08 Oct 09
Originally posted by menace71Touche! "Wulebgr puts forth this sermon which is actually has truth in it." What a novelty!
I think we also have to look at the opposite of this. Wulebgr puts forth this sermon which is actually has truth in it.(as vile as it seems) The exception is when one becomes a believer is Christ. Also God would rather a sinner repent than be destroyed. So this Edwards seems to have a distorted view of God. While I agree we are in God's hands He was also missing the part about Christ for sinners slain.
Manny
OTOH, you need to read the whole sermon, if you think that Jonathan Edwards is missing something regarding Christ. Rather, I think the Puritans--Edwards was a Puritan--were the last Americans to really read the Bible well, and to look inward with honesty.
08 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by BadwaterA moral term that is true how and why?
Murder is also a moral term. Murder is also a term that describes a specific kind of killing.
Do really you mean a personal taste term, can you describe the
specific kind of killing of humans where it isn't murder?
Kelly
08 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWhere does God ever say anything remotely like this in the bible? Remotely similar to this sermon? Just wanting to know. Guess I better wiki / google this sermon.
You need to read the full sermon, Edwards was quite clear about it all,
but he did not sugar coat anything.
Kelly
Manny
08 Oct 09
If premeditation is the definition of murder than God has murdered human beings. Taking of another's life? But in legal terms aren't there different levels of murder? Like man slaughter is usually without intent right? I guess however we can argue God alone has this right to take life.
Manny
08 Oct 09
Originally posted by menace71If anyone can define murder anyway they want, what does it matter
If premeditation is the definition of murder than God has murdered human beings. Taking of another's life? But in legal terms aren't there different levels of murder? Like man slaughter is usually without intent right? I guess however we can argue God alone has this right to take life.
Manny
one way or another how you attempt to justify or condemn?
Kelly
08 Oct 09
Originally posted by BadwaterThere is really no point arguing over a definition. What matters is that both parties agree on the definition of given words being used, and what the implications are. You do not, as you seem to believe, use the word murder in a perfectly standard way, as there is no such standard. Some people would apply it to lions and apes and some would not. Nobody is right or wrong when doing so.
Murder only applies to humans. I didn't invent the word application, I just use it.
I personally would use word murder for specifically unlawful killings of humans with a possible addition of lawful killings I believe to be particularly morally wrong - for example killings by a dictator or secret service. I would possibly use it for God if I feel his actions are immoral.
The real question is what implications you believe you can draw when you apply the word. Simply because you choose to use the word with reference to God will not in any way affect whether or not Gods action was morally right or wrong. Definitions do not create facts, they are simply words used to communicate. So the real question is not 'Does God commit murder' but 'when God kills a human being, is he morally wrong.' I personally think that it would depend on the circumstances.
08 Oct 09
Originally posted by menace71I guess however we can argue God alone has this right to take life.
If premeditation is the definition of murder than God has murdered human beings. Taking of another's life? But in legal terms aren't there different levels of murder? Like man slaughter is usually without intent right? I guess however we can argue God alone has this right to take life.
Manny
How would you go about arguing for that?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
08 Oct 09
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, I don't mean a personal taste term or I would have said so.
A moral term that is true how and why?
Do really you mean a personal taste term, can you describe the
specific kind of killing of humans where it isn't murder?
Kelly
The specific killings of humans where it would not be murder is that which is not premeditated. I'm beginning to see evidence that you don't read my posts - at all.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
08 Oct 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain, I think my definition and description are adequate and applicable. The rest is a bunch of harrumphing, which is to be expected I suppose.
There is really no point arguing over a definition. What matters is that both parties agree on the definition of given words being used, and what the implications are. You do not, as you seem to believe, use the word murder in a perfectly standard way, as there is no such standard. Some people would apply it to lions and apes and some would not. Nobody is ...[text shortened]... n being, is he morally wrong.' I personally think that it would depend on the circumstances.