Would you murder your child?

[Noir]

Simple question, if you believed that you were hearing the word of God, and he was telling you that you must murder your first born for him, would you? Would the belief that god is telling you to do it give you make your actions just, if you chose to murder them? Or would you defy what you believe to be God?

[Mr. P]

I'd fail the "obedience" test.

[82Marine89]

Simple question, if you believed that you were hearing the word of God, and he was telling you that you must murder your first born for him, would you? Would the belief that god is telling you to do it give you make your actions just, if you chose to murder them? Or would you defy what you believe to be God?

Would you?

[SassyLady]

Simple question, if you believed that you were hearing the word of God, and he was telling you that you must murder your first born for him, would you? Would the belief that god is telling you to do it give you make your actions just, if you chose to murder them? Or would you defy what you believe to be God?

I don't believe in a God that needs sacrifices to prove anything. The God I believe in knows my heart and doesn't need me to demonstrate my belief.

[Noir]

Would you?

No, i am an atheist.

[Mr. P]

I don't believe in a God that needs sacrifices to prove anything. The God I believe in knows my heart and doesn't need me to demonstrate my belief.

Then you must not believe in the Biblical God..Someone was asked to do that..I can't tell ya who though. Twas a test of faith as I recall.

[Noir]

I don't believe in a God that needs sacrifices to prove anything. The God I believe in knows my heart and doesn't need me to demonstrate my belief.

I understand that may well be the God you believe in, but ofcourse that it not to say that is then how god is, and ofcourse he needed the sacrifice of Jesus to prove something, there is surly nothing that could stop him wanting more, and if he did, then he would be just in doing so, for anything he does is just.

However, the aim of this is to show that at the end of the day, we humans decide what is just and what is right and what is wrong, not a god.

[82Marine89]

Would you?


No, i am an atheist.

And if a voice in your head told you to?

[Noir]

And if a voice in your head told you to?

I'd ignore it.
Or go see a doctor.

You haven't answered the question yourself...

[SassyLady]

Then you must not believe in the Biblical God..Someone was asked to do that..I can't tell ya who though. Twas a test of faith as I recall.

You are correct - read that book and many others before I decided what was the true meaning of God for me....and my God doesn't require sacrifices.

[82Marine89]

I'd ignore it.
Or go see a doctor.

You haven't answered the question yourself...

Good enough.

There has to be a belief in god for one to hear his voice. I follow Dharma and Kharma.

[SassyLady]

Then you must not believe in the Biblical God..Someone was asked to do that..I can't tell ya who though. Twas a test of faith as I recall.

Sorry - I duplicated post above.

[Abbey Marie]

It was Abraham.

[Noir]

It was Abraham.

Indeedy, how would you react abbey?

[PostmodernProphet]

all the sacrificing that ever needs to be done is already completed....

[SassyLady]

great answer!

[Pericles]

all the sacrificing that ever needs to be done is already completed....

Hmpf. That doesn't mean that your god did not still require a human sacrifice, in order to be appeased. Human sacrifice is at the heart of your faith - it's just barbaric.

[SassyLady]

Hmpf. That doesn't mean that your god did not still require a human sacrifice, in order to be appeased. Human sacrifice is at the heart of your faith - it's just barbaric.


So, Pericles - what is at the heart of your faith....assuming you have a belief system of course?

[Noir]

all the sacrificing that ever needs to be done is already completed....

I thought someone would say this, but i mean, this is God we are talking about, he can do whatever he wants surly? If he decides that he wants more sacrificing are you then saying that he is wrong for doing so?

[Sitarro]

I thought someone would say this, but i mean, this is God we are talking about, he can do whatever he wants surly? If he decides that he wants more sacrificing are you then saying that he is wrong for doing so?

It's so cute that your only GODS are "scientists" and those that can't do....... professors......... the know all, see all of us humans......... LOL. How crushing to find out that most are just lousy humans that will make up evidence and lie about discoveries just to get a grant(money). What a pathetic joke so many of your GODS have proven to be.:lmao:

Oh wait, I forgot about the GOD you truly worship over all others........ that no talent hack Morrissey........ he's a bigger joke than the rest put together. The only thing he does is bore the fuck out of anyone that doesn't possess a tin ear.:coffee:

What a faggot veg head......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRijP5IxP1w&feature=related...... who could possibly take this asswipe seriously?

What was your question?

[DragonStryk72]

Simple question, if you believed that you were hearing the word of God, and he was telling you that you must murder your first born for him, would you? Would the belief that god is telling you to do it give you make your actions just, if you chose to murder them? Or would you defy what you believe to be God?

Nope, I would dismiss it as the devil masquerading as god,since the God that I believe in is against murder, let alone asking me to murder my own child. Actually, the bible covers this in the old testament, this exactly as it goes, when Abraham nearly sacrificed his son Isaac, and God stopped him before he went through with it. It was common of the time for gods to ask that kind of sacrifice out of people, and that was the first real way in which Judaism veered away from the others.

More to the point, Noir, no loving God would ask such a terrible thing. That you ask the question means of itself that you still do not understand, because your faith in atheism is not allowing you to see another way, just as any religion taken to an extreme does.

[DragonStryk72]

I understand that may well be the God you believe in, but ofcourse that it not to say that is then how god is, and ofcourse he needed the sacrifice of Jesus to prove something, there is surly nothing that could stop him wanting more, and if he did, then he would be just in doing so, for anything he does is just.

However, the aim of this is to show that at the end of the day, we humans decide what is just and what is right and what is wrong, not a god.

Ah, okay, so you're using the biased theory basis of debate. God gave us free will, and so, although God is just, we must make our own choices in this life. Atheism is therefore your God-given right, Noir.

And Jesus wasn't sacrificed, he was executed by the Romans on the cross for his preachings. They could have chosen at any point not to kill him, but instead, they chose to do so. It could have been stopped, but then, Jesus knew what was coming, knew he would die in suffering, and held faith in his cause, to show us a better way.

[Noir]

It's so cute that your only GODS are "scientists" and those that can't do....... professors......... the know all, see all of us humans......... LOL. How crushing to find out that most are just lousy humans that will make up evidence and lie about discoveries just to get a grant(money). What a pathetic joke so many of your GODS have proven to be.:lmao:

Scientists are not gods, they are people that help us explain the world, and universe around us. True some have been shown to be liers and what not, but thats just because they are human.


Oh wait, I forgot about the GOD you truly worship over all others........ that no talent hack Morrissey........ he's a bigger joke than the rest put together. The only thing he does is bore the fuck out of anyone that doesn't possess a tin ear.:coffee:

What a faggot veg head......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRijP5IxP1w&feature=related...... who could possibly take this asswipe seriously?

I personally regard Morrissey as a genius, and he has written some of the most beautiful songs i have ever heard, however, that is not to say i agree with his politics, i know that he is a supporter of PETA, which I am not, and he is the kind of person who would laugh if someone died because of eating meat, which again i would not. Not to mention other issues like the Royal family ect.

Can't i just praise and respect a man for the work he has done rather than the politics he believes in?


What was your question?

The question was would you murder your child if you thought that God asked you to do so, or would you defy god. Its a pretty simple question, i don't know why you went of on a more personal attack against me, but no matter.

[Noir]

Nope, I would dismiss it as the devil masquerading as god,since the God that I believe in is against murder, let alone asking me to murder my own child. Actually, the bible covers this in the old testament, this exactly as it goes, when Abraham nearly sacrificed his son Isaac, and God stopped him before he went through with it. It was common of the time for gods to ask that kind of sacrifice out of people, and that was the first real way in which Judaism veered away from the others.

True, god stopped Abraham from killing his son, but Abraham wasn't going to kill him unless god asked, the devil did not ask Abraham.


More to the point, Noir, no loving God would ask such a terrible thing. That you ask the question means of itself that you still do not understand, because your faith in atheism is not allowing you to see another way, just as any religion taken to an extreme does.

Indeedy, well this same loving god will happily send you to be tortured for eternity if you don't worship him, and anyway, who are you to second guess god by saying he would not ask such a thing? He could ask or do anything he wanted, and as all that he does is just, all that he does is loving, no?

[crin63]

Simple question, if you believed that you were hearing the word of God, and he was telling you that you must murder your first born for him, would you? Would the belief that god is telling you to do it give you make your actions just, if you chose to murder them? Or would you defy what you believe to be God?

I'm personally of the opinion that God has communicated all that He intended and all that He needed. If one were to hear a voice telling them to kill their child it would not be the voice of God.

[Noir]

I'm personally of the opinion that God has communicated all that He intended and all that He needed. If one were to hear a voice telling them to kill their child it would not be the voice of God.

So you know what God intended and you know when he's done all he wants too, for someone who believes in an all powerful God don't you think its a little odd that you will happily make assumptions about his intentions?

[PostmodernProphet]

Hmpf. That doesn't mean that your god did not still require a human sacrifice, in order to be appeased. Human sacrifice is at the heart of your faith - it's just barbaric.

I don't know much about you.....are you a troll or is your ignorance sporadic......

[PostmodernProphet]

I thought someone would say this, but i mean, this is God we are talking about, he can do whatever he wants surly? If he decides that he wants more sacrificing are you then saying that he is wrong for doing so?

God has never required a human sacrifice......he gave HIMSELF as a living sacrifice....

[PostmodernProphet]

So you know what God intended and you know when he's done all he wants too, for someone who believes in an all powerful God don't you think its a little odd that you will happily make assumptions about his intentions?

why?.....you don't even believe he exists and you're willing to make assumptions about him all the time......

[Noir]

God has never required a human sacrifice......he gave HIMSELF as a living sacrifice....

So because he has never done it before means he won't in future? whats to stop him?

[Noir]

why?.....you don't even believe he exists and you're willing to make assumptions about him all the time......

Indeedy, it is for the very fact that i believe him to be a myth that i will happily assume whatever i want of him, but for someone who follows him, and believes in him, making assumptions about what his intentions are, and what he is going to do in the future is a lil daft, no?

[DragonStryk72]

True, god stopped Abraham from killing his son, but Abraham wasn't going to kill him unless god asked, the devil did not ask Abraham.



Indeedy, well this same loving god will happily send you to be tortured for eternity if you don't worship him, and anyway, who are you to second guess god by saying he would not ask such a thing? He could ask or do anything he wanted, and as all that he does is just, all that he does is loving, no?

And so he wouldn't do it, because it would not be just, nor loving.

Your hypothesis is flawed, because it again supposes from your point of not believing in God in the first place, and so you attribute it as almost a form of insanity. Faith in God does not mean taking leave of your sentences, and were I to take the life of my own child, I would already be in my own personal hell, so it matters little in any case.

We are always free to choose, our God given right, even to choose not to believe. Even if I refuse God's will, though, I can simply ask for forgiveness, or make amends since he allows for that.

[DragonStryk72]

Indeedy, it is for the very fact that i believe him to be a myth that i will happily assume whatever i want of him, but for someone who follows him, and believes in him, making assumptions about what his intentions are, and what he is going to do in the future is a lil daft, no?

But this is what we are trying to point out to you, Noir. You see us as daft, and so your questions are all biased in order to try and catch us in something. you don't understand, and that's fine, but browbeating us for believing something you don't is just wrong.

So, btw, my own question here: How, by the laws of science, could the universe have been created? Scientifically speaking, it's actually impossible without a creator to create the universe, and even Einstein admitted that the more he studied the universe, the more he came to believe in a higher power.

[Noir]

And so he wouldn't do it, because it would not be just, nor loving.

You mean God would have been unjust if he had not stopped Abrham? Why would it of been unjust?


Your hypothesis is flawed, because it again supposes from your point of not believing in God in the first place, and so you attribute it as almost a form of insanity. Faith in God does not mean taking leave of your sentences, and were I to take the life of my own child, I would already be in my own personal hell, so it matters little in any case.

And what if when Noah was told to build the arc he thought 'well i believe in god, but thats just stupid, i'm not going to take leave of my senses and build an arc in the desert'?
At what point would you listen to god? If he asked you to move to another state, or change job ect? (I just used murder as a strong opening remark, but any form of hearing gods word could be applied)


We are always free to choose, our God given right, even to choose not to believe. Even if I refuse God's will, though, I can simply ask for forgiveness, or make amends since he allows for that.

He doesn't always let you forgive him, who's wife was it that was turned into a pillar of salt because she defied god by looking back at the city? Maybe she thought 'its okay to look back, god will forgive me'...

[crin63]

So you know what God intended and you know when he's done all he wants too, for someone who believes in an all powerful God don't you think its a little odd that you will happily make assumptions about his intentions?

I don't have a problem with that at all. The Bible covers everything that men need to know. Many don't want to accept that, but its there like it or not. I read the Bible to find out what God wants and intends not how I can make it say what I want it to say.

[Abbey Marie]

Noir, I just wanted to say, as a Christian, I appreciate your questions. They are all valid, and if I was omniscient and could therefore answer them all, I gladly would. However, in the the end, faith is the key. Even the Lord says it will all sound like foolishness to those who will not hear (paraphrasing). I think you are being urged to hear, even if you do not know it yet. :)

[Noir]

Noir, I just wanted to say, as a Christian, I appreciate your questions. They are all valid, and if I was omniscient and could therefore answer them all, I gladly would. However, in the the end, faith is the key. Even the Lord says it will all sound like foolishness to those who will not hear (paraphrasing). I think you are being urged to hear, even if you do not know it yet. :)

No worries, i'm just thinking out loud, though i was a little worried that this topic may not have been too well received but all seems good thus far, as for the last bit, is that suggesting that i am really searching for the lord or sommit and don't realise it? If so i fear i have to disappoint you, for with every passing thought about Gods and Religions i grow more sure of my position that there probably are no gods.

[Abbey Marie]

No worries, i'm just thinking out loud, though i was a little worried that this topic may not have been too well received but all seems good thus far, as for the last bit, is that suggesting that i am really searching for the lord or sommit and don't realise it? If so i fear i have to disappoint you, for with every passing thought about Gods and Religions i grow more sure of my position that there probably are no gods.

Only time will tell. Please forgive me for hoping I am right. :)

[PostmodernProphet]

So because he has never done it before means he won't in future? whats to stop him?

the need to avoid self contradiction?......

[PostmodernProphet]

Indeedy, it is for the very fact that i believe him to be a myth that i will happily assume whatever i want of him, but for someone who follows him, and believes in him, making assumptions about what his intentions are, and what he is going to do in the future is a lil daft, no?

depends on what these "assumptions" are based on......a century's old study of religious texts......voices from the attic following a long night of drinking.....it's all got perspective.......

[PostmodernProphet]

No worries, i'm just thinking out loud, though i was a little worried that this topic may not have been too well received but all seems good thus far, as for the last bit, is that suggesting that i am really searching for the lord or sommit and don't realise it? If so i fear i have to disappoint you, for with every passing thought about Gods and Religions i grow more sure of my position that there probably are no gods.

ah, but you may be in luck.....he might be searching for you.....we'll just keep encouraging you till we know for sure....

[SassyLady]

No worries, i'm just thinking out loud, though i was a little worried that this topic may not have been too well received but all seems good thus far, as for the last bit, is that suggesting that i am really searching for the lord or sommit and don't realise it? If so i fear i have to disappoint you, for with every passing thought about Gods and Religions i grow more sure of my position that there probably are no gods.

Perhaps if you quit looking for proof of God in the teachings of religious doctrine, or through science, you would be open to letting your higher self discern the truth, one way or another.

When I was your age Noir I didn't believe in the God that I was introduced to through our church and bible studies. Later in my life I gained the wisdom to know, at some core level of my inner knowing, that there is definitely a source of all there is. You can call it God or anything you want, but there is definitely something that has not been explained at the level of human intelligence due to the limitations of science.

[Abbey Marie]

Noir- when you feel like it, give this a read:
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.
Subtitle: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus

Strobel was a journalist, and atheist, who came to believe.

[Noir]

Only time will tell. Please forgive me for hoping I am right. :)

Ofcourse, if you forgive me for hoping you are wrong.


the need to avoid self contradiction?....

Indeedy, afterall there are none of those in the bible.../sark


depends on what these "assumptions" are based on......a century's old study of religious texts......voices from the attic following a long night of drinking.....it's all got perspective.......

And if you hadn't been dinking, and felt the presence of god and that he wanted you do kill in his name?

[Noir]

Perhaps if you quit looking for proof of God in the teachings of religious doctrine, or through science, you would be open to letting your higher self discern the truth, one way or another.

When I was your age Noir I didn't believe in the God that I was introduced to through our church and bible studies. Later in my life I gained the wisdom to know, at some core level of my inner knowing, that there is definitely a source of all there is. You can call it God or anything you want, but there is definitely something that has not been explained at the level of human intelligence due to the limitations of science.

I had a similar feeling only a few months ago, and with that turned to buddhism, however, i turned to it in ignorance, and the more i read the more i found stories about men who could walk through walls and turn invisible at will ect ect, the more i realised it wasn't for me, i am happy to take on many religious teachings, that of Buddhism most of all, but anything that turns to the supernatural is just wrong.

I agree science has limits, but those limits are growing fewer with every passing day, at one time science could not explain the Sun, and so it was thought to be a God riding a Chariot of fire, until science had an answer. The two great questions we can not yet answer are how everything came into being, and what happens after we die, and so Gods are still used to fill these voids, but i believe that one day we will know, those will be interesting times indeed.

[PostmodernProphet]

Indeedy, afterall there are none of those in the bible.../sark
they only show up when you apply an atheist's translation...




And if you hadn't been dinking, and felt the presence of god and that he wanted you do kill in his name?
I would know it was only you, hiding behind the curtains pretending to be god......

[Noir]

Noir- when you feel like it, give this a read:
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.
Subtitle: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus

Strobel was a journalist, and atheist, who came to believe.

Cheers, i shall have my library order me a copy.

[Noir]

they only show up when you apply an atheist's translation...

An eye for an eye

Turn the other cheek

Which one was wrongly translated?


I would know it was only you, hiding behind the curtains pretending to be god......

Thanks for not answering.

[Abbey Marie]

Ofcourse, if you forgive me for hoping you are wrong.
...


I have to run now, but let me throw this out there:
Why do you hope I am wrong? What do you gain by living (and especially, by dying) in a Godless universe?

[Abbey Marie]

Cheers, i shall have my library order me a copy.

:beer:

[Pericles]

So, Pericles - what is at the heart of your faith....assuming you have a belief system of course?

If by "faith," you mean "belief in things that are unknowable," then I don't have faith. That technical point aside, what is at the heart of my faith? It is this: the appreciation of beauty (the truly beautiful, that which endures), while there is still time.

[Pericles]

I don't know much about you.....are you a troll or is your ignorance sporadic......

Ah, the master of the ellipsis calls me a troll - classic.

[PostmodernProphet]

An eye for an eye

Turn the other cheek

Which one was wrongly translated?



by you?, I expect both.....
Leviticus 21 is describing the punishment set forth by the authorities to be carried out for certain actions. An individual would not have been permitted to take an eye for an eye.
"Turn the other cheek" is one of those passages we've already been discussing, where Jesus posed an impossible standard to demonstrate the impossibility of attaining righteousness by human action.

Thus, one is law, the other is a lesson......

[PostmodernProphet]

Thanks for not answering.

I don't respond to "Have you stopped beating your wife?" either.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Ah, the master of the ellipsis calls me a troll - classic.

I have beaten better than you to death with a long ellipsis......

[BoogyMan]

Simple question, if you believed that you were hearing the word of God, and he was telling you that you must murder your first born for him, would you? Would the belief that god is telling you to do it give you make your actions just, if you chose to murder them? Or would you defy what you believe to be God?

Methinks you don't clock the fact that man is not directly addressed by God today as he was in the Old Testament. I would also ask if you know the whole of the account of Jacob being called to sacrifice his son Isaac?

[Pericles]

I have beaten better than you to death with a long ellipsis......

Hah. I've seen your kind of hubris - again and again. I very much doubt you've ever won a debate of any length with an atheist; the problem is, you're not all that quick to notice, when you've been beat. This is also quite common with your species of apologist. Noir could steamroll you, if he'd press his advantage. To his credit though, he's too polite.

But a lot of young people like him are now waking up to what you have (all this time) been peddling: the Greatest Lie Ever Sold. Why don't you confess, PMP? Why don't you finally admit that you are a false prophet, and that God is a Superstition.

[chloe]

no

[PostmodernProphet]

Hah. I've seen your kind of hubris - again and again. I very much doubt you've ever won a debate of any length with an atheist; the problem is, you're not all that quick to notice, when you've been beat. This is also quite common with your species of apologist. Noir could steamroll you, if he'd press his advantage. To his credit though, he's too polite.

But a lot of young people like him are now waking up to what you have (all this time) been peddling: the Greatest Lie Ever Sold. Why don't you confess, PMP? Why don't you finally admit that you are a false prophet, and that God is a Superstition.

I've never met an atheist capable of debate....all they can handle is cut and paste.....and quite frankly, you're not even very good at that....Noir has questions.....he thinks he's an atheist, but he's actually only an agnostic....you, I think are a real atheist....at least, you have that classic vacant look in your eyes.......

[Pericles]

I've never met an atheist capable of debate....all they can handle is cut and paste.....

More hot air - I guess you're familiar enough with that, with your "Holy Spirit" and all.


and quite frankly, you're not even very good at that....Noir has questions.....he thinks he's an atheist, but he's actually only an agnostic....

Your mistake, Mr. Prophet, is to assume that the unfalsifiable nature of the god-thesis, means that that makes it a true hypothesis. But any primer in logic would inform you, that an unfalsifiable thesis cannot make anything other than a radically subjective claim to "truth." But I assume you either never took a course in logic, or you overslept that day.

What you don't seem to grasp, is that the question Noir is asking, goes to the heart of the god-thesis. The burden is on you to give him a satisfactory answer. Until you do that, he's entitled to count your whole worldview as a superstition. And I've noticed that your style here is to studiously avoid giving any direct answers - just like a false prophet would.

I'll let Noir speak for himself as to whether he's an atheist or an agnostic, but I should make clear to you the proper meaning of these terms: An atheist is someone who thinks that the preponderance of evidence, both direct and indirect, fails to support the god-thesis. Hence, the atheist believes - on the basis of reasoned argument and the balance of the evidence - that the claims of monotheism are baseless.

The agnostic is, properly speaking, not someone who has a belief at all. The agnostic is someone who says, "I've looked at the claims of the theists, and of the atheists, and I can't tell who's right and who's wrong. Therefore I'm gonna suspend judgement until I get a better handle on all that..." In the final analysis I'd say that there are more atheists around, than you're willing to admit. Someone who says, "I'm waiting for a good reason to believe this stuff" is not an agnostic. They are provisional atheists - as are indeed most atheists, since atheism is not a faith, and therefore is responsive to new evidence.


you, I think are a real atheist....at least, you have that classic vacant look in your eyes.......

I would describe myself as an ideological atheist, an anti-theist. That is, I believe, on the basis of logical arguments, that theism is false, and not only that, but moreover it ought to be false, since I believe that at heart it is a wicked belief-system. For example, it is a belief system that upholds obedience to the godhead before all else - including the obligation to love and protect your own child.

[gabosaurus]

If God himself came before me and wanted my child, I would say no.

[glockmail]

Simple question, if you believed that you were hearing the word of God, and he was telling you that you must murder your first born for him, would you? Would the belief that god is telling you to do it give you make your actions just, if you chose to murder them? Or would you defy what you believe to be God?
Actually its a bullshit question since God wouldn't ask that after He sacrificed his only Son.

[PostmodernProphet]

What you don't seem to grasp, is that the question Noir is asking, goes to the heart of the god-thesis. The burden is on you to give him a satisfactory answer. Until you do that, he's entitled to count your whole worldview as a superstition.
so, in your opinion it is "logical" to make assumptions simply because the other side of the debate does not convince you?......what happened to avoiding building a thesis based upon identifiable foundations and logical conclusions?.....no, son, you've learned "reason" from the atheist' handbook.....in the real world there are no "gimmies", no default positions.....if you want to pretend your position isn't "faith" you need to provide the same evidence you demand from us.....

or, you could take the easy way out and simply acknowledge you're a true believer in non-deity......



An atheist is someone who thinks that the preponderance of evidence, both direct and indirect, fails to support the god-thesis. Hence, the atheist believes - on the basis of reasoned argument and the balance of the evidence - that the claims of monotheism are baseless.
sorry, but no.....there is no 'reasoned argument and balanced evidence".....there is simply your faith choice......


In the final analysis I'd say that there are more atheists around, than you're willing to admit.
I have never underestimated the ability of the human mind to go soft....


That is, I believe, on the basis of logical arguments, that theism is false
ironically, logical arguments you are incapable of stating....why is that?....

I would at least suspected you could find something to paste....

[Pericles]

so, in your opinion it is "logical" to make assumptions simply because the other side of the debate does not convince you?......what happened to avoiding building a thesis based upon identifiable foundations and logical conclusions?

Certain assumptions are necessary, in order for us to even consider ourselves able to think, and to be able to come to know something about our environment. These assumptions are not properly spoken of as "faith-commitments" - they presuppose faith commitments, in the sense that they are required for you to even be able to think and experience. If you can't think and experience, you obviously can't "have faith." These assumptions therefore are called axioms. My axioms are these: 1) the basic laws of logic - the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, and probably others like the identity of indiscernables; and 2) the assumption that I am not the only thing that exists.

All that 'philosophy' is, is the most radical kind of inquiry that we can engage in. Philosophy requires us to start out with an absolute minimum of assumptions about what exists; and from those tries to elaborate a theory of all actual and possible existence.

Philosophy is not like most forms of inquiry: again, it is radical in its approach. It only takes as given, what it is logically necessary to take as given. If you think that I am wrong with my axioms, then you need to point out where I am making unjustified assumptions - and then, you are doing philosophy.

This is the point that delivers to me, to the philosopher, the default position in any question. The assumptions that we make have plenary justification - because they are the sine qua non of "making assumptions" in the first place.

From my axioms, I can derive the structure of common sense - which includes, yes, the default position, that if you're going to talk about the presence of something, the knowledge of the existence of which has no foundation in sense, there's no reason for me to believe you are speaking the truth.

So: you may have never seen an elephant. I can maintain that elephants exist; but in the end I can only clinch the matter by presenting one real live elephant to you. Likewise, if you have the claim that you have a real live friend that I can't see, there's no reason why I should believe you, instead of believing something more reasonable (like, that you have lost your mind), until you come with some species of direct evidence to back up your claim.

The burden of proof, again, is on you. In any controversy, the burden of proof begins with one of the parties. It typically is lodged with the party making the novel, not manifestly obvious, proposal. What is manifestly obvious, is that what you can detect with your senses, in fact exists. On the other hand, it is not manifestly obvious that imaginary friends in fact exist. The god thesis, like it or not, is not manifestly obvious. The burden is on you. This is attested by the simple historical fact that people felt compelled to come up with proofs of the existence of the gods. Why do this, unless the default position was that there are no gods?


.....no, son, you've learned "reason" from the atheist' handbook.....in the real world there are no "gimmies", no default positions.....if you want to pretend your position isn't "faith" you need to provide the same evidence you demand from us.....

From the preceeding, I hope you see now, how ignorant these statements are. If you still deny it - out of your rebellious will - then either you must refute what I said here (and not repeat your position ad nauseum, as is your favorite tactic), or I will take that as an admission of defeat.


or, you could take the easy way out and simply acknowledge you're a true believer in non-deity......

I believe that the thesis of theism is false, yes; but this belief is not faith. Unlike faith, it is justified by default common sense. On the other hand, if you think that your faith is backed up by evidence, I'd be pleased to hear it. But then, what you have is belief, not faith.

[Noir]

Actually its a bullshit question since God wouldn't ask that after He sacrificed his only Son.

So you know what God is going to do? Surly he can do whatever he wants?

[82Marine89]

So you know what God is going to do? Surly he can do whatever he wants?

There can be no wrong answer because it's a hypothetical question. You know as much as they do. Quit trying to make something out of nothing.

[Noir]

There can be no wrong answer because it's a hypothetical question. You know as much as they do. Quit trying to make something out of nothing.

The point of the thread is at what point would you defy god. There is not right or wrong answer because its personal to each person.

[Mr. P]

Certain assumptions are necessary, in order for us to even consider ourselves able to think, and to be able to come to know something about our environment. These assumptions are not properly spoken of as "faith-commitments" - they presuppose faith commitments, in the sense that they are required for you to even be able to think and experience. If you can't think and experience, you obviously can't "have faith." These assumptions therefore are called axioms. My axioms are these: 1) the basic laws of logic - the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, and probably others like the identity of indiscernables; and 2) the assumption that I am not the only thing that exists.

All that 'philosophy' is, is the most radical kind of inquiry that we can engage in. Philosophy requires us to start out with an absolute minimum of assumptions about what exists; and from those tries to elaborate a theory of all actual and possible existence.

Philosophy is not like most forms of inquiry: again, it is radical in its approach. It only takes as given, what it is logically necessary to take as given. If you think that I am wrong with my axioms, then you need to point out where I am making unjustified assumptions - and then, you are doing philosophy.

This is the point that delivers to me, to the philosopher, the default position in any question. The assumptions that we make have plenary justification - because they are the sine qua non of "making assumptions" in the first place.

From my axioms, I can derive the structure of common sense - which includes, yes, the default position, that if you're going to talk about the presence of something, the knowledge of the existence of which has no foundation in sense, there's no reason for me to believe you are speaking the truth.

So: you may have never seen an elephant. I can maintain that elephants exist; but in the end I can only clinch the matter by presenting one real live elephant to you. Likewise, if you have the claim that you have a real live friend that I can't see, there's no reason why I should believe you, instead of believing something more reasonable (like, that you have lost your mind), until you come with some species of direct evidence to back up your claim.

The burden of proof, again, is on you. In any controversy, the burden of proof begins with one of the parties. It typically is lodged with the party making the novel, not manifestly obvious, proposal. What is manifestly obvious, is that what you can detect with your senses, in fact exists. On the other hand, it is not manifestly obvious that imaginary friends in fact exist. The god thesis, like it or not, is not manifestly obvious. The burden is on you. This is attested by the simple historical fact that people felt compelled to come up with proofs of the existence of the gods. Why do this, unless the default position was that there are no gods?



From the preceeding, I hope you see now, how ignorant these statements are. If you still deny it - out of your rebellious will - then either you must refute what I said here (and not repeat your position ad nauseum, as is your favorite tactic), or I will take that as an admission of defeat.



I believe that the thesis of theism is false, yes; but this belief is not faith. Unlike faith, it is justified by default common sense. On the other hand, if you think that your faith is backed up by evidence, I'd be pleased to hear it. But then, what you have is belief, not faith.

Gee..all that just to say "prove it"? Which can't be done of course.

I look forward to the attempt however. :popcorn:

[Pericles]

Gee..all that just to say "prove it"? Which can't be done of course.

I look forward to the attempt however. :popcorn:

I don't think you're getting the PMP's favorite tactic. It is not to say "demonstrate that your view is any more reasonable than mine," which of course can be done easily. Rather, it is simply the bald assertion that "your worldview is on a par with mine, equally unverifiable and based in fiat-assertion (faith)." See how this works? Since he can't prove his point, he simply tries to neutralize his incumbent obligation to support his views, by the utterly empty claim that I occupy the same position he does. It's a fairly common tactic, actually. And clearly it's worked for him so well so far, because he hasn't come across someone who can call him on it.

[Mr. P]

I don't think you're getting the PMP's favorite tactic. It is not to say "demonstrate that your view is any more reasonable than mine," which of course can be done easily. Rather, it is simply the bald assertion that "your worldview is on a par with mine, equally unverifiable and based in fiat-assertion (faith)." See how this works? Since he can't prove his point, he simply tries to neutralize his incumbent obligation to support his views, by the utterly empty claim that I occupy the same position he does. It's a fairly common tactic, actually. And clearly it's worked for him so well so far, because he hasn't come across someone who can call him on it.

Oh believe me I get it.

[glockmail]

So you know what God is going to do? Surly he can do whatever he wants? Real the friggin' Bible man, it says exactly that. :lame2:

[Noir]

Real the friggin' Bible man, it says exactly that. :lame2:

The bible says many things, for example


Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct your paths.
- Proverbs 3:5,6

Surly if he asks you to murder your child you should put your trust in him and not on your own understanding, based on the bible, no?

[PostmodernProphet]

Certain assumptions are necessary, in order for us to even consider ourselves able to think, and to be able to come to know something about our environment. These assumptions are not properly spoken of as "faith-commitments" - they presuppose faith commitments, in the sense that they are required for you to even be able to think and experience.
wrong....if those assumptions are founded upon a belief in the absence of evidence it is by definition, "faith".....


Philosophy requires us to start out with an absolute minimum of assumptions about what exists; and from those tries to elaborate a theory of all actual and possible existence.


which is exactly what I said....your mistake is think the absolute minimum is "zero".....



So: you may have never seen an elephant. I can maintain that elephants exist; but in the end I can only clinch the matter by presenting one real live elephant to you.

and would you also say that it would be logical for me to say "Elephants don't exist" until you have presented me with a live one?......



Likewise, if you have the claim that you have a real live friend that I can't see, there's no reason why I should believe you, instead of believing something more reasonable (like, that you have lost your mind), until you come with some species of direct evidence to back up your claim.


again, is it logical to conclude "you have no friends" until I have proven to you that I do?......



The burden of proof, again, is on you. In any controversy, the burden of proof begins with one of the parties. It typically is lodged with the party making the novel, not manifestly obvious, proposal.
actually, it is typical for atheists to insist the burden of proof is on everyone but themselves...




What is manifestly obvious, is that what you can detect with your senses, in fact exists. On the other hand, it is not manifestly obvious that imaginary friends in fact exist.[quote]
and on the other other hand it is manifestly obvious that many things exist which we have not detected with our senses. You know nothing about me other than a few sentences posted on this board. You are not justified in saying "The friends of PMP do not exist"....one of them has the office across the hall from me at work, another meets me every Friday for lunch for the last twenty years...you have no sensory experience of my friends yet they exist.........yet you feel confident in stating "there is no god" as an axiom instead of as a faith statement.....

[quote]
From the preceeding, I hope you see now, how ignorant these statements are. If you still deny it - out of your rebellious will - then either you must refute what I said here (and not repeat your position ad nauseum, as is your favorite tactic), or I will take that as an admission of defeat.


??????......I have never had any trouble recognizing your statements as ignorant, thanks for asking.....your errors are manifestly obvious, and have been highlighted....


justified[/I] by default common sense.
lol.....your "default common sense" is nothing more than your faith choice, fool....

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't think you're getting the PMP's favorite tactic. It is not to say "demonstrate that your view is any more reasonable than mine," which of course can be done easily. Rather, it is simply the bald assertion that "your worldview is on a par with mine, equally unverifiable and based in fiat-assertion (faith)." See how this works? Since he can't prove his point, he simply tries to neutralize his incumbent obligation to support his views, by the utterly empty claim that I occupy the same position he does. It's a fairly common tactic, actually. And clearly it's worked for him so well so far, because he hasn't come across someone who can call him on it.

wait, you are slightly off....I don't think your world view is on a par with mine....I think your world view sucks ass......meanwhile you have the roles reversed a bit.....YOU'RE the one who thinks he doesn't have to bother justifying his world view but can just float through life in some form of "default" mode....I have called YOU, not the other way around....

[avatar4321]

eh. Liberals do it all the time, just without any revelation from God.

[Pericles]

wrong....if those assumptions are founded upon a belief in the absence of evidence it is by definition, "faith".....

It is self-evident that the law of identity holds, that the law of noncontradiction holds. You can't even think without these logical laws being in place - that is why they are self-evident. Your pose of pretending that considerations of this kind are of equal weight to the claim "God exists," is laughable.


which is exactly what I said....your mistake is think the absolute minimum is "zero".....

Look, either knowledge - of any kind, of any thing - is possible, or it is not, and we are deceived about everything. To believe that we are deceived about everything is illogical (how would we know we were so deceived?) - so if we are to credit ourselves with having some knowledge, some default the degree of knowledge, we must describe what are the conditions under which we could have such knowledge. These I gave a brief sketch of, in my last post.

You, on the other hand, are simply doing your best impression of a broken record. In vain you are trying to assert that the conditions for all belief, are on a par with your day-time fantasies of the existence of your invisible friends.


and would you also say that it would be logical for me to say "Elephants don't exist" until you have presented me with a live one?......

To someone who comes from a culture where there's never been any elephants, where he's never heard of their being any such creature, and when I am unable to present even a picture of this animal...? Of course it is logical, then. The problem with you theists, is that you convey the impression that you are truly mad - you go on and and on about a person I can't see, and ascribe to him superpowers, and claim that you speak to him. That's nuts enough as it is, but then you go further and claim that your imaginary friend has a claim on my obedience! And how am I finding this out? From you! When people buy your bullshit, you really must be laughing all the way to the bank.


again, is it logical to conclude "you have no friends" until I have proven to you that I do?......

No, because we all know what it means to have a friend. A friend, by commonsense definition, is a real live observable individual. Ordinarily, I can be taken at my word that I have friends. If you never see them, however, you are entitled to your doubts as to whether I am deluded in my assertion, or not.


actually, it is typical for atheists to insist the burden of proof is on everyone but themselves...

Wrong. Put forth some evidence, or at least some logical argument, that your God exists. Then the burden shifts to me, to show how your arguments are wrong. But you're not ready to defend your faith, are you?

That is why you have always lost the argument to atheists.


lol.....your "default common sense" is nothing more than your faith choice, fool....

Clearly, your ignorance is invincible. One of the most basic rules of debate, is that a person can't defend their thesis, merely by repeating it. But you are doing just that in every one of your posts.

You are a false prophet and your god is a superstition... I'm always willing to hear you defend those ideas that you have in your head. But you've never even begun.

[Pericles]

eh. Liberals do it all the time, just without any revelation from God.

And here you reveal, what religion has really always been about - not the truth, but instead just an instrument of conservative/traditionalist political control.

[Mr. P]

And here you reveal, what religion has really always been about - not the truth, but instead just an instrument of conservative/traditionalist political control.

I can go with the control part but NOT with the conservative/traditionalist political part.

Does Jim Jones ring a bell? And there are more.

[Pericles]

I can go with the control part but NOT with the conservative/traditionalist political part.

Does Jim Jones ring a bell? And there are more.

All cult leaders are authoritarians. They fetishize obedience, and take positive action to supress dissent. They are, by the very meaning of the term, illiberal. Real liberals are not like that - in fact cannot be like that. Exhibit A is the cultural difference between liberals and conservatives. Political conservatives are by instinct more inclined to obedience, to hero-worship, to the veneration of power for its own sake. Liberals are fractious, they turn on their idols, and will not resort to any means necessary to get power (like lies about the power of the "unitary executive").

Liberals are skeptics. In fact, they often doubt themselves - which places obvious limits on their political ambitions and their political power. I have always found that the charges by conservatives throw, that liberals are authoritarian and power-hungry, to actually reveal more about conservatives themselves, than their targets.

Liberals can be intolerant, and have acted illiberally on occasion in the past. But these are deviations from what liberalism is. With conservatives, on the other hand, these views are not a bug - they're a feature. They're revealed by the deep illiberalism of the Puritans. It's a wonder that we ever actually got a democracy, with these illiberal traditions at the root of American culture. Indeed, the Founders had to fight against these conservative attitudes. Much of the opposition to the Constitution, came from Protestant enthusiasts who were scandalized that the document made no mention of God...

[PostmodernProphet]

Your pose of pretending that considerations of this kind are of equal weight to the claim "God exists," is laughable.

and the fact you don't recognize the same applies to "There is no god" is sad....



But you're not ready to defend your faith, are you?
lol, this from the guy who won't even admit he has faith, let alone defend it....



That is why you have always lost the argument to atheists.
hasn't happened yet, don't expect it to.....




Clearly, your ignorance is invincible. One of the most basic rules of debate, is that a person can't defend their thesis, merely by repeating it. But you are doing just that in every one of your posts.

well here's a thought dude, you've been going on about these amazing common sense fundamentals that allow you to logically conclude there is no god, yet, you've failed to even name a single one let alone demonstrate how logic brings you to your conclusion......which of us then is failing the rules of debate?......

I have been quite clear in stating my beliefs are the result of a faith choice.....and I have demonstrated why yours are as well.....I believe that was my contention and I believe I have shown it convincingly.....

lets see you refute it by demonstrating the "logic" behind your faith.......so far all you've come up with is "I don't have to, because you haven't proved me wrong".......sorry, that bell don't ring...

[Pericles]

and the fact you don't recognize the same applies to "There is no god" is sad....

You're failing to recognize a basic distinction. Our default common-sense experience of the world, gives us no indication of the existence of supernatural, invisible personalities. We have to be taught that there exist such beings. But before we are taught this, it is not the case that we formally adhere to the proposition "There are no gods." We instead would simply lack belief. The absence of belief, is not the same as conscious disbelief.

Atheism, properly speaking, is the belief that the claim "There is a God" is false. The claim of theism comes first, before there can be a - theism. Atheism as a belief presupposes theism. Atheism, however, can and does cite our default common-sense experience of the world - in which we do not regard as real anything which does not have its foundation in sense - as a prima facie argument against the thesis of the existence of invisible, all-powerful personalities.

In the default common-sense position, there is an absence of belief, an absence of faith. To this position, religion comes with a pro-position - the thesis that there exists an invisible, superpowered personality. Unless this proposition is to remain only the stuff of the personal fantasies of the person proposing it, they have to bring some evidence in favor of their belief. To count as legitimate, this evidence has to have some kind of public character; it must in some way be independently verifiable by other observers. You cannot peddle your deep personal convictions and private experiences as "evidence."

On the basis of the above considerations, religious types usually recognize that they can't defend their beliefs in an argument; they will simply assert them by fiat, and try to make a virture out of this by calling it 'faith.' My dispute is not with that choice; what I deny is the claim by the faithful that what they believe is actually true, true like the theory of gravity is true. When you make that claim, you have to defend it. You can't simply make an "et tu!" argument. Or, if you do make an et tu claim, if you do say that my belief in the theory of gravity is founded on faith no less than yours, i.e. on beliefs that I hold without evidence, then you have to show how that is the case.

PMP, your style really reminds me of the Sophist Protagoras, in Plato's dialogue of the same name. Protagoras claimed that there was no real truth, only opinion; and he consistently evaded Socrates' attempts to get him to defend his view. Protagoras knew, that once he started to lay out his reasons for thesis, Socrates would check-mate him with argument. I think all of us here get it: you've lost too many arguments against atheists already, to risk any further actual debate and defense of your worldview. So you retreat into a "What is Truth?" relativism. You're a false prophet and I've called you out. Who knew the irony? - that you would be more in league with Pilate, than me.


lol, this from the guy who won't even admit he has faith, let alone defend it....

You tell me: what part of what I believe, is asserted without evidence? I don't require faith, if evidence can be adduced for all my beliefs. And again, evidence here means reasons, considerations or causes that other people are able to evaluate and understand for themselves, without any special revelation.


well here's a thought dude, you've been going on about these amazing common sense fundamentals that allow you to logically conclude there is no god, yet, you've failed to even name a single one let alone demonstrate how logic brings you to your conclusion......which of us then is failing the rules of debate?......

Again, it is you who has the incumbent obligation to give reasons for why the magical being you believe in, actually exists. I already sketched my logical objections to monotheism in another thread; when I put them forward, I heard nothing but crickets from you.

By the rules of debate, you have refused to engage the point of controversy, and so have lost by forfeit. No reasonable person should believe in your claptrap. In two hundred years' time, Thomas Jefferson's prediction that the myth of Jesus 'the Messiah,' born of a virgin, will be seen as fanciful and delusional as the belief that Athena sprang direct from the brow of Zeus, will be a reality.

[HogTrash]

Simple question, if you believed that you were hearing the word of God, and he was telling you that you must murder your first born for him, would you? Would the belief that god is telling you to do it give you make your actions just, if you chose to murder them? Or would you defy what you believe to be God?First let me say that I have not read any other posts in this thread so I realize that what I will say has most likely been said.

If you are using the passage from the Bible about Abraham sacrificing his son on God's order, it is further evidence that you need to stop believing everything you read.

There are many lessons in the Bible that you can learn from without taking them literally.

If you hear voices telling you anything you had better seek help fast. :slap:

[PostmodernProphet]

You're failing to recognize a basic distinction. Our default common-sense experience of the world

there simply is no default.....prior to the earth being proved round, there was no "default" that the earth was flat because no one had proved otherwise......before we understood DNA, cells weren't produced by another "default" process because no one had proved otherwise....



Atheism, properly speaking, is the belief that the claim "There is a God" is false.
no.....atheism is the denial of the existence of deity, plain and simple.....you can pretend all you want that it means something else, but it wouldn't be true......




You tell me: what part of what I believe, is asserted without evidence?
the non-existence of deity, obviously.....

[PostmodernProphet]

I already sketched my logical objections to monotheism in another thread

if you did (which I seriously doubt) I didn't see them.....try it again here or link me to the thread....I call your bluff.....

[Pericles]

there simply is no default.....

Playing the broken record, again. I think from now on I'll call you Protagoras. We can't have a conversation if you only keep repeating the first thing you've said. You have made no argument. I've gone to the trouble of explaining in some detail why you are wrong. It won't do for you simply to constantly come back with "No, I'm not wrong!" You've lost by forfeit. When you want to try again, actually go back an address my arguments.

[Noir]

First let me say that I have not read any other posts in this thread so I realize that what I will say has most likely been said.

If you are using the passage from the Bible about Abraham sacrificing his son on God's order, it is further evidence that you need to stop believing everything you read.

There are many lessons in the Bible that you can learn from without taking them literally.

If you hear voices telling you anything you had better seek help fast. :slap:

I'm not using any bible verses as 'proof' of anything, the point is do you believe in god? Do you believe that whatever god does is right and just? and if so then if you believed that he was personally communicating with you would you disobey him. In this case putting what you personally believe to be right above what God believes to be right.

[PostmodernProphet]

Playing the broken record, again. I think from now on I'll call you Protagoras. We can't have a conversation if you only keep repeating the first thing you've said. You have made no argument. I've gone to the trouble of explaining in some detail why you are wrong. It won't do for you simply to constantly come back with "No, I'm not wrong!" You've lost by forfeit. When you want to try again, actually go back an address my arguments.

as long as you think you win by default there IS no debating you....I agree, there is no conservation, however, I disagree that you have won.....I don't see you as even trying to deal with the true issue.....

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm not using any bible verses as 'proof' of anything, the point is do you believe in god? Do you believe that whatever god does is right and just? and if so then if you believed that he was personally communicating with you would you disobey him. In this case putting what you personally believe to be right above what God believes to be right.

you see, the problem is we can frame the same silly approach to you......if your conscience compelled you to cut a baby into small pieces would you do it?.....obviously your response is going to be "my conscience would never compel me to do it"......how many times would we have to insist that it MIGHT before you would say "yes, I would cut a baby into small pieces".....

[Noir]

you see, the problem is we can frame the same silly approach to you......if your conscience compelled you to cut a baby into small pieces would you do it?.....obviously your response is going to be "my conscience would never compel me to do it"......how many times would we have to insist that it MIGHT before you would say "yes, I would cut a baby into small pieces".....

If i start having impulses to do horrid things i would seek help, as i need only answer to myself. You on the other hand have a God to think about.

[PostmodernProphet]

If i start having impulses to do horrid things i would seek help, as i need only answer to myself. You on the other hand have a God to think about.
but if I think about him and tell you that he wouldn't ask me to do that, you pretend I haven't answered your question.....based upon your continued insistence, I think it's time to seek help now....

[Noir]

but if I think about him and tell you that he wouldn't ask me to do that, you pretend I haven't answered your question.....based upon your continued insistence, I think it's time to seek help now....

But you can not say for certain that he will not ask you, afterall he can do whatever he wants, no?
And if he can do whatever he wants then he could tell you to,
and if he did, would you do is will or not?

[PostmodernProphet]

But you can not say for certain that he will not ask you, afterall he can do whatever he wants, no?


sure I can....the same way you can tell me that you would never chop a baby into small pieces....if you began to think otherwise you would assume something is wrong with you......same thing.....if I thought God were telling me to kill, I would conclude something is wrong with ME......

[Noir]

sure I can....the same way you can tell me that you would never chop a baby into small pieces....if you began to think otherwise you would assume something is wrong with you......same thing.....if I thought God were telling me to kill, I would conclude something is wrong with ME......

You can? Wow, you can read the mind of God and know what he wants!!!

You are doing ofcourse what you must do, you are using common sense, ofcourse you would not murder your own child, because that would be stupid and wrong. Inwhich case why would you listen to God in any aspect of your life?

[PostmodernProphet]

You can? Wow, you can read the mind of God and know what he wants!!!

You are doing ofcourse what you must do, you are using common sense, ofcourse you would not murder your own child, because that would be stupid and wrong. Inwhich case why would you listen to God in any aspect of your life?

why do you say I have listened to him in this one?......the fact that I have listened to him is what enabled me to tell you what I just told you?.....you see, your problem is, you are so anxious to twist something into what it is not that you never pay attention to what people say.......you think I have fallen into some sort of trap that you have set and you're all set to skin me and hang me up to dry.....the problem is, you're trap is rather flimsy and I won't even have to chew my leg off......

[HogTrash]

I'm not using any bible verses as 'proof' of anything, the point is do you believe in god? Do you believe that whatever god does is right and just? and if so then if you believed that he was personally communicating with you would you disobey him. In this case putting what you personally believe to be right above what God believes to be right.Noir, if you will think rationally and use your common sense you will see that you have asked the wrong question. [my apologies for being so blunt]

Only a severely mentally ill person would murder their children because a voice in their head told them to, regardless of whose voice they thought it was.

What you are asking has absolutely nothing to do with "religion or God" and everything to do with being card carrying crazy.

The subject of your thread should have been "How Many Of You Are Insane Enough To Murder Your Children?"

[chloe]

Noir, if you will think rationally and use your common sense you will see that you have asked the wrong question. [my apologies for being so blunt]

Only a severely mentally ill person would murder their children because a voice in their head told them to, regardless of whose voice they thought it was.

What you are asking has absolutely nothing to do with "religion or God" and everything to do with being card carrying crazy.

The subject of your thread should have been "How Many Of You Are Insane Enough To Murder Your Children?"


:laugh2: