When is it okay to contradict or disobey a prophet?

[Jason]

The literal telling of the flood is such obvious mythology that even assuming that God intended that the flood should happen is going too far, IMO. It was probably just a random event. Floods happen all the time.

Complete mythology, eh? So in your view was Noah even really a prophet?

You bring up an interesting point with the destruction in the Americas. It's reported that the righteous survived and the wicked were killed. Since no one is more righteous than a little child, we can correctly assume that none of them were killed.

Entire cities burned, buried, and sunk in the sea yet the children all survived? I don't see anything in the text that indicates children were miraculously saved, and a lot about great destruction and entire cities being wiped out.

I think I've made it clear that my position is not the unreasonable one.

[Jason]

You seem to have thrown out the word "innocent" by the wayside in order to make your argument. Convenient for you, but intellectually dishonest.

You said in the post I was responding to that killing is only justifiable as a last resort, and in self-defense. There was no mention of innocence, so if someone threw it out it was you.

It is the opposite of yours, in that you think murder may be justifiable, and I do not.

Killing, not murder. And only sometimes. Just like you, in fact. We merely disagree on whether it is always murder to kill one particular category of person.

[semlogo]

Complete mythology, eh? So in your view was Noah even really a prophet?

Entire cities burned, buried, and sunk in the sea yet the children all survived? I don't see anything in the text that indicates children were miraculously saved, and a lot about great destruction and entire cities being wiped out.

I think I've made it clear that my position is not the unreasonable one.

Noah obviously existed and was a prophet. But the entire earth was never flooded. That's not even in question, so it does make any literal take on that story ill-advised.

The BoM says that the wicked perished and the righteous were saved. Again, it doesn't get any more righteous than a little child. The same little children who Jesus blessed when he came down.

[semlogo]

You said in the post I was responding to that killing is only justifiable as a last resort, and in self-defense. There was no mention of innocence, so if someone threw it out it was you.

Killing, not murder. And only sometimes. Just like you, in fact. We merely disagree on whether it is always murder to kill one particular category of person.

Killing the innocent is always murder, at least according to the old temple recommend interviews. According to you, any murder can be downgraded to a "mere" killing. That's where your moral relativism is.

[Jason]

Noah obviously existed and was a prophet. But the entire earth was never flooded. That's not even in question, so it does make any literal take on that story ill-advised.

If the Flood killed even one child then you would have to say God is a murderer in order to be consistent.

The BoM says that the wicked perished and the righteous were saved. Again, it doesn't get any more righteous than a little child. The same little children who Jesus blessed when he came down.

Again, there is nothing about all the children in those cities being saved. Verses 10-11 do say of the cities of Laman, Josh, Gad, and Kishkumen "there were none righteous among them". So, according to you there were no children in those cities?

It seems to me that you are stretching the text to avoid having your opnion exploded. Perhaps it would be simpler to acknowledge that I might have a point?

[Jason]

Killing the innocent is always murder, at least according to the old temple recommend interviews. According to you, any murder can be downgraded to a "mere" killing. That's where your moral relativism is.

It's only a difference by degree, not an opposite. According to you any murder of someone who isn't a child can be downgraded to a "mere" killing.

It isn't moral relativism either. Moral relativism is the idea that morals are merely opinions, not that whether something is moral depends on the circumstances.

I am in no way arguing moral relativism, and never have. Others on this thread have.

[wenglund]

I don't see how much clearer I could be. If you have a specific question, by all means, ask.

Again, you are consistently wrong. The problem isn't that your answer wasn't clear. It was. It is just that your answer clearly didn't answer the specific question that I asked. Rather, it clearly evaded the specific question that I asked.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

If the Flood killed even one child then you would have to say God is a murderer in order to be consistent.

Assuming God sent it in the first place. Which is a pretty big assumption.

Again, there is nothing about all the children in those cities being saved. Verses 10-11 do say of the cities of Laman, Josh, Gad, and Kishkumen "there were none righteous among them". So, according to you there were no children in those cities?

It seems to me that you are stretching the text to avoid having your opnion exploded. Perhaps it would be simpler to acknowledge that I might have a point?

It seems to me you're stretching the text to fit this pro-infanticide argument of yours. There aren't enough details in the text to support your theory. There is enough to support mine, in that we learn that the righteous were spared. The fact that it isn't clear how that happened doesn't change the fact that the righteous were spared.

[semlogo]

Again, you are consistently wrong. The problem isn't that your answer wasn't clear. It was. It is just that your answer clearly didn't answer the specific question that I asked. Rather, it clearly evaded the specific question that I asked.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If you have a specific question, please ask.

[Jason]

I believe I've made my case.

I don't plan to enter the thread again unless Semlogo continues to employ my name while mistating my arguments, in which case I will state them again.

[semlogo]

It's only a difference by degree, not an opposite. According to you any murder of someone who isn't a child can be downgraded to a "mere" killing.

Not at all. It's completely dependent upon the actions of the person dying. Not whether or not John Smith's death will somehow help someone in the future in some nebulous, ill-defined way.

It isn't moral relativism either. Moral relativism is the idea that morals are merely opinions, not that whether something is moral depends on the circumstances.

I am in no way arguing moral relativism, and never have. Others on this thread have.

You've just described ever post you've made in this thread. Only the opinion in question, you're saying, is supposedly God's. If God decides that something is moral or right, then it is, even if it used to be wrong.

I'm saying that right and wrong are independent of God. Otherwise, God could do anything and never have the possibility of "ceasing to be God."

[semlogo]

I believe I've made my case.

I don't plan to enter the thread again unless Semlogo continues to employ my name while mistating my arguments, in which case I will state them again.

You are, of course, free to continue to call a pear a banana.

[wenglund]

If you have a specific question, please ask.

See my previous post (the one just before your clear evasive answer).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jason]

Not at all. It's completely dependent upon the actions of the person dying. Not whether or not John Smith's death will somehow help someone in the future in some nebulous, ill-defined way.

As I said, according to you (depending on the actions of the victim) any killing of someone not a child can be downgraded to a "mere" killing rather than a murder.

Our positions are different only in detail, not on any fundamental level. They are certainly not opposites.

You've just described ever post you've made in this thread. Only the opinion in question, you're saying, is supposedly God's. If God decides that something is moral or right, then it is, even if it used to be wrong.

Then you have completely failed to understand every post I have made.

Once again, I believe that actions are right or wrong depending on the cirucmstances as well as the action, that the same action can be wrong or right in different circumstances, and that no one's opinion matters in determining if it is wrong or right - not even God's.

I have argued that God's opinion on what is right or wrong is 100% accurate, and that where it appears to conflict with our own that it is God's opinion that should be trusted over ours. That does not mean that God's opinion determines the morality of an action, any more than God's foreknowledge of what we will do determines what we will do.

I'm saying that right and wrong are independent of God.

Otherwise, God could do anything and never have the possibility of "ceasing to be God."

On that point we are in complete agreement.

[semlogo]

See my previous post (the one just before your clear evasive answer).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Evasive answer not found.

[semlogo]

As I said, according to you (depending on the actions of the victim) any killing of someone not a child can be downgraded to a "mere" killing rather than a murder.

Our positions are different only in detail, not on any fundamental level. They are certainly not opposites.

Then you have completely failed to understand every post I have made.

Once again, I believe that actions are right or wrong depending on the cirucmstances as well as the action, that the same action can be wrong or right in different circumstances, and that no one's opinion matters in determining if it is wrong or right - not even God's.

I have argued that God's opinion on what is right or wrong is 100% accurate, and that where it appears to conflict with our own that it is God's opinion that should be trusted over ours. That does not mean that God's opinion determines the morality of an action, any more than God's foreknowledge of what we will do determines what we will do.

On that point we are in complete agreement.

Then it would appear that the main difference between us is you think that there is space in the universe for the justifiability of gross atrocities. I disagree.

[wenglund]

Evasive answer not found.

Your conceptual impediment is duly noted.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

Your conceptual impediment is duly noted.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Evasion found!

[wenglund]

Evasion found!

Your conceptual confusion duly noted.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

Your conceptual confusion duly noted.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think mistaking snarkiness for some sort of intellectual upper hand is a great example of conceptual confusion.

[wenglund]

I think mistaking snarkiness for some sort of intellectual upper hand is a great example of conceptual confusion.

Assuming that this applies here, is a great example of conceptual confusion. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

Assuming that this applies here, is a great example of conceptual confusion. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I will let you have the last word.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-