God Commands You . . .

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

It's telling that you find a stab at the very crux of the issue a mere semantic quibble. Jesus makes it very clear: you're responsible to God first, your fellow man second.

God is Love. It is intertwined with loving your neighbor. If you are not loving Christ, then you are not loving your neighbor - you can't have 1 without the other.

-Kevin

Are you saying that athiests can never love another human? Could you possibly be more of an arrogant POS? I find that assertion frankly offensive.

 

[KMFJD]

I think you tuned into the wrong channel

 

[Jeff7]

*sigh*
God can't lose.

If bad things happens, it's because of Satan or human free will, though God is evidently powerless to stop them.
OR, Christ "works miracles through" these tragedies. It almost sounds like they are allowing these things to go wrong, but then try to keep cleaning up the mess, rather than address the problem directly.

And I don't want that stupid BS that they "need" evil so that we can see how good "good" is. It's nothing more than a cop-out to explain why a supposedly all-loving and all-powerful being would sit idly by and allow bad things to happen.

I'd sooner have deities that work on a plan of prevention, you know, like WE try to do with our problems. We try to prevent crime from happening, we try to prevent disasters from occurring, we try to prevent unwanted pregnancy (you know, the church's whole "abstinence only" plan) - if the church followed God's shining example, people would have sex constantly, and we'd just "make miracles" out of the immense increase in population.

A semi-competent deity who is woefully unable to protect his own creations from a lesser being, who takes credit only for the good things that happen after a tragedy, things which are almost certainly the work of said creations (acts of courage, compassion, and so on), and who creates very flawed beings and then punishes them for being flawed.......Well, he's obviously incompetent at best, and sadistically insane at worst. I'd lean more towards the latter end of that spectrum.



Yeah, that's probably inflammatory and blasphemous. But, well, like I said - I'll make a religion with Elvis as the central deity. I dare you to take me seriously, and I'd also dare you to prove that I'm wrong. I don't think you or anyone else could do either one.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

It's telling that you find a stab at the very crux of the issue a mere semantic quibble. Jesus makes it very clear: you're responsible to God first, your fellow man second.

God is Love. It is intertwined with loving your neighbor. If you are not loving Christ, then you are not loving your neighbor - you can't have 1 without the other.

-Kevin

Are you saying that athiests can never love another human? Could you possibly be more of an arrogant POS? I find that assertion frankly offensive.

This threads all about offensive.

Plain and simple, if it were about muslims it would have been locked already.

Edit: Oh yeah , I almost forgot.

WELCOME TO THE INTERNET!

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

I really don't see how you expect someones opinion of a religion not to be influenced by the followers of that religion.

Suppose a political leader was just accused of the most heinous crime imaginable, does that mean that political party and everyone who supports it condone that act?

non-sequitur. I'm not talking about one leader, I'm talking about lots of people, "followers," plural. Including multiple leaders. Furthermore the religion seems to be a fundamental basis, a cause and justification for what I consider to be heinous attitudes and actions. I don't think political parties quite fit that description in most cases. (trying to avoid Godwin's law...)

It doesn't mean all followers of that religion are bad, but it certainly influences my opinion of the religion.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Are you saying that athiests can never love another human? Could you possibly be more of an arrogant POS? I find that assertion frankly offensive.

Wow - cool, you learned to flame someone. Certainly non-believers can love; however, they do not have a covenant with Christ in that love. Thus that love is not made perfect through Christ.

If bad things happens, it's because of Satan or human free will, though God is evidently powerless to stop them.
OR, Christ "works miracles through" these tragedies. It almost sounds like they are allowing these things to go wrong, but then try to keep cleaning up the mess, rather than address the problem directly.

Ok you can't have it both ways.

You want free will - then God works miracles through tragedy. You want God to influence every action and decision constantly- then you sacrifice that free will.

I'd sooner have deities that work on a plan of prevention, you know, like WE try to do with our problems. We try to prevent crime from happening, we try to prevent disasters from occurring, we try to prevent unwanted pregnancy (you know, the church's whole "abstinence only" plan) - if the church followed God's shining example, people would have sex constantly, and we'd just "make miracles" out of the immense increase in population.

What point are you trying to make? Creating evil by simply giving into the devil at every turn is called tempting the Lord.

Matthew 4:7 "Do not temp the Lord your God".

A semi-competent deity who is woefully unable to protect his own creations from a lesser being, who takes credit only for the good things that happen after a tragedy, things which are almost certainly the work of said creations (acts of courage, compassion, and so on), and who creates very flawed beings and then punishes them for being flawed.......Well, he's obviously incompetent at best, and sadistically insane at worst. I'd lean more towards the latter end of that spectrum.

He didn't make flawed creations (humans). We were perfect as we were made in God's image. Satan corrupted that perfection which perpetuated humanities fall from perfection/grace. It wasn't until Christ came, took our sins, and died with them, that we were made perfect again.

non-sequitur. I'm not talking about one leader, I'm talking about lots of people, "followers," plural. Including multiple leaders. Furthermore the religion seems to be a fundamental basis, a cause and justification for what I consider to be heinous attitudes and actions. I don't think political parties quite fit that description in most cases. (trying to avoid Godwin's law...)

It doesn't mean all followers of that religion are bad, but it certainly influences my opinion of the religion.

Well why would you judge a religion based on the least common denominator.

If you read the book Christians attempt to follow, you can clearly see that the followers, though they try to follow every word to the 'T', they fail.

Why would you continue to judge the Christian faith when you have a believer right here telling you that I am imperfect and I can't hope to embody the perfection of Christ on my own?

-Kevin

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

A semi-competent deity who is woefully unable to protect his own creations from a lesser being, who takes credit only for the good things that happen after a tragedy, things which are almost certainly the work of said creations (acts of courage, compassion, and so on), and who creates very flawed beings and then punishes them for being flawed.......Well, he's obviously incompetent at best, and sadistically insane at worst. I'd lean more towards the latter end of that spectrum.

He didn't make flawed creations (humans). We were perfect as we were made in God's image. Satan corrupted that perfection which perpetuated humanities fall from perfection/grace. It wasn't until Christ came, took our sins, and died with them, that we were made perfect again.

Corruptibility is a definite design flaw. Furthermore, as God himself IS presumably perfect and incorruptible, then we weren't made in his image. God is the "perfect" ideal, and we're something similar, but "less perfect" or else we would all be God's equal. Perhaps you could turn that around and say we are a perfect expression of God's intention. Intentionally flawed and corruptible; Intentionally punished for being so. Then we're back to God being sadistically insane. In any case, you can't have this one both ways. That's why it's such a favorite argument for people debating against Christianity. Think about what that means.

 

[grohl]

shitty left wing website

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Well why would you judge a religion based on the least common denominator.

If you read the book Christians attempt to follow, you can clearly see that the followers, though they try to follow every word to the 'T', they fail.

Why would you continue to judge the Christian faith when you have a believer right here telling you that I am imperfect and I can't hope to embody the perfection of Christ on my own?

-Kevin

1. I don't really know if it's least or most common or somewhere in the middle. It's not an isolated incident that's for sure.

2. I've read most of the book. I don't see that all of the followers try to follow every word to the T. Quite the contrary, I see a lot of picking and choosing. Frankly, it's the ones that expend the most effort (as in the OP) that scare me the most. You can argue that they're misguided or whatever, but they would argue with just as much authority that you're the one who's misguided. Hypothetically, how am I as a neutral observer to decide which of you is the 'true' christian? Consider I think god is a fairy tale and jesus was just a man, not the haploid son of a deity.

3. Whether you like it or not, the nutjob in the OP is a reflection on his religion. I suspect that if he had no religious justification he'd not be quite so fervent in his hatred.

Oh, finally, is pride a sin?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

If bad things happens, it's because of Satan or human free will, though God is evidently powerless to stop them.
OR, Christ "works miracles through" these tragedies. It almost sounds like they are allowing these things to go wrong, but then try to keep cleaning up the mess, rather than address the problem directly.

Ok you can't have it both ways.

You want free will - then God works miracles through tragedy. You want God to influence every action and decision constantly- then you sacrifice that free will.

So it IS ok for God to interfere afterward, as if that's somehow an endpoint to our free will. Maybe it would have been our free will to come together after tragedy anyway, but God's interfering by doing....stuff. Maybe it would have been our free will to simply ignore others, but God's interfering.
Either way, if God takes action, he's interfering, which will alter the course of our own free will. Stimulus, response.

I'd sooner have deities that work on a plan of prevention, you know, like WE try to do with our problems. We try to prevent crime from happening, we try to prevent disasters from occurring, we try to prevent unwanted pregnancy (you know, the church's whole "abstinence only" plan) - if the church followed God's shining example, people would have sex constantly, and we'd just "make miracles" out of the immense increase in population.

What point are you trying to make? Creating evil by simply giving into the devil at every turn is called tempting the Lord.

Matthew 4:7 "Do not tempt the Lord your God".

I'm making the point that we try to prevent disasters. God sits back and waits until they happen, and then he interferes. And you can't say "free will" for all disasters. There are LOTS of natural disasters which occur, which are NOT our fault. The 2004 tsunami - not our fault. Killed lots of people. Are earthquakes beyond God's ability to control? It wouldn't take a genius for him to see stresses in our fault lines, and know full well that a tsunami would result, and that it would be utterly devastating. Nope, sit back, twiddle thumbs, wait for devastation and death, then take credit for acts of compassion.
This kind of behavior in a deity doesn't like....terrify or disgust you? I would find it utterly appalling.

A semi-competent deity who is woefully unable to protect his own creations from a lesser being, who takes credit only for the good things that happen after a tragedy, things which are almost certainly the work of said creations (acts of courage, compassion, and so on), and who creates very flawed beings and then punishes them for being flawed.......Well, he's obviously incompetent at best, and sadistically insane at worst. I'd lean more towards the latter end of that spectrum.

He didn't make flawed creations (humans). We were perfect as we were made in God's image. Satan corrupted that perfection which perpetuated humanities fall from perfection/grace. It wasn't until Christ came, took our sins, and died with them, that we were made perfect again.

SlitheryDee pretty much covered this one.

A snake starts talking to a person, and she gives in.
Yup, that's a perfect creation.
Couldn't God have made a "fall-from-perfection/grace vaccine" of some sort? Or, you know, at least have the ability to keep one pesky fallen angel out of The Garden, what with his all-knowing, all-powerful nature and all.

...oh wait, the Garden probably didn't exist anyway, since it was Old Testament stuff, and Bible v2.0 (Now with 30% more Jesus!) overrides that.
:laugh:

Intentionally flawed and corruptible; Intentionally punished for being so.

And don't forget that all offspring of Adam and Eve inherit original sin.
Adding to SlitheryDee's idea:
"The person who sins will die. A son will not be punished for his father's sins, and a father will not be punished for his son's sins. The righteousness of the righteous person will be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be his own."

Can God create a rule so simple that even he himself cannot follow it?



....it occurs to me too: Adam and Eve weren't Christians.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
He didn't make flawed creations (humans). We were perfect as we were made in God's image. Satan corrupted that perfection which perpetuated humanities fall from perfection/grace. It wasn't until Christ came, took our sins, and died with them, that we were made perfect again.

Did you hear the one about the girl with the box that released all the evils into the world, but also hope?

seriously, whats the diff btw those stories? both are equally likely and the evidence for both is exactly the same. But hundreds of millions of people actually believe your story is literally true. people are funny.