| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kate" |
| Date: |
21 Oct 2006 06:41:03 PM |
| Object: |
God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful. I'll clearly accept the
OT accounts and the Revelation as evidence to this God shows mercy ONLY
to those He deems worthy and who accept Him as their Lord. Being bathed
in the redeeming blood of Jesus His beloved Son that sacrificed His
life for mankinds sin will wash away our evil. To those that could not
know the Law of God such as pagans unaware of the Judeo-Christian
concepts and later of jesus they will be judged fairly according to the
Natural Light of Understanding in the conscience of men. Their works
and deeds tempered by Gods mercy will be the weight of their Judgement.
But to others God is the Final Judge and often poured out His wrath on
humanity through use of His power directly (10 Plagues of Egypt),
through actions of His servants on Earth or through nature. He may test
us with trials such as Job or by allowing bad things to happen to the
Christian. But the world is better off right now His hand is held back
as God protects His people by restraining His wrath. In the Revelation
after the Anti-Christ is revealed God will lift His protection and
Satan will be allowed to work then God will unleash the Final
Judgements upon all the world. Does that sound like a benevolent God?
It doesn't to me either so God is not all benevolent.
But God is God and as the creator of all we only must worship Him and
honor Him, we serve God and God does not serve us. And for those too
proud to accept that then the wrath poured out upon your heads will be
earned by your treachery in failing to accept God as your Master.
As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God. Rather God sets
the morality He demands we follow to the best of our ability His Law
and Commandments.
.
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
22 Oct 2006 03:57:25 AM |
|
|
"Kate" <katecoleman_fl@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1161474063.524245.100180
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful.
There's a misconception that gawd exists, you mean.
--
Doc Smartass
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people
who must use the words. - Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
26 Oct 2006 08:34:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:57:25 GMT, Doc Smartass
<gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"Kate" <katecoleman_fl@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1161474063.524245.100180
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful.
There's a misconception that gawd exists, you mean.
I think the Florida 'authorities' and her mother should be notified.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
26 Oct 2006 06:33:28 PM |
|
|
In article <1161474063.524245.100180@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> "Kate" <katecoleman_fl@yahoo.com> writes:
{...}
But God is God and as the creator of all we only must worship Him and
honor Him, we serve God and God does not serve us. And for those too
proud to accept that then the wrath poured out upon your heads will be
earned by your treachery in failing to accept God as your Master.
God seen as a vain, demanding, and violent barbarian warlord. Interesting.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wavy" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
07 Dec 2006 07:02:58 PM |
|
|
It is FAR simpler than that.
No great effort to reduce and deduce logic or argument of "why this"
and "why that is..."
It is SO simple and easy to understand.
God simply does not exist.
Thanks for coming - now go away.
-WaV
(Apologists are SO pathetic.)
Kate wrote:
There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful. I'll clearly accept the
OT accounts and the Revelation as evidence to this God shows mercy ONLY
to those He deems worthy and who accept Him as their Lord. Being bathed
in the redeeming blood of Jesus His beloved Son that sacrificed His
life for mankinds sin will wash away our evil. To those that could not
know the Law of God such as pagans unaware of the Judeo-Christian
concepts and later of jesus they will be judged fairly according to the
Natural Light of Understanding in the conscience of men. Their works
and deeds tempered by Gods mercy will be the weight of their Judgement.
But to others God is the Final Judge and often poured out His wrath on
humanity through use of His power directly (10 Plagues of Egypt),
through actions of His servants on Earth or through nature. He may test
us with trials such as Job or by allowing bad things to happen to the
Christian. But the world is better off right now His hand is held back
as God protects His people by restraining His wrath. In the Revelation
after the Anti-Christ is revealed God will lift His protection and
Satan will be allowed to work then God will unleash the Final
Judgements upon all the world. Does that sound like a benevolent God?
It doesn't to me either so God is not all benevolent.
But God is God and as the creator of all we only must worship Him and
honor Him, we serve God and God does not serve us. And for those too
proud to accept that then the wrath poured out upon your heads will be
earned by your treachery in failing to accept God as your Master.
As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God. Rather God sets
the morality He demands we follow to the best of our ability His Law
and Commandments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
08 Dec 2006 01:53:18 AM |
|
|
On 7 Dec 2006 17:02:58 -0800, "wavy" <wavycaver@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1165539778.084746.261050@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
It is FAR simpler than that.
No great effort to reduce and deduce logic or argument of "why this"
and "why that is..."
It is SO simple and easy to understand.
God simply does not exist.
Thanks for coming - now go away.
-WaV
(Apologists are SO pathetic.)
I agree.
I have much more respect for religious fundamentalists' moral
consistency than I do for wishy-washy namby-pamby salad-bar
pick'n'choose vacuous bloody christians who seem to be in it only for
the jumble sales.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
08 Dec 2006 04:44:31 PM |
|
|
Kate schreef:
There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful. I'll clearly accept the
OT accounts and the Revelation as evidence to this God shows mercy ONLY
to those He deems worthy and who accept Him as their Lord. Being bathed
in the redeeming blood of Jesus His beloved Son that sacrificed His
life for mankinds sin will wash away our evil. To those that could not
know the Law of God such as pagans unaware of the Judeo-Christian
concepts and later of jesus they will be judged fairly according to the
Natural Light of Understanding in the conscience of men. Their works
and deeds tempered by Gods mercy will be the weight of their Judgement.
But to others God is the Final Judge and often poured out His wrath on
humanity through use of His power directly (10 Plagues of Egypt),
through actions of His servants on Earth or through nature. He may test
us with trials such as Job or by allowing bad things to happen to the
Christian. But the world is better off right now His hand is held back
as God protects His people by restraining His wrath. In the Revelation
after the Anti-Christ is revealed God will lift His protection and
Satan will be allowed to work then God will unleash the Final
Judgements upon all the world. Does that sound like a benevolent God?
It doesn't to me either so God is not all benevolent.
But God is God and as the creator of all we only must worship Him and
honor Him, we serve God and God does not serve us. And for those too
proud to accept that then the wrath poured out upon your heads will be
earned by your treachery in failing to accept God as your Master.
As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God. Rather God sets
the morality He demands we follow to the best of our ability His Law
and Commandments.
Morality cannot be based on the wishing of the most powerfull person.
That is not morality, that is Tyranny.
Morality can only be based on each and every persons personal
conscience.
Moral is that wich is good for a society, rather than the for an
individual,
but it is based on the individuals own concepts of right and wrong.
That=B4s how it has worked for as long as there are human beings around.
Gods have come and Gods have gone.
Morality has been her to stay,
only the society that benefits from it has grown bigger.
In the past small societies did not see anything wrong in doing some
genocide
on even smaller societies.
Today we are proscecuting those who did so.
Still the USA has a law to protect those who commit crimes against
humanity.
but I trust in the end it will be just as moral as the rest-
Peter van Velzen
December 2006
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Azaliah" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
08 Dec 2006 08:16:51 PM |
|
|
On 8 Dec 2006 14:44:31 -0800, while bungee jumping,
"pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl>
shouted thusly:
As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God.
Rather God sets the morality He demands we follow
to the best of our ability His Law and Commandments.
Morality cannot be based on the wishing of the most
powerfull person. That is not morality, that is Tyranny.
Not if it's God setting the moral tone. You are assuming
that you are on the same level as God and are just as
capable as Him, of judging what is right and what is wrong.
If God is perfect and is incapable of error, then it is stupid
to claim that it is tyranny for Him to set the moral tone.
Rather, a sensible person would be eager to have Him
do so.
Morality can only be based on each and every persons
personal conscience.
That is completely false. That is subjective morality
and subjective morality is a self defeating argument,
as you prove in your next sentence.
The reality is, that "moral" is that which is moral.
Your "individual conscience" makes no difference.
My individual conscience may declare that killing
you and everyone like you is "moral".
And don't bother telling me about what "society says",
because according to you, "morality is based on each
and every PERSONS PERSONAL conscience".
Moral is that wich is good for a society, rather than
the for an individual, but it is based on the individuals
own concepts of right and wrong.
You just contradicted yourself. If morality is an
INDIVIDUAL thing, then it isn't about society.
How do you propose to judge what is good for
SOCIETY, when according to you, EACH PERSON
gets to decide for themselves what is moral and
what is not?
And don't bother telling me about "what is obviously
moral", since each person gets to decide that for
themselves.
You can't have it both ways! As I said, subjective
morality is a self defeating argument and even though
I know you won't admit it, you just defeated your own
"subjective morality" argument. :)
Thatīs how it has worked for as long as there are
human beings around. Gods have come and Gods
have gone.
God has always existed.
Morality has been her to stay, only the society that
benefits from it has grown bigger.
That's a ridiculous statement! If morality is subjective,
then it hasn't "stuck around".
In the past small societies did not see anything wrong
in doing some genocide on even smaller societies.
Today we are proscecuting those who did so.
Which means that there is a contradiction. One or
the other is right. So which one was it? Morality
to you, is "whatever people feel like saying is right
today" and that is not morality. That is people
doing whatever they want and not caring if it's
right or wrong.
Now what if "society" decided that killing everyone
with your name, is moral? What then? Would that
be "tyranny"? If so, then why isn't it tyranny when
what you like to see happen, is legal, even if most
of society objects to it?
Still the USA has a law to protect those who commit
crimes against humanity.
If morality is subjective, then there is no such thing
as a crime against humanity. I may feel that killing
20 people a day is "moral". And according to you,
"morality can only be based on each and every persons
personal conscience" and therefore, I shouldn't be
prosecuted. After all, why would I be prosecuted
for doing what is "moral"?
And don't bother telling me about "what is moral
by the majority of society", because that is people
exerting their "power" over me, by their version
of what is moral and that is, according to you,
"tyranny".
As I said, subjective morality is a self defeating
argument.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
09 Dec 2006 08:06:02 AM |
|
|
Azaliah schreef:
On 8 Dec 2006 14:44:31 -0800, while bungee jumping,
"pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl>
shouted thusly:
As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God.
Rather God sets the morality He demands we follow
to the best of our ability His Law and Commandments.
Morality cannot be based on the wishing of the most
powerfull person. That is not morality, that is Tyranny.
Not if it's God setting the moral tone. You are assuming
that you are on the same level as God and are just as
capable as Him, of judging what is right and what is wrong.
You are making a wrong assesment here
I am not assuming I do not exist.
I am simply stating that morality
is something all of us (you too!) have to judge
with our own consience.
You do have a consience don't you?
If God is perfect and is incapable of error, then it is stupid
to claim that it is tyranny for Him to set the moral tone.
Rather, a sensible person would be eager to have Him
do so.
If God is perfect and incapable of error,
it is stupid to suppose our conscience isn't perfect too.
(unless of cours you are wrong, and God did not create us)
Morality can only be based on each and every persons
personal conscience.
That is completely false. That is subjective morality
and subjective morality is a self defeating argument,
as you prove in your next sentence.
It is the only morality we have
the one you belief in does not exist.
The reality is, that "moral" is that which is moral.
Your "individual conscience" makes no difference.
My individual conscience may declare that killing
you and everyone like you is "moral".
In the times of Samuel it was "moral"
to kill (Amelekite) women and children,
now it is not.
So it changes (for the better I think)
And don't bother telling me about what "society says",
because according to you, "morality is based on each
and every PERSONS PERSONAL conscience".
The total som of every person being the society
what is wrong with that?
Moral is that wich is good for a society, rather than
the for an individual, but it is based on the individuals
own concepts of right and wrong.
You just contradicted yourself. If morality is an
INDIVIDUAL thing, then it isn't about society.
You don't get it do you?
Society depents on individuals
even more then the inidividuals depent on the society.
How do you propose to judge what is good for
SOCIETY, when according to you, EACH PERSON
gets to decide for themselves what is moral and
what is not?
That's how evolution works
Just like the individual genes get selected
by survival of the fittest
the morals of individuals get selected
by survival of the society.
And don't bother telling me about "what is obviously
moral", since each person gets to decide that for
themselves.
Aha you assume free will don't you?
Well we haven't We get our basic morals from our parents
and teachers, and we can only refine them a little.
In fact we are mostly just widening their use
to encompas a greater society.
My own morals are only slightly different
from the moralls as shown in Matthew 19:16-26.
I suppise yours are too.
You can't have it both ways! As I said, subjective
morality is a self defeating argument and even though
I know you won't admit it, you just defeated your own
"subjective morality" argument. :)
I didn't defeate my own argument,
In fact I do not even think of it as an argument.
I see it as a way of stating the facts.
Morals are the base everybody's inndividual conscience
There content isn't that much different from your "absolute morals"
the main difference, is that I cannot put aside my morals,
because of the words of a powerflull person.
That=B4s how it has worked for as long as there are
human beings around. Gods have come and Gods
have gone.
God has always existed.
He wasn't known to Moses before he saw the burning bush.
Neither do we today know very much about "the Queen of heavens".
Morality has been her to stay, only the society that
benefits from it has grown bigger.
That's a ridiculous statement! If morality is subjective,
then it hasn't "stuck around".
You don not believe in inheditary attributes do you?
By the way I didn;t say morals are subjecitive
that was a conclusion you made.
Morals are just as objective or subjective
as anything psychology or antropology talks about.
I find the terms impratical.
Morals are memes,
they are passed on from person to person,
being carried by the genetical make-up of the individual,
that is mostly very well endowned to carry moral ideas.
In the past small societies did not see anything wrong
in doing some genocide on even smaller societies.
Today we are proscecuting those who did so.
Which means that there is a contradiction. One or
the other is right. So which one was it? Morality
to you, is "whatever people feel like saying is right
today" and that is not morality. That is people
doing whatever they want and not caring if it's
right or wrong.
You still do not see it, do you?
Morality sprang from the need of the owner of the genes,
to protect it's genes by protecting it's family.
Human beings have gone beyond that,
and build a greater "family"
where nowadays many treat all other humans,
as if they were brothers and sisters.
Then again, people do not claim
that doing whatever they like is moral.
Neither do I.
Moral is what we (together) decide is more important then our own
likings.
To me that includes letting other people do what they like,
(and not try and force them to do what I like)
as long as they do hurt other people by doing so.
Now what if "society" decided that killing everyone
with your name, is moral? What then? Would that
be "tyranny"? If so, then why isn't it tyranny when
what you like to see happen, is legal, even if most
of society objects to it?
Killing everybody named "Peter" or "van Velzen"?
I am not afraid that such a thing might happen.
Indeed such a thing is only probable in a tyranny,
as it is very unlikely that verybody by his/her own concsience
would support this idea.
Both in tyrrany and in democracy
it is possible that the rulin party has a different opinion then me.
Hitler decided to kill the jews,
the majority of Dutch voters, thought it morally acceptable
to prepair for genocide (by installing nuclear weapons)
Of course 6 million or so jews died,
and no pershing or cruise missile ever carried
a nuclear bomb towards eastern Europe,
but clearly the peoples idea of morality wasn't exactly the same as
mine.
Still we agreed that normally we shouldn't kill.
Still the USA has a law to protect those who commit
crimes against humanity.
If morality is subjective, then there is no such thing
as a crime against humanity. I may feel that killing
20 people a day is "moral". And according to you,
"morality can only be based on each and every persons
personal conscience" and therefore, I shouldn't be
prosecuted. After all, why would I be prosecuted
for doing what is "moral"?
The law is a condensation of the morality of the majority.
Most nations today insist that certain acts are crimes against humanity
and many serbs, croates and bosnians have already been found guilty.
Appearantly most of us find it moral to do so.
You still do not realize, most of our morals are shared by practically
everyone, do you?
I suppose that is because we tend to spend most of our time debating
the differences.
And the reason for that is obvious.
Talking about what we share may make us feel good,
but it doesn't help us to improve.
Settling an argument on the other hand, will help us improve.
(most of the time. We might pick the wrong idea as a winner sometimes)
And don't bother telling me about "what is moral
by the majority of society", because that is people
exerting their "power" over me, by their version
of what is moral and that is, according to you,
"tyranny".
As I said, subjective morality is a self defeating
argument.
There are morals that are enforced
and there are morals that are not enforced.
Telling lies is mostly tollerated by law
killing is mostly restricted by law.
Morally both are condemned by most of us.
Adultery is mostly tolerated by law
stealing is mostly restricted by law
Morally both are condemned by most of us
(even by adulterers and thieves)
My issue was not whether something is immoral or against the law.
My issue was that something is not moral because X says so.
something is moral because our conscience says so.
My conscience and yours are practically the same I suspect.
The only difference thus far being,
that you think you would (greatly) change you morality
if "God" told you to,
why I think I would only (slightly) change my morality
if someone made me change my mind.
My idea is what can be observed happening,
while your idea cannot be observed happening.
It is far more likely your morality might chance the way I think it
could,
than that my morality would change because of a God.
Any change in our morality being very small and rare.
If you still don't believe me,
tell me what your moral views are
(beginning with the most substantial please)
and I will tell you mine
I predict they won't be so different.
I will start with one.
1=2E Don't Hurt!
Peter van Velzen
December 2006
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Azaliah" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
09 Dec 2006 02:07:39 PM |
|
|
On 9 Dec 2006 06:06:02 -0800, while bungee jumping,
"pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> shouted
thusly:
Azaliah schreef:
On 8 Dec 2006 14:44:31 -0800, while bungee jumping,
"pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl>
shouted thusly:
As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God.
Rather God sets the morality He demands we follow
to the best of our ability His Law and Commandments.
Morality cannot be based on the wishing of the most
powerfull person. That is not morality, that is Tyranny.
Not if it's God setting the moral tone. You are assuming
that you are on the same level as God and are just as
capable as Him, of judging what is right and what is wrong.
You are making a wrong assesment here
I am not assuming I do not exist.
I didn't say you were.
I am simply stating that morality
is something all of us (you too!) have to judge
with our own consience.
You do have a consience don't you?
Subjective morality is a self defeating argument.
By your judgment, murder is okay, as long as
you think it's moral.
If God is perfect and is incapable of error, then it is stupid
to claim that it is tyranny for Him to set the moral tone.
Rather, a sensible person would be eager to have Him
do so.
If God is perfect and incapable of error,
it is stupid to suppose our conscience isn't perfect too.
(unless of cours you are wrong, and God did not create us)
That's ridiculous. You have erred more than once,
so to claim perfection, makes you flat out stupid.
Morality can only be based on each and every persons
personal conscience.
That is completely false. That is subjective morality
and subjective morality is a self defeating argument,
as you prove in your next sentence.
It is the only morality we have
the one you belief in does not exist.
You're dodging the problem.
The reality is, that "moral" is that which is moral.
Your "individual conscience" makes no difference.
My individual conscience may declare that killing
you and everyone like you is "moral".
In the times of Samuel it was "moral"
to kill (Amelekite) women and children,
now it is not.
So it changes (for the better I think)
You think yourself capable of judging what is moral
for everyone else and then complain about how
morals are imposed upon you, that you think
are in reality, immoral. The truth is, you're not
very bright, or you're very stubborn.
And don't bother telling me about what "society says",
because according to you, "morality is based on each
and every PERSONS PERSONAL conscience".
The total som of every person being the society
what is wrong with that?
You contradicted yourself and are incapable of
admitting it. You defeated your own argument
and I won't waste my time with someone who
can't admit to their own words.
Subjective morality is a self defeating argument
and if morality is that which each individual thinks
is moral, according to your own words, then "society"
cannot dictate what is moral, since that may conflict
with what I, as an individual, think is "moral".
You have some thinking to do. Goodbye.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
24 Dec 2006 12:01:25 PM |
|
|
Azaliah schreef:
On 9 Dec 2006 06:06:02 -0800, while bungee jumping,
"pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> shouted
thusly:
Azaliah schreef:
On 8 Dec 2006 14:44:31 -0800, while bungee jumping,
"pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl>
shouted thusly:
As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God.
Rather God sets the morality He demands we follow
to the best of our ability His Law and Commandments.
Morality cannot be based on the wishing of the most
powerfull person. That is not morality, that is Tyranny.
Not if it's God setting the moral tone. You are assuming
that you are on the same level as God and are just as
capable as Him, of judging what is right and what is wrong.
You are making a wrong assesment here
I am not assuming I do not exist.
I didn't say you were.
I am simply stating that morality
is something all of us (you too!) have to judge
with our own consience.
You do have a consience don't you?
Subjective morality is a self defeating argument.
By your judgment, murder is okay, as long as
you think it's moral.
You still do not seem to get it, do you?
Morality is not what we like,
it is what we think is the right thing to do!
The possibility of me thinking murder is moral is Zero.
How about you?
Even the fact that you use the word murder,
indicates it is a form of killing you condemn:)
The Moral issue would be: What kind of killing do we consider immoral
(murder)
and what kind of killing do condider moral.
It is clear that there is no consenses here.
We have capital punishment, abortion, Euthenasia, Landmines, nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons, and champions for the (im)morality of
each can be found.
If God is perfect and is incapable of error, then it is stupid
to claim that it is tyranny for Him to set the moral tone.
Rather, a sensible person would be eager to have Him
do so.
If God is perfect and incapable of error,
it is stupid to suppose our conscience isn't perfect too.
(unless of cours you are wrong, and God did not create us)
That's ridiculous. You have erred more than once,
so to claim perfection, makes you flat out stupid.
So god's creation was imperfect?
How can that be when God is perfect?
Morality can only be based on each and every persons
personal conscience.
That is completely false. That is subjective morality
and subjective morality is a self defeating argument,
as you prove in your next sentence.
It is the only morality we have
the one you belief in does not exist.
You're dodging the problem.
No, you are.
The problem is thisL
(almost) All people have morals.
and most of their morals are the same,
but there are differences too.
We will have to settle those differebces if we what a morally just
justice system,
and we are at that all the time.
However many centuries ago people wrote books on the subject,
which for one reason or anothere were presented as "gods" word,
and whenever it suits our purposes, we try to persent the words form
those books.
as absolute morality.
Howvever there is not absolute morality.
The same book that considered it to be moral to kill your own child,
when Abraham and Jefta did it,
said it spurred an imdignation, when the king of Moab did it.
And the people who try and live by that book,
now often maintain it is murder even if the child is still in the womb.
(something for which there is no support in the book).
The reality is, that "moral" is that which is moral.
Your "individual conscience" makes no difference.
My individual conscience may declare that killing
you and everyone like you is "moral".
In the times of Samuel it was "moral"
to kill (Amelekite) women and children,
now it is not.
So it changes (for the better I think)
You think yourself capable of judging what is moral
for everyone else and then complain about how
morals are imposed upon you, that you think
are in reality, immoral. The truth is, you're not
very bright, or you're very stubborn.
No I am not very bright, my IQ was only 140 at it's best.
But I have to judge what is moral,
whether or not I am very good at it,
because if I cannot, I cannot be a just person.
Carrying out the judgement of someone else,
does not make one a just person.
Or do you think Hitlers Henchman were just persons?
They justs obeyed there orders, you know.
And don't bother telling me about what "society says",
because according to you, "morality is based on each
and every PERSONS PERSONAL conscience".
The total som of every person being the society
what is wrong with that?
You contradicted yourself and are incapable of
admitting it. You defeated your own argument
and I won't waste my time with someone who
can't admit to their own words.
What words do I have to admit to?
Where did I contradict myself?
You claim a lot of faults on my side,
but you never care to explain, what is wrong.
You seem to have this pre-conceived idea
that "subjective morality" as you call it,
is self defeating.
You supported that idea by any argument I can remember.
Subjective morality is a self defeating argument
and if morality is that which each individual thinks
is moral, according to your own words, then "society"
cannot dictate what is moral, since that may conflict
with what I, as an individual, think is "moral".
True.
Hitler Germany could not dictate what is moral
not to all of the Germans,
Those who possessed real morality
did not comply
The same happened when the Romans dictated that people should worship
the emperor,
and when the RC church didctated people should submit to its dogma's,
People who could not overcome there concsience and it objection to
that,
were willing to die for it.
Society can dictate the law,
it cannot dictate morality,
that will always be different in different individuals.
And it will keep doing so,
as morals like genes keep varying,
only to be subject to "survival of the fittest:
I hope our morals are fit to survive.
But only time can tell.
You have some thinking to do. Goodbye.
I did
I did a lot,
And on this subject, I think I did more thinking then you have
demonstrated so far.
Now I am going off-line till next year,
So Happy Holidays
and a Happy New Year to you.
Peter van Velzen
December 2006
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
09 Dec 2006 08:17:56 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:07:39 GMT, Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Subjective morality is a self defeating argument.
Christian "morality" is subjective by definition, so there goes
Christianity.
By your judgment, murder is okay, as long as
you think it's moral.
But, since it's not moral (merely by definition, if not for any other
reason), it's not okay.
Unless you redefine murder.
If God is perfect and incapable of error,
it is stupid to suppose our conscience isn't perfect too.
(unless of cours you are wrong, and God did not create us)
That's ridiculous. You have erred more than once,
so to claim perfection, makes you flat out stupid.
Your claim is that we're created in the image of a perfect god - which
means that we're created perfect. That's such nonsense that it
doesn't even need refutation.
Morality can only be based on each and every persons
personal conscience.
That is completely false. That is subjective morality
and subjective morality is a self defeating argument,
as you prove in your next sentence.
It is the only morality we have
the one you belief in does not exist.
You're dodging the problem.
One that you created, and one that doesn't warrant wasting effort on.
The reality is, that "moral" is that which is moral.
Your "individual conscience" makes no difference.
My individual conscience may declare that killing
you and everyone like you is "moral".
In the times of Samuel it was "moral"
to kill (Amelekite) women and children,
now it is not.
So it changes (for the better I think)
You think yourself capable of judging what is moral
for everyone else and then complain about how
morals are imposed upon you, that you think
are in reality, immoral. The truth is, you're not
very bright, or you're very stubborn.
You're dodging the problem.
And don't bother telling me about what "society says",
because according to you, "morality is based on each
and every PERSONS PERSONAL conscience".
The total som of every person being the society
what is wrong with that?
You contradicted yourself and are incapable of
admitting it.
The only problem here is that, being morally infantile, you can't
understand morality.
Subjective morality is a self defeating argument
If it were, Christianity is defeated. If Christian morality is
whatever the Christian god says it is, and if people have the choice
of accepting that morality or not, it's totally subjective and
relative.
and if morality is that which each individual thinks
is moral, according to your own words, then "society"
cannot dictate what is moral, since that may conflict
with what I, as an individual, think is "moral".
If you were morally mature, which you aren't, you'd see that moral
adults have to agree on what's moral and what isn't.
You have some thinking to do.
You have to learn how to think. You haven't showed any signs of the
ability yet. When you grow up you'll be able to think.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
09 Dec 2006 02:38:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:07:39 GMT, in alt.atheism
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in
<32gmn295676cijdd9q3s0oge8haar3mlbb@4ax.com>:
On 9 Dec 2006 06:06:02 -0800, while bungee jumping,
"pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> shouted
thusly:
Azaliah schreef:
On 8 Dec 2006 14:44:31 -0800, while bungee jumping,
"pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl>
shouted thusly:
As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God.
Rather God sets the morality He demands we follow
to the best of our ability His Law and Commandments.
Morality cannot be based on the wishing of the most
powerfull person. That is not morality, that is Tyranny.
Not if it's God setting the moral tone. You are assuming
that you are on the same level as God and are just as
capable as Him, of judging what is right and what is wrong.
You are making a wrong assesment here
I am not assuming I do not exist.
I didn't say you were.
I am simply stating that morality
is something all of us (you too!) have to judge
with our own consience.
You do have a consience don't you?
Subjective morality is a self defeating argument.
There is no such thing as an objective moral code. All morality relies
on the opinions of those who adhere to it.
By your judgment, murder is okay, as long as
you think it's moral.
By the standards of most people, killing is okay at times. A few, like
some Quakers, will never condone killing. Murder is a legal concept as
well as moral, but we often see religious people trying to redefine
murder to fit their religious preferences.
If God is perfect and is incapable of error, then it is stupid
to claim that it is tyranny for Him to set the moral tone.
Rather, a sensible person would be eager to have Him
do so.
If God is perfect and incapable of error,
it is stupid to suppose our conscience isn't perfect too.
(unless of cours you are wrong, and God did not create us)
That's ridiculous. You have erred more than once,
so to claim perfection, makes you flat out stupid.
If there were a perfect god, no one would ever have any reason to
question its behavior. The god portrayed in the Old Testament is
malicious and is not described as perfect there.
Morality can only be based on each and every persons
personal conscience.
That is completely false. That is subjective morality
and subjective morality is a self defeating argument,
as you prove in your next sentence.
It is the only morality we have
the one you belief in does not exist.
You're dodging the problem.
No, you are by falsely claiming that there is some objective standard of
morality when you are unable to show it to us. Certainly you have shown
us that you reject many of the moral teachings in the Bible. You do not
keep the commandments given by God.
The reality is, that "moral" is that which is moral.
Your "individual conscience" makes no difference.
My individual conscience may declare that killing
you and everyone like you is "moral".
In the times of Samuel it was "moral"
to kill (Amelekite) women and children,
now it is not.
So it changes (for the better I think)
You think yourself capable of judging what is moral
for everyone else and then complain about how
morals are imposed upon you, that you think
are in reality, immoral. The truth is, you're not
very bright, or you're very stubborn.
You prefer to try to claim that your morality comes from another source,
even though you are selective in accepting the commands of that source.
And don't bother telling me about what "society says",
because according to you, "morality is based on each
and every PERSONS PERSONAL conscience".
The total som of every person being the society
what is wrong with that?
You contradicted yourself and are incapable of
admitting it. You defeated your own argument
and I won't waste my time with someone who
can't admit to their own words.
Subjective morality is a self defeating argument
and if morality is that which each individual thinks
is moral, according to your own words, then "society"
cannot dictate what is moral, since that may conflict
with what I, as an individual, think is "moral".
You have some thinking to do. Goodbye.
Morality is always subjective. It doesn't come any other way.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
08 Dec 2006 11:23:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:16:51 GMT, Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 8 Dec 2006 14:44:31 -0800, while bungee jumping,
"pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl>
shouted thusly:
As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God.
Rather God sets the morality He demands we follow
to the best of our ability His Law and Commandments.
Morality cannot be based on the wishing of the most
powerfull person. That is not morality, that is Tyranny.
Not if it's God setting the moral tone. You are assuming
that you are on the same level as God
You're assuming that your myth has meaning outside your myth. It
doesn't.
If God is perfect and is incapable of error, then it is stupid
to claim that it is tyranny for Him to set the moral tone.
It's also stupid of him to rue his errors, which Christianity has him
doing.
Morality can only be based on each and every persons
personal conscience.
That is completely false.
Since that's what morality is, it's the only thing that isn't
completely false. Getting your instructions from a book and calling
that morality is what's completely false.
That is subjective morality
and subjective morality is a self defeating argument,
as you prove in your next sentence.
Your choosing to obey the Bible is subjective. Even accepting your
religion, your god's morality is subjective. He decides what's moral.
Something being decided by a mind is "subjective".
The reality is, that "moral" is that which is moral.
And that which is moral is what a morally mature person's morality
tells him is moral. Those who haven't grown up morally need some
external way of being told what's moral, like a myth about a god and
his book.
Your "individual conscience" makes no difference.
My individual conscience may declare that killing
you and everyone like you is "moral".
Then you're a moral infant.
Moral is that wich is good for a society, rather than
the for an individual, but it is based on the individuals
own concepts of right and wrong.
You just contradicted yourself. If morality is an
INDIVIDUAL thing, then it isn't about society.
See? You can't understand morality because you're not morally mature.
Yet. Maybe never. Most theists never make it.
How do you propose to judge what is good for
SOCIETY, when according to you, EACH PERSON
gets to decide for themselves what is moral and
what is not?
Each person doesn't decide - each moral person knows. Morally
immature people can't understand morality.
And don't bother telling me about "what is obviously
moral", since each person gets to decide that for
themselves.
You can't have it both ways! As I said, subjective
morality is a self defeating argument and even though
I know you won't admit it, you just defeated your own
"subjective morality" argument. :)
Keep a copy of your post. If you ever mature morally, re-read it for
a good laugh.
Thatīs how it has worked for as long as there are
human beings around. Gods have come and Gods
have gone.
God has always existed.
That statement only has meaning within your religion.
Morality has been her to stay, only the society that
benefits from it has grown bigger.
That's a ridiculous statement! If morality is subjective,
then it hasn't "stuck around".
It's not subjective. YOUR "god" morality is - it's relative morality,
relative to your god.
In the past small societies did not see anything wrong
in doing some genocide on even smaller societies.
Today we are proscecuting those who did so.
Which means that there is a contradiction. One or
the other is right.
One was right then, one is right now.
According to your religion, is it right or wrong to kill other people?
Remember, you're claiming that it's an absolute morality, so the
answer has to be the same regardless of circumstances. Otherwise it's
relative morality.
When you can answer that (and your Bible has it both ways), you'll
understand morality. As long as the answer doesn't come to you
without having to think you're still not morally mature.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures
or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither
can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives
its physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism,
cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eter-
nity of life and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the exist-
ing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a
portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in
nature.
- Albert Einstein, as quoted in _Billions and Billions_, Carl Sagan.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
22 Oct 2006 03:39:23 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
But God is God and as the creator of all we only must worship Him and
honor Him, we serve God and God does not serve us.
I could never willing serve your evil God.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
21 Oct 2006 11:42:32 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful.
Then it is an immoral creature, torturing humans for its own amusement.
If it exists, it must be hunted down and destroyed.
Personally, I don't think it's going to be a problem-because there is
no evidence it exists.
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rusty Sites" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
21 Oct 2006 09:49:16 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful. I'll clearly accept the
OT accounts and the Revelation as evidence to this God shows mercy ONLY
to those He deems worthy and who accept Him as their Lord.
Read the Old Testament again. He likes Hebrews plain and simple. The
others he orders slaughtered, with his assistance, or kills with
pestilence. You have to wonder. He does rain fire or hurl lightening
bolts on occasion, so why does he have his lackeys, human or insect, do
the dirty work for him? Why have Joshua play ring around the rosey with
the walls of Jericho just so they fall down and his guys can slaughter
the inhabitants? Is this all just some sort of sadistic entertainment
for him?
Being bathed
in the redeeming blood of Jesus His beloved Son that sacrificed His
life for mankinds sin will wash away our evil.
Did you ever stop and consider how ridiculous that sounds? Jesus gets
nailed to a cross, so our sins are now OK with god? God needs to have
his son brutally executed so he can forgive us? How does that make any
sense? Bathing in blood is redeeming? It sounds so barbaric.
To those that could not
know the Law of God such as pagans unaware of the Judeo-Christian
concepts and later of jesus they will be judged fairly according to the
Natural Light of Understanding in the conscience of men. Their works
and deeds tempered by Gods mercy will be the weight of their Judgement.
Natural Light of Understanding? Does this mean this understanding can't
occur indoors or under the lights at night? Apparently, if you were
fortunate enough never to be subjected to the teachings of the Christian
religion so you could never judge it all to be utterly preposterous, you
have a chance with god. Do you really think a being capable of creating
the universe and all that is in it and who is omnipotent and omniscient
would want to spend all of eternity with people who spout this sort of
drivel?
But to others God is the Final Judge and often poured out His wrath on
humanity through use of His power directly (10 Plagues of Egypt),
through actions of His servants on Earth or through nature. He may test
us with trials such as Job or by allowing bad things to happen to the
Christian. But the world is better off right now His hand is held back
as God protects His people by restraining His wrath.
He does seem to have a very violent temper. Remember, his people are
the Hebrews. If you want some cover, you better hang out with them.
In the Revelation
after the Anti-Christ is revealed God will lift His protection and
Satan will be allowed to work then God will unleash the Final
Judgements upon all the world. Does that sound like a benevolent God?
It doesn't to me either so God is not all benevolent.
Ah, God and Satan. What a team. The ultimate good cop, bad cop routine.
But God is God and as the creator of all we only must worship Him and
honor Him, we serve God and God does not serve us. And for those too
proud to accept that then the wrath poured out upon your heads will be
earned by your treachery in failing to accept God as your Master.
As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God. Rather God sets
the morality He demands we follow to the best of our ability His Law
and Commandments.
As humans, we have to create laws to govern and protect ourselves. God
never seems to show up to help. It is always people who say they
represent god either directly or through the interpretation of what they
say is his word. It is never god who rules but, if we are stupid enough
to allow it, people who claim to represent god.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
21 Oct 2006 09:29:50 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful. I'll clearly accept the
OT accounts and the Revelation as evidence to this God shows mercy ONLY
to those He deems worthy and who accept Him as their Lord. Being bathed
in the redeeming blood of Jesus His beloved Son that sacrificed His
life for mankinds sin will wash away our evil. To those that could not
know the Law of God such as pagans unaware of the Judeo-Christian
concepts and later of jesus they will be judged fairly according to the
Natural Light of Understanding in the conscience of men. Their works
and deeds tempered by Gods mercy will be the weight of their Judgement.
But to others God is the Final Judge and often poured out His wrath on
humanity through use of His power directly (10 Plagues of Egypt),
through actions of His servants on Earth or through nature. He may test
us with trials such as Job or by allowing bad things to happen to the
Christian. But the world is better off right now His hand is held back
as God protects His people by restraining His wrath. In the Revelation
after the Anti-Christ is revealed God will lift His protection and
Satan will be allowed to work then God will unleash the Final
Judgements upon all the world. Does that sound like a benevolent God?
It doesn't to me either so God is not all benevolent.
But God is God and as the creator of all we only must worship Him and
honor Him, we serve God and God does not serve us. And for those too
proud to accept that then the wrath poured out upon your heads will be
earned by your treachery in failing to accept God as your Master.
As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God. Rather God sets
the morality He demands we follow to the best of our ability His Law
and Commandments.
THERE. IS. NO. GOD. Understand?
Now FOAD, and take this ***** with you.
--
Lucifer, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General
Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
22 Oct 2006 12:31:20 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful. I'll clearly accept the
OT accounts and the Revelation as evidence to this God shows mercy ONLY
to those He deems worthy and who accept Him as their Lord. Being bathed
in the redeeming blood of Jesus His beloved Son that sacrificed His
life for mankinds sin will wash away our evil. To those that could not
know the Law of God such as pagans unaware of the Judeo-Christian
concepts and later of jesus they will be judged fairly according to the
Natural Light of Understanding in the conscience of men. Their works
and deeds tempered by Gods mercy will be the weight of their Judgement.
But to others God is the Final Judge and often poured out His wrath on
humanity through use of His power directly (10 Plagues of Egypt),
through actions of His servants on Earth or through nature. He may test
us with trials such as Job or by allowing bad things to happen to the
Christian. But the world is better off right now His hand is held back
as God protects His people by restraining His wrath. In the Revelation
after the Anti-Christ is revealed God will lift His protection and
Satan will be allowed to work then God will unleash the Final
Judgements upon all the world. Does that sound like a benevolent God?
It doesn't to me either so God is not all benevolent.
And you, uh, worship this thing?
But God is God and as the creator of all we only must worship Him and
honor Him, we serve God and God does not serve us. And for those too
proud to accept that then the wrath poured out upon your heads will be
earned by your treachery in failing to accept God as your Master.
As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God. Rather God sets
the morality He demands we follow to the best of our ability His Law
and Commandments.
So if your god told you to kill your mother, would you do it? What if
it said it had to be through a slow, torturous evisceration? What if it
told you to begin feasting on her entrails before she's even dead? What
if it told you to gather all of your children around, and explain to
them that they'll get to do this to you some day? What if it told you
to smile while doing all this?
I'll assume you're not going to say "Well of course I'd do it", and
preemptively say that this illustrates the flaw in your system. Humans
are quite capable of judging the morality of various concepts, no
matter their source. So saying that you "don't set the morality to
judge God" is absurd. Of course you do. You're simply rationalizing the
monstrosities in your book, which is very easy to do since the
monstrosities carried out in your gods name have always been far away
and long ago.
In the off chance that you do say "Well of course I'd do it", I'd like
you to print out this post, take it to a doctor and say "I need help."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
22 Oct 2006 10:41:43 AM |
|
|
Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
Chris Johnson wrote:
Kate wrote:
There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful. I'll clearly accept the
OT accounts and the Revelation as evidence to this God shows mercy ONLY
to those He deems worthy and who accept Him as their Lord. Being bathed
in the redeeming blood of Jesus His beloved Son that sacrificed His
life for mankinds sin will wash away our evil. To those that could not
know the Law of God such as pagans unaware of the Judeo-Christian
concepts and later of jesus they will be judged fairly according to the
Natural Light of Understanding in the conscience of men. Their works
and deeds tempered by Gods mercy will be the weight of their Judgement.
But to others God is the Final Judge and often poured out His wrath on
humanity through use of His power directly (10 Plagues of Egypt),
through actions of His servants on Earth or through nature. He may test
us with trials such as Job or by allowing bad things to happen to the
Christian. But the world is better off right now His hand is held back
as God protects His people by restraining His wrath. In the Revelation
after the Anti-Christ is revealed God will lift His protection and
Satan will be allowed to work then God will unleash the Final
Judgements upon all the world. Does that sound like a benevolent God?
It doesn't to me either so God is not all benevolent.
And you, uh, worship this thing?
But God is God and as the creator of all we only must worship Him and
honor Him, we serve God and God does not serve us. And for those too
proud to accept that then the wrath poured out upon your heads will be
earned by your treachery in failing to accept God as your Master.
As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God. Rather God sets
the morality He demands we follow to the best of our ability His Law
and Commandments.
So if your god told you to kill your mother, would you do it? What if
it said it had to be through a slow, torturous evisceration? What if it
told you to begin feasting on her entrails before she's even dead? What
if it told you to gather all of your children around, and explain to
them that they'll get to do this to you some day? What if it told you
to smile while doing all this?
I'll assume you're not going to say "Well of course I'd do it", and
preemptively say that this illustrates the flaw in your system. Humans
are quite capable of judging the morality of various concepts, no
matter their source. So saying that you "don't set the morality to
judge God" is absurd. Of course you do. You're simply rationalizing the
monstrosities in your book, which is very easy to do since the
monstrosities carried out in your gods name have always been far away
and long ago.
In the off chance that you do say "Well of course I'd do it", I'd like
you to print out this post, take it to a doctor and say "I need help."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
22 Oct 2006 01:27:42 PM |
|
|
"Kate" <katecoleman_fl@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161531703.917802.306860@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
Any being willing to 'test your faith' in such a way isn't worthy of
worship.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
23 Oct 2006 09:34:37 AM |
|
|
"Kate" <katecoleman_fl@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161531703.917802.306860@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
You would really kill your mother because of a voice in your head? That's
freakin' scary.
Please stay off the streets and away from me and my family, okay?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rod" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
23 Oct 2006 08:59:00 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:4q41vvFl5in2U1@individual.net...
"Kate" <katecoleman_fl@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161531703.917802.306860@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
You would really kill your mother because of a voice in your head? That's
freakin' scary.
Please stay off the streets and away from me and my family, okay?
THis is another reason why I believe that religious zealots of any
religion should be banned
from holding any public office !
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Rod
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
26 Oct 2006 08:30:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:59:00 -0500, "Rod" <freelance74601@yahoo.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:4q41vvFl5in2U1@individual.net...
"Kate" <katecoleman_fl@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161531703.917802.306860@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
You would really kill your mother because of a voice in your head? That's
freakin' scary.
Please stay off the streets and away from me and my family, okay?
THis is another reason why I believe that religious zealots of any
religion should be banned
from holding any public office !
No argument from me. I think they should be gathered up and released in
Afghanistan or Iraq.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
23 Oct 2006 09:15:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:34:37 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <4q41vvFl5in2U1@individual.net>
"Kate" <katecoleman_fl@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161531703.917802.306860@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
You would really kill your mother because of a voice in your head? That's
freakin' scary.
Please stay off the streets and away from me and my family, okay?
And you will note how many of her fellow deludee Christian maniacs are
telling her to shut up.
None.
That means that they all AGREE with her!!!
No wonder the world is a mess.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent |
26 Oct 2006 08:32:19 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:45:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:34:37 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <4q41vvFl5in2U1@individual.net>
"Kate" <katecoleman_fl@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161531703.917802.306860@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
You would really kill your mother because of a voice in your head? That's
freakin' scary.
Please stay off the streets and away from me and my family, okay?
And you will note how many of her fellow deludee Christian maniacs are
telling her to shut up.
None.
That means that they all AGREE with her!!!
Of course. That's a unsurprising given. Each and every one of them
would eagerly kill ten billion people if it would get them 'heaven.'
No wonder the world is a mess.
Yeah, and the stupid fucks can't figure out they're the fucking problem
and not the solution.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: TQOTM Nomination (was Re: God is NOT Omni-benevolent) |
22 Oct 2006 12:05:52 PM |
|
|
In response to:
So if your god told you to kill your mother, would you do it? What if
it said it had to be through a slow, torturous evisceration? What if it
told you to begin feasting on her entrails before she's even dead? What
if it told you to gather all of your children around, and explain to
them that they'll get to do this to you some day? What if it told you
to smile while doing all this?
Kate wrote:
Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
Seconds?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM Nomination REMOVAL |
22 Oct 2006 04:58:15 PM |
|
|
"Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1161536752.908151.38720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
In response to:
So if your god told you to kill your mother, would you do it? What
if it said it had to be through a slow, torturous evisceration?
What if it told you to begin feasting on her entrails before she's
even dead? What if it told you to gather all of your children
around, and explain to them that they'll get to do this to you some
day? What if it told you to smile while doing all this?
Kate wrote:
Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
Seconds?
Chris, I was nominated for a TQOTM. I assumed and was assured it was a
compliment. If I am going to be placed in the same catagory as Kate, how
do I go about getting my nomination and seconds removed? I do not wish
my beliefs to be associated with hers in any way, shape, fashion, or
form..... not even in the same catagory. Guilt by association, and all
that.
Pangur - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
| | | | |
