Why is it so aggravating ?

Originally posted by buckky
I ask myself why does the Christian doctrine aggravate me so much, and this is what I came up with. Telling someone that they will spend eternity in Hell, because they don't see it like you see it, is beyond rude. It's savage ,and lacking in any type of kindness or understanding of humanity. It's cave man thought.
The smugness that most Christians have ab ...[text shortened]... 's read it in the Bible and shut up heathen. God said it, I believe it ,and that settles it.

I'm a Christian but I dislike that trite bumper sticker axiom (God said it I believe it that settles it). I'd like to think that those who support that thinking are few and far between, but the more I hear, the harder it is for me to think it.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I'm a Christian but I dislike that trite bumper sticker axiom (God said it I believe it that settles it). I'd like to think that those who support that thinking are few and far between, but the more I hear, the harder it is for me to think it.

What would be an example of that thinking pink?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….free will is not something you can restrict because then it is no longer free will.
..…

Wrong. What if you are “free” to do anything BUT deliberately harm others?
-you still have a vast number of choices and it wouldn’t put a dent in the range of choices that would be worthy of mention.

….hey, you can do whatever you want, except ...[text shortened]... ing capable/incapable of an act of evil? -not making any point here -just curious, that’s all.

"Wrong."
does that mean that freedom is not the ability to do what you want, but rather the ability to do what someone else wants. be it either the government or god. would you like to someday find out that the government released some sort of drug in the atmosphere that absolutely prevents you from kicking puppies. even though you would never ever kick puppies(i hope not) it would still be wrong. now if we replace government with god it would be even worse because there would be no vaccine, because it was God who "fixed" us. do you like being told what to do? even by god?

"No, what I propose is:"
in the beginning mankind was swinging from the trees. what would you have forbidden then? because anything else was created by mankind. afterwards. would you have wanted god to take away man's ability to murder? and how would you have defined it?

"That isn’t fully what I said. I said why not constrain humans to do no DELIBERATE harm to others. "
no deliberate harm to others? is that what you think the biggest evil in the world is? how about walking by a drowning man and not doing anything to stop it. 3 people are stranded on the roof top and the flood is about to drown them, is the TV crew in the chopper doing deliberate harm by not doing anything?

"being blind is harmful"
you missed my point. being blind is not harmful if everybody is blind. if there is nobody there to tell you what you are missing how will you even know you are blind?

"Actually, I don’t want a car"
my point hamy was that everybody wants something. god should give it to them, right? even if it is in their power to get it for themselves? like not being able to do harm. god should just give it to us by magic when all we have to do is take a decision not to do harm.

since you are not talking about deliberate INACTIONS, this conversation is over since god only performed an INACTION by not intervening and abolishing our ability to do harm. he simply let us to drown, or better said he allowed us to jump in the water even though we cannot swim.

"Does the Bible say anything about non-human animals being capable/incapable of an act of evil? -not making any point here -just curious, that’s all"
how would i know, i am the liberal christian who only read about jesus and the good message, remember? i will probably read it someday until then i use reason to fill in the blanks.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….free will is not something you can restrict because then it is no longer free will.
..…

Wrong. What if you are “free” to do anything BUT deliberately harm others?
-you still have a vast number of choices and it wouldn’t put a dent in the range of choices that would be worthy of mention.

….hey, you can do whatever you want, except ...[text shortened]... ing capable/incapable of an act of evil? -not making any point here -just curious, that’s all.

Oh and another thing, did you ever think about how murder was necessary to our survival and development? how wars facilitated the flow of ideas? That murder is a part of us and was necessary to experience it while we had sticks and clubs and swords so we understand it is wrong and not discover murder later when we could build black-hole bombs?

the muslims i think have an interesting version of the murder of abel by cain story.
they considere that murder was not part of human nature, that as angry as cain was with abel he couldn't or didn't know how to kill him. that something in his being revolted at the thought of strangling him to death. so satan instructed cain to bash abel with a rock. the point to this story is that humans would find a way. and the forbidden fruit is always the most desirable. when we would realize we can do no deliberate harm to others, we would find a way to bypass that restriction.

i am free to do whatever i want, i just choose not to do what is morally wrong

Originally posted by divegeester
What would be an example of that thinking pink?

there was a lawyer in the united states famous since he was on the site of famousquotes.something. (will look him up when i have the time).

His words:

"If the bible had said that Jonah swallowed a whale, i would have believed it."

and of course,(these are not the exact words but the meaning is the same)
"If we are to choose between religion and education, education has to go"

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
does that mean that freedom is not the ability to do what you want, but rather the ability to do what someone else wants. be it either the government or god. would you like to someday find out that the government released some sort of drug in the atmosphere that absolutely prevents you from kicking puppies. even though you would never ever kick puppies(i ho ...[text shortened]... no vaccine, because it was God who "fixed" us. do you like being told what to do? even by god?

All freedom is limited unless you are some kind of superhero, and even then there are limits.
I have absolutely no problem with being told what to do within certain limits. And whether I have a problem with it or not does not make it right or wrong. It is clearly right to tell people not to commit murder whether they like being told what to do. God supposedly told man not to commit murder and I haven't heard too many people complaining.
If a vaccine could be developed that could prevent murder with no other side effects then I for one would be in favor of its use.

Can you present an argument for not implementing the 'no murder' vaccine?

Originally posted by twhitehead
All freedom is limited unless you are some kind of superhero, and even then there are limits.
I have absolutely no problem with being told what to do within certain limits. And whether I have a problem with it or not does not make it right or wrong. It is clearly right to tell people not to commit murder whether they like being told what to do. God suppo avor of its use.

Can you present an argument for not implementing the 'no murder' vaccine?

EDIT: freedom is not limited by laws. you are quite free to break the laws. but you must suffer the consequences.

we already discussed this in another thread. restricting actions leads to more restrictions. a government that implements a no murder vaccine can then impose curfews and demand people working 12 hour shifts. why? because nobody will get violent about it.

there are always sideeffects. pulling the plug on a comatose patient will be murder. whacking a cow over the head to make hamburgers is still murder. how do you define murder, and how do you allow the exceptions?

or you mean to tell the drug that shooting someone who is about to press a button that would cause a bomb to go out is not murder and is ok. or that suicide is not murder. or that suicide with a bomb strapped to ones chest while walking into a school is murder and is not to be allowed?
Is someone who leaves the gas on and boom he murders the whole block commiting murder and should the vaccine tell him "no, leaving the gas on is counter-productive"

that was about the government.

now, how about god implementing that vaccine. he is god, he can do anything. but then again, why stop there, why not take care of earthquakes and floods? why not erradicate all disease. I would understand almost a claim to have god remove all disease from the world. it is really hard to do it ourselves and it will take a long time, i want it done now(says i as i stomp my feet and make a pout like all children should behave when asking their parents for something.) But the no harm policy is freakin easy. Simply don't do it.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
EDIT: freedom is not limited by laws. you are quite free to break the laws. but you must suffer the consequences.

But freedom is limited to the available choices. And even laws can limit your available choices. You are not free to go out and murder continuously in public as sooner or later you will be stopped. Your freedom is limited.

we already discussed this in another thread. restricting actions leads to more restrictions.
And still your only counter argument is both irrelevant and flawed. Whether or not allowing a government to implement a no-murder vaccine would lead to your inability to stop it from implementing the no-puppy kicking vaccine as well is irrelevant to the argument. Unless you are claiming that God does not trust himself to stop once he gets started.

a government that implements a no murder vaccine can then impose curfews and demand people working 12 hour shifts. why? because nobody will get violent about it.
So you actually believe that murder serves a useful purpose and you would go out and murder if placed on a 12 hour shift? I don't categorize killing in war as murder.

there are always sideeffects.
Quite true. But I disagree that the side effects necessarily outweigh the benefits.

pulling the plug on a comatose patient will be murder.
Possibly. But is that more important to you than saving all the innocent lives lost to murder?

whacking a cow over the head to make hamburgers is still murder.
No it isn't. I am sure that you knew when I used the word that I was restricting the definition to humans.

now, how about god implementing that vaccine. he is god, he can do anything. but then again, why stop there, why not take care of earthquakes and floods? why not erradicate all disease. I would understand almost a claim to have god remove all disease from the world. it is really hard to do it ourselves and it will take a long time, i want it done now(says i as i stomp my feet and make a pout like all children should behave when asking their parents for something.) But the no harm policy is freakin easy. Simply don't do it.
You either have to accept that it would be good for God to do some things such as eradicate disease or you have to give me a good reason why you do not stop trying to eradicate disease. Why is it good for humans to do something but bad for God to do it for us?

And don't give me that "It makes us stronger argument".
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger"
but
"That which does kill us makes us dead"

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Wrong."
does that mean that freedom is not the ability to do what you want, but rather the ability to do what someone else wants. be it either the government or god. would you like to someday find out that the government released some sort of drug in the atmosphere that absolutely prevents you from kicking puppies. even though you would never ever kick pu r? i will probably read it someday until then i use reason to fill in the blanks.

….does that mean that freedom is not the ability to do what you want, but rather the ability to do what someone else wants.
..…

I didn’t say nor imply that in any way -what has that got to do with what I just said? -I wasn’t defining the word “freedom”.

….would you like to someday find out that the government released some sort of drug in the atmosphere that absolutely prevents you from kicking puppies.
..…

I wouldn’t care if they did -can’t they go one step farther and stop people doing DELIBERATELY harmful ACTIONS to others? That I would agree with -no problem.

…even though you would never ever kick puppies(i hope not) it would still be wrong.
.…

Why would it be “wrong” ? -it would be just another form of law enforcement.

…now if we replace government with god it would be even worse because there would be no vaccine, because it was God who "fixed" us. do you like being told what to do? even by god? .…

No -but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to be told what NOT to do. I wouldn’t mined to be told that I am not allowed to do deliberately harmful actions to others -in fact, that generally happens anyway! -it is called law enforcement!

…no deliberate harm to others? is that what you think the biggest evil in the world is? . ..…

yes

….how about walking by a drowning man and not doing anything to stop it.
.…

I can see that to you it is “evil” but to me it is just “cold-hearted” -I think this is just a matter of semantics here.

….you missed my point. being blind is not harmful if everybody is blind.
…

Yes it is.

…. if there is nobody there to tell you what you are missing how will you even know you are blind?
…

-so you agree that being blind is harmful?

…
"Actually, I don’t want a car"
my point hamy was that everybody wants something. god should give it to them, right? even if it is in their power to get it for themselves?

…

No and no -and I didn’t say nor imply either of these things was the case in any way.

….like not being able to do harm. god should just give it to us by magic when all we have to do is take a decision not to do harm.

…

Correct- because else people in the real world will sometimes INEVITABLY take a decision to do harm.

….since you are not talking about deliberate INACTIONS, this conversation is over since god only performed an INACTION by not intervening and abolishing our ability to do harm. …

didn’t “he” perform the ACTION of giving us “free will” and the inevitable capacity to do deliberate harm to others?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Oh and another thing, did you ever think about how murder was necessary to our survival and development? how wars facilitated the flow of ideas? That murder is a part of us and was necessary to experience it while we had sticks and clubs and swords so we understand it is wrong and not discover murder later when we could build black-hole bombs?

the muslim restriction.

i am free to do whatever i want, i just choose not to do what is morally wrong

….Oh and another thing, did you ever think about how murder was necessary to our survival and development? how wars facilitated the flow of ideas?
..…

Did “murder” inspire the works of Newton, Einstein, Darwin etc?

would the absence of warfare prevent people thinking?

Did the “flow of ideas facilitated by” world war two compensate for the atrocities committed against Jews etc?

Would the “flow of ideas facilitated by” a world war three compensate for the death and suffering from such a war?
And if such a war wiped out humanity, would there still be a point in it because it would have “facilitated a flow of ideas”?

….the point to this story is that humans would find a way
..…

I thought this “God” was supposed to be “all powerful”? I mean, for starters, he was supposed to have created the whole universe!!!! -right? And yet his powers would be defeated by the free will of some sapiens on a single planet? -the very same free will “HE” gave them!?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But freedom is limited to the available choices. And even laws can limit your available choices. You are not free to go out and murder continuously in public as sooner or later you will be stopped. Your freedom is limited.

[b]we already discussed this in another thread. restricting actions leads to more restrictions.
And still your only counter ar ...[text shortened]... hich does not kill us makes us stronger"
but
"That which does kill us makes us dead"[/b]

then will you have a person dictate your life?

don't smoke because it is bad for you. dont drink. don't go bungee-jumping because it is bad for you. don't murder in that case and that case because i say so.

and if god would do that, then what a wonderful place it would be, we would all have a menu built by god from which to choose certain actions. and we would all be going to heaven because we only did what god wanted us to do.

"No it isn't. I am sure that you knew when I used the word that I was restricting the definition to humans."
i am sure you did. and this is another point of the no murder policy. you defined murder according with you moral views on the world. i wonder if a pig agrees with your view. what if a nazi would design that drug and make it as to only define murder when a white dude is killed? or what if a muslim made it and defined it as only when a muslim is killed?

"I don't categorize killing in war as murder."
yes that is what many people going to war think as well. it really is revealing as to how a human being can twist a moral view until it becomes something that suits them. your druged sheep will not murder 1 or two people but will have no qualms about pushing a button and murdering a hundred. no, killing in war is not murder, it is standing up for what you believe in.

"So you actually believe that murder serves a useful purpose and you would go out and murder if placed on a 12 hour shift?"
i would start protesting. how will the government stop me? by using violence? what if i don't stop? will they use lethal violence? who will use lethal violence if they have all been drugged? then it is logical to assume some will not be drugged to keep the sheep in check whenever one of the sheep decides it had enough.

evil is not god's problem. he built us as such and we choose what to do with our lives. and suffer the consequences.
by eliminating our ability to do evil, we lose the ability to discern what is right or wrong because we believe there is no wrong that we can do. so while walking by a drowning man that you can save, you can choose to walk away as you are sure you are not doing something bad.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….Oh and another thing, did you ever think about how murder was necessary to our survival and development? how wars facilitated the flow of ideas?
..…

Did “murder” inspire the works of Newton, Einstein, Darwin etc?

would the absence of warfare prevent people thinking?

Did the “flow of ideas facilitated by” world war two compensat ...[text shortened]... d by the free will of some sapiens on a single planet? -the very same free will “HE” gave them!?[/b]

no, but murder provided humans with meat. murder inspired the humans with becoming more and more strong to overcome murderers. inspired humans to band together to defend against murderers, be it carnivorous animals or other humans. murder inspired humans to go to war and conquer other humans, and in the process exchange ideas. murder inspired people to forcefully drive other humans away when resources in a region became scarce.

murder is inevitable. we see it around us in the strong animal killing the weak.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….does that mean that freedom is not the ability to do what you want, but rather the ability to do what someone else wants.
..…

I didn’t say nor imply that in any way -what has that got to do with what I just said? -I wasn’t defining the word “freedom”.

….would you like to someday find out that the government released some sort of d ...[text shortened]... ACTION of giving us “free will” and the inevitable capacity to do deliberate harm to others?

do you feel pain for not being able to see in the fourth dimension, whatever that is? is your life less or more meaningful? do you miss what you or anyone else never had?

law enforcement is not about preventing. it is about punishment. revenge. so absolutely stopping us from kicking puppies would make for a very awkward situation when a puppy is trying to bite your child's neck or go number 1 on your laptop and ruing months of work. and it would not make for law enforcement.

hammy, do you enjoy tyranny? do you enjoy being told what to do? do you enjoy someone telling you they know what is best for you and they don't trust your judgment enough to allow you to make decisions? answer me this and i guess we will be able to end this conversation that has seriously gone down river.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no, but murder provided humans with meat. murder inspired the humans with becoming more and more strong to overcome murderers. inspired humans to band together to defend against murderers, be it carnivorous animals or other humans. murder inspired humans to go to war and conquer other humans, and in the process exchange ideas. murder inspired people to forc ...[text shortened]... came scarce.

murder is inevitable. we see it around us in the strong animal killing the weak.

….no, but murder provided humans with meat.
..…

Emmmm -OBVIOUSLY I was NOT talking about the killing of non-human animals and I naturally assumed you where not talking about the killing of non-human animals when you talk about “murder“ .
Personally, in every day English, I would NOT define the killing of non-human animals for meat as “murder” ( and I say this as a vegetarian! ) and I bet neither would most people.

….murder inspired the humans with becoming more and more strong to overcome murderers. inspired humans to band together to defend against murderers, be it carnivorous animals or other humans.
..…

I obviously wouldn’t have anything against humans banding together to defend against carnivorous animals. But it wouldn’t even be necessary to humans banding together to defend against humans that murder other humans if a “god” prevented ANY human from choosing to murder other humans -right?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
do you feel pain for not being able to see in the fourth dimension, whatever that is? is your life less or more meaningful? do you miss what you or anyone else never had?

law enforcement is not about preventing. it is about punishment. revenge. so absolutely stopping us from kicking puppies would make for a very awkward situation when a puppy is trying t this and i guess we will be able to end this conversation that has seriously gone down river.

….do you feel pain for not being able to see in the fourth dimension, whatever that is? is your life less or more meaningful? do you miss what you or anyone else never had?
..…

Not sure what your point is here.

….law enforcement is not about preventing. it is about punishment. revenge.
..…

It can be but not necessarily so. I thought the main objective of punishment is to deter people from braking the law? -thus it does helps ( at least in theory ) to “prevent” crime by acting as a deterrent.


…hammy, do you enjoy tyranny? do you enjoy being told what to do?
.…

No -but that is not what I am talking about here.

…you enjoy someone telling you they know what is best for you and they don't trust your judgment enough to allow you to make decisions?
.…

No -but again, that is not what I am talking about here.

What I am talking about here is making ALL humans including myself SPECIFICALLY incapable of choosing to DELIBERATELY harm other people ( "people" and NOT non-human animals ). This I wouldn’t mind at all. Reducing any of my other choices is an entirely DIFFERENT matter and of course I wouldn’t want that BUT that is NOT what I am talking about!!! -get it?