Do you have a verse that refers to God/Jesus as a pacifist? If interpreted from the Bible if Jesus is a pacifist then so is God, if God is a pacifist then he wouldn't have helped his people win battles/wars etc..

Jesus's anger in the temple was righteous anger. The same kind of anger that God shows to people who refuse to do as he says. ex. Sodom and Gomorrah.

Just because we may not have an exacting interpretation of why Jesus cursed the fig tree doesn't mean that he is ambiguous. It is not that the situation can have more then one meaning it is only that the situation is unknown as to why such and such happened.

I think that you would have to severely falsely interpret that to assume that it is not meant to be viewed as literal

So no you should not kill his family. As the Bible states it is the government that does this punishment.

Seeing as how Jesus was meant to be part of the holy trinity, and since wrath is a sin, I would assume him to be sin-free. As such, he was not. Why, if he is all loving, should god not be a pacifist then? The bible is no absolute truth of anything, most rational priests will say this, so please do not entirely rely on it for truths.

So anger, therefore sin, is justified as long as it is deemed righteous?

Funny, my philosophy teacher who took a degree at a leading university, somewhere in Belgium, calls it one of the most misinterpreted bible verses in history. That alongside money being the root of all evil. I shall have to ask her about that

It is not that god cannot be angry, as that would limit his very definition, but the fact that god should not be angry. Have you not heard of the seven deadly sins accepted by christianity on the moral 'Things to Not Do' list? Let's see; Greed, Gluttony, Sloth, Lust, Envy, Pride and Wrath. As god is meant to be the ultimate good, without sin, and anger is a sin, you see the conclusion I come to.

This is why I dislike the abrahamic god. Why should I bow down and worship something that man has the potential to be the moral better of? What gives this hypothetical being of utmost power the right to burn down entire towns and villages and in a spurt of hypocrisy turn round and tell me not to kill. God may apparently work in mysterious ways, but the supposedly all-loving good guy put around by the sermons and the preachers in these modern times really doesn't seem all he is cracked up to be.

Anger is not wrong? How so? It clouds reason, can be substituted by cold logic and in the end you often feel like a fool for being angry anyway. No, I don't say the bible says that all terms of anger are wrong, I said it was accepted by christianity as being wrong: which can be two completely different things. Thomas Aquinas held the four virtues and seven deadly sins, at least I believe it originated from him, and yet a lot of teachings are based on his ideas. Question my conclusion all you wish, but don't say that it is wrong without your own argument behind it.

I don't see how absolutism can be entirely wrong, also. Give me a realistic way of saying that genocide is justified. To kill a country/race of people. No? That's because it is always wrong, thus absolutism is not completely disregardable.

The reason I say that it is wrong is that you are only picking and choosing which information you wish to take from.

You are saying that one specific part of Christianity says that this is wrong. What you have done is taken it out of context. You can't assume that from one example that 'anger' is always wrong. If you look at the Bible as I said you will notice that there are lots of times when 'anger' was not wrong.

You say that Jesus turned over the tables in the temple and that was wrong. You get that from the Bible and then go on to say that its a contradiction to his character because the Bible says anger is wrong. Though if you read more of the Bible you will notice that it is situational. So you have 'proven' your arguement with only the data that you choose to except.

17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

I could give you an example but I would first need to know where you stand so let me ask you a question.

Why is killing a country/race of people wrong? You may say that it violates a persons rights as a human. When you say that you can not be talking about the rights in a legal sense. As those rights are all created by man so then by defintion those rights are not absolute.

So you must be speaking of the 'human rights' in a natural absolute way. If you can justify the existence of absolute universal eternally existent human rights then you can say that genocide is absolutely wrong. If you can not do that then I don't see how you can justify it as absolutely wrong it then only comes down to a matter of opinion.

So what you are saying is that some foundations of belief are only partially applicable? I ask why that anger, in those situations, is not wrong whereas other anger is. Is it intention? Motive? In the end, there is anger. Not justice, not righteousness, but anger. I don't see how a set of rules can decree something absolute and then apply it situationally, it makes little sense. You say to read the Bible and, while I admit the book itself does not mark anger as specifically wrong, it has been regarded as such for centuries. Take the tenant of not murdering from Exodus. Though there may be disputes as to the definition of murder, it is known that in Numbers 31:17-18 murder was heavily supported.



Secondly I ask how did I take it out of context? If it is a tenant of modern christianity then it surely applies to all christianity. Also, of course I would pick and choose what would support my claim, if I chose what would destroy it then it would be a very poor claim indeed. Everybody chooses what they wish, whether it be quotes, interpretations or their own opinions with reasons, that doesn't automatically make an argument invalid.

What? Why is genocide wrong? You can't seriously have that question in your mind. It takes many many multiple lives, which is itself unjustifiable in the removal of the entirity existence, and thus doesn't allow for individual judgement. It's incentives are usually the removal of a problem which indeed is not a problem, merely propagated as one, thusly relying upon deceit for it to happen. I cannot believe this, why is genocide wrong? What defines right and wrong to you, other than a wizard in the clouds and a book written by his supposedly corrupt creations?

Yes, I do believe in absolute human rights, and should probably get round to reading the thread you have begun on it. No I cannot prove anything eternal, due to it's very eternal nature. Human rights are representative of the golden rule of christian faith; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I do not wish to be killed, therefore I do not kill. I do not wish to be raped, therefore I do not. Even if, as you say, it comes to a matter of opinion then opinion will be that genocide is wrong. What is the point of a relative question if its answer is absolute anyway?

When I say you take it out of context I'm referring to exactly what you did in this post. You quote 2 verses from the Bible and you have quoted other verses from the Bible and you say that they conflict. Though if you look at other verses in the Bible you will notice that they do not truly conflict.

I'm sure you can find many verses where it is directed in one verse: "kill" and in another verse "never kill" but you have to know why the command of either 'kill' or 'never kill' is being given and in what way the word 'never' is being used. If you choose to quote some verses from the Bible but not others that is where I have issue. That is because the Bible answers in verses the questions you have qualms about but you don't seem to be interested.

Yes anger is situationally wrong just as killing is situationally wrong. God commanded Moses to kill those who were violaters of the law though if an Israelite were to kill another Israelite on his own accord especially through his own opinion it would be wrong.

I believe genocide is wrong. I believe that with your current presuppositions you can not say that genocide is absolutely wrong or right. You state "I do believe in absolute human rights". Do you believe that absolute human rights are those that are given by the law to the people? If so then those aren't the absolute human rights that I speak of. I speak of absolute right to life outside of law or man made ideas.

You can by no means justify absolute human rights as an intangible law that should be followed and if not followed is absolutely wrong.

I would be interested in how you justify absolute human rights. (remember I do not speak of them as in the legal sense as those are man made and by defintion not 'absolute')

If you could find me a verse which, once looked at, says "Hey despite what I said over in Exodus 20:13, murder is okay in some situations". Until I see one then surely I have the right to say that the Bible conflicts. You say that "kill" and "never kill" are situational, but why are they? If people adhere so strongly to the other commandments, and many other rules, as absolute then what makes this so very different? And if I was not interested, then I would not be here. Come then, teach me. In what situation does never not mean never? Why is it that an Israelite killing for his reasons should be different to God doing it for his own?

If we look at Christian Doctrine we can clearly see the facts of the sanctity of life, backed up by Genesis 2:7 ("And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."), thus we can declare life sacred.

As God would love all his creation, (I don't need a specific quote here, this is pretty much the message of the entire New Testament)

then surely he would preserve this sanctity. However there are oh so many sections and verses which would prefer to kill someone for what they have done that to do the loving thing and guide them away from the path instead (Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 13:13-19, Romans 1:24-32, Numbers 1:48:51, 2Kings 2:23-24, 1Samuel 6:19-20, Isiah 14:21, Ezekiel 9:5-7, Hosea 9:11-16, Jeremiah 51:20-26, Isiah 13:15-18, to name but a few) as opposed to Matthew 18:21-22 in which is preached constant forgiveness. Can you see my confusion?

There are no rights outside of man or man made ideas, simply because man gives rights to himself. You speak of rights outside the legal sense but that is exactly what rights are!

They are the legal set of rules which dictate how we should treat and be treated. If laws made by man are not absolute to you then fine, believe what you want, but they are there for a reason surely.

Just a quick question, though, you say that genocide cannot be absolutely wrong or right, but is there any situation logically possible in which it is right?

Very well then, a better, more everyday example should be called for. Rape. The forcible sexual penetration of a victim against his or her will. Please inform me as to how the ideas of rape, and the laws surrounding a definite example, are not absolutely wrong. You preach that human rights are not absolute, due to the very nature of being human, but you don't seem to give examples of situations where they are not absolutely applicable.

And how are all man made laws, by definition, not absolute?

Just because one day the paper they are written on will fade or burn, along with the rest of humanity, does that mean that the ideas behind them would do so? Or would a civilisation after us, if there is to be one, bring the same ideas into their society?

Anything intangible or transcendant cannot be justified or disproven, simply due to their nature, due to agnostic principles, so your argument attempting to justify or injustify them in their intangibility will just go round in circles! It's like arguing about what is inside a box that cannot be opened!

The fact that if you sin without going through the repentance process you go to HELL!:devilish:keeps you from sinning. If there is nothing like that you will just say "oops. ill try not do that again." but you most likley will do it again. If you think you can disprove this tell me.

Alot of people think that we do not need religon. Many say that we only believe in god because we want to think there is a heaven.:nonooo: They think it is stupid to do this. But for me, wanting there to be a heaven is only a part of why i go to church. Many things that come from church really help you in life, be there a god or not. I can not find one thing in my religon that does not help you in life. Even praying helps you:whoa-dude:! Even if there is no god (im pretty sure there is) it helps to believe in him. 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. If there is nothing like that you will just say "oops. ill try not do that again." but you most likley will do it again. If you think you can disprove this tell me.

For example, terrorists kill for their religion. (Islam does not equal terrorism) Would you justify a terrorist's behavior? Because all religion is good-as you've implied? I'm more than confident to say that you wouldn't. Terrorism doesn't really "help you in life". Many other religions, too, have questionable practices that a common population would find to be negative.

This my take on the problems of religion on general. It is purely blind faith. I like to KNOW for sure what I put my faith into and believe in.

-Skullz

I don't think the problem is whether you belive in some sort of religion or not, it is what you belive in. Yes, people have killed for religous reasons, but people have also killed because of non-religous reasons. God isn't the bad guy, acting without thinking is.

True, yet most who strongly believe in their religion and act without thinking (at least all the way through...) say that God guided their hand in doing it, and it was the will of God... That is what truly irks me. The KKK killed so many african-americans because they thought God had said that they mst, so as to rid the world of their "evil-presence".


-Skullz :whistling:

I think it's impossible to think that God is void of emotion, he must feel emotion much like we do, otherwise how could he become lonely enough to create us? The Bible shows that God is a being of conscience and emotion who can, frankly, make mistakes.