Replies

>>And creationists wonder why evolution supporters don't take their holier-than-thou pontifications seriously. We have seen support at various times for slavery, for banishment of medicine, for the rejection of reason as a tool of Satan, and now for filicide. But acceptance of evolution makes one wicked... lol<<

You are not taking my words at face value. You are reading things that are not there. God gave man the ability to make choices, even bad ones. But He did not give us the right to do anything. For example, so far it appears that he did not give us the right to travel backwards in time.

Here is a simple test to see if God gave you the right to choose to do a thing. Try to do it. If you can, He gave you that right. Of course, your actions may have negative consequences.

So yes, God gave Hitler the right to kill jews, otherwise he would have been incapable of such action. He gives parents the right to kill their children, otherwise abortions would not be possible.

However, acting on that right may be as devastating as when Adam and Eve acted on their rights by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Saying someone CAN do a thing is not the same as saying they SHOULD do it.

"You are not taking my words at face value."

Yes I am. You said parents can kill their children. You said the Old Testament supports this.

"He gives parents the right to kill their children, otherwise abortions would not be possible."

You have a very unique definition of rights.

"Yes, God gave them the right to make that choice. Otherwise, they would find themselves incapable of doing so. In fact, if you read the old testament you may find Gods instruction on what to do with an incorrigible child rather interesting."

So, what interesting things does the Old Testament say about what to do with an incorrigible child?

God gave man the ability to make choices, even bad ones. But He did not give us the right to do anything. For example, so far it appears that he did not give us the right to travel backwards in time.

That's like saying "670,616,629.384 miles per hour. It's not just a good idea - it's the law!"

Here is a simple test to see if God gave you the right to choose to do a thing. Try to do it. If you can, He gave you that right. Of course, your actions may have negative consequences.

So yes, God gave Hitler the right to kill jews, otherwise he would have been incapable of such action. He gives parents the right to kill their children, otherwise abortions would not be possible.

However, acting on that right may be as devastating as when Adam and Eve acted on their rights by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Saying someone CAN do a thing is not the same as saying they SHOULD do it.

Um, up top you said, "God gave man the ability to make choices, even bad ones. But He did not give us the right to do anything." Then the rest of your post you directly contradicted yourself.

Overall, you're doing some serious conflating of concepts here. What you call a "right" is what everyone else on the planet would call "ability". Whether we have a right to do something depends on the consequences. Whether I have a right to fly my jet around the world is true or false regardless of the fact that I don't actually own a jet. (I'm blanking out on better analogies at the moment.)

Being physically able to do something is a prerequisite for acting on something you have a right to do - but it's also a prerequisite for doing something you don't have a right to do. Ability is not the same thing as the right itself. That's just silly. A right answers the question, "is a proposed act morally acceptable?" Which means: "Would we be justified if we physically stopped this person from carrying out the act that they're contemplating?" The answer depends on the consequences of the action, and whether the person asking the question thinks that a world in which the contemplated act was allowed would be a good one or not. Whether someone actually has the ability to do something hardly prevents us from discussing whether something would be right.

When you conflate such basic concepts so badly, it's not surprising that you end up with bizarre conclusions such as agreeing with Leviticus about parents killing their "incorrigible" children. But when you take a basic premise and work out its consequences, and they turn out to be bizarre & palpably evil, don't you think it's a signal that you should rethink your premises?