homosexuality is moral while someoen can just say that its not.....this is wrong because either side has to back up their statemeants neither is better both are basically the same....
I have done so in a number of threads.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[b]im·mor·al adj. Contrary to established moral principles; not moral.The statement, "Incest is immoral," is not a positive claim. It literally means, "Incest is 'not moral,'" which is a negation.
A negation cannot be proven. This, for example, is the reason one is considered innocent until proven guilty in the American justice system; "Guilt," a positive claim, can be proven, whereas "not guilt," a negative claim, cannot. This is because "not guilt" is a non-state, just as "not moral" is a non-state.
ex·plain v. To offer reasons for the actions, beliefs, or remarks of (oneself); justify.
Furthermore, how is asking one to offer reasons different than asking one to offer proof?
I have done so in a number of threads. [/B]
Oh man...I am not against you....i want to know why you believe incest to be immoral.....its aboot morals anyways...there are no proofs just opinions......
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Morality may be culturally relative, but I would argue tath ethics are absolute.
Don't mind me hnitting my head on a brick wall.........
ok I'm done...I don't agree but that is a different matter...I just want to know why you think that Incest is immoral...just why.......
Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't mind me hnitting my head on a brick wall.........ok I'm done...I don't agree but that is a different matter...I just want to know why you think that Incest is immoral...just why.......
Perhaps you would also like me to explain why one who is innocent is "not guilty"?
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
Another thing, god made the rule of no killing AFTER the flood.
It is does not matter that God waits until after He kills every living thing on the planet to mandate that killing is wrong.
We do not look back at the African slave trade in American and say, "This happened before the Emancipation Proclimation so it was okay to keep slaves." :
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is does not matter that God waits until after He kills every living thing on the planet to mandate that killing is wrong.We do not look back at the African slave trade in American and say, "This happened before the Emancipation Proclimation so it was okay to keep slaves." :
I know, but god said it ISN'T ok to kill AFTER the flood, i have already said that we'd be in a much worse world anyway if he hadn't done it.
We might not look back at the African slave trade in America and say, "This happened before the Emancipation Proclimation so it was okay to keep slaves." But god chooses the rules around here.
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
I know, but god said it ISN'T ok to kill AFTER the flood, i have already said that we'd be in a much worse world anyway if he hadn't done it.We might not look back at the African slave trade in America and say, "This happened before the Emancipation Proclimation so it was okay to keep slaves." But god chooses the rules around here.
Is killing innocent babies in the flood OK then.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Is killing innocent babies in the flood OK then.
Good point, but no. Floods are probably the most less violent way of killing, how else would he get rid of them? If he bolted them down with lightning it would be a painfull death. Could you think up any suggestions on how you would rid them without the spill of blood?
Save all the babies? So once the flood ends they would have no parents and would die of starvation?
Originally posted by fruits
the ten commandments are the rules for us humans. god has his own set of rules which involves killing when he deems necessary. hey, he's god. wanna argue with him? that's what i thought
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
I know, but god said it ISN'T ok to kill AFTER the flood, i have already said that we'd be in a much worse world anyway if he hadn't done it.We might not look back at the African slave trade in America and say, "This happened before the Emancipation Proclimation so it was okay to keep slaves." But god chooses the rules around here.
So it is "do as I say and not as I do," then? One set of rules for God and another set of rules for human beings? I did nto realize that God is such a hypocrite.
Originally posted by debbiejoWell, it wasn't okay. It's not okay for God either. But God has proclaimed it and He couldn't change it. To show that He is still powerful over all things.
Is killing innocent babies in the flood OK then.
But babies for sure, even though was killed by the Great Flood, will still receive the promise God intended for them. And that is eternal life.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Why the flood at all....why not just wish them away......Warning one....warning two....warning three......BLINK!!...All nice and neat..
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
Wish them away? WISH THEM AWAY? If you mean get rid of their souls also then definatly not.
If you mean just killing them then it wouldn't make much of a difference anyway, yet all of the dead bodies would be everywhere. If he just got rid of their bodies altogether than it would be the same as a flood.
Did the water just dissolved the bodies?
An all-powerful god should be able to kill everyone instantaneously and painlessly. If he can't then he isn't all-powerful. If he just decided it would be fun to drown them instead then he's not a benevolent god.
Originally posted by Jury
Well, it wasn't okay. It's not okay for God either. But God has proclaimed it and He couldn't change it. To show that He is still powerful over all things.