This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own go

rugadd wrote: I humbly suggest further attempts by our OP writer be redirected to Hannigan.

you know, theres a rule about saying names :laugh:

carlos.martinez3 wrote:
To me if u see a want or need fill it . I do. I'm like that ,

God should have such a moral sense.

Un fortunately, the world has settled for Gods of war instead of Gods of peace.

Regards
DL

Wescli Wardest wrote:

Greatest-I-am wrote:

Wescli Wardest wrote: Part of that teaching is so that mankind understands that being made in God’s image means that we have the ability to choose. There is a law in which mankind is supposed to follow to live in accordance with God’s wishes and salvation of the soul is a choice made by the individual and can only come through love for the creator, the gifts given and the sacrifice that was made for our behalf. Just as a parent allows their children to go and make mistakes, so does the Hebrew God that is mentioned in the Bible.

But, that’s just my understanding of it.

Being made in Yahweh's image would make us all genocidal son murderers.

Why would anyone want to follow such a vile demiurge?

https://vimeo.com/7038401

Regards
DL

I am assuming that you are referring to the final plague set upon the Egyptians by the reference to “son murderers”?

Simo Häyhä has over five hundred confirmed kills to his name in less than one hundred days as a sniper. He was considered to be the deadliest sniper ever. He is also from Finland. So… By that same logic, I would assume you to believe that the Finish people are the most blood thirsty killers in existence.

Perhaps reading, study and trying to understand not only the history of the story but the circumstances, cultures and players involved would shed a more accurate light then reading a sentence and jumping to conclusions.

And of course you could be referring to the actions of those in the past that have claimed the title Christian. And like with all other things I would say that the actions of the individual do not represent the philosophies, ideologies or beliefs or a religion. Just as the actions of individuals do not represent the moral structure of a social or justice system.

I was referring to God having his own son murdered.

You are correct in saying that reading, study and trying to understand not only the history of the story but the circumstances, cultures and players involved would shed a more accurate light then reading a sentence and jumping to conclusions.

I agree that Christians are quite wrong in loving and adoring their genocidal son murdering God.

How they can conclude that Yahweh is a good God is quite a conclusion that Christians have jumped to while ignoring their own stories and myths that show their God to be demonstrably evil.

Regards
DL

OB1Shinobi wrote: i would be very surprised to find out that youre interested in -or capable of- genuine exploration of the ideas relevant to the subject matter
but because i found this interesting and because i found it as a consequence of these threads youve been trolling, and because youve got an affinity with posting youtube videos instead of explaining yourself, i submit this video, "the evolution of god" which explains why god in the bible sometimes says "go eff them up" and why some other times he says "love your neighbor"

Thanks for trolling me with a useless, over an hour long, link.

I use links as an add on and not the way you use them as a full explanation.

I would be very surprised to find out that your interested in -or capable of- genuine exploration of the ideas relevant to the subject matter

Regards
DL

Well, as someone who holds that third parties are not here to represent their ideas or materials, I tend to just ignore them being offered as anything other than a citation to back up the actual substance of the post.
In that spirit, I do disagree that OB1 posts videos as full explanations of his views, and while it may be that he does not always present a case I personally find compelling, I am still waiting to see you present any case at all, GIa. So far, all you did was make big claims without anything to back them up, at times even demonstrably false ones, and then just get hostile or off-topic or both whenever any challenge to them gets raised at all.
In my humble estimation, GIa, I don't feel like you should get to educate OB - or indeed anybody else here - on how to conduct an intellectually honest argument.

Gisteron wrote: Well, as someone who holds that third parties are not here to represent their ideas or materials, I tend to just ignore them being offered as anything other than a citation to back up the actual substance of the post.
In that spirit, I do disagree that OB1 posts videos as full explanations of his views, and while it may be that he does not always present a case I personally find compelling, I am still waiting to see you present any case at all, GIa. So far, all you did was make big claims without anything to back them up, at times even demonstrably false ones, and then just get hostile or off-topic or both whenever any challenge to them gets raised at all.
In my humble estimation, GIa, I don't feel like you should get to educate OB - or indeed anybody else here - on how to conduct an intellectually honest argument.

The O.P. made a judgement based on morality.

Do you have an argument to show that killing, when you are able to cure just as easily, is the moral thing to do?

Let us see your intellectually honest argument.

Regards
DL

You made a moral judgement on a being you don't know exists or has any of the properties you implicitly attributed to it, or does anything based on moral standards you did nothing to establish the applicability of.

And as for your challenge to "show that killing, when you are able to cure just as easily, is the moral thing to do", I'll say this. You don't get to tell me what position to argue. I will never defend one I do not hold. It would be dishonest of me if I did, you see.

I addressed the OP in as much detail as I saw fit at the time, mentioning some of the layers upon layers of fallacious argument and implicit unwarranted assumptions that I saw in it. You shrugged it off at the time and moved on; that's fine. If you find that you have more to add now, feel free to do so. I for one have yet to see you make a valid argument, and your transparent attempt at avoiding that burden by shifting a fake one onto me doesn't quite constitute one. But despair not, for I will take time out of my day to answer your every challenge to what I did say, regardless of whether you answer any challenges to what you said.

Nice that you cannot and will not argue for the other side.

So why are you bothering me?

Regards
DL

You don't get to deside when or what I argue for or against, I do. I have said all I needed to say on the OP so far. If you have a response to what I said, I'm all ears. If not, that's fine, too.


And as for bothering you... You come here (and to half the internet), pester our faiths subforum with threads of nonsense of minimal relevance to most here under highly inflammatory headlines, then get personal and hostile, arguably directly insulting to the few whose responses you don't outright dismiss, then lie about what they say and about what you say, only to get grounds to attack your interlocutors even more, and now you are the victim?

I said nothing about being a victim. I just wondered, since you have nothing to say, why you bothered chasing me around.

Regards
DL