Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Options
1…4950525455…327

Comments

  • Options
    #1532
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    Did you actually read the post? I did not call anyone a paedophile, nor did I compare anyone to a paedophile. In fact I stated than anyone who did such a thing would be banned for a long time. :confused:

    I used an extreme example to demonstrate the vacuous logic that makes an assertion where a perfectly plausible innocent alternative exists.

    I could have made it about murder, rather than paedophilia, or used anyone's name. In fact I wish I had done so as then no-one would have an excuse to feign outrage or hysteria and thereby evade the logic of my post.

    Careful now PDN! When I do things like that people ban me :)
    Ill have to lie down now Im having a serious bout of Deja Vu.

    Happy Christmas and New year by the way.


  • Options
    #1533
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Er, when did I dodge your question PDN?

    The way these discussions typically work is we discuss something for while, normally with you constantly making snide comments about how I don't understand things as well as you, you eventually get sick of not being able to actually demonstrate I'm wrong,

    1. He doesn't have top prove you are wrong or any other negative. If you conme here and assert something is true you have to support it!

    2. If you say "well it is just my opinion but all you have is your opinion" that isnt good enough either.
    you go away for a while and then resurface stating that based on the last discussion you had with me I was completely bested by superior Christian argument and by repeating the same flawed argument that you destroyed the last time I'm in fact trolling and just being a nausense.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66734730&postcount=53
    My guess is this paradoxical contradiction of a statement "I can't know anything for certain" and assumption that the statement is true needs to be thought out a bit more.

    Try thinking it out again. Can you demonstrate any of your assertions are correct ? especially when you don't believe any theory is ever 100% correct? As to what then "less than 100%" is a percent of the mind boggles.


  • Options
    #1534
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    The views of Jewish Christians aren't welcome on the subject?

    Welcome in what way?

    The subject is why do Jews not recognize Jesus as the messiah. What is the Jesus for Jews answer to that?
    philologos wrote: »
    Their mission is to tell fellow Jews about Jesus, their Messiah, their website engages with many Jewish arguments against the Christian conception of Jesus as a result.

    Great, what does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
    philologos wrote: »
    If you want to find out about Jewish arguments against the Messiah, they are a google away.

    They aren't putting forward arguments why Jesus wasn't the Messiah, they are putting forward arguments why he is. Hence the Jews for Jesus. A large proportion of the Jewish community seem to say that they do not represent the Jewish position, they represent the Christian position. Hence why would I go to them for the Jewish position?

    Should I go to Mormons to find out the arguments for why Christians don't accept Mormonism? Do you think Mormons accurately represent Christian objections to Mormonism? Wouldn't it be better to simply ask a Christian?

    Perhaps we should ask atheists what are the reason Christians believe in all this stuff :)


  • Options
    #1535
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Too true.

    Using a Jewish arguement against the Messiah, but an atheist viewpoint that God commands rape seems a little all over the place to be honest Zombrex, but with one target in mind. It's not exactly news that some Jews and indeed Muslims or Atheists etc. don't believe that Christ was the Messiah.....:confused: .....but it shouldn't be news that Christians do! :)

    So, I really don't know what your plan or point is pages and pages later...

    Well my plan is to take over the world and corrupt all your youth Imaopml, its just a pity I'm clearly so transparent about it. ;)




    Before ISAW has an aneurysm trying to get the words "I KNEW IT" out, I'm joking.


  • Options
    #1536
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Well my plan is to take over the world and corrupt all your youth Imaopml, its just a pity I'm clearly so transparent about it. ;)




    Before ISAW has an aneurysm trying to get the words "I KNEW IT" out, I'm joking.

    I knew it! I knew you would not state what your plan or point was.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1537
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Perhaps we should ask atheists what are the reason Christians believe in all this stuff
    Not a bad question, why do xians believe in God according to atheists.
    And why don't atheists believe in god according to xians.
    My guess is because some people are predisposed to believe and some are not, a psychological thing not a predestination thing. I think our culture allows the unbeliever to hold and articulate their views in a way that was not acceptable before and still isn't in many places.


  • Options
    #1538
    beerbuddy
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭beerbuddy


    Zombrex wrote: »
    And ... get to the Christianity is rational and logical bit.

    Cause you have just described pretty much every religion or cult from Heavens Gate to Jonestown.

    and in athiesm you have every thing from Scientology to Buddism so your point is ?


  • Options
    #1539
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    PDN wrote: »
    Why on earth would you presume that her new husband had killed her family? :confused:

    Moving on from that, there is no mention of rape. The woman was to mourn her family, and after that could be married to her captor. If she didn't marry him she would remain as a slave/domestic servant.

    If she did marry him, and then did not please her husband, then he did not have the right to divorce her, with her reverting to the status of a servant. If he divorced her then she had to be released as a free woman.

    The issue of her consent or otherwise is not mentioned. The passage appears to make equal sense linguistically and contextually with either a consensual or a non-consensual interpretation.

    I see the consensual interpretation as much more contrived though. I don't believe the husband would physically pin her down and rape her (or if he did, I don't believe God would approve). But I equally don't see how an army could invade a group of people, and have their captives happily marry them. As well as this, the contingencies mentioned are the desire the man has for the woman, and the delight he has afterwards. The woman's will is only mentioned if the man has no delight.

    The reason I assumed her parents were killed by the husband is because I assumed they were killed in the war responsible for her captivity.


  • Options
    #1540
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    I see the consensual interpretation as much more contrived though. I don't believe the husband would physically pin her down and rape her (or if he did, I don't believe God would approve). But I equally don't see how an army could invade a group of people, and have their captives happily marry them.

    Excluded middle!
    Or "keep them for yourselves" mean as indentured servants? Not marriage and not rape.
    As well as this, the contingencies mentioned are the desire the man has for the woman, and the delight he has afterwards. The woman's will is only mentioned if the man has no delight.

    Actually medical and philosophical thought would not be about delight by satisfaction. The power in sex is about desire and not necessarily about the satisfaction if it.


  • Options
    #1541
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    beerbuddy wrote: »
    and in athiesm you have every thing from Scientology to Buddism so your point is ?

    My point was when is he going to get to the rational bit. Because believing something because others believe it isn't particularly rational, so I'm assuming that wasn't the rational bit.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1542
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Morbert wrote: »
    But I equally don't see how an army could invade a group of people, and have their captives happily marry them. As well as this, the contingencies mentioned are the desire the man has for the woman, and the delight he has afterwards. The woman's will is only mentioned if the man has no delight.

    Who said anything about happily ever after? I would have thought that the primary goal of marriage back in those times was security. At root it's probably no different today. Indeed, it's exactly what I would expect from an evolutionary perspective. Less fairytale wedding and more practical domestic contract.

    I wonder if the passage was in any way referring to polygamous relationships?
    Morbert wrote: »
    The reason I assumed her parents were killed by the husband is because I assumed they were killed in the war responsible for her captivity.

    It doesn't actually mention anything about the husband killing the parents though.


  • Options
    #1543
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex: If you want to know why Jews don't believe in Jesus it's a google away. I don't know why you expect Christians to argue for the rejection of Christ on boards.ie.

    The more appropriate question is why are we even discussing that here.


  • Options
    #1544
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Why all this twisting and turning like a worm on a hook ?

    A case could be made for all of the above scenarios . In fact it is possible that all of them happened.

    Some of the marriages may have been welcomed on their own terms.
    Some may have been accepted as the lesser of evils.
    Some may have been resisted and were thus forced .
    Some may have choosen ISAW's indentured servant route
    Some may have had their family killed , some may not .


    That brings us to the question of applying modern standards to ancient times ( notwithstanding the Chechen documentaries).

    By modern standards some of those marriages would be regarded as rape.

    Which brings up the question is biblical morality mutable, which opens the door to homosexuality .


  • Options
    #1545
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    My point was when is he going to get to the rational bit. Because believing something because others believe it isn't particularly rational, so I'm assuming that wasn't the rational bit.

    How about "believing in something in spite of what others believe"? Is that more rational?
    I suppose you are assuming religion is like "believing something because others believe it" and think "scientists believe in something not because of others believe it but because it is rational for them to believe in it "?
    I would thin some scientists believe things because others influenced them? I would think some believe in things in spite of all the other scientists saying they are silly to believe such things.

    So tell us... what yardstick of rationality explains belief? What makes a set of beliefs "rational" and another set "irrational"? And can science not progress based on irrational beliefs or based on just accepting what others believe?


  • Options
    #1546
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Why all this twisting and turning like a worm on a hook ?

    A case could be made for all of the above scenarios . In fact it is possible that all of them happened.

    Some of the marriages may have been welcomed on their own terms.
    Some may have been accepted as the lesser of evils.
    Some may have been resisted and were thus forced .
    Some may have choosen ISAW's indentured servant route
    Some may have had their family killed , some may not .

    I agree with you. so the suggstionj the passage is "God ordered people to rape" is not proven?
    That brings us to the question of applying modern standards to ancient times ( notwithstanding the Chechen documentaries).

    I agree with you here too. I think you are referring to a philosophical prochronism.
    By modern standards some of those marriages would be regarded as rape.

    Ah. Presentism. I agree.
    Which brings up the question is biblical morality mutable, which opens the door to homosexuality .

    Very good point. I accept concepts are understood in a cultural context but what "morality" is presentism projecting? If it isn't absolute then the relativists who raised the point that "God ordered rape" have a self defeating argument. this point was already made by someone else.


  • Options
    #1547
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Morbert wrote: »
    I see the consensual interpretation as much more contrived though. I don't believe the husband would physically pin her down and rape her (or if he did, I don't believe God would approve). But I equally don't see how an army could invade a group of people, and have their captives happily marry them. As well as this, the contingencies mentioned are the desire the man has for the woman, and the delight he has afterwards. The woman's will is only mentioned if the man has no delight.

    Those were the days, my friend.

    It is doubtful if many marriages were fully consensual (in the full modern sense of the term as we understand it in the 21st Century) at that time in history. At most times in history, many marriages were arranged while the spouses were still children. They didn't choose their marriage partners freely from every possible person of the opposite sex. Their decisions were often determined by their parents, and marriage was unthinkable across national, caste, religious or class lines. Marriages sealed political alliances, guaranteed inheritances etc. Marrying for romantic love has probably been the exception, rather than the norm, for most of human history.

    I've spoken at length about this with some Indian friends who live, apparently very happily, in an arranged marriage. I asked them, "But if you found the other person absolutely repulsive, would you be forced to marry them?" They laughed at me, and explained that of course they would not have been physically dragged to the altar - but they weighed up the consequences of refusal with the consequences of acquiesing in their parents' choice. In the end, even though neither might have chosen each other, given a totally free choice, they decided that it was easier and better to go along with their parents' plans. And, I must say, they seem much happier than most Irish married couples!

    So, coming back to Deuteronomy, I can easily see a situation where captive women weighed up their options, and asked themselves, "Is this guy utterly unbearable? Or would I be better off living as his wife rather than as a domestic servant/slave working on someone's farm?" It might have been with a resigned shrug, but it hardly constituted rape.

    Now, comparing Deuteronomy with what has happened in war for most of human history, I don't think such a scenario is ridiculous or contrived at all.

    These women knew that if any other army had captured their city then gang rapes followed by servitude (if they were lucky and were not killed) would be the order of the day. Instead they encounter an army that is forbidden to behave in such a way. They face up to the fact that they will be taken as captives to Israel. Then they find that an Israelite man wants to take them as his wife. However, that carries certain safeguards:
    a) The marriage cannot take place immediately. They have to be given time to mourn, creating a space for reflection. So it's not a case of a randy soldier quickly marrying a captive woman in order to shag her, then getting home, thinking twice about it, and cancelling the arrangement.
    b) If the guy did change his mind, then the woman could be divorced by the man. But she would not return to servitude, but would be released as a free woman to live wherever she wanted, in Israel or overseas.

    Now, if she absolutely dug her heels in, and screamed that there was no way she would marry this guy, then would she be dragged screaming off anyway? I see no hint in the text that would be the case. If it did, then that would certainly be rape. But it could easily be the case that she would be set to work as a slave/domestic servant on a farm or homestead somewhere. How many husbands would really want a wife under those circumstances anyway? That's sounds like a good way for a man to get his throat cut while he's sleeping and his wife is chopping the vegetables!

    But, given the limited choices and expectations most women had for most of history, it is entirely plausible that most of them would have mourned for their families, and then married one of the captors, making the best of a bad situation, and thinking that at least they were better off than the ugly women who had no choice except servitude.

    So it plausible that consent is not mentioned, because it really didn't occur to anyone that a woman would choose servitude rather than marriage.
    That, IMHO, is not implausible or contrived at all. In fact it fits with much of what we know about social structures and warfare in history.

    Is it what I would choose to happen to my daughter in 2012? No, of course not.

    But is it rape? I don't think so.


  • Options
    #1548
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    But is it rape? I don't think so.
    So 'rape' is what that society calls rape?
    I recall a sifi story where sex was as common as a handshake and no concept of rape existed. Are we getting back to whats wrong is what God says is wrong?


  • Options
    #1549
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    So 'rape' is what that society calls rape?
    I recall a sifi story where sex was as common as a handshake and no concept of rape existed. Are we getting back to whats wrong is what God says is wrong?

    No, we aren't. I don't think the scenario I described is rape by any normal use of language.


  • Options
    #1550
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Zombrex: If you want to know why Jews don't believe in Jesus it's a google away. I don't know why you expect Christians to argue for the rejection of Christ on boards.ie.

    I don't, my comment was originally to a non-Christian.

    But for some reason Christians started arguing I was wrong anyway :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1551
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    How about "believing in something in spite of what others believe"? Is that more rational?

    It depends on the reason, hence the term "rational"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1552
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    So 'rape' is what that society calls rape?
    I recall a sifi story where sex was as common as a handshake and no concept of rape existed. Are we getting back to whats wrong is what God says is wrong?

    God said plenty of things, he told us to not covet our neighbours wife, or goods, and to not commit adultery, and to not kill.

    He also said that there would be a time for everything, because he knew our nature before we knew it, but like any parent he lets us learn..

    He is the parent, we're apparently still learning the above. The culmination was in Jesus Christ for Christians, to love your enemy as yourself.

    This 'love' thing is apparently the ultimate and most difficult challenge - but nonetheless every sense says it's the wisest course. Hey ho.


  • Options
    #1553
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Now, if she absolutely dug her heels in, and screamed that there was no way she would marry this guy, then would she be dragged screaming off anyway? I see no hint in the text that would be the case. If it did, then that would certainly be rape. But it could easily be the case that she would be set to work as a slave/domestic servant on a farm or homestead somewhere. How many husbands would really want a wife under those circumstances anyway? That's sounds like a good way for a man to get his throat cut while he's sleeping and his wife is chopping the vegetables!

    Unfortunately quite a lot during times of war. For someone who has much experience with repression in various different parts of the world that statement is very naive.

    SIERRA LEONE: “Forced marriage” conviction a first
    http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?Reportid=83160

    The War Crimes Tribunal and Forced Marriage in the Khmer Rouge Era
    http://lungliu.photoshelter.com/gallery/The-War-Crimes-Tribunal-and-Forced-Marriage-in-the-Khmer-Rouge-Era/G0000_B3f422YR1Q/

    Forced Marriage within the LRA, Uganda
    https://wikis.uit.tufts.edu/confluence/display/FIC/Forced+Marriage+within+the+LRA,+Uganda

    Forced Marriage: An under recognized, poorly understood form of enslavement
    http://activehistory.ca/2011/03/forced-marriage-an-under-recognized-poorly-understood-form-of-enslavement/


  • Options
    #1554
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Unfortunately quite a lot during times of war. For someone who has much experience with repression in various different parts of the world that statement is very naive.

    SIERRA LEONE: “Forced marriage” conviction a first
    http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?Reportid=83160

    The War Crimes Tribunal and Forced Marriage in the Khmer Rouge Era
    http://lungliu.photoshelter.com/gallery/The-War-Crimes-Tribunal-and-Forced-Marriage-in-the-Khmer-Rouge-Era/G0000_B3f422YR1Q/

    Forced Marriage within the LRA, Uganda
    https://wikis.uit.tufts.edu/confluence/display/FIC/Forced+Marriage+within+the+LRA,+Uganda

    Forced Marriage: An under recognized, poorly understood form of enslavement
    http://activehistory.ca/2011/03/forced-marriage-an-under-recognized-poorly-understood-form-of-enslavement/

    Well then join forces Zombrex and learn from our common descendants to fight inequality, and learn and grow, you are only person of this time too..not beyond it.

    Or do you believe that understanding only comes from a naturalist understanding? Societies have been built and destroyed, but truth remains, that all people, all life is of inherent value in and of itself. That's what Christianity teaches. It just goes further sometimes than some find comfortable, but that's not new..


  • Options
    #1555
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Well then join forces Zombrex and learn from our common descendants to fight inequality, and learn and grow, you are only person of this time too..not beyond it.

    Or do you believe that understanding only comes from a naturalist understanding? Societies have been built and destroyed, but truth remains, that all people, all life is of inherent value in and of itself. That's what Christianity teaches. It just goes further sometimes than some find comfortable, but that's not new..

    No, that is what you think Christianity teaches because it is what you believe.

    Going back to my original point, believers put the morals and ethics they wish the religion to reflect into the religion, or if this is too hard they simply reject the religion completely.


  • Options
    #1556
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Zombrex wrote: »
    No, that is what you think Christianity teaches because it is what you believe.

    Going back to my original point, believers put the morals and ethics they wish the religion to reflect into the religion, or if this is too hard they simply reject the religion completely.

    No, that's not true. Not so far as I read it..

    I would say this is more true of moral relevatism which is prevalent among atheists or moral reletivists - obviously.

    Traditionally, most believers whom Christians hold up as Saints don't inject moral standards to those of their time, but rise above moral norms and rise above them in what is commonly understood as a person reflecting Gods image of love and charity at the detriment of their own desires for love and recognition.

    Humility is the signature of the Saint.

    Pride is the opposit. Love of an enemy is charity, hatred or pride is a deterrent to indeed the natural order and what we were born to strive for right here and now in this time and age to survive. Jesus has something to teach, faith, hope and love, but above all these is love..


  • Options
    #1557
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    No, that's not true. Not so far as I read it..

    Pages and pages of Christians attempting to explain that God had a good reason for what he did in the Old Testament would suggestion otherwise.
    lmaopml wrote: »
    I would say this is more true of moral relevatism which is prevalent among atheists or moral reletivists - obviously.

    Well they know they are doing it. Believers often don't. I guess part of the appeal is that the religion justifies their own beliefs. It is not their beliefs, they are handed down from God. But in the end they are still their beliefs.

    Its actually relatively easy to demonstrate though through a pretty simply thought experiment.

    If the objective law of the universe, be it handed down by God or whoever, informed you that it was in fact moral to do something that you consider hideously immoral (like rape a toddler or something, just an example of a commonly agreed immoral action) would you accept the objective version?

    The answer for the vast majority of people, including yourself I'm guessing, is no absolutely not.

    You know this to be true.


  • Options
    #1558
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Pages and pages of Christians attempting to explain that God had a good reason for what he did in the Old Testament would suggestion otherwise.

    What exactly did God do in the Old Testament that you think is not inline with belief that God is a Just and Omniscient being? I think this has been covered more than once Zombrex throughout the thread. Christians submit every prayer and intention with 'thy will be done'....This is not a democracy, but an opportunity to recognise beauty, and live and see and hear and feel love.

    Well they know they are doing it. Believers often don't. I guess part of the appeal is that the religion justifies their own beliefs. It is not their beliefs, they are handed down from God. But in the end they are still their beliefs.

    Are you suggesting a fundamental difference in brain activity? lol....how contrived and petty, and pretty moronic.....'Mama, I have a hurt that needs kissing, because I'm different to all the other kids, I'm better really' - pull the other one.


    Its actually relatively easy to demonstrate though through a pretty simply thought experiment.

    If the objective law of the universe, be it handed down by God or whoever, informed you that it was in fact moral to do something that you consider hideously immoral (like rape a toddler or something, just an example of a commonly agreed immoral action) would you accept the objective version?

    The answer for the vast majority of people, including yourself I'm guessing, is no absolutely not.

    You know this to be true.

    No, I don't. That's where you totally part ways in understanding of God and goodness which is God.

    By the way, I'm not saying I am any more 'good' than anybody, I am not - I'm on a journey - but you are too, whether you realise it or not.


  • Options
    #1559
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Its actually relatively easy to demonstrate though through a pretty simply thought experiment.

    If the objective law of the universe, be it handed down by God or whoever, informed you that it was in fact moral to do something that you consider hideously immoral (like rape a toddler or something, just an example of a commonly agreed immoral action) would you accept the objective version?

    The answer for the vast majority of people, including yourself I'm guessing, is no absolutely not.

    You know this to be true.

    That really doesn't demonstrate anything other than the absolute clashing with the subjective.


  • Options
    #1560
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    That really doesn't demonstrate anything other than the absolute clashing with the subjective.

    It demonstrates that the subjective is ultimately what decides what is or isn't the absolute.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1561
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    What exactly did God do in the Old Testament that you think is not inline with belief that God is a Just and Omniscient being?

    Just to who's standards? Why do you think God is a just being?
    lmaopml wrote: »
    Are you suggesting a fundamental difference in brain activity?
    No, I'm suggesting a fundamental difference in recognition.
    lmaopml wrote: »
    No, I don't. That's where you totally part ways in understanding of God and goodness which is God.

    So if God told you to rape a toddler you would know that it was a good thing to do and you would happily do it.

    Not that you would believe it was bad but God has his reasons that you do not understand. But that it was good in of itself, not requiring further justification?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement