I think the way children are raised should always be looked at the benefits in the long run. I don't believe 'the law' is making parents less 'handy' but rather the attitude and perspective raising children. It's looked upon in a more modern way and maybe that's a good thing. The 'I've turned out fine' argument is cool but let's look at the bigger picture. Not that I'm against a little correction here or there. Btw I don't have kids, I don't want kids and I'm so superannoyed by all these 'professional' parents with a child fetish who's life goal is to reproduce and use that poor kid as an accessory of their social media/attention/ego world. Sorry, mini rant.
I feel like the action/re-action of the child should be the primary determining factor in how the parent responds. I don't think it makes any more sense to say 'I will never' do something than it does to go into parenthood planning to smack your kip upside the head every time they do anything you don't like I'm helping raise an 8 year old young man, and I've never come close to spanking him. The most that's ever been necessary is raising my voice slightly, or grabbing him by the wrist (firmly, but not in a way that would cause any physical discomfort) and talking to him in a serious tone. I would/will never take physical measures without first stating very clearly what I'm going to do if the behavior doesn't stop. But, I would never say that that option is off the table. The measures are determined by the initial behavior, and then the reaction to my response. There are obviously special circumstances where it would make sense to take a completely different approach.
47 minutes elapsed from the time you left to execute the search to the time you reported back. Hmm...
The unjust should fear justice, yes; but what about those who have done no wrong and are punished with awful circumstances? Pls refer to our PMs re. God and cruelty- refresher is that it is easily argued that unjust cucumstances befall the just or innocent and therefore either god is unjust and cruel or mankind is inherently evil.. neither of which are good outcomes, and both of which stem from enlightenment rationalism and libertinage -> and lead to Nietzsches pronouncement of Christian impotence
"The servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Dats luke 12:47-48
Not arguing against that, though I take the metaphorical meaning of ‘blows’. Read what I wrote again, I am referring to those who have been given (for the sake of argument we take anything as given by God) nothing but badness and blows though they have done either nothing wrong or done good deeds; the innocent, the pure, who suffer from no action or inaction on their part.
Hey did you know that Bungie has 750 EMPLOYEES and still can't make more than 2 weeks of content after 3 years of development? Video game development is a RESPECTABLE industry
Nothing wrong? That's a pretty bold claim. In any case, free will cannot exist without suffering. True love can't either. God only lacks one attribute, and that would be limitation. That's why we are limited. That's why we have free will. That's why we suffer. It draws us to him, and if we persevere, it makes us better. We are rewarded for our suffering, but if we choose resentment over perseverance like Cain, we will turn murderous and suffer the due consequences of a self-righteous rebellion.
I love how they say "it'll probably break the game" "we may have gone overboard" **** balance let people have fun lol 500 of those are probably artists
"The 'I've turned out fine' argument is cool but let's look at the bigger picture. Not that I'm against a little correction here or there." It's almost like anecdotal evidence isn't reliable, and that one persons experience isn't an argument...
Again, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but I still think you’re missing the point - you’re getting stuck on the free will angle when nothing I’ve said implies free will doesn’t exist. Try to put yourself in the mindset of an 18th century Enlightened Intellectual or bookish Christian/Protestant scholar. They would be surrounded by the new idea that Man is a mechanical being, that the heavens are mechanical, that all has a purpose in some great mathematical vision of the universe. How, then, to reconcile the idea of a just God with one that created and allows the machinery of his design to generate those with blindness, deafness, tuberculosis, cancers, blights of the humours, pustulence, and other deformities? How could a just God allow such needless suffering in his universe, especially if he is all powerful and all knowing? How can one justify saying that a baby deserves to be a hunchback, that a child deserves to have been born without a lip, a chin, an arm? Through what free will have these invalids merited this suffering (in the eyes of the intellectuals)? They have not!! Then God must either be cruel at best, and unjust at worst - or Man must be inherently evil and *incapable* of doing/becoming Good. And thus - Man no longer LOVES God, but must Fear his punishment - or must do away with him altogether. And we are the beneficiaries of the latter choice. That’s my point.
"or Man must be inherently evil and a capable doing/becoming Good." Bingo. I think a much, much more relevant question to ask yourself is this: Can good exist without its counterpart? And to the question "why did God, who is all powerful and all knowing, create a set of rules in which pain was allowed?" well the answer to that is something I already touched on. God lacks limitation, so he created a limited consciousness. Limitation is a catalyst for choice, and choice creates suffering. If your response is simply again "why didn't he do it differently," then I would say that this isn't simply just a case of "he's all powerful, therefore evil because he allows suffering." Well, yeah, he's all powerful, but there are still things God cannot do as prescribed by the Bible. God cannot lie, he cannot break a promise, he cannot be limited, and so on. There is a distinct lack of information on this subject in particular, so the way I see it, you can look at the rest of the evidence as a whole and base your beliefs on it, or force God into a box with your assumptions. I think there are much stronger atheist arguments out there.