How have you evaluated all other options and discovered they do not apply?.
By theme.
No I'm not. I understand the effects based on the Bio-chemical reactions LSD causes in the brain (this is not conjecture, its peer reviewed evidence that can be falsified).
In that you are trusting your(opinion) evaluation of your standard for evidence, yes you are.
That has no bearing on whether something exists or doesn't.
It is only, one way wherein, something maybe established.
But not the only way, or an infallible way.
That is a totally different position to 'god is one with me because I say so'.
I don't recall ever stating it that way.
It is more to the effect that, I am one among many, who have discovered this and know it to be real.
As I have stated before, it is only experienced personally, or individually, so your standard of evidence, is excluded from a positive determination anyway.
And that possibility is of zero relevance and is certainly not a valid reason to based a higher status on any one of them, its possible that you are a post-op transgender Brazilian.
You are missing the point.
If something is possible, then in the objective sense, it cannot be predetermined by your standard, that it does not exist.
Only, that by your standard there is no evidence for it.
I just pointed out the problem with that above.
Until you are able to establish how a possibility leads you to conclude that one should have a higher status is a pointless line to go down.
For reasons already described, the only way what I am claiming can be established is by testimony.
And given your past inability to distinguish between these I'm not surprised by that at all.
Thats because I do not see where they have any ligitimate application on the subject matter.
So one can be appealed to and that appeal can make a difference (up to and including a rebate and as such a direct reversal) and the other has not hope or even means of appeal.
You agree that and then still try and state its a valid analogy!
Both have hope, but in the case of God's authority, not by appeal.
This has been covered by others, but its worth borrowing a quote as I'd love to see these justified:
"Rape cannot be justified.
Slavery cannot be justified.
Mutilation cannot be justified.
Genocide cannot be justified.
Theocracy cannot be justified."
Explain how the above can be justified and you will have a point, fail to do so and you don't.
Already addressed that in another post.
None of the above can be described as ""consistent and reasonable and based on the inherent value of life".
While that is not what I am referring to on that note, its certainly a valid point.
That makes no sense at all.
To the contrary, it makes perfect sense.
Although to you, since you do not recognize the spiritual aspects involved, perhaps maybe it doesn't.
Ah so he got it wrong first time around. Then why still include it? Why do people still follow it? Why does his Son say the are still valid?.
All seems a bit inconsistent.
Perhaps you should have said, why do people still
try to follow it.
Although, the reasons are really, self evident are they not?
Just as above, the list of unjustifiables.
No he got it right, the first time around.
We are the one's who get it wrong.
None of which changes it from being an intervention/going in/alternate directive.
Qualified under a covenant, yes.
Not done without regaurd for that procedure.
That is consistant with my original statement, that God cannot intervene, any way he pleases, without regaurd for
man, or man's cooperation you might say.
You made a claim that you have both failed to evidence and are now in fact directly contradicting.
To the contrary, this statement is being made, under misinterpretation
It is clearly evidenced and not contradictory, by establishment of the covenant.
Genocide is necessary. Please explain?
First of all your judgement of genocide is purely assumptive. Since you were not there, or know all the circumstances involved, there is actually no way to determine that was the case.
At the time and under the circumstances, if there was no other way to insure self preservation, then yes it was.
Since there is no way I can determine that, I have to assume God proceeded in that manner because that was the case.
Also, as said, some of these practices were allowed to show, that they were not going to solve the problem, or provide any real improvement as a permanent MO.
Ah so genocide is OK if you think someone might cause you harm, they don't actually have to do it, they just have to potentially think about doing it.
Again that is based on your assumption entirely.
During WW2, millions of Germans and Japanese were killed by Allied forces, but that, was not by most considered genocide.
There is nothing to say these other events were not similar situations.
Its still an alternate directive. He intervened and you said he didn't do that.
No, that is not what I said, in entirety
So in a nutshell if god commands you to slaughter a bunch of people then it shouldn't be questioned and its totally OK.
Glad we got to the bottom of that.
If you wish to believe that God would make such a request, without good reason, then you are certainly free to make that assumption.
However, from what I know of him, he would not do that.
