Jesus, Least Fit Moral Judge

[Esquilax]

The act of killing has no intrinsic value in of itself (Man woman child baby deserving or not.) For Death is nothing more than a birth into eternity. What makes killing a sin is whether or nor God sanctioned the death or if someone took it upon themselves to kill outside of God's expressed will. Again the action of Rape, murder, genocide, smashing babies against rocks has no intrinsic righteous or unrighteous ascribed to them. What makes these actions sin/evil is when one does these things outside of the expressed will of God.

Can I just say, I genuinely hope that you never end up hearing voices in your head, with this sort of attitude. You'd be liable to end up one of those nutjobs going on god-sanctioned killing sprees.

It does, however, answer all of my questions regarding your opinions of morality. You're just into divine command: if god says it, it's okay and also morally good, no matter what it is. This makes it really hard to talk to you, because you've given yourself literally the simplest possible outlook on the world. It's like trying to debate a rock.

However, I do need to ask about your metric: If, in this case, I come to you and tell you that god came to me and ordered your death, would you be fine with that? If god appeared to you incontrovertibly, and tells you to kill your family, would you do it? Or, as your willingness to cherry pick from the bible would indicate, do you have some scale of right and wrong that doesn't require a celestial thumbs up?

Meaning, Morality= Self righteousness. If this does not answer your question then rephrase incorperating this defination of morality into your question.

No. You don't get to redefine words however you want and then expect that everyone else play catch up with your twisted-ass logic. We have a language for a reason: kindly stick to what words actually mean, rather than inventing new definitions to dodge the issue at hand.

God encompasses all that He has created, if you spend this life trying to put distance between yourself and God, then wouldn't an eternity in Heaven under His rule as His slave be worse? Hell is the seperation you seek from God in this life. How does the saying go, "Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven?"

Then God's a disrespectful, sociopathic jerk. According to you, Hell's some form of respect for human agency, is it? Then why is it also a place of eternal, floridly described torment? Why isn't is a neutral zone where nothing outright bad happens to people?

Is this seriously your whole position on everything? Disagree with what's actually written down, present your own contradictory position without any form of credibility, and then expect us all to just accept it? I think I'm going to go ahead and say the Bible's the representation of your religion, not just what you say, thanks all the same.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Of course, all posts on the interpretation of a holy text relies on evidence for said holy text being true. As there is none, the cart before the horse comes to mind. And really, I have no interest in having insults and non-replies posted ad nauseum to me by someone as disingenuous as Drich.

Actually we just think you're silly.

You post nonsense post after nonsense post and don't seem to actually have any points at all.

For example, you post something you believe, we post something that refutes it, and all you do is just flip your belief around and post something else.

Then providing an example of this should be very easy for you to do. It would seem to me this would be a goto response to refute someone rather than inconsistant name calling.

It's tiring reading your posts because literally there is no point in having a discussion with you, and i remember why talking to you was so tiring on af.com. You are about as disingenuous as they come.

Again if I am the MOST disingenuous person you have ever come across then it should be easy for you to site examples, and legitmatly shut me down.. Rather than just alluding to generalities and appealing slandor. Again show me show all of us. Prove your accusations.

Persecution complex much? Who said anything about coming "to shut you down" (as if that we're possible)?

And also, I know you struggle with the definition of words sometimes, but technically you wouldn't be able to view my post as slander it would be libel. This is also impossible if you are posting behind an anonymous handle, so I can ignore all of these sleight of hand attacks.

My main example is your entire contribution to AF.com whilst you were there, specifically all the contradictory hogwash you repeatedly posted and subsequently ignored after you were repeatedly called on it (I am more familiar with your posts there than here by virtue of me being more active over there, but I read very little variation on here):

http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=34070
http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.p...71#p800871

I also just chose this post from that thread as an example, but just scrolling through the thread, there are loads:

---

That's the exact point that needs to be hammered home as soon as we get into these pointless run-arounds. This is all assertion based on NO evidence.

That is because no one up to this point asked. evertime i present anything beyond my written word i get slamed for doing it. So now if you want to know where or why you have to ask.

No no no. Considering your diatribe ( below) extolling the virtues of 'reading reference books' as opposed to Wikipedia, one would assume that you would have at least a basic grasp of how the world of academia works. If you make a claim, you provide the evidence. You don't just sit back and expect people to take your claims at face value, because as has been shown, we won't. Again, you make a claim, you back it up with testable, verifiable evidence that can lead us to conclude with our against you.

So effectively herein we have you attempting to patronise us for not agreeing with you, and calling you out on the (large) verbose tangential tosh that you have decided to spread all over our forum. Let's have a look, shall we?

Ok so to Rap things up God does not "love" you as you understand "Love to mean in the English.

Again, it's a ubiquitous reference point, but EVIDENCE? What evidence do you have for any of the above? If the answer is 'I feel it' or 'the bible' please note that the default position here will be that you in fact don't have any and are making it up as you go along.

God offers Agape. Agape is a conditional love in that one must choose to accept and reciprocate said love inorder to receive the benefit of said love. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm...JV#conc/16 (scroll down to verse 16) Which proves that God's love is not unconditional as the OP suggests.

EVIDENCE?

Fine, whatever you say. However, you've ridiculed other posters for focusing on this issue, and ignored/ else deemed 'unhelpful' (your words) others (eg me) who have sought to evolve the discussion to examine some of the large variety of contradictions caused by this line of thinking vis various passages in the bible. Disingenuous.

And, no benefits do not include a trouble free life as some here originally thought. What you can expect from God's boundless love when you first accept it? Freedom from the Law as a means to righteousness, a relationship with the Holy Spirit, Forgiveness of sins, and eternal life.

EVIDENCE?

Again, this point highlights another contradiction in your line of thinking. You posted on this thread that nowhere in the bible does it say humanity can't look after itself, but yet immediately say in the same paragraph that humanity cannot absolve itself from sin (I termed OS as a reference point as in the bible it is ubiquitous) without help from above. Thus, the contradiction is evident and yet you chose to completely ignore mine and others retorts on this subject. Evasive.

We also learned that no matter how much you want to live by wikipedia,

Which is rich because:

1.You've only used the bible and apologist websites that reference the bible as your term of reference (I didn't see one single link to a study/journal/book that critiqued your point of view), thus making any claim of intellectual dishonesty on your part moot and void.
2.(&) your attempt to ally yourself to a high ground of academic pursuit is contradicted by your inability to recognize where to need to provide evidence for your claims (I've highlighted some above).

in the end it is just a collection of accepted conjecture that does not trump actual reference material.

SEE: point 1 above. What you call 'actual reference material' I call a one sided evaluation of an obscure and unverifiable point that you 'believe' is right, and yet have shown no evidence to support it.

That does not mean it is completely useless it just means you can not take a definition from wiki to correct something found in a true reference book.

SEE: point 1 above.

Patronizing us will not give us any means to accept your point of view as valid. The only thing that will is EVIDENCE. So you've made the claim about 'agape' love; fine. Whatever works for you. You do however realise that you're on an atheist forum where 99.9% of the people don't believe in any form of god and that any claim citing god as real will be asked for conclusive proof that the claim is true, right?

You claim this isn't your first foray into an atheist forum? Tell us, how'd it go in the other forums?[/quote]

---

You repeatedly re-define words to suit your own twisted lexicon (SEE: post and reply to esquilax that precedes this post).

Every single reply I made to you on the AF.com thread was met with non-replies and tangential remarks, a waste of everyone's time. You even went as far forward to claim you were teaching us about the bible, when what you really meant was you were trying to tell us that your interpretation of the bible was true and that we should accept it hook line and sinker.

But don't worry, I know you won't view it that way, so really, this is for anyone else who is foolish enough to care about your silliness in the same way I was.

You take your interpretation of the bible/scripture as the only interpretation,

Show me where I have said this. Show me where I said My interpertation was the only one. I KNOW This to be slanderous remarks that maybe true about most christians, and you assume it is true about me as well. Allow me to burst you bubble. I have stated in this very thread that No one denomination (which are derived from various biblical interpertations.) has a lock on 'true christianity.' I have even gone so far as start my own thread and discuss this for 11 pages on this web site, and if I am not mistaken was discussed on the af.com website as well.

Denomination? I never mentioned denomination. I said your interpretation (which can be exclusive to an organized religion) is always forwarded as factual. Really? You're asking for evidence for something you do in this very reply (see: your Romans reply below, full of just interpretation which could be presented a myriad of ways to mean a whole boatload of nonsense depending on the reader)?

Don't re-frame my post to insinuate I was talking about a denomination of Christianity. I am talking specifically about your interpretation of your specific holy book.

Your appeals to slander are falling apart. Did you see how that was done? I made an assertion and then backed it up with EVIDENCE. Oh,The Irony Here! the Christian who uses Evidence to trump something an atheist wants people to take on blind faith.

Nonsensical non-reply. Ignored.

present it as fact (no evidence) and then go onto make a whole myriad of more nonsense up on top of it (see: post to FTR)

don't be afraid to be specific (unless you just making stuff us) Again, show me and allow me to clear things up for you.

All of the above, every statement/post you've made on here infering your interpretation as factual (below, everything on this thread, everything you've ever posted on the bible and your personal beliefs).

Also, this statement makes literally no sense either:

This seems like a legitmate request so note I am approaching it differently than how I addressed the first 1/2 of your post.

You just posted lots of not headed nonsense without actually thinking a out what you were saying. But ok:

"The ancient book offers freedom from authority...sin....not that we wot sin anymore"

Please explain:

1. How we can be under a divine authority for eternity and yet be free from all authority

I Did not say we are free from divine authority. I said we are free from Authority.[/quote]

This does not compute. Divine authority is different from...authority? Ok.

Meaning we are free from the acts, rules, traditions, the heirarchy, everything that 'religion' and religious practices traditionally provided for us. We are free from the works and law of religious practice as a means to earn righteousness (or the state of being/quality of soul we must have to enter Heaven/be in God's presents.) Works are meaningless in of themselves. If we are no longer bound by religious tradition or ritual to cleans ourselves from sin then that makes us free from the authority of those who would administer these rights.

Which is how I can say that the church of the Dark ages is not Christ. as such has no say in who enters heaven and who is going to Hell. That 'judgement' is not for those who worship to a given formula to decide. that desision remains with God. He will decide who believes in His Son and Who is just going through the motions.

So just to sum up, the church has no say on who goes to heaven/hell (fine), but we're still not free from authority because a version of god who you believe in has final say? Ok, so maybe this is just a semantic shell-game, in which case, I'm not playing. Again, your interpretation, your facts.

Christianity is not something we do. It is who we are at our cores.
Or so says Christ. I would go with what he says over that of a 1500 year old man who was known for wearing funny hats. That said if your into that, then that is between you and Christ.

And I'm assuming you mean the pope. Ok, but again, interpretation presented as factual (based on what Christ said, in the bible). Entirely your opinion.

---

2. How we can be free from sin but keep sinning.

Paul struggled with this very same issue. (And if the Apstole Paul could not stop sinning then what hope do any of us have?)
You REALLY Need to real All of Romans 7,(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=ERV) but here is the part that directly answers your question: Remember Paul is speaking to the Church at Rome about Himself.

The War Inside Us

14 We know that the law is spiritual, but I am not. I am so human. Sin rules me as if I were its slave. 15 I don’t understand why I act the way I do. I don’t do the good I want to do, and I do the evil I hate. 16 And if I don’t want to do what I do, that means I agree that the law is good. 17 But I am not really the one doing the evil. It is sin living in me that does it. 18 Yes, I know that nothing good lives in me—I mean nothing good lives in the part of me that is not spiritual. I want to do what is good, but I don’t do it. 19 I don’t do the good that I want to do. I do the evil that I don’t want to do. 20 So if I do what I don’t want to do, then I am not really the one doing it. It is the sin living in me that does it.

21 So I have learned this rule: When I want to do good, evil is there with me. 22 In my mind I am happy with God’s law. 23 But I see another law working in my body. That law makes war against the law that my mind accepts. That other law working in my body is the law of sin, and that law makes me its prisoner. 24 What a miserable person I am! Who will save me from this body that brings me death? 25 I thank God for his salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So in my mind I am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful self I am a slave to the law of sin.

---

It's hurting my head attempting to get around this seeming contradiction.

"I am a slave to gods law [in my mind]". Can you explain this better? I don't want the bible quoted to me I want your thinking process, same with the adjoining statement that "I am a slave to the law of sin".

Also, I do love the part where Paul supposedly says that nothing good resides in the part of him that isn't spiritual.

Maybe I should just die now because I'm all bad

I await your tangential and verbose reply with an orgasmic sense of disappointment.

You know in the furture if you have a legitmate question, you do not have to preface it with a slanderous attack. Just ask the question. that is unless you need to be taken apart line by line, to be made the fool publically. Or you could just send an PM if you do not want to be seen speaking with the enemy.. I do not keep a score card of who said what or who I need to get back at.

Not slander, and not libelous either, actually quite true. Again, more persecution complex. You are about as much as 'enemy' to me as my neighbor who I've never spoken to and have no interaction with. You don't rank high on my list of cares, in fact you don't feature on it.

The very thought of you taking me apart 'line by line' is almost a big a fantasy as your unevidenced and probably imaginary sky fairy. Good luck.

Edit: ah, sorry, I was reading that thread again and game across this little gem. It made me lol:

You claim this isn't your first foray into an atheist forum? Tell us, how'd it go in the other forums?

It is on Going (Atheistforums.org Same screen name same avatar) if you care to look. Long story short, initially I met alot of opposition, but has since developed into a mutual respect. Matter of fact I have run out of questions to answer on that site and is the reason why I came to this one.

Yeah, run out of questions...

[Drich]

Can I just say, I genuinely hope that you never end up hearing voices in your head, with this sort of attitude. You'd be liable to end up one of those nutjobs going on god-sanctioned killing sprees.

It does not work that way. any and all 'personal revelation' must first be verified in scripture. Otherwise the 'personal revelation' can be deemed not of God.

It does, however, answer all of my questions regarding your opinions of morality. You're just into divine command: if god says it, it's okay and also morally good, no matter what it is. This makes it really hard to talk to you, because you've given yourself literally the simplest possible outlook on the world. It's like trying to debate a rock.

As apposed to your model of 'morality?' where popular vote reigns supreme? You do know that is how the Nazis got away with killing millions right? Popular morality changes from person to person, culture to culture and generation to generation. It is an ever changing variable and as such can not ever truly be deemed a Standard.

However, I do need to ask about your metric: If, in this case, I come to you and tell you that god came to me and ordered your death, would you be fine with that?

I am fine with my death at any time. as far as God using you as my angel of death, then know if you have been given this revelation then come at night while I am alseep, otherwise you may find it 'difficult' to do what you have been tasked to do. that is unless you can show me in the bible where YOU have been given this authority over life and Death.

If god appeared to you incontrovertibly, and tells you to kill your family, would you do it? Or, as your willingness to cherry pick from the bible would indicate, do you have some scale of right and wrong that doesn't require a celestial thumbs up?

Just the oppsite It is the bible that would keep me from killing anyone even if I thought for sure God told me to. So, no you have it backwards. The bible trumps personal revelation.

Why do you assume that I would spend 10 pages appealing to the authority of the bible, EVEN in the case of the Catholic church and yet when it came to my own personal revelations, my 'feelings and experience' should trump the bible?

Meaning, Morality= Self righteousness. If this does not answer your question then rephrase incorperating this defination of morality into your question.

No. You don't get to redefine words however you want and then expect that everyone else play catch up with your twisted-ass logic.

they are not my definations sport. Read your bible.
It is the soceity yoou live in that has change the definations of words away from how God has used them to justify the perversions it wants to live in.

If we are having a Christian discussion, about the God of the bible then it is by the biblical definations we will use and choose our words.

Then God's a disrespectful, sociopathic jerk. According to you,

Which is what this life is all about. Making the desision you just made. Just remember yoour words when you receive judgement.

Hell's some form of respect for human agency, is it?

No, it is eternal seperation for those who do not wish to spend eternity with God.

Then why is it also a place of eternal, floridly described torment? Why isn't is a neutral zone where nothing outright bad happens to people?

Because like it or not you are a member of creation, as such whether you can admit this or not, you long to be apart of creation, as that was how you were designed. being torn away from what you long for, will bring suffering and torment.

Is this seriously your whole position on everything? Disagree with what's actually written down, present your own contradictory position without any form of credibility, and then expect us all to just accept it? I think I'm going to go ahead and say the Bible's the representation of your religion, not just what you say, thanks all the same.

Great over view of my work, now show me that what you said is indeed accurate. Show me where I disagree on what is written down, show me or rather ask me to show you to present the evidence to support what I have said. When/if I can't then know your statement here is correct.

[Drich]

Persecution complex much? Who said anything about coming "to shut you down" (as if that we're possible)?

An appeal to ignorance? or just personal denial? If your efforts were not meant to show me and your peers that your views were 'right.' Then why the need for the last word? Why not let it all go? If it is as you say you believe, (that the bible is all fiction) then why so much effort to prove those who believe in it wrong? Why follow me over from AF.com? Why spend time writting and responding to this thread?

If right is right that should be enough. For instance I do not believe that any other religion is right, but I do not spend my time argueing with those who believe in their false gods. Why? Because I can live and let live, I do not need or feel a need to shut down the faith of others. But you on the other hand do not seem to share this philosphy.

And also, I know you struggle with the definition of words sometimes, but technically you wouldn't be able to view my post as slander it would be libel. This is also impossible if you are posting behind an anonymous handle, so I can ignore all of these sleight of hand attacks.

Watch this: _______________________. That is my response to you on this paragraph. Why? Not because I agree with what you said, but because I do not feel a need to shut you down or shut you up. I am content in remaining silent, because i do not see a need to 'shut you down/shut you up.'

My main example is your entire contribution to AF.com whilst you were there, specifically all the contradictory hogwash you repeatedly posted and subsequently ignored after you were repeatedly called on it (I am more familiar with your posts there than here by virtue of me being more active over there, but I read very little variation on here):

You have to be a member to view the posts you left. It was my understanding that all threads I started there were completely deleted.

I also just chose this post from that thread as an example, but just scrolling through the thread, there are loads:

On AF.com I was warn/threaten repeatdly from preaching. Over there it meant the use of ANY Scriptural/Religious material of any kind. You and other seemed to be on a mission to ask question that demanded answers from religious texts that were ban. This is ultimatly what got me ban there. (Providing scripture for those who asked for it even after being told it was forbidden.)

Patronizing us will not give us any means to accept your point of view as valid. The only thing that will is EVIDENCE. So you've made the claim about 'agape' love; fine. Whatever works for you. You do however realise that you're on an atheist forum where 99.9% of the people don't believe in any form of god and that any claim citing god as real will be asked for conclusive proof that the claim is true, right?

Which again points back to the NEED you have to shut down those who Speak of Him. It is not enough to not believe, no one else can either or at least no one else can with out being riticuled and attacked.

You repeatedly re-define words to suit your own twisted lexicon (SEE: post and reply to esquilax that precedes this post).

Have you taken the time to explore these definations? Have you looked up or even asked where they come from or why there is such contrast from what is popularly accepted and what I am repersenting from the bible? No I can say you have not. You just assume that what your standing on is solid ground and that the definations you use have always been defined in the way you use them. If you can just look at an old dictionary from generation ago, you would notice a dramatic change. Now multiply that need to change our lexicon to suit our 'sacred sins' over 2000 years and across 3 different languages. Only a FOOL would assume that there could not be any changes in how one perceives or speaks of a concept like 'morality' or any of the others that have been discussed.

Every single reply I made to you on the AF.com thread was met with non-replies and tangential remarks, a waste of everyone's time.

Can you verify this claim? As ALL Of my Threads have been completely erased. I know that I would have ignored a great majority of your questions if I felt they were baiting me to get myself ban. there were a few who would bait a question that demanded a scriptural reference and then flag or report the post to the mods for preaching. again as i do not keep a score card I do not know who said what, but i was told by a mod this was going on.

You even went as far forward to claim you were teaching us about the bible, when what you really meant was you were trying to tell us that your interpretation of the bible was true and that we should accept it hook line and sinker.

Again no. this is just a stereotypical view of how 'christians' system of belief works. I left a link in my last post to you stating how and why I believe that all forms of Christ centered christianity are legitmate. In other words my view of the bible is one of many. That said your paragraph is a good example of what I identified as a slanderous remark. You are attempting to defame my name (real or not) by misrepersenting me and what I have gone to great lengths to establish.

Denomination? I never mentioned denomination.

interpertation begets systems of belief, hence Denomination.

I said your interpretation (which can be exclusive to an organized religion) is always forwarded as factual. Really? You're asking for evidence for something you do in this very reply (see: your Romans reply below, full of just interpretation which could be presented a myriad of ways to mean a whole boatload of nonsense depending on the reader)?

I left the entire Chapter for you to read. (With no commentary) If I do not leave a commentary on Romans 7 then how is it that I "Forward my interpertation as factual?" I haven't interpereted anything when I give you a chapter and say read it. i am simply pointing to a chapter in the bible that answers the Question you specifically ask. It speaks for itself no interperetation needed.

Don't re-frame my post to insinuate I was talking about a denomination of Christianity. I am talking specifically about your interpretation of your specific holy book.

WHICH IS TIED TO THE CHURCH/DENOMINATION I AM APART OF.

Your appeals to slander are falling apart. Did you see how that was done? I made an assertion and then backed it up with EVIDENCE. Oh,The Irony Here! the Christian who uses Evidence to trump something an atheist wants people to take on blind faith.

Nonsensical non-reply. Ignored.

do you wish for me to explain it to you as if you were a child?

This does not compute. Divine authority is different from...authority? Ok.

Divine:1
a: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love>

b: being a deity <the divine Savior>

c: directed to a deity <divine worship>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/divine

In short Divine Authority is God's Personal Authority over us.

The other Authority I was speaking of was the Authority of Religion over us to be an intermeidate step between God and man/ The worship of Man. Being under the authority of tradition,rules, laws cermony, rituals, observance of Religion and those who lead it in general.

We are Free from The authority of institution of religion, but still must submit to God.

And I'm assuming you mean the pope. Ok, but again, interpretation presented as factual (based on what Christ said, in the bible). Entirely your opinion.

then show me. Show me in the bible where the Church is given over to one man.

I don't want the bible quoted to me I want your thinking process, same with the adjoining statement that "I am a slave to the law of sin".

You also wanted to know it was possiable to be a slave to God's law in you mind. (that got deleted)
Paul is recognizing the division between soul, and body. The spiritual and the Physical. The Physical body is a being in of itself. It has wants needs and desire apart from the spirit/soul. The Body is a slave to sin. It needs and wants things that God does not want for us, but because it is a slave to sin will follow it's master. However the Soul/spirit can completely give all of itself over to God. Hence Paul's want to do good. But because the Soul is tied to this sinful body in this life, and because the body is a slave to sin. The person will eventually sin. Hence the dual nature being explained here. It is when the body and spirit are in agreement to sin, will a soul be condemned to eternal seperation from God.

Paul says there is a war between body and soul, and the best we can hope for is a stale mate under our own efforts. That is why the bible tells us there are no 'good people.'

Also, I do love the part where Paul supposedly says that nothing good resides in the part of him that isn't spiritual.

so do i

Maybe I should just die now because I'm all bad

-or- Maybe you should seek attonement as the passage offers.

The Law only serves to convict us of sin, that is it's only purpose. Once we see the conviction then those who wish to be with God for eternity are provided with a way to attone for sin, so they are no longer bound by the law.

Yeah, run out of questions...

At the time there was almost 2 weeks where their was little to do here.

[Ryantology]

How self-hating and miserable does one have to be to seek 'atonement' from God for 'crimes' which BY DESIGN are impossible not to commit?

God made us this way. Even if you call 'free will' into play, he gave us 'free will' but did not give us the ability to resist the temptations which are against his law. It's a rigged game through and through.

To put the best face on things, Jesus is The Perfect Almighty God's way of admitting he done fucked up in such a way that stupid people think he didn't fuck up. Hence, why now the only 'requirement' for salvation is merely submitting to voluntary slavery, which is clearly not impossible for some people.

[Mystical]

[i]Dear Drich sir,

What the ___ are you talking about? I was raised Christian since before I could walk, spent my entire lifetime as a Christian, and I have no frigging clue what the ___ you are talking about. Thou shalt not kill. Period. He who is without sin cast the first stone--Jesus could've thrown that stone supposedly, but he did not. It is never, ever condoned by your god to murder. Ever. Nor would murder be moralistic if said god ever did tell you to kill, and Esquilaxs' diagnosis of you being a religious murdering tyrant should you ever start hearing voices (which does happen medically), is highly accurate. Simply put, you are frightening.
The moral contradictions in the bible with regards to murder and punishment (particularly Old Testament verses) only concreted my beliefs that the bible is either a sad misrepresentation of the creator--or there is no creator, whatsoever. Mainly for the fact that an all-knowing god would know better than to throw such blatant "weapons" in the hands of humanity of all things, knowing damn well there's people who will interpret it as you have.
It's frightening that you're here, representing your religion actually--for Christians and non-Christians everywhere, I ask you to at least concrete your beliefs on a subject by reviewing them with others of your faith, rather than ranting on and on only causing more harm to your cause, than good. If you can't and don't do this, I am going to conclude that you're definitely not here to 'minister' to the godless, and that you're here for your own selfish needs and wants. I highly doubt you genuinely have god in your heart and can represent your beliefs accurately, and until you decide to make sense, please stfu. Thanks.

~Missy~
[/i]

[quote='Drich' pid='385692' dateline='1358102975']
any and all 'personal revelation' must first be verified in scripture.

~As a sane human being, I am going to say that even if the bible did say go ahead and kill someone for some reason: doing something because a book says so, is EXactly how genocides happen. Old testament laws are null and void, anyways. I find it funny you would bring up the Nazis, but hey.


[quote='Drich' pid='385692' dateline='1358102975']
It is the bible that would keep me from killing anyone even if I thought for sure God told me to.

~You just contradicted your own point, there.

[Drich]

[quote='Ryantology' pid='385705' dateline='1358108460']
How self-hating and miserable does one have to be to seek 'atonement' from God for 'crimes' which BY DESIGN are impossible not to commit?[/quote] sin is not crime. sin is the condition, affliction that keeps us from spending an eternity with God.

[quote]God made us this way. Even if you call 'free will' into play, he gave us 'free will' but did not give us the ability to resist the temptations which are against his law. It's a rigged game through and through.[/quote]Which makes us SLAVES to sin. That means committing sin is not what free will is about. Free will is a singular choice to seek redemption from the sins we are bound to. Nothing more. I have said from my first post here Free will is not the Greek philosphy that describes the ultimate freedom of choice. (which subsequently is why all anti-freewill arguements fail.) We have no will but to live a life of sin. If you do not believe this to be true then try and stop sinning. Which is why all God wants from us is for us to manefest the desire to Not sin and to seek attonement. for us not to try and base our worthiness on our actions but on the actions of Christ.

[quote]To put the best face on things, Jesus is The Perfect Almighty God's way of admitting he done fucked up in such a way that stupid people think he didn't fuck up. Hence, why now the only 'requirement' for salvation is merely submitting to voluntary slavery, which is clearly not impossible for some people.[/quote] If you can not help but sin then you are already a slave. One who will be punished for his deeds. That only difference between you and I. For I am a slave to sin as well. I sin all day every day as i am a slave to it, but as in romans 7 my soul and my physical form are at war with each other over it, as a result I sought out attonement for that which I can not help but do. Because of this Grace has been extended to me. Even though I am still a sinner.

Christianity is not about earning your way to Heaven though your deeds/living a life without sin. It is about seeking the attonement offered through the blood christ shed for the sins He knew you could not shake.

---

[quote='missluckie26' pid='385747' dateline='1358121350']
Dear Drich sir,

What the ___ are you talking about? I was raised Christian since before I could walk, spent my entire lifetime as a Christian, and I have no frigging clue what the ___ you are talking about. Thou shalt not kill. Period. [/quote] The Command you are referring to is: You shall not Murder, God kills in the time the commandments, and His people were given orders for the deaths of entire races of people(women and children smashing babies against the rocks and so on.) This is different from Murder. Murder being the unsanctioned taking of life. (Someone killing with out God's say so)

[quote]He who is without sin cast the first stone--Jesus could've thrown that stone supposedly, but he did not. It is never, ever condoned by your god to murder. Ever. Nor would murder be moralistic if said god ever did tell you to kill, and Esquilaxs' diagnosis of you being a religious murdering tyrant should you ever start hearing voices (which does happen medically), is highly accurate. Simply put, you are frightening. [/quote]You lost me. When under the New covenant have I said God ordered peoples deaths?

[quote]The moral contradictions in the bible with regards to murder and punishment (particularly Old Testament verses) only concreted my beliefs that the bible is either a sad misrepresentation of the creator--or there is no creator, whatsoever. [/quote]-or- Maybe you simply do not fully understand what has been written.

[quote]Mainly for the fact that an all-knowing god would know better than to throw such blatant "weapons" in the hands of humanity of all things, knowing damn well there's people who will interpret it as you have.[/quote]How exactly have I interpreted it?
cut and paste. Show me what I have said.

[quote]It's frightening that you're here, representing your religion actually--for Christians and non-Christians everywhere, I ask you to at least concrete your beliefs on a subject by reviewing them with others of your faith, rather than ranting on and on only causing more harm to your cause, than good. If you can't and don't do this, I am going to conclude that you're definitely not here to 'minister' to the godless, and that you're here for your own selfish needs and wants. I highly doubt you genuinely have god in your heart and can represent your beliefs accurately, and until you decide to make sense, please stfu. Thanks.[/quote]
Maybe you should take the time to read what I wrote again, ~Missy~

[quote]~As a sane human being, I am going to say that even if the bible did say go ahead and kill someone for some reason: doing something because a book says so, is EXactly how genocides happen. Old testament laws are null and void, anyways. I find it funny you would bring up the Nazis, but hey. [/quote]I think you are confused.


[quote='Drich' pid='385692' dateline='1358102975']
It is the bible that would keep me from killing anyone even if I thought for sure God told me to.

[quote]~You just contradicted your own point, there.[/quote]
Actually missy no i did not. allow me to explain. I was being framed out as being a death mongering lunitic, I simply played devils advocate and allowed the senerio to play out so the OP would seek the checks and balances found in the bible and with in a sane follower of Christ that would pervent him from going on a killing spree in the name of God.

It seems you made up your mind about me before you started and did not follow the logic and the revelation of those checks and balances I was speaking of. You ASSumed that your initial evaluation was correct even when my writting proved otherwise. That is why you believe their to be" a contradiction in my own point" Maybe read the post again with an open mind.

[Ryantology]

sin is not crime. sin is the condition, affliction that keeps us from spending an eternity with God.

Call it whatever you want. It is an 'affliction' God made possible.

Which makes us SLAVES to sin.

Which God did on purpose. Or do you suggest that God was incapable of making humanity invulnerable to the temptations of sin?

That means committing sin is not what free will is about. Free will is a singular choice to seek redemption from the sins we are bound to. Nothing more.

I'm not invoking the Greek idea of free will, but your own. We have the 'free will' to seek redemption from sin because God either could not or would not design us so that sin was never an issue in the first place.

If you can not help but sin then you are already a slave.

Some behaviors defined as 'sins' are behaviors which are virtually impossible to avoid committing. They are behaviors hardcoded into human brains. They are also behaviors God is guilty of committing himself, which is especially hilarious when one considers the fact that one of the worst sins is supposed to be 'hypocrisy'.

Being 'free of sin' is another way of saying 'don't be the way God designed you to be'.

Christianity is not about earning your way to Heaven though your deeds/living a life without sin. It is about seeking the attonement offered through the blood christ shed for the sins He knew you could not shake.

It is his fault we cannot shake them. He made this universe, didn't he? It's a rigged (or flawed) game, and telling us to 'atone' for it merely blames the victims of bad design.

The Command you are referring to is: You shall not Murder, God kills in the time the commandments, and His people were given orders for the deaths of entire races of people(women and children smashing babies against the rocks and so on.) This is different from Murder. Murder being the unsanctioned taking of life. (Someone killing with out God's say so)

Sometimes I can't tell whether I find your candidness about the nightmarishly psychotic nature of your faith refreshing or terrifying.

[FallentoReason]

Ephesians 4:21-24
21assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Sounds like Drich isn't a True Christian™ because we all know True Christians who are born again don't desire sin.

Ask for your tithes back at the church. Snakeoil salesmen conned you man.

[Drich]

Ephesians 4:21-24
21assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Sounds like Drich isn't a True Christian™ because we all know True Christians who are born again don't desire sin.

Ask for your tithes back at the church. Snakeoil salesmen conned you man.

You do know That Romans and Ephesians were written by the same guy right?

You also know that I am not that guy. So for the 'thinking man' one verse does not cancel out the other. They work together in unison. For instance take another look at romans 7 14-25
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=ERV

Now look at your verse again. Paul knows and teaches the way we should walk, but by his own admission in romans 7 he knows it is not possiable to always walk that path. The key here is the seperation from what the mind wants to what the body wants. (Anyone who has stuggled with diet, smoking, drugs, or anyother type of addiction know it is possiable to want to do one thing but wind up doing the thing you hate.) For in this seperation, Even if the Body sins the mind can stay pure. Paul is teaching the ephesians how to have a pure mind. He is given them God's goals for us so our minds to not fall into loving the sins our bodies are bound to. this is the transformation He speaks of here and in romans as well. We are expected to change what we can (Our Hearts/minds) and seek attonement for the rest.

As far as being a True Christian™ i have never had any desire to be one of those. I simply follow Christ through the Teachings found in the bible. True Christians™ believe in all sorts of stuff that i can quite wrap my head around.