Why do we exist,GOD or BIG BANG theory?

[Sri Lumpa]

DélioPT said:

Fair enough! :D People will make their own judgment on what was said.

Actually you are right, I should have said "Almost but probably no cigar " as your argument was against player1x3and I can't speak for him but I hope you understand why, when talking about things you cannot prove through experiment and thus have to rely on the word of others, it is better to rely on sources taht you know the person you are arguing with finds authoritative.

There`s more to the passage you gave me: Mattew 17:19 and probably a better explanation here. He didn´t come to copy them to to actually fulfil God`s visions on the Law (hence the change), God`s ways and what was said about Himself.

Sure but a perfect being should get it right the first time, even if his material is flawed (especially given that he created the material he works with too).

I did not see it as you agreing with it being more than a moral system.

Question of wording. I agree with you that there are requirements beyond morality, I disagree with you that it makes it "supermoral" (more than moral) and think it makes it less than moral.

It is like if you had a driving test where you had to know not only how to drive but also something totally unrelated to driving. It would corrupt and diminish the test as you would then reject good drivers that failed the part unrelated to driving.

So yes, it`s not just about rewarding morality. That`s why i don`t equate morality with God, unless you are implying that i see God as moral or morality, in that case yes.

Then you do equate morality with god.

I don`t see that terrorist attack as moral or any other kind of act of violence.

So you don't see the god ordered act of violence against the city of jericho as moral? How does that square off with god being either moral or the source of morality?

As you know, the God is the same and that God does not allow for people to take their own lives

I can't say that I care much that they took their own life, tragic as taht may be, as they are the primary sufferers of that act. I care a whole lot more that they took other people's life.

And I don't care whether god allows people to take their own life or not, that is none of his business.

It seems to me that you are falling a bit on relativism. If i understood you correctly, you are saying that A makes morals, therefore to him it`s always moral and that if person B does the same than rejecting A wouldn`t be immoral but actually moral - according to morals of person B himself.

I am not falling "a bit" or at all on relativism, I am arguing that claiming that god is the source of morality is moral relativism as you then have two different scales for judging morals, one applying to everybody and the other applying to god. 

You are still seeing this through the eyes of morality.

Yes, because if religions are not about encouraging and rewarding morality then they are about encouraging and rewarding other things, like belief. I don't give a rat's ass about belief because what is is and what isn't isn't regardless of what you believe or don't but the moral system of religions has an impact on today's world.

If religions didn't claim to be about morality but said they were about rewarding belief (among other things) then I wouldn't care much about them but since they tend to take the moral high ground they open themselves to scrutiny of the morality of their beliefs.

Rejecting God isn`t, at least to me, immoral or moral, it`s, since i believe it`s more tham morals, a sin. Morals don`t encompass everything, so rejecting God can`t be seen through morality - or lack of it.

So some sins are not about morality? Well, then being a sinner can't be such a bad thing then, as long as the only sins you commit are the ones not related to morality.

But i get your point, in general, is, why should God be seen as the truth, path and life and not something else? I can`t answer you this without saying: it`s all about faith.

It is not so much "why should he not be seen as the truth, path and life" as like you pointed it relies entirely on faith.

It is "why should god be assumed as completely moral when we can judge his moral character from his actions described in the bible".

Rationally everything might seem the same or worthy of the same value, but in the end, reason can`t be the one to decide. Your heart will be the one that will guide you, hopefully on the right track.

For the question of his existence, maybe, but for the question of whether he is moral then you can use reason and what he told us about his actions.

Even if he was good, i didn`t condemn him as i also didn´t save him.

First, remember that it only applies if your contention that good people not knowing of Jesus would be saved as otherwise your action or inaction would not change anything.

That said, if he was good then your action put him in a mortal peril and as such you are as guilty if he is damned as a Jigsaw (in the Saw movies) is guilty of the murder of the people he puts in trapped rooms.

If you had done nothing then his salvation would have been his responsability but if you taught him things that damned him by default then you are the one who put him in that damning situation and thus are the one bearing the responsiblity of his damnation.

Being presented with a way happens every day. Should i not let him learn about the world for the sake of not risking anything?

You are not letting him know of the world. If you did you could perform experiment to explain to him how it works.

What you are doing is trying to teach him of another world that you cannot prove exist. In such a situation it is reasonable for people not to believe you as you cannot support your teachings with the world but only with the words of others.

Teaching one part and not the rest would already be a sin.

Maybe you should start by saying "if you listen to me you risk being tortured for eternity". If they still choose to take the risk and listen to you then it is their own choosing and thus their own responsibility.

But if you start talking about how Jesus is the son of god and if you believe in him and love him you will be saved, and then add "by the way, now that you know that then if you don't believe in him you will be tortured forever" then you forced that knowledge on them with no warning and doing so put them in grave peril so their damnation would then be on your head.

 More, the word of God is not just about salvation. There´s a lot more than just preparing oneself for salvation. What Jesus taught us was more than that and that`s reason alone to speak of God.

Exactly, there are part that do not need belief in a supernatural being to be taught. If missionaries taught about the golden rule and about being compassionate but refrained from talking about salvation until a warning was given and accepted by the listener(s) then there is no problem. But if they don't and talk about it with no warning and no concern of whether they want to hear then their actions deliberately puts them in peril and thus the consequence are on the missionary.