Redskull, I pretty much asked the same thing. Tonto says that he does show himself to those who look. If you don't see him, it's your fault: you aren't looking hard enough.



No, not expendable, but in such a case, one good person's life will be lost. It is unfortunate, and tragic, but it is reality. Neither deserves to lose his or her life, but yeah, someone does. That's just the way things are. It's just like a car crash. No one necessarily deserves to die in a car crash, but they still happen. It's like an accident of sorts.



Well, yeah, you're right, but that's really just personal preference. It's like asking a person if they'd rather be a house pet, an ignorant animal, and have a nice, loving life, with everything handed to them, or be a human. Ignorance is bliss after all. I'm sure some would rather that, and others would rather be human.



Hmm... I have a question: does free will originate in the soul or the brain? And if it's the brain (part of the body, and therefore from the parents), is it the parents that doom the soul to damnation by pairing it with a doomed brain?



Well, really, I don't have much respect for laws I see to be immoral, and I do break them, while I would never break a law I thought was moral. But you're correct, I don't make too much of a habit of it, because I'm afraid of punishment. That is a flaw, though. It's a bit cowardice, actually, and also because I think it would be easier to fight injustice from the outside of prison rather than inside. And another good bit comes back to my selfish desires. I wish to continue my life happily, which it would not be if I were punished. I admit, I am not perfect.



Ok, yeah, that's kinda what I was saying. My point was that the laws really didn't do much good to begin with, and neither did their punishments.



First, I'll just let you know now: I have read some of the bible, but not much. However, I am familiar with many bible stories that I haven't read. I've researched it, and read summaries. I don't have time to read what I don't believe to be the word of god when I can get the gist of it in less time. And yes, I am familiar with the tower of babel. But the truth is, the threat of punishment may help stop bad people from doing bad things. If they have themselves at heart, and they believe that the punishment is worse than anything they will gain by the immoral act, then they probably won't commit the immoral act. However, no, it won't make good people bad. Again, if you read through, my final point was that the punishments were no good, along with all laws. God should just go by the person's actual morality, which can be judged only by their intentions.



People do change. Veterans are often described as not the same person they were before they witnessed war. God should judge the person who has died, as they were at the time of death. If they finally see the error of their ways on their death bed after an entire of life of wickedness, so be it. They should be allowed into heaven. However, note that simply pretending to have good intentions so that one can get into heaven is selfish, and demonstrates care for no one but themselves. This is immoral, and they should not be allowed into heaven. As to indifference, well, that's really immorality. If you allow others to do evil around you, and don't have anything against doing evil yourself, then you are immoral. There really is no neutral. Again, though, there are always complications. A person could, I suppose, get away with wishing death on the rest of humanity at their death, as long as they truly believed in their hearts that the rest of humanity was evil, and that by opposing them they were doing good.



I saw this coming... Actually, no. Most of them only commit suicide because they think it'll get them 72 virgins and rivers of honey. That's a selfish desire, and bad. They don't have good intentions. Good for them, but not good.

And yet the world was flat in our early history too. Question is, how do YOU know its round? Have you flown around the world and seen that its round? Or do you have "faith" that the knowledge someone else gained by their experience proves it is round? Only one that has experienced it truly knows. Its all about your own faith.

Not at all. I've seen evidence that it's round. It explains how the moon can revolve around the earth, it explains the setting and rising of the sun, without it man-made sattelites wouldn't work as we (or I) know them, air planes wouldn't be able to fly around like that, and so on.

The overwhelming amount of evidence convinces me. I do not see any evidence what so ever to the existance of god.

Really, there is a difference between believing what is obvious and believing what there is no evidence to other than the pathetic gullibility of humanity.

And do you know something else? You say "only one that has experienced it truly knows." Well, I have it from people that have actually flown around the world that the world is round. However, I have never heard anyone dead tell me that they've been to heaven, and that it does exist.

Guess I'll start by bringing up these two quotes :




From your strong beliefs in morality is sounds to me like you should be defending the party that would forfeit their life with tooth and nail. There are many ways to fight the system without doing anything illegal and you should be doing it, to brush it off as being 'just the way things are' is a pretty indifferent opinion, and thus pretty immoral. Does this go back to your claim that you aren't perfect?

Forgive me for jumping around in this post, but I'm slowly losing interest (my interests are very fleeting and this one is passing). Let's pull these two quotes up now :




In the first quote you claim to know that Islamic radicals do what they do for the purpose of 72 virgins and rivers of honey. It seems to me that that's like claiming a Christian is only good because of their desire for Heaven and not because they genuinely are grateful to God for the gift of life and the pleasures it offers. However, you did mention you are all knowing, so I will assume you don't know what's in the heart of the Islamic radicals and ask that you address my question again with a mind open to the possibility that they are performing their abominations with "Good" intentions. In case you forgot, the quote was :



Next :



What about people you see to be immoral?



Didn't you mention in your quote on Islamic radicals that selfishness is immoral, I'm sure I've heard you say it at some point. Let's also factor in whatever level of indifference you might have from the previous point as well. So what level of self-respect have you?



If you feel the same way about immoral people as you do immoral laws than you must have at least a little bit of disrespect for yourself. Which would make it hard to believe you could be proud as well.



I'm afraid I can't answer that question. I've given you nor anybody else their free-will, and I've never seen my own, only know that it exists. So where it is stored I can't say. What I can say is that I personally believe that the parents do doom the child from conception if they choose not to have a baptism. When in infancy a child can be washed clean of original sin without ever having to make the choice for themself. If the parents choose not to than they are indeed dooming the child, but the child can redeem itself through free will by having himself baptized later in life. If neither exercises their free-will to follow the path that God has told them is righteous than they are both at fault.



Funny, seems the exact opposite of me. I read the Bible because I felt not knowing anything about what I didn't believe in was outrageously ignorant. Who am I to say I'm not Christian if I don't know precisely what one is.



I agree punishments along the way are no good. The laws however are, they give you a clear guideline of what is and isn't righteous and those who rebel against it should be damned. I see no difference between mortal law and divine law, except the clear difference that divine law presumably has far more powerful muscle backing it. Therefore I would expect honoring the law of a man before honoring the law of a God to have a much more severe penalty. I feel it would be like if I was a child told to do one thing by my father and another by my friend. I wouldn't want to disappoint either, but one is going to have a far more severe consequence.



That is what God offers. Forgiveness to the truly repentant. Even on a deathbed if one realizes he is wicked and asks for forgiveness he will receive it. God knows the heart though. It can't be repentance out of intelligent fear of the possibility of Hell. It has to be honest remorse for deeds done against man and God. Essentially, your argument here isn't an argument against Christianity at all. The system you proposed in this scenario is the way it works.

Alright, gonna wrap this up about here. I am starved.

No, you're wrong. This is not indifference at all. In fact, I called the reality of the situation tragic, did I not? True indiffernce would be indifference to the fact that a good person must die. This is not the case. You must see that by defending the good person who will die, I oppose the good person who will live. Living does not make that person any more worthy. Both these people are equally deserving of life, but only one will continue to live. It is sad, but there is nothing that can be done. You can't fight the system. If they're going to kill each other, there're going to kill each other. It's like saying if a good person is falling to their death, I should be trying to turn off gravity, otherwise it's indifference, and therefore immorality. Again, not the case at all.

The only way around this situation would be for the two people to realize that each other both intend to do good, and then for them to find a way to work around their difference. This is not always possible though, even if they both acknowledge the other's desire to do good. If person A knows person B wants to do good, but truly believes that person B is actuallying going to do wrong despite his intentions, and the only way to stop person B is to end his life, it is tragic, but it must be done. Otherwise, person A allows person B to do evil despite person B's good intentions, which is indifference on person A's part. But here we come to another possible exception: it is person A's duty to weigh the options. If the evil resulting from person B's poor judgement is not so great as the death of a good person (which person B is by defintion, because of his good intentions), then less evil would actually result if person A allowed person B to do whatever it is they are going to do, since person B's death (the death of a good person) would be bad.

And it is a sad truth, that in such a case evil is innevitable. But I must remind you, accepting something as innevitable is not the same as indifference.



Alright, if the islamic is truly doing what he or she is doing with pure, unselfish intentions, then yes, they are a good person doing bad inadvertantly, and they should be allowed into heaven. And if a christian truly does do good things and act good only because they hope for the reward of heaven, then that person is not moral, and not worthy of heaven.

And no, I can't read anyone's mind. Everything I say is what I think is true, not what I know is true. I find philosphical discussions about the reality of knowledge and truth rather tedious, but if you'd like to engage me in one, be my guest. It is impossible to prove that one knows anything given the fallibility of human consciousness. I only think that the muslims' motivations are selfish because it is what I have been told, and unlike the matter of religion, I can see no reason to believe otherwise.



No, not too much respect for them either.



Yes, selfishness is immoral. I am selfish to some degree, and so I am slightly immoral, but I believe that I am much more good than bad, just not all good. And as I already explained, I am not at all indifferent to the suffering of good people. I don't even know what you're citing when you quote me saying that I have pride, but I do. I am proud that I am more good than bad, I am proud that I am intelligent, or at least I think I am, I am proud that I am appreciative of the arts, etc.

I really don't know what you're going for here. Before, I was attacking you, so to speak. I was challenging the morality of god. I was at a disadvantage because you know more about the bible than me, and because you believe the bible is infallible, and I do not (as you pointed out). Now you cross over the line, and attack my emotions. You try to expose me contradicting myself, and show that I say that I am proud while it should be logically impossible for me to be proud of myself.

Well, first, you are now at a disadvantage. You have no direct evidence of my emotions, while my knowledge of my own emotions is just about the only thing I have infallible knowledge of. So, you cannot win this argument. I automatically win because I know how I feel about myself, and you can't disprove it. Second, how I feel about myself really has nothing to do with the theological debate we're having. I honestly must admit I have no idea what you're trying to get at with this.



Actually, I completely agree with you. That is why I have researched the bible in depth, and I find that many of my classmates who call themselves christians know less about their religion than I do. I just haven't read it. I've never gotten around to it. I do share you're general philosophy though. But I think I can say that I am not a christian with a good bit of certainty. I don't believe in any god, and that is a bit of a prerequisite, is it not?



By setting down good laws, god does good, since this may encourage others to do good. However, breaking these good laws does not make one bad if one intends to do good, as I've already said.

But more importantly, here is what I believe is or should be the difference between divine law and mortal law:

Divine law should require good on a personal level. It should require simply that a single person act as they believe is right. God is not responsible for society. If he's going to take on any responsibility like this, it should be encouraging the morality of humans in general. That means judging people by their intentions.

Mortal law is completely different. I think that it makes sense for mortals to be responsible for their own well being, and for each other's well being. Requiring that people act as they feel right is not good enough in this case. Instead, the laws should require that people actually do good. In this case, some good people with good intentions who inadvertantly do bad will be punished, but it is only society defending itself. We get back to the example of the two good people, person A and person B, but not it is society A and person B. And remember, society could be in fact wrong. Maybe person B is actually right. Person B should do what they think is right, and society/person A should do what it/he or she thinks is right. This may bring them into conflict, and that's unfortunate, but that's just what happens. There's no way around it. Every person should use their conscience for themselves.



No, that is almost what god offers, but there is a vital discrepency. To ask for god's forgiveness, one must believe in god, which, as I've said before, not all good people do. Good means having good intentions, and simply because a person means well does not mean that that person believes in god. The two things are completely unrelated. So the good people who would be repentant if they actually knew that god existed but do not beg for his forgiveness because they don't believe in him fall through the cracks.

Society has an excuse when it punishes good people. We are only mortals, and we cannot guarantee that we will always do good, even if we always try to do good. This is not so for god. He can always do good, because he is all knowing and all powerful. Any time he does not do good, it means he did not choose to do good, because, as I said, he always has the option. He could allow these good people who come to regret their wrongs on their death beds into heaven, even if they do not believe in him, since this, for the millionth time, does not make them bad, but he chooses not to. That is immoral, in my humble and fallible opinion.

Guess we'll let this argument dwindle here since the point will always fall back on one thing, the definition we share on morality. In my opinion, which has been enforced by what I believe to be the word of God, there is no such thing as a moral person who does not believe in God. Everyone sins and to not ask for forgiveness is immoral. In your opinion of morality, which is enforced by what you just feel is right and wrong (though you never accounted for where this common sense comes from), as I understand it, is that as long as one believes what he is doing is truly righteous, he is moral.

Scratch that, though I believe this argument can still go nowhere I should probably point out a few things I see off the top of my head.




Doesn't the fact that in your own words you claim the Vigilante to be doing "good" and the rest to be doing "bad" make the vigilante more worthy of your defense?



I was once told the two easiest things to know are "knowledge of self" and "knowledge of God." A debate on the reality of knowledge would go in circles quicker than this one because I can guarantee you I know two things. I know God exists because God has said so in the Bible. An infallible source has told me He exists and that I exist. You'd have to cripple my belief structure to "win" that debate. Though I suppose I myself couldn't "win" it either. My point, though, is that I can prove to have certain knowledge to anyone who believes the bible is the word of God, even if it's not accepted by you as proof.

... as a side note, using what you've stated above I challenge you to explain how you know that it is impossible to know anything. Just something that crossed my mind as I was moving to the next quote.




So that you know I didn't pull the quote out've my ass, it is something you mentioned.



I'm sorry if you feel I am crossing a line of some sort, but i assure you I'm not. I'm not being personally offensive here though I am trying to find contradictions in your own argument so that you are forced to take a step back and re-examine your belief structure so that you can re-assemble your argument. There's no line being crossed, it's just tactic. I tried to back you into a corner by suggesting and providing evidence from your own argument that you might be immoral but instead you did not backtrack you just accepted and admitted that you are immoral, though not to a huge degree. I hope you understand, this is just the way a debate works. Each party tries to dismantle the others argument whenever a hole might present itself.



You are correct, but I never mentioned any of your own emotions that you didn't reveal in your argument on your own. So as long as you claim that your argument is truthful in your eyes, I know my knowledge of what you said you feel is truthful as well. Also, if you don't know what I'm getting at then you might still be the disadvantaged one here, but I'll keep that as a trump card for later.



This is why I'm ready to call this one a stalemate. I believe he does encourage morality. He inspired the creation of the Bible which states exactly what righteous is and also states that one must ask for forgiveness for his shortcomings to make it into Heaven. To me and I'm sure, to God, there is no such thing as a moral person who rejects God, thus he is encouraging morality through the bible.

I guess so, but though the justice system in this case is doing bad, the people invovled in the system still believe they are doing good, and so they are still good people.



Well I can "cripple" you're belief structure pretty quickly, in my eyes anyway, though you probably wouldn't admit it. I could simply say that you're crazy, that the bible doesn't exist, and that you've never read anything like it. The whole thing was a hallucination, and you are just confused. So you really don't know anything. Now you see what I mean be the fallibility of human consciousness.

I don't know that it's impossible to know anything. I don't know anything, I only think things. It is impossible to actually know anything because it's always possible that reality as I percieve it doesn't exist, and that my mind simply isn't functioning properly. And, obviously, because of what I just said, I think that it's impossible to truly know anything.



Oh, yeah, I didn't think you just made it up, but I didn't know what you were refering to, so I was confused.



No, I didn't mean that. I don't take anything offensively in such a debate. I simply meant that you were invading my territory so to speak. I had been going on the offensive, attacking what you believe to be true, but now you're attacking what I think I know to be true. Basically this whole debate has been me attacking god. Like when Lee, who had been fighting a defensive war, crossed the Mason-Dixon line and began invading the north.

Alright, the last two sections of your post aren't really asking for a response.

Next, I think I'll throw some more stuff in to satisfy my curiosity. Basically, I've finally decided to try taking you're precious holy book away.

First, there are many religions out there. They all say "God is infallible, and god says that god exists. Because god is infallible, and because god says god exists, god must exist." Why do you choose to believe the bible when the bible says this, but not other religions?

Second, why are you so certain the bible is the word of god? This is something I've allowed you the whole debate. You've "known" (gotta use quotes or you'll say I'm contradicting myself) that I disagreed, but we didn't bring it up because we both knew it wasn't going to change. Really, how can you be so sure that a bunch of mortals didn't just write down the bible, and say that it was the word of god? Isn't that equally possible?

Finally, my most agressive one: Let's say god does exist, and let's say he did decide what the bible would say. But what if almost all bible stories god made up? What if he intentionally meant for him to come accross as immoral to mortals like me? What if he wanted his children use their own sense of morality to realize that what the bible said about him was immoral? And what if he wanted us to reject the deity as portrayed in the bible? What if this is his ultimate test of morality and worthiness? What if he has decided that if we are, at heart, a good enough people to stand by what we believe to be right and moral that we risk our enternal souls in the defense of what we see as right, then we must be worthy of heaven?

Maybe the bible was the biggest lie ever told by god, just to test us?

Before I can answer this you'll have to show me the passage in each book that says their God is 1) Infallible 2) existant. Right now I don't know the other books say that, All I know is that the Bible says it.



1) I'll assume the quotes are there. Use the word 'know' however you please.
2) I know because God said it is. This is where my faith takes over. I Believe in God and he tells me he dictated the bible to prophets over many years. It's a self-sustaining belief. I believe in each because of the other. However in a world of prophetic drought it's hard for me to admit that it isn't equally possible the bible could be false. That's why I have faith.



A decent hypothetical, but the problem with it is that is that God has said he is infallible and that his word is truth. God has told us his word is truth and that alone means those stories couldn't be made up. Because lying is evil, and God is not.

On the first, I don't feel like looking for quotes, but I'm pretty sure most say something along those lines. Basically, I guess I'll just give you that you have faith in Christianity, and you don't have faith in other religions...

But why is faith so arbitrary? Why do you have in this and not that?



So are you saying that god speaks directly to you, as a prophet? Or when god "tells" you, do you mean in the bible, which could possibly be written by mortals? Again, I'll give you your arbitrary faith...

But what is the difference between faith in gullibility? That's something I don't understand. When you simply choose to believe the bible without any evidence of its truth, it's faith, but when you just choose to believe something stupid anyone else tells you, it's gullibility, is it not?



First, he could have been lying as much when he said that his word was truth as when he wrote/dictated to prophets those stories. Infallibility does not imply the inability to lie. And as to lying being evil, where do you get this from? The bible? Hmm... The bible also says that killing is evil, but has god not killed? Has he not destroyed entire cities? It seems to me that god is not bound by his own commandments in other cases, so he shouldn't be in this one.

I have said I believe the Bible to be the word of God. I assumed when I mention God speaking you would pick up that it of course means through the Bible.



God has indeed killed, but here's where you would be advantaged to read the bible. The Bible DOES NOT say that killing is evil. It says that murder is evil (ie unjust killing.) God has killed, but never murdered. He's destroyed entire cities of sinners.

"Thou shall not kill"

If god is commanding us not to kill, it is probably because killing is evil, correct? Again, I don't get the impression that he is bound by his own laws. Therefore, my hypothetical situation is not automatically invalidated.

"...the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

But Adam does not die the day he eats from the tree. Therefore, got was wrong. He is indeed fallible.

Adam did die. He died spiritually. Doesn't the Hebrew say "in the day you eat"? Why does "day" have to be literal here? Most Old testament scholars do not take it literally.

Another way to look at it is that in the day Adam ate the fruit God spared the first couple through sacrifice. On the same day (literally) that adam ate the fruit God restored them to life and fellowship spiritually and physically. Gen:3 (if you don't see this let me know and I will elaberate).

If he didn't die literally, god wasn't litterally right.

Let's see what happens when we don't take other parts of the bible literally.

"You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."

Maybe as long as we don't do it too often he won't mind.

"Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you."

When he says honor, maybe he just means tolerate. Like don't murder them, or something like that.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour."

But if you can get by telling half truths and white lies, go ahead.

"Neither shall you commit adultery."

Well... as long as she doesn't get pregnant.

So when do we take it litterally? When do we make something up to cover for the inherent errors of the bible? It doesn't really matter, I guess, since the bible's made up anyway, right?

Context, context, context. Read it. I didn't just make it up.



Your presuppositions are showing. You beg the question.