Posted on 05/04/2014 12:34:25 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Legendary conservative columnist George Will says he is an atheist. […]
“I’m an amiable, low voltage atheist,” Will explained. “I deeply respect religions and religious people. The great religions reflect something constant and noble in the human character, defensible and admirable yearnings.”
“I am just not persuaded. That’s all,” he added. …
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I didn't ask you for a definition of our laws or Hebrew semantics. I asked you if YOU feel it's rape to manipulate a 13 year old girl into sex.
For the same reason loving God is loving.
Because his law is all that is of worth.
That doesn't mean it's immutable, only that reasonable, rational people can make determinations on these sorts of things.
2. Never claimed they were unchangeable.
What would really be helpful, is if you could explain how celestial fiat helps morality. What does it add?
Islam doesn’t REQUIRE lying either. Only forgives it under certain circumstances (like self-preservation). Here is an interesting take by Relevant magazine that gives two examples in the Old Testament of the same sort of forgiveness by God for lying in the same sort of circumstances: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/deeper-walk/features/21429-is-lying-ever-okay
In other words, when faced with the reality of an immoral Amalekite people, who were doing all sorts of immoral things, I can give a reasonable moral alternative to massacring all Amalekite children. I believe it is moral to spare children from slaughter, no matter the sins of their parents.
If you prefer the OT approach, that's your prerogative. But my solution is objectively more moral.
There's not really any evidence for that. If there is a Creator, the evidence points to indifference, not love. The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike.
I’m no scholar of Islam. But my understanding is that it contains explicit teaching that lying is allowed.
This is very different from Christianity, which teaches unequivocally that lying is a sin.
Why is it worthy?
Jurisprudence is as independent of my feelings with US federal/state/local law as with Biblical judgments. Sounds like you prefer the “rule of man” to the rule of law in any case. Should all govern according to personal feelings?
I see with every new post you get more and more evasive. It’s not my fault that you dislike the specific meanings of “khazaq” and “taphas”.
But if you’re trying to ask me if I regard the case in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 as being equivalent to today’s case of statutory rape, then I say it is—and would also say that the judgment listed therein is equivalent to what Jesus described as one written by Moses because of the “hardness of (the Israelites’) hearts”. (I don’t know how you would want that act punished.)
You asked why is loving God moral.
Here’s another form of the same answer:
The same way your existence is equivalent to being.
That reference to Matthew 5:45 sounds like an act of love rather than indifference, which would indicate withholding rain from all whether just or unjust.
Dislike? I'm fine with them. Especially since you made it clear that you can taphas a girl (manipulate, i.e. seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; figuratively, to use unwarrantably:--catch, handle, (lay, take) hold (on, over), stop, surprise, take.) ...and your only punishment is that she has to marry you. You have made my case for me. And I love you pretending over and over that seizing, capturing and holding a girl isn't rape.
But if you’re trying to ask me if I regard the case in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 as being equivalent to today’s case of statutory rape, then I say it is—
Okay. Now. Do a little mind exercise. Ask yourself if they thought so back then. Did they? Is there anything in the Bible that, say, sets an age at which a girl can be married? Sets an age at which a girl can be said to consent?
In fact, since you're the expert, can you please tell me the terms used for a betrothed damsel as opposed to an unbetrothed one? Clearly they are using a different term in 22:25 than in 22:28.
I had physics for a full year in HS which helped in college. I was hired by the VA to tutor college VA students in physics and calculous. I graduated on the Deans List with a BS in Electrical Engineering from the University of Florida. My hardest courses were English and Literature because they were so subjective and I did not think like the liberal professors.
Why would one love the Supreme Being?
Because it is the law of the creator of all that is.
Not to other muslims. Only to outsiders, for self-preservation.
This is very different from Christianity, which teaches unequivocally that lying is a sin.
Was Peter punished for denying Christ?
Yeshua paid Peter’s penalty.
No, it's indifference for sure. The tiny bit of life homo sapiens have is statistically irrelevant to the cosmos, and there's no evidence nature cares for our lot in life.
Even if you could prove a Prime Mover, which you can't, and even if you could prove a theistic Prime Mover, who cares about your everyday life, there's no evidence he/she/it is a loving God.
So? Sounds like serfdom to me.
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.