Only man is fit to be God.

[Losty]

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?

It wouldn't be for god.

[Greatest I am]

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

I see.

If a train is coming and you blow a bridge, the protection to the other side, then you are not guilty of murder. Wow.

Congratulations. You have shown us all how your religion has corrupted you morals.

When only the hit man is guilty and not the Don who sent him, then you know you have hit rock bottom in your moral view.

May Stan have mercy on your soul as you roast in hell. Oops there is not hell but your morals are still satanic.

Regards
DL

[Drich]

Will I hear a recant for the following that says you are wrong?

That would take an honest person and I do not think that that is you.
Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Matthew 12:33
Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Matthew 7:17
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

trees do not produce copies, they produce fruit. One way to demonstrate this is that is not every fruit from a given tree looks or even tastes the same. Nor does a copy of a given fruit grown from the same branch year after year.

Christians would have us think that God, the good tree, --- produced corrupt fruit.

If you believe scriptures that say God is perfect that is.

you are either very dishonest, or very slow in your basic reading comprehension.
I said God only created one man, and subsequently every man who follows is a copy of that first man. Again nothing in the bible says copies of copies retain their integrity.

Further more the passage in mat 7 and 12 were both taken out of context. Christ is not saying God is the tree and we are the fruit. In both instances Christ is saying we are the trees and out deeds are the fruit.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect:

Revelation 4:11 (KJV)
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Amos 3:6 (KJV)
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?
You have been soundly refuted as the above says that God's copies from Adam on have to be perfect and if not then you God is corrupted.

What are you a Muslim turn prosperity Christian turned atheist?
I see the typical Muslim quoting of random passages in an attempt to confuse and silence, by the proclamation of enlightenment in seemingly random scripture, and then I see the typical name and claim victory of a foolish prosperity doctrine.. Your going to have to try a little harder than that to make me go away sport.

Everything you've said has fallen on your face, even your crap videos have fallen short. No amount of posturing nor posting of videos will save your arguement from me. Because bottom line you made a claim about the bible, and it all comes down to you providing book chapter and verse in said bible to justify your claim otherwise know your efforts are little more than wishful thinking and the demonstration of a willing to sacrifice one integrity to sell a given pov despite what the actual evidence shows.

---

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

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, here is what I think about what you think of Christianity.


How ever you did ask one question about the need of Christ's sacrifice.

Christ died so you may understand what it Cost the Father to forgive your sins.

The death on the cross is a physical representation of the pain and loss God endured. In return for attonement God simply asks you acknoweledge what it has cost Him.

---

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?

Who but God can know what or who a baby will grow up to be?

If you could kill baby hitler would you, or would you let millions die so you could self righteously proclaim you killed a man who slaughtered millions?

---

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!?

You do know what a psalm is right?

It's not a rule or command. It is a song or a word of praise. This is what the Jews were singing in worship to God.

---

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

That is exactly what Hell is for. Because God knew not everyone would want to live in His world.

---

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?

No.
Murder is an unlawful premeditated killing of another human being.

In OT times God was the law, therefore any killing order by God was sanctioned/lawful. Even smashing babies against rocks.

[Esquilax]

Who but God can know what or who a baby will grow up to be?

Are you often in the habit of punishing someone before they commit a crime? Are you saying that every single baby on the entire planet at the time of the flood would grow up to be like Hitler? How do you intend to demonstrate this to be true?

I actually already know how, but it'll be hilarious watching you trot out a completely circular argument without a hint of irony.

[Drich]

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?

It wouldn't be for god.

So you agree your usage of the worder murder was not valid?

[Losty]

First, knowing what or who a baby will grow up to be does not change their present innocence.
Second, and far more importantly, if I was god I certainly would not kill a baby hitler. I would create a baby hitler who wasn't interested in killing off all the Jews.

---

It wouldn't be for god.

So you agree your usage of the word murder was not valid?

Hmmm....I'm not sure. I mean, let's say I'm reading a book about a king who kills people in his country. He makes it perfectly legal for himself to kill those people by tweaking laws to allow himself to do whatever he wants. It wouldn't be murder, for the king in the book, but it's just a book and I am in no way bound by the fictional king's laws so I would still call it murder.

So it's the same with the Christian god. According to Christianity he is the almighty ruler, his word is law. So he can kill anyone he wants to and, for him, it will be legal and justified simply because he is god. But he is a fictional character and I as a reader am in no way bound by his laws, so I would still call it murder.

[Esquilax]

Second, and far more importantly, if I was god I certainly would not kill a baby hitler. I would create a baby hitler who wasn't interested in killing off all the Jews.

Or- to cut off any rambling about free will in response- you could create a series of small, natural coincidences that do not interfere with Hitler's free will, but nonetheless prevent him from attaining the power that would allow him to kill anyone.

After all, one's will refers to one's ability to think thoughts, not their automatic ability to succeed at whatever they want to. Otherwise gravity is god interfering with free will.

[Drich]

I see.

If a train is coming and you blow a bridge, the protection to the other side, then you are not guilty of murder. Wow.

That is a terrible analogy. The bridge is not protection it is the only means of egress to the other side.

No removing protection, would be like me taking your condoms, and you sleeping around and contracting an std. No one made you sleep around. Just like no one made satan kill jobs family.

Congratulations. You have shown us all how your religion has corrupted you morals.

congratulations on the perfect demonstration and placement of the perfect example of a red herring via an ad hom attack. Are things so desperate on your side of the argument you have to resort to trying to assinate my character to save face? Why else have you deviated from the topic being discuss?

We are not
When only the hit man is guilty and not the Don who sent him, then you know you have hit rock bottom in your moral view.

May Stan have mercy on your soul as you roast in hell. Oops there is not hell but your morals are still satanic.

Regards
DL

You know stimbo would be on me like white on rice if I told someone to roast in hell because they kicked my teeth in, in an argument I lost.

But, hey the thing with a double standard is that when one knows the rules one has the opportunity to either play the game or complain.
[/quote]

[Natachan]

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

No. You still set up a king in Jesus, God, or whatever. You set up a being to whom you are forever in subservience. You still are considered lesser than another. THIS is the problem.

I recall a fictional kingdom where the leaders rise through great deeds. They work hard, and their deeds gain them prestige. They then expect those who have less prestige to bow, scrape, and to even refrain from looking them in the eyes. This is the problem. While they might be respected, they demand treatment that lessens those who have not achieved. They insist that they are a different race than those others.

My problem is the idea of some demanding veneration. I give no veneration. I give no worship. I give respect where it is earned.

[Drich]

Who but God can know what or who a baby will grow up to be?

Are you often in the habit of punishing someone before they commit a crime? Are you saying that every single baby on the entire planet at the time of the flood would grow up to be like Hitler? How do you intend to demonstrate this to be true?

I actually already know how, but it'll be hilarious watching you trot out a completely circular argument without a hint of irony.

God is omniscient, duh. Before the crime after the crime is the same to Him. Therefore if he says this will happen if we do not take out these people, guess who gets taken out before sunset on the sabbath?

The hitler analogy is also a play on omniscience, or rather humanity's nearest approximation to it. In that if we have the benfit of future knoweledge (if you had a chance to kill baby hitler/knowing who he would become) would you?

If you know an out come of a singular human life was absolute and it served the greater good would you take a life is the question.. Then one step further would you take out a whole race of people if you knew for absolute certain they would doom the whole planet?