The main issue with Christianity

[gfm7175]

Okay...we have been on different paths. I do not remember asking for a discussion on the issue of whether the god of the Bible committed murder/genocide, but I certainly am willing to discuss it...although to discuss it within the bounds of Christianity would be close to an absurdity.

There is no way the Bible...or any Christian tradition would indicate that anything the god of the Bible did is anything like murder/genocide. The Bible and Christian tradition would not accuse the god of the Bible of jaywalking. So, of course, sticking strictly to within the bounds of Christianity...would yield a walk-over win in such a discussion.

I am not interested in what Christianity says about what the god of the Bible did...they are captives. It would be like taking the word of a Ugandan about the character of Idi Amin (when he was in power)...while Amin was standing over him/her with a machete in hand. I am interested only in reading what the god did described...and then assigning/assessing a morality to it myself.

With that in mind...yes, the god of the Bible (according to Christianity) has total authority over "its creation"...and I agree that one duty of a governing authority (such as a county government, a state government, or a federal government) to serve justice to a party that has been found guilty of a crime?

Allow me to add that the "to serve justice" must itself be just...be proportional to the crime committed.

(to most)

My turn for a question:

If you have a favorite...what is your favorite television program?

That's a hard question to answer (many genres, time periods, etc etc)... but since this one was just as good on its final episode as it was on its pilot episode, I would have to say that Everybody Loves Raymond is (to this day) my favorite television program.

My next question: Can the destruction of life be a form of justice?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Obviously he says a lot of things about Trump and people who like Trump which are ridiculous, but I think he believes what he says, he does not say things that he knows to be untrue in my experience over three sites going back to prob 2006.

on the other hand, he's a fuckwit and I don't care how much you like him.......

 

[Ross Dolan]

(to most)


That's a hard question to answer (many genres, time periods, etc etc)... but since this one was just as good on its final episode as it was on its pilot episode, I would have to say that Everybody Loves Raymond is (to this day) my favorite television program.

My next question: Can the destruction of life be a form of justice?

Yes.

My question:

If it were a forced food choice between Italian or Asian of any sort...which would you choose?

 

[Hawkeye10]

on the other hand, he's a fuckwit and I don't care how much you like him.......

Frank has helped me out more than once, to include bringing me here when I figured I was done after a horrific experience at DP.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Frank has helped me out more than once, to include bringing me here when I figured I was done after a horrific experience at DP.

sorry....that doesn't make up for the his photos of dead nazis and his Flying Fickle Finger of Fake Fascism.......

 

[Litmus]

Frank has helped me out more than once, to include bringing me here when I figured I was done after a horrific experience at DP.

frank is a douche-faced lie bag disgrace of a human being.

 

[gfm7175]

Yes.

My question:

If it were a forced food choice between Italian or Asian of any sort...which would you choose?

Italian each and every time.

Is capital punishment murder/genocide?

 

[Ross Dolan]

Italian each and every time.

Thanks. Italian would be my choice most often, but I truly love Chinese food.

Is capital punishment murder/genocide?

It could be. Mostly it is not...BUT IT COULD BE.

If a dictator obtained a law that made criticizing the dictator or his government a capital offense; actually enforced the law and executed some offenders; and then was later brought before an International Tribunal which determined that the law was inappropriately enacted to eliminate opposition...then the executions could be considered murder.

What I am saying is that if the reason for the capital punishment were essentially a manufactured reason to justify killing people...it could be murder. And if the people killed were primarily of one race, creed, nationality...it also could be genocide.

We can discuss that or put it aside for after you follow through to where you are going. If you choose the latter...I will pose my next question.

 

[gfm7175]

[capital punishment being murder/genocide] could be. Mostly it is not...BUT IT COULD BE.

If a dictator obtained a law that made criticizing the dictator or his government a capital offense; actually enforced the law and executed some offenders; and then was later brought before an International Tribunal which determined that the law was inappropriately enacted to eliminate opposition...then the executions could be considered murder.

What I am saying is that if the reason for the capital punishment were essentially a manufactured reason to justify killing people...it could be murder. And if the people killed were primarily of one race, creed, nationality...it also could be genocide.

We can discuss that or put it aside for after you follow through to where you are going. If you choose the latter...I will pose my next question.

I want to clarify before moving on.

If I'm understanding what you are describing, my take is that, under the law of the dictator, capital punishment occurred (and not murder/genocide). However, under the law of the "higher authority", aka the International Tribunal, murder/genocide occurred. I wonder which authority in your example is moral ("just") and which authority is immoral ("unjust"), and how one can tell the difference between the two...

My follow up question, and you can ask me your next question before answering it, is "how would a good judge, let alone a perfect judge, make use of capital punishment? (1) as a just punishment for committing a heinous crime, or (2) as a mere means to eliminate opposition.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I want to clarify before moving on.

Okay.

If I'm understanding what you are describing, my take is that, under the law of the dictator, capital punishment occurred (and not murder/genocide). However, under the law of the "higher authority", aka the International Tribunal, murder/genocide occurred. I wonder which authority in your example is moral ("just") and which authority is immoral ("unjust"), and how one can tell the difference between the two...

You sorta "moved on" there without actually using a question mark, but I think it is a reasonable question, so I will respond.

In a general sense, I have no idea. However I can look at each instance and make a determination of HOW I FEEL about the morality and justness of each instance.

I doubt there would ever be unanimity of opinion in a large group on that...so my sense is that there is no way to make such a conclusion. We are seeing a form of that to be the case right now with the political situations prevailing in our country...and in many countries throughout the world. Deciding what is moral and just is one of the most complex questions humans face. The abortion question, for instance, presents so many avenues of argument for and against the various factors of morality and justness...I doubt unanimity of any sort will never prevail.

My follow up question, and you can ask me your next question before answering it, is "how would a good judge, let alone a perfect judge, make use of capital punishment? (1) as a just punishment for committing a heinous crime, or (2) as a mere means to eliminate opposition.

My next question for you would be...

...do you generally prefer music in the background when formulating and typing responses to discussions on the Internet...or relative silence?

 

[gfm7175]

Okay.

You sorta "moved on" there without actually using a question mark, but I think it is a reasonable question, so I will respond.

In a general sense, I have no idea. However I can look at each instance and make a determination of HOW I FEEL about the morality and justness of each instance.

I doubt there would ever be unanimity of opinion in a large group on that...so my sense is that there is no way to make such a conclusion. We are seeing a form of that to be the case right now with the political situations prevailing in our country...and in many countries throughout the world. Deciding what is moral and just is one of the most complex questions humans face. The abortion question, for instance, presents so many avenues of argument for and against the various factors of morality and justness...I doubt unanimity of any sort will never prevail.


My next question for you would be...

...do you generally prefer music in the background when formulating and typing responses to discussions on the Internet...or relative silence?

I prefer relative silence when formulating/typing responses to online forum discussions. I find music to be distracting to my thoughts. When I'm playing an online/computer game of some sort, then I do prefer to have music in the background (and replace any game based music with my own music).

 

[Ross Dolan]

I prefer relative silence when formulating/typing responses to online forum discussions. I find music to be distracting to my thoughts. When I'm playing an online/computer game of some sort, then I do prefer to have music in the background (and replace any game based music with my own music).

Thanks. I hate background music or TV noise when I am on the Internet.

Your next question was:

... "how would a good judge, let alone a perfect judge, make use of capital punishment? (1) as a just punishment for committing a heinous crime, or (2) as a mere means to eliminate opposition.

My answer would be:

A good judge would use capital punishment in a way consistent with the law of the land.

Unfortunately, a thoroughly disgusting judge would use capital punishment in the same way...consistent with the law of the land...and sometimes that would mean it is being used as just punishment...and sometimes just to eliminate opposition.

In my opinion, some laws suck. Tyrants often make disobedience or disrespect capital offenses. A judge could follow the law (as he/she is expected to do) and sentence someone to be executed for what I consider just to eliminate opposition.

This may need some further discussion to get to where you want to get...so let me ask a question to get my chance out of the way:

How is the weather where you are today?

 

[IBDaMann]

In my opinion, some laws suck.

... but in those cases you simply "make an exception" and advocate for them, e.g. the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.

Tyrants often make disobedience or [inconvenience] capital offenses. A judge could follow the law (as he/she is expected to do) and sentence someone to be executed for what I consider just to eliminate [those who represent inconvenience]

Yep, and you fully support it. You are behind it 100%. Whenever you conscience gives you grief, you tell yourself that living humans aren't living humans, and apparently this works for you.

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

Is that it's not aptly named.

A good portion - and I'd say most - of the religion are practices, rituals, rules and philosophies that were never spoken by Christ, or endorsed by Christ.

I think there are some sects that are strictly about the teachings of Christ, who I feel was an ascended being and someone whose words matter, but they're not mainstream Christianity.

" Many come in my name, but they aren't mine"!

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

Thanks. Italian would be my choice most often, but I truly love Chinese food.



It could be. Mostly it is not...BUT IT COULD BE.

If a dictator obtained a law that made criticizing the dictator or his government a capital offense; actually enforced the law and executed some offenders; and then was later brought before an International Tribunal which determined that the law was inappropriately enacted to eliminate opposition...then the executions could be considered murder.

What I am saying is that if the reason for the capital punishment were essentially a manufactured reason to justify killing people...it could be murder. And if the people killed were primarily of one race, creed, nationality...it also could be genocide.

We can discuss that or put it aside for after you follow through to where you are going. If you choose the latter...I will pose my next question.

We rarely agree on anything! BUT Chinese food is great and best of all ,all the options available!

 

[gfm7175]

My answer would be:

A good judge would use capital punishment in a way consistent with the law of the land. Unfortunately, a thoroughly disgusting judge would use capital punishment in the same way...consistent with the law of the land...and sometimes that would mean it is being used as just punishment...and sometimes just to eliminate opposition.

I think you're getting at two different things here. I'd say that both judges are good judges because they are both applying the law of the land as it is written. I'd say that one law of the land is good (capital punishment as a form of punishment for committing a heinous crime) while the other law of the land is bad (capital punishment as a form of punishment for political dissidence).

In my opinion, some laws suck. Tyrants often make disobedience or disrespect capital offenses. A judge could follow the law (as he/she is expected to do) and sentence someone to be executed for what I consider just to eliminate opposition.

This may need some further discussion to get to where you want to get...so let me ask a question to get my chance out of the way:

How is the weather where you are today?

Sunny and pleasant, roughly 70 degrees.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I think you're getting at two different things here. I'd say that both judges are good judges because they are both applying the law of the land as it is written. I'd say that one law of the land is good (capital punishment as a form of punishment for committing a heinous crime) while the other law of the land is bad (capital punishment as a form of punishment for political dissidence).


Sunny and pleasant, roughly 70 degrees.

OKay, but I answered your last question...and asked my next question, which you answered.

Next question from you now. I am anxious to see where you are going with this.

 

[gfm7175]

OKay, but I answered your last question...and asked my next question, which you answered.

Next question from you now. I am anxious to see where you are going with this.

To review:
According to Christianity, God is the highest authority (ruler over the universe).
According to Christianity, humans owe their existence to God, the creator of life.
According to Christianity, "the wages of sin is death" is universal law.
According to Christianity, God is a perfect judge (perfectly just).

Therefore:
Given these things, according to Christianity, it doesn't make any sense to view God as an evil/unlawful committer of murder/genocide. Rather, it makes perfect sense to view God as a good/lawful judge, ruling in perfect accordance with the laws of the universe, which include punishing sin via death. IOW, God has just cause to instantly kill everyone on Earth because everyone is sinful from the moment of "conception" (fertilization). Life is ultimately his to give and his to take.

Summary:
God might be a murderer or a genocidal maniac under YOUR law, under your State's law, under your nation's law, or even under global international law, but according to Christianity, all such law is beneath (and subject to) God's universal law, which is the ultimate authority.

If you require a specific question to be asked:
According to Christianity, has God ever committed murder/genocide?

 

[Ross Dolan]

To review:
According to Christianity, God is the highest authority (ruler over the universe).
According to Christianity, humans owe their existence to God, the creator of life.
According to Christianity, "the wages of sin is death" is universal law.
According to Christianity, God is a perfect judge (perfectly just).

Therefore:
Given these things, according to Christianity, it doesn't make any sense to view God as an evil/unlawful committer of murder/genocide. Rather, it makes perfect sense to view God as a good/lawful judge, ruling in perfect accordance with the laws of the universe, which include punishing sin via death. IOW, God has just cause to instantly kill everyone on Earth because everyone is sinful from the moment of "conception" (fertilization). Life is ultimately his to give and his to take.

Summary:
God might be a murderer or a genocidal maniac under YOUR law, under your State's law, under your nation's law, or even under global international law, but according to Christianity, all such law is beneath (and subject to) God's universal law, which is the ultimate authority.

If you require a specific question to be asked:
According to Christianity, has God ever committed murder/genocide?

gfm (I wish there were a name I could use)...I conceded earlier that Christianity does not consider what their god did to be murder or genocide. They cannot. I likened it to a Ugandan speaking about Idi Amin with Idi Amin standing over them with a machete in his hand.

If your point was that Christianity does not consider their god to be a murderer...why have we gone through this. It is an absurdity. Read my response in #819.

This has been an exercise in proving that 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10.

People like Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein were disgusting tyrants, murderers, and genocidal...regardless of whether the people under their thumb acknowledged it. And the god of the Old Testament WAS a murderer/genocidal killer...regardless of the fact that Christianity will not acknowledge it. They are terrified of the god...there is no way they would ever say it did anything wrong.

This discussion started when you asked me, "Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The God of the Christian Bible committed murder/genocide according to various Old Testament scriptures." Explain your position."

I stand by the resounding YES I gave. And at that time I even acknowledged that Christians would not agree.

Do you disagree with my comments on the absurdity of this discussion?

 

[gfm7175]

gfm (I wish there were a name I could use)...

gfm works perfectly.

I conceded earlier that Christianity does not consider what their god did to be murder or genocide. They cannot. I likened it to a Ugandan speaking about Idi Amin with Idi Amin standing over them with a machete in his hand.

You're right that Christianity doesn't consider God's actions to be murder/genocide.

If your point was that Christianity does not consider their god to be a murderer...why have we gone through this. It is an absurdity. Read my response in #819.

This has been an exercise in proving that 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10.

The point is that, in order to conclude that the Christian God is a murderer, one has to either elevate some other law above God's law or else change the nature of God into something that it is not (usually via excluding parts of it).

People like Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein were disgusting tyrants, murderers, and genocidal...regardless of whether the people under their thumb acknowledged it.

This is great stuff, especially the part that I bolded. Why do I say this? Because it is making an appeal to an anonymous "highest law". A Christian identifies this "highest law" as 'God', specifically his perfect nature. Here, you are alluding to some "highest law" but aren't identifying it.

And the god of the Old Testament WAS a murderer/genocidal killer...regardless of the fact that Christianity will not acknowledge it. They are terrified of the god...there is no way they would ever say it did anything wrong.

As I mentioned above, you are making reference to some anonymous "highest law". What is this "highest law" of which you speak?

This discussion started when you asked me, "Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The God of the Christian Bible committed murder/genocide according to various Old Testament scriptures." Explain your position."

I stand by the resounding YES I gave. And at that time I even acknowledged that Christians would not agree.

Do you disagree with my comments on the absurdity of this discussion?

I asked that question to get your position on the topic. Your position is that the Christian God committed murder/genocide. We both agree that, according to Christianity, no murder/genocide was committed. You still feel that the Christian God did commit murder/genocide, and have made appeal to some higher moral law. What is this higher moral law of which you speak and why is it the universal final arbiter of right/wrong?