Yet Jesus says nothing in Old Testament is false.
Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
Based Chad
Was it me?
Based Chad
Was it me?
except he did say the old laws no longer mattered.
No. He says he fulfills the Old Testament.
Ummm reread Matt 5:18
Based Chad
Was it me?
read galatians 5 for the first time.
Yakuda
Verified User
thats like life blood to me dumbass
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
Your opening post is about theodicy, and genocide and slavery are perfectly topical to theodicy.
Thanks for Google-checking me on the plutonium.
Since there was no realistic possibility of a demonstration detonation, we can take that possibility off the table. In late July of 1945, the allies did openly give Japan a warning of impending doom and utter destruction. It wasn't a sneak attack like Pearl Harbor. Most importantly, I am convinced an atomic attack saved lives in comparison to a seaborne invasion of the Japanese home islands.
Millions of innocent civilians were tragically killed in WW2. The Japanese and the Germans were, hands down, the biggest perpetrators. But WW2 was still fought for morally justified reasons, and I would be shocked at any American who would claim WW2 was not a just war.
On the final tangent, I've never actually met an atheist who was so keen on telling Christians how they are supposed to interpret their scripture and teachings.
I don't think there is actually a label for me, and I've never really liked labels. If anything I'm just a seeker.
20 years ago, I would have been pretty close to a bona fide atheist.
But after reflection and personal evolution I decided I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
In the past five years I've probably been ranging and fluctuating between agnostic and Christian humanist, if I was forced to label it.
Not google checked. I've read extensively about the history of the atomic bomb. I highly recommend Richard Rhodes "The Making of the Atomic bomb" and "Dark Sun".
The people who made the thing seemed to disagree with you. You really should read the history of this it is quite interesting.
I get it. Universal Morality can be set aside for time-limited/resource limited options that MIGHT not give you the best result. Incinerating innocent kids is just a "nothing" in terms of morality when facing time constraints.
May have. Guess we'll never know. Seems that universal morality thence has no value since the options are driven more by convenience and resources.
Then you don't read much in the atheist discussion literature. In point of fact part of my atheism involved a critical assessment of the faith and its founding and ONLY document: the Bible. If the Bible fails then the faith fails. If the God of the Bible comes across as morally fungible then He fails to be logically consistent.
It is astounding to me that so few Christians and Faith Defenders actually seem to know what is in the Bible. And how fast they run away from what it actually says. Or how twisted their exegeses become in order to square the circle.
Isn't the test: Can God change a circular object into a square object? Omnipotence would seem to allow for it.
WOAH. REALLY? Then what is the POINT of God? How is he limited?
Now we are in the world of "paradox". In no small way that is one of the logical inconsistencies of God (along with a lack of consistent moral teaching) that make the God concept so unlikely.
He's also said to be merciful and perfectly just. But those two things cannot co-exist. Perfectly just would have no mercy whatsoever. Mercy tempers justice.
And what mercy is accorded the person who fails to accept Jesus as his or her savior? The faith doesn't seem to leave a whole lotta room there.
Nothing wrong with being a walking meat puppet. Probably feels pretty much indistinguishable from the alternative.
It's actually a kind of wordplay.
To no small extent that's true. And it's a perfect playground for the God Concept. The God Concept is ultimately "user-defined" but we are told there are no limits on God whatsoever. Which is why everyone loves the "can God create an immovable object and throw at it an unstoppable force and what would happen?"
The God Concept is attractive but almost "locally" so for humans. We have a perception horizon beyond which we cannot possibly perceive (the Big Bang) and a nearly incomprehensible "expanding universe" (What is it expanding IN???)
It all becomes conceptually a giant mush when one tries to extrapolate back before the Big Bang (a technically meaningless sentence) and God is the perfect amorphous, nearly meaningless concept, to fill that void for us.
Which is why it becomes so MUCH wordplay.
Humans can physically manipulate circles into squares or polygons.
I'm saying omnipotence has to be limited, because it cannot include logical contradictions. God cannot make square circles, God cannot make 2 plus 2 equal five in base 10 digits, God cannot create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift, God cannot give free will but then take away the ability to choose sin.