@willpayton: A lot of history is lifted from stories written thousands of years ago. Also common sense and logical reasoning can be completely changed the more about the world we uncover. Making beliefs based on common sense and logical reasoning no more valid than those based from a religious book. I often have a problem with people who have religious beliefs, but because they will often speak out against the being they believe in while sticking to the things they like. Oh yeah, drinking is fine, but God's wrong in killing kids. Those are the ones I can't deal with. However, I think the OP is nothing like this, and is actually quite sound in his common sense. He knows that if there is a supreme being, and he is steadfast in his belief that there is, it would probably beyond our comprehension to understand why he does what he does. In the same way that a long time ago we had no idea why the sky was blue, it was beyond us at that point. I'm not saying that with a few thousand years we'll understand God but that the OP is explaining his beliefs without contradicting them. Also, this is a personal point for me, I don't think the jab at not leaving your children with him was called for. That was a jab at him, not his religion. Just because he believes that God was right in killing everyone because his wisdom is beyond us, does not mean he's going to murder your children.
Ask a Christian
@willpayton: A lot of history is lifted from stories written thousands of years ago. Also common sense and logical reasoning can be completely changed the more about the world we uncover. Making beliefs based on common sense and logical reasoning no more valid than those based from a religious book. I often have a problem with people who have religious beliefs, but because they will often speak out against the being they believe in while sticking to the things they like. Oh yeah, drinking is fine, but God's wrong in killing kids. Those are the ones I can't deal with. However, I think the OP is nothing like this, and is actually quite sound in his common sense. He knows that if there is a supreme being, and he is steadfast in his belief that there is, it would probably beyond our comprehension to understand why he does what he does. In the same way that a long time ago we had no idea why the sky was blue, it was beyond us at that point. I'm not saying that with a few thousand years we'll understand God but that the OP is explaining his beliefs without contradicting them. Also, this is a personal point for me, I don't think the jab at not leaving your children with him was called for. That was a jab at him, not his religion. Just because he believes that God was right in killing everyone because his wisdom is beyond us, does not mean he's going to murder your children.
True, much of history is based on old stories. The differences are that those stories are corroborated by other stories from independent sources. Second, when little corroboration is present, we can accept the stories if we have no reason to doubt the source. But, if you're talking about stories with no or little corroboration, and which deal with highly unlikely occurrences like the supernatural... then just having an old story is meaningless. We dont think Zeus existed even though we have lots of old stories. Same for Odin. Same for thousands of other gods, fairies, ghosts, demons, etc, etc. Picking and choosing as the OP does, to believe one extremely unlikely story over many others, shows a lack of logic. Of course that's his prerogative, I'm not saying otherwise. What I'm saying is that it may be enough for him personally, but it's not enough to convince others. It's also not enough to make others respect a belief. Many people believe in things that are ridiculous and obviously untrue, and we usually immediately agree that they belong in some kind of mental institution. We dont "respect" their completely unfounded and delusional beliefs.
As far as the "jab" at him personally... well, what else would you do with someone who things that babies are inherently born evil and wicked, and who thinks that the wholesale murder of men, women, and children is justified because of some ridiculous story about how they're all born in sin or whatever. Oh, and he knows all this because of his "personal experience" with this invisible supernatural entity that's constantly watching and judging him. Hmm, yeah, this is not someone who's right in the head. Would you entrust your children to such a person? Mind you, I'm only going off of what he himself has said. Maybe if he doesnt want people to think he's dangerous and mentally unstable, he shouldn't say such things.
It may sound like I'm being too harsh here, but I dont think so. If someone claims to have a relationship with an invisible entity who's following them around and threatening them with punishment unless he/she does what it wants, we put them in a hospital. If they say it's a religion, then we have to accept it and "respect their belief". This is nonsense. We live in the 21st century, not the 15th. We should be well past all this superstition, and we should definitely be well past encouraging people with ridiculous beliefs that are clearly contradicted by science and logic. All we need to do is look around the world to see where this type of thinking leads... from religious extremists blowing themselves up, to female genital mutilation, to child abuse and indoctrination, to rioting and killings because they cant tolerate a cartoon. It's insanity, and we condone it every time we give this type of thinking a pass.
I listen to a lot of Frank Sinatra. A lot of music from te 40s. A small amount of christian rock. I like jay z. Love Julie Andrews. Love the sound of music.
And my favorite genre would be whatever Frank Sinatra
ill bite and this may get a bit deep but here it go's.........
what is the purpose of a all loving god when there are people in the world ( like myself) who are just flat out miserable everyday ? all i ever hear from friends that are christian is oh its satan trying to turn you away. its not like after i was born and said hey make me miserable for 29 years
@willpayton: Wow, that's a bit aggressive...there's no need for the attack on the OP.
@pperspectiveandreality-what other religion do you appreciate/agree with the most?
True, much of history is based on old stories. The differences are that those stories are corroborated by other stories from independent sources. Second, when little corroboration is present, we can accept the stories if we have no reason to doubt the source. But, if you're talking about stories with no or little corroboration, and which deal with highly unlikely occurrences like the supernatural... then just having an old story is meaningless. We dont think Zeus existed even though we have lots of old stories. Same for Odin. Same for thousands of other gods, fairies, ghosts, demons, etc, etc. Picking and choosing as the OP does, to believe one extremely unlikely story over many others, shows a lack of logic. Of course that's his prerogative, I'm not saying otherwise. What I'm saying is that it may be enough for him personally, but it's not enough to convince others. It's also not enough to make others respect a belief. Many people believe in things that are ridiculous and obviously untrue, and we usually immediately agree that they belong in some kind of mental institution. We dont "respect" their completely unfounded and delusional beliefs.
As far as the "jab" at him personally... well, what else would you do with someone who things that babies are inherently born evil and wicked, and who thinks that the wholesale murder of men, women, and children is justified because of some ridiculous story about how they're all born in sin or whatever. Oh, and he knows all this because of his "personal experience" with this invisible supernatural entity that's constantly watching and judging him. Hmm, yeah, this is not someone who's right in the head. Would you entrust your children to such a person? Mind you, I'm only going off of what he himself has said. Maybe if he doesnt want people to think he's dangerous and mentally unstable, he shouldn't say such things.
It may sound like I'm being too harsh here, but I dont think so. If someone claims to have a relationship with an invisible entity who's following them around and threatening them with punishment unless he/she does what it wants, we put them in a hospital. If they say it's a religion, then we have to accept it and "respect their belief". This is nonsense. We live in the 21st century, not the 15th. We should be well past all this superstition, and we should definitely be well past encouraging people with ridiculous beliefs that are clearly contradicted by science and logic. All we need to do is look around the world to see where this type of thinking leads... from religious extremists blowing themselves up, to female genital mutilation, to child abuse and indoctrination, to rioting and killings because they cant tolerate a cartoon. It's insanity, and we condone it every time we give this type of thinking a pass.
If we're basing whether the bible is true or not on the content being present elsewhere then that's quite easy to prove. Stories in the Bible are present in other holy books like the Qur'an and Torah. Coming back to what I mentioned in my first response, we have no idea of what is obviously untrue. Someone saying that we could get to the moon would likely be locked up in history, or saying that there was no gravity outside of earth would likely earn a stay as well. The only reason we don't believe in Odin, Zeus etc. is because their religions died out. The Norse pantheon are no longer worshipped, however we can't say for certainty that they didn't/don't exist. Atheism is slowly growing and maybe in a long time will be the majority over religions, just as Christianity replaced paganism. However, we can't say that God isn't real as there is no proof that he is or isn't.
As far as I was aware he didn't think that babies and children are outright evil but that evil is inherited/taught...there is some proof for that, child abusers often report being victims themselves. Offenders with at least one criminal parent are more likely to grow up to be criminals. Therefore, it makes sense to the OP that God chose to wipe out not only the proven evil, those who had committed evil acts already, but also those who he knew would also commit evil through his omniscience. A personal experience is what it says, personal. He's explaining his beliefs in God, not trying to convert others to the same way of thinking. He's not trying to prove that he is right, he's trying to answer questions as honestly as he can with what he knows and believes.
On a third note, your point of religious thinking leading to evil is pretty messed up. Plenty of people who aren't religious have committed acts of injustice in the name of greed or even against religions. Often, you'll find that the religion these people follow speak out against the very acts they are committing. In that regard, one shouldn't find fault with religion itself, but those who are teaching it as a way to spread fear and hate.
ill bite and this may get a bit deep but here it go's.........
what is the purpose of a all loving god when there are people in the world ( like myself) who are just flat out miserable everyday ? all i ever hear from friends that are christian is oh its satan trying to turn you away. its not like after i was born and said hey make me miserable for 29 years
Just because "God" loves you, doesn't mean you love you. Maybe you can try doing the latter and maybe you won't be so miserable all the time.
@willpayton: Wow, that's a bit aggressive...there's no need for the attack on the OP.
@pperspectiveandreality-what other religion do you appreciate/agree with the most?
I dont really identify with any religion. I just have faith in God. So I wouldnt call myself a baptist or protestant or catholic etc.
@pperspectiveandreality: You stated you're Christian in the title, though? I was referring to other overall religions more so than branches.
@pperspectiveandreality: You stated you're Christian in the title, though? I was referring to other overall religions more so than branches.
When i say Christian i mean "christ-like". Not that i adhere toa particular group of believers.
Oh okay i get you....hmmm thats a good question....I dont know.... probably buddhism.
That's your prerogative
@pperspectiveandreality: Why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?
That's where faith comes in for me.
That's where faith comes in for me.
What is your personal definition of faith?
Trust.
@willpayton said:
Hello. Being critical or skeptical towards other users is more than fine, and this thread creator seems to welcome it more than most, but the line is when things get insulting in a personal way. There is no reason to leave lines about whether you would leave your children alone near any poster. Posters can talk about themselves in a personal context or invite others too, but your line is too much, please refrain from this sort of commentary.
Oh and you know the line about common sense and logical reasoning is hyperbolic ^_^ - I am as critical of religion (among other things) as the next guy and we know that in a general sense, things are the way they are because there is some sense and reasoning to all human ideas and systems. Rather than a lack of' there is this sliding scale and that in itself presents a challenge in general terms when addressing the foundations of any system or structure because its not about introducing reason and logic where there is none, but unravelling existing reason and logic or contrasting or comparing reason and logic to establish what reasoning and logic is superior, more valid, more beneficial.
My second paragraph isn't as important as my first though, plus come on, how often do we get a sincere religious poster willing and open to field even critical and skeptical questions from everyone. I think the implicit condition is that they don't insult them. At least the rules ask that posters not be too hostile towards each other. You've interacted on friendly terms with other religious posters before, this poster is as polite and sincere as the best of them, try to be less contentious with them please or if you can't then refrain from commenting in this thread (there is also the Religion thread available) Thanks.
@willpayton: In case you have forgotten I would like to remind you that even your own concepts of "reason and logic" are based upon a leap of faith of sorts in materialism which cannot be anymore definitively "proven" by materialistic "reason and logic" than can a non-materialistic perspective.
To my thinking (and we have debated this ad nauseum elsewhere) you have no room for the hubris and the belligerence you demonstrated in your reply to the OP who seems to have a genuine desire for respectful dialogue.
It is obvious so far in this thread that the OP is not well enough versed to be be able to respond to some of the questions being posed and I don't think they were prepared for the level of nastiness that was possible. So it seems you (and others like you) should consider forming and addressing your questions to the OP as a person and not attempting to assault the very foundations of religion/Christianity which the OP may not be able to even consider. Those questions can always be posed in the religion thread where many have been debated already.
I thought you were better than this man.
SMH.
@pperspectiveandreality: Like Transformers?
What's like transformers?
What's like transformers?
He's asking you if you like the Transformers franchise.
Oh ok. I misunderstood. I don't care for the films but I liked the cartoon.
What's like transformers?
He's asking you if you like the Transformers franchise.
Ha ha yea, sorry.
Oh ok. I misunderstood. I don't care for the films but I liked the cartoon.
Cool.
@willpayton: Wow, that's a bit aggressive...there's no need for the attack on the OP.
@willpayton said:
Hello. Being critical or skeptical towards other users is more than fine, and this thread creator seems to welcome it more than most, but the line is when things get insulting in a personal way. There is no reason to leave lines about whether you would leave your children alone near any poster. Posters can talk about themselves in a personal context or invite others too, but your line is too much, please refrain from this sort of commentary.
...
My second paragraph isn't as important as my first though, plus come on, how often do we get a sincere religious poster willing and open to field even critical and skeptical questions from everyone. I think the implicit condition is that they don't insult them. At least the rules ask that posters not be too hostile towards each other. You've interacted on friendly terms with other religious posters before, this poster is as polite and sincere as the best of them, try to be less contentious with them please or if you can't then refrain from commenting in this thread (there is also the Religion thread available) Thanks.
I thought you were better than this man.
SMH.
I take your points, and this is normally the place where I'd likely realize that I went a bit too far and apologize. However, on further thought I dont think I did. The OP was proposing the idea that the mass murder of children and even babies is justified because they're born wicked and are inherently evil. Sorry, but I cant condone that thought even by my silence. So at the risk of drawing criticism and scorn, I'm going to stand by my comments. I have a feeling that the only reason this is even debatable is because it's cloaked in the cover of religion. If someone had posted suggesting that Hitler killing 6 million Jews was justified because he believed Jews to be sub-humans, and the OP was perfectly fine with this, no doubt he'd draw quick and severe reproaches. But, because this is "God" and the OP's personal "religious beliefs", somehow this is ok, or beyond criticism? Well, I'm just going to have to beg to differ with you guys on this. I AM perfectly willing to have thoughtful discussions with religious people (and have on numerous occasions). I'm sure some of you know this. We can honestly differ on facts, or interpretation of facts, or on personal beliefs. But, on the topic of personal beliefs, not all beliefs merit respect. Respect (IMO) is to be earned, not given blindly and without thought. And "religion" is not a magic word that automatically justifies whatever a person says or thinks.
You say you are a Christian who believes in Evolution. Do you find idea of Perfect World in the begining, soiled by sin- causing Death, which God plans to save us from via his son, is in opposition to the idea of Evolution via Natural Selection, given that Death is one of the major mechnasims required for evolution to take place? If so, do you only believe in Microevolutionary changes, or Macroevolutionary changes? Do you take the Flood as literal? Do you take the age of the Earth as around 6000 years old, according to the chronology of the Bible, or rather 4.6 Billion years old, as modern science states?
@willpayton: I take your points, and this is normally the place where I'd likely realize that I went a bit too far and apologize. However, on further thought I dont think I did. The OP was proposing the idea that the mass murder of children and even babies is justified because they're born wicked and are inherently evil. Sorry, but I cant condone that thought even by my silence. So at the risk of drawing criticism and scorn, I'm going to stand by my comments. I have a feeling that the only reason this is even debatable is because it's cloaked in the cover of religion. If someone had posted suggesting that Hitler killing 6 million Jews was justified because he believed Jews to be sub-humans, and the OP was perfectly fine with this, no doubt he'd draw quick and severe reproaches. But, because this is "God" and the OP's personal "religious beliefs", somehow this is ok, or beyond criticism? Well, I'm just going to have to beg to differ with you guys on this. I AM perfectly willing to have thoughtful discussions with religious people (and have on numerous occasions). I'm sure some of you know this. We can honestly differ on facts, or interpretation of facts, or on personal beliefs. But, on the topic of personal beliefs, not all beliefs merit respect. Respect (IMO) is to be earned, not given blindly and without thought. And "religion" is not a magic word that automatically justifies whatever a person says or thinks.
I did not really want to open up this can of worms in this OP's thread but since we are "sort of" on topic I just wanted to share some thoughts.
Considering your analogy to Hitler (although from my perspective they are not analogous) and what you must mean by invoking it, I completely understand your point. And I agree that "religion" is not some magic word that generates justification. But I don't see that the OP stated anything remotely close to what you have assumed or understood him to have stated. He basically pleaded ignorance of the higher workings of God and offered no systematic defense or justification for God killing innocent children as you seem to think. As I stated above, the OP is clearly not in a position to debate this topic with anything other than pleading the fifth and appealing to their faith in Scripture and what they believe it reveals about God. Such honesty is refreshing. You however clearly had an axe to grind with your initial cut/paste thread dump (for which you undoubtedly patted yourself on the back) but don't seem to have taken any time to gauge the mindset of the OP. They stated honestly that such things are beyond them. You pounced. You assumed. You erected a straw man. You committed ad hominem and flavored it with arrogant douche water. Well Done.
I did not really want to open up this can of worms in this OP's thread but since we are "sort of" on topic I just wanted to share some thoughts.
Considering your analogy to Hitler (although from my perspective they are not analogous) and what you must mean by invoking it, I completely understand your point. And I agree that "religion" is not some magic word that generates justification. But I don't see that the OP stated anything remotely close to what you have assumed or understood him to have stated. He basically pleaded ignorance of the higher workings of God and offered no systematic defense or justification for God killing innocent children as you seem to think. As I stated above, the OP is clearly not in a position to debate this topic with anything other than pleading the fifth and appealing to their faith in Scripture and what they believe it reveals about God. Such honesty is refreshing. You however clearly had an axe to grind with your initial cut/paste thread dump (for which you undoubtedly patted yourself on the back) but don't seem to have taken any time to gauge the mindset of the OP. They stated honestly that such things are beyond them. You pounced. You assumed. You erected a straw man. You committed ad hominem and flavored it with arrogant douche water. Well Done.
You can look at it that way if you want. But, I was simply answering his question as best I could. That information was previously posted on the religion thread (IIRC), so it was very easy to find and paste. You might think it overkill, but I consider it the best information to answer his question that I could find.
As to his not posing a defense or justification of God's killings... isnt that part of the problem? Too many people accept these types of explanations without even thinking about it. God kills thousands of people. Why? Because they're evil. Done! Not even a thought is given about what this implies or the obvious nonsense of it. This is why I brought up the fact that those cities, etc, contained children and babies that in no way possible can be considered "guilty" of anything. But, the OP did say that they were. I didnt put those words into his mouth.
@willpayton said:
I take your points, and this is normally the place where I'd likely realize that I went a bit too far and apologize. However, on further thought I dont think I did. The OP was proposing the idea that the mass murder of children and even babies is justified because they're born wicked and are inherently evil. Sorry, but I cant condone that thought even by my silence.
I am not asking you to apologize, I am asking you to refrain from getting to a point of harassing the user. Harass in this context making personal judgments about them. Just like another user can't quote you in a thread and randomly start telling you they would never leave their children alone near you. A user can tell another poster that they believe or think that attitude or opinion they possess is harmful, ill conceived, dangerous even, but there is no need for the personal element. Also I do not believe the OP proposed the idea of those things being justified, rather they convey what they believe based on what they know from the bible and of god. Which is important to distinguish, because at best you can say they are absolving themselves of personal responsibility and it might just be that they are deferring to a source which they consider greater than they think they are but its not the same as saying that the user personally justifies the mass murder of children and babies because they personally think they are evil and wicked. You have to be aware of the differences yes?
So at the risk of drawing criticism and scorn, I'm going to stand by my comments.
You can/should stand by your comments, just don't go against the CV rules as far as being intolerant or harassing towards a user for their beliefs.
I have a feeling that the only reason this is even debatable is because it's cloaked in the cover of religion. If someone had posted suggesting that Hitler killing 6 million Jews was justified because he believed Jews to be sub-humans, and the OP was perfectly fine with this, no doubt he'd draw quick and severe reproaches. But, because this is "God" and the OP's personal "religious beliefs", somehow this is ok, or beyond criticism? Well, I'm just going to have to beg to differ with you guys on this. I AM perfectly willing to have thoughtful discussions with religious people (and have on numerous occasions). I'm sure some of you know this. We can honestly differ on facts, or interpretation of facts, or on personal beliefs. But, on the topic of personal beliefs, not all beliefs merit respect. Respect (IMO) is to be earned, not given blindly and without thought. And "religion" is not a magic word that automatically justifies whatever a person says or thinks.
I disagree with you here in the sense its not about religion at all, just courtesy and civility. You don't automatically have to respect religion, but you do have to extend some respect to users here. Like above, do you really think that the user has taken it upon themselves to judge and declare babies and children as evil and deserving of mass murder? Or do you think that the user cedes to an authority that to them is greater, more knowledgeable, more wise, and loving and competent than they are, and its not their place to question what that authority does on the basis that that authority created everything or if the bible the word of that authority or some other variation? Which one do you think is legitimately more likely and sincerely true here? Which one do you think addressing would be more fruitful? In the past you have noted that you can get frustrated with religion and I can empathize but are you sure you are not just getting frustrated here and forgetting that for many people irregardless of religion, just in general human beliefs and understandings and application of both, that people's ideas can't always be so easily condensed and simplified the way you assert as far as this users attitude towards sin and gods actions and punishments?
Your completely accurate as far as the contrast in attitudes between above and Hitler and the Holocaust but god is not Hitler and there aren't scientific theories around the idea that humans have a natural tendency and predisposition to believe in Hitler nor have the majority of humans in history reenforced to their children that they should believe in Hitler, nor do many claim that Hitler created everything, and so on. Nor do many believe that Hitler is all knowing, wise and loving beyond human comprehension. Large and important distinctions. So instead of treating the user like they literally believe in and attempt to justify Hitlers actions, why not try and explain to them that objectively speaking, to you, there isn't that much difference and reason why.
The poster has even said they are okay with critical questions, so they aren't beyond criticism, but there is fair criticism and unfair criticism. Thats what I am asking you to consider, how fair is your criticism. Your one of the most knowledgeable users at this site in terms of science knowledge and application, why not try that route instead of character judgments that come from implying that god's actions and a persons belief or faith in god and gods actions is akin to belief acceptance and tolerance and endorsement of what Hitler did? Since I am pretty sure you know that people who believe in god don't actually think or operate that way. Why not talk/question about the importance of objectivity, or truth or elimination of bias or ensuring that a persons intent actually aligns with how effective they are in an objective sense instead of a subjective emotional sense.
When I was a Christian, I remember being taught that Kids, both in the New Testament and Old, if killed before the variable "age of accountability", would not suffer eternal damnation in hell, as those past those ages would. It could actually be seen as a favor, as there is a likelyhood that the kids could stray from God as they grow up, and die as sinners, and end up in hell (I don't subscribe to this line of thought as I'm not a christian). However, when looking at it that way, I guess it does make sense- I believe there is a passage in Leviticus which states that a son should not pay for the sins of the Father. Now of course, you may counter that the Bible has ignored rules like that in the past, but it has always referred physical death, rather than Eternal life. If Babies and Kids are granted Eternal life in heaven when they die (considering Heaven is suppossed to awesome and better than perfect and all), then maybe, just maybe one can justify such actions.
Just because the Christian God Kills you, doesn't mean he dooms your soul. He killed Moses, not allowing him to enter the promise land, despite him being as fit as a fiddle at 120 years. Didn't stop him from being one of the most respected Prophets in Bible Lore :p
Hope I could help...........
When I was a Christian, I remember being taught that Kids, both in the New Testament and Old, if killed before the variable "age of accountability", would not suffer eternal damnation in hell, as those past those ages would. It could actually be seen as a favor, as there is a likelyhood that the kids could stray from God as they grow up, and die as sinners, and end up in hell (I don't subscribe to this line of thought as I'm not a christian). However, when looking at it that way, I guess it does make sense- I believe there is a passage in Leviticus which states that a son should not pay for the sins of the Father. Now of course, you may counter that the Bible has ignored rules like that in the past, but it has always refers physical death, rather than Eternal life. If Babies and Kids are granted Eternal life in heaven when they die (considering Heaven is suppossed to awesome and better than perfect and all), then maybe, just maybe one can justify such actions.
Just because the Christian God Kills you, doesn't mean he dooms your soul. He killed Moses, not allowing him to enter the promise land, despite him being as fit as a fiddle at 120 years. Didn't stop him from being one of the most respected Prophets in Bible Lore :p
Hope I could help...........
If we go by Bible Lore, no human, living or dead is in heaven yet.
@laflux: You have gone where I was hesitant to go. It is not my wish to hijack this thread. When the OP started this thread I had to ask what distinguishes this thread from the "Religion...What Do You Think" thread. I have concluded that this is for the OP to hold court.
To WillPayton's criticism there are indeed very good counter arguments. But my point is that WillPayton seems to have created a straw man and is now beating up on it. The OP is equipped with his faith not learned arguments. The OP acknowledged his limitations. The OP never specifically stated what WillPayton assumed he did and attacked him for. Even the appeal to ignorance isn't a tacit acknowledgement of the specifics of the position WillPayton has accused him of. All the OP stated was that he didn't know and deferred to what the bible says (which it does). That is it.
Not nearly enough to warrant the kinds of comments made nor the invocation of Godwin's Law. (which of course according to one wikipedia definition means he has automatically lost the debate)
Seems Ol' WillPayton may be a little too pumped up on a Dawkins-Hitchens cocktail.
SMH
When I was a Christian, I remember being taught that Kids, both in the New Testament and Old, if killed before the variable "age of accountability", would not suffer eternal damnation in hell, as those past those ages would. It could actually be seen as a favor, as there is a likelyhood that the kids could stray from God as they grow up, and die as sinners, and end up in hell (I don't subscribe to this line of thought as I'm not a christian). However, when looking at it that way, I guess it does make sense- I believe there is a passage in Leviticus which states that a son should not pay for the sins of the Father. Now of course, you may counter that the Bible has ignored rules like that in the past, but it has always refers physical death, rather than Eternal life. If Babies and Kids are granted Eternal life in heaven when they die (considering Heaven is suppossed to awesome and better than perfect and all), then maybe, just maybe one can justify such actions.
Just because the Christian God Kills you, doesn't mean he dooms your soul. He killed Moses, not allowing him to enter the promise land, despite him being as fit as a fiddle at 120 years. Didn't stop him from being one of the most respected Prophets in Bible Lore :p
Hope I could help...........
If we go by Bible Lore, no human, living or dead is in heaven yet.
How so? Jesus said to the sinner beside him on the Cross "Today, you will be with me paradise". God took Enoch away becuase he walked with him. Elijiah was taken into the sky with Chariots of fire. Pretty clear God wasn't taking them to wallmart.........
When I was a Christian, I remember being taught that Kids, both in the New Testament and Old, if killed before the variable "age of accountability", would not suffer eternal damnation in hell, as those past those ages would. It could actually be seen as a favor, as there is a likelyhood that the kids could stray from God as they grow up, and die as sinners, and end up in hell (I don't subscribe to this line of thought as I'm not a christian). However, when looking at it that way, I guess it does make sense- I believe there is a passage in Leviticus which states that a son should not pay for the sins of the Father. Now of course, you may counter that the Bible has ignored rules like that in the past, but it has always refers physical death, rather than Eternal life. If Babies and Kids are granted Eternal life in heaven when they die (considering Heaven is suppossed to awesome and better than perfect and all), then maybe, just maybe one can justify such actions.
Just because the Christian God Kills you, doesn't mean he dooms your soul. He killed Moses, not allowing him to enter the promise land, despite him being as fit as a fiddle at 120 years. Didn't stop him from being one of the most respected Prophets in Bible Lore :p
Hope I could help...........
If we go by Bible Lore, no human, living or dead is in heaven yet.
How so? Jesus said to the sinner beside him on the Cross "Today, you will be with me paradise". God took Enoch to heavy becuase he walked with him. Elijiah was taken into heaven with Chariots of fire. Pretty clear God wasn't taking them to wallmart.........
Ahahaha!
Hi. I had a few questions. They have been brewing since I have spent a good portion of this day reading and responding to posts in this thread.
1) Who is your avatar? (The little picture used to represent you)
2) When you go to church what is it called? (Feel free to leave out city or state names) Just use capital X's like "First Non-Denominational Church of XXX XXXXXXX" or somesuch.
3) How long have you considered yourself to be a Christian?
4) Was there a singular moment or event when you became a follower of Christ? Would you like to share it?
I have more but that is good for now. I hope recent posts have helped to correct the path this thread was heading. I hope your experiment works out to your satisfaction.
=)
When I was a Christian, I remember being taught that Kids, both in the New Testament and Old, if killed before the variable "age of accountability", would not suffer eternal damnation in hell, as those past those ages would. It could actually be seen as a favor, as there is a likelyhood that the kids could stray from God as they grow up, and die as sinners, and end up in hell (I don't subscribe to this line of thought as I'm not a christian). However, when looking at it that way, I guess it does make sense- I believe there is a passage in Leviticus which states that a son should not pay for the sins of the Father. Now of course, you may counter that the Bible has ignored rules like that in the past, but it has always refers physical death, rather than Eternal life. If Babies and Kids are granted Eternal life in heaven when they die (considering Heaven is suppossed to awesome and better than perfect and all), then maybe, just maybe one can justify such actions.
Just because the Christian God Kills you, doesn't mean he dooms your soul. He killed Moses, not allowing him to enter the promise land, despite him being as fit as a fiddle at 120 years. Didn't stop him from being one of the most respected Prophets in Bible Lore :p
Hope I could help...........
If we go by Bible Lore, no human, living or dead is in heaven yet.
How so? Jesus said to the sinner beside him on the Cross "Today, you will be with me paradise". God took Enoch to heavy becuase he walked with him. Elijiah was taken into heaven with Chariots of fire. Pretty clear God wasn't taking them to wallmart.........
Hmmm....
It is said that all shall be judge in accordance to their works, the human soul is comprise of body, your sense of self and spirit (Breath of Life), it is said that the spirit shall return to God upon death, during the final days, the dead shall be resurrected by breathing life to them and all who died shall live again.
I shall address this points:
"Today, you will be with me paradise"
- What is the word today in the language of GOD, no one knows. Padaradise may also not refer to Heaven (Dwelling Place of GOD) but Eden, again who knows.
God took Enoch to heavy becuase he walked with him. Elijiah was taken into heaven with Chariots of fire.
- Again depend on which heaven, there are 3 in Jewish faith:
- Sky
- Outer Space
- Dwelling place of GOD.
Jesus also said that:
"And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man"
John 3:13
Hi. So, I know we departed from that, but you said that you are both a creationist and still believe in evolution. I was wondering as to how that would be possible, as it is my experience that those are two completely opposite views. I know you said earlier that it is long and shoul shorten it, but I think that it was pushed back long enough and I am very curious about that, as I partly work with evolution everyday.
What do you think about exorcisms? Do you think they really work or are just mentally sick people? Do you believe that the things that supposedly happen (levitation, strength, change in tempeture) do happen?
Also mad props for running this thread like a pro.
King Saturn- well I'd start off by saying again I am not yet well versed in the part of the bible that deals with homosexuality so I can't speak to it with any level of certainty. But te God I know is merciful and loving. And the way I describe God's love.....that's tough..... I don't know that I can dearie it actually.....you've given me something to think about myself there. But as far as slavery. I defer to my belief that God has a greater plan in all things. And he does very thing for a reason. We may not always be able to perceive the reason but big parts of faith are faith and trust in God. So I hope that answers your question.
The Verse about Homosexuality is in Leviticus... I believe you should read the entire book in full and not just that particular scripture about Homosexual Behavior either... it appears that GOD believes death is the answer for a lot of things he finds unpleasant...
It still boils down to the real problem of how does Love find Death as the primary solution to problems ? Considering God is Love ?
The Slavery issue is very problematic... as it appears God's greater plan with Slavery involved the deaths of hundreds of Millions of Africans and a form of Cattle Slavery that would eventually lead to Blacks help building America through their Slave Labor.
@pperspectiveandreality: Am I to be condemned for being a transwoman?
@kuonphobos: Too high on a Dawkins-Hitchens cocktail? Both these men are and were (in Hitchen's case) some of the best advocates for the absolutely crystal clear flaws in religion and the blatant and harmful problems faith has constantly bestowed on humanity. You can try and disallow his fair albeit aggressive criticisms of the OP but trying to compare a strawman and ad hominom arguments to Dawkins and Hitchens' eloquent and logically empirical debating style is where you really come undone in trying to undermine Payton's case by attacking two of the best atheist advocates of the 21st Century and is not something I appreciate. In fact, all it show is you fulfilling your own strawman prophecy with your fallacious and unsubstantiated logic in trying to defend the OP from legitimate and strong problems with Christianity.
@willpayton: Your argument essentially boils down to the philosophical debate: Would you kill Hitler (insert tyrant/causer of human atrocities) as a child if you could? You may break your code of killing children, but you'd save millions of lives.
@king_saturn-how did god cause American slavery?
@superrobotargeist: Food for thought: when Jesus said that, he was obviously still alive. I can't speak for others but my understanding has always been that Christ's resurrection was the moment in time when people did begin to enter heaven/paradise (as you point out, the exact place that redeemed human souls gather until the events of Revelation is frequently debated).
As for Elijah, and particularly Enoch, I've never had any clue what to think of them or where they went other than that they very clearly didn't die (especially in Enoch's case, where the phrasing is intentionally distinct from the patterned list of everyone else dying). *shrug*
I understand what you're saying. I'm going to not give a longer response because I really dont want to hijack the thread more than has already been done. But, thank you for your comments.
This would be a whole conversation on its own. I think that the notion that a child should not be held to pay for what the parent did is a fair one, and one which I'm sure many today agree with. However, the idea of original sin shows that Christianity doesnt abide by this rule. So, yet another major moral problem for God to answer for.
@willpayton: Your argument essentially boils down to the philosophical debate: Would you kill Hitler (insert tyrant/causer of human atrocities) as a child if you could? You may break your code of killing children, but you'd save millions of lives.
I dont think my argument does boil down to this. If a person said that God was justified in killing babies solely because he knew that they'd commit sins in the future... then why give humans free will in the first place? Surely God had the option to not do so, which is vastly different from my position in going back to kill Hitler. Also, why stop with those people and not just kill all of humanity? Sounds completely arbitrary, not to mention unjust.
@kuonphobos: Too high on a Dawkins-Hitchens cocktail? Both these men are and were (in Hitchen's case) some of the best advocates for the absolutely crystal clear flaws in religion and the blatant and harmful problems faith has constantly bestowed on humanity. You can try and disallow his fair albeit aggressive criticisms of the OP but trying to compare a strawman and ad hominom arguments to Dawkins and Hitchens' eloquent and logically empirical debating style is where you really come undone in trying to undermine Payton's case by attacking two of the best atheist advocates of the 21st Century and is not something I appreciate. In fact, all it show is you fulfilling your own strawman prophecy with your fallacious and unsubstantiated logic in trying to defend the OP from legitimate and strong problems with Christianity.
Seriously I don't desire to argue this... especially here. My sentence about Dawkins-Hitchens was purely tongue in cheek and I think even WillPayton would agree that is abundantly clear. No reason to get all upset. You have been around long enough and interacted with me long enough to guess what my thoughts on Dawkins-Hitchens are and that is fine. But surely you can see that this was a playful jab. I was making no connections between WillPayton's ad hominen and strawman argument and Dawkins-Hitchens. If anything I was comparing the vitriol and obsessive unhinged hatred for all things religious that Dawkins-Hitchens share and WillPayton touches on in his aggressive and uncalled for comments.
One more thing. If you care to read back over the exchange you will see that I didn't outright reject WillPayton's criticism of what he perceived the OP to be positing, only that he had perceived it incorrectly and was attacking something that just wasn't there (hence straw man). Please, feel free to attack Christianity all you like. Many significantly better folks have. But there is no reason to go all personal especially when you may be hearing something that just wasn't said.
EDIT - I just realized that you (Lvenger) may not see that the "you" I used in my last sentence was a general "you" for all readers and not a specific "you" (Lvenger). I hope this will clear that up if necessary.
@willpayton: I think in Christianity, everyone has the potential to commit sin, not just everyone has sin.
@lvenger-one annoying thing about Dawkins and co is that, now most "internet atheists" seem incapable of thinking up their own creative arguments and instead just copy/paste from one of these. Ruins a good online debate.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment