JP:

Your conclusion is just speculation without any biblical grounding. Seems to me that you’re copping out of your obligation to follow the Old Law.

No, it’s understanding certain lines through the larger lens of the chapter’s (or entire Bible’s) context. Some parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, but not every line.
I can’t force you to read the link I provided, but I will encourage folks to read it, just so they don’t easily buy your interpretation.
I’m sensing that you’re also disputing whether Paul was legitimate. That’s fine, there are some that do. Just be open (if that’s the case) that you don’t think large chunks of the New Testament are valid.

14:8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

So pork is still out for Christians.

14:10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

Why is there no movement in th Bible Belt to ban shrimp, lobsters and oysters

Also Levitcus 15:19 to 15:30.  Real downer on women for having a period. If she is unclean for menstruating God has only himself to blame for the design.

20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Should I do this to my ten year old? Hasn’t got to actual swearing yet, but he tries to get ‘revenge’ with saying nasty things.  When shall I start stoning him.

Last Hussar: How do you handle Mark 7:19?

19 Food doesn’t come in contact with your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then comes out again.” (By saying this, he showed that every kind of food is acceptable.)

Perhaps a more important question is this: How can one be sure that the voice in their head is really God’s? Seems to me most of the examples of behavior you’ve given above (911 pilots, Van Gogh killers, etc.), are those who think they are hearing God’s directive, but it remains questionable.

And that’s why Xtians are dangerous - because your loyalty to Skydaddy is such that you can dismiss any societal ethics at any point in favor of your religious morality and handwave away accountability “because God ordered me to”. Then, as everyone scratches their heads and pulls bodies out of the wreckage the rest of the world has only the assurances of the other Skydaddy worshippers: “Oh no! He only THOUGHT he was worshipping correctly. I would only kill thousands of people if it were the RIGHT invisible voice commanding me to do so.”

If Satan can be indistinguishable from God, to give commandments that otherwise moral thinking and believing people and provide them with the same sorts of comforts and create loyalties, then by what overarching presumption can possibly exist that you’re not also following Satan yourself. I mean, surely not every person deluded by Satan is commanded to blow up buildings and kill? I mean, is Satan porn? “I know it when I see it?” That’s a copout. It suggests that there are ethical compasses that dictate to people which god is correct, but since there are so many vastly different interpretations of even simple Xtian scriptures then it’s surely evidence that the vast majority of people’s “god compass” is completely screwed up and broken.

Which of a god’s dictates is right, and which of them are wrong? If you’re the one doing the deciding, then you depend on the “god compass”. If the invisible voice is doing the deciding, then by your own admission Satan help you do the chosing and some percentage of people can’t tell the difference. And if even some people can tell the difference, then by what absolute guideline do your establish which of the skydaddy people can and can’t?

Lets spell this one out:

Bill believes in God. God is God. Bill is commanded to do good. Obviously every Xtian hopes or thinks they’re in this case. Just as obviously, there are enough variations on Xtianity that this cannot be the case.

Bob believes in God. God is Satan. Bob is commanded to do good. Because obviously those evil Hindus and Mormons are just doing good in the name of Satan.

Jane believes in God. God is God. Jane is commanded to kill everyone in Europe who is black. God ordered it, so obviously European black people have done something awful, like had sex with Jane, or made her have lewd thoughts. Or something, God is inscrutable, if he orders it then she must obey.

Jill believes in God. God is Satan. Jill is commanded to kick puppy. Jill is doing evil, because kicking puppies is wrong when not commanded to Jill by God.

Nick does not believe in God. There is a God. Nick does good deeds. God doesn’t care, Nick goes to Hell.

Jim does not believe in God. There is a God. Jim kills 4 year olds. God cares, Jim goes to Hell.

Nancy does not believe in God. There is no God. Nancy does good deeds. Nancy is told she is going to hell.

Melissa does not believe in God. There is no God. Melissa murders her patients in their sleep. Melissa still goes to prison along with Jim, and Jane.

Nancy, Nick, Bob, and Bill all do good deeds, but only Bill is safely identifiable by Xtians as “doing good for the right reasons.” Jane might be identified by Xtians as being a tool of Satan, but then that would self-identify them explicitly as tools of Satan and condemn them to Hell because of their inability to properly identify godly dictates. Bob and Bill likely think that either one of them is the one improperly identifying God. Jill might be improperly identified as simply being a flawed true believer, which would lead any real believer straight to Hell.

The only moral and acceptable behaviors here are those people who do good whether or not God is involved and/or true or not. If you perform great wrongs upon society they aren’t somehow justifiable because God commanded them to be so, because no person could possibly be capable of determining whether or not such a commandment truly came from God. Similarly, whether or not a god exists is irrelevant to the good someone does, as is someone’s beliefs, or even if they’ve somehow been deceived by false truisms. Even if you accept that a perect God could dictate perfect commandments for socially unacceptable acts, the fact that you cannot determine whether or not your God is, in fact, the correct one should preclude any ethical person from acting on those sorts of commandments. Likewise, the lack of a god by no means precludes ethical and moral actions, as such are advantageous regardless of the existence of a god. And most telling, the faith in a god doesn’t preclude immoral or even establish moral behavior. What value is there then in God?

I can accept that religion gives people a sense of comfort and well-being, and by some token establishes moral patterns that some Xtians apparently would break if not for their covenants with skydaddy and/or his evil counterpart. It’s irrelevant to their value to me as a person though, or their worth to society, for the sake of religion itself. What is valuable is ethical and moral behaviors, which are not contingent upon religion, god, or anything other than the person who performs ethical and moral acts. I likewise cannot excuse the unethical and immoral simply because “they say” that God told them to perform an act, because even presupposing the existence of a god there’s no telling whether or not a god in fact dictated to them an action.

What I want from Xtianity is what I want from most people and how I try to act toward them. I try not to presuppose that Xtians will act badly and immorally simply because of their false beliefs. Just because they believe my beliefs to be false I don’t want them to think that I will act badly or immorally. Whenever someone asks me why I don’t believe in God, I always wonder why they don’t believe in Allah or Zeus, or Vishnu. Because, if someone can accept the reasons why they don’t believe in those gods, why is it so hard to believe that someone might not believe in any gods? Or at least, accept the possibility of an existing god like I do, but decide that it’s irrelevant to the choices and behaviors that establish moral and ethical decisions and at its best exists as a sort of crutch for people who can’t or won’t act ethically and morally without some sort of mythic oversight and cheerleader.

No, it’s understanding certain lines through the larger lens of the chapter’s (or entire Bible’s) context. Some parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, but not every line.

Sounds like you’re saying that you can pick and choose what you wish to follow and what you do not. Please explain to me in what context do those verses mean that the Old Law is no longer mandatory? Jesus very clearly states that the Old Law has to be followed until the end of the earth (which he thought was going to happen within the lifetimes of his apostles). I can’t imagine how his words could be twisted to mean anything else. However I know that my lack of imagination does not disprove anything so please feel free to go ahead and explain “the context” to me.

I can’t force you to read the link I provided, but I will encourage folks to read it, just so they don’t easily buy your interpretation.

I went to the link but IMO it just rambles on and on making assertions without any biblical backing just like you were doing. They make statements that the Old Law is no longer mandatory but I dont see any arguments as to why that is so. The bible verses quoted have to be twisted beyond recognition to even begin to support their position. Be very careful. I dont think Big Daddy will appreciate his Word being twisted.

I’m sensing that you’re also disputing whether Paul was legitimate. That’s fine, there are some that do.

Im not sure what you mean. I think that Paul engineered a new religion for his own (not so holy) purposes.

Just be open (if that’s the case) that you don’t think large chunks of the New Testament are valid.

Again Im not sure what you mean. Just to clarify I dont think that any of the bible is any more valid than my collection of Doctor Who books. Im just saying that there is no foundation for “Bible Believing Christians” not to follow Leviticus, Deutrenomy etc.
Please understand that this is not a personal attack on you: you are much nicer and more logical than most of the Xians I’ve dealt with over the net.

I could *swear* I saw a post by Looking4Truth that read:

No, it’s understanding certain lines through the larger lens of the chapter’s (or entire Bible’s) context. Some parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, but not every line.

And who gets to decide which lines are to be taken literally, and which are not?  You? Who provides the “lens”?  Why should the Word of God need an interpreter - or a “lens”, for that matter?

There are hundreds (if not thousands) of different Christian denominations in existence today, each with their own interpretations of what should be taken literally, and what should not.  What makes *your* interpretation any more valid than MisterMook’s or JulianP’s or the Pope’s or my grandmother’s? 

If God thought it was so goll-durned important that his instructions regarding how he should be worshipped and how *exactly* we are to be saved that he “inspired” men to write it all down - don’t you think he could have been a bit less vague?

If God has something to tell me, he can tell me *himself*, without any interpreters.  He knows where he can reach me.

If Satan can be indistinguishable from God

There is a huge epistemological problem here - in and by itself a good argument for strong agnosticism.

We rely on our senses to perceive the world out there - if we take for granted that there is a world out there and that it closely corresponds to what our senses tell us. Now, anybody and anything advanced enough to manipulate our sensory input at will is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from a god. Note that none of the omniwhatever attributes are required…

MisterMook:

And that’s why Xtians are dangerous - because your loyalty to Skydaddy is such that you can dismiss any societal ethics at any point in favor of your religious morality and handwave away accountability “because God ordered me to�?.

Show me something dangerous that the New Testament asks a believer to do. Christians may be annoying, or even inconvenient, but dangerous?

If Satan can be indistinguishable from God, to give commandments that otherwise moral thinking and believing people and provide them with the same sorts of comforts and create loyalties, then by what overarching presumption can possibly exist that you’re not also following Satan yourself.

Good question. I can’t, of course, prove that I (and every Christian) has not been duped. If, however, the God of Christianity is real, the Bible addresses this very difficulty by repeatedly stressing the importance of regular scripture reading and prayer. Christians call the issue “discernment.” Satan does, indeed, masquerade as light. And for that matter, there are many truths in other religions. As for comparing one religion to another - what can I say - read the Holy books of each, pray, and come to your own conclusion. They may all contain many elements of truth, but does any other offer a savior other than self-enlightenment or self-attained holiness?

I mean, surely not every person deluded by Satan is commanded to blow up buildings and kill?

I agree. Satan may entice one to outright evil, but is just as likely to deceive by presenting a reasonable alternative to Jesus. Examples might include:
1) You don’t need a savior. You are just as good as anyone else. In fact, if you look deep inside yourself, you are God! Sure, you’ve made mistakes, but every god does. There’s no such thing as a perfect God. What is this stupid sin concept anyway? Pshaw. You’re smarter than that.
2) If humans just cooperate and use their heads, they can solve poverty, environmental issues, political strife, etc. without any supernatural aid. I know it’s been a long haul so far, but trust me, you’re almost there!
3) The Bible looks inconsistent, and hardly portrays a righteous God. Sure, there are millions who study it diligently, and find no real contradictions, but that would take too much study and devotion. Hey babe, this is the year 2006. You shouldn’t have to work for treasures. As a matter of fact, why do you keep knocking yourself out with these silly spiritual matters? Haven’t you got better things to do? The rent isn’t getting paid by you sticking your nose is some ancient parchment.
4) Morals are all relative. No God, and no Devil. These words are not mine (since I don’t exist) but yours. The Devil is no more than a cute mascot for a sports team.

I mean, is Satan porn? “I know it when I see it?�? That’s a copout. It suggests that there are ethical compasses that dictate to people which god is correct,

Here come those ethical compasses again. If there aren’t any, you might as well just make up your own God (or not). Just don’t complain when somebody else’s definition of God requires them to harm you. No absolute morals = no right to claim yours is any better than mine.
“I know it when I see it” would be a cop out. That would be one person defining evil by their own standards. Perhaps there are so many denominations, layers in the legal system, ethics commities, etc. because the application and nuances of morality are not easy. Do you ever wish there was someone who knew all the facts without need for witnesses and fact-finding, someone who would make the right decisions in the difficult cases, someone who would perfectly temper justice with mercy? If you’ve ever wished for such a character, you may be longing for God.

but since there are so many vastly different interpretations of even simple Xtian scriptures then it’s surely evidence that the vast majority of people’s “god compass�? is completely screwed up and broken.

I’m not convinced that there is major disagreement about the basic tenets of the Christian faith, though I concede there is much surrounding lesser issues. Perhaps coming to God involves this very confusion. A la: “God, I don’t get it. I admit that I can’t figure out morality on my own. I throw myself on your mercy.” A liberal point of view would suggest that even our jungle man (who has never had the gospel presented to him), might receive God’s favor/salvation by responding to the revelation available to him, rather than an explicit understanding of Jesus life, times, and work.
Regardless, the fact that the Bible may be confusing does not logically rule it out a false. Calculus is hard too, but that doesn’t make it wrong. Difference being, the God of the Bible is not asking for your intellect, but your trust.
Gotta go to sleep. Will try and get back to the rest of your excellent post.
Meantime, to all readers here. Please don’t take me words here to think that I alone have Chritianity figured out. All I can do is offer the best of my understanding thus far. I guess in the long run, I’m just trying to show that many of your questions/difficulties with Christianity are the very same ones that even great theologians struggle with. And yet, they still land on the side of belief.
I will present this challenge, knowing in advance it will ruffle some feathers. I’m sure you’ve heard a variation of it before. If God is who He says He is in the Bible, remember that He Himself staes that these matters are folly to the ‘natural’ man. Why would God go out of His way to make Himself clear and understandable to those who don’t believe in Him? For that matter, could He even clarify His nature to those who don’t even accept that He could exist?

Satan may entice one to outright evil, but is just as likely to deceive by presenting a reasonable alternative to Jesus. Examples might include:

Wow, L4t, you seem to know exactly what Satan has been saying to me!  And here I thought I was just being rational!  Well, not exactly:

1) You don’t need a savior. You are just as good as anyone else. In fact, if you look deep inside yourself, you are God! Sure, you’ve made mistakes, but every god does. There’s no such thing as a perfect God. What is this stupid sin concept anyway? Pshaw. You’re smarter than that.

Right on, except that I’m only “God” in the sense that I’m also “Santa”.

2) If humans just cooperate and use their heads, they can solve poverty, environmental issues, political strife, etc. without any supernatural aid. I know it’s been a long haul so far, but trust me, you’re almost there!

If these issues are ever going to be solved, it will have to be without supernatural aid, because there is none.  But, alas, we’re not “almost there” by a long shot.

3) The Bible looks inconsistent, and hardly portrays a righteous God. Sure, there are millions who study it diligently, and find no real contradictions, but that would take too much study and devotion. Hey babe, this is the year 2006. You shouldn’t have to work for treasures. As a matter of fact, why do you keep knocking yourself out with these silly spiritual matters? Haven’t you got better things to do? The rent isn’t getting paid by you sticking your nose is some ancient parchment.

Bible inconsistent?  Check.  God not righteous?  Check.  Millions find no real contradictions?  Not looking very hard, are they.

I don’t know what counts as “knocking oneself out”, but I’ve read the Bible pretty thoroughly, and most of the atheists I know have too.  Ain’t got nothing against ancient parchment, but although a fairy tale can be entertaining, and even inspiring, it’s not necessarily the Truth or even a good guide to how to live your life.

4) Morals are all relative. No God, and no Devil. These words are not mine (since I don’t exist) but yours. The Devil is no more than a cute mascot for a sports team.

Bingo.  Except:  morals are not all relative.  As living organisms, we all try to send our genes into the future, by reproducing.  This entails self-preservation, at least until we’ve reproduced.  As animals, we avoid pain, and desire food and sex.  As humans, we are curious.  There’s lots more, of course.  Morals are attempts to satisfy our animal needs as societies, and thus have many features in common from group to group.  You might say, morals are written on the interface between our genes, our environment, and our choices.

L4T: The Devil is no more than a cute mascot for a sports team.

Like the New Jersey Devils? Now there was a fun thread. I wonder what Terry’s been up to lately?

And the devil may be cute, but if the new remake of “The Omen” is any indication, his son is adorable. Have you seen a little Antichrist with such pinchable cheeks and a smattering of freckles?

Wow, L4t, you seem to know exactly what Satan has been saying to me!

I can tell by the squeaks that my ducky is possessed.

1) You don’t need a savior.

Right on. We live, we die, and all we leave behind are memories and our offspring. Being non-existent again is as much of a bother as it was the first time around. There is wrongdoing, but of course no sin.

For that matter, who wants to exist forever? I cannot exist forever while still being me. Time to post a reminder to the online games at the British The Philosopher’s Magazine - here’s one: Staying Alive

2) If humans just cooperate and use their heads, they can solve…

...just about anything at all. What’s the point of free will again? Not that free will isn’t overrated, as in job security for clergy, theologians, and philosophers.

3) The Bible looks inconsistent, and hardly portrays a righteous God.

Right on. See Battleground God; atheists should make it through unscathed or bite one bullet, depending on the interpretation of a single word occuring in the quiz. Then there’s also Do-It-Yourself Deity…

4) Morals are all relative.

And finally: Taboo (you’ll have to browse from here, because the direct URL is blacklisted) and Morality Play.

Zilch, I disagree that morals are not all relative. It’s just that some can be bent more easily than others.

L4T, can I just say something here?  You seem to be a very nice person, but as far as I’m concerned, listening to someone talk obsessively about his religion is like watching someone masturbate.  I’m sure it makes you feel very nice, and I’m happy for you, but I sure wish you’d do it in private, or among other people who find that kind of thing hot.
See, it’s just kinda embarrassing to be standing around talking to someone with his hand in his pants.

Since I’m in a delightfully crabby mood today, something else to pick up on:

I’m just trying to show that many of your questions/difficulties with Christianity are the very same ones that even great theologians struggle with.

It may seem odd, but while I have major problems with some assholes that happen to be Christians, I have no difficulties with Christianity, unless you consider a refusal to even give conversion a passing thought a difficulty. For all that Christianity is a very successful family of memes, it’s just another man-made revealed religion.

It’s Christians that have questions/difficulties with Christianity.

Zilch, I disagree that morals are not all relative. It’s just that some can be bent more easily than others.

Well, elwed:

We seem to disagree
On the precise degree
of moral relativity
But, being free of divinity
We can gleefully flee
The strictures and conflicting pictures
of fractured and fractious scriptures

I hope I make myself clear…

Do you ever wish there was someone who knew all the facts without need for witnesses and fact-finding, someone who would make the right decisions in the difficult cases, someone who would perfectly temper justice with mercy? If you’ve ever wished for such a character, you may be longing for God.

I’ve often wished for someone who would walk up and hand me large sums of money on a regular basis. Wishful thinking does not a deity make.

Show me something dangerous that the New Testament asks a believer to do. Christians may be annoying, or even inconvenient, but dangerous?

There are plenty of dangerous ideas in the NT, they’re just not as blatant.

Example one, regardless of your past sins all you have to do is accept jesus as your savior and you can get into heaven. Just because you personally don’t live your life that way, you can’t deny that there are people all over the world doing whatever they want because they think they have a cosmic “get out of jail free” card in their back pocket. Just look at the number of felons on death row who have found religion.

Example two, “god’s will” or “god’s plan”. The very idea of such a thing is the polar opposite of free will. It leads far too many people who have suffered some form of injustice to simply sit back and take it because it’s “god’s will”.

Geekmom:

I’m sure it makes you feel very nice, and I’m happy for you, but I sure wish you’d do it in private

And how, exactly, am I forcing you to read my posts?

KPG:

you can’t deny that there are people all over the world doing whatever they want because they think they have a cosmic “get out of jail free�? card in their back pocket. Just look at the number of felons on death row who have found religion.

Fair enough, but is that how the Bible told them how to act? We’ve already been over the Bible’s admonishon against using grace as a license to sin.

Example two, “god’s will�? or “god’s plan�?. The very idea of such a thing is the polar opposite of free will. It leads far too many people who have suffered some form of injustice to simply sit back and take it because it’s “god’s will�?.

And yet, the Bible recommends we follow our earthly leaders while here (within limits). Romans 13 1:7

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

L4T: And how, exactly, am I forcing you to read my posts?

Dude, you’ve walked right in front of us with your wang hanging out. Gives an entirely new meaning to ‘witnessing’, doesn’t it?

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Thanks for helping to make my point. That passage says to obey authority regardless of how unjust that authority may be because it was established by god.

Do I even need to start naming names?

Hitler, Sadam, Pol Pot, etc, etc......

Thanks for helping to make my point. That passage says to obey authority regardless of how unjust that authority may be because it was established by god.

Do I even need to start naming names?

Hmmm. Good point. You’ve shown how it can be dangerous to follow that line of the New Testament without question.
However, upon careful reading, I’m looking at line 3:
3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.
Since Hitler, Sadam et al did “hold terror” for those who did right, I’m wondering if that’s the kind of autthority this passage is telling us to submit to?
This also reminds me of the early Israelites, who demanded a human king (just like their neighbors) instead of just allowing Yahweh to be their authority. God warned them what a human king would be like, but finally consented to their request. A skim through both books of “Kings” in the OT shows how their best human king didn’t serve them very well. Governmental authorities doing a poor job of keeping the masses happy. And people (not you guys) say the Bible has no relevance for today? Right.
So, it makes me wonder if part of God’s command to obey the authorities is two-fold. One, He institutes them for our own good, and 2) Their continued failure to govern fairly and justly may keep us awake to our need for Him (God).
I know that may sound circular. I repeat however, you did answer the challenge to show me somewhere in the NT where it may be dangerous to follow the text unquestioningly.

elwed…

Dude, you’ve walked right in front of us with your wang hanging out. Gives an entirely new meaning to ‘witnessing’, doesn’t it?

And yet, you keep looking? Is there something you’d like to share with us elwed?
Just havin’ some fun dude. Hope you took it that way.

And yet, you keep looking?

Only because EE doesn’t have an ignore feature.

Hmmm. Good point. You’ve shown how it can be dangerous to follow that line of the New Testament without question.
However, upon careful reading, I’m looking at line 3:
3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.
Since Hitler, Sadam et al did “hold terror�? for those who did right, I’m wondering if that’s the kind of autthority this passage is telling us to submit to?

Here we go again. It all come down to “interpretation” and “context”. Rather ambiguous for something inspired by the creator of Heaven and Earth no?

Governmental authorities doing a poor job of keeping the masses happy. And people (not you guys) say the Bible has no relevance for today? Right.

So thats why the Holy Babble tells us to obey earthly authority? I see.

KPG: Just look at the number of felons on death row who have found religion.

L4t: Fair enough, but is that how the Bible told them how to act? We’ve already been over the Bible’s admonishon against using grace as a license to sin.

We have a friend, whose name will not be mentioned, who has a dog named Ronja.  Ronja is one of the most ill-behaved dogs I know- she runs away, jumps on people, grabs food from the table.  What does our friend do?  She says, in a gentle and amused tone: “Na, geh, Ronja” ("oh come on, Ronja").  Ronja, predictably, is not impressed, and continues destroying the shoe or whatever.

Is this what happens to born-again murderers in Heaven?

Zilch:

She says, in a gentle and amused tone: “Na, geh, Ronja�? ("oh come on, Ronja").  Ronja, predictably, is not impressed, and continues destroying the shoe or whatever.

Is this what happens to born-again murderers in Heaven?

I don’t know. There won’t be any sin in heaven, that’s for sure. I’ve sometimes wondered if that’s because of some inability to do so. I read an intriguing speculation that suggested folks in heaven will have such direct access to truth/God, that the very idea of sin would be unfathomable.
As for the born again murderers, the Bible states that for those who accept Jesus’ grace, their sins are as far removed as the East is from the West. I guess this would logically have to include all sins, regardless of the severity. However, there is nothing that precludes remorse at the great Bema seat of judgement (the one for those saved). I don’t see how this remorse could coexist with bliss for eternity, so perhaps it is temporary. Just thinkin’ out loud here.