God died in Auschwitz

[Stronbollia]

Well just because the holocaust to happen doesn't mean god doesn't exist. If anything maybe the bombing of pearl harbor, was gods indirect way of getting America involved in WWII and stopping the holocaust. Actually If you think about it, if the US never entered the war, the Axis would have won

No, but as many have said before: It means he's malicious, incompetent or just plain apathetic.

Or that he doesn't exist.

Or that he used the pain of world war II to teach humanity a lesson to love each other and prevent future atrocities like that for future generations to come while at the same Time making America get involved to limit the atrocity as much as possible. Humanity created the holocaust not god so god isn't incompetent or malicious

[Genivaria]

No, but as many have said before: It means he's malicious, incompetent or just plain apathetic.

Or that he doesn't exist.

Or that he used the pain of world war II to teach humanity a lesson to love each other and prevent future atrocities like that for future generations to come while at the same Time making America get involved to limit the atrocity as much as possible. Humanity created the holocaust not god so god isn't incompetent or malicious

Then God is one of those evil Dumbledore's I read about in fanfiction.

[Big Jim P]

God wasn't killed, humanity was exposed. Exposed for both the great evil that it is capable of, and the great good. There need not be a god for Auschwitz to have meaning. just the simple brutality, kindness, and indeed vengeance that it invoked in the humans that were there in ANY capacity,

[Distruzio]

Or that he used the pain of world war II to teach humanity a lesson to love each other and prevent future atrocities like that for future generations to come while at the same Time making America get involved to limit the atrocity as much as possible. Humanity created the holocaust not god so god isn't incompetent or malicious

Then God is one of those evil Dumbledore's I read about in fanfiction.

Huh?

[Distruzio]

Did God commit those crimes? Or did his chosen people use his name to justify such atrocious behavior?

A little of both.

How did God commit such crimes when he hadn't yet manifested himself physically?

[Distruzio]

A little of both.

And one would think that if Yahweh disapproved, he'd have smitten one or two people until they got it.

"Ooookay ... that proves it, He really doesn't like us slaughtering innocents. Can we get a bucket brigade going or something, that fire is really flaring up."

Or, as I have routinely said... perhaps God is not subject to our interpretation of morality, as is evidenced by the confusion the Jews succumbed to when Jesus, the second person of the Trinity and God in the flesh, began his ministry. They expected the messiah to deliver them from Roman rule. They dared to expect a particular act from God... they were fools. As is anyone who believes that they can judge the supreme judge.... this is not an accusation, but a confession. B/c I do the very same thing more often than I'd like to admit.

[Distruzio]

The word G-d is censored because if the word is typed or written it may be deleted or destroyed, which would be bad. It's a Jewish thing. The bible tells us that we were made in his image.

And the bible is NEVER wrong.

It isn't.. the man reading it usually is.

[Crystalcliff Point]

How did God commit such crimes when he hadn't yet manifested himself physically?

Two major ways. Primarily guilt by having given the order itself. A leader can reasonably be held partly responsible for their underlings (In this case the ancient people of Israel) obeying immoral orders by merit of having given it. Especially if intimidation, threats or implied threats are used to ensure the completion of these orders.

Or, as I have routinely said... perhaps God is not subject to our interpretation of morality

So you're saying that ordering the slaughter (Or even the direct slaughter) of people is "OK" as long as God does/orders it?

It isn't.. the man reading it usually is.

Are YOU going to adequately respond to my list of contradictions and factual inaccuracies in the bible I posted? I didn't do it for the lulz.

[Chinese Regions]

Did God commit those crimes? Or did his chosen people use his name to justify such atrocious behavior?

A little of both.

He did the flood and had to tell a "good" human to take precautions and save anyone which was kinda pointless seeing as he is omnipotent and can just kill everything in just a fraction of a second without lifting a finger and he is also all-knowing and just centre his killings on bad "humans" without killing "good" humans.

[Chinese Regions]

And the bible is NEVER wrong.

It isn't.. the man reading it usually is.

I suppose you think you are not wrong?

[New England and The Maritimes]

And the bible is NEVER wrong.

It isn't.. the man reading it usually is.

So... every single inconsistency and outright falsehood in the text is actually truth? Right on.

[The Alma Mater]

A little of both.

How did God commit such crimes when he hadn't yet manifested himself physically?

He kills people directly in the old testament, multiple times. He even specificly targetted firstborns in the case of Egypt - so there is the slaughter and childslaughter.

The rape charge.. one could argue he raped Mary; but this is shaky.
For one, the Bible suggests he only impregnated her without penetration. Can that be rape ?
And did she consent ? Was she mentally mature enough to consent (it is likely she was 14 at the time) ? Was the consent truly an act of free will, or was she intimidated by the being of infinite power she was taught to worship and could make her suffer eternally if she refused ? We don't know all that.

So let us assume God himself never raped anybody. He just odered other people to do so

[New England and The Maritimes]

How did God commit such crimes when he hadn't yet manifested himself physically?

He kills people directly in the old testament, multiple times. He even specificly targetted firstborns in the case of Egypt - so there is the slaughter and childslaughter.

The rape charge.. one could argue he raped Mary; but this is shaky.
For one, the Bible suggests he only impregnated her without penetration. Can that be rape ?
And did she consent ? Was she mentally mature enough to consent (it is likely she was 14 at the time) ? Was the consent truly an act of free will, or was she intimidated by the being of infinite power she was taught to worship and could make her suffer eternally if she refused ? We don't know all that.

So let us assume God himself never raped anybody. He just odered other people to do so

Forcing someone to be pregnant is absolutely sick. That's assuming any of this happened to begin with. That said, though, at least Poseidon apologized to Caenis.

[The Alma Mater]

He kills people directly in the old testament, multiple times. He even specificly targetted firstborns in the case of Egypt - so there is the slaughter and childslaughter.

The rape charge.. one could argue he raped Mary; but this is shaky.
For one, the Bible suggests he only impregnated her without penetration. Can that be rape ?
And did she consent ? Was she mentally mature enough to consent (it is likely she was 14 at the time) ? Was the consent truly an act of free will, or was she intimidated by the being of infinite power she was taught to worship and could make her suffer eternally if she refused ? We don't know all that.

So let us assume God himself never raped anybody. He just odered other people to do so

Forcing someone to be pregnant is absolutely sick. That's assuming any of this happened to begin with. That said, though, at least Poseidon apologized to Caenis.

The question remains if He forced her. We don't know that, nor will we ever know. So let us give Him the benefit of the doubt.

[Crystalcliff Point]

Forcing someone to be pregnant is absolutely sick. That's assuming any of this happened to begin with. That said, though, at least Poseidon apologized to Caenis.

I'll have to agree with what you said. Especially given the relative mental immaturity, and possibility of retribution from the all-powerful rapist.

The question remains if He forced her. We don't know that, nor will we ever know. So let us give Him the benefit of the doubt.

We can't prove she was 'forced' to go along with such a thing. But intimidated is very believable.

Actually, if you read the verses she wasn't given any choice in the matter. "You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus."

It wasn't even "Will you go along with this?" and more "Hey, you're pregnant now. Call the kid Jesus."

[Distruzio]

It isn't.. the man reading it usually is.

I suppose you think you are not wrong?

Only when I interperet the text without consulting the Church and the patriarchal consensus.

[Crystalcliff Point]

Only when I interperet the text without consulting the Church and the patriarchal consensus.

Again, I'll ask you: Are you EVER going to answer to the sheer number of contradictions and flat out falsehoods I quoted from the bible? Nobody is willing to actually confront them, and usually end up hand waving the whole thing.

[Chinese Regions]

I suppose you think you are not wrong?

Only when I interperet the text without consulting the Church and the patriarchal consensus.

It is interpret, dubya's "Nucular"
The Church/Patriarch/Priest are people why can't they belong?

[Distruzio]

How did God commit such crimes when he hadn't yet manifested himself physically?

Two major ways. Primarily guilt by having given the order itself. A leader can reasonably be held partly responsible for their underlings (In this case the ancient people of Israel) obeying immoral orders by merit of having given it. Especially if intimidation, threats or implied threats are used to ensure the completion of these orders.

This might hold true were God a territorial monopolist. He claims spiritual, see also incorporeal, monopoly privilege. Which means that anyone disobeying Him is considered outside His grace. It also means that such threats are likely to be exploited by men of God seeking to justify territorial monopoly - hence atrocious acts carried out in His name.

Are YOU going to adequately respond to my list of contradictions and factual inaccuracies in the bible I posted? I didn't do it for the lulz.

I missed it. What list?

[Crystalcliff Point]

This might hold true were God a territorial monopolist. He claims spiritual, see also incorporeal, monopoly privilege. Which means that anyone disobeying Him is considered outside His grace. It also means that such threats are likely to be exploited by men of God seeking to justify territorial monopoly - hence atrocious acts carried out in His name.

If you read the old testament, YHWH communicated with his followers on a frequent basis. Did you know that Moses slaughtered people?

(Moses) stood at the entrance to the camp and shouted, "All of you who are on the LORD's side, come over here and join me." And all the Levites came. He told them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing."

I missed it. What list?

viewtopic.php?p=8223582#p8223582

[Distruzio]

Only when I interperet the text without consulting the Church and the patriarchal consensus.

It is interpret, dubya's "Nucular"
The Church/Patriarch/Priest are people why can't they belong?

They do. The Church can be and has been corrected by the laity. As have patriarchs and priests.

[Distruzio]

Give me a moment. I post via mobile phone. It takes longer to format a response.

[Chinese Regions]

It is interpret, dubya's "Nucular"
The Church/Patriarch/Priest are people why can't they belong?

They do. The Church can be and has been corrected by the laity. As have patriarchs and priests.

Oh are they "less likely" to be incorrect?
Theists and their circular logic

[Distruzio]

This might hold true were God a territorial monopolist. He claims spiritual, see also incorporeal, monopoly privilege. Which means that anyone disobeying Him is considered outside His grace. It also means that such threats are likely to be exploited by men of God seeking to justify territorial monopoly - hence atrocious acts carried out in His name.

If you read the old testament, YHWH communicated with his followers on a frequent basis. Did you know that Moses slaughtered people?

I'm familiar. I never claimed to be Jewish and I made it explicitly clear that I'm no bibliolator. So while I may hold a fond reverence of the OT, I make no excuses for its contents beyond historical and cultural contexts and likely exaggerations following thousands of years of oral tradition finally being written down. I'm a Christian. My faith is defined in the NT and via Church doctrines.

I do know that following the slaughter, Moses reminds God of His covenant with the Jews to forgive, should He choose, sins of transgressions against Him with a blood sacrifice. Hence the slaughter. To which God responds with forgiveness and a promise to deliver His people from that covenant. I, of course, speak from Orthodox tradition which dictates that the Angel of deliverance promised by God was Jesus prefigured who would render blood sacrifices unnecessary.

Again, I'm not making excuses. I'm merely saying that our interpretation of morality is not applicable to God.

I missed it. What list?

viewtopic.php?p=8223582#p8223582

Ill get to it soon enough. As I said, I post via mobile phone. It'll take a moment.

[Distruzio]

They do. The Church can be and has been corrected by the laity. As have patriarchs and priests.

Oh are they "less likely" to be incorrect?
Theists and their circular logic

Hardly. Its more like a trust that Christ, our God, wasn't lying when he said the gates of he'll would not stand against his Church. If you think the Church went to hell in a handbasket, then there is nothing I can say to you that will satisfy you. You would adopting too combative a position to warrant any common ground whatsoever. As is implied by your consistently aggressive tone of response. I'm not trying to convert you, correct you, or prove my faith.

I'm having a discussion.