Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The morality behind Hitler being allowed in heaven at all is that all sin to God is sin. A little lie to millions dying by someone's hand. So one act of sin is only by degrees and all have the same end. I am guilty in that I am not holy enough to stand in the presence of God. We can only stand in the presence of God covered by Jesus. It is due to God having mercy on me and my sins as it is on someone like Hitler. Mercy isn't mercy if it isn't for everyone, even if we ourselves feel mercy to good for some. Forgiveness is true forgiveness or it isn't forgiveness at all.
IYO, one can live an immoral life, only to recant on his death bed, and all is forgiven? Doe this sound moral to you?
This is why international studies have show as people age and get closer to death, they tend to increase their belief in God.
They get a little scared and want to cover their bases.
Do you think for yourself? You have literally posted this site to me at least a dozen times.
Source for the sequences that allow for morality?
Where? And please refrain from posting your link. Put your argument in your own words using your own thoughts.
No TFY, we've discussed this before. Babies go to Heaven.
This is your opinion, as the Bible says no such thing.
It's good to know that's what you think. I do know there are many Christians who do not believe this.
But I know I go to Hell if I don't become a lickspittle to Jesus. This is actually the reason I became an atheist.
God will let Hitler into heaven so long as he is a lickspittle. I've led a very moral life on the whole, yet I go to Hell because I won't be a lickspittle.
If I met someone in real life who chose their friends based on how much they sucked up to them, even if the people were pedophiles and mass murders, I would find them absolutely disgusting, and have nothing to do with them. I suspect you would react the same.
Yet I am expected to worship a god who does this. I find that god to be a despicable disgusting excuse for a human being, let alone a god. For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone with the faintest hint of moral values would follow someone like that.
Well that is your choice. It is a choice after all. IF mercy is something that you reject then I am sure you are ready to take the consequences. I wish it wasn't the case but that is what free choice is all about.
When you act, your own brain is determining whether your actions are justified or not. When your actions are external, society will also make a determination of whether your actions were morally acceptable or not and that may or may not agree with your own perception of the same.
Given that 25-50% of pregnancies naturally abort in the first few months, it would seem that Heaven would be dominated by people that were never even born.
Good is better than bad by definition. You do know how the English language works, don't you? You have twisted yourself into such illogical knots that you can't even use the simplest words correctly.
Yes, just like beauty, good smelling, creative, artistic, etc. These are all value judgements that we assign to things. Morality is no different.
Why are behaviors inexplicable?
Therefore, you feel it is moral for Hitler to make it into heaven, where another person who has led a much better life does not? Simple yes or no will do.
That is what I deduct from it yes.
Not to me.
If you can create a universe and life forms like we see in the world then we can allow that He knows what He is doing.
Mercy is mercy, forgiveness is forgiveness and if God is all merciful then we must allow that it is moral to allow a truly repented person no matter what they have done to receive it or mercy like morality means nothing.
It is just a few pieces of evidence demonstrating that life evolved. You pretend as if this evidence doesn't exist. Why else would you ask me for empirical evidence that humans have evolved?
I will quote your own words back to you:
"Do you think for yourself?"--Oncedeceived
Our brains are part of the human body, and it is the brain that is responsible for making judgements of morality.
Once wrote:
Disagreement in an area of ignorance is not rational. To disagree with something, you have to understand it first. It seems you are just learning how morality is proposed to have evolved, and that Soph has less understanding than you do. I've seen you in this thread and others work to gain understanding - which is really good especially given how rare that can be on the internet. You are a considerate and patient person.
There are many people with a lot of understanding - indeed, whole degrees, lifetimes of research, and so on. In fact, there are several whole journals publishing peer-reviewed research every month in this area. There are hundreds or more people actively doing research in this area every day. Now, with that in mind, you can imagine how arrogant it sounds for someone who doesn't even understand what they are proposing to come along and "disagree", out of a position of ignorance, heck, you won't even both to listen to a book on audio that someone else made for us. Yet you still "disagree". That does't seem very Christ-like to me.
For you to determine that I am arguing in ignorance can come off being pretty arrogant. You have provided a book to read to support your position, however, if this research could be shown to provide evidence for morality being an evolved trait I am sure you would be the first to provide that source. If you do indeed have a source that provides empirical evidence for the evolution of morality then I would like to see it. I mean you chastise me for being unChrist-like but you my fellow brother in Christ have not given me reason to believe that you think that God created at all.
By our moral code. More to the point, you can see how they wouldn't have a place (it's not me deciding anything). They would break a law, murder or maim someone, and our human made laws and courts would removed them from society and put them in prison.
Objective morals exist, the moral code exists, what we are disagreeing with is how these are created. If they were just evolved traits, then we don't have a right to claim something is right or wrong. Evolved traits are just what they are, they are not right or wrong. We can't know if they are good or bad they are just what we are born with. So someone that rapes for instance is just the way he is and we can't judge his behavior as bad, at best we can say he is just not as evolved as he should be. Someone who steals, just is wired that way and shouldn't be considered bad because what could he do but steal. We must ask, why should we not steal if our families can't buy food? Did evolution not begin in our need to survive? We need to survive today, if we don't have food and no way to get it do we steal? IF we do are we wrong? If we are, why are we wrong today but in past generations it was good to steal to survive. If we have no way to provide shelter so if we force our way into someone's house and take it so that we are not at risk in the elements, is this wrong today? If it is, what makes it so? If survival is in our genes what makes it wrong for that to be the motive behind our behavior today or tomorrow?
It's not subjective. It's clear what is right and wrong. I still don't understand why you think that I'm saying morality is subjective.
Papias
That is not what is being presented here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?