• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Belief in God and Murderous Rampages

Risky Thicket said:
Define "God".
Click to expand...

A superior being with many powers, most likely immortal, may being a part of a single belief system (monotheism), or part of a system in which many gods exist

For those who are religious but theirs does not have a "god head" a spiritual system in which their is an existence after the life we currently have. Be it reincarnation, or reaching a "nirvana" but that depends on the life one lived right now
 
blackjack50 said:
Having had a family member who, along with her children, was beaten severely on multiple occasions by her husband...who was a former police officer whose father was a prosecutor...and then she was raped by this same person along with her daughter...and now seeing the ongoing legal battle and how inept the justice system had been in solving this issue?

Yes. I would have resorted to murder without my religion. The law does not create morals for me. And historically speaking? The law is very flexible on abuse of individuals. Any group of people can resort to violence when they don't have something inside stopping them. Perhaps for you that is a concrete set of morals that you didn't arrive at from religion, but from some other cultural pressure. But for many? That cultural pressure IS religion. And it DOES provide a concrete foundation that separates them from a more basic form of behavior that is more animalistic.

I'm still not sure how much my religion would stop me if someone harmed someone closer to me than extended family. I know that if I had been presented a legal opportunity to shoot the bastard...I would have without hesitation.
Click to expand...

Somehow I knew something like this would come up. If you shot someone who was attacking you or your family it wouldn't be cold-blooded murder, it would be self-defense. Big difference. And according to the law in most states, you would be in the right for doing so, even if the attacker was your own spouse or family member.
 
Former GOP said:
Ah, so in other words you have no self control and no respect for human life. You need to believe in an unproven divine entity and use it as a crutch to prevent yourself from being a murderer. And you say you lean very conservative? A true conservative would be self-reliant and wouldn't need this false crutch.
Click to expand...

Obviously I do have self control and respect for human life. My faith taught me these things.
 
apdst said:
Obviously I do have self control and respect for human life. My faith taught me these things.
Click to expand...

But you wouldn't have self control or respect for human life if you didn't have faith in a holy spirit? That says a lot about you.
 
Former GOP said:
But you wouldn't have self control or respect for human life if you didn't have faith in a holy spirit? That says a lot about you.
Click to expand...

Morals are learned, not inate.
 
Former GOP said:
Somehow I knew something like this would come up. If you shot someone who was attacking you or your family it wouldn't be cold-blooded murder, it would be self-defense. Big difference.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about active self defense. I'm talking cold blooded and calculated murder after the fact. Perhaps you can make an excuse for how that is still defense of family, but not in the eyes of the law. Revenge isn't really acceptable in my religion either. Justice is one thing. Revenge is not.

So.

And according to the law in most states, you would be in the right for doing so, even if the attacker was your own spouse or family member.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter this part. My point is that the law will make killing legal in some cases and not others. Be it Jews or witches or religious groups can be killed for whatever the excuse is. Historically speaking, legal systems are unreliable. And they don't provide justice. Not true justice. Not every time. So in an instance like above (where no legal opportunity ever presented itself to kill the individual)...one could understand where in the absence of either a concrete set of morals, someone would resort to cold blooded murder to get revenge or even basic justice.

Heck. I would argue that that is a normal human desire given the plethora of examples in literature/myths spanning thousands of years, as well as modern art and entertainment.

https://youtu.be/3rYanTJCjmQ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Former GOP said:
But you wouldn't have self control or respect for human life if you didn't have faith in a holy spirit? That says a lot about you.
Click to expand...

And just as a follow up to my other comment because this is a good question for you to ask in response to me as well...and really the base of my point can be responded to here as well:

Depends on the motive. If an individual killed my girlfriend...there is no doubt in my mind I would burn their world down around them given the means and opportunity. And that is knowing that my morals that come from religion are very explicit about revenge. Surely you would understand that desire?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Cephus said:
I'm an atheist and have never murdered anyone, have never stolen anything, have never physically harmed anyone, etc. But sure, I'm evil. :roll:
Click to expand...

Naw. Just lazy. ;)
 
X Factor said:
Isn't that pretty much what you do anyway? :2razz: CC. You're sounding like a Sith and you're the one speaking in absolutes. I already said that there is subjective good/bad, quite a bit in fact. My unconcern over AGW is, no doubt, wrong to some but it feels so right to me. :lol: Let me ask you this, if a parent sends their gay kid to conversion therapy, is that a good or a bad thing to do? If I insist that changing someone's own gender is actually physically impossible, am I right or wrong about that? If I say that there exists an objective good/bad, am I objectively wrong about that?
Click to expand...

If a parent sends their kid to conversion therapy, that is objectively harmful as is shown by the research. To me, that is bad. To that parent, it might be good. If you insist that changing someone's own gender is actually physically impossible, whether you are right or wrong depends on how you define gender. In the first example, there is a difference between facts and morals. In the second, how one interprets facts is important. See how this isn't so cut and dry?

Oh, and if you claim that their exists an objective good/bad, you are LOGICALLY wrong. Again... notice the complexity?
 
apdst said:
Morals are learned, not inate.
Click to expand...

This is actually completely true and on target. It is also why different societies and different societies in different time periods have different morals.

Unfortunately, apdst, it is also why natural rights don't exist.
 
blackjack50 said:
Believe and non belief in god does not make someone a murderer. There are examples from both sides. Period. Murder is about having access to guns (oh wait...what?)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Access to guns just makes murder easier - much.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is actually completely true and on target. It is also why different societies and different societies in different time periods have different morals.

Unfortunately, apdst, it is also why natural rights don't exist.
Click to expand...

The Founders got it wrong?
 
Sweden said:
Access to guns just makes murder easier - much.
Click to expand...

I was being very sarcastic. People tend to try and lay the blame on things other than truly responsible thing...because doing so scares the **** out of them. You can't blame religion or guns. You gotta blame people. I can drive a truck in a crowd or take a machete or propane tank and do plenty. My motivation is all that matters. And that is scary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
apdst said:
The Founders got it wrong?
Click to expand...

The founders followed the thinking of the day. Yes, they were wrong. Being wrong has nothing to do with what they ended up creating. Stop with the mindless hero worship.
 
Cephus said:
The founders followed the thinking of the day. Yes, they were wrong. Being wrong has nothing to do with what they ended up creating. Stop with the mindless hero worship.
Click to expand...

Stop with the irrational overeaction.
 
apdst said:
Stop with the irrational overeaction.
Click to expand...

I'm not. Okay, maybe you're not engaging in mindless hero worship but there are many that do. The founders said it, therefore it has to be holy writ. That is a very common tactic, particularly for many libertarians. If you're not doing so, then I apologize for suggesting that you were.
 
Cephus said:
I'm not. Okay, maybe you're not engaging in mindless hero worship but there are many that do. The founders said it, therefore it has to be holy writ. That is a very common tactic, particularly for many libertarians. If you're not doing so, then I apologize for suggesting that you were.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Cephus said:
I'm not. Okay, maybe you're not engaging in mindless hero worship but there are many that do. The founders said it, therefore it has to be holy writ. That is a very common tactic, particularly for many libertarians. If you're not doing so, then I apologize for suggesting that you were.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that the very foundation of our government is that rights are natural. They cannot be taken away by the government without due process. That is very basis of our system. Taking away natural rights as a concept...says that there is justification for unlimited power to the government. A very dangerous precedent to have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blackjack50 said:
The problem here is that the very foundation of our government is that rights are natural. They cannot be taken away by the government without due process. That is very basis of our system. Taking away natural rights as a concept...says that there is justification for unlimited power to the government. A very dangerous precedent to have.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't actually change anything because our entire system of government allows us to rewrite the Constitution if we want to, whenever we want to, regardless of a belief in natural rights. We could get rid of any Amendment to the Constitution that we wanted to, any time we wanted to. So what? It hasn't led to the end of the nation.
 
blackjack50 said:
The problem here is that the very foundation of our government is that rights are natural. They cannot be taken away by the government without due process. That is very basis of our system. Taking away natural rights as a concept...says that there is justification for unlimited power to the government. A very dangerous precedent to have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

From the very founding of the US, rights were not granted fully to all persons living in the US (Slaves for instance, Japanese during WW2 and before, hispanic americans during operation wetback and so on)

If they were natural, they would have been applied to all people, not just a select number
 
Cephus said:
I'm an atheist and have never murdered anyone, have never stolen anything, have never physically harmed anyone, etc. But sure, I'm evil. :roll:
Click to expand...

Romans 2 has got you covered! ;)


1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.
3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?
4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who "will render to each one according to his deeds":
7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness--indignation and wrath,
9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;
10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law
13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
17 Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God,
18 and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,
19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,
20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law.
21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?
22 You who say, "Do not commit adultery," do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?
24 For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," as it is written.
25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?
27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;
29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.


Short version: Those who follow God's law as written on their heart are inwardly a Christian even if outwardly they are not.
 
jmotivator said:
Romans 2 has got you covered! ;)


1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.
3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?
4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who "will render to each one according to his deeds":
7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness--indignation and wrath,
9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;
10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law
13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
17 Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God,
18 and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,
19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,
20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law.
21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?
22 You who say, "Do not commit adultery," do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?
24 For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," as it is written.
25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?
27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;
29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.


Short version: Those who follow God's law as written on their heart are inwardly a Christian even if outwardly they are not.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone care about your ridiculous book of multiple choice? :roll:
 
jmotivator said:
Hope you figure it out some day.
Click to expand...

I did, more than 30 years ago when I gave up the idiocy that was religion. Hopefully someday you figure it out.
 
Cephus said:
I did, more than 30 years ago when I gave up the idiocy that was religion. Hopefully someday you figure it out.
Click to expand...

I did what you did and then I came back. I hope you will do the same some day. In the mean time, peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom