(September 10, 2014 at 1:35 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(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.

(September 9, 2014 at 2:10 pm)Greatest I am Wrote: hypocrite. You forgot the threat.

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

If I would have added 'or you will die' to the command to do jumping jacks, does that necessitate that you did them?

(September 9, 2014 at 2:10 pm)Greatest I am Wrote: That definitely annuls free and unhampered choice. Right?

To add 'free and unhampered' as qualifiers of choice is moving the goal posts. The argument here is: does a command take away choice. I have shown that it does not. You certainly can amend your claim to read: a command takes away free and unhampered choice. It is different argument.

This is just my opinion but I think this is why you and Losty are arguing that the command necessitates the commanded response. Both of you have a hidden premise in your argument. Namely that if there is a consequence to not making a choice that is extremely severe, it negates our 'free choice' and necessitates the commanded action. This may be true from an emotional perspective, in that we feel like we don't have a choice, but is not true logically, in that it necessitates our choice.

(September 9, 2014 at 1:40 pm)Tonus Wrote: 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.

This is where it gets tricky. We must establish that a command does not necessitate the commanded response. Then we can move on to God's moral obligation.

If I were to say to you, don't stick a fork in that wall outlet [a command] or you will die [a threat]. Does that necessitate you wouldn't stick a fork in the wall outlet? No (unless you're ShaMan). Is 'or you will die' a threat, or a warning of the consequences of your actions? If you were to stick a fork into the wall outlet and as a result die would you bear the responsibility of the consequences of your choice or would I?

The difference being that God is the one both making the threat and distributing the punishment. Your outlet analogy doesn't really work as there is no being or agent controlling the eletricity to specifically zap you, whereas God is the one creating and controlling the entire punishment in the first place.

(September 10, 2014 at 1:35 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: This is where it gets tricky. We must establish that a command does not necessitate the commanded response. Then we can move on to God's moral obligation.

I accept the premise that a command does not equal coercion by itself.

(September 10, 2014 at 1:40 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: The difference being that God is the one both making the threat and distributing the punishment. Your outlet analogy doesn't really work as there is no being or agent controlling the eletricity to specifically zap you, whereas God is the one creating and controlling the entire punishment in the first place.

I do agree there is a difference in the analogy. In the analogy, electricity is not the one commanding the person. Does that difference alone cause the analogy to fail and the argument to be illogical? This leads to a couple lines of thought.

The hidden assumption in this argument is that because God is the one making the commands and He is the one setting and executing the punishment, He could simply change one or the other. Is this premise true? If true, it leads to another premise, namely that God is morally obligated to change one or the other. Is this true? Both of these premises must be supported by the arguer.

Is it true that God could change the punishment? Let's revisit the outlet analogy. In the analogy the command is to not put a fork in an outlet and the punishment is electrocution. What if there is no difference in the consequences portion of the analogy? What if the punishment isn't set by God in that He willfully sets what the punishment is, but rather it is 'inherently set by his nature' in the same way that electricity, by it's inherent nature, will cause current to flow through a complete circuit and thus electrocution? If it is true that the punishment is inherently set, then God would be under no moral obligation to change the punishment. In fact, I would argue that to ask Him to is to ask a logical impossibility.

This would also mean that the command is not a threat. If the punishment is inherently set, then the command cannot be a threat. It's not, do X or I will do Y to you (a threat), but rather if you do X, then Y will happen. The punishment is inherently a result of action X.

On the other hand, what if God set's the punishment willfully and not inherently. Does this mean that He is under a moral obligation to change the punishment?

Lastly, as far as the original analogy goes, if it is unsatisfactory, then let's change it. You cannot drive over 20 mph in a school zone when children are present [command] or you will get a ticket [threat]. Both the command and the punishment are set by society and could be changed by society. Is 'or you will get a ticket' a threat, or a warning of the consequences of your actions? If you were to drive over 20 mph and as a result get a ticket, would you bear the responsibility of the consequences of your choice or would society?

(September 10, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Tonus Wrote: I accept the premise that a command does not equal coercion by itself.

What then is God's moral obligation?

(September 10, 2014 at 1:35 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: If I would have added 'or you will die' to the command to do jumping jacks, does that necessitate that you did them?

(September 10, 2014 at 1:35 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(September 9, 2014 at 2:10 pm)Greatest I am Wrote: That definitely annuls free and unhampered choice. Right?

To add 'free and unhampered' as qualifiers of choice is moving the goal posts.

The option is no longer do jumping jacks or do not do jumping jacks. The option changed from the former into... "Do the jumping jacks or die." It is your ilk who've moved the goalposts.

(September 10, 2014 at 1:35 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: If I were to say to you, don't stick a fork in that wall outlet [a command] or you will die [a threat]. Does that necessitate you wouldn't stick a fork in the wall outlet? No (unless you're ShaMan).

Is this an attempt at an insult, or are you alluding to the post where I claimed to have done the jumping jacks. If the former, then have your fun. If the latter, then please know that I realize that one is potentially lethal more so than the other. Of course the third option is that you're trolling

When paul says 1 Timothy 2:12 NIV

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. He is not being sexist or anything like it. To understand you have to look at ths context. At the time Paul said this women were mostly illiterate and unlearned, Paul is saying that women can only be allowed to teach if the are taught first. Also why would Paul teach women tp pray and prophesy in church(1 Corithians 11:5) if he meant them to be silent. Paul also critises men at the time for keeping women from an education. Furthermore in Ephesus were Timothy taught, there was a pagan cult worshipping the pagan God Artemis. This worship was lead by priestesses, this is also what Paul refers to when he says women should be silent.

(September 14, 2014 at 3:06 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: When paul says 1 Timothy 2:12 NIV

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. He is not being sexist or anything like it. To understand you have to look at ths context. At the time Paul said this women were mostly illiterate and unlearned, Paul is saying that women can only be allowed to teach if the are taught first.

Then maybe he should have actually said that, rather than not saying it and hoping that centuries later people would somehow leap to the conclusion that the thing he actually meant was something absolutely not hinted at in the text.

Quote: Also why would Paul teach women tp pray and prophesy in church(1 Corithians 11:5) if he meant them to be silent.

Because Corinthians and Timothy are completely different books, both are pseudepigraphic and not written by Paul, and the anonymous authors weren't smart enough to consider internal consistency between works?

Quote: Paul also critises men at the time for keeping women from an education. Furthermore in Ephesus were Timothy taught, there was a pagan cult worshipping the pagan God Artemis. This worship was lead by priestesses, this is also what Paul refers to when he says women should be silent.

How hard is it to write what you mean, seriously? Do you honestly expect us to believe that this stuff is just written super vague, and that only you, a guy who doesn't know the author and can tell us nothing about his intent, somehow knows what's up?

(September 14, 2014 at 2:39 pm)ShaMan Wrote:

(September 10, 2014 at 1:35 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: If I would have added 'or you will die' to the command to do jumping jacks, does that necessitate that you did them?

(September 10, 2014 at 1:35 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: To add 'free and unhampered' as qualifiers of choice is moving the goal posts.

The option is no longer do jumping jacks or do not do jumping jacks. The option changed from the former into... "Do the jumping jacks or die." It is your ilk who've moved the goalposts.

This is in defense to the assertion that a command does not necessitate the commanded response. If the command did necessitate the commanded response it wouldn't matter if there was a 'threat' attached to the command or not. In the same way, if the command does not necessitate the commanded response then a 'threat' attached to the command wouldn't necessitate the commanded response, it would only make it emotionally more difficult.

(September 14, 2014 at 2:39 pm)ShaMan Wrote:

(September 10, 2014 at 1:35 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: If I were to say to you, don't stick a fork in that wall outlet [a command] or you will die [a threat]. Does that necessitate you wouldn't stick a fork in the wall outlet? No (unless you're ShaMan).

Is this an attempt at an insult, or are you alluding to the post where I claimed to have done the jumping jacks. If the former, then have your fun. If the latter, then please know that I realize that one is potentially lethal more so than the other. Of course the third option is that you're trolling

I was referencing your joke from post #241

(September 14, 2014 at 3:06 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: When paul says 1 Timothy 2:12 NIV

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. He is not being sexist or anything like it. To understand you have to look at ths context. At the time Paul said this women were mostly illiterate and unlearned, Paul is saying that women can only be allowed to teach if the are taught first. Also why would Paul teach women tp pray and prophesy in church(1 Corithians 11:5) if he meant them to be silent. Paul also critises men at the time for keeping women from an education. Furthermore in Ephesus were Timothy taught, there was a pagan cult worshipping the pagan God Artemis. This worship was lead by priestesses, this is also what Paul refers to when he says women should be silent.

While I agree there are times that commands are contingent upon cultural differences, Paul specifically connects the reason for why a woman is not to teach a man to the created order, not to a cultural one. The context here is 'because Adam was first created and then Eve,' and not 'because they were uneducated.'

(September 14, 2014 at 2:27 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(September 10, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Tonus Wrote: I accept the premise that a command does not equal coercion by itself.

What then is God's moral obligation?

None.

(September 14, 2014 at 3:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote: How hard is it to write what you mean, seriously? Do you honestly expect us to believe that this stuff is just written super vague, and that only you, a guy who doesn't know the author and can tell us nothing about his intent, somehow knows what's up?

No one living today has met men like william shakespeare yet we can understand what he is saying.

(September 14, 2014 at 4:00 pm)C4RM5 Wrote:

(September 14, 2014 at 3:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote: How hard is it to write what you mean, seriously? Do you honestly expect us to believe that this stuff is just written super vague, and that only you, a guy who doesn't know the author and can tell us nothing about his intent, somehow knows what's up?

No one living today has met men like william shakespeare yet we can understand what he is saying.

Shakespeare never claimed to be anything other than a play write. He didn't, for example, claim to be writing on behalf of a celestial being about commandments relating to man's eternal soul.

Are you familiar with "Brevity is the soul of wit"?