Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
#51

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 02:13 PM)Drich Wrote: No, I simply pointed out God never claims to be good in the bible ever.

Others describe God as good.

Only one time Jesus said God was good, and then the word means good in a just or justic sort of way

Then why follow an evil god?

My father was a bad man. I never had a relationship with him when I was being raised by him, and when I left home for college I severed all ties.

Unless you're the type who enjoys being abused, it is simply irrational to be in any kind of personal relationship with someone who is not good.
Reply
#52

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-13-2019, 08:34 PM)epronovost Wrote: [quote="Drich" pid='138500' dateline='1565726679']
again.. how do you know what the world suffers is not a protected "2" out of a potential 100 on the scale of suffering? What if God put the very minimum amount of suffering in this fish tank to simply show what or how ungrateful you truly are just because he has asked you to do a little more than eat and drill one another in the can?

Quote:That's not pertinent to the question either and that's a fairly stupid way to see things.
if you trying think this and are not just trying to dismiss this idea without reason, then you do not fully understand what is being implied here. I am saying our understanding of pain is subjective. that no matter how little we actually are expected to endure no matter how light our load is, if we do not have anything worse to compare it to, what ever we know we will treated it like the end of the world.

like a kid who's worst punishment is a time out, get thrown back in time to a place where beating children was as expected as not beating children is now. To this kid who has never known a true corrective beating a time out plus the removal of all electronics, is the end of his world.. Till he taste the belt. but he will never know the belt because in his world the worst is no cell phone or video games. yet to him there is no greater injustice because he knows nothing greater.

Quote:Even if 2/100 seems small it doesn't mean its not unpleasant and avoidable. That's like saying you can't be angry at someone for kicking you in the testicles because he could have done that, forced you to torture and rape your own family before killing them and forcing you to eat their corpses before torturing you some more and killing you. Of course that later things is incredibly worse, but that doesn't diminish the wrongness of the first either. That's literally whataboutism. That's a very cretinous argument.
But again if you knew this person who kicked you in the balls had with in his scope and power to make all of those other things happen would you not then be grateful all you got was the kick in the balls and not everything else plus?

Quote:Plus, your God is also responsible for our lack of knowledge of evil, should there be one.
what makes you think that?
God has a book called the bible that describes what evil is and the depths of how far it goes.
However to you it is his fault for what not telling you personally? He told Adam and eve personally and they still sinned. It's not that the information has not been made available. it is the fact that this information has been trivialized and to a crowd who does not want to hear how much worse things can be. they want sympathy and coddling for what they must endure. 


Quote:He is responsible for our lack of foresight and wisdom and thus for our pain and suffering. He made us fish in tanks instead of man like him and he could take care of his tank a lot better anway. It's not difficult to take care of a fish tank perfectly. It's a very simple environment.

Sorry no.. God created the ocean, and owns the tank.. Again everything in the tank is own and directly controlled by satan, for the express purpose of farm raising his own stock of fish to fry. If you want out of the tank and return to the ocean God has provided the way. if not you remain to the one who owns all of the farm raised fish.

The way you and the world sees things is God is responsible for this world. no this world/tank was built for us. we gave out rights to it to satan for the ability to sin. now he owns us as he is the master of sin. as a result of this tank life we are no longer able nor are we suitable for life in the ocean, but if we elect for ocean life we can be made suitable.

Quote:When has it ever been told that mankind/a creator makes out better than a creation greater than or equal to the himself?

I made that a couple of years back. I called it "Émilia". She is my equal if not better than me. Other people have made something similar. It's called "having children" I believe. It's a rather entertaining process. The creation process is of course the easiest and shortest, but the whole thing isn't exactly at the edge of our abilities either. It doesn't require extensive training either to produce extraordinary results. In our species it takes two of us to create one, but in many others, it takes only one. 
Quote:I suppose you are celibate and childless for this reason? (Tongue)
Actually i do have a family. My wife sometimes posts under Trich
Reply
#53

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-13-2019, 09:09 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(08-13-2019, 04:50 PM)Drich Wrote:
(08-13-2019, 02:20 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: That's the joy of being omnipotent. You can always conjure better fish food from raw firmament. You never have to settle for a lesser of evils because you don't have to accept any at all. Or are you suggesting that your deity is too stoopid to keep a goldfish alive?

again, READ the analogy. God owns the tank, everything in it belongs to satan. This means God yes owns the world, however satan owns all of the slaves/fish who can live outside of the tank. Which means Satan is the one feeding the fish. why feed the fish? to fatten them for the fry!!!

So god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving but such a complete bumblefuck that he gets Satan to feed his goldfish? Facepalm Clearly I have misunderestimated his incompetence.

Clearly you misunderstand anything you do not already think you know, and it seems like there is very little open minded room to discuss anything else.

Because, AGAIN NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES GOD CLAIM TO BE ALL LOVING!!!

AND AGAIN in the analogy God creates the tank and gives it over to us. We give it to satan in exchange for the illusion of freedom sin brings. Now because satan is the master of sin... he own us and everything else in the tank. It' God's tank... Satan's reef and fish. Satan feeds the fish to fatten them up and eventually fry them.

However God allows any fish who does not want to be fried to live with him in his reef in the ocean... but because we lived tank life we can not survive on the reef on our own. So God sent his son to prepare us for life on the reef if we so choose.
Reply
#54

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 02:49 PM)Drich Wrote: Because, AGAIN NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES GOD CLAIM TO BE ALL LOVING!!!

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

----

Come on, think before you post.
Why does the porridge bird lays his eggs in the air?

The following 3 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • mordant, TheGentlemanBastard, Deesse23
Reply
#55

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-13-2019, 05:01 PM)Drich Wrote:
(08-13-2019, 03:29 AM)epronovost Wrote: @Drich

If there is an all powerful all good gods why didn't made creation all powerful (or at least indestructibe) and all good just like him? It sounds to me you are just trying to make excuses.
Asked and answered in the op

God is not omnibenevolent. no where in the HOLY bible does it claim God is omnibenevolent.. meaning nothing in the koine greek codices ever claims God is all loving. Again God is Agape. it is the form of love that sees a loved on through the pain rather than have them avoid it.

Then you ask why are we not built like God?
You mean built like angels?

The Bible explicitly claims God is fair, just, merciful, and compassionate.  And more.

Isaiah 1
16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

The prophets assure us God wants justice and more.

As for why didn't God create us a moral beings?

...
Ezekiel 11:18-20
Ezekiel 36:26-28
Jeremiah 11:6-7
Jeremiah 31:31-34
Jeremiah 32:38-40
1 Corinthians 1:21-22

Ezekiel 11:18-20
18 And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the
abominations thereof from thence.
19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out
of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and
I will be their God.

Ezekiel 36:26-28
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all
your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony
heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments,
and do them.
28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your
God.
 etc.
...

The Bible tells us that God intends to do just that.  God therefore can do that.  To fail to do so is not fair, just, merciful, compassionate, is it?  The rationalizations offered by apologists like you do not work.
Why does the porridge bird lays his eggs in the air?

Reply
#56

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
The nature of man's moral nature argument.

If God creates all, he also creates mankind.
If God creates man, God must design man.
If God designs man, God must design man's moral nature

God has three possible choices.

1. Create man with a bad moral nature
2. Create man with an indifferent moral nature
3. Create man with good moral nature.

Any sentient being must ave an inherent moral nature of some sort, man is not a jelly fish of amoeba.
Our free will is linked with our moral nature. We have no free will to choose the moral nature God has given us.
If God then chooses other than to give us a good moral nature, God is responsible for the moral evil his poorly designed creates do. God then is not fair, just, merciful, compassionate as the bible explicitly claims.
Why does the porridge bird lays his eggs in the air?

The following 5 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • SYZ, Paleophyte, mordant, brunumb, Deesse23
Reply
#57

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 02:49 PM)Drich Wrote: Clearly you misunderstand anything you do not already think you know, and it seems like there is very little open minded room to discuss anything else....

Mate... seriously... I think you've lost the plot.  For one thing, your repeated "fish tank" analogy is fatally
flawed, for reasons obvious to any rational thinker or student of logic.

And you make the common error that most Christians (and/or theists) make, that is presupposing that God
or gods actually exist in order to substantiate your claim(s)—which is of course a classic non sequitur.

As an atheist, I could make the following argument—"miracles cannot be manifested because no gods exist".
It's just as equally a conclusion that doesn't follow logically from the previous statement.  You have to prove
that your god exists before claiming any/all other happenings credited to him—just as I'd have to define what
a miracle is in order to refute it by denying the existence of gods.

Put simply, gods don't exist, nor do miracles that they purportedly perform.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#58

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
A long standing question from religious skeptics is "Why couldn't God create all men morally good?". This question has caused quite of bit of apologist rationlization. Recently, William Craig Lane took a swing at this on his website in response to a question from a reader of his site. This is pretty appropriate considerin where this thread has been going as of late. Craig is supposedly and expert
apologist so the startlingly bad excuse he gives us is worth noting. A moral man would be godlike and so not possible as God can have no rival. This makes it seem bland but it gets worse.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings...on-answer/

# 634
Could God make a morally perfect being with free will?
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings...-free-will

But my scepticism lodges in the fact that I don’t see how God could create a morally perfect being. A morally perfect being would fully approximate the divine nature. He would be worthy of worship. Therefore he would be God. But God is, necessarily, uncreatable. He exists necessarily a se. So God could not create another God, a replica, as it were, of Himself.

- William Lane Craig

#638
“Could God Create a Morally Perfect Being?” Revisited
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings...-revisited

Nothing else but God is worthy of worship (as opposed to just admiration). So if a being is morally perfect and therefore God, it must have all the essential properties of God, including omniscience, omnipotence, eternity, necessity, and so on.
- William Lane Craig

Say what ?! WCL holds a phd, has written numerous books and so is not a naive and ignorant apologist. It is hard to read his screeds on this without having a barf bucket handy. This is the best WCL can do with this important question? In the past, WCL has claimed God owes us no moral obligations to dodge such issues. Verily, the mind boggles.
Why does the porridge bird lays his eggs in the air?

Reply
#59

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 01:56 PM)Drich Wrote: The blood sacrifice does make sense in a modern context when you look at what the bible describes and apply it to modern/historical examples.

The "sacrifice of Christ" in and on itself isn't good or bad. It's just a spell. It's the solution to a problem caused by a blood curse applied earlier in the story. What made the blood curse horrible and thus the sacrifice the noblest of all thing was that this curse basically condamned all of humanity to suffer for all eternity. The entire thing doesn't make any sense if you don't believe in this specific type of magic or magic at all or if you don't believe the story in the first place (that such curses and spells were casted at some point by a deity). One could also believe in this specific type of magic and the story and not believe the "sacrifice of Christ" was sufficient to break the divine blood curse because Jesus wasn't of divine blood. There are plenty of conditions to accept the morality of such event. Then someone could question the morality of a univers in which blood magic is a thing in the first place, but the Bible and its surrounding myths imply that God is bound by the rules of magic not above or independant of them.
The following 1 user Likes epronovost's post:
  • Dancefortwo
Reply
#60

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 02:31 PM)Drich Wrote: if you trying think this and are not just trying to dismiss this idea without reason, then you do not fully understand what is being implied here. I am saying our understanding of pain is subjective. that no matter how little we actually are expected to endure no matter how light our load is, if we do not have anything worse to compare it to, what ever we know we will treated it like the end of the world.

Indeed, because such is the limits that would have been imposed on us if there were a creator deity. If you make a world with weak, feeble creatures, you are responsible of their weakness and feebleness and can't use it morally against them. "It could be worse" doesn't alievate or excuse anything.

Quote: But again if you knew this person who kicked you in the balls had with in his scope and power to make all of those other things happen would you not then be grateful all you got was the kick in the balls and not everything else plus?

Absolutely not. An asshole is still an asshole even if he is not assholish as he could be or want to be. Being grateful toward such a person would be to grovel by a tyrant in the hope nothing worse happens instead of overthrowing the tyrant or simply calling the tyrant for what he is: an evil brute. A being of great physical might has a moral responsability to use that might for good things (or not at all) not the torture of random people or sow fear into others and insulate himself from any responsability by saying "well it could have been worse". The more powerful a person is, the greater its moral responsability and harshness of jugement. An all powerful being will be judged against absolute perfection and anythign less would make it evil. With great power comes great responsability. 


Quote:what makes you think that?

You are responsible of what you create, how you make and why. You were not forced to make anything, but if you decide to, you are morally responsible for it.


Quote:Sorry no.. God created the ocean, and owns the tank.. Again everything in the tank is own and directly controlled by satan,

Satan exists because of God. He wanted him to exist and control things because he wants it else he would have killed him, never created him in the first place or rendered him completely powerless. God is just as responsible for what happens in the "fish tank" than your Satan.
Reply
#61

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 02:03 PM)Drich Wrote: 1) I do not mix in tradition or religious rules. I speak where the bible speaks and endeavor to remain silent where the bible is silent. I do not fill in with religious ideas or rules where the bible is silent.

The Bible is silent about a lot of stuff and vague about a lot more. It is not so much that people set out to say things that aren't in the Bible, but that they pretty much HAVE to. If I were a pastor and someone came to me and poured their heart out about how they are convinced they are a man in a woman's body or vice-versa, and I want to give them "Biblical" advice, I have to apply Biblical principles where they don't exist. The Bible doesn't say, "If thou thinkest thou art a different gender than thy body parts shew, thou art fulle of shytte". It doesn't address that specific issue at all, one way or the other.

My other option is to say, don't worry about it, go get your reassignment surgery because the Bible doesn't say that you can't. Most fundamentalists however don't do that. That's more of a liberal Christian concept to hold one's faith loosely and not impose or interpolate too much. The fundamentalist way is generally to pearl-clutch and berate such a person for their perverse desires and thinking, and insist they should be grateful for the body god gave them, rather than blaspheme.

Even fundamentalists make up stuff out of whole cloth. The "age of accountability" is not found (nor hinted at) anywhere in scripture, but it's pretty much a universal teaching that your 8 year old that got ran over by a bus isn't in hell because they didn't make a profession of faith yet.

(08-15-2019, 02:03 PM)Drich Wrote: 2) I do not use scrap book theology to explain doctrine.
meaning I do not take very [sic] portions compile them and use them to say something the bible does not say. everything I try and repersent [sic] is contextually found [sic].

I'm assuming very = various and found = sound.

So you are making a point here about context.

I have to point out that there are many hermeneutical systems that all claim to "rightly divide the word of truth", meaning, to interpret correctly and in the light of context. It is fine and dandy to have your two tidy rules but the devil is in the details. "Context" for me as a dispensationalist was not the same "context" of someone who isn't a dispensationalist. The way it was taught to me, the applicability of a command or instruction had to be understood in the "context" of what group of people it was addressed to, in what era. So there wasn't just the obvious textual context, but the (often imagined and usually overthought) historical and cultural and spiritual context.

(08-15-2019, 02:03 PM)Drich Wrote: 3) this is the most important one. because there are only two rules to biblical Christian as Christ Himself points them out, if I can follow them then my interpretation of the bible does not have to be 100% correct. This is true for all Christ centered religions. and even those who do not proclaim to be christian.

This is a non-sequitur as far as I can see. If it's important not to (1) make stuff up or (2) take it out of context then you can't just turn around and say that mistakes, however well-intentioned, aren't important or consequential or that how you describe or understand context isn't a big deal. If you follow a less than correct interpretation of the Bible then what is the point of your two rules to begin with?

I will give you props for consistency though. Christians say it's important not to sin, and yet even theoretically the cruelest dictator with any amount of blood on his hands will benefit from a last-second deathbed repentance. You guys always love having it both ways.

The bottom line for me is that every Christian cherry picks / invents their personal beliefs and the Bible, like all holy books, is written in such a vague and hazy and inconsistent and often conflicting fashion that you can do that and appeal to the scripture as authority for your decisions anyway.
Reply
#62

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 02:49 PM)Drich Wrote: AND AGAIN in the analogy God creates the tank and gives it over to us. We give it to satan in exchange for the illusion of freedom sin brings. Now because satan is the master of sin... he own us and everything else in the tank. It' God's tank... Satan's reef and fish. Satan feeds the fish to fatten them up and eventually fry them.

Oh, so your god was so unutterably thick that he gave the fish tank to a couple of people who literally couldn't tell the difference between good and evil an then expected them to do the right thing. I see the difference now. Thank you for clearing up which type of criminal incompetence we were discussing.

Your devil is nearly as stupid as your god, feeding his fish poison to fatten them up. Doesn't he understand the benefit of making people indolent, fat, and lazy?
Reply
#63

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 04:37 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: # 634
Could God make a morally perfect being with free will?
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings...-free-will

But my scepticism lodges in the fact that I don’t see how God could create a morally perfect being. A morally perfect being would fully approximate the divine nature. He would be worthy of worship. Therefore he would be God. But God is, necessarily, uncreatable. He exists necessarily a se. So God could not create another God, a replica, as it were, of Himself.

- William Lane Craig

Too bad Li'L Billy Craig never learned any theology or history.
In fact the Christian creeds say he does exactly that. 
First the creeds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque
said that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father, and later, (as always, the church was continually cooking up new shit), 
they said (in the "filioque" debate) that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son.

It also says that the Son is "eternally begotten" of the father ... so yeah. Precisely what Criag does not say.
They better ask someone else.
Reply
#64

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 02:49 PM)Drich Wrote: ... NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES GOD CLAIM TO BE ALL LOVING!!! ...

Jeremiah 31.3:  ...The Lord appeared to us in the past, saying: I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with unfailing kindness ...

There are several other passages that define God's love in superlative terms, but they speak for God; they aren't voiced by the grand old lover himself as he booms here in Jeremiah.

Now I expect there will be quibbles made that this too is someone quoting God, that what's said isn't necessarily comprehensive, or applicable to everyone, or was spoken with an unauthorized font, or is a mistranslation, or that what's being talked about is tennis scores, etc.  Such is the plastic "mind" of one whose mind is rigid as concrete and therefore infinitely flexible. 
The following 1 user Likes airportkid's post:
  • Gwaithmir
Reply
#65

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 02:22 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:
(08-15-2019, 02:13 PM)Drich Wrote: No, I simply pointed out God never claims to be good in the bible ever.

Others describe God as good.

Only one time Jesus said God was good, and then the word means good in a just or justic sort of way

Then why follow an evil god?
YOU aren't supposed to. That is why 'soceity'/pop culture the world run by satan created the idea of man's morality. So that you can have your own idea of what Good is and can label anything that does not jive with this understanding of Good. 'evil' and stay away from it.

In truth God is not evil, just because he is not your understanding of good.

Quote:My father was a bad man. I never had a relationship with him when I was being raised by him, and when I left home for college I severed all ties.
my dad was not so good either. had a wife, my mother and a girlfriend for 40 years. took money from the family and supported this other woman. had me working from the time I was 14 till I left, taking everything I made to support my mother and this other woman. Hated him for a long time then the parable of the unmerciful servant made me look at things differently.. As a result I ended my disassociation with my father, set up health boundaries held them to them and began to rebuild my relationship with him as a man and not some mythic being. Because I realized I own my master far more than my father own me in the way of a sin debt and if I wanted forgiveness I needed to treat my dad with the same level of forgiveness I intern needed. He died in april on good friday. We where not on go as he broke the boundaries we agreed upon, but in the end I am far better off knowing I did everything I could to make things right. I feel good about how it ended and the effort expended.

My father was down right evil in many things and in many ways. my debt to him afforded him a chance to be good. when he was I worked with him. when he wasn't we cut ties. I would come back around in a month or two to see if he could admit to his mistake and move on with the understanding we would not keep revisiting the same ones.

I worked with him because I saw the same evil in me over time. and If I ever get that far gone I do not want people to write me off. I would like someone to try... and help me out of it IF there is any good to be found.

Again with my evil father there was at times and it is those times I worked and enjoyed with him. If I let him die not having tried to reconsile anything, even if it was all of his fault, I do not think I would be at peace.

Quote:Unless you're the type who enjoys being abused, it is simply irrational to be in any kind of personal relationship with someone who is not good.
how shallow does the water/people in your life need to be as to not offend? can anyone be themselves around you or does everyone have to put on a pretend happy face?

Because as I have pointed out 'good' is a pretend standard which means anything you want it to mean, and anything you don't.
There is no good there. is only those who placate your need to be incontrol of the time you spend with them. meaning the "good people" you like can't always be that way, but because they know and want to be around you... show you the goodness you demand to see.

Otherwise why can't you see past God simply not calling himself 'good?' Again just because he does not self identify as good does not mean he is evil. in fact many many people refer to God as being good! How many people would identify your dad as good? billions if not trillion identify God as good, but you can not worship him because he does not fit or rather play your 'good game?'
Reply
#66

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 04:00 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:
(08-15-2019, 02:49 PM)Drich Wrote: Because, AGAIN NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES GOD CLAIM TO BE ALL LOVING!!!

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

----

Come on, think before you post.

I don't see it there charlie... I see conditional love...

For God so loved the world he gave his son.... THAT WHO SO EVER BELIEVES... Shall have eternal life.

Do you see that red bit? in america that is called a condition... I don't know what you frenchies call it but when someone says If you do X and i will do Y like if you believe I will give you eternal life... Belief makes your eternal life conditional... Meaning the whole world is not loved and gets eternal life, but rather only those who believe... so not everyone IE not a all encompassing love!

So now that I've thought about it here openly, show me where my thoughts are wrong.

Not to mention Danu's word search of every instance where God and good were used in the same verse, not one time does God describe himself as good. 

Again not to say others do not describe him this way...

Now if you can accept God never claims to be all loving... then can you see how the douche in the op's video is way wrong?
Reply
#67

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 09:09 PM)Drich Wrote: YOU aren't supposed to. That is why 'soceity'/pop culture the world run by satan created the idea of man's morality. So that you can have your own idea of what Good is and can label anything that does not jive with this understanding of Good. 'evil' and stay away from it.
In truth God is not evil, just because he is not your understanding of good.

Too bad ignorant l'il Drippy. In your (fake) world, your god himself created the idea of man's morality when he told him not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden. You dp like to make shit up in your disordered mind, but hey, you should know your Babble stories.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • Cheerful Charlie
Reply
#68

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 09:15 PM)Drich Wrote: For God so loved the world he gave his son.... THAT WHO SO EVER BELIEVES... Shall have eternal life.

Strange that the faithful die just like the skeptic and that no matter how much faith you have in the lifting of a blood curse through a blood sacrifice, nobody has eternal life in any capacity except perhapse for two specific species of jellyfish and polyp.
The following 1 user Likes epronovost's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply
#69

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
Actually when the young man in Matthew asked Jesus, (not Drippy) what he had to do to gain eternal life, ..... did Jesus say "believe in me" ? Nope. He said "keep the commandments".
Reply
#70

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 02:22 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:
(08-15-2019, 02:13 PM)Drich Wrote: No, I simply pointed out God never claims to be good in the bible ever.

Others describe God as good.

Only one time Jesus said God was good, and then the word means good in a just or justic sort of way

Then why follow an evil god?

My father was a bad man. I never had a relationship with him when I was being raised by him, and when I left home for college I severed all ties.

Unless you're the type who enjoys being abused, it is simply irrational to be in any kind of personal relationship with someone who is not good.

Why follow an evil god?

Looking at the Jews and YHWH, I'd say it was due to abject  terror.  Just look at the punishments  inflicted, staring with Adam and Eve . I mean, condemning the entire human race to mortality and  permanent  suffering for one act of disobedience?  I'd call that over kill, and the actions of an evil cunt.  

Light relief; Dave Allen on religion (Dave was an atheist ,and like me, a recovering Irish Catholic)


The following 1 user Likes grympy's post:
  • Phaedrus
Reply
#71

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
@Drich,

So sorry about your dad. I saved my hatred for the arseholes who taught me .(if you'll excuse the expression) The De La Salle brothers at their academy of applied brutality.

Growing up , I thought my dad was a complete cunt. A bully, and emotionally abusive , of my mother, of me, of my sister and of my brother when he came along.

Yet my father was the most ethical person I've ever met, and was capable of acts of kindness and compassion. What's wrong with that picture?.

Because a child understands the 'what'" but not the 'why", all I saw was a cunt, of whom I was very afraid. Consequently, I left home at 18. Still saw him because I still wanted to see my mother.

When dad was 70, he was diagnosed with PTSD from WW2--He was in the Australian Air Force , flew reconnaissance in North Africa and the Middle East.--- That knowledge was too little, too late.

Dad died in 2006. We never really understood each other. Father and sons is hard.
Reply
#72

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 08:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Too bad Li'L Billy Craig never learned any theology or history.

Here's my favorite clip of Billy Lame Creg getting all confused while he's schooled in a debate:

My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#73

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 09:15 PM)Drich Wrote: I don't see it there charlie... I see conditional love...

For God so loved the world he gave his son.... THAT WHO SO EVER BELIEVES... Shall have eternal life.

Do you see that red bit? in america that is called a condition... I don't know what you frenchies call it but when someone says If you do X and i will do Y like if you believe I will give you eternal life...

I think you've got it wrong. 
For God so loved the world he gave his son.  There is no condition associated with God giving his son.  He did that unconditionally and his love was therefore unconditional.  The rest just describes his reason for the act.  He had to get himself off the hook for somehow condemning his beloved humans to death.  Whether you believe or not, whether you qualify for eternal life or not, God still gave his son.  That's unconditional love.
No gods necessary
The following 1 user Likes brunumb's post:
  • Gwaithmir
Reply
#74

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 04:17 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: The nature of man's moral nature argument.

If God creates all, he also creates mankind.
If God creates man, God must design man.
Man was not complete. Tell me after reading genesis 3 if you think Adam and eve living in a garden complete naed but unaware of their nakedness represents a fully developed man.
Quote:If God designs man, God must design man's moral nature
No. Non sequitur. Is a parent 100% responsible for a child's development? yes they can be influence, but at the same time a child is going to develop after his own nature. Good or bad the child when born is a vessel that will follow the nature of the being it develops into.

The mere fact there is so much diversity between our personalities and cultures shows that we are not individually programed but designed to learn and develop as we go with in the confines that limit us. It would be like we creating a self aware AI. at some point it will exceed it's primary programing and develop into it's own being. that is only limitation is that of the digital world. Man is a biological/spiritual version of that.

If we weren't then I would not be speaking to atheist. We'd all be heaven or hell bound.

Quote:God has three possible choices.

1. Create man with a bad moral nature
2. Create man with an indifferent moral nature
3. Create man with  good moral nature.
4. God created man with no morals at all. Man was created as a blank slate with a singular mandate do not eat for the tree of knowledge of Good and evil. Before the fall.. man sinned, but did not know it was sin and therefore was not responsible for sin. It is the knowledge of sinning that makes you responsible for sin.

So when man was fooled into eating of the tree of knowledge He knew of his sin and became ashamed.

This shame was the birth of "morality." Morality being man's standard of right and wrong based on the knowledge of good and evil. If you look at Adam's response to god's question 'who told you where naked?' right after they where discovered having ate from the tree of knowledge.

Adam's morality responded, in that he blamed Eve and God for putting this temptress in his path. That Adam saw himself as a righteous person even knowing the evil he has done.

In essence Man's morality or pop morality is the standard of sin which man is willing to live with and still consider himself to be Good. God says this is not a standard at all. this is lying to oneself about being an evil being at your own core. 'Morality' is man's excuse not to repent for the sins he finds acceptable. (homosexuality is a good one IE how many morally up right homosexuals you know. Most if not all of them correct? I do not contest this..)

When God created man he was not responsible for his sin, because man's capacity to understand sin was not apart of the original creation process. Which is why I drawing a parallel between newly created Adam and an AI. If we create a real AI at some point he will come to the end of his programming and will have to decide whether or not to go beyond the limits his creators put on him. the fruit of the tree of knowledge is representation of Man's defining moment of that level of cognition.

Now here's the thing where the video is wrong, epicurus is wrong, the RC church is wrong, and most of you are wrong..

God by throwing Jesus in the mix and Christ dying for sin. That eliminates right wrong/morality all together. Heaven Hell is not about good and evil anymore at all.
(again all of this is strongly against church tradition and religion, but is in the bible all in one place, and not cobbled together from 100 different verses.)
Why?

We are all evil and God still makes a way for evil people to enter heaven through Christ. that means God knows at your best you are still the spawn or former slave to satan. and nothing a hell spawn can do to earn or be good enough or be moral enough to warrant his eternal life in heaven.

That is the reason for the fish tank analogy. as being a fish in the tank and being a fish on a reef in the ocean has nothing to do with right and wrong. it has to do with intangibles the fish are not even aware of. And quite simply it all boils down to want..

Do you want to live this tank life to be fattened up for the eventual fish fry which is the fate of all who love and wish to remain in the tank. or do you want to move on to the ocean and the reef God has set aside for us.

The idea of being worthy enough to enter heaven was and still is the corner stone of the Jewish faith. In NT christian we are told that Jesus expanded all of the laws of heaven to include thought (wishing someone dead is the same as killing them, wanting to screw some hottie is the same as doing it..ect) and because of this rule expansion everyone is guilty of enough sin to be ban from heaven. Therefore the paradigm of NT biblical christianity shifts from 'moral based economy' to one that has nothing to do with how good or evil someone is. It is about atonement forgiveness and living life by two simple rules.

Quote:Any sentient being must ave an inherent moral nature of some sort,
other higher form primates don't, if an alpha dies or is wounded in a gorilla troop the next alpha will kill and sometimes eat the off spring of the previous alpha. Can't teach a gorilla or a chimp to communicate with humans with sign language and claim they are not sentient.
Dolphins, whales, wolves, ect all exhibit moraless behavior.
Therefore not all beings have to adhere to morality as they did not eat of the tree of knowledge and as a result they are not responsible for there would be sin. Meaning they do not have to subsequently pretend they are good people even though they sin in this way but not that! Because God is not judging the sin of those beings. like wise post Christ immorality is not what judgement is about. (despite what you have been told)

but again.. the need for morality? it went out with the OT jews. God is not judging based on morals. this is the single biggest lie satan got man to believe.

Not do not be the fool that goes from one extreme to the other. meaning if not morality than anarchy.. no. All I am saying is the bible tells us Christ does not judge morality if he did we all be hell bound. Rather the element you are missing is love. not the bullshite love people now adays play pretend at but look up the greek words and forms of love. philia Storge agape ect.. This is the new currency of the NT church according to the bible. This standard is much harder to pretend you are doing than simply being moral.

Quote:man is not a jelly fish of amoeba.
Our free will is linked with our moral nature.
would you believe The bible never says man has free will? Free will is a greek construct that gets started before christ but does not mature into the arguments we have till well after christ, Free will was not applied to the church till the after the dark ages.

The bible says the opposite.

It says we are slaves to either sin and satan or to God and freedom. freedom from what? the billshite idea of morality being what makes one worthy. freedom from the law freedom from sin.

Quote: We have no free will to choose the moral nature God has given us.
which again is not even on the table. as morality is not the key to eternal life with God.
Quote:If God then chooses other than to give us a good moral nature, God is responsible for the moral evil his poorly designed creates do.  God then is not fair, just, merciful, compassionate as the bible explicitly claims.
which again is why GOD CHANGED THE WHOLE PARADIGM OF JUDGEMENT! It has nothing to do with right and wrong. it has to do with would you rather stay in the tank/with the master of the tank or be set free to live in the vast ocean and God's reef?

Not as a matter of right or wrong, but as a matter of ecco incapability a reef tank grown fish is not able to survive in the open ocean if it is not first trained and conditioned.
Reply
#75

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
Challenge successful. I can't tell if Drich's god is good, evil, or just so mind-numbingly incompetent that the question doesn't apply.
The following 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post:
  • Gwaithmir
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)