A world where no one could possibly hurt someone else. What’s the down side?
So what would be the point of shooting at her? Maybe he wouldn’t even shoot at her at all. Maybe he’d just leave her and she’d be better off.
And that pedestrian would be safe. He or she would go on with his or her life. What would be the down side?
It would also be unnecessary.
You are presupposing that people who do not know of responsibility would necessarily do something wrong. But if it was not possible to do something wrong, then people would not do anything wrong. People would live out their lives in total happiness. Paradise on Earth.
BTW, kabbes; thanks for dismissing out-of-hand the faiths of millions of people of the Christian tradition who just don’t happen to belong to whatever it is you consider to be mainstream.
Dare I ask? Is this the boxcutter argument or is it not?
Now, in answer to why I said it’s absurd to say that someone’s died “when their time’s up.”
If that is the case, no action by any other person, such a criminal intent on murder, can have an effect towards ending the intended victim’s life or the actions of another person, such as a police officer or EMT intent on saving the intended victim, can have an effect on preventing that life’s end.
Since, by that theory, it’s really not the criminal’s fault, than the criminal just isn’t guilty of a damn thing. After all, the person’s “time was up” and had just went to the divinely appointed meeting with whatever happens after life.
Last I checked, we don’t punish people for stuff that’s not their fault.
That’s why I say “you die when your time’s up” is absurd.
Sorry about the “Dare I ask? Is this the boxcutter argument or is it not?” comment. Meant to edit that one out before the final “submit” and replace it with:
Consider this my apology for the errant remark. Thanks.
It’s ironic that you used the word “Paradise” because that’s the very word Jesus used to describe heaven. Ironically, you just described heaven. This is not heaven, that’s why God doesn’t run our lives. If some yahoo wants to take it into his hands to blow up thousands of people, he is free to do it. He will get what’s coming to him.
I said “I remember something in the bible about how God would not give you a burden that was ‘more than you could bear.’”
:rolleyes: Oh, I forgot that happens all the time. :rolleyes: However, I’ll play along. If this were to happen, you could safely say that the person gave up. Your own example has the person renouncing Christianity, which means giving up. That person could bear that responsibility if they hadn’t given up and just quit like that. Do you really think God should lift a burden on someone who just renounced Him? I think not.
That being said, I hate to throw the old cliche onto the table, but “God only knows” is a legitimate explanation. Imagine a world where we always immediately know what we need to do, or why an event happened. That would be a life handed to us. God is not a genie. Life is not a bowl of cherries, nor is it supposed to be. Hard experiences make you stronger. Whether you believe in God or not, you can always emerge from the worst catastrophe more prepared for the next awful thing that life may bring you.
Why does everyone ask “Where is God?” only when something bad happens? When we have donations flowing in to the Red Cross, people giving blood, firefighters and police working overtime; people don’t ask where God is, because that’s where God is.
There is no rapture in the bible. There are a lot of loony people who like to spread that around through TV evangelists and other nutty things, but it’s nothing more than a scare tactic to try to pull members in to the church. I find it a little annoying that one wacko theory gets attached to all people who profess to be Christians. Blanket statements are not welcome here.
Dale - if you’re going to hang around here, you really must learn to read the whole thread. I already said 14 posts ago that I mistakenly used the word “rapture” when I was really meaning “heaven”. Or it could be said that I was using “rapture” metaphorically rather than literally.
Monty - what is it with you? I am perfectly civil, clarify my terms and present an argument. You come back with
Where is the need to be so confrontational?
In response I’ll just ask you: are you suggesting that believing in heaven is not in accordance with mainstream Christianity? As in, are you suggesting that the overwhelming majority of those who choose to call themselves Christican do not believe in heaven? If so, I disagree though I can’t prove it. I suspect most readers will similarly disagree. If you are not saying that, then why belabour your point?
Then you try to temper a potentially insulting remark by replacing it with
[quote]
Y’know; those terrorists had already decided on what could happen to folks of religions they didn’t deem worthy. I like to think all of us on these boards are more than a cut above that.
[quote]
What, you think that isn’t also insulting? Where the thundering fuck do you get the idea that any suggestion of mine concludes that one part of Christianity “isn’t worthy”, let alone linking my argument with that of the goatsquicking terrorists?!
Just as an illustration of how ridiculous is your kneejerk reaction to my suggestion, I remind you of my first post to this thread where I said that I am an atheist. That’s right - I think that ALL of Christianity is bunk! So why the cunting bollocks would I declare one part of it “more worthy” than another part?
You seriously need to think about how you respond to other people’s arguments, because this is just flat-out rude.
So you don’t consider yourself worthy of fault in any way for implying that I am on a par with terrorists or telling me that I don’t consider part of Christianity to be “worthy”? That’s all you’ve got to say for yourself, is it?
Or you could say that “God or an angel” tried really hard to warn those who died and they did not, could not or would not listen to the warnings. Ultimately, God has given his creation free - most of us choose to go our own way and suffer the consequences as a result.
This is not to say that all those who died were errant, while all the faithful were saved - I am sure that there will be those among the dead who were “faithful”, and probably more than one for each and every definition of the word. I do not understand why such terrible things occur, and it saddens me to think that we human beings are capable of such evil.
Gp
By the by, I too would be interested in a response from Monty on the question of the existance of “heaven” or an afterlife, should he choose to repond…
Kabbes: My comments also were out of line. You comments also were out of line. We were both at fault. I considered your apparent assumption that when one is discussing Christianity then one is automacially only discussing mainstream Christianity to be dismissive. That is the point I intended to make and the point I should’ve made. And I should’ve made that point in a kinder fashion. I do not consider you to be on a par with terrorists. I do consider the comment you made above to be dismissive. Fair enough?
Spooje: Yes, there is at least one denomination of Christianity which does not believe in a heaven or even a hell after life.
OK, done. I’m glad we could come to a reconciliation. Thankyou.
For the record, I think that the “why is there evil?” conundrum is particularly applicable to those branches of Christianity that do not believe in heaven. This, then, is the worst of both worlds: a God that allows suffering to occur but no afterlife to sort it all out. No eternal bliss to render the suffering on Earth meaningless by comparison. A loving God seems particularly paradoxical in such a belief.
Why isn’t it heaven? Why did God bother to create Earth in the first place if Heaven is our real home? Why didn’t God just put us all into Heaven in the first place?
It pretty much did happen to Larry Flynt. His family wasn’t wiped out, but he was permanently paralyzed by a sniper’s bullet. He had been Christian before this, and thereafter was convinced that there was no God.
Excuse me, but when someone gives up and quits, it means the experience was too much for him/her emotionally. It’s a rather weaselly tautology to claim that everyone who gives up could have “borne it” if they hadn’t given up.
