Gods immorality.

[SteveII]

I think that one misplaced idea is that god cannot be loving and justify killing people. So if it is absolutely impossible to be loving and justify killing then the biblical god could not possible be moral and loving. I don't believe this. I believe that the death penalty is wrong because of the possibility of even one person being killed unjustly with no chance of retribution. This is in spite of the fact that I do believe some people deserve death. But I would rather 100 deserving death penalties be missed for the 1 undeserving one to be saved. So if God has perfect wisdom, justice, and knowledge, then I believe that he could justifiably use killing as a method of accomplishing his purpose.

This is just me saying that hypothetically I could trust someone like that. Trusting in god doesn't have to be based off incredulity. Maybe someone applies god suggestions on how to live life  and trusts god based off of good results. Its a straw man to say that all christians just think, "god can do whatever he likes and its fine by me" and that it includes immoral unjustified actions

God breaks commandment 6. If god requires evil for his purpose, as you claim, "then I believe that he could justifiably use killing as a method of accomplishing his purpose", he isn't all good, as the bible claims. (PSALMS 136:1)

God cannot break commandment #6. He cannot murder. Murder is an unlawful taking of life. What applicable law would God be breaking to end a life? 

Regarding categorizing this as evil, Augustine defined evil as choosing a lesser good. It is an action (not a thing in and of itself). God would not be capable of choosing a less moral choice because he is essentially good (not contingently good).  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_theodicy 

Augustine proposed that evil could not exist within God, nor be created by God, and is instead a by-product of God's creativity.[13] He rejected the notion that evil exists in itself, proposing instead that it is a privation of (or falling away from) good, and a corruption of nature.[5] He wrote that "evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name 'evil.'"[14]

[Brian37]

In the brain of a believer, and there are former believers here, anything can be justified once you swallow the naked assertion prior to applying any reason or logic to it. The justifications are after the fact, not going in.

It does not matter that Santa isn't real, what matters is that you got presents, and you assume he is real and not your parents.

But again, what is not done enough in the skeptic community is explaining the historical aspects as to why these omni characters in all the holy books are written like they were. Back then, even in polytheism you had your immovable ruler, and even the Ancient Greeks and Romans had that. Even their senates were ruled over one figure who while allowed the senate, still had the final say and absolute say, and the only way to remove him, back then was through assassination usually by a family member or a rival senator.

The religions of Asia and the Orient also had the same set ups, you had your ruling family, ruling class/including the military, and then the rest of society. Humans mistook their good fortune to the divine.

Monotheism simply was a streamlined spin off of the kingships of the time. It is why you see words like "Kingship" "lord" and "master" used, because that is what most humans lived under in antiquity.

The God character of all three books of Abraham is not an elected official whom you can vote out of office or have impeached. The "leave to Caesar" is still a puppet government and is merely telling followers to obey their dictators, but the dictators are still ultimately ruled by the ultimate immovable absolute power, God himself.

Those books do not reflect our modern concepts of rule by consent one bit, because back then, at best, you the layperson were a pet as long as you towed the tribal lines. Those holy books reflect the social norms of the times they lived in.

[SteveII]

Not sure why people get worked up about all the omni/eternal/mega qualities of the Christian cosmic watchmaker.  This notion is too bogus to deserve serious criticism.  Much better just to laugh and move on.

That's interesting. So your point is the core of a belief system of 2.1 Billion people (not counting the billions who have already died) with 3500 years of history and literally hundreds of thousands of different books about it is so "bogus" that it does not even deserve a serious look and should be laughed off.

[Whateverist]

Not sure why people get worked up about all the omni/eternal/mega qualities of the Christian cosmic watchmaker.  This notion is too bogus to deserve serious criticism.  Much better just to laugh and move on.

That's interesting. So your point is the core of a belief system of 2.1 Billion people (not counting the billions who have already died) with 3500 years of history and literally hundreds of thousands of different books about it is so "bogus" that it does not even deserve a serious look and should be laughed off.

Not at all.  The core of god belief is a wonderful thing.  Unfortunately so many belief systems become calcified, rendering exaltative language into explicit empirical claims.  Most common Christian denominations are guilty of this error.  But no, god belief is not anything to cast aside lightly.  Belief isn't the problem, understanding is.

[Brian37]

God breaks commandment 6. If god requires evil for his purpose, as you claim, "then I believe that he could justifiably use killing as a method of accomplishing his purpose", he isn't all good, as the bible claims. (PSALMS 136:1)

God cannot break commandment #6. He cannot murder. Murder is an unlawful taking of life. What applicable law would God be breaking to end a life? 

Regarding categorizing this as evil, Augustine defined evil as choosing a lesser good. It is an action (not a thing in and of itself). God would not be capable of choosing a less moral choice because he is essentially good (not contingently good).  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_theodicy 

Augustine proposed that evil could not exist within God, nor be created by God, and is instead a by-product of God's creativity.[13] He rejected the notion that evil exists in itself, proposing instead that it is a privation of (or falling away from) good, and a corruption of nature.[5] He wrote that "evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name 'evil.'"[14]

Nope sorry, you cannot claim the attribute "all powerful" then set a limit on his powers with the word "cannot". 

Not having the ability to do something is a limit, which negates the word "all" in "all powerful".

The bible in fact does depict him murdering people he does not like and does so many times in the bible, either himself or by his blessings of his followers doing it for him.

I am always amazed at the different bullshit excuses made for this fictional character, " a bi product of his creativity"...

Nope sorry, in real life in the west if a product is proven harmful to the public the maker can be sued and held responsible for the defective product, just like the Japanese airbag makers are being sued for the defective airbags that lead to the deaths of several consumers. 

Infanticide is illegal, but in the fictional story God has the Egyptian first born murdered. The flood is a horrible fictional story, but in it he murders everyone who doesn't kiss his ass.

I am sure Kim Jong Un will treat you well as long as you kiss his ass an don't raise a peep in any form of dissent or disagreement.

[SteveII]

That's interesting. So your point is the core of a belief system of 2.1 Billion people (not counting the billions who have already died) with 3500 years of history and literally hundreds of thousands of different books about it is so "bogus" that it does not even deserve a serious look and should be laughed off.

Not at all.  The core of god belief is a wonderful thing.  Unfortunately so many belief systems become calcified, rendering exaltative language into explicit empirical claims.  Most common Christian denominations are guilty of this error.  But no, god belief is not anything to cast aside lightly.  Belief isn't the problem, understanding is.

So...Christian denominations err in using the Bible to develop systematic theology. It is those ideas that should be scoffed at? Again, a lot of time, a lot of people, and a lot of content. Perhaps you are missing something.

[SteveII]

God cannot break commandment #6. He cannot murder. Murder is an unlawful taking of life. What applicable law would God be breaking to end a life? 

Regarding categorizing this as evil, Augustine defined evil as choosing a lesser good. It is an action (not a thing in and of itself). God would not be capable of choosing a less moral choice because he is essentially good (not contingently good).  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_theodicy 

Augustine proposed that evil could not exist within God, nor be created by God, and is instead a by-product of God's creativity.[13] He rejected the notion that evil exists in itself, proposing instead that it is a privation of (or falling away from) good, and a corruption of nature.[5] He wrote that "evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name 'evil.'"[14]

Nope sorry, you cannot claim the attribute "all powerful" then set a limit on his powers with the word "cannot". 

Not having the ability to do something is a limit, which negates the word "all" in "all powerful".

The bible in fact does depict him murdering people he does not like and does so many times in the bible, either himself or by his blessings of his followers doing it for him.

I am always amazed at the different bullshit excuses made for this fictional character, " a bi product of his creativity"...

Nope sorry, in real life in the west if a product is proven harmful to the public the maker can be sued and held responsible for the defective product, just like the Japanese airbag makers are being sued for the defective airbags that lead to the deaths of several consumers. 

Infanticide is illegal, but in the fictional story God has the Egyptian first born murdered. The flood is a horrible fictional story, but in it he murders everyone who doesn't kiss his ass.

I am sure Kim Jong Un will treat you well as long as you kiss his ass an don't raise a peep in any form of dissent or disagreement.

messed up...see below

[SteveII]

Nope sorry, you cannot claim the attribute "all powerful" then set a limit on his powers with the word "cannot". 

Not having the ability to do something is a limit, which negates the word "all" in "all powerful".

The bible in fact does depict him murdering people he does not like and does so many times in the bible, either himself or by his blessings of his followers doing it for him.

I am always amazed at the different bullshit excuses made for this fictional character, " a bi product of his creativity"...

Nope sorry, in real life in the west if a product is proven harmful to the public the maker can be sued and held responsible for the defective product, just like the Japanese airbag makers are being sued for the defective airbags that lead to the deaths of several consumers. 

Infanticide is illegal, but in the fictional story God has the Egyptian first born murdered. The flood is a horrible fictional story, but in it he murders everyone who doesn't kiss his ass.

I am sure Kim Jong Un will treat you well as long as you kiss his ass an don't raise a peep in any form of dissent or disagreement.

You misunderstand omnipotence. This should help (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence) 

The term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.[1]
   
   
2. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
   
   
3. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[2]
   
   
4. A deity can bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone to bring about in that situation.
   
   
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
   
   
6. Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.
   

The rest of your points are more of the same. You need to show that God either did not has sufficient reasons for his actions or that he was obliged to follow some sort of law/code (and where did this law come from) and failed to do so.

[Brian37]

You misunderstand omnipotence. This should help (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence) 

The term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.[1]
   
   
2. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
   
   
3. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[2]
   
   
4. A deity can bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone to bring about in that situation.
   
   
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
   
   
6. Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.
   

The rest of your points are more of the same. You need to show that God either did not has sufficient reasons for his actions or that he was obliged to follow some sort of law/code (and where did this law come from) and failed to do so.

Nope, sorry, just more elaborate gibberish. All you are arguing is "You wouldn't understand", "God works in mysterious ways", "God can do what he wants" "God doesn't have to explain himself to you". Those are not evidences, those are your childish excuses to make shit up to cling to the idea of a sky hero because you like the idea. 

Our laws are from western secular law, not fictional beings, I don't need permission from a fictional god anymore than I need permission from Yoda.

[SteveII]

You misunderstand omnipotence. This should help (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence) 

The term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.[1]
   
   
2. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
   
   
3. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[2]
   
   
4. A deity can bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone to bring about in that situation.
   
   
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
   
   
6. Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.
   

The rest of your points are more of the same. You need to show that God either did not has sufficient reasons for his actions or that he was obliged to follow some sort of law/code (and where did this law come from) and failed to do so.

Nope, sorry, just more elaborate gibberish. All you are arguing is "You wouldn't understand", "God works in mysterious ways", "God can do what he wants" "God doesn't have to explain himself to you". Those are not evidences, those are your childish excuses to make shit up to cling to the idea of a sky hero because you like the idea. 

Our laws are from western secular law, not fictional beings, I don't need permission from a fictional god anymore than I need permission from Yoda.

Because you don't understand does not mean that is my argument. Again, you need to show that God either did not has sufficient reasons for his actions or that he was obliged to follow some sort of law/code (and where did this law come from) and failed to do so. If there is a God, then there is no logical problem whatsoever to what I am arguing.