Jesus, Least Fit Moral Judge

[Brian37]

"Maybe it's not completely conclusive evidence"

Fucking wishy-washy fundie fucktard atheist appologist!



Have fun, you can fuck off now.
.

We don't have tin foil hats or invisible friends? And "fundies" do destructive things like slam plains into buildings or shoot abortion doctors. Do you see any of us making threats on the lives of theists? No.

Saying you are full of shit does not make us "fundies". No more than saying cars don't run on soda makes us fundies.

And we don't have anything to apologize for. Whoever sold you your myth should apologize to you.

[Surtr]

LOL! You can't seriously be that stupid, yet you obviously are...
They didn't use examples from the Bible yet they used religious examples??? Where the fuck did those "religious" examples come from then?

Christianity isn't the only religion with a Hell and it wasn't the first.

If eonian is derived from eon, then the definition of eon is key to determining what eonian means...

And I provided you with the definition. The one in the bible fits the second definition.

Irrelevant in regards to the definition of eonian.
.

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. You need to answer it. Oh wait, YOU CAN'T.

Surtr said: "I know eonian does not mean eternal." He did however admit his uncertainty

Blatant lie. I never admitted uncertainty, I stated clearly that I thought the second definition of eonian was the one in the bible and you were unable to prove me wrong.

Surtr nerver got off the fence, there's no reason to go any futher until that is cleared up first. His whole reason for sitting there with a fencepost up his ass was because he wanted to know where those in hell would go if it weren't eternal? Really?

I never sat on the fence, you fucking idiot. I asked you this:

Let me clear something up for you: There is no indication in the bible of where those souls would go if Hell was temporary, and when they are brought back in Revelations, they are cast back into the "lake of fire" after being judged again.

As in, I know eonian does not mean eternal. Or does it?

This is the "draw you in so when I punch you it hits you harder" strategy. Sadly, it seems I hit you so hard that I turned you retarded and put you into denial.

I didn't know that eonian could mean eternal at first. You asking me to search the definition of eonian actually ended in me discovering your claim was incorrect......smart.

You've proved recently that you have absolutely nothing intelligent to say. Fuck off and stop wasting our time.

[Esquilax]

I just want to set the record straight. I did NOT mock you for not being confident. I mocked you for being one of the pig-ignorant, stupid, fundie fucktard appologist sheeple.

The phrase "wishy-washy" rather hinted at the reverse, but then, you used a bunch of words that weren't applicable, so hey.

Perhaps your cognitive dissonance caused you to overlook the key flaw in your argument.
Surtr said: "I know eonian does not mean eternal." He did however admit his uncertainty (which is what being intellectually honest really is. not misrepresenting someone else's position like you did).

Completely vindicated in my thinking by Surtr's post above, me. Who was misrepresenting someone else's position, catfish?

And for the record, I love a whiny rant (sung to the tune of "I love a Rainy Night")... Carry on...

Hmm, what was it I said in that rant? "Arrogant turd?" Yeah, not really doing much to shirk that appellation, now are you?

Anyway, I'm done. Talking to you is... ridiculous, so I'm done with it. Until you have a point, that is. Laters!

[Ryantology]

I find it very difficult to believe that whichever deluded mammal who used the term 'eonian' when writing that part of the bible intended for it to mean some undefined yet definitely finite span.

It is obvious that the term was used to mean 'forever'. Or something so close that it makes no difference. This is why it has consistently been translated as such.

If catfish believes it is intended to be a finite span, the burden of proof lies upon him to prove that this was the intent. Otherwise, he is just another theist making baseless assertions.

[Mystical]

Dear Mr. Drich,

Sorry I haven't been able to reply to you for a few days, I have a busy life.. So I wanted to start off where we left off. We left off with you misrepresenting what I said, because of how you interpreted things that I said wrongly.

missluckie26 said:
You were put on this earth, so was I. We are equals. If you kill me or rape me, then you are treading upon my rights as a human being and I must dictate that you can't do that, in order to protect my own existence.

Drich said:
I simply took your statement to it's logical conclusion. In that the only way to stop someone bent on raping or murdering another person is to kill them.

Definition of DICTATE
intransitive verb
1
: to give dictation
2
: to speak or act domineeringly : prescribe
transitive verb
1
: to speak or read for a person to transcribe or for a machine to record
2
a : to issue as an order
b : to impose, pronounce, or specify authoritatively
c : to require or determine necessarily


The Only definition form of dictate that even hints at MURDER, is to require or determine necessarily. Which by no means equates to murder unless you've got murder on the brain. In my opinion, just so you know, murder is Never necessary or required. You asked me,

Drich said:
However, If you wish to continue this conversation then answer the following with an yes or no:
If I and/or someone else in whom you hate set a weekly appointment to Rape you, and NOTHING else could be done to stop us, beside you killing your attackers. Would you Murder them?

Listen Drich, I wasn't going to get into a hypothetical debate with you based on your stipulations, in a question in which the borders you yourself made up. But, I'll humor you. Right now I want to talk about the Real world, and Real choices, with Real people. In the real world, there is murder. Murderers are murdered for murdering. Doesn't mean I would do that, if I had the chance. There is never a single moment in time that I don't have the choice to murder, or to not murder and there's never only murder as the only choice in stopping ones' attackers, even in your hypothetical situation. I could simply choose to lie down and die, if I wanted. Which isn't what I'd do, I'd fight till I die, but even if you said I had a gun in my pocket, I wouldn't kill my attackers. I'd incapacitate them. Now you know my answer, but that doesn't change the fact that the question is one-sided and not based in reality. There is ALways something you can do besides murder. Always.

If someone was raping me and my family on a weekly basis, and there was NOTHING (again, not reality) I could do about it, I'd probably endure it the rest of my life. Killing isn't justified, because murder does not equate to rape. If I killed even in self defense for a murder: it's unjustified because they have yet to murder me. Thus if I murder them, my murder score would be 1: theirs: 0. Not fair, despite their intent.
If I knew they were going to come murder my own sister and again I have nothing else besides murder to resort to(unrealistic): I'd still be wrong in killing them, in my eyes, because no human has the right to take anothers' life. I'd do everything in my power, besides killing, and probably die in the process. In the real life, there's no way to know you or someone you love is going to be killed, until it happens. So to jump the gun and kill in defense in my humble opinion, is completely unfounded. Only defensible actions are justified (and again to be clear for you absolutely: NOT murder).

Drich wrote:
For this reason I could see why a few babies needed to be smashed against the rocks. If indeed those babies would grow to be a race of hitlers, dooming all of Humanity to Hell.

Also if you know how a movie was going to end does it mean you wrote it? Or does it simply mean you know how a movie is going to end?

If God simply know what will happen, does not mean He forced it to happen that way. The doctrine of predestination says just that. (that God wrote the movie.)

Of course if God killed the Canaanites (ripping the children from their mothers' wombs), then he is forcing something to happen a certain way, because he
"knows" what will follow their decisions. Even if he's just punishing the parents through the children, it's still not the childrens' fault that the parents chose as they did. God not only wrote the movie, he made the movie, he is the movie, and for that reason alone he controls every bit of what happens in the movie. Even if he put limits within the movie then let the people play out according to their own choices, it's still his movie he's making, because he is the one who put the people in that situation with stipulations to endure. I can't see how murdering a baby, whom you would know is going to be a race of hitlers, is justified one bit. If you kill that baby, your score is 1: theirs: 0. If anything, the alternative to killing them would be rehabilitation of some sort. Take the babies from the evil parents, for instance, instead of killing them. Redundantly inappropriate, for a "moral just and loving" god.

You still don't have me convinced about morality, as you can tell.

Drich said:
God has nothing to do with 'Morality.' As we have already discussed several times in this thread, Morality is a Personal sense of Righteousness.It is far and apart from God' Perfect standard of Righteousness. It is a standard that one lives by that allows for grading and marginalization of sin, allowing the Self righteous to live however he or she see fitnd can still feel "right about it."

Isn't God sure of his personal sense of righteousness? Doesn't he consider himself the end all be all of righteousness? How can morality be connected to man, and not god? If he truly has a perfect standard of righteousness, isn't that morality at its' core? Excluding the fact that you just threw in there that mankinds' morality merely serves to marginalize sin thus allowing us to live life with a clear conscience--just what are you saying, that athiests deny god so they can sin without feeling guilty? Don't you also sin, and not feel guilty because you atone for it later in secession? How are you any different than us?

God definitely believes himself the arbiter or righteousness. The one and only, the alpha and omega--that which is right is right because he says so--just as you've said in past posts.

Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Isaiah 57:12 I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works; for they shall not profit thee.

How can something be an abomination in his eyes if he does not have his own sense of righteousness, thus in your very definition of morality, his own law of morality? The fact that he is the ultimate Judge of everything, assumes that he is the arbiter of morality, just as I said.

Question: If god is perfect, and made us in his image, how then is it that we came out imperfect and sinners? Wouldn't that indicate that he made us imperfectly, on purpose? Which brings me to a giant hole in your theory that athiests have posed for longer than I've been alive: If merely being born offends your god, then there's something wrong with your god, because that means the tables have been turned against your favor from the beginning and thus is unrectifyable to the basic nature of god, who is supposed to be the end all be all of justice. If he was, then things would be just.

Things are not just. Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong or good from evil, until they ate the fruit. That means they can't be held responsible for their actions, not having knowledge of the good and evil or the repurcussions of choosing either. In gods own words, this is the reason why babies are not held responsible for sin, for they cannot know what they're doing.

Genesis 3: 22
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”

Evil is defined as something “that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction”. Well according to the punishment your god deals out in the following passages as the result of tasting the apple, I'd conclude that he is the evil one, thus not real in the way you believe him to be.

He actually says it right here, that he is the creator of evil. Man did not create it, it was there before we acquired the knowledge. Satan did not create it, he was given that knowledge by default along with the other heavenly beings. God created evil, because he is it.

Isaiah 45: 7
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

So if evil means "that which is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction," then isn't this next verse a confession on his part? I think it is. Suffering: hell. Injury: just ask poor innocent Job. Destruction: read the bible.

Genesis 3: 16-19
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the
days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”

Question: How can the bible say that god is love, if he is inherently evil? How can good create evil? How can evil create good?

missluckie26 said:
Quote:You on the other hand, telling me that eternal fire waits for your equals for non-violent acts such as loving a man as a man--is just you plain out again, taking away our civil liberties as a living, breathing, free-willed human being and is equally as wrong.

Drich said:
Show me where I have said this.

You uphold the bible, thus you cannot pick and choose what parts of it you follow. The bible says this, you need not say it outright for me to know that you uphold its' tenents. Unless you are cherry picking?

Quoteredestination renders the very idea of 'choice' invalid.

Drich said:
You made a huge leap how did you get to predestination from the offer of attonemnt Christ offers? Or are you trying to coast in on an old standby arguement hoping that it will work in what is being discussed here?

Are you willing to face the question, if god knows what will happen before it happens, how then can he justify letting it happen? Simple enough question, I'd like a simple enough answer if you're up for it.

Drich wrote:
How do you know 2/3 will perish?

I simply misread one of your quotes.

Drich said:
I am not here to save anyone, but to help you cement or change the choice you have made about God.

I appreciate that, I really do. Not being cynical, I really do think it's a noble cause to take up.

Catfish summed up well in reference to someone else,
(which is what being intellectually honest really is. not misrepresenting someone else's position like you did).

Don't misrepresent me if you want to have a fair debate. I never have said that murder is all right, and I'd appreciate further discussion to reflect my true beliefs. Your beliefs have been made clear, which is why I have opened conversation with you on them.
Also, would you honestly say to me if I came in your church asking why it's okay for god to kill innocents, "what if I raped you and your family on a weekly basis, would you feel murder is justified?" I think not. What's more, is I'd appreciate it if you choose to continue conversing with me, to move on to a different analogy as it's very touchy subject for me and my entire family, thx.

~Missy~

[Mystical]

Catfish Wrote: I just want to set the record straight. I did NOT mock you for not being confident. I mocked you for being one of the pig-ignorant, stupid, fundie fucktard appologist sheeple.

You have a dirty fucking mouth, for a bible thumper.

[Violet]

You have a dirty fucking mouth, for a bible thumper.

You'd think that would be praised. Jesus, can't please everyone. Someone's always gotta be salty snarky jerky.

[Mystical]

You have a dirty fucking mouth, for a bible thumper.

You'd think that would be praised. Jesus, can't please everyone. Someone's always gotta be salty snarky jerky.

see? That's how you call someone something without looking like a complete and total B-chy A-- A-hole with a stick up your bootie

[Violet]

see? That's how you call someone something without looking like a complete and total B-chy A-- A-hole with a stick up your bootie

The question remains...



Just what type of jerky should I expect you to taste like?

[Mystical]

http://youtu.be/XcxKIJTb3Hg


The question isn't, what kind of jerky will I taste like, but rather do I look like an innocent little bunny to you?