BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
If you are without sin, you may cast the first stone in an execution. It's quite the privilege, you understand.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?
- Thread starter BilliardsBall
- Start date
If you are without sin, you may cast the first stone in an execution. It's quite the privilege, you understand.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
If you knew you would resurrect after, would you say beatings, scourging and crucifixion was "no biggie"?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Who taught you that all are God's children? That's not a biblical concept. Hitler isn't "a lovely child of God".
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
By producing organisms with brains capable of morality. Once again, I ask, how and why does a system of morality have to be consistent with the process of evolution (which is not a moral or philosophical system)?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Because it's explicit in the Bible that they did.
So do you believe it's okay to punish someone using rape?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
If you got to become God afterwards and reap eternal reward, as well as "save" all of humanity and be revered and worshipped forever after your death by them, it's not really much of a "sacrifice", is it?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
It doesn't, because it's not supposed to. What are you finding difficult to understand about the simple fact that evolution is merely a description of a mechanistic process by which contemporary species developed from a common ancestor - it is not a moral or philosophical system intended to be used to derive any kind of philosophical or moral conclusion. Human brains are a result of evolution, and our capacity for morality is a by-product of that process. That doesn't mean evolution "decided" we should be moral. WE decided that when evolution resulted in us having brains that are CAPABLE of moral dimensions.
False dichotomy. Just because something is an urge doesn't mean it isn't evil, and just because something is evil doesn't mean it must be judged so by any kind of God.
Same false dichotomy, therefore your question is intentionally misleading.
Rape is the wilful forcing of sex onto an individual who does not consent. For various reasons, human society has determined that this behaviour is harmful, and we therefore judge it to be wrong (despite the fact that the Bible repeatedly justifies and sanctions rape). That is the metric by which we judge rape to be wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with it.
Mechanical evolution also made us a highly social species who succeeds as groups rather than individuals, and emphasized the naturally evolved sense of empathy. Which is not unique to human animals and exists in most mamallian and avian social species. Those with damaged empathy (colloquially known as sociopaths) are the exception rather than the norm. However, we have a uniquely advanced intelligence (as far as we know anyway) to work out how involuntary forced sex would create tangible damages, and most of us have the empathy to react to the pain and suffering someone going through forced sex would feel. Thus the desire for moral framework is evolved. And consequentialism is one such framework tgat, I believe, relied on those evolved tools the most.
Now, sociopathy is empathy compromised by biology, but empathy can also be compromised by sociology too. For example, when is a genocide considered righteous? When you paint every man, woman, child, slave, mentally infirm as evil. Especially if evil can be something as simple as 'does not follow my creed.' This is the danger of totalitarian authoritarian thinking, be it a human figure or a deity.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Lived out sincerity according to whom? Who studied the authors to give us this picture you are trying to paint? They wrote these books. We know virtually nothing else about them. Of course those books are well written. Of course they strike an appealing tone. But the same could be said of any number of authors. How do you know they were good men? Because they said so?
My examples simply point out that good writing or oratory skills does not make one a good person. It does not make their motives good or pure.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Oh no, you are way off base. There are probably hundreds of writers who wrote these books and many like them. We know of many dozens that were not included. There have been a half dozen written in just the last century. They haven't all been included because someone, somewhere decided they were apocryphal.
But your question is an easy one to answer simply by rephrasing the question. Why would a person think adding their voice to a book known throughout the known world (or at the very least their own country) as the truth? Why would someone want to be immortalized like that? Why would they want to promote themselves and their beliefs to others? Why would they want to inspire others to follow them? Why would they want to push a shift in doctrine away from what was a jew only biased religion to one that could be open to the wealthy romans who controlled everything?
I wonder... it's almost like they wanted their religion to appeal to the rest of the world. To have as large a population as possible. It's almost like they wanted to influence world leaders and current events.
After all, what happened not long after the gospels were written? A long line of popes managed to create the wealthiest church in the world. A religion that influenced kings and drove the wealthiest countries in Europe to their knees, A religion who essentially decided which of those writings were included in the bible...
I would say all you need do is look at the impact these authors had on the world to understand their motives.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Except I wouldn't. I realize that death for death really solves and fixes nothing.
Probably. It obviously didn't kill him enough for him to stay dead.
I hear a ton of Christians saying it. That we are all god's children. God created us, died for us, and we are his children.
McBell
Unbound
I just listed some ways rapists justify their raping.
Of course, because they have justified it, they do not consider it rape.
In some cases they honestly believe it is their right.
Sin is religious concept, and different religions can see sin differently.
For the non religious sin doesn't exist, we have and don't need a god sitting on our shoulder saying "you can't do that because i say it's a sin". We have human morality to tell us right from wrong.
Hitler was a good Catholic with Vatican backing, the leader of a majority Protestant country.
Hitler was not only a confessed Christian, his intolerance and atrocities were consistent with Biblical scripture.
Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
He said "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity … in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people."
He insisted his troops were blessed by a priest before battle
And he made the military motto "gott mit uns" which translates to 'god with us'
http://i8.ebayimg.com/06/i/001/27/b8/49ac_1.JPG
If you were to become god think of all the things you could do
Then ask yourself why your god hasn't done any.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
maybe something is left out in the translation? I don't see that in the English, and I'm afraid that is my only language (well, a tiny bit of Spanish, but not enough to be worth anything).
JustWondering
Jerk
The golden rule was taught by Jesus in the new testament. Also, one of the commandments is to worship no other god, you're forgetting that the old testament was for the Jews. The OT also plainly explained that owning non-Jews as slaves was perfectly expectable. The OT allowed for them to beat their slaves to death even, as long as they died after a few days.
Human beings are social animals. Those of us who are mentally healthy have empathy and enough common sense to realize that for any group to remain stable and productive we need to respect one another.
I have this thing called empathy. Coupled with an imagination and the golden rule it was easy to determine that rape is wrong. I've already explained all this.
Humans evolved instincts to help them to survive just like every other creature on earth. I believe urges to harm others needlessly is born of anomalous traits that are harmful to our species. Soon humanity will have the medical knowledge to take control of our development or arrest it at the point it currently is. Only time will tell what will happen.
JustWondering
Jerk
If Christian apologetics were rational and logical why wouldn't everyone become Christians?
I have stated numerous times in other threads that the human race is irrational. The fact that most humans believe in some form of invisible supernatural beings/forces of some kind for thousands of years with ZERO evidence to support ANY of it is solid evidence for my position.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I disagree. I see where unwed victims of a war were wed, not raped. You've ignored what I posted regarding the customary head shaving and 30-day waiting period.