I was actually talking about the Medieval Inquisition under Pope Innocent II, III and IV.
Click (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition)
And if you're a Wiki hater, I'm sure there are more sources out there, if you want to read how a Christian site justifies it all, go here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm#IIA)
Not that small scale is it? And a lot of people died I'm sure...Which source is better? One that has nothing to do with Christianity? Or a Christian one? Which one would be more biased you think?

Which is more reliable: the source that absolutely anyone can edit, or the source put together by a scholar of the subject, and entered into an encylopaedia, once must assume after the appropriate screening for rigorousness and bias?

As you can see, as noted by Blotzer, the nature of the trials were very much in the style of most courts of the time, and as it is said in your more favoured Wikipedia, some of the punishments are extraordinarily lenient - having to wear a yellow cross for the rest of your life stands out in this regard. Furthermore, again as Wikipedia points out, the death penalty was very rarely used.


Well i must disagree with you, I'll just leave it at that, I've said what I wanted to say about it and still stand by it, I'm not saying all of them are like that, just a lot...

So you've surveyed all 2.1 billion Christians in the world, have you? Fascinating. Must have taken a long time.


Yeah that's what I said, I don't get your point here, unless it's to confirm what I said...

Yes, I am in fact agreeing with you here :)


Yet again, just because I don't believe in God, that doesn't make me a selfish, unhelpful and greedy now does it?
I never said it did.

I DO live my life as a positive force in the world, but I DON'T need God for that, is that so hard to understand?

No. You can go a long way without the divine. You may do pretty well, but it is my belief that without God you cannot attain perfection, you may not be perfectly good. Only through the divine may we destroy all evil within ourselves. At least according to Christian teaching.

And they say I'm judgemental...What makes you think my rules would be so evil and twisted?

I don't. I was speaking hypothetically.

They don't mean anything like that, like I said, I live my life the best I can and try and help others as much as I can because I just AM a compassionate person who actually cares about others, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim or whatever...I don't to it because it's written down in the Bible or that's what God wants me to do, period.

Fair enough. As I said, that is a laudable goal, and indeed you may to a fair extent succeed. But it is my belief that on your own you can only get so far.

I know that, but evil things have been done by all people, religious or not, Christian or not, just because people don't believe in God, that doesn't make them immoral or unethical or even evil, it's a personal choice that has nothing to do with how a person is good or evil...

Certainly not. Such thinking is actually contrary to mainstream Christian thought.


Maybe, but I could bounce that ball right back and say, How can YOU be sure he has? Maybe you misinterpreted something as well, or maybe there really IS another explanation for *insert whatever thing God might do to prove He is with you*...
Again it comes down to belief, you believe He has, I don't...

Absolutely.


Yep, that's for sure, I just meant that killing in the name of God is wrong...

Personally, I think killing is wrong in principle generally, in the name of God or not :)

Well if I shoot the f***er in the leg and he still doesn't give up, the next bullet is aimed between his eyes, for sure...

Fair enough.

Because the Pope is not infallible, it's as simple as that...What he says is not more important than what anyone else has to say.

Ahh, well here we enter into the murky waters of faith. If you accept that the Pope has authority handed down through the Apostolic Succession all the way back to Peter, and eventually to Christ, and that he is the supreme earthly representative of God, then his speaking ex cathedra on religious matters is perfectly acceptable. If, on the other hand, he says to shop at Safeways, his opinion doesn't matter any more than anyone else's, since Papal Infallibility only applies when the Holy Father speaks ex cathedra on a matter pertaining to religous or ethical matters.

Another strange analogy, religion is supposed to be a personal thing, not some mass production that gets fed to a bunch of people who are willing to swallow it...How exactly DO these people guide others? What makes them better than anyone else? Studying the Bible does not make one smarter IMO...

It is personal. Of course it is. But sometimes you need guidance on personal matters. Also, the priesthood represent God on Earth.

The greater glory of God? Surely if God is indeed so righteous and all, would it not make him happier to see that money well spent on people who desperately NEED it?

No, but you don't need someone to say 'thank you' to you after you do a good deed towards them. You may not even necessarily feel it is needed. Nonetheless, it is good to show such thanks, is it not?

What's next should we make sacrifices at the altar for Him or something?

Um, Yes, actually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_%28Roman_Catholic_Church%29)

What use does God have of a golden chalice?

Perhaps a better question is what use do *we* have for it? One answer is that gold is the least corruptible element. Therefore, it is symbolic of the perfection of God, and what better vessel is there for the Blood of Christ?

I'm not talking about melting anything down, I'm talking about selling it to private collectors or museums or something...
Museums aren't really interested, TBH. Most are either already in museums, or private collections, or else they are 19th Century stuff, which isn't really old enough for either museums or private collectors to be interested...Also precious metals really aren't worth that much at the moment.

And cutting up the Mona Lisa is another strange analogy that has nothing to do with what I said, I was talking about Christian items, because isn't Christianity not about helping others?
That depends on whether or not this selling off of what you perceive as assets goes on to roof lead, etc. Then, that analogy fits quite well I think...

Also, St. Paul teaches that one should help others by balancing your present excess against their current need, rather than selling everything you own and going to live in a barrel...

Negative_Sun:
Maybe, but I could bounce that ball right back and say, How can YOU be sure he has? Maybe you misinterpreted something as well, or maybe there really IS another explanation for *insert whatever thing God might do to prove He is with you*...


This sort of reminds me of George Carlin's bit about football players giving God the credit for their making the touchdown, but never spew something like..."Jesus tripped me at the 40 yard line" when they screw up, so to speak.

My question to you NS is why do you seem so fixated on why anyone needs to prove that God does or does not exist? You constantly claim that Christians are judging you less worthy. Ok, what if they are? In my experience, most people who don't believe in any god (short of man himself, I suppose) take a very condescending view of their "misguided" religious brethern. Is all your anger turned on Christians or do you universally look down on all faiths (Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, blah, blah, blah)? Mind you, I didn't say on the people themselves (you may just think they're a little nutty on the whole religion question, but ok otherwise). Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Scientific methodology is but ONE means to an end, not the ONLY one.

It's also very clear to me that you don't understand (or willfully misrepresent) the whole concept of papal infallibility. It is NOT a concept that says EVERYTHING out of the Pope's mouth is incontestable fact. If the Pope came out tomorrow and said that the earth is actually the center of the universe, no Catholic would have to believe him as the issue is not one central to the faith itself. Same goes for his stance on the death penalty or the war in fill-in-the-blank. As to the whole thing about the Inqusition, that is an indictment of man using religion for political ends, not the faith itself. You would do well not to confuse the issue, unless you're merely seeking to stir up a hornets' nest. If you really want to understand the concept of papal infallibility, then do a web search on canon law or talk to a priest or canon lawyer. Have you ever heard the expression that there are no doubt popes burning in hell.

Stoeff is mostly right in the observation that most contemporary references to God are in the masculine tense. Setting polytheistic systems aside (Roman, Greek, etc..), the major monotheistic religions view God as a Father figure (ie providing rules, etc...) much as fathers have been expected to do in human families. If you look far (and wide) enough, you'll find belief systems rooted in the concept of a goddess. Frankly, my understanding of God is that "He" has no real gender, save that Jesus was male.

In answer to the other question about whether sins vs God are forgivable, I've never seen anything which states that merely not believing in God is an unpardonable sin. Also, the first 3 Commandments deal strictly with sins vs God. As I understand it, the whole "bound on earth, bound in heaven" thing aside, God is supposed to reserve final judgement to Himself. Remember, part of Christianity is the concept of free will. Perhaps hell will only be the absence of God. Like finding something wonderful at the end, only to discover that you can never have it, while others can. But faith has also been described as a gift. If you don't have said gift, are you liable for being an unbeliever? Many of these are issues which, though unfair, won't be resolved till we're physically dead.

In closing, NS, you have persistently labled Christianity as hypocritical, but have also consistently failed to explain how throughout this thread. It is your right to believe what you want, but it would help if you explained yourself intelligently on that issue rather than just lob molotov's for effect. It would not be unreasonable for someone to walk away thinking you can't seperate the action of people from the ideals they try to uphold. Also, your comment about the credibility of sources is poorly thought out. The obvious conclusion you wish people to derive is that the "christian" source is biased. The mere contention that the other source is not related to christianity does not absolve it of it's own biases. One has to look at both sources critically before the issue of credibility can be fairly decided.

Whew, this thread is getting too confusing. There's only one matter that I'd like to address in particular:
No. You can go a long way without the divine. You may do pretty well, but it is my belief that without God you cannot attain perfection, you may not be perfectly good. Only through the divine may we destroy all evil within ourselves. At least according to Christian teaching.
Perfection by itself is something unachievable. Perfection doesn't exist, it is only a word we use to describe something that has no flaws, which too doesn't exist. Everything and everyone has flaws. It is the nature of things. We can never achieve perfection, no matter how much we tried, no matter if we're believers or not.

As for the other issues in this thread, my fellow atheists and a few more open-minded believers pretty much said it all as far as I'm concerned. The discussion about whether god exists, or not is pointless here because we, the participants, are divided into:
1) more-or-less-hardcore* believers who, in most cases, won't admit the possibility that god doesn't exist and
2) more-or-less-hardcore atheists who, in most cases, won't accept the possibility that god does exist without any proof.

*-(no offense intended)

I accept the possibility, I just don't believe in it...Little nuance there.

As for the other replies, I'll get to those tomorrow, way too tired right now...But for you Americans it'll only be like 3 or 4pm lol, I'll never get over that.

But for you Americans it'll only be like 3 or 4pm lol, I'll never get over that.
Don't look at me, it's currently 11h51 PM where I'm at (Serbia).

stoffe-mkb raises some really good questions. I will try to answer them, but, I must warn you, deep theological questions such as these will require some deep theology to answer.
Why is God universally referred to as He? Wouldn't the presence of a gender indicate there is more than one being of God's species?
Just linguistic sexism, nothing more :) God truly has no gender. Our limited minds comprehend God, the first person of the Trinity, as the Father. We could also call that being God the Mother. Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, definitely was born on Earth as a man.

If you can be forgiven for any crime committed during your life, no matter how vile, by repenting at your death, but not having been a believer during your life is an unforgivable sin that will lead you to "Hell", why is that? What makes this crime so much worse than any other suffering you might have inflicted upon other mortals during your life, since it doesn't affect anyone but yourself and God? Would this not indicate that God has something to gain from being believed in, from being worshipped? And that not believing in God is to somehow deny God that something? I.e. crimes against other humans or animals can be forgiven, but crimes directly affecting God cannot?
Basically, all sin is against God. The core issue in all sin is choosing to do what we want, rather than what God says. It has been that way since Adam and Eve chose to eat the forbidden fruit. Crimes against other humans are sins not because they harm other people, but, rather, because they are violations of God's instructions. That is why David said in Psalm 51:4, "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done evil in your sight..." He had committed adultery with Bathsheba and conspired to cover it up by sending her husband to his death in the wars. Certainly, he had caused harm to other people, but his true sin was in disobeying God.

A common response to this is to claim that God is arrogant because He wants us to acknowledge Him as supreme and live for His glory. If you do not accept His existence, then this would be the logical conclusion. If you do believe He created the universe, then it is no more arrogant than me saying, "I own this house, so I get to make the rules for what goes on in my house."

The deathbed conversion of a serial killer would be as real as a childhood conversion if it followed these steps.
1) The person accepts God's sovereignty and understands he has violated God's will. He acknowledges that he then deserves to be punished by eternal separation from God.
2) He then comes to an understanding that he cannot cleanse himself of his sin through his own efforts.
3) Understanding that only God can make him pure or righteous, he accepts the free gift of forgiveness offered because Jesus accepted the punishment for everyone's sins.

I also vaguely remember reading somewhere that the concept of a "Hell" as a counterpart to Heaven hasn't been in Christianity from the start, but was added retroactively to the teachings by the Church some time during the first millennia as a means to better control the masses and compel them into submitting themselves to the faith. Is this false, or do anyone with better memory know where that comes from? :)
I do not know where that idea came from, but the Bible is pretty clear that Hell does exist. My search of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance reveals the word Hell is used 54 times. Jesus spoke of people being thrown into Hell. No, the concept of Hell is not a recent invention.

I must say I really appreciate the respectful tone of your questioning. My experience has been that nonbelievers pose their difficult questions with the intent of tripping up Christians. You seem to be really searching for answers. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a Christian view of the answers to those questions.

Another front has opened up in Jae and Devon's little war... :D
;P


I would hope you are not implying that everyone is forgiven in the end.
God has the capacity to forgive everyone, but they have to want to receive the forgiveness.



That you must say is a rather biased perspective. People are created by people in a biological process, not God. I could go on about this, but you get the drift.

Of course it's biased. So is atheism, agnosticism, antitheism, any other religion, etc., etc., etc. :)

The biological process--it's a wonder that things don't go catastrophically wrong on a far more frequent basis, because there are millions of tiny steps involved in the formation of a child. One of those things goes wrong, and most of the time there's a problem that is now incompatible with life.

I find it takes more faith to believe that a cell came into being on its own than by some kind of Guiding Presence based on biochemistry and probabilities. There is a point at which a cell will not work without certain chemicals/organelles, all of which are complex.



I don't know the specific details of what happened with you and your son there, but I am inclined to believe it was because of the more physical realities of the universe. Besides, with that logic you'd think he'd save people from being blown to bits in Iraq, or just about anyone who isn't a bad person that's been caught in a life-threatening situation. Is He biased in who He choses to live and die? If He shows merciful treatment for some, He should show it for all. :)

Actually, since I believe in heavan and that it's a much better place than here, then keeping me alive in this world is not exactly doing me a favor. :)


If you had decided not to have kids, would you have had any? Of course not.
One can get pregnant without wanting to have those kids. And I could have decided to have kids, but for some reason lost them, wasn't able to get pregnant, and any number of other things.


So Churchill gets a seat next to Tamerlane up there in the clouds? Depends on their individual relationships with God, which is something I don't know.

Logically, shouldn't that be punished? I'd like to think so with my finite mind. I don't want evil to go unpunished. There is a brief discussion in Revelation about different levels of heaven, it may be a matter of reward for good instead.

So the reason some people are and are not Christians is because God chose them to be?
No, God wants everyone to have this relationship. However, He is not going to compel someone to love Him. Forcing someone to love is no love at all. It has to be chosen.

That is easily offset by the great civilization the Romans built. Are you implying that having a great civilization makes it OK to throw people to the lions for sport?

So the greatest villains in history can repent on the spot?
Yes, even if we don't like that. :) My idea of justice is finite, God's is not. God can heal the greatest villains. If you had one child who was good and one wayward child who repented much later, you still love them both. The 'good' child has the full benefits of a continued relationship with the parent that the wayward child does not have, however.

The other issue--I'm not that different from the vilest murderer if you're looking at it from a sin point of view. Think of sin like sewage--if you put a drop of sewage in a vat of sewage, you have sewage. If you put a drop of sewage in a pristine vat of water, you've contaminated it and made it sewage. The amount of sewage is irrelevant--both vats are contaminated.

@igyman--you can't truly investigate why you believe without dealing with the question of 'what if God doesn't exist?' I just find that religion coupled with science and philosophy answers the questions of 'how did the universe come into being', 'how did life start', and 'who and what determines what is right and wrong' much better than science alone.

Well, on the original question, I do not believe you will go to hell for killing someone, or murdering them. God will forgive all sins. God himself told the isrealites to go to war many times in the bible, and I'm sure his people were doing the killing. There is a place for it. Besides, joining S.W.A.T. is a job that helps keep lw abiding people safe, and criminals from hurting people, so if you have to kill someone for that, then i guess you have to kill them.

I do find it a little interesting that people are willing to accept that the big bang (or some other contemporary variant) is the answer to where we came from, but will virulently contest the possibility of a god or supreme being. Both possibilities still present the same challenge. Where did the being come from or where did the material causing the big bang (and consequently the process of evolution) originate from in the first place. If you don't like the concept of God/supreme beings you would most likely opt for the idea of that material always existing in the first place. Sort of how Carl Sagan put it....if you believe God always existed, why not save a step and just say the universe always existed.

In the strictly humanitarian sense, nonbelievers are not automatically evil people. The problem seems to be when people are introduced to the concept of something or one greater than themselves, some will inevitably reject it out of hand b/c of issues of pride of place (such as they'll live by their own terms, not those set out by someone else). In effect, they see themselves as gods in their own little reality, and bow down to others only grudgingly, if at all. The problem of religion is that there are many of them, but no emperical proof of which one is the right one. It would be incorrect to say that none of them is the right one, only that it is difficult for anyone to know with true certainty which one is correct. Most of us line up with the faiths we were raised in or the ones which most resemble who we are at the time we make such a choice. All you can do in this life is try to live up to your ideals and hope that you made the right choices. God, if He/She/It exists, will take it from there.

God has the capacity to forgive everyone, but they have to want to receive the forgiveness.

So Stalin could repent for killing about twenty million people on the spot? No punishments whatsoever? That obviously is not justice. If you do something wrong, you've got to pay it back.

Of course it's biased. So is atheism, agnosticism, antitheism, any other religion, etc., etc., etc. :)

Point, although some forms of belief are more open than others. As an atheist, I look heavily on proof. If there was proof God existed, I'd believe in Him. But since I don't have any faith, I pay more attention to the physical realities of the universe when I discuss religion.

The biological process--it's a wonder that things don't go catastrophically wrong on a far more frequent basis, because there are millions of tiny steps involved in the formation of a child. One of those things goes wrong, and most of the time there's a problem that is now incompatible with life.

I can go into some depth about the formation of children, if you want. I am convinced that the way things work for that are about as natural as the grass (at least by me) being green. With that logic, are you implying that nearly everything that happens is held together by God?

I find it takes more faith to believe that a cell came into being on its own than by some kind of Guiding Presence based on biochemistry and probabilities. There is a point at which a cell will not work without certain chemicals/organelles, all of which are complex.

And natural. :)

Actually, since I believe in heavan and that it's a much better place than here, then keeping me alive in this world is not exactly doing me a favor. :)

Then if killing you would have been a favor, why does he favor some people over others? It's biased, plainly.

One can get pregnant without wanting to have those kids.

What I meant specifically was that you wanted to have kids whenever you wanted and with whoever you wanted. The fact that God would bless you with children right after the process that's required to create them seems a little convenient. Why weren't you pregnant the second you decided to have kids, then? It's a strange coincidence.

And I could have decided to have kids, but for some reason lost them, wasn't able to get pregnant, and any number of other things.

Things like that are in the minority, and as I have stated earlier, are due to very earthly matters. Unless God dashes people's hopes and dreams at His whim, that is. :)

Depends on their individual relationships with God, which is something I don't know.

Let's pretend for a minute that Churchill was an atheist and that Tamerlane was a perfect Christian other than how he killed thousands upon thousands of people. Would Tamerlane have been judged better because of his faith regardless of his acts, and vice versa with Churchill?

I'd like to think so with my finite mind. I don't want evil to go unpunished. There is a brief discussion in Revelation about different levels of heaven, it may be a matter of reward for good instead.

So Attila gets to stay on the first level of Heaven, still a much better place than Earth, and Jesus goes up to level nine? That's denial, not punishment. :)

No, God wants everyone to have this relationship. However, He is not going to compel someone to love Him. Forcing someone to love is no love at all. It has to be chosen.

If God affects as many matters as you seem to be implying, then it's because of Him that people believe or not.

Are you implying that having a great civilization makes it OK to throw people to the lions for sport?

If the good offsets the bad, yes. The Romans brought civilization to the lands they conquered, and left behind architecture that's admired and still used today. They raised the standard of living where they went, and paved the way for the modern world to come. They brought prosperity to cities that endured for centuries (Constantinople, for example), and I could go on and on. That clearly offsets throwing some people into lion pits. It was a barbaric form of entertainment, but compared to the rest of the world at that time, much more civilized. Unless executing some Christians offsets that?

Yes, even if we don't like that. :)

So if I wanted to, I could go buy a gun, kill a few people, rob some houses, and go to heaven regardless?

The other issue--I'm not that different from the vilest murderer if you're looking at it from a sin point of view. Think of sin like sewage--if you put a drop of sewage in a vat of sewage, you have sewage. If you put a drop of sewage in a pristine vat of water, you've contaminated it and made it sewage. The amount of sewage is irrelevant--both vats are contaminated.

So telling some little white lies is as bad as starting a needless war?

EmpDev, you seem to be a bit confused about the whole forgiveness process w/in Christianity. Theoretically, Tamerlane, Hitler and Stalin could go to Heaven, but there would be this purification process they'd have to endure in a place called purgatory. And then only if they chose to repent. The only way you get the scenario you're proposing is if Hitler et al were baptized into Christianity just prior to their deaths. That apparently is the big loophole that seems a bit perplexing.

The problem with evolution (not yet fact, though widely held as such) is that it doesn't address the actual existance of God in the first place. Ie, God and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. Even the "big bad" Catholic Church recognizes this. The fact is that science is merely a tool, not an end.

Another thing which makes religion perplexing for many people, believers included, is that there is no uniform set of beliefs characterizing all the major world religions. All of them have offshoots. Isalm has Suni, Shia and a few others. Christianity is split between Catholics and Protestants, each of which are somewhat fractured. Even Judaism is very decentralized. These splits can even lead to contradictory strains of thought. Some forms of Christianity buy into the concept of predestination while others embrace free will. Hence, God either is a control freak or something of an overly indulgent parent or perhaps an absentee landlord depending on where you come down on the issue.

I'm somewhat curious as to what type of evidence you're looking for, a street address perhaps. Maybe a fully staffed PR department complete with a tourist info bureau. Kind of like Disney World, maybe. Come see Heaven and then decide if you'd rather not just go to hell like everyone tells you to anyway (toungue in cheek, here). But a lack of emperical evidence is usually cited as the reason many humanists refuse to believe in God. So, what form is the proof to take? And in an increasingly tech sophisticated world, how willing would you be to accept such proof as something other than a slick trick? just a few questions for you to ponder.....

Whew, this thread is getting too confusing. There's only one matter that I'd like to address in particular:

Perfection by itself is something unachievable. Perfection doesn't exist, it is only a word we use to describe something that has no flaws, which too doesn't exist. Everything and everyone has flaws. It is the nature of things. We can never achieve perfection, no matter how much we tried, no matter if we're believers or not.

Humanity in itself and on its own cannot, but with the aid of the divine - the perfect - why should we be unable to? In any case isn't this a matter solely of faith? So no empirical statement by either you or I is correct...right?

As for the other issues in this thread, my fellow atheists and a few more open-minded believers pretty much said it all as far as I'm concerned. The discussion about whether god exists, or not is pointless here because we, the participants, are divided into:
1) more-or-less-hardcore* believers who, in most cases, won't admit the possibility that god doesn't exist and
2) more-or-less-hardcore atheists who, in most cases, won't accept the possibility that god does exist without any proof.

True, but so is speculating on the nature of KotOR III. Doesn't stop us doing it though :xp:

Humanity in itself and on its own cannot, but with the aid of the divine - the perfect - why should we be unable to?
Because, like I said, perfection is a designation for a nonexistant state. We all strive for it, but we cannot achieve it because it doesn't exist.
In any case isn't this a matter solely of faith? So no empirical statement by either you or I is correct...right?
I'd say that it's more a matter of personal opinion, or impression on a certain matter. For example, if you've spent a lot of time writing a fic (to take a simpler example) and read carefully through it multiple times, corrected every grammar/spelling/style error you coud find and in the end you were satisfied with what you wrote, you'll say ''perfect'', though you know it's not. There will always be at least one small error that will make it imperfect. There will always be something you missed (even if you used spellcheck, just to prevent this kind of answer).
True, but so is speculating on the nature of KotOR III. Doesn't stop us doing it though :xp:
Number one, I think this subject is a little more serious than the nature of KoTOR 3.
Number two, (regarding the nature of K3) it has stopped me and quite a few others :xp:

So if I wanted to, I could go buy a gun, kill a few people, rob some houses, and go to heaven regardless?

This is strictly a matter of my opinion, but no a person can not go out purposely commit a murder or commit other sins with the intension of asking god’s forgiveness afterward and expect to get into heaven. God knows all, so he/she knows what is in our heart and we will be unable to fool him/her like we do our fellow mortals. God knows if we are asking forgiveness out fear or if we are truly remorseful and sorry for our sins and to those that we sinned against. Many religions have different views on this, but this is my personal belief. I never ask forgiveness for anything that I am not truly remorseful and sorry for. What the point God knows my true intentions anyways.

and yet we have a lot of problems in this world that can be attributed to a number of different problems. and some people would even attribute those problems to "common sense" which can be the result of a number of reasons. with no real reference point, we're left to our own devices which have been proven time and again to be far from perfect.
So your point is that the Bible is the only or most exact reference point to leading a good life? Who are you to say my reference points are bad? Or anyone else's for that matter?

my earlier point by pointing out the root of the Western culture's inheirant ethic structure was meant to explain this. you can say all you want that there were other cultures that existed before the Bible was written, which is true, but there is nothing that has had more impact on Western culture than Christianity which is rooted in the Bible. in other words, the most influential reference point on Western ethics is rooted in the Bible. you could name a couple of philosophers and idealists, but the one reference point that has stood the test of time in the Western culture is the Bible.actually, there are only about 2 theories that i can think of off the top of my head, and only one of them is absent of some sort of a supernatural figure. and in all honesty, they both seem a bit far-fetched and require some degree of faith....and without a solid reference point, your standards are flawed the same as anyone else, myself included. and don't take that as a flame. i'm writing hypothetically here. ;)
I repeat, who are you or any other Christian for that matter to say that my ways or anyone else's are flawed? What defines a "solid reference point"?
IMO, my views and common sense are just as right as the Christian ones, and the fact that some of them are the same, is not entirely because Christianity had such a huge impact on the Western culture (but yes, I DO admit that fact, and I have been raised as a Christian, baptized and everything)...It never had an impact on Japanese culture for example, but they still turned out all right, and were I born there I would probably have the same ethics and morals, because it's who I am and how my parents have raised me, obviously there would be a few cultural differences, but my point is still valid I believe...
There are more theories to how the universe came to be, I've read some but they're just wild theories, but what makes the Christian one more right than saying the universe was created by a gigantic aliens who has several universes inside of marbles (reference to the end of MIB here)?
There's no way to prove either or, I just don't believe it was created by God, because it doesn't make sense to me...

that is one of the major points of Christianity. we, as humans, cannot make our standards perfect. and as a whole, our standards will differ wildly because of our flawed nature. by having a perfect God as a reference point for our standards, our standards can then stand on something much more concrete.then by definition, you're guilty of ignorance. you have to understand that i'm in no way trying to condescend you, but by definition, there is only one way to eternal life which is by accepting Jesus. just simply living your life to the best you can isn't enough because of the flawed nature in all of us.
But my point to you is this, is say that God was created by man to explain for things we can't explain, God is perfect because we are not and never will be, but neither is God because he was created by humans and they have used his name in vain or even for evil purposes.
Who says that the Christian standards are so perfect? What makes them better tham Islamic ones? or Jewish ones? That is a very arrogant statement IMO.
Just living my life the best I can IS good enough, and if I stand before God one day and he judges me because I never believed in him, then I will deny His self-righteous Heaven and take whatever is coming to me...

for me, that's not an obstacle. i live my life the way i want to live my life, but the difference is that my standards line up with the Bible. do i live up to my standards? there isn't a day that i don't meet them, but i still wake up each morning and go for it all over again as i live my life. believing in God and worshipping him is something that i just do as it's apart of my life. IMHO, i'm a better person for it, but i'll be the first to admit that i'm not perfect.
Fair enough, that's your life, and your faith, I have mine and I'm happy with that...

i don't know if that helps you understand it any better, but i certainly don't want you to feel like you're less than anybody else. in my view, we're in the same boat with different vantage points. ;)
We sure are, I apologise if I misinterpreted some stuff before, I do tend to run very hot when it comes to this subject, but as you can see, I can explain my thoughts in a calm and rational way...

So your point is that the Bible is the only or most exact reference point to leading a good life? Who are you to say my reference points are bad? Or anyone else's for that matter?


I repeat, who are you or any other Christian for that matter to say that my ways or anyone else's are flawed? What defines a "solid reference point"?
IMO, my views and common sense are just as right as the Christian ones, and the fact that some of them are the same, is not entirely because Christianity had such a huge impact on the Western culture (but yes, I DO admit that fact, and I have been raised as a Christian, baptized and everything)...It never had an impact on Japanese culture for example, but they still turned out all right, and were I born there I would probably have the same ethics and morals, because it's who I am and how my parents have raised me, obviously there would be a few cultural differences, but my point is still valid I believe...
There are more theories to how the universe came to be, I've read some but they're just wild theories, but what makes the Christian one more right than saying the universe was created by a gigantic aliens who has several universes inside of marbles (reference to the end of MIB here)?
There's no way to prove either or, I just don't believe it was created by God, because it doesn't make sense to me...


But my point to you is this, is say that God was created by man to explain for things we can't explain, God is perfect because we are not and never will be, but neither is God because he was created by humans and they have used his name in vain or even for evil purposes.
Who says that the Christian standards are so perfect? What makes them better tham Islamic ones? or Jewish ones? That is a very arrogant statement IMO.
Just living my life the best I can IS good enough, and if I stand before God one day and he judges me because I never believed in him, then I will deny His self-righteous Heaven and take whatever is coming to me...


Fair enough, that's your life, and your faith, I have mine and I'm happy with that...


We sure are, I apologise if I misinterpreted some stuff before, I do tend to run very hot when it comes to this subject, but as you can see, I can explain my thoughts in a calm and rational way...
According to Christianity, the Bible was inspired by the word of God. God wrote the Bible through the hearts and minds of the scribes.

Next: Normal Christians follow doctrine, and they don't judge anyone's beliefs or actions. God judges how you interact with others, and how you respond to the environment. Environment = The people you interact with day by day. If you have a probem with God's laws, I would take it up with him. You would be wrong to take it out on his followers.

Next: God wants you to accept him through your own freewill. If you desire not to follow him, because you don't agree with him, I would not judge something that you have no experience with.

"Who says that the Christian standards are so perfect? What makes them better tham Islamic ones? or Jewish ones? That is a very arrogant statement IMO..."
Its more like God's standards are perfect. I found another flaw in your statement. Just so you know, a good amount of Jewish people believe in Jesus and God. You just don't hear about it alot.

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.

FYI - Jesus was Jewish.

Sounds sort of weird how people are projecting if you beleive in 'god' that you will step through the gates no matter what you do. Hitler was as religious as they come, but he caused a huge genocide. Does that allow him into heaven with being devoted to god?

Sounds sort of weird how people are projecting if you beleive in 'god' that you will step through the gates no matter what you do. Hitler was as religious as they come, but he caused a huge genocide. Does that allow him into heaven with being devoted to god?ahh, but merely believing in God isn't ever enough. acknowledging God's existance is merely the first step in the process. the next step is to repent of your sins, and that part can be a bit tricky. you see, the repentance part has to be done sincerely.

the problem with someone like Hitler, Stalin, or some of the other very evil men in this world is that they believed what they were doing was right. for Hitler or Stalin to truely repent for their mass killings would've been a massive obstacle for them to overcome. i highly doubt that men such as they would be able to come to a point where they believed that what they've done was horribly evil.

and of course the last part of the Christian salavation is to recognize that Jesus came to the Earth to die in your stead as atonement for everything you just repented for. from that point, the various sects of Christianity are somewhat divided. some believe that once you do that the first time, you're saved for life reguardless of what you do next and how you live your life afterwards. other sects believe that you're saved reguardless, but you need to maintain a level of repentance daily in order to maintain your salvation. and finally, others believe that you can lose your salvation entirely depending on what you do after you go through the process the first time (or subsequent processes that you might have already gone through).

i personally believe that you just need to maintain a level of repentance daily. of course, i also believe that living your life to the level that God wants you to be at helps things out a bit more rather than just rinsing and reusing the repentance process all the time. but, of course, that's just my beliefs. ;)I repeat, who are you or any other Christian for that matter to say that my ways or anyone else's are flawed? What defines a "solid reference point"?in all honesty, i can say it because that's the way i believe, and a lot of other Christians will share that viewpoint. however, you're rightfully welcome to call it an opinion if you so choose because of the point of view that you argue from.

as for the reference point, let me give you an example. i believe that murder is wrong because murder is something that God has declared to be evil. i can open my Bible to Exodus 20 and find exactly where God said not to murder people. what that means is that i've accepted that: first, God exists. second, God's word is perfect. then lastly that my nature is flawed by nature.

now, if you will, let me cross-reference that with something that the majority of people consider as the laws of the land. if i kill someone in the US, that killing has to fall under a particular category based on a number of factors that is subject to opinion and point of view. it can be classsified anywhere from pre-meditated murder to involuntary manslaughter, but that classification is dependant on the vantage point of those that accuse me, assuming that they accuse me in the first place. lets also not forget that if i am accused, i can use an arguement of self-defense to help lessen my sentence and, on occasion, reduce the charges themselves. sounds a bit confusing, doesn't it?

such is the logic of man: it varies widely and is subject to one's moral and ethic backrounds and beliefs. by following a certain standard, or reference point, things are much more clear.But my point to you is this, is say that God was created by man to explain for things we can't explain, God is perfect because we are not and never will be, but neither is God because he was created by humans and they have used his name in vain or even for evil purposes.ahh, but that viewpoint is your opinion. here we are at a crossroads: i believe that God created man, and i acknowledge that he is a perfect being. you believe that man created God and that, like man, God is also flawed. this is a clashing of opinions and nothing more. ;)Who says that the Christian standards are so perfect? What makes them better tham Islamic ones? or Jewish ones? That is a very arrogant statement IMO.ahh, but allow me to turn the tables on you: who are you to say that your standards are better than my Christian standards?? the problem is that both of us lose this arguement due simply to the fact that niether one of us is about to acknowledge that one belief system is better than the one we currently believe in.

however, i do think that is important to note that although i believe that my Christian views are the correct views, i also do not take pride in that belief. i say that because, if things do turn out that i'm correct, it also means that people that don't believe the way i do won't be with me after i die and will instead be doomed to eternal punishment. for me, it's almost rather depressing to think about, but again, that viewpoint is dependant on my beliefs, and thus my opinion.

i think in the end, with people like you and me, its best for us to just agree to disagree and move on. however, i do wish that some of my words had some sort of an impact that might change your vantage point, however slight it might be. :)

Why is God universally referred to as He? Wouldn't the presence of a gender indicate there is more than one being of God's species? If there was only one, what purpose would a gender serve? (Interestingly, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that before Judaism formed as a monotheistic religion God/Yahweh was described as having a wife, whose name escapes my mind at the moment.)

I believe it is due to the general assumption everywhere that Man is ruler and woman is slave. Of course, a crude analogy, but representative. Gods come in all forms - animals, men, women, plants and even artificial objects. We Hindus for example, worship tons of things as God, but the essence of it all is, that God is a single omnipresent entity, like Fate.

If you can be forgiven for any crime committed during your life, no matter how vile, by repenting at your death, but not having been a believer during your life is an unforgivable sin that will lead you to "Hell", why is that? What makes this crime so much worse than any other suffering you might have inflicted upon other mortals during your life, since it doesn't affect anyone but yourself and God? Would this not indicate that God has something to gain from being believed in, from being worshipped? And that not believing in God is to somehow deny God that something? I.e. crimes against other humans or animals can be forgiven, but crimes directly affecting God cannot?

I believe this is a baseless belief. It must have most probably been used so that people would not stray away from religion, in this context, most probably Christianity. Preaching was a tough job at that time, and Muhammad's exile and Jesus' Crucifixion have proved that. Giving a threat saying that if you do not follow God, He will punish you meant that the person will have his conscience tingling that something horrible is going to happen. So he would come back and repent.

I also vaguely remember reading somewhere that the concept of a "Hell" as a counterpart to Heaven hasn't been in Christianity from the start, but was added retroactively to the teachings by the Church some time during the first millennia as a means to better control the masses and compel them into submitting themselves to the faith. Is this false, or do anyone with better memory know where that comes from? :)

This appears to be quite the fact you have stated. The concept of hell is too grim a thing to be used by a preacher of religion, especially if it came out of the blue. An idea of a paradise, of a world of endless pleasure would attract more believers, simply because its good. Hell would mean that people would grow scared and follow the system out of fear, which is quite contrary to the purpose which is based on having the person follow a religion through his own convictions and decisions.

As already seen religion is a highly arguementative subject. Personally I am Agnostic, I was never baptised as my parents decided to let me choose how I felt about relgion. People always ask questions like what Proof do we have? We are here and we lead our lives but no one truely knows how we got here. Fair enough people say God made the earth and all things that roam on the lands, but how could one God have done that when almost every religion has a different God? To me it sounds like a man made thing in an irrational way to explain what humans can not.
Being Agnostic I go by two sayings "light a candle for the sinners set the world on fire" and "what good's religion when it's each other we despise". No one is perfect and a saint, I believe not even the almighty. How can someone who is divine supposedly make beings who are flawed? From what I can remember it says in the Bible that a woman should love a man and vice versa, however, God made us all individually and made some people gay or transexual which is supposed to be a "sin" and a big no no in Bible terms. Is it not then right to ask, If God made them that way would they not be given passage to "heaven" because they didn't follow the Bible's way? For example where would a Christian Gay man end up, even if he has spent his whole life helping other's? It's not like he chose to be gay so he shouldn't have to repent for what he is.

Which is more reliable: the source that absolutely anyone can edit, or the source put together by a scholar of the subject, and entered into an encylopaedia, once must assume after the appropriate screening for rigorousness and bias?

As you can see, as noted by Blotzer, the nature of the trials were very much in the style of most courts of the time, and as it is said in your more favoured Wikipedia, some of the punishments are extraordinarily lenient - having to wear a yellow cross for the rest of your life stands out in this regard. Furthermore, again as Wikipedia points out, the death penalty was very rarely used.
Fair enough, I just wanted to point out that terrible things have been done in the name of God, unless you want to deny that?

So you've surveyed all 2.1 billion Christians in the world, have you? Fascinating. Must have taken a long time.
What a nice gift for sarcasm you have, you know what I meant, all the ones I met...

No. You can go a long way without the divine. You may do pretty well, but it is my belief that without God you cannot attain perfection, you may not be perfectly good. Only through the divine may we destroy all evil within ourselves. At least according to Christian teaching.
You said it: According to Christian teachings, that doesn't necessarily make it true, and I don't believe in those teachings...

Fair enough. As I said, that is a laudable goal, and indeed you may to a fair extent succeed. But it is my belief that on your own you can only get so far.
That is you belief against mine again, nothing more...I believe I am doing the right thing, and I stand by what I believe in.

Personally, I think killing is wrong in principle generally, in the name of God or not :)
My thoughts exactly...

Ahh, well here we enter into the murky waters of faith. If you accept that the Pope has authority handed down through the Apostolic Succession all the way back to Peter, and eventually to Christ, and that he is the supreme earthly representative of God, then his speaking ex cathedra on religious matters is perfectly acceptable. If, on the other hand, he says to shop at Safeways, his opinion doesn't matter any more than anyone else's, since Papal Infallibility only applies when the Holy Father speaks ex cathedra on a matter pertaining to religous or ethical matters.
I don't accept his authority on any matter because I am not Christian, so anything he says has no real value to me, though it might have to you, again it comes down to what you believe...

It is personal. Of course it is. But sometimes you need guidance on personal matters. Also, the priesthood represent God on Earth.
Well I don't believe in that, and as with the Pope, I don't think priests have anything of importance to say, not more important than anyone else's opinion that is...

No, but you don't need someone to say 'thank you' to you after you do a good deed towards them. You may not even necessarily feel it is needed. Nonetheless, it is good to show such thanks, is it not?
I just think it's a waste, period.

Um, Yes, actually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_%28Roman_Catholic_Church%29)
I was being sarcastic, I meant like human sacrifices and stuff...

Perhaps a better question is what use do *we* have for it? One answer is that gold is the least corruptible element. Therefore, it is symbolic of the perfection of God, and what better vessel is there for the Blood of Christ?
My point is that all that symbolism costs a lot of money and could be spent in a better way...

Museums aren't really interested, TBH. Most are either already in museums, or private collections, or else they are 19th Century stuff, which isn't really old enough for either museums or private collectors to be interested...Also precious metals really aren't worth that much at the moment.
Again, I was talking hypothetically, I just think it's a waste of money and resources, but that's my opinion, again I don't deny the beauty or craftmanship of them, and they are nice works of art...

Also, St. Paul teaches that one should help others by balancing your present excess against their current need, rather than selling everything you own and going to live in a barrel...
But what defines excess? Isn't that a very biased subject? Some people might consider their huge plasme HD TV to be a basic need, does that make it so?

According to Christianity, the Bible was inspired by the word of God. God wrote the Bible through the hearts and minds of the scribes.

Next: Normal Christians follow doctrine, and they don't judge anyone's beliefs or actions. God judges how you interact with others, and how you respond to the environment. Environment = The people you interact with day by day. If you have a probem with God's laws, I would take it up with him. You would be wrong to take it out on his followers.

Next: God wants you to accept him through your own freewill. If you desire not to follow him, because you don't agree with him, I would not judge something that you have no experience with.

"Who says that the Christian standards are so perfect? What makes them better tham Islamic ones? or Jewish ones? That is a very arrogant statement IMO..."
Its more like God's standards are perfect. I found another flaw in your statement. Just so you know, a good amount of Jewish people believe in Jesus and God. You just don't hear about it alot.

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.

FYI - Jesus was Jewish.
Don't patronise me, I've been through six years of Catholic primary school and six years of Catholic high school, so I think I have a right to talk about the subject, and I think knowing that Jesus was Jewish and that he was nailed to the cross and all would be known to me ;)
What right have you got to say Islamic's version of the Bible is wrong? Have you read or studied the Koran? Christians have used the Bible to wage war as I pointed out before, does that make it flawed to you?
I am not judging Christianity out of ignorance as you have implied, so please don't say that...
I do have a problem with God's laws, because they aren't perfect as Christians claim them to be, and his followers are just following rules written down by some people a long time ago...
Like I said before, just because Christians think their rules are flawless doesn't make it so!

Negative_Sun:
Maybe, but I could bounce that ball right back and say, How can YOU be sure he has? Maybe you misinterpreted something as well, or maybe there really IS another explanation for *insert whatever thing God might do to prove He is with you*...


This sort of reminds me of George Carlin's bit about football players giving God the credit for their making the touchdown, but never spew something like..."Jesus tripped me at the 40 yard line" when they screw up, so to speak.

My question to you NS is why do you seem so fixated on why anyone needs to prove that God does or does not exist? You constantly claim that Christians are judging you less worthy. Ok, what if they are? In my experience, most people who don't believe in any god (short of man himself, I suppose) take a very condescending view of their "misguided" religious brethern. Is all your anger turned on Christians or do you universally look down on all faiths (Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, blah, blah, blah)? Mind you, I didn't say on the people themselves (you may just think they're a little nutty on the whole religion question, but ok otherwise). Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Scientific methodology is but ONE means to an end, not the ONLY one.
I don't look down upn all faiths, I merely contest the absolute truth many of them claim to hold, I don't call them misguided, I just think it's sad they follow a religion blindly without giving it much thought, or at least accepting the possibility that there are other explanations for things, because I do, I don't say that what I believe is the absolute truth, it's just what I believe...

It's also very clear to me that you don't understand (or willfully misrepresent) the whole concept of papal infallibility. It is NOT a concept that says EVERYTHING out of the Pope's mouth is incontestable fact. If the Pope came out tomorrow and said that the earth is actually the center of the universe, no Catholic would have to believe him as the issue is not one central to the faith itself. Same goes for his stance on the death penalty or the war in fill-in-the-blank. As to the whole thing about the Inqusition, that is an indictment of man using religion for political ends, not the faith itself. You would do well not to confuse the issue, unless you're merely seeking to stir up a hornets' nest. If you really want to understand the concept of papal infallibility, then do a web search on canon law or talk to a priest or canon lawyer. Have you ever heard the expression that there are no doubt popes burning in hell.
Again, I do not accept the Pope's authority, so what he has to say is of no value to me...And I was pointing out the Inquisition because I wanted to show that evil things have been done in the name of any God and any religion...

Stoeff is mostly right in the observation that most contemporary references to God are in the masculine tense. Setting polytheistic systems aside (Roman, Greek, etc..), the major monotheistic religions view God as a Father figure (ie providing rules, etc...) much as fathers have been expected to do in human families. If you look far (and wide) enough, you'll find belief systems rooted in the concept of a goddess. Frankly, my understanding of God is that "He" has no real gender, save that Jesus was male.
If "He" has no real gender, would it not be fair to adress him as "It"?

In answer to the other question about whether sins vs God are forgivable, I've never seen anything which states that merely not believing in God is an unpardonable sin. Also, the first 3 Commandments deal strictly with sins vs God. As I understand it, the whole "bound on earth, bound in heaven" thing aside, God is supposed to reserve final judgement to Himself. Remember, part of Christianity is the concept of free will. Perhaps hell will only be the absence of God. Like finding something wonderful at the end, only to discover that you can never have it, while others can. But faith has also been described as a gift. If you don't have said gift, are you liable for being an unbeliever? Many of these are issues which, though unfair, won't be resolved till we're physically dead.
Let's hope that's not too soon, I'd like to keep that suspense going a bit longer :)

In closing, NS, you have persistently labled Christianity as hypocritical, but have also consistently failed to explain how throughout this thread. It is your right to believe what you want, but it would help if you explained yourself intelligently on that issue rather than just lob molotov's for effect. It would not be unreasonable for someone to walk away thinking you can't seperate the action of people from the ideals they try to uphold. Also, your comment about the credibility of sources is poorly thought out. The obvious conclusion you wish people to derive is that the "christian" source is biased. The mere contention that the other source is not related to christianity does not absolve it of it's own biases. One has to look at both sources critically before the issue of credibility can be fairly decided.
Again, it was merely to show that evil things have been done in the name of Christianity...I think Christianity is hypocritical for many reasons, for example there is the point LittleRamona made: If God makes men what they are, but being gay is un-Christian, what happens to a gay Christian man? Is he refused passage to Heaven for being what God made him?
And one of the ten commandments for example: "Honour your father and mother", but what if your parents are total wackos who beat you up and molest you every single day? Should you still honour them because the Bible says so? That seems a bit twisted to me...

Don't patronise me, I've been through six years of Catholic primary school and six years of Catholic high school, so I think I have a right to talk about the subject, and I think knowing that Jesus was Jewish and that he was nailed to the cross and all would be known to me ;)
What right have you got to say Islamic's version of the Bible is wrong? Have you read or studied the Koran? Christians have used the Bible to wage war as I pointed out before, does that make it flawed to you?
I am not judging Christianity out of ignorance as you have implied, so please don't say that...
I do have a problem with God's laws, because they aren't perfect as Christians claim them to be, and his followers are just following rules written down by some people a long time ago...
Like I said before, just because Christians think their rules are flawless doesn't make it so!
I am a Catholic and Born Again Christian. My Catholic heritage didn't answer all the questions I had, and it left me haning at the wayside. However, I didn't abandon being a Catholic. I hover between two factions of Christian teachings. Catholic Churches only teaches you what is on the surface of Christianity. That is still important in the understanding of God, but it is not enough to create a clear picture. So, I became a Born Again Christian (Prodistan). Combined, I am able to create a universal understanding about what these Christian Factions believe in and how. I can also see the politics, and how they disagree with each other.

I am not patronizing you, I am challanging your knowledge of God. As a christian in general, I will test your knowledge against the word of God. I will also use logic, so I can step outside of being bias.

Catholic primary school and six years of Catholic high school, so I think I have a right to talk about the subject.
You have the right to talk about anything you wish. If what you are saying is a contridiction to doctrine, I will consider you nieve on the subject. If you continue to argue about something you don't really know about, and you don't read the Bible to find your answers, I will consider you full of hot air. Not once have you used Bible doctrine to make your case; therfore, I consider you as an instigator who wants attention.

If you wish to continue this subject, responsibly, I would use scripture to make your case. Until you descide to open the Bible, I personally believe comment removed -stingerhs

Until you look beyond your own narrowminded views, I suggest you do the same and stop atacking me personally.
I have posed very good points and arguments, and I know what I'm talking about, but you haven't answered them and decided to attack me, why? Is it getting to tough for you to answer so you'd rather ignore it?
My knowledge of God goes as far as yours as far as I know, I just don't believe in Him and I have the guts to question it...By attacking me personally you haven't proven yourself smarter, you're just proving my point...
And if you'll look up a bit you'll see that I quoted one of the ten commandments and before that I used an example of the Good Samaritan, how dare you accuse me of not backing up what I say with Biblical references? They're right there!

I find that the claim you went to "Catholic" schools for your elemnetary and secondary (1-12 here in the states) education, thus making you somehow qualified to discuss the flaws of Christianity, to be mostly irrelevant. You no doubt probaly absorbed very little about how the system works, at least based on your posts in this thread. I, too, had to sit through 12 years of Catholic education but have a better grip than you've demonstrated here. Frankly, if you want to cite 2 dimensional fanaticism in the name of God, you need look no further back in history than now with the islamic radicalism that is engulfing the world. So, why this fixation with, apparently, only Christians? Do you know anything about the Koran, Torah or other religious books? Does it bother you at all that if radical islam and sharia law took precedence on a global scale that someone with your belief system would be relegated to a second class citizen at best? Are the Christians doing that to you I wonder? Mind you, I'm not saying the Muslims will achieve such a thing, just stating that if Islam were the predominant influence in the west, you'd most likely be dead or blowing yourself up for jihad vs who knows what or being decapitated for some form of apostasy. The nice thing about the "Christian west" is that you have the chance to explore what you want to believe in and freely express those beliefs without fear of a modern day inquisition.

While I know you claim to not look down on peoples of religious faith, I think that that statement is disingenuous at best (based again on your argument style in this thread).

To the whole gender thing, that's why I typed He in quotations. If you've been observant, you'll notice I've also typed it as He/She/It. Not constantly using those two devices, I lapse into the normal colloquial use of He (sans quotations) out of habit.

The problem with your argument about homosexuals is that you're not seperating the issue of orientation from practices. Although thought can be considered sinful in itself (check out the George Carlin bit about this, it's rather hilarious), it is usually the acts a person commits that make them run afoul of God. The thought process is usually where the struggles of faith take place, while our actions signify whether we've lost that struggle. A gay man, by orientation, is not automatically tossed into the pit of hell, so to speak (at least not by any teaching I've ever seen). It's how he reacts to that orientation that determines his fate. If he willingly engages in homoerotic behavior remorselessly, then he likely doesn't really believe in God anyway. If he does, but is ashamed of his weakness (sins of the flesh) and repents, then salvation is still within his reach. So, gay people don't go to hell just because they're gay. As to the whole honor your parents thing, that seems like reducto ad absurdium. I find it hard to believe that you, with your 12 years of Catholic school background, really believe that's the case. You might as well say that the fourth commandment also forces people to become satanists as well.

As to the pope, it's okay not to care what he thinks. Just don't misrepresent things like papal infallibility and expect to be taken seriously on such issues.

The curse of blind faith isn't limited to religion, nor is it intelligent to assume that people who feel strongly about their faith are blinded by it. They in many cases, like you, may have come to their position after a fair degree of thought, anguish, etc.. To be sure, there are fanatics within every belief system, secular as well as religious. To consign all believers to little better than robots is lazy thinking at best.

It may seem like I'm taking you out to the woodshed, Sun, but my only point is that while it's ok to ultimately believe what you want, you should make more cogent arguments when attacking someone else's point of view. Life is a lot like that hoary old SOF saying......kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. We'll all eventually die. Then we'll find out (or not) who was right.

It may seem like I'm taking you out to the woodshed, Sun, but my only point is that while it's ok to ultimately believe what you want, you should make more cogent arguments when attacking someone else's point of view.
Right back at you pal, I did make a coherent argument, you just refuse to accept that...And your comeback is weak to say the least, you did not counter anything I've said, just denied it or questioned my ability to speak about the matter.

And what you've just said there disgusts me beyond belief, being gay is not a "weakness" as you just called it, I'm finished speaking to you...

Until you look beyond your own narrowminded views, I suggest you do the same and stop atacking me personally.
I have posed very good points and arguments, and I know what I'm talking about, but you haven't answered them and decided to attack me, why? Is it getting to tough for you to answer so you'd rather ignore it?
My knowledge of God goes as far as yours as far as I know, I just don't believe in Him and I have the guts to question it...By attacking me personally you haven't proven yourself smarter, you're just proving my point...
And if you'll look up a bit you'll see that I quoted one of the ten commandments and before that I used an example of the Good Samaritan, how dare you accuse me of not backing up what I say with Biblical references? They're right there!
Attacking Christianity is an attack on me. If you want to make an argument, I would use scripture, and I would utilize the book in question: The Bible. I use to have a narrow perception that religion was flawed, but I realized that I never openned the Bibile to see what it says.

Religion is seperate than faith. My religion is a combination of Catholic and Born Again. May faith is based upon Christian doctrine. Each religious sect approaches the Bible is different ways. When you focus on Christianity as a whole, you are being very, very, very ignorant. When you question God's doctrine, and take it out on Religion, you are again very, very, very ignorant. When you jedge a Religious Sect and blame it on God, you are very, very, very ignorant.

There are differences in how Christian factions approach the Bible. Catholics have two branches: One follows the pope's interpretation, and the other follows a Gothic King's translation of the Bible.

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...

Be very careful in your choice of words. Use evidence to backup your disbelief, so you don't come off antisematic.

I will not argue with something you said, for you were right about one thing. Each religious sect has had their darkest moments. Catholics, Jewish, etc... At the current moment, Islam is having their darkest moment. I don't agree with anyone who kills in the name of God. However, I will defend myself against anyone who is killiing people, for they believe my God is flawed.

You really need to be specific.

Where exactly have I not been specific? Have I not always explained everything I said?

Btw, it's spelled "naive", and you calling me that is quite ironic actually, because I know exactly what I'm talking about...

I used the wrong word. Fixed now.

I maybe getting mixed up here. Within these forums, there are two identical threads. One comes off very ignorant, and the other is based upon trying to find an answer. There are too many of these similar religion threads around here. Usually, this type of thread would be in the Senate Chambers.

The Momerator says, "Everyone take a deep breath, collect your thoughts, do whatever you all have to do to calm down, and let's all pull back on the emotions for a bit, because I'd love to continue debating this in a pleasant context, and can't do that if the thread gets shut down for flaming."
Negative Sun, please keep in mind that no one knows what your complete religious background is, and that's OK--you don't have to share every single thing. I don't reveal every single thing (like my age--I'm 29 forever. :D ). However, when I don't know where someone is on the knowledge continuum, I tend to start with the basics and work my way up rather than assuming everyone knows the same set of facts I know on a given subject. That's also because I want to develop an argument (not just for us, but for others who might read later on), so I apologize if that comes across as patronizing and over-simplified.
For others--telling someone to shut up is really not an effective discussion technique.
One of the ways we can calm this all down is to write in a slightly more formal way, and to remember to not take a debate on a point as a personal attack. I know most of the people here, and I don't think any of us is trying to drive someone into the ground, bury them, and grin about it in satisfaction. We enjoy each other's company here.
We need to separate ourselves from the debated points. Saying 'this idea is bad' does not automatically mean that the person who holds that idea is bad. When we read a response, if it sounds offensive, take a deep breath, read it again as if it's one of your buddies just having a friendly discussion about a really tough subject rather than assuming 'someone's out to get me'.

Writing--the less 'personal' and accusatory we can make it the better. If we say 'you said this, you did that, I can't believe that you don't think Raniskrans are the greatest thing since sliced bread', it comes across as an attack a lot of the time. It is very easy for things to come across that way because we don't have the visual body language cues available to tell us that someone is just debating friendly and not out to bury an ax in someone's head. If we concentrate on the main ideas and not the person, we'll make more effective arguments.

If you think someone is mad at you, _ask_ them if they are and talk to them about it. It's OK to ask someone "when you said this, it came across like 'x' to me. Was that your intention?" 90% of the time they're not trying to be a-holes, they just were tired, busy, or distracted, and they just mis-worded something unintentionally. To be honest, I don't have time to sit around and wonder how I can make someone's day miserable--it takes too much energy to hate something or someone. But I do make plenty of mistakes and say things badly at times without meaning to, and it's not because I'm trying to be a pain, it's just because I'm worn out and my brain decided to take a right turn at Albuquerque when the rest of my body took a left turn. :)

I'm going to go work on answering some of the questions brought up, since they're quite good. And Emperor Devon, I'll address the moral question here, since it is a key issue in the debate on the existance of God.

Catholics have two branches: One follows the pope's interpretation, and the other follows a Gothic King's translation of the Bible.Never heard of that second one... you sure about that?

Never heard of that second one... you sure about that?
Yep. When I get the clear information, I will post you a link to it. I believe the king branched off from the Church, for he disagreed with the pope's policies.

Since you're "officially" not talking to me anymore, Sun (you never really addressed anything I said in the first place), just keep in mind that you should read everything carefully before you jump to conclusions. I wasn't addressing the question of whether homosexuality was a weakness, I was specifically talking about "sins of the flesh", a term I put immediately in parantheses following the word weakness. I can only conclude from your response that you or people close to you are gay and thus you reacted as you did. Sins of the flesh plague heteros as well. If you're a betting man, it's safest to figure that Casanova probably went to hell.

actually, i think this thread is starting to spiral out of control. i realize that Negative_Sun's comments can be a bit provoking for Christians (myself included); however, that is not a direct invitation to start a flame war because your feelings got hurt. if you want to debunk someone's claims, then you need to learn that directly attacking the person instead of the issue will not solve the issue itself. any debate needs to be approached carefully and with backround on the subject matter either through research or experience.

and in these forums, everyone has to remember that we encourage friendly debates. this applies to every person reguardless of how charismatic you might feel about any particular subject. this warning is being applied to everyone in this thread. if things get any more out of control, this thread will be closed.

I just received a PM warning from a moderator. In reality, this thread should have been closed a while back. In its nature, it was designed to get people upset. To be honest, I shouldn't have received the warning, the moderators should have received the warning. They knew this type of thread was created to provoke anger, and they stood by and did nothing about it. I am not in the wrong, the moderators that left this thread open are.

When you talk about religion in this manner, you proke heavy emotions by the visitors. I responded to this thread, for I found offense to what has been said and its intent. Yeah. I should not have 'flammed' at him, but his comments did trigger a heavy emotion. Hense, the nature of this thread had worked.

I blame the moderators for not taking action, and I ask them to close this thread down.

This thread should have been closed when it first started. Someone should close it now.

-----------------------------

I just sent one of the higher guns a PM.

I respectfully disagree about shutting it down, Mac. I think we can have a civil discussion about this subject as long as everyone remembers to concentrate on the issues instead of making it personal.

My short list of reasons why I believe there's God:

1. Creating the universe out of nothing doesn't make sense to me without Someone deciding to make it happen. At some point, we all come down to the question of how the universe began. Did it come from absolutely nothing, or did Someone bring it into being? Which takes more faith--that it just 'happened' one day from nothing, or that there was an initial Cause?

2. Creating life from non-life does not make sense to me without a Designer. The chemicals and organelles required to create even the simplest bacteria are complex enough to defy chance. Here's a mathematical proof (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html). If you have any questions on the biochemistry or math, let me know and I'll explain further, since I've had enough biology to sink the Queen Mary. :)
One mathematician described the probability of life occuring by chance to be one chance in 10 to the 40,000 power. That's more than the number of atoms supposedly in the universe--it would be like taking all the atoms in the universe, shaking them up, and then picking out the right one. Even if you adjust for millions of combinations and billions of years, the number might decrease to one chance in 10 to the 39,990, essentially zero chance. It takes a lot of faith to believe that life formed purely by a few chemicals finding each other in a world-wide chemical soup. I find the idea of an Intelligent designer to require less of a leap of faith than belief in pure chance.
3. A moral framework cannot exist without an absolute standard. There is no moral absolute in atheism, because there is no absolute standard that one can turn to. If there is no God, the person who determines what's right and wrong is the individual, creating moral relativism. 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.

Emperor Devon--children may _sometimes_ know 'instinctively' what's right and wrong, but my children, and every other child I know, also threw things at each other, bit each other, and screamed 'Mine!' when they wanted someone else's toy. My children had to be trained to do the right things. If I did not train them, they'd be spoiled, obnoxious, self-centered brats. Children don't do the right things all the time. It also does not address the fact that they are emotionally, intellectually, and physically immature and unable to reason in the way adults reason. How do you explain the development of a moral framework in adults? I don't believe that morality could 'evolve', because history repeatedly shows that we're more than willing to do all sorts of evil things to each other. I do not see any evidence of us becoming more 'moral' with time.

More stuff for discussion. :)

I can't believe you people. I really can't. Although I didn't participate much in the discussion here, I did read very carefully to what everyone had to say and even said a couple of things myself. Like some of the mods said, you all need to chill out, but seeing how it's not really working I've decided to play mod and remind you all of the original topic of this thread:
The question I have about religion is this.

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 'beleivers' feel about the question I have asked in this thread..If I offended someone, I mean no harm.
Now, what do you say we get back to this instead of continuing along the borders of flame war? As you can see, this thread was never intended to become the religious vs. atheists, or Christians vs. atheists battlefield, it was you who turned it into one (heck, maybe even me in some small part).

actually, i think this thread is starting to spiral out of control. i realize that Negative_Sun's comments can be a bit provoking for Christians (myself included); however, that is not a direct invitation to start a flame war because your feelings got hurt. if you want to debunk someone's claims, then you need to learn that directly attacking the person instead of the issue will not solve the issue itself. any debate needs to be approached carefully and with backround on the subject matter either through research or experience.

I realise that what I say can be considered as provocative, but all I did was ask questions and stated my opinions, if that clashes with someone else's beliefs that's quite tough, but it's still my opinion and it is still valid...
I just want to have that nice friendly discussion, and I never meant to offend anyone.

I think that basically we have two threads going on here, with the tangential one eclipsing the original one. I don't believe the the first post was unduly provacative in nature, but the discussion did devolve into a pi**ing match about the nature of God, belief systems and the universe. I don't believe that religion is per se an unsuitable topic of conversation, but it is one where people should walk carefully if they wish to avoid unnecessarily setting one another off. I was rough, too, this time around.

Since I see another potential for these forums, I will raise the white flag on my end. Religion is a tough subject to talk about, and if treated the wrong way it does stir up emotions. Several of us may have over-reacted to some of the comments, self included, so I apologize on my behalf.

I do not apologize for being a Christian, and having a heavy opinion about my faith. You wanted to see what belivers think about your question, and I gave you an answer.

by Negative_Sun - Post #20:
But the "rules" written down in the Bible are either common sense or total nonsense...

by Negative_Sun- Post #5:
Christians should keep their big fat mouths shut cause they're all a bunch of hypocrits...

by Negative_Sun - Post #23:
That's YOUR opinion, it doesn't make it so, and if that's what Christianity stands for, then I would say it's more hypocritical than I thought...

How you ask your question is important. I could venture through all of your posts, and I can still find more indication of your intent. You were told to stop provoking flamming, and then it happend. You were warned by two moderators.

My problem is that I fell right into your trap. If you had any real questions, you would have phrased them in a polite manner. Instead, you kept calling Christian hypocrates. The intention of this thread was 'not' to provoke flamming. You have masterfully done so, and I paid the price.

Inorder to prevent others from falling into his trap, I suggest we close this thread quickly. Or - We remove his comments from the thread, so we can answer RaV's questions.

(I didn't realize that the original poster 'was not' Negative_Sun, and for that I am also sorry for intruding.)

I see no traps here, and interpreting RaV's initial question as an attempt to provoke flaming is incorrect. I do see some people getting highly emotional, and I understand that completely--it's a challenge for me to stay objective like everyone else, but it's not impossible. Each of us may need individually to take a break from this discussion from time to time to refresh and get some perspective in order to prevent over-emotional responses.

I just see legitimate questions. Some of them are framed better than others, to be sure, but if we cannot respectfully defend the reasons why we believe in Christianity, why should others choose to believe it, then? There are some really tough questions atheists raise (like, how do you explain pain and suffering from a loving God?) that we need to answer instead of sweeping them under the rug out of discomfort. I don't want to ignore those questions, I want to address them, and closing off the discussion is counterproductive.
Disagreement with someone on a topic is not the same as disliking someone. I may not agree with atheism as a subject, but it doesn't mean I'm going to quit liking the atheists I've gotten to know here, who I'm honored to have some delightful conversations with on a regular basis. I think we're all mature enough to work and play well with others and have a decent discussion on this.

I fixed my post above. I found error in some of my statement.

Emperor Devon--children may _sometimes_ know 'instinctively' what's right and wrong, but my children, and every other child I know, also threw things at each other, bit each other, and screamed 'Mine!' when they wanted someone else's toy.

That was an example. I still fail to see how believing good behavior in life is rewarded in the afterlife, and bad behavior is punished. If someone's being good only so they can go to heaven, should they be allowed to?

I don't believe that morality could 'evolve', because history repeatedly shows that we're more than willing to do all sorts of evil things to each other. I do not see any evidence of us becoming more 'moral' with time.

Here's a point I made in one of our PMs:

A testament to that would be some Popes in the Middle Ages. Innocent III comes to mind, as he sentenced quite a few people to being burned at the stake just because they weren't Christians. Being Pope is a very religious position, and impossible to reach if you aren't. He clearly was unethical, despite his faith.

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.

There are some really tough questions atheists raise (like, how do you explain pain and suffering from a loving God?) that we need to answer instead of sweeping them under the rug out of discomfort.

Then answer them. :p

On the subject of flaming, I've debated the subject of religion quite a few times with Jae (a subject I'm very opinionated on), yet we stay civil to each other. Others in the Senate Chambers do the same, so there's no reason the people here can't either. :)

Oh Jae, you've ignored the point I made about God affecting every single biological thing. :p

I believe that N_S said something about pain and suffering a while back. I heard somewhere, it may have been on a TV show, I honestly can't remember, that in order for compassion, there must be pain and suffering. Remember the old tale of Pandora's Box? How, when the human opened it, all horrible things spilled out, yet one good thing came, Hope?

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?

You also said N_S awhile back about how do you know about your existance, what has He done to prove to you that He's there, or something along those lines. The simple fact is, He has done nothing. God sure as hell hasn't said, "Hey (my name here) it's me, God! Yeah, I'm just chillin' up here, enjoying the show! Keep up the good work!" It all spirals down to one word: FAITH. Unless there is irrefutable evidence of God (or no God for that matter), it all comes down to faith.

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?).

^^^^
Amen. :)

3. A moral framework cannot exist without an absolute standard. There is no moral absolute in atheism, because there is no absolute standard that one can turn to. If there is no God, the person who determines what's right and wrong is the individual, creating moral relativism. 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 think people have worked together over the last centuries to make laws and morals the pillars of any civil society, it still has nothing to do with God IMO...
How do you know for sure what the word of God is Jae? Because it's written down in the Bible? What makes that source so reliable?

I disagree with you saying there is no moral absolute in atheism, because you're referring to a sick and twisted individual, most people have a good sense of right and wrong, and working together in a society we can make those into laws, I don't think every politician is Christian, but still we're doing a good job of coming up with decent rules and regulations aren't we?

Disagreement with someone on a topic is not the same as disliking someone. I may not agree with atheism as a subject, but it doesn't mean I'm going to quit liking the atheists I've gotten to know here, who I'm honored to have some delightful conversations with on a regular basis. I think we're all mature enough to work and play well with others and have a decent discussion on this.
I totally agree with you there, and thank you for taking the time to answer all of those questions instead of ignoring them like some people do when you question their faith, I have more respect for someone who backs up and thinks about his/her belief than someone who just blindly follows it without really knowing why...



Back to the original topic:
I think killing is justified only in very few occasions, but whatever you do, keep an open and critical mind, don't follow orders blindly, you might be a good soldier or policeman that way, but also a good slave in the end...
We live in a free world, take that right, if something doesn't feel right do you or clashes with what you believe in, then stand up for it!
Only if you are honest with yourself can you live a happy life IMO...

That's it class dismissed Padawans!

I think people have worked together over the last centuries to make laws and morals the pillars of any civil society, it still has nothing to do with God IMO...
How do you know for sure what the word of God is Jae? Because it's written down in the Bible? What makes that source so reliable?

I disagree with you saying there is no moral absolute in atheism, because you're referring to a sick and twisted individual, most people have a good sense of right and wrong, and working together in a society we can make those into laws, I don't think every politician is Christian, but still we're doing a good job of coming up with decent rules and regulations aren't we?

How do you know for sure what the word of God is Jae? Because it's written down in the Bible? What makes that source so reliable?
I know this was addressed to Jae, but here goes:
This comes from faith. If you were to read the Bible, you would find several moralistic issues that the authors have faced. What is even more compelling about the Bible is that it was written by sinners. They realized the darkness of their morality, and found a certain truth in God's teachings. Most of the sins they have comitted ranged from harsh to simple, but God ended up giving them a chance to put the wrong thing right. All of the twelve disciples were sinners. (Salvation)

The Bible is the only source know in the world, which carries the word of the Christian and Jewish God. Everything else in the world is tested up against it, for it has been recognized by both Jewish and Christianity. Does this mean that Christianity is for everyone? Not necessary. Following God's laws is hard, and followers are tested every day of their lives. This type of life is not for everyone. It all comes down to: Faith.

You know that your actions are right and wrong, but are you willing to take the consequences for following God? When I finally turned to God, I went through all these cognitions. Even though I am a follower now, I am still going through harsh cognitions. I still test what is written in the Bble.

What is great about God is that: If you are sincerly interested in him, he will walk the path of life with you. he will be a companion when you are tested by others, and he will not leave your side. At the end of the day, it all comes down to choices. Do I turn left or right?

Example of Mercy: (Loosly Quoted)
Pilot was confronted by a mob, and they brought forth a prostitute. According to the mob, she commited adultary. They asked Pilot what to do with the prostitute, for they wanted to stone her to death. She commited a state offense.

Pilot said, "Bring her to the Christ, and see what he would do."
His intent was to trap Jesus, and try to make him faulter

When the mob arrived to where Jesus was, Jesus was writting in the sand.
The mob asked, "Jesus, this protitute has commiting adultary. What should we do?'

Jesus confronted the prostitute, and asked if she had commited adultary. She confessed that she had. Jesus then turned to the mob, and said, "Let the first person who has not lived without sin throw the first stone."

The mob ended up walking away, for they noticed what Jesus was writting in the sand. He wrote a list of all their sins. After they left, Jesus told her to go forth and to not sin again. The prostitute agreed.

Before she left, Jesus asked her, "Would you like to come with me?" Even though she refused to follow him at that moment, Jesus still left the door open to her.

(In another story later, she ended up cathing up with him, and he welcomed her with open arms.)

Why did I write that?
This shows that Jesus knew mercy, and it also shows that God is not one to force people into anything. Before the existance of the Bible, the Gods that were written about delivered harsh judgements. They rearly ever used mercy, and they delivered unextrodinary punishment.

Another thing to think about is, what other God has sent their son forth, and allowed him to be sacrificed for the sins of his followers? Today, the other religions out there, not all of them, rely on their people to sacrifice themselves for their god.

Within human history, leaders have sent men into war, so they can be sacrificed for their meaning of what is the greater good. God doesn't send people into war, but mankind uses him to wage wars. They either rage war against God's people, or they fight in the name of God.

...there is no moral absolute in atheism...
I believe that athiests hold themselves responsible for moral guidelines. I don't believe that atheism has a moral external piller to keep them morally straight. However, they do know the difference of what is logically right and wrong.

...is there a moment where justice (killing someone) is permitted by God?
Yes. God has left this open. As long as the death is justified, God has permitted a moral standing on the issue.

Is the Christian and Jewish God for everyone?
No. As you have done here, I would get more information about the subject. God's door is allways open if you choose to follow. This is a touchy question for yourself to answer, and it is a pretty weighted one.

God allways welcomes testing. How many other Gods would punish their followers if they were tested? Most of them.

The mob ended up walking away, for they noticed what Jesus was writting in the sand. He wrote a list of all their sins.Actually, nobody knows what he was writing. Perhaps that list is speculation but I'm almost positive that it just says he was writing in the sand and nothing more.

But that doesn't matter, it's the message you're trying to get across, which I agree with.

Example of Mercy: (Loosly Quoted)
Pilot was confronted by a mob, and they brought forth a prostitute. According to the mob, she commited adultary. They asked Pilot what to do with the prostitute, for they wanted to stone her to death. She commited a state offense.

Pilot said, "Bring her to the Christ, and see what he would do."
His intent was to trap Jesus, and try to make him faulter

When the mob arrived to where Jesus was, Jesus was writting in the sand.
The mob asked, "Jesus, this protitute has commiting adultary. What should we do?'

Jesus confronted the prostitute, and asked if she had commited adultary. She confessed that she had. Jesus then turned to the mob, and said, "Let the first person who has not lived without sin throw the first stone."

The mob ended up walking away, for they noticed what Jesus was writting in the sand. He wrote a list of all their sins. After they left, Jesus told her to go forth and to not sin again. The prostitute agreed.

Before she left, Jesus asked her, "Would you like to come with me?" Even though she refused to follow him at that moment, Jesus still left the door open to her.

(In another story later, she ended up cathing up with him, and he welcomed her with open arms.)

For someone who insists on arguing based on Scripture, you sure don't paraphrase it correctly. The passage you are talking about comes from John, Chapter 8, and it has some very significant differences from your version. Look for yourself. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:1-11;&version=31;) Now, if you're to insist on Scripture-based arguments, perhaps you should get your story straight first. Like Moel said, no one knows what Jesus was writing in the sand, as it is not explicitly stated. Jesus also does not ask her to come with him. And I haven't yet found the passage that states they reunited. Maybe you could find that for me somewhere?

Oh, and as for suggesting this thread be closed/edited: Thanks, but no thanks. We'll make our own decisions, so please don't play mini-mod. That makes us cranky.

For someone who insists on arguing based on Scripture, you sure don't paraphrase it correctly. The passage you are talking about comes from John, Chapter 8, and it has some very significant differences from your version. Look for yourself. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:1-11;&version=31;) Now, if you're to insist on Scripture-based arguments, perhaps you should get your story straight first. Like Moel said, no one knows what Jesus was writing in the sand, as it is not explicitly stated. Jesus also does not ask her to come with him. And I haven't yet found the passage that states they reunited. Maybe you could find that for me somewhere?

Oh, and as for suggesting this thread be closed/edited: Thanks, but no thanks. We'll make our own decisions, so please don't play mini-mod. That makes us cranky.
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.

If you are crancky, why don't you go to sleep or something?

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.