My views on objective morality

[robvalue]

No. But you're not addressing the point.

Is this guy meant to only have our happiness as his concern and avoid us ever suffering?

If no, job done. He's a cunt.

If yes, then is he omni power super guy thing?

If no, job done. "Nice try God, 1/10".

If yes, he could have done things differently but didn't. Epic fail, he brought about needless suffering contrary to his MO.

Also, I throw another ice cream at him.

I assume this will be ad nauseum to the death, WLC style?

[Mystic]

Tibs, just wanted to let you know you're explaining everything really well. Mister Agenda was right on too when he was playing "devil's advocate."

I wish I could put what was on my mind into words like that.

You know when Moses was first commissioned as a Prophet/Messenger, the first thing he remembered was his brother. His brother Aeron was great at explaining things. I'm not sure if he was a Prophet according to Christians, but I think it is well known he was better at explaining things eloquently and clearly to people. Moses was really good as well, but the first thing Moses thought was, I know all these things in my heart, but I don't know how to explain them as well as my brother, so make my brother a vizier with me, that will share in my affair.

The thing is Aeron would understand everything Moses teaches to him and then be the door to that knowledge. Ali was similar in this regard to Mohammad per sayings of the Prophet as well as hinted in Quran.

Some people are better at explaining then others. This is why the Priesthood was given to Aeron and his chosen offspring I think according to the bible.

Moses can explain the truths really well, it's just he needs a good listener like Aeron. Aeron on the other hand knows how to knock sense even in people who don't try to listen.

That said, why does Moses need Aeron if God reveals words through him? It's because God is even more subtle in his speech, because, God cares more to teach good listeners and rewards them for listening, then stubborn hearts.

There is also a beauty in all that, in the literature, that makes you reflect. His words are about manifesting a personality that is exalted and high, and tries his servants with his words, to see if her lovers can see her beauty and be in reverence of her majesty.

[robvalue]

Moses wasn't real.

[Tiberius]

Is this guy meant to only have our happiness as his concern and avoid us ever suffering?

If no, job done. He's a cunt.

So, your parents are "cunts" then? I guarantee you that at some point in your development, your parents let you suffer because ultimately it taught you a lesson, if only to let you know that suffering existed and was an actual thing you'd have to deal with.

If you eradicate suffering, then happiness becomes meaningless, because you have nothing to compare it to.

If yes, he could have done things differently but didn't. Epic fail, he brought about needless suffering contrary to his MO.

His MO was to create humans with free will, so that they wouldn't be mindless drones. By giving humans free will, humans brought suffering into the world. That's Christian doctrine.

There was no suffering in the Garden of Eden. Adam & Eve ate the fruit (act of free will), lost their innocence, and brought suffering into the world.

Sure, if God had made it so that no human could choose evil, then we'd have no evil, but we'd also be mindless drones, unable to have any real choice over our actions. We'd be completely under God's control, which is exactly what he *didn't* want.

[Mystic]

An Angel Worships God for 6000 thousands years, and feels all high and great. God could of kept the status as is.

But he tries the Angels with Adam. 

They could of all passed the trial. Only one failed. But sometimes all it takes one.

First his arrogance, then his insolence, then his hate and lust to avenge himself against the crime of God.

Yes God could of said "no" "I won't let you influence or harm humans".

But he said, do your worse, and indeed, through your hate and lust, many will come out even better due to it. These are my servants who will resist your snares.

As for those who actually follow Satan, then they deserve hell for doing so.

So yes I can protect them...I can nanny my creation...but I won't. You want to do evil, do evil. My light will shine and be victorious at the end of it all.  Those who excel in it will shine brighter and be more beautiful.

God is just more bad ass then you guys can put up, I understand. You want a nanny sissy God.

I don't think God is going to apologize. And I don't think there is any doubt of his existence in his lovers.

So you going to hate on his lovers?

And if God told Iblis (Satan), no I won't let you make my servants astray, then Iblis is actually more correct to say "by that you lead me astray". Iblis is right in that regard, if God was going to be nanny for servants who haven't proven their sincerity to God, then why didn't he protect Iblis who was of his close Angels who worshiped God for 6000 years before his fall?

On the other hand, now, a servant that has become as evil as Satan, was he worth protecting from his own insolence? 

Even if it's just a story, at least, hyopthetically, why should God exalt people like Iblis....and keep them close....then the meaning of being exalted and high or an Angel looses meaning.

Some servants God knows they will never swerve, that's because they already proven themselves they won't ever, and have take the infallible unswerving nature of holiness.

Iblis was almost that, he was close, but he wasn't that.

But in this mythology, why should God stop such an evil being from choosing what he is. It's not even about deserving the mercy, but more like, it would be wrong to have mercy on such a servant who persist in his evil and then rebels and excels in his rebellion to God's light and name and embraces the negative chaotic darkness.

[robvalue]

Yes, my parents are cunts as it happens.

False analogy though, my parents are extremely limited in power.

If suffering is necessary for happiness, that is a rule God created. He needn't have. If that's a rule he must abide by, he's not omni wotsit.

False dichotomy. You can have free will with just non-suffering choices. If you can't, he's not omni-pumped up.

The ice cream is dripping down his face, you might want to mop that off Is he gonna show up at any point to slap my stupid atheist face?

[robvalue]

Good job though, I actually thought you were serious to begin with.

You're right, argueing another viewpoint is good practice.

[Whateverist]

Begs the question, which god is all of the above mentioned. Even among the 40.000+ denominations of christianity, they can't make their minds up. We have both extremes right here. Drippy, who constantly keeps arguing for a vengeful, retarded and violent bastard and CL or Kingpin, who view god as a benign influence.

So you have to adress them as individuals and not throw the bible at them, regardless of circumstances. Yes, it's OK to argue, but it's not OK to broadbrush them in a way we want be broadbrushed when the tables are turned.

^So this!^

[Whateverist]

Created everyone in heaven is not a bad plan. It's just that God is beautiful and loves beauty, and is willing to sacrifice for us to achieve that beauty.

Fixed that for you.

[Mystic]

Created everyone in heaven is not a bad plan. It's just that God is beautiful and loves beauty, and is willing to sacrifice for us to achieve that beauty.

Fixed that for you.

To me that which is sacrificed and lost obviously belonged more to God,  it was a trust, a link very close to him, if we break that trust and rebel against it, that which is lost, is more worthy to be said to belong to God then to us. On the other hand, our evil belongs more to us then to God. And yes from one perspective all of it is from God and belongs to him in another sense as well.