Is religion not important in We're Alive?

[Witch_Doctor]

A bit of a stretch but:
Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Giants! Know what else are giant? Aliens Behemoths!

[LiamKerrington]

A bit of a stretch but:
Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Giants! Know what else are giant? Aliens Behemoths!

Yeah, kind of a stretch. Really ...

BUT:

A stretch worth a) +1 Rep (need to wait until I have spread some more love elsewhere ... I think I'm gonna go crazy on the remastering-sub-section for the efforts by all volunteers ...) and b) the Nobel Price for the combined "forces" of Physics and Chemistry for having invented the newest latex-formula ...

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Just as a quick throw-in:

http://www.zombiesarecoming.com/2011...-in-the-bible/

[scbubba]

Just as a quick throw-in:

http://www.zombiesarecoming.com/2011...-in-the-bible/

That's a pretty interesting article. Thanks for digging it up.

I really like the first couple of comments on that page that talk about the use of a zombification weapon on a population by an enemy and how we're already in the end times with Zeds just around the corner....

One comment on there echoes something that came up in this thread earlier (too lazy to find it exactly):

we’d have to worry about being good and moral Christians while slaughtering zombies and trying to survive. That would be difficult to say the least.

Old testament theology wouldn't seem to have a problem with this, I think, as long as you were defending yourself against "evil doers" and repaid bad-for-bad and good-for-good.

It's the New Testament theology where this gets tricky. If the Zeds are "dead people reanimated by some biological or supernatural mechanism", then the killing for them holds no moral consequence for the Christian. That is, it's no more a sin to kill a Zed than it is to kill a marauding wolf.

If, on the other hand, Zeds are people who are not dead but are simply acting under the control of some agent (biological, chemical, supernatural, what have you), then there is a potential morale conundrum. I'm not a Biblical scholar to say the least, so I can't spout chapter and verse on the matter, but I know that there is a lot in Jesus' teachings about not perpetuating violence even if violence is being used against you. The non-violent protest of the American Civil Rights movement were born out of those teachings, for example.

But what we would be trying to determine after Z-day is how the concept of self-preservation at the cost of other human lives squares with the Gospel. The closest parallel I can see is the Christian member of a nation's armed forces. I know there has been a lot of writing on that topic in the past (and probably the present) but I haven't looked into recently. I'll see if I can find some of that and maybe see if it is relevant to this discussion...

Now, where was I...? Oh yes, I wonder if Randy has 30 pieces of silver with him?

[reaper239]

That's a pretty interesting article. Thanks for digging it up.

I really like the first couple of comments on that page that talk about the use of a zombification weapon on a population by an enemy and how we're already in the end times with Zeds just around the corner....

One comment on there echoes something that came up in this thread earlier (too lazy to find it exactly):



Old testament theology wouldn't seem to have a problem with this, I think, as long as you were defending yourself against "evil doers" and repaid bad-for-bad and good-for-good.

It's the New Testament theology where this gets tricky. If the Zeds are "dead people reanimated by some biological or supernatural mechanism", then the killing for them holds no moral consequence for the Christian. That is, it's no more a sin to kill a Zed than it is to kill a marauding wolf.

If, on the other hand, Zeds are people who are not dead but are simply acting under the control of some agent (biological, chemical, supernatural, what have you), then there is a potential morale conundrum. I'm not a Biblical scholar to say the least, so I can't spout chapter and verse on the matter, but I know that there is a lot in Jesus' teachings about not perpetuating violence even if violence is being used against you. The non-violent protest of the American Civil Rights movement were born out of those teachings, for example.

But what we would be trying to determine after Z-day is how the concept of self-preservation at the cost of other human lives squares with the Gospel. The closest parallel I can see is the Christian member of a nation's armed forces. I know there has been a lot of writing on that topic in the past (and probably the present) but I haven't looked into recently. I'll see if I can find some of that and maybe see if it is relevant to this discussion...

Now, where was I...? Oh yes, I wonder if Randy has 30 pieces of silver with him?

JUDAS!!!!!! i mean, RANDY!!!!!!

oh, sorry, got excited there. so, what you brought up here was an interesting point, christians in the military face a conundrum: killing in the context of their Christianity. let me start off by saying this, thou shalt not kill is not the most literal translation of that commandment from hebrew to english. the most literal translation is thou shalt not murder, and there can be a distinction made here that killing a man in defense of self and family is not the same as killing a man out of anger, or just because. people have a kind of natural moral barometer for these things, and most understand this difference. now, that's the old testament, on to the new testament. Jesus taught non-violence in spreading the gospel, and Paul really hammered this home in his letters to the different churches. coercion is never to be used in the perpetuation of the gospel, and in fact would be counter productive. this is why there can't be a proclaimed Christian nation, because that would require that some form of force would be employed in the defense and perpetuation of Christianity, which is against the principles of the gospel. now, that does not mean that there can't be a nation predominantly made up of Christians, since we clearly saw that in action in the founding of America. but now we come to the Christian in the armed forces. scripture forbids the use of force to spread the gospel, but it also says that Christians should obey and uphold the law of the land, as long as that law is not counter to Gods law. i interpret this as not only allowing for, but encouraging Christians in Law enforcement, despite the posibillity of violence against criminals, as a means of defending those who cannot defend themselves, and enforcing justice against those who violate the liberty of others. Christians are called to take care of the widows and orphans and the poor, but that's kind of hard to do if you aren't defending them. so from where i sit, defense is permitted. scripture also says that although the gospel is non violent, nations are to hold each other accountable for their actions. this means that if one nation is perpetrating evil against a people, that a righteous nation should step in to stop it. this is an article i found that does a really good job explaining this perspective. it explains it better than i ever could. be advised, it is a bit lengthy, so take a look when you have a few minutes.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Here is another theoretical situation. You are a member of a group of survivors who get attacked by zombies occasionally, everyday business, so to speak. In addition, you learned it the hard way that killing those of your group who have been bitten pays off quite well -> this happens to be one of the keys of surviving z-day for more than one day. OK. But what will you do, if you find some evidence that there are indeed people who are immune to the plague? Has it been justified to kill those who were infected?

[reaper239]

Here is another theoretical situation. You are a member of a group of survivors who get attacked by zombies occasionally, everyday business, so to speak. In addition, you learned it the hard way that killing those of your group who have been bitten pays off quite well -> this happens to be one of the keys of surviving z-day for more than one day. OK. But what will you do, if you find some evidence that there are indeed people who are immune to the plague? Has it been justified to kill those who were infected?

well you always have to make the distinction: do you kill them before they turn, or do you restrain them and see if they turn and then do it? if you do it before they turn, or have them commit suicide, or whatever, then the question is was it worth it? if everyone agrees and settles on suicide, then you hold no real responsibility, true, it was because of the group decision that the policy was in place, but everyone agreed to abide the rules equally. that's a really tough question, and one that should bear further discussion as a group, and examination through personal introspection.

[Witch_Doctor]

Just as a quick throw-in:

http://www.zombiesarecoming.com/2011...-in-the-bible/

Here's more. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...53&version=NIV


@SCBUBBA, to answer your question, I didn't remember it word for word but I did remember the mention of giants as offspring of daughters of man and son's of God.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

well you always have to make the distinction: do you kill them before they turn, or do you restrain them and see if they turn and then do it? if you do it before they turn, or have them commit suicide, or whatever, then the question is was it worth it? if everyone agrees and settles on suicide, then you hold no real responsibility, true, it was because of the group decision that the policy was in place, but everyone agreed to abide the rules equally. that's a really tough question, and one that should bear further discussion as a group, and examination through personal introspection.

I think that this sums it up for extreme situations.

[Cammi]

This forum always gets me thinking about new Ideas and plot lines I love it!