rossum
Well-known member
You will have a stretch to justify a mass drowning of pregnant women, thus killing their unborn children, as an act of love.It seems all the objections really just dissolve if you examine them closely enough.
You will have a stretch to justify a mass drowning of pregnant women, thus killing their unborn children, as an act of love.It seems all the objections really just dissolve if you examine them closely enough.
Its a matter of degree. Love can certainly punish, but there is a point where punishment becomes abuse. It is a matter of judgement, isn't it?It seems to me the objection that love is not love if it has other non-negotiable values, means that love is only love if it fits my personal desires and preferences.
Why can't love have conditions? Why can't love punish? Why can't love have moral values that are greater than just making things feel happy? Love is the sincere desire for something's well-being, not the assurance of bringing that well-being at all costs, sacrificing all other virtues just to make something feel happy.
It seems all the objections really just dissolve if you examine them closely enough.
Oh, brother ...Thank you for confirming that the Bible is not the absolute truth. It cannot be absolute because what it say depends on the context. An absolute truth is true whatever the context. Hence the Bible is not absolute truth.
I have a question for you, were those pregnant women upstanding and upright according to the law, or were they lawbreakers, deserving of death?You will have a stretch to justify a mass drowning of pregnant women, thus killing their unborn children, as an act of love.
That's one way to spin it, yes. Another is to point out that love cannot be love if (for example) it entails hatred; that's not really an issue of personal preference, but of blatant linguistic contradiction.It seems to me the objection that love is not love if it has other non-negotiable values, means that love is only love if it fits my personal desires and preferences.
You hate.That's one way to spin it, yes. Another is to point out that love cannot be love if (for example) it entails hatred; that's not really an issue of personal preference, but of blatant linguistic contradiction.
A blanket can't be red if there are green patches on it; a meal can't be vegetarian if there's meat in it; a person can't be dry if they're dripping wet. Words have well-established meanings - and if I may be blunt: Christian apologists routinely change the meanings of words to suit their apologetics.
You can't love a person and torture them.
Period, full stop.
That is a simple fact, independent of my "desires".
Everybody has to make up their own mind. Nobody can do that for you.And who decides what that degree is.
You?
I am curious how you arrive at God is against human rights when the people who wrote article 9 also believe God created humans.I am curious how Christians relate this to the idea that "God is love".
Are murderers guilty of death?Everybody has to make up their own mind. Nobody can do that for you.
What's article nine?I am curious how you arrive at God is against human rights when the people who wrote article 9 also believe God created humans.
Or you have to leave the decision of whom to defer to, to each of our own arbitrary whims. Sooner or later, it is up to you.So we are to leave the judgment of the standard of ultimate virtues and morals to each of our own arbitrary whims.
That would extend to our choice of whom and what we should trust, too, as far as I can see.Sounds like a very reliable system.
In the Bible there is a phrase "And every man did what was right in his own eyes."
The problem is, our eyesight is not the greatest.
What part of "Romans 5:8" do you have a problem with. That gives the context, it is a Bible verse from one of the Epistles. Surely you have a copy of the Bible to hand?You gave no context for the quote.
Do you mean sentenced to death?Are murderers guilty of death?
As i said, you gave no context for the quote ... until now.What part of "Romans 5:8" do you have a problem with. That gives the context, it is a Bible verse from one of the Epistles. Surely you have a copy of the Bible to hand?
I have a question for you, were the unborn children those pregnant women were carrying upstanding and upright according to the law?I have a question for you, were those pregnant women upstanding and upright according to the law, or were they lawbreakers, deserving of death?
Scripture says, "the wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23), proving the only ones who die are sinners. Do babies die? Of course they do. Thereby proving that one does not become a sinner when one sins, but that one sins because is a sinner.I have a question for you, were the unborn children those pregnant women were carrying upstanding and upright according to the law?
most people do not know what freedom is.The issue here is that most people agree that freedom of religion is a human right
If freedom is a human notion then humans would be free to do whatever they please.- even if it is a human notion.
I don't see how what most people consider has to do with what God does.I am pointing out that what most people consider to be a human right is diametrically opposite to what the Christian God supposedly does, which indicates the Christian God is the worst human rights abuser in history.
So no humans at all are upstanding and upright according to the law because all humans die. Jesus died on the cross; does that mean that He was not upstanding and upright according to the law? You seem to be getting your theology in a tangle here.Scripture says, "the wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23), proving the only ones who die are sinners. Do babies die? Of course they do. Thereby proving that one does not become a sinner when one sins, but that one sins because is a sinner.
Scripture is consistent.
Did you not read the OP? https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-9-freedom-thought-belief-and-religionWhat's article nine?
Scripture says He is without sin. (Heb 4:15)So no humans at all are upstanding and upright according to the law because all humans die. Jesus died on the cross; does that mean that He was not upstanding and upright according to the law? You seem to be getting your theology in a tangle here.