₦airaland Forum

Ranchhoddas: you reap what u sow!!

DING DING DING

So, why is god complaining?

The people roasting in hell, do you think they asked to be created? How is god doing them any favors?

The Harbinger ~:
see how you show more brain rot and foolishness. And yet you speak like someone capable of rational thought.


Please tell me, how does God knowing and choosing how to react when an action is done render him without freewill?


I'm sorry everyone, but I'm done here. I'm out.

The bible says a fool says there is no god. This is a plain example of the great depths of camouflage foolishness one can sink to in order to defend stupidity.

Well, if you actually thought you added any value to this convo...well..... You only demonstrated how religion poisons the mind, terribly. You say god isn't subject to reason, yet he cannot make sinless freewill

Read that again you eediot?! Do you require a diagram?! Mayhaps in crayons as well...

Stoopid people don't often know they're stoopid. Actually, this has been [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect]studied[/url].

Kudos

The Harbinger ~:
the only brain rot I see here is yours.

As foretold? Yes.

Clinically insane people do not usually know they are insane. That asides, this is what you state here; god must act as foretold yet he has freewill

Thank you, that will be all.

@rationaldude and @rationalmind, are you the same person??

The Harbinger ~:
It seems you're really serious with the question, and others follow this your irrational line of thinking.
God was creating human beings, who would be subject to reason, that's why he made them with freewill.
God chose to create human beings. There is no such attribute as sinless freewill man. It is contradictory in itself and silly. Unless you would want God to change the definition of reality, which I don't see him doing any time soon because of impotent thinking.

God chooses his own ways and his own reactions to our choices. God can never be subject to reason. But we know his character, and why would he choose to break reason in some cases without having a reason?

Look at that bolded. Look at it and try your bestestestest to think on it. I could not have been any clearer in my earlier post....

If we told you religion rots the brains, you'd whine. What in the world??

How it blinds you from seeing the so glaringly obvious is beyond me.... Just as some you mock the likes of onyfrank... yet jewish zombie

Anyways, disregarding that, how in the world is this about your opinion? Also are you dictating to your omnipotent overlord what he can and cannot do? This is really simple, try to limit shooting yourself in the foot again; must all of god's own future actions take place as foretold?

Really simple.

Thanks

Deep Sight: ^^^ Lol, just saw that you want to guard your kids from the hypocrisy you say you and everyone else has and is unavoidable. . . . you try.

The hypocrisy which is your expressly stated defense for saying that Hitler has done nothing wrong but bit.ching about the wrongs of Yahweh. And your defense to that was to admit you are a hypocrite. Now you wish to tell your kids something else - to limit their hypocrisy.

Bruv, you need a mental hospital.

Night!

Oh boy na wa. Yahweh obviously didn't do anything intrinsically wrong as well.

Doesn't in any way mean I support them, whatsoever.

Kudos again

Deep Sight: Stout also exists, therefore Flying Stout Monster.

Exactly

Deep Sight: At what point will you become rightly ashamed of the brevity of your intellect, spirituality and morality?

This is one of those moments where you should get a mirror

Deep Sight: And given that your own personal code is just yours, then Hitler has no issues to worry about. He acted just fine in his own subjective moral code. This is your position, since you subscribe to strict subjectivity.

This, you should ensure that you teach your children, okay?

I am sure it would be a great teaching for them.

Oh, and post script: that in bold up there, is just disgusting and frankly low.

It is exactly what I'll teach them. To learn to negotiate and recognize it's never black and white, else they get engrossed in their self righteousness and leave their hypocrisy unchecked. To follow their own conscience as it's likely better than following a head sheeple ordained by 'god' or similar. To recognize the universe wasn't built just for them, or even us humans as a species. Also, to appreciate that man is capable of great feats, no gods necessary, and our destiny is in our hands. Not of some god telling us how many times a day we can piss.

Have to go now. Kudos.

And you speak of disgusting??

Deep Sight: The simple fact of the matter is that you have absolved him of any wrong.

End of.

Yes, I have, of doing anything intrinsically wrong. Just as I absolve you of doing any intrinsic wrong when you butcher other animals for meat.

I think I've made it pretty clear now, no? I do NOT deny this.

I do not absolve him of violating my own personal code, though. Not at all.

Deep Sight: From conscience to FSM is just the most pathetic and even egregiously drunken leap I have ever seen.

Stop wasting our time with this nonsense.

No, you stop wasting our time your unadulterated nonsense. Htf does having a conscience = objective moral code. Really, what is wrong with you?

I repeat;

Spaghetti exists, therefore FSM

Deep Sight: How anyone can ask such a question as this, and still remain deluded that he is a rational being, is beyond me.

Does the above look like freewill to you? You are asking God to create a square circle, and you are the same person who shouts that square circles are a logical impossibility.

You need help. Your case is becoming critical.

You've sunk to the level of poor trolling?

Deep Sight: A thread that can lead atheists to declare that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the genocidal actions of Adolf-Hitler is truly cry-worthy.

We can now see that the religionists do have a point when they speak to the dangers of the extremism that some atheists push themselves to in a bid to run away from the existence of God. . . . .

Sad. . . .

What's truly sad is this pathetic appeal to emotions.

Hitler appealed to those as well, when he was justifying genocide. Appealed to his objective good as well.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]And what's that law which states once you senselessly bring up hitler in a debate, you've lost it?[/url]

Deep Sight: In that, you will have to explain why there exist pangs of conscience (with individuals) and revolutions (with nations).

Unless, of course, as I happily expect, you may probably be so far gone in your delusions as to declare that no such thing as pangs of conscience exist.

Incredible, conscience exists, therefore objective morality....

Spaghetti exists, therefore FSM..

And again, oh again, conscience is an objective experience?? And exactly what sort of creatures conscience do you speak of? How do you decide which conscience is the objective one, that of the majority?

The Harbinger ~:
I hope you're joking my good man. You have insulted your own intelligence by asking such a question, contradicting in itself.

Any adjective like such in your question; "sinless" before freewill makes freewill cease to be freewill.


I sincerely hope you're joking.


And you have not answered my question.

I hope you are joking and not having issues comprehending the simplest of things.

Uyi's position is that god can make 1+1=3. In other words, he isn't subject to logic. He has repeated this how many times now?

Now, if god isn't subject to reason, again, I ask

[size=15pt]WHY DIDN'T GOD CREATE SINLESS FREEWILL??[/size]

Don't forget, god isn't subject to reason, therefore anything goes. I hope that clears that up.

As for your post, like I already said, this here is mostly about culpability, not omnixx whargarbl. Even without the omnixx nonsense, he is still very culpable for the 'sins' of man. But if you persist, and you, unlike great thinker @ihe accept that god is subject to reason, then please, do tell exactly how god himself can have freewill if he's omniscient? If he does not act exactly the way he has predicted, then exactly how does he be omniscient?

Thank you.

Logicboy03: .

It would do you well to read my previous comment before lying on the psychiatrists head

Where did he come across

italo: A fuller life is one of anger, desolation, substance abuse, fewer reasons to live and ultimately suicide for the Atheist and his family.

And our families as well? Wow. All those peaceful countries topping the HDI with large atheist populations don't seem to exist. Indeed, I believe I specifically showed him the charts, here.

Religiosity
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Religion_in_the_world.PNG[/img]

HDI 2010
[img]http://1.bp..com/-wKOfWllJHJ0/UDtAlAoYKFI/AAAAAAAABGM/k7ALHr6GM7Q/s1600/human_development_index_around_the_world.jpg[/img]

Conflict
https://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17g9hi4f6ep3vjpg/ku-bigpic.jpg

Murder
[img]http://4.bp..com/-sdQGJ0Qgo78/To9y0nJ1kLI/AAAAAAAAALI/z_ZCxBjqAQw/s1600/Murder-rates-in-countries-across-the-world.gif[/img]

Just look at how well all those religious populations are doing.


If you actually follow the paper (just skimming through now, and lol, and it's actually a survey of already depressed patients), this

paper: Suicide rates are lower in religious countries than in secular ones (1, 2). Some of this difference may be due to underreporting in religious countries because of concerns over stigma (3). Yet, some of the difference may be real, although it is not known whether the negative association between religion and suicide is due to its integrative benefits (such as social cohesion, as proposed by Durkheim in 1951 [4]) or to the moral imperatives of religious belief, given its prohibitions against suicidal behavior (1, 5–7).

The paper's argument is that religious bubble condemns suicide therefore they commit less suicide. Cool. That's not the only thing they could encourage. It also encourages hom.ophobia, therefore they are also more ho.mophobic. It encourages others to suicide bombing, therefore there are more suicide bombers as well. It encourages hate, therefore they hate more. It encourages mindless happiness, even when there's really no reason for it to be so, even when something can be done about it, so they remain mindlessly happy. Etc, etc. But I'm sure all this matters not to proud sheeple.

Drinking kool aid leads to greener pastures, of course, to sheeple. Suffering and smiling, etc. If that's his definition of 'fuller', mayhaps they should enjoy it.

italo: I see. A fuller life is one of anger, desolation, substance abuse, fewer reasons to live and ultimately suicide for the Atheist and his family.

How 'sensible.'

A fuller life is one built around honesty. You know, like living with a honest conscience?

Do feel free to build your cowardly life around a lie, no one's holding you back.

Uyi Iredia: For whargarbl's sakes just like the damn thing already. Unless . . .

I'm human bros. I'm not perfect. Besides, I miss our spats. Goot times

Deep Sight: My position is not, and never has been that it is objective on account of being approved by the majority. That may be your position (it is not even, your position is anarchy as you say it is all subjective and thus each man to his own).

My position is that such basic moral paradigms are elements ingrained into the conscience of human beings as an integral part of their spiritual and social psyche. It thus applies universally, even with those that violate it. Thus the pangs of conscience in individuals, and thus revolutions in nations, where such ingrained and embedded moral paradigms are violated. That is my position. I do not say that it is up to each to decide: I say that there is a supervening moral paradigm governing all of us, and this paradigm is based on love, fairness, equity, dignity and justice.

You seem to be describing santa. Where is this universal, human consciousness based universal code? Human consciousness, a completely subjective experience. It applies to every species and isn't built around what the majority of humans are content with? And again, why does it automatically apply to those who do not subscribe to it? Are they not humans with consciousness as well? So, they are defective humans?

Deep Sight: Lol, the same Uyi who must come back and address my Jamb questions.

You have a go:

- - -> If its all subjective, on what basis should criminal laws exist anywhere?

Why should anyone criminalize a subjective matter and enforce punishment on a subjective matter?

Do you agree, that your position means that there should be no such thing as criminal law!

Surely, even you can see that, can you not?

How do you impose a uniform criminal law on EVERYBODY, when the paradigms are ALL subjective. How can that ever be just?

Thus, your only revert to consistency, would be to hold that there should be no criminal laws in any society, as it is all subjective.

Do you need me to state in Klingon?

It has, always has been, built around wills. Usually those of the majority, but no necessarily so. Now, answer my first question please

me: You know that love your fellow man is part of this mythical code.....because the majority approves of it.

The majority of what, or who?

Deep Sight: I have not said so, and I have no idea why you would put those words in my mouth.

As far as I know, the general objective morality preached by virtually all world religions is love of God and fellow man.

And believing in that, I draw my position therefrom to say nay to anything that runs counter to love of fellow man - such as murder, theft and the like.

You, on the other hand, say that none of these are intrinsically evil so YOU have no basis to condemn those who subscribe to such - based on YOUR declared position.

I say - there is objective morality and so I can condemn certain actions.

You say - its all subjective, and so you CANNOT condemn ANY actions.

Its simple, really.

Then I await this objective moral code. Do please show it. You know that love your fellow man is part of this mythical code.....because the majority approves of it. Oh wow

The majority of what, or who?

Deep Sight: The question is therefore not whether there is evil in nature but whether such developed conscious beings (us) have a natural recognition of this or that action as being intrinsically evil, as per OUR intrinsic nature.

So, your intrinsic nature is the same as mine?

What is wrong with you?


EDIT: The heck, uyi is already on it. Your folly is dangerously close to making me like an uyi comment....

Deep Sight: And this is an answer?

Lol. So you criticize Yahweh's morality even after saying all morality is subjective only and that nothing is intrinsically evil - and when the dubious hypocrisy of this is pointed out, you answer by simply admitting to being a hypocrite.

Ol boy, how on earth do you expect any one to take such nonsense seriously. How on earth do you expect anyone not to think you are not positing from some lunatic asylum?

Shift joor.

Erm, yes. And you continue to address nothing and play the hypocrite.

Why is your moral code objective and that of say the muslims not so?

Reyginus: And here was I thinking you know little of what you are talking about. Pardon my ignorance.I have two questions.

1. If you think the above to be true, with what moral standard do you judge a seeming murderer whose morality is differently evolved from yours? As in, if there be a society in this time, ofcourse their is, ( abriba in Abia State), who don't think they are doing any wrong in hunting fellow man for meat, would you say that their acts are morally wrong?

2. Why wouldn't I rightly say that your criticism of God for the deeds in the OT is highly irrational and hypocritical?

I've already addressed this. Because they trample on my values, simple.

This is what everyone does, some simply label it "god" or objective. Muslims are ordained by allah, have you met allah before?

There's no difference between this 'objective' and the subjective. Well, yes there's a difference in practice. In my case, you're free to come and debate me, put your case forward and the rest can see if they are happy with it. In other words, we can always negotiate. In the case of those that claim objective morals though, even when they are about to commit their genocide, they of course leave NO room for debate. After all, they are objectively correct. See?

Deep Sight: You do not have a coherent worldview, you are completely amoral, and you have no right whatsoever to ever speak against anything whatsoever that goes on or happens in the world, for that will render you a double speaking hypocrite.

I hope you therefore stay consistent with your chosen path.

And you, with your 'objective' moral code, aren't one? When you call the other 'objective' moral codes false, I suppose you aren't being a hypocrite?

Hypocrisy is unavoidable, I say this all.the.time. I'm a proud hypocrite when it comes to defending my values. No need to lie, in your case though...

Nothing new to see here

italo: How did you forget the first line of my OP. " From the American Journal of Psychiatry?"

They are the ones saying all these, not me.

I'm just disgusted by the Atheists who claim that they, rather than religious people are happier and living life to the full.

And you addressed nothing I've already not seen to.

Now this is the claim I address

italo: Yet many Atheists mock we believers for not living life to the full.

And I repeat; we live fuller lives. As for happiness, not necessarily so.

Now, if you think living in a bubble as a sheeple, indulging in placebos, having skydaddy tell you how many times a day you're allowed to take a $hit, personally compromising your own values to satisfy that of skydaddy (eg homo's living in denial, or peaceful folk that have to become less so because of religious beliefs) equates to a fuller life then it's easy to see why live in the religious bubble.

Ihedinobi: Who said He couldn't? Did I not just describe his nature? Disobedience came about by choice.


Am I wrong?

It is YOUR postulation that sin will exist as long as there is free will. It is up to you to prove it.

Listen, bros, I suggest you stop wasting server space running around shooting yourself left right centre. You seem to suddenly forget fermions, and how you could claim there are no mathematical truths is beyond me.......

Anyways, now, simple. No more nonsense please. You assert your god can make 1+1=3 (oh wow).. In other words, logic is useless as he can supersede it, anything goes to him. Anything, no if's or but's, ok? As that is the case

[size=15pt]WHY DIDN'T GOD CREATE SINLESS FREEWILL??[/size]

Simple question. Please, don't insult our intelligence. Thank you.

Uyi Iredia: No need for that. This is right here at home in Africa, Nigeria to be precise and not far off were you are. I'd say it deserves a try. Geez ! NASA scientists in the meantime are doing science with comic books and wish worlds.

No, it's far away from where I am. I sure as hell would not waste precious resources on this drivel regardless.

It's very simple. If he has something that can be verified independently, I will then start to treat him a little seriously.

ghostofsparta: Yeah two chrismas back, I could recall twas so cold me and old fat St. Nick had to sleigh ride to the furnace of Hades.

So for ya book na North pole Santa and the people wey dey celebrate am every season dey live, abi ? You try.

You just called me dishonest, no? So, why this?

Do you believe in santa, yes or no?

Have you been to the north pole, yes or no? Please post pics as well.

Ihedinobi: "Nonsense", you say. Hehehe. I'll bet you mean my previous response to this same question on the other thread. I didn't seen you prove it so.

Of course, should He want to He will. Like I said previously, He made five loaves and two fish feed more than five thousand people at once according to the Bible. If that ain't making 1+1+1+1+1 > 5, I don't know what is.

And I said also that if you don't like the Bible example (EDIT, YOU THINK??), just take quantum physics and tell me how an electrons existence in two mutually exclusive states and places at the same time is logical. And since my argument is that God designed the electron, He demonstrates His Supremacy over "logic" there as well.

My car has 4 doors, therefore 1 + 1 = 3?

Nice to see you speak of "logic" and not proper logic. I did tell you I was talking of mathematical (read: abstract), objective truths, yes? So what does this have to do with anything? How does this affect the fact that 1 + 1 =2?

Now, a boson has properties that make it behave (apparently, as they are fields some would tell you, in other words some say that space is made up of....bosons, so you're asking how can space share space, see? But we can ignore that) counter intuitively to you, and then?

To elaborate, some schools of QM also assert that something comes from nothing, which can be written as 0!=0. Cool. They don't, however, write new math which says 0!=1. That's obviously silly. They build their math around probabilities. Note again: they never anywhere change the universal objective rule, 0=0. In order to work around that they account for both 0, 1 or x, but they never change the laws of math, that's impossible. They never write in their equations 1 + 1 = 3. Similar things are applied to equations dealing with bosons, no?

So, again, can god make 1+1=3? Can he write correct equations with 1+1=3?

Ihedinobi: Finally, I have told you before, wiegraf, let us be clear what we are talking about. The dictionary defines "God" as the Supreme Absolute Authority over everything. If that is the meaning of "God", why do you think it makes any kind of sense to say that "God" is subject to anything?

The courts somewhere in abuja have absolute authority apparently, they still cannot divide by zero. That's impossible. I have absolute authority over my pipi, I still can't direct it into old skool jena jameson. Even if she were willing, as I have no time machine. Exactly when did absolute authority mean the ability to contradict logic?

Also, if he has absolute authority over everything, including us etc, exactly how is he not culpable for our sins? Especially if he can rewrite the laws, as you (comically) assert?

And note, your talk of god creating everything. Very simple question, if god created existence, then how did god come into existence?

Ihedinobi: We'll see how true that is, shan't we? I'm going to bring in the Bible version and we'll see if your "picture" suffices


God created man.


He put him in a Garden.


He tells him to eat anything he likes except the fruit of one particular and distinct tree.


Man eats from that tree. That is not his "nature". He was designed with a natural bent to obedience to God.

Your omnipotent god couldn't create man with his true nature? How did disobedience come about, by accident?

Ihedinobi: God returns and metes out the consequences He warned man about in the event of disobedience.


Yeah. The problem is that you don't know what the Bible says about the whole thing or you're just dishonest about it

And you call me dishonest??

Were there problems with the design, or was god unaware of the fact that so long as freewill exists sin will exist?

Reyginus: Lol. @the above. I don't think he will agree with you, even when he is obviously saying it.
I think he is honestly ignorant of the implication his statement will present.

No, seems you have comprehension problems.

Let me make it clear.

[size=14pt]THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH "murder, r.ape, torture, slavery, kidnapping, advance free fraud, pedophilia, ritual human sacrifice, patricide, matricide, genocide, and all that".[/size]

Do you get it now?

Deep Sight: You really have to be truly more circumspect about some of the truly shocking and deeply unfortunate positions which you (and some other atheists about here) take, simply in a bid to avoid simple age-old truths firmly embedded within the collective psyche of humanity.

If you say mala in se do not exist, I hope you recognize that you thereby irredeemably relinquish your right to ever be outraged by any atrocity in history or in the current: no matter how gravely inhuman the atrocity is, and regardless of the scale on which it is perpetrated.

Indeed, the word 'atrocity' should similarly disappear from your dictionary - since, as you say, "it is all subjective."

Also if you insist that "it is all subjective," people of criminal inclination who, in their own subjective moral worldview, see nothing wrong with murder, theft, rape, torture, pedophilia, and the like, are perfectly entitled to their "subjective" take, and indeed, denying them the rights to live and act as they please may amount to participating in a system which contradicts your own belief in the strict subjectivity of morality.

Indeed, you will have no basis for ever supporting any international action that seeks to intervene in given nations where governments are perpetrating mass atrocities, such as occurred in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, the Sudan, and else where. This would be particularly so because "it is all subjective" and as such the peoples of such countries may choose to allow those actions within their realms, in exercise of their "sovereign moral subjectivity". . . . .

Finally, you must also agree that if you hold that "it is all subjective" then by establishing criminal laws, you thereby trample on the rights of those within the society who are in a minority and who wholly disagree with the moral paradigm used in establishing such laws. What this translates to is that it will be wrong to establish any criminal laws at all, because "it is all subjective."

You will thus be left with a lawless, anarchic and meaningless society and world, akin to the worst conceivable jungle - - - > All because of your sad desperation to deny the well embedded basic objective morals of human societies in generality and through the ages. Of course, this desperation, it is obvious, springs from your desperation to deny the existence of that creator that embedded humanity with common conscience - God.

Keep it up. It will take you to the stars and beyond.

Arrant nonsense.

This long soap is a rather disappointing appeal to emotions. What did you expect to achieve with this? You addressed nothing.....

I do recall reading something similar to this. Why, even from you not long ago, but moreso through the ages by various figures, just right before they went forward with objectively good, god-ordained genocide. I did tell you that this same self righteousness you seem high on is what spurred countless atrocities through the ages, no? What objective morals through the ages do you refer to, the ones which demanded child sacrifices or those of slavery?

Keeping with the evolution theme, you don't exactly say one species is objectively better than another, or do you? Eg many think man is the bestesetestsest thing since the sun, superior in every way to all those lesser animals. But man will die out, crocks that have already been around a lot longer than we have may outlive us. Sheep, pigs and cockroaches may outlive us. And of course, the adaptation that gives us the 'advantage' we've had, the intelligence which makes us alpha predators, may be the cause. We could nuke ourselves or create the T-Virus. We also are by far and away the worst cancer this planet has come across with regards with biological threats. We're responsible for the extinction of millions of species, drained all the fossil fuels so even if we die out, another intelligent species may not have the resources to industrialize, kill even ourselves by the millions let alone other animals for sport. All of these aided by that adaptation, intelligence.( Yet some of us still like to claim some sort of inherent superiority, the universe was created just for us after all, abi? )

So now tell me, how are man's values inherently superior to that of another species?? Or do you mean the right to live of the predator supersedes that of prey? That what it values is inherently better than the values of the prey? They other species would be wrong to consider us evil for all we do them? I mean really, man has been to the moon, why should my dog care? How are my values inherently superior to yours? Or do you think the wests' values are inherently superior to those of other cultures?

This is an inescapable truth; morals are built around values. Values differ and are completely subjective. There can therefore never be an objective universal moral code. Never, it's the six foot dwarf. An oxymoron. You yourself already referred to human morality. Please, do tell why?


As for your whining about the end of the world if we accept that, well, in case you missed it, that's how we've been rolling through time. Again, many people have always claimed to get their morals from god however they never showed us these gods. Just claiming some authority and deceiving sheeple, like you're doing right now. If you want to know how morality works, look at the prey/predator again. Simple, the one with the means (or stronger will, that's how a minority could set the code) dictates. That's it. That's how it's been working through nature. Indeed as far as biomass is concerned, the predators' has to be less than the preys', no?

So all the folk who've been claiming god granted morals, which gods? I can only see man and folly. Man has been doing all that, all that time, and the world has not lost meaning, or has it? You seem to think we're incapable of making our own goals. That's silly. In fact, a god would be downright disappointed if he found us incapable of doing even that. I don't think they expect us to be robots, no? You also seem to think we will turn into monsters without some skydaddy threatening us with some hell or the other. We did manage to get rid of blatant god approved slavery without any gods, no? I find your lack of faith in humanity disgusting frankly. I also think it ungrateful. Imagine the billions of hours of sweat put into making our lives easier, billions of us sinful, simple man have died to make this world a better place, no gods needed, yet you think us scum...

Filipino diarrhea (is that funny yet?)

@all, please note the whargarbl that involves omnixx does not in any way help your case. It makes it a lot worse. We could open another thread and I'll bash you over, again, on those issues. Eg, omniscience and freewill oxymoro.ns.

All relevant, very true, but I'm mostly ignoring that for now. The main focus here is those who claim critics are talking nonsense when we point out yahweh (in particular) punishes his creations for his mistakes. Any which way you look at it, he does.

I'll be back to address the other posts. Thanks.