Bill Snedden

I see. So unbelievers whose non-belief is due to the free exercise of their gift of reason and who diligently sought what they ultimately were unable to find will not be punished with eternal hellfire for their honest lack of belief?

You're quite correct. I am both emotionally and intellectually opposed to slavery, whatever its source.

It's always puzzled me that most if not all people would agree that slavery is evil, yet some will still support and defend a worldview that embraces it.

Let me make it clear that by "worldview", I don't mean "Christianity" per se. I'm referring to those religious worldviews (including CP & fundamentalist versions of Christianity and Islam) that do explicitly view us as "god's property" and see our existence as due only to "his mercy." There are certainly Christians who deny that this is the case. It is absolutely possible to acknowledge the "creator/creature" distinction, recognizing a qualitative difference between God and Man, and yet hold that God created Man as capable of being his moral equal. That is, as capable of being a moral agent as he is. It seems to me that to suppose anything less of God is to doom him to the role of petty tyrant, or some kind of psychopathic creature with severe confidence & self-esteem issues.

If by "out there" you mean "in the sky" or "outer space" as the Bible clearly indicates, then I am, in fact, quite convinced that there's no god there.

If however you mean "in existence", then you're right, I'm not convinced. Neither do I see any evidence to suggest that the existence of a being that I would describe as "god" is likely, but I certainly don't deny that it is possible.

Regards,

Bil Snedden

Mageth

I would also ask you to tell me about the experience (if you don't want to talk about a particular event I guess thats fine). What you were doing? Why did you do it?. What feelings did you have about it?

Which time? I've killed lots of animals, doing different things, for different reasons, and with different feelings. As I said, I don't feel the need to discuss any particular event. But I'll give you a couple of examples:

I've taken antibiotics to kill bacteria in my system when sick, for the reason of getting well, and felt better afterwards. (you did ask if I had killed something

I musta swatted a million mosquitos in my life, the reason being because I live in Texas. I generally felt itchy afterwards.

I agree with HawkingFan; get to the point.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Hawkingfan and Mageth,

Ok. I'm getting to the point...you guys have to stick with me a bit.


I'll come right out and ask it: Have either of you ever actually killed something with a face? A warm blooded mammal? And I'm not talking about hunting with a rifle where you shoot some animal from 200 yards away. I'm talking about killing an animal almost with your bare hands.

<yes this is going somewhere>



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Hawkingfan

Tell me where this is going so we can continue. I don't want to sound impatient but there are some other discussions I want to get into. Please show the relevance and how this relates to god.

Hawkingfan

I'm sorry but I haven't. I took my dog to the vet once to have her put to sleep, but I've never almost killed anything with my bare hands. Sorry.

Mageth

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas
I'll come right out and ask it: Have either of you ever actually killed something with a face? A warm blooded mammal? And I'm not talking about hunting with a rifle where you shoot some animal from 200 yards away. I'm talking about killing an animal almost with your bare hands.

Yes' I've killed mammals. "Cute" ones, too, up close, but not bare-handed, and not maliciously or without reason. It's not something I brag about, but I'm not ashamed of it. What's you're point?

Wyz_sub10

I know that's what you're saying. But what it means is that anything god does, IYO, becomes "good". You only say that he cannot perform genocide because if god did it, it would not be "genocide" but "divine judgement", or some nonsense.

Hence, you change the definitions to match your notion of what god must be. This provides no real basis for morality because god, IYO, can intervene and act as he likes. Literally, he can make something amoral, moral.

This is simply not true. It isn't the same thing at all. In your description of god, he *can* be a married bachelor, except he isn't called a "bachelor", but some other term.

The bible is clear in saying god approves of killing by ethnicity. You can refuse to call this genocide because it disrupts your logic. But you shielding yourself doesn't hide it from the rest of us.

God commits genocide. If you want to develop ad hoc arguments why this is impossible, you'll have to do better than "well, when god does it, it's not genocide."

Why?

(this is in reponse to my question, "if I said god told me to have lots of promiscuous sex, would you believe me?")

See, because if you asked me if an all-loving, all-good god told you to slaughter thousands, I wouldn't believe you either.

Yet open the bible, and there it is.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Hawkingfan and Mageth
Don't be sorry. Be thankful. It's horrible.


I have killed an animal up close and personal (we had chickens when I was young). It was one of the worst experiences of my life. The blood, the sound, the smell, the somber feeling of loss of life. It still haunts me today.




This is exactly why God had man do this in atonement for his sin...because it was a sad, painful, morbid experience to go through. Hang on...it gets worse.


When God gave this law to the Hebrew nation through Moses, He decreed that it should be done in the presence of the Levi priests in the tabernacle. Let me spell out what this means:


You have committed a sin. To atone for this sin by law you have to go out to your stable and choose a new/first born calf or lamb. Then you have to walk from your tent to your tabernacle. Often times, depending on how young the poor animal was you had to carry it. So you go to the center of the tribe. There is a huge line. You have to wait there, in the heat, with this young lamb, knowing you were going to kill it.

So your number is up and you go up to the alter where a priest (with a knife) is waiting for you. Slow death? Oh no...not at all. We are going to slit this young animals throat. It will bleed to death. Oh wait...it gets better.

Part of the atonement for your sins Mag and Hawkingfan...is to place your hands on this babe...while the priest is slitting its throat. You place both of your hands on it. The priest brings the knife up to the lambs neck. The animal is scared and starts to bolt...you have to hold it there. Knife goes in and across. The lamb moans. You hear the gurgling of blood. You hold your hands on this poor thing until it bleeds to death and stops moving.

This poor, innocent animal is bleeding to death because of something you did. This young animal was completely blameless...the only reason this animal was dying was because of your sin. And your conscious bears the weight of this witness...had you not sinned this innocent yearling would not have to die.

Sin my friends, was not to be taken lightly. It is a horrible thing and by law you had to pay the price. You had to pay the price in the time it took to atone for your sins (the entire round trip could easily take an entire day), you had to pay the price financially (a new calf or lamb was a fair amount of currency) and worst of all you had to be present and attached to this animal as it was bleeding to death for your transgressions.


God specifically chose this process so that man would not forget the seriousness of his sin. This is why Hebrews 9:22 says
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Because without shedding of blood...there is no repentance...and with no repentance there is no forgiveness.


And now the punchline: Sacrifice was, is and always will be for the benefit of man...not God.

It has nothing to do with jumping through some hoop so God will start forgiving sins. Sheesh.

It has everything to do with man remembering his sin, taking it seriously and repenting for it.



This is exactly why Jesus died. Not for God, but for man. That man would remember his sin, take it seriously and repent for it.



God could have very easily forgiven all mans sins (and did). But this would not have represented the pain, the suffering, the seriousness of mans situation. It would not have illustrated how important man was to God or the price He was willing to pay to be reconciled with him. It would not have illustrated the love the God has for each and everyone of us...as if we were nothing more than a flippant passing thought in God's mind that He could just dismiss.


This is the truth, reason an purpose of Biblical sacrifice, and as you mentioned Mageth, the ultimate sacrifice that Jesus willingfully gave.






Now about the Texas comment: I feel the style of church services that are prevelant in the south are more emotional and supportive in nature than insightful. That is fine...to each his own. But many a time I have shook my head in a S. Baptist service while the preacher (they are called 'preachers' in the south) yammers on about 'The Lamb Of God' and 'The blood price Jesus paid' and yadda yadda yadda...without actually understanding the concepts behind this sacrifice. It's almost as if Jesus sacrifice is a euphimism...and nothing more. I can only take so much rhetoric. My guess is both of you guys have experienced this at one point or another.




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Wyz_sub10

I realize that. If I murder Joe, I can understand the loss to his wife Doris and I can understand (to some degree) her pain. I was not referring to empathizing with the person killed. I'd argue, in fact, that we seldom feel for the victims of misfortune as much as we do for the survivors.

There is a reason for the selection of these "feelings". You may not consider group survival consciously, but would you argue that group survival had no bearing on the selection of genetics leading to the idea that murder is wrong?

I see what you are saying - we didn't choose the wiring, the wiring chose us. Correct?

For example, one's personal survival is threatened or an overwhelming anticipated loss? I think that part of it remains reasonable.

I admit I didn't choose the best words here, but the point was that animals maintain an order in their societies as do humans. The behaviour you've described in animals can easily be seen in humans. My question remains - if you conclude god's presence (or lack thereof) is responsible for our behaviour, then do you apply god's presence to explain animal behaviour?

I wasn't implying animals are better behaved. Simply that they are similarly behaved, god or no god.

Well, misstated perhaps...

Yes, you've said as much. Sounds good to me. The "trial and error" is based on something - something to demonstrate the "error".

In my post, I am saying that the "error" is made clear through the inability to sustain a social system if there is nothing to provide that sense or "wrongness".

I have no argument with any of this. I think, however, you're taking my statement to mean that reason, independent of biology, dictates our behaviour. I'm not saying that.

What I am saying is that the reason we do not murder people is not because we think it offends god - but because there are reasons associated with our survival.

You will break this down further to say that those survival reasons are hard-wired.

That's fine. But people can still rationalize why they do not kill apart from concluding they are hard-wired not to desire it (for the most part). The hard-wiring may have been random, but the selection of that hard-wiring is based on its consequences.

If I'm correct, you are saying "we didn't choose not to kill, the idea not to kill chose us."

Hawkingfan

God didn't have to do anything in order to forgive man his sins other than simply forgive them. No ritual killing should be required.

Stop right there. How does atonement for sin=kill a lamb? That makes no sense. Why the bloodthirst? Why does god approve? What if they just said they were sorry?

Not what I did. But what is required of me to do in order to be forgiven. Why?
Where does this line of reasoning come from? Why does sin result in death of an animal result in forgiveness of sin? How?
Why does an animal have to die because of my sin? Why can't god accept my apology without bring in a third party who must die?

Why? Even if I had a guilt trip for my sin (which I don't), why does shedding of blood=forgiveness. Why can't god accept my repentance by my apology like everyone else?

The only reason you see it as a benefit to man is because it is a requirement by god. If god did not require it in the first place, it would not be beneficial to man. You still have not answered why god ARBITRARILY craves blood in order to forgive?

Why can't man remember his sin without killing something?

Jesus died for man because God requires something to die for man. If god did not require death, no one would have to die at all.

The "pain, suffering, and seriousness of man's situation" is all in your head. If my sin was that perverse and serious, the ideal and ultimate way for forgiveness would be to kill myself, not another being who has nothing to do with it.

Innocent people are killed all the time, murdered all the time, sentenced to death all the time. Many people sacrifice their lives in order to save others but with no religious reasons whatsoever! And many other people die for no reason at all. To belittle them by saying there is something more special about Christ is arrogant.

As I said before, Jesus saying "Take this cup from me", and "Why has thou forsaken me?" and "NOT MY WILL, but thine" show that he wasn't exactly willing.