Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

If you truly loved someone, and realized that the life they're living right now is going to allow them to go to Heaven, wouldn't the correct thing to do be to kill them now to ensure Heaven rather than chance any corruption that could occur down the line? +EV of infinity while staying alive could be -infinite EV. Funny, how all these movies and people try to protect their loved ones at all costs from dying! I always knew the right move is always the least likely one!

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

Killing your friend lessens the likelihood that you will go to heaven, and it stops him altogether from potentially helping others go to heaven. Further, it sets a bad example, in that it might cause others to make choices that would prevent them from going to heaven.

In short, no, you shouldn't kill your friend. But I hardly think you need religion to draw this conclusion. Surprising how religion makes it harder to draw, though. Maybe religion is just a bunch of nonsense that helps us get over our anxiety....nahhhh, couldn't be.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

wow

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

If you were to purely be acting in that person's best interest, what happens to you or others he potentially is helping is of no matter to you.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

You have a very limited imagination with regard to what could be in his best interest.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

And what would you suggest? Maybe I am limited, but what is worth eternal paradise? Keep in mind any action or day you keep him longer alive is a chance at him being corrupted, and facing eternal damnation. No matter how small the % is, multiply by eternity and it's pretty bad.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't the correct thing to do be to kill

[/ QUOTE ]

in the biblical paradigm god explicitly says not to murder people. So you would really have to be doublethinking here.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I am limited, but what is worth eternal paradise?

[/ QUOTE ]
Multiple instances of eternal paradise.

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind any action or day you keep him longer alive is a chance at him being corrupted, and facing eternal damnation.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is possible that a prerequisite for admittance to heaven is that further corruption is impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
No matter how small the % is, multiply by eternity and it's pretty bad.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have trouble multiplying by 13. But I'm lucky, some people only learned their multiplication tables up to 10. Me, I learned up to 12.

I need to go to bed.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you were to purely be acting in that person's best interest, what happens to you or others he potentially is helping is of no matter to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL that's the excuse the U.S. Government has been using for quite some time to pass laws that stick it in our heine's

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't the correct thing to do be to kill

[/ QUOTE ]

in the biblical paradigm god explicitly says not to murder people. So you would really have to be doublethinking here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this argument only makes killing of innocents to guarantee that they'll get into Heaven even more noble.

What greater sacrifice can there be than to willingly accept an eternity in Hell so that others can go to Heaven?

Assuming, of course, that SCM (Standard Christian Mythos) is true.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you truly loved someone, and realized that the life they're living right now is going to allow them to go to Heaven, wouldn't the correct thing to do be to kill them now to ensure Heaven rather than chance any corruption that could occur down the line? +EV of infinity while staying alive could be -infinite EV. Funny, how all these movies and people try to protect their loved ones at all costs from dying! I always knew the right move is always the least likely one!

[/ QUOTE ]
Within Christianity, the moral act (ie the correct thing to do) is the one sanctioned by God. God says dont murder so you shouldnt murder - even if you believe murdering is +EV as you put it.

It has nothing to do with yourself getting into heaven.
It has nothing to do with EV.
The moral, correct, right course of action is to obey God.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
The moral, correct, right course of action is to obey God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but if you look at the big picture (i.e. beyond God's desires) then the ultimate selfless act is too humanely put down as many innocents as possible.

And once you've started, there's no reason to stop.

If this sounds nutty, chalk it up to a messy loophole in Christian philosophy.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The moral, correct, right course of action is to obey God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but if you look at the big picture (i.e. beyond God's desires) then the ultimate selfless act is too humanely put down as many innocents as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Most people who believe in hell would say there is nothing "bigger picture" than God's desires. Those desires define what is good and bad. You may call it selfless to murder innocents but it is immoral (and shouldnt be done) by definition if it goes against God's wishes.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

The argument is obvious, but it relies on a definition of morality (ie on what the correct course of action is) based on maximising happiness or some such. Most christians (particularly those who believe in hell) dont think this is the right way to determine what is moral.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most people who believe in hell would say there is nothing "bigger picture" than God's desires. Those desires define what is good and bad. You may call it selfless to murder innocents but it is immoral (and shouldnt be done) by definition if it goes against God's wishes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't change the fact that there is a bigger picture, one that would suggest that the person who did this would be the most selfless individual in the history of existence, bar none (and I mean <u>none</u>).

And it would be profoundly moral, IMHO, if it were only possible that he could be justifiably certain that he was right.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

Yeah Silent A got my point. You're under no obligation to follow the bible since you'd be doing it for others, not for yourself. You could be doing the wrong thing in the greater scheme of things but you're guaranteeing those you love eternal paradise. You are being completely selfless.

In one sense, it is ultimate EV. Once you've completed one murder and have guaranteed yourself hell, you're on a freeroll to be sending more people to heaven at no cost!

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is obvious, but it relies on a definition of morality (ie on what the correct course of action is) based on maximising happiness or some such. Most christians (particularly those who believe in hell) dont think this is the right way to determine what is moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should there be a "Christian" who doesn't believe in hell?

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most people who believe in hell would say there is nothing "bigger picture" than God's desires. Those desires define what is good and bad. You may call it selfless to murder innocents but it is immoral (and shouldnt be done) by definition if it goes against God's wishes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't change the fact that there is a bigger picture, one that would suggest that the person who did this would be the most selfless individual in the history of existence, bar none (and I mean <u>none</u>).

[/ QUOTE ]
My only point is that the believer would dispute this. There is no bigger picture, which provides a completely legitimate reason for them not acting counter to God's instructions.

[ QUOTE ]
And it would be profoundly moral, IMHO, if it were only possible that he could be justifiably certain that he was right.

[/ QUOTE ]
You would (I suspect) believe that morality is subjective or a question of opinion. For a believer there is no opinion involved other than God's. He says dont do it so (to them) it is immoral to do it - even if it results in reduced suffering.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah Silent A got my point. You're under no obligation to follow the bible since you'd be doing it for others, not for yourself. You could be doing the wrong thing in the greater scheme of things but you're guaranteeing those you love eternal paradise. You are being completely selfless.

In one sense, it is ultimate EV. Once you've completed one murder and have guaranteed yourself hell, you're on a freeroll to be sending more people to heaven at no cost!

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand the argument. The point I am clearly failing to make is that you believe it to be a moral act (assuming that is implied by selfless and "ultimate EV"). But you dont believe hell is real. The people who believe hell is real do not accept your definitions of morality.

If you believed in hell and also believed one should act to minimise suffering, then your conclusion may follow (I think there are other more dubious counter arguments, but leaving them aside). The point is, the people we are discussing dont believe both of those things. They believe in hell and that one should act according to God's wishes.

EDIT: Another way of trying to say the same thing. In the quote above you said someone was under no obligation to follow the bible if they were doing it for others and not for themselves. Someone who believes in hell is not going to believe this. They will say you have to follow the bible, irrespective of the consequences.

Your argument makes sense to someone with a morality determined by the perceived or expected consequences. There are people who think consequences dont matter - what matters is following the rules.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument is obvious, but it relies on a definition of morality (ie on what the correct course of action is) based on maximising happiness or some such. Most christians (particularly those who believe in hell) dont think this is the right way to determine what is moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should there be a "Christian" who doesn't believe in hell?

[/ QUOTE ]
I call myself a christian but I dont believe in hell (eternal suffering doesnt fit in well with the loving god I believe in). I think everyone is saved.

Given the dominance of americans here, I am happy to accept that I may not be a christian from the point of view of this board - in Australia and more specifically in the church I attend I am regarded as a christian (although admittedly the various ministers I know think I have a strange and probably flawed way of looking at things).

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument is obvious, but it relies on a definition of morality (ie on what the correct course of action is) based on maximising happiness or some such. Most christians (particularly those who believe in hell) dont think this is the right way to determine what is moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should there be a "Christian" who doesn't believe in hell?

[/ QUOTE ]
I call myself a christian but I dont believe in hell (eternal suffering doesnt fit in well with the loving god I believe in). I think everyone is saved.

Given the dominance of americans here, I am happy to accept that I may not be a christian from the point of view of this board - in Australia and more specifically in the church I attend I am regarded as a christian (although admittedly the various ministers I know think I have a strange and probably flawed way of looking at things).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I tend to agree with them!!!!

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I tend to agree with them!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
An all-loving God torturing some flawed beings for eternity on the grounds that they didnt believe in him makes sense to you?

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I tend to agree with them!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
An all-loving God torturing some flawed beings for eternity on the grounds that they didnt believe in him makes sense to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what the scripture says. And we're all flawed.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I tend to agree with them!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
An all-loving God torturing some flawed beings for eternity on the grounds that they didnt believe in him makes sense to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what the scripture says. And we're all flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand we're all flawed - God understands it even better. That's why it seems impossible to me that an all-loving God would make a whole bunch of humans, know that some of them will not be able to believe in him and then choose to torture those incapable of belief for eternity. My personal view is that he loves us enough to make sure we wouldnt suffer and to forgive all of us for sinning.

Regarding scripture - I dont believe the bible is inerrant as it has been in the custody of flawed humans with political and selfish agendas for many centuries, nonetheless which verse(s) do you regard as giving the clearest message that there is a hell?

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
My only point is that the believer would dispute this. There is no bigger picture, which provides a completely legitimate reason for them not acting counter to God's instructions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most would dispute it, but not all. And their reason for disputing it is pretty lame, in my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
You would (I suspect) believe that morality is subjective or a question of opinion. For a believer there is no opinion involved other than God's. He says dont do it so (to them) it is immoral to do it - even if it results in reduced suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm of the opinion that it's possible to derive simple, basic (even if incomplete) objective morals without reference to some powerful being. Something in the mold of "ideal observer theory".

In fact, I would argue that it's theistic morals that are subjective because they depend on the whim of an individual entity.

So, by objective moral standards, if the traditional Christian God exists and really sends innocents to heaven and sinners to Hell (very big IF), the person in question is profoundly moral.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

*shrug* I cant say it any more ways.

Certainly if:
1. There is a God torturing sinners and not torturing innocents.
and
2. Morality is determined by something else other than God's wishes (like minimising suffering for instance).

then

The moral course of action is to ensure as many innocents die before they can become sinners.

This is an obvious argument. The trouble is, nobody believes the two premises.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I tend to agree with them!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
An all-loving God torturing some flawed beings for eternity on the grounds that they didnt believe in him makes sense to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what the scripture says. And we're all flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand we're all flawed - God understands it even better. That's why it seems impossible to me that an all-loving God would make a whole bunch of humans, know that some of them will not be able to believe in him and then choose to torture those incapable of belief for eternity. My personal view is that he loves us enough to make sure we wouldnt suffer and to forgive all of us for sinning.

Regarding scripture - I dont believe the bible is inerrant as it has been in the custody of flawed humans with political and selfish agendas for many centuries, nonetheless which verse(s) do you regard as giving the clearest message that there is a hell?

[/ QUOTE ]

God didn't design us flawed. When Eve ate the forbidden fruit, sin entered the world. God gave us a choice of whether to believe in Jesus or not. He is not forcing himself on anyone but it's a free gift of salvation all for the asking. I made a post or two early today (maybe yesterday) to this same effect. Take a peek at those, maybe that'll help.

While your optimism is admirable, most people are perfectly capable from a intelligence standpoint to understand the Word of God &amp; make their own choices. Don't you think that some folks around here are perfectly capable but choose not to??? Those that are not capable (i.e. children, mentally disabled) get a free pass. This too is well documented in the Bible.

I would encourage you to look at Revelation as a point of reference for hell. I don't have my Bible in front of me at the moment but I will be glad to look them up for you tomorrow (about to go to bed!!!).

Also, there are several indications prior to Revelation that Hell is a real place. Jesus referred to it as a place of weeping &amp; gnashing of teeth. Once again, I will look some of those up later.

And I agree with your assesment that the Bible is the infallible Word of God but has been interpreted various ways by humans with political/selfish agendas. How do you think we wound up with so many variations of the same religion. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is an obvious argument. The trouble is, nobody believes the two premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, some do. Namely people who kill their children precisely for this reason.

It's rare but it happens.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
God didn't design us flawed. When Eve ate the forbidden fruit, sin entered the world.

[/ QUOTE ]
But he made her knowing she would choose to eat the fruit and thus sin. He also knew that a consequence of creating us was that there would be some people who would live their lives failing to acknowledge his existence.

[ QUOTE ]
While your optimism is admirable, most people are perfectly capable from a intelligence standpoint to understand the Word of God &amp; make their own choices. Don't you think that some folks around here are perfectly capable but choose not to??? Those that are not capable (i.e. children, mentally disabled) get a free pass. This too is well documented in the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about people who attempt to form their opinions based on objective evidence alone? Who regard it as immoral to profess belief in something they dont actually agree with? (I think these would both apply to most of the atheists on this forum) In my experience, you cant force yourself to believe anything, regardless of the consequences or of how much you want to believe it.

[ QUOTE ]
I would encourage you to look at Revelation as a point of reference for hell. I don't have my Bible in front of me at the moment but I will be glad to look them up for you tomorrow (about to go to bed!!!).

Also, there are several indications prior to Revelation that Hell is a real place. Jesus referred to it as a place of weeping &amp; gnashing of teeth. Once again, I will look some of those up later.

[/ QUOTE ]
My recollection is that it is actually a smattering of references all over the place, welded together as a unified doctrine through interpretation (a doctrine which coincidentally strengthened the church's power in earlier times) but not explicitly set out as such. Given my experience/belief in a loving god, I think alternative explanations are more likely than eternal torment for some (even most on some interpretations of the bible).

[ QUOTE ]
And I agree with your assesment that the Bible is the infallible Word of God but has been interpreted various ways by humans with political/selfish agendas. How do you think we wound up with so many variations of the same religion. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
This raises a problem for you, I think. How do you determine which interpretation is correct? It seems to me that catholics have the best answer to this (though I think they run into their own problems)

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is an obvious argument. The trouble is, nobody believes the two premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, some do. Namely people who kill their children precisely for this reason.

It's rare but it happens.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I misunderstood the OP. I have heard this argument a few times here and it usually follows the "All christians should murder newborns" line. My counterargument is that this is false, since most christians reject the second premise.

If the OP's point was merely that some people follow this logic and commit infanticide then I agree that it happens (and I also think they are doing the wrong thing). I dont see the point, but I am prone to that.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you truly loved someone, and realized that the life they're living right now is going to allow them to go to Heaven, wouldn't the correct thing to do be to kill them now to ensure Heaven rather than chance any corruption that could occur down the line? +EV of infinity while staying alive could be -infinite EV. Funny, how all these movies and people try to protect their loved ones at all costs from dying! I always knew the right move is always the least likely one!

[/ QUOTE ]
Within Christianity, the moral act (ie the correct thing to do) is the one sanctioned by God. God says dont murder so you shouldnt murder - even if you believe murdering is +EV as you put it.

It has nothing to do with yourself getting into heaven.
It has nothing to do with EV.
The moral, correct, right course of action is to obey God.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is bogus. God says MURDER is immoral, not killing. He also says stealing is immoral, and yet I'm sure none of us would have any trouble thinking of examples where you absolutely should steal 100% of the time. Why this lame copout when it comes to killing someone?

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is bogus. God says MURDER is immoral, not killing. He also says stealing is immoral, and yet I'm sure none of us would have any trouble thinking of examples where you absolutely should steal 100% of the time. Why this lame copout when it comes to killing someone?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you have misunderstood my position. I dont think that something is moral because god says it is. I dont think religion is about morality. Nonetheless, people who do believe that morality is defined by what god wants exist. They are also the kind of people who believe in hell. There is nothing inconsistent in their position (although people like you and I consider it immoral).

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God didn't design us flawed. When Eve ate the forbidden fruit, sin entered the world.

[/ QUOTE ]
But he made her knowing she would choose to eat the fruit and thus sin. He also knew that a consequence of creating us was that there would be some people who would live their lives failing to acknowledge his existence.

[ QUOTE ]
While your optimism is admirable, most people are perfectly capable from a intelligence standpoint to understand the Word of God &amp; make their own choices. Don't you think that some folks around here are perfectly capable but choose not to??? Those that are not capable (i.e. children, mentally disabled) get a free pass. This too is well documented in the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about people who attempt to form their opinions based on objective evidence alone? Who regard it as immoral to profess belief in something they dont actually agree with? (I think these would both apply to most of the atheists on this forum) In my experience, you cant force yourself to believe anything, regardless of the consequences or of how much you want to believe it.

[ QUOTE ]
I would encourage you to look at Revelation as a point of reference for hell. I don't have my Bible in front of me at the moment but I will be glad to look them up for you tomorrow (about to go to bed!!!).

Also, there are several indications prior to Revelation that Hell is a real place. Jesus referred to it as a place of weeping &amp; gnashing of teeth. Once again, I will look some of those up later.

[/ QUOTE ]
My recollection is that it is actually a smattering of references all over the place, welded together as a unified doctrine through interpretation (a doctrine which coincidentally strengthened the church's power in earlier times) but not explicitly set out as such. Given my experience/belief in a loving god, I think alternative explanations are more likely than eternal torment for some (even most on some interpretations of the bible).

[ QUOTE ]
And I agree with your assesment that the Bible is the infallible Word of God but has been interpreted various ways by humans with political/selfish agendas. How do you think we wound up with so many variations of the same religion. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
This raises a problem for you, I think. How do you determine which interpretation is correct? It seems to me that catholics have the best answer to this (though I think they run into their own problems)

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible does not tell us that God made humans with the upfront knowledge that we would sin. Read Genesis chap 2 &amp; 3. We were created in God's image (i.e. sinless). He probably knew that we would be tempted. If your argument on this point were to hold water, why didn't God immediately send Jesus to Earth in Genesis after Eve ate the fruit rather than waiting a few thousand years until the NT?

The second paragraph pretty much sums up this forum!!! That's why it's called faith.

There is a smattering as you say. I ran across one last night in Matthew 24:50-51. But the real explanation is found in Revelation 20:10-15...pretty much this whole chapter.

There's not really a problem for me. You are correct that there are many interpretations of the Word of God, over 200 to be exact. But most are merely of updated language that is easier to read. Since nobody speaks English like they did 500 years ago, some people don't know what those words &amp; sentence structures mean. I have no issue with that as long as the message in the Word doesn't change. For example: John 11:35 Jesus wept. If somebody wants to change that to Jesus cried, I'm ok with that since it means the same.

I have my own thoughts on Catholicism that I won't post here.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

Bunny, here are those verses I made reference to yesterday that I said I would look up:

Matt 8:11-12
Matt 13: 41-42
Matt 13: 49-50
Matt 22: 12-13
Matt 24: 50-51
Matt 25: 29-30
Luke 13: 27-28
Jude 1: 6 &amp; 13

Also, there are many places in the Bible where Hell is called a lake of fire, fiery furnace, eternal fire, unquenchable fire, etc. Jesus preached more on Hell than he did on Heaven...so it must have been important. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
He probably knew that we would be tempted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't god know everything?

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

1. Fred kills his father
2. Fred rapes his daughter
3. Fred attempts to commit suicide by taking a lethal dose of some pills.
4. In his last 5 minutes of life, he realizes he has no chance of getting into heaven.
5. Thus, Fred decides to do something nice for others, and murders lights a catholic nursery on fire; killing many pure young children and some devout nuns.

How is step 5 not '+EV'? Would a Christian claim that he can still get into Heaven if he repents for his murder, rape, incest and suicide in his last moments of life? I doubt it (and if that is the case, why try to live a good life at all day-to-day?).

Seems to me his last murders would be very 'kind' to the victims. Shouldn't the church smile on this, getting some Heaven points out of a hopeless sinner?

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't the correct thing to do be to kill

[/ QUOTE ]

in the biblical paradigm god explicitly says not to murder people. So you would really have to be doublethinking here.

[/ QUOTE ]

man made rapture is not murder, ldo

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

As I have said before, aborting pure fetuses is the way to go. That way they don't even have a chance to ruin their golden ticket.

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He probably knew that we would be tempted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't god know everything?

[/ QUOTE ]


ZOMG!! Free Will vs Omniscience....How does that work?

Meh, screw it, we can figure out to twist this into the Bible thumpers favor

Re: Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible does not tell us that God made humans with the upfront knowledge that we would sin.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you sure you are claiming there was a time when God didnt know the future?

[ QUOTE ]
You are correct that there are many interpretations of the Word of God, over 200 to be exact. But most are merely of updated language that is easier to read. Since nobody speaks English like they did 500 years ago, some people don't know what those words &amp; sentence structures mean. I have no issue with that as long as the message in the Word doesn't change. For example: John 11:35 Jesus wept. If somebody wants to change that to Jesus cried, I'm ok with that since it means the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
But the problem is, some very thoughtful and dedicated theologians have examined the bible (and not the 500 year old english versions, nor latin for that matter but the actual hebrew/greek). They have concluded that abortion is against the will of God. Others equally qualified have concluded that it's ok. Some have concluded pacifism is necessary to live a moral life, others that violence is ok in some circumstances. Some have included certain books in the bible, sanctifying them as the word of god (I'm thinking the apocrypha) others say that those are important, but not part of God's word. These are not minor wept/cried distinctions - they are fairly fundamental differences in how we should act and what sort of things we should support. Faced with this plethora of competing interpretations, I dont see how any believer can say there isnt a problem. Accepting that the bible is the inerrant word of God is fine, but what does it actually mean is the important question - a question not easy to answer imo.