things we can agree are right/wrong no matter our religions/beliefs what can we agree on?

[ag_NO_stic]

1 hour ago, Joefizz said:

So now you actually "Do" want answers to your questions after a previous post of saying clearly that you don't want answers to your questions,when you have calmly collected yourself and have decided if you would like answers to your questions,then I'll consider answering said questions,after all what's the use in talking to someone who has no intention of listening,I have been through the scenario of talking to such one sided people and nothing ever results from such conversations,if both people in a conversation are not going to speak "Maturely" to each other as well as "Listen" to each other,then nothing results that is of any good use,I get that you are upset with God but if you can't respectfully speak with me how do you expect me to speak with you?

People like BAA I speak to because they are respectful,make sense,and are not one sided in conversation I don't think that is asking too much.  

 

If you are referring to a different thread where you mentioned asking questions about your faith and I declined the offer and suggested some things to consider....then I still don't have those questions for you. I know your faith well and I am capable of maturely telling you that I have no interest in your evangelism. That does not mean that I am not interested in speaking with you at all nor does it mean that I am incapable of listening or speaking in a rational and productive manner. I shouldn't be surprised that you took a statement out of context and tried to apply it to all future commentary from me, that is something Christians do with bible passages all the time. However, I am happy to tone down any sarcasm or "rudeness" for the sake of discussion. You should certainly know how frustrating it is on our end to hear the same things over and over and over and over in the name of "uniqueness." "god loves you so much that he wants to save you from the hell he's going to send you to if you don't repent, you dirty sinner." Because "you're not like all the other christians" as we're told. No comments like "but no really, bro, I'm super chill. I have atheist friends" really change things.

 

Also, to clarify something....I have no issue with god nor am I upset with him. I don't believe he exists, or at the very least how the bible represents him. I am upset with believers, those who parade around claiming to speak for him and and who tell me what he does or does not like. I am upset with those who, in his name, abuse people and use hell as a threat and "don't judge" while remaining the most judgmental people I've ever met. Those who call alcohol "poison" as if I shouldn't drink it when I choose, or who "serve a greater purpose" as justification for their actions or lack of education.

 

The only questions I asked here were in reference to your original post about morality and those questions still stand. Of course I understand if you'd rather not address them since your god condones them.

[sdelsolray]

1 hour ago, Joefizz said:

Lol I admit I typed in something along the lines of Red sea division proof and his claims popped up,it sure looked real enough but considering @Realist's link showing other scientists debunking his claims,I'm back to the drawing board.

Like I said, your research skills are impressive.

[Joefizz]

42 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

If you are referring to a different thread where you mentioned asking questions about your faith and I declined the offer and suggested some things to consider....then I still don't have those questions for you. I know your faith well and I am capable of maturely telling you that I have no interest in your evangelism. That does not mean that I am not interested in speaking with you at all nor does it mean that I am incapable of listening or speaking in a rational and productive manner. I shouldn't be surprised that you took a statement out of context and tried to apply it to all future commentary from me, that is something Christians do with bible passages all the time. However, I am happy to tone down any sarcasm or "rudeness" for the sake of discussion. You should certainly know how frustrating it is on our end to hear the same things over and over and over and over in the name of "uniqueness." "god loves you so much that he wants to save you from the hell he's going to send you to if you don't repent, you dirty sinner." Because "you're not like all the other christians" as we're told. No comments like "but no really, bro, I'm super chill. I have atheist friends" really change things.

 

Also, to clarify something....I have no issue with god nor am I upset with him. I don't believe he exists, or at the very least how the bible represents him. I am upset with believers, those who parade around claiming to speak for him and and who tell me what he does or does not like. I am upset with those who, in his name, abuse people and use hell as a threat and "don't judge" while remaining the most judgmental people I've ever met. Those who call alcohol "poison" as if I shouldn't drink it when I choose, or who "serve a greater purpose" as justification for their actions or lack of education.

 

The only questions I asked here were in reference to your original post about morality and those questions still stand. Of course I understand if you'd rather not address them since your god condones them.

Yeah I get that Christians can be rather "High and mighty" and gloating,and have a tendency to as I put it,beat things in to one's head,I'm sure there have been Christians like that coming through here, which is probably why there are so few here now because they set themselves up for a fall by boasting or forcing their beliefs and run off after being insulted or reminded that they aren't perfect either,me as you can tell I'm alot more "Stubborn" in that a few snide,crass,or insulting remarks don't phase me enough to get me to bow out,been there heard that,but I prefer an understandable and somewhat docile a discussion when possible,over back and forth arguments,thanks for your honest share!

[Joefizz]

5 hours ago, ag_NO_stic said:

Look, I'll be honest here. I read through about 5 pages before my eyes glazed over with frustration. I have not read pages 6 or 7, so if anyone has said what I'm saying here, my apologies. I just couldn't anymore. Also, side note, I cannot comprehend how evil it to consider your views on hell for even 5 minutes. You are so smug like you're not going there, even making "burn, baby, burn" jokes, but if it exists, you don't have a clue if you are or not. Sure you believe you're not, like we believe we aren't, but get real. You could burn for eternity just as easily as us, if it actually exists. So fuck off with your smugness.

 

@Joefizz, you are being incredibly, mind-blowingly arrogant. I have included the definition here so that you cannot assert your own understanding of "arrogance" into this discussion. "Arrogant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities." You claim that the god of the universe who created everything and everyone gives enough of a shit to use you and speak through you to people he has already supposedly reserved especially for hell. You, who still claims to be a baby Christian growing in your understanding of your faith, are up against people who have been christian for longer than you've been alive, some have been RAISED as christians from birth. I was a Christian for  24 years, homeschooled with a Christian curriculum through college. I was baptized, I attended youth group until I went to RUF on my college campus, I KNOW YOUR FAITH, I believed it as sincerely as possible. I know that my list of credentials means nothing to you, I know it's all about my heart and faith... I know that, because I believed that. I know it better than you. I have the urge to correct your doctrine before I refute it. I'll give you only one example of this urge, there is no biblical evidence of "age of accountability." The only thing that comes close is when David says that he will see the child that was born of his sin one day again, but even that is arguable because that could have been a fervent hope as opposed to a god-breathed truth. You come in here with your christianese lingo and your beliefs like we don't know what it is. Stop it. Stop talking to us like we don't know exactly what you believe, because we stopped believing it. 

 

I could show you the things I've written about dying to your flesh, dying to your self, dying to the secular world for Christ. Oh the tears I have shed in worship to "my almighty god," "my loving father," the tears from prayers to keep me from "losing my faith." You have no idea. What ultimately led me to question what I believed was the concept of hell. From there, it only took a basic understanding of history, human error, decent morality, and common sense. Trust me, we understand that you think you're on a different plane of understanding than us "atheists," that we don't have your knowledge. It is only having our eyes opened, (ironic considering you believe Jesus heals blindness) that we see how prideful you are, how full of shit you are, and how ultimately uneducated you are. Your posts make no sense, you don't answer our questions or face them for yourself, and we are left thinking that Christians are even dumber than we remember, back when we were one. 

 

If you won't research our secular sources, then at least read the goddamn bible before you come in here claiming to know what it says. So, let's stick to your original post's intent.

 

Rape is wrong and unacceptable under any circumstance, agree or disagree?

Slavery is wrong and unacceptable under any circumstance, agree or disagree?

People, in general, are not to be considered the property of any other person, agree or disagree?

Alright since we have established understanding in being civil I'll answer your questions...

1.Yes rape is "wrong" and unacceptable under any circumstance

2.Yes slavery is "wrong" and unacceptable under any circumstance

3.a little different because while yes I believe people shouldn't say things like "I own you" a degree of ownership is true under certain circumstances,for example marriage with as I believe the man having authority over his household but the man and the woman belonging to each other in ownership only God in my religious belief having ownership of both,not to say that they aren't still their own individual person but they shouldn't go seeking someone else,because they already have a spouse in such a case,so I disagree with this,only to a degree.

[Joefizz]

1 hour ago, nutrichuckles93 said:

You say this as if it is a given that your god exists to be mad at in the first place.

You say this as if that you acknowledge that said God exists by acknowledging that I posted about God which shouldn't be surprising to you!

(Joefizz points to the big profile explanation of himself being believer in said God)

[ag_NO_stic]

Just now, Joefizz said:

Alright since we have established understanding in being civil I'll answer your questions...

1.Yes rape is "wrong" and unacceptable under any circumstance

2.Yes slavery is "wrong" and unacceptable under any circumstance

3.a little different because while yes I believe people shouldn't say things like "I own you" a degree of ownership is true under certain circumstances,for example marriage with as I believe the man having authority over his household but the man and the woman belonging to each other in ownership only God in my religious belief having ownership of both,not to say that they aren't still their own individual person but they shouldn't go seeking someone else,because they already have a spouse in such a case,so I disagree with this,only to a degree.

 

1) How do you reconcile your belief with Deuteronomy 20? The Lord your God is instructing his people on the protocol for war, explicitly giving permission to take the women and children for themselves as well as forced labor of other subjects. The women and children (as well as livestock) specifically are referred to as "plunder." The next chapter has equally disturbing instructions for a forced wife and how she shall not be subject to slavery if he is "displeased with her" (sexually). Please feel free to do more research into the disturbing practice of "finding a woman attractive and making her a wife" which is a nicer way of saying sexual slavery.

 

2) See above, though I would also be interested in your opinion of Exodus 21. I mean no sarcasm when I say this (hard to tell over the internet lol), but please see verses 20-21 and 26-27 before you try to educate me on what slavery meant in bible times. There are certainly cases of indentured servanthood for poor people, but war slavery is it's own ballgame and not to be minimized.

 

3) The above verses mentioned discuss how fathers treat their daughters. Granted, my own father never sold me into sexual slavery for financial gain, but he did find it his right to "give me" to my husband. How do you view this concept? (In your answer, please consider how this is problematic for me as a woman, since you as a male needn't worry about being your father's property.)

[ag_NO_stic]

Another moral question? Stoning a rebellious son is wrong, under any circumstance. Agree or Disagree?

[nutrichuckles93]

10 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

You say this as if that you acknowledge that said God exists by acknowledging that I posted about God which shouldn't be surprising to you!

(Joefizz points to the big profile explanation of himself being believer in said God)

You came to an ex-christian website. Clearly, you don't understand what that means. It means that the Christian way of proving things (i.e., faith and scripture) does not apply because we have already been there and found those proofs to be extremely faulty at best. Which is why BAA is going to such lengths to show that to you. I applaud his patience.

 

My recognizing your belief in your god does not validate the existence of said god. That seems to be what you were trying to spin with your comment there.

[Joefizz]

11 minutes ago, nutrichuckles93 said:

You came to an ex-christian website. Clearly, you don't understand what that means. It means that the Christian way of proving things (i.e., faith and scripture) does not apply because we have already been there and found those proofs to be extremely faulty at best. Which is why BAA is going to such lengths to show that to you. I applaud his patience.

 

My recognizing your belief in your god does not validate the existence of said god. That seems to be what you were trying to spin with your comment there.

Touche.

[LogicalFallacy]

42 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

1.Yes rape is "wrong" and unacceptable under any circumstance

 

Is it though?

 

In the hypothetical situation where you were captured told to rape someone or an entire village would be slaughtered what would you do?

 

This is a problem with objectiveness and absolutes.

 

Is it objectively right for you to rape someone in order to save the lives of many people?

 

What the bible doesn't allow for is reality where sometimes moral trade-offs may be required and there is no real 'right' answer.

 

So while the statement "Rape is wrong" is true, is the statement "rape is wrong an unacceptable under any circumstance" necessarily true?

 

 

[Joefizz]

17 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

Another moral question? Stoning a rebellious son is wrong, under any circumstance. Agree or Disagree?

That is a last resort circumstance,though in Judaism this would not be wrong to do due to their following the old law,where as for Christians such as myself being under grace we are to not do such things,instead showing more compassion instead of judging,so as for the overall in general part,I disagree because there are still such circumstances for now,yet I would say that it also depends on the parent if the parent doesn't try to correct their child and get through to them to about what they've done wrong and seek to stone the child then that is wrong,stoning should never be used likely.

[ag_NO_stic]

10 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Is it though?

 

In the hypothetical situation where you were captured told to rape someone or an entire village would be slaughtered what would you do?

 

This is a problem with objectiveness and absolutes.

 

Is it objectively right for you to rape someone in order to save the lives of many people?

 

What the bible doesn't allow for is reality where sometimes moral trade-offs may be required and there is no real 'right' answer.

 

So while the statement "Rape is wrong" is true, is the statement "rape is wrong an unacceptable under any circumstance" necessarily true?

 

 

 

As an aside, I see where you are going with this. I hold this to be true for many discussions of morality, it's not black and white. It's one of those "morality is socially constructed" arguments where we can come up with reasons why violating a moral code might be more understandable. 

 

That being said, I still think that rape is wrong under any circumstance. In the above hypothetical situation, I would likely do it to save people, but that does not change it's violation of my moral code. I would put the blame on whoever was "forcing me to rape" and find that coercion unacceptable. Does this make sense? I think it's always good to look at different perspectives and consider why a moral violation has occurred, but that shouldn't change some codes of morality.

 

I assert that killing or stealing is wrong. That doesn't change my survival of the fittest mentality or the fact that I might do it under certain circumstances. I guess I see both sides #confused.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

35 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Is it though?

 

In the hypothetical situation where you were captured told to rape someone or an entire village would be slaughtered what would you do?

 

This is a problem with objectiveness and absolutes.

 

Is it objectively right for you to rape someone in order to save the lives of many people?

 

What the bible doesn't allow for is reality where sometimes moral trade-offs may be required and there is no real 'right' answer.

 

So while the statement "Rape is wrong" is true, is the statement "rape is wrong an unacceptable under any circumstance" necessarily true?

 

 

What if, given the choice between being raped or the village being slaughtered, the girl consents?  Is it still rape?

[ag_NO_stic]

35 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

That is a last resort circumstance,though in Judaism this would not be wrong to do due to their following the old law,where as for Christians such as myself being under grace we are to not do such things,instead showing more compassion instead of judging,so as for the overall in general part,I disagree because there are still such circumstances for now,yet I would say that it also depends on the parent if the parent doesn't try to correct their child and get through to them to about what they've done wrong and seek to stone the child then that is wrong,stoning should never be used likely.

 

Just for the record, I did not ask you to explain why the Old Testament command should be justified. I asked you what you thought. But you think stoning a rebellious child should "depend on the parent?"

 

Just for the record, my parents would consider me extremely rebellious since I have a nose piercing, a little basic white girl tattoo, I blow my husband on the regular, and have "rejected god." No amount of pleading or "correction" will change me, particularly on the agnostic part (arguably blowjob part too xD).  Should I be stoned?

[LogicalFallacy]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What if, given the choice between being raped or the village being slaughtered, the girl consents?  Is it still rape?

 

That's actually another hypothetical I have thought about.

 

So you are told to rape or they kill many, and the woman also realising that the act will save many lives consents, though not freely - is it still rape? This is also bearing in mind the person doing the raping wouldn't want to - they recognise it as wrong, but are weighing up the two moral evils and judging the violation of one person is less evil than allowing many to be killed.

 

 

And this is why I answer no to the question - is rape wrong in ANY circumstances. No, in some situations it may be the right thing to do. (Note @ag_NO_stic this in no way implies that either party thinks that rape is acceptable - we are considering the wrongness in context of the situation which is why I answer no.)

 

I'd just hope that no one ever has to make such a choice - its a highly unlikely scenario, but there others that happen every day that show that not everything can be tied down to an absolute right or wrong.

[Joefizz]

3 hours ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

As an aside, I see where you are going with this. I hold this to be true for many discussions of morality, it's not black and white. It's one of those "morality is socially constructed" arguments where we can come up with reasons why violating a moral code might be more understandable. 

 

That being said, I still think that rape is wrong under any circumstance. In the above hypothetical situation, I would likely do it to save people, but that does not change it's violation of my moral code. I would put the blame on whoever was "forcing me to rape" and find that coercion unacceptable. Does this make sense? I think it's always good to look at different perspectives and consider why a moral violation has occurred, but that shouldn't change some codes of morality.

 

I assert that killing or stealing is wrong. That doesn't change my survival of the fittest mentality or the fact that I might do it under certain circumstances. I guess I see both sides #confused.

 

Yeah I believe it's best for one to have a code to live by instead of religion only beliefs,because somethings in life you can determine for yourself that you simply will not do under any or most circumstances,like one of the toughest questions in life,when is the force of killing allowed in our lives?

is it when we have no other choice in self defense?is it when we are fed up with someone?

such questions we all face at some point that we have to deliberate "for ourselves" what is right,so as to give us something to live by as a foundation,like in my case for example,as much as I stand behind God firmly now,for several years before I reached this point I had to live by some set of rules or guidelines,since I couldn't quite live by some of the statutes of the bible or ways Christians lived their lives so I had to find some code of some kind to live by,so I took some statutes from the bible and some from my own experience of what I found to be right and wrong,and lived by them as best I could,like how I find smoking,drinking alcohol,and drug abuse to be stupid,that's from my own code,it's nice that the bible speaks on such things resulting in a state of drunkness because it helps me stand by my own personal code more firmly.

[Joefizz]

2 hours ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

Just for the record, I did not ask you to explain why the Old Testament command should be justified. I asked you what you thought. But you think stoning a rebellious child should "depend on the parent?"

 

Just for the record, my parents would consider me extremely rebellious since I have a nose piercing, a little basic white girl tattoo, I blow my husband on the regular, and have "rejected god." No amount of pleading or "correction" will change me, particularly on the agnostic part (arguably blowjob part too xD).  Should I be stoned?

That's what I meant by the parent having a role because a child that is not disciplined in a way that the child understands can lead the child to not understand between discipline and abuse the parent's role is to at least have "taught" right and wrong,after a child grows up and particularly gets married or leaves the parents house it is no longer the parent's responsibility for their actions,so as to your question of you being stoned that would be a no,because since you are no longer a child under your parents authority,the stoning child law is not possible for you to be punished by,and anyways since you don't choose to follow the old law anyways it's not possible for you to be punished through it,and biblically anyways the law has been fulfilled so despite it having commandments and statutes it is no longer held to even those who don't believe in God as a punishment sure it's held to everyone's charge what we do wrong when judgement day is done with.

Though as far as personal opinion no I don't believe that you should be stoned all you've stated even explicitly is what happens in the world on a daily basis so if anyone was held to being stoned by our actions whether in the past or recently then we all would be stoned,because we all have something we've done wrong,besides I don't desire for anyone to die or be killed because I value everyone's life,have I wanted to kill someone in the past yeah,but when I think"what good will it do,none is the answer".

[midniterider]

"and biblically anyways the law has been fulfilled so despite it having commandments and statutes it is no longer held to "

 

(Alright, I'm back in for a while.)

 

Where does the bible say the law has been fulfilled so Christians should just ignore it?

 

If that's the case Christians oughta stop carrying the Old Testament around and just use the New Testament exclusively? I never did like all them commandments anyway.

[buffettphan]

@JoefizzWould you stone your own (real, future, or hypothetical) children if you thought god told you to do so?  It's a simple question that only needs a simple yes or no answer. Thank you.

[Joefizz]

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

"and biblically anyways the law has been fulfilled so despite it having commandments and statutes it is no longer held to "

 

(Alright, I'm back in for a while.)

 

Where does the bible say the law has been fulfilled so Christians should just ignore it?

 

If that's the case Christians oughta stop carrying the Old Testament around and just use the New Testament exclusively? I never did like all them commandments anyway.

Well I didn't say ignore them,what I mean to say is that the old law could not be followed entirely by "all people"and with Jesus dieing for "Everyone's sin" as well as fulfilling the old law,there is still incentive that one shouldn't go against those commandments of the old law,but Jesus provided "Everyone" with a new way to abide by the old law as well as the statutes Jesus gave in the new testament, instead of everyone trying so desperately to abide by the old law,Matthew 22 verses 36-40 he was asked by a lawyer "which  is the greatest commandment"?

he replied"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,and with all thy soul,and with all thy mind."

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it,Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets".

Meaning if one can abide by these two commandments then they abide by "All" the commandments and statutes in both the old and new testament.

Which is why I imagine so many people today feed people the line that loving Jesus is how to be saved, they confuse salvation with upholding God's commandments,and also why Christianity has become so "popular" because it does sound rather easy right?

Love God with all your being,and love your neighbors as yourself,certainly sounds less tough by comparison to many other religions,so lots of people switch over even without changing their ways,like my uncle who is proudly quote gay and is always posting about Jesus being his saviour on facebook,as much as that is strange to me that sort of lifestyle is between him and God and I'm not about to forbid him from doing what he believes to be right,after all he shares posts in the name of Jesus so it can only help Jesus.

[Joefizz]

1 hour ago, buffettphan said:

@JoefizzWould you stone your own (real, future, or hypothetical) children if you thought god told you to do so?  It's a simple question that only needs a simple yes or no answer. Thank you.

it's not that simple,I would ask God why first before considering stoning,as well as plead for my children then depending upon what God does from there,would I do accordingly with what he decides,for naturally I'm not about to just go and stone my children without first finding out a reason from God for this action and pleading for my children's lives,then do as God decides from there,for God can always have compassion on me and change his mind,it's not a simple yes or no when concerning anyone's life especially one's own family if one can't love their family enough to plead for their lives then what love does one have?

[LogicalFallacy]

@Joefizz Thank you for your answers. I continue below.

 

On 9/7/2017 at 3:44 PM, Joefizz said:

1) So what are you classifying as wrong doings (What you call sin)?

1a. Doing things with intent on doing some hurt to others or doing one's best to get a fight started,leeching off of others in order to be lazy and miserable,while having "no remorse" for one's actions,for example I could understand someone venting but when it goes on for about a whole hour or so without ceasing or making coherent sense,then I consider it a "wrong doing" and will speak up to the person doing this politely asking them to stop or if they persist authoratively I will firmly  tell them to stop or they can leave until they "calm down",or is a person persistently insultiinsulting me or others eventually I'll have them be aware of what they are doing and seek for them to stop and think,if they won't listen then they are welcome to leave.

 

2) What about people with mental disorders that prevent them from being able to distinguish right from wrong ? They are not aware of doing wrong so are they sinning?

1.continued:mental disorders is tough to determine because some are aware of what they do and continue to do wrong,and some aren't aware of what they do,with such cases,if an intent to hurt can be established then what they do is wrong if not,then I leave the matter between the individual and God.

 

And how do you classify what is wrong?

I classify what is wrong depending upon one's intent or mind set,for example at my birthday party in August,my Aunt I requested to come and cook ham as I usually do because it cheers her up and it's great to eat,but she was already upset about something that had nothing to do with me or anyone in the house,and so she attacked my other aunt with rantings and ravings as well as me,for no coherent reason but to use particularly my aunt as a person to gripe at for her problems,that I believe is wrong because it's starting a fight for no logical reason with the intent for hurt upon others.

 

I'm still not clear on how your definition of sin here relates to Adam and Eve's sin, and Lucifer's sin. Adam and Eve didn't have any intent to hurt, in fact the original translation of the word we call sin means "to miss the mark" - so the bible is saying Adam and Eve missed the mark, they didn't get what god was wanting. This is different from an act of rebellion or intent to hurt that you propose. In fact the bible indicates Adam and Eve were deceived - there was no ill intent. So I think there is a disconnect between what your definitions of sin are and what the bible portrays.

 

On 9/7/2017 at 3:44 PM, Joefizz said:

Do you believe that God is all powerful and all knowing and all good?

2.Yes

 

If you do do agree with the above, is  it possible for Lucifer to act against an all powerful god without the all knowing god knowing what would happen, and without the all powerful gods permission for Lucifer to act?

3.lucifer has and had his own will,and God could foresee any of his angels turning against him,as to permission just like in a king's service with lucifer turning against God,he gave up being under God's command so he was no longer bound to ask permission of God for anything as he was when in his service.

 

 

3.1) So do you think it possible for Lucifer to act outside Gods will?

 

On 9/7/2017 at 3:44 PM, Joefizz said:

Furthermore how did Lucifer come into being and how did Lucifer become aware of sin before there was sin?

4.I don't know how he came into being

 

 

4.1) You don't think God created Lucifer?

 

On 9/7/2017 at 3:44 PM, Joefizz said:

but his actions speak for themselves,whether he classified his actions as sin or not he was certainly aware of the consequences of his actions,knowing he would be known as doing wrong if he didn't overtake God successfully after all just like a king whomever is in service to a figure of power will no doubt be told of what is right and wrong by the same figure of power or by those in his service,I said sin on earth in my previous post because lucifer had sinned before man came into being.

 

5) Are any of Lucifer's actions outside the will of God? (This is closely related to Q 3.1)

[Joefizz]

35 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

@Joefizz Thank you for your answers. I continue below.

 

 

I'm still not clear on how your definition of sin here relates to Adam and Eve's sin, and Lucifer's sin. Adam and Eve didn't have any intent to hurt, in fact the original translation of the word we call sin means "to miss the mark" - so the bible is saying Adam and Eve missed the mark, they didn't get what god was wanting. This is different from an act of rebellion or intent to hurt that you propose. In fact the bible indicates Adam and Eve were deceived - there was no ill intent. So I think there is a disconnect between what your definitions of sin are and what the bible portrays.

 

 

3.1) So do you think it possible for Lucifer to act outside Gods will?

 

 

4.1) You don't think God created Lucifer?

 

 

5) Are any of Lucifer's actions outside the will of God? (This is closely related to Q 3.1)

Before I clarify further let me first thank you for letting me know of the original translation of sin I think I may have heard this once before but I always appreciate effort and honesty,some even the realm of Christians think me odd for liking people's posts that have these qualities,I still can't like people's posts here strangely but still I "Like" your effort in seeking to better grasp an understanding of the bible,now back to clarifying...

Particularly I'll clarify on 4. I do believe God created lucifer I was speaking on more of that I don't know anything regarding his creation by God because I'm unaware of any time that the bible speaks on if he is made from God or from some form of element so I can only speculate on the hows of him being made,I do know however that he was trusted by God and ranked as an ark angel in God's service,it's tough with a fare few things in the bible left hanging so to speak,for instance,the Book of Jonah kind of leaves me wondering what happened next to Jonah,did he leave God's service after finally warning Nineveh of their impending destruction,or did he decide to stay in service to God,So I can only presume such things as unnecessary to know,I suppose for the indication to have faith in the future instead of dwelling on the past,or perhaps God simply didn't see a reason for something's mention,like with Jonah,it's a very short part of the bible and holds moral value in teaching turning against whom one serves devoutly,is always met with consequences of some sort,yet it's still interesting to think on what could have happened next.

[nutrichuckles93]

4 hours ago, Joefizz said:

it's not that simple,I would ask God why first before considering stoning,as well as plead for my children then depending upon what God does from there,would I do accordingly with what he decides,for naturally I'm not about to just go and stone my children without first finding out a reason from God for this action and pleading for my children's lives,then do as God decides from there,for God can always have compassion on me and change his mind,it's not a simple yes or no when concerning anyone's life especially one's own family if one can't love their family enough to plead for their lives then what love does one have?

It actually is that simple, what buffetphan asked. Would you stone your own children if you thought god gave you a compelling reason to do so? A simple yes or no. Don't duck around the question.

 

It doesn't matter what that compelling reason is. If you were given one, would you do it?

[♦ ficino ♦]

42 minutes ago, nutrichuckles93 said:

It actually is that simple, what buffetphan asked. Would you stone your own children if you thought god gave you a compelling reason to do so? A simple yes or no. Don't duck around the question.

 

It doesn't matter what that compelling reason is. If you were given one, would you do it?

What buffetphan asked was even simpler: would Joefizz stone his own children if he believed God told him to do so? The 'compelling reason' part comes from Joe's addition. Joe was creating stipulations that would limit the range of his obedience to God.

 

God's command is reason enough for Joe, if Joe is faithful. Though He slay me, and though He has me slay my children, yet will I trust Him, is the message we get from Job and Abraham.

 

It's not hard to think that people would go ahead and stone other people's children if they believed God told them to do it. After all, religionists have in fact done that, and felt justified.

 

This is why fundamentalist religion is a deathly virus. I hope Joe follows his own moral impulses as a human being and steps out of the cult.