(October 19, 2015 at 12:53 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Jesus is the one who judges.
As God, Jesus is also the one offended against.

It's a really, really horrible system which has the victim of a crime stand in judgement on a crime. And a being supposedly as perfect as yhwh's bastard son wouldn't use such a shitty system of justice now would he?

(October 28, 2015 at 3:54 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(October 19, 2015 at 12:53 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Jesus is the one who judges.
As God, Jesus is also the one offended against.

It's a really, really horrible system which has the victim of a crime stand in judgement on a crime. And a being supposedly as perfect as yhwh's bastard son wouldn't use such a shitty system of justice now would he?

That's interesting.  In the legal system, judges recuse all the time.  What needs to happen is that when a christian sins, buddha needs to decide the punishment.  When a buddhist sins, allah gets the case.  When a muslim sins, we send it to zeus.  And so on down the line, until you get back to jesus christ, who has exclusive jurisdiction over the westboro baptist church.

(October 28, 2015 at 3:38 pm)alpha male Wrote: God flooded the world. It's pretty clear he's not omnibenevolent.

That's not to say that he's not all good.

Um. Omnibenevolent literally means "all good." That's like saying, "Jesus is not a human. That's not to say that Jesus isn't a man."

(October 28, 2015 at 2:25 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(October 28, 2015 at 2:19 pm)robvalue Wrote: ...because god is subject to arbitrary rules, and isn't actually all powerful?

He's just doing his best with limited powers and resources?

It would make your job a lot easier if you admitted that. Because flip-flopping between all powerful and "has to do it this way because of random constraints I just thought up" is very difficult to watch.

I think if God can create another God, he would of. He can't however, and to say he can, would belittle his own reality, his unity, he is ultimate highness.  The nature of creation is not random, but created with respect to the truth of his face, which remains and doesn't disappear, and is from him and by which we return to him.

If he could he would?!? Bullshit. That jealous fuck couldn't handle the competition.

(October 28, 2015 at 3:02 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Are they truly worthy of worship any of them though?

Maybe not for you but they certainly are for millions past and present. Your god is what is handed down to you, if others have different gods it doesn't make them less worthy.


Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

(October 19, 2015 at 1:49 pm)Qwest Wrote:

(October 19, 2015 at 2:05 am)robvalue Wrote: So what if some atheists make bad arguments? Not all arguments against religion are good. That doesn't mean there aren't good arguments.

What exactly are we meant to do about it? We're not the atheist police.

If there's a problem with a particular argument, rather than vague slurs, then please be specific.

When you say religion, you mean Christianity I suppose. How familiar are you with every other religion I wonder?

"In God We Trust" MUST mean Christianity, right? There is no other religion in the world and ALL of the founding fathers were Christians (NOT).

Yes it is actually, the "in god we trust" was inserted under Eisenhower's regime, one of the periods in US political history which most disregarded the first amendment in favour of christian triumphalism. A president true to the original intent of the constitution would have kept "E pluribus, unum".

(October 28, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(October 19, 2015 at 1:49 pm)Qwest Wrote: "In God We Trust" MUST mean Christianity, right? There is no other religion in the world and ALL of the founding fathers were Christians (NOT).

Yes it is actually, the "in god we trust" was inserted under Eisenhower's regime, one of the periods in US political history which most disregarded the first amendment in favour of christian triumphalism. A president true to the original intent of the constitution would have kept "E pluribus, unum".

Moreover, the requests were put to congress during the Red Scare, when anything other than appearing super-Christian meant being "suspected of Communism", by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic Christian organization, for the express purpose of putting Christian wording into the Pledge and the Motto (which goes on the money).

Next year, we will reach the point where the Pledge has said "under God" for as many years as it existed without it. I have always found it supremely ironic that the phrase "under God" literally divides where it used to say "one nation indivisible".

Just browsing the theists comments. Delusion, bit more delusion and a bit of myth without knowing it's origins. And the refusal to educate themselves on the real world. So, in short, nihil novi sub sole.

(October 28, 2015 at 6:49 pm)abaris Wrote: Just browsing the theists comments. Delusion, bit more delusion and a bit of myth without knowing it's origins. And the refusal to educate themselves on the real world. So, in short, nihil novi sub sole.

You just quoted Ecclesiastes in Latin?

Bwahahhahaha! Well played. 

Is that Spiros Ecclesiastes who runs the Greek diner down the road?