The 'coercive bargain' theory of Christianity.

[grasping the after wind]

So define murder

A human being purposely taking the life of another human being that could not realistically be seen as threatening one's own life.

 

[Astrid]

A human being purposely taking the life of another human being that could not realistically be seen as threatening one's own life.

Depends totally on the society

 

[Neogaia777]

What about the supernatural?

I can see that no one has responded...?

Anyway, if even one of the things/acts that was reported to have been done "supernaturally", or in a supernatural way/manner, etc, was "real", etc, then you cannot deny (logically) that such a power exists, or is possible, etc... if you are only following logic, or are only being 100% objective/reasonable anyway, etc... Only if even only one of them was 100% actual, or "real", and Jesus was a 100% real and actual person that actually existed and did them back then and at that time, and if even one of them was "real", etc...

And Jesus said if you do not believe him, then believe on account of the supernatural acts themselves, etc, that such a power or ability does most certainly exist, and that your part, is to wonder where it/that comes from, or how it is possible, etc...

Because the answer is "God", or more specifically God in the OT, or God the Holy Spirit with Jesus in the NT, etc...

That One handed all of His power and authority over to Jesus while he was here, etc...

And that's how Jesus "did it", or did the supernatural acts that he did, for He (God the Spirit) took up residence in that one (Jesus) while They were here, etc...

And this One did this because Jesus was following/fulfilling the will of the Father for him at that time, and was that One's Son, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I can see that no one has responded...?

Anyway, if even one of the things/acts that was reported to have been done "supernaturally", or in a supernatural way/manner, etc, was "real", etc, then you cannot deny (logically) that such a power exists, or is possible, etc... if you are only following logic, or are only being 100% objective/reasonable anyway, etc... Only if even only one of them was 100% actual, or "real", and Jesus was a 100% real and actual person that actually existed and did them back then and at that time, and if even one of them was "real", etc...

And Jesus said if you do not believe him, then believe on account of the supernatural acts themselves, etc, that such a power or ability does most certainly exist, and that your part, is to wonder where it/that comes from, or how it is possible, etc...

Because the answer is "God", or more specifically God in the OT, or God the Holy Spirit with Jesus in the NT, etc...

That One handed all of His power and authority over to Jesus while he was here, etc...

And that's how Jesus "did it", or did the supernatural acts that he did, for He took up residence in that one (Jesus) while They were here, etc...

And this One did this because Jesus was following/fulfilling the will of the Father for him at that time, and was that One's Son, etc...

God Bless!

And while I am at it or am on the subject, did any of the other religions of the world ever show you any kind of power like this in the way that Jesus did, etc...?

Because, as they say, the proof of the, or of any one that does have any of that kind of power, is in the pudding I guess, etc...

God Bless!

 

[grasping the after wind]

Depends totally on the society

What would that be that depends totally on the society?

 

[Astrid]

What would that be that depends totally on the society?

Like the topic, what constitutes
"Murder".

 

[Tinker Grey]

A human being purposely taking the life of another human being that could not realistically be seen as threatening one's own life.

Like an execution?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Like an execution?

Yep.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Like the topic, what constitutes
"Murder".

Why would my definition of murder, which is what you requested, depend totally upon society? If you wish to know what society's definition of murder is, ask society. If you have a disagreement with my definition of murder, then go ahead and critique it and suggest a better one.

 

[Astrid]

Like an execution?

Then there's shades of "realistic".
Most rapists don't kill their victims.
Few would deny the right to use lethal force
in defense.

Why would my definition of murder, which is what you requested, depend totally upon society? If you wish to know what society's definition of murder is, ask society. If you have a disagreement with my definition of murder, then go ahead and critique it and suggest a better one.

Definitions change over time and from
place to place. Which is what I already.

I don't know why it even needed to be said once.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Then there's shades of "realistic".
Most rapists don't kill their victims.
Few would deny the right to use lethal force
in defense.

Definitions change over time and from
place to place. Which is what I already.

I don't know why it even needed to be said once.

It is certainly realistic to consider any instance of rape to be life threatening.
I don't know what point or points you are trying to convey with the last 3 sentences. You asked me to provide a definition for murder. I did that. My definition of murder has not changed in the time between now and when I posted it at your request. I am unable to decipher what you mean by "Which is what I already" or what "it" you are referring to that you do not know why it needed to be said once.

 

[Astrid]

It is certainly realistic to consider any instance of rape to be life threatening.
I don't know what point or points you are trying to convey with the last 3 sentences. You asked me to provide a definition for murder. I did that. My definition of murder has not changed in the time between now and when I posted it at your request. I am unable to decipher what you mean by "Which is what I already" or what "it" you are referring to that you do not know why it needed to be said once.

You won't find me a law yiu can quote that defines it so.
And if you did, itcis just for that time and place.

Shoot a burgler in Texas you get praise. Do it in
England, off to jail.

Surely you know this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmmm. The Nazis used to burn books they didn't like, also. Fairly quickly, they graduated on to shovelling babies into ovens,, and burning them, as well. Fortunately, you don't seem to have reached that level of depravity, yet, so I still have hope for you. You could redeem yourself by engaging with the argument I put, rather than simply dismissing it out of hand; that is, if you have any such comment to make.

Best wishes, Strivax.

...from the looks of the intended semantics of your last few posts, I'd interpret them to mean that....you've thoroughly misunderstood all that I've had to say thus far.

But these days, what with all of the philosophical confusion and inconsistent praxes which exists and float about like miasma in the air, I'm not surprised in the least. No, I'm not surprised at all.

If you didn't quite understand what I was implying with my little 'fire' hyperbole, you can always feel free to ask me to clarify its meaning rather than dump on me some invalid interpretation of what it is you think I meant. Does this sound like a possible alternative to what you've thus far said as a repost to me? I think it does; a bit of proactively applied hermeneutical acumen can benefit everyone, really.

MY point is this: God as Creator and Sovereign has the right to be coercive to some measure over His Own creation. But since we've been severely disaffected by this or that dictator during the last 100 years or so, most folks are conditioned to have a knee-jerk reaction to the mere idea of God's Sovereignty because they are now trained to see the past anachronistically through a post Hitlerian, post Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot, post 9/11 lense. That's a shame really. It's also a logical error of conflation where equivalation isn't due and can't actually be validated except perforce upon today's various forms of modern emotional pleading (and by ignoring a host of other ethical and meta-ethical issues----------------------------which of course is all too easily done).

And so, now, the Old Testament "god" is assumed (out of hand, typically) to be morally tainted and tyrannical-----even an ill-begotten terrorist, depending on which brain-banging atheist or anti-Christian you ask.

 

[Neogaia777]

And so, now the Old Testament "god" is assumed (out of hand, typically) to be morally tainted and tyrannical-----even an ill-begotten terrorist, depending on which brain-banging atheist or anti-Christian you ask.

This is not directed at you @2PhiloVoid, but is more in response to what was just said here...

Post #57 of mine, etc...

Also maybe post #160, paragraph #5, of mine, in connection with post #57 as well, etc...

(Although you would all do well to read all of post #160 all over again, in my view and/or opinion, etc)...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

After a refusal to reply to any of my responses on here of late, I am still waiting to discuss the real reasons now, why the rest of these people on here now, do not believe now, etc...

And I am talking about "the really real ones", etc...

And how they can still claim to not have any prejudice, or illogical hatred or bias, etc...

Though they might have some grounds blaming it on some of the Christians, or the religious folk, in some cases though, etc, but it's still a personal prejudice, or bias, on their parts, etc, and in the end is "highly illogical", or is "not very logical", etc...

God Bless!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

After a refusal to reply to any of my responses on here of late, I am still waiting to discuss the real reasons now, why the rest of these people on here now, do not believe now, etc...

And I am talking about "the really real ones", etc...

And how they can still claim to not have any prejudice, or illogical hatred or bias, etc...

Though they might have some grounds blaming it on some of the Christians, or the religious folk, in some cases though, etc, but it's still a personal prejudice, or bias, on their parts, etc, and in the end is "highly illogical", or is "not very logical", etc...

God Bless!

It's probably because they have to go and consult the latest fashions in 'atheistic literature'---i.e. that which they think constitutes current "ethics"---before they talk back to either your or me, Neo.

That's ok, though. It's to be expected. In fact, I encourage them to bring more to the table ... 'cuz they'll need it.

They'll need a lot of "more."

 

[Neogaia777]

It's probably because they have to go and consult the latest fashions in 'atheistic literature'---i.e. that which they think constitutes current "ethics"---before they talk back to either your or me, Neo.

That's ok, though. It's to be expected. In fact, I encourage them to bring more to the table ... 'cuz they'll need it.

They'll need a lot of "more."

Yes, but what "causes" them to do that though, especially after some of the points that were made here, and with what they should have read by now, etc...?

They can range from any number of things, one of them may be about some other Christians and religious folk maybe not representing God or Jesus or the Bible or the Scriptures correctly, like I mentioned just now in post #190, but it also could be something happened to them in their own personal life that they might hate or not like God very much for, "if He exists", so they say, because they just can't bring themselves to believe a God exists if He is that cruel in their minds, etc, and this can also be related to all the suffering in general in this world as well, etc, they say "He must be a sadist", etc, "if He exists", etc, or they just simply read it and just simply say they just can't bring themselves to believe all of it because it's just so unbelievable, etc, or maybe it's something else, or a whole host of other things, etc, but I think I've just about proven the illogic of just about all of these positions, etc, they are all personal prejudice or bias, etc, because if even one thing that was quote/unquote "supernatural" that Jesus did, is 100% "real", etc, even one, etc, and Jesus was the actual real person back then that did them, and if even one of them is 100% "real", and is reported 100% correctly just as it happened, etc, "just one", etc, then logically, one 100% cannot deny that such a power is "real" also, or 100% is possible, or 100% does exist, etc, and ours, (or rather, theirs now, etc) is to wonder where that comes from, or how that power could be, or just how in the heck that is possible, etc, because it is, etc, and more than just possible, but by now should be a logically proven fact, etc, "if Jesus" and "if even one of the things he did", etc...

I think he went around/about doing so many, knowing that if it/they were ever one day recorded, even if they didn't record them all, that there would be so many, that the power itself would always and forever be 100% undeniable to the truly logical always, etc...

God Bless!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, but what "causes" them to do that though, especially after some of the points that were made here, and with what they should have read by now, etc...?

They can range from any number of things, one of them may be about some other Christians and religious folk maybe not representing God or Jesus or the Bible or the Scriptures correctly, like I mentioned just now in post #190, but it also could be something happened to them in their own personal life that they might hate or not like God very much for, "if He exists", so they say, because they just can't bring themselves to believe a God exists if He is that cruel in their minds, etc, and this can also be related to all the suffering in general in this world as well, etc, they say "He must be a sadist", etc, "if He exists", etc, or they just simply read it and just simply say they just can't bring themselves to believe all of it because it's just so unbelievable, etc, or maybe it's something else, or a whole host of other things, etc, but I think I've just about proven the illogic of just about all of these positions, etc, they are all personal prejudice or bias, etc, because if even one thing that was quote/unquote "supernatural" that Jesus did, is 100% "real", etc, even one, etc, and Jesus was the actual real person back then that did them, and if even one of them is 100% "real", and is reported 100% correctly just as it happened, etc, "just one", etc, then logically, one 100% cannot deny that such a power is "real" also, or 100% is possible, or 100% does exist, etc, and ours, (or rather, theirs now, etc) is to wonder where that comes from, or how that power could be, or just how in the heck that is possible, etc, because it is, etc, and more than just possible, but by now should be a logically proven fact, etc, "if Jesus" and "if even one of the things he did", etc...

I think he went around/about doing so many, knowing that if it/they were ever one day recorded, even if they didn't record them all, that there would be so many, that the power itself would always and forever be 100% undeniable to the truly logical always, etc...

God Bless!

I generally agree. But there are some epistemological "butts" that get in the way of directly applying the logic you've generously spelled out for lots of non-Christians here to consider. Hopefully, they'll reconsider.

 

[Neogaia777]

I generally agree. But there are some epistemological "butts" that get in the way of directly applying the logic you've generously spelled out for lots of non-Christians here to consider. Hopefully, they'll reconsider.

I doubt that any of these "butts" will be truly logical, or reasonable at this point, or free of any of the more "human emotional considerations" at this point, etc, but I guess "we'll see", right?

God Bless!

 

[grasping the after wind]

You won't find me a law yiu can quote that defines it so.
And if you did, itcis just for that time and place.

Shoot a burgler in Texas you get praise. Do it in
England, off to jail.

Surely you know this.

You didn't ask me to find some legal definition in a specific locality that I don't necessarily agree with. You asked me for a definition. I gave the definition that I find most apt and that I personally use for the word murder. I'm not arguing any points from anyone's POV but my own. Therefore, my arguments necessarily hinge on my own definition of a word not some legal one in England or Texas. If, when asked, I substituted a definition different definition than the one I actually use because some legislative body, or court, or administrator, or autocrat defined it differently than my own, I would be misleading you as to what I actually believe murder to be. I think it is incumbent upon me to be honest about what I believe when expressing myself to others in these forums.