Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Ben Masada

The Only Way to Escape Hell

454 posts in this topic

Um... a tad ambiguous, don't you think?

Am I? The Holocaust. Palestinian open air concentration camps. The Trail of Tears. Being a victim of violent crime. Not even being able to imagine what I'm talking about is probably why you're such the amoral atheist.

You presume very quickly and flippantly that I haven't experienced something like those things... but I'll let that go for now. Oh, the little jab about being "amoral"? Intriguing, since "amoral" would imply that I have no moral code whatsoever; I do, as I've explained. That you don't seem to like it is irrelevant.

I've explained all that already. If I insist on treating every living thing the way I wish to be treated (as much as I would like to), then I would starve to dead, wouldn't I? It's an unfortunate axiom, but it is entirely undeniable that as heterotrophic creatures, we must, at least to subsist, eat other organisms. Now, feel free to follow the Golden Rule anywhere else you like, by all means; I'll gladly join you down that route. But my point is that at least sometimes, the Golden Rule cannot be honestly adhered to. It is the extreme border between morality and necessity.

Did you explain it already? I don't think so. You had some comments about me personally and I left it there because you were done. You don't need meat to survive, and killing is against the moral code you were so fabulously born with, yet you're more than happy to let others do the "wrong" killing for you. You not starving to death has nothing inherent to do with morality at all, that's just survival. A fish eating you instead of you eating a fish is just as moral neutral as what you named as your own morality. I dragged you out to deep water and you wound up digressing into this stuff and it wasn't even on topic.

I didn't say we need meat to survive; I said "eat other organisms". Plants and fungi are organisms too. But anyway, that's not important... I agree that a fish eating me versus me eating a fish is morally neutral; what you seem to have been insinuating on this, and other threads, is that I am doing evil by violating the Golden Rule in such a scenario. Perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, I apologize. We at least now appear to agree on the point of moral neutrality in your given scenario.

In any case, sure, I don't know he was a carpenter. He could have been a stonemason or a blacksmith or a clown for all I know; or all anyone knows, for that matter. Hell, we don't even know whether or not he actually existed. But that's beside the point. In keeping in line with the Bible's claims about Jesus' person, since we are talking about the Bible here, it is entirely reasonable to refer to Jesus as a carpenter, given that is the occupation which is popularly ascribed to him, based on the interpretation of the Bible's text.

Sure it's sure, and so that was what you should have said in the first place. You don't know anything but you're talking like you do anyway. Sound familiar? You reject faith and others don't. How you act from there isn't any better.

Yes, I reject faith. I needn't have any "faith" to at least know what it is the Bible says. I needn't believe it to understand, or to be familiar with it. Your case of me "not knowing what I'm talking about but talking like I do anyway" is untenable.

Well, they are a bit mutually-exclusive, based on their ideologies, aren't they? Islam says non-Muslims go to hell. Christianity says non-Christians go to hell. So, unless you're a full-fledged Muslim/Christian (and virtually every other religion, for that matter) all at once (as if Jesus or Allah would let you get away with that on Judgment Day...), then I'm going to say their rather mutually-exclusive, alright?

They're not mutually exclusive to me at all. Jesus is Muslim. He's Christian. He's Jew. How do you know what Jesus or Allah would let you get away with on Judgment Day? You don't. You can try to impose the orthodoxy on me in imposing your trite denials while someone else might do it seriously. The difference in what you and the Bible thumper project to others is as non-existent as your moral code. The only difference between the two of you is what you personally believe. And what proof do you have for what you believe? I'm not going to give your beliefs anymore credence than I give anyone else's because you don't offer me anything better. You believe in moral evasion. The Bible is far superior to that. You might "believe" (have faith in) what others have carried all the water to "prove" for you to bask in testament of. Which is called knowledge, differentiable from belief.

You can choose to view them as non-mutually-exclusive, fine. That's your right. But don't ask me, or anyone else, to agree with it please. Again, I speak of what will happen on the proposed "Judgment Day" strictly based on the narratives given in the religious texts of the respective religions to which we have referred. I don't believe that such a "judgment" will ever happen, so it's rather a moot point whether or not I'm right about its events; but again, in any case, I speak of it only so far as it is described by the faiths in question. Your straw-man that I "believe in moral evasion" is perplexing, in that I am genuinely dumbfounded as to where you could have misconstrued my position so badly as to have reached that conclusion. My moral code is based on a simple system of the measuring of ethical values. Ethical values may be measured based on the response or quality of life or outcome of any given action or scenario; for instance, there are virtually no instances of rape in which all parties can be said to have been benefitted, on the contrary, of course, ergo rape can be determined to have a very negative, if not entirely negative ethical value, seeing as no positive outcome can be readily said to result from it; on the other end of the spectrum, we have something like charity, which can be perhaps seen to result in largely beneficial outcomes, hence, charity can be deemed a highly positive act. And then of course there is a large chasm in between, of moral neutrality and "sort-of" positives and negatives. And no, I do not accept your case that the Bible is "far better" than "moral evasion". Is moral evasion really a more negative action than the moral code prescribed in the Bible (which, granted, has several genuine nuggets of authentic wisdom, if one can sit by and ignore the bits like killing homosexuals, owning slaves, and killing heretics and non-believers)? I would suggest not. Moral evasion makes no prediction of the behavior of its practitioner, and thus it could be presumed that the positive/negative ratio of a moral-evader would be roughly equivalent to one who bore no particular moral code at all; ergo, basic human empathy in contrast with more ego-driven goals might result in a roughly neutral ethical measurement, on the whole.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You presume very quickly and flippantly that I haven't experienced something like those things... but I'll let that go for now. Oh, the little jab about being "amoral"? Intriguing, since "amoral" would imply that I have no moral code whatsoever; I do, as I've explained. That you don't seem to like it is irrelevant.

I didn't say we need meat to survive; I said "eat other organisms". Plants and fungi are organisms too. But anyway, that's not important... I agree that a fish eating me versus me eating a fish is morally neutral; what you seem to have been insinuating on this, and other threads, is that I am doing evil by violating the Golden Rule in such a scenario. Perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, I apologize. We at least now appear to agree on the point of moral neutrality in your given scenario.

Yes, I reject faith. I needn't have any "faith" to at least know what it is the Bible says. I needn't believe it to understand, or to be familiar with it. Your case of me "not knowing what I'm talking about but talking like I do anyway" is untenable.

You can choose to view them as non-mutually-exclusive, fine. That's your right. But don't ask me, or anyone else, to agree with it please. Again, I speak of what will happen on the proposed "Judgment Day" strictly based on the narratives given in the religious texts of the respective religions to which we have referred. I don't believe that such a "judgment" will ever happen, so it's rather a moot point whether or not I'm right about its events; but again, in any case, I speak of it only so far as it is described by the faiths in question. Your straw-man that I "believe in moral evasion" is perplexing, in that I am genuinely dumbfounded as to where you could have misconstrued my position so badly as to have reached that conclusion. My moral code is based on a simple system of the measuring of ethical values. Ethical values may be measured based on the response or quality of life or outcome of any given action or scenario; for instance, there are virtually no instances of rape in which all parties can be said to have been benefitted, on the contrary, of course, ergo rape can be determined to have a very negative, if not entirely negative ethical value, seeing as no positive outcome can be readily said to result from it; on the other end of the spectrum, we have something like charity, which can be perhaps seen to result in largely beneficial outcomes, hence, charity can be deemed a highly positive act. And then of course there is a large chasm in between, of moral neutrality and "sort-of" positives and negatives. And no, I do not accept your case that the Bible is "far better" than "moral evasion". Is moral evasion really a more negative action than the moral code prescribed in the Bible (which, granted, has several genuine nuggets of authentic wisdom, if one can sit by and ignore the bits like killing homosexuals, owning slaves, and killing heretics and non-believers)? I would suggest not. Moral evasion makes no prediction of the behavior of its practitioner, and thus it could be presumed that the positive/negative ratio of a moral-evader would be roughly equivalent to one who bore no particular moral code at all; ergo, basic human empathy in contrast with more ego-driven goals might result in a roughly neutral ethical measurement, on the whole.

You presume very quickly and flippantly that I haven't experienced something like those things... but I'll let that go for now. Oh, the little jab about being "amoral"? Intriguing, since "amoral" would imply that I have no moral code whatsoever; I do, as I've explained. That you don't seem to like it is irrelevant.

So I'm the one that's "flippant" when I deny something I have no evidence of. Ain't that a hoot. And yes, amoral. It doesn't just "imply" that you have no moral code, that's what the word means. You forgot we discussed this at length so I'm not presuming anything and certainly not "quickly".

I didn't say we need meat to survive; I said "eat other organisms". Plants and fungi are organisms too. But anyway, that's not important... I agree that a fish eating me versus me eating a fish is morally neutral; what you seem to have been insinuating on this, and other threads, is that I am doing evil by violating the Golden Rule in such a scenario. Perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, I apologize. We at least now appear to agree on the point of moral neutrality in your given scenario.

Yes you did say that and more than once. Blind denial is a pattern here. Go back and review your comments. None of your morals had anything to do with morality at all (amoral) and I accept your apology. Does your moral code now tell you that eating plants and fungi is wrong because that's getting desperate to the point of ridiculous, and as usual, nothing to do with morality whatsoever.

Yes, I reject faith. I needn't have any "faith" to at least know what it is the Bible says. I needn't believe it to understand, or to be familiar with it. Your case of me "not knowing what I'm talking about but talking like I do anyway" is untenable.

You talk about the Bible like you know what you're talking about. And you repeatedly claimed Jesus was a carpenter. It's annoying when I asked you how you know, isn't it? That's your reflection in the mirror calling. And why should I believe that you understand the Bible as opposed to me or anyone else? And no my comment wasn't untenable that's exactly what you're doing. Loading a paragraph up with a lot of callous remarks, thinking, or more likely not caring, that I don't hear the same thing out of you that you hear out of the orthodox preacher man.

Your straw-man that I "believe in moral evasion" in that I am genuinely dumbfounded as to where you could have misconstrued my position so badly as to have reached that conclusion.

What you wound up delivering at the end of that debate was a moral evasion par excellence. "Weighing the pros and cons of the Golden Rule" just like you "eating animals in order to survive" has nothing inherent to do with morality. It might be sensible in a million scenarios, but it's not inherently moral. Moral code is inherently moral. If that's the best you've got, thenamoral definitely fits your description. I can quote you verbatim and we can revisit everything you said and I hope you bump that dead horse again if there's any doubt you want to entertain. There is nothing ambiguous or hard to understand about any of it and trying to deny it now isn't going to happen. Trying to pass it off as straw isn't going to happen because it's all you.

And no, I do not accept your case that the Bible is "far better" than "moral evasion".

Of course you don't. Moral evasion is better for you than morals.

My moral code is based on a simple system of the measuring of ethical values. Ethical values may be measured based on the response or quality of life or outcome of any given action or scenario

No, your quality of life or standard of living has nothing to do with morality. The higher your standard of living goes up in a world of limited resources the more everyone else's standard of living goes down. There is nothing moral about that either. If you live on a 100 acre compound because that makes your standard of living go up, you're taking 100 1-acre lots from poor people who don't have a pot to pee in. That's not morality. You're still changing your answer struggling to convince me that you do have a moral code and you're still not even talking about anything to do with morality.

Is moral evasion really a more negative action than the moral code prescribed in the Bible (which, granted, has several genuine nuggets of authentic wisdom, if one can sit by and ignore the bits like killing homosexuals, owning slaves, and killing heretics and non-believers)?

One can and one does. If you can't extract morality out of anything that isn't some unrealistically perfect source you seem to need in order to do so, no wonder you're going to wind up this evasive. Hypocrisy isn't morals. That's moral evasion too. Thou shalt not kill, except what killing you perceive "raises your standard of living"? That moral evasion is no better than the moral evasion of killing homosexuals, because killing homosexuals is somehow perceived to be helpful.

Weighing the pros and cons of being moral isn't a moral code, it's the ages-old excuse that amorally justified the greatest evils mankind has ever inflicted upon himself. Thank you, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You presume very quickly and flippantly that I haven't experienced something like those things... but I'll let that go for now. Oh, the little jab about being "amoral"? Intriguing, since "amoral" would imply that I have no moral code whatsoever; I do, as I've explained. That you don't seem to like it is irrelevant.

So I'm the one that's "flippant" when I deny something I have no evidence of. Ain't that a hoot. And yes, amoral. It doesn't just "imply" that you have no moral code, that's what the word means. You forgot we discussed this at length so I'm not presuming anything and certainly not "quickly".

Yes, isn't that something? You'd think you would have caught on to the irony of your statements by now, but evidently not... As if I'm surprised. And you can say I'm amoral all you like, but the fact is you know nothing about me at all, and clearly make no effort to correct that situation, instead simply spewing nonsensical straw-men at me.

I didn't say we need meat to survive; I said "eat other organisms". Plants and fungi are organisms too. But anyway, that's not important... I agree that a fish eating me versus me eating a fish is morally neutral; what you seem to have been insinuating on this, and other threads, is that I am doing evil by violating the Golden Rule in such a scenario. Perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, I apologize. We at least now appear to agree on the point of moral neutrality in your given scenario.

Yes you did say that and more than once. Blind denial is a pattern here. Go back and review your comments. None of your morals had anything to do with morality at all (amoral) and I accept your apology. Does your moral code now tell you that eating plants and fungi is wrong because that's getting desperate to the point of ridiculous, and as usual, nothing to do with morality whatsoever.

I have previously said that meat, as a source of protein, is a highly beneficial sustenance item; I did not say that it is 100% necessary for survival. No, my moral code doesn't tell me that eating plants and fungi is wrong; the Golden Rule does, however (would I want to be killed and eaten? No), and that was my entire point in referring to all this in the first place. The Golden Rule is a very good one, to an extent, but at some point, namely, the point of survival, the Golden Rule cannot be steadfastly observed, given that eventually it will be entirely necessary to kill another organism in order to eat it.

Yes, I reject faith. I needn't have any "faith" to at least know what it is the Bible says. I needn't believe it to understand, or to be familiar with it. Your case of me "not knowing what I'm talking about but talking like I do anyway" is untenable.

You talk about the Bible like you know what you're talking about. And you repeatedly claimed Jesus was a carpenter. It's annoying when I asked you how you know, isn't it? That's your reflection in the mirror calling. And why should I believe that you understand the Bible as opposed to me or anyone else? And no my comment wasn't untenable that's exactly what you're doing. Loading a paragraph up with a lot of callous remarks, thinking, or more likely not caring, that I don't hear the same thing out of you that you hear out of the orthodox preacher man.

The arrogance it must take to say that you know something about the Bible, and I don't, given you haven't the slightest notion of who I am in the first place, is really staggering. Yes, I refer to Jesus as a carpenter, but only because that is what Christians, as well as the Bible (well, in most translations) claim. I could care less if he really was one; I could care less if actually existed at all. I am not claiming to know anything about either of these things, only what the Bible, and Christianity, has to say about it. That was all I was referring to. And it's really absurd that you've misunderstood that... it isn't hard to understand.

Your straw-man that I "believe in moral evasion" in that I am genuinely dumbfounded as to where you could have misconstrued my position so badly as to have reached that conclusion.

What you wound up delivering at the end of that debate was a moral evasion par excellence. "Weighing the pros and cons of the Golden Rule" just like you "eating animals in order to survive" has nothing inherent to do with morality. It might be sensible in a million scenarios, but it's not inherently moral. Moral code is inherently moral. If that's the best you've got, thenamoral definitely fits your description. I can quote you verbatim and we can revisit everything you said and I hope you bump that dead horse again if there's any doubt you want to entertain. There is nothing ambiguous or hard to understand about any of it and trying to deny it now isn't going to happen. Trying to pass it off as straw isn't going to happen because it's all you.

I've already explained all that. It's not moral evasion, it's recognizing an inherent flaw in the notion of the Golden Rule (namely, again, that eventually, to survive, we must all do something to another living organism that we wouldn't like done to us; i.e., kill and eat it); it's not evasion of anything, it's just being realistic. And no, a moral code needn't be intrinsically moral; tell me, is it moral to kill homosexuals, or not? And who says so, regardless of the answer? And why should I take that person seriously? Morals cannot be inherent, they can only be inferred or constructed based on the outcome of any given action. (e.g., you kill my son, and as a result, he is dead, and his friends and family are left mourning his passing. These are each unpleasant experiences, which yield virtually no benefits to anyone involved, ergo, it is a negative, or "bad" action.)

And no, I do not accept your case that the Bible is "far better" than "moral evasion".

Of course you don't. Moral evasion is better for you than morals.

You can say that as many times as you like. That doesn't make it any less vacuous than it was the last time.

My moral code is based on a simple system of the measuring of ethical values. Ethical values may be measured based on the response or quality of life or outcome of any given action or scenario

No, your quality of life or standard of living has nothing to do with morality. The higher your standard of living goes up in a world of limited resources the more everyone else's standard of living goes down. There is nothing moral about that either. If you live on a 100 acre compound because that makes your standard of living go up, you're taking 100 1-acre lots from poor people who don't have a pot to pee in. That's not morality. You're still changing your answer struggling to convince me that you do have a moral code and you're still not even talking about anything to do with morality.

When I referred to "quality of life", I was not referring to standard of living; I was simply referring to a sense benefit or loss (i.e., I would be happy if someone gave me a gift, therefore, I would treat their act of giving as a positive action, enhancing my quality of life, if only slightly; on the converse, if someone kicks me in the stomach, I experience pain, and I don't like pain, hence, I would deem the act of kicking in the stomach to be a negative action).

And yes, a wealthy person buying up plots of land which might be better used for housing the poor and neglected could be deemed a negative action towards the poor, but it might also be seen as a neutral action. In any case, I think it is self-evident that if a wealthy person bought plots of land and of the goodness of their heart built homes for the poor, that would be a highly beneficial action; would you not agree?

Is moral evasion really a more negative action than the moral code prescribed in the Bible (which, granted, has several genuine nuggets of authentic wisdom, if one can sit by and ignore the bits like killing homosexuals, owning slaves, and killing heretics and non-believers)?

One can and one does. If you can't extract morality out of anything that isn't some unrealistically perfect source you seem to need in order to do so, no wonder you're going to wind up this evasive. Hypocrisy isn't morals. That's moral evasion too. Thou shalt not kill, except what killing you perceive "raises your standard of living"? That moral evasion is no better than the moral evasion of killing homosexuals, because killing homosexuals is somehow perceived to be helpful.

Again, I was not referring to standard of living, but quality of life. And I would not see any killing, apart from, again, the necessary killing of food sources, to be beneficial on all sides. You seem to neglect the fact that, when weighing ethical value, one must take into account all parties which are affected by any given action. For instance, let's take the colonizing Americans appearing on the shores of Plymouth, and they eventually wipe out the Native American settlements in the area; this might be taken as beneficial for the colonists, but it would be decidedly harmful (obviously) for the natives, and thus, the scenario might be deemed "rather bad" (this is because, though there was some small benefit on the part of the colonists, the collective values of the high number of very negative acts, i.e., deaths, will thusly outweigh what benefit was had; this is accentuated by the fact that only one among the involved parties experienced this benefit, thus rendering the small positive gain even less significant altogether).

Weighing the pros and cons of being moral isn't a moral code, it's the ages-old excuse that amorally justified the greatest evils mankind has ever inflicted upon himself. Thank you, no.

I never said one should weigh the pros and cons of being moral, only of the Golden Rule, which, as I've explained, is a very good idea, but is inapplicable in some scenarios, and thus cannot qualify as a be-all-end-all of ethics. The Golden Rule can, and should, however, be used as often as possible, of course. It is, after all, a very good idea; but I would see it more as a "Golden Guideline". It's a very good way to measure the qualitative ethical value of any given scenario, but it cannot be a hard-and-fast rule if it can be rendered inapplicable in certain situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be so sure... But either way, that doesn't make that person's beliefs or claims any more credible. And in any case, the Bible wasn't written by Jesus of Nazareth, so there really isn't any way for us to know if it accurately reflects his message anyway.

Read John 1:1-4. Then read John 3:16-17. :)

Edited by lozaleibou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the Quran though? Eh? Would you be willing to risk your mortal soul on the chance that Mohammed was wrong? I mean, they believe in hell too you know... And it's non-Muslims who go there.

Honestly, that's how silly you sound right now. Sure, if there were only one religion, making one set of claims, then sure, if it didn't involve, I don't know

Can you seriously say, whether you believe in a Divine entity or not, that you think that He would tell His people to behead anyone who didn't agree with believers, that sex with children was perfectly ok, that disfiguring or killing their wives is perfectly ok if they have somehow dishonored you maybe by cooking something you didn't like for dinner, and that murder of a non believer was not murder at all, but a duty??????? Ok, so now who sounds silly??? :unsure2:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but with a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy. (Matthew 10:34-37)

For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? Go judge those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you." (1 Corinthians 5:12-13)

...a Canaanite woman ...came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon. But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." (Matthew 15:23)

Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:21-24)

Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Timothy 11:15)

Edited by Hasina
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well according to the main religions I'm going to hell but I don't mind as there are a few people down there I would like to kick the sh1t out of. :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but with a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy. (Matthew 10:34-37)

For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? Go judge those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you." (1 Corinthians 5:12-13)

...a Canaanite woman ...came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon. But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." (Matthew 15:23)

Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:21-24)

Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Timothy 11:15)

Fantastic! You're reading Scripture!!! :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic! You're reading Scripture!!! :clap:

You don't, or else you would've responded with more substance.

First one seems to say that if you love anyone more then the Lord, you're not worthy of HIS love.

Second 'Drive out the wicked among you' seems pretty self-explanatory.

Third, if you're not of the children of Israel you don't deserve to be helped, cause you're a 'dog'.

Fourth, wives must always listen to their husbands.

Fifth, women can only be saved if they get pregnant, act modest to men, and can't teach men or be in power over men.

Edited by Hasina
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read John 1:1-4. Then read John 3:16-17. :)

You think I haven't? I have. Again, the Bible is a book. Books say a lot of things. They don't have to be true. It's called fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you seriously say, whether you believe in a Divine entity or not, that you think that He would tell His people to behead anyone who didn't agree with believers, that sex with children was perfectly ok, that disfiguring or killing their wives is perfectly ok if they have somehow dishonored you maybe by cooking something you didn't like for dinner, and that murder of a non believer was not murder at all, but a duty??????? Ok, so now who sounds silly??? :unsure2:

Um... to be clear, I'm not a Muslim. I was using the Quran as an example of a comparable text. No, I don't think that any of those things are morally-justifiable, under any circumstance; the same as I don't think that killing homosexuals and non-believers, owning slaves, or executing people who pick up sticks on Saturday is morally-justifiable (incidentally, the Bible demands that those things be done).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic! You're reading Scripture!!! :clap:

I think all of us here have read our fair bit of scripture. Ironically, it's you who appears to have done so the least comprehensively... I mean, you're posting the bits you like ad nauseam, but you haven't mentioned once yet that the Bible commands you to kill people like Hasina and myself. And that's something worthy of note...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't, or else you would've responded with more substance.

First one seems to say that if you love anyone more then the Lord, you're not worthy of HIS love.

Second 'Drive out the wicked among you' seems pretty self-explanatory.

Third, if you're not of the children of Israel you don't deserve to be helped, cause you're a 'dog'.

Fourth, wives must always listen to their husbands.

Fifth, women can only be saved if they get pregnant, act modest to men, and can't teach men or be in power over men.

Well unfortunately Hasina, again, you have taken some of these out of context. The Bible no where says that anyone is not "worthy of His love." It says, "they are not worthy," and this means salvation. But then again, NONE of us are worthy!! That's why its a free gift from the Lord. Second, "drive out the wicked from among you," refers to the church. If someone was knowingly being wicked, they were to be excommunicated from the church. Third, Jesus was telling the woman this for a reason, and if you had read a little further you would have recognized that. He wanted her to exercise her faith and her belief, as a Gentile. Fourth, you still seem to have a problem with the "submitted to your husband" part, and this seems to be a big stumbling block to those who have no respect for authority of any kind. Fifth, again, you've taken this out of context, and again, you still have a problem with this authority thing.

Is that substance for you enough??? :no:

Edited by lozaleibou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's substance, but not an explanation. I have no problem with authority, but I have a problem with sexist authority.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um... to be clear, I'm not a Muslim. I was using the Quran as an example of a comparable text. No, I don't think that any of those things are morally-justifiable, under any circumstance; the same as I don't think that killing homosexuals and non-believers, owning slaves, or executing people who pick up sticks on Saturday is morally-justifiable (incidentally, the Bible demands that those things be done).

Yes, and your example was the quran, which says these things I have listed. But you are under the impression that islam is another one of those "peaceful" religions on the same level at Christianity. The Bible, no where, orders us to have slaves, or kill anyone for the purpose of killing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's substance, but not an explanation. I have no problem with authority, but I have a problem with sexist authority.

Do you presume that I am God??? Do you think that I should explain why God thought this was the way things should be??? I am just the messenger, and you should take your issues up with God. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and your example was the quran, which says these things I have listed. But you are under the impression that islam is another one of those "peaceful" religions on the same level at Christianity. The Bible, no where, orders us to have slaves, or kill anyone for the purpose of killing.

Islam and Christianity are under the same banner in my mind, yes; they are self-proclaimed "peaceful" religions, as you say, though their conduct, and the text of their scriptures speak otherwise. Yes, the Quran might very well say the things you've listed (though I doubt very strongly you've actually read it for yourself); as much as the Bible says the things I've listed. I'll grant you that the Bible doesn't order you to have slaves (that was an accidental faux pas in syntax on my part), but it does very plainly endorse slavery. And yes, the Bible's god very unambiguously commands his followers to kill homosexuals, non-believers, and Sabbath-breakers (which, yes, can be done so simply as merely picking up sticks on Saturday).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you presume that I am God??? Do you think that I should explain why God thought this was the way things should be??? I am just the messenger, and you should take your issues up with God. :)

I do presume that you are a god. Your own god. You can project it onto the biblical template all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that this god of yours is all inside of your own head. Why do you think he "knows" you so well? Why do you think that he just "happens" to agree with all of your personal opinions? Because he is you. It's very simple. There isn't any god in this universe beyond what your imagination has conjured up in your own mind. Kindly prove me wrong, if you feel you can...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam and Christianity are under the same banner in my mind, yes; they are self-proclaimed "peaceful" religions, as you say, though their conduct, and the text of their scriptures speak otherwise. Yes, the Quran might very well say the things you've listed (though I doubt very strongly you've actually read it for yourself); as much as the Bible says the things I've listed. I'll grant you that the Bible doesn't order you to have slaves (that was an accidental faux pas in syntax on my part), but it does very plainly endorse slavery. And yes, the Bible's god very unambiguously commands his followers to kill homosexuals, non-believers, and Sabbath-breakers (which, yes, can be done so simply as merely picking up sticks on Saturday).

Well, then I think you should research it a bit more. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do presume that you are a god. Your own god. You can project it onto the biblical template all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that this god of yours is all inside of your own head. Why do you think he "knows" you so well? Why do you think that he just "happens" to agree with all of your personal opinions? Because he is you. It's very simple. There isn't any god in this universe beyond what your imagination has conjured up in your own mind. Kindly prove me wrong, if you feel you can...

And again, you would be incorrect! I am not a god at all, and will never be! I am simply a follower of Jesus Christ and that is the extent of it! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then I think you should research it a bit more. They are so different, they are like night and day! :)

Wow. That's the best response you could think of? Interesting... How long have you been researching this, exactly? I'm curious.

Edited by Arbitran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zzzzzz

Edited by lozaleibou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. That's the best response you could think of? Interesting... How long have you been researching this, exactly? I'm curious.

I've been seriously studying the Bible for 21 years, even though I had a general knowledge of the Bible since elementary school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again, you would be incorrect! I am not a god at all, and will never be! I am simply a follower of Jesus Christ and that is the extent of it! :D

You see, that isn't proving me wrong... Just denying my case doesn't count as a counter. And sure, to be really specific, maybe you are not a god, but a sub-routine in your mind is. So, in any case, a subset of you is a god. Which you have makeshift modeled after the biblical character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you presume that I am God??? Do you think that I should explain why God thought this was the way things should be??? I am just the messenger, and you should take your issues up with God. :)

I would but it'd be like me getting mad at Santa for not getting me the presents I want.

Edited by Hasina
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.