Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lobstrosity · 03-12-2003, 07:39 AM

What about spl_cadet's response: "The answer is rather simple. It was the action that saved more people in the long run, thus was the moral choice. It's comparable to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as opposed to invading the Japanese mainland. Ordinarily the use of nuclear weapons on cities is a rather bad thing, but in this case it saved millions of lives on both sides thus making it the moral choice."

I think this guy needs to study up on his religion a little bit more. He's talking about GOD here. We nuked Hiroshima because we wanted to save American lives and that was the only real option available to us puny humans. God can do whatever the hell he wants. He's god. It's not really like his options are as limited limited to the two alternatives: "kill everyone (including babies) but two" or "leave everything alone." The action that would have saved more people (and animals) in the long run would have been to, you know, not kill everything. Doesn't God have an angel of death that could have selectively killed those humans who were bad, leaving animals and babies alone? Then couldn't God in his infinite love, power, and good grace have found a way to care for the remaining infants until they grew up? Perhaps this answer is too obvious for them? Or perhaps the real answer is the simplest of all: God's a lazy, vindictive, heartless SOB.

MrDarwin · 03-12-2003, 10:15 AM

Ah yes, the old "end justifies the means" defense. That deity is quite the Machiavellian.

Godless Dave · 03-12-2003, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lobstrosity
Or perhaps the real answer is the simplest of all: God's a lazy, vindictive, heartless SOB.

No, the real answer, and the simplest one, is that there is no God. The stories make perfect sense if you understand they were written by people with no divine influence.

Albion · 03-12-2003, 11:30 AM

When it suits them, they cut God down to the limits of being some uber-daddy, who sometimes has to do nasty things for the greater good, and this shows his great love. I've had very little success trying to get them to see that this is God (as in the guy who created the whole universe in the first place) they're talking about, and one assumes that God has options not available to the average daddy.

After all, we're told that God knew he'd have to destroy everything so he just made the Earth more robust so it could stand up to his actions when he was slaughtering his creation. This is supposed to be a GOOD THING (actually it's one of the sickest pieces of Christian apologetics I think I've ever seen) and to show how God knows what's going to happen in the future. When asked why God didnt' just manipulate things so that this wholesale slaughter wouldn't be needed in the first place, they go right back to the loving daddy meting out a punishment that's for the best in the long run.

I wonder if all that abortion and infanticide stuff is biblical. Surely AiG wouldn't be embroidering their own source...

Lobstrosity · 03-12-2003, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godless Dave
No, the real answer, and the simplest one, is that there is no God. The stories make perfect sense if you understand they were written by people with no divine influence.

Ok, let me rephrase my original line then:

Or perhaps the least incorrect that's still incorrect is the second-simplest: "God is a vindictive, lazy, heartless SOB."

The simplest and most-likely correct answer is that there is no God, as you point out.

Slavik91 · 03-12-2003, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
I just posted this at Theologyweb.com, where AiG is considered nearly holy.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...&threadid=1885

Let's see what happens.

Why, when I read that thread, do I want to puke until my stomach turns inside-out and I die of asphyxiation?

Half the people on that board sound like Hitler's propagandists!

Jimmy Higgins · 03-12-2003, 06:42 PM

Quote:

AIG Answer: You may have forgotten other attributes of God�His sovereignty and His justice/Holiness.

Now I'm no Bible expert, but if memory serves me correctly:

Quote:

When the LORD smelled the sweet odor, he said to himself: "Never again will I doom the earth because of man, sinces the desires of man's heart are evil from the start; nor will I ever again strike down all living beings, as I have done.

Genesis 8:21

Sounds like God was so just that he resolved to never make that mistake again. Also shows that The Fall never happened. Adam and Eve were always capable of "evil". So good news, no original sin. But now we've got sin in "peppermint"!

Strawberry · 03-12-2003, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by S2Focus
See Why is there death and suffering?

I love (read: want to gag when reading the comments of) people who purportedly give expert advice, but somehow must have skipped the wrong month (or three) of 4th-grade grammar class...there are so many things wrong with this that my head hurts...

Lobstrosity · 03-12-2003, 11:58 PM

Actually, I think something was lost in the posting. If you look on the site, the "Why is there death and suffering?" is a link to another commonly asked question. Basically, I think that sentence is saying that people should reference that link for more information. Ugh, defending these guys makes me feel so...dirty.

Bubba · 03-14-2003, 11:23 AM

I'm a little off topic here...but as a doubting Christian-leaning towards agnosticism type of guy I find the idea of Original Sin and the apologetics that go with it utterly deplorable.

Bubba

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2003, 07:39 AM	#11
Lobstrosity Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 719	What about spl_cadet's response: "The answer is rather simple. It was the action that saved more people in the long run, thus was the moral choice. It's comparable to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as opposed to invading the Japanese mainland. Ordinarily the use of nuclear weapons on cities is a rather bad thing, but in this case it saved millions of lives on both sides thus making it the moral choice." I think this guy needs to study up on his religion a little bit more. He's talking about GOD here. We nuked Hiroshima because we wanted to save American lives and that was the only real option available to us puny humans. God can do whatever the hell he wants. He's god. It's not really like his options are as limited limited to the two alternatives: "kill everyone (including babies) but two" or "leave everything alone." The action that would have saved more people (and animals) in the long run would have been to, you know, not kill everything. Doesn't God have an angel of death that could have selectively killed those humans who were bad, leaving animals and babies alone? Then couldn't God in his infinite love, power, and good grace have found a way to care for the remaining infants until they grew up? Perhaps this answer is too obvious for them? Or perhaps the real answer is the simplest of all: God's a lazy, vindictive, heartless SOB.

03-12-2003, 10:15 AM	#12
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Ah yes, the old "end justifies the means" defense. That deity is quite the Machiavellian.

03-12-2003, 11:30 AM	#14
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	When it suits them, they cut God down to the limits of being some uber-daddy, who sometimes has to do nasty things for the greater good, and this shows his great love. I've had very little success trying to get them to see that this is God (as in the guy who created the whole universe in the first place) they're talking about, and one assumes that God has options not available to the average daddy. After all, we're told that God knew he'd have to destroy everything so he just made the Earth more robust so it could stand up to his actions when he was slaughtering his creation. This is supposed to be a GOOD THING (actually it's one of the sickest pieces of Christian apologetics I think I've ever seen) and to show how God knows what's going to happen in the future. When asked why God didnt' just manipulate things so that this wholesale slaughter wouldn't be needed in the first place, they go right back to the loving daddy meting out a punishment that's for the best in the long run. I wonder if all that abortion and infanticide stuff is biblical. Surely AiG wouldn't be embroidering their own source...

03-12-2003, 11:58 PM	#19
Lobstrosity Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 719	Actually, I think something was lost in the posting. If you look on the site, the "Why is there death and suffering?" is a link to another commonly asked question. Basically, I think that sentence is saying that people should reference that link for more information. Ugh, defending these guys makes me feel so...dirty.

03-14-2003, 11:23 AM	#20
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	I'm a little off topic here...but as a doubting Christian-leaning towards agnosticism type of guy I find the idea of Original Sin and the apologetics that go with it utterly deplorable. Bubba

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.