|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
posted May 19, 2007 09:13 AM |
|
|
If a mother killed her child straight after birth would that child go to heaven or hell?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 19, 2007 11:48 AM |
|
|
Do children have souls before they are born?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 19, 2007 12:01 PM |
|
|
Do they have souls after they're born? 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 19, 2007 12:12 PM |
|
|
What I meant is, continuing the grotesque parade of finding holes in organized religion (as if that's hard), where do abortions go?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 19, 2007 01:23 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 13:23, 19 May 2007.
|
Cool example with the AI btw 
Quote:
Not trying to understand why he does something, it's just what he does is cruel and sadistic.
Use your metaphor of the AI.
You make a computer program and you put two people in it called Madam and Steve. You, being able to control everything, make them excessively susceptible to temptation and a hidden want for evil (to do what you don't want them to do). Don't know why you gave them this, but you did. But Madam and Steve don't do anything. They just go along with their lives eating fruit, like you want them to do, (doing good).
But you're unhappy with this. You want them to do what you don't want them to do, so to speak. So you go out and make a mongoose, that talks (dont ask). Not only can it talk, in perfect diction, but its also very sly. You say hey mr mongoose buddy go out to Madam and Steve and go tell them to eat from the tree which I specifically told them not to. The mongoose says, "why the hell did you tell them not to if you want them to eat it?" You say, "shut up mongoose whos the god here? i work in mysterious ways". So then the mongoose heads out and gets them to do what you dont want them to do (or do want them to do), and then you pretend to be all furious at them for doing what you, in effect, made them do. So then you say "AHA i told you not to!" because you're sadistic and then torture them for the rest of their lives by unleashing all evil on them.
What a great game that would be 
I see you're not getting the idea of 'free will'. Will is not controlled by God. That's why it's called free. If he created our wills to do what He wants them to do (like in your example), we wouldn't be humans but His robots/servants.
God doesn't control our thoughts, so if we decide to do evil, that is not His decision or creation. The 'free' will has this name for a reason.
Why did God, for example, put the Tree and warned Adam and Eve not to eat from it?
Possible explanation (mine): Let's take the analogy back to the ring. If you were given the ring, what would you do?
Two possible actions: take it and use it, or don't.
The idea is, if you were not given the ring, but you would take it if you were, you are the same person.
It's not the action that counts, but the thoughts. If Adam or Eve or whatever choose so to eat from the tree (by their own free will, God doesn't interfere), then so be it, they sinned against the warning of God. It's called a 'challenge', like proving your worth. If they didn't eat from it, they would be obviously good.
However, even if the tree wasn't there, but they still would've eaten from it, they would still be evil. Like I said, it doesn't matter if you chain up an evil criminal so he can't move, he is still an evil person -- just because he can't move (or can't eat from the tree) doesn't mean he isn't a criminal or evil.
Quote:
No. Only one elf has done this to save the 1000, the other elves have done nothing.
Quote:
The idea isn't that they kill so many. No one said anything about 'killing' or 'many'. Just one elf torturing one orc to save thousands. Thats it. Stop changing it 
Quote:
Yes! lets just kill ourselves instead of saving others 
You don't understand me because you look from a human/law perspective. And of course you favor that category.
Put it this way: suppose the elves are white people and the orcs are black people (just an example)
Black people attack and torture, to find out important information for their victory. Just like the orcs.
White people, supposedly, need to save 1000 white people, but by torturing one black guy.
What should they do? Ok, start torturing the black guy in your perspective. Where's the flaw? If the white people tortured the black guy, and saved 1000 white people, and the black people tortured the white people (as orcs do it) to save their own black people, I believe the 'total' human outcome will be the same...
The problem is that you only see your kind/law as the one that should prevail. Because it's natural to care only for yourself/country (in case of patriot). However, just as Iraqians torture americans and blow up places and possibly save 1000 Iraqians, so should americans in your example do to the Iraqians.
Suppose black people need to save 1000 black people by torturing. Now, as in my example they are evil (orcs), they would do it gladly to save their own skin.
Your perspective also means that white people should do the same. Why? Then there's absolutely no difference between them. Both are creatures, both are living evil souls/spirits/organisms (whatever you prefer). So, if white people do the same to black people, then they are the same. And of course both are humans, but does it matter? It's natural to care only for your own kind (human/country/race/etc), but that is usually evil.
You can replace black people with Iraqians or orcs, and white people with Americans or Elves so you get the scenarios of the other examples.
So to get back to Elves and orcs:
Orcs torture elves, to save 1000 orc warriors so they attack more fiercely, for example. Of course, why should they care for the tortured elf? After all, only their kind matters, and the rest of races are disgusting, especially the elves.
For the elves, it is completely different. They do not torture orcs to save 1000 elves. If they did so, tell me where is the difference?
Let's see if elves would torture orcs, what would look like schematically:
Orcs torture elves to save 1000 orcs. Why should they care for elves being tortured? Orcs are evil anyway, and elves are disgusting for them.
Elves torture orcs to save 1000 elves. Why should they care for orcs being tortured? Elves are evil (in this scenario) anyway, and orcs are disgusting for them as well.
Can you please find a difference here, because I can't find really.
The idea is, if elves would torture and do the same things as orcs, all the actions of the elves would be the same as orcs (but replacing the text with 'elves' instead of 'orcs' and vice versa).
That would render them the same. If orcs are evil, then elves are as well. I don't know why it's so hard to see it.
The example with black people should hopefully be more explanative, because both are humans. But does it matter that both are humans? After all, why should one race deserve to live more than another if both do the same things to claim victory? It doesn't make sense, it's the same as the same race figthing against it.
Just like in real life -- humans fight with humans. But why should one side (like white people) deserve to be called 'good' while the other (black people) not? After all, both torture to save their own kind, both torture to gain victory, both use the same methods to achieve their scope. Both are the same.
So why call one 'good' and the other 'evil'? Obviously both are the same.
Need I remind you that elves in LotR represent good and Orcs evil? So the 'action text' should clearly be different between them. The schematic view above (in italic) is the same for both. So clearly both are the same.
Because elves are good in LotR they do not torture orcs. They do not use sneaky means that orcs do (evil means). Because of this they truly deserve to be called good. Otherwise there's no difference.
If an american has the chance to torture 1 iraqian and save 1000 americans, will he do it? 99% possible chances, yes.
However, if an iraqian has the same chance to save 1000 iraqians, he will do it as well. so cleary both are the same.
About the 'killing ourselves' thing:
Suppose white people kill and torture 7000 black people to save 1000 white people. The number of killed creatures (humans) equals 6000 in total. That is worse than killing yourselves (white people) because the total number of killed creatures would only be 1000 (those 1000 white people).
So clearly, this killing ourselves, only applies when we are the same as the enemy. Because 6000 total killed creatures (black people, which use the same methods and therefore are the same creatures) is worse than 1000, let's just kill ourselves and that's it.
If we were better (i.e good) then of course this scenario no longer applies. However, being good means we have to be better or different than them, in a good sense. That also means not using their same methods. If we did, we would be the same.
Why does our 'torture black people and save 1000 white people' is called good (by you), and 'torture white people to save 1000 black people' is not?
Replace black people with orcs and white people with elves and you again apply the scenario where elves = orcs. Which is clearly not the case in Tolkien's story.
Elves don't torture orcs because they're better and good. If they did it, they would be orcs. Does it matter that you save 1000 elves if they will (further) torture orcs/use their methods? That equals saving 1000 orcs...
Quote:
Because the government agent is trying to save lives whilst the terrorist is trying to end them..
The government ends terrorist lives, the terrorist ends government/civil lives. By using the same methods, both are the same
Why should a government agent, by torturing terrorists (and ending their lives) be called 'good', while the terrorist, by torturing people, be called 'evil'? It makes no sense, both are the same.
Even if the terrorist was a monkey or an alien, does it really matter, he has the right to live the same as us, because he is obviously doing the same things (killing humans for information, while we kill them for information). Of course it's natural to care for your own kind (in this case humans/government), but selfishness is evil. I don't care for self-perservation because that isn't a good act. Elves aren't attracted by it either.
Quote:
why give us the need to sleep? the need to eat? grow dirty and smell bad? so exposed to the environment? prone to obesity? common poor eyesight? malfunctioning circulatory, digestive, immune and nervous system? grow bald?
and most importantly, why put the scrotum on the outside?
First of all, if humans start a nuclear war (and many, many suffer), does that mean God is cruel?
God gave humans free will. If they so choose to murder or start wars, that's their choice (and the devil feasts on it as well). God is not babysitting over us.
We deserve to commit evil or fall into stupid traps of our own minds, because we are that stupid in our free will (and mostly this comes from the fact that people don't love God).
God loves humans. God doesn't force them to do certain things. If humans want to end their lives, that's their own choice (of course such an act is clearly stated as a punishment in the Bible, but if humans so want it, then God doesn't stop them).
Again, if he chained us up (as you would chain a criminal), that won't make us free and neither change our personality (good/evil), but will only force us to stay quiet.
And Adam & Eve also commited the sin, so some suffering has be applied to us because of our curiosity and desire for power. This attitude, by the way, is not controlled by God.
He does not control our thoughts. We have free will. Our desire for power and selfishness comes from ourselves, not from God.
We are not all born equal, because we did this to ourselves. If we were completely Good we were all equal. But if you are born in a nuclear war, for example, of course you are not equal -- nuclear wars are because of humans. Suffering is because of humans as well (Adam and Eve). God warned them not to eat from the tree, but they did, and were exposed to the Devil. That is why we have suffering.
Same as a nuclear war. If we are killed by a nuclear war started by Adam (eating from the tree), then of course we are never born equal -- but that is human's own fault, not God. We have free will, but we never took enough responsibility for our actions. Most of us on the large scale are evil.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 19, 2007 01:59 PM |
|
|
@The Death
You just wrote half a page of offtopicness...
*bows*
Wouldn't have done it better myself
I recommend checking this out. It's kinda cool and can perhaps answer a couple of questions.
And it's on-topic
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 19, 2007 02:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Cool example with the AI btw
I see you're not getting the idea of 'free will'. Will is not controlled by God. That's why it's called free. If he created our wills to do what He wants them to do (like in your example), we wouldn't be humans but His robots/servants.
Glad you liked it
Yes, but when you think about god in the sense that he is omnipotent..
He created us, exactly how he wanted us. That's taken for granted right, because he didn't make a mistake or anything. We are exactly how god wanted us to be, right? It sounds strange but theres no other alternative.
That said, if god is all knowing, he knows exactly what we will do in the future, according to how he creates us.
So he chooses what we do in the way of how he creates us. The only other way is if he is either NOT all powerful or NOT all knowing..
God created Hitler exactly how he wanted him to be created. And he also knew that in creating him in this way he would do exactly as he did. God could have created him differently if he wanted to, but he didn't.
I understand free will but its a contradiction in terms. I'm having trouble explaining this in a way which will make sense
Sure he gives us free will to do choose our path but he ultimately determines that path that we will take.
Quote:
God doesn't control our thoughts, so if we decide to do evil, that is not His decision or creation. The 'free' will has this name for a reason.
Why give us the capacity to do evil though?
Quote:
Why did God, for example, put the Tree and warned Adam and Eve not to eat from it?
Possible explanation (mine): Let's take the analogy back to the ring. If you were given the ring, what would you do?
Two possible actions: take it and use it, or don't.
The idea is, if you were not given the ring, but you would take it if you were, you are the same person.
It's not the action that counts, but the thoughts. If Adam or Eve or whatever choose so to eat from the tree (by their own free will, God doesn't interfere), then so be it, they sinned against the warning of God. It's called a 'challenge', like proving your worth. If they didn't eat from it, they would be obviously good.
Ok so god is weeding out the evil in all of us
But why create such evil beings in the first place. That's what I don't get.
Quote:
You don't understand me because you look from a human/law perspective. And of course you favor that category.
Put it this way: suppose the elves are white people and the orcs are black people (just an example)
Black people attack and torture, to find out important information for their victory. Just like the orcs.
White people, supposedly, need to save 1000 white people, but by torturing one black guy.
What should they do? Ok, start torturing the black guy in your perspective. Where's the flaw? If the white people tortured the black guy, and saved 1000 white people, and the black people tortured the white people (as orcs do it) to save their own black people, I believe the 'total' human outcome will be the same...
The problem is that you only see your kind/law as the one that should prevail. Because it's natural to care only for yourself/country (in case of patriot). However, just as Iraqians torture americans and blow up places and possibly save 1000 Iraqians, so should americans in your example do to the Iraqians.
Suppose black people need to save 1000 black people by torturing. Now, as in my example they are evil (orcs), they would do it gladly to save their own skin.
Your perspective also means that white people should do the same. Why? Then there's absolutely no difference between them. Both are creatures, both are living evil souls/spirits/organisms (whatever you prefer). So, if white people do the same to black people, then they are the same. And of course both are humans, but does it matter? It's natural to care only for your own kind (human/country/race/etc), but that is usually evil.
You can replace black people with Iraqians or orcs, and white people with Americans or Elves so you get the scenarios of the other examples.
I get your example. Its exactly correct. I agree with you, as I did before.
HOWEVER (yes, theres always a however ) you're arguing that the end NEVER justifies the means. That you should NEVER do ANY evil in order to do ANY amount of good.
Here is where I disagree with you.
So I put forward a situation where it IS right to do A VERY SLIGHT EVIL in order to DO A WHOLE LOT OF GOOD
like torturing one person to save thousands
killing a serial psychopathic murderer in order to save your family. here you are not as bad as the murderer even though you have committed the same crime, because the murderer kills INNOCENTS in cold blood for FUN, MANY times. You're killing ONE, EVIL man, in order to save lives.
The end, IN THIS CASE, justifies the means. I'm not saying that we should go out and kill all murderers. In fact I am anti-death penalty. Just that IN THIS CASE, the end justifies the means. Not always.
in your case, you should just let this murderer go out and continue killing people and your family just because you dont want to get your hands dirty.
now I see no difference between this, and god stopping the devil. however you already agreed that god wants the temptation there so that many people show how evil they are so god can BURN them
Quote:
So to get back to Elves and orcs:
...
Can you please find a difference here, because I can't find really.
In your metaphor, they are the same. Not always though.
You added aspects like to attack more fiercely and the numbers. This is the gray area though; do lives come down to mere statistics? of course not. they shouldn't anyway.
Quote:
The idea is, if elves would torture and do the same things as orcs, all the actions of the elves would be the same as orcs (but replacing the text with 'elves' instead of 'orcs' and vice versa).
That would render them the same. If orcs are evil, then elves are as well. I don't know why it's so hard to see it.
I see it.
Quote:
The example with black people should hopefully be more explanative, because both are humans. But does it matter that both are humans? After all, why should one race deserve to live more than another if both do the same things to claim victory? It doesn't make sense, it's the same as the same race figthing against it.
Just like in real life -- humans fight with humans. But why should one side (like white people) deserve to be called 'good' while the other (black people) not? After all, both torture to save their own kind, both torture to gain victory, both use the same methods to achieve their scope. Both are the same.
So why call one 'good' and the other 'evil'? Obviously both are the same.
Need I remind you that elves in LotR represent good and Orcs evil? So the 'action text' should clearly be different between them. The schematic view above (in italic) is the same for both. So clearly both are the same.
Because elves are good in LotR they do not torture orcs. They do not use sneaky means that orcs do (evil means). Because of this they truly deserve to be called good. Otherwise there's no difference.
If an american has the chance to torture 1 iraqian and save 1000 americans, will he do it? 99% possible chances, yes.
However, if an iraqian has the same chance to save 1000 iraqians, he will do it as well. so cleary both are the same.
About the 'killing ourselves' thing:
Suppose white people kill and torture 7000 black people to save 1000 white people. The number of killed creatures (humans) equals 6000 in total. That is worse than killing yourselves (white people) because the total number of killed creatures would only be 1000 (those 1000 white people).
So clearly, this killing ourselves, only applies when we are the same as the enemy. Because 6000 total killed creatures (black people, which use the same methods and therefore are the same creatures) is worse than 1000, let's just kill ourselves and that's it.
If we were better (i.e good) then of course this scenario no longer applies. However, being good means we have to be better or different than them, in a good sense. That also means not using their same methods. If we did, we would be the same.
again
Quote:
Why does our 'torture black people and save 1000 white people' is called good (by you), and 'torture white people to save 1000 black people' is not?
wow.
ok no.
First of all its not 'torture many x's to save 1000 y's.' It's 'torture ONEx to save MANY y's'
then again that just comes down to statistics
Second of all I never mentioned black or white people. Only you did. So please don't put forward false accusations of racism
Quote:
Replace black people with orcs and white people with elves and you again apply the scenario where elves = orcs. Which is clearly not the case in Tolkien's story.
Elves don't torture orcs because they're better and good. If they did it, they would be orcs. Does it matter that you save 1000 elves if they will (further) torture orcs/use their methods? That equals saving 1000 orcs...
Quote:
Quote:
Because the government agent is trying to save lives whilst the terrorist is trying to end them..
The government ends terrorist lives, the terrorist ends government/civil lives. By using the same methods, both are the same
NO. the terrorists ends many innocent lives, the government merely stop this problem off at the source. If this involves the death of the culprit, then yes they are technically both ending lives but there is a vast chasm of difference in the magnitude AND REASON (theoretically speaking of course )
Quote:
Quote:
why give us the need to sleep? the need to eat? grow dirty and smell bad? so exposed to the environment? prone to obesity? common poor eyesight? malfunctioning circulatory, digestive, immune and nervous system? grow bald?
and most importantly, why put the scrotum on the outside?
First of all, if humans start a nuclear war (and many, many suffer), does that mean God is cruel?
yes. technically it does. god caused it (no denying that, if he is the divine creator), and hence as I said, he inextricably planned for. it see above.
Quote:
God gave humans free will. If they so choose to murder or start wars, that's their choice (and the devil feasts on it as well). God is not babysitting over us.
We deserve to commit evil or fall into stupid traps of our own minds, because we are that stupid in our free will (and mostly this comes from the fact that people don't love God).
God loves humans.
Maybe some. Not all. Not amputees. Not stillborn children. Not the evil people (god made them evil). And not those born into easy lives according to jlewlotr
Quote:
He does not control our thoughts. We have free will. Our desire for power and selfishness comes from ourselves, not from God.
See that's where you are wrong.
Think of it like a game of Who Wants to be a Millionaire!
Here are the options
A) God is all powerful
B) God is all knowing
C) God is all loving
D) All of the above
If god is D) All of the above THEN he did give us the selfishness and desire for power. Think about it
Quote:
We are not all born equal, because we did this to ourselves. If we were completely Good we were all equal. But if you are born in a nuclear war, for example, of course you are not equal -- nuclear wars are because of humans. Suffering is because of humans as well (Adam and Eve). God warned them not to eat from the tree, but they did, and were exposed to the Devil. That is why we have suffering.
Same as a nuclear war. If we are killed by a nuclear war started by Adam (eating from the tree), then of course we are never born equal -- but that is human's own fault, not God. We have free will, but we never took enough responsibility for our actions. Most of us on the large scale are evil.
What about amputees.
Someone born without a leg. How did we cause that???????
@Baklava:
edit: i watched that video.
the guy doesn't really make any points other than saying that god has always been there and that he is always creating the universe, which has not always been there.
Which is a contradiction really. If our universe is changing and god is always creating then he must be changing. And if the universe was created at one point in time then god must have done something to change and start creating it..
And his logic about the god who gave us sense of morality must be moral himself.. LOL
And the god who gave us missing limbs, disease and evil must be missing limbs, diseased and evil himself
And he clearly only approves the comments which say YAYEA URE RIGHT PUH-RAYZE THUH LORUD
and
The offtopic-ness comes from the question (of which this thread is full) 'Why doesn't god stop the devil'.
In summary the first answer was 'because that'd be bad and god doesn't want to ruin his reputation to save everyone from eternal damnation'
Then it was established that 'God the devil, created him and wants to keep him because it helps him to decide who to BURNINATE!!'
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 19, 2007 03:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why give us the capacity to do evil though?
Evil is not given by God, evil is not 'created' by God.
Evil exists. You just have to live with this explanation because there isn't any other rational one.
In fact, even atheists agree with this kind of sentences. For example: Time exists. Matter exists. etc exists
It just is.
Quote:
HOWEVER (yes, theres always a however ) you're arguing that the end NEVER justifies the means. That you should NEVER do ANY evil in order to do ANY amount of good.
Self defense is not doing the evil of the 'criminal'. Yes if you are 100% you shouldn't do any amount of evil for the sake of good.
Quote:
killing a serial psychopathic murderer in order to save your family. here you are not as bad as the murderer even though you have committed the same crime, because the murderer kills INNOCENTS in cold blood for FUN, MANY times. You're killing ONE, EVIL man, in order to save lives.
Yes, that is self defense.
Elves kill orcs as well, and elves do not attack orcs just because they want to wipe them out. They are defensive, and value the life of orcs as well -- and don't expand their situations greedy (situations can mean: territory, money, power, etc..).. They only live in harmony in their small place given, but if the Orcs attack them they will defend themselves.
However again, torturing the orcs is not a defensive action, it's an evil action. You should value the life of the criminal as yourself. Killing him in self defense (if you are not greedy with expanding, like getting in his way, or money/power/etc) is not an evil thing.
However, if his way of killing is torturing and etc.. and he did this to your wife for example -- even though you are angry, you shouldn't do the same to him. Just kill him if there's no other way, but you shouldn't just start to torture him the same he did to your wife -- that will make you his 'clone' in the evil attribute.
Quote:
now I see no difference between this, and god stopping the devil. however you already agreed that god wants the temptation there so that many people show how evil they are so god can BURN them
The devil is not attacking us, we let him. That is why God does not wipe him out.
Think of this scenario: there's a criminal (like above) that doesn't go and kill your wife, only stands in his place.
You go ahead and tell him: hey man, go ahead and attack (analogous to letting the Devil inside you, by being evil).. Then the criminal starts to murder your wife, etc...
Then of course that is our fault because of us being evil. If we so choose the devil (even indirectly just by being evil), then he will take over us. God doesn't destroy the devil (possibly) because it's our own fault.
He loves us, because He shows us the way -- but we don't listen. It's like a mother giving food to her boy, but not putting the food directly into his mouth, he has to take it himself (because he may not want it!).
Quote:
Second of all I never mentioned black or white people. Only you did. So please don't put forward false accusations of racism
I did not put accusations of racism, it was only my example.
It's clearer that way because it's a simple human vs human fight.
Quote:
NO. the terrorists ends many innocent lives, the government merely stop this problem off at the source. If this involves the death of the culprit, then yes they are technically both ending lives but there is a vast chasm of difference in the magnitude AND REASON (theoretically speaking of course )
Terrorists think they are innocent as well.
If the government did not respond with the same methods, then that would perhaps make them different.
Quote:
Maybe some. Not all. Not amputees. Not stillborn children. Not the evil people (god made them evil). And not those born into easy lives according to jlewlotr
We are not independent.
If our ancestors commit evil, we will live with the consequences.
After all, they should have taken responsibility, much as we should.
Quote:
What about amputees.
Someone born without a leg. How did we cause that???????
Well, genetically, and possibly because of nuclear radiation, etc..
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 19, 2007 03:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why give us the capacity to do evil though?
Evil is not given by God, evil is not 'created' by God.
God created everything.
Nothing is excluded from everything. Not even evil.
Quote:
Evil exists. You just have to live with this explanation because there isn't any other rational one.
Clearly.
Quote:
In fact, even atheists agree with this kind of sentences. For example: Time exists. Matter exists. etc exists
It just is.
Maybe, but god created time and matter, why not evil?
Quote:
Quote:
HOWEVER (yes, theres always a however ) you're arguing that the end NEVER justifies the means. That you should NEVER do ANY evil in order to do ANY amount of good.
Self defense is not doing the evil of the 'criminal'. Yes if you are 100% you shouldn't do any amount of evil for the sake of good.
Not self defence.
Say you are standing on a balcony, with another man. No one else is around. Apart from the many thousands of people in the open below you, gathering for something. Lets say theres a new pope and theres everyone celebrating, totally defenceless. This man next to you has a machine gun and is mowing everyone down incessantly. Just bang bang bang bang bang killing killing killing. Just for the hell of it
And no one can do anything about it.
Except you.
And the only thing you can do to stop him is to kill him.
Wouldn't it be more evil to NOT do it?
Quote:
Quote:
killing a serial psychopathic murderer in order to save your family. here you are not as bad as the murderer even though you have committed the same crime, because the murderer kills INNOCENTS in cold blood for FUN, MANY times. You're killing ONE, EVIL man, in order to save lives.
Yes, that is self defense.
Elves kill orcs as well, and elves do not attack orcs just because they want to wipe them out. They are defensive, and value the life of orcs as well -- and don't expand their situations greedy (situations can mean: territory, money, power, etc..).. They only live in harmony in their small place given, but if the Orcs attack them they will defend themselves.
Not self defence, saving OTHERS. lmao that's what I've been talking about from the start.
Quote:
However again, torturing the orcs is not a defensive action, it's an evil action.
You should value the life of the criminal as yourself. Killing him in self defense (if you are not greedy with expanding, like getting in his way, or money/power/etc) is not an evil thing.
So is killing, but theyre both to save other's lives.
And now we are in agreement we can move on.
Quote:
However, if his way of killing is torturing and etc.. and he did this to your wife for example -- even though you are angry, you shouldn't do the same to him. Just kill him if there's no other way, but you shouldn't just start to torture him the same he did to your wife -- that will make you his 'clone' in the evil attribute.
You should watch LOST. Do you?
Theres a scene exactly like what you describe
Quote:
Quote:
now I see no difference between this, and god stopping the devil. however you already agreed that god wants the temptation there so that many people show how evil they are so god can BURN them
The devil is not attacking us, we let him. That is why God does not wipe him out.
Yes but he is the source of all evil, and god could stop him if he wanted to.
But again, the devil points out who god should kill and god does it
He tempts them with his wicked ways, then the people who give in BANG hot pokers
Quote:
Think of this scenario: there's a criminal (like above) that doesn't go and kill your wife, only stands in his place.
You go ahead and tell him: hey man, go ahead and attack (analogous to letting the Devil inside you, by being evil).. Then the criminal starts to murder your wife, etc...
Then of course that is our fault because of us being evil. If we so choose the devil (even indirectly just by being evil), then he will take over us. God doesn't destroy the devil (possibly) because it's our own fault.
He loves us, because He shows us the way -- but we don't listen. It's like a mother giving food to her boy, but not putting the food directly into his mouth, he has to take it himself (because he may not want it!).
Well sure.
But thats just like a mother bringing her clean son to a drug dealer and just watching him. Then paying the drug dealer and say give him what he wants for free. Even if the son didn't want drugs or ask for them originally, he's here now so he thinks 'why not' and takes a joint. THEN THE MOTHER CUTS OF HIS ARMS AND LEGS AND DIPS HIM IN LEMON JUICE
He says "why?? I thought you wanted me to that's why you went to all that trouble and just let him sell drugs to me!! i wouldnt have if you didnt do all this"
and the mother just shakes her head and says "yeah but you had the potential to take drugs, just not the opportunity, didn't you boy? let me go get some more lemons"
I suppose you can justify it. But it doesn't make much sense to me.. God is supposed to 'lead us not to temptation' rather than just 'allow us to be bombarded with temptation and hope to god that we wont give in'
Quote:
Quote:
Second of all I never mentioned black or white people. Only you did. So please don't put forward false accusations of racism
I did not put accusations of racism, it was only my example.
It's clearer that way because it's a simple human vs human fight.
You clearly said why is it ok to kill blacks to save whites rather than whites to save blacks.. I never even mentioned that scenario either..
Quote:
Quote:
NO. the terrorists ends many innocent lives, the government merely stop this problem off at the source. If this involves the death of the culprit, then yes they are technically both ending lives but there is a vast chasm of difference in the magnitude AND REASON (theoretically speaking of course )
Terrorists think they are innocent as well.
But they're not Comes back to the 'perspective of real' argument. There must be some neutral ground to decide from, we just can't know for sure what it is. But stopping evil isn't the same as committing evil, even if the acts involved are the same.
Quote:
If the government did not respond with the same methods, then that would perhaps make them different.
What if its the only option? Just give up?
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe some. Not all. Not amputees. Not stillborn children. Not the evil people (god made them evil). And not those born into easy lives according to jlewlotr
We are not independent.
If our ancestors commit evil, we will live with the consequences.
After all, they should have taken responsibility, much as we should.
Quote:
What about amputees.
Someone born without a leg. How did we cause that???????
Well, genetically, and possibly because of nuclear radiation, etc..
So genetics are our fault? 
That hardly seems fair. If I were born without a leg, or not born alive at all, is that because my ancestors ate from a tree or eyed up his neighbours wife or something?
Forget temptation and all that, that's just stupid! Dont even get a chance!
Speaking of chances, The Death, do you think we should kill our children before they have a chance to commit sin? Or have they already committed sin and will end up in hell anyway?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 19, 2007 03:55 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:57, 19 May 2007.
|
Quote:
You should watch LOST. Do you?
Theres a scene exactly like what you describe
A lot of movies have that scenes
Quote:
Yes but he is the source of all evil, and god could stop him if he wanted to.
But again, the devil points out who god should kill and god does it
He tempts them with his wicked ways, then the people who give in BANG hot pokers
Well sure.
But thats just like a mother bringing her clean son to a drug dealer and just watching him. Then paying the drug dealer and say give him what he wants for free. Even if the son didn't want drugs or ask for them originally, he's here now so he thinks 'why not' and takes a joint. THEN THE MOTHER CUTS OF HIS ARMS AND LEGS AND DIPS HIM IN LEMON JUICE
He says "why?? I thought you wanted me to that's why you went to all that trouble and just let him sell drugs to me!! i wouldnt have if you didnt do all this"
and the mother just shakes her head and says "yeah but you had the potential to take drugs, just not the opportunity, didn't you boy? let me go get some more lemons"
I suppose you can justify it. But it doesn't make much sense to me.. God is supposed to 'lead us not to temptation' rather than just 'allow us to be bombarded with temptation and hope to god that we wont give in'
Well the kid shouldn't have taken the drug even when "why not" ringed in his mind.
But it's not a really good idea to compare with children because they usually don't know much about life and trust their mother.
Quote:
You clearly said why is it ok to kill blacks to save whites rather than whites to save blacks.. I never even mentioned that scenario either..
I said the contrary, it is not ok. And it's just a human vs human fight, not a white vs black fight, because both use the same methods.
Quote:
But stopping evil isn't the same as committing evil, even if the acts involved are the same.
Evil should not be done for the sake of good. Because then you become evil, one way or the other.
Quote:
What if its the only option? Just give up?
If it truly is the only way, then it's better to give up. Otherwise you become the terrorist. You live but become the terrorist himself.
Quote:
So genetics are our fault?
I meant mutated genetics, due to radiation for example.
Quote:
That hardly seems fair. If I were born without a leg, or not born alive at all, is that because my ancestors ate from a tree or eyed up his neighbours wife or something?
Forget temptation and all that, that's just stupid! Dont even get a chance!
If you're born with a brain/mind, then that should give you a chance
Quote:
Speaking of chances, The Death, do you think we should kill our children before they have a chance to commit sin?
That is a sin in itself.
Quote:
Or have they already committed sin and will end up in hell anyway?
They haven't already committed sin. We just suffer from it's effects, due to our nature of being (most of us) evil.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 19, 2007 05:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes but he is the source of all evil, and god could stop him if he wanted to.
But again, the devil points out who god should kill and god does it
He tempts them with his wicked ways, then the people who give in BANG hot pokers
Well sure.
But thats just like a mother bringing her clean son to a drug dealer and just watching him. Then paying the drug dealer and say give him what he wants for free. Even if the son didn't want drugs or ask for them originally, he's here now so he thinks 'why not' and takes a joint. THEN THE MOTHER CUTS OF HIS ARMS AND LEGS AND DIPS HIM IN LEMON JUICE
He says "why?? I thought you wanted me to that's why you went to all that trouble and just let him sell drugs to me!! i wouldnt have if you didnt do all this"
and the mother just shakes her head and says "yeah but you had the potential to take drugs, just not the opportunity, didn't you boy? let me go get some more lemons"
I suppose you can justify it. But it doesn't make much sense to me.. God is supposed to 'lead us not to temptation' rather than just 'allow us to be bombarded with temptation and hope to god that we wont give in'
Well the kid shouldn't have taken the drug even when "why not" ringed in his mind.
So we should take our kids to drug dealers as a test of their morals and burn them in hell for all eternity if they give in?
Quote:
But it's not a really good idea to compare with children because they usually don't know much about life and trust their mother.
How much do we know about life?
Quote:
Quote:
You clearly said why is it ok to kill blacks to save whites rather than whites to save blacks.. I never even mentioned that scenario either..
I said the contrary, it is not ok. And it's just a human vs human fight, not a white vs black fight, because both use the same methods.
Please read what I type.
Quote:
Quote:
But stopping evil isn't the same as committing evil, even if the acts involved are the same.
Evil should not be done for the sake of good. Because then you become evil, one way or the other.
Well if I have to be called evil to do good then that's fine by me.
Quote:
Quote:
What if its the only option? Just give up?
If it truly is the only way, then it's better to give up. Otherwise you become the terrorist. You live but become the terrorist himself.
Alright.
Well if you truly believe that then I think that that is as evil as the terrorist himself.
So what if you become the terrorist? You get a black mark on your record in gods book? You have your name smeared? Is that all you care about, your reputation, not saving lives? Don't be idealistic. If it were the only option you would be a hero.
If you let all those people in the ceremony be slaughtered you might as well have done it yourself. If god rewards standing by while preventable evil is done then god is worse than the devil.
Quote:
Quote:
So genetics are our fault?
I meant mutated genetics, due to radiation for example.
What about genetics not due to radiation?
Or mutations due to cosmic rays which affect the genetics of every thing in our planet?
How is that our fault? Stop making up excuses man. Be reasonable.
Quote:
Quote:
That hardly seems fair. If I were born without a leg, or not born alive at all, is that because my ancestors ate from a tree or eyed up his neighbours wife or something?
Forget temptation and all that, that's just stupid! Dont even get a chance!
If you're born with a brain/mind, then that should give you a chance
What if you're not born with a brain or mind. What then? Or what if you are, but die a trillionth of a second after you are born? Wheres the chance there
Quote:
Quote:
Speaking of chances, The Death, do you think we should kill our children before they have a chance to commit sin?
That is a sin in itself.
Aha, but is it a sin for our children? Surely it will secure them a spot in heaven, as they are below the age of whatever you call it where youre responsible for your sins?
Quote:
Quote:
Or have they already committed sin and will end up in hell anyway?
They haven't already committed sin. We just suffer from it's effects, due to our nature of being (most of us) evil.
Well do they go to heaven or hell? If we killed our children at birth?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 19, 2007 05:36 PM |
|
|
You're not just 'called' evil if you do that, but you 'become' evil.
Quote:
So we should take our kids to drug dealers as a test of their morals and burn them in hell for all eternity if they give in?
Nope, you should warn them. That taking drugs is bad.
If they later choose to take drugs, you can either force them or leave them freely to do what they want.
Quote:
Aha, but is it a sin for our children? Surely it will secure them a spot in heaven, as they are below the age of whatever you call it where youre responsible for your sins?
It will 'secure' them a spot in heaven? It's not just plain basic physics law we're discussing about.
If a Pope tells you he can sell you a ticket for Heaven, will you buy it? thats BS. 
it doesn't follow physics rules. it follows feelings.
|
|
SwampLord
Supreme Hero
Lord of the Swamp
|
|
posted May 19, 2007 06:19 PM |
|
|
|
Also, the point about atheists believing in a "religion" of sorts too. The sign my bio teacher has makes me laugh(at it). "Evolution is just a theory-kinda like gravity". However, gravity is just a theory. For all we know, monkeys with magnets are inside the crust holding us down.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 20, 2007 04:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You're not just 'called' evil if you do that, but you 'become' evil.
What's the difference?
If someone thinks you're evil, but you saved thousands of lives, does it matter what they think?
Quote:
Quote:
So we should take our kids to drug dealers as a test of their morals and burn them in hell for all eternity if they give in?
Nope, you should warn them. That taking drugs is bad.
If they later choose to take drugs, you can either force them or leave them freely to do what they want.
You take the metaphor out of context. God does neither of those things. He leaves the serpent the tree the devil everything right in our faces, and if we choose it we sure dont get left freely to do what we want..
Quote:
Quote:
Aha, but is it a sin for our children? Surely it will secure them a spot in heaven, as they are below the age of whatever you call it where youre responsible for your sins?
It will 'secure' them a spot in heaven? It's not just plain basic physics law we're discussing about.
If a Pope tells you he can sell you a ticket for Heaven, will you buy it? thats BS.
it doesn't follow physics rules. it follows feelings.
Well, if we kill our children will they go to heaven or hell?
And another point, The Death. Why doesn't prayer work, if we ask for something? God says if we ask for something it will be ours. Many times. Why won't it?
@Swamplord:
Quote:
Also, the point about atheists believing in a "religion" of sorts too. The sign my bio teacher has makes me laugh(at it). "Evolution is just a theory-kinda like gravity". However, gravity is just a theory. For all we know, monkeys with magnets are inside the crust holding us down.
Well I don't pray to anything.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 20, 2007 07:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And another point, The Death. Why doesn't prayer work, if we ask for something? God says if we ask for something it will be ours. Many times. Why won't it?
Well, no matter how awkward it seemed, it actually did work for me a few times. Prayers, like, increase chances that what you want will happen. Of course, if there's NO chance of something, it won't happen (for example, if I start praying that a giant anvil falls on Justin Timberlake, it won't happen... Trust me, I know, I've tried...) Also, bigger deeds are harder to pray for (for example stop some war) but it can work if enough people do it. If you pray that your broken leg heals faster or that your pet survives some illness, it can work.
But, in my theory, it is not the point of whom you pray to (God or Allah or some spirits or crocodiles or basically anything). It's just the point of believing. TRUE believing, not "give me a new bike and I'll trust in you" believing.
People mostly misunderstand the concept of prayer. They think it's a simple "I'll believe in you, and you'll do that" tradeoff.
Of course, people who don't believe in anything cannot pray, now can they?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
SwampLord
Supreme Hero
Lord of the Swamp
|
|
posted May 20, 2007 07:31 PM |
|
|
Prayer actually did work for me once too. And it wasn't something that would've most likely happened anyway.
About the Atheism=Religion. Let's look at it.
You believe in something.
Some of what you believe in has no proof.
There are certain things you must or must not believe in to be an atheist.
Atheism is not the anti-religion, it's just another set of beliefs.
@the justin timberlake thing- that's a shame that it doesn't work. Maybe if we got a lot of people...
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted May 20, 2007 08:03 PM |
|
|
Maybe it would have worked without Prayer too?
Many sport fanatics "pray" every week for the win of their team. It works pretty often, especially when they are supporters of strong teams.
Is this an evidence for "prayer works"?
I call it "coincidence"...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 20, 2007 08:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Maybe it would have worked without Prayer too?
Maybe.
Maybe not.
We can't know for sure, now can we? That's the thing about believing
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Tenaka
Famous Hero
Makes sense
|
|
posted May 20, 2007 09:01 PM |
|
|
I thought that the definition of an atheist was 'someone who doesn't believe in an afterlive'? This means that they can still believe in a god, but he won't be able to judge their souls, or something like that.
Anyhow, about the prayers, there is alas no effective way to find out wether it works or not. Never hurts to try, right? And as long as it indeed doesn't hurt anyone, everbody's welcome to try, right?
|
|
Spectrum
Famous Hero
Plan B
|
|
posted May 20, 2007 09:24 PM |
|
Edited by Spectrum at 21:26, 20 May 2007.
|
Nope, the definition of "atheist" can be found here
Bottom line is, they don't believe in Gods or Deitys.
____________
Aculias is like the male nipple of HC, TNT being the other one -Baklava
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
