Let he who is without "sin" cast the first stone..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Nov 14 2006, 08:39 PM) [snapback]349234[/snapback]</div>

I'm a bit confused about Randy's comments about "Hebrew murder" too.

I think the murder/killing issue and whether God says it's okay or not is like the plot of so many movies and TV shows.

In both cases, first it's established that the hero has been wronged or is somehow is the good guy...then it's okay for him to go nuts and shoot up the place because he's in the right.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Nov 14 2006, 04:04 PM) [snapback]349164[/snapback]</div>

Killing in self defense, when the use of deadly force is reasonable under the circumstances, is permitted by both the Bible and modern law. That is but one difference between murder and killing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 14 2006, 10:14 PM) [snapback]349253[/snapback]</div>

Bible talking here.

But ok,

I want unambigous definitions from god for what is 'reasonable' and what is 'self defense'. E.g., can I exterminate all christians today, given the *reasonable* likelihood that a future disciple will kill a random jew ?

Is bombing a city in Iraq by the US killing or murder ? I only want the RIGHT answer, if you don't mind.

 

For those who claim their minds are open, I recommmend two books:
"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, and "The End Of Faith" by Sam Harris.

All who would demand that I keep MY mind open by reading the Bible and going to church - I've been there, done that. Now it's your turn.

Of course, I recognize that most religions actively and emphatically discourage keeping an open mind - an attitude that I think speaks volumes all by itself. But if you're the type that abhors keeping an open mind to alternative perspectives, why on earth would you implore others to keep an open mind toward your narrow views? That's just arrogance - and it makes you look bad.

Read those two books. Cover to cover. If you're intellectually honest, your perspective can't help but be shifted by them. Mine was - and I read them substantially already agreeing with their theses.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 12 2006, 07:06 PM) [snapback]347923[/snapback]</div>

Ericgo did answer me in a PM after I PM'ed him as a prompt.

Here is his reply cut and pasted:

***"Sorry that you do not like the label.

Read Godiva's list from the stone thread, and then print out your posts related to religion, war, America's place in the world, the shrub's power grab, and torture. Draw lines from one list to the other.

I'm fine with you posting this PM publicly if you care to."****

My reply back was that I see he is saying opinions are actions....OK, can't fight that!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Randy @ Nov 14 2006, 09:00 AM) [snapback]348751[/snapback]</div>

This filthy canard can have only one possible meaning: if the bible is silent on a topic, it has "affirmed" it by not explicitly refuting it. Thus the bible has "affirmed" integral calculus by its absolute silence on the topic. By this rancid logic a two year old can "affirm" countless branches of medical science - the infant never explicitly refutes any scientific medical study so they are thus "affirmed!" The infant's total ignorance of the field (like the bible's) is not a relevant factor. Pshaww!!

The bible is completely silent on the topic of N-Rays, interstellar "ether" and phrenology, so I must assume that those thoroughly discredited notions are nonetheless "affirmed" and will, I guess, make a triumphant comeback when mankind enters our second dark age, led, as into the first one, by religion.

When the bible isn't silent it relates the details of miracles, every one of which is an explicit refutation of the laws of physics and chemistry.

Religion is full of ideas that insult the very idea of "idea" - and this is one that any half thoughtful mind would discard instantly as rank garbage.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Nov 14 2006, 04:00 PM) [snapback]348939[/snapback]</div>

Aware? All too painfully. I kid not about the death threats from other 'Christians'. I even had to get the police involved.

I know this may seem like an odd quote, but allow me: 'What does 'God' have need of a space ship for?'

That is from the awful fifth Star Trek Movie. Kirk was pointing out to this 'God' that he was a phony; the real 'God' would have no need for a space ship. He could get wherever he wanted to by Himself.

My point? What does 'God' need with people persuading others that He is God? He could do that very easy, if He choose to.

God does not need me; nor do I need God. What I get from God is peace. And that is more from Christ. But to me, Christ was/is God. I know, I know...for some that is hard to accept. And that is okay. I accept Buddha. And I accept the name of Allah for God. I accept that some Jewish folks will never accept Christ. And I accept that some, no matter what, will never accept Christ.

Will they go to hell? Who knows. No less an honored Christian Evangelist then Billy Graham, has of late, reversed his DECADES long thinking, and no longer just thinks that if you don't believe in Christ, you are going to hell. He said, and I sort of quote, ' Who am I to know the mind of God? He can forgive whomever he wants.'

And I was reminded, by a former friend, that on her left side would be her mother, and on her right side would be me, when we get to heaven. In other words, even though she has been mad at me, she still expects to see me there.

If heaven is not real, then I have lost nothing. If it is real, then I gain an everlasting peace, and all you can eat Sonny's. For free.

To me, that is all I want. Heck, don't really need the Sonny's. But I would love to have the peace. And peace for all.

 

TJ, I like others here like you. So with all due respect, this sentence of yours is probably at the core of my philosophical aversion to your beliefs (and here I am not talking about revulsion to so called 'christianity', the institution of hypocrisy and suffering).

I have one, rather short life. I find it illogical to waste it by walking around blinded by a fantasy. There is a duality in humanity, demanding comfort, but also spurred on by curiosity. Curiosity requires honesty, willingness to accept things as they are, not as I may wish them to be; and open eyes not blinded or filtered by ideology.

I accept that for some people, it is comfort first, then intellect. It just shouldn't be so hard for these same people to realize that other people have different priorities, and are more than happy to discard fantasies in order to experience and understand, to the fullest extent possible, the world around them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Nov 14 2006, 09:42 PM) [snapback]349264[/snapback]</div>

Yep, there's the problem...letting the person who's about to do the killing decide if it's in the name of self defense.. Not only does it take us down the slippery slope of freedom of interpretation, but that person/people/country/religious sect may not be thinking rationally at that time, in the heat of the moment as it were.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 15 2006, 03:45 PM) [snapback]349605[/snapback]</div>

Well, here's the fundamental problem with this: you can't exactly wait until it's too late to decide. I'll illustrate with this example:

If I were to suddenly appear with an "American and Proud" t-shirt in the middle of an armed crowd chanting, "DEATH TO AMERICA AND AMERICANS", with a loaded M16, I wouldn't exactly wait to find out what their intentions are. Would it be self-defense if I just opened fire and mowed everyone down? Regardless, I personally would not wait to find out.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Nov 15 2006, 01:56 PM) [snapback]349617[/snapback]</div>

Ah ... but if you were to appear in that instance with a loaded M16, they probably wouldn't wait to see what your intentions were, either. They could claim self defense if they tore you limb from limb before you could fire a shot.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Nov 15 2006, 01:56 PM) [snapback]349617[/snapback]</div>

What's cool is that, if you just chose *not* to appear in front of that crowd, dressed in that manner, carrying a firearm, you could (pardon the pun) disarm the entire situation.