Angra Mainyu

My point is that according to the Law, homosexual acts should be punishable by death.
If the law of a country doesn’t punish such acts by death, is that law wrong (because it’s against the Law)?

As I pointed out in the other thread, I cannot choose to believe in the God of the Bible any more than I could choose to believe in Zeus.
But that aside, my argument was in response to your contention that
Giving that “choosing” anything but Christianity would result in the destruction of the “ “chooser” according to your beliefs (and you consider that acceptable, apparently) there seems to be a problem there (are you not giving the people the freedom to destroy themselves?)

I was referring to the Law, with a capital “L”. I use capitalization to distinguish between the Law of your God and the laws of countries.

The atrocities are the ones allowed by the Law of the Old Testament.
My point is, should those atrocities be allowed and done by Christians?

Should gay people be killed?


That depends on one’s definition of “democracy”.
In the US, as Gamera pointed out, 51% would not be enough. However, it’s true that a larger majority could change the constitution and adopt the Law as the basis for the American constitutional and legal system. Luckily, it’s not going to happen.

Anyway, you’re saying that people can choose not to be ruled by God, even if that means they’re going to be destroyed? Why?
Where does the Law says that democratic majorities must be respected?

Anyway, would you not want your country (and the world) to be ruled by God?
Do you not think that laws in accordance to the Law should be passed?

If you could vote, would you vote in favor of adopting the Law as the basis for your countries’ constitutional and legal system?

In a more limited manner, would you want homosexuality to be punishable by death, as the Law says?
If not, why punish abortion?

Johnny Skeptic

It is not debatable whether or not I could run the world much better than God does if I had the power to run it my way. I am much more loving, kind, and merciful than God is. Humanity would be much better off. God does not run the world of the people, by the people, and for the people. I would not run the world of the people, and by the people, but I would run the world for the people. That is what true love, kindness, and mercy are all about, but your bi-polar, mentally incompetent, mythical God will have none of that.

rhutchin

Too bad we can't put that to a test. You are a man of great faith in yourself.

rhutchin

The Law provided by God says that homosexuality is punishable by death. Consequently, a person who does this will be judged by God and excluded from heaven. The person will be put to “death” or excluded from heaven when they die. All sin is ultimately punishable by death.

If a country were to determine that it would serve God, then it would have a human law that said homosexuality was wrong and those caught participating in it would be given the death penalty. The purpose of the human law would be to draw people’s attention to God’s Law so that people would associate death under the human law with death under God’s Law – and final judgment.

If a country determined that it would not serve God, then the human law would be wrong and those who refused to teach people that homosexuality is wrong would be accountable for doing so. The people who believed the rulers and participated in homosexuality would be judged for those acts even though they may be unaware of God’s Law.

Why not? You have certain information about Zeus and certain information about God. Could you not look at the information you have and distinguish between the two such that you could determine that it is possible to believe in either or both? Could you not determine the consequences of not believing in either one and then choose to believe in that god where unbelief incurs consequences you would want to avoid?

Yep. So, is the world a better place for this? Would it have been better for individuals (and produce a better world) if God did not give people the freedom to destroy themselves?

If a country wants to be governed by God, then homosexuality (and many other sexual sins) would be punishable by death.

You consider the death of a person who participates in homosexuality to be an atrocity but you see no atrocity in a mother having her child killed while it is still in the womb. What makes one action an atrocity and the other not?

The Congress passes laws by a simple 51% majority. The Supreme Court makes decisions by a simple majority (which would be 51% if there were 100 judges on the court). You can read Supreme Court decisions (especially the 5-4 decisions) and see that both sides argue that the constitution says opposite things. If you have not done so, it makes interesting reading. The courts change the constitution all the time (in the sense of using it to justify opposite opinions).

I don’t think that the Law says that democratic majorities must be respected. Without the Law, you either have the majority ruling over the minority (perhaps in a democratic system) or you have a minority intimidating the majority (as appears in many middle east countries).

The purpose for the Law is to prepare a person to stand before God and know the basis for his being judged. I think human law should agree with God’s Law because we humans should prepare people to stand before God.

Johnny Skeptic

My you are a slow learner. I have told you many times that Pascal's Wager, aka risk assessement, DOES NOT work on decent people. GET THIS: You would not be able to love a God who endorsed lying. Decent people are not able to love a God who refuses to reveal himself to some people who would accept him if they knew that he (supposedly) exists, says that killing people is wrong, but endorses killing some of his most devout and faithful followers, makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5, refused to clearly tell early Christians that slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women are wrong, and goes out of his way to make it appear that he does not exist. While tangible benefits are frequently DISTRIBUTED to those who ARE NOT in greatest need, they are frequently WITHHELD from those who ARE in greatest need. This indicates that tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics. A loving, caring God would NEVER run a world that way, and he would NEVER go out of his way to make it appear that he does not exist. At the EofG Forum, you said that a person can test God by honoring his parents and tithing. That is most certainly false. It is a fact that no particular Christian can ask God for a particular tangible need and be assured that God will give it to him. This is to be expected if God does not exist. Anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense knows that lying is not nearly as bad as committing the many atrocities that I mentioned. Your morals and principles are deplorable and detestable.

You are right that it is too bad that we can't put that to a test, because mankind would be much better off if I ran the world and had enough power to do what I wanted to do. It doesn't take any faith at all to know that I could run the world much better than God does. Unlike God, I would prevent disease, prevent natural disasters, protect people from murderers, and make sure that everyone had enough to eat, EXACTLY the kind of world that most Christians would like to live in, probably including you. If your guru John Calvin had had enough power, he would have killed every Christian in world who disagreed with his religious views. If the Bible is true, John Calvin will go to hell because the Bible says that murderers will go to hell.

You have some unfinished business to attend to at the thread on 2 Peter 3:9

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: There are two threads at this forum on inerrancy, and one on Bible contradictions, but you have not made a post in any of them. Why have you become so bashful? Regarding Bible contradictions, I suggest that you visit a web site at http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...adictions.html. That can be the first of hundreds of articles on Bible contradictions that we can debate.

Solo

....the problem with that kind of philosophic stance, dear Johnny Skeptic, is that while everyone believes it is his/her birthright to be worshipped, only idiots are known to make an issue of it.

Jiri

Angra Mainyu

While that would make God very evil, its impact on people is only indirect, in the form of God’s worshippers mistreating the people their God hates.

However, there’s no direct impact, since Hell isn’t real. A much more direct impact would be caused by attempts to enforce the Law. In fact, the Law doesn’t only say that gay people will burn in Hell. The Law actually calls for their execution, and that’s what my question is about.

Do you think countries should determine that they should serve God, and pass a human law that punished homosexuality by death?
If you had to vote for a law such as that, would you vote in favor, or against, and why?

Would you find the actions of God acceptable?
In other words, if there were an entity that tortured gay people for eternity, would you condone His actions?
You seem to think you don’t really know what happens after death: would you want a God who engages in infinite torture to exist?


No.

Based on the information I have, I conclude that neither Zeus nor the Christian God has any remote chance of existing. Thus, I cannot choose to believe in either of them, or in any other God of any other religion I know of.

No.

The consequences of not believing in either one are nonexistent. What would be infinitely bad would be the consequences of not believing in the Christian God if He existed (Zeus wouldn’t impose the same obligation).

However, that cannot allow me to believe.

I’ll use an example that may explain this better to you:

Suppose there is a god, say, Skepgod , who doesn’t provide evidence of His existence, and doesn’t want people to worship any god. He sends theists to Hell, and non-theists to Heaven.
Based on the info available to you, you conclude that Skepgod doesn’t exist. Can you actually choose to believe in Skepgod?

If the answer is “yes”, I’d ask “how?”, because I certainly can’t.

Well, if the answer is “yes”, then God has made a worse world than He could have made.

That aside, the question wasn’t about God giving people the freedom to destroy themselves, but you giving them such freedom.

Would you want that for a country (yours or any other)?

The former is the killing of a person who committed no fault.

The latter is the killing of an embryo or fetus, which I don’t consider to be a person. Not allowing it would force a person to be an incubator.

You can find a more thorough debate on abortion (where I explain my position in much more detail) here.

Now, it’s my turn to ask the question. Do you consider that killing an embryo smaller than a pinhead should be banned, but you’d accept a law that established the execution of blasphemers and homosexuals? If so, why?


Yeah, I know. It’s the same over here – only the changes are even more frequent.

But what’s the point you were trying to make?

You argued before that the US was a democracy, so my argument was based on that assumption that I didn’t intend to challenge in this thread. You said that, “If people want to be ruled by God, they would be subject to His commands. In a democracy, anyone with 51% of the vote can make his own laws”

If your argument is that the SC rules, then perhaps it would be more accurate to say something along the lines of “if the SC wants people to be ruled by God, then people would be subject to His commands. In a SC autocracy, anyone with 5 votes out of 9 can make his own laws, so a group of 5 justices rules America”.

Personally, I think you’re giving the SC too much power – I don’t think they could do that and get away with it. But if you think that’s the case, then why should the tyranny of the SC be accepted? Why don’t you go for a revolution, then?

If the Law doesn’t say democratic majorities must be respected – in fact, the Law says that the Law must be respected – and you want to follow the Law, why would you respect democratic majorities (or SC majorities) instead?

As for the Middle East, I’m not sure the people doing the intimidation are actually in the minority in all those countries. I think that probably varies from country to country. Incidentally, sexual laws are much closer to the Law over there. But that’s a side note.

Should I take that as a “yes”?
Would you want homosexuality and blasphemy to be punishable by death?

Johnny Skeptic

I do not wish to be worshipped, I only wish to help people. If I can accomplish that without being the ruler of the world, that would be fine with me. For example, I want to heal people, to feed people, and protect them from serious injury. God is not interested in doing these things, at least not on a consistent basis, but I would if I had the power to do so. Therefore, I am more loving, compassionate, and merciful than the God of the Bible is. I certainly do not create hurricanes and kill people with them, and I certainly do not endorse unmerciful eternal punishment without parole.

Johnny Skeptic

Your problem is that the Bible says that the most essential part of the preparation is to love God with all of your heart, soul, and mind. No decent person can will himself to love the God of the Bible. I discuss this issue in greater detail in my post #303 in the thread on 2 Peter 3:9. Have you conveniently vacated that thread? If so, I do not blame you, but you cannot successfully hide in this thread. I will simply repost my arguments from that thread in this thread. One issue that you will not be able to avoid defending for long in inerrancy. Your arguments depend a lot upon the Bible being inerrant, but you continue to avoid defending inerrancy, which indicates that you are not nearly as confident of your arguments as you pretend to be.