Sri Lanka hotel bombings! Almost 200 dead so far

Who said God has to be all-this or all-that?

If you put a mouse in a maze to run it you have full knowledge of where it will end up. The mouse still chooses the route and takes the time.

Imagine the multi universe/parallel timelines theories. If each person has a million possible fates and God knows every last one of them then he knows the future even though from our perspective the choices are still ours.

Mazes can have dead ends, it’s not a single path. So you don’t know where it will end up.

If we are in a multiverse then choice doesn’t matter because a version of you will make every possible choice and wildly different versions making choices that aren’t possible for you. Every choice has the same value and causes another universe to branch off in the process, but one of you is doomed to a bad one. There’s a universe where you were late for work after losing your keys causing you to get hit by a bus when you crossed the road.

I.e., God is too big for the human brain.

protect them? Their husbands were captured in battle. Once the war is over release the captured enemy warriors back to their tribe. But if you plan on keeping the captured enemy warriors as slaves and you just captured the women too, you have two slaves that can at least be together as a family. Wouldn't that make sense? Then the Israelites would have thew moral "high ground" to a degree at least. Taking the women of the tribe you just defeated is some primitive ape/cave man behavior right there.

If the Israelites won the battle then release the POW's back to their wives. Why is this a difficult concept? What a great opportunity for god to demonstrate mercy in action - oops, day late & a dollar short for god I guess.

Many such battles involved taking no prisoners. IIRC in many of the bronze age battles there was very much of a "winner is the side with soldiers left over".

yet he demonstrates the same behavior as the bronze-age people, except cranked up to eleven? Whatever!

and god couldn't teach the Israelites a better way to wage war? Or maybe.....just maybe....the Israelites were just like any other violent bronze age tribe who wrote a book saying god told them to wage war. Just one way to look at it.

Has it every occurred to you that the only way to protect the Israelites was by exterminating their enemies (or at least the fighting age males)? Remember that Israel then is not unlike Israel now. Tiny both physically and demographically. Unable to defend itself if it absorbs any kind of significant attack. Unable to take major personnel losses. In such a situation, mercy to the enemies (mercy that involved sending them home) that surround you and outnumber you would be an unwise long term strategy.

well that is a good point, however if god can do miraculous stuff then I'm sure he could find a way to protect the Israelites without having them go ape-shit blood lust on their enemies.

Just like primitive man and lightning.

God's ways are greater than yours.

Seems like God is limited in his abilities.

Yes, you are primitive.

And again, this is the standard of absolute morality you endorse?

You're using the ridiculous argument of "If I were God I would do it differently".

No I don't. But that was then and this is now.

More recently though, in more than a few instances American troops have killed prisoners after they surrendered. For example during the early days of the Korean War, during the retreat from the Chosin River Reservoir (the frozen Chosin) U.S. troops killed almost all the enemy troops they captured because they didn't have the manpower to guard them, the supplies to feed them, or the transport assets to move them.

Finally.

Hence my point, what we call "morality" is not set in stone, nor should it be defined by a doctrine thousands of years old, because we progress. Ethics are what we get when we question those doctrines and find answers of our own.

You say morality changes and evolves, and then you say morality exists objectively. Which is it?

Where did I say it exists objectively? A concept can't exist objectively, that's part of the definition.

Meh. Another case of Christers looking to be offended.

If the bombings had occurred at services held on 25 December it would just as accurate to say the victims were "Christmas worshippers" since that was the service they were attending.

It’s an odd term that I’ve never heard before. Why are they using it now?

maybe the bad guys chose Easter because they knew that's when the churches & hotels would be very crowded.

Every single person on the planet knows Easter is a Christian holiday, even more so than Christmas because it’s become more of a cultural thing. But it actually shows more of the tragedy since it’s pointing out that these people were simply having religious services on a holy day to them, a time of reverence being shattered by a senseless attack. It’s bad enough that people have been killed in churches and other places of worship, but on a day with a sacred meaning to it makes it worse.

No idea, but it's not an inaccurate expression. Conservative Christers look for any reason to feel persecuted, though, so this is just more of the same.

It’s kind of inaccurate, you’re not worshipping Easter, you’re worshipping Jesus.

They’re worshipping on Easter, which is a bigger deal than a regular Sunday service.

It differentiates this week's services from, say, services from a month ago.

Would you have a problem if the bombing had happened last week and they'd said "Palm Sunday worshippers"?

Again, you’re not worshiping Palm Sunday, you’re worshiping god. I don’t lace a problem, I’m not angry, I just find it odd.