- thou shalt not kill
- god kills people by letting them die when he can stop them from
if god doesnt follow the laws he set us, then are they wrong or he is wrong, by your way of thinking, the law is wrong, but we know it is not.
explain pls
because he is dying a painful and depressing death, because he will leave my mother in pieces, (she has not had a happy relationship with men, her first husband and my real father was not nice) because my stepbrother will probably kill himself ( his mother is dead, from cancer and he has not had a happy life) because i will miss him, because i love him very much and dont want him to die, or be in pain.
Once again you think that just because God sets laws for us means he has to follow them. That, in my opinion, is far from the truth. God is literally above the laws of mankind. He is better than mankind, and knows what is ultimately better without laws. We require laws to guide us. He, being supreme soveriegn, doesn’t. Also, there is speculation as to the original meaning of the word tranlated as ‘kill’. Many believe it to mean murder, or kill without justification. I do agree with Lib in saying that he is ultimately moving on to a better place. I have never lost anyone close to me so excuse me if I sound insensitive. I won’t claim to understand your pain, but you and your family will be included in my prayers.
I understand, my friend. My mother died from lung cancer. Her body was in excruciating pain until she died. Believe it or not, all this is a quick blink and it’s over. You’ll see your father so very soon, possibly sooner than you think. Meanwhile, honor him by living your own life with goodwill and moral purpose. God go with you always.
Inanimate objects do not weep; never have, never will.
**
**
Religious icons hold significance only to those attached to the icon.
What does a weeping Virgin Mary mean to a Jew and/or a Hindu?
Nothing.
If God, the universal creator, wished to send a message, I have serious and unwavering doubts he would shun the vast majority of his creations by suggesting, through this–supposed and clearly biased “miracle,” those not of the Catholic/Christian faith are indeed practicing the wrong faith.
Wasn’t Jesus opposed to religion?
I believe he was.
So Jesus’ Mom sends a message by endorsing that which her son opposes?
sounds like bull and some sh*t
**
I’m not sure why I would. I believe my response was most certainly warranted.
**
Well, I’d type more but my fingers are stuck in my large, trollish and philosophical nose.
“worthless utterance?”
this from you, Lib, a Christian?
My worth is measured by the disparity bewtixt the level of shit I must sift through to find equanimity as compared to your amount of shit.
By the way, I’ve been doing some serious thinking and I’ve decided you and I are best friends.
Jesus hates me.
Lib,
Not that you support or believe the supposed weeping icon tale, but if I may, and I believe I may, I’d also like to make another point.
Weeping is not soley a sign of sorrow. Many times a person will weep b/c they are overjoyed, or b/c they are laughing hysterically.
So, should we associate the supposed emotion of the weeping Mary with her expression in the painting(or with whatever other form of weeping Mary produced, be it a statue or a what have you)?
Did Mary(or God) make that decision when the idea of a miracle became paramount?
Is Mary upset? happy? laughing?
bulldookey?
my vote’s for the dookey.
Lolo: Nobody is hostile to your assertion that you find Jesus unimpressive and that you do not believe in fairy tales. What upsets many of us is that you do not operate on the premise of adducing evidence to support your assertions, which is the commonplace methodology of this forum. If you care to assert that Jupiter is the giant egg of a spacebird, you are more than welcome to, provided that you have some logic or evidence for making such an assertion.
Those of us who argue from Christian premises, hang around here and debate, play by those rules, and as such are respected by our co-debaters who do not hold those premises. “Drive-by witnessing” gets slammed because the witnessers do not play by the rules.
There is nothing more obvious to the world than that Jesus does not show up on a regular basis and inform Gaudere of arcane knowledge. However, some of us, for reasons sufficient to our own taste, feel that there are reasons to “believe in Him” in the sense we use the phrase. This is not a “fairy tale;” it is a sound conclusion from what many consider questionable data. If a real and active-in-the-world God decides to manifest Himself through some thing like weeping statues of Mary, then He does in fact do so. That natural phenomena can be invested with supernatural implications has been a commonplace of reasonable thinkers since somebody realized that lightning is not the anger of the storm god but something that happens when big black clouds producing heavy rains move in the area.
Debate is the raison d’etre of this forum. On any and all subjects. Debate with us. Give arguments why some belief is a fairy tale. We’ll listen, and discuss.
Poly,
I just gave reasoning, did I not? I hope I did.
also, forgive my curtness by am I to believe we’re still entertaining the nonsense? that is, when I am dismissive it is b/c I feel the point being made, or being attempted, has either been debunked numerous times prior and/or it is not worthy of much more considersation than what I may have provided.
I think, Lolo, you need a healthy dose of Hume. Then, when you figure you can reasonably doubt god’s existence enough, you can reread Hume and possibly apply that oh-so-healthy skepticism to the very assertations you are making.
I would think that the claim that “God/Jesus” doesn’t exist is just as open to interpretation as the contrary, and so the honest thing to do would be to admit that skepticism is a double edged sword when improperly wielded.
My question for you is: if what you say is so obvious, and what you say is true, then why bother even making potshots? Obviously the stunning flow of logic that clearly demonstrates your position is available to all, and anyone who hasn’t seen it is obviously deluded. Your potshots, then, only serve to paint you as a cruel person. I suppose that this may, in fact, be your very goal. If this is the case, why not dispense with the potshots at Christianity and just go right for the jugular?
Your methodolgy fails to impress me or even make any sense. I’d ask for enlightenment but for fear that I am too stupid to see its obviousness, too. And no, I am not a Christian. I’m not even sticking up for them, before you piece together that strawman.
—————————————
At any rate, I remain unimpressed at the OP. If God is subject to no moral code, then he is neither good nor bad. I have yet to see a demonstration of how god could be good but not be bound by morality.
Lolo,
If you are done debating, that’s fine. If you have something to add, that’s fine too. But these debates go on for pages and pages…and when one is done another one opens up to debate very nearly the same thing. Some people keep debating it over and over again, others debate for a while, realize these are the questions with no answers (or no consensus on the answer) and get tired of it and move on, others have been managed to be swayed - or have their thinking expanded. If you expect them to reach a resolution, you will be sorely disappointed.
“We” (although not I, I haven’t contributed much to this thread) are not done debating this topic - and probably never will be. I’ll place a bet that six months from now, one of the following threads will be active:
- How can atheists have morals?
- The problem of evil (this thread here)
- Hi Opal
- Why do Chistians think they have the only religion in the world?
- Why don’t Jews believe Christ was the Messiah?
- If you just open your eyes, you’d see there is a God.
or - People who believe in God are misguided.
Its a sucker bet, the only time there hasn’t been one of these threads active was mid-September of this year.
Let me try this again,
When I refer to God as “good” I am not referring to his moral character. After all, I deny that any human idea of a moral code can be applied to Him. “Good” is in reference to God making the ‘better’ choice. An infallible God will always make the better choice. There seems to be an infinite amount of possibilities that can happen, but we only exprience one. My faith calls me to believe that this single possibility is better than any other option. Any choice that God accepts is ultimately more pleasing to Him than the choices he rejects. Otherwise He would not choose it. But Alexander Pope seems to sum everything up for me…
“Whatever is, is right”
Hopefully this will help a little erislover, if not I’ll be more than happy to try again.
I care little for philosophy, but I’ll give it a look-see.
Very simply, as I see it, man’s mind is not in control of anything greater then himself. Every man’s tool is of his own design. To suggest any imaginitive whimsy is applicable to an otherwise impartial universe, is self-serving. The God claim is baseless, trite, and superflous.
God simply isn’t necessary.
The idea of God today is no more respectable than that of the Egyption Rah or the Greek Zues.
**
By this you mean to suggest I have “faith” there isn’t a God? is that what you’re suggesting?
If that is what you are suggesting, I find that laughable. But before I say why, hopefully you could clarify exactly what you mean, so I don’t offend.
**
It’s easy. It’s funny. People set themselves up.
**
Most of the God-folk here are Christian, in their own particular way with the solid “jesus is lord” foundation. When the Jesus bomb gets dropped, I react.
By “the jugular” what do you mean? are you speaking of any theist?
**
That straw-man is pieced by any man calling Jesus lord, so I need not piece it together, but only laugh as I set it on fire.
Also, to think anyone is going to change anyone’s mind, is delusional. Any person who has reached a point in their life where they’re willing to debate the subject has either seen the flaws and realized the error, or deluded himself to the point of no return.
My brother told me a story the other day, it was funny. He was in Church, he said, with a friend (this was before he realized there was no God) and they were listening to the preacher talk. The preacher remarked about Jesus or something and his friend said “oh, well I don’t believe that.” My brother thought to himself, “Between the three of us, he (the preacher) is the only one who’s read the book. Shouldn’t he know?”
Maybe I am cruel person, erislover. Maybe I get off making fun of people and being an asshole. Maybe I’m just lonely and have no friends. Or maybe, just maybe, I’m unimpressed with the fluff.
Well, to be sure, but what, then, constitutes a moral choice? Making the ‘worse’ choice? I don’t understand what you feel morality is.
Yowza. I wouldn’t say that in a general case ever! Man, that phrase alone could justify any behavior.
My question can possibly be more focused if you prefer. If god is not able to be morally judged, and if we were to follow in God’s footsteps and use His behavior as a guide for ours, then why would we not be ‘good’ too?
Morality, to me, is the concept of right and wrong that God has made mankind to understand. He illustrated how we are supposed to act through (and I’m not sure how often the Trinity is addressed on this forum) Jesus Christ. Jesus was not just God’s only son, but a physical embodiment of God Himself. Jesus was sinless. Jesus is God’s example of morality to us. Moral choices are those made by man on earth between right and wrong. God, is not bound by those. My previous wording is perhaps a little poor (in all fairness I’m trying to describe God in english…not very easy I’m sure you’d agree). Once again, whatever God chooses is better. So it seems that what He did not choose is worse. The only reason, however,that what He did not choose is worse is because He did not choose it. Had things been different in this world, THOSE would have been the ‘better’ decisions for God to have made.
We are made to understand right and wrong (good and evil or however you’d like to describe it) and I believe Jesus to be the ultimate teacher of morality. He was the perfect man. Such teaching is what makes positive things good and is perhaps an insight into the character of God. But it is only such an insight as it is how He wants us to act. There is no such binding that holds God to the example of morality he showed to man through Jesus Christ. Hopefully this isn’t as blasted confusing as I think it will end up being, my apologies if it is.
Ah, and as to my Pope quote…any sort of religion or lack thereof can be used to justify any behaviour. I see your point though. Would you believe that Voltaire had a problem with it too? Candide indeed! Hmph.