The Christian God is Love?

SteveB

Well-known member
You're a strange guy, Steve!

You're also a guy who shares the same opinion as do I and most every other person on earth

We all agree that drowning babies, owning slaves, and killing unbelievers is immoral and evil

We also know, for the bible tells us so, that God drowned babies and endorsed slavery and commanded His followers to kill unbelievers

I know that you know how to add one and one, Steve!

If XYZ is immoral and evil
and God does XYZ
then God is immoral and evil

You just can't bring yourself to say it, though
Strange...
Nope.
Haven't shared your opinion in at least 43 years, and considering that I never gave any of this any thought before then, it's likely we never shared that opinion ever.
So, again you're demanding capitulation, and imposing your beliefs on me.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Nope.
Haven't shared your opinion in at least 43 years, and considering that I never gave any of this any thought before then, it's likely we never shared that opinion ever.
So, again you're demanding capitulation, and imposing your beliefs on me.
You're lying, Steve!

You DO share with me, and most every other human being, the opinion that it is immoral and evil to drown babies and own slaves and kill unbelievers

The fact that you, yourself, would never dream of doing any of these things is proof that you know they are immoral and evil acts

The fact that you steadfastly refuse to state that these things are good and just is proof that you know them to be immoral and evil acts

You are a far better man than you know, Steve
And God is a far lesser being than you are willing to admit to yourself

You can't possibly enjoy being a spineless jellyfish, Steve...
Have some courage in your convictions - man up and acknowledge that you know better than God!
 

Lt. Columbo

New Member
Maybe. My point is that it is horrific to choose to kill every man, woman, child, and baby by drowning. It is horrific to sauce the flood and then watch children slowly drown while screaming. It is especially horrific is a god that can which them to heaven with a snap is doing this.

So yes - saving a few people is nice I guess. If you burn down a building full of thousands and watch them scream and burn but you pulled one family out that is good and all. However, it does nothing to lessen the pure evil of watching the other thousand burn when you can stop the fire with a thought.

And that was my main point :)
Sorry, I did not address your point.

Regarding your point, I think there are many possibilities to consider. I'm not sure I have enough information to draw a conclusion. But supposing God is not loving and kind, since there's nothing we could do about it we'd have no choice but accept it and make the best of things.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Sorry, I did not address your point.

Regarding your point, I think there are many possibilities to consider. I'm not sure I have enough information to draw a conclusion. But supposing God is not loving and kind, since there's nothing we could do about it we'd have no choice but accept it and make the best of things.
I agree with that. If the God of the Bible is real then it does not matter if I think he is good or not. I'd accept the fact that the god of this universe can be cruel, sadistic, and is capable of incredible cruelty.

But if someone said "God is love!" I'd have to disagree :)
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
It is not an argument, God is not a man.
No, it is not an argument, at least we agree there.

It is just you asserting that it is moral for God to do what he want just because he is God.

That is simply incorrect. The morality for other creatures is not the same as ours. Man has his unique morality. You again are trying to say that because God and man are intelligent, they are equivalent. A decidedly anthropomorphic view.
The huge difference here is that man has the ability to understand right and wrong.

If a tiger kills a man, that is not immoral because the tiger does not understand. If a toddler steals a cookie, that is not immoral because the toddler does not understand - even though the toddler is human.

It is not about being human, it is about moral understanding. Even the Bible alludes to an age of accountability.

Does God understand the difference between right and wrong? If he does, then what is morally wrong for us is morally wrong for him.

Don't start telling me what to respond to, I will just tell you the same, you do not address my points. Have some self awareness, it's not all about you.
I did not tell you to answer anything. What I did was note what you had chosen not to address. It is entirely your choice what you address and what you do not.

But I still get to note what that choice is.

For example, last time you accused me of being "cocksure", and I responded:

Are you certain of your position? In what way am I "cocksure" of my view, and you are not equally "cocksure" of your view? You have already called my "analysis full of ignorance"; that looks pretty "cocksure" to me.
I will say here and now that I could be wrong, and you could be right. Are you prepared to admit the same? Who is the "cocksure" one here?

I see you have chosen not to address that, and of course that is your right.

But it is my right to note that, and ponder why you choice not to address. I think you chose not to address it because you cannot admit you might be wrong. You are the one who is oh-so-certain he is right, not me.

I think you chose not to address it because it is YOU who is "cocksure", and not me.

Please do not feel obliged to answer this. But know that if you choose not to that will reinforce the belief that you are ducking the issue because you know you are the "cocksure" one here, and, by inferencer, a hypocrite.

Again you simply refuse to grasp God is not a man, and that you are a good person, that you live a moral life.
Well thanks for saying I am a good person who lives a good life. That is quite an improvement on the usual Christian attitude to atheists. Odd you think I have no grasped that, though, when I said just that in my last post.

You, man, has his perspective, and God has His.
Of course (assuming God exists).

The issue is whether a different perspective can make a morally bad action good, or vice versa. I think not, but clearly you are a moral relativist, and you think it does.

Do you think the Aztecs were morally right sacrificing thousands to people to their Gods, because from their perspective that was the right thing to do? I think not.

Do you think the Nazis were morally right killing millions in concentration camps, because from their perspective that was the right thing to do? I think not.

I strongly suspect in both cases you agree with me. When it suits you, you hold to moral absolutism. But when it comes to God, you need some way to rationalise his atrocities as moral, so your moral system changes abruptly to moral relativism.

You simply compare yourself with others and think you are good.
And what do you do? Listen to preachers who tell you you are evil and deserve to go to hell because you fail to measure up to the impossible standard set by a God who tortures billions?

I will stick with what I have, thank you.

Pigs do that, and they all think they look and smell great, whoopdeedoo.
I do not believe pigs are capable of telling right from wrong.
 

Furion

Well-known member
No, it is not an argument, at least we agree there.

It is just you asserting that it is moral for God to do what he want just because he is God.

All I see is you asserting motivations.
And still you think God should answer to you.

The huge difference here is that man has the ability to understand right and wrong.

You claim you can see, but your guilt remains. You can see the evil in yourself, but excuse it because you are human.

If a tiger kills a man, that is not immoral because the tiger does not understand. If a toddler steals a cookie, that is not immoral because the toddler does not understand - even though the toddler is human.

It is not about being human, it is about moral understanding. Even the Bible alludes to an age of accountability.

Again you assigning your morals onto other creatures.

The ant thinks you are an evil twit for stomping on it's brother. But no one can say otherwise to you because you are superior.

You are the monster you claim God to be. Yet another self condemning attitude of men.

Does God understand the difference between right and wrong? If he does, then what is morally wrong for us is morally wrong for him.

It is apparently a habit of yours to think God is accountable to your morality. Anthropomorphism seems to be your calling card.

I did not tell you to answer anything. What I did was note what you had chosen not to address. It is entirely your choice what you address and what you do not.

But I still get to note what that choice is.

For example, last time you accused me of being "cocksure", and I responded:

Are you certain of your position? In what way am I "cocksure" of my view, and you are not equally "cocksure" of your view? You have already called my "analysis full of ignorance"; that looks pretty "cocksure" to me.
I will say here and now that I could be wrong, and you could be right. Are you prepared to admit the same? Who is the "cocksure" one here?

I see you have chosen not to address that, and of course that is your right.

But it is my right to note that, and ponder why you choice not to address. I think you chose not to address it because you cannot admit you might be wrong. You are the one who is oh-so-certain he is right, not me.

I think you chose not to address it because it is YOU who is "cocksure", and not me.

Please do not feel obliged to answer this. But know that if you choose not to that will reinforce the belief that you are ducking the issue because you know you are the "cocksure" one here, and, by inferencer, a hypocrite.

Yes, atheists are cocksure over their opinions of God. You even have clowns saying there may be other gods, but not the christian God. You have we funny people.

Well thanks for saying I am a good person who lives a good life. That is quite an improvement on the usual Christian attitude to atheists. Odd you think I have no grasped that, though, when I said just that in my last post.

So now you play the clown.

Of course (assuming God exists).

The issue is whether a different perspective can make a morally bad action good, or vice versa. I think not, but clearly you are a moral relativist, and you think it does.

Do you think the Aztecs were morally right sacrificing thousands to people to their Gods, because from their perspective that was the right thing to do? I think not.

Do you think the Nazis were morally right killing millions in concentration camps, because from their perspective that was the right thing to do? I think not.

I strongly suspect in both cases you agree with me. When it suits you, you hold to moral absolutism. But when it comes to God, you need some way to rationalise his atrocities as moral, so your moral system changes abruptly to moral relativism.

And what do you do? Listen to preachers who tell you you are evil and deserve to go to hell because you fail to measure up to the impossible standard set by a God who tortures billions?

I will stick with what I have, thank you.

Cocksure shining through.

I am perfectly happy to wait for the Lord to judge the actions, motivations and intentions of men, not a problem. I need make no judgment.

I think you think your moral judgments are true. From judging animals, to judging other humans, to judging God.

The only thing I can add is that same judgement will be applied to you.

Will you be able to withstand your own judgements?

I go for the mercy angle because I've already judged myself.

I do not believe pigs are capable of telling right from wrong.

Correct. In fact you illustrate my point.

Pigs are not accountable to man's morality. The pig can complain: "why do you lock me up and eat me?"

Yet you dont really think it wrong to lock them up and eat them. Man creates the pigs, locks them up, and then eats them.

As long as you feel justified in dragging God down here to make him account for your morality, the facts behind the truth that God is not a man that you can judge Him remains.

Man appears to be the pig in this case.

I am human. I see God calling man to perfection, that is the standard. Nothing less than perfection can ever be a standard. Perfect morality.

I see consequences to being less than perfect, I see laws by the Creator communicating them to me.

If God slay me for my deeds, that is His choice. I have no one to blame, not even the devil. Existence has consequences.

What I see down here is the execution of consequences for less than perfection. If a man drops dead, in noble or ignoble fashion, it was because of the consequences.

But God saw that giving man just one single solitary law was waaaay too much for man. God said whoa, this is not going to end well. So He created a plan to prove sin utterly sinful, and to show man how utterly incapable he is from keeping any law whatsoever, to show man how useless he is towards perfection. If a man was wise enough to see it.

So I think God concluded, after He said whoa this creature I created is outta control, that He would help man, demonstrate for man the perfect man, that a man can truly be perfect before Him, not like all those other humans, Yeshua, the Christ, salvation.

In doing so God looked upon man and said he clearly cannot hold man accountable for a single moral thing, because man fails at even the single thing.

So yes, God redeemed Himself for His own creation, laying straight the way for you to come to Him, in all our piggeness. Forgiving you your part in it freely, and offering the same to every man.

I would only blame God if He did not redeem Himself.

But He did in the man Jesus, because He is love.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
All I see is you asserting motivations.
Where do you see that?

And still you think God should answer to you.
Who said anything about answering for what is wrong? That is a whole different issue.

I believe murder is wrong, but I am not saying murderers have to answer to me.

Do you think is is wrong if a man kills another for his own gain? I am sure you do. Do you think that that man is answerable to YOU? Of course not. Can you see how saying something is morally wrong is not the same as saying everyone is answerable to you for it?

I say that torturing people is wrong. It does not matter if it is a man from a culture that finds torture acceptable doing it. It does not matter if it is endorsed by the ruler of the land. it does not matter if it is God doing. It is wrong whoever does.

But - and this is important - I am not saying anyone has to answer to me for it.

You previously said:
That is simply incorrect. The morality for other creatures is not the same as ours. Man has his unique morality. You again are trying to say that because God and man are intelligent, they are equivalent. A decidedly anthropomorphic view.
Me previously said:
The huge difference here is that man has the ability to understand right and wrong.
You claim you can see, but your guilt remains. You can see the evil in yourself, but excuse it because you are human.
Irrelevant to what we were discussing. My comment was that mankind was different to other animals because of our ability to tell right from wrong.

Again you assigning your morals onto other creatures.
I was doing exactly the opposite; I was pointing out that morality does not apply because they cannot tell right from wrong.

It is apparently a habit of yours to think God is accountable to your morality. Anthropomorphism seems to be your calling card.
As I said, I think murder is wrong, but I do not think murderers are accountable to me personally. I have no idea where you get that from.

However, it is increasingly apparent that you post is not responding to anything I actually said.

Yes, atheists are cocksure over their opinions of God. You even have clowns saying there may be other gods, but not the christian God. You have we funny people.
And in what way are we more "cocksure" than you?

Again you have ducked the issue. I can say I might be wrong. It is clear you are not prepared to do the same. It is clear you are more "cocksure" than I am. It is equally clear you are therefore a hypocrite.

You previously said:
Again you simply refuse to grasp God is not a man, and that you are a good person, that you live a moral life.
Well thanks for saying I am a good person who lives a good life. That is quite an improvement on the usual Christian attitude to atheists.
Me previously said:
Odd you think I have no grasped that, though, when I said just that in my last post.
So now you play the clown.
It is playing the clown to thank you for the compliment?

You clearly said I am a good person. You clearly said I live a moral life. I put it in bold above so you can see it, but you typed it; you should be able to remember that far!

I am perfectly happy to wait for the Lord to judge the actions, motivations and intentions of men, not a problem. I need make no judgment.
And that is your choice.

You are happy to love and worship God without stopping to ask whether he is good or evil. That is fine for YOU; you have your moral relativism - when it suits you - that says that torture is perfectly moral when God does.

But I am not like. I think torture is evil whoever does it.

I think you think your moral judgments are true. From judging animals, to judging other humans, to judging God.
And I am sure the same can be said of you. I do not doubt that you are equally "cocksure" about your own moral opinions.

The only thing I can add is that same judgement will be applied to you.

Will you be able to withstand your own judgements?
Why should that worry me? As you said yourself, I am a good person and I live a moral life. It is not me torturing billions.

My position on morality has been that the same morality applies to us all. And yes, that even includes me!

I go for the mercy angle because I've already judged myself.
I pity you for having a religion that tells you you are deserving of eternal suffering in hell.

Correct. In fact you illustrate my point.

Pigs are not accountable to man's morality. The pig can complain: "why do you lock me up and eat me?"

Yet you dont really think it wrong to lock them up and eat them. Man creates the pigs, locks them up, and then eats them.
Actually pigs cannot talk, so in fact they cannot complain about being locked up and eaten.

But it is an interesting thought experiment. Do you think pigs should love and worship us? I can imagine a conversation between an atheist pig and a human-worshipping pig. While the atheist pig points out that man keeps pigs in pens, just to kill them and eat them, the human-worshipping pig makes various comments to try to rationalise his belief that humans are perfectly good:

It is not an argument, Man is not a pig.
That is simply incorrect. The morality for other creatures is not the same as ours. Pig has his unique morality. You again are trying to say that because Man and pig are intelligent, they are equivalent. A decidedly porcinomorphic view.
You think Man should answer to you.
You can see the evil in yourself, but excuse it because you are a pig.

The atheist pig is not convinced.

I am human. I see God calling man to perfection, that is the standard. Nothing less than perfection can ever be a standard. Perfect morality.
God is supposedly all powerful. He could make the standard whatever he wants.

He chooses to make perfection the standard, a standard he knows no human can ever attain. And thus he rationalises his torturing of billions in hell.

I see consequences to being less than perfect, I see laws by the Creator communicating them to me.

If God slay me for my deeds, that is His choice. I have no one to blame, not even the devil. Existence has consequences.
Okay, and that is your opinion - that it is moral to create intelligent beings such that they always fail, and so, after a brief time on earth, they can be tortured for eternity.

To you, that is perfectly moral. I get that.

But my morality is different. To me, that is morally wrong. Frankly, to me t is abhorrent.

What I see down here is the execution of consequences for less than perfection. If a man drops dead, in noble or ignoble fashion, it was because of the consequences.

But God saw that giving man just one single solitary law was waaaay too much for man. God said whoa, this is not going to end well. So He created a plan to prove sin utterly sinful, and to show man how utterly incapable he is from keeping any law whatsoever, to show man how useless he is towards perfection. If a man was wise enough to see it.

So I think God concluded, after He said whoa this creature I created is outta control, that He would help man, demonstrate for man the perfect man, that a man can truly be perfect before Him, not like all those other humans, Yeshua, the Christ, salvation.
So you think God did not know in advance what people would be like? I thought he was supposed to be all-knowing. Sounds like he is pretty dim.

However, he was clever enough to "prove sin utterly sinful". I guess that is something..?

And then he had that great plan with Jesus, and now the world is... Just as messed up as it ever was. I guess he is not a very powerful god either.

In doing so God looked upon man and said he clearly cannot hold man accountable for a single moral thing, because man fails at even the single thing.
When every single one out of billions fail, it is the fault of the creator, not the created.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Where do you see that?


Who said anything about answering for what is wrong? That is a whole different issue.

I believe murder is wrong, but I am not saying murderers have to answer to me.

Do you think is is wrong if a man kills another for his own gain? I am sure you do. Do you think that that man is answerable to YOU? Of course not. Can you see how saying something is morally wrong is not the same as saying everyone is answerable to you for it?

I say that torturing people is wrong. It does not matter if it is a man from a culture that finds torture acceptable doing it. It does not matter if it is endorsed by the ruler of the land. it does not matter if it is God doing. It is wrong whoever does.

But - and this is important - I am not saying anyone has to answer to me for it.




Irrelevant to what we were discussing. My comment was that mankind was different to other animals because of our ability to tell right from wrong.


I was doing exactly the opposite; I was pointing out that morality does not apply because they cannot tell right from wrong.


As I said, I think murder is wrong, but I do not think murderers are accountable to me personally. I have no idea where you get that from.

However, it is increasingly apparent that you post is not responding to anything I actually said.


And in what way are we more "cocksure" than you?

Again you have ducked the issue. I can say I might be wrong. It is clear you are not prepared to do the same. It is clear you are more "cocksure" than I am. It is equally clear you are therefore a hypocrite.


Well thanks for saying I am a good person who lives a good life. That is quite an improvement on the usual Christian attitude to atheists.


It is playing the clown to thank you for the compliment?

You clearly said I am a good person. You clearly said I live a moral life. I put it in bold above so you can see it, but you typed it; you should be able to remember that far!


And that is your choice.

You are happy to love and worship God without stopping to ask whether he is good or evil. That is fine for YOU; you have your moral relativism - when it suits you - that says that torture is perfectly moral when God does.

But I am not like. I think torture is evil whoever does it.


And I am sure the same can be said of you. I do not doubt that you are equally "cocksure" about your own moral opinions.


Why should that worry me? As you said yourself, I am a good person and I live a moral life. It is not me torturing billions.

My position on morality has been that the same morality applies to us all. And yes, that even includes me!


I pity you for having a religion that tells you you are deserving of eternal suffering in hell.


Actually pigs cannot talk, so in fact they cannot complain about being locked up and eaten.

But it is an interesting thought experiment. Do you think pigs should love and worship us? I can imagine a conversation between an atheist pig and a human-worshipping pig. While the atheist pig points out that man keeps pigs in pens, just to kill them and eat them, the human-worshipping pig makes various comments to try to rationalise his belief that humans are perfectly good:

It is not an argument, Man is not a pig.
That is simply incorrect. The morality for other creatures is not the same as ours. Pig has his unique morality. You again are trying to say that because Man and pig are intelligent, they are equivalent. A decidedly porcinomorphic view.
You think Man should answer to you.
You can see the evil in yourself, but excuse it because you are a pig.

The atheist pig is not convinced.


God is supposedly all powerful. He could make the standard whatever he wants.

He chooses to make perfection the standard, a standard he knows no human can ever attain. And thus he rationalises his torturing of billions in hell.


Okay, and that is your opinion - that it is moral to create intelligent beings such that they always fail, and so, after a brief time on earth, they can be tortured for eternity.

To you, that is perfectly moral. I get that.

But my morality is different. To me, that is morally wrong. Frankly, to me t is abhorrent.


So you think God did not know in advance what people would be like? I thought he was supposed to be all-knowing. Sounds like he is pretty dim.

However, he was clever enough to "prove sin utterly sinful". I guess that is something..?

And then he had that great plan with Jesus, and now the world is... Just as messed up as it ever was. I guess he is not a very powerful god either.


When every single one out of billions fail, it is the fault of the creator, not the created.

Then all your bloviations amount to nothing. God is not accountable to your feelers, and you don't believe God need account to you anyway.

He will call man to account for his deeds, as it should be.

It does make sense you would desire moral imperfection as your standard. Man can only see his own imperfections, so it would be silly and hypocritical for man to blame anyone else, and much easier to have an excuse why you see moral imperfections in yourself.

You can claim to be a good person, like all the other atheists. You'll just have to live with the knowledge you are not, and keep acting like you are one. It's the way of your world.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Then all your bloviations amount to nothing. God is not accountable to your feelers, and you don't believe God need account to you anyway.
God is not accountable to me.

However, I can and do judge God (if he exists) to be a moral monster, and it is apparent your only response to that he he is allowed to torture billions just because he is God.

The question of this thread is whether God can be considered loving. Do you take the same view? God is different, and for God it is moral good to torture people, and it is also how he shows his love?

He will call man to account for his deeds, as it should be.
Who says it should be? The moral monster who wants to torture billions he supposedly loves?

Why should I accept the word of a moral monster? Oh, right, because he is stronger than me. The rationalisation of dictators and bullies throughout history.

It does make sense you would desire moral imperfection as your standard. Man can only see his own imperfections, so it would be silly and hypocritical for man to blame anyone else, and much easier to have an excuse why you see moral imperfections in yourself.
It makes sense to set a standard people can achieve. If there is zero chance of making the grade, there is no point even trying.

And that is what God wants, I imagine. He has set the standard so high no one can achieve it so he gets to rationalise torturing billions.

One thing I do admire about God is how he has convinced so many to love and worship him even though they say themselves that he tortures billions - and he even gets them to argue that his torturing people is morally good!

You can claim to be a good person, like all the other atheists.
And you can claim God is good, like all the other Christians. Just know you will not convince anyone else if the best you can muster is that it is moral for God to torture people because he is God.

And please, do not pretend that a God who has sent billions to eternal torture loves us all.
 

Furion

Well-known member
God is not accountable to me.

However, I can and do judge God (if he exists) to be a moral monster, and it is apparent your only response to that he he is allowed to torture billions just because he is God.

The question of this thread is whether God can be considered loving. Do you take the same view? God is different, and for God it is moral good to torture people, and it is also how he shows his love?

I think you have trouble understanding judging and accountability.

If God is not accountable to you, then your judgements are babble.

Pick a side, or quit yer bitchin. Express your desire to call Him down and answer you, or cease.

Who says it should be? The moral monster who wants to torture billions he supposedly loves?

Why should I accept the word of a moral monster? Oh, right, because he is stronger than me. The rationalisation of dictators and bullies throughout history.

It makes sense to set a standard people can achieve. If there is zero chance of making the grade, there is no point even trying.

And that is what God wants, I imagine. He has set the standard so high no one can achieve it so he gets to rationalise torturing billions

One thing I do admire about God is how he has convinced so many to love and worship him even though they say themselves that he tortures billions - and he even gets them to argue that his torturing people is morally good!

Sorry but I want evil removed from this universe, that is my standard, love compels me to not suffer evil to live. God will take care of it in His time. You will not accept your evil, I get it. Every man wants to think of himself as good.

Love demands evil be stopped and removed from those who desire love.

If that means men who cling to their evil be removed from the rest of us, so be it. It is their choice.

That is what heaven is, those who thirst for love, for the love of God.

Men down here thirst for their own fifedom, their own morality, their own judgements.

Have at it, I've abandoned such prideful desires.

And you can claim God is good, like all the other Christians. Just know you will not convince anyone else if the best you can muster is that it is moral for God to torture people because he is God.

And please, do not pretend that a God who has sent billions to eternal torture loves us all.

It is a desire of God that all men come to the knowledge of the truth. Think about that carefully.

As long as a man shows he understands the truth of Jesus Christ, I am satisfied, they reject Christ with an informed view. Then it is all on that man, there is nothing left for me, God has made it plain to them.

After growing up and training in your world, having my own claims to success and could be full of pride over my accomplishments, I consider it all rubbish compared to knowing Christ.

No, I think the Lord was inexplicably wise in telling men they must become like a child in order to see it.

Because using my adult vision was blinded by guile and self defense, pride in my life and the lusts of this life.

I was blind to the simplicity in Christ.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Do you think murder is wrong?

Do you consider yourself a good person?
Do I have to start talking about bananas?

Can I consider myself a good person, and the rest of you are not?

Sure, why not, dip my toes into your worldly thinking and yes, I am good, you are bad.

There is none good but God.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Do you consider yourself a good person?
Do I have to start talking about bananas?

Can I consider myself a good person, and the rest of you are not?

Sure, why not, dip my toes into your worldly thinking and yes, I am good, you are bad.

There is none good but God.
What do you think my worldly thinking is?
 

Furion

Well-known member
What do you think my worldly thinking is?

What do you think the thinking of the Spirit is?

I will summarize worldly thinking for you, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life. It is the way natural man thinks.

Since I am human, and in this world, exposed to every thinking of this world, my informed opinion is the two don't meet. The flesh thinks and desires some things, the Spirit desires different things. It is why you truly cannot see the difference, you don't and cannot know. It's not an insult.

To grasp the world's thinking you must grasp the thinking of the Spirit, and you will see.

Suffice to say, it is all the thinking available to you, aside from what you cannot obtain, the enlightenment of God.

People explain spiritual truths with spiritual words, and you bicker over the definitions of the words.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
What do you think the thinking of the Spirit is?
I don't know. I suspect it has something to do with the way you feel about something, and I suspect that different people will explain it differently, as is the nature of subjective experience.
I will summarize worldly thinking for you, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life. It is the way natural man thinks.
There is much more to life that concerns me as well as these things. You place too much prominence on these things to accurately describe me.
Since I am human, and in this world, exposed to every thinking of this world, my informed opinion is the two don't meet. The flesh thinks and desires some things, the Spirit desires different things. It is why you truly cannot see the difference, you don't and cannot know. It's not an insult.
Sometimes my spirit and flesh are in accord, sometimes they aren't. I can sometimes see how what my flesh urges is not a good thing, so I can see a difference.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I don't know. I suspect it has something to do with the way you feel about something, and I suspect that different people will explain it differently, as is the nature of subjective experience.

There is much more to life that concerns me as well as these things. You place too much prominence on these things to accurately describe me.

Sometimes my spirit and flesh are in accord, sometimes they aren't. I can sometimes see how what my flesh urges is not a good thing, so I can see a difference.

What spirit? Do you mean some reference to some esoterical concept that has no basis in reality?

You would need to stand on some ground before I can understand what you are trying to say.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
I think you have trouble understanding judging and accountability.

If God is not accountable to you, then your judgements are babble.

Pick a side, or quit yer bitchin. Express your desire to call Him down and answer you, or cease.
On the contrary, it is you who fails to see the distinction - as is clear by the fact that you conflate the two. They are not synonyms.

Consider: Is slavery morally wrong? We can readily judge it to be. But making the judgment has not made anyone accountable to us.

Do YOU think slavery is wrong, Furion? What is your judgment? You cannot say, can you?

Sorry but I want evil removed from this universe, that is my standard, love compels me to not suffer evil to live.
But you cannot decide what is evil!

You just told me in your view judgment and accountability are the same, and presumably you do not think anyone is accountable to you. So how can you judge if a person or an action committed is evil?

God will take care of it in His time.
Sure, take your time God. It is not like anyone is suffering.

Oh, wait. It is.

Around 150,000 people die each day, most of whom God chooses to send to hell for eternal torture, if Christianity is true. Each day God waits is another 100,000 people, say, that God is torturing in hell.

But why should God give a hoot about us. It is not like he loves us or anything is?

Oh, wait. It is.

You will not accept your evil, I get it. Every man wants to think of himself as good.
Well you did tell me I am good earlier:

"Again you simply refuse to grasp God is not a man, and that you are a good person, that you live a moral life."

You will not accept your evil, I get it. Every man wants to think of himself as good.
Yes, you are absolutely right. I do not believe I am so evil that I deserve to be tortured in hell for eternity. And I believe that is true for the vast majority of humankind - I am not even sure Hitler deserves eternity of torture for his finite offenses.

Sure, we all do wrong occasionally, some more than others, but to suppose that every last one of is so thoroughly evil that he or she deserves an eternity of torture at God's hands is abhorrent.

This is not the system of a loving God, this is the system of a sick, twisted, sadistic maniac.

Love demands evil be stopped and removed from those who desire love.
No it does not. Love demands nothing. Love gives forgiveness unconditionally.

Are you married? Ever been in love? Did you demand that your partner stop being evil? And if she failed to do so, did you torture her, with no hope of freedom? I am trying to get a mental picture here of what a loving relationship means to Furion. It is not a pretty picture, I must say.

If that means men who cling to their evil be removed from the rest of us, so be it. It is their choice.
Wow, that mental picture just got worse. Sounds like you would kill anyone you loved if you felt she was evil. And given you seem to think everyone is evil... No, not a nice picture at all.
 
Top