Originally posted by Rajk999Yet you claim to be capable of applying your own inferior logic to the actions of the same being. How often have I heard Christians proclaiming how great and loving and action Christs death and resurrection was! Not once have I heard a Christian say "well it might have been an evil act - I am too morally inferior to know".
You are applying your inferior logic to the actions of a superior being. Do you think the birds can understand why we need to demolish a 10 story building to put up another, and in the process destroy the breeding places of hundreds of birds? Or the rabbits appreciate that we need to dig up the ground to build and in the process kill countless rabbits. You place far too much value on human life.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn my opinion there is a great benefit in accepting the actions of the superior being and great disbenefit in condemning. You are like the rabbits and the birds that will be shot ...🙂
Yet you claim to be capable of applying your own inferior logic to the actions of the same being. How often have I heard Christians proclaiming how great and loving and action Christs death and resurrection was! Not once have I heard a Christian say "well it might have been an evil act - I am too morally inferior to know".
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadCorrect me if I'm wrong, but an act of God would be necessarily good under his assumptions. One may argue that his assumption is wrong, but it's not inconsistent in that example (and here I mean for that example alone).
Yet you claim to be capable of applying your own inferior logic to the actions of the same being. How often have I heard Christians proclaiming how great and loving and action Christs death and resurrection was! Not once have I heard a Christian say "well it might have been an evil act - I am too morally inferior to know".
Originally posted by rwingettIm sure the birds and rabbits do in fact condemn our behaviour in their own way. "All loving God' ? I dont think thats accurate from our human standpoint because we cannot see and understand everything He does. Christians who claim such a thing are incorrect.
Birds and rabbits do not worship us as being "morally perfect" and "all loving" either. If they were capable of it, I'm sure they would condemn our behavior.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettAnd harping on about the bilyuns and bilyuns of folks as done got killed by GOD is equally feeble. That was actually my point. Destroying the entire population of the world by drowning is no more morally reprehensible than executing Lot's wife by means of crystallization.
Quibbling about the exact number of people drowned is the weakest possible defense imaginable.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSettle with all but eight.
And harping on about the bilyuns and bilyuns of folks as done got killed by GOD is equally feeble. That was actually my point. Destroying the entire population of the world by drowning is no more morally reprehensible than executing Lot's wife by means of crystallization.
Then explain how the Aborigins of Australia survived, and the Innuits of Greenland, and the Indians from extreme south of South America.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat's where my Mitochondrial Hypothesis comes in. See, these 8 figures in the pantomime were really the ones who passed on mitochondrial DNA to the rest of the human race ...
Settle with all but eight.
Then explain how the Aborigins of Australia survived, and the Innuits of Greenland, and the Indians from extreme south of South America.
Of course your objection has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about (the awesome vileness of the fictitious One) but I'll let that pass.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI was content to concentrate solely upon the Great Flood. Bringing charges against god for every crime in the bible is quite another matter. But I suppose it could be done.
And harping on about the bilyuns and bilyuns of folks as done got killed by GOD is equally feeble. That was actually my point. Destroying the entire population of the world by drowning is no more morally reprehensible than executing Lot's wife by means of crystallization.
Originally posted by rwingettLike General Woolworth said "Dogs aren't dangerous"
I was content to concentrate solely upon the Great Flood. Bringing charges against god for every crime in the bible is quite another matter. But I suppose it could be done.
(Watership Down).
Youre not far off from many Christians who you ferociously condemn - caught up in your own little world and unable to expand your mind and see the big picture.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think the argument is that Lots wifes murder might have been justifiable if she was sufficiently guilty of sin, but he does not believe that every human being on the planet other than Noah and co were guilty of sins deserving of death.
And harping on about the bilyuns and bilyuns of folks as done got killed by GOD is equally feeble. That was actually my point. Destroying the entire population of the world by drowning is no more morally reprehensible than executing Lot's wife by means of crystallization.
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999You missed my point. I said that many Christians tell me that they can and do judge some of Gods actions to be morally correct and that they do so using their own moral compass and not via definition. I strongly suspect that you would do the same. In fact the very fact that you do not worship the devil implies that you have done exactly that.
In my opinion there is a great benefit in accepting the actions of the superior being and great disbenefit in condemning. You are like the rabbits and the birds that will be shot ...🙂
Originally posted by PalynkaI am not certain which example you are referring to. If you are referring to Christs resurrection then I disagree. Christians frequently proclaim that they personally have judged the action to be morally good and expect to persuade others of that fact.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but an act of God would be necessarily good under his assumptions. One may argue that his assumption is wrong, but it's not inconsistent in that example (and here I mean for that example alone).