What do you mean by accept? If you mean "accept" as in worship, no. I would acknowledge he exists, but if the bible was true then I don't think God or Jesus deserve worship.
Again remember God destroyed nearly all life on the planet.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Sure I can, I have nothing else to compare it to. You don't get a pass just because you have a lot of power. Plus what is that thing I always hear..we were created in his image?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
You're right, you have nothing else to compare it to, but that doesn't mean God is not moral just because it doesn't fit your view of morality.
God didn't kill anyone in the Flood. They killed themselves. They refused to accept the certainty of the coming disaster. All were given a chance to board the Ark.
You are in the middle of the Pacific and I throw you a life raft and you refuse it because you could swim to land. If you drown, who's fault is it?
Play semantics all you want, and argue the ambiguity of personal v. universal morality, it doesn't change the fact that OT God is a sick piece of shit. All powerful sure, but He gave me the ability to form my own opinion for a reason, and I judge the Lord as undeserving of praise or worship.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Okay but your example doesn't hold up. It would be one thing if a flood happened for no reason, but if you caused a flood on that scale on purpose then the fact you offer people a life raft is kind of irrelevant.
The flood is just one example of God causing deadly disasters you know that right?
There is also no reason at all not to hold God to the kind of morals he supposedly set for us to follow. It's just a roundabout way of saying it doesn't apply to God because he has super powers on a ridiculous scale.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Dec 8th, 2015 at 08:55 PM
If God wants our faith & undivided trust in him then it's only fair IMO that he shows himself to us.
Now.
And I don't think I'm being blasphemous for asking that.
It would put substance into blind faith.
Stop hiding behind the bible told us so.
Stop saying he works in mysterious ways beyond our comprehension.
If we can't comprehend, why believe?
We, as humanity give eachother more than one chance before we lose faith & trust...why did God only give us one chance? And so long ago?
If he truly created us then he has a responsibility to uphold.
It's not for us to prove he existed, it's for him to prove that he does.
That would end a lot of bloodshed & hatred on this planet.
Human creations aren't exactly pampered by us though, we consider them fiction related to us and in such inferiority we are comfortable dismissing them into nothingness.
I think your assumption is pretty interesting to be honest, but we don't really have any concept to judge how responsible God is supposed to be towards us nor how He is supposed to enact such responsability. That's a huge gray area with no objective answer.
You're right about there being no objective answer.
But try telling that to a Christian.
And the notion of responsibility is quite straight forward. That's one of the first things you teach a child when they're old enough to understand.
You decide you want to have children or even own a pet. There's no grey area of objective that you can argue that you don't have to be responsible for its welfare & upbringing.
Last edited by Esau Cairn on Dec 10th, 2015 at 01:27 AM
I am finding it quite funny at the # of people that if they went back and proved God was REAL are still like "**** that bastard. I am gonna do what I want".
Kind of not seeing the full picture if you ask me.
But hey if you wanna be a charcoal briquette who am I to say diff.
__________________ Banned 30 days for the Crime of "ETC"... and when I "ETC" I do it HARD!!!
Peter, Paul, Mark and Luke are the english language equivalent names for those they had. In spanish they are named Pedro, Pablo, Marcos, and Lucas. We could continue to find equivalent names in each language.
1. Peter original name was Simon or Shimon or Simeon (Hebrew: שמעון, same as one of the sons of Jacob / Israel. Jesus nicknamed him "Cephas" which means "rock" in the aramic language they spoke back then. In greek, the equivalent for "rock" was "petra" and that greek nickname become Peter when the english language was developed centuries later.
2. Paul's name was Saul of Tarsis (spanish: Saulo de Tarso).
Saul in aramic became Paulus in latin, and then just Paul in english.
3. Mark (or John Mark, nephew of Barnabas) original name is מרקוס, Greek: Μάρκος or Marcus. Again as tthe languages were developed later it become Mark in english.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 8th, 2015 06:11 PM
, same as one of the sons of Jacob / Israel. Jesus nicknamed him "Cephas" which means "rock" in the aramic language they spoke back then. In greek, the equivalent for "rock" was "petra" and that greek nickname become Peter when the english language was developed centuries later. 
