Religious war is coming to America....

[Shadow Wolf]

There is no way without God to prove the things he did were actually wrong.

How did I fail to demonstrate he was wrong?

That suffeciently explains motivation or preference in some cases but did nothing to show that wrong is actually wrong.

And you have demonstrated your own preference that motivates you.

IMO opinion this man knew what he was doing was absolute evil as it offended his God given concience.

Where you in the guys head at any point in time to know this? We have his own words, his own thoughts, and how he justified it, and yet you challenge it?

God plans a way out of the mess and says that evil will result from our rebellion and dissbelief.

I have yet to see any signs that god is punishing me for my own rebellion, blasphemy, and disbelief. Actually I have to say my life has substantially improved since deconverted, and improved even more when I stopped believing in any gods at all. So if god wants to punish me, he is more than welcome to try. But why should so many children suffer when they have done nothing wrong? Many of them are deathly ill, starved to the point of having very little fat and muscle mass and being able to see every bone of their skeleton, have no clean water to drink, no edible food to eat, and their only crime was to be born into a society of extreme poverty; Poverty that many times only came about because Western corporations devastated their lands and ways of life. God sends rain to the just and unjust, but why would he allow such horrific suffering on children that have done no wrong?

When societieshave lived independant of God, we get babies left to die in Greece if they are sickly, we get decimation of thousands in Roman armies, we get rampant slavery as in Persia, we get mass genocide with atheistics Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc..., we even get eugenics, forced population control, and abortion in modern times. There is no reason without God to declare them actually wrong.

And Christian societies gave us the Inquisition, the Crusades, executions because someone was left handed or had an odd birth mark, oppression of science, witch trials, people such as Vlad Dracula have used their Christian faith to justify acts that are beyond cruel. Even in America, it was originally intended for slavery to be abolished in the Constitution, but the Southern states would not have it because slavery, to them, was an institution with Biblical support, and later the racial tensions would be something that had Biblical support. Many people I do not think realize that the Klan is a group that reads the Bible and prays to the Christian god.

You actually remind me alot of my former self, and how I use to fiercely defend the Bible and use it solely to guide me in this world. But that was nearly a decade ago, and I have sense began to view the world without a book telling me how to see it. And no longer do I see "us and them" as now I only see "us."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I will give you an example of what it is that you do not seem to know. The cannanites were destroyed by God, atheists have said God was evil for doing so. What they do not know is that the Cannanites walled up children in new foundations for good luck. They also forced children to walk through fire for a false God. Etc.... There in no injustice in destroying them. All that plus more can be found in secular history books like the one on OT warfare I just finished. Every single time the Jews did not destroy who they were told to, it led to dissaster. One time if God had not stopped it would have resulted in every single Jew in Persia being killed. There is a lot more that must be understood before we attempt to judge God. God most of the time actually condemned most of Israel's battles (the ones he did not order which was most of them) and punished them for them. Slavery in the Bible is also not anything like what people think it was. For instance it was almost universally voluntary and more like servitude than slavery.

How is that a good reason for destroying them? Just because they brought their children up in a way that is customary in their culture? Afterall the Jews themselves use to worship many of those other gods that would later become a reason to kill over.
And these secular history books tend to point out that Jewish history is not as violent as what is portrayed in the OT.
And I know slavery can vary, but regardless of how slaves are treated and the conditions of their slavery, it is still owning another person and the covenant with Abraham even includes wording that states "those you buy with money." Of course the exact wording will vary depending on what version of the Bible you read, but slavery is always an inherent evil because it degrades a human being to the category of property.

 

[jasonwill2]

I am glad. Life including morality without God is scary indeed. My statements are very well understood issues that even most atheist and evolutionary debaters admit to some extent. If you will pick a specific statement we can discuss it.

Don't be foolish, s/he was referring to the narrow-minded dogmatic assertion of your statements that morality requires a Divine person to tell you, as if we don't already know regardless that murder is wrong.

If you need a powerful entity with the ability to punish you forever in a lake of fire to keep yourself from doing immoral things, then there is no good in you. But if you don't believe in Hell, but wish to do good anyway, and not harm others simply because you do not want to harm others? Then THAT is a person with a good, sound, and moral heart because they need no external motivation to do so.

 

[1robin]

Don't be foolish, s/he was referring to the narrow-minded dogmatic assertion of your statements that morality requires a Divine person to tell you, as if we don't already know regardless that murder is wrong.

I know what she said. Not only is there no way to suffeciently justify morality withou God. It can not even be known without God. Here is an easy one. Prove without appealing to transcendant standards that for a man to destroy the earth is actually wrong.

If you need a powerful entity with the ability to punish you forever in a lake of fire to keep yourself from doing immoral things, then there is no good in you.

Nice straw man. When it is necessary to invent a position and falsely attribute it to Christianity in a debate then you must be truly desperate.

But if you don't believe in Hell, but wish to do good anyway, and not harm others simply because you do not want to harm others? Then THAT is a person with a good, sound, and moral heart because they need no external motivation to do so.

I have never reffered to hell in any debate on morals I have ever had. I have never heard a Christian debater do so either. Why don't you actually deal with the issue instead of knoecking down positions I do not hold?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Prove without appealing to transcendant standards that for a man to destroy the earth is actually wrong.

Why such a limited scope? Christianity does not have a monopoly on morality. Every society that has ever been or ever will be has a code of morality, and sometimes it revolves around a religion, sometimes it doesn't.
But simply put, destroying the earth is wrong because it would kill everyone that lives on it. I do not need a book, god, or religion to tell me that.

Nice straw man. When it is necessary to invent a position and falsely attribute it to Christianity in a debate then you must be truly desperate.

He didn't invent that position though, and many people have held such a position. Even Einstein mentioned that fear is one of the things that drives religion.

I have never reffered to hell in any debate on morals I have ever had. I have never heard a Christian debater do so either. Why don't you actually deal with the issue instead of knoecking down positions I do not hold?

But you have stated that one must have god to be moral, and you have not provided anything more than criticism the stances of others as baseless as your support.

 

[1robin]

How did I fail to demonstrate he was wrong?

You only listed certain things he did that you personally (as well as many others might) find undesirable. You did not shown why those things are actually wrong.

And you have demonstrated your own preference that motivates you.

I did in no way choose God because I preffered it. I spent 27 years fighting any belief in him at all. I eventually became so convinced he existed that I adopted it as truth and that belief was confirmed by being born again. I still would prefer many biblical principles were different. Preference has nothing to do with it.

Where you in the guys head at any point in time to know this? We have his own words, his own thoughts, and how he justified it, and yet you challenge it?

I said it was my opinion. I am an amateur historian and specialize in 20th century warfare. I have read books written by these Nazis and read transcripts of their trials. For instance one officer came home from killing Jews all day found out his dog had been run over and said he could not live in a world where a dog could be killed and the driver never even stop and killed himself. That was for info only and has nothing to do with this issue. Germans were very practical people and were also very afraid of Hitler. Another tidbit. Did you know that several divisions of the wauffen SS were Muslim?

I have yet to see any signs that god is punishing me for my own rebellion, blasphemy, and disbelief. Actually I have to say my life has substantially improved since deconverted, and improved even more when I stopped believing in any gods at all. So if god wants to punish me, he is more than welcome to try. But why should so many children suffer when they have done nothing wrong? Many of them are deathly ill, starved to the point of having very little fat and muscle mass and being able to see every bone of their skeleton, have no clean water to drink, no edible food to eat, and their only crime was to be born into a society of extreme poverty; Poverty that many times only came about because Western corporations devastated their lands and ways of life. God sends rain to the just and unjust, but why would he allow such horrific suffering on children that have done no wrong?

There are direct punishments and consequences and there are general consequences of the fall of creation. In theological terms God no longer perfectly upholds creation and things like thermodynamics and chance have their effect among many others. God has an active and a passive will. He allows sin to destroy as an object lesson among other reasons. If you blame him for every flood or tornado then you must also credit him with vaccines, penicillun, hospitals, armies that have saved the world from tyrants, etc.... You have a very biased view point.

And Christian societies gave us the Inquisition, the Crusades, executions because someone was left handed or had an odd birth mark, oppression of science, witch trials, people such as Vlad Dracula have used their Christian faith to justify acts that are beyond cruel.

No, man's sinfullness and rebellion gave us these events. Find me any scripture that allowed those men to do what they did. I can kill someone in the name of Shadow Wolf. Would you accept responsability?

Even in America, it was originally intended for slavery to be abolished in the Constitution, but the Southern states would not have it because slavery, to them, was an institution with Biblical support

That is completely innacurate. I have been to independance hall and looked at the documents. Jefferson attempted to abolish slavery but southern planters KNEW THEIR FARMS NEEDED THE SLAVES AND THAT IS WHY THEY REJECTED IT. The bible was not the issue. In fact the Bible's claim that all men are equall and have dignity is the only suffecient reason to abolish slavery. It eventually did.

and later the racial tensions would be something that had Biblical support. Many people I do not think realize that the Klan is a group that reads the Bible and prays to the Christian god.

The Klan was formed as a resistance to northern atrocities during the reconstruction and had a noble purpose. It much later became what we all know but they falsely used the Bible to justify what they did. So? Find me a verse that supports their acts.

You actually remind me alot of my former self, and how I use to fiercely defend the Bible and use it solely to guide me in this world. But that was nearly a decade ago, and I have sense began to view the world without a book telling me how to see it. And no longer do I see "us and them" as now I only see "us."

You mean that the verse that says for us to hold fast to what our faith has revealed was ignored. I never understood the resistance to an idea that has more than enough evidence to justify faith in favor of the hopeless alternative. Were you ever born again prior to your rejecting the Bible?

 

[1robin]

How is that a good reason for destroying them? Just because they brought their children up in a way that is customary in their culture? Afterall the Jews themselves use to worship many of those other gods that would later become a reason to kill over.

I didn't say that alone it was. I just mentioned a couple of the vast number of things we do not know that must be known before we can evaluate those acts. If you will decide on this one as the one we will study there are many more factors that I have learned that are in God's favor. For example if as did happen at times until God stopped it they would have instead been completely corrupted by them then the impact of Christ's actions would not have near the impact that it did, that means that potentially millions of people might not have been saved and wound up mising Heaven. There are far more factors that you are not considering.

And these secular history books tend to point out that Jewish history is not as violent as what is portrayed in the OT.

No they don't at least the ones I read.

And I know slavery can vary, but regardless of how slaves are treated and the conditions of their slavery, it is still owning another person and the covenant with Abraham even includes wording that states "those you buy with money." Of course the exact wording will vary depending on what version of the Bible you read, but slavery is always an inherent evil because it degrades a human being to the category of property.

No it would be like owning them if God had not forbidden that. Just one example is that he required that no matter what, the person must be allowed to leave after 7 years. Like I said if you will pick a single claim we can give it the attention necessary to meaningfully evaluate it. As it is you are just making drive by assertions.

 

[jasonwill2]

I know what she said. Not only is there no way to suffeciently justify morality withou God. It can not even be known without God. Here is an easy one. Prove without appealing to transcendant standards that for a man to destroy the earth is actually wrong.

For mutual survival and well-being, societies decided that certain things are wrong and against the social contract. One of these is killing people. So killing all of mankind would be the most immoral thing to do, given that morality is defined by the social contracts laid out for the best of the species.

Morality isn't an inherent feature of reality, it's a constructed social agreement between a species for their well-being. You can see ethics and morality even in lower primates.

Alternatively, if morality is an appeal to authority, then is the most powerful one the person that decides the morality and rules? As you believe that only with a supreme entity there can be morality? If so that means that morality isn't an inherent transcendent characteristic of existence, as it is dictated by God's preferences. So again, morality is not objective in that case either.

Morality only exists in the context of taboos, social agreements and contracts, preferences, and instincts. It's an abstract thing with no reality outside of the species who work with the concept.

Nice straw man. When it is necessary to invent a position and falsely attribute it to Christianity in a debate then you must be truly desperate.

Um, no. It is what most of Christianity teaches.

I have never reffered to hell in any debate on morals I have ever had. I have never heard a Christian debater do so either. Why don't you actually deal with the issue instead of knoecking down positions I do not hold?

But you do hold it, don't you? That "For the wages of sin is death", and that unless someone accepts Jesus they will burn in Hell, and that unless they hold his laws, they were never truly saved to begin with?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Did you know that several divisions of the wauffen SS were Muslim?

Yes. Saddam Hussein was even pretty much a remnant of that.

I did in no way choose God because I preffered it. I spent 27 years fighting any belief in him at all. I eventually became so convinced he existed that I adopted it as truth and that belief was confirmed by being born again. I still would prefer many biblical principles were different. Preference has nothing to do with it.

But you did make the choice. And from that choice you see the world through the Bible, which is your preference.

There are direct punishments and consequences and there are general consequences of the fall of creation. In theological terms God no longer perfectly upholds creation and things like thermodynamics and chance have their effect among many others. God has an active and a passive will. He allows sin to destroy as an object lesson among other reasons. If you blame him for every flood or tornado then you must also credit him with vaccines, penicillun, hospitals, armies that have saved the world from tyrants, etc.... You have a very biased view point.

I don't actually credit or blame god for anything. Natural disasters I blame no one because I know the earth shakes, that warm fronts and cold fronts collide, lava erupts, and so one. Where there is oppression and exploitation, I blame those who do it and those who allow it. Where there is good I credit those who deserve it, such as Alexander Flemming for discovering penicillin.

That is completely innacurate. I have been to independance hall and looked at the documents. Jefferson attempted to abolish slavery but southern planters KNEW THEIR FARMS NEEDED THE SLAVES AND THAT IS WHY THEY REJECTED IT. The bible was not the issue. In fact the Bible's claim that all men are equall and have dignity is the only suffecient reason to abolish slavery. It eventually did.

Then why did they use the Bible to claim that slavery was ok?

The Klan was formed as a resistance to northern atrocities during the reconstruction and had a noble purpose. It much later became what we all know but they falsely used the Bible to justify what they did. So? Find me a verse that supports their acts.

The first incarnation of it was actually formed just after the Civil War, by Confederate officers, and it spread during the Reconstruction era, as a way to restore white supremacy. I see nothing noble about their cause or purpose, be it the first, second, or third incarnation of the Klan. But no matter how they use the Bible, it is still their interpretation of it just as your interpretation is yours, and the fact remains that they used the Bible for that purpose.

No, man's sinfullness and rebellion gave us these events. Find me any scripture that allowed those men to do what they did. I can kill someone in the name of Shadow Wolf. Would you accept responsability?

You selectively chose negative examples of non-Christian societies, thus it is only fair that I get to pick and choose negative examples of Christian societies. And because there are so many laws in the Bible that are punishable by death, you don't have to look hard to find them. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is a verse that caused some nasty class-warfare in Massachusetts.

You mean that the verse that says for us to hold fast to what our faith has revealed was ignored. I never understood the resistance to an idea that has more than enough evidence to justify faith in favor of the hopeless alternative. Were you ever born again prior to your rejecting the Bible?

Born again and spoken of very highly among those of my former fellowship. They use to see me as a shinning beacon of light and hope for my generation. I did not ignore anything about holding fast, and I did go through quite a turbulent period of time in which I struggled with not only my faith, but my very identity that was built around my faith. I was in church no less than three days a week, I was very active in church activities and even helped them organize many events including a revival that brought in churches from neighboring states. I was even to take over as youth minister after I graduated from high school and the youth minister at the time and his wife moved to another state to be closer to family.
But once I read the entire Bible, and not just what pertained to sermon lectures and study notes, I was shocked and deeply disturbed by what I read. I could not reconcile with the feelings of betrayal that I felt, that the god I worshiped that I was lead to believe was merciful, loving, and benevolent would condone some of the things in the Bible, or the feelings of confusion as I realized that what I had been lead to believe was the true and inspired word of god contained some of the messages it did. For awhile I even rejected the OT and what Paul wrote entirely and focused solely on Jesus' teachings. But then I gradually realized that without the OT there is simply no prophecy or need for a messiah.
I also felt betrayed as I began to realize that some of the things I learned, especially that pertain to history, was heavily biased and in many cases just not true. One specific example that I do remember was being told that Alexander the Great conquered the entire known world as a way of preparing the world for Jesus' birth. But later I would learn that Alexander's conquest did not reach very far into Africa, India, or Asia, the empire he built collapsed soon after his death, and when Jesus was born it was the Romans, not the Greeks, that were the major world power. Of course I knew it was the Romans, but my history lessons didn't mention many parts of Alexanders life, including the part his conquest was about 300 years before Jesus' birth, and that Greek and Roman are not interchangeable. I also remember my lessons mentioned Matthew C. Perry was the first Westerner to visit Japan, and his visit was on friendly terms. I would later learn that the Dutch were the first Westerners that would visit centuries before America was a soveriegn nation, and that the arrival was anything but friendly.
I was also dealing with a much deeper identity crisis, and the selective verses the church I use to go to used to state ways were against god's will had me living in a world of self-hate, and further confusion as to why god seemed to not ameliorate what I perceived then to be suffering.
And today every time I hear the song Loosing my Religion I think about where I was, how I used to think that was such a terrible and tragic phrase "loosing my religion" and where I am now.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I didn't say that alone it was. I just mentioned a couple of the vast number of things we do not know that must be known before we can evaluate those acts. If you will decide on this one as the one we will study there are many more factors that I have learned that are in God's favor. For example if as did happen at times until God stopped it they would have instead been completely corrupted by them then the impact of Christ's actions would not have near the impact that it did, that means that potentially millions of people might not have been saved and wound up mising Heaven. There are far more factors that you are not considering.

But how is it ever justified, unless you are put into a situation of defending yourself from an invading force? But when you are the aggressor, how does anything justify your actions?

No it would be like owning them if God had not forbidden that. Just one example is that he required that no matter what, the person must be allowed to leave after 7 years. Like I said if you will pick a single claim we can give it the attention necessary to meaningfully evaluate it. As it is you are just making drive by assertions.

But it is owning them. "..those you purchase with money.."(Genesis 17:13) Those words stung very deep when I read them, as how could anyone who is a loving and merciful being even think of such a thing? Even though the law specifically stated slaves could only be held for seven years, the fact remains that not only did god condone it, he mentioned it as a part of the covenant with Abraham. And you can only purchase property, and no human should ever be considered a piece of property, for sale or otherwise.

 

[1robin]

Why such a limited scope? Christianity does not have a monopoly on morality.

Limited scope. I said anything except God is available for you to use. What is limited about that? Without God how would you prove what I asked.

Every society that has ever been or ever will be has a code of morality, and sometimes it revolves around a religion, sometimes it doesn't.
But simply put, destroying the earth is wrong because it would kill everyone that lives on it. I do not need a book, god, or religion to tell me that.

Why is killing everyone on Earth wrong without God? Simply declaring it to be so without suffecient justification is just an opinion and has no explanitory value. Without God it is no more wrong for the the ants to exterminate us than for us to exterminate the. Come on, if there is merit in your position then an example this extreme should be easy to show how you can prove it's actually wrong.

He didn't invent that position though, and many people have held such a position. Even Einstein mentioned that fear is one of the things that drives religion.

I am a Christian, I have seen every Christian debate I can find, I have read the bible many times, and I know many Christians at many Churches. Nothing I have ever seen lines up with becoming a Christian out of fear. However to not fear that which may very well exist is pretty stupid as well. The statement that suggested that is a general description of Christian doctrine is an appeal to the obsurd and is intellectually dishonest. Einstein said about every contradictory statement possible about God, those guys should stay in the lab.

But you have stated that one must have god to be moral, and you have not provided anything more than criticism the stances of others as baseless as your support.

Provide a single statement I ever made where I said that a man can't act morally without God. I said they can't suffeciently justify morality without God. Will you guys please argue against what I actually said instead of making it up? Can you without an appeal to God tell me what Good and Evil mean?

 

[beenie]

I'm still waiting for our muslim believers to chime in here......

You called?

I would consider that when this goes down....the pagans,satanists, etc.... Would firdt recognize the absolute senselessness of the violence, and wait until all the violence stops. Secondly if this.country becomes a Muslim state, it is back underground we go. We are talking about a stateship where alot of the things we value for freedoms will be systematically taken away. Our government and elected officials will be made up of Muslims thus gaining control of our country for allah....
Dont look now isnt our president a muslim....

...and you think Muslims are indoctrinated? :areyoucra

It is well documented that our current president is a Muslim...

Baptists are Muslims now? :faint:

Here we go, we've heard it from the mouth of a Muslim, most importantly their stance on the freedoms of women are shining through.....who couldn't see that, and the fact they are here to takr control of the united states and turn it into a muslim state.....i rest my case....

*snicker* I believe he was being facetious.

Dictating what a woman can and cannot wear, who she can and cannot talk.too, is opression. I have discussed this with muslims of this nature and they pretty much treat a woman as if she is a peice of.property.

Of course this is something no one else does but Muslims. I'm not denying it happens, and it happens way too much. I am one of the most outspoken and biggest critics of some Muslims' behavior, but have you ever heard of Drew Peterson?

It does not matter if some do and some do not. The religion justifies the practice and where the religion is also the state it is enforced by eticate police on the street. I have seen them drag a young women off the street because there was something minor wrong with her head gear. Where ever Islam is the dominate practice women are oppressed. The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing about it.

Of course it matters; the VAST MAJORITY don't drag women off the streets for incorrect dress code.

Just Muslims do this?

I think just about every single male on this planet thinks for some reason that he is in the position to dictate to a woman what he wants. Just about all of you think women are objects and property. And if a woman doesn't kowtow to the male aggenda she becomes a bwitch or shrew.

Very true. Of course, there are extremes, but it still happens everywhere to an extent, on a broad level.

That pretty much sums it up. :yes:

 

[1robin]

For mutual survival and well-being, societies decided that certain things are wrong and against the social contract. One of these is killing people. So killing all of mankind would be the most immoral thing to do, given that morality is defined by the social contracts laid out for the best of the species.

What if most of the world won't sign your contract? What if you see other countries who have rejected your contract and are killing people? What over arching contract allows evil to be stopped in other societies? You have said what people might choose as morals, you have not said anything about what right and wrong actually are? You have actually made morality a matter of popular opinion. That would have resulted in Jesus, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, and Rosa Parks in Jail. Great system.

Morality isn't an inherent feature of reality, it's a constructed social agreement between a species for their well-being. You can see ethics and morality even in lower primates.

There is no value in mere assertion. Is the self sacrifice of a man who saves another and gives his life, in his well being? When real problems exist and it will mean a million wives will loose their husband there is no reason in your system by which they should loose their husbands and sons to stop another society from destroying yet another one. When things get tough it is God not social contracts that are appealed to. When society requires justification for the rights of men it is God not social contracts that are used. When meaning, purpose, origin, destination are desired as well as almost every other profound idea is examined social contracts and even science are impotent but as usuall God is perfectly applicable.

Alternatively, if morality is an appeal to authority, then is the most powerful one the person that decides the morality and rules? As you believe that only with a supreme entity there can be morality? If so that means that morality isn't an inherent transcendent characteristic of existence, as it is dictated by God's preferences. So again, morality is not objective in that case either.

I do not care if semantics makes you call morality subjective, objective, or supernumerary morals, if God exists it is universal and absolute. It is also objective as our opinion has no input.

Morality only exists in the context of taboos, social agreements and contracts, preferences, and instincts. It's an abstract thing with no reality outside of the species who work with the concept.

That is pure opinion and everyone including you acts as if objective standards exist everyday. It is virtually instinctual. Your moral system is completely insuffecient for the needs of society.

Um, no. It is what most of Christianity teaches.

Hell is almost never included in a sermon. I do not even think it is possible to believe based on fear alone. This is simply not true.

But you do hold it, don't you? That "For the wages of sin is death", and that unless someone accepts Jesus they will burn in Hell, and that unless they hold his laws, they were never truly saved to begin with?

I came to be a Christian the same way every single other one I know did. I discovered it to be true. I was reading about Christ not Hell when I was saved. It is not faith in something you wish to avoid that results in salvation. It is faith in who Christ is andwhat he did that matters. However to never fear that which is likely a reality is as stupid as it gets. I hardly ever even mention Hell in my Christian life. I only wind up discussing it because critics are obsessed with it or rather what they think it is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why is killing everyone on Earth wrong without God? Simply declaring it to be so without suffecient justification is just an opinion and has no explanitory value. Without God it is no more wrong for the the ants to exterminate us than for us to exterminate the. Come on, if there is merit in your position then an example this extreme should be easy to show how you can prove it's actually wrong.

It is wrong simply because you are harming others. There really is no need to justify it further. If you look at Buddhists, many of them are good people for the sake of nothing more than being a good person.

Can you without an appeal to God tell me what Good and Evil mean?

Good and evil is nothing more than what you want it to be, or what society says it is. Some people say it is ok to torture and kill others for whatever reason, some cultures say that promiscuity is moral, while some see sex as so immoral they wear drapes to cover themselves while having it. If you are religious then your religion defines good and evil. If you are committed to your community then it is your community that defines good and evil. But justification, especially if your approach to morality is simply not to harm anything, in unnecessary and needless. I do not harm anyone simply because I view everyone as deserving of respect until their actions have shown me otherwise. I could justify it, but why? Perhaps it is because needless and unnecessary conflict is a waste of energy and time that is better spent doing other things, or because being respectful to others can make you look good, or that you can find good friends in people who also live by a code of mutual respect. But why does it even need to be justified in the first place.

Limited scope. I said anything except God is available for you to use. What is limited about that? Without God how would you prove what I asked.

You did say without including transcendent appeals, which covers how many people approach morality. Some people see people as inherently good, inherently bad, or just neutral.

However to not fear that which may very well exist is pretty stupid as well.

Why fear anything though? Of course caution should be exercised around certain things (such as taking shelter from a tornado, or avoiding venomous snakes), but why surrender yourself to fear? Many of the greatest discoveries and accomplishments happened because people did not give into fear.
Of course personal experience will vary, but I have known some Christians that did become Christians because of fear, not necessarily because of Hell but the fear of death I have noticed is often a driving force. But different people do have different reasons for joining a religion.
As for fear of hell, it is not something I fear. If it exists, then I shall gladly take my place in it. I would want to be with a god that would punish people for eternity anyways. And as the saying goes, Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hell is almost never included in a sermon. I do not even think it is possible to believe based on fear alone. This is simply not true.

You must be a different type of Baptist than I was (borderline Southern, maybe full blown Southern now that I think about and that the pastor and even his daughter's husband where Southerners.). Hell was a very frequent topic during sermons, including how every other denomination is going their because they aren't doing things right.

 

[1robin]

But how is it ever justified, unless you are put into a situation of defending yourself from an invading force? But when you are the aggressor, how does anything justify your actions?

So by your system I have to watch my neibor torture a child because I am not being attacked. Just like you seem to imply that the Hebrews should have left the Cannanites to walling up Children in buildings alive and making them walk through fire. This kind of equivocation and chaos is exactly what I mean. My beliefs allow me to stop my neibor or the Cannanite's, Hitler, Stalin, the pusher on the corner while you deliberate and ask all these questions. The moral clarity needed for any hint of justice can only be justified by God. Without him you just get all those questions you are asking.

But it is owning them. "..those you purchase with money.."(Genesis 17:13) Those words stung very deep when I read them, as how could anyone who is a loving and merciful being even think of such a thing? Even though the law specifically stated slaves could only be held for seven years, the fact remains that not only did god condone it, he mentioned it as a part of the covenant with Abraham. And you can only purchase property, and no human should ever be considered a piece of property, for sale or otherwise.

I have said several times now that to meaningfully discuss these type issues requires much time. If you choose one (this one is fine) then it can be suffeciently addressed. I can't do justice to more than one. If you refuse to do this yet again I will conclude that the insuations you are making that are allowing you to dismiss the Bible must be so important to you that you will not subject them to meaningfull scrutiny. It happens all the time but I didn't think you were the type. If you value meaningfull information then pick one. If you instead prefer your contentions even if false or inaccurate for what they enable you to justify then you won't. By the way prove how without God one person owning another is actually wrong.

 

[1robin]

Of course it matters; the VAST MAJORITY don't drag women off the streets for incorrect dress code.

How do you know? The point is that in Islam those actions as well as dragging ambassaders and civilian workers bodies through the streets, condemning teachers to death for naming a class teddy bear Muhammad, showing the injustice of a trailer made for a film on u-tube by commiting the far far worse sin of killing people who had nothing to do with it, and the death penalty for leaving Islam as a state sanctioned reality ARE justified by the Quran. You will not find a single scripture that can be used for anything like this in the Bible. We have no striking off the heads of the infidels verses.

 

[1robin]

It is wrong simply because you are harming others. There really is no need to justify it further. If you look at Buddhists, many of them are good people for the sake of nothing more than being a good person.

You are assuming certain things are wrong and justifying that by assuming other things are wrong. You have yet to prove that even good and evil have any actuall meaning. Try starting there.

Good and evil is nothing more than what you want it to be, or what society says it is.

Now we have it at last. Nothing is actually morally wrong or right. It is just a prefrerance. No more meaningfull than what we like to eat. This is precisely why God is necessary for the justice and meaning that society requires and your system can't provide.

Some people say it is ok to torture and kill others for whatever reason, some cultures say that promiscuity is moral, while some see sex as so immoral they wear drapes to cover themselves while having it.

Exactly, you must sit by in your moral chaos and allow Hitler to do what he did because it is just his preference. Or allow cannabals or aztecs to exercise their preference because you can justify resistance. If you do justify action then you must smuggle in objective standards you do not have.

If you are religious then your religion defines good and evil. If you are committed to your community then it is your community that defines good and evil. But justification, especially if your approach to morality is simply not to harm anything, in unnecessary and needless. I do not harm anyone simply because I view everyone as deserving of respect until their actions have shown me otherwise. I could justify it, but why? Perhaps it is because needless and unnecessary conflict is a waste of energy and time that is better spent doing other things, or because being respectful to others can make you look good, or that you can find good friends in people who also live by a code of mutual respect. But why does it even need to be justified in the first place.

The rest of this was just saying the same thing diffferent ways.

You did say without including transcendent appeals, which covers how many people approach morality. Some people see people as inherently good, inherently bad, or just neutral.

Transendant standards are only possible with God.

Why fear anything though? Of course caution should be exercised around certain things (such as taking shelter from a tornado, or avoiding venomous snakes), but why surrender yourself to fear? Many of the greatest discoveries and accomplishments happened because people did not give into fear.

Of course personal experience will vary, but I have known some Christians that did become Christians because of fear, not necessarily because of Hell but the fear of death I have noticed is often a driving force. But different people do have different reasons for joining a religion.
As for fear of hell, it is not something I fear. If it exists, then I shall gladly take my place in it. I would want to be with a god that would punish people for eternity anyways. And as the saying goes, Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.

How did surrendering to fear find it's way in this discussion. Jesus said perfect love casts out all fear. Christians have much less fear than others do (or at least it is an option). You will no more gladly enter hell if it exists than you would gladly be a pow. Read George Foremena's very humble and well known story of dyeing as a non believer on the floor of his boxing dressing room and his minutes in a hellish place. I believe in a Hell where the soul given to a person that was used to reject God is destroyed at the judgement in an eternal seperation from God but there are many reliable stories of people who visited Hell and gladness does not exist there. In the end people get exactly what they chose. Either eternity with God, or eternity without God and all that he provides (love, security, sustanence, peace, companionship, etc...) and eventual destruction in my opinion. It is a strange stance to prefer that. The end result is about the most just result imaginable. You get exactly what you chose.

 

[1robin]

You must be a different type of Baptist than I was (borderline Southern, maybe full blown Southern now that I think about and that the pastor and even his daughter's husband where Southerners.). Hell was a very frequent topic during sermons, including how every other denomination is going their because they aren't doing things right.

The main reason it is not a usual topic is that preachers have a strange dichotomy to contend with. If you do not preach the whole bible then you may not reach someone. If you do cover the bad things then you may scare off un believers. It is a running issue what balance between the feel good and the uncomfortable are concentrated on. Most preachers prefer the feel good warm and fuzzy teachings. It is very understandable. I am sure and know a few Churches that do preach on the hard topics but they are very much the exception. I chose the baptist denomination party because we do not believe that other denominations are going to Hell. In fact most orthedox protestants do not think that. It is mainly a Catholic idea.

 

[beenie]

How do you know? The point is that in Islam those actions as well as dragging ambassaders and civilian workers bodies through the streets, condemning teachers to death for naming a class teddy bear Muhammad, showing the injustice of a trailer made for a film on u-tube by commiting the far far worse sin of killing people who had nothing to do with it, and the death penalty for leaving Islam as a state sanctioned reality ARE justified by the Quran. You will not find a single scripture that can be used for anything like this in the Bible. We have no striking off the heads of the infidels verses.

Are you sure about that?

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Let me guess: it's taken out of context... Well, so is the verse you're referring to.

How do I know the vast majority of women aren't being yanked off the streets for improper religious clothing? Ummm, because they're not? Do you have proof, other than the one incident you saw (on CNN or YouTube, I'm guessing), that this is done on a regular basis? I have family and friends in the Middle East, and they haven't seen these incidents. I'm not denying they happen, but if it is as commonplace as you suggest, why haven't we/they seen it?