God does not determine right and wrong

[Banned]

Sin is a bullshit concept.

Even if I want to fuck Jesus in His nail holes ?

Just remember that on the judgement day, you will become keenly aware of every word of hatred against God you ever uttered or thought.
There will be no need for heaven to accuse you, as your pale lips confess it.
The only problem is that if given a second chance, you would do it again anyway.

You will also see heaven on that day, only not from within, but from without, and like the many with you, you'll be absolutely blown away by its appeal.

When you become aware of your extreme sorrow and loss, you will seek someone to blame, and if they are nearby, you will begin to attack them verbally and physically.
The months of training you have just received earlier to attack the city of heaven and its inhabitants, will be exercised against whoever you can lay your hands on.

And in this bloody conflagration, a bright finger of fire will finish you off, even until the ashes disappear in everlasting fire. Then you will be no more.
Never to be remembered. And in the ages of eternity, the old earth will be less than a whisper in a dream.

---

Sin is a bullshit concept.

That's a good reason to quit sinning isn't it?

---

Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

Spoon feeding is not for able adults.

[Mister Agenda]

Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

Spoon feeding is not for able adults.

Believing implausible and unsupported assertions is not advisable for adults. You say you're in contact with a higher power that answers your telepathically sent questions. Asking if your mental friend can tell you something you can't find out on your own is really the very lowest bar that I can imagine setting for evidence, and all you have to respond with is an empty remark.

[Banned]

Spoon feeding is not for able adults.

Believing implausible and unsupported assertions is not advisable for adults. You say you're in contact with a higher power that answers your telepathically sent questions. Asking if your mental friend can tell you something you can't find out on your own is really the very lowest bar that I can imagine setting for evidence, and all you have to respond with is an empty remark.

My demise, ignorance or experience can't help you. That's true.

Putting someone else down, or something else down without proper knowledge of it, may be thought of by you, as part of the process of elimination in finding the truth, but what you are saying is that you already have the truth.

Try another punching bag.

[Mister Agenda]

Believing implausible and unsupported assertions is not advisable for adults. You say you're in contact with a higher power that answers your telepathically sent questions. Asking if your mental friend can tell you something you can't find out on your own is really the very lowest bar that I can imagine setting for evidence, and all you have to respond with is an empty remark.

My demise, ignorance or experience can't help you. That's true.

Putting someone else down, or something else down without proper knowledge of it, may be thought of by you, as part of the process of elimination in finding the truth, but what you are saying is that you already have the truth.

Try another punching bag.

I can't see a context in which your first sentence has any information in it.

I'm not saying that I have the truth, I'm saying you haven't made a convincing case that YOU have it.

It does kind of FEEL like I'm dealing with a rhetorical human punching bag, as a verbal sparring partner your guard is down and you're telegraphing your punches. You don't have to take it, but I'll be surprised if you don't come back for more.

[Banned]

I'm not saying that I have the truth, I'm saying you haven't made a convincing case that YOU have it.

It does kind of FEEL like I'm dealing with a rhetorical human punching bag, as a verbal sparring partner your guard is down and you're telegraphing your punches. You don't have to take it, but I'll be surprised if you don't come back for more.

That's fair enough, but the Bible is confirmed through personal contact and experience with it's Author. Nothing anyone else has to say, will have any merit unless you have this experience.
That's probably what I should have said in the first place.

[Sal]

Sin is a bullshit concept.

That's a good reason to quit sinning isn't it?

Does not compute.
That's like saying it's a good reason to stop feeding my invisible pink unicorn, to me.

[Banned]

That's a good reason to quit sinning isn't it?

Does not compute.
That's like saying it's a good reason to stop feeding my invisible pink unicorn, to me.

You are honest.

[Magilla]

I'm not a "religious people" , but here's my 2 ¢ worth . . .

It depends on which god is being mooted. There are many, and they vary from one religion, and from one person to another. Different people have different ideas of what "God" is, and what "God" demands. So obviously they can't all be correct. How do people decide what god, and therefore what is good or bad. The answer is that they use their own standards for what is right or wrong, for what is true or false, for what is moral or not. One hears of people searching for the truth, and looking for "God" etc. When they find it, it is their own mind and standards which tell them they are there. So in advance they have judged the god that they find, then they declare that they have found it.

Otherwise surely, people must mindlessly accept the word of a god, (I'm ignoring how they know that what they believe is true).

It's just my opinion, but Atheists generally want to dismiss God, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and or the God of the Bible and Christianity, perhaps Judaism.

---

In my experience atheists, dismiss God, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and or the God of the Bible and Christianity, perhaps Judaism. because they have been given no good reason to accept those entities, and the rational thing to do is to not accept something to be true, without evidence and justification, (evidence and justification which the individual atheist can accept).

---

 So in advance they have judged the god that they find, then they declare that they have found it.

That self same standard is then employed in making said god "fit" with whatever they were already looking for.  It;s not difficult to understand why, or how, this happens.  It would be an amazing coincidence if some ancient writer got it right by anything more than the most general of measure with regards to some modern persons standards.  We all have opur ticks, my ticks are not their ticks nor are they the ticks of that ancient writer, and so all gods get personal refinements in spite of magic books descriptions.  Without them, they wouldn't be "right"..or even marginally compelling.  

That's why I always suggest to people, if they believe in a blood god..to at least entertain the notion that they do so because they -want- a bloodgod.  Whatever peace they have to make with themselves on that count is their own business, but entirely more useful and wholly more self aware than the endless parade of bullshit presented to everyone on earth, themselves included, called apologetics.

A creationist doesn't -want- to be "just an animal"..conveniently, their god says that they are not, regardless of that being a distinction that makes no difference.  A person who believes in hell -wants- there to be a hell, either to contain themselves or to contain others, and this is regardless of whether or not there is one.  A person who doesn't want to die is entirely likely to believe in a god that offers eternal life..while a person who wishes only for a dreamless sleep imagines a god that will grant them precisely that..and then seeks to find one "out there" in the world.  Often enough, people with all of these competing and contradictory desires for god arrive at the same gods..to the amazement of non-believers and other believers alike.

We hear this all the time, though I don't think that many believers actually make the connection, when we're treated to anything along the lines of "if there where no god, I would wish that there were".  Well, ofc they do..and that's a big part of why..for them, there is..why they went searching for one..and why they "found" the one they did.

So you confirm that it is people who are the ones that decide what is good or bad. They say that that god is not good, that that religion is not good, that that god or religion does or doesn't suit me. Then they may adopt the one which seems to support their own pre-conceptions of what is acceptably good or bad. If they find a religion or god with which they agree, then they might adopt that religion or god. So ultimate, it is the individual who gets to decide.
 
But even when a person identifies with a religion, and considers themselves to be a part of that group, yet they can still disagree with what their supposed god is telling them is right or wrong. Again, the individual's personal, private moral code can come into play, and the person may reject some aspect of the religious denomination. This helps to explain why there are literally hundreds of Christian denominations, split off from some parent body. The same applies in Islam, though perhaps to a lesser degree.

Of course, if none of them make sense, (those gods and religions), then it makes most sense to accept none of them.

[Cyberman]

It's just my opinion, but Atheists generally want to dismiss God, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and or the God of the Bible and Christianity, perhaps Judaism.

---

In my experience atheists, dismiss God, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and or the God of the Bible and Christianity, perhaps Judaism. because they have been given no good reason to accept those entities, and the rational thing to do is to not accept something to be true, without evidence and justification, (evidence and justification which the individual atheist can accept).

Personally, I dismiss those things in the same way and for the exact same reasons I dismiss Snoopy, or those invisible body Thetans that nobody has ever detected.

[The Grand Nudger]

So you confirm that it is people who are the ones that decide what is good or bad. They say that that god is not good, that that religion is not good, that that god or religion does or doesn't suit me. Then they may adopt the one which seems to support their own pre-conceptions of what is acceptably good or bad. If they find a religion or god with which they agree, then they might adopt that religion or god. So ultimate, it is the individual who gets to decide.

OFC.  I think that the description of people searching for a religion that fits their own moral sense is spot on, I was noting that they go further....retconning whatever religion they settle on to more closely fit.  The search isn't over when they "find jesus"..they then have to make the jesus they found even more concordant.  

But even when a person identifies with a religion, and considers themselves to be a part of that group, yet they can still disagree with what their supposed god is telling them is right or wrong. Again, the individual's personal, private moral code can come into play, and the person may reject some aspect of the religious denomination. This helps to explain why there are literally hundreds of Christian denominations, split off from some parent body. The same applies in Islam, though perhaps to a lesser degree.

No one "disagrees with their god".  Ask around.  They simply find ways to make their god agree with them.  

Of course, if none of them make sense, (those gods and religions), then it makes most sense to accept none of them.

Any "sense" is granted, not found...and in that regard every religion -can- make sense.  It's what we call internal logic.  Things that are patently illogical can still be internally logical.

No one finds that christianity (or any other religion) agrees with them, or that it makes sense on it's own. People whittle a christianity that does, and does...that's why you'll never find a jot and tittle believer, even among the group that swears they believe in every jot and tittle.