(September 16, 2011 at 7:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: LOL, "siding with freedom". From his chair here on the Prison Planet Earth. Founded, owned, and operated by the executioner, who judged you before you were born. What a joke. Everytime you open your mouth you shit on someones grave don't you.

The only thing you side with is yourself. I don't even know why you're here. Go talk to a mirror.

What are you even talking about? I think you become more and more logically incoherent the more diapers you change. I pointed out that if a person was going to "side with freedom" they would certainly not side with the person who was chained by the gospel. I don't use "siding with freedom" as any sort of determining factor, so your post is irrelevant.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You don’t know all of the theistic proofs proposed through the centuries?

I see none of them as logically sound. Albeit there are no sound logical arguments to the contrary, they all establish premises on the basis of assumptions. This would need to go to a new thread for elaboration, but suffice it to say that most all proofs, pro or con, are generally or inherently based in causality and that may not (probably not) exist. They certainly make assumptions of things that we can never know.

(September 16, 2011 at 6:52 pm)IATIA Wrote: There is no god to believe in or disbelieve. It has nothing to do with proof or lack thereof. There just really is no such thing as a god.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How do you know this?

Like I said, the same way I know there are no fairies or ghosts for that matter. Nothing supernatural can exist. If it did, then by it's own existence it would have to be natural and natural things do not perform magic as magic is unnatural.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: False analogy, the rock point is a logical contradiction; God appearing before you is not a logical contradiction so you are going to have to expand on this point if you wish it to be logically coherent.

No true god could possibly appear before anyone. It would only be a representative or messenger.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Wait, I know that Mars, Jupiter, Apollo, and Zeus do not exist because scripture says they do not, so you know Yahweh does not exist because scriptures says He does not? Scripture says he does though.

We have yet to establish the authority of this dubious collection of books alleged to proclaim it's own authority.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It is more just logically incoherent really; I need to know how you know that God, Zeus, and fairies do not exist if it is not a “lack of proof or evidence” as you stated above.

Because they are logically incoherent with my worldview.

(September 16, 2011 at 6:52 pm)IATIA Wrote: It was his only role!

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How does that apply to believers today?

That is their desire. Go to heaven and worship their god and bow to his whims. Ergo, tend his garden. What else are they going to do? Light one up, grab a beer and sit down at their computer and argue with an atheist? OOPS! Can't do that in heaven. Mortal pleasures are sin.

(September 16, 2011 at 6:52 pm)IATIA Wrote: Then obviously you did not read it or you do not know who the Borg are. As to a losing team, I will always fight on the side of freedom, regardless.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I know enough to know they are cybernetic, I see know reference to cybernetics in Revelation. Satan is not free, he is currently bound by the preaching of the Gospel, so maybe you should choose a different side.

A ship decending from the heavens that is 1500 miles wide, 1500 miles deep, 1500 miles high and walls 200 foot thick. Why does god need a spaceship? Did you know the moon is just over 2000 miles in diameter? That is one big ass Borg ship.

(September 16, 2011 at 6:52 pm)IATIA Wrote: Is not that what I just said??

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No, you said something about the evils of the atheistic worldview, which I agree it, is evil but I was more pointing out its inconsistencies.

My point was, when it comes to morals, there are no consistencies in either the theistic worldview or the atheistic worldview. There are agreed on rules via democracy or tyranny, but there are no absolutes. Everything changes with the times.

(September 16, 2011 at 6:52 pm)IATIA Wrote: It only ended less that 200 years ago. And the relevance is the fact that the source of morals does not in any way determine the quality of the morals.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The dates I saw put the end of the inquisition farther back than that, be careful though Shell will jump in here and start calling you dumb for believing there was only one “inquisition”. Well the leaders of the inquisition morals were not based on scripture they were based on the heads of the church, so I would argue that they made the same error that Dahmer did, they made men their final moral authority.

No need. Here is a partial.

1220: Dominican Order founded

1231: Gregory IX begins Medieval Inquisition

1478: Sixtus IV authorizes the Spanish Inquisition

1515: Leo X institues pre-press censorship, not enforced

1517: Martin Luther (or see a Catholic take on him) begins his protests

1540: Jesuit Order founded

1542: Bernardino Ochino flees Italy, converts to Protestantism Paul III establishes the Roman Inquisition Limited press censorship, banning of Ochino's works

1544: Yet another Index version

1559: Paul IV's Pauline Index

1563: Last session of the Council of Trent ends

1564: Tridentine Index published

1571: Congregation of the Index founded by St.Pius V

1588: Sixtus V creates Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition or Holy Office

1600: Giordano Bruno's Trial (and subsequent burning)

1633: Galileo's Trial

1834: Spanish Inquisition officially ends.

1908: Inquisition becomes Holy Office.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You still have not explained how a God could suffer from psychopathy which of course is a human mental illness. I will wait for you to do that. I also still want you to explain how you determine your moral standard that you seem to think applies to God. Thanks.

Simple. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

"Psychopathy is a mental disorder characterized primarily by a lack of empathy and remorse, shallow emotions, egocentricity, and deceptiveness. Psychopaths are highly prone to antisocial behavior and abusive treatment of others"

I think the destruction of all human and animal life on this planet qualifies, along with an plethora of other 'god-like' actions. We are talking genocide on an unparalleled scale and drowning to death is not an easy way to go either. The condoning of "bashing babies heads against the rock", the approval of adultry for the sole purpose of continuing a blood-line, this god's head is not on straight.

(September 16, 2011 at 6:52 pm)IATIA Wrote: It will probably one of the

Quote: tags. It took me three shots on mine.

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='179789' dateline='1316214032']It was! Thanks!

You are welcome.

(September 16, 2011 at 6:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I will post a reply once I figure out why it won't show up when I post it.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I disagree, Christians disagree on such matters just as much as atheists do, and Christian Theism is still a worldview, it just has many subclasses much like atheism does. Some atheists are empiricists, some are naturalists some are relativists but they are all part of the grander worldview known as atheism. Unfortunately many atheists try to run from this fact because they realize that in the court of philosophical ideas atheism is rather weak.

You're just equivocating Statler. 'Christian Theism' as a worldview, necessitates certain positions being upheld as dogmatic these propositions required in order to be classified as a Christian. I do not doubt that many Christian vary is some of their stances but the fact remains that their entire cognitive belief system is structured around the supposed facts that; (a) God Exists and (b) The bible is his inerrant word. These fundamental similarities are the core of the 'worldview' as it were.

Atheists on the other hand can only be grouped by the fact that (with varying degrees of certainity) they do not hold a belief in God. Aside from that there is absolutely nothing linking them and one atheist could hold philosophical positions which are completely irrational to another.

I understand that you would like everyone to accept that all atheists share a worldview Statler, I'm sure you're under the impression that once you get someone to concede that fact you can critique the 'atheist worldview' and prove how you've been right all along. Unfortunately that has no bearing on the reality of the situation. I'm also sure that you are sincere in your belief that atheism as a philosophical position is weak, that is your opinion and I respect that but stating it as fact does not make it so, as I'm sure you are aware.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I don’t believe that atheism and Christian Theism are similiar in every way, I think Christian Theism is a far superior worldview, but atheism is a worldview for the exact same reasons solipsism is. When you deny the existence of something that fundamentally influences your belief system as a whole (God for atheists, anything outside of one’s own mind for solipsists), that denial becomes your primary worldview.

I'm well aware of your opinions on the superiority of Christian Theism Statler. Unfortunately your opinion on the issue is superfluous to the discussion.

The problem is you seem intent on shoe-horning in your own personal value judgements. The existence of God, for you, is the fundamental and axiomatic basis of your entire philosophy. My position as an agnostic atheist is a result of my personal philosophy and understanding not vice versa.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So you are suggesting that you hold a standard of morality, existence and purpose that is in fact grounded in the existence of God? I doubt it; I bet all of them exclude the existence of God.

In what possible way did I make that suggestion? That has to be the most fatuous interpretation of what I said.

I suggested that you have no knowledge of my own or anyone else’s morality or anything else and thus no knowledge of how we justify them. The fact that some of us do not use 'God' as part of that justification does not mean that our individual’s philosophies are related. Again, you assume God axiomatically, some of us do not and as such the proposition is inconsequential to us.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not quite, I do not believe in those other gods because my God says they do not exist, so in fact my Christian Theism drives my disbelief in those gods, not the other way around.

So you do see the problem with your argument then?

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: If the comparison was unfounded then why did everyone know I was making it to Shell when all I did was post the quote by Dahmer? I didn’t say anything; just posted the quote and everyone (even Shell) realized that I was making a comparison with her remarks because they were so similar to Dahmer’s. If you don’t wish to be compared to Dahmer then I would avoid justifying your concepts of morality exactly like he did. While we are on the topic, maybe you can answer this question since everyone else has dodged it. If nobody really does own us and we really can adopt our own concepts of morality as Shell suggested then why are you so outraged by my comparison? Can’t I just adopt a concept of morality where I can compare people to Dahmer and it is just different strokes for different folks?

I can't speak for 'everyone' but I was aware that you were referring to Shell because you admit it in the thread; I began reading after that had been established.

Statler, you took what she said, gave it your own spin and then drew the Dahmer comparison. I'm making the point that in a supposedly civilised discussion that is more than a little weak.

I'm not outraged by your comparison. I think it's an unfair and pathetic route to take in a discussion and as such I think you owe her that admission and an apology. That being said, that is only my opinion and I respect your right to free speech.

An individual’s morality is entirely a personal affair, being within their consciousness they have an absolute liberty to whatever standard of morality they like. Once you enter into a social situation though your moral choices will be judged by intention and consequence and if you interfere with the rights of another you can legitimately be called to account.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh I see what you mean now, well Van Til, Clark, and Bahnsen have all written numerous essays that demonstrate the failures of secular worldviews. Rather than making you poke through all of them I think it’s just easier to propose a worldview and critique it.

I'm sure you're aware that one philosopher publishing a critique does not ultimately prove their assertions. From what I've seen so far their own positions are just as roundly criticised. I'll certainly have a look at their work though.

In the meantime I think it's reasonable to assume you were equivocating when you claimed all other worldviews had been proven false.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Absolutely! I think it’d be fun, let me know where you’d like to discuss this.

Considering there is already a presuppositional apologetics thread that would seem the appropriate place. Why don't you pick one of your supposed preconditions and post your rationalisation of it there and I’ll respond in due course?

Sam

Just a quick addition. I realise the spelling and grammar are particularly poor in this post. I didn't get chance to proof it before the ability to edit timed out. Sorry.

Sam

(September 17, 2011 at 1:24 am)Rayaan Wrote:

---

---

A Muslim committing ad Holmium against a Christian because he is fishing for kudos from atheists is a bit strange.

(September 16, 2011 at 10:36 pm)IATIA Wrote: I see none of them as logically sound. Albeit there are no sound logical arguments to the contrary, they all establish premises on the basis of assumptions. This would need to go to a new thread for elaboration, but suffice it to say that most all proofs, pro or con, are generally or inherently based in causality and that may not (probably not) exist. They certainly make assumptions of things that we can never know.

I agree with you here, they are not deductively sound arguments. My next question for you would be do you only believe in the existence of that which you can deductively prove to be true?

(September 16, 2011 at 6:52 pm)IATIA Wrote: Like I said, the same way I know there are no fairies or ghosts for that matter. Nothing supernatural can exist. If it did, then by it's own existence it would have to be natural and natural things do not perform magic as magic is unnatural.

More circularity.
“Nothing supernatural can exist.”
“Why not?”
“Because the natural world is all that exists.”
“How do you know this?”
“Because nothing supernatural can exist.”
“Why not?”
“Because the natural world is all that exists.”
“How do you know this?” …and on and on it goes...

Quote: No true god could possibly appear before anyone. It would only be a representative or messenger.

Please explain how an omnipotent god can’t appear before you.

Quote: We have yet to establish the authority of this dubious collection of books alleged to proclaim it's own authority.

Who is “we”?

Quote: Because they are logically incoherent with my worldview.

So if they are logically consistent with someone else’s worldview then they are rational in believing in their existence?

Quote: That is their desire. Go to heaven and worship their god and bow to his whims.

I didn’t realize you were using “tend His garden” metaphorically. Spending eternity in a glorified state worshipping God and reveling in His amazing glory does not sound too bad. Certainly beats spending eternity standing on the parapets of hell shouting out one’s hatred for Him while they suffer endlessly.

(September 16, 2011 at 6:52 pm)IATIA Wrote: A ship decending from the heavens that is 1500 miles wide, 1500 miles deep, 1500 miles high and walls 200 foot thick. Why does god need a spaceship? Did you know the moon is just over 2000 miles in diameter? That is one big ass Borg ship.

Well I don’t see any mention of a space ship, but the dimensions of the city in Revelation 21 are meant to symbolize the sheer magnitude and eternally secure nature of Christ’s church.

Quote: My point was, when it comes to morals, there are no consistencies in either the theistic worldview or the atheistic worldview. There are agreed on rules via democracy or tyranny, but there are no absolutes. Everything changes with the times.

Are you suggesting there are no absolutes but morals are absolutely relative? Careful with those self refuting claims there.

(September 16, 2011 at 6:52 pm)IATIA Wrote:

---

No need. Here is a partial.

1220: Dominican Order founded

1231: Gregory IX begins Medieval Inquisition

1478: Sixtus IV authorizes the Spanish Inquisition

1515: Leo X institues pre-press censorship, not enforced

1517: Martin Luther (or see a Catholic take on him) begins his protests

1540: Jesuit Order founded

1542: Bernardino Ochino flees Italy, converts to Protestantism Paul III establishes the Roman Inquisition Limited press censorship, banning of Ochino's works

1544: Yet another Index version

1559: Paul IV's Pauline Index

1563: Last session of the Council of Trent ends

1564: Tridentine Index published

1571: Congregation of the Index founded by St.Pius V

1588: Sixtus V creates Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition or Holy Office

1600: Giordano Bruno's Trial (and subsequent burning)

1633: Galileo's Trial

1834: Spanish Inquisition officially ends.

1908: Inquisition becomes Holy Office.

---

Well that’s very interesting, but its relevance still escapes me.

Quote: Simple. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In humans yes, but you still have not demonstrated how this little rule would apply to God.

Quote: I think the destruction of all human and animal life on this planet qualifies, along with an plethora of other 'god-like' actions. We are talking genocide on an unparalleled scale and drowning to death is not an easy way to go either. The condoning of "bashing babies heads against the rock", the approval of adultry for the sole purpose of continuing a blood-line, this god's head is not on straight.

If everything deserved to die then it is not wrongful genocide to give them what they deserve, it is justice. God has the right to do with His creation as He sees fit. Where did God approve adultery? You still have not demonstrated how it would be wrong for God to do any of these things; especially considering that you have already admitted that there are no moral absolutes so it really is just different strokes for different folks isn’t it?

(September 19, 2011 at 11:17 am)Sam Wrote: You're just equivocating Statler. 'Christian Theism' as a worldview, necessitates certain positions being upheld as dogmatic these propositions required in order to be classified as a Christian. I do not doubt that many Christian vary is some of their stances but the fact remains that their entire cognitive belief system is structured around the supposed facts that; (a) God Exists and (b) The bible is his inerrant word. These fundamental similarities are the core of the 'worldview' as it were.

Are you suggesting that there are atheists who believe in God? I think lacking a belief in God is a necessary position atheists must hold to. So their core beliefs would be simply the opposite of Christian Theism: A: God does not exist B: The Bible is not His inspired word.

Quote: I'm also sure that you are sincere in your belief that atheism as a philosophical position is weak, that is your opinion and I respect that but stating it as fact does not make it so, as I'm sure you are aware.

No it’s a bit of a historical fact; it is hard to point to any great philosopher that was an actual atheist. Contrary to what people believe today, Dawkins and Hitchens are not particularly sophisticated philosophical men. Why do you think atheists have put so much effort into redefining atheism as a “lack of belief” rather than its traditional definition as a “positive belief in the non-existence of God”? It’s because if they have to share the burden of proof they know it’s an impossible burden to bear.

Quote:The problem is you seem intent on shoe-horning in your own personal value judgements. The existence of God, for you, is the fundamental and axiomatic basis of your entire philosophy. My position as an agnostic atheist is a result of my personal philosophy and understanding not vice versa.

Are you saying that you adopted a theory of knowledge, existence, purpose, and morality that excluded the existence of God before you were an atheist? It seems to me that you’d have to make a decision as to whether God exists or not before you should be adopting beliefs that exclude the possibility of His existence.

Quote:I suggested that you have no knowledge of my own or anyone else’s morality or anything else and thus no knowledge of how we justify them.

No knowledge at all? That is just it though; I do know things about your beliefs simply because I know you are an atheist. I know that your views on morality exclude the existence of a transcendent law giver; I also know that your views on purpose and existence do too. So I may not know the particulars but I have it pretty narrowed down since there are only a handful of views on such matters that do not include the supernatural, gods, or God. I am always willing to listen to your beliefs though so that I may understand them even better though.

Quote: So you do see the problem with your argument then?

No.

Quote:Statler, you took what she said, gave it your own spin and then drew the Dahmer comparison. I'm making the point that in a supposedly civilised discussion that is more than a little weak.

I gave her position no spin at all, she clearly said that God did not own her and she could make up her own rules on morality, Dahmer just happened to hold to the exact same position.

Quote: I'm not outraged by your comparison. I think it's an unfair and pathetic route to take in a discussion and as such I think you owe her that admission and an apology. That being said, that is only my opinion and I respect your right to free speech.

I don’t think it was unfair at all, it would be unfair if she didn’t hold the same position Dahmer did on morality, but she does unfortunately.

I’d respect your position a little bit more if you ever stood up for me when people bring up the crusades, the inquisitions, or just when they personally attack me and call me every name under the sun (look at some of the things Shell has called me for example), since you have always been silent when that happens I suspect you are just objecting because it was a “Christian on atheist crime” more than anything really.

Quote: Once you enter into a social situation though your moral choices will be judged by intention and consequence and if you interfere with the rights of another you can legitimately be called to account.

Can’t you see how this is a self refuting position you have taken here? Say that someone adopts a view on morality that it is their moral responsibility to force others to conform to their views. Now you would tell this person they have no right to force their morals on other people, but by telling them this and stopping them from acting out their view of morality you are actually forcing your view on morality on them, which is what you objected to them doing in the first place. Moral relativism is a self refuting position, if it is true it is false if it is false it is false therefore it is false.

Quote:I'm sure you're aware that one philosopher publishing a critique does not ultimately prove their assertions. From what I've seen so far their own positions are just as roundly criticised. I'll certainly have a look at their work though.

Well that’s why I suggested that you just propose a secular worldview and we can take a look at how it does not hold up.

Quote: In the meantime I think it's reasonable to assume you were equivocating when you claimed all other worldviews had been proven false.

No equivocation here, I have seen critiques of all other proposed worldviews and how they are logically incoherent or even contradictory in nature. The Christian worldview is the only one I have encountered that is internally consistent and can account for the preconditions of knowledge. If you believe others exist please let me know what they are.

Quote: Considering there is already a presuppositional apologetics thread that would seem the appropriate place. Why don't you pick one of your supposed preconditions and post your rationalisation of it there and I’ll respond in due course?

Sounds good.

(September 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: A Muslim committing ad Holmium against a Christian because he is fishing for kudos from atheists is a bit strange.

I made that picture only for a little fun, Stat. My intention was not to mock you or make you feel bad about it. Furthermore, I wouldn't want to do that to any of the religious members in the forum as I'm a theist myself. I posted the picture in the same state of mind as when I posted the one in the previous page which even you liked as well. So, I thought you would know that I was just kidding with you. However, maybe it was only the absence of a in the second one that made you take it the wrong way. But, still, I apologize if that was something offensive to you, and I won't do it again.

(September 20, 2011 at 4:58 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(September 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: A Muslim committing ad Holmium against a Christian because he is fishing for kudos from atheists is a bit strange.

I made that picture only for a little fun, Stat. My intention was not to mock you or make you feel bad about it. Furthermore, I wouldn't want to do that to any of the religious members in the forum as I'm a theist myself. I posted the picture in the same state of mind as when I posted the one in the previous page which even you liked as well. So, I thought you would know that I was just kidding with you. However, maybe it was only the absence of a in the second one that made you take it the wrong way. But, still, I apologize if that was something offensive to you, and I won't do it again.

Hey Rayaan,

No need to apologize, I was not offended or anything. I just thought it was kind of an odd scenario, kind of like the beginning of a joke, "What do you get when a Muslim pokes fun at a Christian for the amusement of atheists?" you know what I mean? :-) I did think the Brett Favre one was funny though.

(September 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Hey Rayaan,

No need to apologize, I was not offended or anything. I just thought it was kind of an odd scenario, kind of like the beginning of a joke, "What do you get when a Muslim pokes fun at a Christian for the amusement of atheists?" you know what I mean? :-) I did think the Brett Favre one was funny though.

Okay, that's better then. I'm happy that you're not offended at least.

(September 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I agree with you here, they are not deductively sound arguments. My next question for you would be do you only believe in the existence of that which you can deductively prove to be true?

If I can touch it, feel it, see it, taste it, hear it or reasonably deduce it, I will consider it. 'Consider' is a key word.

(September 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: More circularity.
“Nothing supernatural can exist.”
“Why not?”
“Because the natural world is all that exists.”
“How do you know this?”
“Because nothing supernatural can exist.”
“Why not?”
“Because the natural world is all that exists.”
“How do you know this?” …and on and on it goes...

Those are your words. Mine are: All that exists is natural. Simple as that. Whether or not we know of it or we are aware of it, it is natural.

There is nothing here that is not supposed to be. If something that is not supposed to be here exists, then it must be a part of existence and therefore must be natural and supposed to be here. NOT CIRCULAR.

It might be rare, unseen, unknown, unknowable, but in no way, no how, no fashion, unnatural. Attack all the semantics you wish, but if it exists, then it is natural. Your god is supernatural, therefore it does not exist.

(September 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(September 16, 2011 at 10:36 pm)IATIA Wrote: We have yet to establish the authority of this dubious collection of books alleged to proclaim it's own authority.

Who is “we”?

I ain't got no mouse in my pocket!

(September 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(September 16, 2011 at 10:36 pm)IATIA Wrote: Because they are logically incoherent with my worldview.

So if they are logically consistent with someone else’s worldview then they are rational in believing in their existence?

Again, your words, not mine.

First, I never used the word rational. Secondly, I am referring to my own worldview, ergo "with my worldview".

If we (still no mouse) want to consider rational, then I am rational and you are irrational.

I am rational, because I am using sound logic, sound reasoning, and sound science to base my opinions on. Note, 'opinion' is another 'key' word.

You, however, are irrational. Why? (Well I do not really know but...) You are basing your worldview on fairy tales written thousands of years ago. Not only that, but your have selectively accepted and declined various documents with no thought as to their validity except that a bunch of religious freaks in 400 some A.D. picked them for you and said "god wrote these.".

(September 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I don’t see any mention of a space ship, but the dimensions of the city in Revelation 21 are meant to symbolize the sheer magnitude and eternally secure nature of Christ’s church.

It sure is going to be crowded with 2 billion people in there. That is the best god could do. Man, this guy is a wuss.

(September 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Are you suggesting there are no absolutes but morals are absolutely relative? Careful with those self refuting claims there.

Absolutely, (Damn, another absolute). Morals are relative to the world, society, government, life form, species, dimension, universe, whatever. Nature will cull on it's own.

(September 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: If everything deserved to die then it is not wrongful genocide to give them what they deserve, it is justice. God has the right to do with His creation as He sees fit. Where did God approve adultery? You still have not demonstrated how it would be wrong for God to do any of these things; especially considering that you have already admitted that there are no moral absolutes so it really is just different strokes for different folks isn’t it?

So, babies pissed off your god? Horses pissed off your god? Deer pissed off your god? Damn! It does not take much to piss off that dude, does it?

No wonder you are afraid of him. Hell, you could get wiped out for neglecting to 'bless' some one after a sneeze.
(OOPS. They already did that. Great Flick )