Morality of God

[Peregrine]

Interesting, no wonder you are so dull. You appeared from no where and that explains your stupidity. (Debate lingo, get used to it, call me names if you wish)

 

No, my existence is the result of inanimate natural laws and forces. Unlike you, I'm not so blind that I need to believe in an imaginary friend to make myself feel better about my own mortality. Most people with imaginary friends get psychological help, I suggest you do so too.

 

Happy?

 

I believe that you stated an end of the argument as well. Maybe you weren't conceding but you were calling it to an end until I posted my argument.

 

Because nobody could present a valid argument against my point. I'm perfectly happy to call the debate ended if your side wants to concede.

 

I disagree. The 70/70 is a perfect score. It equals 100%. The teacher set the highest score possible for all years to come. The point is, God is "good", what he is equals the definition of "good" no matter how immoral you, a dog lover, thinks he is.

 

Wrong. A 70/70 still leaves 30% of the questions wrong. It can not be perfect, since by defintion something that is perfect can not be improved. On your test, a future person could get a 100/70.

 

Calling the 70 perfect is just lying to yourself to make yourself (or others) feel better. The fact that it is a more pleasant idea to call it perfect does not make it reality. Kind of like your belief in God....

 

Interesting, Interesting, Interesting. You can look at this both ways. Depending on whether you are an optimist or a pecimist. Optimists see it as, "That's great. If I become a mass murderer, God sees it as no worse than stealing one lousy dollar. "

 

Pecimists look at it this way, "That sucks, If I steal one dollar, God sees me just as bad as a mass murderer."

 

Translation: God's justice system is flawed, but you can put it in nicer sounding terms and make yourself feel better about believeing in it.

 

By any reasonable idea of justice, mass murder is far worse a crime than stealing $1. So by any reasonable system of justice, mass murder should have the greater punishment.

 

And it gets even worse... Hell might be a fair punishment for major sin like murder. But it is far out of proportion to minor ones like stealing $1 or not beliveing in God. Therefore it is completely inappropriate to use the same punishment for both. If you insist on both having the same punishment, a more just solution would be to lower the punishment to match the level of the most minor crime, not to raise it all to match the worst.

 

Obviously you look at it as a Pesimist. Good luck in the real world old chap!

 

And so does the rest of the world. Idealism as blind as religion exists in only one place... a church. Sorry if you don't like it, but the world is ruled by pesimism.

[Malchik]

Interesting, no wonder you are so dull. You appeared from no where and that explains your stupidity. (Debate lingo, get used to it, call me names if you wish)

Peregrine and you may delight in calling each other names but the rest of us on this forum call it flaming not debating. Desist and stop. Peregrine don't encourage it.

 

Hundinman maybe you will answer the question Darnoc was unable to.

 

If you accept the biblical definition of god as all-knowing, all-powerful creator, everything must be preordained by him. Therefore as god created all unbelievers specifically not to believe and to have no choice over whether or not they stayed that way, what do you consider is a justifiable judgement on them after their deaths?

[Eltiraaz]

God is not my maker. I'll insult fictional characters all I want. And I'll say it again.. morally God is inferior to my dog. I have more respect for him than for God.

 

You said yourself that within the boundaries of this thread, therefore, yes, God is your maker. Get your story straight.

 

1) We have no free will. God creates people with an inevitable fate of eternal suffering.

 

Again within the conditions of this debate, you are correct and the only right answer is that, Yes, God is immoral, I have already stated that.

 

 

2) God's prefered solution to any problem is genocide.

 

False. In the real scenario, he did such acts (eg the great flood) to punish us for our mistakes. However, again in this debate it makes Him immoral.

 

3) God considers failure to worship properly a crime that deserves death.

 

False again. You are streching truths. God gives us all forgiveness if we ask for it, no matter how henious our crime.

 

4) God violates his own laws.

 

God is God, his rules were set for US, by HIM, so that he may take us to heaven. If he violated his own laws he did it for the benefit or his people.

 

 

5) Unlike civilized systems of justice, God makes no difference between minor and major crimes. In God's eyes, stealing $1 is morally equal to mass murder

 

Exactly. However, he will also forgive a mass murderer as completely as he would forgive someone who stole a single dollar from the richest man on earth. He would forgive them infinitley as long as they ask for forgiveness.

 

Hell might be a fair punishment for major sin like murder. But it is far out of proportion to minor ones like stealing $1 or not beliveing in God. Therefore it is completely inappropriate to use the same punishment for both. If you insist on both having the same punishment, a more just solution would be to lower the punishment to match the level of the most minor crime, not to raise it all to match the worst.

 

God doesnot send people to hell for stealing a doller. He doesnt even send them to hell for commiting a mass murder, he sends them to hell for denying his existence and for turning their back on him. I would say that is pretty fair, you pay your creator the respect of acknowledging his existense, and trying to live your life as best you can. And you get eternal paradise, if thats not fair than nothing is. See my above point.

 

 

6) God's massive ego blinds him and makes him act in evil ways.

 

? Start making sense. God does not have an ego, he is the most powerful being in the universe, I'm sure it is quite useless to him. You have no evidence or proof or even an idea. All you have is hate, hate leads to nowhere good, fast.

 

I have already conceded to this debate, several times. I will say it again, and I will say to all Christians argueing their points here:

 

Under the conditions of this debate it is not winnable, the only answer is God is Immoral. However that is not an actual truth, as we all know.

[Peregrine]

You said yourself that within the boundaries of this thread, therefore, yes, God is your maker. Get your story straight.

 

For purposes of the debate, God is. But that statement is in reply to an off topic demand that I show proper respect for God.

 

Again within the conditions of this debate, you are correct and the only right answer is that, Yes, God is immoral, I have already stated that.

 

Concession accepted.

 

False. In the real scenario, he did such acts (eg the great flood) to punish us for our mistakes. However, again in this debate it makes Him immoral.

 

The fact that God says it is justified punishment does not make it justified. In this debate or anywhere else, God is immoral.

 

False again. You are streching truths. God gives us all forgiveness if we ask for it, no matter how henious our crime.

 

Except for that minor detail that God uses genocide to punish unbelievers. If not by his own actions, by direct order to his worshipers.

 

God is God, his rules were set for US, by HIM, so that he may take us to heaven. If he violated his own laws he did it for the benefit or his people.

 

Except where he murders them and sends them to Hell for his own crimes? And what about the good of the victims? Is genocide justified as long as your side benefits from it?

 

Exactly. However, he will also forgive a mass murderer as completely as he would forgive someone who stole a single dollar from the richest man on earth. He would forgive them infinitley as long as they ask for forgiveness.

 

Translation: God is a corrupt judge that cares more about satisfying his own ego by worship than justice.

 

Start making sense. God does not have an ego, he is the most powerful being in the universe, I'm sure it is quite useless to him. You have no evidence or proof or even an idea. All you have is hate, hate leads to nowhere good, fast.

 

God has an ego problem. He demands worship, so much that he created billions of people who had no choice but to worship him. God's one unforgivable crime is failure to worship. How is this not ego?

 

I have already conceded to this debate, several times. I will say it again, and I will say to all Christians argueing their points here:

 

THEN STOP POSTING! If you have conceded, why do you keep arguing?

 

Under the conditions of this debate it is not winnable, the only answer is God is Immoral. However that is not an actual truth, as we all know.

 

Translation: We know our God is an immoral barbarian, so we blind ourselves to the truth. Since we have blind faith in our religion's lies, we must reject any parts of the bible that don't fit, or that would make our God less moral. We are not concerned with minor things such as truth, since all that is important is the pleasantness of our lie.

[Eltiraaz]

I would GREATLY appreciate it if you would stop using that annoying little "Translation:" feature to twist my words. I say what I mean, if I had another meaning to it I would tell you.

 

 

Exactly. However, he will also forgive a mass murderer as completely as he would forgive someone who stole a single dollar from the richest man on earth. He would forgive them infinitley as long as they ask for forgiveness.

 

 

Translation: God is a corrupt judge that cares more about satisfying his own ego by worship than justice.

 

HOW can you say that is being a corrupt judge? And HOW does that satisfy ego?

 

The fact that God says it is justified punishment does not make it justified. In this debate or anywhere else, God is immoral.

 

No, he gave us the choice, we chose wrong, he justly punished us. But since free will does not exist in this circumstance it makes him immoral.

 

Except for that minor detail that God uses genocide to punish unbelievers. If not by his own actions, by direct order to his worshipers.

 

Then that is not his fault. Unless you take the given circunstances.

 

There is obviously no point in argueing against someone who so poorly twists any valid point that I have. I am wasting my time. Since I have already conceded I am leaving this discussion until another point or question is brought up.

 

Say whatever you want, I dont care.

 

Goodbye.

[Peregrine]

I would GREATLY appreciate it if you would stop using that annoying little "Translation:" feature to twist my words. I say what I mean, if I had another meaning to it I would tell you.

 

And I say what your words really mean. You might believe the stuff you're saying, but to any reasonable person, reality and your words don't match.

 

HOW can you say that is being a corrupt judge? And HOW does that satisfy ego?

 

Is it really that hard to understand? A corrupt judge takes bribes to reduce punishment. God takes bribes (worship) to reduce punishment. Get the point?

 

And it satisfies ego for one simple reason... if people worship him, God is wanted and feels important. Apparently he isn't confident enough of his power, so he has to have worshippers tell him how good he is.

 

No, he gave us the choice, we chose wrong, he justly punished us. But since free will does not exist in this circumstance it makes him immoral.

 

Free will is irrelevant. If a human government made a law that punished stealing $1 by torture and execution, it would be considered absolutely immoral. God is no different.

 

Then that is not his fault. Unless you take the given circunstances.

 

Your argument didn't work for the Nazis, it doesn't work here. Hitler himself killed few (if any) people. Does that mean he is innocent? No, it doesn't. Ordering someone's death is just as immoral as killing them yourself. Except in this case, God is too much of a coward to do the job himself.

[Breton Thief Oriana]

HOW can you say that is being a corrupt judge? And HOW does that satisfy ego?

 

Is it really that hard to understand? A corrupt judge takes bribes to reduce punishment. God takes bribes (worship) to reduce punishment. Get the point?

 

And it satisfies ego for one simple reason... if people worship him, God is wanted and feels important. Apparently he isn't confident enough of his power, so he has to have worshippers tell him how good he is.

 

 

um, his worship doesnt get you into heaven. your asking forgivness (repenting) gets you into heaven. read the bible. that is, unless, you mean that with worship you get into pergatory, and not hell.

[Peregrine]

um, his worship doesnt get you into heaven. your asking forgivness (repenting) gets you into heaven. read the bible. that is, unless, you mean that with worship you get into pergatory, and not hell.

 

The point remains. God takes bribes (worship) to reduce punishment. God is a corrupt and immoral judge.

[Breton Thief Oriana]

I dont think that i question his morality at all. of course god is immoral. but, worship is praise. repentance is asking forgivness. if you dont ask forgivness, you dont get forgivness.

[Peregrine]

How hard is it to understand? Even if worship alone doesn't get you into heaven, it still gets you into purgatory (by your own words). Which by any sane definition is much less punishment. Therefore God still takes bribes to reduce his sentences.