Source
r/DebateAChristian•
stringerbell

You the jury...

Here's an interesting thought experiment for you...:

You are the foreman of a jury. A man is accused of entering a small town and going door-to-door and killing all the men, women and children. Except for the girls aged 10 to 15. Them, he takes away, holds a makeshift marriage ceremony, and rapes them all for several days before being caught by police.

There is security video footage of him committing these crimes - and he confesses without being coerced. There is no question that the defendant did it (he doesn't have an identical twin, it wasn't self-defense, he wasn't forced to do it, etc...). And, several doctors have confirmed that he was legally sane at the time.

So, your only choice as juror is innocent or guilty.

The defendant offers up only one defense: God commanded him to do it.

You, obviously, realize that there is no possible proof either way (if god told him to do it, he could never prove it - and if god didn't tell him to do it, you could never prove it either). However, he did pass a polygraph. He honestly believes that god commanded the murders/rapes.

For some reason, the jury is enamored with you. All 11 of them have said that they will vote the same way you do. So, you get to decide the case, whether you want to or not. It all comes down to your vote. If you vote innocent, he goes home a free man. If you vote guilty, he goes to jail, presumably for the rest of his life.

Now, before you vote, remember that commanding the killing of entire families/villages (whence the young women are taken to be forcibly married and bear children) is well within god's repertoire. According to the Bible, god has been known to command this type of behavior many times in the past. So, as a Christian, you can't dismiss his claim out of hand just because you believe it's evil (god works in mysterious ways, right - who are you to presume you know what god wants?). And, as a Christian, you believe that anything god commands is automatically righteous.

So, what's your verdict? Innocent or guilty?...

I presume that almost every single one of you voted guilty (as you rightfully should have). Now, what I'd like to point out is that this makes almost every single one of you atheists at heart (even though you'd never admit it or even realize you're doing it). You don't believe for a second that god commanded those crimes (even though you can't prove it). You know for a fact that he didn't. You know that god didn't speak to the defendant. And, you know this beyond any reasonalbe doubt. You realize that god isn't talking to people or commanding them to do things. You realize how ridiculous that thought is.

So, if you realize (beyond all doubt) that god isn't commanding people to do bad things - what makes you think he's commanding people to do good things?

Posted Oct 31, 2013, 9:57 AM UTC

17172
xal4330Christian•

I don't think your analogy proves as much as you want it to. Since, for the sake of your example, you assumed the existence of the Christian God I will do likewise. Additionally, your use of "command" repeatedly leads me to believe you intend to attack Divine Command Theory. I'll take that position for the sake of discussion as well.

if god didn't tell him to do it, you could never prove it either

Right here is where we part ways. If I could show that this command is not consistent with God's nature I could prove that God didn't actually make the command.

as a Christian, you believe that anything god commands is automatically righteous.

...because it would be impossible for God to command something immoral.

So, what's your verdict?

Guilty

what I'd like to point out is that this makes almost every single one of you atheists at heart

Not unless you just changed the definition of atheism from some form of "a lack of belief in a deity" to mean something like "the deity that exists (again, remember you made the assumption here) is immoral." Those are two very different things.

You realize that god isn't talking to people or commanding them to do things. You realize how ridiculous that thought is.

Either you jumped out of your example or you are being inconsistent. We were assuming the existence of God so that we could even run this thought experiment. So whether or not God spoke to the defendant (which I say He didn't) is irrelevant to the much broader, universal claim that God does not speak to anyone period.

So, if you realize (beyond all doubt) that god isn't commanding people to do bad things

Ya, I'm pretty sure you jumped out of your example and are now trying to make claims about the actual world. You'll need to bridge that gap. The most you can say, even in the example, is that God didn't command that single, solitary defendant to do anything. That was all we were talking about.

what makes you think he's commanding people to do good things?

You're not only outside of your example, but you're example doesn't do anything to prove this at all. God not telling a man to do one thing is much different than not telling anyone to do anything (good or bad). I'm sorry, but your thought experiment didn't show nearly what you intended for it to show.

17
stringerbellOP•

Right here is where we part ways. If I could show that this command is not consistent with God's nature I could prove that God didn't actually make the command.

That's why I pointed out that the Bible is rife with stories where god commanded this EXACT sort of thing (mass-murder, after which the young women are taken away to be inseminated against their will). So, you can't actually show that this is against god's nature (unless you completely disregard the Bible).

16
xal4330Christian•

So, you can't actually show that this is against god's nature (unless you completely disregard the Bible).

You assume that the cases you are referring to are the exact same thing as the scenario you posited. There could be teleological things to take into consideration. God's omniscience, patience, and judgment all come into play. There a million things that are at least potentially different between the cases.

I couldn't help but notice you didn't mention any of my critiques regarding your redefinition of atheism, your shifting from an example to reality, or your extrapolation that because of your example God somehow can't command good things.

5
eric256Atheist•

God's omniscience, patience, and judgment all come into play.

But for some reason you are sure they don't in this case and that you know for sure instead that god wouldn't command this. Your argument refutes itself.

8
d3b105bAntitheist, Ex-Christian•

Then give examples of why the stories in the bible aren't the same as the one he gives here.

4
stringerbellOP•

So whether or not God spoke to the defendant (which I say He didn't) is irrelevant to the much broader, universal claim that God does not speak to anyone period.

That would mean that you don't believe god made this commandment, simply because you disagree with it. You are assuming that god would never order something you personally consider evil. As I pointed out above, this means your moral compass is coming from within yourself, not from your religion (just like an atheist).

If god had ordered something you consider good, you'd have no trouble believing god ordered it. But, since this is something you consider evil, you dismiss the suggestion.

6
xal4330Christian•

That would mean that you don't believe god made this commandment, simply because you disagree with it.

No, we already went over this. It would be because it's against God's nature to issue such a command not because I don't like it.

As I pointed out above, this means your moral compass is coming from within yourself, not from your religion (just like an atheist).

No, this means my moral compass takes into account a bit more of the picture than you are referencing. If the Christian God exists and He has revealed Himself sufficiently in the Bible then there are things we can know about Him. As for an atheist's moral compass coming from within themself, this gets into a completely different issue of the atheist grounding their morality that is outside of the scope of your example.

Let me provide an example of something that knowledge of the future can change whether or not something is a morally good action. Let's take a dad playing with his baby. He is gently tossing the baby up in the air and catching her while the baby is loving it. If the dad doesn't know if he is able to catch the baby after he tosses her is that a morally good action? I think we would both say it isn't. But because the dad knows that he would be able to catch the baby the action goes from being some horrible child abuse incident to a dad playing with his little girl.

Edit: Clarified "morally good action"

3
eric256Atheist•

It would be because it's against God's nature to issue such a command not because I don't like it.

Not if he decided that whole town was full of devil worshipers that could no longer be saved. It is exactly in line with his nature.

9
d3b105bAntitheist, Ex-Christian•

God did repeatedly issue commands that are horrible by nature in the bible. Asking Abraham to kill his son, wiping out whole cities because he didn't like how they lived, killing thousands of kids in Egypt and so on. He has done it before, why doesn't he do it anymore?

3
why_am_I_here2•

No, we already went over this. It would be because it's against God's nature to issue such a command not because I don't like it.

Are you not speaking of the Christian god? There are plenty of examples in the Bible where this is exactly his nature. How can you say this would not be in his nature if you're read the Bible?

2
Acidic_JewAcidic_Jew•

Since, for the sake of your example, you assumed the existence of the Christian God I will do likewise

I'm sorry, that is not a fact in evidence. In fact, it's what the case hinges on. If the God of the Bible does not exist, then the man is clearly guilty. If he does exist, only then can we move on to the question of whether the murderer can be let free because he was just following orders.

...because it would be impossible for God to command something immoral.

And yet, He does so, over and over, in the Holy Scripture. At least, immoral by my standards. And, to give you credit, I suspect by yours as well. Murder. Rape. Genocide. Enslavement. All endorsed - even commanded - by Jehovah, God of the Bible.

3
missing_7Christian, Universalist•

The case does not hinge on whether or not God exist. The man is guilty of breaking the law regardless of whether or not God exist or if God commanded him. Juries decide guilt or innocence with regards to the laws of the nations they live in, not with regards to divine orders. That is why OP's little spiel about how voting guilty makes us all atheists doesn't hold water. I can believe his actions were commanded by God while still recognizing that he is overwhelmingly guilty of breaking the law.

9
AgtPuntVyfAtheist, Ex-Christian•

Good point.

2
plarpco•

So, you should disobey god when he commands you to do things that are against man's law?

1
missing_7Christian, Universalist•

If I really thought it was God, I would not disobey Him. I just wouldn't expect to get away with any crimes I committed.

2
ntrpikAtheist, Ex-Pentecostal, K-12 Church School, BSc CompEngineering•

"which thou shalt have" Leviticus 25:44

4 words. These 4 words are in regards to slavery. Which thou shalt have, in other words, I am the LORD YOUR GOD and I think it's OK to have slaves. Dear Christians, please absorb your god's words. Wrap your head around them. Your god says it's OK for you to have slaves. How can you say that this is your ultimate source of morality?

2
bassmaster22Atheist, Ex-Catholic•

If I could show that this command is not consistent with God's nature I could prove that God didn't actually make the command.

What on Earth makes you think you understand the nature of a supernatural deity? The world's top scientists are still figuring out why hot water freezes faster than cold water, but you claim you understand the very nature of a being you have only read about in ancient texts that have been edited and translated countless times. Come on now.

..because it would be impossible for God to command something immoral.

A quick read of the OT would suggest otherwise.

1
stringerbellOP•

I've noticed that the hard questions almost never get any responses here. But, I expect I may get some variation of the following. However, each one has some serious problems:

  • Guilty. He broke man's law, so he should go to jail. However, since god commanded it, he was righteous. [You are saying that mass-murder and rape are morally OK, if not criminally OK, as long as there's a chance that a deity ordered it.]
  • Guilty. God doesn't command people to do things I don't agree with, so he couldn't have ordered these killings. [You believe that since the command was evil, god couldn't possibly have done it. You seem to believe that god always agrees with you - even though you can't possibly know what god wants. If you think the order was evil, god didn't speak to him. If you think the order was righteous, then god could have. You are making a moral judgement and then assuming god always sides with you. In this case, your morals don't come from what god commands, but from within yourself. Just like an atheist.]
  • Innocent. Reasonable doubt. God may have commanded it, and if he did, it wasn't murder, it was god's will. [You are letting a mass-murderer off scot-free and any future criminal can get off by claiming that god commanded them to commit their crimes.]

EDIT: Looks like all the responses so far from Christians are either #1 or #2...

8
fistagon01Christian•

But, I expect I may get some variation of the following.

Because of the quoted statement, I didn't waste time in answering. If you presume to know the answers, I'm not interested in sharing one because you're not looking for an honest debate/discussion, you're looking to confirm your bias.

7
why_am_I_here2•

He put you in a box, didn't he?

3
fistagon01Christian•

How so?

2
why_am_I_here2•

Running from his questions. Or are you agreeing with his presumption of the responses?

3
ididntpostitIgnostic•

And what type of conversation are YOU looking for, especially with a post like this? You said you wouldn't waste your time answering, but you wasted your time posting that childish drivel? He didn't "presume to know the answers," he put forth some expected responses with his rebuttals so everyone could cut to the chase.

Don't be so quick to judge, or to be hostile right out the gate...

2
fistagon01Christian•

And what type of conversation are YOU looking for, especially with a post like this? You said you wouldn't waste your time answering, but you wasted your time posting that childish drivel?

I'll just quote what I've already said since it answers your question: If you presume to know the answers, I'm not interested in sharing one because you're not looking for an honest debate/discussion, you're looking to confirm your bias.

He didn't "presume to know the answers," he put forth some expected responses with his rebuttals so everyone could cut to the chase.

Not so much. They made a claim of hard questions never get responses, then proceeded to produce answers they expected. Classic case of confirmation bias. The irony, the OP avoided many of the hard questions posed here

Don't be so quick to judge, or to be hostile right out the gate...

I'm hostile? I pointed out the folly the author engaged in.

2
the_countertenorAtheist, Ex-Christian•

If you presume to know the answers, I'm not interested in sharing one because you're not looking for an honest debate/discussion, you're looking to confirm your bias.

so to you, it's intellectually dishonest to attempt to anticipate the opposition's responses and speak to how you believe those responses would still fall short? are you being serious? you think that's a confirmation of one's own bias? I'm afraid that just makes no sense to me.

if you were debating a Muslim, would you not anticipate and prepare a response ahead of time for the inevitable claim that the Koran is the word of God?

it seems to me that the OP has said, "here are some responses I suspect that I will receive, and here's why I think those responses fall short." if those are not the responses you would give, perhaps rather than posting about how you refuse to participate in the discussion, you could have posted about how you would have responded. maybe the OP wouldn't respond, but I suspect some other reader would.

They made a claim of hard questions never get responses, then proceeded to produce answers they expected.

he said they almost never respond.

I'm still totally lost on how an anticipatory post explaining why common counterpoints still seem to fall short of addressing the problem an OP might present could be interpreted as a personal bias from an OP not interested in debate.

3
d3b105bAntitheist, Ex-Christian•

There's nothing stopping you answering with something that isn't in any of his alternatives, you reasoning for not doing so is really silly in my opinion. He is merely saying that most of the harder questions doesn't get answers and in this case most are shoehorned into these three alternatives. He isn't presuming anything, so get off your high horse.

2
ididntpostitIgnostic•

I'm not quite sure what you think you accomplished by repeating yourself? How does your response have anything to do with my question? If you don't want to take part in this thread then get out... It's pointless to reply about how you wont reply because you don't think it deserves a reply. If you think that kind of behavior makes you seem smarter...it doesn't

The irony, the OP avoided many of the hard questions posed here

The real irony is that OP posted his BEFORE YOUR LINKED ONE. Check the times genius.

And yes, making a post in a thread about how you wont participate in said thread because you don't think OP is proposing an honest debate is childish and hostile. If you see "folly" being engaged in, then maybe have a real discussion about it, maybe try refuting his points. You didn't point anything out, and have yet to contribute to any sort of discussion.

2
bassmaster22Atheist, Ex-Catholic•

I've noticed that the hard questions almost never get any responses here.

Not a claim.

They made a claim of hard questions never get responses

He said he's noticed they almost never. You conveniently ignore those important remarks. Talk about confirming your bias.

1
bassmaster22Atheist, Ex-Catholic•

So what you're saying is "No comments"? Not surprised.

1
fistagon01Christian•

No, I gave a comment. Does your bias feel confirmed?

0
bassmaster22Atheist, Ex-Catholic•

Your "comment" consisted on saying you don't want to participate in the discussion because of some supposed flaw you saw in OP's questioning. Nothing but a cop-out.

2
Bliss86Atheist, Secular Humanist•

And to those who think Gods nature is different, because those cruel events only happened in the OT, laws were given only to Jews and Jesus abolished* them:

God did command those things at one point in time, I don't see any reason why he wouldn't to that again, no matter what Jesus said at a later point. It's not like God had only a brief period of time to give laws and demand certain things, he could do that at any point of time again.

3
why_am_I_here2•

Its called 'convenantial moral relativism' when your morals driven by which covenant you think your god is acting under. It is still moral relativism. But somehow many Christians like to call it objective.

1
missing_7Christian, Universalist•

This question wasn't hard. Your dribble about how we're all atheists and especially your comment right here probably made a few potential respondents roll their eyes and wander off to have an open and honest discussion elsewhere. It is why I responded to u/Acidic_Jew and not to you. Even still, I think this thread has produced a decent amount of discussion.

2
JesusCanBlowMeRoman Catholic•

Innocent by reasons of insanity. a woman in texas murderered her children with a rock because she thought god told her to do it.

If god tells someone to adopt a baby, no one blinks an eye - they are just Christian

if someone kills their kid, now they are crazy

5
stringerbellOP•

And, several doctors have confirmed that he was legally sane at the time. So, your only choice as juror is innocent or guilty.

2
Bliss86Atheist, Secular Humanist•

Do you think that's possible? ;)

2
BasilidesIgnostic•

If a billion Christians agree a person who heard God's voice was sane then that person was sane. So, yes, it's possible.

2
JesusCanBlowMeRoman Catholic•

Oh sheeit. Sorry...missed that deet.

Stringerbell...always on the case!

2
waterlessChristian•

One basic point: we don't have to assume that every story about God that's in the Bible is a perfect, timeless, trivially generalizable representation of God. We try to have some kind of understanding - given that things related to God are to a great extent ineffable - based on the Bible as a whole, including arguable changes in man's understanding of God, plus our experiences and our knowledge of reality.

So saying "God did this kind of thing too!" is not a good counterargument for a rationale based on the - Biblical - concept of "knowing the Spirit by the fruits". Christians do get to judge whether they believe someone is acting in line with the God they believe in, who is best represented by the person of Christ and His teachings and commands. The greatest commandment is to love God and love your neighbour and further states that these are the same thing.

So, judging by my best ability, I'd reject the truth of his belief that he was acting according to God's will in the first place.

Regardless, his claim of being commanded by God is also completely irrelevant to the jury process. That doesn't mean you can logically generalize the rationality of rejecting the relevance of any religious claims in that context to all contexts.

5
ididntpostitIgnostic•

This is a pretty good answer to this hypothetical! I do have some questions though:

  1. The idea that christians can judge one another's connection with God based on their understanding of him seems pretty shaky to me because of the many subjective interpretations of who God is. You say that his character is best represented in the person of Christ..while they are both "God," they are also considered two distinct personalities in the trinity, are they not? In the Bible, God did things (before and after Christ's birth) that seem immoral.

  2. I don't think OP made the jump between the jury process and other contexts clear enough, but what I think he is saying is that if you are okay with disregarding religious claims in one context, what makes other situations any different?

2
waterlessChristian•

Thank you!

1 - It absolutely is shaky ground. All you can ever do is determine whether its expression is consistent with your subjective experience of God, or with the tenets of a given tradition. I'd say, therefore, that any judgment you make, if you make any at all, should only happen in a personal context - where whether I believe this person, without being able to prove it, matters.

The relationship of Jesus / Christ to God is difficult of course. To get it ou of the way, about Biblical stories about God - I admit it's a cop-out in a sense but I don't take those as absolute truths. I read them as humanity's developing understanding of God, not as absolute truths about God. In general though I think most Church traditions will say that Christ is always the better representation of God, more than any (interpretation of) any text that talks about God.

The Trinity, woo, has some very complex and IMO interesting philosophical aspects, Catholic Encyclopedia has good stuff. E.g., http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm. My take on it is that God is unknowable but is expressed, or translated, into knowable forms. The nature of God translated into human form is supposed to be represented by Christ. So they're not the same thing, but also not distinct in the sense that you could have Christ and God at separate points. More like how the abstract concept of "justice" can be expressed in a court system.

2 - So in the jury context, the goal of the process is social, and I can rationally think about how to help achieve that goal. Bringing in religion doesn't help there. Whether another context is different depends on that context. For instance: if I'm at a Church, and I'm going their with the goal to engage with religious ideas, then I could be interested in someone's religious claims. Or, in personal life, I could care about what someone believes and how it makes him or her act.

It's maybe about the context requiring a religious claim to be relevant in terms of authority, evidence or justification towards other people (like jury duty), or not (like private life).

1
tuffbot324no flair•

Even if God really did command him to kill, he still would be guilty. Committing a crime simply because someone else told you to do it is still committing a crime. He could have still refused to obey God.

3
[deleted]•

Oh boy, you are not good at arguing with Christians are you OP?

So, what's your verdict? Innocent or guilty?...

Guilty, obviously the man is a loon.

You don't believe for a second that god commanded those crimes (even though you can't prove it).

Sure I don't, because God wouldn't command anyone to break the laws of their land. But EVEN IF I DID believe that it was God who commanded this. I would still vote guilty, because I am still commanded to obey the laws of the land I live in. And under those laws (the USA) this man is guilty as all heck.

Now, before you vote, remember that commanding the killing of entire families/villages (whence the young women are taken to be forcibly married and bear children) is well within god's repertoire. According to the Bible, god has been known to command this type of behavior many times in the past.

He sure has, in a time before established government. And against populations that were either Nephilim, or worshipping the Devil directly (then at the time disguised as Moloch), neither circumstance would apply in the USA in this day and age.

So, as a Christian, you can't dismiss his claim out of hand just because you believe it's evil (god works in mysterious ways, right - who are you to presume you know what god wants?). And, as a Christian, you believe that anything god commands is automatically righteous.

If God works in mysterious ways, then there is nothing logically inconsistent about sending this murderer to prison for the rest of his life; perhaps this was God's intention. WHO AM I TO JUDGE, better just convict him fairly, than try to second guess God. And if God did command the slaughter, it is righteous, and will serve his plan. But I am commanded to follow the laws of my land, and I have a responsbility to those laws to convict this person.

Romans 13:1-7.

Gotchya

1
stringerbellOP•

Sure I don't, because God wouldn't command anyone to break the laws of their land.

For just one of many examples, god supposedly commanded Abraham to kill his own son. Murder was against the law of Abraham's land... So, according to the Bible, god will in fact command people to break their own laws.

5
[deleted]•

God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, intending to stop him before it was done; to demonstrate that he (God) is not wicked like the commonly worshiped deity in that area at that time, Moloch, who was a deity that had child-sacrifice in its worship.

Also, there were no laws in the land, at that time. As Hobbes would put it, it was the 'state of nature'. Before governments or real authority.

And even if you accept the authority of Moloch in the land at that time, then child sacrifice was completely acceptable.

So no, God will in fact not command people to break the laws of legitimate authorities.

3
stringerbellOP•

God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, intending to stop him before it was done

You said, and I quote: 'God wouldn't command anyone to break the laws of their land.'

And, now you just admitted that he did in fact command someone to do just that (whether he intended Abraham to go through with it or not is beside the point, he still commanded Abraham to break the law).

Also, there were no laws in the land, at that time.

Wrong. The first codified law was around the 30th century BC. Abraham's time was ten centuries more recently. So, there had been codified law in the Middle East for at least a thousand years when god supposedly commanded Abraham to break it.

3
[deleted]•

Abraham came out of the fertile crescent, and went down towards the middle east.

Where was this codified law? Who was it's authority (what king), and was it still around 10 centuries later? I bet you it wasn't anywhere near Mt. Moriah (the place where Isaac was to be sacrificed); as there wasn't a settlement there at the time. It was wilderness when Abraham was told to go out and sack Isaac.

2
BasilidesIgnostic•

Wrong. The first codified law was around the 30th century BC.

There was also this:

I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

6“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind. (Genesis 9)

1
sj070707•

intending to stop him before it was done

Not as far as Abraham knew. Abraham expected that he was breaking a law.

2
BasilidesIgnostic•

God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, intending to stop him before it was done;

Abraham did nit know that the Christian god was going to stop him at the last second. He was fully prepared in his heart to murder his own son.

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:28)

The Christian god commanded Abraham to sin and he did sin.

Also, there were no laws in the land, at that time. As Hobbes would put it, it was the 'state of nature'. Before governments or real authority.

Abraham was under the following law of the Christian god:

I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

6“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind. (Genesis 9)

2
[deleted]•

I'm glad you brought my attention to Romans 13 and the idea of submitting to authority. I was never aware of it.

...against populations that were...worshipping [sic] the Devil directly

So if I establish that this town was worshiping the devil that might legitimate this guy's crimes? That shouldn't be very hard...

3
stringerbellOP•

He is also wrong. Deuteronomy 13:13-19 tells people to kill entire towns if they worship 'foreign gods' - not just if they worship the devil. And, you don't need the entire town to worship other gods before you murder everybody with god's blessing. If any number of the townsfolk has encouraged the others to worship foreign gods, you are to kill everybody. Men, women and children.

5
[deleted]•

Good to know, thank you!

2
Ireallylikebacon420Atheist, Ex-Catholic•

Let's just say for the sake of argument that the murdered and raped people DID belong to the modern Church of Satan (http://www.churchofsatan.com/). Would that make it okay to kill and rape them? Would you then vote Not Guilty?

2
[deleted]•

Idk what you're getting at haha I was trying to play devil's advocate.

1
[deleted]•

It's going to be harder than you think.

1
[deleted]•

I'm glad you say so...I'm more worried about that Christians who are very easily convinced that their neighbors worship the devil.

1
[deleted]•

While I think it is possible that my neighbors worship the devil, I don't think it's likely.

1
BasilidesIgnostic•

The Christian god condemns putting other gods before him. All disobedience is prompted by the temptation of Satan. All secular governments are Satanic.

1
BCRE8TVEAtheist, Anti-theist•

Salem Witch trials? Demonic cults paranoia? Probably not as hard as you think. Didn't they hold Harry Potter book burnings for witchcraft and sorcery?

1
nwmilesCatholic•

Haha..you know worshipping is a perfectly acceptable spelling. I think worshiping is the US spelling while the double <p> is used in the UK.

1
[deleted]•

Hahaha well wouldn't you know it...excuse my ignorance.

1
stringerbellOP•

Romans 13:1-7.

Gotchya

Matt. 5:17-18 (which directly contradicts Romans 13:1-7). Got you.

2
BasilidesIgnostic•

What i would like to know is why Romans 13 says the Roman government was divinely justified in executing Jesus as a wrongdoer.

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended."

Apparently Jesus did not do what is right.

"4For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13)

That settles it. Jesus had it coming.

2
[deleted]•

Uhh, Jesus is talking about the Torah, God's law; not the law's of Governments.

Bro do you even Bible?

1
stringerbellOP•

Jesus - from his own mouth - says that all Old Testament laws are good until the end of time (and nothing about them is to change one iota). This includes murdering children for talking back to their parents, adulterers, people who get too close to the tabernacle, etc...

All of those things are against US law.

So, Jesus is telling you to disregard US law and follow OT law. Exactly the opposite of what Romans 13:1-7 tells you to do.

Bro, do you even logic?

2
[deleted]•

Yes Bro, I logic.

Homeslice, the OT laws are for the Jews. Jesus is their King. He has commanded them, as their king and kinsmen redeemer, to keep the OT laws.

I don't know about you bro, but I am a gentile. Blissfully unrequired to keep the Torah. Which is nice, because it's really hard too.

3
BasilidesIgnostic•

Bro, God's law was the civil law of the Jewish people.

1
nwmilesCatholic•

Maybe you're not too sure what Matthew 5:17-18 really means. Consider it in this sense:

'The New Law is compared to the Old as the perfect to the imperfect. Now everything perfect fulfills that which is lacking in the imperfect. And accordingly the New Law fulfills the Old by supplying that which was lacking in the Old Law. Now two things of every law is to make men righteous and virtuous: and consequently the end of the Old Law was the justification of men. The Law, however, could not accomplish this: but foreshadowed it by certain ceremonial actions, and promised it in words. And in this respect, the New Law fulfills the Old by justifying men through the power of Christ's Passion. This is what the Apostle says in Rom. 8:3,4: "What the Law could not do . . . God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh . . . has condemned sin in the flesh, that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us." And in this respect, the New Law gives what the Old Law promised, according to 2 Cor. 1:20: "Whatever are the promises of God, in Him," i.e. in Christ, "they are 'Yea'." Again, in this respect, it also fulfils what the Old Law foreshadowed. Hence it is written in Col. 2:17 concerning the ceremonial precepts that they were "a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ"; in other words, the reality is found in Christ. Wherefore the New Law is called the law of reality; whereas the Old Law is called the law of shadow or of figure. Now Christ fulfilled the precepts of the Old Law both in His works and in His doctrine. In His works, because He was willing to be circumcised and to fulfill the other legal observances, which were binding for the time being; according to Gal. 4:4: "Made under the Law." In His doctrine He fulfilled the precepts of the Law in three ways. First, by explaining the true sense of the Law. This is clear in the case of murder and adultery, the prohibition of which the Scribes and Pharisees thought to refer only to the exterior act: wherefore Our Lord fulfilled the Law by showing that the prohibition extended also to the interior acts of sins. Secondly, Our Lord fulfilled the precepts of the Law by prescribing the safest way of complying with the commandments of the Old Law. Thus the Old Law forbade perjury: and this is more safely avoided, by abstaining altogether from swearing, except in cases of urgency. Thirdly, Our Lord fulfilled the precepts of the Law, by adding some counsels of perfection: this is clearly seen in Mat. 19:21, where Our Lord said to the man who affirmed that he had kept all the precepts of the Old Law: "One thing is wanting to you: If you will be perfect, go, sell whatsoever you have," etc.' (St. Thomas Aquinas, ST 1.107.2)

1
[deleted]•

Guilty, obviously the man is a loon.

Why is he a loon? I've debated with many christians about their beliefs. Many of them have said that one of the reasons that they believe is because god spoke to them. What did god say to them? I don't know, but if they were truly convinced that it was god, then are they loons too?

1
[deleted]•

Depends on if God was actually speaking to them. You know people sometimes hallucinate voices right?

Also in this time of grace God speaks through the H.Spirit, not audibly / telepathically. And the H.spirit does't have a voice, he communicates through the conscience, and through subtle nudging towards what God wants. Not "get up, go here, God commands it."

So it depends on the nature and variety of these Christians who feel God is telling them to do things. On how they are being told, and a few other details.

I call people that are imagining this sort of thing, Loons.

1
[deleted]•

Depends on if God was actually speaking to them. You know people sometimes hallucinate voices right?

That's partially my point. When you hear a voice, why would you automatically believe it is god? There are better explanations, as there are for everything related to religion.

Also in this time of grace God speaks through the H.Spirit, not audibly / telepathically. And the H.spirit does't have a voice, he communicates through the conscience, and through subtle nudging towards what God wants. Not "get up, go here, God commands it."

Do you have a citation for that?

So it depends on the nature and variety of these Christians who feel God is telling them to do things. On how they are being told, and a few other details.

So, you just flip a coin? Or is your judgement so perfect as to be able to tell that it's either god or insanity. Also, what are the "other details?" Are those "details" wheter or not you agree with the message the person supposedly heard?

I call people that are imagining this sort of thing, Loons.

That's funny, that's exactly what I thought about you when you claimed to know how god speaks to people "in this time of grace." As if saying "in this time of grace" before you say something loony makes you seem intelligent.

3
[deleted]•

Why do you feel the need to insult me? Does that make you feel intelligent?

1
BasilidesIgnostic•

Also in this time of grace God speaks through the H.Spirit, not audibly / telepathically. And the H.spirit does't have a voice, he communicates through the conscience, and through subtle nudging towards what God wants. Not "get up, go here, God commands it."

And the Bible says this where?

1
ididntpostitIgnostic•

In this time of grace, the Bible doesn't actually "say" things...at least not visually. The H.spirit puts the thoughts in your head that the Bible means those things through subtle nudging towards what the readers wants it to mean. Not through "words"

1
BasilidesIgnostic•

Why is he a loon?

Because God told him the man is a loon.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
JesusCanBlowMeRoman Catholic•

So you follow manmade laws over the laws of your religion?

1
[deleted]•

I follow both; they usually don't conflict.

2
JesusCanBlowMeRoman Catholic•

You cannot be serious. Do you really want to have this discussion? You are really going to say that the slavery, forced marriage, blood sacrafices, incest, genocide, murder and general nastiness of the bible is not in conflict with man made laws?

1
[deleted]•

I don't want to have this discussion. At least not with you. Your name offends me.

0
Acidic_JewAcidic_Jew•

What?! No, sorry, murder was illegal in the law, even before the creation of the Hebrew God.

1
BasilidesIgnostic•

Sure I don't, because God wouldn't command anyone to break the laws of their land.

So Moses and the children of Israel legally escaped from Egypt.

1
MindWalk•

You should have provided direct quotes from the Bible to support your argument. Now you will just get into a series of time wasting arguments about how a loving God would never command such a thing.

Something like this would have saved you a lot of time: 1 Samuel 15:3 King James Version (KJV) 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

1
[deleted]•

Guilty. If God really told him to do it then he'll have fun in heaven post lethal injection.

1
[deleted]•

And, several doctors have confirmed that he was legally sane at the time.

Well, this changes things.

Juries are commanded to uphold the law of men. In the eyes of the law of men, a sane man who did this is guilty. In an American legal setting, a claim that God ordered it would require evidence. If sufficient evidence can not be provided, the claim should be ignored.

I would vote guilty, to uphold American law. If I were to be wrong, I would take whatever punishment may befall me. If I were to be right, no harm done.

1
cola_inca_lamasSydney Anglican•

you initiated this with a mistaken idea about God and his judgement of mankind. It is true that God enacted his judgment on people at time which is clearly shown in the old testament. However since Christ died on the cross for the sins of the world, we no longer need to face that judgement. Instead, Christ becomes our judge on a future day. Therefore it is clear that the man cannot have been honestly instructed by to do those deeds.

1