(September 9, 2014 at 1:10 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Do 10 jumping jacks right now.

Did you do 10 jumping jacks? No

YES!

I want my free will back

(September 9, 2014 at 1:15 pm)Losty Wrote: A command does not necessitate the commanded response. A command accompanied by a threat (like hell) is duress and it does/can take away your choice.

It doesn't technically take away your choice, but it introduces a factor that can't just be waved away. If god's offer is "do as I say or I'll take away the gift of life and you'll cease to exist" he may come across as harsh but reasonable. If his offer is "do as I say or I'll torment you forever" then he comes across as cruel and heartless. That cannot be rationalized away with "but you have a choice," as far as I am concerned.

Harsh but reasonable, I don't think so. It's like telling your kids to do as they're told or you'll kill them.
We create our children but we do not own them because they are conscious sentient beings and therefore cannot be owned.
According to the bible god creates people, but he also thinks he should be allowed to own them. I believe that's completely unreasonable. For a god to issue commands and expect them to be obeyed or else, is unreasonable.

(September 9, 2014 at 1:10 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(September 8, 2014 at 6:51 pm)Greatest I am Wrote: I am not sure how you use English but to me, a command takes any willingness or choice out of the equation.

Regards
DL

Do 10 jumping jacks right now.

Is this statement a command? Yes
Did you do 10 jumping jacks? No
Did then, the command take away your 'willingness or choice'? No

A command does not necessitate the commanded response. For your assertion to be true, the command to 'do 10 jumping jacks' would have necessitated that apart from your own will or choice, you would have done 10 jumping jacks.

hypocrite. You forgot the threat.

But you did not say do them or I will die and that is what your God did.

That definitely annuls free and unhampered choice. Right?

Regards
DL

(September 9, 2014 at 1:51 pm)Losty Wrote: Harsh but reasonable, I don't think so. It's like telling your kids to do as they're told or you'll kill them.

If you're talking about a power that created everything and is the source of life itself, I find it reasonable.

(September 9, 2014 at 2:23 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(September 9, 2014 at 1:51 pm)Losty Wrote: Harsh but reasonable, I don't think so. It's like telling your kids to do as they're told or you'll kill them.

If you're talking about a power that created everything and is the source of life itself, I find it reasonable.

Why would a creator God have to threaten what he created with death?

Was it not created to be exactly what it was. Scriptures say yes as it names God as the creator of our natures and we cannot go against our natures.

Regards
DL

To OP:

No. /thread

(September 9, 2014 at 2:29 pm)Darkstar Wrote: To OP:

No. /thread

So man should rule for his own good then?

Rather self-centred wouldn't you say?

Is that moral?

Regards
DL

(September 9, 2014 at 2:35 pm)Greatest I am Wrote:

(September 9, 2014 at 2:29 pm)Darkstar Wrote: To OP:

No. /thread

So man should rule for his own good then?

Rather self-centred wouldn't you say?

Is that moral?

Regards
DL

Man should not rule over women. It's not for anyone's good.

---

(September 9, 2014 at 2:23 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(September 9, 2014 at 1:51 pm)Losty Wrote: Harsh but reasonable, I don't think so. It's like telling your kids to do as they're told or you'll kill them.

If you're talking about a power that created everything and is the source of life itself, I find it reasonable.

The creator of life creating a species with certain desires and a strong will to be free and then to command the breaking of said will and to chain each member of the species forbidding the desires it created them to have is not only unreasonable but it is cruel.