god is evil

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
We could have a polite debate in an official thread if you want. But I don't want a wedge driven between us. I have looked deeply and examined all the Scriptures that support both sides of the issue. While I admit I am personally biased in favor of annihilationism, I looked at it objectively and came away less than 100% convinced one way or the other. ...[text shortened]... ip us both apart and not rest until the entire thread was reduced to a pile of smoldering ashes.

Usual suspects will do that regardless, best just do what we believe is right and let the chips fall where they will.

Start the conversation I will enter it.

Originally posted by @fmf
The issue of whether you believe some people at the end of their earthly lives are supernaturally "saved" while others simply die, or you believe that those "others" supernaturally are tortured for eternity, is surely fundamental to the ostensible nature of your god figure. How can the fundamental moral nature of the deity you worship not be an issue of "primary concern"?

Your advancement of this issue, even to the lofty heights of "the fundamental moral nature of the deity I worship", doesn't change its fundamental value ranking in my belief system, which, when compared to the value of passing my God's Judgement, is exceedingly low.

If you think it should rank higher, then frankly, too bad.

Originally posted by @fmf
The issue of whether you believe some people at the end of their earthly lives are supernaturally "saved" while others simply die, or you believe that those "others" supernaturally are tortured for eternity, is surely fundamental to the ostensible nature of your god figure. How can the fundamental moral nature of the deity you worship not be an issue of "primary concern"?

You don't understand the Christian mind. I don't spend my time judging God. I utterly and completely believe that what EVER God does, He doesn't do it arbitrarily and there's good reason for it. If I ever have issue with something God has done, will do, or proposes to do (and I don't), I am certain it would be due to my imperfection, my sinful nature, and my inability to completely understand His ways. But I can't think of a single thing God has ever done that I have any problem with whatsoever.

Originally posted by @fmf
Tom Wolsey started a thread about it. And if you really think the discussion is about whether Christians should believe or disbelieve any doctrine based on what atheists think of it, then you have completely got the wrong end of the stick.

Then please stop shoving such inanities down our throats as if we were responsible for them.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
You don't understand the Christian mind. I don't spend my time judging God. I utterly and completely believe that what EVER God does, He doesn't do it arbitrarily and there's good reason for it. If I ever have issue with something God has done, will do, or proposes to do (and I don't), I am certain it would be due to my imperfection, my sinful nature, ...[text shortened]... But I can't think of a single thing God has ever done that I have any problem with whatsoever.

My question is about the nature of your god figure and not about how your beliefs have made you impotent as a moral agent.

Originally posted by @fmf
My question is about the nature of your god figure and not about how your beliefs have made you impotent as a moral agent.

Your "concern" for his "impotent morals" is noted, laughed at, and discarded.

Originally posted by @fmf
My question is about the nature of your god figure and not about how your beliefs have made you impotent as a moral agent.

You're the idiot that asked, "How can the fundamental moral nature of the deity you worship not be an issue of primary concern?"

You were asking why I don't consider it a top priority to judge the moral nature of God.

Regretfully, I answered your question honestly and directly. And now it's back to your obfuscation and condescension. The problem in my attempts not to feed a troll like you is your comments always contain bs and innuendo that begs to be corrected.

Anyway. I'm bored with you again. When I have absolutely nothing better to do, I'll reply to you and give you permission to converse with me.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Usual suspects will do that regardless, best just do what we believe is right and let the chips fall where they will.

Start the conversation I will enter it.

Ok. Count on it, brother. Let me think on it for a while and decide which verse to start with. I don't want to make it confusing and have a whole bunch of information debated at the same time. Let's do it verse by verse--or moral argument by moral argument. 1 step at a time. This will be a fun learning experience. And I plan on ignoring trolls and detractors.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
You're the idiot that asked, "How can the fundamental moral nature of the deity you worship not be an issue of primary concern?"

You were asking why I don't consider it a top priority to judge the moral nature of God.

Regretfully, I answered your question honestly and directly.

And my honest and direct response is that your answer indicates some kind of disabling of your moral compass: you cannot perceive a significant difference between humans being 'allowed' to die naturally on one hand, and them being tortured for eternity, on the other.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Your "concern" for his "impotent morals" is noted, laughed at, and discarded.

If one can see no moral difference between torturing billions of people with no end and absolutely not torturing any of them, then that is moral impotence to my way of thinking. If one cannot see the difference between those two things, what is the state of the commentator's moral discernment - to your way of thinking?

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
Ok. Count on it, brother. Let me think on it for a while and decide which verse to start with. I don't want to make it confusing and have a whole bunch of information debated at the same time. Let's do it verse by verse--or moral argument by moral argument. 1 step at a time. This will be a fun learning experience. And I plan on ignoring trolls and detractors.

No worries...I'll try to behave by keeping personal insults to just you not everyone you
know and worship with, or demanding you repeat what you just said by asking the same
question 5 different ways then claiming you are ignoring me, personal insults to a limited
number each posting, I'll only bump my posts up to the top so you can see I'm waiting for
an answer two to three times a day, and ahhhhh lets see, personal insults to a
minimum though minimum is a relative term 🙂 I may if it moves me and I find what you
say interests me, you might get a response to what you actually said instead of what I
think you said that makes me look good not you. 🙂

Originally posted by @kellyjay
No worries...I'll try to behave by keeping personal insults to just you not everyone you
know and worship with, or demanding you repeat what you just said by asking the same
question 5 different ways then claiming you are ignoring me, personal insults to a limited
number each posting, I'll only bump my posts up to the top so you can see I'm waiting for ...[text shortened]... to what you actually said instead of what I
think you said that makes me look good not you. 🙂

baahaahahaahaaa INDEED BROTHER

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
baahaahahaahaaa INDEED BROTHER

🙂

Originally posted by @fmf
And my honest and direct response is that your answer indicates some kind of disabling of your moral compass: you cannot perceive a significant difference between humans being 'allowed' to die naturally on one hand, and them being tortured for eternity, on the other.

Every conversation with you ends in the same script.

Originally posted by @fmf
If one can see no moral difference between torturing billions of people with no end and absolutely not torturing any of them, then that is moral impotence to my way of thinking. If one cannot see the difference between those two things, what is the state of the commentator's moral discernment - to your way of thinking?

The integral problem with mentally masturbatory mind games is if your "ifs" are untrue, then your argument crumbles to dust, blown away with the wind, becoming as transitory and as substantial as the wind.

And as for "moral discernment", you have none. Your moral compass only points at those who agree with you and away from those who won't.