It don't matter what the Lord has made nor if he wants to burn it. It is HIS creation and the thing that is made has no right to say that he is unjust for creating something just to burn it.
Capitalists, like myself, often emphasize the importance of personal property. We often argue that it's wrong to take peoples' honestly earned possessions from them by force.
I am seeing connections here, connections I, an atheist Libertarian, generally opposed to monotheists and socialists alike, find really unpleasant. It does help explain the Republican Party.
It also suggests that owning sentient beings and doing as you like with them is ok, because they're your property.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Pritybetta said this in another thread:
It don't matter what the Lord has made nor if he wants to burn it. It is HIS creation and the thing that is made has no right to say that he is unjust for creating something just to burn it.
Capitalists, like myself, o ...[text shortened]... em is ok, because they're your property.
Anyone else see these connections? Any comments?
I am not anyone's creation. The only one that can call themselves my creator is my parents, but they cannot decide over me since I'm an adult now. I'd call anyone wanting to burn me an evil being. That's my comment.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Pritybetta said this in another thread:
It don't matter what the Lord has made nor if he wants to burn it. It is HIS creation and the thing that is made has no right to say that he is unjust for creating something just to burn it.
Capitalists, like myself, o ...[text shortened]... em is ok, because they're your property.
Anyone else see these connections? Any comments?
an atheist asked me (could have been twitehead, i don't remember) "Would you have believed in God if he asked you to eat children in his name?" And i said, no, i would not.
God has a responsibility to his creation. If the supreme being cannot make an example of how a person should behave, he is unworthy of his creation. The bible says that Abraham so loved God, that when God acted like a psychotic maniac (sacrifice Isaac to me) Abraham complied. And the bible concludes how faithful and righteous Abe is. I say he failed the test. The test shouldn't have been "are you faithful enough to do the wrong thing for your god?" but it should have been "are you a decent enough person to do the right thing despite what a psychotic god tells you?"
I would rather go to hell than serve a murdering God.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi an atheist asked me (could have been twitehead, i don't remember) "Would you have believed in God if he asked you to eat children in his name?" And i said, no, i would not.
God has a responsibility to his creation. If the supreme being cannot make an example of how a person should behave, he is unworthy of his creation. The bible says that Abraham so lov ...[text shortened]... hat a psychotic god tells you?"
I would rather go to hell than serve a murdering God.
Fine Z dude, fine! So maybe we agree that the spiritualism of the individual has nothing to do with the concept of the religion!
Originally posted by black beetle Fine Z dude, fine! So maybe we agree that the spiritualism of the individual has nothing to do with the concept of the religion!
well not exactly nothing. the point is to take the good and not be afraid to think about changing the obsolete from any religions. once changes are made, religions will look almost exactly like what is needed at a certain time. then spiritualism and religion will be equivalent.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi well not exactly nothing. the point is to take the good and not be afraid to think about changing the obsolete from any religions. once changes are made, religions will look almost exactly like what is needed at a certain time. then spiritualism and religion will be equivalent.
Yeap, but how your idea could work? Religions are apocalyptical and therefore every "believer" feels free to understand their very essential beliefs as he wants, based to his specific dogma. The concept of the religion forces the people to congregate and to have an exact attitude in order to be accepted by the so called "god", and the priests of his dogma they undertake to spread the "message" "correctly". If you try to change the obsolete from any religion, then you are an heretic.
I suppose that these two concepts -of the religion and of the spiritualism of the individual- have nothing to do because a religion cannot follow the path that you determined, but the spiritualism can. So my conclusion is that in the future the spiritualism of the individual(ie the possibility to change the obsolete etc for yourself, without feeling the need to preach it through theology but by setting it constantly under philosophical examination in order to become more and more advanced) could surpass the concept of the religion. Then yes, spiritualism and religion could be equivalent;
"It don't matter what the Lord has made nor if he wants to burn it. It is HIS creation and the thing that is made has no right to say that he is unjust for creating something just to burn it. "
Capitalists, like myself, often emphasize the importance of personal property. We often argue that it's wrong to take peoples' honestly earned possessions from them by force.
I am seeing connections here, connections I, an atheist Libertarian, generally opposed to monotheists and socialists alike, find really unpleasant. It does help explain the Republican Party. "
LOL, I may be registered as a Republican, but I do not consider myself as one, I am more of a Conservative. I registered as a Republican as soon as I was able to vote, however, it was before I knew much about politics. There is a lot of things I do not agree with the Republican party same as the Conservative party or any other. I wish we didn't have parties but rather individuals with their own beliefs. The party system leaves people to have to accept one of the two major parties even if they don't agree with many of the things about them.
The problem with people who disregard what the Lord says is that they do it because of what the world teaches them rather than finding out what is truth. They rely on their own feelings and thoughts instead of what the Lord's thoughts are. If they don't like what they hear they through it out with out finding out 'why' it is the way he says. That is what I believe is happening here with many of you who do not like what I had to say.
"It also suggests that owning sentient beings and doing as you like with them is ok, because they're your property. "
NO! I do not suggest this. We are ALL the creation of the Lord. We are his to do with as he pleases, however, he will not go against his own Word.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi an atheist asked me (could have been twitehead, i don't remember) "Would you have believed in God if he asked you to eat children in his name?" And i said, no, i would not.
God has a responsibility to his creation. If the supreme being cannot make an example of how a person should behave, he is unworthy of his creation. The bible says that Abraham so lov ...[text shortened]... hat a psychotic god tells you?"
I would rather go to hell than serve a murdering God.
God has a responsibility to his creation.
That’s about as clear as you can get it. And might do well as the opener for a thread on its own, with respect to questions of theodicy.
What does it mean for a creator-God to act responsibly toward his creation? What would it mean for such a God to act irresponsibly?
Does God’s—well, God-ness—entail (or allow) that God is not responsible for or toward anything? What could it mean to have authority without also having responsibility?
Originally posted by pritybetta [b]"Pritybetta said this in another thread:
"It don't matter what the Lord has made nor if he wants to burn it. It is HIS creation and the thing that is made has no right to say that he is unjust for creating something just to burn it. "
Capitalists, like myself, ofte ...[text shortened]... are his to do with as he pleases, however, he will not go against his own Word.
but he did aparently. how do you explain god being a murdering bastard in the old testament and turning into the nice loving dude from the new testament?
did having a son calmed him down? did he had a mid-life crisis in the old testament?
or, much more logical, some jews made up most of the horror stories from the OT to better control a young nation? and if that is true, then how can you be sure what is god's word and nwill and what is the fabrication of some dude who imposed his own view of god.
you keep saying that god's will is law yet the only source of god you get from the bible, which is full of contradictions. if those that wrote the bible did so under divine inspiration, how do you know you are not being inspired when you think of right and wrong, and you choose something that contradicts the bible?
Originally posted by vistesd [b]God has a responsibility to his creation.
That’s about as clear as you can get it. And might do well as the opener for a thread on its own, with respect to questions of theodicy.
What does it mean for a creator-God to act responsibly toward his creation? What would it mean for such a God to act irresponsibly?
Does God’s—well, God-ness—entai ...[text shortened]... nything? What could it mean to have authority without also having responsibility?
Etc., etc.[/b]
well, it might be the same way as a parent and a son. the parent gave the child life, but does he own him? can he kill him as he pleases? is the son forced to do the parents will forever?
in my view, god is the parent that lets the kid play on his own outside, and doesn't come running whenever the kid gets bruised. he did give him some rules, he sent the other son Jesus but that was about it. Sure he gets pissed when we screw something up. but we can fix it, and god won't help us anymore, its up to us
Originally posted by Zahlanzi well not exactly nothing. the point is to take the good and not be afraid to think about changing the obsolete from any religions. once changes are made, religions will look almost exactly like what is needed at a certain time. then spiritualism and religion will be equivalent.
Originally posted by pritybetta NO! I do not suggest this. We are ALL the creation of the Lord. We are his to do with as he pleases, however, he will not go against his own Word.
But you did say: "It is HIS creation and the thing that is made has no right to say that he is unjust for creating something just to burn it."
I dispute that. We all have different understandings of what the terms 'justice' and 'rights' mean, but in my understanding of them, a god as described above would be unjust, and I would have the right to say so.
If I saw my son torturing his pet hamster I would call him cruel even if he is almost entirely responsible for the pets life. I would even call him cruel if he was torturing his teddy bear even though it is not sentient.
Monotheism, Slavery and Capitalism
06 Sep '08 15:31
Back to Top