• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hypothetical Situation Question - Morality

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Here's some food for thought. If Christ said Peter was the Rock. Why than isn't there a Gosphel of Peter? Their is . Why did ceaser not allow it into the new testament? Its incomplete and parts are missing NOW. I would sure like to read that missing stuff they hid from us.

http://www.earlychristianwriti...gospelpeter-brown.html

This fits so well with the ops question I couldn't resist.

How does this fit with the ops question.?


46] In answer Pilate said: 'I am clean of the blood of the Son of God, but it was to you that this seemed [the thing to do].'



Than we have this its bolded.

[50] Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), [51] having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed. [52] And they were afraid lest the Jews should see them and were saying, 'If indeed on that day on which he was crucified we could not weep and beat ourselves, yet now at his tomb we may do these things. [53] But who will roll away for us even the stone placed against the door of the tomb in order that, having entered, we may sit beside him and do the expected things? [54] For the stone was large, and we were afraid lest anyone see us. And if we are unable, let is throw against the door what we bring in memory of him; let us weep and beat ourselves until we come to our homes.'


Than we have this.

] Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. [59] But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home. [60] But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ...


We 12 disciples .is says it plain. But wait how can this be? Judas is already dead from hanging himself.

Yet we have 12 apostles. Mary haveing replaced judas. made 12. than latter on after ceasar gobs things up we still have 12 but Mary has been replaced by Saul/Paul a man who never knew the living WORD


How is it that Peter words were not in the Gosphel . I bolded it for ya. Than we have that what is hidden here. The missing stuff. Don't be fooled the HRCC has all this text complete along with the other Gosphels but they don't want you to know these things.
 
For those who are debating whether atheism and religion affect morality, read this book

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

Great book b Richard Dawkings, a renowned Atheist. There was a study done where they asked this same question to a group or Christians, a group of Atheists, and a isolated Tribe in Africa or South America(They replaced the train with a canoe and other modifications. But the scenario was the same). There was NO statistically significant difference between any one of the groups in their answers.

With that, they also did a experiment where they took religious children and told them a story from the bible. I believe it was the story where Joshua invaded Jericho, and razed it to the ground, killing most of the inhabitants. The children said that it was morally right, because God wanted them to kill the heathens. The same story was told after changing the name of Joshua and Jericho to another group of children from the same religion and area. They overwhelmingly said it was bad because they killed lots of people.

In other words, Religion is able to convince people that killing is okay in the Name of God.
 
Originally posted by: Canai
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Nope, we all gonna die. You don't bargain with madmen and terrorists period.

then you will have the blood of hundreds of people on your hands.

the life of one vs the life of hundreds...

I would not be the one to take their lives. Their blood would not be on my hands. The value of life can be subjective but, it can never be a numbers game.

their blood would be on your hands because you can save them. if you can save them and you ignore your call to save them, you have effectively killed them.

how could you just shrug your shoulders and say "not my problem" and let hundreds die? one life vs hundreds. what if your wife/kids were on the train? what if your parents were on the train? you dunno.

Thats false reasoning and one of major issues that cause people to turn away from God. "If he exists, how could he let this terrible thing happen?" People always have a choice and I believe that is God's greatest gift.

? how did we get to the issue of God's existence? ???

look, it's not difficult to understand. if you kill this one guy, you will be saving the lives of hundreds of innocent people... some of whom might even be your friends or family. this isn't a debate about God's existence. this is a debate about what would you do given this certain scenario.

what you're trying to do is go outside of the hypothetical scenario. the question is do you or don't you. if you do, you save hundreds. if you don't, you sentence hundreds of innocent people to death, thereby having their blood on your hands. in either scenario, any normal person would be haunted for years... which is the goal of the evil mastermind. is it easier to get over killing somebody to save the lives of hundreds or is it easier for you to get over saying "not my problem" and knowing that hundreds died because you didn't hero up.


Listen friend, To wrongs can't = right. No matter how ya slice it. The blood of the dead wouldn't be on my hands but the evils guys hands. Yes it would haunt me but i would have to live with it .

I'd rather be haunted by the one life I had to take to save the rest of the train than be dead and know that because of my inaction the rest of the people on the train died.

What if the next person to walk by happened to by your child/mother/father/brother etc.. would you still kill them?

And exactly how many people would have to be at risk in order for you to kill an innocent person? How about 2 people at risk? Would you kill 1 innocent person in order to save twice that many?
 
Well, if its a loved one, I'll certainly be shrugging my shoulders. Sorry, I don't care that much about my fellow man but I do care about what is close to my heart.

Edit: And I wouldn't do it even if it wasn't a loved one walking by.

 
Originally posted by: Excelsior

Edit: And I wouldn't do it even if it wasn't a loved one walking by.

If I felt that complying was in my best interest, or if the return on it was enough to justify killing that passer-by, then I'd probably whack the next 5 or 6 just to make sure I got the right one...hell, I might actually ENJOY it, and take out the next 15 or 20. (now where can I hide all these bodies?) <looks around>
 
Back
Top