About point B. At funerals I don’t want people “comforting” me by assuring me that loved ones survive death. Because I just don’t believe it. Last year when my Grandad died my mum said it a few times. I had the urge to shake her and yell “Stop talking bollocks!” Of course I didn’t.
I don’t urge the urge to respond violently to a well-meant comment. I’ve had people say they will pray for me or assume that I share their faith at a funeral, but instead of getting angry, I accept it as the well-intentioned effort that it is.
I operate on the assumption that I have to be the strong one in a situation and so I nurture other people’s beliefs and conceal my own. Most people, I have found, don’t endure difficulty well, and so they need their faith to lean on when times are tough. It would be an act of cruelty, I think, to illustrate the falsity of their religion if they need it to get through their grief. When my grandmother died last year, I ddin’t scoff when mu mother talked about seeing her in Heaven. Instead, I agreed that they would meet and that I hoped that God was looking after her. My mother knows of my atheism, but I felt it was more important to give her love and support instead of arguing the point.
People are more important than principles, IMO.
I’m sorry you feel that way.
This is exactly why I didn’t disagree with my mum. Just kept my mouth shut.
I’d like to believe she was joking. Or maybe I was whooshed by your comment
Man, I hope I was wooshed too! I was joking around! What we need here is a ‘sarcastofont’
Dueteronomy 12:31
One Jew’s guess: Since Jesus is said to have died for mankind’s sins, and there is therefore no need for animal sacrifice, it surely stands to reason that there is no need for human sacrifice.
Zev Steinhardt
No, apparently I was the one who was whooshed. I know that Jarbaby doesn’t have much use for me, and I took her comment with that in mind. I apologize.
Oh I have a use for you gobear…but I doubt you’re interested. 
Except children, including Dawson are too young to be judged and all go to Heaven, in my theological opinion.
you are weird
.
Zev are you referring to this?
If so, I am a bit confused. This particular passage does not really answer the original question. I always thought that “The Law of Moses” was a general reference to rules set forth in the old testament that preceded the alleged coming of christ. Am I mistaken?
Also, while I do not think human sacrifice is either appropriate or called for by christians in general, I do not think IT (IT being your guess as stated above)stands to reason based on the premises you suggest.
I’m not certain what the source of your confusion is. FrairTed stated that Jewish law (what I took from his “Laws of Moses” reference) prohibited child sacrifice. You asked for a cite and I provided one.
Why not? Admittedly, I’m no scholar in Christian doctrine, but my argument seemed pretty reasonable to me as a compelling reason as to why this particular law (against child sacrifice) should stand for Christians today when (according to them) most of the laws of the Torah have been abrogated.
Zev Steinhardt
Are you saying, Libertarian that you believe death is only the loss of the physical body? If so, why is murder wrong?
Robbery involves the loss of even less than that - only one’s money - and yet you would surely view robbery as wrong, no?
Zev Steinhardt
It is always the moral decision itself, and never the act itself, that is wrong. Life is all about the execution of free moral agency. The universe is our mis-en-scene in which we act out our moral play. We all will die. And we all will lose everything we have. Sooner or later. One way or the other. But what is important is the moral decisions we make until then. God is about morality. He values goodness above all other aesthetics. Love is the distribution of goodness. Sin is the obstruction of it. The brain merely carries out whatever instructions the heart has given it. Before the murder, there was the decision that the life was worthless. Before the theft, there was the decision that the consent was worthless. In matters of morality, it is the heart that commands the brain.
Ya know, in my whole life, God has never said word one to me.
If he did, out of the blue, and told me to do something on the extreme side like that, I think I might run it by someone else. Because if He did, there’d be 2 possibilities.
A) It’s actually God talking to me
or
B) I’ve gone insane.
Now I don’t know about you all, but I think I’d want to rule out possibility B before continuing. Talk to preists and ministers, see a psychaiatrist, get a CAT scan…Because I might actually miss my loved ones…and might feel a little guilty if I offed them due a treatable mental defect.
But then again, it may just be the fact that GOD NEVER TALKS DIRECTLY TO ME OR ANYONE ELSE I HAVE EVER MET that might make me a *tad * cautious.
Of course. But if one sees the only crime committed in murder as being the irreparable battery of a body, than I can only assume that such a person would consider murder to only be a rather heinous form of assault. I see it as something far more serious, because I see it as the end of life.
However, Libertarian has replied to my post, so I can turn my attention to what he has to say, rather than rely on conjecture:
Agreed.
For the rest of your post, beneath the theological rhetoric, I basically agree with you. However, I am confused about some aspects of your discussion:
If you think that those whom many would consider dead are actually alive (For example, the children discussed in the OP, about whom you say: “The children are alive. Nothing is dead but rotting flesh”), then surely by harming their bodies, you aren’t really deciding that their lives are “worthless.”
If someone thinks as you do, surely you are only killing their flesh? And since they are still alive, you aren’t showing that you consider their lives worthless, only that you consider their ability to decide what is to happen to their bodies to be worthless?
And to help my understanding, I would like to know when you think the children discussed in the OP will die. You have stated “the children are alive. Nothing is dead but rotting flesh,” but have also said “we all will die. And we all will lose everything we have. Sooner or later.”
If both your statements are correct, when will these children die, considering you do not consider them dead already?
The way I look at it, Gex, is that it is all to complicated for me or anyone else to judge. The only way that I could safely judge your moral motives is to have experienced everything you have experienced, in other words, to be you. We all live in subjective reference frames and can see only from our own very narrow point of view. God, as the objective reference frame in all cases, knowing all that we have done from beginning to end, is the only One qualified to judge our morality. And yet, He has seen fit to waive His own judgment and allow us to judge ourselves by His standard. The Father gave all rights to judge to the Son, and the Son waived His rights, leaving us to judge ourselves.
So I can’t tell you what the moral significance is when one man kills another, even if they both believe as I do. For one thing, I don’t want to kill anybody, so that would leave both of them not killing. Still, there is no way that I could be privvy to the myriad, millions of tiny things that have led people to be where they are and do what they do. Yes, the children are alive. But that’s because their essence is not flesh. Their essence is spirit. They are God’s own breath. They are, in fact, God. As Jesus teaches, we all are Gods.
Dawson did not die because of any moral choice by anyone. He died because science does not yet have the answer for brain cancer. Jesus teaches that to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, we must become like little children. When we judge ourselves, what happens is that we make a final choice. Do we love the light? If so, we go to the light. Do we love the darkness? If so, we go away from the light. God stands still. We decide where we will go. Children love the light because they are innocent and filled with love.
But the man who might seem to be the most horrible creature imaginable might, for all we know, be that way as the result of circumstances that we ourselves can scarcely imagine. It might be that he gave up on love a long time ago, but once he sees the Living Love, he will run toward it having finally found what he has searched for all his life. We just cannot know what is in the hearts of men. But they know themselves. And God made them free moral agents.
Regarding “we all will die” versus “they are alive”, it is the use of the word in two senses: the physical death or life and the spiritual death or life. One is trivial, and the other significant because one lasts a few years on an anthill and the other is unbounded by time or space. What is real is what is eternal. What is fleeting is just an illusion. The Catch-22, of course, is that knowledge of that is no release from the moral burden. If anything, it makes it all tougher because, even though the atoms are not real, the spirit that makes the moral decisions is very real. It is possible to damage the spirit with or without damaging the body. To me, using the amoral (not immoral) universe as a mis-en-scene for our morality play was brilliant in its conception. We can’t blame the universe for decisions we make.
That’s what He told me.
He also asked me to pass along that you should stop picking your nose. Yes, he can see you. Get that finger outta there!
