Nebraska bans death penalty

[cmdrjones]

Those are the people who SHOULD know better. Sinning against the Holy Spirit is KNOWING that God exists and then leading others astray on purpose.... That's the Morning Star.

1) Within the Christian framework, would you mind citing learned authorities to support this position? One of the biggest problems with Christian theology in the US is that it's so often practiced by amateurs who are poorly schooled in logic...

2) Standing temporarily without reference to the Christian framework, is there any actual living human that this could be said to apply to? If not, saying it is in human nature to "sin" in this way is meaningless.

This is for God to judge, but it would apply to anyone who had absolute proof of God's divinity (so, perhaps someone like the portugese
girls of Fatima?) and THEN decided "hell with it, I want people to go to hell, so I'm going to lead people astray on purpose. By attributing God's power to SATAN." It's essentially those who know should know better (Pharisees etc misrepresenting miracles of God and attributing them to Satan. There is the school of thought that this sin no longer applies because the "age of miracles has ended" which I personally and not willing to state categorically.... I mean IF a miracle happened in front of you this afternoon, I'm pretty sure you'd deny it.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte ... ticle=1218

The Pot cannot judge the Potter

And why not, pray tell?

It's a metaphor dude... God, conceptually is as far above you as you are above a pot. If you create and object and set it on a table, I am PREEEETY sure it won't talk back to you if you ask it about what it thinks of your hairstyle or diet choices.

...hence, the creation cannot judge the creator.

This is just repetition. Why would it be impossible for a creation to judge a creator, as a matter of logic? You say this as though it's as obvious as saying "circles cannot be square."

See above.

God is MANIFESTLY Good, Just, Merciful etc because he is The God (Omnipotent, all powerful, Alpha and Omega... etc etc).

Can you cite any actual philosophical argument to justify this? Several such arguments have been presented over the centuries. Do you know what they are? Or is that all you've got?

Personally, I am quite comfortable with the idea that it is not necessarily, automatically true that the creator of the universe be a good and just being.

You find the universe to be a flawed place? Unjust? Illogical? Ok.... Outside Earth and humanity, can you find any evidence of this disorder and unjustness? Illogic?

Another question: What keeps electrons bonded to protons and neutrons rather than flying apart?

The Idea that God exists as a perfect being is an Ontological argument. I can see why you would reject it. If you don't accept the possibility of his existence, then you reject the very first premise of the Ontological argument (that it is possible that an all powerful perfect being exists etc, but for the purposes of this discussion you kinda have to go along with it for at least a second, or there is no reason to discuss the pot and potter in the first place.

This? Again? C'mon man, you can do better than the sunday school theology questions, right?

Sunday school is like... elementary school level. If you're going to advance arguments like this, you need to be prepared to defend them at the college level of philosophical understanding- that is, at the seminary level.

So, asking why God is a meanie ISN'T elementary school level? I'll let you know when I can get to seminary.

If God has both Perfect Justice and Perfect Mercy how can he NOT honor your choice to go elsewhere and be apart from him if you reject him?

If he knows it's a crappy place, then to send people there when they are incapable of comprehending its crappiness and making a meaningful, informed decision would be neither merciful nor just.

In that case, a perfectly just and merciful god would forcibly 'straighten out' the parts of the afterlife not illuminated by his presence. He wouldn't just abandon them to random gangsters who then get unlimited license to prey on souls that did not and could not realistically know better, for eternity, based on short-term decisions made on the basis of totally inadequate information on Earth.

Hell is a mercy compared to being separated for all eternity from God.... IF God exists as we constructed him with the previous Ontological argument. The second part of your argument is silly, again, you're saying: "I could run the universe better!"
#1 No, he wouldn't, in order to have perfect Mercy AND perfect Justice God cannot lie. If he gives you free will, and YOU choose to depart from him (again, you are eternal as well) then he therefore must allow you to leave his presence. Well, where would that place BE? And, #2 they aren't random gangsters, they are very specific gangsters. #3 Also untrue. Romans 2:15, 2 Corinthians 3:3, Jeremiah 31:33....

So... now you know, and knowing is half the battle.... You're welcome.

What would that place BE like after a few billion years of people who rejected the almighty showing up there and hanging out together? Now, imagine what that place would be like run by divine beings who KNEW God existed, who had BEEN in his presence and had rebelled then been cast out? Might'nt they be the tiniest bit jealous and angry over their massive mistake? Or does the phrase misery loves company make no sense to you?

In a cosmos rationally ordered by a just and merciful supreme deity, no such rebellious beings would be allowed that kind of power. A deity's creations' right to rebel against them would logically end when it interferes with their other creations- and a supreme deity has no need to tolerate such interference.

Again, Free will is a bitch, no?

Second, he didn't "tolerate" it, he acted.... He came here an died for you boss.

[Ralin]

Incorrect. They Judge judges, the witnesses either correctly discern what happened, or doze off etc.

hence, the creation cannot judge the creator. God is MANIFESTLY Good, Just, Merciful etc because he is The God (Omnipotent, all powerful, Alpha and Omega... etc etc).

If he is not, then he is something imperfect that WE have created, as you said, a fiction, but if he is not....

The judge judges and everybody who assesses the situation based on the information he has judges as well. Some follow the judges word and believe him without questioning and other question the judges decision because his ruling might be antithetic to the information the people have.
If the judge rules based on secret information he doesn´t make public he deservs to be fired for being an intransparent cunt. In other words we have to judge the judge and if he sucks at his job we really don´t need him at all.

This is especially hilarious when you consider that he comes from a country where judges are usually elected officials.

[Eternal_Freedom]

[
hence, the creation cannot judge the creator. God is MANIFESTLY Good, Just, Merciful etc because he is The God (Omnipotent, all powerful, Alpha and Omega... etc etc).

If he is not, then he is something imperfect that WE have created, as you said, a fiction, but if he is not....

Bullshit. My parents created me, and I judge them (well, mostly Dad) all the time.

A good God would not damn you to eternal torment simply for not believing in him. Nor would a just or merciful God.

This? Again? C'mon man, you can do better than the sunday school theology questions, right?

If God has both Perfect Justice and Perfect Mercy how can he NOT honor your choice to go elsewhere and be apart from him if you reject him? Remember, in this context you ARE a soul, you only HAVE a body for a short time. If God is God and YOU reject HIM, and YOU are eternal, where do you think you'll end up? What would that place BE like after a few billion years of people who rejected the almighty showing up there and hanging out together? Now, imagine what that place would be like run by divine beings who KNEW God existed, who had BEEN in his presence and had rebelled then been cast out? Might'nt they be the tiniest bit jealous and angry over their massive mistake? Or does the phrase misery loves company make no sense to you?

PS the dad thing = understandable...

So, what does he do that torques you off so much? For me, my mom drives ME nuts. My dad was cool as hell.

It might be a "sunday school theology question" but it still needs an answer. "not believing in God" does not automatically mean "rejecting God." Suppose I had been raised as a Hindu, or a Sikh. Suppose I am a very virtuous person who follows all the tenets of those faiths and also doesn't violate any Christian laws except for not believing in "the one true God." Am I then damned to hell? If so, why? Is you God really so vain as to require all people to venerate him as well as living virtuous lives?

On some of your later points, can anyone ever have absolute proof of God's existence? Absolute, verifiable, objective proof? Surely if such evidence existed there would not be a need for "belief" or "leaps of faith" because it would be obvious to everyone that this was indeed the one true God?

On my parents: you do realise that judging someone is a)not always for something severe or serious and b) not always for something negative? I love my parents, but I can still decide that they're being idiots on some issues and say as much to my creators.

As for the "you're saying you could run the universe better than God?" Yeah, I bet I could. For one thing, I'm not going to go and obliterate entire cities for being decadent or homosexual. I'm not going to slaughter all the first-borns of a country for crimes they haven't committed. I would not allow the existence of eternal torment for such trivial things as "wearing clothing made from two kinds of cloth" or "eating pork" or "had a sexual thought about a random woman." I would not allow innocent children to suffer horrific diseases, or abusive parents. I would tolerate bloodthirsty wars supposedly fought in my name.

Tell me that I would do a worse job than God if that's what I started with. See, I have a sense of right and wrong. If God has such a thing, it is sorely underused or misplaced.

[Borgholio]

There's something to be said when a Dalek would make a better god than God...

[cmdrjones]

It might be a "sunday school theology question" but it still needs an answer. "not believing in God" does not automatically mean "rejecting God." Suppose I had been raised as a Hindu, or a Sikh. Suppose I am a very virtuous person who follows all the tenets of those faiths and also doesn't violate any Christian laws except for not believing in "the one true God." Am I then damned to hell? If so, why? Is you God really so vain as to require all people to venerate him as well as living virtuous lives?

On some of your later points, can anyone ever have absolute proof of God's existence? Absolute, verifiable, objective proof? Surely if such evidence existed there would not be a need for "belief" or "leaps of faith" because it would be obvious to everyone that this was indeed the one true God?

On my parents: you do realise that judging someone is a)not always for something severe or serious and b) not always for something negative? I love my parents, but I can still decide that they're being idiots on some issues and say as much to my creators.

As for the "you're saying you could run the universe better than God?" Yeah, I bet I could. For one thing, I'm not going to go and obliterate entire cities for being decadent or homosexual. I'm not going to slaughter all the first-borns of a country for crimes they haven't committed. I would not allow the existence of eternal torment for such trivial things as "wearing clothing made from two kinds of cloth" or "eating pork" or "had a sexual thought about a random woman." I would not allow innocent children to suffer horrific diseases, or abusive parents. I would tolerate bloodthirsty wars supposedly fought in my name.

Tell me that I would do a worse job than God if that's what I started with. See, I have a sense of right and wrong. If God has such a thing, it is sorely underused or misplaced.

#1 Those people would be categorized as justifiably innocent. And, according to the Catholics, would go to purgatory. I don't KNOW what would happen to them, as that is for God to judge, but I DO know that while scripture DOES say that Jesus is the word and so on, it also states that the law of God is written on all mens' hearts, and that we are not to judge, God is; and that Saint Paul, I believe, instructs us that by you will be judged by the weight of your own measure, that is by your adherence to the laws and strictures you were taught...
St. Paul met Christ, so I'm willing to take his word on it.

#2 Of course, now please explain this to my sister in law who keeps asking for scientific "proof" that God exists.

#3 Dresden 1944, Obliterate or not? Raqqa 2015, obliterate or not? Also, Jesus came to fulfill the law, the old testament stuff applied largely because of the 'hardness of your (pre-christians/jews) hearts' do people evolve and learn new things and can then be given better more compassionate rules to live by or not? Are you willing to condemn all the people of the past because they didn't live up to your very modern standards? Try cutting, threshing, shelling, grinding and baking your own flour into bread sometime.

#4 where did your sense of right and wrong COME from? You DO realize that if you were raised in say, Northwestern Iraq between 1998-2015, you might have some seriously different ideas about right and wrong.


Oh, I forgot one thing: the reason WHY you'd be 'sent' (not really, you send yourself) to hell for not believing in God, is because it breaks the 1st commandment. You say that makes God vain, the bible uses the word jealous. Thing is, if he is The Truth and the is ONLY 1 The Truth... and you Knowingly deny that.... what does that make you?

[Eternal_Freedom]

It might be a "sunday school theology question" but it still needs an answer. "not believing in God" does not automatically mean "rejecting God." Suppose I had been raised as a Hindu, or a Sikh. Suppose I am a very virtuous person who follows all the tenets of those faiths and also doesn't violate any Christian laws except for not believing in "the one true God." Am I then damned to hell? If so, why? Is you God really so vain as to require all people to venerate him as well as living virtuous lives?

On some of your later points, can anyone ever have absolute proof of God's existence? Absolute, verifiable, objective proof? Surely if such evidence existed there would not be a need for "belief" or "leaps of faith" because it would be obvious to everyone that this was indeed the one true God?

On my parents: you do realise that judging someone is a)not always for something severe or serious and b) not always for something negative? I love my parents, but I can still decide that they're being idiots on some issues and say as much to my creators.

As for the "you're saying you could run the universe better than God?" Yeah, I bet I could. For one thing, I'm not going to go and obliterate entire cities for being decadent or homosexual. I'm not going to slaughter all the first-borns of a country for crimes they haven't committed. I would not allow the existence of eternal torment for such trivial things as "wearing clothing made from two kinds of cloth" or "eating pork" or "had a sexual thought about a random woman." I would not allow innocent children to suffer horrific diseases, or abusive parents. I would tolerate bloodthirsty wars supposedly fought in my name.

Tell me that I would do a worse job than God if that's what I started with. See, I have a sense of right and wrong. If God has such a thing, it is sorely underused or misplaced.

#1 Those people would be categorized as justifiably innocent. And, according to the Catholics, would go to purgatory. I don't KNOW what would happen to them, as that is for God to judge, but I DO know that while scripture DOES say that Jesus is the word and so on, it also states that the law of God is written on all mens' hearts, and that we are not to judge, God is; and that Saint Paul, I believe, instructs us that by you will be judged by the weight of your own measure, that is by your adherence to the laws and strictures you were taught...
St. Paul met Christ, so I'm willing to take his word on it.

So...if you live a good life but don't believe you still get to suffer in Purgatory but there's a light at the end of the tunnel? How is that a good answer? You're still condemning people to suffer just for not believing in God. That, frankly, is not good enough. Plus that only applies to Catholic dogma, not all Christians. Protestants in all their denominations have no concept of Purgatory, it's all or nothing. Now if you want to say that if you live a good life but don't believe you'll get into Heaven, that's nice, but if so, what's the point of believing in the first place?

#2 Of course, now please explain this to my sister in law who keeps asking for scientific "proof" that God exists.

I haven't the faintest damn clue what point you're trying to make here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

#3 Dresden 1944, Obliterate or not? Raqqa 2015, obliterate or not? Also, Jesus came to fulfill the law, the old testament stuff applied largely because of the 'hardness of your (pre-christians/jews) hearts' do people evolve and learn new things and can then be given better more compassionate rules to live by or not? Are you willing to condemn all the people of the past because they didn't live up to your very modern standards? Try cutting, threshing, shelling, grinding and baking your own flour into bread sometime.

Dresden? No, it, along with pretty much every other target of the Allied bomber offensive was a monstrous waste, and it's something that I (as a British person) feel really rather bad about. Incidentaly, the raid on Dresden was 1945 unless I'm mistaken.

I fail to see what making my own flour and bread has to do with right and wrong. And yes, I am quite willing to condemn people in the past for some of their actions. Killing or hurting innocents is objectively wrong, whether it be the USAAF and the RAF bombing Dresden and other German cities or it be God killing all of Egypt's first-born children.

#4 where did your sense of right and wrong COME from? You DO realize that if you were raised in say, Northwestern Iraq between 1998-2015, you might have some seriously different ideas about right and wrong.

My sense of right and wrong came from my parents, my family, my friends and so on. It's changed over the years as I have grown and learned. But some thing are objectively wrong no matter where you are born and raised.

Oh, I forgot one thing: the reason WHY you'd be 'sent' (not really, you send yourself) to hell for not believing in God, is because it breaks the 1st commandment. You say that makes God vain, the bible uses the word jealous. Thing is, if he is The Truth and the is ONLY 1 The Truth... and you Knowingly deny that.... what does that make you?

My point was what happens if you unknowingly deny it. Hence my point about people raised as Sikhs or Hindus, or the native Americans, or the Aborigines of Austrailia. At any rate, knowingly denying God is a worse crime than murder or rape. Try and tell me honestly that that is a good foundation for a moral system.

As for your "if he is The Truth etc" bit, key word there is "if." You say he is the one true God? Prove it. Show me evidence. Don't ask for a leap of faith. You keep going on about him being the one true God, then you should have some pretty convincing evidence. To turn your earlier point upside-down, where does your belief come from? If you had been born and raised somewhere else, would you still be making these claims?

[Metahive]

Man, cmdrgodbot still hasn't quite gotten the memo that it's rather useless to try and convince people with arguments that would require them to share his delusional beliefs in the first place. If I don't believe in the angry hebrew skypixy then appealing to it isn't going to do anything.

Hey, cmdrgodbot, if you don't start killing people in valiant battles, the valkyries won't take you to Valhalla and your afterlife will be an eternity of boredom in the depths of Hel's realm. Now what are you waiting for, grab a sword and charge some worthy foes! OOOOOOODDDIIIIIIN!

[cmdrjones]

Man, cmdrgodbot still hasn't quite gotten the memo that it's rather useless to try and convince people with arguments that would require them to share his delusional beliefs in the first place. If I don't believe in the angry hebrew skypixy then appealing to it isn't going to do anything.

Hey, cmdrgodbot, if you don't start killing people in valiant battles, the valkyries won't take you to Valhalla and your afterlife will be an eternity of boredom in the depths of Hel's realm. Now what are you waiting for, grab a sword and charge some worthy foes! OOOOOOODDDIIIIIIN!

been there done that.

You DO have a point though. I tell other Christians all the time that when talking to atheists it is USUALLY useless to quote scripture at them since they don't believe in it, it's like quoting shakespeare to them. The other main tack is to talk about how Jesus makes you feeeeeel. unfortunately, Atheists either feel bored, or amused, (sometimes, since they don't believe in him) or angry (usually, since they're mad at him).

but, I wasn't APPEALING to "hebrew skypixy" I was explaining how Chrisitan beliefs actually work in the context OF those beliefs. If you don't really want to know, then I suggest we change the topic.

BTW there is a phrase for this phenomenon amongst us Godbots BTW, (which is funny considering one of the foundational principles of Christianity is Freewill, otherwise the Resurrection wouldn't be necessary) it goes something like this: The Gospel is a stumbling block to the Jews but nonsense to the Greeks

Guess which category you're in?

[Batman]

The gospel is nonsense period so I fail to see why this is relevant.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The Gospel is the most blood-soaked book in history. Even if it made sense it should be quietly put away in a museum to our violent past, along with swastikas and Confederate flags and KKK outfits. A museum of shame, showing what we will do to each other over ideology.

[Metahive]

been there done that.

Shat your pants? Totally believe that.

You DO have a point though. I tell other Christians all the time that when talking to atheists it is USUALLY useless to quote scripture at them since they don't believe in it, it's like quoting shakespeare to them. The other main tack is to talk about how Jesus makes you feeeeeel. unfortunately, Atheists either feel bored, or amused, (sometimes, since they don't believe in him) or angry (usually, since they're mad at him).

Those other Christians deserve a fucking medal to even listen to a single word out of your blabbering mouth.

but, I wasn't APPEALING to "hebrew skypixy" I was explaining how Chrisitan beliefs actually work in the context OF those beliefs. If you don't really want to know, then I suggest we change the topic.

Your were shilling your stupid, idiosyncratic take on the hebrew Burning Bushman which nobody asked for or even needed to know about.

BTW there is a phrase for this phenomenon amongst us Godbots BTW, (which is funny considering one of the foundational principles of Christianity is Freewill, otherwise the Resurrection wouldn't be necessary) it goes something like this: The Gospel is a stumbling block to the Jews but nonsense to the Greeks

Guess which category you're in?

Free Will when exercised results in going to Hell. Not exercising it is rewarded by the Bearded Godman by taking it away altogether and having the saved sing his praise for all eternity.

Yeah, your dogma is kind of dumb that way. It's Hell or Hell, really.

[bilateralrope]

The other main tack is to talk about how Jesus makes you feeeeeel. unfortunately, Atheists either feel bored, or amused, (sometimes, since they don't believe in him) or angry (usually, since they're mad at him).

You seem to be saying that there are more atheists that are angry at Jesus than there are atheists who don't believe in him. Where do you get that idea from ?

[cmdrjones]

So...if you live a good life but don't believe you still get to suffer in Purgatory but there's a light at the end of the tunnel? How is that a good answer? You're still condemning people to suffer just for not believing in God. That, frankly, is not good enough. Plus that only applies to Catholic dogma, not all Christians. Protestants in all their denominations have no concept of Purgatory, it's all or nothing. Now if you want to say that if you live a good life but don't believe you'll get into Heaven, that's nice, but if so, what's the point of believing in the first place?

That's another excellent question: To attain the beatific vision, and be ASSURED of gaining it. Besides, it's probably not all that easy to adhere to all the rules of Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, or whatever anyway.

#2 Of course, now please explain this to my sister in law who keeps asking for scientific "proof" that God exists.

I haven't the faintest damn clue what point you're trying to make here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The point is that asking for SCIENTIFIC proof of religious belief is a dodge. We can start a whole other thread about the testimonial, historic, documentary and archaeological evidence at another time.

#3 Dresden 1944, Obliterate or not? Raqqa 2015, obliterate or not? Also, Jesus came to fulfill the law, the old testament stuff applied largely because of the 'hardness of your (pre-christians/jews) hearts' do people evolve and learn new things and can then be given better more compassionate rules to live by or not? Are you willing to condemn all the people of the past because they didn't live up to your very modern standards? Try cutting, threshing, shelling, grinding and baking your own flour into bread sometime.

Dresden? No, it, along with pretty much every other target of the Allied bomber offensive was a monstrous waste, and it's something that I (as a British person) feel really rather bad about. Incidentaly, the raid on Dresden was 1945 unless I'm mistaken.

I fail to see what making my own flour and bread has to do with right and wrong. And yes, I am quite willing to condemn people in the past for some of their actions. Killing or hurting innocents is objectively wrong, whether it be the USAAF and the RAF bombing Dresden and other German cities or it be God killing all of Egypt's first-born children.

Because hard people living in hard times have very differing beliefs concerning right/wrong. By Obliterating Dresden in 1944 you can end the war 6 months early and save, say, a half million Jews and several hundred thousand, Allies, Germans and Russians... now, will you do it?

You say killing and hurting innocents is objectively wrong, I agree.

#4 where did your sense of right and wrong COME from? You DO realize that if you were raised in say, Northwestern Iraq between 1998-2015, you might have some seriously different ideas about right and wrong.

My sense of right and wrong came from my parents, my family, my friends and so on. It's changed over the years as I have grown and learned. But some thing are objectively wrong no matter where you are born and raised.

EUREKA!!! Thank you! And where did THEY get their sense of right/wrong from? That would be western culture, which owes much of its basis to.....???

If you were raised by Mongols Circa 1250 AD or A Roman citizen circa 100 AD, your thought processes would be very different and the Idea that some things are objectively wrong through all time would never occur to you.

As a Roman, burning Carthage was good, because Rome is awesome. Burning Rome is bad for the same reason.

Oh, I forgot one thing: the reason WHY you'd be 'sent' (not really, you send yourself) to hell for not believing in God, is because it breaks the 1st commandment. You say that makes God vain, the bible uses the word jealous. Thing is, if he is The Truth and the is ONLY 1 The Truth... and you Knowingly deny that.... what does that make you?

My point was what happens if you unknowingly deny it. Hence my point about people raised as Sikhs or Hindus, or the native Americans, or the Aborigines of Austrailia. At any rate, knowingly denying God is a worse crime than murder or rape. Try and tell me honestly that that is a good foundation for a moral system.

As for your "if he is The Truth etc" bit, key word there is "if." You say he is the one true God? Prove it. Show me evidence. Don't ask for a leap of faith. You keep going on about him being the one true God, then you should have some pretty convincing evidence. To turn your earlier point upside-down, where does your belief come from? If you had been born and raised somewhere else, would you still be making these claims?

yes, absolutely. because Murder and Rape are NOT wrong in ALL places and ALL times (see Romans and Mongols above) unless there is a SUPREME moral authority to back it up. What would we call that Supreme authority? And if he is Supreme, would you have any other small 'g' gods before him?

You want evidence? OK, the new testament.... it's testamonial evidence. Go and read it sometime. Now you have been moved from the category of "defensibly innocent" to "you've been warned," my work here is done.

If I had been raised somewhere else, it is quite possible that I would NOT know these things, then I would be defensibly innocent, but since I have heard the good news....

[cmdrjones]

The other main tack is to talk about how Jesus makes you feeeeeel. unfortunately, Atheists either feel bored, or amused, (sometimes, since they don't believe in him) or angry (usually, since they're mad at him).

You seem to be saying that there are more atheists that are angry at Jesus than there are atheists who don't believe in him. Where do you get that idea from ?

LOL Look one post up from yours....

[Aasharu]

The other main tack is to talk about how Jesus makes you feeeeeel. unfortunately, Atheists either feel bored, or amused, (sometimes, since they don't believe in him) or angry (usually, since they're mad at him).

You seem to be saying that there are more atheists that are angry at Jesus than there are atheists who don't believe in him. Where do you get that idea from ?

For a lot of religious types, especially the more zealous ones, their mind isn't educated enough to be able to even conceive of someone actually not believing in God, so they assume that atheists truly believe in God, but tell themselves they don't because they're angry at God for something or some reason.

[cmdrjones]

The gospel is nonsense period so I fail to see why this is relevant.

Nonsense to the Greeks followed by another "I fail to see..."

can we get a "shaking dust off my feet" emoji?

[bilateralrope]

The other main tack is to talk about how Jesus makes you feeeeeel. unfortunately, Atheists either feel bored, or amused, (sometimes, since they don't believe in him) or angry (usually, since they're mad at him).

You seem to be saying that there are more atheists that are angry at Jesus than there are atheists who don't believe in him. Where do you get that idea from ?

LOL Look one post up from yours....

Metahive seems to be angry at you, not Jesus.

[Batman]

If you 'do' believe in God you'd have to be a sociopath to 'not' be angry at him.

[Metahive]

LOL Look one post up from yours....

Yeah, I'm totally angry at that Godguy. I was all "listen, buddy, you gonna' steal my cookies again and I'll ram this cactus up your ass" and he was like "yeah, man, chill out, I don't even like cookies" and then I catch him with his whole mouth chomping on my cookies and the crumbs and pieces flying everywhere and I'm like "HEY, ya' fucking douchebag, what did I tell ya' about eatin' my cookies" and then I ram a big effin' cactus up his ass and he was all "OOOOH NOOO, I'm getting a giant effin' cactus rammed up my bunghole! That sucks!" and then I told him "Next time it'll be an even bigger cactus, Godguy!", that's how fucking angry I was at him for taking my favorite cookies!

Tru story dat.

[Eternal_Freedom]

So...if you live a good life but don't believe you still get to suffer in Purgatory but there's a light at the end of the tunnel? How is that a good answer? You're still condemning people to suffer just for not believing in God. That, frankly, is not good enough. Plus that only applies to Catholic dogma, not all Christians. Protestants in all their denominations have no concept of Purgatory, it's all or nothing. Now if you want to say that if you live a good life but don't believe you'll get into Heaven, that's nice, but if so, what's the point of believing in the first place?

That's another excellent question: To attain the beatific vision, and be ASSURED of gaining it. Besides, it's probably not all that easy to adhere to all the rules of Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, or whatever anyway.

...the fuck are you even saying here. You're behaving like a parody of a politician. Instead of giving me an answer, you ask a question of your own.

Respond to my points properly or fuck off.

#2 Of course, now please explain this to my sister in law who keeps asking for scientific "proof" that God exists.

I haven't the faintest damn clue what point you're trying to make here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The point is that asking for SCIENTIFIC proof of religious belief is a dodge. We can start a whole other thread about the testimonial, historic, documentary and archaeological evidence at another time.

First, keep it straight who you're responding to. Second, I'm not asking for scientific proof, I'm asking for proof. As in, evidence (of any nature) that is verifiable and supports your claim.

#3 Dresden 1944, Obliterate or not? Raqqa 2015, obliterate or not? Also, Jesus came to fulfill the law, the old testament stuff applied largely because of the 'hardness of your (pre-christians/jews) hearts' do people evolve and learn new things and can then be given better more compassionate rules to live by or not? Are you willing to condemn all the people of the past because they didn't live up to your very modern standards? Try cutting, threshing, shelling, grinding and baking your own flour into bread sometime.

Dresden? No, it, along with pretty much every other target of the Allied bomber offensive was a monstrous waste, and it's something that I (as a British person) feel really rather bad about. Incidentaly, the raid on Dresden was 1945 unless I'm mistaken.

I fail to see what making my own flour and bread has to do with right and wrong. And yes, I am quite willing to condemn people in the past for some of their actions. Killing or hurting innocents is objectively wrong, whether it be the USAAF and the RAF bombing Dresden and other German cities or it be God killing all of Egypt's first-born children.

Because hard people living in hard times have very differing beliefs concerning right/wrong. By Obliterating Dresden in 1944 you can end the war 6 months early and save, say, a half million Jews and several hundred thousand, Allies, Germans and Russians... now, will you do it?

You say killing and hurting innocents is objectively wrong, I agree.

Except a) Dresden was 1945 (February 13th-15th to be precise) and b) it did not shorten the war, it didn't meaningfully impact German war production. It was as strategically ineffective as the 1940 Blitz on London. So why the hell are you even bringing it up? If you had a reasonable understanding of the situation and wanted to pose a real moral dilemma, you would have used Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not Dresden.

#4 where did your sense of right and wrong COME from? You DO realize that if you were raised in say, Northwestern Iraq between 1998-2015, you might have some seriously different ideas about right and wrong.

My sense of right and wrong came from my parents, my family, my friends and so on. It's changed over the years as I have grown and learned. But some thing are objectively wrong no matter where you are born and raised.

EUREKA!!! Thank you! And where did THEY get their sense of right/wrong from? That would be western culture, which owes much of its basis to.....???

If you were raised by Mongols Circa 1250 AD or A Roman citizen circa 100 AD, your thought processes would be very different and the Idea that some things are objectively wrong through all time would never occur to you.

As a Roman, burning Carthage was good, because Rome is awesome. Burning Rome is bad for the same reason.

I don't need a two millennia old book to tell me that murder or rape or theft is wrong. And Western culture, especially in Britain, is a bigass mismash of Roman, Greek, German, French, Scandanavian and so on. The early Romans didn't have your all-powerful God telling them murder was wrong and should be punished, they figured that out themselves.

Oh, I forgot one thing: the reason WHY you'd be 'sent' (not really, you send yourself) to hell for not believing in God, is because it breaks the 1st commandment. You say that makes God vain, the bible uses the word jealous. Thing is, if he is The Truth and the is ONLY 1 The Truth... and you Knowingly deny that.... what does that make you?

My point was what happens if you unknowingly deny it. Hence my point about people raised as Sikhs or Hindus, or the native Americans, or the Aborigines of Austrailia. At any rate, knowingly denying God is a worse crime than murder or rape. Try and tell me honestly that that is a good foundation for a moral system.

As for your "if he is The Truth etc" bit, key word there is "if." You say he is the one true God? Prove it. Show me evidence. Don't ask for a leap of faith. You keep going on about him being the one true God, then you should have some pretty convincing evidence. To turn your earlier point upside-down, where does your belief come from? If you had been born and raised somewhere else, would you still be making these claims?

yes, absolutely. because Murder and Rape are NOT wrong in ALL places and ALL times (see Romans and Mongols above) unless there is a SUPREME moral authority to back it up. What would we call that Supreme authority? And if he is Supreme, would you have any other small 'g' gods before him?

The Romans decided murder was wrong before your God came along. The Greeks, the Persians, the Egyptians, all fo the great ancient civilisations. We have many names for that supreme moral authority, none of which need be God. We have conscience, we have logic, we have morality, we have civic duty and the common good. We don't need God. Maybe we once did, but no more.

You want evidence? OK, the new testament.... it's testamonial evidence. Go and read it sometime. Now you have been moved from the category of "defensibly innocent" to "you've been warned," my work here is done.

No your work is not done. I read your damned book. I even believed in it once. It's second or third-hand witness testimony from two thousand years ago that's been translated and re-translated a half dozen times. Not exactly something that will hold up in court is it?

You want to try and convince me? Fine, go right ahead. I'll listen to your arguments, I'll consider them like I would any other. But you have to do the work yourself. You don't just get to point at a book and say "there I win."

If I had been raised somewhere else, it is quite possible that I would NOT know these things, then I would be defensibly innocent, but since I have heard the good news....

So in other words, it is only those that have the temerity to exerciser their free will, to dare question this creator that are condemned? Tell me how that can possibly be right or just.

Oh, and to expand on my earlier points about how I would be better than God, which you've curiously ignored, I'll add another couple: I would not test my subjects faith, by, say, allowing the Devil which your God created to destroy his family and his life. Nor would I ask one of my servants to sacrifice his child to me.

And don't try saying "oh but it's ok because God stopped Abraham." It fucking is not ok, because God asked him to do it in the first place, and waited until Abraham was about to kill his son before stopping him.

If that is what your God asks, then I certainly can do better.