Link : http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/why_i_am_agnostic.html

A very good read, I must say.

The ministers, who preached at these revivals, were in earnest. They were zealous and sincere. They were not philosophers. To them science was the name of a vague dread -- a dangerous enemy. They did not know much, but they believed a great deal. To them hell was a burning reality -- they could see the smoke and flames. The Devil was no myth. He was an actual person. a rival of God, an enemy of mankind.

They thought that the important business of this life was to save your soul -- that all should resist and scorn the
pleasures of sense, and keep their eyes steadily fixed on the golden gate of the New Jerusalem. They were unbalanced, emotional, hysterical, bigoted, hateful, loving, and insane.

They really believed the Bible to be the actual word of God -- a book without mistake or contradiction. They called its cruelties, justice -- its absurdities, mysteries -- its miracles, facts, and the idiotic passages were regarded as profoundly spiritual. They dwelt on the pangs, the regrets, the infinite agonies of the lost, and showed
how easily they could be avoided, and how cheaply heaven could be obtained. They told their hearers to believe, to have faith, to give their hearts to God, their sins to Christ, who would bear their burdens and make their souls as white as snow.

But I heard one sermon that touched my heart, that left its mark, like a scar, on my brain.

One Sunday I went with my brother to hear a Free Will Baptist preacher. He was a large man, dressed like a farmer, but he was an orator. He could paint a picture with words.He took for his text the parable of "the rich man and Lazarus." He described Dives, the rich man -- his manner of life, the excesses in which he indulged, his extravagance, his riotous
nights, his purple and fine linen, his feasts, his wines, and his beautiful women.

Then he described Lazarus, his poverty, his rags and wretchedness, his poor body eaten by disease, the crusts and crumbs
he devoured, the dogs that pitied him. He pictured his lonely life, his friendless death.

Then, changing his tone of pity to one of triumph -- leaping from tears to the heights of exultation -- from defeat to victory -- he described the glorious company of angels, who with white and outspread wings carried the soul of the despised pauper to Paradise -- to the bosom of Abraham.

Then, changing his voice to one of scorn and loathing, he told of the rich man's death. He was in his palace, on his costly couch, the air heavy with perfume, the room filled with servants and physicians. His gold was worthless then. He could not buy another breath. He died, and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torment.

Then, assuming a dramatic attitude, putting his right hand to his ear, he whispered, "Hark! I hear the rich man's voice. What does he say? Hark! 'Father Abraham! Father Abraham! I pray thee send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my parched tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.'"

"Oh, my hearers, he has been making that request for more than eighteen hundred years. And millions of ages hence that wail will cross the gulf that lies between the saved and lost and still willbe heard the cry: 'Father Abraham! Father Abraham! I pray thee send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger. in water and cool my parched tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.'"

For the first time I understood the dogma of eternal pain -- appreciated "the glad tidings of great joy." For the first time my imagination grasped the height and depth of the Christian horror. Then I said: "It is a lie, and I hate your religion. If it is true, I hate your God."

From that day I have had no fear, no doubt. For me, on that day, the flames of hell were quenched. From that day I have
passionately hated every orthodox creed. That Sermon did some good.

From my childhood I had heard read, and read the Bible myself. Morning and evening the sacred volume was opened and prayers were said. The Bible was my first history, the Jews were the first people, and the events narrated by Moses and the other inspired writers, and those predicted by prophets were the all important things. In other books were found the thoughts and dreams of men, but in the Bible were the sacred truths of God.

Yet in spite of my surroundings, of my education, I had no love for God. He was so saving of mercy, so extravagant in murder, so anxious to kill, so ready to assassinate, that I hated him with all my heart. At his command, babes were butchered, women violated, and the white hair of trembling age stained with blood. This God visited the people with pestilence -- filled the houses and covered the streets with the dying and the dead -- saw babes starving on
the empty breasts of pallid mothers, heard the sobs, saw the tears, the sunken cheeks, the sightless eyes, the new made graves, and remained as pitiless as the pestilence.

This God withheld the rain -- caused the famine, saw the fierce eyes of hunger -- the wasted forms, the white lips, saw
mothers eating babes, and remained ferocious as famine. It seems to me impossible for a civilized man to love or
worship, or respect the God of the Old Testament. A really civilized man, a really civilized woman, must hold such a God in abhorrence and contempt.

But in the old days the good people justified Jehovah in his treatment of the heathen. The wretches who were murdered were idolaters and therefore unfit to live. According to the Bible, God had never revealed himself to these people and he knew that without a revelation they could not know that he was the true God. Whose fault was it then that they
were heathen?

The Christians said that God had the right to destroy them because he created them. What did he create them for? He knew when he made them that they would be food for the sword. He knew that he would have the pleasure of seeing them murdered.

As a last answer, as a final excuse, the worshipers of Jehovah said that all these horrible things happened under the "old dispensation" of unyielding law, and absolute justice, but that now under the "new dispensation," all had been changed -- the sword of justice had been sheathed and love enthroned. In the Old Testament, they said. God is the judge -- but in the New, Christ is the merciful. As a matter of fact, the New Testament is infinitely worse than the Old. In the Old there is no threat of eternal pain. Jehovah had no eternal prison -- no everlasting fire. His hatred ended at the grave. His revenge was satisfied when his enemy was dead.

In the New Testament, death is not the end, but the beginning of punishment that has no end. In the New Testament the malice of God is infinite and the hunger of his revenge eternal.

Please @ Musqueeto, who is an agnostic, what is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? I need enlightment because, I am a bit confused on who I am. thanks

Lionpikin: Please @ Musqueeto, who is an agnostic, what is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? I need enlightment because, I am a bit confused on who I am. thanks

You shouldn't be confused. From your username, it should be obvious that you are the child of a lion.
..............................
Okay, okay, on a serious note, you can just "google up" the terms to find out their meaning or you could read about it on wikipedia.

Interesting read @op

@inspired by God, thanks a lot, i ll do dat now

inspiredbyGOD:.:
Interesting read @op

Long time.. where u go hide?

Lionpikin: @inspired by God, thanks a lot, i ll do dat now

https://www.nairaland.com/1301165/lightning-strikes-science-vs-religion/5#15962736

I'll post links to other comments too asap. It's been discussed at length on this forum, but continues to crop up once in a while.

Strange. It feels like I'm reading Bro. Frosbel's story..


Anyways, those who believe that Christianity has always been painted in pink and innocent should read this. In my opinion, Christianity has only evolved faster than Islam.

But in the old days the good people justified Jehovah in his treatment of the heathen. The wretches who were murdered were idolaters and therefore unfit to live.

No human being has imagination enough to conceive of this infinite horror.

All that the human race has suffered in war and want, in pestilence and famine, in fire and flood, -- all the pangs and pains of every disease and every death -- all this is as nothing compared with the agonies to be endured by one lost soul.

This is the consolation of the Christian religion. This is the justice of God -- the mercy of Christ.

This frightful dogma, this infinite lie, made me the implacable enemy of Christianity. The truth is that this belief in
eternal pain has been the real persecutor. It founded the Inquisition, forged the chains, and furnished the fagots. It has darkened the lives of many millions. It made the cradle as terrible as the coffin. It enslaved nations and shed the blood of countless thousands. It sacrificed the wisest, the bravest and the best. It subverted the idea of justice, drove mercy from the heart, changed men to fiends and banished reason from the brain.

Like a venomous serpent it crawls and coils and hisses in every orthodox creed.

It makes man an eternal victim and God an eternal fiend. It is the one infinite horror. Every church in which it is taught is a public curse. Every preacher who teaches it is an enemy of mankind. Below this Christian dogma, savagery cannot go. It is the infinite of malice, hatred, and revenge.

Nothing could add to the horror of hell, except the presence of its creator, God.

While I have life, as long as I draw breath, I shall deny with all my strength, and hate with every drop of my blood, this infinite lie.

Nothing gives me greater joy than to know that this belief in eternal pain is growing weaker every day -- that thousands of ministers are ashamed of it. It gives me joy to know that Christians are becoming merciful, so merciful that the fires of hell are burning low -- flickering, choked with ashes, destined in a few years to die out forever.

For centuries Christendom was a madhouse. Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, monks and heretics were all insane.

Only a few -- four or five in a century were sound in heart and brain. Only a few, in spite of the roar and din, in spite of the savage cries, heard reason's voice. Only a few in the wild rage of ignorance, fear and zeal preserved the perfect calm that wisdom gives.

[size=14pt]We have advanced. In a few years the Christians will become -- let us hope -- humane and sensible enough to deny the dogma that fills the endless years with pain. They ought to know now that this dogma is utterly inconsistent with the wisdom, the justice, the goodness of their God. They ought to know that their belief in hell, gives to the Holy Ghost -- the Dove -- the beak of a vulture, and fills the mouth of the Lamb of God with the fangs of a viper.[/size]

Apologist things..

Of course the theologians fought the facts found by the geologists, the scientists, and sought to sustain the sacred Scriptures. They mistook the bones of the mastodon for those of human beings, and by them proudly proved that "there were giants in those days." They accounted for the fossils by saying that God had made them to try our faith, or that the Devil had imitated the works of the Creator.

They answered the geologists by saying that the "days" in Genesis were long periods of time, and that after all the flood
might have been local. They told the astronomers that the sun and moon were not actually, but only apparently, stopped. And that the appearance was produced by the reflection and refraction of light.

They excused the slavery and polygamy, the robbery and murder upheld in the Old Testament by saying that the people were so degraded that Jehovah was compelled to pander to their ignorance and prejudice.

In every way the clergy sought to evade the facts, to dodge the truth, to preserve the creed.

[size=15pt]At first they flatly denied the facts -- then they belittled them -- then they harmonized them -- then they denied that they had denied them. Then they changed the meaning of the "inspired" book to fit the facts. At first they said that if the facts, as claimed, were true, the Bible was false and Christianity itself a superstition. Afterward they said the facts, as claimed, were true and that they established beyond all doubt the inspiration of the Bible and the divine origin of orthodox religion.

Anything they could not dodge, they swallowed and anything they could not swallow, they dodged.
[/size]

I gave up the Old Testament on account of its mistakes, its absurdities, its ignorance and its cruelty. I gave up the New
because it vouched for the truth of the Old. I gave it up on account of its miracles, its contradictions, because Christ and his disciples believe in the existence of devils -- talked and made bargains with them. expelled them from people and animals.

This, of itself, is enough. We know, if we know anything, that devils do not exist -- that Christ never cast them out, and that if he pretended to, he was either ignorant, dishonest or insane.

I guess judges are bunch of sadist because they sentence people to life in prison and ultimately to death...

Maybe we should do away with laws that keep people behind bars for life because it is very cruel...

striktlymi: I guess judges are bunch of sadist because they sentence people to life in prison and ultimately to death...

Maybe we should do away with laws that keep people behind bars for life because it is very cruel...

No greetings, Striklymi? Still butthurt?


By the way, your comment is one of the most shallow defenses that are commonly used to defend the bible/old testament wickedness

Which Judge does the following;
-allows ra.pe (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
-kills children as punishment for father's sins (2 Samuel 12:14-31)
-kills children and takes health + wealth of a man just to test his faith (Book of Job)
-allows slavery (Leveticus 25;44)

striktlymi: I guess judges are bunch of sadist because they sentence people to life in prison and ultimately to death...

Maybe we should do away with laws that keep people behind bars for life because it is very cruel...

And that's why some make the case that the purpose of prisons should be for reform not condemnation.

How much more a God that claims to author our morality?

musKeeto:
Long time.. where u go hide?

I just decided to stay off nairaland in order to get my acts together. Hopefully, I will stay on this new path without getting all confused and I won't have to second-guess myself.

...and the Olodo speaks!

First impression was to put up one big sign that has your name (OLODO) written all over it and ignore your post but since I ma in a jolly good mood today, getting entertained with your Olodo sounds like a very nice idea...

Logicboy03:

No greetings, Striklymi? Still butthurt?

Didn't know this Olodo secretly likes being greeted...

Logicboy03:
By the way, your comment is one of the most shallow defenses that are commonly used to defend the bible/old testament wickedness

...and the Olodo assumes I tried to put up a defence for Sacred scriptures.

Logicboy03:
Which Judge does the following;
-allows ra.pe (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
-kills children as punishment for father's sins (2 Samuel 12:14-31)
-kills children and takes health + wealth of a man just to test his faith (Book of Job)
-allows slavery (Leveticus 25;44)

Even if I explain with my anus you still won't understand...no need to bother myself.

striktlymi: ...and the Olodo speaks!

First impression was to put up one big sign that has your name (OLODO) written all over it and ignore your post but since I ma in a jolly good mood today, getting entertained with your Olodo sounds like a very nice idea...



Didn't know this Olodo secretly likes being greeted...



...and the Olodo assumes I tried to put up a defence for Sacred scriptures.



Even if I explain with my anus you still won't understand...no need to bother myself.

Let me not derail Muskeeto's treads byh engaging the new and improved butthurt-abusive Striklymi.

*f4cks off thread to do whatever an evangelistic atheists does*

musKeeto:

And that's why some make the case that the purpose of prisons should be for reform not condemnation.

How much more a God that claims to author our morality?

Is it possible for, let's say, a serial killer (who obviously derives pleasure from killing people) to be reformed?

Logicboy03:


No greetings, Striklymi? Still butthurt?


By the way, your comment is one of the most shallow defenses that are commonly used to defend the bible/old testament wickedness

Which Judge does the following;
-allows ra.pe (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
-kills children as punishment for father's sins (2 Samuel 12:14-31)
-kills children and takes health + wealth of a man just to test his faith (Book of Job)
-allows slavery (Leveticus 25;44)

Still lying for Dawkins, or is it the FSM (hard to tell which is the God and which the prophet sometimes), are we?

musKeeto:

And that's why some make the case that the purpose of prisons should be for reform not condemnation.

Note that prisons are put up for very different reasons...reform those you intend to bring back to society, give justice to those who have been hurt in one way or the other, act as a preventive measure to deter those who have plans to commit similar crimes etc.

If one is sentenced to death for a crime committed, what exactly is that punishment supposed to achieve? I am very sure it has nothing to do with 'refurbishing' the individual but to appease justice...

Man only wants an avenue where we eat our cake and have it, and really we care little about the rationality of certain things because it has to do with God...if we look closely to the way we do things as man...it really is not very different from the principles God applies.

musKeeto:
How much more a God that claims to author our morality?

God has his moral codes and I believe he knows that man at certain times is not ready to receive the full extent of this morality and that is why he doesn't force this morality on us, save for certain instances.

Logicboy03:



Let me not derail Muskeeto's treads byh engaging the new and improved butthurt-abusive Striklymi.

*f4cks off thread to do whatever an evangelistic atheists does*

OLODO!!!

striktlymi:
Note that prisons are put up for very different reasons...reform those you intend to bring back to society, give justice to those who have been hurt in one way or the other, act as a preventive measure to deter those who have plans to commit similar crimes etc.

Good. The laws by whose authority the judge performs his duties are agreed upon by the society, aren't they? It's up to him to decide. And life imprisonment expires after death.

Do you think if humans lived to be a 1000 years old, we'd be comfortable with locking up people for centuries?

striktlymi:
If one is sentenced to death for a crime committed, what exactly is that punishment supposed to achieve? I am very sure it has nothing to do with 'refurbishing' the individual but to appease justice...

Can justice ever be appeased? Is the law perfect? Anyways, I'm not a lawyer and my knowledge on this matters would be quite deficient.

striktlymi:
Man only wants an avenue where we eat our cake and have it, and really we care little about the rationality of certain things because it has to do with God...if we look closely to the way we do things as man...it really is not very different from the principles God applies.

Exactly. God was created in the image of men.

striktlymi:
God has his moral codes and I believe he knows that man at certain times is not ready to receive the full extent of this morality and that is why he doesn't force this morality on us, save for certain instances.

Yawn. Whose morality do we agree upon then? Krishna, Chukwu, Yahweh, Allah?

musKeeto:
Good. The laws by whose authority the judge performs his duties are agreed upon by the society, aren't they? It's up to him to decide. And life imprisonment expires after death.

Life in prison to the flesh is equivalent to an eternity in prison to the spirit.

musKeeto:
Do you think if humans lived to be a 1000 years old, we'd be comfortable with locking up people for centuries?

You really do not know the extent of these things, do you? If man is capable of living upto a thousand years then everything we know now would be very relative....a middle aged man would be 500 and when one is 100, he would be considered a boy...

Now, to answer your question, the answer is still in the affirmative...man will not have a problem with locking up people for that long giving the nature of the crime.

musKeeto:
Can justice ever be appeased? Is the law perfect? Anyways, I'm not a lawyer and my knowledge on this matters would be quite deficient.

Justice can be appeased in the sense that there will be some form of closure.

musKeeto:
Exactly. God was created in the image of men.

Your opinion man! T his does not change the truth. This is similar to the words of Alfa: "Will things into existence".

musKeeto:
Yawn. Whose morality do we agree upon then? Krishna, Chukwu, Yahweh, Allah?

You still do not get it...

This is not about whose morality we follow...it is more about who does right giving one's sphere of knowledge. You can say that God choose to work with the morality of man with a caveat....

Try and understand what it means to say: "to whom much is given, much is expected"...

It is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse but in God's watch, ignorance can be an excuse if and only if, the individual sincerely does not know any better.

striktlymi: I guess judges are bunch of sadist because they sentence people to life in prison and ultimately to death...

Maybe we should do away with laws that keep people behind bars for life because it is very cruel...

The problem is that your god is an unjust judge and does not know what justice means. . .We has humans do not go about judging each other in such an unjust way. . .

striktlymi:
Life in prison to the flesh is equivalent to an eternity in prison to the spirit.

Na. One continues infinitely. There's no equivalence whatsoever..

striktlymi:
You really do not know the extent of these things, do you? If man is capable of living upto a thousand years then everything we know now would be very relative....a middle aged man would be 500 and when one is 100, he would be considered a boy...

It doesn't matter how long our lives become. We would still be considered liable for our actions at a certain age.

striktlymi:
Now, to answer your question, the answer is still in the affirmative...man will not have a problem with locking up people for that long giving the nature of the crime.

Before we continue along this line, I'd like you to pause and consider that some certain crimes attracted life imprisonment as punishment just a few years back. It's possible that a few centuries from now, there may no longer be prisons, but rehabilitation centers.

striktlymi:
Justice can be appeased in the sense that there will be some form of closure.

Form of closure to the victim. Justice has no feelings whatsoever. (hmm, at this point, I'm even tempted to question if there's anything like justice in the real sense.. crazy)..

striktlymi:
Your opinion man! T his does not change the truth. This is similar to the words of Alfa: "Will things into existence".

Yeah. We do that everyday.

striktlymi:
You still do not get it...
This is not about whose morality we follow...it is more about who does right giving one's sphere of knowledge. You can say that God choose to work with the morality of man with a caveat....

Try and understand what it means to say: "to whom much is given, much is expected"...

This introduces a new dimension to the discussion.

Would you agree then that there's no objective morality?

Also, would it be right to say that if there's no 'objective' morality, that there are universal attributes on which morality can be built on? Let's say, in no particular order, survival, love?

striktlymi:
It is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse but in God's watch, ignorance can be an excuse if and only if, the individual sincerely does not know any better.

Yawn. Speaking for God now, aren't you?

Hallo Mazaje,

mazaje:

The problem is that your god is an unjust judge and does not know what justice means

That is not true...

mazaje:
. . .We has humans do not go about judging each other in such an unjust way. . .

The above is demonstrably false.

inspiredbyGOD:.:
Is it possible for, let's say, a serial killer (who obviously derives pleasure from killing people) to be reformed?

Lol. Put him on the battlefield. He would satisfy his quench there.

Obviously, there are those who delight in watching their victims slowly die. Lots of craziness in this world man.

striktlymi: Hallo Mazaje,

That is not true...

Let me give you just one of the form of your god's justice that is immoral. . .

Amo 4:6 "I gave you empty stomachs in every city and lack of bread in every town, yet you have not returned to me,"
declares the LORD.

Amo 4:7 "I also withheld rain from you when the harvest was still three months away. I sent rain on one town, but withheld it from another. One field had rain; another had none and dried up.

Amo 4:8 People staggered from town to town for water but did not get enough to drink, yet you have not returned to me,"
declares the LORD.

Amo 4:9 "Many times I struck your gardens and vineyards, destroying them with blight and mildew. Locusts devoured your fig and olive trees, yet you have not returned to me,"
declares the LORD.

Amo 4:10 "I sent plagues among you as I did to Egypt. I killed your young men with the sword, along with your captured horses. I filled your nostrils with the stench of your camps, yet you have not returned to me,"
declares the LORD.


Please what kind of justice is this?. . .Will you infect your children with diesease and starve them for refusing to obey you. . .Do judges order people to be starved, infected with diseases, devoured by wild animals etc for breaking the law?. . .Many christians find this immoral and dispecable. . ..

The above is demonstrably false.

No it is not, even the hell myth has lost support amongst many christians in the west and other parts of the world. . . The people here do not accept hell as a just punishment for any body any more, so they come up with different theories to say people are not getting what the bible is saying or refuse to accept it outrightly. Many here on nairaland do not accept hell as a just punishment, because it is immoral to them. . .Its is not a just system of punishment. Firstly the bible says that who ever does not believe in Jesus is condemned already. What kind of justice is this that is predicated on belief?. . .I know you will not accept a parent that keeps beating his child all the child's life for disobedience. . .I repeat many christians do not see the hell punishment as a just punishment any more, they see it as unjust, sadistic and cruel and many have rejected it. . .

musKeeto:
Na. One continues infinitely. There's no equivalence whatsoever..

I don't expect you to understand it anyways.

musKeeto:
It doesn't matter how long our lives become. We would still be considered liable for our actions at a certain age.

...and the above means?...of course I know that there will still be an age where one will be tried as an adult, subject to some peculiarity.

musKeeto:
Before we continue along this line, I'd like you to pause and consider that some certain crimes attracted life imprisonment as punishment just a few years back. It's possible that a few centuries from now, there may no longer be prisons, but rehabilitation centers.

Have you given it a thought that maybe years from now what we might have are 'killing zones' as against rehabilitation centres considering the growth rate of the number of humans in the world.

musKeeto:
Form of closure to the victim. Justice has no feelings whatsoever. (hmm, at this point, I'm even tempted to question if there's anything like justice in the real sense.. crazy)..

There is something called justice and it definitely can be appeased...justice though relative in some cases because of the subjectivity of man, can actually be very objective...

If someone kills in cold blood and the individual is placed on 'death row'...can't we say that justice has been served? If the law states: 'a life for a life' and that was done...then it is justice....if the law states: 'Life in prison' and it was meted out to the killer then justice has been served...

Justice here as to do with what is considered fair and reasonable and in the world we find ourselves...it is agreed that whatever is enshrined in the constitution should be the basis for judgement hence justice.

musKeeto:
Yeah. We do that everyday.


This introduces a new dimension to the discussion.

Would you agree then that there's no objective morality?

It depends on what you mean by 'objective morality'...this has been looked at in so many threads and really what I see is a situation where those debating are saying the same thing from very different perspective...

If we say morality is objective, the questions here are: Objective to whom?...By objective do we mean a situation where the individual who is assessing morality, does so by looking strictly at the facts?

In line with the questions above then it is safe to say that morality can be looked at without attaching personal sentiments into the matter hence it can be objective if and only if one can maintain his objectivity...

But now it becomes problematic when the questions are asked: what defines right and wrong and from whose perspective do we determine the basis of right and wrong? What is right for 'A' can be wrong for 'B' and as such the whole objectivity thingy fails...

As far as humans are concerned, morality remains subjective.

musKeeto:
Also, would it be right to say that if there's no 'objective' morality, that there are universal attributes on which morality can be built on? Let's say, in no particular order, survival, love?

Survival??...do we say that a Mother who get's stuck in the middle of the sahara desert without any hope of rescue, decides to kill her newly born who just refuses to die, in order to quench her thirst, necessarily does wrong?

Or do we say that the same mother because of the love she has for her child prefers to die instead of killing the child, who anyways has just a few hours to live, necessarily does wrong because of her actions?

Muskeeto the question is really not a straightforward 'yes' or 'No' kinda question...what is LOVE? Is love objective or subjective? In the case of the lost mother and child, who should show love and sacrifice him or herself? The child or the mother?

musKeeto:
Yawn. Speaking for God now, aren't you?

I do not pretend to be God's spokesperson...you know that I am a Catholic and as far as I am concerned, the Pope is the spokesperson of God on Earth

^^^
Got to give it to you. You're more straightforward and less dubious. Yahweh slave.

mazaje:

Let me give you just one of the form of your god's justice that is immoral. . .

Amo 4:6 "I gave you empty stomachs in every city and lack of bread in every town, yet you have not returned to me,"
declares the LORD.

Amo 4:7 "I also withheld rain from you when the harvest was still three months away. I sent rain on one town, but withheld it from another. One field had rain; another had none and dried up.

Amo 4:8 People staggered from town to town for water but did not get enough to drink, yet you have not returned to me,"
declares the LORD.

Amo 4:9 "Many times I struck your gardens and vineyards, destroying them with blight and mildew. Locusts devoured your fig and olive trees, yet you have not returned to me,"
declares the LORD.

Amo 4:10 "I sent plagues among you as I did to Egypt. I killed your young men with the sword, along with your captured horses. I filled your nostrils with the stench of your camps, yet you have not returned to me,"
declares the LORD.


Please what kind of justice is this?. . .Will you infect your children with diesease and starve them for refusing to obey you. . .Do judges order people to be starved, infected with diseases, devoured by wild animals etc for breaking the law?. . .Many christians find this immoral and dispecable. . ..

Now, by what or whose standards do you adjudge the above to be immoral and a sour taste in the mouth of Justice? Let me ask you this: When you kill an ant, is that immoral or injustice to you?

mazaje:
No it is not, even the hell myth has lost support amongst many christians in the west and other parts of the world. . . The people here do not accept hell as a just punishment for any body any more, so they come up with different theories to say people are not getting what the bible is saying or refuse to accept it outrightly. Many here on nairaland do not accept hell as a just punishment, because it is immoral to them. . .Its is not a just system of punishment. Firstly the bible says that who ever does not believe in Jesus is condemned already. What kind of justice is this that is predicated on belief?. . .I know you will not accept a parent that keeps beating his child all the child's life for disobedience. . .I repeat many christians do not see the hell punishment as a just punishment any more, they see it as unjust, sadistic and cruel and many have rejected it. . .

To settle the above I have just one question: Have there been times where the laws that were upheld as just and moral in the past are now rendered obsolete, bad and distasteful in the present, all through human history?

musKeeto: ^^^
Got to give it to you. You're more straightforward and less dubious. Yahweh slave.

Of course I am a slave of Yahweh...I only wish I become a very good slave of Yahweh.

But when we take a cursory look at our very small world...can't we all be said to be slaves?...A philosopher puts it beautifully..."Men are born free but walk about in chains".

striktlymi:

Now, by what or whose standards do you adjudge the above to be immoral and a sour taste in the mouth of Justice? Let me ask you this: When you kill an ant, is that immoral or injustice to you?

Standard that we set for ourselves as humans. . .It is unjust for a father to starve his kids or infect them with dieases for acts of disobedience. . .What has an ant got to do with this?. . .It is immoral to go about killing ants in the wild for no just reason, unless if they come into your house and are constituting a problem. . .Else killing an ant that is going about on its own is immoral. . .

To settle the above I have just one question: Have there been times where the laws that were upheld as just and moral in the past are now rendered obsolete, bad and distasteful in the present, all through human history?

Sure, but what has that got to do with the hell wahala that is completely unjust, sadistic and cruel that so many christians are now seeing it for what it is?. . .

mazaje:

Standard that we set for ourselves as humans. . .It is unjust for a father to starve his kids or infect them with dieases for acts of disobedience. . .What has an ant got to do with this?. . .It is immoral to go about killing ants in the wild for no just reason, unless if they come into your house and are constituting a problem. . .Else killing an ant that is going about on its own is immoral. . .

When ants constitute a problem for you, then you kill them even though you did not create them? Now another question: why then is it wrong for God to kill his own creation if he believes they are constituting a problem?

mazaje:
Sure, but what has that got to do with the hell wahala that is completely unjust, sadistic and cruel that so many christians are now seeing it for what it is?. . .

The ish is not about hell...the ish came about as a result of your post:

mazaje:
. . .We has humans do not go about judging each other in such an unjust way. . .

The point here is to demonstrate to you that what you have up there is false...man has indeed gone out of his way to be unjust to his fellow man...