Columbine film actually addresses Darwinism as the mass murderers’ motive

_{News
October 21, 2016

Culture, Darwinism

1}_{Categories
Culture
Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Wow. How that one got past “All suits on board for PC over fact” is anyone’s guess. From Alex Murashko at World News Daily:

Although producers of “I’m Not Ashamed,” which releases Friday, use the 1999 Columbine High School massacre as a backdrop to the feature story of martyred Rachel Joy Scott, the film doesn’t shy away from the underreported fact that killer Eric Harris was most likely motivated by Darwinism and natural selection.

Based on Harris’ own journal, and as depicted in movie clips given exclusively to WND, Harris, along with Dylan Klebold, found justification for their diabolical plans in Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” theology. More.

Our Barry Arrington was the lawyer for some of the families who had lost children in the massacre and read everything Harris wrote. He confirms the Darwinism link here. But just watch the spin begin.

See also: Jerry Coyne’s Statements Turn Out To Be Uninformed Blithering

and

Would-be mass shooter idolized Columbine Darwin shooters

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Querius, Good point and I think it's very relevant to any work that is done in science. Humility gives rise to the experience of awe and wonder. Those are mental attitudes that contribute to science and exploration. But if you take atheism seriously, there's no reason to experience that kind of awesome wonder before the majesty of nature. Wonder implies an author - an external order designed. The reductionist view is just bland and simplistic. Randomness, accident, patterns -- with laws and forces inherited from a multiverse. Life itself is merely another form of non-living matter. Birth is not different from death. Philosophical wonder is pointless since nothing has any real meaning. That's what nihilism is all about. It's just an egostical, self-serving view that contributes nothing. But that doesn't seem to matter to people who embrace it. The Design view is, in fact, threatening to self-sufficiency so people will grasp on to any weapon to defend against it. Yes, it hurts the ego to realize that there is a greater intelligence and that we come from and must respond to a source for our own being, and that we didn't create ourselves.Silver Asiatic_{October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic writes,
“Humility before God” is the only real remedy to narcissism, because otherwise you have to submit yourself to other people as having higher authority than yourself. The only other option is to make yourself the center of everything.
Well said and worth remembering. The "self interest" that rvb8 claims as his guiding light is precisely what you describe as replacing God as the center of all things with oneself. -QQuerius_{October 30, 2016
October
10
Oct
30
30
2016
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

Great post, john_a_designer! What I'm observing is that many of the atheists posting here actually want to magically maintain their Judeo-Christian values without submission to the Judeo-Christian God. -QQuerius_{October 30, 2016
October
10
Oct
30
30
2016
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Up above I asked, "How does one person’s self-interest serve as a basis for universal human rights?" (typo corrected) That leads to another question: From where does our modern concept of human rights originate? In an excellent piece written by, Nancy Pearcy, argues that western concept of universal human rights is a Christian one. ‘The 19th-century political thinker, Alexis de Tocqueville’ she writes, ‘said it came from Christianity. "The most profound geniuses of Rome and Greece" never came up with the idea of equal rights, he wrote. "Jesus Christ had to come to earth to make it understood that all members of the human species are naturally alike and equal."’ She then goes on to quote several atheist thinkers who agree.
The 19th-century atheist Friedrich Nietzsche agreed: "Another Christian concept ... has passed even more deeply into the tissue of modernity: the concept of the 'equality of souls before God.' This concept furnishes the prototype of all theories of equal rights." A few intrepid atheists admit outright that they have to borrow the ideal of human rights from Christianity. Philosopher Richard Rorty was a committed Darwinist, and in the Darwinian struggle for existence, the strong prevail while the weak are left behind. So evolution cannot be the source of universal human rights. Instead, Rorty says, the concept came from "religious claims that human beings are made in the image of God." He cheerfully admits that he reaches over and borrows the concept of universal rights from Christianity. He even called himself a "freeloading" atheist: "This Jewish and Christian element in our tradition is gratefully invoked by freeloading atheists like myself…" Contemporary atheist Luc Ferry says the same thing. We tend to take the concept of equality for granted; yet it was Christianity that overthrew ancient social hierarchies between rich and poor, masters and slaves. "According to Christianity, we were all 'brothers,' on the same level as creatures of God," Ferry writes. "Christianity is the first universalist ethos."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/05/for_its_moral_i095901.html Also, here is a quote I found from a noted secular philosopher, Jürgen Habermas, which makes the same basic point.
“Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk.” (Jürgen Habermas – “Time of Transitions”, Polity Press, 2006, pp. 150-151, translation of an interview from 1999).
http://habermas-rawls.blogspot.com/2009/06/misquote-about-habermas-and.html According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Jürgen Habermas currently ranks as one of the most influential philosophers in the world.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/habermas/ Once again, it is hard to see how an egocentric system of ethics does anyone else any good. I suppose in a free and open democratic society you can choose to believe whatever you wish. But why would that be of any concern to anyone else? Obviously the modern foundation for human rights is Judeo-Christian ethics and morality. Even honest atheists agree.john_a_designer_{October 29, 2016
October
10
Oct
29
29
2016
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

Querius Thanks! I was just hoping he would see his own worldview from a different perspective. I think we all struggle with self-love to some extent (I do, certainly) but the atheist belief actually enshrines it. "Humility before God" is the only real remedy to narcissism, because otherwise you have to submit yourself to other people as having higher authority than yourself. The only other option is to make yourself the center of everything.Silver Asiatic_{October 29, 2016
October
10
Oct
29
29
2016
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

My main point @ #60 was that “atheist morality is parasitic, existing entirely off borrowed capital.” The fact that rvb8 claims to be “using the Confuscinist system, or Budhist, or Hindu… Actually I’m not using any of these moralities exactly, as they are all man made…” proves my point. “Stop saying I have no foundation for my morality, I do, self interest, and that’s enough.” How does one person’s self-interest serve as a basis or universal human rights? I don’t see how it can.john_a_designer_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic, You're far more patient with irrational narcissistic self-justifying blather than I am. Maybe someone will be able to appreciate your insight. Self interest indeed! As you point out, every criminal and despot is motivated by self interest and an unending, compassionate love of themselves. -QQuerius_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

rvb8
I am using the Confuscinist system, or Budhist, or Hindu, or any other human created morality. Let’s stick with Confucian; Filial respect, piety towards Heaven, “don’t do unto others what you don’t want them to do to you”, stealing and murder are wrong, charity is good, helping your fellow human is good etc. Any of this sounding familiar?
"Piety towards Heaven". You're on the right track, rvb and I'd certainly admire your moral system that includes that essential quality. The virtue of piety was known and taught by the ancient Greeks (Aristotle includes it under the virtue of Justice), and it is found as the highest moral norm in all those "various moral constructs bridge cultural, language, and yes, religious boundaries". Piety towards Heaven is worship and service of God. It's the first Commandment. It's essential in Hinduism and in many forms of Buddhism (reverence to ascended spirits).
I earned and worked for my moral positions, after many hiccups, and failures.
Learning to show Piety toward Heaven certainly requires that kind of work - through prayer and reverence and humility. That's how we show piety and service to God, in pure worship.Silver Asiatic_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

rvb - You've got a number of responses and I'm glad you're engaged in the discussion. I'll just add a few more which I hope will be worthwhile!
SA, am I willing to risk ‘eternal punishment’? Of course the whole concept is so utterly childish as to warrant contempt. Eternal damnation in a firey pit as the ‘elect’ look down in conceited self-righteousness; work it out for yourself! And whose heaven? And whose hell? And whose God?
Well, "conceited self-righteousness" is a sinful condition, so you shouldn't expect to find that in heaven. Keep in mind, people would prefer to be in hell forever rather than to love God - so why shouldn't they get what they wanted? We see people even on earth with so much guilt they think it's right that they are punished. They will punish themselves. We hear the phrase "he got what he deserves". If you're a follower of Hinduism (you seemed to say that), Naraka is the Hindu equivalent of Hell, where sinners are tormented after death. It's just karma in the afterlife. As for whose God? I would hope you're sincerely seeking an answer to that. At least some belief in God, as most commonly known, is better than none. Just because people have different views is not a good reason to conclude that God does not exist.
Working on the tenuous supposition that you have the right God, heaven, and hell, why should that bother me? At least I’ll be in the majority. And let’s face it, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter and a riot of nutters also think they’ll be there, many of them BTW, loathing gays. If all these good Christians are going to your paradise I’ll thankfully bubble with bealzabub.
Yes, you're right that the majority go there. The path is wide and many choose it. I'm very sure you wouldn't want to be there though. But it sounds like you're saying that you'd rather be in hell than to try to love people you disagree with (like O'Reilly and Ann Coulter)? If you're choosing to go where the majority of humanity has chosen to stay, I don't think you're going to avoid nutters or disagreeable people. I wouldn't think genocidal dictators, child torturers and unrepentant perverts would not make very amusing company.
SA, you also say people ‘love’ many things such as money, football teams etc. No, they actually just really like, want, lust after, or envy these things. You see, I understand the importance of the word ‘love’, you as a theist seem to use it willy-nilly. As an atheist love is a term we don’t denegrate.
Well, rvb - you're an atheist who thinks that love is more sacred than envy. That's a good thing. You don't want to denigrate love by mixing it with sinful desires - that is very good also! Love is pure, of the spirit, yes. It is not lust which is of the flesh. This is very good! Evolution? Perhaps we can just forget about it. I think you're saying that nobody can really take it that seriously. To be a good person and to hold love as sacred, we wouldn't use evolution to form our understanding or our moral beliefs. With that I totally agree!Silver Asiatic_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

Stop saying I have no foundation for my morality, I do, self interest, and that’s enough.
Awesome! IOW, you have no morality capable of being used to judge anyone about anything at anytime because your self-interest is different from the other ~7 + billion self-interests. Hitler's self-interest was erasing the Jews and Jeffrey Dahmer's self-interest was killing people because evolution said it was A-Okay much like the views of the Columbine murderers. You can't judge any of their actions as wrong and by your admission that self-interest is a "sound" basis for morality, you ought to consider every act anywhere at anytime as 100% "good" not because it matches your self-interest but because it matches the respective self-interests of the perpetrators at that time and like you said "[they] earned and worked for [their] moral positions, after many hiccups, and failures". ;) Don't you think it'd be nice if everyone knew about this basis of morality? You ought to be out there with placards screaming "FREEDOM TO ACT ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN SELF-INTERESTS!!!"Vy_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT}

And I think I have also stated somewhere a morality that is bestowed is of less value than one which is taught and learned.
And WE have stated lots of places in that Atheism is incapable of justifying any sort of morality.
Something given, sorry, forced upon the recipient upon pain of eternal torment, is a poor morality compared to one which is earned.
Does your poached Confucian views consider beating down strawmen as doing the right thing?
I earned and worked for my moral positions, after many hiccups, and failures. The morality you peak of which is a gift seems quite worthless.
You "earned" poached Confucian, Buddhist, Hindu or any other "morality" you think aligns with your deluded sense of what is wrong or right because you supposedly think one human's opinion of what is right and wrong is somehow a valid basis for morality? Are you trying to demonstrate that you are conclusively insane?Vy_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT}

I may indeed be dense j_a_d, but let me try. Your morality is best because it's God given. It's basis is what exactly? God,and an awareness of a final cost if this on-high morality is disobeyed? If yes to either, you are right. My morality is not even remotely concerned with theistic reward or punishment; I thought I made that clear. I would not do any of these horrible things you mention out of knowing what is right, but principally, again, self interest. And I think I have also stated somewhere a morality that is bestowed is of less value than one which is taught and learned. Something given, sorry, forced upon the recipient upon pain of eternal torment, is a poor morality compared to one which is earned. I assume you are conservative in political views so I'll explain that in language you can understand; 'income unearned or worked for, has less value to an individual than hardwork followed by reward.' I earned and worked for my moral positions, after many hiccups, and failures. The morality you peak of which is a gift seems quite worthless.rvb8_{October 27, 2016
October
10
Oct
27
27
2016
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT}

john_a_designer, Yes, exactly. As anyone can easily see from @59, rvb8 did not and perhaps cannot answer any of the questions posed in @58. All we get in response is self-righteous huffing and puffing that's based on exactly nothing. And what rvb8 will insist on, no actually demand as his eternal destiny comes from these sad words:
If all these good Christians are going to your paradise I’ll thankfully bubble with bealzabub.
And God will sadly say, "I tried to save you, but thy will be done." So when someone asks, "How can a loving God send people to the eternal lake of fire with the devil and his angels," the response is that those people have been duped into hating God so much, that they will not want to be anywhere else. -QQuerius_{October 27, 2016
October
10
Oct
27
27
2016
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

No j_a_d, I am using the Confuscinist system, or Budhist, or Hindu, or any other human created morality. Let's stick with Confucian; Filial respect, piety towards Heaven, "don't do unto others what you don't want them to do to you", stealing and murder are wrong, charity is good, helping your fellow human is good etc. Any of this sounding familiar? Actually I'm not using any of these moralities exactly, as they are all man made, and espouse a universal morality which at its human based core, looks evolved. These various moral constructs bridge cultural, language, and yes, religious boundaries. Stop saying I have no foundation for my morality, I do, self interest, and that's enough. Any additional reasons are slashed by Occam's Chainsaw.rvb8_{October 27, 2016
October
10
Oct
27
27
2016
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

I have said this before on this site. I don’t think anyone here taking the Christian-theist point of view argues that atheists cannot or do not love their friends and families or are not capable of being moral in a conventional sense. The argument is (and has been) that atheism provides no real basis or “foundation” for moral values and moral obligations. Indeed, in a very real sense atheist morality is parasitic, existing entirely off borrowed capital. Notice how our interlocutors on this thread are using Jewish/Christian morality to argue against Jewish/Christian morality. Why don’t they use their own moral system? Is it because they don’t have one?john_a_designer_{October 27, 2016
October
10
Oct
27
27
2016
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

'Q', I, 'crack open' the KJV often. I've been told often by Christians to open it randomly to find wisdom. I wouldn't recommend opening a science text, novel, or Shakespeare randomly, you'd get lost. drc466, 'your conclusions are wrong because your perspctive is wrong.' Try this; 'your conclusions are wrong because your perspective is wrong.' Hmmm, not getting far are we? SA, am I willing to risk 'eternal punishment'? Of course the whole concept is so utterly childish as to warrant contempt. Eternal damnation in a firey pit as the 'elect' look down in conceited self-righteousness; work it out for yourself! And whose heaven? And whose hell? And whose God? Give me a break! Working on the tenuous supposition that you have the right God, heaven, and hell, why should that bother me? At least I'll be in the majority. And let's face it, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and a riot of nutters also think they'll be there, many of them BTW, loathing gays. If all these good Christians are going to your paradise I'll thankfully bubble with bealzabub. SA, you also say people 'love' many things such as money, football teams etc. No, they actually just really like, want, lust after, or envy these things. You see, I understand the importance of the word 'love', you as a theist seem to use it willy-nilly. As an atheist love is a term we don't denegrate.rvb8_{October 27, 2016
October
10
Oct
27
27
2016
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Great posts Silver Asiatic, drc466, john_a_designer, and Vy! A lot of objections come from people who have one foot in the boat of the Faith and one foot on the dock of materialism, which is why their posts come out all wet. And then people like rvb8 go nuts when I give them just a mild little shove further into materialism. - To a pure Darwinist, what does it matter whether you "love" your family or not? - To a pure Darwinist, what does it matter if organism A kills and eats organism B? Why should it matter in evolutionary terms whether they happen to be the same species or they happen to be Homo sapiens? - To a pure Darwinist, what does it matter whether an ISIS fighter beheads a Jew or whether the Jew kills him first? Any objection is a mere affection, in most cases sincere, but quaint, sentimental, and groundless! -QQuerius_{October 27, 2016
October
10
Oct
27
27
2016
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

In the evolutionary view (your own), there can be nothing to be outraged about with warfare or killing of various people or nations (Amalekites, Midianites, Canaanites, etc). Evolution just causes things to happen. Love is a feeling, not different from hatred. It’s a chemical response that evolution developed for the survival of the species. So, you should have no problem at all with what happened in history.

If I were an atheist, I wouldn’t bother anyone. If you are honest about what atheism really is, it has nothing to offer to mankind; Christian-theism, on the other hand, does.
It's quite fascinating how most Darwinists and Atheists alike ignore these undeniable facts.Vy_{October 27, 2016
October
10
Oct
27
27
2016
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

I must confess that I am absolutely bewildered why an honest atheist would continue to attack religious views that they do not understand and of religious believers they do not know. I can understand it if it is being motivated by bigotry, ignorance and intolerance. Over my life I have known a number of Christian missionaries. None of them would approach people of other faiths the way atheists on the internet approach Christians and other theists. Indeed, in some cultures (for example, an Islamic culture) they would end up dead if they did. If I were an atheist, I wouldn’t bother anyone. If you are honest about what atheism really is, it has nothing to offer to mankind; Christian-theism, on the other hand, does.john_a_designer_{October 27, 2016
October
10
Oct
27
27
2016
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

I just noticed drc's very good response - and I'm unintentionally repeating it ... but maybe it's worth the extra time since we see the same incorrect responses so often! Seversky A little more explanation here ... There are three different views of love that you used in the same response - mixing them all together somehow. In the evolutionary view (your own), there can be nothing to be outraged about with warfare or killing of various people or nations (Amalekites, Midianites, Canaanites, etc). Evolution just causes things to happen. Love is a feeling, not different from hatred. It's a chemical response that evolution developed for the survival of the species. So, you should have no problem at all with what happened in history. In the Christian view, the acts and revelations of God can be understood as love. Ask the Christians here and they all understand how to interpret those OT Bible passages. But then there's the third, contradictory view ... It's your semi-Christian distortion of what you want the sacred text to mean. In your own view, genocide, rape, torture are just evolutionary actions. Not bad or good. In the Christian view, God's actions are consistent with love - the Bible is understood that way. But you come up with a third option - where you have a "supposedly all-loving God" and people aren't "feelin' the lovin'". It doesn't make sense. In the evolutionary world, people feel the lovin' or not, it doesn't matter, evolution just makes it that way. So when you complain about what you think God does, you're using your own semi-Christian theology, and nobody knows what you're talking about.Silver Asiatic_{October 27, 2016
October
10
Oct
27
27
2016
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

rvb8, Sev, At the risk of doing great damage to the works and thoughts of theologians far more spiritual and intelligent than I, and echoing SA's thoughts above: Your conclusions are wrong, because your perspective is wrong. Here are just a few of your incorrect premises (from a Christian viewpoint): 1) Some people are complete innocents and don't deserve death. 2) Death is the end (of justice, of existence, etc.). 3) God doesn't love gays, and doesn't want us to love gays (or other sinners of any type). 4) God didn't love the people He killed. 5) There is something more important in our lives than accepting or rejecting God. 6) People who reject God don't deserve death or punishment. 7) "All-loving" equals lack of justice, discipline, punishment. If you wish to pass judgment on a Christian God, you need to do it using a Christian understanding of God. Otherwise, you are judging and rejecting a god that Christians don't believe in either. rvb8 - I also reject a god that commands me not to love my gay son. Sev - I also describe a god as not all-loving, who kills people that "deserve" to live. But since that is not that God I believe in, you might as well say I reject Vishnu, Allah, Zeus, and Gaia. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of what the Bible teaches about God, and which parts to reject, and then say, "see? that's not a loving God!" Not rationally, anyway. You basically describe an interpretation of the Bible that only non-Christians believe, and say you reject that god. So do we.drc466_{October 27, 2016
October
10
Oct
27
27
2016
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Sev
Judging by the Old Testament, the Amalekites, Midianites, Canaanites, citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah and practically every living thing on the Earth’s surface at the time of Noah – to name but a few – could hardly be said to have been feelin’ the lovin’ of your supposedly all-loving God. However God has been re-imagined in more recent times, the OT God was anything but all-loving.
Your comment is so difficult to answer because categories are confused and it's a wildly contradictory response. But it's certainly a real expression of your views, so I'd have to try to figure out what you're saying. I'd start with what I think are the facts from your worldview/belief: 1. You don't believe God exists 2. Love is a physio-chemical process, determined by material factors, not the result of a choice to love by a free person 3. Moral choices are also equally determined by chemical/molecular reactions 4. Given #1, you'd have no interest in learning about God, understanding theology, accepting what a sacred text teaches, or accepting that God communicates to people through history (thus knowledge improves over time) 5. For some reason, you've taken one specific approach to reading selected texts in the Bible and interpreting them in a certain way. With all of that, your post makes no sense. To understand God's actions you have to understand the nature of God. The best way to do that is by prayer and openness to (not rejection of) spiritual understanding as given in the Bible and other sources. Plus, you have to see things from God's perspective (again, you have to know and perceive the nature of God to do that). But most importantly, you're suddenly talking about "all loving" in a certain way that contradicts your own view of the chemical process called "love". You're assuming some sort (inaccurate as it is) of a theistic view of love. If you're going to start believing that love is not some kind of chemically-determined reaction, then you'd have to define what you're talking about. What does "sin" look like in your worldview? What does atonement, or conscience, or mercy or sacrificial love mean? What about moral perfection? What about a parent that corrects his children? Is that "all loving"? What about the freely given gift of Life itself - and love that goes on forever? These are the theistic views. Love is totally unnecessary in the evolutionary view. It just exists for a survival/reproductive purpose. So, what you said makes no sense and is inconsistent. I feel I should remind you, you're an atheist. :-) If you want to argue as a believer in God and a person still attached to Christian teaching, that's quite a lot different.Silver Asiatic_{October 27, 2016
October
10
Oct
27
27
2016
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

rvb8
If your son outs as being gay, do you remove your love because an insane super natural being says it’s wrong? I wouldn’t I would say, ‘well, sod you God, this is my son whom I LOVE beyond you.’ I love my family and friends beyond God/Allah. Considering what you say I’m risking (eternal punishment), I would say my love is greater than any theists.
It's an interesting way to say it rvb - your love is so strong you're willing to risk eternal punishment to preserve it. Actually, I would agree that's a very strong statement about your love of other humans. But the thing is, many people love all sorts of things more than they love God. They love money or their sports car or their football team. They can have a very passionate love for clothing or their own self. Or they can worship their kids and spoil them. Or they can even love their own political party or love a celebrity ... many things like that. But is that good? Someone says "I love Elvis Presley more than I will ever love God". Nothing against Elvis, but wouldn't we say there is something wrong with that kind of love? It's the object of the love that's the problem. A guy loves his corvette more than he loves his wife. Sure, he may have more love for that car than anyone on planet earth, but it's not "the love" which counts but what it is directed to. When love is directed to God, then it is directed to the highest, most perfect, most worthy source of all Goodness. Then, since God created everything through love -- and He wants us to love each other, we can love our kids, friends and even the good things of the world appropriately. We have a greater reason to love God - to show gratitude. That's why the theistic view makes more sense. Love comes from the source of all goodness - from God. If love just came from molecules, then it doesn't have any meaning.Silver Asiatic_{October 27, 2016
October
10
Oct
27
27
2016
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

Seversky @49, That's because you think of God simply as a man as limited in insight and time as yourself. In this quantum simulation that we seem to be living in, everyone reveals their true nature in their attitudes, relationships, and behaviors. It really doesn't take that long. And everyone dies. Some sooner, some later. According to the Bible, you will have a life review before God that will determine your eternal destiny.
And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth.” -Revelation 11:18 (NASB)
So, for example, have you had a role, even a small role by action or inaction, in destroying the earth? Then you're guilty. Again according to the Bible, no one measures up, so God provided a way to escape our tragic but just ending. He wrapped himself in a human body, entered the world, and as a young man, was tortured to death. As a result of God's sacrifice, anyone who is willing to confess their guilt and who asks God to forgive them on the basis of trusting in Jesus (and not in being self-righteous) will receive the free gift of being forgiven. It seems apparent that you've chosen to reject this gift on the hope that accusing God of being unfair will get you off the hook. It won't work and you will find yourself agreeing with God regarding where you belong. This is very sad, but you've obviously made your choice of your own free will. Right? -QQuerius_{October 26, 2016
October
10
Oct
26
26
2016
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

rvb8, You could have cracked open the Bible that you said
No, I didn’t go to Deuternonmy, although the KJB is on my desk, because I know the flavour of writing.
was on your desk to see . . . but you you couldn't do it, right? -QQuerius_{October 26, 2016
October
10
Oct
26
26
2016
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

Judging by the Old Testament, the Amalekites, Midianites, Canaanites, citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah and practically every living thing on the Earth's surface at the time of Noah - to name but a few - could hardly be said to have been feelin' the lovin' of your supposedly all-loving God. However God has been re-imagined in more recent times, the OT God was anything but all-loving.Seversky_{October 26, 2016
October
10
Oct
26
26
2016
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

'Q', so the prostitute is a metaphor for Jerusalem? I don't want to get into Biblical interpretation, but does that mean we can use, Noah, Job, the flight from Egypt, and the rest as metaphor too? It would then begin to make much more sense. I think Pindi's point was that by randomly opening the Bible you are perhaps more likely to get something like, 'and Jebbadiah begat Lothar, and Lothar begat Ebezia, and Ebezia begat Fred etc', than any pearl of wisdom guided by God's mana. To all, when I or you love someone why on earth do you think it important to explain a basis for this emotion? It is what it is, love. And I am very sorry to have to tell Mohammad that this love has nothing to do with, 'a matter of opinion'. I find the religious tedious when they suggest their love is superior to that of an atheist because it's God/Allah given. If your son outs as being gay, do you remove your love because an insane super natural being says it's wrong? I wouldn't I would say, 'well, sod you God, this is my son whom I LOVE beyond you.' I love my family and friends beyond God/Allah. Considering what you say I'm risking (eternal punishment), I would say my love is greater than any theists.rvb8_{October 26, 2016
October
10
Oct
26
26
2016
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

rvb8 @38 chickened out, just as I'd predicted. And you're still evading my question about saving someone's life by feeding them a little animal protein . . . Tsk. -QQuerius_{October 26, 2016
October
10
Oct
26
26
2016
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Pindi,
Querius, I just tried your experiment. I got Exekiel 16;31. It’s all about stripping a prostitute naked and then stoning and hacking her to death with swords. Charming. Thanks God, I guess you have your mysterious reasons as to why I needed to know that… Hilarious.
Then you might have noticed that Ezekiel is spelled with a z not an x. Yikes!!! Maybe God thinks you prostituted your faith just as Jerusalem had done in that chapter. That's what the chapter's about, you know. :o -QQuerius_{October 26, 2016
October
10
Oct
26
26
2016
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

rvb8 wrote "I also love my parents, brothers and sister, their children, and my friends." It is actually a matter of opinion if this love exists or not. An opinion is formed by expression of emotion with free will, thus choosing the opinion. In my opinion this love for your family and friends does not exist. It's my policy to deny love exists in the heart of people who do not accept the validity of subjectivity in deciding what emotions are in people's heart.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 25, 2016
October
10
Oct
25
25
2016
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply