Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Nearly Sane]

Everyone goes through pain and death - does he murder everyone? No, it's the result of human rejection of God. The good news is there will be a new creation without pain and death.

In what way did 'human rejection' of your sadist deity cause childhood leakeamia. It choose that. It delights im the pain of children. You urge it on.

[Spud]

Some more directly than others by your approach. After all, your psycho blood god supposedly drowned everyone but 8 people. It killed all the first born children in Egypt. You cheerlead for a mass murderer.

Murder is when a person takes the life of another person. God taking someone's life is not murder because he gave that person life, and has the right to take it back when he chooses.

[Nearly Sane]

Murder is when a person takes the life of another person. God taking someone's life is not murder because he gave that person life, and has the right to take it back when he chooses.

  So if someone gives me a present, they can always just take it back in your view?

[Gordon]

Murder is when a person takes the life of another person. God taking someone's life is not murder because he gave that person life, and has the right to take it back when he chooses.

so, to follow your thinking, if a murderer is taking a life before 'God' wanted it back, why doesn't 'God' prevent the murder from happening?

[jeremyp]

I was brought up to say grace before meals, at school and home. God is the source of our food and clothes, even if we buy them.

But that just isn’t true. If you look at where your food and clothes come from, you’ll find evidence of lots of humans being involved in their production but no gods.

[jeremyp]

If God can give something, in this case a child, then he has the right to take it back.

A child, like any human, is not a piece of property to be bartered.

In any case, I question your assertion that giving something away gives you the right to take it back again. That would make it a loan, not a gift.

[jeremyp]

Murder is when a person takes the life of another person. God taking someone's life is not murder because he gave that person life, and has the right to take it back when he chooses.

My parents gave me life. They still aren’t allowed to murder me.

Neither is your god.

[Spud]

so, to follow your thinking, if a murderer is taking a life before 'God' wanted it back, why doesn't 'God' prevent the murder from happening?

According to what I can understand from the Bible, God does deal with murder, but tends to avenge rather than prevent it, holding off until wickedness has reached its full measure, to use the biblical phrase. He is described as punishing the third and fourth generation for the sin of fathers, for example. Maybe we could describe the loss of innocent life in the Flood or the Egyptian firstborn as necessary in God's dealings with wickedness, the purpose of which is to prevent wickedness recurring. David was punished for his adultery by the death of Bathsheba's son. As a modern example I sometimes think of the Tamil Tigers, which were terrorists and which have now been defeated for good, as far as I'm aware. But that involved considerable loss of civilian life. I don't like to think of it that way because it implies that Israel's bombing of civilians in order to defeat Hamas, or Russia's killing of civilians while fighting the Ukrainian army, might be justified if it results in lasting peace, as with the Sinhalese army's strategy in Sri Lanka.

[Nearly Sane]

According to what I can understand from the Bible, God does deal with murder, but tends to avenge rather than prevent it, holding off until wickedness has reached its full measure, to use the biblical phrase. He is described as punishing the third and fourth generation for the sin of fathers, for example. Maybe we could describe the loss of innocent life in the Flood or the Egyptian firstborn as necessary in God's dealings with wickedness, the purpose of which is to prevent wickedness recurring. David was punished for his adultery by the death of Bathsheba's son. As a modern example I sometimes think of the Tamil Tigers, which were terrorists and which have now been defeated for good, as far as I'm aware. But that involved considerable loss of civilian life. I don't like to think of it that way because it implies that Israel's bombing of civilians in order to defeat Hamas, or Russia's killing of civilians while fighting the Ukrainian army, might be justified if it results in lasting peace, as with the Sinhalese army's strategy in Sri Lanka.

So your god could stop a child being raped but stands by and watches and then punishes the children of the rapist who had fuck all to with it. You worship an unhinged rape enabler.

[jeremyp]

According to what I can understand from the Bible, God does deal with murder, but tends to avenge rather than prevent it, holding off until wickedness has reached its full measure, to use the biblical phrase.

Yeah, that seems pretty sick. I mean, if you came across some kids torturing a cat, you wouldn't wait until their "wickedness has reached its full measure" before intervening, would you.

He is described as punishing the third and fourth generation for the sin of fathers, for example.

You mean he punishes people who were not guilty just because their ancestors were.

Maybe we could describe the loss of innocent life in the Flood or the Egyptian firstborn as necessary in God's dealings with wickedness, the purpose of which is to prevent wickedness recurring.

I thought God was all powerful. Surely he could find a way to limit the punishment to the actually wicked people, whilst also making an example of them pour encourager les autres.

David was punished for his adultery by the death of Bathsheba's son.

By which you mean Bathsheba's son was punished for David's adultery.

[Spud]

But that just isn’t true. If you look at where your food and clothes come from, you’ll find evidence of lots of humans being involved in their production but no gods.

God created plants and animals which we use for food and clothes. Therefore he is their source, even if we have to work to make them useful to us.

[Spud]

In what way did 'human rejection' of your sadist deity cause childhood leakeamia. It choose that. It delights im the pain of children. You urge it on.

....sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin... Romans 5

[jeremyp]

God created plants and animals which we use for food and clothes.

He didn't create any of the ones commonly use for food and clothes. They are the results of thousands of years of selective breeding by humans. Thank humans for your food and clothes, not God.

[Nearly Sane]

....sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin... Romans 5

A man created to do that by your god, who then because some innocent ate an apple, decided to make child birth dangerous and painful. Have you ever watched the Saw films? The god you worship would be too sadistic to appear as the torturing killer in them.

[Spud]

He didn't create any of the ones commonly use for food and clothes. They are the results of thousands of years of selective breeding by humans. Thank humans for your food and clothes, not God.

That's what I meant when I said "even if we have to work to make them useful to us". Are you trying to avoid admitting that God is good?

[Aruntraveller]

Are you trying to avoid admitting that God is good?

As a non-believer, I don't have to avoid admitting anything. What is disturbing however, are the contortions you go through to justify murders sanctioned by, and committed by, your god.

[Spud]

As a non-believer, I don't have to avoid admitting anything.

We're assuming for the sake of argument that God exists.

[Nearly Sane]

We're assuming for the sake of argument that God exists.

No, we are treating your god as a hypothetical.

[Spud]

No, we are treating your god

That's 'God' - creator of everything

as a hypothetical.

Same thing, given that I've qualified 'assuming' with 'for the sake of argument'.

[Nearly Sane]

That's 'God' - creator of everythingSame thing, given that I've qualified 'assuming' with 'for the sake of argument'.

You worship an entity that you think created childhood leukeamia. It would need a fucking psychopath to that.

[jeremyp]

That's what I meant when I said "even if we have to work to make them useful to us".

But we do all the work. It's the same for anything where you might consider thanking God. It always turns out that it's actually humans doing the work.

It's the mirror of the situation where something bad has happened. You're quite happy to say that the bad things done by humans are all their own work. So why do you begrudge the same courtesy to humans that do good things.

Conversely, if you want to ascribe the good things we do to God, you must logically also ascribe the bad things to God. If God provides us with food and clothing, he also provides murderers with guns and knives.

Are you trying to avoid admitting that God is good?

No, I think you are trying to avoid admitting that your god is bad.

[Spud]

You worship an entity that you think created childhood leukeamia. It would need a fucking psychopath to that.

There was no disease when God finished his creation

[Spud]

But we do all the work. It's the same for anything where you might consider thanking God. It always turns out that it's actually humans doing the work.

It's the mirror of the situation where something bad has happened. You're quite happy to say that the bad things done by humans are all their own work. So why do you begrudge the same courtesy to humans that do good things.

Conversely, if you want to ascribe the good things we do to God, you must logically also ascribe the bad things to God. If God provides us with food and clothing, he also provides murderers with guns and knives.
No, I think you are trying to avoid admitting that your god is bad.

Remember that God made conditions just right for food to be cultivated, which includes the weather, earth-moon system, solar system and galaxy. I wonder if it includes all the other galaxies?

If God were fundamentally bad, no-one would have children because they wouldn't want them to grow up in such an inhospitable world.

[jeremyp]

There was no disease when God finished his creation

Diseases are caused by living organisms (or viruses) invading other living organisms and damaging them. If God didn't create the organisms that cause disease, who did?

Did tape worms exist when God finished his creation?

[jeremyp]

Remember that God made conditions just right for food to be cultivated, which includes the weather, earth-moon system, solar system and galaxy. I wonder if it includes all the other galaxies?

If God were fundamentally bad, no-one would have children because they wouldn't want them to grow up in such an inhospitable world.

I suspect that's what they tell themselves lies about the creator of the Universe (if such a creator exists).

In the whole Universe, there is only one tiny planet where humans are known to be able to exist. Even then, they could only exist in one tiny part of it until they (the humans) started inventing technology like clothing and weapons and taming natural forces like fire. This was all done by humans, not God. If we relied on God, we would still be confined to a small part of Africa, if we hadn't gone extinct.