Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven

[vhawk01]

[ 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?

[bunny]

[ 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).

[Brad1970]

[ 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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.

[Brad1970]

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 & 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]

[Hopey]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't god know everything?

[JDalla]

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?

[Leaky Eye]

[ 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

[Leaky Eye]

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.

[manbearpig]

[ 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

[bunny]

[ 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 & 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.