Ideas on how to curb mass shootings.

[oldshadow]

You guys really need to look up

 

[panamaican]

No way of knowing, really. His complaints seem pretty broad.



Again, hard to tell. When he talks, he has a certain smug/arrogant look to him, but I haven't read anything where he really says anything positive about himself to indicate he thought of himself highly. It's hard to believe he had much in the way of real self-confidence.

And, given this guy's attitude, even 5s and 6s may have been repulsed.



Dude had some major mental problems. Honestly, I was in a somewhat similar situation of not experiencing success with women until later in life and I experienced some delusional thinking at times. If a girl had flirted with me, I would never have recognized it as actual flirting - in my mind, the girl was playing a prank on me or just faking to be nice.



Some, certainly.

I think I saw a video clip where he refers to his own good looks. Hence my position about the type of woman he thinks he deserved. I've rarely heard a guy call himself hot without also believing he's too good for most women.

Not denying the mental issues side of these things but from the video clip, I got a healthy sense of entitlement.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

That position (minus the hellfire) hardly differs from your own position that "people are animals." The position it actually differs from is the Rousseauian "every child born a saint, then society depraves them."

For one, the hellfire is quite a big deal. Those threats turn guidence into child abuse IMO. Threatening children with such fearful and terrible results is an awful thing to do. For two, it is still different as I explained to Hadron above. One accepts us as we are naturally, another imposes a sickness upon us all.

It's absolutely true that, by nature of being a human being, people have a ton of shitty characteristics and aspects that require a ton of work, social control, etc. to get in hand. In other words, people aren't born intrinsically wonderful precious creatures. It takes an assload of work by everybody to improve them.

You seem to only want it one way. You seem to suggest we are shitty and must be trained to improve. Why must we be shitty and influenced to improve and not born wonderful and influenced to be bad? I look at a human baby and I would not describe what I see as shitty or sinful. I would lean towards wonderful. Innocent. Pure. The reality is likely a mixture of both.

After all, that's what we are confronted with here: Somebody who thinks they were born wondrous and divine, rather than realizing he was a worthless piece of shit who wasn't special in the least just by accident of birth.

It is early to know whether he had a bio-chemical issue, an upbringing issue, or a combination of many factors.

 

[ripskater]

A child is a gift from God. But just wait 'til that baby hits the "terrible twos".

 

[m52nickerson]

Bring back prayer in school.
Encourage youth to get involved in church youth groups.
Put something other than gangsters and sex on television
Give them something other than Call of Battlefield: Modern Honor 4 to play for videogames.
Stop letting the youth listen to gangster rap and hedonistic pop music.


There, I just improved society 10000000 fold.

Funny thing is the crime rate, including violent crimes, is lower than it was in the past.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

don't want to derail my own thread so I hope Zankou lets us keep going. But I truly believe that a debate about Christian values specifically what Jesus Christ taught (love one another, turn the other cheek, treat others how you want to be treated, feed the hungry ,pray for the sick,) is applicable when debating ideas to stop this madness. if these virtues could somehow be ingrained in children imho it could possibly mitigate the number of mass shootings in the future .

First off, those aren't "Christian Values" in the sense that Christians created them. These values existed prior to Christianity. Christians may have adopted some of them - as well they should have. We should respect our neighbors and follow the Golden Rule. Some of the good values Christians didn't adopt fast enough, such as opposition to human enslavement. It took them 1800 years to adopt that one.

Secondly, when you suggest, "Jesus said" what you are truly doing is suggesting that the Bible says Jesus said. The Bible was not written by eyewitnesses and the earliest texts were written 2 generations away from the events of the New Testament at best. Non-biased scholars (ie non Christian scholars and even many Christian scholars) would testify that much of the tales of Jesus existed prior to him and attributed to other beings. You can choose to believe Jesus said these things himself if you wish, but there is no evidence that actually validates that as true. Just people who accept it to be true.

Thirdly, there is not ONE moral act that you can teach someone that cannot be done without Christianity. If you want to teach people to be good people then that is great, and I am for it. You contribute to a lie if you suggest that you can only be good through Christianity. Suggesting this is also to suggest that without Christianity you would be immoral and take immoral action. That is sad if true. I do not need a holy book to know that I shouldn't murder or rape. I would hope your brain alone would be able to provide that morality for you.

And Zeke, who lied to you and told you that the belief of original sin was PROVEN to be false? also since when has evolution been proven as a non-debatable scientific fact? (mods, I'm not going "there" with the whole evo debate, it's just a counterpoint)

No one lied to me, the Theory of Evolution IS a fact in science, as much as any Scientific Theory is. Evolution has such overwhelming evidence that it is as sound a theory as the one that tells us the Earth revolves around the Sun. You can choose to not accept this and all the evidence that validates it in favor of a belief that has NO EVIDENCE, but you do so at the risk of your own intellectual suicide.

You see, this is the danger of indoctrinating children. If you take a child at a young age before they can think for themselves and you preach to them that Evolution is a lie and that scientists are out to deceive them (yet everyone uses the fruits of science in their every day lives - cars, computers, cell phones, etc) then how will these kids ever be able to break free of this and understand how to differentiate between fact and fiction? How can I demonstrate to you the fact of Evolution with this kind of force already taken over your brain?

I honestly do not give a shit if Evolution was real or not. I don't need Evolution. All I want are facts. If the facts said something else I would believe something else. The facts show Evolution is real and happens and no, it's not a debate anymore. It's been proven in many scientific fields ranging from genetics, archeology, biochemistry, medicine, biology, geology, and so on. Modern biology would make NO SENSE without Evolution being true. There are certain mechanisms within Evolution that are still being debated and learned about, but the fact that Evolution happened is not.

Zeke. I can actually since[sic] the anger in your responses.

Thanks Emperor Palpatine.

It depends upon what you mean by angry. If you mean I am sitting here pounding my keyboard with my blood pressure through the roof then no, I am not angry. I am calm, cool, and collected. If you mean outraged by what religious belief does to people and how it makes the world a worse place, then yes. I am angry.

The only thing I can say is that your niece according to the bible, has the capacity for sin, not that she has sinned, and the act of baptism, and grace will cover her, when she eventually arrives to an age where she is aware of the choices she is making, and inevitably commits a "sin".

They stated that HER sins are forgiven.

According to what Christians believe, God, made Adam without the knowledge of not only evil, but good as well.

So without starting a sermon, I'm basically espousing as stated in the op, that kids need to be taught right and wrong. And in our culture historically speaking, the basis for these teachings, and even the laws that our founding fathers gained inspiration from was how Jesus/god instructed us to behave through the mosaic law and what Jesus told his disciples.

On topic to the thread, no. People like this killer redirecting their hatred into religion only serves to offer Divine Authority to their actions. We see this applied all over the world. Having the party of God on your side when you are a violent and hateful individual is never a good thing. You do not need religion to teach you right from wrong. Observing the prisons should tell you that if the Middle East does not.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

God loves you and everyone. Even if you are mad at him.

Do you enjoy being ridiculous? I may as well ask you what you have against Zeus. So what is it? What has Zeus done to cause you to turn away from him? Still mad about that lightning bolt that struck your favorite tree when you were little?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

well It's hard not to notice that you've got the devil as your av, and though it offends my Christian sensibilities, my question to you is how old are you? and if you actually subscribe to what Satanist espouse why?

1. That's not the devil.
2. Oh, surprise surprise a Christian would get offended. :icon_chee
3. Old enough to do everything but retire. Not old enough to have sold out to the man.
4. The Satanic Bible has quite a bit I agree with.

On that note, so do the teachings of Jesus. Too bad Christians don't actually practice what they preach (eg. forgiveness being of utmost importance). Hard to imagine Jesus telling someone right off the bat that they offended him somehow.

If someone charges at me from 10 yards with a knife then I'm running or looking to defend using a combination of Japanese JJ and Kung Fu. If someone with basic skills points a firearm at me from 10 yards and pulls the trigger then I'm well and truly f**ked.

And at 7 yards a person with the knife can get to another person with a holstered gun before the firearm can be brought into play. I guess fast thinking and decisions making is critical.

 

[CarbonFistprint]

Do you want to stop just mass shootings or other forms of mass killings? I mean, this Elliot Rodger stabbed his first three victims. McVeigh used a car bomb. The 9/11 terrorists used planes. If you want to get rid of shootings, I guess you do have to round up all the guns. But there will still be killings.

Elliot Rodger could have walked around that sorority house with a wheeled cooler full of Molotov cocktails, lighting them and throwing them in every window, and then waited by the front door with a knife to stab the fleeing girls who made it out of the blaze. Taking away all the guns doesn't do dick in this scenario.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

A child is a gift from God. But just wait 'til that baby hits the "terrible twos".

My children are a result of me climaxing inside their mothers vagina. It may have been Heavenly but there was nothing Divine about it.

 

[ripskater]

Do you want to stop just mass shootings or other forms of mass killings? I mean, this Elliot Rodger stabbed his first three victims. McVeigh used a car bomb. The 9/11 terrorists used planes. If you want to get rid of shootings, I guess you do have to round up all the guns. But there will still be killings.

Elliot Rodger could have walked around that sorority house with a wheeled cooler full of Molotov cocktails, lighting them and throwing them in every window, and then waited by the front door with a knife to stab the fleeing girls who made it out of the blaze. Taking away all the guns doesn't do dick in this scenario.

To my rival over in f13, I agree with this.

 

[CarbonFistprint]

To my rival over in f13, I agree with this.

In this case it's not really even an opinion -- it's just a statement of fact. Nutty people and motivated killers will find the easiest and most effective ways to kill people. Or just use whatever way they prefer. Getting rid of guns doesn't solve anything. Many people kill other people each year barehanded. Can't really effectively ban hands.

The solution is to address the issues that lead to these rampages, not to ignore those issues and try to eliminate all possible potential weapons. That's just impossible.

 

[j123]

Can't really effectively ban hands.

Sure you can

 

[CarbonFistprint]

Sure you can

Yeah I suppose they do it with thieves under Sharia law, come to think of it.

 

[ripskater]

In this case it's not really even an opinion -- it's just a statement of fact. Nutty people and motivated killers will find the easiest and most effective ways to kill people. Or just use whatever way they prefer. Getting rid of guns doesn't solve anything. Many people kill other people each year barehanded. Can't really effectively ban hands.

The solution is to address the issues that lead to these rampages, not to ignore those issues and try to eliminate all possible potential weapons. That's just impossible.

Exactly.

 

[panamaican]

My children are a result of me climaxing inside their mothers vagina. It may have been Heavenly but there was nothing Divine about it.

You have that backwards. ITtmay have been divine, meaning excellent/delightful but it wasn't heavenly.

 

[Hadron]

Funny thing is the crime rate, including violent crimes, is lower than it was in the past.

Lol no. We are down from the 80's and 90's when crime was high.

On the larger scale, crime is way, way up.

 

[Hadron]

I am not arguming semantics, you're attempting to hide behind them. There is a very big difference. People are flawed and make mistakes. We should be held accountable for the mistakes we make, not merely for being flawed. Again, we do not blame our children for the theft of others when we teach them not to steal. Your religion does that. We are all already guilty and at fault. You are being dishonest sir to suggest otherwise.

You are held accountable for the mistake you make. That's sin.

Falling is not wrong, it is a natural process of learning. Failure is the key to success. The people who succeed the most typically fail the most before success. If they did not fail they likely would not accomplish much.

If the goal is to walk, and falling is not walking, then falling wrong. Failure is not the key to success. Success is the key to success. You can have failure without success, and success without failure.

There is a HUGE difference that you're being dishonest in attempting to obscure. On one hand you're telling children that they are INHERANTLY BAD and are COMMANDED to get better upon pain of eternal damnation. On the other hand you accept that people are just a higher mammal, an animal, and that mistakes are not inherantly bad, just a part of who we are and that the best we can do it attempt to overcome them. In this sense, a child is not inherantly bad or guilty, they are just normal.

No. I am not threatening kids with eternal damnation. I rarely ever bring hell at all. Its role in the Bible is not as large as atheist make it out to be.

Kids should accept Christ and God, and they should be good because it is in the nature of Christ and God to be good. Christianity isn't about faking being nice for a cookie. You must learn to be good because it exudes from the nature of God, not because you expect a reward for it. The fact that you can't comprehend being good for its own sake, and not for a reward is why you still bare the mark of original sin.

They are still guilty, just "forgiven" for prior mistakes - mistakes that were never theirs to begin with. Those future mistakes will henceforth be made by them because they are still guilty beings and it is in their flawed nature ever since Original Sin (because those flaws did not exist as part of their nature until then) and they must constantly apologize/repent for being human. It is this idea of constant guilt. It's disgusting.

You should only feel constant guilt if you have not accepted Christ. Once you accept Christ, and become baptized, you are absolved of original sin, and hence should no longer feel guilty for it.

Because doing so adversely affects society and we are a social animal. If you upset the natural social order you partake in undermining our society which adversely affects the lives of everyone including yourself.

Abolishing slavery undermined the social order at the time. Was it immoral?
Homosexuality undermines our social order. Do you also consider it immoral?

Popularity does not dictate what is moral and immoral. This view has been refuted many times by philosophers who write far better than I do. I encourage you look into their works. John Taurek is one of my favorites.

It is natural for all animals to acquire material goods for themselves. This often means that they will acquire them from others. It is also in our nature to be social animals, which means that our evolution has put us on a path of cooperation. This is a struggle that we as a species partake in. This desire is not wrong, it is natural. We teach our children not to steal because higher cognition allows us to understand that certain actions are better for our species than other actions. Cooperation is better for our species than constantly undermining our neighbors.

So you recognize that without your input, your child my give in to steal? You recognize that humans are in a constant struggle between doing right and doing wrong, and that guidance can promote the right actions, and deter the wrong ones.

Congrats, you now understand why Christians teach their kids morality.

The difference is that you're trying to ascribe Universal Moral Law to this where none exists. Under your UML the desire to steal means we are sinful or wrong, and that' not the case at all. I am married, yet when I see a sexy woman I instinctively want to mate with her. I am not being immoral or wrong for having this desire. It is natural. However for society it is wrong to act on it because it undermines our advanced culture.

Try convincing your girlfriend or wife that it is ok for you to want to have sex with the sexy woman.

That is called coveting, and it harms others as well as yourself.

You are confusing two different things. They are NOT inherently guilty, they are only guilty of something they chose to do. You are presenting something without choice on the same level as something with choice. This is either deliberately dishonest of you or seriously misguided.

Chosing to do something immoral is immoral. We are not inherently immoral. I am not immoral for things I have not done, only for the things I have done. Certainly most people are going to do something immoral at some point because we are animals who are attempting to live by a complex structure of society we have created for ourselves. In addition the world is not black and white and interpretations of immoral will vary.

You are immoral because by your very nature, you will inevitably do something immoral. Point out any random person, and I promise you 100%, that they have done or will do something immoral.

A newborn who dies at birth never was immoral as it never committed an immoral act.

We agree. Newborns who die at birth are the obvious exception to this rule, and the Bible explicitly states this.

We live in a natural Universe, so you just described everything. The Scientific Method - by your definition - is only useful for investigating the Universe, which everything in the Universe consists of.

Here you go playing lose with terms again. Let's agree on a definition of universe, before you start trying to play semantics. Choose

A) The Universe: Everything that exists

or

B) The Universe: The collection things which are natural

I don't care which one you pick, just choose one.

Yes, and so what? This in no way means that we should abandon what has proven to be above and beyond the best method we have. This in no way validate the use of proven faulty and ignorant methods of explaining things in ways we feel like explaining them.

Strawman. I never advocated abandoning science.

You appear to suggest that we should already be able to know or do anything with science - yet hold NO ACCOUNTABILITY for religions ability to do pretty much anything. You betray your own bias.

Again, strawman. I never made any claims about what science OUGHT to have done. I just said that science has not discovered everything...and hence our scientific knowledge is incomplete. You can't make an appeal to science claim for something that lies outside the scope of our current scientific capabilities.

There are millions of ideas once held by religion that have been overruled and replaced by scientific fact. Name me one scientific fact that has been overruled and replaced by religious dogma? You cannot, because it hasn't happened. This lame attempt by you to undermine the scientific process while granting a free pass to the consistant failure of faith is painfully obvious.



There is no evidence that ANY God exists AT ALL. You're taking something that has NO EVIDENCE of existing at all and are asserting specific arguments for it and applying it to everyone. This is extremely dishonest and intellectually lazy. At least in science when you do not know something you admit you do not know and you investigate in attempt to learn. You do not create your own answers and walk around preaching as if you have found truth.



You cannot say that because you have no facts to base this claim. It is merely a personal opinion that you carry, and you carry it completely devoid of any verifiable truth. What's worse is that you do not appear bothered by this in the slightest. At no point do you consider that you are harshly judging people and the human race based on.... nothing. Nothing other than something you feel like doing or feel like accepting. That makes you immoral and quite stupid.

These are are old claims that have been debunked a thousand times. This isn't a religion thread. If you make one, I will post in it.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

You are held accountable for the mistake you make. That's sin.

No it is not. A sin is defined as a transgression against Divine Law. You can choose to call something a sin and you conveniently can do so at whim being that you do not hold yourself to any factual standard of validating your convictions. I reject your particular unsubstantiated belief system just as you choose to reject any Faith that is not your own.

Moreover, it is not logical nor reasonable to propose that an infant has transgressed against any Divine Law as they are merely an infant incapable to choosing right or wrong action. It is convenient for you - once more - that you do not hold yourself to any factual standard of validation. You can make up your own excuses under this pretense and accuse the baby of being guilty of being human in order to make sense of this within your own worldview. This does not make you right, it demonstrates your dishonesty.

If the goal is to walk, and falling is not walking, then falling wrong. Failure is not the key to success. Success is the key to success. You can have failure without success, and success without failure.

Falling is not a sin. Falling is not wrong. Falling is an attempt at learning. Failure is a part of learning and growing. Failure IS the key to success. Perhaps not the sole key, but anyone who has managed to overcome great odds in their life will tell you that success is not a straight line upwards, it is a path with many triumphs AND failures. You'll never meet someone who has been successful at everything and anyone who is successful will tell you that they failed a lot on their way to success.

No. I am not threatening kids with eternal damnation. I rarely ever bring hell at all. Its role in the Bible is not as large as atheist make it out to be.

You're attempting to dodge the issue. If someone does not accept Christ, do they or do they not go to Hell?

Kids should accept Christ and God, and they should be good because it is in the nature of Christ and God to be good.

Bullshit. Both God and Jesus have commanded completely immoral acts of aggression and murder. They certainly are not good mythical figures. It is troubling that people like yourself will pick out the good parts of the Bible but ignore or excuse the awful parts. You never bring up how God rewards child sacrifice or how Jesus orders non believers to be brought before him and slain. You never acknowledge the acceptance of slavery in the Bible. You do not acknowledge how utterly despicable it is to kill a non-virgin woman on her fathers doorstep during her wedding night. These are not good acts or commandments. Yet people like you and pretty much everyone else does the dishonest thing of taking only the parts of the Bible that they like and either ignoring or exercising fantastic mental gymnastics in order to excuse away the bad parts.

Christianity isn't about faking being nice for a cookie. You must learn to be good because it exudes from the nature of God, not because you expect a reward for it. The fact that you can't comprehend being good for its own sake, and not for a reward is why you still bare the mark of original sin.

This is a straw man fallacy. I have never said that you should not do good for it's own sake and in fact have already championed the idea. I don't think anyone reading this has taken the impression from my words that I do not comprehend being good for the sake of being good. I chastised the idea that a God is required to do good when in fact we all can discern good acts for ourselves.

You should only feel constant guilt if you have not accepted Christ. Once you accept Christ, and become baptized, you are absolved of original sin, and hence should no longer feel guilty for it.

That is guilt right there. "You should only feel guilt if you do not accept my God." It's a guilt trip card you are playing. You're accusing people of being created sick and then commanded to be well by one method, which just happens to be to follow the religion you believe in. This is a cult tactic. It's morally reprehensible and nonsensical.

Abolishing slavery undermined the social order at the time. Was it immoral?

Here we have someone attempting to justify the enslavement of other human beings. Could you possibly say anything more abhorrent than that? I rest my case folks. Rather than condemning a social order for the enslavement of man it is considered a necessary thing because that immoral social order may have been undermined. GOOD! A social order that involves the enslavement of man DESERVES to be undermined! That's what you do to evil! You do not attempt to justify the evil social order, you take it down!

Just think of all the vicious things you have just excused. The treatment of Christians in the Middle East for example. If they are given free reign to preach Christianity and convernt Muslims then those Christians are undermining the social order of that region. And you just justified it.

Homosexuality undermines our social order. Do you also consider it immoral?

I do not agree that homosexuality undermins social order, and if it did then that social order deserves to be undermined.

Popularity does not dictate what is moral and immoral. This view has been refuted many times by philosophers who write far better than I do. I encourage you look into their works. John Taurek is one of my favorites.

No one made a case that popularity is what dictates what is moral and what is not. If I thought as such I wouldn't condemn the treatment of women in Islam in Pakhistan.

So you recognize that without your input, your child my give in to steal? You recognize that humans are in a constant struggle between doing right and doing wrong, and that guidance can promote the right actions, and deter the wrong ones.

Sure. Without guidance a child may grow up not understanding our complex society and take action that we in this complex society may find reprehensible. Society is growing more and more complex and we are adding more and more behavioral expectation. Your precious Bible fails to be moral in much of society today. It is why you ignore passages about stoning people to death or taking an iron rod to children. Even you recognize that the Bible has parts you must ignore or convolute in order to function.

Try convincing your girlfriend or wife that it is ok for you to want to have sex with the sexy woman.

Why would I? I am not making the case that it is okay, and that should have been apparant to you.

That is called coveting, and it harms others as well as yourself.

Coveting something is not necessarily harmful or beneficial. It can be either so coveting by itself is not a bad thing. If I covet wealth and in order to gain it I create an invention that benefits all of mankind and I mass produce it for sale then my greed served and benefited society. This is basic Capitalism.

You are immoral because by your very nature, you will inevitably do something immoral. Point out any random person, and I promise you 100%, that they have done or will do something immoral.

You are trying to have it only one way. If I am immoral because I will inevitably do something immoral then by the same argument I am moral because I will inevitably do something moral.

Here you go playing lose with terms again. Let's agree on a definition of universe, before you start trying to play semantics. Choose

A) The Universe: Everything that exists

or

B) The Universe: The collection things which are natural

I don't care which one you pick, just choose one.

I reject your attempt to create this false dilemma. I believe both. The Universe (or Multiverse) is a collection of all things that exist which are natural.

Strawman. I never advocated abandoning science.

I didn't say that you did. I responded directly to what you were saying.

Again, strawman. I never made any claims about what science OUGHT to have done. I just said that science has not discovered everything...and hence our scientific knowledge is incomplete. You can't make an appeal to science claim for something that lies outside the scope of our current scientific capabilities.

I responded to what you were implying - which you just confirmed. Science has not discovered everything. We know this, it isn't a weakness of science as you attempted to portray in favor of religious thought. You're suggesting that science is limited and that there are things outside the understanding of science. Your implication is that those things can be explained by religion or Christianity. But they cannot, not in any real sense and not in any more capacity than any myth can. This is not a strength of Faith but the very foundation of it's failure.

These are are old claims that have been debunked a thousand times. This isn't a religion thread. If you make one, I will post in it.

These have never been debunked but you certainly have been duped. If there were evidence of those things then they will have become science. The supernatural is called the supernatural for a reason. It doesn't exist within the natural which is the ONLY thing we have evidence for.

 

[Hadron]

Moreover, it is not logical nor reasonable to propose that an infant has transgressed against any Divine Law as they are merely an infant incapable to choosing right or wrong action. <snip> This does not make you right, it demonstrates your dishonesty.

You are just outright wrong. Your biblical knowledge is abysmal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

Very first paragraph:

"Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man,[2] stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt."

Falling is not a sin. Falling is not wrong. Falling is an attempt at learning. Failure is a part of learning and growing. <snip>

See, you admit that falling is wrong. It is failing.

The right way to walk is upright, on two legs. If you fall on your butt...well that is the wrong way to walk.

Again, failure does not entail success, and success does not imply you failed. There are some things you will just succeed at on the first try. The two often go hand-and-hand, but not necessarily.

If someone does not accept Christ, do they or do they not go to Hell?

They go to hell. You are missing the point. Hell is not given as a motivation to follow Christ. You should accept Christ because accepting Christ is the right thing to do. If you are still looking at things from a risk/reward perspective, you have not truly accepted Christ.

If an angel appeared to a true Christian, and told him that God changed the rules, and the everyone who accepts God and Christ will go to hell, and all the sinners would go to Heaven, any true Christian would elect to go to hell before they would turn from Christ.

Bullshit. Both God and Jesus have commanded completely immoral acts of aggression and murder.

God is all-good. Morality stems from God. By definition, He cannot commit an immoral act.

If you judge something He does as immoral, it your moral compass that is messed up, not His.

It is troubling that people like yourself will pick out the good parts of the Bible but ignore or excuse the awful parts. <snip>

Strawman. I acknowledge all of those things. Can you please not make up arguments for me? I am more the capable of supplying you with my own.

This is a straw man fallacy. I have never said that you should not do good for it's own sake and in fact have already championed the idea. <snip>

Strawman. I didn't say that you said that. You said that Christianity approaches things from a reward/punishment angle. I corrected you. Nothing more.

That is guilt right there. "You should only feel guilt if you do not accept my God." It's a guilt trip card you are playing. <snip>

But people are sinful by nature. You already admitted this. Why are you going back on your words?

Here we have someone attempting to justify the enslavement of other human beings. <snip> You do not attempt to justify the evil social order, you take it down!

Ah! So you admit that your system of morality is flawed. Let me quote an earlier post of yours.

Because doing so adversely affects society and we are a social animal. If you upset the natural social order you partake in undermining our society which adversely affects the lives of everyone including yourself.

There, you argue that certain actions are immoral because they "upset the natural social order". Now you are saying that sometimes moral action is the one that upsets the natural social order.

Clearly, this is a contradiction, and natural social order can have relationship to morality.

You are going to have to come up with a new morality system. You have just contradicted yourself.

Sure. Without guidance a child may grow up not understanding our complex society and take action that we in this complex society may find reprehensible.

Exactly. We agree. Unless the child is taught that he/she ought to make moral decisions, they are at increased risk for making immoral decisions. Why are you arguing with me on this? It should be self-evident.

Society is growing more and more complex and we are adding more and more behavioral expectation. <snip>

More strawmen. The barn is going to be empty before long.

I'm not ignoring anything from the Bible. I stand by it, word for word.

Coveting something is not necessarily harmful or beneficial. It can be either so coveting by itself is not a bad thing. If I covet wealth and in order to gain it I create an invention that benefits all of mankind and I mass produce it for sale then my greed served and benefited society. This is basic Capitalism.

Advances in Nazi medicine also benefited all of mankind. Where the Nazi's moral?

Your argument that "I covet wealth, and make a good invention that benefits everyone" is basically a "ends justify the means" argument. Those have all been utterly destroyed. See: Any philosopher of ethics in the last 4000 years.

You are trying to have it only one way. If I am immoral because I will inevitably do something immoral then by the same argument I am moral because I will inevitably do something moral.

Yes. And? Moral and Immoral character do not cancel each other out. You can do both immoral and moral things. You should strive to minimize the immoral, and maximize the moral.

I reject your attempt to create this false dilemma. I believe both. The Universe (or Multiverse) is a collection of all things that exist which are natural.

A definition that describes everything isn't a useful definition.

Your argument is

P. Everything that exists is natural
P. No things that are supernatural are natural
C. Therefore, no supernatural things exist.

This is a textbook examples "Begging the question"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

I responded to what you were implying - which you just confirmed. Science has not discovered everything. We know this, it isn't a weakness of science as you attempted to portray in favor of religious thought. You're suggesting that science is limited and that there are things outside the understanding of science. <snip>

It appears the fallacy in your thinking is that science has a monopoly on truth. It doesn't. There are many paths to truth. Things can be true, even if science hasn't discovered it yet. The earth revolved around the sun for billions of years before scientists figured it out.

The universe is full of truths that science has not, or cannot uncover.

Science should be used as a tool. You are turning it into a dogma.

*I <snip>ed out parts of your quotes because the post was too long.