How "Christian" of him!!

[Ben Kenobi]

Imran, bless your heart.

[Kidlicious]

Fine, I'll just believe in a god that is a bit more accommodating.

Do you mean one that let's you do whatever you want? You can't possibly believe in such a God. Jesus is the true God.

[Kidlicious]

Even so, one could argue that if a god gave human beings the power to reason and make moral judgments, then even that god is subject to such judgments for his actions. A dictator may make the law of a country, but that doesn't mean the peasants can't question him when he violates his own laws, or if his laws are irrational. Sure, the dictator can kill them or lock them in a torture chamber for the rest of their lives, but that doesn't magically make his actions moral or just.

If that dictator was an all powerfull and infinitely wise being it would be foolish to question his actions and inactions. As far as the law goes if he makes the law he can give himself immunity.

[BlackCat]

Hell, given ancient communication, it's likely people a few towns over wouldn't know anything about it.

Not if they used RFC 1149

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, bless your heart.

Stop trying to act Southern

[Kidlicious]

Ben,


What else can one say?

[DaShi]

Do you mean one that let's you do whatever you want? You can't possibly believe in such a God. Jesus is the true God.

Prove it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Act?

[Kidlicious]

If your god's morals don't apply to himself, then they aren't morals at all, just arbitrary dictates that he's free to violate on a whim.

The problem with your argument is that kings are bound to the law somehow. Even it they have total power there is still the threat of coup or revolution. In other words total power is not total. God is all powerfull. He is not bound to the law that he created for us, not him. When he created us he created the law. We were not in existence to agree to the law such as the case with a king and a social contract.

[Kidlicious]

Prove it.

Is that your standard? Don't you have any concern that you don't follow the true God?

[Boris Godunov]

You are assuming that God didn't try to warn the others. We don't know this. All we know is that Noah responded to God. That suggests to me that Noah, because he was righteous listened to the warnings, and the unrighteous merely ignored them.

This is total unscriptural conjecture on your part. Gen. 6 clearly states that God chose to speak to Noah because he was righteous and perfect, not that he went around talking to people until he found the one who would listen.

If you're just going to make up stuff that isn't the Bible, then you've got no business accusing anyone else of "picking and choosing."

[DaShi]

Is that your standard? Don't you have any concern that you don't follow the true God?

I do. It's you who don't.

[Boris Godunov]

Sigh, this is a lexical problem, not a logical problem.

No, it's still a logical problem, since I don't accept the logic that creating sentient beings therefore confers on one the right to destroy them. "I created you, ergo I can destroy you" is unjust.

IF it were proven to you tomorrow, beyond any doubt in your mind, that no god existed, would you therefore think that parents had the right to destroy their children, since they would be their only "creators?"

If the god who dictated morals doesn't have to follow them, then yes, of course they're arbitrary. That they might coincide with what reason would determine to be acceptable behavior is irrelevant. If a god is perfect, and he can murder and lie all he wants, then murdering and lying must be considered part of "perfection." You can't call it ineffable morality if the guy who made the rules can break the rules. That's just utter hypocrisy.

And no, I don't abide by the rules of the Biblical god. That some of the rules by which I abide match those rules is just coincidence. I don't need a big sky daddy ordering me around in order to behave morally. Hell, obeying rules just because you think a divine punisher ordered you to isn't morality at all--it's just being servile.

Why? What sense does, 'thou should not covet thy neighbours stuff' have any sense when talking about God?

I seem the recall the Biblical god described as being "jealous and angry" when people worshipped other gods...

Yes, there is a contradiction. Do you comment on the nature of the Ogopogo? Or Yeti? Is Yeti an evil being?

That's one of the stupidest things you've said among many stupid things.

Do you want me to comment on the nature of Ogopogo or Yeti? I mean, there haven't been any threads on Apolyton about them in recent memory, have there? Are you seriously suggesting that one has to argue against all fictitious entities simultaneously?

There are an infinite number of imaginary beings I'd have to start commenting on...this could take a while.

Why is scripture accurate in this instance and inaccurate in others? You are picking and choosing.

****ING HELL I addressed this in the last ****ing post you ****ing ******.

For the upteenth time, I am not now nor have I ever argued for Biblical accuracy, you ****ing imbecile. I said it very plainly: I'm accepting for the premesis of the argument that a Christian like Robertson WOULD view them as accurate, and showing how he *COULD* (not "MUST" as you again falsely claim) interpret a disaster as PERHAPS being divine punishment.

****ing hell, I don't know how to say it any clearer than that. No, I don't accept that the Biblical stories are accurate, BUT CLEARLY ROBERTSON DOES, and that's the entire ****ing point.

My apologies to Darius for stealing his method of trying to bludgeon points into incredibly thick skulls.

[Boris Godunov]

If that dictator was an all powerfull and infinitely wise being it would be foolish to question his actions and inactions. As far as the law goes if he makes the law he can give himself immunity.

How would you know the dictator is infinitely wise? Just because he says so?

That's the point--yes, Christians claim the Biblical God is morally perfect and wise, but his actions as described in the Bible say otherwise to people who have genuine morals, rather than "morality by fiat."

[Boris Godunov]

God is all powerfull. He is not bound to the law that he created for us, not him.

Which makes the law arbitrary, and therefore unjust. Christians always are talking about a "higher morality," but this defies that idea, because it's nothing more than authoritarian dictate. It renders morality meaningless. "Do as I say, not as I do."

If the only reason not to do something is because a god said not to do it, there's no moral force behind it. If the reason not to do something is because it is in and of itself a bad thing to do, then it's just as bad if a god does it as when a human does it. Either it's morally wrong in and of itself, or it's arbitrary.