One of the following MUST be true about God

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

God made everything, including evil. Doesn’t that mean god is iherently evil? It’s a contradiction, how does anyone resolve that? Why is there evil the world when a all-knowing and all controlling god lets this magically escape him? God made this conundrum, the devil. EVIL. Why? Please, if god loves us, why create such pain and suffering? It’s a “plan”. There is a divine reason for all this. Oh, really? That’s what nine out of ten terrorists say for killing people they never met. Allah works in mysterious ways, my holy arse.

There is evil in the world because man chooses evil.

And always has.

God allows it, because through pain we are tempered. He made us a perfect world, and we rejected it. So we suffer and die...but ultimately, we'll be reunited with God (if we choose to be).

That remark is patently stupid. The biology that includes the animals is almost entirely made up of a predator prey dynamic. Every animal that exists is eventually eaten by some other animal. Killing...AKA murder is the way of the world and was long before humans showed up. Animals also steal from one another with no hesitation. Calling this a "perfect" world now or before man showed up is stupid.

Perhaps you'd like to begin by telling us which form of answer you are seeking, spiritual in reference to the existence of a God or biology and science. Clearly you response is demonstrating the classic symptom of a split personality, which side would you like us to address?

 

[HUGGY]

There is evil in the world because man chooses evil.

And always has.

God allows it, because through pain we are tempered. He made us a perfect world, and we rejected it. So we suffer and die...but ultimately, we'll be reunited with God (if we choose to be).

That remark is patently stupid. The biology that includes the animals is almost entirely made up of a predator prey dynamic. Every animal that exists is eventually eaten by some other animal. Killing...AKA murder is the way of the world and was long before humans showed up. Animals also steal from one another with no hesitation. Calling this a "perfect" world now or before man showed up is stupid.

Perhaps you'd like to begin by telling us which form of answer you are seeking, spiritual in reference to the existence of a God or biology and science. Clearly you response is demonstrating the classic symptom of a split personality, which side would you like us to address?

I see I've overwhelmed you. I'z sorry. If you guys would put your IQs on your avies I'll make allowances.

 

[MaryL]

We are alive now in this fleeting instant. Tempus fugit, we are wasting time here. I believe in Santa Claus. At least Santa held that non believers didn't get hurt, they just got a sock full of coal, and then they learned humility.

 

[Agent.Tom]

My question would be why we must be constrained to the God of the Bible?

Because I was responding to someone who was specifically attacking the character of the biblical God.

Doesn't that begin with the premise that this is the correct version of God?

Yes, the attacks on the character of the biblical God implicitly presume the biblical God is the correct version.

If you don't accept it as the correct version, then why would you consider it the only version?

Great question and you'll have to ask the person who attacked the biblical God and left all the others alone. Just speculation on my part but maybe it's because the person doesn't give any of the other alleged deities any credibility, and it's only the biblical God that causes him/her concern.

I have been around the block a few times and in my estimation 99% of the attacks on deities in these forums center squarely on the God of the bible. While some may not give that a second's thought, I think what it means is the biblical God is the only one the skeptics give any legitimacy to. When you boil down the vast majority of skeptics' and cynics' arguments against [the biblical] God, what you get is just a bunch of whining and complaining about how His character is flawed and life is unfair. You know, like a child throwing a temper tantrum because Mommy and Daddy won't make a bee-line to the ice cream shop.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

One of the following MUST be true about God
1) God doesn't exist
2) God is incompetent
3) God doesn't give a shit

False.

It is NOT true that one of those things "must" be true.

In fact, it is probable that none of those things are true.

His false premises and RDD's standard inability to employ logic leads him, typically, to his wrong conclusion.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If you don't accept it as the correct version, then why would you consider it the only version?

Great question and you'll have to ask the person who attacked the biblical God and left all the others alone. Just speculation on my part but maybe it's because the person doesn't give any of the other alleged deities any credibility, and it's only the biblical God that causes him/her concern.

I have been around the block a few times and in my estimation 99% of the attacks on deities in these forums center squarely on the God of the bible. While some may not give that a second's thought, I think what it means is the biblical God is the only one the skeptics give any legitimacy to. When you boil down the vast majority of skeptics' and cynics' arguments against [the biblical] God, what you get is just a bunch of whining and complaining about how His character is flawed and life is unfair. You know, like a child throwing a temper tantrum because Mommy and Daddy won't make a bee-line to the ice cream shop.

With respect to all the attacks of God in the bible, the focal point that seems to draw the most criticism from skeptics is surrounded in the event of there being an actual resurrection. With respect to other faiths, none has made such a bold statement as laying claim of calling themself the Son of God, go through such a violent and traumatic death, and then be told of His resurrection. There has never been any other religion, to my knowledge, where a resurrection claim by a prophet has been made. Beginning from there, skeptics then move towards His documented "miracles" as a means to reason them away "logically" in an attempt to discredit His character. Even the most astute religious scholars of that time, the Sadducees and Pharisees, used their knowledge of scripture to find a way discredit the man of who He claimed to be. When you can discredit or attempt to "reason" something away, there is no real accountability to be found.

 

[PratchettFan]

My question would be why we must be constrained to the God of the Bible?

Because I was responding to someone who was specifically attacking the character of the biblical God.

Doesn't that begin with the premise that this is the correct version of God?

Yes, the attacks on the character of the biblical God implicitly presume the biblical God is the correct version.

If you don't accept it as the correct version, then why would you consider it the only version?

Great question and you'll have to ask the person who attacked the biblical God and left all the others alone. Just speculation on my part but maybe it's because the person doesn't give any of the other alleged deities any credibility, and it's only the biblical God that causes him/her concern.

I have been around the block a few times and in my estimation 99% of the attacks on deities in these forums center squarely on the God of the bible. While some may not give that a second's thought, I think what it means is the biblical God is the only one the skeptics give any legitimacy to. When you boil down the vast majority of skeptics' and cynics' arguments against [the biblical] God, what you get is just a bunch of whining and complaining about how His character is flawed and life is unfair. You know, like a child throwing a temper tantrum because Mommy and Daddy won't make a bee-line to the ice cream shop.

I see. My apologies for misunderstanding your post. I would agree and it continues to be a mystery to me. I have never understood the appeal of the "Biblical" God, either on the part of believers or those who claim not to believe. I do have to accept that the appeal exists, I just personally don't get it.

 

[PratchettFan]

If you don't accept it as the correct version, then why would you consider it the only version?

Great question and you'll have to ask the person who attacked the biblical God and left all the others alone. Just speculation on my part but maybe it's because the person doesn't give any of the other alleged deities any credibility, and it's only the biblical God that causes him/her concern.

I have been around the block a few times and in my estimation 99% of the attacks on deities in these forums center squarely on the God of the bible. While some may not give that a second's thought, I think what it means is the biblical God is the only one the skeptics give any legitimacy to. When you boil down the vast majority of skeptics' and cynics' arguments against [the biblical] God, what you get is just a bunch of whining and complaining about how His character is flawed and life is unfair. You know, like a child throwing a temper tantrum because Mommy and Daddy won't make a bee-line to the ice cream shop.

With respect to all the attacks of God in the bible, the focal point that seems to draw the most criticism from skeptics is surrounded in the event of there being an actual resurrection. With respect to other faiths, none has made such a bold statement as laying claim of calling themself the Son of God, go through such a violent and traumatic death, and then be told of His resurrection. There has never been any other religion, to my knowledge, where a resurrection claim by a prophet has been made. Beginning from there, skeptics then move towards His documented "miracles" as a means to reason them away "logically" in an attempt to discredit His character. Even the most astute religious scholars of that time, the Sadducees and Pharisees, used their knowledge of scripture to find a way discredit the man of who He claimed to be. When you can discredit or attempt to "reason" something away, there is no real accountability to be found.

Personally, I think it stems more from a rejection of teachings from childhood.

You might want to take a look at Krishna. A human manifestation of God, a virgin birth, taken away at birth because the king heard someone was going to replace him. There are quite a few parallels.

 

[numan]

You might want to take a look at Krishna. A human manifestation of God, a virgin birth, taken away at birth because the king heard someone was going to replace him. There are quite a few parallels.

And all of them childish nonsense and fairy tales.

Adults, of whatever religion, should be ashamed of themselves for believing fairy tales

.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You might want to take a look at Krishna. A human manifestation of God, a virgin birth, taken away at birth because the king heard someone was going to replace him. There are quite a few parallels.

And all of them childish nonsense and fairy tales.

Adults, of whatever religion, should be ashamed of themselves for believing fairy tales
.

,

noman has an opinion. A mere belief. And he belittles those who don't share his belief.

noman is no man. That's for sure.

,

 

[PratchettFan]

You might want to take a look at Krishna. A human manifestation of God, a virgin birth, taken away at birth because the king heard someone was going to replace him. There are quite a few parallels.

And all of them childish nonsense and fairy tales.

Adults, of whatever religion, should be ashamed of themselves for believing fairy tales

.

So you believe.

 

[numan]

noman has an opinion. A mere belief. And he belittles those who don't share his belief.

Yes, and I have a mere belief or opinion that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

And you are right, I belittle those who do not share my opinion.

It is an imbecilic error to imagine that all opinions are equally valid.

It is reasonable to question any statement -- at least briefly. But some opinions are so stupid that they can be dismissed very quickly as unreasonable -- for instance, all those "miracles" of religion which run counter to natural law.
.

 

[PratchettFan]

noman has an opinion. A mere belief. And he belittles those who don't share his belief.

Yes, and I have a mere belief or opinion that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

And you are right, I belittle those who do not share my opinion.

It is an imbecilic error to imagine that all opinions are equally valid.

It is reasonable to question any statement -- at least briefly. But some opinions are so stupid that they can be dismissed very quickly as unreasonable -- for instance, all those "miracles" of religion which run counter to natural law.
.

There is a difference between questioning something and categorically stating it is untrue. I get the first and share it, but you are doing the second and I would like to see your evidence to back up your claim. Without it, you're just another person insisting I'm going to hell if I don't believe. You're free to believe that and I'll not care.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

noman has an opinion. A mere belief. And he belittles those who don't share his belief.

Yes, and I have a mere belief or opinion that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

And you are right, I belittle those who do not share my opinion.

It is an imbecilic error to imagine that all opinions are equally valid.

It is reasonable to question any statement -- at least briefly. But some opinions are so stupid that they can be dismissed very quickly as unreasonable -- for instance, all those "miracles" of religion which run counter to natural law.
.

Wrong again you arrogant ignorant petty little twit. The Sun does not rise.

The Earth rotates giving the appearance to those on the ground that the Sun is rising.

Even so, we CALL it "sun rise;" and there's a reason even a moron like you can predict it. Repetition and study have shown us that, barring the annihilation of Earth, the Sun will (appear to) "rise" again in the morning.

By contrast, you baselessly egotistical ignorant petty twit motherfucker, you have absolutely NO evidence of the NON existence of God.

Good God. It has to suck to be such a stupid arrogant petty clump of worthless shit as you see in your mirror every day.

,

 

[koshergrl]

That remark is patently stupid. The biology that includes the animals is almost entirely made up of a predator prey dynamic. Every animal that exists is eventually eaten by some other animal. Killing...AKA murder is the way of the world and was long before humans showed up. Animals also steal from one another with no hesitation. Calling this a "perfect" world now or before man showed up is stupid.

Perhaps you'd like to begin by telling us which form of answer you are seeking, spiritual in reference to the existence of a God or biology and science. Clearly you response is demonstrating the classic symptom of a split personality, which side would you like us to address?

I see I've overwhelmed you. I'z sorry. If you guys would put your IQs on your avies I'll make allowances.

God created biology, science and man. He's truly amazing and worthy of our worship.

 

[PratchettFan]

Perhaps you'd like to begin by telling us which form of answer you are seeking, spiritual in reference to the existence of a God or biology and science. Clearly you response is demonstrating the classic symptom of a split personality, which side would you like us to address?

I see I've overwhelmed you. I'z sorry. If you guys would put your IQs on your avies I'll make allowances.

God created biology, science and man. He's truly amazing and worthy of our worship.

Perhaps. The way I see it, any being worthy of worship would not desire it.

 

[koshergrl]

It's all a test. If you can't recognize perfection and praise it, why would a perfect being want you around?

 

[koshergrl]

There are a whole host of unpleasant characteristics that go hand in hand with lack of humility, pride, and self absorption. I think that is probably the reason God wants us to praise him. We should celebrate and worship perfect goodness. Otherwise, what does that say about us?

 

[PratchettFan]

It's all a test. If you can't recognize perfection and praise it, why would a perfect being want you around?

You are saying that a perfect being only wants us around to tell it how perfect it is? That sounds needy to me, not perfect. As I said before, I really don't get the attraction on this but that doesn't make your belief any less valid than mine.

 

[PratchettFan]

There are a whole host of unpleasant characteristics that go hand in hand with lack of humility, pride, and self absorption. I think that is probably the reason God wants us to praise him. We should celebrate and worship perfect goodness. Otherwise, what does that say about us?

The issue I have with this is that a being which wants us to praise it is showing a lack of humility, pride and self absorption. I simply do not understand this version of God.