Posted on 03/19/2003 12:48:02 AM PST by RJCogburn
?!
God obviously intended that he have that capability.
Man has the capability to do many evil things. Does that mean that he has a right to do evil things? I don't think that defense will hold up on the judgement day.
God couldn't make them decide to just up and leave? You must be consulting the definition of the word "omnipotent" found in the Clinton Dictionary.
2. To stave off any possibility of Israel being influenced by foreign pagan nations to stray from following the one true God.
God was less convincing to His chosen people than a bunch of defeated (though not exterminated, if God has been sufficiently moral to instruct His people in the basic concepts of of Just War doctrine) pagans?
This sort of order, of course, counted only for the chosen nation of Israel at that time.
God is a moral relativist?
Remember also that we are owned by God, every one of us. He can take me off this earth, or any memebr of my family, in a moment if He so chooses. All the world belongs to Him.
So much for our nosiness in saying dreadful things about the way (for example) Saddam Hussein treated the people under his rule.
Examples of "unnatural activity": jumping out a window and flying like Superman, walking through a wall without damage to either yourself or the wall, becoming invisible at will, etc. I haven't noticed any of these being terribly pressing social problems.
When he's doing the "evil things" to himself or a consenting adult and violating no one's rights, yes he does have a right to do "evil things".
God will take care of judgement day.
I wonder how Aquinasfan would deal with this, given that Aquinas agreed that it was impossible for God to create (for example) a triangle with internal angles that did not add to the sum of two right angles (assuming that we are drawing our triangles on a Euclidean plane).
Because it derives from First Principles which can be known with certainty.
We can also speculate that God had nothing to do with it, and that the Israelites were trying to dress up a horrific act by saying "God made me do it".
You can put a tuxedo on a pig but it's still a pig.
I'll search through the posts when I have time and I'll give you the number.
Come again?
Your idea of God derives from first principles? It sounds more to me like unquestioning belief in the Bible. "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it."
Not so?
He didn't tell the soldiers to put down their swords, did He? He told them to be content with their pay and to refrain from corrupt practices. Clearly He accepted the role of the military.
Because someone with no right to harm himself has no option but to live life hidden under the bed, emerging for only just long enough to eat (the blandest and most non-fattening possible food) and perform other such absolute necessities.
So why should anyone care?
I would care if the statement was true.
You took it out if the context of the exchange I was having and tried to make it look like I was making an unattributed doctrine of some authority.
No, I was trying to elicit the answer you provided above.
Yes, and you are a fan of Protagoras.
Post that to someone who cares about it.
Are you interested in the truth, or simply in endless debate? Perhaps your namesake provides the answer.
This is such obvious nonsense as to expose the stupidity of the advocate. Under a utilitarian system, if stealing from you makes you very happy, but losing your stuff to a thief makes you only somewhat annoyed, the theft is good because it increases the net amount of happiness in the world. Under a libertarian system, the theft is evil because it violates the rights of the victim (no matter how little he might care, so long as he does not care so little as to actually consent to it).
The creator of a painting has the natural right to destroy it. The creation belongs to the creator, by definition. Analogously, the Creator of life has the right to take life away.
Keep in mind though that, although God has the right to destroy His Creation, he does not destroy human beings. In fact, he is merciful to us, in that when our earthly life is ended we have the opportunity to live with Him forever in eternal bliss. God also honors the choice of people who choose not to live with Him forever. Therefore, it's possible that many of the Canaanite children that were killed went on to a greater life.
If God wanted the Canaanite children dead, He should have killed them Himself. To convey instructions to others to undertake the sin on His behalf is both immoral and downright idiotic (when someone hears the "voice of God" commanding him to kill, the sensible interpretation is not to assume that God has commanded a murder, but to diagnose the person hearing the voice as a dangerous psychotic).
We cannot know God positively, in Himself. However, we can know what God is not and can therefore know certain things about God through natural reason, such as the fact that He is One, Good, True, Beautiful and Being. God is of an entirely different category than human beings, and as such, we can only express truths about Him by anaology or negatively. Nevertheless, the knowledge is certain.
We can also know God through revelation.
His own right to life, obviously. And of course, all sin hurts others. No man is an island.
You seem to have accepted, at least to some degree, the prevalent equation of freedom with license. True freedom rests in the freedom to do God's will. Slavery to sin is just that, and is the opposite of human freedom.
You can, and many people do, but I don't find the argument compelling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.