Support NeoGAF

[WillyFive]

So why is he so interested in how Christians feel about it but hasn't gone to ask the same thing in the Islam thread? Oh I know, it's because he has a bone to pick and thought he had a witty comment to make fun of Christians with.

Did you know that Christianity and Islam are two different religions?

 

[Seth C]

You could just answer the question instead of deferring it to people of other religions. It's a legitimate issue to raise.

Is the scientific community ashamed of Einstein because the atomic bomb people killed thousands of innocent Japanese?

To answer your question, if we are assuming belief in the story involving Moses and the Pharaoh, then I would imagine most Christians would consider the action taken "justified". In the story Egypt was given 9 previous chances to allows people they were keeping as SLAVES (effectively) to leave the country. They were asking for nothing more than freedom, and were given progressively more severe warnings to allow said freedom. All requests were met with refusal.

I also think the question wasn't presented with any sort of honesty, but was only meant as a jab. Why? Because frankly, the God of the Israelites did far "worse" things anyway.

Did you know that Christianity and Islam are two different religions?

Did you know they both espouse belief in the same God that killed all the first born children of Egypt and thus should be equally qualified to answer such a question?

 

[jaxword]

Is the scientific community ashamed of Einstein because the atomic bomb people killed thousands of innocent Japanese?

You can't possibly compare the ruler of the entire universe's orders to kill versus a single man's discovery being used for war.

That analogy makes no sense, unless it's a subtle attempt at deriding those evil scientists, which is a really low tactic.

 

[Seth C]

You can't possibly compare the ruler of the entire universe's orders to kill versus a single man's discovery being used for war.

That analogy makes no sense, unless it's a subtle attempt at deriding those evil scientists, which is a really low tactic.

It was a similar tactic as I believe the intent of the original question. Glad I could help you understand how it might feel from the other side. You're welcome.

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

I'm Catholic, but I'll be honest of my ignorance. Until about a year ago, I did not know that Catholics fell under the umbrella of Christianity. I'm the only Catholic in my group of friends so I get asked questions sometimes, but I don't really think my answers match with catechism.

 

[WillyFive]

Is the scientific community ashamed of Einstein because the atomic bomb people killed thousands of innocent Japanese?

That's a bad example. Einstein was not God. People don't consider him God. Not even those who greatly admire him.

Did you know they both espouse belief in the same God that killed all the first born children of Egypt and thus should be equally qualified to answer such a question?

Abcderik posted the question in this thread. Obviously there are more Christians in this thread than Muslims. Would you like to know the Muslim point of view as well?

 

[jaxword]

It was a similar tactic as I believe the intent of the original question. Glad I could help you understand how it might feel from the other side. You're welcome.

I'm not "the other side", so drop the persecution complex. It makes everyone religious look bad and willing to stoop to any depths to avoid being honest and removes credibility.

You are still avoiding the question, which is a legitimate inquiry. If you keep avoiding it, it makes you look dishonest and unwilling to actually answer the tough questions.

 

[Shanadeus]

Just to punch in... I'm a Catholic. And also to recommend an excellent book from Hans Kung.

Speaking of the future:

Can you imagine space missionaries?

 

[Seth C]

Are you saying Einstein is a God?




Abcderik posted the question in this thread. Obviously there are more Christians in this thread than Muslims. Would you like to know the Muslim point of view as well?

My point is he didn't want to know anything, he wanted to try to deride Christians.

I'm not "the other side", so drop the persecution complex. It makes everyone religious look bad and willing to stoop to any depths to avoid being honest.

You are still avoiding the question, which is a legitimate inquiry. If you keep avoiding it, it makes you look dishonest and unwilling to actually answer the tough questions.

I've answered the question, briefly, above. Whether you're on the "other side" is beyond the point. For whomever may be, I hope I helped point something out. I'll be blunt now and tell you that I'm not even what would be considered a Christian anyway. I'm an anthropologist and a student of culture and religion. Therefore there can be no "persecution complex". So, enjoy.

I still do not believe any question was being asked honestly, and that is the frustration. There are far more "tough" Biblical questions to be answered, by the way. The one currently being discussed as quite a laugher by comparison. Which is why I don't think it was presented with any desire for honest discussion.

That's my opinion. I'm happy to answer ANY question that is asked of me, though I cannot guarantee the answer you receive will be that belonging to Chrstianity.

 

[PoliceCop]

It was a similar tactic as I believe the intent of the original question. Glad I could help you understand how it might feel from the other side. You're welcome.

Can we at least try to make sense in this thread? Just answer the question, maybe afterward we can consults some Muslims and Jews.

 

[jaxword]

My point is he didn't want to know anything, he wanted to try to deride Christians.

Then turn the other cheek and answer the question.

 

[Shanadeus]

Is the scientific community ashamed of Einstein because the atomic bomb people killed thousands of innocent Japanese?

To answer your question, if we are assuming belief in the story involving Moses and the Pharaoh, then I would imagine most Christians would consider the action taken "justified". In the story Egypt was given 9 previous chances to allows people they were keeping as SLAVES (effectively) to leave the country. They were asking for nothing more than freedom, and were given progressively more severe warnings to allow said freedom. All requests were met with refusal.

I also think the question wasn't presented with any sort of honesty, but was only meant as a jab. Why? Because frankly, the God of the Israelites did far "worse" things anyway.



Did you know they both espouse belief in the same God that killed all the first born children of Egypt and thus should be equally qualified to answer such a question?

Did those first borns at least transcend to the heavens?
Because it strikes me as odd that infants should pay for the sins of their fathers.

 

[Corto]

Speaking of the future:

Can you imagine space missionaries?

Yes. Yes I can.

 

[Seda]

Then turn the other cheek and answer the question.

Didn't someone already answer? And that's (you know) not very subtle and I'm not sure it helps.

 

[Seth C]

Didn't someone already answer? And that's (you know) not very subtle and I'm not sure it helps.

Yes, many people had answered. Their answer was simply "no". Why? Probably because the original question asked nothing requiring more of an answer than that. It's humorous.

Did those first borns at least transcend to the heavens?
Because it strikes me as odd that infants should pay for the sins of their fathers.

There is absolutely no way to know. Firstly, there were no Christians at the time. Which is why a JEW would be the better person to ask concerning this and the original question. But scripturally speaking, one can't know because it isn't said. It's important to note that it wouldn't matter, because no Egyptians were "ascending to heaven" anyway. They were all lost according to Jewish laws, given that they weren't Jews. Everyone not of Israel was lost, condemned, unsaved.

 

[jaxword]

Didn't someone already answer? And that's (you know) not very subtle and I'm not sure it helps.

No one's given a legitimate answer. I was always very disturbed by that story back in Sunday school, and I would think anyone with any human decency would be disturbed at killing kids as well. Hence why it's disturbing to see people justifying it.

Yes, many people had answered. Their answer was simply "no". Why? Probably because the original question asked nothing requiring more of an answer than that. It's humorous.

Justifying mass murder of children isn't really a humorous topic to flippantly answer. That's sick.

 

[Shanadeus]

There is absolutely no way to know. Firstly, there were no Christians at the time. Which is why a JEW would be the better person to ask concerning this and the original question. But scripturally speaking, one can't know because it isn't said. It's important to note that it wouldn't matter, because no Egyptians were "ascending to heaven" anyway. They were all lost according to Jewish laws, given that they weren't Jews. Everyone not of Israel was lost, condemned, unsaved.

Well then I am afraid I must call God's actions disgraceful and inhumane.
I'm a strong believer in not punishing the innocent and especially not just because they happen to live with sinners.

 

[Seth C]

No one's given a legitimate answer. I was always very disturbed by that story back in Sunday school, and I would think anyone with any human decency would be disturbed at killing kids as well. Hence why it's disturbing to see people justifying it.



Justifying mass murder of children isn't really a humorous topic to flippantly answer. That's sick.

Then complain to the originator of the question. they have given a fully legitimate answer to the entirety of the question asked. He did so just as flippantly and with disrespect. Perhaps you should have been the one to approach the topic instead? Had you done so, and in a manner that was respectful and actually tried to pry at the subject, presenting the issues you had with it, it could have created open and thoughtful conversation. Sadly instead we got a drive-by that only approached the topic in such a casual manner to require a "yes" or "no" to have fully answered the question asked.

Well then I am afraid I must call God's actions disgraceful and inhumane.
I'm a strong believer in not punishing the innocent and especially not just because they happen to live with sinners.

Which is fine. I will however again suggest that your questions concerning the dealings of the people of Israel would be best answered in whatever thread we have here concerning Judaism. I will also comment briefly and say that you are approaching the issue with the eyes of an onlooker, rather than those of a creator. God, as presented, holds the power (and indeed, the right) to destroy not just those children but the entirety of the universe, should he decide to do so. They are all his creation. No one is asking you to AGREE with it, that's not the point. But you won't find yourself understanding it unless you make an attempt to view it from outside your own perspective.

Either way that choice is yours. But you're here, so I'd hope your goal is to try to understand the view of others first, and then disagree with them second.

 

[WillyFive]

Speaking of the future:

Can you imagine space missionaries?

Where there are people, there will be missionaries.

The Bible already has been read aloud in the farthest point humans have ever gone: around orbit in the dark side of the Moon.

You never know, when space travel gets up and going at a reasonable rate, people might start to go out exploring, going to new places, for various reasons. Some of them could be for religious freedom, just like the Pilgrims, and some can be missionaries to try to convert them back.

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

Did those first borns at least transcend to the heavens?
Because it strikes me as odd that infants should pay for the sins of their fathers.

This is actually a strong theme in the Catholic religion. We have a sacrament called Baptism that is meant to cleanse a person of 'Original Sin' and let them start over with a clean slate. Traditionally, this is done when the child is very young. 'Original Sin' was from when God cast Adam and Eve out of the garden, but children paying for the sins of the father is also repeated though out the bible.

There is an instance where a man's son falls ill due to the sins of the father, and the man prays desperately for his son. His prayers are not answered, and it is shown that the lesson was meant for the father. In the new testament, Jesus was born to eventually pay for the sins of the people. His ansestery is traced back to Abraham, another man who was asked to kill his son for his own sin. Jesus became the eventual sacrifice that took Abraham's son's place.

 

[Gorgon]

1) They are defending their right to teach what was teached to them by their ancestors to their sons.
2) You don't understand that there is not absolute nor definitive evidence to explain biological evolution, and you call what they teach a lie.
3) What is wrong with the biblical conception of the universe? There isn't even proof that the Earth isn't in the center of it (since it's apparently infinite, so you can put the center wherever the fuck you like).
4) What basic rights??? are they not allowed to eat, to pee, to live? Or are you talking about not being allowed to be married, which by DEFINITION is a thing of man and woman.
5) They deny a law to KILL a no born son.
6) They deny scientist to experiment with LIVE HUMAN BEINGS.
7) Not true.
9) Not true.
10) Not true.
11) Not true.
12) Not true.

Lots of bad assumptions and misconceptions here.

Before I comment I'd like to say that I find quite sad that this thread turned to shit when the OP was pretty clear about it's aims. There was no right to come here and shit on it.

Anyway, I think these replies need some comentary.

1) defending their right to teach their religion is fine. However, creationism isn't a science and as such it has no place in a science class.

2) evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is, tadammm!!!, a acientific theory that tries to explain that fact and, like all science, is built by slowinf testing, observing, correcting, etc.

3) the universe is not infinite, it's finite but limitless. If that sounds counterintuitive, than imagine that you live in the 2D surface of a balloon. Certainly the surface of the balloon is not infinite BUT its has no defined limits. That's how the universe is, but in 3D and a much more complicated topography. The excat nature of the topography continues to be debated and researched, but it's finite nature is not under discussion. Therefore, there is no center.

4) I agree that the church has the right to deny marriage to gay persons acording to their religion. That is something for gay believers to discuss with their church. The church however should not meddle with secular marriage, something they do to often.

5) this a complex question and there is no easy answer. It's up to each one of us to think about it.

6) live human beying experimentation has been going on for ages, and you benefit from it everytime you take an aspirin.

I'm no creationist myself, and I believe in the theory of evolution, but there is a huge and fundamental flaw in your whole argument

You don't need to believe in the theory. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is, and always will be, a work in progress that tries to explain it, and will do so better and better as time goes by. No scientist denies much of composes the theory itself will ecentually be revised. Ecvolution itself, however, is a fact.

 

[jaxword]

Then complain to the originator of the question. He did so just as flippantly and with disrespect. Perhaps you should have been the one to approach the topic instead? Had you done so, and in a manner that was respectful and actually tried to pry at the subject, presenting the issues you had with it, it could have created open and thoughtful conversation. Sadly instead we got a drive-by that only approached the topic in such a casual manner to require a "yes" or "no" to have fully answered the question asked.

If you think your critics are beneath you, and you lower yourself to their level....then all you do is lower yourself to their level and convince no one of anything.

If you want to act like you're the moral and intellectual pinnacle, you have to demonstrate it, not turn immediately into a smug 14 year old flailing in anger and insecurity.

THAT'S what being Christian should be about. Being BETTER than those who criticize. Live by example, otherwise you don't even live up to your own claims.

 

[Dice]

Well then I am afraid I must call God's actions disgraceful and inhumane.
I'm a strong believer in not punishing the innocent and especially not just because they happen to live with sinners.

Don't listen to Seth C. His answers are reductionist and disgraceful. What happened in the exodus far transcended the situation itself, and he isn't even looking at all of what happened in the situation. I'd like to reply but I have to go to Korean class sooner than I'd be done with a post. If you'd care to wait, I can write it in a few hours.

 

[NegativeZero]

So, approximately how many pages did it take for this to become a debate thread?

 

[WillyFive]

So, approximately how many pages did it take for this to become a debate thread?

Depends, have you set your settings to 50 or 100 posts per page?

 

[Seth C]

If you think your critics are beneath you, and you lower yourself to their level....then all you do is lower yourself to their level and convince no one of anything.

If you want to act like you're the moral and intellectual pinnacle, you have to demonstrate it, not turn immediately into a smug 14 year old flailing in anger and insecurity.

THAT'S what being Christian should be about. Being BETTER than those who criticize. Live by example, otherwise you don't even live up to your own claims.

1.) They aren't my critics.
2.) I have made no claims of being a Christian, thusly they aren't MY claims.
3.) Despite that I am still offended at the dishonesty of the questioning both by him, and now you.
4.) The original questioner received exactly the depth of response as was warranted by his depth of question. He is more than welcome to return and ask for further explanation, should it have ever been his goal to receive such a thing.

 

[Shanadeus]

Don't listen to Seth C. His answers are reductionist and disgraceful. What happened in the exodus far transcended the situation itself, and he isn't even looking at all of what happened in the situation. I'd like to reply but I have to go to Korean class sooner than I'd be done with a post. If you'd care to wait, I can write it in a few hours.

Sure, that would be interesting to read.
One way around this dilemma is that all those that have been killed for just having a certain blood never existed to begin with.

They might have just been soulless constructs controlled by God, put on earth for the sole purpose of teaching the Egyptians a lesson.

 

[Seda]

So, approximately how many pages did it take for this to become a debate thread?

A debate ensued over the justification of the killing of first borns in Egypt.

Kinda a stand still argument in my mind. As a Christian, I believe God was justified in his actions because he didn't ask for the Egyptians to rescind their own religion or stop worshiping Pharaoh, he just asked that his people be freed.

But this can aways been seen as being complicit in the murder of thousands to Non-Chirstians


It's a very hard thing to justify, but I believe that God acts for the good of the world.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

So, approximately how many pages did it take for this to become a debate thread?

There's a certain contingent on this site who turn into Daleks the moment Christianity comes up.

 

[jaxword]

jaxword showed up, and some posters took offense and it escalated a little form there .

I am a believer in God, he (jax) posed a question and asked us to try to justify an action our God took(murder of firstborns) which Jax (seemingly, let me know if I am wrong) feels is completely unjustifiable. Its not like I'm proud of the action or that I defend it, but I'm not sure I can conjure an argument that will validate the action in his eyes.

Please don't try and backhandedly insult me. I did not ask the original question, several people replied in their own flippant manner. If you have a personal grudge against me, say so, but don't spread lies.

After it was placed, I followed up on the responses, which were clearly trying to avoid a proper answer. I have my own beliefs about God, but I make no apologies for questioning the morality of infanticide.

 

[WillyFive]

It's a very hard thing to justify, but I believe that God acts for the good of the world.

God acts to get his creation to follow him again after Satan sent them away from him. That's the main motivation.

That's as simple as I can distill it down to.

 

[Seth C]

Don't listen to Seth C. His answers are reductionist and disgraceful. What happened in the exodus far transcended the situation itself, and he isn't even looking at all of what happened in the situation. I'd like to reply but I have to go to Korean class sooner than I'd be done with a post. If you'd care to wait, I can write it in a few hours.

My answer to his question was accurate. The Bible absolutely makes no mention of what would become of the soul of the Egyptian children who were killed. The question is unanswerable if we are looking for scriptural reference to what would become of the souls of those specific children. Also, it was an event that took place prior to Christianity, so trying to answer the question based on the teachings of Christ would be misplaced and assumptive. During the law of Israel ONLY those of Israel had the hope of salvation. Everyone not of Israel was considered heathen and unsaved. Israel was God's "chosen people" and everyone else was considered to be worshiping false gods. They weren't "sinners" in the way you think of as a Christian because they existed outside the boundaries of God's law.

You can't overlay Christian ideals on events that took place before they existed. So then, were the Egyptian children going to heaven? First, that assumes they were all "children". Keep in mind the first born of all were killed, and not simply children, except that were all all someone's child. Many of them could well have been adults at the time. But we will assume. A Christian, I think, would say those children would be given the grace of God and were too young to have understood sin in any capacity. Beyond that, god is fair and just and the reward of Heaven is greater than anything on earth anyway, and while their lives were taken from them god would see them not held accountable for something they had no part in. But under the law the God Christians espouse to follow was operating under at the time? Under that law I'm afraid that no, they had no chance of salvation because they weren't born to a woman descended from one of the 12 tribes of Israel.

I do, in all honesty, hope that was thorough enough to answer the question. Again, however, I will say it would be better answered by an expert on ancient Judaic law. That isn't me trying to avoid anything. That is me openly acknowledging the limitations of my own knowledge and trying to direct the questioner to the place I feel he could best receive an answer.

 

[Shanadeus]

God acts to get his creation to follow him again after Satan sent them away from him. That's the main motivation.

That's as simple as I can distill it down to.

But didn't God create Satan?
And as an angel Satan shouldn't have any free-will and from before he even created him he should have known that he would have conspired against him.

Yet he went along anyway and feign surprise whenever Satan did something bad.

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

Please don't try and backhandedly insult me. I did not ask the original question, several people replied in their own flippant manner.

After it was placed, I followed up on the responses, which were clearly trying to avoid a proper answer. I have my own beliefs about God, but I make no apologies for questioning the morality of infanticide.

This is reminiscent of the question, "Why does God allow bad things to happen?"

In this way we say that because everything was created by God, it is also though his will that we are allowed to do things. The killing of a first born though the power of a spirit was allowed just like starvation is allowed.

I find that to apply morals to God's actions is to put a limit on an omnipotent being. So to answer your question, there is no morality to the action. It isn't avoiding an answer, it's just a flawed question.

 

[manueldelalas]

Lots of bad assumptions and misconceptions here.

Before I comment I'd like to say that I find quite sad that this thread turned to shit when the OP was pretty clear about it's aims. There was no right to come here and shit on it.

Anyway, I think these replies need some comentary.

1) defending their right to teach their religion is fine. However, creationism isn't a science and as such it has no place in a science class.

2) evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is, tadammm!!!, a acientific theory that tries to explain that fact and, like all science, is built by slowinf testing, observing, correcting, etc.

3) the universe is not infinite, it's finite but limitless. If that sounds counterintuitive, than imagine that you live in the 2D surface of a balloon. Certainly the surface of the balloon is not infinite BUT its has no defined limits. That's how the universe is, but in 3D and a much more complicated topography. The excat nature of the topography continues to be debated and researched, but it's finite nature is not under discussion. Therefore, there is no center.

4) I agree that the church has the right to deny marriage to gay persons acording to their religion. That is something for gay believers to discuss with their church. The church however should not meddle with secular marriage, something they do to often.

5) this a complex question and there is no easy answer. It's up to each one of us to think about it.

6) live human beying experimentation has been going on for ages, and you benefit from it everytime you take an aspirin.



You don't need to believe in the theory. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is, and always will be, a work in progress that tries to explain it, and will do so better and better as time goes by. No scientist denies much of composes the theory itself will ecentually be revised. Ecvolution itself, however, is a fact.

The theory of evolution is not a fact, it's not scientifically proven. All you have is evidence that points to it being true, but it's not proven in any meaningful way. There is a chance that in the future another theory gains over the evolution theory and explain it better. That is why the theory of evolution is just that, a THEORY.

3) Does not disprove anything that I said. You can say there is not center, or there is, and it doesn't really matter.
4) Really, the gay thing is something I don't want to discuss here (too long, done it too many times, and it derails everything), let's leave it at that.
5) It's not up to what anyone thinks. By that argument, I could think that my 2 year old daughter is not alive and assassinate her. Hey! it's my conscience, don't mess with it!.
6) I don't deny it (although I never take aspirin, Paracetamol is superior in every single way). But I oppose that living human beings should be killed in mass so a single one saves his life. You can do whatever the fuck you want with umbilical cords.

 

[Seda]

Please don't try and backhandedly insult me. I did not ask the original question, several people replied in their own flippant manner. If you have a personal grudge against me, say so, but don't spread lies.

After it was placed, I followed up on the responses, which were clearly trying to avoid a proper answer. I have my own beliefs about God, but I make no apologies for questioning the morality of infanticide.

I thought you asked the question. I made a mistake.

 

[Shanadeus]

This is reminiscent of the question, "Why does God allow bad things to happen?"

In this way we say that because everything was created by God, it is also though his will that we are allowed to do things. The killing of a first born though the power of a spirit was allowed just like starvation is allowed.

I find that to apply morals to God's actions is to put a limit on an omnipotent being. So to answer your question, there is no morality to the action. It isn't avoiding an answer, it's just a flawed question.

God already have plenty of limits to his nature merely for being what he is.
Such as him having to reduce his omniscience in order for humans to have any free-will.

 

[Seth C]

Please don't try and backhandedly insult me. I did not ask the original question, several people replied in their own flippant manner. If you have a personal grudge against me, say so, but don't spread lies.

After it was placed, I followed up on the responses, which were clearly trying to avoid a proper answer. I have my own beliefs about God, but I make no apologies for questioning the morality of infanticide.

First, let me apologize for any sort of disrespect you feel I've directed toward you. I still hold that the original question was not presented in a fashion that deserved respect being given to it.

Secondly, the scripture makes no claim that the event was infanticide. I don't believe it makes a claim that those killed were all children at the time. Certainly, ALL children were not killed. Only those who were the first child born to someone, were killed. Many of those could even have been adults at the time. I don't know. But it wasn't the wholesale slaughtering of all children, which would be infanticide. That is to say they weren't killed simply for being children, but were killed because they were the first child born to someone. Likely because those were the ones destined to receive the property and titles of their fathers, or in the case of the Pharaoh, the one who would have eventually taken his throne.

Now, I don't say that to justify the action. Just to make clearer what the action actually was.

 

[News Bot]

The theory of evolution is not a fact, it's not scientifically proven.

And with one fell swoop, you have invalidated yourself completely. Good job.

P.S. You have the wrong definition of "theory".

 

[jaxword]

I thought you asked the question. I made a mistake.

Understood. Do you think you can please edit your post that has the insulting implication that I "showed up" to cause strife?

 

[Shanadeus]

The theory of evolution is not a fact, it's not scientifically proven. All you have is evidence that points to it being true, but it's not proven in any meaningful way. There is a chance that in the future another theory gains over the evolution theory and explain it better. That is why the theory of evolution is just that, a THEORY.

3) Does not disprove anything that I said. You can say there is not center, or there is, and it doesn't really matter.
4) Really, the gay thing is something I don't want to discuss here (too long, done it too many times, and it derails everything), let's leave it at that.
5) It's not up to what anyone thinks. By that argument, I could think that my 2 year old daughter is not alive and assassinate her. Hey! it's my conscience, don't mess with it!.
6) I don't deny it (although I never take aspirin, Paracetamol is superior in every single way). But I oppose that living human beings should be killed in mass so a single one saves his life. You can do whatever the fuck you want with umbilical cords.

You should probably take the evolution stuff to the evolution thread here:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=400404&page=28

Your reasoning is just plain silly, all scientific theories might be replaced by other theories in the future. They're still the fact until it really is found that the theory is incorrect.

The abortion debate is also something you can take up in any abortion thread made on the forum in the past month - or you can create a new one (which I wouldn't recommend).

 

[jaxword]

First, let me apologize for any sort of disrespect you feel I've directed toward you. I still hold that the original question was not presented in a fashion that deserved respect being given to it.

Secondly, the scripture makes no claim that the event was infanticide. I don't believe it makes a claim that those killed were all children at the time. Certainly, ALL children were not killed. Only those who were the first child born to someone, were killed. Many of those could even have been adults at the time. I don't know. But it wasn't the wholesale slaughtering of all children, which would be infanticide. That is to say they weren't killed simply for being children, but were killed because they were the first child born to someone. Likely because those were the ones destined to receive the property and titles of their fathers, or in the case of the Pharaoh, the one who would have eventually taken his throne.

Now, I don't say that to justify the action. Just to make clearer what the action actually was.

Understood. Thanks for your reply. I stand by my stance that slaughtering children OR adults in retribution is wrong. I believe that any being, human or God, should uphold the beliefs they expose. So, in a way, I am saying that God should obey his own rules. My own beliefs in the nature of God revolve around that.

I understand your stance, I hope you understand mine.

 

[Seda]

Understood. Do you think you can please edit your post that has the insulting implication that I "showed up" to cause strife?

Sure, but I meant that your views that you brought to the table led to discussion/argument, not meaning that that was the reason for your visit.

As pretty much a complete argumentative pacifist , it saddens me that people find insult or general negative connotative discourse about my posts when I generally mean none...

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

God already have plenty of limits to his nature merely for being what he is.
Such as him having to reduce his omniscience in order for humans to have any free-will.

I think we have free will, but I do not think that precludes God from being able to know what we will decide.

On a different note, I was reading a Scott Adams book where he referenced some science that talked about the human brain during decision making. He said that the part of the brain that rationalizes a decision comes into effect after the part of the brain that makes a decision has done so. I found it hard to believe so I never followed up on it, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to google.

This school of thought would imply that we justify our decisions after making them, and not before.

 

[John Dunbar]

Is the scientific community ashamed of Einstein because the atomic bomb people killed thousands of innocent Japanese?

To answer your question, if we are assuming belief in the story involving Moses and the Pharaoh, then I would imagine most Christians would consider the action taken "justified". In the story Egypt was given 9 previous chances to allows people they were keeping as SLAVES (effectively) to leave the country. They were asking for nothing more than freedom, and were given progressively more severe warnings to allow said freedom. All requests were met with refusal.

I also think the question wasn't presented with any sort of honesty, but was only meant as a jab. Why? Because frankly, the God of the Israelites did far "worse" things anyway.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+7:3&version=NIV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+9:12&version=KJV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+14:17&version=ESV

Sounds like they didn't have too many chances to refuse. Also, free will lolz.

 

[Seth C]

Understood. Thanks for your reply. I stand by my stance that slaughtering children OR adults in retribution is wrong, and now that you've staid your stance, I hope you understand mine.

I don't believe it was done out of retribution. Does your mother or father punish you for refusal to do as they tell you out of retribution? God didn't slaughter the Egyptians because they enslaved the Israelites. That would be retribution. He slaughtered them only after he had asked them to do as he said 9 times previously, and despite all attempts they would not follow his commands. His commands that would have been coming from, in his perspective, their very creator. Upon their tenth refusal he provided a further punishment partially in the hope that they would learn thereafter that he was indeed their creator and that his commands should be followed. Despite this, if you read the rest of the story, after finally giving in to his instruction they immediately regretted doing so and tried to reclaim their slaves. At which point they drowned.

 

[jaxword]

Sure, but I meant that your views that you brought to the table led to discussion/argument, not meaning that that was the reason for your visit.

As pretty much a complete argumentative pacifist , it saddens me that people find insult or general negative connotative discourse about my posts when I generally mean none...

Understood. I do not mean this as an insult, but remember this is the internet. We cannot see your face, hear your voice, or see your body language. All we have is text, and the implications behind words such as YOU or I or NAMES. Those are loaded terms that can easily give people the wrong impression, even if you mean no disrespect.

 

[Shanadeus]

I think we have free will, but I do not think that precludes God from being able to know what we will decide.

On a different note, I was reading a Scott Adams book where he referenced some science that talked about the human brain during decision making. He said that the part of the brain that rationalizes a decision comes into effect after the part of the brain that makes a decision has done so. I found it hard to believe so I never followed up on it, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to google.

This school of thought would imply that we justify our decisions after making them, and not before.

That's correct, something about how you brain sends out the signal for moving your arm before you chose to move your arm.

Some see it as quite a hit against the whole notion of free will though.

And the reason free will wouldn't work with an omniscient God is because he is the creator of our souls. If he is a creator of your soul then he knows, before he has even created a soul, the actions that soul will make during it's time in a body.

Every sinning soul has been intentionally created by God, in full knowledge that that soul will sin in the future. He could have created the soul differently, so that it wouldn't sin, if he so wanted but he chose not to do so.

That's why you have no free will, because he created you in a way that resulted in you taking all the decisions you've taken in your life and all the decisions you will take in your future.

Or something like that.

 

[Seth C]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+7:3&version=NIV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+9:12&version=KJV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+14:17&version=ESV

Sounds like they didn't have too many chances to refuse. Also, free will lolz.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:13&version=NIV

Also, omniscience lolz.

 

[jaxword]

I don't believe it was done out of retribution. Does your mother or father punish you for refusal to do as they tell you out of retribution?

Debatable. Completely debatable, because every single parent has their own ideas of what punishments work. Some think smacking the kid around does it. Some think time outs work. Some incredibly persuasive parents are able to simply MAKE kids listen due to just being psychologically and emotionally in control. All of them have varied levels of success, none are 100% applicable in all cases.

I do not like the interpretation of God as the omnipresent parent, doling out death as a suitable punishment for transgressions. That is simply too extreme to be considered just or moral, especially as we are specifically told not to do that BY God. I would go so far as to say that if God is willing to kill, but encourages us NOT to kill as a moral goal, then he is asking us to be more moral than he.