killing in the name of

Originally posted by RBHILL
Well why not kill if the Bible says all have sinned and fallen short of God's Glory.

And again here is what's wrong with belief based on faith.

The bible is WRONG.

There is no evidence for the existence of any god or gods let alone the god of the bible.

Accordingly there is no reason to trust or believe ANYTHING the bible says about anything not
supported by other and more reliable evidence. (This precludes believing anything the bible
says about the supernatural)

This means that "the bible says..." is not a justification for anything, let alone something as
final and absolute as murdering someone.

Originally posted by googlefudge
And again here is what's wrong with belief based on faith.

The bible is WRONG.

There is no evidence for the existence of any god or gods let alone the god of the bible.

Accordingly there is no reason to trust or believe ANYTHING the bible says about anything not
supported by other and more reliable evidence. (This precludes believing anything ...[text shortened]... justification for anything, let alone something as
final and absolute as murdering someone.

There is a lot of evidence.

God has mercy on who he wills and he has cursed on who he will to show or not show his truth too.

Originally posted by googlefudge
And again here is what's wrong with belief based on faith.

The bible is WRONG.

There is no evidence for the existence of any god or gods let alone the god of the bible.

Accordingly there is no reason to trust or believe ANYTHING the bible says about anything not
supported by other and more reliable evidence. (This precludes believing anything ...[text shortened]... justification for anything, let alone something as
final and absolute as murdering someone.

Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but through Christ. Good reason to believe in my opinion. HalleluYah !!!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but through Christ. Good reason to believe in my opinion. HalleluYah !!!

RJ, Googlefudge asked, a couple of pages ago, after you claimed that you would kill if told to do so by God...

-------------------------
Well I think the logical follow-up question, particularly given RJHinds response is to ask...

"How can you tell the difference between god asking you to kill someone, or a hallucination of god asking you to kill someone?"

Given that you can hallucinate anything your mind is capable of comprehending I can only conclude that
it would be impossible to tell the difference.

Thus even if you do think morality does come from god, which is a damned idiotic idea. You would have to check
any suggested action 'god' instructs you to take against your own moral code and values, simply due to the possibility
that the 'god' giving you instruction is a hallucination. Which means that you would have to have a legitimate moral
reason for committing whatever act 'god' asked you to do independent of 'god' asking you to do it.

Which yet again removes any need or value to the existence or otherwise of god from any moral dilemma.
-------------------------

Do you have an answer to this question of how you could know that it was God asking rather than a simple hallucination?

--- Penguin

Originally posted by stellspalfie
hypothetical question #237

if god told you to kill a stranger, no questions asked, would you?

god wouldn't ask that of me.


and there is the minor possibility of insanity if one hears god.

Originally posted by Penguin
RJ, Googlefudge asked, a couple of pages ago, after you claimed that you would kill if told to do so by God...

-------------------------
[i]Well I think the logical follow-up question, particularly given RJHinds response is to ask...

"How can you tell the difference between god asking you to kill someone, or a hallucination of god asking you to kill s ...[text shortened]... u could know that it was God asking rather than a simple hallucination?

--- Penguin

Have you ever heard of "intuition"?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Have you ever heard of "intuition"?

ha!! 'intuition' brilliant.

rj would you describe yourself as a racist?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Have you ever heard of "intuition"?

Intuition is a form of type-one reasoning where you make rapid judgements possibly based on
incomplete information by using your previous experience of similar situations as a guide.

The accuracy of type-one reasoning is proportionate to the amount of experience you have of
dealing with a particular problem or situation.


How much experience do you have of god coming down and telling you in person to kill people?

And how could you tell for any of those situations whether it was god or a hallucination?


Intuition is not a viable answer for how you can tell the difference between 'experiencing' god
and hallucinating 'experiencing' god.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Intuition is a form of type-one reasoning where you make rapid judgements possibly based on
incomplete information by using your previous experience of similar situations as a guide.

The accuracy of type-one reasoning is proportionate to the amount of experience you have of
dealing with a particular problem or situation.


How much experience d ...[text shortened]... u can tell the difference between 'experiencing' god
and hallucinating 'experiencing' god.

This is a hypothetical question anyway. So I don't care. HalleluYah !!! 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is a hypothetical question anyway. So I don't care. HalleluYah !!! 😏

Yes it is a hypothetical question but it gets at [the] core of your belief system.

You have claimed in the past to have had a 'personal experience' of god and cited that
as a reason for your faith.

And certainly there are many others who do claim to have had a 'personal' experience
of god and have that as the reason for their faith.

Which means the question of how you tell the difference between god and a hallucination
of god is not a hypothetical because there really are people, possibly including you, who
claim that they have had such an experience.


And the point of the theoretical as to what you would do if instructed to by 'god' is important
because it gets at how deeply you believe that what you are experiencing really is god as
opposed to a hallucination thereof.



And more than that.

The very foundations of your religion are based on people who claim to have experienced and
been inspired by god and the same question as to how could they tell the difference between
experiencing god and a hallucination [very much applies].

If you can't tell the difference today, why should we believe that they could back then.
Particularly as back then they didn't really know or understand hallucinations or the capacity of the
human brain to be deceived or deceive itself.


So the 'hypothetical' question as to whether or not you would kill someone if asked to by god and
the follow-up question of how can you tell the difference between experiencing god and a hallucination
are questions that go to the very core and centre of your religion and faith.

Without a good answer to those questions you have no basis for your faith.
No basis for trusting the words in the bible.

This is a discussion that goes to the very heart of the difference between how and what I believe vs how and
what you believe and why it matters.

If you don't care about that then what the hell are you doing here?


*EDITS in [brackets]

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes it is a hypothetical question but it gets at [the] core of your belief system.

You have claimed in the past to have had a 'personal experience' of god and cited that
as a reason for your faith.

And certainly there are many others who do claim to have had a 'personal' experience
of god and have that as the reason for their faith.

Which me on't care about that then what the hell are you doing here?


*EDITS in [brackets]

Well. okay. I am sure it is not an hallucination in my case because there was
no visual aspect to the encounter. That is it was not in the form of a dream or
a vision. It was the Holy Spirit connecting directly with my spirit and soul. It
was like a communication to my mind but without words. That is the best that
I can explain it. I guess it was not like the prophets of old. So as an atheist
you might call it my imagination. However, this imagination was able to reveal
to me that Christ was 35 years old at His crucifixion instead of 33 or 33 1/2 as
most Biblical scholars teach and that it took place on Wednesday verses Friday.
Christ was also born on a Passover night at about the same time of the night
that the Lord's last supper occurred. It seems to be backed up by scripture.
So maybe you will say I have a good imagination, but not an hallucination.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well. okay. I am sure it is not an hallucination in my case because there was
no visual aspect to the encounter. That is it was not in the form of a dream or
a vision. It was the Holy Spirit connecting directly with my spirit and soul. It
was like a communication to my mind but without words. That is the best that
I can explain it. I guess it was n ...[text shortened]... ed up by scripture.
So maybe you will say I have a good imagination, but not an hallucination.

I think you misunderstand what constitutes a hallucination, it doesn't have to be something you 'see',
you can hallucinate sound, or smell, or taste.


However I was using the term slightly informally to mean an experience that was generated by your brain
that didn't reflect reality.

I was using it as a catch all to represent the binary options.
Either the experience was generated by god, or it wasn't.
If it wasn't I am terming it for our purposes here a hallucination.

So the question remains how can you tell if it was god or not?

Nothing you have just said indicates in any way that your experience was of god and not a hallucination.

And as I said at the start, "given that your brain is capable of manufacturing [hallucinating] any experience you
are capable of experiencing. How can you POSSIBLY tell the difference between an experience of god or a
hallucination of god?".

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think you misunderstand what constitutes a hallucination, it doesn't have to be something you 'see',
you can hallucinate sound, or smell, or taste.


However I was using the term slightly informally to mean an experience that was generated by your brain
that didn't reflect reality.

I was using it as a catch all to represent the binary options ...[text shortened]... POSSIBLY tell the difference between an experience of god or a
hallucination of god?".

I guess with God, one must have faith. If I receive the truth from my so-called
hallucination, then I have faith it is from God; and if not, it must be from Satan.
That is all I can tell you. So my faith is not all based on scientific experiments
or the like, since the spirit world falls outside of what physical science can verify.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I guess with God, one must have faith. If I receive the truth from my so-called hallucination, then I have faith it is from God; and if not, it must be from Satan. That is all I can tell you.

So all you can tell us is that - for all intents and purposes - you yourself would decide whether or not to kill someone, and you would decide whether or not it was 'because God told you to'.

Originally posted by FMF
So all you can tell us is that - for all intents and purposes - you yourself would decide whether or not to kill someone, and you would decide whether or not it was 'because God told you to'.

I think (correct me if I am wrong RJ) that he he is saying he would believe the instruction to be from God if it felt similar to the experience he has already described. If he firmly believes that earlier experience came from God and this new instruction to kill felt the same, then he would comply with the instruction.

Do I have it right RJ?

--- Penguin.