Killer

[Wordleymaster1]

If you're to believe the bible, God kills. God also creates.
If you're a Christian, you love and follow God (or are supposed to at least).
Why do you follow a god that kills?
Charlie Manson has his followers. And he has killed (in one way or another - guilty enough to get jail time). Are Christians to be considered like his followers?
Or do Christians overlook God's killing and accept if as justifiable? Well I guess the answer is YES, so maybe the question should be WHY

Why do Christians overlook God's killing (the worst murdere in human history it would seem)?
Is it the same reason why Charlie's followers overlook his past?

Or will Christians take offense at the comparison?

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 53 by 1213]

I think it would be evil to let evil people live forever. They would make eternal life hellish for all, if they would have eternal life, because they love more evil and lies than truth and good.

Opinion noted but leaves a bad taste in my mouth especially the last part. While that may be true for some, I prefer to think of people generally 'good'. They want to do good and not lie cheat steal murder blah blah blah. But maybe that's me being optimistic? Maybe that's one reason why I never say Christianity's slavery and dependence as a good thing

If it is expected that you love others, is that really same as being slave?

ABSOLUTELY!!!! No one should EXPECT love - they should strive to want to be the person another CAN love on their OWN FREE WILL. What you say here with 'expecting' is slavery in my eyes.

Why you dont want to do so?

If you're talking about love, I want to love someone for who they are, not what they DO for me or what threat they hold over my head like God does with Hell. Again, that's just me not accepting the slave notion of a threatening God

Those who get eternal life, want to love freely.

Then the converse must also be true yes? Those who don't get eternal live DON'T want to love, or don't want to love a threatening slave driving God?

[Clownboat]

I have already defined death. It's to stop the function of a persons body. It may be more than at as well but dying means your body stops functioning at the least. Killing means making it stop. Murder means making it stop without consent or necessity.

The morality of killing simply does not necessarily depend on what happens after death. Even if I knew absolutely there was afterlife I wouldn't have the right to cause another persons body to cease.

Agreed, but what terrifies me is the slippy slope here.

"Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy. The truth of something does not become untrue simply because you fantasize about what it might MEAN.

Doesn't matter Dianaiad, what I said is that it terrifies me. Just because I used the words "slippery slope" doesn't change what I said, or how I feel, or why I feel that way.

I then explained why, and you left it out:
All it takes is for a believer to think they are doing the work of a god to feel justified for their actions. God can move people from one existence to another and who is anyone to argue that he can't use people as his tools to do so. This can and often times does include murdering others.

Thanks for addressing two words out of my post while completely ignoring what I said and why though.

You are using the same sort of faulty logic.

How is it that I explain an emotion and you accuse me of faulty logic? I think you got hung up on "slippery slope".
Perhaps if I had just said: What terrifies me is the idea that people can feel like they are a "tool of a god" and can be used to move people from one existence to another. This has and does happen so I don't see what is faulty about it.

[1213]

ABSOLUTELY!!!! No one should EXPECT love - they should strive to want to be the person another CAN love on their OWN FREE WILL. What you say here with 'expecting' is slavery in my eyes.

Ok, luckily it was just a question and not a claim.

According to the Bible, eternal life is a gift for righteous. It is not because person has done good things or that he has shown love to someone. People should love because it is good and right, not because they could get something by it or because they think they have to do so for some other reason. I think righteous person loves, because he understands it is good. And I think the reason why eternal life is for righteous is that they have right understanding and want freely to do that what is right and good.

This is why I think they are not slaves, but children of God.

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

[Zzyzx]

.

Many bible believes think that humans have a "sou.l" However, there is no evidence that such thing exists outside imagination, conjecture, or religion-promotion material.

Well, nobody can prove that God exists, either, but that doesn't stop 'em from deciding that He is an evil so and so anyway.

Of course, there is no credible evidence that any of the thousands of proposed "gods" exist outside human imagination " or angels, devils, demons, or souls or afterlife. However, lack of evidence does not prevent many people from claiming to KNOW about such things. Others "believe", some doubt, some deny, a few reserve judgment awaiting evidence upon which to make an informed and intelligent decision.

It doesn't seem, er, logical to me to discuss God, and, not liking the context of the story that surrounds Him decide that y'all are right because He doesn't exist any way.

Notice that I do not debate the existence of "gods" or the details of their supposed characteristics but do debate CLAIMS of knowledge. Since none of the proposed "gods" can be shown to be anything more than products of human imagination, their supposed characteristics can be imagined to be whatever pleases the imaginative person.

After all, if He doesn't exist, how can He be guilty of anything?

I assign "guilt" to those who falsely or foolishly claim knowledge that they do not possess (confusing belief with knowledge)

as to Manson giving, or not giving, life...Well, that's a strawman argument too, since the life we 'give' here is limited to our physical forms, and frankly, we don't have a whole lot of control over what life gets created.

Parents will be sad to hear that they have not given life to their offspring because it is physical.

If there is a 'soul' (or spirit, actually) then God created that, the spirit is what goes on, if God exists, and we mere mortals have had nothing to do with that.

IF, IF, IF " sounds like a massive conjecture.

So we can't prove that a spirit exists? So what?

So it is a concept, an opinion, that cannot be honorably presented as factual since that cannot be shown to be true.

Again, we can't prove God exists, either, but that doesn't stop the non-believers from vilifying Him as some horrific evil Being anyway.

The characters "vilified" are the ones presented in religious stories. If those characters are imaginary they are imaginary villains (like any other fictional characters might be portrayed).