The atheist delusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hypothetically, if we are assuming an ALL good god that has revealed himself to me beyond faith alone, then I would say no, I do not have a problem with that other than his Orwellian nature - the North Korean dictatorship-like presence over all we do and think and can ever be.

Now just how do you suppose your merely hypothetical god can avoid doing that? Do you insist on a limited non-omnipresent, non-omniscient god, or are you suggesting he must play peek-a-boo with his creation and look the other way?

He can even punish us for thought crimes.

Got an example from scripture you can give us to back up that complaint? You say He can. Does He, according to scripture?
 
Hypothetically, if we are assuming an ALL good god that has revealed himself to me beyond faith alone, then I would say no, I do not have a problem with that other than his Orwellian nature - the North Korean dictatorship-like presence over all we do and think and can ever be. He can even punish us for thought crimes - and it would seem put thought crimes in our head to frame us. Kinda scary knowing the nature he tagged us with, the nature of his creation.... a creation that isn't all good.

So, measured against our experienced reality, which is the only thing by which we mere mortals can measure a creator god's intent, I would have to say yes, I do have a problem with that god judging anything but himself as he is not revealed through his creation as being a perfect creator, and thus couldn't possibly be a perfect judge over everything. Observationally, he seems very flawed.

I know the Christian response to that is that we cannot know god's mind or all his reasons why things are as they are, which makes your question kind of a conundrum for the Christian. You can't reserve a slice of god to complete unknowable mystery and still claim to know the totality of his nature. With an unknowable, you cannot know, or claim with credibility, that god is all good just from a scriptural claim of men, and especially by observing a flawed creation regardless of what Romans claims.
I would go further and say that an all good, all powerful God who judges mankind is a contradiction in terms. Certainly in human terms. Being judged for our very nature, by the being that gave us that nature, reduces humanity to a fly in the hands of a wanton boy, as Shakespeare puts it. I see no difference in practical human terms between ineffable and wanton.
 
I would go further and say that an all good, all powerful God who judges mankind is a contradiction in terms. Certainly in human terms. Being judged for our very nature, by the being that gave us that nature, reduces humanity to a fly in the hands of a wanton boy, as Shakespeare puts it. I see no difference in practical human terms between ineffable and wanton.
point of information: Jesus seems to agree with you, when he allegedly said, “For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son…” (John 5:22) And Jesus is actively trying to save people from judgment!

Which begs the question, who accuses and condemns ALL humans to suffer and die after forming the very body or material nature they inhabit…? Sounds more like an “adversarial God” than an absolute good one. Could it be that something was lost (or suppressed) in the meaning of scripture between when they were written and when Christian orthodoxy replaced gnostic Christians and Jewish Essenes, who BTW, believed in an imperfect demiurge or Lord of matter? Hmm….Moreover, why is that the Son of God dies for sin arising in the flesh he formed? These are critical questions nobody is asking…because they are afraid too.
 
Last edited:
point of information: Jesus seems to agree with you, when he allegedly said, “For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son…” (John 5:22) And Jesus is actively trying to save people from judgment!

Which begs the question, who accuses and condemns ALL humans to suffer and die after forming the very body or material nature they inhabit…? Sounds more like an “adversarial God” than an absolute good one. Could it be that something was lost (or suppressed) in the meaning of scripture between when they were written and when Christian orthodoxy replaced gnostic Christians and Jewish Essenes, who BTW, believed in an imperfect demiurge or Lord of matter. Hmm….
Or could it be that the whole shebang is a hodgepodge of ideas, some mutually incompatible, gleaned from a variety of regional sources and foisted on populations by regimes that found a jam tomorrow religion ideal for controlling the peasants.
 
Or could it be that the whole shebang is a hodgepodge of ideas, some mutually incompatible, gleaned from a variety of regional sources and foisted on populations by regimes that found a jam tomorrow religion ideal for controlling the peasants.
You are free to choose that conclusion if you want to believe that, BUT the essence of the Christian religion is a universal moral religion for practical living, no different than moral philosophy, with the added theoretical aspects on the cause of the universe and its future. Paul merely gave it a Jewish flare using names from Hebrew scriptures that he routinely allegorized.

I am reading Seneca and amazed how much his ideas parallel Paul’s ideas on Wisdom, God, and ethics, except that Paul passes those ideas through Jewish terms and names, eg., Yeshua or Joshua, meaning salvation in Hebrew. IOW, Seneca writes about salvation the way Paul writes about the inner “spirit of Jesus (Hebrew: salvation).” They both tie it to the manifestation of virtues in ones life.

The absolute political control and domination of what religious information people had access to did not happen until the Roman Catholic church seized power in the fourth century under a Roman dictator. Before then freedom of religion and thought to work out ones moral ground were universally the norm going back to Cyrus the Great, the first great king whose policy was to foster freedom of religious thought. The rise of the Roman church was a paradigm in religious domination of thought. Anyone who did not bow to them lost their @#$&, to include the moral philosophers.
 
Last edited:
Says who?



You can't think of any bad deeds that might result from anger? From lust? I can.



Correct. Being tempted is not a sin.
Oh I can think of plenty of bad deeds that might arise from the cardinal dins, which are apparently based on what God is said to hate in Proverbs. But you say that God only judges deeds. So is anger or lust a bad thing or not? So if God hates avarice, is He not judging it?

Is looking at a woman with lust, while married to someone else, committing adultery in your heart or not? And, since many Christians say that it is, if God doesn't judge it, why worry about it?

God may allegedly only judge deeds, not thought, but Christians seem very keen to judge both.
 
Hypothetically, if we are assuming an ALL good god that has revealed himself to me beyond faith alone, then I would say no, I do not have a problem with that other than his Orwellian nature - the North Korean dictatorship-like presence over all we do and think and can ever be. He can even punish us for thought crimes - and it would seem put thought crimes in our head to frame us. Kinda scary knowing the nature he tagged us with, the nature of his creation.... a creation that isn't all good.

So, measured against our experienced reality, which is the only thing by which we mere mortals can measure a creator god's intent, I would have to say yes, I do have a problem with that god judging anything but himself as he is not revealed through his creation as being a perfect creator, and thus couldn't possibly be a perfect judge over everything. Observationally, he seems very flawed.

I know the Christian response to that is that we cannot know god's mind or all his reasons why things are as they are, which makes your question kind of a conundrum for the Christian. You can't reserve a slice of god to complete unknowable mystery and still claim to know the totality of his nature. With an unknowable, you cannot know, or claim with credibility, that god is all good just from a scriptural claim of men, and especially by observing a flawed creation regardless of what Romans claims.
At the present time the best way to know God is through Jesus Christ. Heb 1:1-3
The problem of evil in this world is the result of a reprobate angel, Satan, and those who followed him, who cause havoc in this world. Satan is called the god of this world. Jesus told Paul the reason he was to preach the gospel was" to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me." Acts 26: 12-18, 2 Cor 4:4
Satan has you fooled into believing that God is the author of evil, which isn't true.
 
Why should those bits of fictitiously based advice bother you? After all, since reality is fiction, no one ever REALLY said those things.

"On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.

These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn't handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon's coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.

Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI's lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.

The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney...well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn't bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of "little practical significance". Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims' family members' questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don't think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.

The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that's OK because it probably wasn't important.

The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that's OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.

NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7's collapse, but that's OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would "jeopardize public safety".

The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that's OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.

This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him, and her. (and her and her and him).

Part 1 of 2
 
Part 2 of 2

Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn't recorded on video, in which he didn't resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team's members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and mobile production facilities and the rescue of Jessica Lynch.

If you have any questions about this story...you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.

This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, SEC, MSM, White House, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission. Because Ignorance is Strength." - James Corbett, Corbett Report
 
Oh I can think of plenty of bad deeds that might arise from the cardinal dins, which are apparently based on what God is said to hate in Proverbs. But you say that God only judges deeds. So is anger or lust a bad thing or not? So if God hates avarice, is He not judging it?

Is looking at a woman with lust, while married to someone else, committing adultery in your heart or not? And, since many Christians say that it is, if God doesn't judge it, why worry about it?

God may allegedly only judge deeds, not thought, but Christians seem very keen to judge both.
I don’t speak for the other poster but a simple way to answer these good questions is the following.

The passions of the flesh are imperfect because they originate from a blind will (autonomic functions) in the flesh. BUT when regulated or directed by a moral consciousness into beneficial deeds then the blind will is reconciled with good. Therefore, we see in scripture, “Be angry but sin not” or Paul’s exhortation, “If you burn with passion then get married.” IOW, the passions may be directed or regulated by reason and a moral consciousness. Therefore, if Jesus means salvation (it does) then it is logical that salvation or good results are realized despite blind will (or passions) through divine reason (Greek: Logos), Wisdom, aka, inner “spirit of Jesus” leading ones actions or deeds.
 
Now just how do you suppose your merely hypothetical god can avoid doing that? Do you insist on a limited non-omnipresent, non-omniscient god, or are you suggesting he must play peek-a-boo with his creation and look the other way?



Got an example from scripture you can give us to back up that complaint? You say He can. Does He, according to scripture?
I wouldn't call it God playing peek-a-boo with humans.

Mt 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell. NRSVUE

Also Romans 2:15-16 NET or NRSVUE
 
Oh I can think of plenty of bad deeds that might arise from the cardinal dins, which are apparently based on what God is said to hate in Proverbs. But you say that God only judges deeds. So is anger or lust a bad thing or not?

Anger can be, can NOT be. But holding an angry grudge is: Eph 4:26. Jesus angrily overturned the tables. Lust if conceived is. James 1: 14-16

So if God hates avarice, is He not judging it?

Correct. He judges all sins.

Is looking at a woman with lust, while married to someone else, committing adultery in your heart or not?

Correct. See Matthew 5:28.

And, since many Christians say that it is, if God doesn't judge it, why worry about it?

Because it will tear you apart. I know that from personal experience.

God may allegedly only judge deeds, not thought, but Christians seem very keen to judge both.

Yet we are told not to.
 
Really? Those seven deadly sins, you know, vanity, anger, lust etc. what deeds exactly are they? Or are they only sins if acted upon?
The committing of a sin arises from the evil thoughts in our minds. The sin starts by a desire or lust in our minds and then when it is acted on is fully sin. IMO, we will be judged on our words and deeds not on our unacted upon thoughts. We are not condemned for being human, our nature.

Mt 15: 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. 19 For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person...

James 1: 14-16 14 But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; 15 then, when desire has conceived, it engenders sin, and sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death.
 
"On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.

Correct.

These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn't handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon's coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.

Correct. And don't forget: These were 19 Arab Muslims, who according to you, sacrificed their lives to supposedly do the bidding of a bunch of inside the Pentagon American WASPs.

Part 1 of 2

Before you bore us with Part 2, explain the motives of those 19 highjackers who committed suicide.
 

Hey, that reminds me. I know some people that have a great deal for you. Check it out here.

Correct. And don't forget: These were 19 Arab Muslims, who according to you, sacrificed their lives to supposedly do the bidding of a bunch of inside the Pentagon American WASPs.

Actually it was Christians. Bush and Cheney are "Christians" aren't they? And of course, Israel had to have something to do with it. Nice try, though.

Before you bore us with Part 2, explain the motives of those 19 highjackers who committed suicide.

Why don't you ask them? Most of them are still alive.
 
Or could it be that the whole shebang is a hodgepodge of ideas, some mutually incompatible, gleaned from a variety of regional sources and foisted on populations by regimes that found a jam tomorrow religion ideal for controlling the peasants.
Sounds like a sci-fi, futuristic movie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top