I said loosely. In the Bible I have, I must have read from the notes on the bottom. I have scripture and notations. Not a big-big deal.

Sure it is. When you're arguing on a topic, you want to make your premises and reasonings as clear and as accurate as possible, so as to give the other side less material to attempt to rebut your argument with. The less accurate your information is, the less likely your stance is going to be taken seriously. It's Basic Debate 101: Always make sure you back up your words with factual evidence wherever possible. If you don't, you're just making it easier for your opposition to pidgeonhole you.

Their reunion (Drawing from memory, so don't shoot me. At least I am attempting to do so.):
Look for the passage where Jesus gets his feet washed with the tears and hair of a sinner.
Ah, you're talking about that woman. The Gospels are not quite all-together on her identity. In the Gospel of John (which, coincidentally, is the only place in the Gospels where the stone episode that was previously mentioned is recorded), it takes place in the house of Lazarus and this woman is apparently Mary, the sister of Lazarus. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:1-8;&version=31;) In the Gospel of Luke, it takes place in a Pharisee's home and is carried out by a woman identified only as "one who led a sinful life." (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%207:36-50;&version=31;) In the Gospel of Mark, it takes place in Simon the Leper's home and she is identified as simply a woman with a jar of perfume. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014:1-9;&version=31;) And finally, the Gospel of Matthew is basically the same account as that of Mark's (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026;&version=31;).

So what does this all mean. Well, for starters, none of those Scripture references mention to the woman who was to be stoned as being the same one who washed the feet of Jesus, not even John's Gospel. As such, I really have no idea where you're trying to go with this, since I think you've got the facts a little screwy. If you're reading from a Life Application Bible or some other copy with footnotes or notations and such, those notes are not part of the Bible proper, and as such, any inferences they may come up with cannot be taken as canon. Sure, it's interesting conjecture to think that the woman who was to be stoned paid Jesus back by washing his feet. But unless there is definitive proof, it remains just that, conjecture. And I don't know what other source you've got to look to other than the Good Book itself.

Oh and for future reference, BibleGateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/) is ftw.

The version of the stoning I always heard was that Jesus merely challenged the crowd by suggesting that if anyone there was without sin, he should cast the first stone. As everyone eventually walked away, there was only Jesus and the whore. He basically asked her if anyone was left to condemn her. She said no and he said He wasn't going to either, that she should go and sin no more. Some people use this story to say that Jesus condemns the policy of capital punishment. Either way, it does demonstrate that Jesus' disposition was a merciful and forgiving one, which I believe was probably Mac's position in the first place.

whore.

That's a little condescending, don't you think?

Sure it is. When you're arguing on a topic, you want to make your premises and reasonings as clear and as accurate as possible, so as to give the other side less material to attempt to rebut your argument with. The less accurate your information is, the less likely your stance is going to be taken seriously. It's Basic Debate 101: Always make sure you back up your words with factual evidence wherever possible. If you don't, you're just making it easier for your opposition to pidgeonhole you.

True, but he did say loosely, indicating--at least in my mind--that he was quoting from memory, and that it probably isn't exact.

Evil acts have been done by Christians, faith aside. Crusaders sacked Constantinople. Supposed witches were burned at the stake. Whole libraries of books in South America were burned in the name of Christianity. Even now, many pro-Christians are seeking to ban abortion. I'm not trying to bash your faith, but I have yet to see that it can make someone a more moral person simply because it promises a reward or a punishment in the afterlife. That's just plain materialistic.Ah, we're talking about 2 different things in the moral realm.
You're asking about an individual's morals, and I'm talking about an entire frame of reference--on the broad scale, not the individual.
What can an atheist use as a moral frame of reference when there is no objective basis outside oneself? If I said that all men should only wear scanty Tarzan loincloths because it would enhance their attractiveness, thus benefitting our species, who's right--you (assuming you don't want to wear scanty loincloths all the time) or me? If I want to express my artistic freedom by running around nude in public (which actually would be far more amusing than anything else :) ), why am I not right?

Punishment/reward--I don't know what God has planned for heaven other than what's delineated in Revelation. I think hell will be a separation from that love, and heaven will mean being present with love directly.

From God's perspective, I'm not all that better than the serial ax murderer down the street--I just do less direct damage to the people around me. My good works may be miles high compared to Jack the Ripper. However, when you're talking about having to bridge a gap light-years wide in the relationship with God, the difference between my miles of good works and Jack's inches of good works is suddenly miniscule in comparison.

To answer the earlier question on 'does He pick just some people to save?' No, he wants everyone as one of His children. It's like we're all underwater about to drown, and He's offering each of us a scuba tank with air in it--but _we_ have to accept the tank--He won't force anyone to take it. You can't force someone to accept love.

I don't choose to be more moral/be a Christian because I want some 'fire insurance'. Some may view it that way, and I imagine God has something in mind for dealing with all that when the time comes, but it's not specified in the Bible in any significant degree because it doesn't have tremendous relevance for functioning here on earth. I choose to follow His rules because a. I want to honor the sacrifice and gift of Christ, b. they make me a better person here on earth c. they help me make life better for the people around me and d. He wants a relationship with me. That's not saying the non-religious can't achieve b and c, btw. I just think it's a lot easier when there's an objective code to live by.

Oh Jae, you've ignored the point I made about God affecting every single biological thing. God can't use natural laws? He made them, after all. :D What holds an atom together--shouldn't the protons in the nucleus fly apart because they hold the same charge? These aren't following natural law. What caused the genesis of life? What caused the universe? When you bring it down to the singularity that just preceded the Big Bang, the laws of science break down.
The fact that all of us are here despite the essentially zero probability of a cell developing in the primordial soup (see post above on the math thing) a zillion years ago and the incredibly intricate design, defying the law of entropy, shows an outside Designer. Can all the pieces of a computer come together on their own? No. Why would we then assume that humans, who are far more complex than computers, come together without some kind of guiding force?

Evil acts--will continue to be made by people, Christian or not. We may have forgiveness from God, but we're still human, and we're still going to screw up. All we can do when we do screw up is ask for forgiveness from both God and the person we hurt, make restitution, and go on with life.

How does God allow evil and suffering to exist--I'm drawing most of this material from the book "Cries of the Heart" by Dr. Ravi Zacharias--mainly because he says it far more articulately than I can. Most of the material is from his 'postscript to chapter 3' section, pp 210-218 and is more fleshed out than what I have here--while a good portion of this is actually his words, I'm hitting the highlights and condensing, and if there's confusion, it's probably because I've condensed those arguments poorly. Bear with me here--the argument needs to be taken in its entirety in order to be fully understood. You may miss the entire point if you take out a small piece to debate, so I ask you please to read the whole thing first before responding. In fact, I had to read it a couple times before I understood not just the main points but also the subpoints because he's that deep of a thinker. I've tried to keep it simple where I could, but some of his arguments can only be presented the way he's written them to keep the proper context, and he's very much the intellectual's intellectual. :)

The thesis as I understand atheists believe: Because evil exists, God cannot exist.
I'm going to present it as Zacharias does--the philosophical and moral dimensions first, and then apply it to our reality.

A philosophical point--
The categories of 'good' and 'evil' only exist if there is an absolute moral law.
An absolute moral law exists only if God exists. If one argues that we do not see a moral law in existance, there still is the assumption that we have the ability to decide whether or not a moral law exists. We can't deny a moral frame of reference without invoking a moral absolute, Zacharias asserts. If we accept that there is evil in the world, then God is not expendable.

A moral point--
How is God sovereign over a world in which realities exist that would be deemed evil if authorized by us--I'll address this in steps as Zacharias delineates them.

First--the connection between God's character and His relation to moral law.
Is the moral law by which each of us chooses to live something that we have arbitrarily chosen in order to exercise our power, or does it exist outside, or over and above us?

If we have arbitrarily chosen it, then we have no right to condemn the moral law by which anyone else operates--including God. If this moral law stands over and above us, how do we determine where it comes from? For the Christian, the answer given in the Bible implicitly is that the moral law that calls for the sanctity of every life is given to us by God.

Next--if moral law haunts us and moral law comes from God, is it decreed by Him, or is He also subject to it--again, arbitrary or ultimate?
Now, as we answer this question, a vital point must be made between us humans, as finite creatures, and God, an infinite, omnipotent being. The two choices of whether a law is arbitrary or ultimate exist only for us. Our finitude cannot allow for other possibilities, and our character cannot be the source of absolutes--humans cannot be the measure of things. If they are, we must ask ourselves who is the person who is the ultimate measure? Mother Theresa? Gandhi? Hitler? Stalin? Bush? Mao? We know from our history and experience that humanity has the great capacity to do evil. Millions have been killed and brutalized in the name of both religious and atheistic ideologies. We can hardly trust a human as the ultimate measure.
However, with God the law is not arbitrary, and it is not over Him. It is rooted in His character which is perfect and unchanging. He alone eternally and perfectly exists, as Zacharias states. The reason for His existence is in Himself, and so is the moral law.

God does not make a misjudgment or commit acts which are ill-willed or destructive to what is good. Only that which is pure and righteous is intrinsic to God Himself. So, no tragedy can be interpreted in terms of arbitrary or ultimate, but rather from within the character of the one who is all good and all powerful.

Existential reality--let's discuss now what happens when we have a tragedy or atrocity, and that someone dies--say, a child. There are four 'victims' in that event.

First--the child. In God's purview, is the death of a child really an act without recovery? If God is the giver of life, then He has the power to restore it to the one who has 'lost' it. We as humans perceive it as a loss, but God does not perceive it that way, and for the one who knows Him, the recovery is even greater than the life lived here on earth. There may be a finality to earthly existence, but not to existence itself. The life that is 'lost' is not lost when it's in the hands of the one who made it and sustains it in the first place.

Second--the person who knows God and now must survive the loss of that loved one. It is indeed a painful experience. For those of us who are believers, however, God comforts us and heals us--the famous Psalm 23 is only one example of many passages that describe God's interaction with His people after a loss. God not only gives inner healing and sustenance, but the promise that those who have been separated will meet again. Relationships made in God never die.

Third--the skeptic who stands by and condemns the act as evil or wicked. Two things follow from this. The first is the contradiction previously established--the one who makes such a condemnation has no basis for a moral law by which the condemnation is made. Mindless evolution does not provide a moral basis for this philosophical castigation. In fact, if we are indeed the random product of evolution, then aggression and domination are in themselves good things--they assure survival of the fittest.

Nevertheless, pain and death are evils we must live through, and it's here that a second important consideration challenges the skeptic. Evil always has a purpose, and it has to be defined in terms of this purpose. How does anything exist without first establishing a purpose? Destruction is a meaningless term without purpose. God's purpose for us is that we live for Him who is the source of our being and who has planted love in our hearts. When we violate that purpose, the greater evil is not death or suffering. Life can be restored. The greater evil is choosing to separate ourselves from God and live in a manner contrary to His purpose. At the heart of evil is autonomy--self-love and self-law. Self-law will always lead to a loss of law and self-love to the loss of love. The skeptic's criticism of evil is logically and existentially self-defeating.

The fourth 'victim'--the questioner who asks "How can God be sovereign over life, but we are not given the same right to take a life?" Neither our character nor our capacity give us the right to have authority over life's sanctity. God always acts in character and with purity and will never do wrong. We cannot take that same prerogative because we neither have the character to make the right choices 100% of the time, nor do we have the power to restore life. God can allow 'bad things' to happen because He can restore life through these tragedies and reveal the destructiveness of sin through tragedies. He sees humanity through the lens of infinity, His reason is pure and He is able to give strength to those who seek His comfort.

We humans cannot claim this absoluteness, because our characters are not pure and our reasoning may be flawed due to wrong information and wrong motives. Our proneness to error makes it clear that the tragedies and atrocities we see should make us flee to God and realize just how deceitful the human mind is. We need the wisdom and character that He can provide.

An additional thought to this is the question "Is this the best of all possible worlds God could have made?" There are only 4 possible worlds that God could have made that scholars have discussed.
1. No creation of this world--would it not have been better for God to create no world than this one with good and evil?
2. A world where only good would have been chosen--a robotic world where love is forced--and a forced love is no love at all.
3. A world where there is no such thing as good and evil--an amoral world
4. The world we live in--where good and evil exist along with the possibility of choosing either.

Again, as soon as we introduce the question of what would have been better, we again invoke an absolute point of reference, and that we can only introduce if God exists. Of these 4 worlds, the last is the only one where love is genuinely possible. Love is the supreme ethic that we know of, and where love is possible, freedom and the possibility of suffering accompany it. Where love is possible, pain is also possible. God alone is the absolute expression of love that is never separated from holiness. It's when we turn our backs on Him that we lose the source of defining love, live with the pain of unholiness, and so suffering remains an enigma and leaves us as imperfect humans searching for moral law and crying out for an answer that can satisfy our finite minds. There is no good answer apart from Him, apart from His infinite nature, apart from His sovereignty over life, apart from His love and His purity. Every other answer to the problem of pain not only fails to satisfy, it fails to even justify the question.

Just so you know, a good amount of Jewish people believe in Jesus and God. You just don't hear about it alot.
Really. Define 'believe in' for me, please. And I'd like to know where you've heard that they do, if you don't mind.

Islamic's version of the Old Testiment is flawed. They use it to wage war, which is an ultimate contridiction to what Christianity and Jewish doctrine teaches.
Oh really. So all Muslims read the Koran and say, "oh, let's go wage war, because it lets us"?

Not once have you used Bible doctrine to make your case; therfore, I consider you as an instigator who wants attention.
The same could be said for you. Not once have you quoted the Bible to back up a claim you have made.

If you want to make an argument, I would use scripture, and I would utilize the book in question: The Bible.
Practice what you preach.

There are futher differences in Prodistan, Born Again, etc... After the Reformation (Reinassance Period), Martin Luther helped fracture the Catholic Church. Hense - Prodistan, Born Again, etc...
'Prodistan'? I hope you mean 'Protestant', because I haven't a clue what 'Prodistan' is. Sounds like a former Soviet republic.

Be very careful in your choice of words. Use evidence to backup your disbelief, so you don't come off antisematic.
Be very careful in your choice of words. Use evidence to back up your belief, so you don't come off as a fanatic.

You really need to be specific.
As do you. If you are to hold your opposition to high standards of specificity, it is only fair that you hold yourself to the same standards and not rely on abstract generalizations and stuff you remember off the top of your head.

MacLeodGR, let me make it clear to you: I am not out to get you. I myself am Christian and have my own beliefs on faith and God. I just think that you need to stop going into debates half-cocked. You're speaking from your heart, which is good, because it demonstrates the passion and the zeal you have for your faith. But it is also bad because it is making you irrational and causing you to put up arguments that are not fully thought out. You constantly tell people to be careful and specific with what they say and ask, when you yourself do not give second thought to nature and specificity of what you type. You have valid points based off of your faith. I am simply asking you to better expound on them, because they are far too easy to pigeonhole.

Really. Define 'believe in' for me, please. And I'd like to know where you've heard that they do, if you don't mind.


Messianic Jews follow Judaism but also acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. The Jews for Jesus website (http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers) discusses this. There may be other sites as well, this just happens to be the group that I know about.

You're asking about an individual's morals, and I'm talking about an entire frame of reference--on the broad scale, not the individual.

Then explain the widespread and terrible views of the Church back in the Middle Ages.

What can an atheist use as a moral frame of reference when there is no objective basis outside oneself?

There is also society.

If I said that all men should only wear scanty Tarzan loincloths because it would enhance their attractiveness, thus benefitting our species, who's right--you (assuming you don't want to wear scanty loincloths all the time) or me?

Tell that to the men up in Alaska. :xp:

If I want to express my artistic freedom by running around nude in public (which actually would be far more amusing than anything else :) ), why am I not right?

It wouldn't feel very good for starters. :xp:

Punishment/reward--I don't know what God has planned for heaven other than what's delineated in Revelation. I think hell will be a separation from that love, and heaven will mean being present with love directly.

You've made earlier claims that pretty much everyone goes to heaven once they die. Why exactly is there a Hell, then?

However, when you're talking about having to bridge a gap light-years wide in the relationship with God, the difference between my miles of good works and Jack's inches of good works is suddenly miniscule in comparison.

That is a poor system, then. Shouldn't people be rewarded for trying to the best of their ability? If a blind cripple, for instance, tried to do everything in his power to improve the world around him, shouldn't that be rewarded in the end? If he was God, he would have done wonders. Should not intent be rewarded?

To answer the earlier question on 'does He pick just some people to save?' No, he wants everyone as one of His children. It's like we're all underwater about to drown, and He's offering each of us a scuba tank with air in it--but _we_ have to accept the tank--He won't force anyone to take it. You can't force someone to accept love.

That still doesn't explain why some people die and others live. You seem to be addressing why some people are religious or not.

b. they make me a better person here on earth c. they help me make life better for the people around me

Please elaborate.

I just think it's a lot easier when there's an objective code to live by.

Explain this objective code. It's easy to tell what's right and what isn't. How does believing in a higher power than us change that?

Why would we then assume that humans, who are far more complex than computers, come together without some kind of guiding force?

We have. It's called evolution. :D

I'm going to present it as Zacharias does--the philosophical and moral dimensions first, and then apply it to our reality.

Interesting. :)

Is it right to kill some one?
Looking in the Bible can help answer questions. Even for the non-believers.
Ecclesiastes 3:1 - To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
Ecclesiastes 3:3 - A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

To kill some one, if by justified reasons such as defence, is not the same as murder. To murder some one is to do out of hate and anger, or revenge. God says not to murder.

The seventh of the Ten Commandments says Thou shall not kill. I beleive this was set so that man would not be killing over every issue, or for pleisure. I don't beleive God would just want us to stand and do nothing if some one tried to kill us.

Also God did command the killing of others such as David. He had told David to kill Golieth. I will have to find it again but God did bring life to a valley of dry bones for the use of an army.

To kill some one in self defence, to protect some one else from being killed, and to prevent the death of hundreds is justifiable. To kill some one out of spite, by revenge, or because you didn't like them is wrong. To kill some one by punishment is a thouchy matter. You are killing them out of revenge for them killing some one. But the Bible says if any one lives by the sword they will die by the sword.

A question to all the non-beleivers. Why don't you beleive in God? If you did and repented and died you would go to heaven, but if there is no God as you say then what diferrence would it make. Wouldn't it be better to be prepared just in case than to find out that there is a God and be sorry in the end? Also what have you got to loose by beleiving?

That's a little condescending, don't you think?



True, but he did say loosely, indicating--at least in my mind--that he was quoting from memory, and that it probably isn't exact.


Technically, no. She was going to be stoned for adultery.

A question to all the non-beleivers. Why don't you beleive in God? If you did and repented and died you would go to heaven, but if there is no God as you say then what diferrence would it make. Wouldn't it be better to be prepared just in case than to find out that there is a God and be sorry in the end? Also what have you got to loose by beleiving?
What have I got to lose? My self-respect for one, and why would anyone believe in God out of fear? Because I think that's what many people do, they believe, or think they believe because they are afraid of what will happen to them after death, but the truth is, they don't really believe with their heart and soul, so what's the point? If God really is so wise and powerful, will he not see right through that?

I'd rather live my life at peace with myself and believe what I believe in, than betray myself just for the security of a POSSIBLE afterlife (which I don't think exists, but again, there's no way to prove it so it comes down to belief)

What have I got to lose? My self-respect for one, and why would anyone believe in God out of fear? Because I think that's what many people do, they believe, or think they believe because they are afraid of what will happen to them after death, but the truth is, they don't really believe with their heart and soul, so what's the point? If God really is so wise and powerful, will he not see right through that?

I'd rather live my life at peace with myself and believe what I believe in, than betray myself just for the security of a POSSIBLE afterlife (which I don't think exists, but again, there's no way to prove it so it comes down to belief)

Self-respect? Since when has religion been a form a self-respect? You are right though! most people, if not all, think and beleive in God out of fear but that's where they go wrong. God is about love and kindness, not hate and fear.

And after life has been proven. For the beleivers there is Jesus when he returned 3 days after he was crucified, and for the non-beleivers there are ghosts. For ghosts to even exist there has to be an after life of some sort.

EDIT: For every ones sake can this thread be closed before it turns into a flame war? The question that had started this thread has more than been answered, and topic is getting way off bases, and even too personal for some.

PLEASE :lock:

MacLeodGR, let me make it clear to you: I am not out to get you. I myself am Christian and have my own beliefs on faith and God. I just think that you need to stop going into debates half-cocked. You're speaking from your heart, which is good, because it demonstrates the passion and the zeal you have for your faith. But it is also bad because it is making you irrational and causing you to put up arguments that are not fully thought out. You constantly tell people to be careful and specific with what they say and ask, when you yourself do not give second thought to nature and specificity of what you type. You have valid points based off of your faith. I am simply asking you to better expound on them, because they are far too easy to pigeonhole.
Sure your not. ;)

Sure, I will make sure I am sober when I come into the forums. :)

Yeah. You make some good points. I saw the size of your post, and I want to approach what you have questioned carefully. So, I am going to take the time to go over them, and then I will reedit this post.

At least I am trying to use scripture. :)

My perspective on the world is not ment to be on the same level as everyone elses. I have been told that my interpretation on the world is very-very different. I have actually been told by teachers, professors, and others that my perspective is very usual. Even though my solutions are correct, they are not in sync with the normal tradition (U.S. Educational Teaching Style.). I was told it is called: Dimentional Thinking. Sometimes I am thinking on another level and speed than norm, and then it comes out 'What the hell did you say?'. Even though I actually said the statement I want to, everyone else interprates the statement with 'What?'. Actually, at the moment, I was thinking about four variations to Quantum Mechanics (Mathematics), my thesis statement for a senior project (Its two pages long at the moment, so I have to cut the thesis down before I type it.), and this post all at once. I will slowdown when I type in these forums, and make sure I present a 'normal' and 'percise' statement. I will try anyway.

The information I posted about the Bible did come from a Bible guide, which contains scripture and the author's point of view. Its called: NASB Study Bible. I most like was thinking about the study notes, and not about the scripture as is. I was also remembering the coallation between two scriptures, which are suggested to be conntected. One scripture about the protitute, and the second is about the sinner that arrives to clean Jesus's feet. She is actually debated to be Mary-Magline, but I don't know this for 100% certainty.

There are Jewish people that do believe in Christ. Within the United States, there are actually Jewish groups promoting Jesus.

Yeah. My statement about other religious beliefs was a little overboard. My point at the moment didn't come off too well. I will have to rethink my statement, so I can create some clearity. ;)

Self-respect? Since when has religion been a form a self-respect? You are right though! most people, if not all, think and beleive in God out of fear but that's where they go wrong. God is about love and kindness, not hate and fear.

And after life has been proven. For the beleivers there is Jesus when he returned 3 days after he was crucified, and for the non-beleivers there are ghosts. For ghosts to even exist there has to be an after life of some sort.

EDIT: For every ones sake can this thread be closed before it turns into a flame war? The question that had started this thread has more than been answered, and topic is getting way off bases, and even too personal for some.

PLEASE :lock:
I don't deny the existance of ghosts, but that has nothing to do with God or Christianity for me, it's the residual energy or spirits of humans who are recently deceased or have very strong spirits or souls, but that's my opinion...

I said I would lose my self-respect if I started believing in God, because I would just be lying to myself and pretend to be someone I'm not, and that's something I cannot do, hence I would have no self-respect...

If the mods wanted to lock down this thread, they would have done it a long time ago, as far as I can see there's no flame war going on, unless you intend to start one?
There is such a thing as freedom of speech, and just because someone doesn't like what he/she reads, doesn't mean they have to start a flame war or ask the mods to close down the thread, if you don't like it, you have the choice to stay out of this thread...

There are Jewish people that do believe in Christ. Within the United States, there are actually Jewish groups promoting Jesus.
Which makes sense, Jesus was Jewish and maybe the best example for any person of the Jewish faith to follow...

How far off subject could we possibly get here?

The purpose of this thread is... ?



...looks around corner knowing Prime isn't far.

Which makes sense, Jesus was Jewish and maybe the best example for any person of the Jewish faith to follow...
After remembering some stuff from Art History class, I can see how people would endup being baffled about religion.

Christianity Beliefs - Pieces split off the church, and then they split from each other, etc...

Jewish Beliefs - Pieces split off from the core, and they established extensions.

Islamic Belifes - Pieces split off from the core, and they established extensions.

I can see where someone may say, "What the hey?". I can tell you why Christianity split during the Reinasance (sp?), but I am not sure about the others. Islam is pretty new to me, so I have not had the chance to look at the details. I could tell you the historical background to the Bible.

How far off subject could we possibly get here?

The purpose of this thread is... ?

...looks around corner knowing Prime isn't far.
I think we are still close to the subject. Even though we are not hovering on that one question, I think we are still exploring the historical ideology and the legitimatcy (sp?) of the Bible, and the question of, "Is killing justified?"

I don't deny the existance of ghosts, but that has nothing to do with God or Christianity for me, it's the residual energy or spirits of humans who are recently deceased or have very strong spirits or souls, but that's my opinion...

I'm asking this sincerely, and I hope it doesn't come across as witchy, because that is not the tone I'm trying to take here. Anyway, here's my question:

If one can believe in ghosts as departed souls, how does a person then deny the One who created those souls in the first place?


On the semi-off-topicness (Jae makes a new word)--I suppose the thread could always be split, but the topic of religion I think is still in the realm of the original question.
Edit: In any case, that's the moderators' job. I'm just along for the ride on this thread, and a fun one it is for me. :)

I'm asking this sincerely, and I hope it doesn't come across as witchy, because that is not the tone I'm trying to take here. Anyway, here's my question:

If one can believe in ghosts as departed souls, how does a person then deny the One who created those souls in the first place?


On the semi-off-topicness (Jae makes a new word)--I suppose the thread could always be split, but the topic of religion I think is still in the realm of the original question.
The title says "Question About Religion'; therefore, we can say, "Questions About Religion".

I'm asking this sincerely, and I hope it doesn't come across as witchy, because that is not the tone I'm trying to take here. Anyway, here's my question:

If one can believe in ghosts as departed souls, how does a person then deny the One who created those souls in the first place?

No offense taken Jae, but I don't deny the One who created those souls, because again, that is YOUR belief Jae, not mine...
You believe it was God who created all our souls, i don't, it's as simple as that...
The concept of a soul was around a long time before Christians, and it is present in just about every religion as far as I know, so why can't and Atheist believe in them?
Atheism means that I do not believe in God, it doesn't mean that I don't believe there's anything else out there, I know there are forces in this Universe that go beyond our comprehension, some believe it's God, I don't...
I actually believe it's something like a life-force (or The Force if you want, but without the Jedi and stuff), but again I can't prove that and it's my own personal belief...

You're asking about an individual's morals, and I'm talking about an entire frame of reference--on the broad scale, not the individual.Then explain the widespread and terrible views of the Church back in the Middle Ages.

What things are you asking about?


What can an atheist use as a moral frame of reference when there is no objective basis outside oneself?
There is also society.
If man makes up society, who in society becomes the benchmark? One person? A small group? The entire thing? Where is the absolute when society is constantly changing? A number of societies thought infant sacrifice was acceptable. Nazi society was horrendous, and Stalin's society killed millions. Kim's society is causing millions to starve, and even the US can't claim to be the ultimate arbiter in what is considered 'good'. Society is made up entirely of imperfect people. Do I want to peg a moral absolute on imperfect people? No, because 20 years from now with a new generation it may be different anyway, and so therefore no absolute can ever be achieved.


If I said that all men should only wear scanty Tarzan loincloths because it would enhance their attractiveness, thus benefitting our species, who's right--you (assuming you don't want to wear scanty loincloths all the time) or me?
Tell that to the men up in Alaska. :xp:Well, I suppose the cold could have a detrimental effect in that case, so they can wear coats outside and then wear loincloths where/when it's warm. :D


If I want to express my artistic freedom by running around nude in public (which actually would be far more amusing than anything else ), why am I not right?
It wouldn't feel very good for starters. :xp:

Assuming it didn't feel good (and the only situation I could see that happening is during winter here), one can suffer for art. The point is, if a moral absolute is pegged on _me_, and I say streaking is good, how can you say I'm wrong?



You've made earlier claims that pretty much everyone goes to heaven once they die. Why exactly is there a Hell, then?

Actually, I didn't say that specifically. God provides everyone the option, we each individually have to make the decision.
Hell--the Bible is not tremendously specific on the nature of Hell, other than it's an unpleasant place to be. I think anything that separates us from God and ultimate love would be horrendous. It's there for those who, when given the option, openly defy God. That being said, I would never presume to say someone must be going to hell even if they were Hannibal Lecter types, because it's the height of arrogance for me to say I completely know what's in their hearts and minds. I also don't presume to know who's going to heaven, either. We can make educated guesses that Hitler belongs in Hell and Mother Teresa belongs in Heaven, but it's still only a guess.


However, when you're talking about having to bridge a gap light-years wide in the relationship with God, the difference between my miles of good works and Jack's inches of good works is suddenly miniscule in comparison.
That is a poor system, then. Shouldn't people be rewarded for trying to the best of their ability?
The crux of this is the relationship and love, not the works, and He bridges the gap back to each of us, not because we deserve it, but just because He loves each of us.


That still doesn't explain why some people die and others live. You seem to be addressing why some people are religious or not. That's because that's what I thought you were asking about. :) We're all going to die at some point.


b. they make me a better person here on earth c. they help me make life better for the people around me
Please elaborate.
b.--the intent of that comment really was specific to me only--I'm not trying to apply that to anyone else. In any case, it reminds me to love and reminds me to not be a self-centered jerk. Following the guidelines set down in the New testament reduces stress and teaches me to give up worry. Not that I'm always successful, mind you.... Some of women in the Bible (Ruth, Esther) provide examples for me in ways some of the women in my life would never be able to do--e.g. my mother is bipolar, and the illness rendered her incapable of being a great example. Proverbs give some very practical tips on life that I would have had to learn the hard way had I not read it. I could probably write pages on this. c.--I don't believe that I, personally, would have been as willing to volunteer as much as I have/do without Christ's example. I certainly would not be giving as much financially to the various charities I contribute to (and I pick those very carefully--I don't want my money going to administrators). There were some decisions and sacrifices I made out of love for the person rather than benefits to me personally. I stayed with my grandma as she died and spent a lot of time with my friend before he died of AIDS (and I would have stayed with him to the end, too, if circumstances had allowed). That was certainly painful for me, but they needed my love and support more than I needed to shy away from the pain or avoid the risk of exposure to HIV and the other diseases my friend had.

Explain this objective code. It's easy to tell what's right and what isn't. How does believing in a higher power than us change that?
Is it so easy, though? We think infanticide is wrong, but the Mayans didn't. Hitler thought genocide was acceptable. Mao thought killing intellectuals to further his agenda was correct. Al-qaeda thinks it's acceptable to plow planes into buildings and conduct homicide bombings. It's very clear that it is not easy for us to tell what's right and what isn't when we base the standard on finite, imperfect humans rather than an infinite, perfect God.

We have. It's called evolution. :D I can buy most of evolution (because I think God uses the laws He put in place to create the universe) until we get to the abiogenesis part, which, from my knowledge of biochemistry and stats, I find impossible to happen by pure chance alone.


I'm going to present it as Zacharias does--the philosophical and moral dimensions first, and then apply it to our reality.
Interesting. :)
I certainly thought so. It definitely made me think. :)

Henceforth, Jae, I will be calling you 'Mother Onasi' in this thread... :D

What things are you asking about?

You seem to be saying that not believing in God provides no objective outside the self, for the most part. Am I correct in assuming that?

If man makes up society, who in society becomes the benchmark?

I fail to see how religion has been any better. There've been countless atrocities done in its name.

Well, I suppose the cold could have a detrimental effect in that case, so they can wear coats outside and then wear loincloths where/when it's warm. :D

I don't want to sit on a cold plastic chair in a loincloth, thank you. :p

Plus I would hate the idea that a forty-something year old a few hundred miles away from me that I know on an online forum would dictate what I wear every day. :p

The point is, if a moral absolute is pegged on _me_, and I say streaking is good, how can you say I'm wrong?

Would you want your kids to see a naked woman? Of course not. Neither do all the other (reasonable) parents out there.

Plus you'd get in trouble with the police. All in the name of art. :p

Actually, I didn't say that specifically. God provides everyone the option, we each individually have to make the decision.

You said earlier that anyone who holds the smallest bit of love in their hearts would go along with God. Hitler and Stalin, two of the greatest villains in history, have shown they possessed it for a few people. Not that that makes up for what they did during their lives, mind you, but that would make it so no one I can think of would go to Hell.

It's there for those who, when given the option, openly defy God.

Your definition might be different than mine, but haven't my past several posts defied Him?

However, when you're talking about having to bridge a gap light-years wide in the relationship with God, the difference between my miles of good works and Jack's inches of good works is suddenly miniscule in comparison.

That is a poor system, then. Shouldn't people be rewarded for trying to the best of their ability?

The crux of this is the relationship and love, not the works, and He bridges the gap back to each of us, not because we deserve it, but just because He loves each of us.

So the works you do in life don't matter? This goes back to the subject of tyrants who can repent.

That's because that's what I thought you were asking about. :) We're all going to die at some point.

I mean why some people die in accidents and others don't. For instance, why did you survive a car crash when other people haven't?

b.--the intent of that comment really was specific to me only--I'm not trying to apply that to anyone else. In any case, it reminds me to love and reminds me to not be a self-centered jerk.

Please elaborate on how the teachings of Christ will make you do better deeds than the thics every good person has will.

I don't believe that I, personally, would have been as willing to volunteer as much as I have/do without Christ's example.

So if it weren't for how a Saint was crucified centuries ago, you wouldn't be doing as many good works?

I certainly would not be giving as much financially to the various charities I contribute to (and I pick those very carefully--I don't want my money going to administrators). There were some decisions and sacrifices I made out of love for the person rather than benefits to me personally. I stayed with my grandma as she died and spent a lot of time with my friend before he died of AIDS (and I would have stayed with him to the end, too, if circumstances had allowed). That was certainly painful for me, but they needed my love and support more than I needed to shy away from the pain or avoid the risk of exposure to HIV and the other diseases my friend had.

Is it so easy, though? We think infanticide is wrong, but the Mayans didn't. Hitler thought genocide was acceptable. Mao thought killing intellectuals to further his agenda was correct. Al-qaeda thinks it's acceptable to plow planes into buildings and conduct homicide bombings. It's very clear that it is not easy for us to tell what's right and what isn't when we base the standard on finite, imperfect humans rather than an infinite, perfect God.

As I recall, the majority of the people and groups you listed believed in God.

I can buy most of evolution (because I think God uses the laws He put in place to create the universe) until we get to the abiogenesis part, which, from my knowledge of biochemistry and stats, I find impossible to happen by pure chance alone.

So you're saying that God is reponsible for making every little atom act the way it does?

Sorry about your mother and your friend, by the way. :(

Henceforth, Jae, I will be calling you 'Mother Onasi' in this thread... :D
:)
:D
You silly!
:lol:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

*game show buzzer* Wrong answer, but thank you for playing: I have not reached 40, thank you. Yet. ;P Nice try.

The loincloth/streaking thing is obviously over the top--infanticide and murder is overdone in these types of arguments, and I wanted to pick something a little less depressing.

Edit: I was watching the Bears, ED. I have my priorities, you know. I'll hit the serious stuff sometime tomorrow. And yes, I really am younger than 40. Just ask Jimbo. :D

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

*game show buzzer* Wrong answer, but thank you for playing: I have not reached 40, thank you. Yet. ;P Nice try.

So says you. I can tell. ;P

The loincloth/streaking thing is obviously over the top

Obviously. :p

I understand ignoring a point or two you don't want to argue against, but don't you think an entire post is a bit much? :D

Edit: I'll ask him, then. :D

I don't deny the existance of ghosts, but that has nothing to do with God or Christianity for me, it's the residual energy or spirits of humans who are recently deceased or have very strong spirits or souls, but that's my opinion...

I do not discredit your opinion nor do I object to it.

I said I would lose my self-respect if I started believing in God, because I would just be lying to myself and pretend to be someone I'm not, and that's something I cannot do, hence I would have no self-respect...

Losing your self-respect from being some one you are not. Now I understand your point of veiw on this.

If the mods wanted to lock down this thread, they would have done it a long time ago, as far as I can see there's no flame war going on, unless you intend to start one?

I only mentioned about locking the thread because RaV™'s question has been answered, and we have created a new topic which should not have been allowed to continue in this thread. The question was about the religious aspect of killing some one, not what we all believe in and what our religion is. But seeming how we have wasted 4 pages over this topic I guess there is no need to lock it down.

And NO, I am not wanting to nor would I want to start a flame war. As you said yourself 'freedom of speech' which does give me the right to voice my opinion just the same as every one else.

There is such a thing as freedom of speech, and just because someone doesn't like what he/she reads, doesn't mean they have to start a flame war or ask the mods to close down the thread, if you don't like it, you have the choice to stay out of this thread...

I never said that I did not like what every one is posting or what I am reading. I knew the risk I was taking by reading all of this, and I knew the risk of posting my opinions. I did have the choice to stay out, but along with freedom of speech there is also free will, and I was willing to join the debate.

The reason for asking my question, besides the fact that every one else seemed to be on the subject, was for my curiousity to found out from others why they don't believe. I ment no personal attack or disrespect to any one by asking. I only was insearch for a more indepth explaination besides 'I don't believe in God'.

And you've received that, I think I've explained my thoughts and views pretty well...But if you want to know more, you can always ask...

And you've received that, I think I've explained my thoughts and views pretty well...But if you want to know more, you can always ask...

Will do!

Would you want your kids to see a naked woman? Of course not. Neither do all the other (reasonable) parents out there.Prude alert:rolleyes:.

You can't question God wtih such things as "why is there pain and suffering" because you'll never get a complete answer. God Himself probably won't respond to you, so what's the point in asking the never-going-to-be answered question?If God exists, you sure as Heck should be asking that question yourself.

As for the original question of the thread, no I don't believe that you will go to Hell for a "justified" murder (though who's to say it's justified?).Exactly. Heck, you can carry out a Holocaust like Hitler did and go to Heaven, as long as you convert on your death-bed. To go to Hell, you need to carry out some horrific crime like not being a Christian.

Nice religion, Christianity.

3. A moral framework cannot exist without an absolute standard. There is no moral absolute in atheismNor is there one in Christianity. Tonnes of morals in your religion have been turned down over the years.

If there is no God, the person who determines what's right and wrong is the individual, creating moral relativism.What's so wrong with that? Me determining what's right and wrong? Us as a society adapting, constantly updating our laws to fit changing environments rather than sticking with a two millenia old book?

I don't see the problem.

Without any frame of reference to determine right and wrong, things like (for extreme examples) pedophilia and infanticide are no more right or wrong than any other activity, because someone will say 'well, it's right for _me_'.
The concept of altruism is impossible in a purely 'survival of the fittest' environment. There is no reason for someone to sacrifice himself.I honestly do not follow.

Prude alert.ROFL! Where've you been? Welcome to LucasForums...I think I've been excommunicated for my comments in the now terminally boring and redundant Abstinence thread in the Senate Forums...

If you kill someone even with a true justified reason do you go to hell anyway? I ask this because I had talked to a friend of mine during class and I told him I wanted to get involved in some sort of SWAT/Special Forces type organization. Though he told me that if I or anyone slain someone that they would go to hell. Honestly this doesn't affect me that much for I am athiest. I am no goth or devil worshipper in any way or form. I just want to see what 'believers' feel about the question I have asked in this thread..If I offended someone, I mean no harm.Really, if you're going to join SWAT or the army or something, this shouldn't be something you should worry about. You're volunteering to put yourself in positions where it may be kill-or-be-killed; worry about surviving first, then worry about how guilty you should feel. You seen Full Metal Jacket? There's a part where the recruits have just sung "Happy Birthday" to Jesus at Christmas, and the drill instructor tells them: "You can give your heart to God, but your ass belongs to the corps!" He's saying: "You are a soldier first and a christian second".

If you're going to join SWAT or the military, your job will include killing, maiming and fighting without hesitation or pity. That comes with the territory. Your willingness to do so must supercede your religious beliefs or morality if you want to make it. If it really bothers you, hey, if you're Christian, you can repent, atone, do penance, etc and still get to heaven as far as I understand it. So you're covered.

This post is directed to RaV, the OP of this thread and addresses his original question ONLY. Since there has been a lot discussion that has covered the subject of justifiable homicide, I thought I'd point out the best case (to my knowledge, at least) of how God deals with UNjustifiable homicide by an individual who was/is otherwise known for his rightousness. It shows how fallable even the best of us are, and that we DON'T get away with it by simply repenting:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2011&version=47)

Start there and read on to the end of 2nd Samuel. It shows that even the most repentant person doesn't get away with anything; he/she is simply punished in THIS life, instead of being eternally damned in the next. It goes a long way towards showing how your actions don't just have consequences for you, but also for everyone around you, especially those you care about. Anyone who is curious should check it out. It's a short, interesting read.

Since there has been a lot discussion that has covered the subject of justifiable homicide, I thought I'd point out the best case (to my knowledge, at least) of how God deals with UNjustifiable homicide by an individual who was/is otherwise known for his rightousness. It shows how fallable even the best of us are, and that we DON'T get away with it by simply repenting
(snip)
Anyone who is curious should check it out. It's a short, interesting read.

An interesting read, though it seems like a rather draconian punishment to me.

Punishing someone who has done something wrong by making their child slowly waste away and die over a week's time doesn't strike me as particularily benevolent. David may have deserved it, but why murder the child to punish its father? The child had hardly had much opportunity to do anything wrong, had it? So why give it the death penalty? Because it wasn't old enough to be a faithful follower of God yet? Or is there some other explanation to that I fail to see? :)

Punishing someone who has done something wrong by making their child slowly waste away and die over a week's time doesn't strike me as particularily benevolent. David may have deserved it, but why murder the child to punish its father? The child had hardly had much opportunity to do anything wrong, had it? So why give it the death penalty? Because it wasn't old enough to be a faithful follower of God yet? Or is there some other explanation to that I fail to see? :)So Jesus loves the little children enough to hurt them to punish their parents?

Don't mob bosses tend to do the same thing?

That doesn't sound right to me... :(

^^^
You're right, stoffe, it's very harsh. I'd be lying if I said I could explain why the child dies. It might have something to do with his being the product of a sinful union, as opposed to their second child, Solomon, who was conceived after David and Bathsheba were married, and who went on to become king. Maybe God thought that the child was better off in the afterlife than having to grow up as the product of adultery. Beyond that, I really don't know.

^^^
It might have something to do with his being the product of a sinful union, as opposed to their second child, Solomon, who was conceived after David and Bathsheba were married, and who went on to become king. Maybe God thought that the child was better off in the afterlife than having to grow up as the product of adultery.

That's potentially a rather dangerous explanation though, since it might give the green light to fanatics, by divine example, to forcibly abort or kill any children born outside of marriage. If God did it, why should not his faithful follow his example and save the poor children from having to live with that "shame"? Quite a few people aren't exactly hesitant to act in the name of God in other matters, after all.

Not claiming that you are one, of course, just that leaving such things that open to interpretation can have rather scary consequences, when it is written in a book that so many place special significance on the writings within.

^^^
True, but ONLY GOD has the right to give life or take it away. Anyone who professes their faith but takes life in God's name is a liar, or insane, or both. Any life you take is on YOUR HEAD. Claiming that a murder is sanctioned by God is a cop-out.

And what gives God the right to take or give a life? Does that not make him a murderer? Isn't it a bit hypocritical to judge people for acts he does himself?
And he's a regular at it too, according to the Bible, I'm sure more than one person died when he decided to flood the world but save Noah...

And what gives God the right to take or give a life? Does that not make him a murderer? Isn't it a bit hypocritical to judge people for acts he does himself?
And he's a regular at it too, according to the Bible, I'm sure more than one person died when he decided to flood the world but save Noah...
I guess it would make Him a murderer if humanity had a right to judge Him; it doesn't. Since He created everyone and everything and has the final say on who lives and who dies, it doesn't make Him a hypocrite in the least. He is sovereign whether we like it or not.

What else can I say? God is God, and He does as He pleases. Do we have a say in it? No. Is it fair? No. Since when is anything on Earth fair? If life was fair, we'd have a choice as to whether we'd like to exist or not before we are even conceived. Life is unfair from beginning to end. Fairness in an imperfect world is an idealistic pipedream. It doesn't exist here.

So because god created life, then he has the right to take it away? That's bull****.

My parents don't have the right to kill me just because they created me.

I guess it would make Him a murderer if humanity had a right to judge Him; it doesn't. Since He created everyone and everything and has the final say on who lives and who dies, it doesn't make Him a hypocrite in the least. He is sovereign whether we like it or not.

Then I vote this god out of office for being a genocidal tyrant who is on a rampage against his own people.

What else can I say? God is God, and He does as He pleases. Do we have a say in it? No. Is it fair? No. Since when is anything on Earth fair? If life was fair, we'd have a choice as to whether we'd like to exist or not before we are even conceived. Life is unfair from beginning to end. Fairness in an imperfect world is an idealistic pipedream. It doesn't exist here.

Yeah, and yet at the same time, you want to say that god is perfect and all-knowing. If he is so perfect and all-knowing, he should know how to be fair. My parents are more fair than the tyrant you call your lord. They don't kill me and send me to hell when I do something bad.

So because god created life, then he has the right to take it away?
Yup.
My parents don't have the right to kill me just because they created me.
They're not God. They're just lowly human beings crawling around in the dust with the rest of us.
Then I vote this god out of office for being a genocidal tyrant who is on a rampage against his own people.
Good luck on that one.
Yeah, and yet at the same time, you want to say that god is perfect and all-knowing. If he is so perfect and all-knowing, he should know how to be fair. My parents are more fair than the tyrant you call your lord. They don't kill me and send me to hell when I do something bad.
Actually, He's being more than fair by allowing us to continue to exist, given the fact that throughout our history we've constantly disobeyed Him, and then had the nerve to judge Him by saying His punishment is too severe. All of the Hell that exists here on Earth was brought upon us by us. We deserve what we get for being what we are. If God was half as ruthless as you like to point out, He would have wiped out humanity COMPLETELY long ago, but He hasn't. Why? Ask Him, because I haven't a clue. In His place I probably would have, because I'm not humanity's biggest fan.

You don't get it do you? You're acting on a false assumption. Just because I acknowledge His existence does not make me a Christian. In all honesty, I wouldn't count myself among those people. I resent Him as much as you do, even though I shouldn't, so don't expect me to defend Him. I just know my place, though I may not like it. Like He would need me to defend Him. Like He even cares what we think. I just can't deny His existence because of personal experiences in my life.

Then I vote this god out of office for being a genocidal tyrant who is on a rampage against his own people.
I second that! :thumbsup:

Since He created everyone and everything and has the final say on who lives and who dies, it doesn't make Him a hypocrite in the least. He is sovereign whether we like it or not.
I just feel the need to emphasise that this is nothing more than your personal view on the matter, just as mine is that there's no such thing as a god, that it's just an ancient scam and that religion in the world of today is obsolete and unnecessary.

Now, to finally answer the original question of this thread: ''Will you go to hell, if you perform a justified kill?''
First of all, I have to say that I consider killing to be wrong, to say the least. To kill someone just because you can, or because it'll give you some sick satisfaction is utterly dispicable. To kill someone in self-defense is, on the other hand, completely justified and the closest thing to OK, in my book.
Now, as an atheist I don't believe you'll go to hell for commiting a justified murder (self-defense, or legitimate police action), nor any other kind of murder for that matter, because I'm convinced that there are no such things like heaven, or hell. I do think, though, that the act will leave some psychological marks, but they can be overcomed in time, possibly with psychiatric sessions, but also possibly with only the help of your friends and family.

And what gives God the right to take or give a life? Does that not make him a murderer? Isn't it a bit hypocritical to judge people for acts he does himself?
And he's a regular at it too, according to the Bible, I'm sure more than one person died when he decided to flood the world but save Noah...

The person has not died to God, however--just taken into a different realm, if you will. We can't perceive it in the same way because we're finite people. The person who dies to us is never dead to God.

You're quite right, Igy. And both of us are entitled to our respective opinions.

So because god created life, then he has the right to take it away? That's bull****.

My parents don't have the right to kill me just because they created me.



Sorry, but have you heard of legalized abortion? Technically, your parents can legally kill you before you're born b/c conception is the point at which you are created. They can have up to 9 months, in some cases, to kill you without risk of punishment.

Yup.

Who made up this rule? What gave god the authority to do such a thing? Why can't we try him for crimes against humanity? If a king declared "these are my subjects, therefore I will do with them as I please," we would say he's a who kills his own people, much like Saddam Hussein. When god says the same thing, we worship him??

Actually, He's being more than fair by allowing us to continue to exist, given the fact that throughout our history we've constantly disobeyed Him, and then had the nerve to judge Him by saying His punishment is too severe. All of the Hell that exists here on Earth was brought upon us by us. We deserve what we get for being what we are. If God was half as ruthless as you like to point out, He would have wiped out humanity COMPLETELY long ago, but He hasn't. Why? Ask Him, because I haven't a clue. In His place I probably would have, because I'm not humanity's biggest fan.

So much for that whole "free will" deal. :rolleyes:

We disobey him because he GAVE US FREE WILL. If he didn't want us to disobey him, he shouldn't have given us free will.

This is something that really me off... so humans are given free will by god, but when humans use said free will, they are punished for it. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but have you heard of legalized abortion? Technically, your parents can legally kill you before you're born b/c conception is the point at which you are created. They can have up to 9 months, in some cases, to kill you without risk of punishment.

It's pretty hard to compare an unborn fetus to living people who were murdered by their "lord."

A better comparison would have a born child being killed by their parent, which is... illegal.

Who made up this rule? What gave god the authority to do such a thing? Why can't we try him for crimes against humanity?
Heheh, you really don't get it, do you? Like I said before: good luck with that.
So much for that whole "free will" deal. We disobey him because he GAVE US FREE WILL. If he didn't want us to disobey him, he shouldn't have given us free will. This is something that really pisses me off... so humans are given free will by god, but when humans use said free will, they are punished for it.
Oh we have free will, all right. Problem is, we always make the wrong choice. Free will to lie, cheat, steal and murder, but we should get punished for it, shouldn't we? Goes a long way towards explaining why the world is the living hell that it is, doesn't it? We brought it on ourselves and WE DESERVE IT!

Heheh, you really don't get it, do you? Like I said before: good luck with that.

No, I don't understand. Please explain to me why this god is so fit to rule the universe, when he has ****ed up so many times, and appears to be nothing more than a pissy little kid with a huge ego having a fit because people don't do what he wants them to... despite the fact that he's being worshipped 24/7 in heaven. :rolleyes:

Oh we have free will, all right. Problem is, we always make the wrong choice. Free will to lie, cheat, steal and murder, but we should get punished for it, shouldn't we? Goes a long way towards explaining why the world is the living hell that it is, doesn't it? We brought it on ourselves and WE DESERVE IT!

People ARE punished for lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering. That's what the justice system is for.

And to address the last part of your post, the world is actually not as bad by a long shot as it used to be. We don't have European nations at war with each other, segregation is over in the U.S., the Soviet Union has fallen, and so on.

I do find it ironic how the most secular (and non-Communist, of course) countries are really the only ones doing well in the world, besides the United States. Where ever religion is the strongest in the world is where life is the worst. Africa, the Middle East, places in the lower Americas, etc.

just as mine is that there's no such thing as a god, that it's just an ancient scam and that religion in the world of today is obsolete and unnecessary.If you do not acknowledge His existence, then why are you judging Him?
What renders religion obsolete and unnecessary?
Who made up this rule? What gave god the authority to do such a thing? Why can't we try him for crimes against humanity? If a king declared "these are my subjects, therefore I will do with them as I please," we would say he's a b------ who kills his own people, much like Saddam Hussein. When god says the same thing, we worship him??

If the person has not died to God, what crime has He committed? How is bringing someone to be closer to Him a crime? Would bringing your child closer to you because you love them a crime? Your assumption is that once the person is dead on earth, s/he's dead to God, too, which is not correct.

So much for that whole "free will" deal. :rolleyes:
We disobey him because he GAVE US FREE WILL. If he didn't want us to disobey him, he shouldn't have given us free will.
This is something that really pisses me off... so humans are given free will by god, but when humans use said free will, they are punished for it. :rolleyes:

Giving someone free will is the only way you can have a real love. If you take away free will, you turn everyone into something no better than robots. Sure, you have absolute obedience, but you have no relationship, no real love. If you forced someone to love you, is that real love? No. In order to allow people to make the choice to love one another and God, you have to allow them free will to make that decision. There are going to be people who reject Him, and He will allow them to make that choice and let them go their way. He doesn't want that, though, because it's like a parent watching a child reject him, and it hurts. He wants fellowship with everyone, but He's never going to force anyone into that relationship.

If you do not acknowledge His existence, then why are you judging Him?

I don't acknowledge the existance of Darth Vader, but I can judge him for the he was in the fictional story of Star Wars, just as I can judge the Biblical god in his fictional story.

If the person has not died to God, what crime has He committed? How is bringing someone to be closer to Him a crime? Would bringing your child closer to you because you love them a crime? Your assumption is that once the person is dead on earth, s/he's dead to God, too, which is not correct.

I'm not sure what you mean by this and how it relates to my post.

Giving someone free will is the only way you can have a real love. If you take away free will, you turn everyone into something no better than robots. Sure, you have absolute obedience, but you have no relationship, no real love. If you forced someone to love you, is that real love? No. In order to allow people to make the choice to love one another and God, you have to allow them free will to make that decision. There are going to be people who reject Him, and He will allow them to make that choice and let them go their way. He doesn't want that, though, because it's like a parent watching a child reject him, and it hurts. He wants fellowship with everyone, but He's never going to force anyone into that relationship.

I don't know of many good parents who send their child to be tortured forever in hell by the devil simply because they reject their parents, maybe even for a very good reason (perhaps the child's parents are invisible entities in the sky that never speak to their child, never show themselves, and never offer any evidence of their very existance - like a deadbeat dad).

TK-8252:
It's pretty hard to compare an unborn fetus to living people who were murdered by their "lord."

A better comparison would have a born child being killed by their parent, which is... illegal.


No, it's a fair critique, even if you don't like it. You were talking about life, not at what point it was in the life cycle. Human fetuses are human, not seahorses or just amorphous lumps of tissue. If you've ever seen one of those videos of a late term abortion, or stopped to think about what a partial birth abortion really is, then you know parents have been allowed to kill their children legally. Let's not even get into where euthanasia ultimately goes (though it will be your children/grandchildren and not parents).

TK:

Hey, I don't get it either, so don't feel bad. I just can't deny His existence, and I can't really explain anything beyond that, nor do I feel obliged to even try. Anyone that says that they can is suffering from delusions of grandeur (a common problem among the various zealots). I'd also be lying if I said that I worshipped Him, because I don't. I'm not trying to take the moral high ground here, because there is none to be had by anyone, anywhere. Even if there was no religion at all (the dream of many Lucasforumites, I've gathered) Earth would hardly be a Utopia. People would still find an excuse to hate and kill each other. Thats human nature, and there's no escape from it.

just amorphous lumps of tissue.

A very accurate description of an early-stage fetus.

If you've ever seen one of those videos of a late term abortion

I'd prefer not to see such a thing, just as I'd prefer not to see footage of what goes on inside a slaughter house, for example.

or stopped to think about what a partial birth abortion really is, then you know parents have been allowed to kill their children legally.

The legal status of late-term abortions is shaky at best. Most states have absolute bans on late-term abortion, others have very restrictive measures placed on late-term abortion (such as only allowing it when the mother is at risk). But I will say that you are right when you say that late-term abortion is killing a child, no question.

Even if there was no religion at all (the dream of many Lucasforumites, I've gathered) Earth would hardly be a Utopia. People would still find an excuse to hate and kill each other. Thats human nature, and there's no escape from it.

Agreed. But take religion out of the picture and there's one less major reason for people to kill one another.

Yo, TK:

You're misquoting me, man. You meant Totenkopf, right?

As for your last comment, just substitute the word EXCUSE for the word REASON, and you'd be dead on.