Theists, some questions

[catfish]

The great thing about hypothetical situations is that you don't have to agree with them.

When that hypothetical situation tries to define me, yeah, I do have to agree with it.

[Bad Writer]

Only you can define yourself. Your actions speak volumes, such as refusing to answer simple questions.

[Walking Void]

I'm back, bitches. I was losing sanity whilst floating around this forum so I took a break for a few weeks.

None of it holds up to actual scrutiny.

If you don't want to believe it then it won't enough convince you but it is enough to make it reasonable to believe in it providing you're not assuming materialism. If you are assuming materialism then you would instantly have to reject it out of hand as a tall tale as there is nothing else it could be. So the argument first is to explain why materialism isn't necessarily going yo be particularly true as you assume and then explain why you would want to believe this particular event happened. So a two pronged approach there. You can't go from your current frame of mind/world view and straight to the gospels as you're just going to take one look at it say "bollocks!" and sling it over your shoulder.

Faith is not the path to truth.

Atheism doesn't even have a path, there would be literally nowhere to go. Either there is a "truth" or purpose to existence or there isn't.

You are arguing from ignorance, black and whites, and glittering generalities. First of all, what do You know about each individual atheist and their purposes, if any? A belief in god does not translate into personal duties. The buddhists have no god, yet they have a purpose in enlightenment. Atheists are not limited by a lack of god, the same way other religions without gods have aim. Look up buddhism, confucianism, scientology, and humanism. Secondly, how do You know that a purpose to existence even can? How does a metaphysical goal get sealed into life, like in a video game? Spirits are more folktale than anything: all they ever do is get talked about. Nothing spiritual even takes place: it is only perceived as thought. More so, why are there only 2 options? Lastly, please, icing your arguments with conceived "goodness" like "truth" and "purpose" is only doing You yourself any benefit. It is "your" (and the church's) good, after all.

And you just pointed out the flaw with using faith, every religion has faith in mutually exclusive claims.

They make similar claims as well it's not like one religion has to be 100% true and all the others 100% false.

Red herring. None of the "other" religions need to be 100%, We need not focus on the plights of others, but each must argue their religion to be 100% true. Why devote to something fallible? This is also scientific practice, which has been committed to poorly in religions... but an attempt nonetheless. But anyhow, as a christian, You DO take christianity as the true and infallible religion... right?

And there is no way to discern the difference between the ones you believe are true and the ones Muslims, Zoroasrians, Hindus, etc believe are true.

Each religion would have it's own specific arguments/apologetic to support it. Christianity is distinguished by being the only religion that offers 100% guaranteed salvation from God himself through grace. Everything else is based on good works and/or karma so you essentially have to save yourself from God.

Composition discrimination. Try to avoid lumping what You perceive as all other religions into the "good works" and "karma" department. African tribes, Mayan empires, among others, heed to ritualistic exchange. As such, some shamans perform the rain dance, and some Mayan priests sacrifice people or animals in blood to their deities.

There is zero reason to invoke a god in order to explain morality. Natural and cultural explanations work fine.

Only if you want to deny freewill and reduce us all to machines though I wouldn't. You can if you like, it doesn't mean you know though it's just what you want to believe for some reason. I wouldn't recommend convincing everyone in the world that they are machines without purpose/freedom and there is no morality/justice beyond that which man himself can provide however, it's been tried before.

Appealing to the authorities. If man has no veracity on the grounds of freewill, or other moral dilemmas, then how does a specific religious dogma? If We take for example, christianity's bible and god as the authority on freewill, how do We prove it? We look to the bible. The bible, the "word of god", I can give You that, but that same word was designed at the hands of physical humans on physical ink on physical paper. And yet the almighty perfect "word of god" as seen on "that book" that "that guy" wrote is the infallible truth. Pff.

You still haven't answered whether you'd kill someone if God ordered you to.

When did Jesus go around telling anyone to kill anyone? Whatever God you have in mind I don't believe in that one I believe in Christ.

Luke 19:27, New International Version: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

What a merciful lord, is He not? Instead of taking the time to rehabilitate the non-believers who do not currently accept christ but still can (aka asking forgiveness and being forgiven), the loving son of god in all his great kindness and power... ends the non-believers... sending them to hell. Perfectly. Capable. Humans. Jesus, does not have time for that.

If you received a command that you knew came from God to kill someone, that as far as you could tell, is a good person, would you do it?

If it's something evil/vile then it wouldn't be a true vision of Jesus or whatever I was having if that answers the question?

Special pleading. Dismissing something that indeed CAN come from the god is indeed forcing oneself to be oblivious of the omnipotence. The god is all powerful, right? He can foresee any command, and killing is not off limits in christianity.

If your faith is as strong as you claim, you should have no more problems carrying this command than you would if you received a command to help the needy.

I'd know the real God/Christ from a demon/Satan in disguise or a psychotic episode I was having.

How do You distinguish from sane and insane until You observe yourself after the fact? By then it would be too late. If You were psychotic, You would be too impaired to properly determine that You are indeed, acting under psychosis. Or are You relating your faith to differing mental states?

Why are you avoiding the question? It seems simple enough.

Because I don't believe in whatever you have in mind for a God and if a God like that did exist I would have no interest in it.

[Einharjar]

@ Sword of Christ

You sir, seem utterly corrupted in your faith. You're being highly judgmental, when it's not your place. Only your God is meant to judge who lives and dies and by you pointing out targets, your corruption begins to blur your honesty.
To answer the damned question FOR you since you seem to be quite cowardly about it -

The Christian God will not let murder become moral unless it is justified as a retribution.

The Christian God for example, told Abraham to kill his only son. Out of fear of the "Lord", Abraham was about to commit to the command when God stopped him simply for the sake of the child (who did not merit any reason to become a victim of murder).

The Christian God however, will and did command individuals to slay those who had deliberately denied "Him", his "people" (Hebrews) or whom were deemed utterly wretched by the morals imposed by God himself (some of which, don't seem to be of lucid origins). For example, the battle of Jericho was a result of the commands of God to slaughter every single Canaanite within, say for one - simply because she was a traitor to her own people.

Summery below.
"God spoke to Joshua telling him to march around the city once every day for six days with the seven priests carrying ram's horns in front of the ark. On the seventh day they were to march around the city seven times and the priests were to blow their ram's horns. And Joshua ordered the people to shout. The walls of the city collapsed, and the Israelites were able to charge straight into the city. The city was completely destroyed, and every man, woman, child and animal in it was killed by Joshua's army as an offering to God. Only Rahab and her family were spared, because she had hidden the two spies sent by Joshua."

In this instance alone, moral grounds are just - insane.
The Judean and Christian faiths usually give hints to an "age of innocence" or "age of accountability". While the Bible (new Testament AND old) doesn't give an actual age, it is said several times that when children die prior to being of age to profess beliefs, they are "auto-saved" by God. Insta-heaven invited.

21 Then his servants said to him, “What is this thing that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” 22 He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, p‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ 23 But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

This is from 2nd Samuel. It's probably the clearest cut "age" limit... super vague. however David clarified that when a "child" dies prior to being able to "believe" in God (I guess this means, when they are old enough to realize what it means to believe in a God, especially the Hebrew God) that their souls are not punished. They don't even need to come in front of of the "Great White Throne Judgment" (the last Judgement during the Biblical prophetic End Times). They are simply given VIP passes.
However, because of this, it seems odd that it is there for ok to slaughter every child in Jericho simply because "they know not what Belief is yet, so God will save them -slices a 5 year olds throat-". If it's this easy, then why not slaughter us all in our sleep like was done in Egypt and the first born? Eh?
Doing the same shit again?
Slaughter kids because "Nah, they're innocent. They'll be fine". It's almost a perverted way to twist the very words of Pharaoh Ramses the 1st in "Prince of Egypt" - "Oh my Son, they were only slaves". Sounds just like the scriptures... No wonder the book is vague about the topic.

Don't even get me started on how commands to kill enforced by God tread on his will to give us "freedom of choice" and how it's bullshit that innocents get to die before their choices are even made...

[Walking Void]

EDIT: Good quotes, Ein, though I have this impulsive thought that any text from the Old Testament (Torah included) will be rejected in spite of the New Testament for being Judaic, namely.

[catfish]

Good quotes, Ein, though I have this impulsive thought that any text from the Torah will be rejected in spite of the New Testament.

I have the impulsive thought that no matter what is presented, some people will insist that only their "interpretation" is correct.

With that said, I give you OT verses.

Ezekiel 22:28 (KJV)
28 And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken.

Jeremiah 8:8 (NIV)
8 “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

[Walking Void]

Ezekiel 22:28 (KJV)
28 And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken.

Jeremiah 8:8 (NIV)
8 “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

I am not lying when I say I find those quotes interesting, even engaging, but we do quote different types of phrases. For instance, your quotes are of a philosophical level, not being imperative, but rather questioning. And my quote for instance (the quote from the NT) is rather declarative, even imperative. When demands are at the head, interpretation is less of a factor, "so just do it".

[catfish]

Ezekiel 22:28 (KJV)
28 And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken.

Jeremiah 8:8 (NIV)
8 “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

I am not lying when I say I find those quotes interesting, even engaging, but we do quote different types of phrases. For instance, your quotes are of a philosophical level, not being imperative, but rather questioning. And my quote for instance (the quote from the NT) is rather declarative, even imperative. When demands are at the head, interpretation is less of a factor, "so just do it".

I had to re-read your quote beside SoC's original to determine what you were talking about. I assume you mean your Luke passage.

So, here are some from the NT then?

2 Timothy 4:3-5
New International Version (NIV)

3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.


2 Peter 2:1-3
New International Version (NIV)

False Teachers and Their Destruction
2 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

Oddly enough, immediately following the preceding verse you can find Tartarus interpretted to "hell". Damned Greek myths...

[GodsRevolt]

OK, I'll take this bait.

If God said that I had to kill someone and I was 100% sure that it was God telling me to do it . . .

God is in the unique position to KNOW 100% what needs to be done. For instance, if you were in the position to where you absolutely, 100% knew that your neighbor was going to blow up the world tomorrow unless you burned his house down with him inside (assuming that was the only way to stop him), would you? It would be irresponsible not to, right?

When someone has 100% knowledge of what needs to be done, you listen. It does not mean that you have to be happy about it. Jonah was not happy about what God asked him to do, and probably the better example would be Abrahams reluctance to kill his own son. Isaac was not really thrilled about it either.

OK, bring it on . . .

[Bad Wolf]

OK, I'll take this bait.

If God said that I had to kill someone and I was 100% sure that it was God telling me to do it . . .

God is in the unique position to KNOW 100% what needs to be done. For instance, if you were in the position to where you absolutely, 100% knew that your neighbor was going to blow up the world tomorrow unless you burned his house down with him inside (assuming that was the only way to stop him), would you? It would be irresponsible not to, right?

When someone has 100% knowledge of what needs to be done, you listen. It does not mean that you have to be happy about it. Jonah was not happy about what God asked him to do, and probably the better example would be Abrahams reluctance to kill his own son. Isaac was not really thrilled about it either.

OK, bring it on . . .

The problem is that people who are delusional, cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy. People with schizophrenia for example. They may claim to know 100% that god told them to kill their kid, but the fact is, they don't know. They think they know, but they would think that, they have schizophrenia. They can't tell the difference between fact and fiction. Now ask yourself, what the consequences would be if you had a hallucination. You saw god and he told you to burn down a hospital. God didn't actually tell you to do it because it was a hallucination, but because you thought god told you, you did it. God is indistinguishable from psychological disorders. And thats the problem I have with all this. You may claim to know when god talks to you, but in actual fact, no christian anywhere actually knows. And they can give no other reason as to how they know god talks to them, they just know. And that's not good enough