zsdersw
Lifer
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,560
- 2
- 0
Might be taking this a bit far, but I'd bet the Jews who were liberating by American and Soviet forces in WWII might disagree with that.
That's taking it off the deep end.
Might be taking this a bit far, but I'd bet the Jews who were liberating by American and Soviet forces in WWII might disagree with that.
What is the ultimate basis of these ethical systems? That it's not good for society?
I'm not exactly sure how to respond except that I disagree. It's not really possible to prove that God is policing people. He's not down there on the street corner directing traffic.
I suppose I'd say that if an ethical system has no basis in some claim to something larger than human systems of justice, then it's really saying, "Do what we say because it's good for society, not because it's objectively good or evil."
If killing people happens to be deemed "good for society" (which arguably is already being done), what argument which doesn't make a claim to the divine sanctity of human life can possibly stand against it?
Oh? Which one didn't we create?
You have to answer the question I asked at the beginning of this post first.
When taken out of context, you can create any type of thing you wish. God did not mind that people were creating, being successful, etc. The issue was with mankind deluding itself that we are as powerful as God because we can build a tall tower.
It was the impending destruction of ourselves in a very rapid manner that God did not like or want to see happen.
But as an aside, I would bet against you in a war against God.
Pure garbage . Your using the same thing the HRCC tried to teach . Either god said this or he didn't . Its not a real story its a lesson . Screw that . I don't need a interpreter if the Bible is truth only . its a lie with a little truth mixed in . Did not satan offer the whole earth for the christ to rule in the desert . or is that open to interpretaion also . Did not christ choose 12 apostles yet we have only for gosphels and that is written in a manner that fisherman couldn't have done . Was not Paul the great deciever not choozen by the holy spirit . When Christ said none can be saved least it be threw christ . are all these things open to your wise interpretaion . Go on decieving . My foot on your head will feel rather good.
Curious. My observations have led to precisely the opposite conclusion. What possible motivation should we have to be responsible if, in the end, all of existence is for naught and we won't be held accountable for our life's actions?
God is the one rational reason I have for acting responsibly at all.
Those who invoke God as justification for doing inexplicable evil are indeed passing the buck.
But lots of reasons besides God have been used as justification for inexplicable evil. To me, the problem is not that people seek to avoid responsibility by blaming God, but that people seek to avoid responsibility at all.
We're all looking for the meaning of life. That leads some to God and others elsewhere.
All are held responsible by their fellow Man.
You're making a huge assumption: That those who seek to do "God's will" have some way of telling what "God's will" actually is. Do you doubt that the Taliban or Al Qaida think they're doing "God's will?" And if they're mistaken, why can't you and everyone else who believes in God be mistaken?
You used the phrase "inexplicable evil" in the sentence I bolded above. But how can you possibly know what's evil and what isn't? Are you claiming that you have conversations with God, and he tells you what's right and wrong? And if so, I can point to lots of terrorists who claim the same thing.
Even if God has defined some absolute morality for the universe, how can mankind possibly know what that morality is?
The point is that "morality" comes from mankind, not from God. It's mankind that reads the "sacred texts" and listens to the religious leaders and decides what the rules are. God doesn't write the rules; mankind does.
One being wrong does not make all wrong. There are many who follow false gods.
These last are actually very good questions. Firstly, we must define Evil. Evil is the absense of good, must like cold is the absense of heat and dark is the absense of light. Dark, cold, and evil are not items in and of themselves, but simply the words we use to represent the absense of the other form.
God (for clairity, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), by definition, is good. Evil is the absense of good...the absense of God.
Now, we know what is good and what is evil by reading the guide God inspired His prophets to right. It is a basic handbook, and is actually quite a good guide to use.
God fed the thoughts and feelings into His prophets so they would turn them into the words He wanted us to have. We then merely have to follow them. Sounds easy on the face of it, but it certainly is not.
Save your energy.Wow, such hatred...it has made your post quite unreadable. Try again after you have cooled your head a bit...
Which question is that? If it is one you answered AFTER my question, then I will not. You need to answer the one posed to you before I will answer your question. That would be asking you to post your supporting info.
If it was before mine, repost the question.
The question I posed to you is: which religion/deity didn't we create?
I think all of them are man-made, so in order to post supporting info to the question you raised I need to know which one you believe was not created by us humans. You already believe the others were man-made.
No one who believes strongly in any particular deity believes that deity was man-made; they believe it has always existed and is in some or many ways supreme. Some are believed to be the "creator god" while others are not. Another common trait in those who believe strongly in a deity is that all other deities are lesser or not "true" deities.
Variability/variety and human imperfection are the biggest threats to your argument that there is one non-manmade deity.
Actually From the prophets mouth to the scribes pen wouldn't you say thats more in accord with reality.
Ah, then you need to answer mine first, since it was posted first.
No, you need to show your support for all of them, since that is your claim.
None of that is any actual supporting evidence for your view. You basically said "cause I said so". I can accept that, since I have no problems with a faith based belief system. However your view would not be greater then my view, since mine is also based on faith.
Are you willing to say your claim that man created god(s) is a faith based belief sytem?
But to answer your question, I believe the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the true God. All others are false gods.
Not when my answer depends on your answer to my question.
I treat each one with the same level of incredulity and skepticism, so the question of proof of their being man-made doesn't hinge upon whether I talk about one or all of them.
The evidence supporting the theory that mankind evolved from a less developed form of life is quite compelling.
The evidence that a being did or did not start the process of evolution on this planet, however, does not exist at this point. Even if it did, though, and a supreme being of some kind did start the process of evolution, millions of years ago, here on Earth.. what reason is there to believe that this supreme being resembles any of the deities we have up to this point?
Why would knowing which of the gods I worship change your answer as to why ALL gods are not real?
Then your answer does not depend on my answer.
So? Why can't God use the natural forces He created to make what He wants to make?
Because He told us a bit about Himself.
So do you hold the faith based belief that there is no God?
Lmao. The bum on the corner also speaks to god. Maybe we should put him in charge?
This god you defend and that bible . What does it say about the second Christ return, Is he returning Like the Christ of your Bible Or the Bearer of destruction . You would say for the love of People, No he already did that! This Christ will you use Evil against Evil. this Christ will use good against evil . THIS CHRIST HATES EVIL. For the sake of his people. Your wrong about your perception of Christ as well as his teachings.Wow, such hatred...it has made your post quite unreadable. Try again after you have cooled your head a bit.
This god you defend and that bible . What does it say about the second Christ return, Is he returning Like the Christ of your Bible Or the Bearer of destruction .
You would say for the love of People, No he already did that! This Christ will you use Evil against Evil. this Christ will use good against evil . THIS CHRIST HATES EVIL. For the sake of his people. Your wrong about your perception of Christ as well as his teachings.
When taken out of context, you can create any type of thing you wish. God did not mind that people were creating, being successful, etc. The issue was with mankind deluding itself that we are as powerful as God because we can build a tall tower.
It was the impending destruction of ourselves in a very rapid manner that God did not like or want to see happen.
But as an aside, I would bet against you in a war against God.
Define =Evil is going against ones nature. Evil is creating law that under binding by oath. Than trying to be your natural self causing you to sin because you broke your oath .
What seperates man from animal is that we have a spirit .
Your actions are determined By our Minds and influenced by our heart . Now we have confliction. Between the Mind and the heart resides the spirit. If the mind or heart do not listen to their spirit You become out of balance with Humanity and your nature as well as nature itself. SO my friend trying to be to GOOD can be a bad thing.
How much you want to bet?
First some ground rules for the contest.
1. Both parties must be present and visible to the spectators.
2. No action at a distance shit.
3. Neutral judge will decide if anything actually happened.