God's opinion of deformities

[Wyrd of Gawd]

God: creates disabled people, doesn't want to look at them after creating them.

'Unfair' might be the wrong word.  I prefer the phrase "fucking idiotic and laughable, and how can people believe in this bullshit?"

The Islamic Koran doesn't seem to be bigoted against people with disabilities.

[Ravenshire]

---

Semantics. I would choose 1 and 3. 

I don't believe that god exists. I find the passage just another absolutely ridiculous law a bunch of idiotic bronze age goat-herder witch doctors wrote down, and another excuse to abuse people they find inferior. Your wholly babble book is overflowing with such offensive passages.  
I find it offensive. You, coming from the stance that this book is somehow special and "holy", clearly do not. We will never agree on this point.

I'm not expecting YOU to change anything. I didn't write this in this atheist forum to have a debate with a goddamn preacher.

---

Relative to definition #1: How are the principles of equality and justice determined?

Relative to definition #2:  Why do you reject this definition but accept the others?

Relative to definition #3:  Do you think that it is reasonable [having the faculty of reason] to submit the concept of fairness to a single person's 'personal expectations?'  If you read a book and it fails to live up to your expectations would that book be 'unfair'?

Will you ever address the actual points made or just argue semantics?

[drfuzzy]

---

Semantics. I would choose 1 and 3. 

I don't believe that god exists. I find the passage just another absolutely ridiculous law a bunch of idiotic bronze age goat-herder witch doctors wrote down, and another excuse to abuse people they find inferior. Your wholly babble book is overflowing with such offensive passages.  
I find it offensive. You, coming from the stance that this book is somehow special and "holy", clearly do not. We will never agree on this point.

I'm not expecting YOU to change anything. I didn't write this in this atheist forum to have a debate with a goddamn preacher.

---

Relative to definition #1: How are the principles of equality and justice determined?

Relative to definition #2:  Why do you reject this definition but accept the others?

Relative to definition #3:  Do you think that it is reasonable [having the faculty of reason] to submit the concept of fairness to a single person's 'personal expectations?'  If you read a book and it fails to live up to your expectations would that book be 'unfair'?

You quoted me, and didn't read my response?  "I didn't write this in this atheist forum to have a debate with a goddamn preacher."
You must not have read the other responses either. You seem to be the only poster that is incapable of immediately understanding my point.
      However, I do appreciate that your responses are NOT the old, tired, and absurd crap that theists usually respond to such a post, such as: "Gods ways are not our ways; God's ways are beyond our understanding; God cannot be unfair because God IS the universe; yadda yadda yadda ad nauseum with the magical, unprovable, ridiculous bullshit.  
      So, I'm not going to engage in your attempt to dissect semantics and definitions, in hopes that you can find a loophole to "prove" to us that your god is not a monster. (The god of the wholly babble, not the other gods.) But carry on. Because if you have to type out this stuff enough times, you might get tired of putting on the blinders, tying your brains in a knot, and turning yourself inside out in order to make excuses for your imaginary friend.

[KevinM1]

---

---

Relative to definition #1: How are the principles of equality and justice determined?

Relative to definition #2:  Why do you reject this definition but accept the others?

Relative to definition #3:  Do you think that it is reasonable [having the faculty of reason] to submit the concept of fairness to a single person's 'personal expectations?'  If you read a book and it fails to live up to your expectations would that book be 'unfair'?

Will you ever address the actual points made or just argue semantics?

Semantics are all he has.

[Crossless2.0]

Will you ever address the actual points made or just argue semantics?

Semantics are all he has.

Not quite. Admitting that his "holy book" is the artifact of a barbarous and ignorant people and that it should be beneath the consideration of decent, educated people in the 21st Century is always an option.

But I don't expect much in the way of decency or honesty from those who follow one of the Abrahamic religions, so . . . yeah, semantics is about all he has.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Orangebox I think most people would see it unfair if an all powerful being decided to give people given disabilities for...some reason.

It's the some reason we're trying to figure given the hypothetical of a deity (for sake of argument, whatever deity you worship) existing and making stuff.

Trying to redefine fairness when we all have that vague understanding of what that word means in this context is probably scoring you loads of points, though.

[robvalue]

If God did it, it must be fair, because everything God does is fair, because God said so. And God doesn't lie, because he says he doesn't lie.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Yup, so convincing. >_>

Never mind debates over religion or whatever, it's just piss poor reasoning by anyone's standards. Did this god imagine this would ultimately be the best defence when it created kids with disabilities?

[BrokenQuill92]

I glad I don't have to look at ugly people! Go blindness! Haha!

[Athene]

If any of this stupid horseshit were true, that would mean God's an evil lunatic.