Hey Blam
2. The law decides what is 'just'. In my country there is no death penalty, so the law doesn't prescribe killing at all. It allows some killing to be justly motivated though.
It's the starting point for this point of view: that human beings aren't perfect. A philosophical anchor point.
(November 5, 2011 at 10:07 am)Blam! Wrote: Don't you think the killings/atrocities committed by God can be considered as a "murder"?No. The authors of the bible describe, from everything they observed and wrote down, that God is just and good. Yet you think they said the opposite. I would suggest that you misunderstand what you see.
(November 5, 2011 at 6:17 am)Blam! Wrote: "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)1. That is a law of the time, applicableonly to that time.
If Christians consider that verse as a "law" so they can kill homosexual since it is just "kill" and didn't considered as a "murder" since Christians didn't break the law?
2. The law decides what is 'just'. In my country there is no death penalty, so the law doesn't prescribe killing at all. It allows some killing to be justly motivated though.
(November 5, 2011 at 6:17 am)Blam! Wrote: Or God can do whatever he wishes since he's all-powerful?God can only do what is logically possible, as he is a logical God. He cannot be bad, or do evil, or he would not be God (The Christian God).
(November 5, 2011 at 6:17 am)Blam! Wrote: Do I need to prove the atrocities/killings committed by God? The bible mentioned all of that shit already.Indeed you do, because the bible says the opposite to that.
(November 5, 2011 at 6:17 am)Blam! Wrote: The bar graph of kill count by god- it's all summed up according to the bible [if you considered the bible as a "actual evidence" or not]. It's all in the bible, in the verses which we describe god's behavior with humanity.Yes. The just taking of life. No murder.
(November 5, 2011 at 6:17 am)Blam! Wrote: I don't see TheSummerQueen's post in this thread and I don't recall of what has she said. Could you please refer me to the source?Sure. It's here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-9333-pos...#pid202415
(November 5, 2011 at 6:17 am)Blam! Wrote: If God is trying to solve the "sin" problem then the atrocities against humanity does not make sense.There are no "attrocities against humanity". You don't like the idea of humans sufferring. Neither do I. Do we think it just for a mother to defend a child by taking a life? How can we not allow God the same right?
(November 5, 2011 at 6:17 am)Blam! Wrote: God is supposedly omniscient, yet let Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit? Or that's a story to describe our nature? A metaphoric story for human beings capable of doing good things also doing evil things? Or a metaphoric story of disobedience against god?It sets out our nature, as capable of understanding good and bad and choosing.
It's the starting point for this point of view: that human beings aren't perfect. A philosophical anchor point.
(November 5, 2011 at 6:17 am)Blam! Wrote: I should have said 'serious" instead of literal. Before, I thought literal is one of synonymic word for seriousness.To me it's an incorrect understanding. People call it literal because they want to take the english approximation of the original language literally, rather than the actual meaning that can be thoroughly understood done seriously.
(November 5, 2011 at 6:17 am)Blam! Wrote: Well, the bible did mentioned that god is omniscient. Why punish humanity with "sin" that God created in first? If forbidden fruit don't consist of "sin" but conscience then why god punish humanity for ability to distinguish between good and evil?The 'sin' was to choose death over life. All sin is people choosing what is destructive to them. Togetherness with God is what's good for us. If you said that in different words you might not have a problem with it.
