Question about the Christian God

[Zkirsche]

So essentially, Charles Manson could gain entry into Heaven by truly lamenting that he had not caused the death of more people.

Okay.

No, he regrets not doing something sinful, thus he is bad and gains no entry to heaven.

As in, God will be aware if you are lying, whether or not you try to answer disingenuously.

Yes, your point being?

Why? Let's bring up the recent pocketing of the Eucharist by Prime Minister Stephen Harper; in the Catholic view, this is a despicable act worse than murder (this is one of the crimes that can only be forgiven by the Pope himself). However, I would be willing to bet that Harper doesn't find what he did a very horrible act at all.

Perhaps not, but it was still a sin in the eyes of the lord. And if he fails to realise this, why should he be forgiven. That's like saying someone who does not regret murder because he believed it to be OK shouldn't be punsihed for murdering. Without the logic we christians believe god would allow murderers like Hitler into heaven. That's a big no-no.

What are these things you are saying should be regarded as sins?

The Decalogue contains many an act which is commonly referred to as wrong, such as:

5) You shall not kill

6) Neither shall you commit adultery.

7) Neither shall you steal.

8) Neither shall you lie.

9) Neither shall you covet your neighbours wife.

There are some obvious ones as well, including insulting god by using his name in vain (commandment number 2) and not believing in God (The first commandment).

There are also things like rape which is obviously bad and hurting others, which conflicts with "Love your neighbour as yourself." Suicide comes under the fifth commandment.

These are pretty much all obvious sins and laws against god.

[Kedyns Crow]

I'm assuming then that if you claim that God told you to kill somebody then you should be acquitted of your crime then, right? It happens enough in the bible that it seems like it is a common thing for God to do.

Examples: The bible.

I'm sure that if somebody got caught killing somebody they could easily find an excuse in the bible. It certainly likes dwelling on the violent aspects of life.

[Dies Mori]

No, he regrets not doing something sinful, thus he is bad and gains no entry to heaven.

Meaning, your God, who happens to condone mass slaughter throughout the entirety of his chronicling in the old testament for religious purposes, deems murder for the sake of justice a sin. Marvelous.

Yes, your point being?

Misanthropic deity is misanthropic.

Perhaps not, but it was still a sin in the eyes of the lord. And if he fails to realise this, why should he be forgiven. That's like saying someone who does not regret murder because he believed it to be OK shouldn't be punsihed for murdering. Without the logic we christians believe god would allow murderers like Hitler into heaven. That's a big no-no.

You're clearly misunderstanding the gravity of the situation, as well as its relative importance. The moral compass of a human being easily allows them to simplistically differntiate between harsh motives such as the willful killing of a fellow human being; to classify pocketing a circular piece of bread which is about as blessed as an alzheimers stricken senior as an uncondonable crime of similar proportions is not only ludicrous and unnecessary, but only applicable to those who even consider it a crime (ie. batshit Christians/you).

The Decalogue contains many an act which is commonly referred to as wrong, such as:

5) You shall not kill

6) Neither shall you commit adultery.

7) Neither shall you steal.

8) Neither shall you lie.

9) Neither shall you covet your neighbours wife.

There are some obvious ones as well, including insulting god by using his name in vain (commandment number 2) and not believing in God (The first commandment).

There are also things like rape which is obviously bad and hurting others, which conflicts with "Love your neighbour as yourself." Suicide comes under the fifth commandment.

These are pretty much all obvious sins and laws against god.

You do realise those primordial five are regarded as uncondonable, or at teh very least looked down upon, by any sane individual of ethical value, yes?

[Zkirsche]

Meaning, your God, who happens to condone mass slaughter throughout the entirety of his chronicling in the old testament for religious purposes, deems murder for the sake of justice a sin. Marvelous.

It wasn't for the sake of justice, however.

Misanthropic deity is misanthropic.

But he's not misanthropic.

You're clearly misunderstanding the gravity of the situation, as well as its relative importance. The moral compass of a human being easily allows them to simplistically differntiate between harsh motives such as the willful killing of a fellow human being; to classify pocketing a circular piece of bread which is about as blessed as an alzheimers stricken senior as an uncondonable crime of similar proportions is not only ludicrous and unnecessary, but only applicable to those who even consider it a crime (ie. batshit Christians/you).

However, pocketing that piece of bread is basically disrespecting catholic beliefs. And ignorance is not an excuse to that. It's like me disrespecting someone without meaning too and then not apologising for that happening.

However, I agree with you that such a thing being called as sinful as murder is very silly. But everything has it's flaws.

You do realise those primordial five are regarded as uncondonable, or at teh very least looked down upon, by any sane individual of ethical value, yes?

Yes, that's what I meant by "commonly reffered to as wrong" and using words like "Obvious."

[Dies Mori]

It wasn't for the sake of justice, however.

The eliination of one responsible for the ruining of a bloodline, or, at the very least, someone's well being through violent means is essentially personal justice as well as punishable by most proprietary laws.

Try again.

But he's not misanthropic.

You...really, now? Are you not capable of understanding a mere point, let alone your own religion?

However, pocketing that piece of bread is basically disrespecting catholic beliefs. And ignorance is not an excuse to that. It's like me disrespecting someone without meaning too and then not apologising for that happening.

However, I agree with you that such a thing being called as sinful as murder is very silly. But everything has it's flaws.

At the previous point where I was midly aware of anything, disrespecting someone's beliefs, whether by ignorance or otherwise, was not regarded as anything punishable by mortal ramifications, the repsonsibility instead donated upon a fictional being who supposedly considers it uncondonable in his/her/its view.

[Esau of Isaac]

No, he regrets not doing something sinful, thus he is bad and gains no entry to heaven.

That's contradictory to your earlier statement. You stated that God would forgive him anyways.

Yes, your point being?

My point being that your idea of what makes sin is arbitrary and not objectively verifiable or fair. If love were a sin, you'd at the time of your judgment be fucked, because it's normal to love.

Perhaps not, but it was still a sin in the eyes of the lord.

In the eyes of one Lord. Balder sure wouldn't give a shit, and I don't think Zeus would either.

And if he fails to realise this, why should he be forgiven. That's like saying someone who does not regret murder because he believed it to be OK shouldn't be punsihed for murdering. Without the logic we christians believe god would allow murderers like Hitler into heaven. That's a big no-no.

And why not? Why not just give everyone reward? The idea of giving them an infinite punishment for finite crimes is absolutely insane, far more insane than giving a murderer reward at the end of his existence.

The Decalogue contains many an act which is commonly referred to as wrong, such as:

5) You shall not kill

6) Neither shall you commit adultery.

7) Neither shall you steal.

8) Neither shall you lie.

9) Neither shall you covet your neighbours wife.

There are some obvious ones as well, including insulting god by using his name in vain (commandment number 2) and not believing in God (The first commandment).

There are also things like rape which is obviously bad and hurting others, which conflicts with "Love your neighbour as yourself." Suicide comes under the fifth commandment.

These are pretty much all obvious sins and laws against god.

Explain to me objectively why these should be sins. What makes your sins more fair than, say, mine? Some of those there are pretty much normal for any culture, religious or otherwise, but what makes all of them fair anywhere? Moreover, what makes these things intrinsically deserving for damnation? I don't find lying to necessarily be bad. The same is true of killing, of stealing, and so on and so forth.

But he's not misanthropic.

He's committed mass genocide on multiple points; whether he's a misanthrope or not, he's batshit insane.

However, pocketing that piece of bread is basically disrespecting catholic beliefs. And ignorance is not an excuse to that. It's like me disrespecting someone without meaning too and then not apologising for that happening.

Except the big fucking difference here is if you disrespect me, I won't view it as a crime worse than genocide, and I certainly won't find it to be reason for you to suffer eternally.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[Liz]

i find it hilarious that people discuss a book as if it were the word of god when it was written by man.

:/

ohshi!

[Celice]

And interpreted. And translated. And censored. And modified. And segmented.

And.

[Camus The Dark Knight]

Despite being religious myself, I'm going to come out and say, both sides in these debates take the whole thing way too personally.

On the subjects of Atheists vs. Christians, both believe 100% they are correct. Each has their own reasons why they think they are right and the other is wrong. Both are more similar then dissimilar if you take time to think about it.

Science is fact, but science is just that, fact. Science will not tell you how you will live. That choice is up to you. "Do I steal that 50$ that the guy there left?" The choice you make after thinking that, is not given to you by science, but is one you choose.

The Bible is not a book of facts like a science book is. The Bible is supposed to be a guide. A guide that you choose to follow. You are not forced to follow it. Whether God is real or not, the Bible is still a book that guides you on how to live. You have the option to follow it, or not. Is God real? Is what is stated in the Bible actually real? Well, it is not designed to be proven, that is why it is called faith. It's up to you to place your faith in it.

A personal story. I didn't believe in all that Bible stuff years back. However, my life had taken a deep low, I will leave it at that. Well I read it, and it's message helped me get through that rough time. The Bible is not about "DO THIS _____ OR YOU WILL BURN IN HELL", it is merely a guide, or test, do you choose to put your faith in "God"?

After all that, let me say. I believe in the Bible, I also believe in science. Science can't prove the existence of God, but it also can't disprove it. So I use science for facts, I use the Bible for a "Guide to life". To be honest, they don't contradict each other as much as people make out.

In conclusion, the choice is yours, live how you like and don't dwell on what others choose to believe (This goes for any party).

i find it hilarious that people discuss a book as if it were the word of god when it was written by man.

Well supposedly, he was getting told by God what to write, but that's another debate.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Izuka

[Defeatist Elitist]

Science can't prove the existence of God, but it also can't disprove it.

Well, technically it can, for almost any deity, simply by virtue of lack of evidence, and especially for an Omnipotent, Omniscient Deity, but I'll leave that alone for now.

[Celice]

As a further testament to this once while walking with physicist and his biographer, Abraham Pais, Pais reports in frustration Einstein asked “whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it."

[Colonel M]

Okay, I might piss people off, but I'd like to say something, if I may.

I will flat out admit that I do believe in Christ. Alright, call me a freak or whatever; however, there is something that is largely the problem: the vagueness of the Bible itself. I'm more neutral to the Aethiest vs. Christians; however, it is because I'd rather seek knowledge and interpretation from the book, not because I want to hear how scientology is the new "Catholicism" or whatnot.

There's a major difference, in my opinion, between "faith" and "religion". A lot of times, they are said to be equals. Though, can they really be equals? One could interpret faith as "believing in God" such as myself. Religion, on the other hand, could be viewed as "interpretation of the bible". In all honesty, notice how there are so many religions in the first place. It makes even me, a christian, sick. This isn't because I don't want people to believe in God, no, it's because that some of these, say Catholicism, deem themselves the dominant religion. My religion, a.k.a. the "Seventh Day Adventist" believes that the 7th day, as in the day of rest, is actually Saturday; not Sunday like many other religions believe. So who's right: the singled out religion, or the majority?

That is simply the problem itself: the bible is, in fact, a vague history book. Thus why there is so much confusion when it comes to learning faith and Christ himself. I don't try shoving it down your throats. I wouldn't ever do such a thing as going to a forum and saying "follow God or you will die". When I was about 10 years old, I donated money for some pamphlets to be mailed to random mailboxes to help spread such things. If they really are interested in looking into such a thing, they'll do so. If not, then they have the option of tossing such a book. Faith is something I believe should be followed. Religion is something that simply takes the bible and has a different interpretation of it, and I think Faith should always be put in front of everything before religion.

For those that say "Christ is perfect", even as a Christian I could debate such a thing. No, I think no one is perfect. God is the closest to perfection, though he is not perfect himself. Those that assume that he is... well, guess that's your opinion.

It is your choice whether you believe in Christ or not, or whether you think you are toward the right or the wrong. Whether what you've chosen is the correct option is simply a gamble in some aspects, or a clear path to others.

In all honesty I'd prefer the TC to simply kick himself if all he wanted to do was stir trouble.

As for those that truly do challenge such a thing such as faith, then I am prepared, I guess. For those that do believe in it, do not be afraid of it.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Colonel M

[Shuuda]

One could interpret faith as "believing in God" such as myself.

There are two kinds of faith; there is faith as in trust, in the way one might have faith in their friends. On the other hand, there is blind faith, which is pretty much gullibility. Blind faith is when one unquestionably believes in things that are not only improbable, but impossible, with no evidence or reasonable, sane logic.

At the end of the day, all religious people, no matter how moderate, are going on blind faith. No one can believe in God for factual reason (and anyone who claims to is a deluded liar). People who do believe do so because of emotional reasons or because of indoctrination.

So who's right: the singled out religion, or the majority?

Probably none of them. Remember that Christianity is not the only religion; there are hundreds, each claims to be the ultimate truth. You are in a lottery, buddy. And the chances of you being in the right faith are far far far smaller than you think.

That is simply the problem itself: the bible is, in fact, a vague history book. Thus why there is so much confusion when it comes to learning faith and Christ himself.

A vague book of mythology you mean. You also forgot to mention that all the self contradictions and questionable actions make it even more confusing (to the point where you can use the bible to support any viewpoint whatsoever).

Religion is something that simply takes the bible and has a different interpretation of it,

You do realise that the bible is not the only holy book out there, right?

[Camus The Dark Knight]

Well, technically it can, for almost any deity, simply by virtue of lack of evidence, and especially for an Omnipotent, Omniscient Deity, but I'll leave that alone for now.

I personally never viewed it like that because of the lack of evidence on both ends. There is no direct evidence of his existence, but there is no direct evidence proving his non-existence, For example, I can safely say that Werewolves don't exist, there is plenty of scientific evidence supporting the fact that they don't exist, and even evidence explaining why someone back in the old days would think they did, however there is no evidence like this for God, at least not yet. Other then, as you said, the lack of evidence proving it.

While I use science to understand things. I'm not going to not believe something just because science can't explain it yet. Science is always evolving and getting better. Things that were unknown to us 10 years back can be explained now. Perhaps one day it will be able to explain the existence, or non-existence of God. But today is not that day.

It's up to you to choose to believe it, or not, hence the term faith.

;)

[Colonel M]

There are two kinds of faith; there is faith as in trust, in the way one might have faith in their friends. On the other hand, there is blind faith, which is pretty much gullibility. Blind faith is when one unquestionably believes in things that are not only improbable, but impossible, with no evidence or reasonable, sane logic.

Could one interpret blind faith toward science. I know I may sound a little crazy, but science is never 100% accurate either. Notice that many of the theories that are made can easily be debunked. I don't know how many times I've heard on the news: "studies show that blahblahblah" and then it slightly contradicts itself later on. Okay, so who's right.

At the end of the day, all religious people, no matter how moderate, are going on blind faith. No one can believe in God for factual reason (and anyone who claims to is a deluded liar). People who do believe do so because of emotional reasons or because of indoctrination.

No, I do not believe in blind faith. One could look at a bible and say that it is more of a guide than it is a history book anyway. Yes, it does have some history, and it does have vague predictions as well. Even so, the book of Revelation has shown to be quite accurate in many ways. Have we not waged war many times with each other, and so on? I am not claiming myself blinded by faith. Perhaps it is something that is your opinion, which I have said: you are entitled to that. It is, however, not to be made a mockery like so do.

Probably none of them. Remember that Christianity is not the only religion; there are hundreds, each claims to be the ultimate truth. You are in a lottery, buddy. And the chances of you being in the right faith are far far far smaller than you think.

No, not at all. I don't view my religion as correct. I will never, ever, EVER say that my religion nor any is in the right. That is what is unfortunate to hear. That is why I'd sooner put faith into perspective before something as silly as religion. Scientists interpret things differently, does that mean that they too are gambling on other things?

A vague book of mythology you mean. You also forgot to mention that all the self contradictions and questionable actions make it even more confusing (to the point where you can use the bible to support any viewpoint whatsoever).

Again, science contradicts itself as well. I never claimed the bible to be a perfect book, and I never will.

You do realise that the bible is not the only holy book out there, right?

Yes, there probably is books on Satanity and Atheism, possibly many other things. I don't come around and say "I am right" anyway, and to be frankly honest neither should anyone on either side.

[lolDeath]

I personally never viewed it like that because of the lack of evidence on both ends. There is no direct evidence of his existence, but there is no direct evidence proving his non-existence

I have been waiting for this.

Provide evidence that we are not in the Matrix right now. Or even, provide evidence that I am not Jesus Christ. Provide evidence that the Harry Potter and Star Wars movies are not retellings of true events.

Oh and leave Charlie out of this you faggots.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Death

[Colonel M]

I have been waiting for this.

Provide evidence that we are not in the Matrix right now. Or even, provide evidence that I am not Jesus Christ. Provide evidence that the Harry Potter and Star Wars movies are not retellings of true events.

Oh and leave Charlie out of this you faggots.

*Rolls eyes*.

Let me guess: you, probably the braniac of the thread, can?

Edited July 13, 2009 by Colonel M

[lolDeath]

I can provide no absolute evidence that any of those things are true or false, nobody can, and the same goes for any religion. Just because something can not be proven false does not mean it is any closer to being true. I'm bored with debating religion shit here because so many members don't know how to communicate without pulling some fallacious bullshit, but I just had to come in with that little bit. I like it too much.

And lol at me, the braniac.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Death

[Colonel M]

I can provide no absolute evidence that any of those things are true or false, nobody can, and the same goes for any religion. Just because something can not be proven false does not mean it is any closer to being true. I'm bored with debating religion shit here because so many members don't know how to communicate without pulling some fallacious bullshit, but I just had to come in with that little bit. I like it too much.

And lol at me, the braniac.

That is why I hate religion discussions in the first place. It really is better left elsewhere: a forum is not the place to do it.

I know that some things cannot be proven false about religion, but some things cannot be proven true for science, hence the terms "theory" and "law".

I guess I would be one of those members pulling the fallacious bullshit. Ah well.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Colonel M

[lolDeath]

At least you have the nads to own up to it. But I think you should really look into the exact way the word theory is used, because I think you might have it a little twisted. It's not "well, we guess so and so". It's more like "this appears to be true, but if we're wrong, you're more than welcome to show us how".

Like, I'm guessing the main one that comes to mind for most is the theory of evolution. Evolution has been observed in nature, it's not just some guesstimate or whatever.

I also suck huge cock at wording everything so if you have even a remote interest or curiosity about anything I say, you should ask ZXValaRevan or Memento Mori.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Death

[Colonel M]

The bible itself, I believe, is a book that is made to be questioned. I guess in some ways people think it is immune to theory; however, it really isn't. Since I don't believe that it is 100% factual, I always am open minded to opinion, and then I attempt to give the best interpretation for it.

Don't worry so much about the wording and such. I just don't want to be seen as a radical, if you know what I mean. I'd rather be seen as an open minded person about it than try to come here and say "ZOMG U ARE WRONG ROFL".

[lolDeath]

The bible itself, I believe, is a book that is made to be questioned. I guess in some ways people think it is immune to theory; however, it really isn't. Since I don't believe that it is 100% factual, I always am open minded to opinion, and then I attempt to give the best interpretation for it.

I don't think, or at least I hope that most people don't take it as all fact.

Don't worry so much about the wording and such. I just don't want to be seen as a radical, if you know what I mean. I'd rather be seen as an open minded person about it than try to come here and say "ZOMG U ARE WRONG ROFL".

Be sure to reproduce.

[Crystal Shards]

But I think you should really look into the exact way the word theory is used, because I think you might have it a little twisted. It's not "well, we guess so and so". It's more like "this appears to be true, but if we're wrong, you're more than welcome to show us how".

No. In science, a theory is an explanation of an observation, whereas a law tells us what happens. For example, we have a theory of evolution, but that doesn't mean we can predict what the next step is. That is why there is no law of evolution. There is a specific formula for the second law of thermodynamics; therefore, we are able to use it to predict what will happen when certain variables are manipulated.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Crystal Shards

[lolDeath]

more like

I also suck huge cock

[Esau of Isaac]

That is why I hate religion discussions in the first place. It really is better left elsewhere: a forum is not the place to do it.

I know that some things cannot be proven false about religion, but some things cannot be proven true for science, hence the terms "theory" and "law".

I guess I would be one of those members pulling the fallacious bullshit. Ah well.

Theories are not lower than a law. Scientific ideas do not start as a theory and then progress to a law. Laws deal with the very small, usually mathematically. Theories, on the other hand, deal with the larger aspects, usually explaining them through more conventional manners. No matter whether man eventually maps the genealogy of every single organism that has ever existed in the Universe, evolution will never become a law. Science doesn't work like that.

The notion that theories and laws are on some kind of different plane is a false one, and it's perpetuated by religious assholes trying to get their foot into the door of credibility without working for it. Don't be a part of the mindless stupidity most employ.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Esau of Isaac