Can I just say I do find this offensive? You’ve said things similar to this more than once. It’s one thing to lay our your beliefs, but quite another to say you look forward to athiests pissing themselves when being confronted by God. I would also suggest that it is immoral to say you look forward to someone suffering.
I’d spit in their eyes, if they have any, and try to find a way to kill them. After all, they’re going to torture me eternally anyway.
The God of the Old Testament is an outright monster. If you really followed those rules, you’d be posting from Death Row. The Bible is hardly a valid source of “moral absolutes”; it’s closer to being a handbook for evil.
I didn’t say “atheists”, I said “some hate-filled unbelievers”, who may or may not post on this board.
And it is not immoral to wish to see people get a well-deserved comeuppance. I don’t wish Eternal Torment on them, just momentary distress as they realize how very profoundly wrong they were.
:rolleyes:
Just to add, I do wish well-deserved prolonged torment upon people who actually deliberately harm people, like murderers, rapists, child abusers, etc. For all I know, the “hate-filled unbelievers” I make note of may be ordinarily decent people who are just boorishly hostile regarding religion. I do hope for such people that after the Big Confrontation & some soiling of themselves, they then settle down with Yahweh/Jesus for a big long laugh at how silly they’ve been.
That’s quite true, but you did just say “you” to badchad; I assumed you were referring to any athiest, for which I apologise. Assuming a non-hate-filled athiest, would you get any pleasure out of them “peeing all over themselves & crying like little girls with skinned knees as they stand before Yahweh/Jesus for their Judgement.”?
Just so that I understand your position, i’m trying to think of an athiest version of what you said to see if you find it offensive… but it doesn’t really work the other way around. “I look forward to hate-filled believers dying and ceasing to exist” doesn’t really have the same point of realising you’re wrong that yours did. Hmm.
I quite agree; it’s not immoral to wish for justice. That’s perfectly reasonable. However, actually looking forward to said suffering, relishing the idea of the comeuppance, strikes me as pretty immoral.
Please FriarTed. Yahweh is no more likely to exist than werewolves are and Jesus is dead. Neither will ever be in any position to judge anything. In the off chance (I’m being generous and pretending your side has a chance) that you are correct, and I met your gods, I’d tell them they he can suck my… Well, you get the idea.
There is no reason to think there is an afterlife for anyone to realize anything after death. However, I do find it curious that you’re trying to equate your lovingness and morality with me. I thought you were supposed to be superior?
You didn’t answer what the external moral absolutes are. What do you think they are?
That’s interesting. I would expect you to say stoning to death a stubborn child is one of the things you would nuance out. Does this mean you think your god intends this type of thing to be absolute, or would you prefer to retract your statement?
So in other words, as much as you like to talk of about there being these external moral absolutes, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE! Thanks, that’s all I wanted to know.
You and I would probably agree about most “External Moral Absolutes”- no murdering or stealing or cheating on your SO’s. We’d probably disagree about
“no sex outside of hetero marriage”. But we have different bases for our EMAs.
I don’t have time to write out a list of all that I think are God’s “Do’s & Don’ts”.
I don’t believe in stoning stubborn children, nor do I believe that is a correct
interpretation of that Deuteronomy statute- it’s more a “stoning of delinquent
youthful repeat offenders”, I don’t have a tremendous problem with that for it’s
particular historical situation, tho I don’t think that situation necessarily applies now. I am totally against executing or governmental sanctions against people for violating Biblical religious laws or most adult consensual sex acts- I think a good case can be made that Jesus’s sacrifice ended such penalties for Covenental violations. However, I have no problem with executing proven murderers & rapists & child molesters.
And as far me being superior to you? I don’t know how you conduct your personal life. We’re probably both generally decent but flawed people. Heck, you may be better-behaved than I (in everything but religious discussions 
). The big difference is that I know I’m created by Yahweh, fallen from Him, & need to be reconciled through entrusting myself to His Avatar/Word/Son/Incarnation Jesus.
You’re still fighting against Him. I hope you eventually stop your war against Him
for your own sake.
Btw, when I have my own moment of Confrontation with Yahweh/JC, I also expect I’ll be taken down a few notches also- I just realize it & am working to lessen that ordeal.
I hope you don’t think I regard badchad’s behavior here as typical of all atheists. Heck, I doubt his behavior here is typical of his behavior in real life. As for the typical decent-but-flawed atheist or any unbeliever, I would hope that the main
reaction at the Big Confrontation would be a heartbroken confession of error, maybe a little therapeutic sobbing & then the fore-mentioned big long laughter at one’s own silliness.
It’s only the swaggering “If there’s a God, I’ll spit in His face” bunch, I’d like to see
wet themselves.
Fair enough, then. No, I don’t consider badchad’s behaviour as typical of all athiests, or of me personally. I still think though that relishing the prospect of suffering, even if it’s deserved, isn’t all that moral. Don’t get me wrong; if someone raped or killed a friend of mine, i’m sure i’d want them horribly punished in some way. But enjoying the idea of suffering isn’t the person I want to be.
No, you shouldn’t trust that I can look it up for myself.
Having Google and coding skills is not a surrogate for making a cohesive argument. You cited several texts, and offered very little in the way of commentary. That seems to me to be a drive by; something that is absolutely common here.
From the little you posted in #63, it seems to me that you took them out of context, and left me unsure you understand them. (without reference to dogma)
If you make an assertion, you simply must answer to them in a cohesive manner. Saying that they ‘don’t come to mind’, or to suggest that someone who asks you to support your claim should do your work for you by looking up the context is intellectually anemic.
I can’t answer for every other Christian out there, but I’ve never heard anybody say “that guy is an atheist so he can’t be trusted!”
“He’s a salesman so he can’t be trusted” yes, that I’ve heard.
Why? Why is that such a horrible thing? Who is hurt by that kind of attitude? Why do they deserve to be tortured? Unbelief is not even an act of will (how could a benevolent God expect people to believe h exists when he is unwilling to provide any evidence?) and why should he be surprised if anyone finds the God of the Bible to be less than worthy of respect?
If there’s a God, he’s going to have to do a lot of explaining to me, that’s for sure.
I find when I do that, people tend to cut out the parts of my posts where I do.
Regards,
Shodan
Plenty of people will try to dissuade a child from marrying an atheist. Such would be a life of misdirection and ultimate damning. Happens every day.
That’s quite a bit different from saying that he can’t be trusted, Kalhoun. In the example that you cited, it’s a question of compatibilty and shared values.
But see, that’s the thing. You can have shared values and be compatible without sharing religion. Happens every day. Just look around these boards. Mixed faith marriages all over the place.
Aside from the fact that it’s the couple’s business…not the family’s…to determine compatibility.
Just dropping in to say: of course it is not offensive to bring the Magic Sky Pixie or the Invisible Pink Unicorn into religious discussions. It is mere examination of the logical strength of an argument concerning God to substitute in the term “MSP” or “IPU” to see if the argument still holds water.
In similar fashion, discussions concerning gay rights have occasionally seen the terms “kleptomania” or “bestiality” substituted for “homosexuality” in logical propositions, and it is well understood that this in no way seeks to equate gay sex with thievery or dog-molesting, but only puts the argument itself to the test.
Did I say they deserve to be tortured? No, I said they should feel VERRRY uncomfortable when facing Yahweh/Jesus in the Great Confrontation.
For some, unbelief is not an act of will; for others, it very much is.
God will indeed explain Himself to you (a big part of that explanation will be showing you what He endured at Golgotha), but you’ll also have a lot of explaining to Him. And the final settlement will not be on your terms, or mine, but on His.
Because comparing one imaginary friend with another imaginary friend is equivalent to comparing a predilection that harms no one with a predilection that’s vile…I see…
:rolleyes:
Only to a limited extent. If one of your core values is worshipping and serving God, for example, then there can be no compatibility between a theist and an atheist. And what about the issue of children? I think parents would be rightfully concerned about whether the children will be raised with theistic or atheistic beliefs. (Saying, “We’ll teach both worldviews to them!” is a cop-out. I think one would be justifiably concerned about sending such mixed messages to the children, especially during their formative years.)
Besides, let’s assume that you’re right. Lets assume that the parents are mistaken and that one can have complete harmony with the atheist. That would merely imply that the parents are mistaken. It absolutely does NOT imply that the parents are saying “Atheists cannot be trusted!”