RE: Jesus, Least Fit Moral Judge
January 15, 2013 at 12:53 am
(This post was last modified: January 15, 2013 at 2:34 am by Mystical.)
Drich wrote:
[Understand God does not have to make things fair for you. It is the way it is, and either you adapt and work with in the boundries we have been given or you will be cast aside.]
If god is the arbiter of morality as you claim, then by default he HAS to be fair, completely. The fact that life isn't fair, shows me that god is not fair and thus gives me yet another reason to discount him as existing. Because, if he truly existed, then existence would not exist as it does. And why live in boundaries if you don't have to and there's no proof that you should?
Drich wrote:
[Only the sheltered feel they are entitled to a 'fair' life. It is often times the entitled who get left behind by life.]
I highly doubt that only the "sheltered" feel that life isn't fair. Case in point: every single orphan begging for a crumb to eat, in the non-civilized parts of the world. Or in the civilized parts of the world, for instance, me?
Regular people, living regular lives, finding it incredulous that they were born with a gun to their heads with regards to their "choices" about life after death, should they choose to believe in an after life or not, they're going to hell for something they didn't even do unless they acknowledge that they were created by a being who wants subservience in exchange for an eternal life without torture? No, there aren't any sheltered people, anywhere. More, just people like you--trying to bully someone else into submitting defeat in a debate, by equating them with a hypothetical population of people that you made up. In all actuality, the suppressors in this life, are folks like you. People who believe that they have the right to dictate how others live, and are willing to fear monger said people into complying with the stipulation of eternal death from an all powerful being who they have absolutely no proof whatsoever that such a being exists in the first place--in order to get what they want in life via control of others. All over a silly, man written book no less.
What if a Muslim came to you and said, "you need to pray on your knees to Mohammad or you're going to die an eternal death spiritually? You'd tell him to F off wouldn't you? That's you, to me. It's actually more logical to believe that there isn't anywhere after death, for the mere fact that religion uses it to get what it wants from people, in life. Charlatan comes to mind, when I think about any person on earth who tells me that if I don't do what they want or live like they want me to, then I will be thrown into an alleged sadistic eternal lake of fire. Before you go spouting off that I indeed dictate what others do myself in terms of not wanting others to murder or rape--consider this. You were put on this earth, so was I. We are equals. If you kill me or rape me, then you are treading upon my rights as a human being and I must dictate that you can't do that, in order to protect my own existence. You on the other hand, telling me that eternal fire waits for your equals for non-violent acts such as loving a man as a man--is just you plain out again, taking away our civil liberties as a living, breathing, free-willed human being and is equally as wrong. Either way, you're wronging others with your beliefs if you implement those beliefs into your actions, or push your beliefs upon others as you're trying to do here. Your tone and arguments are not anywhere near genuine enough for me to equate you with wanting anything else but to debate with others and make yourself feel better at your ability to circumvent their logic with your sad ability to think in a way that is unreasonably inconceivable and circular to a fault.
Drich wrote:
[You made a huge leap how did you get to predestination from the offer of attonemnt Christ offers? Or are you trying to coast in on an old standby arguement hoping that it will work in what is being discussed here?]God is omnipotent, thus he knows what our choices will be before we make them. That means our fates are pre-determined, and hence he still allows 2/3 of mankind to perish rather than just opting not to create us. Is it not better to be non-existant, then spend an eternity in HELL? I think so, despite what Catholics have concluded on the matter.
God is omnipotent, thus he knows what our choices will be before we make them. That means our fates are pre-determined, and hence he still allows 2/3 of mankind to perish rather than just opting not to create us. Is it not better to be non-existant, then spend an eternity in HELL? I think so, despite what Catholics have concluded on the matter.
Drich wrote:
[Otherwise if it was as you said and we all just came to this 'morality' because it was what was best for the propagation of soceity, then all soceities would have come to relitivly the same 'morality.' They haven't have they? For it seems those in the west have a different idea of 'morality' than those in the mid east and far east.]
Popular vote, is not morality. Again, if you kill me you're wronging me--no matter what part of the earth or what kind of governing powers oversee you, it's still wrong. Everyone knows it, even the middle easterners and those from the 'far east'. Government is supposed to protect ones' rights as a human being, idealistically. The fact that it doesn't do that in parts of the world is not an argument that morality is a sliding scale based on where you live. It merely reflects the fact that people like to tell others how to live--and parallels your beliefs quite nicely, actually. If you were in a public office, I guarantee you would definitely suppress ones' right to marry another of the same sex. Despite the fact that you and I and everyone on this earth have a right to do whatever they goddamn please so long as it doesn't hurt others or encroach upon their rights. It's only when those rights are violated, that justification can be found in law that tells people how to live. We have rights, yes we do. Rights given to us by existence alone. God isn't here, or anywhere that I can see--to enforce the bibles' convictions. You're the enforcer, and it's frightening to me that you can't live without encroaching on others. [/b]
Drich wrote:
[My, 'standards' are not based off of works.]
Bull fuckin shit. I have better standards than you, without a bible to tell me what's right from wrong.
Drich wrote:
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_...d_epistles
This is the sort of stuff we're dealing with. I'm not going to go through every last detail because the evidence is too much for me to be passing it all on.]
Did you seriously just quote wikipedia???? bah ha ha ha haaaaaaa
ha ha
Drich wrote:
[So, if you had an oppertunity to kill/murder little baby hitler, little baby stallin, and or little baby Hirito you would pass, and doom 100 million people to a terriable death?
Mighty 'moral' of you.]
I can't imagine anyone not considering it worthwhile to kill a killer to prevent them from killing. AGAIN, if they are encroaching on others' human rights, they need to be stopped to protect those rights, which are rightly not theirs to infringe upon. We have every right to defend your own rights. End of story.
Drich wrote:
[Welcome to the conversation. Now may I suggest that you ask: When did God say it was ok to kill? To which I will answer: In Old Testament times he gave specific kill orders against a given people, and He has Given authority of life and death to Goverments in modern times.. This means if a goverment needs to wage war then it is permitted. It also means if the goverment wishes to empower it's citizens with the authority to defend themselves, family, other people or even properity then under those conditions it is also ok to kill.]
I think you need to put yourself in others' shoes for a minute, friend. If a Chinese army came over and took over your hometown to overthrow the government and accidentally killed your entire family in the crossfire--you'd consider it an encroachment on your human rights. Even if your town has weapons of mass destruction sitting in an underground bunker aimed at the Chinese capitol. Why is it not considered the same thing if your government does the same thing to another people? It's still murder, it's still wrong. Exclude god (whom most here don't believe in anyways and thus your arguments have no basis for discussion ) from an argument for once, and see where your logic takes you. Talk like a human being, not some bible-warrior which we all know, you are not. If you want to relate to what keeps us "godforsaken", then try reasoning like a reasonable human being, with your arguments and THEN state what god feels about the matter.
I guarantee you support war efforts on the part of the US government because God says that your government has the authority---again, exactly how genocides happen. It can, has, and will happen and you will be the one condoning it. Your "morality" is actually the very thing that drives the worlds' greatest tragedies and carnage. In the end if religion wasn't the driving force for one population to war with another another: there'd be a hell of alot less dying.
missluckie26 wrote:
Quote:You did not say "Based under the New covenant", you said, "What makes killing a sin is whether or nor God sanctioned the death or if someone took it upon themselves to kill outside of Gods' expressed will."
Drich wrote:
[Which is a blanket statement that is true in either convenat]
I truly feel like I'm beating a dead horse with this one. Which is it? "When have I ever said under the new covenant," or, "it is a blanket statement that is true in either covenant."
Disregarding covenants, murder is murder is murder. If god tells you to do it, you're just delusional.
Yet another hypothetical, if I said to you: Barny is the one and only god. Barny says it's ok for me to kill you because you smell, so, die---any sane human being would think that's psychotic. Which is exactly how I see you, for upholding the thought that murder is anything but immoral, ever.
Drich wrote:
[so.. If God does not decide what murder is, then who does? You? If you decide then may I ask when is it ok to kill? What if I broke into your home and raped you family? What if this was a weekly event? in your 'judgement' would i deserve to die? If so then what makes your judgement any more valid than God's?]
Wow where to start, here? First of all I have a question--why throw in that it's a weekly event? I mean, really. Makes no sense whatsoever in support of your case, if you had one. What's more, is if you did have 'gods love' in your heart, you'd be aware of the fact that bringing up rape to one of your sisters, is immoral in and of itself. Rape is real, not hypothetical. I will refer back to my earlier statements, and add that I don't decide what's right and what's wrong. What's right, is right. What's wrong, is wrong. 2 plus 2 is four is right, 2 plus 2 is five is wrong. It's a nice little thing called fact. No matter where you are in the universe, those staples hold true.
Hypothetical: If you and I were shipwrecked on an island and I decided to kill you: that's wrong because I don't have a right to take your life. No one does. We both exist, and to take eachothers right to exist away is wrong. You don't have the right to take my life, ever. If either of us kill the other, we're wrong. Plain and simple, don't need an arbiter to dictate right from wrong, it just is.
Drich wrote:
[It's only a contratiction under your defination of Murder. If you throw away your broken understanding where murder is never ok unless you say it is, and give the power back to God to perside over life and death then the death of those children are no longer murder.]
Broken definition, huh? That sums up your definition of murder quite well, I'll just leave it at that. What's more, why would anyone ever choose to give a murderer, the precedence over life and death? Not you, if it was an actual living breathing human being. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, you give that power over your very real actions, to a apparition whom you have absolutely no proof exists whatsoever. Apparently you have no qualms with bashing an innocent over the head with a rock if your god says so. Delusional by definition in my opinion, as there is no god. You can't even prove that he told you to do that. You can prove, however, that men wrote a book in his name, only. I myself don't put such trust in mankind as that, for good reason.
Drich wrote:
[Do you see the condition? "That who so ever believes" is a condition on the 'love' or Agape God offers. God's love does not extend beyong those who accept His Son. Which makes the Love He offers Very Conditional]
Read it again yourself, sir. For god so loved the world that he gave his one and only son. [b]SO THAT[b] whosoever believes in him shall not perish. What's more, god is love. God is love. What does that mean? It means, god is love. Love is unconditional when speaking about god because he IS love incarnate. By default again, if he IS love, he can't not love certain things, he must love all. Romans 5:8, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Biblical website: In this verse and in John 3:16, we find no conditions placed on God's love for us. God doesn't say, "as soon as you clean up your act, I'll love you; " nor does He say, "I'll sacrifice my Son if you promise to love Me." Romans 5:8, we find just the opposite. God wants us to know that his love is unconditional, so he sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for us while we were still unlovable sinners. His love has always existed, and because of that, He did all the giving and sacrificing long before humans were supposedly even aware that we needed the sacrifice of love.
Irregardless of the fact that that sacrifice only saves those willing to bow on a knee in thanks, he still did it because he is love and loves the world. He has to love his creation, that's what believers of your same belief system say. Are you saying that your interpretation is right over theirs? I wouldn't dare say my opinion is better than that of an equally qualified individual who has reviewed the same evidence. Maybe you should go deflate that enormous head of yours, and get back to me.
[Understand God does not have to make things fair for you. It is the way it is, and either you adapt and work with in the boundries we have been given or you will be cast aside.]
If god is the arbiter of morality as you claim, then by default he HAS to be fair, completely. The fact that life isn't fair, shows me that god is not fair and thus gives me yet another reason to discount him as existing. Because, if he truly existed, then existence would not exist as it does. And why live in boundaries if you don't have to and there's no proof that you should?
Drich wrote:
[Only the sheltered feel they are entitled to a 'fair' life. It is often times the entitled who get left behind by life.]
I highly doubt that only the "sheltered" feel that life isn't fair. Case in point: every single orphan begging for a crumb to eat, in the non-civilized parts of the world. Or in the civilized parts of the world, for instance, me?
Regular people, living regular lives, finding it incredulous that they were born with a gun to their heads with regards to their "choices" about life after death, should they choose to believe in an after life or not, they're going to hell for something they didn't even do unless they acknowledge that they were created by a being who wants subservience in exchange for an eternal life without torture? No, there aren't any sheltered people, anywhere. More, just people like you--trying to bully someone else into submitting defeat in a debate, by equating them with a hypothetical population of people that you made up. In all actuality, the suppressors in this life, are folks like you. People who believe that they have the right to dictate how others live, and are willing to fear monger said people into complying with the stipulation of eternal death from an all powerful being who they have absolutely no proof whatsoever that such a being exists in the first place--in order to get what they want in life via control of others. All over a silly, man written book no less.
What if a Muslim came to you and said, "you need to pray on your knees to Mohammad or you're going to die an eternal death spiritually? You'd tell him to F off wouldn't you? That's you, to me. It's actually more logical to believe that there isn't anywhere after death, for the mere fact that religion uses it to get what it wants from people, in life. Charlatan comes to mind, when I think about any person on earth who tells me that if I don't do what they want or live like they want me to, then I will be thrown into an alleged sadistic eternal lake of fire. Before you go spouting off that I indeed dictate what others do myself in terms of not wanting others to murder or rape--consider this. You were put on this earth, so was I. We are equals. If you kill me or rape me, then you are treading upon my rights as a human being and I must dictate that you can't do that, in order to protect my own existence. You on the other hand, telling me that eternal fire waits for your equals for non-violent acts such as loving a man as a man--is just you plain out again, taking away our civil liberties as a living, breathing, free-willed human being and is equally as wrong. Either way, you're wronging others with your beliefs if you implement those beliefs into your actions, or push your beliefs upon others as you're trying to do here. Your tone and arguments are not anywhere near genuine enough for me to equate you with wanting anything else but to debate with others and make yourself feel better at your ability to circumvent their logic with your sad ability to think in a way that is unreasonably inconceivable and circular to a fault.
Drich wrote:
[You made a huge leap how did you get to predestination from the offer of attonemnt Christ offers? Or are you trying to coast in on an old standby arguement hoping that it will work in what is being discussed here?]God is omnipotent, thus he knows what our choices will be before we make them. That means our fates are pre-determined, and hence he still allows 2/3 of mankind to perish rather than just opting not to create us. Is it not better to be non-existant, then spend an eternity in HELL? I think so, despite what Catholics have concluded on the matter.
God is omnipotent, thus he knows what our choices will be before we make them. That means our fates are pre-determined, and hence he still allows 2/3 of mankind to perish rather than just opting not to create us. Is it not better to be non-existant, then spend an eternity in HELL? I think so, despite what Catholics have concluded on the matter.
Drich wrote:
[Otherwise if it was as you said and we all just came to this 'morality' because it was what was best for the propagation of soceity, then all soceities would have come to relitivly the same 'morality.' They haven't have they? For it seems those in the west have a different idea of 'morality' than those in the mid east and far east.]
Popular vote, is not morality. Again, if you kill me you're wronging me--no matter what part of the earth or what kind of governing powers oversee you, it's still wrong. Everyone knows it, even the middle easterners and those from the 'far east'. Government is supposed to protect ones' rights as a human being, idealistically. The fact that it doesn't do that in parts of the world is not an argument that morality is a sliding scale based on where you live. It merely reflects the fact that people like to tell others how to live--and parallels your beliefs quite nicely, actually. If you were in a public office, I guarantee you would definitely suppress ones' right to marry another of the same sex. Despite the fact that you and I and everyone on this earth have a right to do whatever they goddamn please so long as it doesn't hurt others or encroach upon their rights. It's only when those rights are violated, that justification can be found in law that tells people how to live. We have rights, yes we do. Rights given to us by existence alone. God isn't here, or anywhere that I can see--to enforce the bibles' convictions. You're the enforcer, and it's frightening to me that you can't live without encroaching on others. [/b]
Drich wrote:
[My, 'standards' are not based off of works.]
Bull fuckin shit. I have better standards than you, without a bible to tell me what's right from wrong.
Drich wrote:
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_...d_epistles
This is the sort of stuff we're dealing with. I'm not going to go through every last detail because the evidence is too much for me to be passing it all on.]
Did you seriously just quote wikipedia???? bah ha ha ha haaaaaaa
ha ha
Drich wrote:
[So, if you had an oppertunity to kill/murder little baby hitler, little baby stallin, and or little baby Hirito you would pass, and doom 100 million people to a terriable death?
Mighty 'moral' of you.]
I can't imagine anyone not considering it worthwhile to kill a killer to prevent them from killing. AGAIN, if they are encroaching on others' human rights, they need to be stopped to protect those rights, which are rightly not theirs to infringe upon. We have every right to defend your own rights. End of story.
Drich wrote:
[Welcome to the conversation. Now may I suggest that you ask: When did God say it was ok to kill? To which I will answer: In Old Testament times he gave specific kill orders against a given people, and He has Given authority of life and death to Goverments in modern times.. This means if a goverment needs to wage war then it is permitted. It also means if the goverment wishes to empower it's citizens with the authority to defend themselves, family, other people or even properity then under those conditions it is also ok to kill.]
I think you need to put yourself in others' shoes for a minute, friend. If a Chinese army came over and took over your hometown to overthrow the government and accidentally killed your entire family in the crossfire--you'd consider it an encroachment on your human rights. Even if your town has weapons of mass destruction sitting in an underground bunker aimed at the Chinese capitol. Why is it not considered the same thing if your government does the same thing to another people? It's still murder, it's still wrong. Exclude god (whom most here don't believe in anyways and thus your arguments have no basis for discussion ) from an argument for once, and see where your logic takes you. Talk like a human being, not some bible-warrior which we all know, you are not. If you want to relate to what keeps us "godforsaken", then try reasoning like a reasonable human being, with your arguments and THEN state what god feels about the matter.
I guarantee you support war efforts on the part of the US government because God says that your government has the authority---again, exactly how genocides happen. It can, has, and will happen and you will be the one condoning it. Your "morality" is actually the very thing that drives the worlds' greatest tragedies and carnage. In the end if religion wasn't the driving force for one population to war with another another: there'd be a hell of alot less dying.
missluckie26 wrote:
Quote:You did not say "Based under the New covenant", you said, "What makes killing a sin is whether or nor God sanctioned the death or if someone took it upon themselves to kill outside of Gods' expressed will."
Drich wrote:
[Which is a blanket statement that is true in either convenat]
I truly feel like I'm beating a dead horse with this one. Which is it? "When have I ever said under the new covenant," or, "it is a blanket statement that is true in either covenant."
Disregarding covenants, murder is murder is murder. If god tells you to do it, you're just delusional.
Yet another hypothetical, if I said to you: Barny is the one and only god. Barny says it's ok for me to kill you because you smell, so, die---any sane human being would think that's psychotic. Which is exactly how I see you, for upholding the thought that murder is anything but immoral, ever.
Drich wrote:
[so.. If God does not decide what murder is, then who does? You? If you decide then may I ask when is it ok to kill? What if I broke into your home and raped you family? What if this was a weekly event? in your 'judgement' would i deserve to die? If so then what makes your judgement any more valid than God's?]
Wow where to start, here? First of all I have a question--why throw in that it's a weekly event? I mean, really. Makes no sense whatsoever in support of your case, if you had one. What's more, is if you did have 'gods love' in your heart, you'd be aware of the fact that bringing up rape to one of your sisters, is immoral in and of itself. Rape is real, not hypothetical. I will refer back to my earlier statements, and add that I don't decide what's right and what's wrong. What's right, is right. What's wrong, is wrong. 2 plus 2 is four is right, 2 plus 2 is five is wrong. It's a nice little thing called fact. No matter where you are in the universe, those staples hold true.
Hypothetical: If you and I were shipwrecked on an island and I decided to kill you: that's wrong because I don't have a right to take your life. No one does. We both exist, and to take eachothers right to exist away is wrong. You don't have the right to take my life, ever. If either of us kill the other, we're wrong. Plain and simple, don't need an arbiter to dictate right from wrong, it just is.
Drich wrote:
[It's only a contratiction under your defination of Murder. If you throw away your broken understanding where murder is never ok unless you say it is, and give the power back to God to perside over life and death then the death of those children are no longer murder.]
Broken definition, huh? That sums up your definition of murder quite well, I'll just leave it at that. What's more, why would anyone ever choose to give a murderer, the precedence over life and death? Not you, if it was an actual living breathing human being. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, you give that power over your very real actions, to a apparition whom you have absolutely no proof exists whatsoever. Apparently you have no qualms with bashing an innocent over the head with a rock if your god says so. Delusional by definition in my opinion, as there is no god. You can't even prove that he told you to do that. You can prove, however, that men wrote a book in his name, only. I myself don't put such trust in mankind as that, for good reason.
Drich wrote:
[Do you see the condition? "That who so ever believes" is a condition on the 'love' or Agape God offers. God's love does not extend beyong those who accept His Son. Which makes the Love He offers Very Conditional]
Read it again yourself, sir. For god so loved the world that he gave his one and only son. [b]SO THAT[b] whosoever believes in him shall not perish. What's more, god is love. God is love. What does that mean? It means, god is love. Love is unconditional when speaking about god because he IS love incarnate. By default again, if he IS love, he can't not love certain things, he must love all. Romans 5:8, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Biblical website: In this verse and in John 3:16, we find no conditions placed on God's love for us. God doesn't say, "as soon as you clean up your act, I'll love you; " nor does He say, "I'll sacrifice my Son if you promise to love Me." Romans 5:8, we find just the opposite. God wants us to know that his love is unconditional, so he sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for us while we were still unlovable sinners. His love has always existed, and because of that, He did all the giving and sacrificing long before humans were supposedly even aware that we needed the sacrifice of love.
Irregardless of the fact that that sacrifice only saves those willing to bow on a knee in thanks, he still did it because he is love and loves the world. He has to love his creation, that's what believers of your same belief system say. Are you saying that your interpretation is right over theirs? I wouldn't dare say my opinion is better than that of an equally qualified individual who has reviewed the same evidence. Maybe you should go deflate that enormous head of yours, and get back to me.
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
![[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]](https://66.media.tumblr.com/5fb74c6d16622fb3dbb358509c9aec03/tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif)
Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
Quote:Some people deserve hell.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
