Claiming that we are allowed to kill in the name of God is logical fallacy for two reasons depending on what attribute we assign to God, 1) God being omnipotent can take care of killing individual, 2) God being omniscience wouldn’t give the life to kill afterward since it is nonsense.
So he didn’t create people to exist in love so they could they kill each other for Him? Probably why killing is addressed quickly by God?
First, I don’t think that God gives life or create beings. We can go through that but that is subject of another thread. Second, why killing is addressed to God? To justify killing that you have regards toward them.
Yes.
Yes, but I don’t think that God would ever say so.So we should make this a Universal till God specifically tells us by preponderance, we should kill someone. So until further notice all killing in Gods name is on “hold”.
Right, in other words no-one is suppose to kill anyone period, the idea Gods name is used is even more preposterous.
World peace by fiat! Why didn’t someone think of that before?!?!So until further notice all killing in God’s name is on “hold”.
Unfortunately your logic doesn’t follow because it entails that God’s omnipotence means there would be no possibility of secondary causation. God’s omnipotence, according to your logic, would mean he must cause everything directly.
Not everybody rises from the dead.
You misread my post. I meant that God in fact could kill its enemy if enemy has any meaning when it comes to God hence it doesn’t need to ask individuals to kill.
Well, yes…I take your points on all counts.I respect the right to choose one’s own religion without respecting any religion but my own.
If we say it matters not which religion is the best, but rather which religion is the best for YOU, we are no better off than when we say it matters not which morality is the best, but rather which morality is best for YOU. That is moral and religious relativism pure and simple.
You really cannot say, and expect any Catholic to believe it, that the religion Jesus founded by his death and resurrection might not be the best religion for someone else.
God decides the moral Law for each day and age, and to be honest it really is not too different from one age to another. Religious truths are one. The spiritual and moral truths of all the major global religions are essentially one, but they are expressed slightly differently based on the maturity of the community it is addressing.
This is like saying “why do I not have one teacher from kindergarten to my phD?”
I am afraid that your analogy does not work since human has shown that is able to perform research, in another word find something has never been known and that is the meaning of being intellectual. In another word a person who could at most become as good as his/her teacher is not an intellectual. In another word, we don’t need God to tell us what to do because we are capable of understanding of that through a process called suffering.This is like saying “why do I not have one teacher from kindergarten to my phD?”
Think about what is the role of religion in the human world dear friend. The principal of education has been developed by human beings to be with different teachers at different stages of the childs development, teaching groups at the same time.
God the Divine Educator follows a similar pattern.
Life often repeats itself. The small scale things often apply to the large scale things.
The educational establishment can be as small as your classroom, your neighbourhood, community, nation or it can be the whole world.
.
The entire foundation of the Bahai Faith is based around the infallibility of its Central Figures.
No, all religions claim that they are infallible since they claim that providing the words of God. Some however claims that the rule has the subjectivity over time hence what was good yesterday could be bad today and vice versa.
So you are saying that “through research” and the independent use of the intellect you could become a Beethoven or a Mozart? Or even a concert pianist?