I geuss the other denominations feel the same too though. Just like alot of muslims think christians are going to hell. This stuff is a mess, is this what god intended? How does someone decide who is right, I mean if it were so clear, would this even be a question? This I geuss is where the idea of a god falls apart for me. Even the religious don't agree on what is right, bickering for tittles, for who has the correct interpretation. It just seems like a mess. As far as I'm concerned, if somebody want's to call their self a christian, it's not for me to say yes or no. I geuss if there is a god, he will hand the I told you so's to whoever is wrong. I will, but not tonight.
This all began on the assumption that a person needs to somehow make up for his past deeds or else he goes to hell, and, also, that Bill Gates does not deserve to be punished as much as Osama bin Laden deserves to be punished -- if even Gates deserves to be punished at all. So far you've proposed only one way of making up for past deeds: give lots of money to poor people in other countries (the example being $60 billion). You keep denying that it's true, but you also keep saying that actions that benefit other people is meritorious. And Bill Gates' money benefitted other people. I can do the math: Bill Gates' money bought him a ticket out of hell. You haven't offered any other solution. You've got this vague, "Well, if you benefit other people, then you're doing good deeds, and good deeds make up for bad deeds." But you're weighing actions. You stated quite clearly that there is almost nothing worse than killing people, and the more people you kill, the worse you are (as in Osama bin Laden being very evil for killing lots of people). Well, excuse me, but says who? Who died and made you the judge? Is chocolate ice cream better than strawberry ice cream? What's the guide that is guiding your relative scale of badness? For want of (1) a measuring rod to judge actions, and (2) a scale to weigh the relative weight of good and bad deeds, your system is unworkable. It fails immediately. My system beats your system because my system offers certainty, and yours doesn't. I don't know how good I have to be under your system. The latter. Their desire to kill so many people came from their own beliefs about God. I'm rather taken aback by the arrogance you must have to even suggest that you could judge another person's actions and decide whether he has done enough good to make up for the bad things he did previously. I'm not about to make such judgements. No way. You got balls, kid. You got balls. It's yours for the taking.
I think i will take that sig then. I wouldn't even want the position of judge, never, but in that instance it was clear cut. so we can agree that their motivation to kill was rooted in their religious beliefs. I'm not arguing for a money based salvation system. I'm saying that it would be a very shallow system if we where judged as people, our whole lives summed up by our beliefs and its parts as opposed to what we've done, i most certainly would judge you on your actions before your beliefs, i'd give anyone that luxury, if of course I was judge. your system works, but the problem with your system is that it makes god judge, jury and executioner. and i must say I am rather "taken aback" (haven't heard that one in a while) by your inability to judge the difference between killing one and killing 100, are you seriously asking the question of weather or not the number of people you kill wouldn't make you more evil? i suppose manner and meathod would also be imporant as well.
My words exactly. Have you been listening in on my thoughts? I've seen 3 or maybe 4 episodes total of "South Park," and in one of them everyone went to hell. On their arrival they were met by a guide who gave them orientation (where to go, what to do, who is who). He announced that the correct answer was Mormonism. I don't take guidance from "South Park," but, anyway.
And the alternative is --- what? Edit: Is the thought behind killing one person any different than the thought behind killing 100 people? I've never killed anyone, but in my imagination I think the thought is the same. As an analogy, the best I can do on my own life, I've been angry before, and the thought needed to be angry with 1 person is the same as that needed to be angry with 100 people. Say I've killed 1 person and my neighbor has killed 100. If we stop there, do we not both go to hell? If the answer is no, then, which number made the difference? Was it 5 murders? Or 25? Or 51? What? If we both go to hell, you're asking the wrong question. It really doesn't matter who is "more" evil if we end up at the same place. I suppose you could ask how much more he has to be punished. But before we die I think you should be asking how many more good deeds my neighbor has to do over me. Does he have to do 100 more good deeds than I have to do? What if he does 50 more, but each of his is twice as big as mine? Would the math work out? But then, how are we weighing these deeds? We're right back where we started. I still like my system better than yours, because mine gives an answer but yours does not.
I suppose there isn't one, i have been arguing that if he is entrusted with those titles, he should prove his competence by using something other than a single belief about a single subject as a measuring rod, rather than a lifetime's worth of actions.
I have to be reading this wrong. Are you proposing that criminals who perform enough community service either before or after committing the crime should not be punished at all?
Maybe that "single" belief is multifaceted. If it is, then, you might be knocking down a strawman of your own fantasy. I thought CS Lewis discussed this. I'll check my book when I get home. I might be thinking of a different writing.
