Is the God of the Bible "good" or "wicked"?

Author: DavidAZ 1 year ago

God

Bible

Posts

Total: 216

#181

FLRW

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,613

FLRW

05.01.2023 01:13PM

-->

@ludofl3x

Well, when Einstein, Hawking and Elon Musk found out that there was no God, they didn't immediately start committing crimes, killing people they didn't like, stealing, and basically just being a menace to society. Also Bill Gates Gates has said he's "pretty much an atheist" and that belief in a god "makes zero sense."

#182

FLRW

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,613

FLRW

05.01.2023 01:29PM

Remember that if you do believe in God, you are more likely to fly an airplane into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Allahu Akbar!

#183

FLRW

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,613

FLRW

05.01.2023 01:39PM

Maybe it's, if you believe in God, you immediately start committing crimes, stealing, and basically just being a menace to society.

You know, like Televangelist Jim Bakker. Bakker was indicted by a federal grand jury on 24 charges of mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiring to defraud the public in 1988 following a 15-month investigation.

Topic's author

#184

DavidAZ

Debates: 8

Posts: 345

DavidAZ

05.01.2023 07:38PM

-->

@ludofl3x

This is a problem, wouldn't you agree?

I do agree and again, the mystery of God. :) I'd love to know the beginings.

This is one of those problems where our shared inability to imagine the amount of time in question inhibits us from understanding possible versus probable. I'm not sure I understand what your objection is here, is it that whatever bees eat would have had to be here before bees? Can you explain your mathematical comment?

I'm saying that a symbiotic relationship such as a bee hive must evolve together or at the exact same time (drones, workers, queen, food, etc). One cannot evolve before or after the other. So if the idea of random chance of these 4 things (drones, workers, queens and food) all being evolved at the same time and be around the same area for them to meet and create their hive and then have food to sustain it and then create more bees, then the odds are really mathematically impossible. By mathematically impossible, meaning no chance. I tried to dig it up but there is an probability that is considered "no chance" after a certain point of odds.

No, it doesn't, but my point is you can witness evolution today very easily. Covid's variants are all examples of it: a living thing (virus) changing in response to environment (hostile reproductive environment post-vaccine). The delta variant, for example, was resistant to the vaccine, and was more fit to reproduce, so it became the dominant strain, until we fought that off, etc. etc., then a more resistant strain came and we figure that out, etc. etc. That's just evolution in real time. I know it doesn't mean that a virus in two generations is going to become a koala bear, but that's still the textbook definition of evolution.

I think the definition of evolution for the virus does not entail the whole of the evolution theory here. We see the ability of a creature to adapt or survive the environment, not become something different. Just like the finches on the Galapagos Islands and their beaks. (Darwin's observations)

Do you really think that? First of all, if there's "no-God" agenda, whoever's pushing it is doing a piss poor job considering the percentage of people on earth who believe in some god or another (above 90%)!

Yes, I do think that. It is not in full effect right now, but it will turn out that way. It has to turn that way if the world will turn to a one world system. (More conspiracy!) Also, the idea of God doesn't have to go away as much as the true belief of God must go away. Of that 90%, how many are still doing "evil" things contrary to the Bible? Do they really believe in God if they don't follow his word? How much of the God belief is "ecumenical", meaning a belief that doesn't offend others and is all inclusive? I know of plenty of churches here in AZ that are "come as you are, love and don't offend" kind of standards. I understand the come as you are, but a man must change his ways in order to repent and a ecumenical approach doesn't demand a change to the man. (not trying to preach here).

And I don't think anyone who thinks like me, that there's no god watching us, thinks that human life is value-less. I think this is a bit of a boogey man image, a straw man. I've never talked to an atheist who thought "Once we get rid of the Ten Commandments in schools that are used by the entire public and not just Christians, THEN we can finally enact our eugenics program!" Me, I think once we get rid of the ten commandments, then the muslims and hindi kids that go to my kids' public school will feel like they're on a little more even footing. That's the limit of my evil, I guess.

I don't believe most people are like that and again I should of referenced the leaders of the movement. I do think most people, religious or not, are a lot like me. You remind me of my brother, so I do have a reference to go by. He is a good ole boy, loves his family, doesn't commit crimes and would help others in an instant. So to clarify, I don't think the general population is chomping at the bit for a full disclosure of "no-God" to massacre people. I think it's more of a mental conditioning to the population to then have them follow their demands later.

Can I ask about this bolded bit though? Are you saying that if you found out that there was no God, you'd immediately start just committing crimes, killing people you didn't like, stealing, and basically just being a menace to society? I don't think that's true, that's not the impression I get. It's not a soul that keeps me from doing it, or promise of reward, or fear of punishment, can't I just not kill someone because human life is valuable, as that person gets just the one, like me?

Just like my comment above, I don't think the total population is chomping at the bit to commit crimes, nor would I. I will say, however, that the thought of heaven and hell does help keep my actions in line. I also think that humankind is all trying to live and let live for the most part.

I will predict a little here. Let's look at our current state of America only. The way of morals have changed from 100 years ago. It used to be illegal for women to wear pants, adulatory was considered a crime, and even Christmas was outlawed (It was considered a Catholic Holiday) and the list goes on. Now we are in a time where homosexuality is celebrated, boys can walk into girls bathrooms if they claim to be one and drag shows are televised and the list goes on. It is constantly sliding into a more immoral society. Why would any of this matter to anybody except the Bible people? Who are the one's freaking out about this "progress" except people like me? Who would try to stop this non-sense if people like me were not around? I and people like me are "in the way" of the constant moral decline (progress).

Now, I am considered hateful if I don't comply to the foolish banter of gender identities AND you will believe that I am hateful and intolerant, if you don't already think that now. How much more of a push is it that I am not only hateful, but now harmful to society? If I am harmful, what should happen to people that hurt the society? If we follow the constant slide of society, we can assume that it gets worse and less biblical, less "Godly" so to speak. At what point is my view irrelevant and also damaging to life in America and would have to be "eliminated"?

I hope I am completely wrong on this prediction, for the sake of myself, my family and my friends, but I don't think I'm too far off. NostraDavid has spoken :)

Topic's author

#185

DavidAZ

Debates: 8

Posts: 345

DavidAZ

05.01.2023 07:49PM

-->

@FLRW

Well, when Einstein, Hawking and Elon Musk found out that there was no God, they didn't immediately start committing crimes, killing people they didn't like, stealing, and basically just being a menace to society. Also Bill Gates Gates has said he's "pretty much an atheist" and that belief in a god "makes zero sense."

I'm pretty sure Bill Gates, the believer in eugenics, is the guy you want to uphold as an atheist being moral about human life.

Remember that if you do believe in God, you are more likely to fly an airplane into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Allahu Akbar!

Keep in mind, that just because someone claims to love God doesn't mean they actually love God. We would know that a father would love his children, but if a man abused and molested his children, he really wouldn't be father, would he? Same with the crazies that claim to do things in the "name of God".

Maybe it's, if you believe in God, you immediately start committing crimes, stealing, and basically just being a menace to society.
You know, like Televangelist Jim Bakker. Bakker was indicted by a federal grand jury on 24 charges of mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiring to defraud the public in 1988 following a 15-month investigation.

Cherry picking a looney doesn't have any baring on the conversation.

#186

ludofl3x

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,071

ludofl3x

05.01.2023 08:07PM

-->

@DavidAZ

This is a problem, wouldn't you agree?
I do agree and again, the mystery of God. :) I'd love to know the beginings.

So we can agree then that both of us think that in some way or another, at one point, nothing was alive, and at some later point, something was. In my case, it's simple single cell life. In your case, it's God. Is that fair to say?

I'm saying that a symbiotic relationship such as a bee hive must evolve together or at the exact same time (drones, workers, queen, food, etc). One cannot evolve before or after the other. So if the idea of random chance of these 4 things (drones, workers, queens and food) all being evolved at the same time and be around the same area for them to meet and create their hive and then have food to sustain it and then create more bees, then the odds are really mathematically impossible. By mathematically impossible, meaning no chance. I tried to dig it up but there is an probability that is considered "no chance" after a certain point of odds.

But they don't all have to evolve at the same time, at all. If you wanted to create a working beehive from scratch today, without any bees, yes, you'd have to create them all at once, but that's not what happens. Instead you have one form of "protobee" that evolves each way, and as that benefits the society and reproduction of bees, those traits continue. They don't in any way have to appear all at once.

I think the definition of evolution for the virus does not entail the whole of the evolution theory here. We see the ability of a creature to adapt or survive the environment, not become something different. Just like the finches on the Galapagos Islands and their beaks. (Darwin's observations)

Due respect sir, but the mutation of the virus is textbook evolution. It doesn't go kind-to-kind, admittedly, but we also agree there isn't a time scale we can use to observe this transformation as it takes thousands and thousands of years. Like hundreds and hundreds of thousands. Occasionally yes, you see something noticeable like the finches, or the moths who changed from gray to white and back in the course of five generations in response to local pollution, or the fish who speciated (sticklebacks, I think?), but the vast majority of evolution occurs at the cellular level.

Yes, I do think that. It is not in full effect right now, but it will turn out that way. It has to turn that way if the world will turn to a one world system. (More conspiracy!) Also, the idea of God doesn't have to go away as much as the true belief of God must go away. Of that 90%, how many are still doing "evil" things contrary to the Bible? Do they really believe in God if they don't follow his word? How much of the God belief is "ecumenical", meaning a belief that doesn't offend others and is all inclusive? I know of plenty of churches here in AZ that are "come as you are, love and don't offend" kind of standards. I understand the come as you are, but a man must change his ways in order to repent and a ecumenical approach doesn't demand a change to the man. (not trying to preach here).

I don't believe the 'idea' of god has to go away at all, I mean it'd be nice but I think that's a pretty futile goal. I can't say on the 90% still doing evil things, but if you're implying it's a lot, isn't that really a problem of Christianity, more than it is one of atheism? The ecumenical belief system, ironically, is a response to an environmental condition that's making it difficult for churches to 'reproduce' adherents / donators. The church is evolving :). Do you think the church should focus more on the repenting?

. So to clarify, I don't think the general population is chomping at the bit for a full disclosure of "no-God" to massacre people. I think it's more of a mental conditioning to the population to then have them follow their demands later.

Who is this, in this sentence? Who are the 'leaders' of this movement? I don't recognize anyone as a 'leader' but I also don't see it as a 'movement.'

Now, I am considered hateful if I don't comply to the foolish banter of gender identities AND you will believe that I am hateful and intolerant, if you don't already think that now. How much more of a push is it that I am not only hateful, but now harmful to society? If I am harmful, what should happen to people that hurt the society? If we follow the constant slide of society, we can assume that it gets worse and less biblical, less "Godly" so to speak. At what point is my view irrelevant and also damaging to life in America and would have to be "eliminated"?

I don't think you're hateful by default, but I also don't get what difference it makes to anyone if someone says "refer to me as a she". I mean how many people in your life have you demanded to see their genitals if they said "I'm Mister this" or "I'm Miss that"? All of a sudden it's a huge problem, I don't get why. I don't think you're harmful to society, but I also think that you have to expect to face community consequences if you're behaving in a way your society doesn't like (this has been going on since we crawled out of the ocean, the out-casting of a negative factor). Your view isn't any more relevant or irrelevant than anyone else, and no, it doesn't have to be eliminated.

#187

ludofl3x

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,071

ludofl3x

05.01.2023 08:18PM

-->

@DavidAZ

The way of morals have changed from 100 years ago. It used to be illegal for women to wear pants, adulatory was considered a crime, and even Christmas was outlawed (It was considered a Catholic Holiday) and the list goes on. Now we are in a time where homosexuality is celebrated, boys can walk into girls bathrooms if they claim to be one and drag shows are televised and the list goes on. It is constantly sliding into a more immoral society.

I know we just are going to disagree on this stuff, but for the record I just don't get how these are immoral given that it'd have to be part of god's plan. Especially the homosexuals and transgenders, I mean he made them, he planned for them, so who are we to say what they're doing is immoral. What is the MORAL approach to homosexuality, or transgenderism? Is it that they should just have to go back to living in shame and anxiety?

#188

BrotherD.Thomas

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,145

BrotherD.Thomas

05.03.2023 04:51PM

-->

@DavidAZ

.
DavidAZ, that is as Bible Stupid as Miss Tradesecret for the obvious reasons, and is a copy cat of your MO in posting style because he can't come up with his own style, and where he went to Miss Tradesecrets ungodly school of; "How to run away from disturbing Bible passages and to "try" and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath, and does not like it when one “cherry picks” scripture that exists in the Bible in the first place, and that makes him the Bible fool, and that has blatantly committed the Unpardonable Sin,

Since you can’t address my posts to you in showing that you are as Bible stupid and ignorant of same as Miss Tradesecret is, don’t worry, Jesus and I will continue to show your Bible Duncery®️ because you have to HIDE from it.

YOUR CONTINUED BIBLE STUPID QUOTE: “We haven't found every animal there is non Earth and new species are showing up all the time.”
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9125/posts/387826

WRONG BIBLE IDIOT! Jesus as God created all living creatures of their “KIND,” whereas there can be no more creatures created subsequent to Jesus creating them in the first place as shown in Genesis! H-E-L-L-O?

“So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1:21)

“And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.” (Genesis 1:24)

“For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind,” (James 3:7)

DavidAZ, I am sure that Jesus is truly sad that your Bible stupidity continues at your expense upon Judgment Day.

#189

BrotherD.Thomas

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,145

BrotherD.Thomas

05.03.2023 05:07PM

-->

@DavidAZ

DavidAZ, that is as Bible Stupid as Miss Tradesecret for the obvious reasons, and is a copy cat of your MO in posting style because he can't come up with his own style, and where he went to Miss Tradesecrets ungodly school of; "How to run away from disturbing Bible passages and to try"and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath," and does not like it when one “cherry picks” scripture that exists in the Bible in the first place, and that makes him the Bible fool,” and now has to remain silent to my posts to him to save himself from further embarrassment if he tried to address them, and where he has committed the Unpardonable Sin,

YOUR QUOTE IN BELIEVING JESUS CREATED MANKIND, PRAISE! “You answered the "get here" fine. I think the whole evolution thing is a fool's religion.”
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9125/posts/387655

You finally got something correct within the scriptures, praise Jesus! Yes, if you are a TRUE Christian, you have to accept that man was created from dust of the ground, and life only began when Jesus as God breathed into Adams nostrils, and NOT at the initial conception of a baby of man and woman combined!

“The LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature” (Genesis 2:7)

You also have to accept that the 2nd class woman was created from Adam’s rib by Jesus as God as only a helpmate to Adam, praise!

“But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.” (Genesis 2:21-22)

I am sure that you realize that it is important to be a TRUE Christian when we learn that man was created from the ground dust, and woman was created from Adam’s rib, so saith Jesus the Lord? We laugh at the concept of EVILution, and I am sure you tell all your friends in how our God created mankind as shown, and NOT the laughable theory of EVILution, praise Jesus!

YOUR OTHER TRUTHFUL QUOTE ABOUT HOW OLD THE EARTH IS: “All these actually point to a world that is about 12K to 6K years old, depending on the variables.”

OMG, you truly have gained biblical wisdom, in that the earth as shown within the scriptures is approximately 6 thousand years old, praise your enlightenment!

But, this doesn’t take in to account that the Stone Age man was approximately 2.6 million years ago. Furthermore, when the bible states that the earth is only about 6000 years old, this godly biblical axiom doesn’t account for dinosaurs living about 66 to 245 million years ago upon planet earth, does it? But, I digress, we just don’t talk about these “scientific facts,” do we? Shhhhhhh, mums the word, okay?

YOU GOING BACK TO BEING BIBLE STUPID AGAIN QUOTE: “I'm not sure if the political football is if it was created in a lab or not, but COVID 19 and all its variants did come from the variants before it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a virus doesn't just pop out of thin air, does it?”

No, a virus doesn't just pop up out of thin air, because Jesus as God created Covid 19 in the first place! By the mere FACT that the Covid-19 virus exists and is killing millions of Jesus’ Jewish Creation proves beyond any doubt that Jesus exists because of these Biblical passages:

“Many are the plans in a person's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails.” (Proverbs 19:21).

“He has broken my strength in midcourse; he has shortened my days.” (Pslam 102:23)

“……. shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6)

DavidAZ, even though you had some brief moments of Biblical wisdom, it is truly amazing in how Bible Stupid you truly are, and still you remain upon this forum to continually prove this FACT! LOL! Don’t worry, I’ll give the forum more updates when you become once again the Bible fool, whereas praise Jesus in allowing me to correct the Bible inept like DavidAZ!

12 days later

#190

Saniton

Debates: 0

Posts: 11

Saniton

05.15.2023 07:39PM

-->

@DavidAZ

In the story of Adam and Eve, which, as an atheist-agnostic, I take to be mythical, God did not lie when he said that Adam and Eve would surely die. Although he did not strike either of his first humans dead, he did make them mortal, such that the number of years they lived was mentioned later in Genesis.

#191

Saniton

Debates: 0

Posts: 11

Saniton

05.15.2023 08:15PM

Disclaimer: I'm an atheist-agnostic, but I'm married to a Christian who has an M.Div from a Catholic seminary. Thanks to his knowledge, I can address a lot of questions about that faith with some confidence.

Please forgive me if the following points have already been made. To be honest, I decided not to review every post in this thread, characterized as it is by frequent and pointless vitriol.

one: One of the uses that the ancients had for God was the explanation of their history and then-current events. If the God of the Bible looked savage, it was because his occasional anger and indifference was used to explain some pretty savage wars and tragedies. For example, if the Babylonians conquered the ancient Israelites, it must have been because God was too angry or displeased with his people to protect them.

two: The paradigm for the Abrahamic God was the ancient Middle Eastern despot. Such ancient kings could expect to be able to murder and war with impunity and, at the same time, demand love and loyalty from their subjects. Throughout most of history, citizens were more interested in having a strong government that could protect them than they were in representational government. Only after the economic survival of nations came to depend on a critical mass of highly educated workers did representational government become necessary.

three: With the latter points in mind, we should caution ourselves against presentism: the tendency to judge the past according to the moral standards of the present. Since the past can't be changed, such judgement is pointless. More importantly, presentism distorts our view of the motives and character traits of history's movers and shakers.

four: However, despotic governments and cruel institutions like slavery are unquestionably wicked by the standards of modern person-centered egalitarian ethics. This is not a problem for Christians who think that Christ, rather than the Bible, is the Word of God, as it says at the beginning of the Gospel of John. For such believers, the Bible's works are ancient human responses to the presence of the Godhead--while Christ's love is the ultimate guide for our lives. However, this wickedness is problematic for those who believe that the Bible was dictated by God to Humanity and that its every precept is divine.

Now can we quit calling each other stupid and benighted?

#192

Stephen

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,618

Stephen

05.16.2023 04:47AM

-->

@Saniton

I'm married to a Christian who has an M.Div from a Catholic seminary.

So what is he?

I'm an atheist-agnostic.

Really!? So you categorically do not believe in the existence of god, while stating that you don't know if there is or is not a god.

#193

Saniton

Debates: 0

Posts: 11

Saniton

05.16.2023 04:56AM

-->

@Stephen

He was a Catholic for many years but broke from the Church when it silenced a group of nuns who were reaching out to the gay community. Enough was enough. After he left the Roman church, he joined a tiny independent Catholic church whose progressive teachings permit the ordination of women and members of sexual minorities. It's unofficial motto: "All of the liturgy and none of the bullshit."

#194

Stephen

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,618

Stephen

05.16.2023 04:58AM

-->

@Saniton

I'm an atheist-agnostic.

Really!? So you categorically do not believe in the existence of god, while stating that you don't know if there is or is not a god.

I'm married to a Christian who has an M.Div from a Catholic seminary.

So what is he?
He was a Catholic

But what was his capacity in the Roman church?

#195

Saniton

Debates: 0

Posts: 11

Saniton

05.16.2023 05:05AM

-->

@Stephen

"Really!? So you categorically do not believe in the existence of god, while stating that you don't know if there is or is not a god."

I, and most atheist agnostics, do not know of any good reason to believe in God, but at the same time do not claim to be able to prove that there are no gods. Once you accept the facts that humans are finite creatures and that we can't have a God's eye view of reality, the position becomes perfectly intelligible.

Famous atheist Bertrand Russell considered himself technically agnostic, though he compared the likelihood of God's existence to the likelihood of a teacup orbiting the Moon. He wrote that in 1924, before artificial satellites were a gleam in any engineer's eye. See his popular work, "Why I am Not a Christian," in which that observation occurred. Why I am Not a Christian - Bertrand Russell.pdf - Google Drive

#196

Saniton

Debates: 0

Posts: 11

Saniton

05.16.2023 05:06AM

-->

@Stephen

He was a parishioner. He almost entered the priesthood, but, fortunately for me, he decided against that.

#197

Stephen

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,618

Stephen

05.16.2023 05:33AM

I'm an atheist-agnostic.

Really!? So you categorically do not believe in the existence of god, while stating that you don't know if there is or is not a god.

Famous atheist Bertrand Russell considered himself technically agnostic. [...........................] he compared the likelihood of God's existence to the likelihood of a teacup orbiting the Moon

Russel was an out 'n' out atheist. And a tea cup has never orbited the moon - unless an astronaut or cosmonaut was holding one on his trips into space.

I'm married to a Christian who has an M.Div from a Catholic seminary.

So what is he?
He was a Catholic
But what was his capacity in the Roman church?

He was a parishioner. [.............]He was a Catholic for many years but broke from the Church when it silenced a group of nuns who were reaching out to the gay community. Enough was enough.

I think you mean the "homosexual community".

And this breakaway was recent was it?

#198

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,081

zedvictor4

05.16.2023 07:27AM

-->

@Saniton

A Zedku for Saniton.

Do you regard yourself as a cleansing superhero.

Only joking, no offence,

But encouraged by word association,

I immediately had a mental image,

Of Saniton in a Superman costume.

Belief is an aptly defined nonsense in itself.

So we construct an indisputable construct,

And no one can dispute it.

Notwithstanding that the indisputable construct is only what it is.

But all that we can do is either believe it or not.

Whereas my mental image of Stephen

Inspired by word association

Is a snowy Christmas wonderland

Woolly jumpers, Christmas pud and festive cheer.

Winter festival indeed.

#199

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,081

zedvictor4

05.16.2023 10:20AM

-->

@Stephen

Whereas Stephen might envisage,

Two old Coppers musing, late evening,

In a quiet country gateway,

Thermos tea and cheese and pickle in hand,

Hoping.....That nothing kicks off.

Radio crackles,

Control to ZedVictor 4.

Bollocks.

#200

Stephen

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,618

Stephen

05.16.2023 11:42AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Bollocks.

Yep. Wrong in both images, Vic lad.

Two old Coppers musing, late evening,

Radio crackles,

Control to ZedVictor 4.

You are the one with the phonetic monica, Vic lad.😉

When do you fancy a ride out to my little town then Vic?

#201

BrotherD.Thomas

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,145

BrotherD.Thomas

05.16.2023 03:13PM

-->

@Saniton

Saniton,

YOUR CONTRADICTING QUOTE OF STUPIDITY: "In the story of Adam and Eve, which, as an atheist-agnostic, I take to be mythical, God did not lie when he said that Adam and Eve would surely die. Although he did not strike either of his first humans dead, he did make them mortal, such that the number of years they lived was mentioned later in Genesis."

First you tell us that you are a comical "Atheist-Agnostic" whose philosophical position is you don't believe in the existence of a god and because gods are unknowable in principle of fact. Then you remove one foot from your mouth to insert the other when you blatantly state that the God within Genesis did not lie when he said that Adam and Eve would surely die, which is taking a position of this god existing as a given fact! GET IT? Huh?

In you being an alleged Agnostic is comical upon its face as well, where in reality the only position you have, is that you don't have one! LOL!

YOUR REVEALING QUOTE: "Now can we quit calling each other stupid and benighted?

Absolutely not, especially when you act as shown above in this post, we have to be able to call members like you STUPID!

Furthermore, are you too embarrassed or SCARED to have a written out biography in being a contradicting Atheist/Agnostic?

#202

Saniton

Debates: 0

Posts: 11

Saniton

05.16.2023 05:22PM

-->

@Stephen

Stephen: "Russel was an out 'n' out atheist. And a tea cup has never orbited the moon - unless an astronaut or cosmonaut was holding one on his trips into space."

For a reference to Russell's "technical agnosticism," please read this article. Bertrand Russell and F.C. Copleston Debate the Existence of God, 1948 | Open Culture

I never said that a teacup orbited the moon in 1924. Kindly read the post.

Russell is spelled with two "l's."

Stephen: "I think you mean the homosexual community."

"Homosexual" and "gay" are synonymous in modern American English. This is common knowledge.

Stephen: "And this breakaway was recent was it?"

Bob's break with the Roman Catholic Church happened in 2012 in the wake of the events described here: "Nuns Speak About Vatican Criticism - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

#203

Saniton

Debates: 0

Posts: 11

Saniton

05.16.2023 05:30PM

-->

@BrotherD.Thomas

"First you tell us that you are a comical "Atheist-Agnostic" whose philosophical position is you don't believe in the existence of a god and because gods are unknowable in principle of fact. Then you remove one foot from your mouth to insert the other when you blatantly state that the God within Genesis did not lie when he said that Adam and Eve would surely die, which is taking a position of this god existing as a given fact! GET IT? Huh?"

You do realize that characters in fiction can be depicted as lying, right? Some critics of the Genesis story think that--in the story--God lied to Adam and Eve when he said that eating the Fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil would cause them to die--and that therefore the god depicted in the story was a deceptive fiend unworthy of worship. But--in the story--God was not lying because eating the infamous fruit made the two human characters mortal.

As for atheist-agnosticism, consider this proposition: "There are forms of energy other than gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and whatever dark energy is." There is, at present, no good reason for anyone to believe this proposition. But that doesn't mean that we can disprove the existence of such forms of energy. So too with God. Your argument for the incoherence of this position doesn't hold water.

#204

Stephen

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,618

Stephen

05.16.2023 05:41PM

-->

@BrotherD.Thomas

@Saniton,

YOUR CONTRADICTING QUOTE OF STUPIDITY: [aniton wrote: ] "In the story of Adam and Eve, which, as an atheist-agnostic, I take to be mythical, God did not lie when he said that Adam and Eve would surely die. Although he did not strike either of his first humans dead, he did make them mortal, such that the number of years they lived was mentioned later in Genesis."

BrotherD.Thomas wrote: First you tell us that you are a comical "Atheist-Agnostic" whose philosophical position is you don't believe in the existence of a god and because gods are unknowable in principle of fact. Then you remove one foot from your mouth to insert the other when you blatantly state that the God within Genesis did not lie when he said that Adam and Eve would surely die, which is taking a position of this god existing as a given fact! GET IT? Huh?

Indeed brother D. It appears that our "new" member Saniton wants to play both sides of the net.

#205

Stephen

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,618

Stephen

05.16.2023 06:06PM

-->

@Saniton

Stephen: "Russel was an out 'n' out atheist. And a tea cup has never orbited the moon - unless an astronaut or cosmonaut was holding one on his trips into space."

For a reference to Russell's "technical agnosticism," please read this article. Bertrand Russell and F.C. Copleston Debate the Existence of God, 1948 | Open Culture

I never said that a teacup orbited the moon in 1924. Kindly read the post.

I did. And I have read much of Russell too. He was an out "n" out atheist.

Still, this thread is concerning if or not god is "good or wicked". So do you think this "mythical" god is Good or Wicked?

Stephen: "I think you mean the homosexual community."

"Homosexual" and "gay" are synonymous in modern American English. This is common knowledge.

Do you agree with this because it softens the blow of the act that God calls an "abomination"?

"And this breakaway was recent was it?"

Bob's break with the Roman Catholic Church happened in 2012 in the wake of the events described here: "Nuns Speak About Vatican Criticism - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Your link is not very informative as to what you claim above ie:

Saniton wrote: when it [Catholic Church]silenced a group of nuns who were reaching out to the gay [ homosexual] community. #193

How were the Nuns "reaching out to the homosexual community"?

Bob's break with the Roman Catholic Church happened in 2012

I see.

So your husband Bob had no problem with priests raping and buggering children of both sexes for absolutely decades, but he only felt that "enough was enough" when a group of Nuns - you say - "reached out to the "gay" homosexual community!? #193 . At least we know your husband Bob's priorities.

#206

Saniton

Debates: 0

Posts: 11

Saniton

05.17.2023 01:57PM

-->

@Stephen

Stephen: "I did. And I have read much of Russell too. He was an out "n" out atheist."

Russell was much clearer about his position than your term "out 'n' out atheist."

Stephen: "Do you agree with this [i.e., that 'gay' and 'homosexual' are synonyms in modern American English usage] because it softens the blow of the act that God calls an 'abomination'?

Since I lack any good reason to affirm that God exists, I don't give two hoots whether God calls homosexuality an abomination. What is more, the modern synonymy of "gay" and "homosexual" is a fact about modern American English usage, not an opinion with which I may agree or disagree. What is more, the existence of a universal almighty deity would not necessarily vindicate anything that various so-called authorities in religion have to say about the deity's opinion of homosexuality.

Stephen: "Your link is not very informative as to what you claim above ie:

You're right. This Wikipedia link has more information: Jeannine Gramick - Wikipedia Gramick was trying to convince homosexual Catholics that God loved them. When she and Fr. Nugent were silenced, Bob left the Roman Catholic Church to join a tiny but progressive independent Catholic church.

"So your husband Bob had no problem with priests raping and buggering children of both sexes for absolutely decades, but he only felt that "enough was enough" when a group of Nuns - you say - "reached out to the "gay" homosexual community!? #193 . At least we know your husband Bob's priorities."

Bob had a big problem with rape in the church--he just didn't believe that God, Jesus, or Mary ever raped or molested children, and consequently stayed with the church for that reason. So you can take your sanctimonious bitching about my husband's priorities and park it where the sun don't shine.

#207

BrotherD.Thomas

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,145

BrotherD.Thomas

05.17.2023 08:51PM

-->

@Saniton

Saniton,

YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: "You do realize that characters in fiction can be depicted as lying, right? Some critics of the Genesis story think that--in the story--God lied to Adam and Eve when he said that eating the Fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil would cause them to die--and that therefore the god depicted in the story was a deceptive fiend unworthy of worship. But--in the story--God was not lying because eating the infamous fruit made the two human characters mortal."

In the Garden of Eden when Jesus, as God, created Adam and Eve, they were supposed to have eternal life upon Earth, understood Bible fool?! Therefore eating from the Tree of Knowledge and going against my serial killer Jesus as God's prohibition, made them mortal, and of course, it was Eve's fault of the Original Sin because she ate FIRST, and then passed the fruit to, and Jesus lying has nothing to do with your inept quote above!

Therefore, human death as described in Genesis 3:17–19, while not the fulfillment of 2:17, Death was not supposed to be a part of human life. In the logic of the narrative as a whole, humans were not doomed to die until they had broken the prohibition in eating from the forbidden fruit. They are now doomed to die.

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—" (Romans 5:12)

YOUR QUOTE OF TRYING TO RUN AWAY FROM YOU ADMITTING THAT A GOD EXISTS: "You do realize that characters in fiction can be depicted as lying, right?

We can only assume that you did take it seriously that the Christian God exists on your "Agnostic Side" of thinking, where you can't be sure that a God doesn't exist in the first place, get it Bible Dunce?!

Your contradicting modus operandi of being both an Atheist, and an Agnostic at the same time is laughable within this forum, and we intend to play off of that comical situation at your embarrassing expense because your insipid duality does "HOLD WATER" that will be splashed upon you within this forum!

#208

BrotherD.Thomas

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,145

BrotherD.Thomas

05.17.2023 09:32PM

-->

@Saniton

Saniton,

YOUR BIBLE IGNORANCE IS SHOWIN AGAIN IN THIS QUOTE OF YOURS: "What is more, the existence of a universal almighty deity would not necessarily vindicate anything that various so-called authorities in religion have to say about the deity's opinion of homosexuality."

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9125/posts/390869

Wow, with your Bible stupidity again, you must like proverbial egg upon your face, yes? LOL! It most certainly does make a difference upon Jesus' OPINION upon the "Nancy Boys" practicing the ungodly acts of homosexuals, as shown in the following Jesus inspired passages:

So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires …… They are fully aware of God’s death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-26, 32)

"If a man also lie with mankind, As he lieth with a woman, Both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

YOUR QUOTE ABOUT YOUR HUSBAND BEING A HELL BOUND CATHOLIC: "Bob had a big problem with rape in the church--he just didn't believe that God, Jesus, or Mary ever raped or molested children, and consequently stayed with the church for that reason. So you can take your sanctimonious bitching about my husband's priorities and park it where the sun don't shine."

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9125/posts/390869

What did you just say? Because Jesus and Mary did not rape innocent children was the reason your Kathylick Hell bound husband "Bob" stayed with the despicable Kathylick Church? This shows how your Hell Bound husband "Bob" was ungodly WRONG in staying with said church whose PEDOPHILE PRIESTS were buggering little innocent children that were left in their care by their parents!!!! The hardships of the children later in life that were being FU*CKED by stinky old men priests, goes without question, and you married this Kathylick man named "Bob" that "looked the other way" in this situation, and felt good about it? Surely you jest!!! How sickening can you get?

Furthermore Bible Stupid fool, have your "Bob" give you a Bible lesson in the fact that you as a hell bound woman is NOT, and I repeat, NOT supposed to be within this forum to begin with because if "Bob" actually followed the scriptures, he would agree with me as follows:

“ Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” (Timothy 2:11-12)

NEXT BIBLE FOOL WOMAN THAT MARRIED A KATHYLICK MAN LIKE "SANITON" DID WHO GAVE LAME EXCUSES TO CONTINUE WITH THE KATHYLICK CHURCH BECAUSE AT LEAST JESUS AND MARY DIDN'T RAPE KIDS LIKE THEIR PEDOPHILE PRIESTS DID, WILL BE ...?

#209

Stephen

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,618

Stephen

05.17.2023 09:55PM

-->

@Saniton

Saniton wrote: Now can we quit calling each other stupid and benighted? #19

And then;

Saniton wrote: take your sanctimonious bitching about my husband's priorities and park it where the sun don't shine. #206

Dearie me. HYPOCRITE!!

So you say that Bob the husband stayed with the church because neither god, Mary or Jesus raped anyone.

Saniton wrote: Bob had a big problem with rape in the church--he just didn't believe that God, Jesus, or Mary ever raped or molested children, and consequently stayed with the church for that reason. So you can take your sanctimonious bitching about my husband's priorities and park it where the sun don't shine. #206

He also stayed all the while priests where raping and buggering children but didn't draw the line and "break away" until few Nuns - you say - "reached out to the "gay" homosexual community!? #193

I think your Bob story is absolute bollocks. And this is why:

Pope Francis calls for end to anti-gay laws and LGBTQ+ welcome from church

This article is more than 3 months old

LGBTQ+ advocates hail Pope’s rejection of sexual orientation as crime and call to bishops to resist anti-gay laws as ‘milestone’

“Being homosexual isn’t a crime,” Francis said on Tuesday in an interview.

Francis acknowledged that Catholic bishops in some parts of the world support laws that criminalise homosexuality or discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, and he himself referred to the issue in terms of “sin”. But he attributed such attitudes to cultural backgrounds and said bishops in particular need to undergo a process of change to recognise the dignity of everyone.