Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The Jesus thing wasn't even the worst thing God did. Isn't that weird that you can say sacrificing his own son for no reason isn't the worst thing he did? Of course was it really a sacrifice since he knew Jesus would come back? But he still caused temporary pain to his child to make..some kind of point? Or allowed it to happen anyways since he didn't directly do it. When God gets involved the body count tends to be more then just one person.

I don't think it is moral to punish us because God doesn't punish bad people the way we do. Yes we do execute people, but we don't tend to do the kinds of horrific stuff that happen to people who get on God's bad side.

On the other hand people will say morals don't apply to God. He just wants everyone else *but* him to have them apparently. Just for me it is hypocritical for God to expect people to behave a certain way and then on certain occasions he behaves worse then any human that has ever existed.

Seems about right.

I want to note not all atheists think there is no afterlife. I do believe we have something akin to a soul that continues on, I just don't think there is a specific heaven and hell all created by a specific deity. I do believe in things like spiritual activity.

Um...not sure how believing in spiritual reality makes you an atheist.

I mean in the conventional meaning of the term.

I'd say non-religious and agnostic seem better terms for me, personally.

I don't believe in anything in terms of a creator deity. I believe in energy, and metaphysical shit. I don't believe physical death is the end, but it doesn't mean I believe in a biblical God or anything like that. I do not think the universe was created by any being. Whether it was the biblical God or a guy named Ralph, I don't think anyone did it.

For me an agnostic believes that something out there created all this..it's just not the biblical God.

Is it moral for God to punish us?

God doesn't punish us. Any god that punishes humans is man-made.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Any god that punishes humans is man-made.
Why? Can you elaborate.

So god is basically beyond the concept of morality, but He's not beyond punishing us.

Interesting.

I think you misunderstood the point.

God is the source of morality, at least if we assume morality is objective (which everyone more or less upholds either way)

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=260

Tattoos N Scars should have the decency to post the poorly thought out and idiotic essays he is stealing from.

Smite me

Originally posted by NemeBro
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=260

Tattoos N Scars should have the decency to post the poorly thought out and idiotic essays he is stealing from.
Can you point out in what ways it is poorly thought out?


And agreed, citing proper sources shoudl be a universal practice. :/

Originally posted by Stigma
Why? Can you elaborate.

Because God punishing humanity, makes humans feel very important.

For me it is simple. I do not care how powerful you are. Actions speak louder then words. The actions of the biblical God, if real and the bible is accurate, mean he has no real right to judge anyone for anything. You can't commit atrocities and then harp on people who do much lesser shit.

Originally posted by NemeBro
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=260

Tattoos N Scars should have the decency to post the poorly thought out and idiotic essays he is stealing from.

Tatto DID post the "poorly thought out and idiotic essay" he was "stealing" from here. Or at least a lion's share of it. Such, presumably, is your issue here. What you mean to say is that he should post the SOURCE of the above, or at least in some way give credit to its original author.


I'm finding it interesting that you were inspired to perform that task for him.


I also find it mildly interesting, though not in the least surprising, that you call the essay " poorly thought out and idiotic" without even the hint of a reason why you think the article should be judged that way.

Care to share WHY you give it that verdict, or think that anyone else should?

Before we even ask this question, we have to first define what is moral and immoral.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Before we even ask this question, we have to first define what is moral and immoral.

Moral is whatever God decides it's moral, like with everything 131

Apparently.

Including infanticide and slavery.

God is a cosmic bully.

Originally posted by Surtur
The Jesus thing wasn't even the worst thing God did. Isn't that weird that you can say sacrificing his own son for no reason isn't the worst thing he did? Of course was it really a sacrifice since he knew Jesus would come back? But he still caused temporary pain to his child to make..some kind of point? Or allowed it to happen anyways since he didn't directly do it. When God gets involved the body count tends to be more then just one person.

I don't think it is moral to punish us because God doesn't punish bad people the way we do. Yes we do execute people, but we don't tend to do the kinds of horrific stuff that happen to people who get on God's bad side.

On the other hand people will say morals don't apply to God. He just wants everyone else *but* him to have them apparently. Just for me it is hypocritical for God to expect people to behave a certain way and then on certain occasions he behaves worse then any human that has ever existed.

Seems you are well versed and a decent thinker.

Scriptures do say we are to emulate God, === but only immoral pricks would try.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is it moral for God to punish us?

God doesn't punish us. Any god that punishes humans is man-made.

You should have included that all the Gods are all man made.

That is a truth that has yet to be refuted.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
So god is basically beyond the concept of morality, but He's not beyond punishing us.

Interesting.

Indeed. As he should not know who to punish for being evil and who to reward for being good.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Stigma
I think you misunderstood the point.

God is the source of morality, at least if we assume morality is objective (which everyone more or less upholds either way)

Eh, no.

Most know that morals are subjective.

There might be the one exception that I have yet to refute to my own satisfaction.

Name a few of your objective moral tenets so that I can see what exactly you speak of please.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Surtur
For me it is simple. I do not care how powerful you are. Actions speak louder then words. The actions of the biblical God, if real and the bible is accurate, mean he has no real right to judge anyone for anything. You can't commit atrocities and then harp on people who do much lesser shit.

I wish Christians would get that instead of them resorting to creating a double moral standard where they condemn men for doing what they praise God for doing.

Like the killing of babies.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Before we even ask this question, we have to first define what is moral and immoral.

Don't you know?

If you do, I will likely agree with your view.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Bentley
Moral is whatever God decides it's moral, like with everything 131

Only if you have your head up his immoral ass.

Remember that this is a God that likes to order the heads of babies smashed onto rocks.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Remember that this is a God that likes to order the heads of babies smashed onto rocks. They're a threat to his power.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
They're a threat to his power.

Just like any who think are.

Hence --------

http://imgur.com/IBroXK9

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
You should have included that all the Gods are all man made.

That is a truth that has yet to be refuted.

Regards
DL

Does that include alien gods?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Does that include alien gods? Not if you include Indiana Jones 4.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I wish Christians would get that instead of them resorting to creating a double moral standard where they condemn men for doing what they praise God for doing.

Like the killing of babies.

Regards
DL

Yep, what people don't realize is super powers don't make you immune to the rules, to the law. If the law of the land(the cosmic law, that is) is "don't kill" then nah..God doesn't get to kill. Especially when an omnipotent being has so many other options besides murder in makes said omnipotent look like a lazy, stupid, sack of crap for not being able to come up with better ways to handle things.

The first 3 commandments handed down from this abomination pretty much tell us all we need to know about it anyways. He could of saved everyone a lot of time by simplifying it down to what he truly means:

1st commandment-worship me b*tches
2nd commandment-do what I say b*tches
3rd-10th commandments-repeat 1st and 2nd commandments ad nauseam.

Assuming God does indeed exist, why would his laws for us apply to him in the exact way? I mean humans create laws for animals that don't apply to them. For example, if a dog bites a person then that dog is put down. Not the case for humans.

Not the best analogy I know but again assuming then is a God then would the same "logic" apply? Serious question.

Why not?

We always test each other through different ways and for different reasons.

What is morally wrong with God judging us for our deeds?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD


What is morally wrong with God judging us for our deeds?

When you have killed babies and children in order to make a point you really have no place judging anyone for anything. When you send down floods to kill, fire and brimstone to smite, etc. you have no room to judge anyone. God has no room to even judge the worst of the worst.

Or we could do it the other way: turnabout is fair play. God judges us? We judge the abomination right back.

Originally posted by juggerman
Assuming God does indeed exist, why would his laws for us apply to him in the exact way? I mean humans create laws for animals that don't apply to them. For example, if a dog bites a person then that dog is put down. Not the case for humans.

Not the best analogy I know but again assuming then is a God then would the same "logic" apply? Serious question.

Frankly you don't get to say "one set of rules for me, one set for you". Animals can't comprehend things like morality, etc. But since God is the one who gave us these rules of course he can comprehend morality. He chooses not to and it just comes down to "might makes right". God is super awesome and eternal and has super powers so meh the whole morals thing is for lesser beings. For for those without powers? Oh you sure as shit best follow those rules because..well, because might makes right and a powerful entity told you to.

Originally posted by Surtur
Frankly you don't get to say "one set of rules for me, one set for you". Animals can't comprehend things like morality, etc. But since God is the one who gave us these rules of course he can comprehend morality. He chooses not to and it just comes down to "might makes right". God is super awesome and eternal and has super powers so meh the whole morals thing is for lesser beings. For for those without powers? Oh you sure as shit best follow those rules because..well, because might makes right and a powerful entity told you to.

Again if we are assuming God exists as the architect of the universe and life and all that exists; His comprehension of everything would be as far beyond ours as ours is beyond animals. Even farther beyond. So again it would seem similar standards of "this applies to lower beings but not higher ones" would still fit.

We kill animals for many reasons and not only is it legal but in many cases it is moral and just. But of course to the animals we may come off as dicks.

Originally posted by Surtur
When you have killed babies and children in order to make a point you really have no place judging anyone for anything. When you send down floods to kill, fire and brimstone to smite, etc. you have no room to judge anyone. God has no room to even judge the worst of the worst.

Or we could do it the other way: turnabout is fair play. God judges us? We judge the abomination right back.
You are looking at this matter from your own perspective which isn't a sound method to determine the bigger picture.

Suppose that you have established an organization. You may hire people to manage its operations and vice versa. If they will not follow your instructions and advice, you will warn them (initially) and fire them (eventually). Right? Similar principle works at the higher level.

---

God have granted us (humans) sufficient cognitive potential to understand the concept of morality (right versus wrong). Moreover, God have shown us the right path (Ten Commandments; Holy Quran and vice versa).

Now, it is up to us to understand the wisdom behind his teachings. If we choose the right path, we will be rewarded. If we choose the wrong path, we will face the consequences.

---

However, we cannot judge God from the lens of morality only. There are other ground realities in the picture. For example, some animals kill other animals to ensure their survival (i.e. predators).

Q: So are the predators 'morally wrong' to kill other animals?

A: No! Predators have a role to play in the maintenance of the ecosystems. In their absence, the prey will wreak havoc on the ecosystems at large.

Now, humans are increasing in numbers at a rapid pace. A time will come when humans will posit a grave threat to the well-being of the Earth itself due to overpopulation and other factors.

Q: So what should be the logical response, in your opinion?

A: Reset the ecosystem.

Originally posted by juggerman
Again if we are assuming God exists as the architect of the universe and life and all that exists; His comprehension of everything would be as far beyond ours as ours is beyond animals. Even farther beyond. So again it would seem similar standards of "this applies to lower beings but not higher ones" would still fit.

We kill animals for many reasons and not only is it legal but in many cases it is moral and just. But of course to the animals we may come off as dicks.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Does that include alien gods?

No alien I ever met has claimed to believe in a God.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Surtur
Yep, what people don't realize is super powers don't make you immune to the rules, to the law. If the law of the land(the cosmic law, that is) is "don't kill" then nah..God doesn't get to kill. Especially when an omnipotent being has so many other options besides murder in makes said omnipotent look like a lazy, stupid, sack of crap for not being able to come up with better ways to handle things.

The first 3 commandments handed down from this abomination pretty much tell us all we need to know about it anyways. He could of saved everyone a lot of time by simplifying it down to what he truly means:

1st commandment-worship me b*tches
2nd commandment-do what I say b*tches
3rd-10th commandments-repeat 1st and 2nd commandments ad nauseam.

Well put.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by juggerman
Assuming God does indeed exist, why would his laws for us apply to him in the exact way? I mean humans create laws for animals that don't apply to them. For example, if a dog bites a person then that dog is put down. Not the case for humans.

Not the best analogy I know but again assuming then is a God then would the same "logic" apply? Serious question.

2 things come to mind.

First, we are in his image so there is no real difference in our psychology. God confirmed that in Eden.

Second, scriptures tell us to emulate God. Be ye as perfect is what we are told to try to achieve.

What God does, we are to do. If he can ignore his laws then so can we if we are to follow his every lead.

You will note that our law of the land applies to our own judges as well as ourselves.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Why not?

We always test each other through different ways and for different reasons.

What is morally wrong with God judging us for our deeds?

Firstly. He is not around to clarify any of his laws for us and we could be doing wrong without even knowing it.

Secondly, the God of scriptures showed that he can be bribed by sacrifices and ransoms and that he punishes the innocent instead off the guilty which is counter to any moral law.

IOW. He is not worthy to judge us because his morals are worse than ours.

The immoral a hole even murdered Kind David's baby after torturing it for 6 days just because he was angry with David.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD

Now, humans are increasing in numbers at a rapid pace. A time will come when humans will posit a grave threat to the well-being of the Earth itself due to overpopulation and other factors.

Q: So what should be the logical response, in your opinion?

A: Reset the ecosystem.




We will do what we have always loved to do. War.

If you read a bit of ancient history, at the times just before Napoleon for instance, various countries and counties used to go to war strictly for spoils and well as to just rid the towns and villages of their excess of young men who were just a pain in the rump to authorities because of their rowdy-nous and trouble making.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIQynsWpBpQ

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
2 things come to mind.

First, we are in his image so there is no real difference in our psychology. God confirmed that in Eden.

Second, scriptures tell us to emulate God. Be ye as perfect is what we are told to try to achieve.

What God does, we are to do. If he can ignore his laws then so can we if we are to follow his every lead.

You will note that our law of the land applies to our own judges as well as ourselves.

Regards
DL

Good points.

I guess I'd counter with examples of adults vs children. Adults are allowed to do many things children aren't while there isn't much of a difference between the two besides experience and knowledge. Children aren't allowed to drive, drink, smoke, vote, work, stay up late, talk back, interrupt, and a host of other things that you wouldn't bat an eye at if an adult did.

God would obviously be the adult and we the children in this scenario. We can't expect to "do what God can do" if we lack the understanding behind it that He has. We would have less knowledge compared to Him than children have compared to their own parents. The rules would be in place for a reason and that reason is most likely to protect us

Originally posted by juggerman
Good points.

I guess I'd counter with examples of adults vs children. Adults are allowed to do many things children aren't while there isn't much of a difference between the two besides experience and knowledge. Children aren't allowed to drive, drink, smoke, vote, work, stay up late, talk back, interrupt, and a host of other things that you wouldn't bat an eye at if an adult did.

God would obviously be the adult and we the children in this scenario. We can't expect to "do what God can do" if we lack the understanding behind it that He has. We would have less knowledge compared to Him than children have compared to their own parents. The rules would be in place for a reason and that reason is most likely to protect us

Protect adults forever and they never grow up. The same applies to children.

Training children is one thing. In Eden, God did not want to train A & E. God wanted them mentally blind and stupid which is what they were before they ate of the tree of knowledge.

That is like a parent forbidding his child from going to school.

Only a really incompetent parent punishes children for learning and educating themselves.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Protect adults forever and they never grow up. The same applies to children.

Training children is one thing. In Eden, God did not want to train A & E. God wanted them mentally blind and stupid which is what they were before they ate of the tree of knowledge.

That is like a parent forbidding his child from going to school.

Only a really incompetent parent punishes children for learning and educating themselves.

Regards
DL

They were punished as a child would be if they took their father's keys and drove his car.

Originally posted by juggerman
They were punished as a child would be if they took their father's keys and drove his car.

Really!

You would lock away what they would need, the tree of life in this case, and just let them die the way God let A & E die.

That is murder by abuse and neglect but if you think your kids would deserve death then you must be a Christian.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Really!

You would lock away what they would need, the tree of life in this case, and just let them die the way God let A & E die.

That is murder by abuse and neglect but if you think your kids would deserve death then you must be a Christian.

Regards
DL

What a false equivalency! Guess that's what it takes to get your point across.

Killing someone and allowing them to die are completely different things. For example you have an alcoholic that may need a new liver to survive but said alcoholic does not follow the rules of donation and continues to drink. Now he is off the list and will eventually die.

If you consider that murder then you might just be a fool

But the alcoholic would have deserved to be allowed to die due to his behavior. He brought that upon himself. There are people out there who desperately need new livers and we can't have someone who would just abuse the new liver.

What behavior did A&E do that made it so that they should just be allowed to die?

Originally posted by Surtur
But the alcoholic would have deserved to be allowed to die due to his behavior. He brought that upon himself. There are people out there who desperately need new livers and we can't have someone who would just abuse the new liver.

What behavior did A&E do that made it so that they should just be allowed to die?

Sin

I'm not saying that's a good enough reason for say you or I, but if we are assuming this is what took place then sin would have been the reason. God is said to hate sin and that was the deal breaker. God did not kill them but they couldn't remain in the garden with sin

Their "sin" was not wanting to be ignorant as f*ck for the rest of their lives. God couldn't handle that. I wonder why? Why did he want to keep these people naked and stupid?

We know the answer, and it's the same reason the very first commandment is "you better not f*cking worship anyone else". Because he's an arrogant douche.

Originally posted by Greatest I am


First, we are in his image so there is no real difference in our psychology. God confirmed that in Eden.


Regards
DL

This doesn't follow. Via reasoning of THAT sort, along with its various corrolaries, there is no real difference in the psychology of you, Jeffrey Dahmer, or an expertly carved puppet.

Originally posted by Surtur
Their "sin" was not wanting to be ignorant as f*ck for the rest of their lives. God couldn't handle that. I wonder why? Why did he want to keep these people naked and stupid?

We know the answer, and it's the same reason the very first commandment is "you better not f*cking worship anyone else". Because he's an arrogant douche.

They weren't stupid. They just didn't know evil.

If God created us, why would he want us giving credit to something else? I'm sure you wouldn't want your kids calling random people mom/dad right?

Of course, but in a way proportional to our wrongdoing, not eternal suffering.

Originally posted by juggerman
They weren't stupid. They just didn't know evil.

If God created us, why would he want us giving credit to something else? I'm sure you wouldn't want your kids calling random people mom/dad right?

It wasn't about not knowing evil. Or doesn't it disturb you it's called evil? They were ignorant of things.

Also, if God created us and we are supposed to have free will and this piece of shit has unconditional love for us? I should be able to worship a friggin piece of poop if I want to. I should be free to worship that turd character from South Park if I choose. It shouldn't be a sin or anything.

This person/thing/abomination is most concerned about his own ego.

Old Testament Rules ≠ New Testament Guidelines


Do some research.

Originally posted by Scribble
Old Testament Rules ≠ New Testament Guidelines


Do some research.

Nobody said otherwise, but okay. Obviously by the time of the New Testament God had been put on anti-depressants.

I'm just kidding, fictional beings can't take medication.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nobody said otherwise, but okay. Obviously by the time of the New Testament God had been put on anti-depressants. Well, the idea is that the Old Testament God was very strict with his young children, and a lot of what happens in the OT could easily be seen as "scare them straight" stories (e.g. Sodom and Gomorra) so that his kids could grow up to be moral individuals. After Jesus was put on Earth, God stopped being an interventionist and pretty much said that people can do anything they like as long as they're nice to each other. The whole "God wud smite me d0wn bcus I worshipd a poo poo!!!!" stuff is pure fallacy. Of course, this is just Christianity. But a lot of the arguments against the Christian God are usually based on basic misunderstanding, such as yours above.

Then again, this is mostly due to actual Christians misinterpreting Christianity's overarching messages and spreading a weird and twisted form of it for so long, so I can't blame you for getting it wrong.

Yeah except nope, we're not playing that bullshit game. There is some utterly horrible shit in the OT. We aren't passing that all off as "Scare 'em straight!" type of deals.

The thing you quoted me saying wasn't talking about being smited, it was talking about the fact we are told it's a sin not to worship him.

If you're going to misunderstand something, at least strive to be a little less pompous while doing so.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah except nope, we're not playing that bullshit game. There is some utterly horrible shit in the OT. We aren't passing that all off as "Scare 'em straight!" type of deals.

The thing you quoted me saying wasn't talking about being smited, it was talking about the fact we are told it's a sin not to worship him.

If you're going to misunderstand something, at least strive to be a little less pompous while doing so. Sorry that you misunderstood my post, I meant "Scare them straight" in the sense that if the OT is the actual word of God, he put that nasty stuff in there as lessons, and didn't actually do any of it. To draw a parental allegory, if a kid is playing with fireworks, the parent tells them a story of how another kid was playing with fireworks and blew their own face off. Is the specific story true? Often it's just something the parent comes up with on the spot. Do you understand what I mean here? I don't think it's too hard to get but idk.

And again, the idea of "sin" is removed after Christ. Do you know what "He died for our sins" means? Hint: it's in the title.

We just literally talked about you and misunderstanding things, but I guess we will again: you are not telling me complex things. I understood what you were saying, what I was doing was disagreeing with you on the nature of these things(under the basis of course that it was the true word of God).

In other words, you think if this is the word of God..that he made himself sound a lot more horrible than he is to get people to do the right thing, correct?

I'm fully aware of what being scared straight means.

To go one step further, I agree, there is a whole lot of "scare them straight" mentality going on, I'm not denying it isn't there. I'm just saying you can't put all the horribleness of that book under that sole category.

Originally posted by Surtur
We just literally talked about you and misunderstanding things, but I guess we will again: you are not telling me complex things. I understood what you were saying, what I was doing was disagreeing with you on the nature of these things(under the basis of course that it was the true word of God).

In other words, you think if this is the word of God..that he made himself sound a lot more horrible than he is to get people to do the right thing, correct?

I'm fully aware of what being scared straight means. It was clear from your last post that you thought I meant that God was scaring them straight by actually killing people, otherwise I don't see why you'd be so up-in-arms about the stuff in the OT if you didn't think it literally happened. But can we not have an aside debate about how we address each other? It's pointless.
Originally posted by Surtur
To go one step further, I agree, there is a whole lot of "scare them straight" mentality going on, I'm not denying it isn't there. I'm just saying you can't put all the horribleness of that book under that sole category. I read the OT as almost entirely allegorical, though. There's very little fact to back most of it, so if you're taking a Theist point of view and still want to remain a rational human being, you have to accept that God didn't make the Earth a couple of thousand years ago (something a whole lot of 'Christians' find hard to comprehend).

Anti-Christian arguments are usually based on questions that are actually pretty easily answered. If God loves us, why did he do X, Y, or Z? If God made the Earth in seven days, where do dinosaurs come into the equation? The answer is that these things probably didn't literally happen.

If you want to take some of the stories as true, fine; the Earth was overrun by sinners, aside from Noah, so God wiped the slate clean. I don't really see anything wrong with that. It's not that God made a mistake and created flawed creatures either, which is another anti-Christian argument: he simply gave humans free will, and with this freedom, humans abused it.

I just find most of the anti-Christian arguments very short-sighted and severely lacking, personally.

Originally posted by Scribble
It was clear from your last post that you thought I meant that God was scaring them straight by actually killing people, otherwise I don't see why you'd be so up-in-arms about the stuff in the OT if you didn't think it literally happened. But can we not have an aside debate about how we address each other? It's pointless.

I wasn't that up in arms, but yeah I did understand what you were saying.



But I do not take these stories to be true. I am talking about people who do.

Yes, some use the bible just for parables and shit. Some people literally believe this stuff though.

I'm not anti-christian, I'm more anti-God.

Originally posted by Surtur
I wasn't that up in arms, but yeah I did understand what you were saying. Well, I guess I'll just have to believe you. Apologies for any misunderstandings.
Originally posted by Surtur
But I do not take these stories to be true. I am talking about people who do.

Yes, some use the bible just for parables and shit. Some people literally believe this stuff though.

I'm not anti-christian, I'm more anti-God. I know you don't believe these stories to be true, but you're using people who believe them to be true as an accurate portrayal of what the books mean and what Christiany actually is (or, more accurately, could be). When you say "This God is a bastard," you aren't (imo) talking about a God that actually exists, you're just using it as a way of critiquing the way that Christianity as a religion has operated. So you're directing your distaste at a figure that only exists due to human misinterpretation. The Christian God is not the hateful, nasty control-freak he is so often seen to be, and it's the fact that so many Christians throughout history have seen him like that that Christianity has come under so much fire in recent years. It's a shame.

If one actually reads and studies the New Testament, things get a lot more clear, I think. It's generally a pretty inclusive and nice text, and the deity is one of the more understanding and lenient gods out there.

What I am saying is that the God from the OT is not a good person. He's pretty damn horrible. He is not horrible in the way Christians are no, he is horrible in the way a super villain is.

Christians aren't super villains, they aren't pro genocide or any of that shit.

If I'm calling God a bastard, I'm specifically talking about the OT God. This doesn't mean I have a good opinion of Christians(I don't) but I don't think they are horrid horrid people. Otherwise it would mean 99% of the people I know are horrible.

It might be different with other people, but for me I can separate talking shit about God from talking shit about the specific religion and the people who practice it.

Like I say, if the OT is the word of God, then the God in the OT hasn't done the shit it says that he did, and instead he made a bunch of it up to keep his young children in line. A lot of children see their parents as evil as villainous, so it makes sense that he comes across that way, because that was the intention at the time.

Originally posted by Scribble
Like I say, if the OT is the word of God, then the God in the OT hasn't done the shit it says that he did, and instead he made a bunch of it up to keep his young children in line. A lot of children see their parents as evil as villainous, so it makes sense that he comes across that way, because that was the intention at the time.

I fully recognize that this is one way you could interpret it.

It's the way I like to interpret it, sadly it doesn't seem to be a very popular opinion. I guess it just makes the most rational sense to me.

Originally posted by Scribble
It's the way I like to interpret it, sadly it doesn't seem to be a very popular opinion. I guess it just makes the most rational sense to me.

You know I just find when I try to be rational about religion I just come to the conclusion that it's all bogus lol.

Well, I can't commit to religion because I find every religion to have its faults, as well as the idea of tying myself down to one school of thought is one I can't get down with (I have the same issue with politics). Plus, I was raised in a very secularist environment, so the idea of God being a tangible thing is something that I naturally find hard to relate to. But I like a lot of the New Testament stuff, I can see a lot of my own beliefs in it, so I feel some kind of kinship towards that kind of Christianity. Whether God exists or not isn't important to me, I just want to be a good person.

Well sure a lot of the NT stuff is good as long as you pretty much ignore the OT.

Though can you explain how it being pro slavery and anti-homosexuals was some kind of cautionary tale? Was the anti gay thing just God trying to protect us from aids or some shit? Was the slavery thing for good work ethic?

Like for instance that story where, I believe, a dude sicks some motherf*cking bears on some kids. That could sort of be a tale of "respect your elders". I can't figure out the whole slavery thing and gay thing though. Was this sort of a reverse psychology thing?

I read most of the anti-gay stuff as a way of making sure that people focused on procreating, which makes sense in the times before overpopulation. I don't know much about the slavery though, I'm not that hot on the OT generally because I see it as a lesser document to the NT in terms of Christian beliefs. The whole idea of the NT is just not to be a dick to people and not to judge people, so from the NT onwards slavery and homophobia generally seem like no-nos. There are still some vague references that could be interpreted as to homosexuality not being a good thing, but Jesus himself never mentioned it.

I understand, and yeah the NT is more or less okay. Jesus was actually one of the better people. Probably the closest thing to the real deal you'd have. By "real deal" I mean someone who was genuinely about peace.

Originally posted by Scribble
The whole idea of the NT is just not to be a dick to people and not to judge people, so from the NT onwards slavery and homophobia generally seem like no-nos. There are still some vague references that could be interpreted as to homosexuality not being a good thing, but Jesus himself never mentioned it.

"Slaves, obey your masters," is in Ephesians, which is in the New Testament, and "Those who practice are worthy of death and shall receive the due penalty" is in Romans, also in the New Testament.

Funny thing is I'm pretty sure "hell" wasn't originally a part of the Bible.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"Slaves, obey your masters," is in Ephesians, which is in the New Testament, and "Those who practice are worthy of death and shall receive the due penalty" is in Romans, also in the New Testament.

Remember, this is the nicer text too lol.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"Slaves, obey your masters," is in Ephesians, which is in the New Testament, and "Those who practice are worthy of death and shall receive the due penalty" is in Romans, also in the New Testament. Who said these things?

Why is it people point to the antihomosexuality part of the Bible? You do realise Aids spreads rapidly among homosexuals. I think the guy who wrote that seemed to know something we dont.

Originally posted by Scribble
Who said these things?

We do not know. Thirteen of the Epistles are attributed to Paul, but at least six of them are disputed. Four are considered pseudepigraphic, and opinions are even more divided about the other two.

But all of this is irrelevant, because Paul supposedly received the Epistles directly from God through divine revelation. So the "Jesus did not say it" loophole does not actually work unless you do not believe that Jesus and God are one.

Originally posted by Its2016
Why is it people point to the antihomosexuality part of the Bible? You do realise Aids spreads rapidly among homosexuals. I think the guy who wrote that seemed to know something we dont.

Because this being is supposed to love everyone.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
We do not know. Thirteen of the Epistles are attributed to Paul, but at least six of them are disputed. Four are considered pseudepigraphic, and opinions are even more divided about the other two.

But all of this is irrelevant, because Paul supposedly received the Epistles directly from God through divine revelation. So the "Jesus did not say it" loophole does not actually work unless you do not believe that Jesus and God are one. Or you know, that the NT isn't the direct word of God and as such is fallible. After Jesus' death, God took a passive role and became non-interventionist, so the story of Jesus was told by his followers. It's not hard to believe that some of them used it as a chance to further their own agendas. The anti-gay stuff is very un-Christ like, and anything NT that doesn't fit with the Christ's overall message of not being a dick is fine to cast suspicion upon.

Basically it's this, Jesus is okay, everyone else seems to kind of be horrible. His father? Horrible, like..Jesus and Orion(from DC comics) have some shit in common, you get me?

Okay I'll just spell it out: both have great hair. Oh and both have utter monsters for fathers.

Judging God by human standards is rather silly imo, considering he created the concepts we judge him by. Whilst I disagree with the whole 'God works in mysterious ways' stuff (due to not believing in an interventionist god), I do see God as a multifaceted entity, and Jesus represents his all-loving side. If Jesus is God, then God must be all-loving. And yet he did reprehensible things, if the literature we have is what we must judge him by. To sum it up as a Facebook relationship status: it's complicated. But so is everything. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be any fun.

Originally posted by Surtur
Because this being is supposed to love everyone.
Well thats obvious shit.

Originally posted by Scribble
Judging God by human standards is rather silly imo, considering he created the concepts we judge him by. Whilst I disagree with the whole 'God works in mysterious ways' stuff (due to not believing in an interventionist god), I do see God as a multifaceted entity, and Jesus represents his all-loving side. If Jesus is God, then God must be all-loving. And yet he did reprehensible things, if the literature we have is what we must judge him by. To sum it up as a Facebook relationship status: it's complicated. But so is everything. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be any fun. You know I think we believe in the same god. hmm

Originally posted by Its2016
Why is it people point to the antihomosexuality part of the Bible? You do realise Aids spreads rapidly among homosexuals. I think the guy who wrote that seemed to know something we dont.

If your god were interested in stopping diseases, why single out gay people and fail to provide any reason for it beyond inspiring blind hatred? How about telling people about germ theory and genetics, and a host of other things that could've literally saved tens of billions of lives throughout history?

Because Jesus. Now shut up.

Originally posted by Its2016
You know I think we believe in the same god. hmm Pretty sure we're both mostly secular awehuhs or did you convert recently?

Im not a part of any religion, per se, but i do believe its a useful tool to control the masses. My god is things i cannot explain and my own intuition. I do not believe in a divine purpose, but for some, it would work out. Christianity is probably the best.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
If your god were interested in stopping diseases, why single out gay people and fail to provide any reason for it beyond inspiring blind hatred? How about telling people about germ theory and genetics, and a host of other things that could've literally saved tens of billions of lives throughout history? because science wasnt invented back then. Archimedes tried science, Gallileo tried science. People werent ready. They did however not like getting ****ed in the ass and getting STDs. Makes sense to discourage it.

Originally posted by Scribble
Judging God by human standards is rather silly imo, considering he created the concepts we judge him by. Whilst I disagree with the whole 'God works in mysterious ways' stuff (due to not believing in an interventionist god), I do see God as a multifaceted entity, and Jesus represents his all-loving side. If Jesus is God, then God must be all-loving. And yet he did reprehensible things, if the literature we have is what we must judge him by. To sum it up as a Facebook relationship status: it's complicated. But so is everything. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be any fun.

It's this simple: you practice what you preach, period. To me there is no "his cosmic powers give a special pass".

Practice what you preach. If you tell people it's wrong to kill? Yeah, you kinda don't kill. You simply can't set down a standard of morals and then act like an utter and complete monster with the excuse being "I'm complex". That isn't complexity, that's just a psychopath who is also bi polar.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
We do not know. Thirteen of the Epistles are attributed to Paul, but at least six of them are disputed. Four are considered pseudepigraphic, and opinions are even more divided about the other two.

But all of this is irrelevant, because Paul supposedly received the Epistles directly from God through divine revelation. So the "Jesus did not say it" loophole does not actually work unless you do not believe that Jesus and God are one.

Here is another question: although I'm shaky on the specific details, Moses was supposed to have been all about freeing people from slavery, right? With God apparently on his side. Yet the bible seems to also be pro slavery. So was this just about the specific treatment of slaves and not the idea of slavery itself?

Originally posted by Surtur
Here is another question: although I'm shaky on the specific details, Moses was supposed to have been all about freeing people from slavery, right? With God apparently on his side. Yet the bible seems to also be pro slavery. So was this just about the specific treatment of slaves and not the idea of slavery itself?

That there is no historical evidence the Hebrews were actually slaves in Egypt aside, in the context of the story, God was not against slavery in general, so much as He was against the slavery of the Hebrews in particular, because they were His chosen people.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That there is no historical evidence the Hebrews were actually slaves in Egypt aside, in the context of the story, God was not against slavery in general, so much as He was against the slavery of the Hebrews in particular, because they were His chosen people.

I see, so in this sense God is more or less a bigot? Or racist? Or whatever.

Also if God created everyone, why would there be a specific group of "chosen" people? What set them apart from everyone else?

Originally posted by Its2016
because science wasnt invented back then. Archimedes tried science, Gallileo tried science. People werent ready. They did however not like getting ****ed in the ass and getting STDs. Makes sense to discourage it.

So an all-powerful deity couldn't figure out how to teach people the scientific method? Carl Sagan > God? Oh, wait, we already knew that.

Plus I mean, what kind of cruel god creates honey badgers? That shit just ain't right.

Or sea creatures that can't breathe water. mmm

I'm pretty sure some kind of sorcery is afoot.

Clearly God exists, because his creations are so f*cked up, and the Bible says that original sin f*cked us up, so that means it got it right.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's this simple: you practice what you preach, period. To me there is no "his cosmic powers give a special pass".

Practice what you preach. If you tell people it's wrong to kill? Yeah, you kinda don't kill. You simply can't set down a standard of morals and then act like an utter and complete monster with the excuse being "I'm complex". That isn't complexity, that's just a psychopath who is also bi polar. people tend to avoid violence because its ingrained in society when were children. Healthy infants recognise pain and adult or parental supervision discourage violence. The nonviolent genes then grow more rapidly than violent genes. Religion is a good way for encouraging stupid people to not be violent drug addicts who abuse their children....

Originally posted by The Ellimist
So an all-powerful deity couldn't figure out how to teach people the scientific method? Carl Sagan > God? Oh, wait, we already knew that. I dont think Carl Sagan could have explained the scientific method to Romans.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Clearly God exists, because his creations are so f*cked up, and the Bible says that original sin f*cked us up, so that means it got it right.

No man God got real meta on us. You see God is God, and Jesus is his son..but Jesus is also God. So God gave birth to himself, and sacrificed himself, to save his own creations. He banged his own mother, for us. Got her spiritually pregnant.

But wait, if God created us all he is technically like our father, so Mary wasn't just his mother, but in a way his daughter as well.

pjnZO5ZgWE8

Originally posted by Its2016
I dont think Carl Sagan could have explained the scientific method to Romans. Of course not, he didn't speak Italian.