God is unconditional love, He harms no one.
It is man that blames God for their own actions, whether they believe in Him or not.
Your remarks are as false as the people you accuse.
God Bless
Leroy
According to whom? That’s certainly not how God has historically been portrayed. If you want to disregard any part of the Bible that disagrees with your personal concept of God, that’s fine. But then we’re back to the whole “moral relativism” problem that the OP brought up.
My point is that if somebody relies solely on “God’s word” as a basis for their morality or ethics, they must pick and choose from among the many statements attributed to God. And the only way they can decide which words to follow is if they have an innate sense of morality that exists wholly apart from what “God” has told them.
In other words, you choose to believe that God is unconditional love and that he harms no one. And that’s perfectly fine. But in order to believe that, you must disregard large chunks of the Old Testament and interpret the New Testament in such a way that “Eternal Damnation” doesn’t mean what it sounds like. You must also disregard the religious books of other religions, such as Islam, that contradict your chosen concept of God. And you choose to believe this, I suggest, because you are a good and moral person, not the other way around. Other people are not so moral and ethical, and therefore pick and choose those parts of God’s word that justifies murder, prejudice, and a whole plethora of other immoral acts.
Barry
Godzilla: You’ve been lekatted.
So I noticed.
Whenever anybody glurges that “God is love” I always think about a syllogism that one of my philosphy professors used to write on the board:
God is Love
Love is Blind
Ray Charles is Blind
Ergo, Ray Charles is God
Barry
**
**
OMG I found my new Sig. May I quote you on that?
You’ll have to ask all these people too.
Now, this is a sig:
Ahem:
Remind me to start pit thread: If I preview with show sig, I expect submit to include it to!
Does that mean Ronnie Milsap, Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles are THE SAME PERSON!?
OMG.
OK. There is no God.
There is NO measure of law which is inviolate.
Law is only subject to those who can enforce it.
Think about it.
YOU, then, are subject to whatever political structure is in place.
It could be Hitler.
It could be Stalin.
It could be Pat Robertson.
It could be Billy Graham.
It could be Teddy Roosevelt.
It could be Abraham Lincoln.
It could be Bill Clinton.
It could be Ronald Reagon.
It could be FDR.
It could be JFK.
It could be Adi Amin.
It could be an Ayatolah.
It could be any NUMBER of males who have fought valiently and hard to keep their domains (geography, goods, intellectual credentials)
It COULD be any one of these fellas.
There is no ‘God.’
Of course.
There is only Science.
We must ‘love’ one another for purposes continuing the species.
The ‘God’ stuff…the ‘black and white’ moral and ethical stuff is just bullshit.
Give me a situation. Give me a person. Give me a goal. Give me a second to call bullshit…ooops…
The Bastards are keeping control of the World’s OIL…OIL…
Sorry…
**
I knew you would come around. 
**
It’s like this: Humans have morals because we are moral animals(just as we are vertebrates, bipeds and speech capable animals).It is an evolutionary adaption, whether you like the sound of that or not.If we had not developed these social adaptions, we would not be around to discuss the matter now.
These morals, which are more practical than mystical, form the basis of the constructs we call “laws”.Laws are there to keep individuals in line who either ignore their conciences for some gain and act immorally or are so defective that they do not have conciences/morals(i.e. brain damaged, sociopaths etc.).
**
People WERE subject to those despots adn did not have much say in the matter.Hitler was a chrisitan with some pagan leanings and his regime was fully rooted in these religious beliefs.Stalin was an atheist but his atheism had nothing to do with his actions as a dictator.In either case you could scream “God’s law” until the cows came home and it would not save you from a public execution or death camp.
**
If one of these men were to hypothetically achieve such power that they could change laws, make new ones and enforce these things then yes, I would be subject to them.
[quote]
**It could be Teddy Roosevelt.
It could be Abraham Lincoln.
It could be Bill Clinton.
It could be Ronald Reagon.
It could be FDR.
It could be JFK.
It could be Adi Amin.
It could be an Ayatolah.
It could be any NUMBER of males who have fought valiently and hard to keep their domains (geography, goods, intellectual credentials)
It COULD be any one of these fellas.
[quote]
**
Correct.
**
I already gave you brownie points for this!
My what large straw teeth you have!
The better to obfuscate matters with, my dear!
**
Reproduction IS at the heart of natural selection and I agree it does not sound as neat as magical invisible gods, magically creating stuff which begats other stuff and ll that but I think your problem is that you are assuming, a priori that there are “higher purposes” adn/or “ultimate meanings” to life beyond which we assign it.Therefore you assume we are stating the the “meaning of life” is to reproduce and this sounds preposterous to you.
It is like this: If we had no drive to reproduce and were not passing these traits along in the gene pool then we would not be around here to discuss whether or not any gods exist.That simple.
**
ANother strawman.I have ethics/morals.Just because they do not come from God does not cheapen them or negate them.
?!?
No.
Let me explain to you the Dogma of the Trinity, my son…