I am a better person than you because I need no reward or punishment to feel repentance.

If there is a God, it is far more likely to me that this whole heaven and hell nonsense was simply his method for distinguishing motive.

When we reach the gates you will be utterly flabbergasted when God says "Welcome to all those who did good by his fellow man without turning an ear to my whims."

I am a better person than you because I need no reward or punishment to feel repentance.

You were being sarcastic right? By your own world views you are no 'better' then him as you I would assume be a relativist. You assume that not sinning with no goal of a reward some how makes you 'better' then someone who sets their eyes on a goal. I'm going to assume you were just being sarcastic.

I would need a new thread to get into my views on moral truth, but I can say that it is a fairly universal opinion that good deeds are only good when they are not self-serving.

Would you or he like to argue that it is not better to do good for its own sake that to do good for the sake of some other reward?

But no, I'm not going to argue that good deeds are better when done with out some external reward. I'm just showing you that you have no grounds to state that you are 'better' then him what so ever as I said in my original post.

Let me ask you this:

If "better" is a meaningful concept, at least to people, and if nature has placed in us a natural definition of what it is to be good that is fairly universal to people, what is wrong with making judgments based off this idea of good?

What do you mean when you say that "nature has placed in us a natural definition of what it is to be good"? Are you referring to it as some sort of innate gift?

Also when did 'nature place in us' that their are different variations of good deeds? We're not talking about whether murder is worse then giving hugs. You may have an argument to say something about nature in that. No we are talking about you being 'better' then someone because you do your good deed without the expectation of a lollipop.

Since it is only real selective altruism that provides this benefit, it stands to reason that moral (good social behavior) that is performed without concern for reciprocation would be rewarded over that which is performed selfishly.

While I have not seen data about this particular concept, I have seen data that pointed to universal moral decision making and judgment.

The fact that if you sin without going through the repentance process you go to HELL!:devilish:keeps you from sinning.

Back to this hell-thing... If God exists, and i say IF because i have no clear empirical evidence of it, and if he is a god like described in the bible, I would preciate to get to hell. If satan (the satan decribed in the bible) exists, I think he has a lot more insight than God, he resisted this crazy bastard, and gave men the fruit of wisdom. According to the bible, the mind of Adam and Eve before their fall was more like that of an ape, just walking around like sheep. In the bible, men are compared to sheep, and God as their shepherd. I WILL NOT BE A SHEEP!

If some prejudice and ignorant God wants to put me in hell just because i think freely, I would personally try to fight him down and let him taste his own terrors. I am just trying to live this life in a pursuit of wisdom, and you can't get wisdom by using dogmas without being wary. I think that is the core of philosophy, critical thinking.

They're all prejuduce

I'm curious, why you would wish to go to hell if you did except that everything the Bible says is true?

You assume that you are right and he is wrong. If God exists and has established moral absolutes then you are absolutely wrong if you dissagree. You say that if God existed then he is also crazy. You call him crazy because he is different then you and you don't like the differences.

So again you are assuming that you are right and he is wrong. But that doesn't matter because you can't be right if he is right while sharing different opinions on what is right. So if (as you did in the above example) you were to accept God's existence as true then it doesn't matter what your opinions are they are wrong and you'd suffer because of it.

Also if you think that hell would be a great place because the 'insightfull satan' resides there you better get a few things straight. With reference to the Bible, as you did, satan is not currently in hell, nor does he have control over it nor does he want to be there.

Depends upon who you're on about. There's Lucifer the Fallen One, who's eternally chained and tormented in the ninth circle of hell forever frozen, or there's the Lucifer the Deceiver who looks slick as humanly possible somewhere in Vegas, buying people's souls in exchange for finite gifts. There's also a million more outlooks on satan, perhaps even 6.5 billion because, like god, there's so many ideas of satan that the true form is indeterminable.

That's the thing, the Bible itself can be ambiguous. To take a simple example, 'an eye for an eye' can be seen as either a moral imperative to take someone's eye if they take yours, or perhaps that if someone takes your eye then the maximum retribution allowed is the taking of theirs and no more.
Also, it'd be nice to see a reference to those bible passages, I don't remember much on satan in there.

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

"The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."

Alot of atheist will say "You can still live those principles without beliving in god". This is not true:nonooo:. The fact that if you sin without going through the repentance process you go to HELL!:devilish:keeps you from sinning. .

you will just say "oops. ill try not do that again." but you most likley will do it again.

As to your example of 'an eye for an eye' which can be taken from Exodus 21:24 and Leviticus 24:20. These laws were for the children of Israel and the rules were written to the leaders etc... and those that enforce the law. (the Bible times policemen) These punishments were to be taken literally. Many people in the current age believe that there should be a death penalty. This was also instated as well as equal punishments to fit the crime. Eye for eye, fracture for fracture etc... These rules are very literal.

Now you may go on to say that "well then why not abide by these laws today as Christians etc..." Jesus recognizes the government in the New Testament and says that you should give to Caeser what is his. It is speaking of taxes but it is a recognition that respect should be given to the government. Jesus also said in Matthew 5:38-40



This is now not talking to the law enforcers of the children of Israel but to the people under the governments laws. So it is not the person who's eye was taken that is the person that does the taking of the others eye. It is the law enforcement of the time that does that.

God set forth his rules for the children of Israel and they were meant to be taken literally.

Well that must all be very nice from a Christian perspective, but think about the Jews. As far as I know they don't recognise Jesus as the Messiah, nor do they record the New Testament within those books. Plus the character of Jesus is himself a tad ambiguous, he's called a complete pacifist and the personification of virtue, yet not only does he turn violent in the temple, but he condemns an olive tree just because it does not bear fruit.

Your reply to the eye for an eye was also great, but you fail to address the fact it can be taken in multiple ways. Yes it may be administered by the local law enforcement, Jesus spoke against it and it is indeed a literal phrase. However, both aspects of it could apply to all of these, so if a man should kill my family, should I kill his? Or should I do no more than what he did to me? (the quote from Jesus notwithstanding).

15 "One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. 16 If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, 17 then both men in the controversy shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. 18 And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, 19 then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you. 20 And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.