mkmyers45:

To which laws can we say God is bound to? or is he above the law? will you obey a father who says one things and does the opposite?

Seriously? If you tell your children to go to bed early but you stay up late; does that make you an evil father?

mkmyers45: Sir, you have to be sure as a Christian....

No sir, as a christian, he doesn't necessarily have to........... the exact date of the battle in Heaven is of little or no relevance to a christian's faith

mkmyers45:

Does God commit an immorality when He Himself "breaks" a law under which He is not bound? I think not. The law was given to men by God not the other way around. And God is not at all obliged to bind Himself to requirements He lays upon men.


To which laws can we say God is bound to? or is he above the law? will you obey a father who says one things and does the opposite?

First the bolded part. Does the law read, "I shall not kill"? I don't think so.
Does JAMB have to take the UTME to get into a Nigerian tertiary institution? Of course not. It is the authority that regulates entry into institutions of higher learning. For that very reason, it is not subject to laws or rules it lays down for those who wish to enter a Nigerian tertiary institution. The same way, God as God cannot be bound by laws and requirements He gives to man for man's conduct of man's life.
As to what laws God is bound to, because I'm in a hurry I'm going to forego the niceties of argument and say, His Own Moral Character. It's not quite necessary that I answer you since it's not part of the debate.

mkmyers45:
Sir, you have to be sure as a Christian....

I have to be sure of the relevance of a question that you raised possibly to make a point? How's that?

Mr_Anony:
Seriously? If you tell your children to go to bed early but you stay up late; does that make you an evil father?




No sir, as a christian, he doesn't necessarily have to........... the exact date of the battle in Heaven is of little or no relevance to a christian's faith

Thanks bro. Shoulda known you'd hold the fort for me. Well, see ya later

Mr_Anony:
Seriously? If you tell your children to go to bed early but you stay up late; does that make you an evil father?

If you say to your child 'Don't steal and you are caught stealing....what does that make you? If you tell your children not to leave the house for their safety but you go out to get daily bread what does that make you?

No sir, as a christian, he doesn't necessarily have to........... the exact date of the battle in Heaven is of little or no relevance to a christian's faith

Sir, do you seriously believe that GEN 1 and 2 are sequential? It's relevant to the Christian faith Sir

Ihedinobi:

First the bolded part. Does the law read, "I shall not kill"? I don't think so.
Does JAMB have to take the UTME to get into a Nigerian tertiary institution? Of course not. It is the authority that regulates entry into institutions of higher learning. For that very reason, it is not subject to laws or rules it lays down for those who wish to enter a Nigerian tertiary institution. The same way, God as God cannot be bound by laws and requirements He gives to man for man's conduct of man's life.
As to what laws God is bound to, because I'm in a hurry I'm going to forego the niceties of argument and say, His Own Moral Character. It's not quite necessary that I answer you since it's not part of the debate.




I have to be sure of the relevance of a question that you raised possibly to make a point? How's that?

Please expanciate on God's moral character and please specify which god please...

mkmyers45:

If you say to your child 'Don't steal and you are caught stealing....what does that make you? If you tell your children not to leave the house for their safety but you go out to get daily bread what does that make you?

There is a difference between the two analogies. The law "Go to bed early" is subject to you it is your house, Even if you say to your child "don't steal" it is still within your house. You cannot possibly steal what is yours.

The only time you can justly condemn God is if he goes to start killing people in another universe that He did not create. As long as it is this universe, It is His house, His rules.

Sir, do you seriously believe that GEN 1 and 2 are sequential? It's relevant to the Christian faith Sir

My friend, I still don't see how it is so important. Care to explain better?

Mr_Anony:

There is a difference between the two analogies. The law "Go to bed early" is subject to you it is your house, Even if you say to your child "don't steal" it is still within your house. You cannot possibly steal what is yours.

The only time you can justly condemn God is if he goes to start killing people in another universe that He did not create. As long as it is this universe, It is His house, His rules.

Mr_Anony if you tell your child not to steal what belongs to others and you are caught stealing from others....what does that make you?

mkmyers45:

Please expanciate on God's moral character and please specify which god please...

What does that have to do with the issue under examination? The point about which this debate revolves is: Yahweh's morality cannot be called into question based on the laws He gave to man. This is what you are to refute if you can, and what I am to uphold if I can.
And what in the world do you mean, "specify which god"?

mkmyers45:

Mr_Anony if you tell your child not to steal what belongs to others and you are caught stealing from others....what does that make you?

Mkmyers45, seriously, I'm beginning to wonder what you're doing. Mr Anony has already answered this question in his last comment. Does your analogy in any way represent God's position with man?

Ihedinobi:

What does that have to do with the issue under examination? The point about which this debate revolves is: Yahweh's morality cannot be called into question based on the laws He gave to man. This is what you are to refute if you can, and what I am to uphold if I can.
And what in the world do you mean, "specify which god"?

and the laws which god is bound to is?

- Yahweh is an immoral God because He commanded the extermination of the Amalelites among other things. I have found this argument established with the fact that Yahweh had given as one of His commandments, Thou shalt not kill. As it is said, is the lawgiver not greater than the law? Does God commit an immorality when He Himself "breaks" a law under which He is not bound? I think not. The law was given to men by God not the other way around. And God is not at all obliged to bind Himself to requirements He lays upon men.

Psa 138:2 in the KJV reads: " I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Ihedinobi:

Mkmyers45, seriously, I'm beginning to wonder what you're doing. Mr Anony has already answered this question in his last comment. Does your analogy in any way represent God's position with man?

No he hasn't...i need him to say it makes me 'blah blah blah'......

mkmyers45:

and the laws which god is bound to is?



Psa 138:2 in the KJV reads: " I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

I imagine that you quoted that Scripture and bolded those words to make a point. But that's just my imagination, because I really haven't seen the point. Why don't you say it plain like I did with my own submissions and we can take it from there?
I should point out that you have an interesting habit of ignoring direct questions.

Mkmyers45, did you see this part of his comment?

Mr_Anony:
The only time you can justly condemn God is if he goes to start killing people in another universe that He did not create. As long as it is this universe, It is His house, His rules.

Ihedinobi:

I imagine that you quoted that Scripture and bolded those words to make a point. But that's just my imagination, because I really haven't seen the point. Why don't you say it plain like I did with my own surmises and we can take it from there?
I should point out that you have an interesting habit of ignoring direct questions.

i can say same about you too...Ok here goes

God can do somethings when he feels like even if he has severally instructed humans not to right?

mkmyers45:

i can say same about you too...Ok here goes

God can do somethings when he feels like even if he has severally instructed humans not to right?

Halleluya! Now, we can move on. By very definition of "God", right, He can.

mkmyers45:

i can say same about you too...Ok here goes

God can do somethings when he feels like even if he has severally instructed humans not to right?

whats this supposed to mean?

Ihedinobi:

If you have drawn all of this from the Bible (as I think that you have), you still come under my answer: unless you have the Spirit of the God of the Bible inside you, you can never make sense of the Bible.
I'll take the "burn the infidels/apostates" (lol) thing first. Why does a God Who in the Old Testament is all (apparently) for destroying unbelieving nations go dying for the same nations in the New Testament? Another contradiction huh, since He is said to be unchanging, right? The Christian tells you there is no contradiction. You just don't have what it takes to see the reconciliation of the two actions. I think that in the course of the discussion, this particular example (given the average atheist's/skeptic's addiction to it) will be explained.

The Spirit of God... Spirits don't exist, nor God/s (wait, did he/it/her/them etc show up on CNN yet?). So that is a waste of time, from my pov. Are you referring to a state of mind? Then by all means, enjoy yourself. I certainly do not need to convince myself such things exist, and function fine without them. I'm not trying to convince you to see my way either. There are ppl who would be born say in the Premier's? house in China, raised under the strictest and oppressive version of atheism and they would still make up a god to believe in. That's fine. A few might be afraid of death, or form such strong emotional bonds they'd like to believe in afterlife so loved ones are taken care of, that's fine as well. There are others that have just been indoctrinated, have zero imagination and are only concerned with self-preservation, what they can see in their immediate environment only. Their only concern is they were born in the here and now, and so they must follow all the rules and play the game without questioning or even applying common sense to the often ridiculous rules in society. Do you think it's a coincidence that most African countries are considered backwards? Lots of little issues come into play, for instance we praise anyone that has money. How did he get the money, did he provide quality service for that? Irrelevant. Just wear a suit, look serious, don't stand out, wait for your chance, chop, repeat etc. Be loud and inconsiderate, etc. These ones I loathe. But my personal feelings are also irrelevant. It is their right to worship whoever/whatever they want, or behave/live however they wish. So long as they don't violate another persons human rights/freedoms, I have no right to impose my will on them. More often than not religious people seem to have missed the memo there, and operate under the assumption that they are superior because they believe in certain fairy tales. Then apply really broken, dangerous logic into the real world, like the examples I list. They are mostly from the quran (except my favorite, the kill ppl who work on sabbath is old skool testament).

The second point, I do not see a reconciliation. Bottom line, your god once thought it was cool flood the world (and that's just one of the many things he did I would consider a major crime). With his creations in it, no less. Supposedly being omniscient meaning while he was creating them he knew what they were going to do.. in fact he created them specifically to do those acts, it is his will after all, the drowned them, then burns them in hell... forever... or does the burning start after the day of judgment? That is God-level trollin' right there. Why did he do that to them, because he loves them? Let's not forget omnipotent is an oxymoron, it would imply he/it (I'll call it "it" from now on) knows what is going happen, but cannot change it. If it changed what's going to happen then that would mean it didn't know what was going to happen in the first place. That isn't very omnipotent/scient-like now, is it? There are so many things wrong with the basic one true, benovelent, omnixxxx etc god that Thor et al make a hell of a lot more sense (and apparently yahweh had a waifu, and kids, but after getting their asses handed to them in some war they made it so there was only one god, therefore his will was still done). Unless you can show me 1 + 1 != 2 these points will always, objectively, stand. You can choose to ignore them, that is your right and I fully respect that. I do hope you have the sense to not impose your/its will on others, that is really annoying.

Also, there should be a different section atheists, shouldn't there?

wiegraf:

The Spirit of God... Spirits don't exist, nor God/s (wait, did he/it/her/them etc show up on CNN yet?). So that is a waste of time, from my pov. Are you referring to a state of mind? Then by all means, enjoy yourself. I certainly do not need to convince myself such things exist, and function fine without them. I'm not trying to convince you to see my way either. There are ppl who would be born say in the Premier's? house in China, raised under the strictest and oppressive version of atheism and they would still make up a god to believe in. That's fine. A few might be afraid of death, or form such strong emotional bonds they'd like to believe in afterlife so loved ones are taken care of, that's fine as well. There are others that have just been indoctrinated, have zero imagination and are only concerned with self-preservation, what they can see in their immediate environment only. Their only concern is they were born in the here and now, and so they must follow all the rules and play the game without questioning or even applying common sense to the often ridiculous rules in society. Do you think it's a coincidence that most African countries are considered backwards? Lots of little issues come into play, for instance we praise anyone that has money. How did he get the money, did he provide quality service for that? Irrelevant. Just wear a suit, look serious, don't stand out, wait for your chance, chop, repeat etc. Be loud and inconsiderate, etc. These ones I loathe. But my personal feelings are also irrelevant. It is their right to worship whoever/whatever they want, or behave/live however they wish. So long as they don't violate another persons human rights/freedoms, I have no right to impose my will on them. More often than not religious people seem to have missed the memo there, and operate under the assumption that they are superior because they believe in certain fairy tales. Then apply really broken, dangerous logic into the real world, like the examples I list. They are mostly from the quran (except my favorite, the kill ppl who work on sabbath is old skool testament).

The second point, I do not see a reconciliation. Bottom line, your god once thought it was cool flood the world (and that's just one of the many things he did I would consider a major crime). With his creations in it, no less. Supposedly being omniscient meaning while he was creating them he knew what they were going to do.. in fact he created them specifically to do those acts, it is his will after all, the drowned them, then burns them in hell... forever... or does the burning start after the day of judgment? That is God-level trollin' right there. Why did he do that to them, because he loves them? Let's not forget omnipotent is an oxymoron, it would imply he/it (I'll call it "it" from now on) knows what is going happen, but cannot change it. If it changed what's going to happen then that would mean it didn't know what was going to happen in the first place. That isn't very omnipotent/scient-like now, is it? There are so many things wrong with the basic one true, benovelent, omnixxxx etc god that Thor et al make a hell of a lot more sense (and apparently yahweh had a waifu, and kids, but after getting their asses handed to them in some war they made it so there was only one god, therefore his will was still done). Unless you can show me 1 + 1 != 2 these points will always, objectively, stand. You can choose to ignore them, that is your right and I fully respect that. I do hope you have the sense to not impose your/its will on others, that is really annoying.

Also, there should be a different section atheists, shouldn't there?

@wiegraf, if you agree I could butt in and give you a response.........unfortunately though it won't be tonight, I need to catch some sleep for now.

Mr_Anony:
@wiegraf, if you agree I could butt in and give you a response.........unfortunately though it won't be tonight, I need to catch some sleep for now.

Why not bro, it is a forum for such discussions no? I'm pretty sure we'll end up agreeing to disagree though And I tend to be late with my replies, I have no right to be nit-picky about that

@ wiegraf,
where have you been hiding all these while,

we need more intelligent, irreligious minds like you as our wingman in helping to upload some rational thinking into the very hard drive of our religious brothers in nigeria.

Religious dogma has held us down for so long. But it doesn't need to be forever.


Welcome to show, bro.
Welldone.

wiegraf:

The Spirit of God... Spirits don't exist, nor God/s (wait, did he/it/her/them etc show up on CNN yet?). So that is a waste of time, from my pov. Are you referring to a state of mind? Then by all means, enjoy yourself. I certainly do not need to convince myself such things exist, and function fine without them. I'm not trying to convince you to see my way either. There are ppl who would be born say in the Premier's? house in China, raised under the strictest and oppressive version of atheism and they would still make up a god to believe in. That's fine. A few might be afraid of death, or form such strong emotional bonds they'd like to believe in afterlife so loved ones are taken care of, that's fine as well. There are others that have just been indoctrinated, have zero imagination and are only concerned with self-preservation, what they can see in their immediate environment only. Their only concern is they were born in the here and now, and so they must follow all the rules and play the game without questioning or even applying common sense to the often ridiculous rules in society. Do you think it's a coincidence that most African countries are considered backwards? Lots of little issues come into play, for instance we praise anyone that has money. How did he get the money, did he provide quality service for that? Irrelevant. Just wear a suit, look serious, don't stand out, wait for your chance, chop, repeat etc. Be loud and inconsiderate, etc. These ones I loathe. But my personal feelings are also irrelevant. It is their right to worship whoever/whatever they want, or behave/live however they wish. So long as they don't violate another persons human rights/freedoms, I have no right to impose my will on them. More often than not religious people seem to have missed the memo there, and operate under the assumption that they are superior because they believe in certain fairy tales. Then apply really broken, dangerous logic into the real world, like the examples I list. They are mostly from the quran (except my favorite, the kill ppl who work on sabbath is old skool testament).

The second point, I do not see a reconciliation. Bottom line, your god once thought it was cool flood the world (and that's just one of the many things he did I would consider a major crime). With his creations in it, no less. Supposedly being omniscient meaning while he was creating them he knew what they were going to do.. in fact he created them specifically to do those acts, it is his will after all, the drowned them, then burns them in hell... forever... or does the burning start after the day of judgment? That is God-level trollin' right there. Why did he do that to them, because he loves them? Let's not forget omnipotent is an oxymoron, it would imply he/it (I'll call it "it" from now on) knows what is going happen, but cannot change it. If it changed what's going to happen then that would mean it didn't know what was going to happen in the first place. That isn't very omnipotent/scient-like now, is it? There are so many things wrong with the basic one true, benovelent, omnixxxx etc god that Thor et al make a hell of a lot more sense (and apparently yahweh had a waifu, and kids, but after getting their asses handed to them in some war they made it so there was only one god, therefore his will was still done). Unless you can show me 1 + 1 != 2 these points will always, objectively, stand. You can choose to ignore them, that is your right and I fully respect that. I do hope you have the sense to not impose your/its will on others, that is really annoying.

Also, there should be a different section atheists, shouldn't there?

I beg you excuse me from answering you. I yield to Mr Anony's request to respond to you. My reason is that I still can't see the relevance of your comment to my arguments. Perhaps Mr Anony's response to you will help me see the bearing of your comment upon my submissions.

cyrexx: @ wiegraf,
where have you been hiding all these while,

we need more intelligent, irreligious minds like you as our wingman in helping to upload some rational thinking into the very hard drive of our religious brothers in nigeria.

Religious dogma has held us down for so long. But it doesn't need to be forever.


Welcome to show, bro.
Welldone.

Thanks bro. Brofist! But you guys seem to be doing very well without me, though I realize this isn't some sort of competition. Hopefully positives are being gained from these debates.

Oga Ihe, my bad as well. I might not be clear enough for you (I get that response in all manner of stuff sadly, frequently). I never aim to obfuscate actually, only simplify. I also like to present as much as I can of the data I deem relevant, which is not very practical. Then when I do attempt to simplify, I usually get this look from whoever I'm talking to which says "does he think I'm a child?". I'll attempt to link it, but there's just so much I cannot have enough time to cover. Even now, I can only do this at night, at the expense of other things.

Someone was answering your points, and he states he does not buy the idea that god is above the law. I add that while religious may think it harmless to have this kind of thought, them assuming god can do no wrong and whatever it says/does is in their best interest, this is a particularly dangerous thought to spread around. Firstly, you have not even proven this god exists, your belief is based on faith. Somehow ppl seem to have forgotten what the word means, from dictionary.com

1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

There is no physical proof of a god, non, so the first does not apply. I cannot trust a thing which exists wholly in your mind. It is also rather arrogant to expect others to accept it based on faith. If it works for you that doesn't mean it should work for everyone else, or do you really think you are that superior? So much so that you can just make an arbitrary comment, without backing it up, then expect us to just follow you blindly? Have you heard of the teapot?

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot[/url]

Sometimes religious find it hard to understand this concept despite the fact they do the same to every other religion they are not members of. As Dawkins (I think) puts it, next to monotheists, we just believe in one less god. Also, arguments from authority will not work with most atheists either, and they really shouldn't with anyone. You should be able to understand how things work, frameworks behind these things, and make informed decisions on your own. If whoever is your authority figure makes a valid point, then excellent!! Else, follow the beggar you sometimes pity and give the odd n50 if he makes more sense (and you are not infringing on someone's rights, of course). Not to mention when people are removed from responsibility, things like these sometimes happen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
But I could go on and on about how most theists seem to miss just how fallacious the arguments they frame usually are, right from the premise, so we'll just move on...

The other definitions speak for themselves. Religion boils down to this: it makes you happy/safe, comforts you, etc. But it is not a fact that there is a god, far from it. It may be a fact to you, based on: faith. It is not even supposed to make sense, hence the word "faith" used to describe these things. Back to the idea that god is above the law (assuming god was real) is such a dangerous thought to have. When terrorist A blows himself up, it's because some god, who is above the law and too lazy to do his own smiting told him he will be rewarded in the afterlife. Told him, in an unfalsifiable way even (EDIT, he can only verify after his death, and no other person can verify he has actually collected as well, as we can't see this process, nor can he contact us being as he's dead and all, how convenient). So what are the rest of us left with, ppl, with potential, other sentient beings loved by someone and loving others, dead. A lot of the time because gullible terrorist wanted his virgins (how noble of him, and of god too to think of such a worthy reward), or even more alarmingly, because said terrorist genuinely believes his actions are righteous, seeing as his imaginary friend is always right. If the word religion was not attached to the terrorist, ppl would just call him mad. A quote from a famous physicist which somewhat applies: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.". Real world issues should be what concern us. With the terrorist situation, real ppl, tangible that I can see talk, laugh etc have been extinguished because someone thought his imaginary friend was more important than actual human lives. So obviously no, I don't think god is above the law, and I don't think it's a particularly good message to go spreading around. Real people are a lot more important. The examples I listed (mostly from the quran) were of the more egregious thought processes this kind of thinking often leads to.

On to the spirit bit, I've already pointed out a few reasons this makes little sense to me. I don't believe in spirits in the first place so how do you expect me to follow? I'll give you a simple example, I tried installing linux just to see what the fanbois were raving about, maybe learn a few things etc. After installing, which wasn't pain free but not too bad, I tried listening to basic mp3 files, but it tells me I need to connect to the internet before it would let me do even that. Ok, good, I stick my modem in, one of the mobile ones, it has a linux folder in it which I assume has installs for it. Try this and that, then it tells me I have to go to the internet. So basically, I have to connect to the internet in order to connect to the internet. Why gee, thanks! This is a rather poor example, because I could still find a LAN cable and use that to find drivers for the modem. In your case I couldn't get the Spirit of God because spirits.don't.exist. Heck, god doesn't exist. You want me to use a mythical concept to test a hypothesis about said mythical construct. Why gee, thanks! I also elaborate on why some ppl may choose to believe in God, some of my opinions, and point out that most importantly it is their right, or any other sentience's, to believe in xxxx-whatever, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of another sentient. But, as I've gone through pains to elaborate, giving a concept like god precedence over real human beings is a very dangerous idea to sell.

Second bit, the reconciliation bit, in response to your post, I believe is rather clear. Whatever the case may be, so long as its omnipotent (impossible, not just for the reason I point out) then there was no need to create, kill, then damn those ppl and all the others who've died under similar circumstances through history. Non whatsoever, unless you want to change the meaning of terms like benevolent and good.

And I've really run out of time, so I'm off. I'd love to elaborate further, but alas.. Hope it makes my positions clearer though.

wiegraf:
Someone was answering your points, and he states he does not buy the idea that god is above the law. I add that while religious may think it harmless to have this kind of thought, them assuming god can do no wrong and whatever it says/does is in their best interest, this is a particularly dangerous thought to spread around. Firstly, you have not even proven this god exists, your belief is based on faith.
Back to the idea that god is above the law (assuming god was real) is such a dangerous thought to have. When terrorist A blows himself up, it's because some god, who is above the law and too lazy to do his own smiting told him he will be rewarded in the afterlife. Told him, in an unfalsifiable way even. So what are the rest of us left with, ppl, with potential, other sentient beings loved by someone and loving others, dead. A lot of the time because gullible terrorist wanted his virgins (how noble of him, and of god too to think of such a worthy reward), or even more alarmingly, because said terrorist genuinely believes his actions are righteous, seeing as his imaginary friend is always right. If the word religion was not attached to the terrorist, ppl would just call him mad. ... So obviously no, I don't think god is above the law...

I had to expunge a great deal of your comment partly for typing space and partly for clarity. From the quote above, I get that your position is that assuming God exists, He cannot lay upon human beings, objects of His Creation, laws that do not apply to Him. Ok, I hope I got that right.
I bolded that statement about proving the existence of God because I wanted to point out its irrelevance to the subject at hand. The point we are debating, that is, that Yahweh is rejected on grounds of immorality because He destroyed human lives among other things contrary to laws and requirements He gave to man, assumes that God exists. So any argument that takes us back to proving His existence is tangential to the issue. I'm making a case for God's morality assuming that He exists. Your position is to destroy my case with clear evidence and incontrovertible arguments for His immorality also assuming that He exists. Only in so far as proving His non-existence or questioning the grounds of His existence can help your position are you to employ such arguments. Or else you derail the issue. Again, the issue you are answering is Yahweh's morality, not His existence or non-existence. This is for clarity.

My answer in defence of God's morality is this: that God as God is like the owner/builder of a house. By virtue of His rights of ownership, He can choose to build it any way He pleases, or to pull down a part of it or the whole of it. There is no entity that has the right to question what an owner does with his property. Period. Assuming God exists (I have to say this to forestall any running around on the issue again), then your sentience and your ability to love and receive love would be credited to Him. If this is so, then God can do with you whatever pleases Him. He can choose to kill you or leave you, to preserve you and kill your family off before your eyes. He can do pretty much whatever He wants and you cannot rightly question Him, because He owns you, pure and simple.
I used the analogy of JAMB regulating entry into Nigerian institutions of higher learning to illustrate my point about His laws thus. I said that JAMB as a regulatory body is not in any manner subject to the rules it lays down for entry into Nigerian universities, polytechnics, monotechnics, colleges of education etc. Does that make it an immoral institution? By no means. The same with God. If God commands men to do such-and-such and not such-and-such, He is not obliged to do or refrain as He commands them.

As to His adherents, it was one of my points to say that true Christians have the distinguishing mark of Yahweh upon them. So, a true Christian will not be found doing things that contradict Yahweh's Moral Character. I am addressing this because of the terrorist example you gave which only parallels examples of alleged genocide in the Bible. Yahweh is not bound by any laws that He gave to men to regulate their conduct of life, but He is bound by His Moral Character to act in certain ways and not in others. Therefore, He is not a God of whims. There is propriety in His doings. These are the Christian's claims. If these claims are accepted as propositions at least, then the next logical thing to do is to find out what Yahweh's moral character is so that He can be judged by it.
What I'm saying by this section is that while certainly God is above every law of man including those ten commandments He gave at Mount Sinai, He is still a God bound to a Moral Code.

I've actually gone the extra mile with the last section. The pursuit of debate does not necessitate my giving you any of that information. It's just that I'm striving for more than just intellectual triumph.

Ihedinobi:

What does that have to do with the issue under examination? The point about which this debate revolves is: Yahweh's morality cannot be called into question based on the laws He gave to man. This is what you are to refute if you can, and what I am to uphold if I can.
And what in the world do you mean, "specify which god"?

Since the Devil deliberately disregards God's law, while God does make attention his rules. So who is Evil?

I'm not sure what you're addressing with the reconciliation part. But you raised the matter of omnipotence and by it said that "there was no need..." for God to create anything if He knew that things would turn out in such a way as to make Him destroy everything with a flood and then punish the human beings He had killed with eternal judgment.

I choose to refrain from answering this because it does not have a direct bearing upon the debate. It is a whole thread in itself. But there's a way I see it touch upon the issues we're addressing in this debate. It is in the matter of interpretation of the Bible. My submission with respect to that is that the Bible's claim is that no one can understand it correctly who does not have the Spirit of God in him. I went on to say that any true Christian would be able to reconcile so-called discrepancies and contradictions in the Scripture.

The matter of omnipotence is one such issue. Being a Christian, I see no foolishness or evidence of lack of thought or reason in God's doings with respect to creation, the flood and eternal punishment. It is quite clear to me what all that was about. That it isn't to you only bears out my point: that you are not qualified to interpret the Bible.

Kay 17:

Since the Devil deliberately disregards God's law, while God does make attention his rules. So who is Evil?

I'm sorry I don't understand.

@wiegraf: one more thing. All my arguments assume that whether or not we all have the Spirit of God (that is, whether or not you and anyone else believe in God and spirits and all that), we all have reason. We can think and examine facts and submissions to see whether or not they make sense. So, if eventually you ask me to go on and relate the creation, flood and hell/lake of fire, I expect that your answer to my reconciliation of all the seeming foolishness will be to show either how reasonable my answer is or how unreasonable it is.

Excuse my selfishness, answering when I see fit. I have time now but bb keyboard (ugh). I don't expect a reply but I'll just leave here..

You can skip this part actually, as it's just contextm
I didn't actually butt in to debate specifics really, I just wanted to point this out: if you accept god is above the law, you give bad/stupid poeple an excuse to do bad things. It's a free world, obviously we're all free to believe in whatever we choose to believe in, but if the average theist believes this or sends out this message then it's easy to see where a lot of the problems in this world come from. So for practical reasons I'd much rather ppl didn't go haphazardly making statements like these. I'll just leave it at that for now as I've said plenty on that already. Of course, freedom of speech. Onwards to your arguments, I'll not to derail or bring in too much 'big picture'-contect yes (a struggle for my feeble yet wondering mind, ugh x2).

Ihedinobi:

The point we are debating, that is, that Yahweh is rejected on grounds of immorality because He destroyed human lives among other things contrary to laws and requirements He gave to man, assumes that God exists. So any argument that takes us back to proving His existence is tangential to the issue. I'm making a case for God's morality assuming that He exists.

My answer in defence of God's morality is this: that God as God is like the owner/builder of a house. By virtue of His rights of ownership, He can choose to build it any way He pleases, or to pull down a part of it or the whole of it. There is no entity that has the right to question what an owner does with his property. Period. Assuming God exists (I have to say this to forestall any running around on the issue again), then your sentience and your ability to love and receive love would be credited to Him. If this is so, then God can do with you whatever pleases Him. He can choose to kill you or leave you, to preserve you and kill your family off before your eyes. He can do pretty much whatever He wants and you cannot rightly question Him, because He owns you, pure and simple.
I used the analogy of JAMB regulating entry into Nigerian institutions of higher learning to illustrate my point about His laws thus. I said that JAMB as a regulatory body is not in any manner subject to the rules it lays down for entry into Nigerian universities, polytechnics, monotechnics, colleges of education etc. Does that make it an immoral institution? By no means. The same with God. If God commands men to do such-and-such and not such-and-such, He is not obliged to do or refrain as He commands them.

I'm no philosopher, I can armchair good enough though so meh. To keep it short and simpple, assuming god is real, this question depends on if you believe morality is absolute or relative, making this highly subjective (see why mathmaticians in particular stay away from topics like these, also god cannot just decide that morality is either absolute or relative for you, among other things, your supposed free will and some basic logic). Ancient roman households for instance, the patriarch could do as he pleased. In essence, everything in the house, including ppl, were his property, he could more or else do whatever he wantd with them. We've all heard of slavery, still in existence today. If morals are relative, these laws, rules etc can be deemed morally good. Not just these actually, any moral code/behaviour can be justified, even things like the holocaust.


Now there are ppl that believe we should draw the line somewhere and have an absolute set of values, strive to achieve something 'fair' and so arbritarily put together (like sam harris, I'm sure there are other philosophers that share this view as well). It will probably be something similar to the golden rule, without its loopholes. You could say this is an important raison d'etre for movements like the rennaisance, american revolution etc. Generally speaking, heavily related to: human rights ( I and many others take this further to say sentient rights, but we're still too barbaric to popularly acknowledge we are not that special). Most proponents of an absolute set of rules for morality in our species can agree on one thing, sentient lives are no shape or form, in any language, property. That strikes me personally as such a conspicuously bad position, but that just my pov, I'm not to judge (well subtly maybe ). For instance, from where I see things, if I have a kid, there's this important thing I'd have at the back of my head: s/he didn't ask me to born him/her. That was my decision. Now I've brought a being that can think, feel pain, love and understand certain abstract concepts into this universe, that's a lot o responsibility. Said child/sentient, is in no form, my property, her life is her own. I could have built the sentient from the ground up in a lab, once I've giving it the ability to reason etc, then there is a great list of things I cannot do to it. It is part of my responsibility for creating said sentient. I created it, now it is my job to take care of it. (Personal op: Assuming god existed, and he did not follow this basic premise that many of us mere mortals follow, then what is the point of worshiping it? Hell, if I had the power ascribed to it (impossible as it is) why would I need to be worshipped anyhoo?).

I'll have to leave it here for now, time etc (not to mention my beloved spell-check, pedants everywhere these days). I'll edit this and complete it hopefully, but basically there is a lot of subjectivity involved in your postulate, among other things. I'll address other issues, like yes it makes It whimsical and no, judges are not above the law. The spirit thing is just.. Think cul... Gloves off if you like, I won't take it personally

wiegraf:

The Spirit of God... Spirits don't exist, nor God/s (wait, did he/it/her/them etc show up on CNN yet?). So that is a waste of time, from my pov. Are you referring to a state of mind? Then by all means, enjoy yourself. I certainly do not need to convince myself such things exist, and function fine without them. I'm not trying to convince you to see my way either. There are ppl who would be born say in the Premier's? house in China, raised under the strictest and oppressive version of atheism and they would still make up a god to believe in. That's fine. A few might be afraid of death, or form such strong emotional bonds they'd like to believe in afterlife so loved ones are taken care of, that's fine as well. There are others that have just been indoctrinated, have zero imagination and are only concerned with self-preservation, what they can see in their immediate environment only. Their only concern is they were born in the here and now, and so they must follow all the rules and play the game without questioning or even applying common sense to the often ridiculous rules in society. Do you think it's a coincidence that most African countries are considered backwards? Lots of little issues come into play, for instance we praise anyone that has money. How did he get the money, did he provide quality service for that? Irrelevant. Just wear a suit, look serious, don't stand out, wait for your chance, chop, repeat etc. Be loud and inconsiderate, etc. These ones I loathe. But my personal feelings are also irrelevant. It is their right to worship whoever/whatever they want, or behave/live however they wish. So long as they don't violate another persons human rights/freedoms, I have no right to impose my will on them. More often than not religious people seem to have missed the memo there, and operate under the assumption that they are superior because they believe in certain fairy tales. Then apply really broken, dangerous logic into the real world, like the examples I list. They are mostly from the quran (except my favorite, the kill ppl who work on sabbath is old skool testament).

The second point, I do not see a reconciliation. Bottom line, your god once thought it was cool flood the world (and that's just one of the many things he did I would consider a major crime). With his creations in it, no less. Supposedly being omniscient meaning while he was creating them he knew what they were going to do.. in fact he created them specifically to do those acts, it is his will after all, the drowned them, then burns them in hell... forever... or does the burning start after the day of judgment? That is God-level trollin' right there. Why did he do that to them, because he loves them? [b]Let's not forget omnipotent is an oxymoron, it would imply he/it (I'll call it "it" from now on) knows what is going happen, but cannot change it. If it changed what's going to happen then that would mean it didn't know what was going to happen in the first place. That isn't very omnipotent/scient-like now, is it? [/b]There are so many things wrong with the basic one true, benovelent, omnixxxx etc god that Thor et al make a hell of a lot more sense (and apparently yahweh had a waifu, and kids, but after getting their asses handed to them in some war they made it so there was only one god, therefore his will was still done). Unless you can show me 1 + 1 != 2 these points will always, objectively, stand. You can choose to ignore them, that is your right and I fully respect that. I do hope you have the sense to not impose your/its will on others, that is really annoying.

Also, there should be a different section atheists, shouldn't there?

Wow, you've told us your personal opinions. Like how you don't believe in spirits and consequently God. what amuses me is how you seem so sure that religious people imposing their views on others is wrong. How do you know exactly what human rights and freedoms are?

One thing I'll point out to you though, I don't believe my God is a fairy tale so when you call Him a fairy tale and then go on to approach God as if He is imaginary, you have only succeeded in creating a straw man and attacking it. Nothing much more.

About the things you consider evil, on what grounds do you consider them evil? what is your reference point from which you judge good and evil and why should an omnipotent being be subject to that reference point?

Now you have made judgment on God's "omni-everythingness" calling it an oxymoron because you created a false scenario where God is powerless against time that He created. Isn't it funny how in order to show that a being is not omnipotent, you had to strip it of some of it's powers?

You see, the joke is on you my friend. To rightfully make the assertions you are making, you must be greater than or at least equal to God.

By the way, I am not religious. I am a Christian (there's a huge world of difference there)

wiegraf: Excuse my selfishness, answering when I see fit. I have time now but bb keyboard (ugh). I don't expect a reply but I'll just leave here..

You can skip this part actually, as it's just contextm
I didn't actually butt in to debate specifics really, I just wanted to point this out: if you accept god is above the law, you give bad/stupid poeple an excuse to do bad things. It's a free world, obviously we're all free to believe in whatever we choose to believe in, but if the average theist believes this or sends out this message then it's easy to see where a lot of the problems in this world come from. So for practical reasons I'd much rather ppl didn't go haphazardly making statements like these. I'll just leave it at that for now as I've said plenty on that already. Of course, freedom of speech. Onwards to your arguments, I'll not to derail or bring in too much 'big picture'-contect yes (a struggle for my feeble yet wondering mind, ugh x2).



I'm no philosopher, I can armchair good enough though so meh. To keep it short and simpple, assuming god is real, this question depends on if you believe morality is absolute or relative, making this highly subjective (see why mathmaticians in particular stay away from topics like these, also god cannot just decide that morality is either absolute or relative for you, among other things, your supposed free will and some basic logic). Ancient roman households for instance, the patriarch could do as he pleased. In essence, everything in the house, including ppl, were his property, he could more or else do whatever he wantd with them. We've all heard of slavery, still in existence today. If morals are relative, these laws, rules etc can be deemed morally good. Not just these actually, any moral code/behaviour can be justified, even things like the holocaust.


Now there are ppl that believe we should draw the line somewhere and have an absolute set of values, strive to achieve something 'fair' and so arbritarily put together (like sam harris, I'm sure there are other philosophers that share this view as well). It will probably be something similar to the golden rule, without its loopholes. You could say this is an important raison d'etre for movements like the rennaisance, american revolution etc. Generally speaking, heavily related to: human rights ( I and many others take this further to say sentient rights, but we're still too barbaric to popularly acknowledge we are not that special). Most proponents of an absolute set of rules for morality in our species can agree on one thing, sentient lives are no shape or form, in any language, property. That strikes me personally as such a conspicuously bad position, but that just my pov, I'm not to judge (well subtly maybe ). For instance, from where I see things, if I have a kid, there's this important thing I'd have at the back of my head: s/he didn't ask me to born him/her. That was my decision. Now I've brought a being that can think, feel pain, love and understand certain abstract concepts into this universe, that's a lot o responsibility. Said child/sentient, is in no form, my property, her life is her own. I could have built the sentient from the ground up in a lab, once I've giving it the ability to reason etc, then there is a great list of things I cannot do to it. It is part of my responsibility for creating said sentient. I created it, now it is my job to take care of it. (Personal op: Assuming god existed, and he did not follow this basic premise that many of us mere mortals follow, then what is the point of worshiping it? Hell, if I had the power ascribed to it (impossible as it is) why would I need to be worshipped anyhoo?).

I'll have to leave it here for now, time etc (not to mention my beloved spell-check, pedants everywhere these days). I'll edit this and complete it hopefully, but basically there is a lot of subjectivity involved in your postulate, among other things. I'll address other issues, like yes it makes It whimsical and no, judges are not above the law. The spirit thing is just.. Think cul... Gloves off if you like, I won't take it personally

First of all, allow me to assure you that you're not butting in at all. Your comments and points of view are very welcome, just try and keep them coherent, if you please.

Next. I'll wait for you to complete it as you said. Perhaps in a separate comment too, if you don't mind.

Finally, it's quite a job to follow your thoughts but I've marked with bolding the issues that are wanting in your response. I'll begin from them when you have completed your arguments as you said.

Ihedinobi:

I used the analogy of JAMB regulating entry into Nigerian institutions of higher learning to illustrate my point about His laws thus. I said that JAMB as a regulatory body is not in any manner subject to the rules it lays down for entry into Nigerian universities, polytechnics, monotechnics, colleges of education etc. Does that make it an immoral institution? By no means. The same with God. If God commands men to do such-and-such and not such-and-such, He is not obliged to do or refrain as He commands them.

How's your weekend going, btw?
I wouldn't say this is a good analogy as the actual conditions in each scenario are rather different, maybe even more favorable for your argument. God supposedly has a lot more power than JAMB does in going about its business. JAMB is held accountable, they have to explain their actions to various government committees and such. Decisions made by JAMB aren't done by a single person. Despite this if something goes wrong in such an organization some scapegoat/actually guilty person(s) will be held culpable. There are checks and balances, if criticism is found to be valid changes are made and its officers must adhere to certain rules. While they may make the rules, they can't make any drastic changes or pull some sort of disingenuous stunt without expecting any backlash. Substitute JAMB with FIFA to get a sense of what I mean. Sure FIFA makes all the rules etc, but as recent events have shown they can't just do as they please. FIFA is considered by most observers (notably in the West though, here we see moral relativity in action, sort of) as being corrupt and of questionable morals. So yes, JAMB can be seen as a morally bad institution, it could even be scrapped based on reasons related to morality alone. Bear in mind though of course, the whole moral relativity issue comes into play here.

Ihedinobi:
As to His adherents, it was one of my points to say that true Christians have the distinguishing mark of Yahweh upon them. So, a true Christian will not be found doing things that contradict Yahweh's Moral Character. I am addressing this because of the terrorist example you gave which only parallels examples of alleged genocide in the Bible. Yahweh is not bound by any laws that He gave to men to regulate their conduct of life, but He is bound by His Moral Character to act in certain ways and not in others. Therefore, He is not a God of whims. There is propriety in His doings. These are the Christian's claims. If these claims are accepted as propositions at least, then the next logical thing to do is to find out what Yahweh's moral character is so that He can be judged by it.
What I'm saying by this section is that while certainly God is above every law of man including those ten commandments He gave at Mount Sinai, He is still a God bound to a Moral Code.

I've actually gone the extra mile with the last section. The pursuit of debate does not necessitate my giving you any of that information. It's just that I'm striving for more than just intellectual triumph.

And you may have wasted your time because I don't understand it . I appreciate the effort though. The "The Spirit of God... Spirits" mini-tirade of mine earlier resulted from me assuming "The Spirit of God" is some sort of mental state. I then go on to state I don't need such 'states', though I can understand if some people need that to function (well, some are just idiots, and keeping with my central issue which you nicely marked out, "if you accept god is above the law you give bad/[EDIT]stupid people an excuse to do bad things" I try to show how one who unquestionably believes s/he is one of these states jumps to becoming a full time bigot or having a view of this world which is skewed, but I didn't do that too well. Then again, and I've harped about this enough, it is their $deity given right, my problem is with the ones who assume these 'states' give them some sort of rights over us).
[EDIT] I assume now though that this "Spirit of God" is something else to you, and I can't see it that way as I'd prefer something that could be objectively ascertained, not open to so many interpretations. You start seeing goalposts shifting and no true Scotsmen with these. It still more or else registers in my opinion as some frame of mind.

Sleeping awake here. Await reply if you will, whenever you see fit of course. I'm interested in seeing how you deal with the parts you marked out.

@mkmyers45, I'm sorry I took so long. I only got back from my trip last night. My submission that

The Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world (Pardon the fact that I can't give you the reference for this Scripture right now, I'm away from my Bible at present)

is from Rev 13:8. It's difficult for me to find some things using a Bible that's not my regular. I'm sorry.

@wiegraf, I fully intend to return to our discussion. It's just that I needed a break from the strain for a bit. You'll get a response this evening, I hope.