God and animals...

[emprworm]

If that was true, you would be zapped in your chair. but obviously your statement is false.

God can be sadistic and still not zap me.

irrelevant. my statement was not in reference to God being sadistic. It was in reference to your statement "We aren't allowed to judge this god, or doubt him, this sounds like an extremely effective method of control. "

My o my, you are very good at waffling around the issues and changing subjects. ::)

" OJ had a mistrial, there was no verdict. No "we the jury" speech. And since you can't try a person for the same crime more than once, he gets away. "

fine, maybe it was a bad example, but by no means invalidates the true statement "a mans subjective judgment does not necessarily reflect truth"

"But back to the question, from the morals he gave us to follow - yes it means he is. "

Morals for you to follow. But why do you mandate he follow them? You don't mandate that a shark follow them, where does this arrogance come from that demands God follow human morals when no other lifeform in the universe follows them? Yet you do not accuse any lifeform in the universe of being sadistic for not capitulating to human morals, yet somehow if God doesn't bend his knee to human morals he is somehow sadistic? I fail to see this logic. It utterly makes no sense. A shark eats a person. THe shark is hungry. The shark does not care about human morals. Indeed. It isn't human. How is this shark sadistic? If it is not, what logic can you use to mandate that God somehow needs to capitulate to your morals, yet no other life form does. Talk about a high horse.

[Acriku]

Pardon, thought you were referring to it. Well, for the "method of controlling" what does zapping me in my chair do? I made the "method of control" post from the perspective of atheism, then I went back and went into the perspective of christianity with a different post. Why are you mixing them up?

fine, maybe it was a bad example, but by no means invalidates the true statement "a mans subjective judgment does not necessarily reflect truth"

You did not say this, stop changing what you are saying. All you said was that just because OJ was judged innocent, did it mean he was. Which was a horrible example, but back to the point of the analogy - if my judgement is subjective, then the morals that I base my judgement on are subjective, or relative. Thus, I can bend the morals in any way to fit my needs. How can a god give relative morals? Because he wants us to break the morals so we will go to hell. Yep...

Morals for you to follow. But why do you mandate he follow them? You don't mandate that a shark follow them, where does this arrogance come from that demands God follow human morals when no other lifeform in the universe follows them? Yet you do not accuse any lifeform in the universe of being sadistic for not capitulating to human morals, yet somehow if God doesn't bend his knee to human morals he is somehow sadistic? I fail to see this logic. It utterly makes no sense. A shark eats a person. THe shark is hungry. The shark does not care about human morals. Indeed. It isn't human. How is this shark sadistic? If it is not, what logic can you use to mandate that God somehow needs to capitulate to your morals, yet no other life form does. Talk about a high horse.

As I said, if he does not follow them, and all I have are the morals given by him, then he is sadistic and evil. You don't think so because you ignore those murderous feats he has made and turn them into a love story. God is a corrupt, sadistic, and evil being. How can he expect me to worship him when he knows we are going to judge him by what he gives us to judge with?

[sneezer3]

Ok, one question at a time.

God can be sadistic and still not zap me.

True but he is not, A sadistic would not give there life for others.

if i got the defition of sadistic right, one who hurts others just for pleasure?

And who has written the bible, Caid Ivik?

Not God, but humans...

true but they were inspired, so in a way by God.

This the part of religion which I hate. Humans thinking they are the best creations. Why? Who ever said that? God?

Yes he said we are made in his image and we are not an animal. btw this belief has lead to lots of suicide ever since it has been tought, i am serously not jokeing that along with crime went way up,

And one more even though i din't see it asked here. Why do babys go to heaven? they have no knowledge of good or evil.

You don't think so because you ignore those murderous feats he has made and turn them into a love story.

He has to judge people, he judges fairly and equily.

And yes it is a love story, Would you love some dirty filthy sining bags of water and send your only son to die on some cross made of wood and have nails driven in his hands?

takes a lot of love to do that.

"Grater love hath no man then he lay down his life for his freinds."

As I said, if he does not follow them, and all I have are the morals given by him, then he is sadistic and evil.

um, which one did he not go by?(sorry if i missed the first post please repeat or quote :-[ )

[Acriku]

True but he is not, A sadistic would not give there life for others.

if i got the defition of sadistic right, one who hurts others just for pleasure?

We are not going to discuss Jesus, we are only discussing the Judeo-Christian God :)

true but they were inspired, so in a way by God.

In which parts are they inspired? In the erroneous parts, or the parts where stories are told? To go further, how can you tell the difference between the errors made by the human part, and the ones made by the inspired part?

Yes he said we are made in his image and we are not an animal. btw this belief has lead to lots of suicide ever since it has been tought, i am serously not jokeing that along with crime went way up,

And one more even though i din't see it asked here. Why do babys go to heaven? they have no knowledge of good or evil.

I discuss that in the thread: Babies go to hell... :) It's in here somewhere.

He has to judge people, he judges fairly and equily.

And yes it is a love story, Would you love some dirty filthy sining bags of water and send your only son to die on some cross made of wood and have nails driven in his hands?

takes a lot of love to do that.

"Grater love hath no man then he lay down his life for his freinds."

How do you know he judges fairly and equally? he discriminates between the good people and the evil people, the believers and the non-believers, so it isn't equal. Even so, only the bible would say he does judge them fairly and equally - but how we you know that is not added by the writers? Maybe it was a false deduction?

How do you know it was love? You have no proof Jesus is god, and the NT is certainly not evidence. We are assuming the existence of god, not Jesus. A man who dies for others can be delusional and not all quite in the head.

um, which one did he not go by?(sorry if i missed the first post please repeat or quote

I was going off of empr's post that God does not, and doesn't have to follow the morals.

[emprworm]

Pardon, thought you were referring to it. Well, for the "method of controlling" what does zapping me in my chair do? I made the "method of control" post from the perspective of atheism, then I went back and went into the perspective of christianity with a different post. Why are you mixing them up?

huh? You are now admitting to me that you were shifting back and forth, in and out of the premises of the argument? lol! Why am I not surprised. ::) At least you confessed. 8)

if my judgement is subjective, then the morals that I base my judgement on are subjective, or relative. Thus, I can bend the morals in any way to fit my needs. How can a god give relative morals? Because he wants us to break the morals so we will go to hell. Yep...

GIVEN: The Judeo Christian God exists. Then the morals given to humans are absolute, and you just choose to apply your own subjective morals to God to fit your needs. God gave free-will to humans, therefore he gave you the ability to either conform to absolute morals, or invent your own subjective ones. How is God sadistic again? By giving you freedom?

As I said, if he does not follow them, and all I have are the morals given by him, then he is sadistic and evil. You don't think so because you ignore those murderous feats he has made and turn them into a love story. God is a corrupt, sadistic, and evil being. How can he expect me to worship him when he knows we are going to judge him by what he gives us to judge with?

GIVEN: The Judeo Christian God exists.

"if he does not follow them, and all I have are the morals given by him, then he is sadistic and evil. "

Huh? what kind of logic is this? SO if God does not follow the morals of a cat, and all a cat has are the morals given by him, then He is sadistic and evil? lol. what the? Not to mention we just discussed that you do NOT have only the morals given by God. You can choose to invent your own (which you have done), therefore invalidating your argument.

[sneezer3]

In which parts are they inspired? In the erroneous parts, or the parts where stories are told? To go further, how can you tell the difference between the errors made by the human part, and the ones made by the inspired part?

All of it- if is King James its Bible the word of God. No errors on any part.

I discuss that in the thread: Babies go to hell... :) It's in here somewhere.

Ahh i knew i read it somewere, sorry.

How do you know he judges fairly and equally? he discriminates between the good people and the evil people, the believers and the non-believers, so it isn't equal. Even so, only the bible would say he does judge them fairly and equally

He does, you will have a fair chance and be found guilty of sin. he does not look at "good and evil people" we all look evil in his eyes but the ones who accepted his payment.

How do you know it was love?

no offence but that is a stupid very question, i don't belive anyone would go to that extreme not loveing you.

There are many proofs of that,

[Edric O]

How do you know he judges fairly and equally? he discriminates between the good people and the evil people...

Excuse me, but isn't that what any judge is supposed to do? Or maybe you want the guilty and the innocent to be treated equally? ::) I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where judges give the same sentence regardless of whether you're innocent or guilty...

A man who dies for others can be delusional and not all quite in the head.

So now you say love is insanity, selflessness is madness... What kind of dark, sadistic, hellish world are you supporting, Acriku? A place where any act of altruism is considered insane? A place where anyone who gives his life to save others is labeled a madman?

Edric, that analogy is faulty because 1)We didn't create bacteria 2) we don't have any omni-powers and 3)humans do not harm god as bacteria can harm humans, and they do not help god as bacteria can as well. So really, it isn't like bacteria accusing humans sadist for using soap.

Those 3 things are utterly irrelevant. The issue was about a lower being accusing a much higher one of not following its standards.

[Caid Ivik]

How these atheists are intolerant. They would never stop in seeking puny errors in Bible. But primarily, you cannot judge God. It's a nonsense. If you think He does not exist, than why you talk about Him? And if He exists - what means he created this universe with its laws and us too with all mind, isn't it Him, who knows the best way to ensure order?

[Acriku]

huh? You are now admitting to me that you were shifting back and forth, in and out of the premises of the argument? lol! Why am I not surprised. At least you confessed

It was a different subject, I didn't know I was supposed to be consistent with the other argument. I don't know why you aren't surprised either.

GIVEN: The Judeo Christian God exists. Then the morals given to humans are absolute, and you just choose to apply your own subjective morals to God to fit your needs. God gave free-will to humans, therefore he gave you the ability to either conform to absolute morals, or invent your own subjective ones. How is God sadistic again? By giving you freedom?

The morals are not absolute. Why would he want us not to shoot a person who is going for our mother to rape her? If we have a gun, shoot him. Only orthodox consider the morals to be absolute, and I know that they wouldn't do it absolutely. All of the law enforcement of the country break it, do they go to heaven? What loving and fair god would not let us self defend ourselves when there is no other choice? And there is not always another choice. Then this leads to forgiveness, which is another sick thing. If I man can sincerely ask for forgiveness, he can go to heaven leaving 20 dead on earth by his own hand. And then we can argue on and on about the free will. Your post is composed of things that are not agreed to be true for the sake of the argument, only the existence of god and his creation.

Huh? what kind of logic is this? SO if God does not follow the morals of a cat, and all a cat has are the morals given by him, then He is sadistic and evil? lol. what the? Not to mention we just discussed that you do NOT have only the morals given by God. You can choose to invent your own (which you have done), therefore invalidating your argument.

It isn't logic. It is faith and unreason. Why would you use logic to settle morality but not logic to settle his existence? God made these morals. This is how we judge good and evil. If god doesn't do the good, then he does the evil. Edric said something similar to this in another thread. I am simply applying his own morality that is all we can use to define good and evil, to him. Saying I can't is shooing off the argument without thought.

Excuse me, but isn't that what any judge is supposed to do? Or maybe you want the guilty and the innocent to be treated equally? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where judges give the same sentence regardless of whether you're innocent or guilty...

I was pointing out that God is not equal, that is all.

So now you say love is insanity, selflessness is madness... What kind of dark, sadistic, hellish world are you supporting, Acriku? A place where any act of altruism is considered insane? A place where anyone who gives his life to save others is labeled a madman?

I never said love. Love is speculation at best. I say Jesus could have not loved us, but instead was simply delusional.

Those 3 things are utterly irrelevant. The issue was about a lower being accusing a much higher one of not following its standards.

Fine, I won't argue semantics. But who says a bug is a lower being?

How these atheists are intolerant. They would never stop in seeking puny errors in Bible. But primarily, you cannot judge God. It's a nonsense. If you think He does not exist, than why you talk about Him? And if He exists - what means he created this universe with its laws and us too with all mind, isn't it Him, who knows the best way to ensure order?

If I am going to be preached about how Jesus loves and God is real and all around us, I am going to "preach" the opposite. If I am intolerant, then everybody who professes the truth of their religion is intolerant. Seeking errors is extremely important, because millions of people believe that the Bible is perfect, no errors or inconsistencies, just the Word of God. Well, it isn't. I talk about him because theology is a popular subject, and one that is very interesting to study. If you find a lie in the world, that is hugely popular and affects everybody who believes the lie, wouldn't you try to expose the lie?

[emprworm]

GIVEN: The Judeo Christian God exists. Then the morals given to humans are absolute, and you just choose to apply your own subjective morals to God to fit your needs. God gave free-will to humans, therefore he gave you the ability to either conform to absolute morals, or invent your own subjective ones. How is God sadistic again? By giving you freedom?

The morals are not absolute. Why would he want us not to shoot a person who is going for our mother to rape her?

huh? If God does indeed exist, then morals are absolute! No if's and's or butt's. You can choose to uphold them or break them. It's your personal choice. You are not forced to comply with them, but if God does indeed exist (and we are assuming so for this debate), then you will most certainly be judged based upon whether or not you lived according to HIS standards (not your standards). This is the definition of absolute. How can you say they are not absolute given the premise that a superior being does indeed absolutely exist?

It isn't logic. It is faith and unreason. Why would you use logic to settle morality but not logic to settle his existence?

because: GIVEN: The Judeo Christian God exists. What is so hard with you, Acriku, in debating within a premise? ::)

"God made these morals. This is how we judge good and evil. If god doesn't do the good, then he does the evil. "

God is not obligated for abide by human morals, just like humans are not obligated to abide by cat morals. And?

If you are suggesting that a non-human entity (i.e. God) is logically obligated to abide by human morals, please explain.

Fine, I won't argue semantics. But who says a bug is a lower being?

GIVEN: The Judeo Christian God exists.

this is a hard debate for you, Acriku. But I'll tell you what. I am fully willing and able to conduct an entire debate with you under the following premise:

GIVEN: No god exist.

(and I will happily role-model for you how to stay within a premise during a debate :) )

[Acriku]

huh? If God does indeed exist, then morals are absolute! No if's and's or butt's. You can choose to uphold them or break them. It's your personal choice. You are not forced to comply with them, but if God does indeed exist (and we are assuming so for this debate), then you will most certainly be judged based upon whether or not you lived according to HIS standards (not your standards). This is the definition of absolute. How can you say they are not absolute given the premise that a superior being does indeed absolutely exist?

The definition of absolute, is that there is no way around it, it is what it is, no exceptions. God existing and for that they are absolute is non sequitor, and any loving god would not make them absolute because if we follow it as absolute, we are victim to any means of defense from the strongest of the strongest and the smartest of the smartest that won't follow the rules.

What is so hard with you, Acriku, in debating within a premise?

I was, let me explain it further. I do not use logic to believe in God. There is no logic that can arrive to that conclusion. It is all faith. So why wouldn't I do that with morality?

God is not obligated for abide by human morals, just like humans are not obligated to abide by cat morals. And?

If you are suggesting that a non-human entity (i.e. God) is logically obligated to abide by human morals, please explain

I am not saying he has to abide by them, but from our perspective he is evil. Because all we have to define evil is what he gave us.

this is a hard debate for you, Acriku. But I'll tell you what. I am fully willing and able to conduct an entire debate with you under the following premise:

GIVEN: No god exist.

It is hard, and allows me to see slightly from the theist's view. Do you want to continue this debate with the former or the latter premise?

[Davidu]

Anyway... God loves animals, right?

...so God loves me... nice... 8)

[emprworm]

"The definition of absolute, is that there is no way around it, it is what it is, no exceptions. "

yup. And given: THe Judeo Christian God exists that means:

1) You are accountable to HIS standards

2) You have freedom to disobey His standards

3) There is no way around it. When you die, you will give an account, no exceptions.

It is all faith. So why wouldn't I do that with morality?

given: THe Judeo Christian God exists. What logic given this premise, concludes that your subjective morality can be applied to God? Given this premise, how is God a sadist? I still await that answer.

"I am not saying he has to abide by them, but from our perspective he is evil."

From your perspective, you mean. But we know from scientific fact that perceptions are not always accurate reflections of reality. Since when did the equation:

"What acriku perceives" therefore = "reality"

become true?

"Because all we have to define evil is what he gave us. "

given: THe Judeo Christian God exists. Therefore evil is anything not according to God. There is no mystical definition of evil required. It is simple logical conclusion.

"It is hard, and allows me to see slightly from the theist's view. Do you want to continue this debate with the former or the latter premise?"

I can debate under any premise. However, if we change the premise, your original claim that God is a sadist will go unsubstantiated, and I will consider it refuted.

If you want to maintain the claim "God is a sadist" (which assumes that God exists), you will need to continue to debate in the premise. Its entirely up to you.

[Acriku]

What logic given this premise, concludes that your subjective morality can be applied to God? Given this premise, how is God a sadist? I still await that answer.

My morality is objective because I am basing it at the moment on the fact that God did give us our morals. If my morals are subjective as opposed to God's objective given morals, then my morality exists outside of god and he has no control or cause to it. But then, that means he didn't create everything, and then we can get into a big mess. Oh boy, with this premise I find myself at illogic at every turn. It's confusing, how do you do it? First, we must come to an agreement that my morality is objective before I can explain how I arrived to this conclusion. To do that, we must consider where my morals came from. Did I make them up? Certainly not "killing is bad," that came from God. Also, what morals of mine are subjective?

From your perspective, you mean. But we know from scientific fact that perceptions are not always accurate reflections of reality

From ours, since I am using the same morals as yourself. Using the same morals, we must come to the same conclusion. Unless other factors affect it, such as different personal morals we arrived at ourselves.

I can debate under any premise. However, if we change the premise, your original claim that God is a sadist will go unsubstantiated, and I will consider it refuted.

If we change the premise, then I change it to "Your God is a sadist." Not that hard.

[DjCiD]

God has to love animals as much as he does humankind. He did spare both in the flood.

[Acriku]

But God also killed 99% of them, I guess it's whatever side of the boat you like to look from.

[Davidu]

From time to time such an extermination is needed in order for the Earth to have a rebirth.

[Acriku]

Rebirth into the same thing? Seems a waste.

[Anathema]

How could God love animals, if they are mere recources? I don't love my TV, or my bike.

[Davidu]

It is said that animals also have souls... so they could be loved... therefore they aren't just resources.

And the rebirth... well... the dinosaurs are dead aren't they?

[Acriku]

Davidu, if animals have souls, then they got off lucky for not having to not sin, and if so - they didn't have to be killed off. They were killed because of us, why would God do that? Surely our powerful God can kill humans and not the animals. The dinosaurs are dead, were they so evil that God didn't allow them to come back? Well, the alligators are still here, the crocodiles are.

[emprworm]

My morality is objective because I am basing it at the moment on the fact that God did give us our morals.

if you demand that the supreme being follow your moral code which is different from HIs own moral code, then that means your moral code (which is different from His) is in deviance from the moral code you are responsible to follow. #1) You cannot in any logical means ascribe a human moral code to a non-human. This is simply bad logic under any premise. You have not yet shown me any logical reasons how you can do this. Saying "My morality is objective because I am basing it at the moment on the fact that God did give us our morals" is not the same as saying your conclusions are objectively correct.

If my morals are subjective as opposed to God's objective given morals, then my morality exists outside of god and he has no control or cause to it.

lol, hardly. this is not an either/or proposition. God at any time can come inside your little world and do as He pleases w/o your ability to resist. God allows the program to exist on his hard drive, and he lets the program run according to its code, but at any time he can change the code, or press the "delete" button.

But then, that means he didn't create everything, and then we can get into a big mess.

there is no mess at all. only a mess for an atheist, but logically, it is not a mess. who said God created everything? I didn't, and the BIble doesn't.

Oh boy, with this premise I find myself at illogic at every turn.

not my problem there. i can debate within the premise "assume Zeus exists" and I'd have no problem with it. It only shows your narrow ability to think outside the box, so to speak.

It's confusing, how do you do it? First, we must come to an agreement that my morality is objective before I can explain how I arrived to this conclusion.

there is no such agreement we must come to. If God exists, moral law is obejctive. What you personally do, think, say is entirely up to you. It is no different than a citizen living in society. He is under an objective societal law that he is free to 'break'. You are adding unneccessary complexity to an extremely simplistic logical formula.

GIVEN: You wake up and realize you are now living in a country under a dictatorship. Certain laws will now apply to you- that is not the same as saying you will CHOOSE to agree with/abide by those laws. ::)

"If we change the premise, then I change it to "Your God is a sadist." Not that hard. "

Then you will have little rational ability to make that conclusion unless you defend that statement within the premise. To say "Your God is a sadist" and do so logically requires that you successfuly argue that "If you God exists, He is a sadist". How can you call something a "sadist" that is non-existent? That would be a misnomer. It is fully impossible to say "X is a sadist" where X is assumed not to exist. Impossible. UNless you stay within the premise, your claim is refuted.

[DjCiD]

But God also killed 99% of them, I guess it's whatever side of the boat you like to look from.

I like that, kinda like a glass half empty or half full ;) I think its safe to say were on opposite sides but there is one thing we should be able to agree on. He cared enough at least to not make them extinct.

[Acriku]

A lot of this is repeating, so I will reply to the things I have new information for...(to avoid repeating)

The God professed in the bible is a sadist. Better for you? Jeez...

not my problem there. i can debate within the premise "assume Zeus exists" and I'd have no problem with it. It only shows your narrow ability to think outside the box, so to speak.

You will have problems, because you will find yourself in another world of thinking that involves illogic. Can you seriously believe in Zeus? No you cannot, because you already have it in your mind that it is illogical and not real. I am not narrow minded because I can't imagine a God existing and not ignore the illogic that follows it. You ignore it, I am asking how you do it.

The rest of the posts you can do whatever, because they are either repeating, just plain irrelevant, opinionated to the point of self-delusion, and add anything else you want in here in addition.

Dj, yeah that's a good thing - but then again can we account for every species and say that they did not go extinct as a result of the flood?

[emprworm]

"The God professed in the bible is a sadist. Better for you? Jeez..."

You already said this...several times...and I am trying to find the logical basis for this claim.

"Can you seriously believe in Zeus? No you cannot, because you already have it in your mind that it is illogical and not real."

Well of course I don't believe in Zeus. But that doesn't mean I am unable to say "Lets assume for a moment, that Zeus does exist....." and then have a debate with someone. It is rather simple to do. Maybe just simple for me....? who knows

I am not narrow minded because I can't imagine a God existing and not ignore the illogic that follows it. You ignore it, I am asking how you do it.

that is not the subject. the subject is you describing to me a logical basis for calling God a sadist.

The rest of the posts you can do whatever, because they are either repeating, just plain irrelevant, opinionated to the point of self-delusion, and add anything else you want in here in addition.

they are repeating because of your reluctance (inability?) to logically defend your claim.