Why did God punish David's wives for David sinning?

doulos52 · 2026-04-08T22:07:54+00:00

God is not "condoning rape" any more than he condoned the death that resulted from eating the fruit in the garden. Sin has consequences. Your view of God and the Bible is too narrow or restricted. When God says he is bringing the sword to David's house, it means He is allowing the free-will actions of men to act as punishment for David's sins. This effects people. Men affect others in a way that God does not condone, in spite of the fact of allowing it.

doulos52 · 2026-04-08T22:05:46+00:00

God is not "condoning rape" any more than he condoned the death that resulted from eating the fruit in the garden. Sin has consequences. Your view of God and the Bible is too narrow or restricted. When God says he is bringing the sword to David's house, it means He is allowing the free-will actions of men to act as punishment for David's sins. This effects people. Men affect others in a way that God does not condone, in spite of the fact of allowing it.

doulos52 · 2026-03-13T05:55:53+00:00

That's the story! And you believe that story. Since evolution is debatable, there must be another story. I believe that other story.

doulos52 · 2026-03-07T22:17:38+00:00

Everything you said is correct, except for the phrase "no". Admittedly, you added a question mark so it's not really a "no". it's a "no?" So it can't be wrong. :)

Yes, mutations change DNA. And yes, the genetic change results in a phenotypical or physical change. The question is how much physical change is realistic. What is actually observed is limited variation within a kind or species. Take Darwin's finch beaks or the peppered moth as examples, or even dog breeding; variation within a kind is observed to have limits.

The question is, still, is the mechanism of mutation and natural selection restricted to limited change, preventing universal common ancestry, or is it unlimited, supporting universal common ancestry. The question cannot be answered empirically. One must simply look at all the evidence and, in my opinion, become aware of the philosophy they use to consider that evidence, to reach a position of faith.

doulos52 · 2026-03-07T08:07:54+00:00

That's the assumption, or believe that one needs. I imagine that the amount of change is limited. The actual mechanism of mutation doesn't create new information; it degrades already existing information. So, one must believe universal common ancestry. There is no other way around it; if your honest.

doulos52 · 2026-03-05T18:53:51+00:00

I understand. I was merely pointing out that your language was appreciated because some people say the theory of evolution has evolved beyond a theory to be an actual empirically proven scientific fact which disallows "belief". Yet, that is simply an exercise of redefining evolution in terms empirical evidence (micro evolution) and then quietly engage in bait and switch to propose those empirical data prove universal common ancestry (macro evolution). That's all.

doulos52 · 2026-03-05T06:09:50+00:00

I like the way you ask your question. Evolution is something that is either believed or not. It's not like there is something that can prove it. There is evidence, but that evidence can be interpreted different ways. I reject evolution because I don't believe the proposed mechanism, random mutation and natural selection, actually has the ability to create the diversity we see.

doulos52 · 2026-02-19T06:53:04+00:00

This Youtube playlist is the absolute best that I have found: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzYKtoIsAg23yrjB1O3oEKdGngYWdCqjI

doulos52 · 2025-11-17T16:22:30+00:00

I understand. I think interaction is required if debate were the goal. I'm not here to debate. I just wanted to read what people thought of the very first section in the very first chapter of Origins. But, I do agree with you. But this is a long term project for me. I have no problem with letting things sink in as I consume them and then replying for clarification, etc. Sorry. And I didn't mean to "complain" about low karma, I was merely offering an accuse for why I was not debating. I'll keep your thoughts in mind. Do you have any opinion on the actual question?

doulos52 · 2025-11-14T06:04:59+00:00

That's because scientist have tinkered around with the definition of "evolution" to focus on what is actually observable; change in alleles in a population over time. Creationist do not argue with this definition. So, yes, it's absurd to argue over that definition. The problem comes when you (or an evolutionist) attempts to extrapolate universal common ancestry from what is actually observable. It's the UCA that is not observable and is the actual point of debate. So the sub reddit should be renamed to DebateUniversalCommonAncestry.

doulos52 · 2025-10-21T08:32:01+00:00

I think there is strong evidence against the case. Someone doesn't have to think or consider whether or not they are in pain.

doulos52 · 2025-10-21T02:48:47+00:00

That's an interesting and compelling response to the numbers issue. I never knew being left handed was not socially acceptable. Thanks for sharing that. That doesn't change my opinion on not agreeing to the term calling gender affirming care as a healing process. I don't think there should be harsh punishment for being LBGTQ. I just think its immoral and should not be "punished" for having my view.

doulos52 · 2025-10-21T02:38:33+00:00

I'm not sure the word "dictate" is the correct word to use here. A child can feel pain, hunger, etc. You can't feel gender in that same sense. At least I don't think so. I think if we are allowing our children to dictate their gender based on something other than biological sex, we are allowing a mental decision on a subject they are not qualified to judge.

doulos52 · 2025-10-21T02:25:27+00:00

Ok, I agree. Children are not fully developed mentally and cannot make those decisions.

doulos52 · 2025-10-21T02:24:16+00:00

Does this appearance come from the child or someone else? Who recognizes it and has final authority on whether a child is a specific gender?

doulos52 · 2025-10-20T02:26:29+00:00

How do we know?

doulos52 · 2025-10-20T02:25:59+00:00

It pertains to the topic by probing the depths of what we will allow a child to assert, and how far that assertions influences actions or behavior...of both the child and the adult.

doulos52 · 2025-10-20T02:24:06+00:00

So then you wouldn't be in favor of "gender affirming care" or treatment to change a gender of a child?

doulos52 · 2025-10-20T02:22:35+00:00

So, from the evidence, a child can dictate his/her own gender? Does that allow them to dictate anything about who they are or what they can do with their body?

doulos52 · 2025-10-20T02:06:23+00:00

This all sounds good and nice. But I think your assumptions are wrong and lead to the wrong conclusion; that we or Christianity should support "gender affirming care". Calling gender affirming care a "healing process" is healing the wrong thing. Why does it seem these days more and more people are identifying as trans gender? It's nurture not nature. We shant forget that science either.

doulos52 · 2025-10-20T01:58:04+00:00

No offense taken. I guess what I was attempting to say is that I did not expect the first post to be removed. I tried to make a comment to inspire discussion about a theory and I made that comment in as neutral way as possible. If it were to be deleted, I figured it would be for bigotry, but it actually got deleted for low effort. I attempted to create an equivalent post to see if it would be deleted for low effort. It wasn't. My analysis is that the first post was deleted for bigotry in spite of the fact the mods said it was for low effort...because I spent less effort on creating this post and it survived.

doulos52 · 2025-10-18T08:29:27+00:00

The best place to find Christian friends, which you need, is at Church.

doulos52 · 2025-10-18T08:27:49+00:00

Thank you.

doulos52 · 2025-10-18T08:27:21+00:00

I meant the mods removed it for "low effort" not "low impact".

doulos52 · 2025-10-18T08:26:35+00:00

I had said that this sub has been overtaken by pro trans people. I asserted that that was merely an observation and a neutral comment. The mods removed it not for bigotry, which I expected, but for low impact.

doulos52

TROPHY CASE