Continuing to today, many (so-called good and fair) religious people consider it a "crime" properly punishable by torture and death, for one to use the name of their favorite deity in vain - but would not the jurisprudent principle of "habus corpus" force them, if they were truly fair .. to produce proof of their particular god, before feeling justified in killing the person in question? I am so confused here!
207297
God dammit!\n\nGet over it.  :)\n\nQuestions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Email me through the link in my profile, and I'll get back to you as soon as possible.
283852
I got the joke... it's not all bad.\n\nBut I don't know if it is such a good idea to joke about this. It may seem strange to us today that there should be ANY limit on free speech. But this is THE BOTTOM to push if one wish to engage a Muslim in a death dual.\n\nThe law of their religion is full of sins punishable by death. Not unlike our religion BTW. The difference is that, they still feel obligated to carry out that punishment.
153180
You've stated just a few reasons why I ended up asking the question, "Is it possible that the Christian God and the Muslim God(Yahweh and Allah) are the same entity as Satan? The character flaws exhibited by the religious "good gods" can be lined up point for point with the understood character flaws of "Satan". One of the most sadistic stories I've ever read has got to be the story of God telling Abraham to sacrifice his own son and then, "Oh, sorry just testing". You don't get any more cruel or mind-controlling than that.
497306
I doubted mine, and I came up with my own answer. I don't get angry at anyone who disagrees with me because that is their right. \n\nWhat I never agreed with was that Deity, by whatever name, would have revealed him or herself only to a small group of people on this vast planet, damning all those who hadn't heard or accepted him or her to eternal punishment.\n\nI believe that Deity is revealed to all. I believe that there isn't one recipe to some "salvation", and that we all come around more than once. \n\nWhatever we believe, I don't think that anyone has the right to belittle others for their beliefs. Disagreement is fine; harrassing and demonizing isn't.
547576
Hmm, yeah, that's a very interesting point! Why not just trust "god" to protect him? Now, would that be a sin? Because if it was gods will for him to die, than he's preventing that from happening, right? but if god was "almighty" then he could give him a heart attack or something...but then if he's that powerful, why the need for bulletproof...round and round we go....I need chocolate!  :) smart question btw!
457834
It seems like people are avoiding the issue. What's being asked is if you will unquestioningly submit yourself to God. Whether you think God would want you to perform said action or would not be able to do this without you is not in question.\n\nIncident: God tells you to kill someone.\nYou are a self-admittedly insignificant being who could not begin to understand God. Whatever his motivation be, God has told you to do this.\n\nDo you comply?\n\n(My answer's no by the way, but I'm not religious so this question probably was not directed at me. I just think that some of the people passing judgement here are being hypocritical.)
42259
For the record:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."\n\nIt is easy for me to relate this to standing up for things I don't agree with, because that free press prints things every day that I do not agree with, but I would defend with my life their right to say it.  That's not just rhetoric:  I am perfectly serious.\n\nFreedom of speech, and of religion, are never more important than when we disagree.  I strongly take exception to people telling each other they should kill the infidel, especially since they would label me one.  But they have the right under both the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression to shout it to the heavans.  They do not, however, have the right to kill just because they have the right to speak about killing.\n\nIn fact, all of these rights are somewhat abridged, in order to afford others their rights.  For example, freedom of religion does not, with some rare and mostly harmless exceptions, permit one to do something (such as ritual sacrifice) that would be illegal if it was not done in the name of religion.  So a Muslim can talk about killing the infidel, but that does not confer a right to do it.\n\nSimilarly, there are practical limits on freedom of the press, or of speech more generally.  One classic example is enciting to riot.  If a speaker shouts for a crime to be commited and that crime is commited, the speaker is as guilty as the person whose hands were actually involved.  So be careful about standing before a crowd of rowdies and shouting for rape, loot pillage and burning.!
595861
Welcome to the world of religions. I found that every religion is hypocritical in some way or another, but in the Christian religion, it seems to be the worst. They say G-d is a gentle, and kind being. Yet, he is willing to sacrifice his creation. Kind? Gentle? But then again what can you expect from a religion in which their main item of worship is a torture device(the cross)?
379688
Brilliant question, I hate the way people did that too.  It's the same thing as apologizing for something my great great grandfather did when he was alive!? Its just not plausible, at the end of the day, the only people who are causing death in this country NOW, are Muslims and atheists, simple as that really...\n\nEDIT, I'd like to ask poki poki, where in all this vast information did it say that those were done by Christians....?
218342
I'm religious, but your question is still offensive.  If someone doesn't believe in God, she or he can still be "nice and kind and good".  (And, as you noted, there are religious people who are not.)  But someone who doesn't believe in God *does* lose something by somehow being forced to believe--her/his freedom of choice!\n\nJust as you have the freedom to believe in your religion, and I have the freedom to believe in what I assume is a *different* one, others have the freedom to believe that we're *both* full of crap!
306843
God doesn't hold the patent to those i'm afraid.\n\nMany atheists are moral & ethical people, so get off cloud 9.\n\nI can do whatever I want, but you know what, I choose not to.  Not out of fear, or god's retribution, but because I don't want to do harmful things.  Isn't that better, I'm not doing it for some distant reward, but simply because I want to.
172299
Just because an athiest says the name of a person who happens to be in your book, doesn't mean he believes in them.  For example, if you said Allah or Muhamed(spelling), does that mean you are an muslim?  Not to mention, according to Christians using gods name in vain is considered a sin.  If these people truley believe in your god, do you think they would deliberately damn themselves to eternal torture?
32079
First I would like to thank the asker for his nice way of introducing the question, we do need such civilized ways of dialogue from both Moslems and Christians, and I hope that my answer would offend no one at all and if this happens with out intention this is my apology in advance. \nI believe that the main reason behind such kind of practice among most Christians is due to their belief that Jesus PBUH was crucified for their redemption, and to make my point of view clearer I would just cite the following example: \nlet us imagine that in some country in this world the government has declared a test for people  for the period of one year to check who is a good citizen and who is not, and during this 12 months time people who abide with the rules and regulations would be highly rewarded, but at the same time no punishment at all for any kind of violations and crimes, robbers, killers, traffic violators, smugglers, … etc,  will be forgiven for their mistakes and sins and would be treated equally with good people who didn't sin or violate the law and also will be rewarded. Here I have some questions:\n1-What is the percentage of the people who would abide with the law?\n2-Do you thing that it is fear to treat both parties equally?\n3-And the most important, would this test have any sense of logic at all, I mean what is the issue if all will be rewarded?\nConclusions:\n1-God can never hold such test because He would be playing or mocking at us (praise be to Him).\n2-It would be unfair trial and meaningless.\n3-If the result is known from the beginning that every body would pass so no need to hold the test.\n "Not for (idle) sport did We create the heavens and the earth and all that is between! \n\n If it had been Our wish to take (just) a pastime, We should surely have taken it from the things nearest to Us, if We would do (such a thing(! \n\n Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us)". \nHoly Quran.\n\nWe Moslems believe that Jesus was not crucified and that it is all no more than a fabrication from some one to digress Christians from the straight path.  But how this happened? When the Jews ran after Jesus to capture him and put him to death, he refuged to a cave and the worst man among them followed him up inside the cave, God left up Jesus alive to heaven and made the face of that man similar to Jesus' face, when he came out of the cave he was surprised that people who was waiting out side the cave just captured him and crucified him while he is screaming "I am not Jesus" but no one believed him and that was his punishment in this life for trying to kill Jesus. \nCh-4,V-157-159\n That they(the jews) said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.\n Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.\n And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them).\nHoly Quran\n\nMay God guide us all to the straight path.
447187
there is a passage in the bible of the ten commandments that says that you cannot kill anyone, but there is also something in christianity and other religions that are trying to classify this sorta thing as a "Just War", which means that it's acceptable based upon justifiable cause. it's like in Islam they have what is known as Jihad (which has a few different meanings) but is commonly known as a "holy war" and is allowed because it's a 'just war'. they feel that it is the right thing to do because of the severity.
315502
A very good question.\n\nNobody likes to think their loved ones are bad people or that their own heaven will exclude the things or people that they love. It is a no win argument, either the God/Gods will punish the wrong doers and in the process do evil to the person who did no wrong, or the God/Gods have to forgive everyone for their crime and heaven will be open for everyone even if they don't believe.\nMaybe there is a true God that does not punish and the Gods we all hear about are all just the Devil, making threats and forcing people to follow them. Even more radical would a true loving God exclude anyone? or even judge people?
312377
This is just one of many ideas that people can misuse.\n\nI believe that Christians are supposed to obey the laws of the land unless and until those laws contradict God's laws.  Currently there aren't any civil laws that fall under that category for me.  It's one of those hypotheticals.  This is the first case I've heard of that used that idea as a defense.\n\nI don't know enough about both sides to speak to whether he was justified or not.  The courts unfortunately, because they are so overloaded, often send children back into homes that are really still unfit.\n\nStill, based on what they showed on the segment I saw, he didn't seem justified to me.
666634
Hi,\n\nThis sentence - which, despite some answerer's comments, is very often said - is a very valuable sentence because it gives us a lot of insight into the believer's mind. It's my belief that somebody who grows up in a very insular 'fundamentalist' house often tends not to develop an independent sense of right-and-wrong. There must be exceptions, of course, but a lot of people refrain from killing, stealing, coveting and wearing mixed fabrics not because they've ever objectively considered the right-and-wrong of these actions but merely because 'God told them not to'. 'Hell' is the equivalent of 'wait till your father gets home' - but the difference is that the latter is only applicable for children who don't have a fully-formed concept of actions and repercussions.\n\nFor somebody whose definition of 'good behaviour' is based solely on what they read in a book, it's quite logical for them to presume that an atheist would not engage in good behaviour. The unfortunate implication is that, for these people, they would freely murder, rape, steal, pillage and wear mixed fabrics if it weren't for God's decree against those actions. Furthermore, they see murder as bad not because a person's life has been lost and his/her family torn asunder but merely because the perpetrator 'sinned' against God. Would you trust such a person with your child?\n\nLastly, what objective conclusion can you draw about the morality of a person who says 'A sin is a sin - lying and killing are equal in the eyes of God'? What conclusion can you draw about the morality of a deity who would believe that?