(June 7, 2013 at 1:55 pm)John V Wrote: Yep. More realistically, should one be expected to try to alleviate all harm within one's means? For instance suppose someone writes a $30 check to charity once a month, but spends $50 every weekend at the bars? Good or evil?

-or neither?

Or perhaps my favorite, the charity just so happens to be "The Organization for the Summary Execution of all Christians"

I'd rather they spend more money on beer - if they're going to spend money on both regardless - and trust me...it pains me greatly to say so....

Offering up two morally ambiguous options...........

(June 7, 2013 at 1:55 pm)John V Wrote: Yep. More realistically, should one be expected to try to alleviate all harm within one's means? For instance suppose someone writes a $30 check to charity once a month, but spends $50 every weekend at the bars? Good or evil?

Good. Not endangering others, helping someone who has fallen, opening the door for someone with their hands full, assisting someone change a flat tire on the side of the road, etc. All small things that indicate you are a good human. Expecting someone to become an unreasonable level of saintlyhood is not realistic.

(June 7, 2013 at 1:55 pm)John V Wrote: There's also a problem in the opposite direction. Is anyone who ever tried to alleviate any harm a good person? In that case, practically everyone is a good person.

Many serial killers did supposedly good things under the light of day but secretly they were evil incarnate. Evil people can do good things just like good people can do evil things.

(June 7, 2013 at 1:55 pm)John V Wrote: Yep, that's another problem I was going to get to. A doctor who prescribes chemotherapy is causing harm, but in the hope of an ultimately beneficial outcome. Is this the same as your mother? If not, why not?

If the net outcome is intended to reduce the total amount of harm then it's good, even if some harm must occur in the process. Ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure.

(June 7, 2013 at 2:20 pm)Rahul Wrote: If the net outcome is intended to reduce the total amount of harm then it's good, even if some harm must occur in the process. Ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure.

If intended outcome is the measure of good things, then your mom is a good person doing good things.

(June 7, 2013 at 2:36 pm)John V Wrote: If intended outcome is the measure of good things, then your mom is a good person doing good things.

Voting against equal rights for homosexual marriage does not reduce harm. It increases it. Hence, evil.

A scientifically proven chemotherapy treatment is far different than basing your opinion on a fictional diety with no proof.

Good person committing an evil act. Unintentionally. But still evil.

(June 7, 2013 at 2:20 pm)Rahul Wrote: Many serial killers did supposedly good things under the light of day but secretly they were evil incarnate. Evil people can do good things just like good people can do evil things.

The BTK killer was president of his church.

(June 7, 2013 at 3:23 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: The BTK killer was president of his church.

Actually he was one serial killer I was thinking of.

The other was John Wayne Gacy.

(June 7, 2013 at 2:11 am)Godschild Wrote:

---

Ok you two, let's look at America where God is being kicked out at every turn. This country is in crisis, it is falling apart and if you can't see this then get out of the closet and look, less of God means more evil, where God isn't evil will move in.

---

Rahul Wrote:Less of God means that women will have more rights over their own body and their reproduction.

Why shouldn't women take responsibility for their bodies before hand, condoms would eliminate many abortions, abortions are harder on a women's body than prevention. It only seems reasonable doesn't, what woman doesn't know this, and this would also help in slowing down STD's. So until women can show responsibility for their bodies and quit killing innocent life, I'll be complaining. Yes I would rather see women and men practice abstinence according to God's will and if they did that too would be a choice.

Rahul Wrote:Less of God means that homosexuals will no longer be treated like second class citizens and will enjoy all the rights and benefits us heterosexuals have.

Since I do not see this as a normal life even before I became a Christian, I still do not think homosexuals should have the right to marry, it's not natural and adds nothing to a society.

Rahul Wrote:You think these things are evil?

Abortion is murder and homosexuality is not part of the natural order.

Rahul Wrote:Let me break it down in a way you MIGHT be able to understand.

You think abortion is wrong, correct? Against God's will.

Said so twice now, yes it's against God's will.

Rahul Wrote:Let me ask you, why did God give us the ability to go against him?

To choose to love Him or reject Him, nothing more nothing less.

Rahul Wrote:Free will, correct? God thought it was REALLY, REALLY important that us humans have free will.

God did not have to think it was important, in His omniscience He knew it was the only way to express real love.

Rahul Wrote:So how are you advancing his plan by taking away your fellow citizen's right and free will to have an abortion if they disagree with you?

The free will given us by God is about choosing between Him and ourselves, then the righteousness of God will either be a part of us or it want, if not then one may choose abortion. So you see it's not about choosing to do right and wrong, God showed that through the Israelites. It's about choosing to live in a relationship with Him and allowing His righteousness to be a part of our lives. Christians do not always do that and sometimes screw up royally. When we do we repent and try and return to a living relationship with Him.

Rahul Wrote:Or to take away free will for someone to live in a same sex marriage without being discriminated against?

God calls that type of relationship an abomination, how else should one who wants to live in a relationship with God disagree with His omniscient being. God says it is an unnatural relationship, He being the creator should know this correct? Do not misunderstand me I believe homosexuals should be afforded many of the rights we all do, except that of marriage and the things that come with that.

Rahul Wrote:That's not supporting god's plan. That's subverting it. Follow his lead and give your fellow citizens the all important free will to decide for themselves that God was so insistent we have.

I'm all for your expression of the free will God has given all of mankind, the problem here is you do not understand what that free will is. Let me explain, the free will God affords us is to choose between Him and ourselves as I said above and when I choose to accept Christ I have chosen to accept His righteousness and to support it even if it cost me this life. If you choose not to accept Christ, then you have rejected God's righteousness and will live as you want to and support what you see as right. Now here's the thing about this free will we have, when we make our choice for or against God all bets are off on choosing, there will be a punishment for choosing wrong no matter if you choose God or not. In other words your and my free will ends at our choice between God or ourselves. You want to twist God's love around to suit your choice of rejecting Him, it does not hold water with God.

Godshield why do you keep repeating the same nonsence despite it being disproved already?


Do you actualy care what other peoples opinions are? Do you care what the truth is? Do you care about evidence? Or are you simply here to have a platform for yourself to repeat yourself?

(June 7, 2013 at 2:20 pm)Rahul Wrote:

(June 7, 2013 at 1:55 pm)John V Wrote: There's also a problem in the opposite direction. Is anyone who ever tried to alleviate any harm a good person? In that case, practically everyone is a good person.

Many serial killers did supposedly good things under the light of day but secretly they were evil incarnate. Evil people can do good things just like good people can do evil things.

This statement of your's is in support of scripture, hard to shake the past. God say's those that do evil do it in the darkness to keep it hidden from others. The reason serial killers do anything considered good in the light is to hide their evil acts, so their supposed good is an evil act of disguise and deceit.

(June 7, 2013 at 4:20 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(June 7, 2013 at 2:20 pm)Rahul Wrote: Many serial killers did supposedly good things under the light of day but secretly they were evil incarnate. Evil people can do good things just like good people can do evil things.

This statement of your's is in support of scripture, hard to shake the past. God say's those that do evil do it in the darkness to keep it hidden from others. The reason serial killers do anything considered good in the light is to hide their evil acts, so their supposed good is an evil act of disguise and deceit.

If I hear one more "the sh'cript'shr says" or "support from the sh'cript'shr" I swear to Kthulu I'm gonna buy a gun. And ammo. That's quite an involved process where I live, I'll probably have to become a police office or hunter or something... and that involves a lot of work, so it's an empty threat, but still! Maybe I'll just drive a car into a tree, just to vent steam and make the insurance company pay for the dogmatic horse manure spewed here. But someone will pay... ah, maybe I'll just go to sleep