do you think someone sins when someone allows him/herself to be killed for the sake of others? of course not!

it's very easy, and you're either just trying to twist things, or struggling with my english.

God knows our hearts and where we're at in everything we do. that's why it can be black and white: because He knows if we really have put our trust in Jesus or not, and that's all that matters for our salvation. we've already been through that.

julz

One moment. You mean when you kill with the right reason it is allowed? That in the end every sin is allowed when it has a good reason? Good to know ...

I just want to show you the inconsistencies of your concept that you believe in. This heaven/hell concept is very inconsistent.

but i still don't see an inconsistency. you're being inconsistent. first you're saying how it's wrong because it's black and white; now you're saying it's wrong because God actually takes the situation into account.

i can't at the moment think of a situation where it would be okay to kill someone. but if someone has one bullet in their gun and the only way you can save someone else's life is to put yourself between them and the bullet, you'd call that suicide, but of course it isn't a sin.

there's never good enough reason to sin. if something is the most righteous course of action you can take, you cannot call it a sin.

you think it's inconsistent? you don't believe in right and wrong?

julz

You don't see it because you don't want to see it. Because that would be the moment where your faith is in danger.

Sin is just another word of control. Give the people fear, give them pain, give them the worst scenario they can think of in case they don't do what you want. So that they do what you want. Hell is that place. Hell is the worst scenario. The worst scenario a HUMAN can think of. Another proof that religions are manmade ...

When people live together they need rules, they need laws. Religion once had that place, religion was what law is today. The ten commandments was a good list of laws to allow people to live with each other without too much trouble - it was okay for that ancient age. But the commandments are simply outdated nowadays.



Yes it is inconsistent. And no, i don't believe in the right or wrong thing, not in the way it is meant in the bible.

There is no pure right or pure wrong. It all depends of the society. And it depends of the situation. To repeat myself, there are as much greyscales as there are problems and their solution.

Killing is such an example. Wrong. Or wait, when i would've killed Hitler then it would've been right. Or stealing. Not to steal could mean to starve. Which is suicide. Because with stealing you could prevent to die by starve. And here we have the next inconsistence in the ten commandments.

Or what about the deadsin of 5. You shall not dishonor your parents ? Imagine your father is an alcoholic and beats you. Now you do the deadsin not to honor him. You will burn in hell now. Means you can do the other sins without further fear now. Killing, who cares? You already have done a sin, and can just burn once in hell ...

The bible and the whole concept has this big logic holes that you could park the moon in it

There are two ways to look at this.

If you believe, you will understand that God is the final judge in any matter. So yes there are gray-scales, but only God knows every detail and factor which went into the 'sin', and only He will know the 'right' answer to the problem.

We humans can only do our best to try and understand how to apply these commands in our lives.

However the Commandments are not absolute. This is even made clear in the Bible. Thou Shalt not commit murder - that's the command, but is going to war to defend your home the same as committing murder? No it's not.

From the agnostic side, we can nit-pick the Bible to death, finding all sorts of inconsistencies in it, but don't assume that you can do this with every religion. Because one religion is wrong, does not automatically prove that all are wrong.

This would be like saying that because Darwin was a racist - and racism is wrong - therefore everything Darwin said was wrong.

Or, because Darwin was a racist, and Darwin wrote the theory of evolution, therefore everyone who believes in the theory of evolution is a racist.

This type of argument will never serve to reach the truth.

Muhammad just left out the parts about forming the world out of the body parts of the goddess Tiamat, who gave birth to the gods, dragons, scorpion-men, fish-men, and giant sea serpents.

The claim of the Quran is that God has always been communicating to humans through His prophets. The older books (like the Bible) were distorted and tampered with, so they are no longer reliable. The fact that some of the stories exist in older manuscripts, does not disprove the legitimacy of the newer ones.

Well the truth is you should keep your religious nonsense to yourself, I mean seriously are we really in the 21st century ? The fact of evolution is backed by an enormous amount of evidence and you really think young people in school should learn about Adam and Eve with a talking snake in paradise as an alternative ? This is just ridicules, young people in school should be educated to think for themselves and to look for evidence to support their claims and not to believe every bullshit.

Creationist and blind believers have just one argument which is "The Bible says... or the Quran says ... " and there motto would be don't bother me with the facts my mind is made up. Whats strange about those faith lunatics, they always want to be respected just because they believe in fairy tales which there is no evidence for and then they accuse scientists that they always claim to know everything.

If you believe in the talking snake thats fine but children should have the opportunity for a proper education about the real world and not about fairy land.

you need to read this thread. we've gone long past teaching Genesis in science class.

julz

I agree, long ago I mentioned that Creationism should not be taught in science class. There's a huge difference between teaching religion from sacred texts, and teaching Intelligent Design as a possible alternative to strict Darwinism.

If you had read the thread, you would know that intelligent design does not even challenge the idea of evolution. It simply seeks to explain that evolution does not have any explanation for the actual origin of life.

which reminds me, nobody gave me an answer on my seashells analogy.

If you found 20 seashells arranged in a square on a beach, would you assume that they were arranged there randomly? Or would you assume that a person came and arranged them?

How about if you saw 100 more squares, each made of 20 shells?

Please answer...

Still, intelligent design has the same pitfall than whole religions in general: no evidence. Not a single one. And no evidence means it doesn't exist.

Which makes the whole discussion about it as useful as a third foot. We could also discuss the skin colour of an alien in galaxy 1338 ... . What? Doesn't exist you say? But i have talked to him!





Hmm, must've overlooked this one. You say you have seen something like that? And even when, what is more likely, that really a human has arranged them, or that a god has arranged them? I for myself would look for footprints, and not cry immediately for a god as the explanation.

And that's the whole discussion between faith and science in general. Faith introduces a god for the only explanation of everything. And tries to discredit every evidence and everything in general that is against the faith. With all weapons. Because faith is the only truth. Science looks and searches for the real reasons. And doesn't care about doctrines or religions here. When something is proven then it is the one that is true. When something is disproven then it is the one that is untrue. Means when they would find a proof for a god then you can be sure that they will tell you. That easy. And now let's have a look what we have so far. Proofs for a god: zero. Proofs for intelligent design: zero ...

Or do you mean something different here?