rapture_ready: @thehomer

You should realise that the bible was written about God, not necessarily the devil, so it doesn't go into much detail about specific actions of the devil.

If it did, it would cause nightmares...

That's not even the case. It was made popular in the bible that everything god did was for the good. That I think should define the better character. This is commonsense.

@Reyginus, go and sleep. you have failed. you and a logical majority? LMAO!


dancing skelewu all over the place...

Reyginus: As a scientist I will say I don't know. But I can tell you that it is not a 'who'.
The problem of using who is to assume that the origin of everything was the handiwork of a man. It is not possible. He cannot have the same anatomical and physiological mechanisms and still be able to create this level of intelligence.

If you dont know, but believe somethings exist, you really have a great faith. Pls explain the bold.

Frankly speaking, I don't know. But which one?

I wont tell you. keep searching.

No. He is not intelligent because it is not a 'He' in the first place. Check number 1.

Please explain why he is not a "he".

rapture_ready: @thehomer

You should realise that the bible was written about God, not necessarily the devil, so it doesn't go into much detail about specific actions of the devil.

If it did, it would cause nightmares...

So how do you know that the devil was actually evil? If you don't have enough information about the devil being evil yet you conclude that he must be evil, then you're committing the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance because ignorance of the devil's actual character doesn't mean he is evil.

Reyginus: Lol. I guessed right again. You didn't dissapoint me. With all due respect I marvel at your use of logic here.
I don't see any way you are going to see the point again with this logic of yours. Not at all. But I will still do well to tell why I think so.

All I see here is yet another attempt at an evasion that will fail and I'll go on to show you how it fails.

Reyginus:
Your problem is that you seem to be treating the so-called fiction as something that really happened. You are doing what anyone shouldn't try after reading a work of fiction.
It caan never possibly happen, it is despicable and an attempt to deviate from the substance of the work.

This is rubbish and you know it. Anyone can ask about the character of the beings portrayed in works of fiction. e.g one can ask whether or not Harry Potter had a better character than Lord Voldemort. Saying that it didn't happen so we can't consider it is your attempt at hiding your discomfort. After all, billions of people believe that the Bible isn't actually a work of fiction so why have you suddenly developed cold feet?

Reyginus:
Let me remind you. There are constants in this work of fiction, which once removed, is no longer speaking of the same thing. Some of this constants are:
1. God is always good irrespective of his actions'.

And I disagree with this claim based on the evidence in the Bible. So, this mere assertion has to be justified. And as I've shown, this God entity performs some very evil actions.

Reyginus:
2. The devil is the bad guy that tries in unexplainable means to destroy mankind'.

Another assertion that needs to be backed up by evidence. What were the means that the devil used? We know what God did but what did the devil do?

Reyginus:
3. Some events are beyond the readers comprehension.

Ah your final magical trump card. If they're beyond the readers comprehension, then based on what has been provided so far, God is the worse character until otherwise demonstrated.

Reyginus:
What the bible is saying, as far as I and a logical majority are concerned, is that no matter the events intervened by God it is usually a good thing, which might be beyond the scope of the reader, but always for the limitation of the devil's power. I'm baffled that you are not seeing this.

Rather than making the fallacious bandwagon fallacy by talking about some logical majority, why don't you actually state how you reached the conclusion that God has the better character? State the actions performed by God and the devil and compare them to see which one of them has the worse character rather than magically saying we don't know therefore God has the better character.

Reyginus:
It is not as if the bible failed to correct the notion that God's actions were evil, it even went further to tell you that for mankind to survive it is necessary for God to do the things he did. This is commonsense.

Simply shouting that it is commonsense doesn't make your statements sensible. So far, the Bible hasn't said what the devil did instead it says the evil things that God did but you magically say that it means God has the better character. Come on. Step outside your Christian thinking and take a sharp look at the information before you.

Reyginus:
If you read a fiction work, say a movie e.g Merlin. From the outset, it was popularized that the destiny of the kingdom waa placed, by some supernatural providence which we dare not question, on his hands.
Notice how Merlin employed magic in dealing with distractions in the Kingdom of Camelot. He did evil things, with magic all in the name of protecting the kingdom. Then there was Lady Morgana, the witch.
Possessed by a demon, she was accused of witchcraft and was made to leave the kingdom. A comparison of the evil Merlin did to protect the Kingdom with that of Lady Morgana will be in the rough ratio of 10:1.
There comes somebody, a rational fellow, who tells you that Merlin was the worse character because he did greater evil irrespective of the essence.

I am sure you will not take this person serious or even if you do, it is because you are too shocked to hear it. That's the state I am in now.

I can't say because I haven't seen this Merlin movie but we can talk about something as well known as the Harry Potter series. Who would you say has the better character between Lord Voldemort and Professor Snape? I'm sure that most would say Snape and present evidence from the book talking about the actions of both Voldemort and Snape. That is all I ask you to do using the Bible but you keep floundering and trembling. And this tells me that you're not yet ready to be an atheist for some hours/days.

Whenever you're ready to look at things without your God glasses, just let me know.

Reyginus: I think my response above will do.

Sorry, your response was terrible and I exposed it as such.

Mr Troll: @Reyginus, go and sleep. you have failed. you and a logical majority? LMAO!


dancing skelewu all over the place...

Lolol. Do you mind showing how?

JMAN05:

If you dont know, but believe somethings exist, you really have a great faith. Pls explain the bold.



I wont tell you. keep searching.



Please explain why he is not a "he".

This is what I mean. The brain of man cannot be responsible for the creation of our universe. If man is incapable of such invention then the uncaused cause cannot be in the form of man.

thehomer:

All I see here is yet another attempt at an evasion that will fail and I'll go on to show you how it fails.

I've not in any way here made an attempt to evade. I think if your assertions weren't built on the wrong premise that the bible didn't set out to demonize the devil. The reason I don't think this problem will be resolved.

thehomer:

This is rubbish and you know it. Anyone can ask about the character of the beings portrayed in works of fiction. e.g one can ask whether or not Harry Potter had a better character than Lord Voldemort. Saying that it didn't happen so we can't consider it is your attempt at hiding your discomfort. After all, billions of people believe that the Bible isn't actually a work of fiction so why have you suddenly developed cold feet?

That's not a sufficient reason to conclude it is rubbish.
The attack you came with is a weak one. You didn't tackle the problem in the first place, rather, twisted it to something else.
You only showed that it can be questioned but not if a position can be taken outside what the director asserted.
What if in the beginning of the movie it was made clear who has the better character? That's the point you are deliberately running away from.
And please what is this talk about cold feet?

I've never watched Harry Potter myself.

thehomer:

And I disagree with this claim based on the evidence in the Bible. So, this mere assertion has to be justified. And as I've shown, this God entity performs some very evil actions.

Lol. This is not a good rebut and you know it.
I was expecting you to ask for evidence at this point, as you've been doing throughout the conversation, but I was dissapointed.

You should have dismissed this point by showing me that the bible didn't say anything similar.
So long the bible made this point on several occasions, and you have no evidence to disproof it, neither is there any, then you have no option than to join in concluding that the devil has the worst character.

thehomer:

Another assertion that needs to be backed up by evidence. What were the means that the devil used? We know what God did but what did the devil do?

Lol. Another white lie. I will give you an evidence but you must first promise to denounce your position if I can present one.
But the way you are holding unto it, it seems you will not still give in even if I present you with the best of evidence. I will still give it a try once you accept.

thehomer:

Ah your final magical trump card. If they're beyond the readers comprehension, then based on what has been provided so far, God is the worse character until otherwise demonstrated.

No. He cannot be. And by the way, I didn't make that up, the bible did. The way the bible is written gives no room for god to be the worse character.
Even where you think he should be scorned, there is always a verse defending his action. As far as the bible is concerned he cannot be wrong.

It is just like you paying some praise-singer to compose a song about you. There is no way his song can be about any other party. When they are mentioned it is only to show how you overpowered them.

thehomer:

Rather than making the fallacious bandwagon fallacy by talking about some logical majority, why don't you actually state how you reached the conclusion that God has the better character? State the actions performed by God and the devil and compare them to see which one of them has the worse character rather than magically saying we don't know therefore God has the better character.

Lol. But i've been doing that all along. Where did I say I don't know? Please state what I never said as if it is fact.

thehomer:


Simply shouting that it is commonsense doesn't make your statements sensible. So far, the Bible hasn't said what the devil did instead it says the evil things that God did but you magically say that it means God has the better character. Come on. Step outside your Christian thinking and take a sharp look at the information before you.

I don't know if you've forgotten that I am speaking as an atheist here and not a christain.

From the third question I answered I made it clear to you that the bible is a work of fiction. I think from that point you will begin to understand that I must take everything in the work just like the writer advised, if am to get the story.

I have no right to say the writer did a mistake in saying so and so person has the better character. I honestly think you cannot differenciate the fact that I, as an atheist, holds it as fiction with holding it as a reality when I was a christain.

thehomer:


I can't say because I haven't seen this Merlin movie but we can talk about something as well known as the Harry Potter series. Who would you say has the better character between Lord Voldemort and Professor Snape? I'm sure that most would say Snape and present evidence from the book talking about the actions of both Voldemort and Snape. That is all I ask you to do using the Bible but you keep floundering and trembling. And this tells me that you're not yet ready to be an atheist for some hours/days.

Like I responded earlier I have not watched the Harry Potter series. But if you will do so well in narrating it in brief, like I did with Merlin, then I will have something to say.
With the little I presented, what do you have to say on Merlin? As in, who the better character is?

thehomer:

Whenever you're ready to look at things without your God glasses, just let me know.

The very big problem you've allowed yourself to fall into. You find it hard to accept that I can think without drawing from my christainity. Too bad.

thehomer:

Sorry, your response was terrible and I exposed it as such.

It may be terrible but you've not done enough ascertain if it really is.

Reyginus: I've not in any way here made an attempt to evade. I think if your assertions weren't built in the wrong premise that the bible didn't set out to demonize the devil. The reason I don't think this problem will be resolved.

Then how do you know that the devil's character was worse than God's character using the Bible?

Reyginus:
That's not a sufficient reason to conclude it is rubbish.
The attack you came with is a weak one. You didn't tackle the problem in the first place, twisted it to something else.
You only showed that it can be question but not if a position can be taken outside what the director asserted.
What if in the beginning of the movie it was made clear who has the better character? That's the point you are deliberately running away from.
And please what is this talk about cold feet?

I've never watched Harry Potter myself.

Actually it is a sufficient reason to conclude that your response was rubbish. The question isn't about whether or not the fictional account is possible, but about which of the people under consideration had better characters.

Cold feet: (idiomatic, intransitive) to become nervous or anxious and reconsider a decision about an upcoming event. (from Wiktionary)

The fact that you've not watched Harry Potter isn't what is under consideration. What is under consideration is whether or not people can talk about the characters in the book.

Reyginus:
Lol. This is not a good rebut and you know it.
I was expecting you to ask for evidence at this point, as you've been doing throughout the conversation, but I was dissapointed.

You should dismissed this point by showing me that the bible didn't say anything similar.
So long the bible made this point on several occasions, and you have no evidence to disproof it, neither is there any, then you have no option than to join in concluding that the devil has the worst character.

It looks like you're once again very confused. I've presented you with evidence of the evil Yahweh did according to the Bible so this paragraph doesn't contribute anything.

Reyginus:
Lol. Another white lie. I will give you an evidence but you must first promise to denounce your position if I can present one.
But the way you are holding unto it, it seems you will not still give in even if I present you with the best of evidence. I will still give it a try once you accept.

Which of my sentences was the lie? You keep saying you'll present evidence but so far, your confusion has gotten the best of you. I'm still waiting for you to actually tell me the concrete evil that the devil did that was worse than God commanding genocides or the slaughter of 42 children.

Reyginus:
No. He cannot be. And by the way, I didn't make that up, the bible did. The way the bible is written gives no room for god to be the worse character.
Even where you think he should be scorned, there is always a verse defending his action. As far as the bible is concerned he cannot be wrong.

It is just you paying some praise-singer to compose a song about you. There is no way his song can be about any other party. When they are mentioned it is only to show how you overpowered them.

More confusion I see. I'm sorry but commanding genocide to punish some men isn't good enough. You're welcome to provide the justification for the evil I've pointed out your God carried out and you can point out the evil that the devil performed.

Reyginus:
Lol. But i've been doing that all along. Where did I say I don't know? Please state what I never said as if it is fact.

I know you've been committing the bandwagon fallacy. When you said:

Reyginus:
3. Some events are beyond the readers comprehension.

It means that you don't know what the devil did. If you knew what he did, it won't be beyond your comprehension.

Reyginus:
I don't know if you've forgotten that I am speaking as an atheist here and not a christain.

From the third question I answered I made it clear to you that the bible is a work of fiction. I think from that point you will begin to understand that I must take everything in the work just like the writer advised if am to get the story.

I have no right to say the writer did a mistake in saying so and so person has the better character. I honestly think you cannot differenciate the fact that I, as an atheist, holds it as fiction with holding it as a reality when I was a christain.

Sorry but based on your responses so far, you're still speaking as a Christian who is afraid to take a closer look at what is actually written in the Bible. The fact that it is a work of fiction should free you to critically look at it and arrive at your own conclusions instead, you're saying for some hidden reason that the writer (who you don't know) said something that is clearly contradicted by the work you can examine for yourself.

Reyginus:
Like I responded earlier I have not watched the Harry Potter series. But if you will do so well in narrating it in brief, like I did with Merlin, then I will have something to say.
With the little I presented, what do you have to say on Merlin? As in, who the better character is?

I can't summarize the entire series in a post just to make the point that you can actually look at the actions of a character even in a work of fiction for yourself to determine who had a better features.

Reyginus:
The very big problem you've allowed yourself to fall into. You find it hard to accept that I can think without drawing from my christainity. Too bad.

No, it is what you've demonstrated so far in your responses. Your refusal to actually even take a look at the God of the Bible is why I say you're doing a poor job trying to mimic being an atheist.

Reyginus: It may be terrible but you've not done enough ascertain if it really is.

It is terrible and I've shown the huge gaps in it over and over again.

thehomer:

So how do you know that the devil was actually evil? If you don't have enough information about the devil being evil yet you conclude that he must be evil, then you're committing the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance because ignorance of the devil's actual character doesn't mean he is evil.

I said the bible didn't go into too much detail about his specific actions, not that it didn't give any detail. It gave enough detail to make a veritable conclusion.

...For we are not ignorant of the devil's devices...

rapture_ready:

I said the bible didn't go into too much detail about his specific actions, not that it didn't give any detail. It gave enough detail to make a veritable conclusion.

...For we are not ignorant of the devil's devices...

So what were the actions he performed that made you conclude that the devil had a worse character than God?

thehomer:

So what were the actions he performed that made you conclude that the devil had a worse character than God?

Well, in the beginning, he did try to usurp God's throne, got his treacherous butt tossed out of heaven, then proceeded to destroy God's creation out of pure spite...

Doesn't sound like Man of the year material to me...

Reyginus: Lolol. Do you mind showing how?

TheHomer is doing a nice job already. i'm actually laughing at you now.

Reyginus: This is what I mean. The brain of man cannot be responsible for the creation of our universe. If man is incapable of such invention then the uncaused cause cannot be in the form of man.

What do you understand by the word "he"?

rapture_ready:

Well, in the beginning, he did try to usurp God's throne, got his treacherous butt tossed out of heaven, then proceeded to destroy God's creation out of pure spite...

Doesn't sound like Man of the year material to me...

Last time I checked, the Bible said he rebelled against God not that he tried to take God's throne.

Secondly, it was God who destroyed his own creation. Do you recall Noah's flood? What has the devil done that is even comparable to that degree of destruction?

Try looking for what the devil did to people. God has already done so much but what did the devil do?

thehomer:

Then how do you know that the devil's character was worse than God's character using the Bible?

Simply because we are supposed to accept whatever a work of fiction tells us is true.

Except when you begin to argue that it is not fiction in the first place, then we can begin to question and take position on why the historian is so flawed in his position. We can dismiss his insufficient reasons with good rebuttals which will be acceptable at this point.

But once it becomes fiction, whatever the writer says is final. Just like make the statement that a character it is wrong for a character in a science fiction movie to be seen flying, even though you were informed that the movie is a sci-fi.

thehomer:

Actually it is a sufficient reason to conclude that your response was rubbish. The question isn't about whether or not the fictional account is possible, but about which of the people under consideration had better characters.

But you've also failed on your part to understand that a character in any fiction is not judged based on what he did but on what the director or writer says it is. You are insinuating what the bible never wrote.

Do you accept that, as fiction and not a statement of fact, everything in the biblr is true? A yes or no will do. But you can answer in any way you want to.

thehomer:

Cold feet: (idiomatic, intransitive) to become nervous or anxious and reconsider a decision about an upcoming event. (from Wiktionary)

Lol. But where have I shown any of the above. Please don't flatter yourself.

thehomer:

The fact that you've not watched Harry Potter isn't what is under consideration. What is under consideration is whether or not people can talk about the characters in the book.

Ofcourse anyone can talk about it but my point is there is no way you can rationalize and come up to say that the director was wrong to label a particular character evil. It's his movie, his rules. Otherwise asserted, you are no longer talking of Harry Potter.

thehomer:


It looks like you're once again very confused. I've presented you with evidence of the evil Yahweh did according to the Bible so this paragraph doesn't contribute anything.

C'mon! Stop this deception. I didn't ask of any evidence of evil committed by Yahweh, I am only surprised that you cannot summon an evidence from the bible where it was written that God and not the devil is the evil.

If you hold the bible to mean completely what it is saying, then I would like to see you tell me that all it says about god is a lie, but if you say it doesn't mean what it tells, on what basis are you now saying the devil is a better character while god is not?

thehomer:

Which of my sentences was the lie? You keep saying you'll present evidence but so far, your confusion has gotten the best of you. I'm still waiting for you to actually tell me the concrete evil that the devil did that was worse than God commanding genocides or the slaughter of 42 children.

Wrong response. I only asked if you will accept that the devil is the worst character if I could show you a portion of the bible where it is so written. There is no point saying more.

Since we are using the bible it would be logical if we can find what the bible say of devil and God. I think that would be enough.

thehomer:

More confusion I see. I'm sorry but commanding genocide to punish some men isn't good enough. You're welcome to provide the justification for the evil I've pointed out your God carried out and you can point out the evil that the devil performed.

Please, what is this? thehomer I believe I don't have to tell you that does that address what it is quoting in any way.
This is just a repeat of what you've saying from the beginning. Not really is it bad to repeat it, but it is bad to repeat when what you're quoting have nothing in relation with it. I advice you read that response.

thehomer:

I know you've been committing the bandwagon fallacy. When you said:

Said what? Come and complete it. The statement is not complete.

thehomer:


It means that you don't know what the devil did. If you knew what he did, it won't be beyond your comprehension.

I guess this is somehow attached to what you were trying to say above. I can respond to it less I make a blunder.

thehomer:

Sorry but based on your responses so far, you're still speaking as a Christian who is afraid to take a closer look at what is actually written in the Bible. The fact that it is a work of fiction should free you to critically look at it and arrive at your own conclusions instead, you're saying for some hidden reason that the writer (who you don't know) said something that is clearly contradicted by the work you can examine for yourself.

You may be sincere in your perception of how my post appears, but I am also as certain as you are that I am not trying to sound christain.

thehomer:

I can't summarize the entire series in a post just to make the point that you can actually look at the actions of a character even in a work of fiction for yourself to determine who had a better features.

No no no. That's not what I am saying for god's sake. I am not of the opinion that you can determine their character by looking at their actions. If I did, it would have been irrational for me to argue that god was the better character.

I am of the opinion that whichever character the movie describes as the better one, irrespective of his actions, is the better character. That's my point.

thehomer:
Your refusal to actually even take a look at the God of the Bible is why I say you're doing a poor job trying to mimic being an atheist.

Lol. I think it is the same problem with logicboy. Only that logicboy's PhD is still at its acute stage while yours have gone chronic.

By the way, you didn't answer this question:
with my brief narration of the characters merlin and Lady morgana, who would you say has a better character?

Mr Troll: TheHomer is doing a nice job already. i'm actually laughing at you now.

I know it is a lie. If actually he is making a strong point I know a lot of you would have joined forces to dismiss my obvious stupidity.
His position is so wrong that any of you is afraid of saying anything

JMAN05:

What do you understand by the word "he"?

What it really is. A word used to denote a male animal.

@Reyginus, u dey try jare.

thehomer:

Last time I checked, the Bible said he rebelled against God not that he tried to take God's throne.

Check again. He said "I will ascend to the highest throne bla bla bla", I'll find the reference in the bible for you later when I gat the chance...

thehomer: Secondly, it was God who destroyed his own creation. Do you recall Noah's flood? What has the devil done that is even comparable to that degree of destruction?

You are taking this the wrong way. God destroyed the bad parts of his creation. It's just a shame only Noah was found righteous. If say I write a program to add 1 + 1 = 2, and it keeps giving me 3 as an answer, I can very well delete it. If I build a robot to fetch me water and it keeps irreparably glitching and not working, I'll have to junk it...

Whatever God created, he has a right to destroy...

thehomer: Try looking for what the devil did to people. God has already done so much but what did the devil do?

Spawn all evil?

@Reyginus, how can you be moral without believing in God?

Reyginus: Simply because we are supposed to accept whatever a work of fiction tells us is true.

Except when you begin to argue that it is not fiction in the first place, then we can begin to question and take position on why the historian is so flawed in his position. We can dismiss his insufficient reasons with good rebuttals which will be acceptable at this point.

But once it becomes fiction, whatever the writer says is final. Just like make the statement that a character it is wrong for a character in a science fiction movie to be seen flying, even though you were informed that the movie is a sci-fi.

So you're saying that you cannot tell yourself by actually looking at what someone has done whether or not that person has a good character or not?

Who would you say has a better character between Macbeth and Banquo?

Reyginus:
But you've also failed on your part to understand that a character in any fiction is not judged based on what he did but on what the director or writer says it is. You are insinuating what the bible never wrote.

False. Characters whether fictional or real are judged by what they did. In fact sometimes the writer doesn't say who they think is good or bad.

Reyginus:
Do you accept that, as fiction and not a statement of fact, everything in the biblr is true? A yes or no will do. But you can answer in any way you want to.

The Bible contains some fictional elements but again, this point is irrelevant because we're talking about the actions performed by the entities mentioned in the book not whether or not the book was fiction.

Reyginus:
Lol. But where have I shown any of the above. Please don't flatter yourself.

You show it each time you're unable to back up your claim that the devil had a worse character than God.

Reyginus:
Ofcourse anyone can talk about it but my point is there is no way you can rationalize and come up to say that the director was wrong to label a particular character evil. It's his movie, his rules. Otherwise asserted, you are no longer talking of Harry Potter.

Actually, you can as long as you have a brain and can think, you can disagree with the author about whether or not based on what has been presented that a certain entity they created was good or evil. This reveals something else which is either you're afraid of actually reading what the Bible contains and talking frankly about it or you're lazy and want someone else to do your thinking for you

Reyginus:
C'mon! Stop this deception. I didn't ask of any evidence of evil committed by Yahweh, I am only surprised that you cannot summon an evidence from the bible where it was written that God and not the devil is the evil.

This is why I say you're being lazy. I've cited evidence for you that shows that God is evil based on what he did. You even accept that Yahweh has committed evil acts but for some reason, you're still unable to form any conclusion unless you were spoon fed.

Reyginus:
If you hold the bible to mean completely what it is saying, then I would like to see you tell me that all it says about god is a lie, but if you say it doesn't mean what it tells, on what basis are you now saying the devil is a better character while god is not?

I'm saying on the basis that Yahweh performed terrible acts while the devil didn't. I've listed some of the acts that Yahweh did that count as evil but so far, you've not been able to do the same for the devil.

Reyginus:
Wrong response. I only asked if you will accept that the devil is the worst character if I could show you a portion of the bible where it is so written. There is no point saying more.

Since we are using the bible it would be logical if we can find what the bible say of devil and God. I think that would be enough.

You said I lied. I asked you to show me the lie and you change tack? Come on.
And this would be laziness to the extreme. It shows a refusal to actually think about what you're reading. Sorry but I actually think about what I'm reading. Don't just show me a quote saying "the devil is worse than God", show me what the devil did that makes him worse than God. That is the difference between someone who thinks about what they read and someone who merely counts letters.

Reyginus:
Please, what is this? thehomer I believe I don't have to tell you that does that address what it is quoting in any way.
This is just a repeat of what you've saying from the beginning. Not really is it bad to repeat it, but it is bad to repeat when what you're quoting have nothing in relation with it. I advice you read that response.

Just state the evil actions done by the devil, compare them to God's actions and then you're ready to work.

Reyginus:
Said what? Come and complete it. The statement is not complete.

Go back and read it. I quoted what you said after the colon.

Reyginus:
I guess this is somehow attached to what you were trying to say above. I can respond to it less I make a blunder.

Of course it is attached. Didn't you read what I wrote? You've already made the blunder.

Reyginus:
You may be sincere in your perception of how my post appears, but I am also as certain as you are that I am not trying to sound christain.

Actually, you are and that is why you're afraid of looking at what the Bible says about God and devil and forming your own conclusion about it.

Reyginus:
No no no. That's not what I am saying for god's sake. I am not of the opinion that you can determine their character by looking at their actions. If I did, it would have been irrational for me to argue that god was the better character.

I am of the opinion that whichever character the movie describes as the better one, irrespective of his actions, is the better character. That's my point.

So when the producers of the movie don't write Bruce Willis is the good guy in this movie in the introduction, you find it difficult to tell who the good guys were in the movie Die Hard.
Or how do you think the good guys are? Isn't it by what they do? Or do they list the characters and say good guy after it?

Reyginus:
Lol. I think it is the same problem with logicboy. Only that logicboy's PhD is still at its acute stage while yours have gone chronic.

By the way, you didn't answer this question:
with my brief narration of the characters merlin and Lady morgana, who would you say has a better character?

I couldn't form a conclusion based on what you wrote. As I said, I'd rather arrive at my own conclusions rather than be spoon fed.

^^^


Where do you guys get the time and energy to write these long textbooks?

rapture_ready:

Check again. He said "I will ascend to the highest throne bla bla bla", I'll find the reference in the bible for you later when I gat the chance...

Go ahead.

rapture_ready:
You are taking this the wrong way. God destroyed the bad parts of his creation. It's just a shame only Noah was found righteous. If say I write a program to add 1 + 1 = 2, and it keeps giving me 3 as an answer, I can very well delete it. If I build a robot to fetch me water and it keeps irreparably glitching and not working, I'll have to junk it...

So God has caused more destruction than the devil. After all, the devil hasn't been able to match God's destruction and killing.

rapture_ready:
Whatever God created, he has a right to destroy...

Firstly why would a perfect God create imperfect creatures?
Secondly you're not a program.
Why does he have the right to destroy it?

rapture_ready:
Spawn all evil?

How did the devil spawn all evil? Why does God use evil at all?

thehomer:

Go ahead.

Isaiah 14:12-15

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Now go ahead and admit you are wrong and post a retraction.

thehomer: So God has caused more destruction than the devil. After all, the devil hasn't been able to match God's destruction and killing.

God has caused much destruction of evil things. How is destroying a bad thing a bad thing? Like when the americans shot Osama, was that murder?

thehomer: Firstly why would a perfect God create imperfect creatures?
Secondly you're not a program.
Why does he have the right to destroy it?

Why pretend you don't understand I was only using a program as an illustration? Anyway, for what it's worth, a program is a creation, I too am a creation, it's called a metaphor.

God didn't create imperfect beings, he created perfect beings - and then gave them free will

Why does he have a right to destroy it? Maybe because it's his creation? If I told you that you don't have the right to throw out your own soup that you cooked that has gone sour, what will you say?

thehomer: How did the devil spawn all evil? Why does God use evil at all?

Well technically, before the devil had his hare-brained idea to takeover heaven, there was no sin or evil. All the creation lived in peace and righteousness. God exalted him to be the chief of the angels, and he got proud and decided he wanted to be the oga@dtop. That is the first record of sin in existence.

rapture_ready:

Isaiah 14:12-15

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Now go ahead and admit you are wrong and post a retraction.

Nothing there says that the devil wanted to overthrow God. He was already in Heaven and isn't God's throne supposedly above the stars?

rapture_ready:
God has caused much destruction of evil things. How is destroying a bad thing a bad thing? Like when the americans shot Osama, was that murder?

Are 6 month old babies evil? Are they bad things?

rapture_ready:
Why pretend you don't understand I was only using a program as an illustration? Anyway, for what it's worth, a program is a creation, I too am a creation, it's called a metaphor.

Are you? So there's no important difference between you and a program?

rapture_ready:
God didn't create imperfect beings, he created perfect beings - and then gave them free will

Why isn't their free will perfect? After all, their free will is supposed to be perfect in Heaven so what is the problem?

rapture_ready:
Why does he have a right to destroy it? Maybe because it's his creation? If I told you that you don't have the right to throw out your own soup that you cooked that has gone sour, what will you say?

Well humans are very different from soup so you need a better comparison.

rapture_ready:
Well technically, before the devil had his hare-brained idea to takeover heaven, there was no sin or evil. All the creation lived in peace and righteousness. God exalted him to be the chief of the angels, and he got proud and decided he wanted to be the oga@dtop. That is the first record of sin in existence.

Now let's take a look at the characters of God and the devil. Which one of them has killed more people?

Secondly, why does God use evil? If he uses evil, then it means that he wanted to have evil in order to use it.

thehomer:

Nothing there says that the devil wanted to overthrow God. He was already in Heaven and isn't God's throne supposedly above the stars?

O boy...

thehomer:
Are 6 month old babies evil? Are they bad things?

What six month old babies?

thehomer:
Are you? So there's no important difference between you and a program?

Maybe you should look up the meaning of metaphors?

thehomer:
Why isn't their free will perfect? After all, their free will is supposed to be perfect in Heaven so what is the problem?

Their free will is perfect. It's the choices they make using said free will - that's the problem. Next you'll ask me why didn't God make all their choices perfect.

thehomer:
Well humans are very different from soup so you need a better comparison.

Really take a look at the metaphor thing. This does not look good on you.

thehomer:
Now let's take a look at the characters of God and the devil. Which one of them has killed more people?

Who has been keeping score, you?

thehomer:
Secondly, why does God use evil? If he uses evil, then it means that he wanted to have evil in order to use it.

God uses evil? Generalisations like that sound wacky without facts backing them up.

Manhunter™:
@Reyginus, how can you be moral without believing in God?

Yes, it is possible.

Though even as an atheist I still find irritating the notion that morality is subjective. For a person who denies the existence of a god to maintain a good ethical position, all he requires is to act accordingly on unwritten objective moral laws. By treating all man fairly. You don'y need god to do that.

We have also on a grander scale seen how well some atheists conduct themselves. I think that should be greatest evidence that it is possible.

rapture_ready:

O boy...

Any questions?

rapture_ready:
What six month old babies?

The six month old babies that drowned in Noah's flood. And the ones that died in the genocide he commanded.

rapture_ready:
Maybe you should look up the meaning of metaphors?

I know the meaning. But you see, due to the difference between humans and programs, your metaphor is too weak to work.

rapture_ready:
Their free will is perfect. It's the choices they make using said free will - that's the problem. Next you'll ask me why didn't God make all their choices perfect.

Well why didn't he? It looks like he does in Heaven so what was the problem?

rapture_ready:
Really take a look at the metaphor thing. This does not look good on you.

Take a look at the fallacy of a weak analogy.

rapture_ready:
Who has been keeping score, you?

I'm sure you can too if you try. For starters your God drowned a lot of people in Noah's flood. How many did the devil drown?

rapture_ready:
God uses evil? Generalisations like that sound wacky without facts backing them up.

[/quote]

Really you should try to know your Bible.

NIV:
1 Kings 22

19 Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’

“One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’

22 “‘By what means?’ the Lord asked.

“‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.

“‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’

Jeremiah 4

10 Then I said, “Alas, Sovereign Lord! How completely you have deceived this people and Jerusalem by saying, ‘You will have peace,’ when the sword is at our throats!”

Ezekiel 14

9 “‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel.

Are those quotes from the Bible satisfactory?