[Victoribus Spolia]

Well, god is unprovable, and since Vicky dismisses all arguments based on unprovable premises, Vicky will no doubt dismiss religious arguments.

I can demonstrate the existence of God.

I can prove that scripture prohibits contraception.

and I have proven that Contraception is potential person destroying which is logically actual person destroying.

You dragged the conversation into side-trails trying to establish a slippery slope and then plead foul regarding forum rules getting our conversation essentially shut down on the matter.

Your caricatures and condescending descriptions are noted for the vacuous hot-air they are.

[Pants-of-dog]

I can demonstrate the existence of God.

No, you cannot.

Your caricatures and condescending descriptions are noted for the vacuous hot-air they are.

Lol at hypocrisy.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No, you cannot.

We'll See.

[Pants-of-dog]

I asked her, and she said that her existence is not provable due to the limitations of scientific methodology.

[B0ycey]

I think you guys are both missing the point with that text. God directly punishes people in Scripture with infertility and with even the loss of a child for adultery. David's lost his first child with Bathsheba for this very thing.

Interesting. Very interesting. So god goes out of his way to do the ultimate contraception trick (infertility) and kills an innocent child (murder) for adultery and you, as a religious person question both contraception and murder? Have you heard of practice what you preach? Perhaps this "perfect" god of yours might need a few pointers don't you think? Even the lord almightly doesn't hold your position on this topic.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I asked her, and she said that her existence is not provable due to the limitations of scientific methodology.

Hah. He would tell you that science can't actually prove anything since it follows the inductive and hypothetic-deductive method, which cannot give absolute proofs by definition, only tentative ones.

Such cannot prove logical necessity, only the deductive method can do this.

Interesting. Very interesting. So god goes out of his way to do the ultimate contraception trick (infertility) and kills an innocent child (murder) for adultery and you, as a religious person question both contraception and murder? Have you heard of practice what you preach? Perhaps this "perfect" god of yours might need a few pointers don't you think? Even the lord almightly doesn't hold your position on this topic.

My morality is based on what He tells me to do, not based on what He does. He gives life and He takes life away, He brings into existence all that is, moment-to-moment. He is the transcendental precondition of both morality and intelligibility. I cannot judge His actions, I can only observe His acts and obey His commands and suffer the consequences of my sinful nature as inherited and imputed to me by my fathers, from which there is no hope of redemption outside of the work of Jesus Christ.

This is folly to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved, it is the Grace of God (1 Corinthians 1:18)

God's commandments and His pattern of punishment indicates that He forbids me from using contraception, but He is ultimately the One, by His Sovereign decree, who will determine how, when, and why I will die, or my children, or anyone for that matter. The Secret things belong to the Lord and the Revealed things belong to man. I trust Him in that He has promised to work all things for good for those whom He has chosen, those who love Him because He first regenerated them by His Word.

[Pants-of-dog]

Hah. He would tell you that science can't actually prove anything since it follows the inductive and hypothetic-deductive method, which cannot give absolute proofs by definition, only tentative ones.

Such cannot prove logical necessity, only the deductive method can do this.

Either way, she says you can’t show she exists.

My morality is based on what He tells me to do, not based on what He does. He gives life and He takes life away, He brings into existence all that is, moment-to-moment. He is the transcendental precondition of both morality and intelligibility. I cannot judge His actions, I can only observe His acts and obey His commands and suffer the consequences of my sinful nature as inherited and imputed to me by my fathers, from which there is no hope of redemption outside of the work of Jesus Christ.

This is folly to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved, it is the Grace of God (1 Corinthians 1:18)

God's commandments and His pattern of punishment indicates that He forbids me from using contraception, but He is ultimately the One, by His Sovereign decree, who will determine how, when, and why I will die, or my children, or anyone for that matter. The Secret things belong to the Lord and the Revealed things belong to man. I trust Him in that He has promised to work all things for good for those whom He has chosen, those who love Him because He first regenerated them by His Word.

As long as we agree that god murders people according to your logic.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Either way, she says you can’t show she exists.

Like I said, we'll see.

In fact, when I post that thread, I will be demonstrating the existence of the Trinity specifically as necessary for the very sensation of redness or sweetness. As logical necessity.

I will simultaneously demonstrate that there is no logical reason to believe in matter (the philosophical definition), or physical causation in any sense whatsoever.

As long as we agree that god murders people according to your logic.

God cannot murder because He is not bound by human laws. When God kills its part of the natural order, its providential, or on rare occasions when He explicitly states so, its judgment. When man kills, other than in cases where God says its permissible (capital punishment, war, self-defense) or accidental, is done out of malicious intent in direct violation of a command that the Creator of universe gave to mankind.

I don't see atheists charging nature with murder because people just die. There is a difference, there is a description of what God does, and then there is God's commands. Prescriptive v Descriptive will.

In the case of judgement, it is His right and He is moral to execute it as punishment for sin. He is no more a murderer than one who executes a criminal for a capital crime. God does not judge capriciously, He judges on the basis of just punishment. That is not murder, that is justice.

[Pants-of-dog]

Like I said, we'll see.

In fact, when I post that thread, I will be demonstrating the existence of the Trinity specifically as necessary for the very sensation of redness or sweetness. As logical necessity.

I will simultaneously demonstrate that there is no logical reason to believe in matter (the philosophical definition), or physical causation in any sense whatsoever.

I used to use god as a basis for figuring out things about the world.

Then I had my fourteenth birthday and realised I should base my knowledge on verifiable th8ngs that can be critically analysed.

God cannot murder because He is not bound by human laws. When God kills its part of the natural order, its providential, or on rare occasions when He explicitly states so, its judgment. When man kills, other than in cases where God says its permissible (capital punishment, war, self-defense) or accidental, is done out of malicious intent in direct violation of a command that the Creator of universe gave to mankind.

I don't see atheists charging nature with murder because people just die. There is a difference, there is a description of what God does, and then there is God's commands. Prescriptive v Descriptive will.

In the case of judgement, it is His right and He is moral to execute it as punishment for sin. He is no more a murderer than one who executes a criminal for a capital crime. God does not judge capriciously, He judges on the basis of just punishment. That is not murder, that is justice.

Okay, so she gets a “get out of jail free card”. It’s still murder according to your logic.

Also, I had no idea that miscarriages were punishment.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I used to use god as a basis for figuring out things about the world.

Then I had my fourteenth birthday and realised I should base my knowledge on verifiable th8ngs that can be critically analysed.

Syllogisms can be critically analysed and refuted. I am looking forward to watching your attempt to refute mine.

It will be utterly delectable.

Okay, so she gets a “get out of jail free card”. It’s still murder according to your logic.

No, its not. the destruction of life is not murder unless the moral system requires such to be, which is in my OP. My moral system as a Christian clearly teaches what murder is, and God is not a murderer, He is guilty of no moral crime in executing just judgment and His acts of providence.

[Pants-of-dog]

Syllogisms can be critically analysed and refuted. I am looking forward to watching your attempt to refute mine.

It will be utterly delectable.

I doubt I will participate, as theology is boring to me. I like Ian Barbour, but that’s about it.

God does not care if we believe in her. A being who is vast and powerful enough to be all things and to create all things is not going to be concerned about the opinion of some primates on a random world.

No, its not. the destruction of life is not murder unless the moral system requires such to be, which is in my OP. My moral system as a Christian clearly teaches what murder is, and God is not a murderer, He is guilty of no moral crime in executing just judgment and His acts of providence.

Sure. This is just another way of saying my piint: that if we accept that potential person preventing is the same as killing actual people, then we also accept that miscarriages and other acts of god also kill actual people. The same thing is happening in both cases. The only difference is that it is all right when god does it.

[B0ycey]

My moral system as a Christian clearly teaches what murder is, and God is not a murderer, He is guilty of no moral crime in executing just judgment and His acts of providence.

I wish you and your family good health in the future VS, but just curious, what do you think Gods judgement is if one of your children died from a disease you didn't vacinate against?

Gods judgment is very similar to natural occurrence.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I doubt I will participate, as theology is boring to me. I like Ian Barbour, but that’s about it.

Its not theology, it will be metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of religion related. Theology is in-house discussions on the nature of God, etc., this will be a logical proof for His existence to those outside of the "household of faith."

I wish you and your family good health in the future VS, but just curious, what do you think Gods judgement is if one of your children died from a disease you didn't vacinate against?

Thank you for the good wishes.

In that case, I could only know if it was judgement if God revealed it to me as a direct consequence of an immoral act on my part. Otherwise, it would be a providential act of God just as all other natural acts are. It is always dangerous to speculate in such circumstances what God's reasons are because He has not revealed them. I would trust Him and I would worship Him with all of my strength through whatever pain I may be experiencing.

That a child could die from a disease that there are vaccines for, is not impossible (even people who get vaccines sometimes still die from things that there are vaccines for). I made my decision about vaccinations based on research and out of a desire to do what is best for my children. If such an event causes me to question that, so be it, but I don't think it will. I feel very confident in the statistics and and my research on the matter, as well as with the real moral and legal issues pertaining to vaccines.

The death of child can make people think irrationally, I pray it never happens and that I stay resolute in my convictions unless I have been shown otherwise by plain reason, scripture, or irrefutable evidence.

[Pants-of-dog]

Its not theology, it will be metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of religion related. Theology is in-house discussions on the nature of God, etc., this will be a logical proof for His existence to those outside of the "household of faith."

Sure.

So we agree that not all intentional destructions of potential people are murder. Just the ones intended by humans. And this is not because of god can kill potentials without killing actuals (unless the omnipotent god can ignore logic), but because a god that kills innocent children to punish the parents is somehow just.

This whole thread seems like a religious rationalisation for controlling women’s sexuality.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Sure.

See you there.

So we agree that not all intentional destructions of potential people are murder. Just the ones intended by humans. And this is not because of god can kill potentials without killing actuals (unless the omnipotent god can ignore logic), but because a god that kills innocent children to punish the parents is somehow just.

Correct.

This whole thread seems like a religious rationalisation for controlling women’s sexuality.

This thread was about the logical nature of contraceptive activities; how such relates to religious norms, morals, and gender roles would have to be discussed under "implications of the argument."

[Pants-of-dog]

See you there.

My point, that you somehow did not get, was that I do not care about such discussions, nor do I believe that god cares.

This thread was about the logical nature of contraceptive activities; how such relates to religious norms, morals, and gender roles would have to be discussed under "implications of the argument."

It was just an interesting fact that sort of dovetails with other facts.

[Hindsite]

Are you implying that the truth of God's Word is culturally conditioned?

I am saying that some things written in the Holy Bible where for a specific time and culture. That should be obvious to anyone that is not a moron.

Thus, God was wrong to punish Onan in the OT because "He just didn't know better?"

God can punish anyone for any reason.

That is heresy.

Why?

Also, the Hebrew in Genesis 38 for the Onan incident cannot be translated "Spilled his seed" or "spilled his semen." The word translated spilled only ever means kill or destroy and that is the only way it is used in Scripture. Likewise the word translated as seed or semen in that text means "offspring" in Hebrew.

a literal translation is that Onan "destroyed his offspring on the ground" All historic commentators agree that is what he did that merited death as well, including all of the major reformers as well as all ancient commentators.

In that case you shouldn't have any problem with masturbation.

Most Christian churches are wrong and have departed from the Scriptures, all held contraception to be immoral until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 when Anglicans were the first ones to deviate. The Romish church's position allows for the rhythm method, which is also immoral in my opinion.

As you said, that is your opinion. Other Christians are also entitled to their opinions.

Likewise, Scripture is what determines what is right, not what people want to be right that determines the meaning of Scripture. the "rights of women," "science," and whether the world can be overpopulated, are all claims that must be subordinated to Scripture's authoritative claims, not the other way around. To say otherwise, is to abandon the true faith, for it elevates human reasoning above the revealed will of God.

Here again you use your opinion to determine the meaning of Scripture.

This whole thread seems like a religious rationalisation for controlling women’s sexuality.

Here again, I agree with you. Praise the Lord.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I am saying that some things written in the Holy Bible where for a specific time and culture. That should be obvious to anyone that is not a moron.

Awareness of audience and dogma are two different things. The biblical authors wrote in their cultural context, but the truth the Scriptures or the validity of its dogmas are not conditional. If God commands adultery to be punished with death, that is absolute moral law, it is not conditional on circumstance, it is universal. If God states that women are to submit to their husbands, that is not culturally conditional, that is absolute. Moral law is absolute and universally binding, it is not culturally conditional. Moral law reflects the Holiness and nature of God and is therefore unchanging.

Why?

Because a subordination of the Will of God to that of man in anything, including the obtaining of knowledge and its contents, is to deny God's authority and sovereignty and the absolute authority of Holy Scripture. It is a form of Semi-Pelagianism (heresy condemned at the Council of Orange) and Liberalism (which isn't even Christianity at all).

In that case you shouldn't have any problem with masturbation.

I have a problem with Masturbation if it is used to prevent pregnancy. If conception is possible within the bounds of Christian marriage, to prevent such by the vain wasting of seed, is a grievous sin equivalent in magnitude to murder.

As you said, that is your opinion. Other Christians are also entitled to their opinions.

Not an opinion, Scripture is the ultimate authority. If you feel I am wrong (note, just your feelings), then lets go to the texts.

I challenge you to debate the Scriptures: Do you accept or yield?

Here again you use your opinion to determine the meaning of Scripture.

Scripture makes the claim that God and His Word are the ultimate authority. Do you care to debate this point from Scripture as well? I'm game.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you define pregnancy as enslavement, then contraception prevents slavery.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If you define pregnancy as enslavement, then contraception prevents slavery.