Only man is fit to be God.

[Drich]

Oh, I see. So Tobie says that the god of the bible orders the slaughter of innocents. You disagree, and so he provides chapter and verse where that happens. Your response is that it happened a long time ago, and so therefore... didn't happen?

absolutly not. Because tobie failed establish the innocents or guilt of those being slaughtered.
Their is a vast difference between a drone attack on a truck load of ISIS warriors and a truck load of innocent babies and puppies.

Even thought their fate is the same the word innocent here determines wether or not an act is justified.

I mean, it's the same god. Saying that he figured out a loophole in his own weird rules so that in his infinite mercy he would no longer have to murder people for disagreeing with him doesn't unmurder the first group of people. That still happened, meaning you're just wrong, Drich.

Again there is a vast difference between the innocent and the guilty. If you cannot prove these people were innocent then by the word of God they have been found guilty.. Therefore to label them innocent is a dishonest effort to try and change the parameters of the discussion to fit your own version of morality.. Again a version that has no issue lying to come to a predetermined conclusion.

[Greatest I am]

It's still the same god, same theology, same people. The god depicted in the bible is willing to destroy all humans because he regretted making us. I don't recall anything in the NT saying "ignore all the bits of the OT where god wants to kill all of us, or when he slaughters innocents".

I guess your not familiar with the message of the gospels then?

You know the bit where is says:" fore God so loved the world that He gave his only son, that who so ever shall believe in Him, shall not perish but have ever lasting life?"

That one verse creates a new paradigm therefore a completely new religion. What links us to the destruction of the OT is in the word parish. To perish is to feel the wrath of God if belief in His son is not secured. To which I have no issue with that. Because simply put i do not want to spend eternity with everyone who has ever lived. Some of people simply need to 'perish.'

How will you get yourself into heaven? On your own merit or via a scapegoat?

Revisit substitutionary atonement or vicarious redemption and scapegoating with me just to refresh your memory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNtBkOXItqw

I am not an atheist but Satan and Christians want atheists to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that we should profit from punishing the innocent instead of the guilty. Scapegoating IOW.

In reality, if God did demand such a barbaric sacrifice, he would be sinning as we all know that it is immoral to kill the innocent. God knows this yet Christians do not seem to. You do. Right?

Those with good morals will know that no noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a son just to prove it's benevolence. When you die, Satan will ask you; how was your ticket to heaven purchased? With innocent blood?

If and when you say yes, you become his.

-----------------------------------

The other option in scriptures, a moral one, is shown here. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Scriptures indicate that God prefers repentance to sacrifice and as God’s will is supreme and cannot be thwarted, this will come to pass.

---------------------------------

It is a special distorted Christian view of love that sees, --- as the greatest act of love possible, --- their God condemning them, and then turning and demanding his son’s deaths and thus corrupting God's perfect justice. A bribe set by God as judge himself for himself. This is of course ridiculous.

Christians have an insane view of love, IMO.

Would you express your love for humanity or those you love by having your own child needlessly murdered?

Or if convinced that a sacrifice was somehow good, would you have the moral fortitude to step up yourself to that cross instead of sending your child?

Your cowardly God did not.

Regards
DL

[Losty]

Whoa oh ok. So your point is that they were murdered but they weren't innocent.
All of them? Even the babies and young children?

[Tobie]

So you've reached confirmation bias. I guess that killing people because they happen to live in a particular area is justified? You're getting in to genocide apologetics now Drich.

What about the infamous passage Psalms 137:9; Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rocks!?

[Natachan]

Whoa oh ok. So your point is that they were murdered but they weren't innocent.
All of them? Even the babies and young children?

Didn't you know? God hates babies. That's why he commands that people smashed their brains against rocks, and why he drowned all of them. It's why he allows thousands to be born every year with AIDS. It's why he makes them starve and die of sickness which are easily treated.

[Drich]

Book chapter and verse?

Job 2; 3

God says --- Satan moved me to destroy without cause.

Part of what he is speaking of is the murder of Job's children

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeOfzN8ZTAM


Care for more?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyFM0_Ah...F9D6F1F8FF

Regards
DL

Please because your verse in job has satan pulling the trigger. god simply removed the protection he had over jobs house.

Your boy satan is the one who killed job's family.
Job1:
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and [b]Satan also came among them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?” Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.” 8 The Lord said to Satan, “Have you [c]considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, [d]fearing God and turning away from evil.” 9 Then Satan answered the [e]Lord, “Does Job fear God for nothing? 10 Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has; he will surely curse You to Your face.” 12 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your [f]power, only do not put forth your hand on him.” So Satan departed from the presence of the Lord.

Further more your passage is out of context and you have changed the wording to fit your arguement. Very dishonest.

2 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord. 2 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.” 3 The Lord said to Satan, “Have you [a]considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man [b]fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to [c]ruin him without cause.” 4 Satan answered the Lord and said, “Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life. 5 However, put forth Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh; he will curse You to Your face.” 6 So the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your [d]power, only spare his life.”

[Losty]

I'm so glad that we don't have to live in a world with a god like that.

[Drich]

I guess your not familiar with the message of the gospels then?

You know the bit where is says:" fore God so loved the world that He gave his only son, that who so ever shall believe in Him, shall not perish but have ever lasting life?"

That one verse creates a new paradigm therefore a completely new religion. What links us to the destruction of the OT is in the word parish. To perish is to feel the wrath of God if belief in His son is not secured. To which I have no issue with that. Because simply put i do not want to spend eternity with everyone who has ever lived. Some of people simply need to 'perish.'

Even if you are correct in this point of your theology, this is still a god who only decides to be a bit nicer after he unnecessarily gets his son killed.

Actually no. Nothing changes. The wicked still perish. It just does not have to be in this life.

---

I guess your not familiar with the message of the gospels then?

You know the bit where is says:" fore God so loved the world that He gave his only son, that who so ever shall believe in Him, shall not perish but have ever lasting life?"

That one verse creates a new paradigm therefore a completely new religion. What links us to the destruction of the OT is in the word parish. To perish is to feel the wrath of God if belief in His son is not secured. To which I have no issue with that. Because simply put i do not want to spend eternity with everyone who has ever lived. Some of people simply need to 'perish.'

No no no. That verse does not create a new religion. That verse does not discount the OT. I want to put you in a room with my father and then sit in a corner eating popcorn and enjoying the show lol.

Also, even if we are nice enough to give you this. Ok pretend the OT was made irrelevant by the NT. That doesn't change what your god did in the OT. That doesn't reverse time and mean he hadn't already murdered all those people.

Define murder.

I think you mis understand the term.

[Greatest I am]

I disagree. Man like s rules and laws and these need a hierarchy to protect and enforce.

Take that hierarchy away and you have chaos as all would do as they like.

Man likes rules and order and shuns chaos and anarchy.

Remember that in spite of our intelligence, most people are in religions and that means that they are followers of rules by nature just as you are.

Regards
DL

The issue I have is how that hierarchy comes about and is maintained. Take our current system. No one is inherently better than another. No one grovels. Everyone is fundamentally equal. Yet we do have laws and rules. They have come about through a mutual cooperation and understanding (ok, I know that's a gross oversimplification). If a person in authority does something wrong they are held just as accountable as anyone else. Authority in a democratic system can be gained or lost by the collective trust we put in a person based on the respect they have earned.

Setting up a system of ruling with a set person or persons at the top who cannot be moved and who are set as infallible or above reproach is revolting. It is just as revolting as the concept of a god. A civilized person does not give to Caesar, he permits no Caesar.

I think I see your mind set. You do not mind leadership and rules but object to tyranny. I agree.

We should all seek the ideal man to lead and rule over us but not idolize him or her.

That my friend is pure Gnostic Christian thinking and that is wht I am.

Even after my apotheosis, no it is not woo, the ideal or Godhead I found, I set aside, raised the bar of that/my view of ideal, and seek a new God continually.

That is what we should do politically as well as spiritually.

My religion aside, do you see what I mean?

Regards
DL

[Tobie]

Define murder.

Murder; the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought.

Are you saying slaughter of people based on where they live is not unlawful, and has no malice aforethought? Or blessing people who smash babies against rocks?