[Winstonm]

Quote

Sin is so horrible that that death is the only Just sentence.

My point exactly - this is the natural Law of actions/consequences to which it seems god must adhere. He may even be the Law. Regardless of whether this Law is separate from god or a part of god is irrelevant. The only relevant part is he must obey it.

Quote

God in Grace(undeserved forgiveness) sent his Only Son(himself) to die a painful death in place of Man. This was a choice God made.

No problems with this either. The ultimate consequence was paid for all of mankind's actions. The Law has been fulfilled. Wasn't it christ himself who said he did not come to destroy the Law but fulfill it? I wonder if it was the Natural Law of actions/consequences of which he spoke?

I see no need for belief in this scenario, though. God is just. God sacrfriced so man wouldn't have to. Bingo. Done deal.

I personally believe that the higher power is more in keeping with the father figure in story of the prodigal son, in that his love of us never varies regardless of what we do or say, and when we at last come home he will throw a feast - perhaps in the hereafter the atheists, agnostics, non-christians of all time will be introduced to christ, shown how and why everything was necessary, and be given the chance to say thanks. And that is all that will really be necessary because after all the consequences for all our actions have been paid.

See, the consequences for evil actions is not fiery hell but it is the very life spent doing evil, missing out of the blessings of doing good, of never finding contentment, never having joy or peace or kindness or warmth in your heart. A life spent in evil is its own consequence.

According to other's stated theological arguments, god is perfect love, perfect justice, etc. If god is perfect love, he cannot condemn one to hell. But perfect justice demands it. How to escape this predicament? A perfect sacrifice so even the most evil would be absolved and able to stand in gods presence all the while having the consequences of an evil life be paid in life and not after. Hmmm. A seemingly perfect solution.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on Jul 18 2006, 08:10 PM, said:

See, the consequences for evil actions is not fiery hell but it is the very life spent doing evil, missing out of the blessings of doing good, of never finding contentment, never having joy or peace or kindness or warmth in your heart. A life spent in evil is its own consequence.

This may be the wisest and most sensible statement that I have read here or anywhere else.

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Jul 18 2006, 07:00 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 18 2006, 05:16 PM, said:

hi al... i don't know much about the beliefs of essene christians, but it appears that you do... maybe you can help me with something... i've read that they believe salvation is through obedience to the law of God... is this true, and do they believe that to be saved one must cease sinning? a related question is, do they believe it's possible to cease sinning?

btw, i'm not sure Jesus was an essene, if for no other reason than his belief in animal sacrifices

In reading this post, I see that the "I think (believe/comprehend/have deduced) this is what GOD does/is/thinks/can or can't do/is limited to/has invoked/has allowed etc. is alive and well. I do not wish to disparage this position, just indicate that I do not subscribe to it. That said, we are projecting philosophical and theosophical belief systems on "historical" characters and their "supposed" actions and intentions. We would be far better off applying these tenets to the modern angels and devils that are circulating freely on our planet.

i have no idea what you're talking about... i simply asked you a couple of questions

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 19 2006, 06:23 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jul 18 2006, 07:00 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 18 2006, 05:16 PM, said:

hi al... i don't know much about the beliefs of essene christians, but it appears that you do... maybe you can help me with something... i've read that they believe salvation is through obedience to the law of God... is this true, and do they believe that to be saved one must cease sinning? a related question is, do they believe it's possible to cease sinning?

btw, i'm not sure Jesus was an essene, if for no other reason than his belief in animal sacrifices

In reading this post, I see that the "I think (believe/comprehend/have deduced) this is what GOD does/is/thinks/can or can't do/is limited to/has invoked/has allowed etc. is alive and well. I do not wish to disparage this position, just indicate that I do not subscribe to it. That said, we are projecting philosophical and theosophical belief systems on "historical" characters and their "supposed" actions and intentions. We would be far better off applying these tenets to the modern angels and devils that are circulating freely on our planet.

i have no idea what you're talking about... i simply asked you a couple of questions

My interpretation of Al's point is the following:

You, Mike, and DrTodd are all spending a lot of time flailing arround trying to impose human motivations on a supposedly divine being. I'd argue that if something is in fact divine/omnipotent, it is by definition unknowable.

I've always found this type of philosophical exercise quite impractical, though watching the convuted logic does have its amusement value...

[mike777]

To say a divine/omnipotient God is unknowable goes against basic Christian orthodoxy.
In fact quite the opposite is a basic tenet of the religion.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jul 19 2006, 07:09 PM, said:

To say a divine/omnipotient God is unknowable goes against basic Christian orthodoxy.
In fact quite the opposite is a basic tenet of the religion.

Recall the comment about convulted logic and amusement value?

Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica is a masterful work of pure reason. However, people have been mocking the futility of debating how many angels could dance on the point of a needle since D'Israeli's day.

Regretfully, (from my perspective) all your discussions about the two sided coin of grace/justice seem similarily quixotic...

[DrTodd13]

Is God rational or irrational? Are humans capable of being rational? If God is rational and humans have the capacity to be rational then I don't see why it is impossible to in part understand some of God's motivation and reasoning. Sure, many parts of the divine will be so complicated that they are unknowable to a being of limited mental
capacity. God would not have given us a brain if he had not intended us to use it.

There is a difference in trying to use reason to understand God better with respect to the plan of salvation and asking the question of whether people will poop in heaven (which is an issue that Aquinas tried to answer with "reason"). The first is useful and the second is quite futile. With Hrothgar's supreme intellect I'm sure the rest of us seem like cavemen trying to add 2+2 but hey, you have to start somewhere and whether you are a genius or not the exercise is worthwhile given the potential gravity of the topic.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jul 19 2006, 10:34 AM, said:

You, Mike, and DrTodd are all spending a lot of time flailing arround trying to impose human motivations on a supposedly divine being.  I'd argue that if something is in fact divine/omnipotent, it is by definition unknowable.

I've always found this type of philosophical exercise quite impractical, though watching the convuted logic does have its amusement value...

well winston asked a question and i simply did my best to answer it... it should not surprise you or anyone else that if a theological question is asked, the answer must of necessity take a theological bent... as amusing as you find "convuted" logic, if a person asks why such-and-such is a part of a particular belief system, certain premises must be granted

that still doesn't answer my question re: al's post... he stated some things about Jesus and early christians as if they were facts, which led me to believe he had an understanding of the doctrines to which he referred... so i was simply seeking clarification

as far as knowing God goes, he has spent a lot of time trying to get man to that very point... true, one must accept (again) certain premises, and i have no problem doing so... but don't pretend that you come to the discussion with no presuppositions... i freely admit that any attempt by me to defend or define christianity depends on circular reasoning... but no more that opposing worldviews

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Jul 19 2006, 10:23 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jul 18 2006, 07:00 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 18 2006, 05:16 PM, said:

hi al... i don't know much about the beliefs of essene christians, but it appears that you do... maybe you can help me with something... i've read that they believe salvation is through obedience to the law of God... is this true, and do they believe that to be saved one must cease sinning? a related question is, do they believe it's possible to cease sinning?

btw, i'm not sure Jesus was an essene, if for no other reason than his belief in animal sacrifices

In reading this post, I see that the "I think (believe/comprehend/have deduced) this is what GOD does/is/thinks/can or can't do/is limited to/has invoked/has allowed etc. is alive and well. I do not wish to disparage this position, just indicate that I do not subscribe to it. That said, we are projecting philosophical and theosophical belief systems on "historical" characters and their "supposed" actions and intentions. We would be far better off applying these tenets to the modern angels and devils that are circulating freely on our planet.

i have no idea what you're talking about... i simply asked you a couple of questions

Sorry J. Here is a resource to answer your questions.

http://www.essenespirit.com/

Don't you just love the internet, where there is information about anything you can conceive of....

To paraphrase Stewie on "Family Guy". He is Chinese and His name is actually Hong, Jesus Hong; He doesn't know where they got the Christ name from...."

[Winstonm]

Jimmy, Dr. Todd, and Mike:

I just want to make sure you guys know that I am not purposefully disparaging your beliefs - I respect your right to believe as you wish.

When I say I could be wrong and you could be right, I am genuinely serious. My purpose in these posts was only to show why I have difficulty in accepting those views as my own. Fair enough?

BTW, for a simply interesting read on the concept of actions/consequences and the nature of god's relationship to man, a book entitiled "Through a New Pair of Glasses." is quite a treat.

The people I have problems being around are those that answer any question with a quotation from the bible as if that is the only reliable source needed, fear asking themselves these questions, and who close every argument with a blanket statement that you must accept on faith.

My problem with faith is the inception of faith - is it your own or is it simply handed down from father to son, mother to daughter? One who has looked at both sides of the argument, weighed carefully whether there is or is not a god and then decides for himself there is no god takes a leap of faith that he is right. Those that believe because they were dragged to church 3 times a weak as children and never broke from that mold are not believers IMO but brainwashees. Their faith is not in what they believe rather it is faith in their teachers, that their teachers are right, and the ones before them were right and so on.

Few, it seems, of certain persuassions are willing to debate logic - they fall back on mystical statements like "it's a matter of faith" or "it god's will" or "it's a mystery". These types of answers smack of mysticism.

Here is another question to which I can find no logical answer. If we asssume as others have said that god is perfect justice and perfect love and therefore cannot tolerate sin in his presence, thereby necessitating sacrifice to cleanse the heathen, what happened to all those people who lived and died in pre-sacrificial times? It would seem there are few logical answers to this puzzler: 1) They weren't really people so they don't count. 2) They lived at the wrong time, original sin stained them, so through no fault of their own except time of birth they are condemned to hell. 3) Sacrifice really isn't a necessity - in pre-sacrificial times god had other methods of washing clean the heathen. 4) The concept of original sin and sacrificial salvation are nothing more than Jewish mythology.

That is my problem with religions that have blame and judgement as part of their creed - there is no time continuum that makes sense.

[mike777]

It is difficult for me to think of any mainstream or even nonmainstream religion that does not have Judgement as a big focus.

I note even in a secular society, judges/juries pass Judgement on others.
We even use Judgement in Bridge!

Judgement is used to moderate the behavior in others and ourselves.
You seem to argue against this?

[DrTodd13]

Winstonm, on Jul 19 2006, 11:59 AM, said:

My problem with faith is the inception of faith - is it your own or is it simply handed down from father to son, mother to daughter? One who has looked at both sides of the argument, weighed carefully whether there is or is not a god and then decides for himself there is no god takes a leap of faith that he is right. Those that believe because they were dragged to church 3 times a weak as children and never broke from that mold are not believers IMO but brainwashees. Their faith is not in what they believe rather it is faith in their teachers, that their teachers are right, and the ones before them were right and so on.

Few, it seems, of certain persuassions are willing to debate logic - they fall back on mystical statements like "it's a matter of faith" or "it god's will" or "it's a mystery". These types of answers smack of mysticism.

Here is another question to which I can find no logical answer. If we asssume as others have said that god is perfect justice and perfect love and therefore cannot tolerate sin in his presence, thereby necessitating sacrifice to cleanse the heathen, what happened to all those people who lived and died in pre-sacrificial times? It would seem there are few logical answers to this puzzler: 1) They weren't really people so they don't count. 2) They lived at the wrong time, original sin stained them, so through no fault of their own except time of birth they are condemned to hell. 3) Sacrifice really isn't a necessity - in pre-sacrificial times god had other methods of washing clean the heathen. 4) The concept of original sin and sacrificial salvation are nothing more than Jewish mythology.

That is my problem with religions that have blame and judgement as part of their creed - there is no time continuum that makes sense.

I haven't had a problem with your comments. On to your questions.

Here's my theory anyway. If in ancient times, two groups of people both believed in a single benevolent creator God, realized their own inadequacies and placed their faith in God then they go to "Abraham's bosom" which is essentially the good half of Hades. ("Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness.") This part of Hades was opened by Jesus during his time dead and then those people could be in God's presence. So, their sin kept them from God's presence until a time when Jesus' blood was available to hide their sins from God. It doesn't matter if these two groups called God by different names so long as he had the same characteristics. If one put faith in a malevolent God and the other in a benevolent God then I'd say they aren't putting their faith in the same God or if people placed faith in their own goodness to earn salvation then they won't get it. This is not a particular problem theologically. The real problem is can people be saved today the same way they were then. Can someone put their faith in a benevolent God with all of God's good characteristics but reject Jesus and still go to Heaven? If they haven't heard of Jesus then I think perhaps the answer is still yes.

Here is part of the reason I came to believe. I gather most people that do not believe in the existence of God also do not believe in the immortality of the soul. I think that is a reasonable thing to believe. If you want to believe in pure naturalistic terms then the soul and immortality seem like silly concepts. So, given the choice between believing that my life will be short (80 years is short in cosmic terms), unimportant, fragile, and lacking a higher purpose versus believing that I am immortal (in terms of the soul) and having a higher purpose, I choose to believe the latter because personally I can't imagine a life that would make me happy if I had the former belief system. If I believed this was all that there was then load me up on the debauchery. Unfortunately, I can't imagine that any amount of debauchery would make me forget my ultimate and soon-to-come demise. The utter uselessness and insignificance of life according to naturalistic explanations lead me to be happier by believing there is immortality and higher purpose. I don't believe I am deluding myself but even if I am, I am happier this way than the opposite and I'm not hurting anyone so who is anyone to complain?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jul 19 2006, 03:35 PM, said:

It is difficult for me to think of any mainstream or even nonmainstream religion that does not have Judgement as a big focus.

I note even in a secular society, judges/juries pass Judgement on others.
We even use Judgement in Bridge!

Judgement is used to moderate the behavior in others and ourselves.
You seem to argue against this?

Not only do I argue against judgement but think it is the universal catalyst for all evil.

And I agree - I cannot find an organized religion that does not have judgementalness as part of its doctrine and creed; hence, I find all organized religions odious. And in my experience I have found the most severely judgemental people are those who were raised in a strict faith - and still believe in it. Judgementalness is saying that what someone else is doing is wrong, as in homosexuality is wrong or non-christians will burn. What judgemental is saying in essence is, I am right - that is arrogance.

See, I happen to think that god is more flexible than that - love is not constrained and it is not an emotion. Love is a decision coupled with actions. You do not have to like or feel good toward someone to love them - as long as you act in love toward them. And that is the province of choice, not emotion. God chooses to love perfectly therefore cannot judge - judgementalness is antipathy to love. However, there must be a cause and effect for action. That is why I believe in actions/consequences, and they have nothing to do with god - unless he created the law. But if all actions have consequences already built in, then god does not have to judge - nor should he.

The only part of my beliefs that requires faith is the belief in a higher power, and after due deliberation and analysis I came to the conclusion that there was indeed a power higher than myself. The rest of my belief system can be logically explained - or so it seems to me. And it wasn't something handed down to me through generations, but something I went out looking for and attained by study and trial and error, of adopting what was logical and consistent and tossing aside what was not.

However, I am not against god or good or spirituality. What I am firmly against is man telling me what they think I should do to please god. That is all an organized religion is, after all, an orginization that imposes its beliefs and interpretations on its members. Do you know of any religion that encourages its memeber to question doctrine, to challenge the truthfulness of what they are taught, to do anything really other than "accept on faith" that what they are being told is true?

What are the two strongest base emotions in humans? Fear of loss and desire for gain. What do orgainized religions sell? Fear of loss (judgement and fiery hell) and desire for gain (heaven and eternal rapture.) And to win this prize all ya gotta do is believe in what I'm telling you...just like Jim Jones told his followers...and David Koresh....and the reverand Sun Myung Moon...and any of a host of others.... It's my way or the die way. Pick your poison.

So to get back onto the original thread, this is the very reason I am so strongly in favor of separation of church and state: judgementalness of churches and the arrogance that their view is the only one that matters.

[mike777]

"But if all actions have consequences already built in, then god does not have to judge - nor should he."


I do not understand, who builds in the consequences?

Are there degrees of Murder, if so but no one passes judgement on what degree?
How do we know what degree of consequence is called for and who calls for it?
Who enforces it? What if I disagree? Who do I appeal to?

To get back to the originial question, if we do not use our religion to teach us right from wrong what do we use and is not that just another religion and why is the alternative source right and our religion wrong?

Again I just get back to elections matter.

Note a seperate issue is whether our representative should vote her conscious or simply take a poll of their constituents and vote their wishes?

[Winstonm]

Quote

I do not understand, who builds in the consequences?

Are there degrees of Murder, if so but no one passes judgement on what degree?
How do we know what degree of consequence is called for and who calls for it?
Who enforces it? What if I disagree? Who do I appeal to?

First, let me explain that I believe there is a substantial difference in saying "What you did was wrong" verses saying "What you did was illegal", although many confuse the two. Mankind can certainly create and enforce laws - what mankind should not do is enforce moral judgements.

I do not accept the concept of "right or wrong", as shocking as that may seem. In my views, murder is not an immoral act but an illegal act. Do murderers ever get away with murder? Sure they do, but they have to live their lives in constant fear of being caught. What if they are arrested but cleared of the crime? Then they have to live with the guilt of what they have done. What if they have no conscience and no sense of guilt? Then they have to live their life with no feelings, no emotions, no love, no kindness - the consequences for pathological murderers. Here is a related question - somewhat like the tree falling in the forest with no one around. Would it have been immoral for Adam to have murdered Eve? There were no commandments at that time, no society to harm, no laws to break. Would it have been wrong? Or would it have been an act that had dire consequences? Adam would have been left alone in the world with no companionship, no love, no sex, no children - right out of a Twilight Zone episode. Would god have punished him or would the consequences have already taken card of that? If god is constant, he didn't change the rules just because the world population grew. What would have been right and proper with Adam would still be right and proper today, would it not? Even according to the legend, when Adam and Eve screwed up god didn't tell them they were wrong - instead, he just explained the consequences for their actions - you can't live in the forest anymore, you have to wear clothes, and you'll be cursed with teenagers in your house in about 14 years. (Had they known what that last meant, Adam and Eve may well have elected suicide.)

The reason I say there is no morality is that morality requires judgement - one person deciding what is right or wrong for another person to do. We have no rights outside of our own lives - we cannot change another's behavior no matter how hard we try to control them. The only person we have control over is ourselves. I cannot say why Mr. X murdered Mr. Y. I have not lived every second of Mr. X's life, which would be required to understand. If a second after Mr. X murdered Mr. Y., Mr. X himself had a MI and expired and was immediately taken before god, would god turn his back? No, he could not. Love is a choice. God made the choice to love Mr. X, regardless of Mr. X's actions. So if god cannot turn away Mr. X, what absolved his "sin"? The only thing that could have absolved this "sin" was consequence - Mr. X's consequence was his coronary arteries blocked, most likely due to the adrenaline rush of his actions, and he expired. There is no one set of consequences for each action - but actions have consequences. Who is to say what is the worse concequence for a particular individual - sending them to the gas chamber or to life in prison? It depends on the individual, wouldn't you think?

There but for the grace of god go I - haven't we all heard this? We look at some heinous act commited and shudder about how gruesome it is - but what we don't know is what it is like to be the perpetrator - to have lived his life. Do you think sociopaths become that way by choice? Had you been born into his life, with his emotional makeup, with his ability to self-protect, would you or I have done any differently? I think not.

We can view acts as cruel, senseless, or horrid, but we cannot say they are wrong. They are nothing but acts and as such have consequences - and those consequences may be different for each person. Injecting a lethal combination of drugs into a sentenced killer is not a consequence - it is punishement. The one who injects that drug has a consequence for his actions, living his life knowing he took another life because he chose the job. We really don't know what the consequences were for the killer - perhaps for this killer it was simply enough to be caught and have his freedom deprived - or the wait in knowledge of how he was to die.

Morality is judgement. It is not moral "rules" that have inspired mankind to better himself - in fact, more horrid crimes have commited in the name of religion (read judgement/morality) than any other single cause. What has bettered mankind is the knowledge that certain actions lead to better consequences than other actions, that for a life of serenity it works best to live and let live - and not judge.

At least, that is my opinion. You are welcome to yours.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jul 19 2006, 06:19 PM, said:

I do not accept the concept of "right or wrong", as shocking as that may seem.

i assume by that you mean you don't accept the concepts of morality and immorality... we've (not you and i, i don't think) had this discussion before (i'd use the word 'debate' but there were far too many logical fallacies committed to justify the use of the word)

according to your view, an act is either legal or illegal but neither moral nor immoral... which reduces to my argument in a previous thread - without an objective morality, legalities are based on the 'might makes right' principle...

for example (and you can correct me if i'm wrong), one might say that the gassing of the jews by hitler was amoral - neither right nor wrong, per se... it was, in fact, perfectly ok to do since it was a legal act... i'm not speaking of the rest of the world's views on the subject, i'm speaking of the legal system in place at that time in that place... the rest of the world might have thought such an act to be illegal, and proved that to be the case by using it's might to enforce it's right

i used this example in that other thread, but since i like it i'll use it again... if you personally don't believe an act can be objectively moral or immoral, an act such as the rape, torture, and murder of a small child is only legal or illegal... and the legality would depend on when and where it occurs... have i misrepresented your views?

Quote

Morality is judgement

very true... but let me ask you this... IF God exists (pretend he does for a moment), would you not grant him the right to do what he wants with what is his? would he not have the right (or even duty) to judge as he sees fit?

Quote

I just want to make sure you guys know that I am not purposefully disparaging your beliefs - I respect your right to believe as you wish.

your posts have been courteous, respectful even... i have had many online debates with atheists regarding the existence of God, and (as intelligent as most atheists seem to be) they usually degenerate into name calling (not by me, i hope), and they abound with fallacies... so believe me when i say that it's like a breath of fresh air when someone can argue a position without resorting to those tactics (and i don't mean to imply that you are an atheist, by the way, i was just using that as an example)

Quote

My problem with faith is the inception of faith - is it your own or is it simply handed down from father to son, mother to daughter?

i can tell you what i believe, others might believe differently... i believe that faith has been given to all of us, more than enough to believe that God exists... as is so often the case, paul says it better than i... "by grace are you saved through faith - and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God - not of works, lest any man should boast" and "for he (God) has given to each the measure of faith [necssary to believe in him]"... paul says that, in addition to faith, God has given man two evidences of his existence - creation and an internal voice (the concious)... paul even goes so far as to say that man has to deceive himself, has to lie to himself, in order to deny he exists...

Quote

Here is another question to which I can find no logical answer. If we asssume as others have said that god is perfect justice and perfect love and therefore cannot tolerate sin in his presence, thereby necessitating sacrifice to cleanse the heathen, what happened to all those people who lived and died in pre-sacrificial times?

the bible says () that anyone who believes God has saving faith... the book of hebrews is the best example of this, and todd touched on some of it... to believe God is to be credited with righteousness, or to be justified, and that was true far before sacrifices were instituted... that's really all God has ever wanted, and it hasn't changed...

[Winstonm]

according to your view, an act is either legal or illegal but neither moral nor immoral... which reduces to my argument in a previous thread - without an objective morality, legalities are based on the 'might makes right' principle

Who in our country makes the laws - the party that holds the majority. Who makes law in a true democracy - the majority. Who makes laws in a totaltarian regime - the ruler. What you call objective morality is no more than majority rule, is it not? Of course might makes right - moral right. If Germany, Japan, and Italy had won WWII would there have been Nurenberg trials? Not in this lifetime. I do not say I condone the nazi atrocities, and atrocious acts they were. All I am saying is morality is judgement - acts are acts and not subject to judgement. Maybe a bit of semantics here, but in my mind a subtle and clear difference. Morality does not have consequences - it has judgement and retribution. Acts have consequences.

i used this example in that other thread, but since i like it i'll use it again... if you personally don't believe an act can be objectively moral or immoral, an act such as the rape, torture, and murder of a small child is only legal or illegal... and the legality would depend on when and where it occurs... have i misrepresented your views?

Somewhat, although you are correct insofar as I do not view this as moral or immoral, as that would mean I have the right to judge - which I don't IMO. I think this is an argument to validate judgementalness, frankly. I've met too many evangelical christians who try to validate judgement this way becasue they are so extremely judgemental - judgement has to be right else they would not have the right to judge - and judge they do. They judge each other, themselves, and everyone else on the planet. How else can they be when they live in constant fear of the judgement of god? These types are so beaten down pyschologically that the only way to raise their self esteem is by judging others less worthy, hence themselves better. But they are not blatant about it, they use passive aggressiveness - a raised eyebrow, a tone of voice in a question, a sigh. With these types, even unsaid you know what they want, believe, and feel. This was the essence of my own dad, so I have experience dealing with this type behavior and recognizing it for what it is. I was raised in an evangelical christian home with these types of people until I broke free at age 18. The bible is right about one thing - the truth will set you free.

The rape, torture, and murder of a small child would be an act that has consequences. Whether or not it is illegal depends on who is in power, does it not? If you believe for a moment that such cruelties have never gone unpunished by law you would be sorely naive - and you can certainly object to the act - even try to stop it from happening by introducing law as penalty. But what you are missing is that neither you nor me nor anyone else understands, truly knows what it means to be that person who does the rape, torture, and killing. There are people, who through no fault of their own, are sociopaths - they have no sense of right or wrong whatsoever - no sense of caring, of loving or being loved, of sharing and suffering together - they are emotional, baseless souls incapable of seeing the difference between a human child and a housefly. If they rape, torture, and kill a child, are they being immoral - when they are incapable of morality within themselves? And who could do such a thing other than a sociopath? I can say what they did was terrible, horrible, an offense to god - but I cannot in good conscience say that they did wrong - they have no wrong to do, for they have no right to do, either. They have no free will - as evil and good do not exist in them. Legally we may punish them - morally, it is like calling a moron evil for not being able to pass the bar exam.

anyone who believes God has saving faith... the book of hebrews is the best example of this, and todd touched on some of it... to believe God is to be credited with righteousness, or to be justified, and that was true far before sacrifices were instituted

Then the continuum would be that nothing has changed - god is not wishy-washy, is he? If sacrifice were not needed before, it is not needed now. That's almost as bad as the U.S. government saying O.K. everyone gets SS benefits at age 65, then 50 years later say Hold, on, those born after 1955 have to work until 68, and those born after 1959 have to work until 70. You don't suppose god is running a budget deficit, do you?

We seemed to have reached the same conclusion via different routes - sacrifice is not a necessity - and to me that makes logical sense. Although I don't believe in a fiery furnace, the consequence for non-belief may just be death. If you believe there is a god, you will be with him after life; if you don't believe, you will just be dead - and that is the consequence for non-belief. Interesting thought....

[luke warm]

Quote

Of course might makes right - moral right. If Germany, Japan, and Italy had won WWII would there have been Nurenberg trials?

well at least you're consistent... i happen to believe that, in the absence of a real, objective morality, you're left with might makes right... but since i don't deny objective morality, instead supposing it to be rootted in the nature of God, i can "judge" something moral or immoral according to what i know of that nature... that means that with or without nurenberg trials, nazi atrocities were immoral - imo... where you and i seem to be having a disconnect is in how we use the word "judgement" ... you use it for acts, i for people.. i have no problem judging an act moral or immoral (the small child example), but i refuese to judge the person performing the act.. that's God's job

Quote

Then the continuum would be that nothing has changed - god is not wishy-washy, is he? If sacrifice were not needed before, it is not needed now.

God doesn't change, true... however, because we (humans) exist in space/time, some things must occur before others... the bible tells us that the law was given to moses to act as a tutor (as the word was used in roman days) until the coming of Christ.. but i would have to get too deep into this, and we've probably already taken this thread over

Quote

If you believe there is a god, you will be with him after life; if you don't believe, you will just be dead

pretty close to right ... life is: existence in God's presence... death is: existence out of God's presence

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Jul 20 2006, 05:47 AM, said:

... life is: existence in God's presence... death is: existence out of God's presence

The more science discovers, the more we realize that, as intimated in the Bible, that the "void" contains everything. (It is the logical sum of all things resulting in absolute balance.)

I have no fear of death, nor expectation of "life" after death. The universe (or our actual manifestation in the multiverse) is as much a part of me as I of it. That I exist and my consciousness is present is sufficient "proof" that I will continue to exist and that my conciousness will persist in one form or another. Even should it "cease to exist" this would only mean to me that it contained the sum of all things that could make it up.

We are but students in a never-ending course of study. We learn and graduate to the next lesson or we fail and repeat until we do. Even Jesus "believed" in reincarnation.....as did the "Christians" until they decided that this was not a good way to intimidate the masses ergo Heaven and Hell.....

[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on Jul 20 2006, 09:32 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 20 2006, 05:47 AM, said:

... life is: existence in God's presence... death is: existence out of God's presence

The more science discovers, the more we realize that, as intimated in the Bible, that the "void" contains everything. (It is the logical sum of all things resulting in absolute balance.)

I have no fear of death, nor expectation of "life" after death. The universe (or our actual manifestation in the multiverse) is as much a part of me as I of it. That I exist and my consciousness is present is sufficient "proof" that I will continue to exist and that my conciousness will persist in one form or another. Even should it "cease to exist" this would only mean to me that it contained the sum of all things that could make it up.

We are but students in a never-ending course of study. We learn and graduate to the next lesson or we fail and repeat until we do. Even Jesus "believed" in reincarnation.....as did the "Christians" until they decided that this was not a good way to intimidate the masses ergo Heaven and Hell.....

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Albert Einstein accepted some form of a continuation after death with the reasoning that energy cannot be destroyed.

And brother, is intimidate the masses ever right - speaking of cruelty and immorality, how moral is it to sit a bunch of 5, 6, and 7-year olds on a hard bench in a stuffy church and have the preacher (father figure) tell them that they will be thrown into a fiery pit forever if they don't do what they are told. I tell you what I think - if you terrorize children this way you had better be dead certain right else you have caused a lifetime of angst for you own ego's sake. I had a psychologist once tell me - we Nazarene children had to go to a lot of psychologists when we grew up ) - that what I underwent was nothing less than religious abuse, that to a child it was just as damaging as sexual abuse or physical abuse. And this all stemmed from the irrational concept of a stern, judgemental, vindictive god whose wrath was to be feared. I thought that was Machiavelli - it is better to be feared than loved.