Questions that believers cannot answer

[KWED]

As for evil, evil is acts committed by man because man does not adhere to God's Laws.

So you believe that homosexuality and unmarried couples are "evil".
Yikes!

 

[Kenny]

Study is correctly dividing the word of truth. (in context of my signature.

In what way? Even as an attempt to accuse me of hypocrisy (good luck showing that), it makes no sense.

My point about hypocrisy was that you keep avoiding my questions about the morality of deliberately killing civilians because to condemn it in principle means condemning god, but to condone it makes you look like a monster. It's that old religious rock and a hard place again.

Actually.... no

So if someone is driving without insurance, it is ok to kill them?

Here is the hypocrisy. You avoid answering my questions and bring up something that absolutely has no application (only in your mind)

This is where my superior morality comes into play. I don't need to know "why" someone ordered the indiscriminate slaughter of women and children. I condemn it as a barbaric atrocity regardless. It's a pity that you (and many other religionists) find it so difficult.
And there lies one of the very real dangers of your kind of blind dogma. You are prepared to defend or justify (or for some, even commit) the most abhorrent acts simply because you have been ordered to. The Nuremberg Defence yet again.

And here, in my faith, is where the problem lies. Your position of "superior morality" makes you God... which you are not.

So... back to WWII... are you for letting Germany continue their indiscriminate killing of innocent people by not bombing military object (which include civilians working in them and families?)

Are you really prepared to defend that position? Or will you admit that there are reasons why one might make those "hard decisions" even if you don't like it?

You seem to be missing the point. It is difficult to justify attacks even on legitimate military targets if civilian casualties may ensue (we are now seeing this put into practice by some nations). You are saying that we shouldn't worry about civilian casualties if there is a possible military advantage to be gained - or even if we are simply ordered to do it.

Please review my question above.

Until you understand 'WHY" it was a difficult decision but necessary, you will continue to offer humanistic reasoning and overused mantras that have no application

meaningless platitude. Moreso because the Torah and OT repeatedly prescribe or condone killing.
Cherry-picking quotes from religious scripture to support a specific position rarely works because there is usually a contradictory passage somewhere. Killing is a perfect example. Apologists will point to one solitary passage while ignoring the dozens that contradict it. (What was that you were saying about "not studying the Bible"?)

Exactly... don't cherry pick quotes out of context and application and try "studying the Bible" instead of placing your bias into it.

That doesn't say that he was abolishing all the OT laws. In fact, he said that he wasn't doing that. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"

And if it is "fulfilled" - then it is no longer necessary. When was the last time one had to go to the Holy of Holies with the shedding of blood, the washing of water and all the other requirements to get there? Where is the requirement of circumcision?

Are you sure you studied the Bible?

I fail to see why you think the indiscriminate and unnecessary slaughter of women and children is "a difficult issue". It is simply wrong. Period. Whatever the supposed "justification".

Again... figure out the "why" and you will understand the "justification". Are you sure you studied the Bible?

By the time the decision was made to carry out the purely punitive raids against Dresden and other targets in 1945, Germany was on its knees and had been all but defeated. Not doing it would have had no effect on the outcome of the war.

Dresden is not the issue however hard you are trying to insert it.


So please go back to the drawing board, study a little more and don't present platitudes that aren't relevant.

 

[Kenny]

Every religion started as a cult.

This explains everything.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I am dubious.



I know they're subjective ideas, but I certainly don't know they are entirely arbitrary, and beyond a broad consensus there is no universal standard, so no, this is what you subjectively think, not what I know at all.



I imagine that's why we create and use reference tools like dictionaries, so we can easily access what most people understand words to mean, though of course language is constantly evolving. I fail to see how this is evidence that mass murder is as you claimed, a common sense solution to over population? Maybe my common sense differs in as much as mine must involve empathy.

If we want to address the exponentially increasing human population far more common sense solutions might involve sex education, to avoid unwanted pregnancies, free access to early terminations, freely available and affordable contraception, lifting people in the developing world out of poverty, and offering people some type of security in old age, so they didn't feel their only recourse was to have large families to take care of them etc etc....These seem like common sense solutions to me, mass murder does not.

Well you are advocating for mass murder then, so I see no difference. The only difference is that you want them to take place out of sight.

 

[KWED]

I do not think we should ever blame God for what others do. That would be unfair.

But would it be fair to blame him for what he does do? And to criticise or condemn where appropriate?

And what if god speaks to someone and tells them to do something? Should we blame god then?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Jesus paid the price for Adam's sin, Not for God's sin.
Thus, Jesus balanced the Scales of Justice for us: Life for Life = equal life for equal life.
Sinner Adam, Not sinner God, brought down the Scales of Justice for us. Jesus balanced the Scales of Justice for us.

God had No beginning according to Psalms 90:2.
Thus, only God was 'before' the beginning of anything.
Whereas, pre-human heavenly Jesus was "IN" the beginning but Never ' before ' the beginning as his God was.
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him - Revelation 3;12

When Jesus says that he is "the first and the last", (Revelation 1:11) he is applying to himself a title of the Almighty God. "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and Israel's Redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).

 

[KWED]

Not sure what you are objecting to there.
It is factually correct.

This explains everything.

Don't think it does. In fact, it explains very little.

 

[Kenny]

Well you are advocating for mass murder then, so I see no difference. The only difference is that you want them to take place out of sight.

Wow! This is so good!

 

[KWED]

I believe that the souls of all humans come into existence at the time of conception, and later they are born with physical bodies.

However, I believe that the souls of the Prophets are different. I believe their souls had pre-existence in the spiritual world and later their souls were sent by God to earth to unite with their bodies and then they were born into this world.

The Prophets, unlike us, are pre-existent. The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world. We cannot imagine what that world is like, so words are inadequate to
picture His state of being.
(Shoghi Effendi: High Endeavors, Page: 71)

Given that they have existed for an infinite eternity, how did they keep themselves occupied?

 

[KWED]

Well you are advocating for mass murder then, so I see no difference. The only difference is that you want them to take place out of sight.

Are you high?
How do you equate "sex education, family planning, and a functioning welfare state" to"mass murder".

 

[KWED]

Wow! This is so good!

When you say "good", I take it you actually meant "bizarre"?

 

[samtonga43]

Jesus is NOT God.

Not again, Tb! I have tried to help you with this irrational thinking process of yours in the past. Let's try again. You have just made a claim ("Jesus is NOT God").
May we see the evidence on which you base this claim of yours?

The Jews and the Muslims and the Baha'is all know that.

Lovely example of ......
...........which logically fallacy?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Are you high?
How do you equate "sex education, family planning, and a functioning welfare state" to"mass murder".

I guess you missed the part about easy access to termination of life in the womb.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not again, Tb! I have tried to help you with this irrational thinking process of yours in the past. Let's try again. You have just made a claim ("Jesus is NOT God").
May we see the evidence on which you base this claim of yours?

Lovely example of ......
...........which logically fallacy?

No, I did not make a claim that Jesus us not God, I stated my belief that Jesus is not God.
In case you have not noticed, that is what people DO on religious forums, state beliefs.

What @Wildswanderer said is no different from what I said.
He just has a different belief. But despite that, I get along with him just fine.

Jesus is and was God incarnate.
#259 Wildswanderer, Tuesday at 1:55 PM

I was just responding to what he said, since I do not believe that Jesus is God.

He made a claim that Jesus is God. Why didn't you ask HIM for evidence of His claim?
Why didn't you call him out for being illogical?
I think the answer is that you are just looking for something I say to criticize.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
"Not again!" is correct.
As soon as I see an Alert from you and BEFORE I ever even look at a post of yours, I KNOW it will be criticism of me, how you think I am illogical, etc., etc., etc.

Is that ALL you ever have to say, bad things about me? Do you EVER have anything nice to say? Do you ever have any real conversations to engage in? If you do, I have not see any. This thread was all friendly, and I was getting along fine with ALL the Christians and atheists.... Then you showed up.

How's this for logic? If I get along fine with everyone on this forum except one person, what does that say about the one person I cannot get along with?

Wherever I go you find me and find some way criticize me and in so doing you only stick out like a sore thumb and make yourself look bad to good people of this forum. You only humiliate yourself, you do not embarrass me, if that is your intention.

27: O SON OF MAN! Breathe not the sins of others so long as thou art thyself a sinner. Shouldst thou transgress this command, accursed wouldst thou be, and to this I bear witness.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 10

 

[KWED]

Study is correctly dividing the word of truth. (in context of my signature.

No idea what you are trying to say there, but that "definition" does not correspond to any found in the dictionary. However, I am not entirely unfamiliar with the concept of apologists attempting to redefine words.

Actually.... no

Er, yes. And you are doing it again now. You are simply ignoring the points and question I present, and just add more non sequiturs, straw men, red herrings, etc.

Here is the hypocrisy. You avoid answering my questions

Show me one question of yours that I have not addressed.

and bring up something that absolutely has no application (only in your mind)

The connection was clear. I even explained it again in simple terms. Your inability to grasp simple concepts id the problem here.

And here, in my faith, is where the problem lies. Your position of "superior morality" makes you God... which you are not.

Another non sequitur.
My claim to a superior morality does not make me god. It merely means that my morality does not require me to defend the indiscriminate, deliberate slaughter of women and children. Any rational person would see that.
Also, your assumption that a superior morality can only come from god is question begging.

So... back to WWII...

Which you brought up then claimed was irrelevant when I pointed out the flaw in your analogy.

are you for letting Germany continue their indiscriminate killing of innocent people by not bombing military object (which include civilians working in them and families?)

As I explained already, collateral damage associated with legitimate military targets is a difficult issue. There are various methods by which to minimise any civilian casualties, which should always be utilised.
However, again to repeat myself, I am completely opposed to area bombing civilians with no military target or advantage.
How about you? (for the third time! )

Are you really prepared to defend that position? Or will you admit that there are reasons why one might make those "hard decisions" even if you don't like it?

Of course I am happy to defend that position.
Feel free to point out any flaw or inconsistency.
Remember my point was that not all killing in war is immoral, but the deliberate and unnecessary killing of women and children civilians for no military advantage is immoral.

As you seem to believe that it is possible to justify he deliberate and unnecessary killing of women and children civilians for no military advantage, please present your argument. (Again, this is about the third time I have asked you this with no response).

Please review my question above.

I asked if you are saying that we shouldn't worry about civilian casualties if there is a possible military advantage to be gained - or even if we are simply ordered to do it.
Is that your position? Yes or no?

Until you understand 'WHY" it was a difficult decision but necessary, you will continue to offer humanistic reasoning and overused mantras that have no application

So to address the two issues here, I will ask you, once again, to explain the "why".
1. Why was it necessary to deliberately target German civilian areas with the intention of causing massive civilian casualties with no military advantage.
2. Why was it necessary for the Israelites to slaughter every man, woman and child (apart from the young virgins, who the soldiers could keep for their enjoyment)?

Simply saying "oh, there must be a good reason" is not sufficient.

Exactly... don't cherry pick quotes out of context and application and try "studying the Bible" instead of placing your bias into it.

Oh dear. You obviously don't understand the concept of "cherry-picking" either.
You cherry-picked by selecting one verse, out of context, to claim that the Bible forbids or frowns on killing.
I was not cherry picking because I was merely pointing out that there are contradictory passages.
Simply put, You point to x and ignore/deny not-x. I accept that there is both x and not-x, and acknowledge the contradiction.

And if it is "fulfilled" - then it is no longer necessary.

"Fulfil" does not mean "abolish" or even "abrogate". It means to achieve or carry out.

When was the last time one had to go to the Holy of Holies with the shedding of blood, the washing of water and all the other requirements to get there? Where is the requirement of circumcision?

Oh, I understand that Christians today have abandoned much of what god commanded. However, there is no evidence that he wanted you to do that.

Are you sure you studied the Bible?

Have you managed to find the passage where Jesus says that people after him can ignore Mosaic Law yet?
(Hint: there isn't one)

Again... figure out the "why" and you will understand the "justification". Are you sure you studied the Bible?

Yes, I understand that you consider the indiscriminate and unnecessary slaughter of women and children to be acceptable under certain circumstances, but other than "Cuz god sed", you don't seem to have any sort of supporting argument.

Dresden is not the issue however hard you are trying to insert it.

Once again, you raised the issue of Allied area bombing atrocities during WW2. You used it as an analogy for seemingly immoral behaviour that was actually acceptable - because of god's similar actions.
Now you are struggling because you hadn't thought the argument through and the obvious flaws have been pointed out, you suddenly want to ignore it.

And the sad thing is that in all our exchanges so far, you have yet to condemn the indiscriminate and unnecessary slaughter of women and children, thus perfectly illustrating the dangerous effect such blind, dogmatic belief has on the unsophisticated thinker. We have seen the terrible consequences of this throughout history and even up to the present day.

 

[KWED]

I guess you missed the part about easy access to termination of life in the womb.

Nope. That comes under "family planning".

Note: "Murder" is defined as "unlawful killing". As abortion under certain conditions is lawful, it cannot be "murder". Hope this helped.
I understand that your lack of rational argument necessitates ridiculous appeals to emotion, but you're only kidding yourself.

 

[samtonga43]

No, I did not make a claim that Jesus us not God, I stated my belief that Jesus is not God.
In case you have not noticed, that is what people DO on religious forums, state beliefs.

Ah! In that case, I'm sorry. Can you understand that it 'sounded' like a claim (Jesus is NOT God), especially with the capitalization?

Why didn't you call him out for being illogical?
I think the answer is that you are just looking for something I say to criticize.

No, the answer is that you, not Wildswanderer, see yourself as the paragon of rationality in this forum. Maybe it'd time for you to ask yourself if your opinion of yourself in this respect is too high. This is up to you, of course.

As soon as I see an Alert from you and BEFORE I ever even look at a post of yours, I KNOW it will be criticism of me, how you think I am illogical, etc., etc., etc.

Am I the only poster who thinks you are often illogical, Tb? Really? I think not.

How's this for logic? If I get along fine with everyone on this forum except one person, what does that say about the one person I cannot get along with?

Are you really assuming that you get along fine with everyone on this forum, Tb? But even if you did get along fine with every single person on this forum except me, have you considered the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad populum?

Wherever I go you find me and find some way criticize me and in so doing you only stick out like a sore thumb and make yourself look bad to good people of this forum.

All I can say is that this is not what I hear.

 

[Truthseeker]

I saw it. Despite your autism, I think you have more empathy than Lewis.

Also, apparently there is a difference between empathy and compassion according to one article I just saw. (I just posted that article in our conversation). Compassion is something that can be cultivated, and is a better quality to have than empathy.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nope. That comes under "family planning".

Note: "Murder" is defined as "unlawful killing". As abortion under certain conditions is lawful, it cannot be "murder". Hope this helped.
I understand that your lack of rational argument necessitates ridiculous appeals to emotion, but you're only kidding yourself.

No, that would be you. Arguing about the meaning of lawful and unlawful to avoid the reality of killing the innocent by the millions.

 

[Sheldon]

God does call the shots. He also gives us the ability to choose. He offered us life. Those who are here accepted that offer knowing the risks.

That's not true, I accepted nothing, I can't speak for anyone else. I'm puzzled how you think you can?