Wasn't Twain the damnedest ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I wonder if he throws a big party whenever someone in his immediate family di-- er, accomplishes the "transition".

I imagine that everytime he crosses a busy intersection he smiles privately from the thought that maybe a stray car will run the red and crush him under its tires.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I wonder if he throws a big party whenever someone in his immediate family di-- er, accomplishes the "transition".

You also have to wonder why he would oppose abortion.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You also have to wonder why he would oppose abortion.

Actually Freaky doesn't.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I wonder if he throws a big party whenever someone in his immediate family di-- er, accomplishes the "transition".

I would certainly expect him to throw some choice cuts on the barbie -- that is, if he focuses on the better interests of those making the splendid, exciting 'transition', rather than his own.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually Freaky doesn't.

He should. I have it on good authority - the RCC - that it is wrong.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I would certainly expect him to throw some choice cuts on the barbie -- that is, if he focuses on the better interests of those making the splendid, exciting 'transition', rather than his own.

Perhaps he gets bummed out over how "unlucky" he was. I'm sure he prays every day for a nice inoperable cancer.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
He should. I have it on good authority - the RCC - that it is wrong.

He says the Bible teaches that you don't have a soul until birth. The RCC is just pulling more of their "Whore of Babylon" crap if you ask me (not that Freaky said that).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Good. Take this quiz:

I own a slave. He does something that displeases me like misses a spot while waxing my Mercedes. I decide to beat him with a rod. Now could you please tell me what possible punishments I should face and why under these scenarios:

1) The slave dies right there while I am beating him with the rod:

2) The slave crawls ...[text shortened]... Feel free to consult the Bible as "final authority" on this matter. Thank you for your time.

Christ said to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

1) I wouldn't want to be waxing your Merc without at least a reasonable prospect of good remuneration 🙂, ergo I wouldn't own a slave.
2) I wouldn't like to be beaten with a rod for such a trivial offence (even if it qualifies under the rule of thumb 😛), ergo I wouldn't beat him.

Aside: For me the Mosaic Law is superseded by the words of Christ, so I would find you morally guilty before we even reach the given scenarios.

Oh, and I'd have you hung by the neck as a certainty in case 1) and also in case 2) if it is ascertained that he died of his beating. 😲😲

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That a parent is not "infinitely powerful" (whatever that means) does not absolve him of pretty much the same crimes Twain accuses God of. If I have a child, it is inevitably going to experience suffering. If I have a child, it is almost inevitably going to cause suffering as well.

A parent has to roll the dice with respect to genetics and future environmental events which will determine how much suffering the child will experience. The parent has the power to modify these chances, but only so much. God supposedly has it in his power to remove all pain and suffering without changing anything else. The parent can make the choice to have a child based on the likelihood that the child will be happy, but that's it. God supposedly has far more power than that and chance and other peoples' wills cannot defeat his will, unlike with the typical parent.

Originally posted by Halitose
Christ said to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

1) I wouldn't want to be waxing your Merc without at least a reasonable prospect of good remuneration 🙂, ergo I wouldn't own a slave.
2) I wouldn't like to be beaten with a rod for such a trivial offence (even if it qualifies under the rule of thumb 😛), ergo I wouldn't beat him.

As ...[text shortened]... ainty in case 1) and also in case 2) if it is ascertained that he died of his beating. 😲😲

So the Bible is inerrant, but some parts are more inerrant than others. Sorta like Animal Farm.

Originally posted by whodey
This brings up a good question. Does suffering destroy our desire to exist? Is it better to have never existed than to suffer? Perhaps it is worth living despite your suffering, unless the degree of suffering is unacceptable. If so, what is unacceptable? Do we all not suffer to varying degrees? Are our lives, therefore, worthy of existence? Why did God ...[text shortened]... suffer along side of us in the form of Christ? Does this make him both a sadist and a masacist?

Does suffering destroy our desire to exist? Sometimes, but not typically.

Is it better to have never existed than to suffer? Depends how much you suffer and how much pleasure you experience.

Perhaps it is worth living despite your suffering, unless the degree of suffering is unacceptable. Basically, since living typically involves a certain amount of pleasure and dying is scary.

If so, what is unacceptable? That's an individual choice. Depends on the person. Possibly it can be calculated what would be unacceptable to any particular person, but no one today can do so.

Do we all not suffer to varying degrees? Yes.

Are our lives, therefore, worthy of existence? Those of us who are still alive value that life more than they value trying to kill themselves. This is not quite the same as saying they value life more than they value not being alive.

Why did God choose to suffer along side of us in the form of Christ? He doesn't exist, so the question is irrelevant. I haven't bothered to try to reconcile the assumption of his existence with this choice.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, blame God for man's evil. Seems like that has been going
on for a long time now.
Kelly

Yes, blame people for the evils caused by the things they cannot control. That's been going around a long time now too.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It must be difficult for you, able to argue away the many weak logic arguments offered by Christians of lesser intellect and yet be faced with a nagging unrelenting sense of fear. I honestly don't know how you do it.

Not all of us were brought up by superstitious and controlling parents.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So the Bible is inerrant, but some parts are more inerrant than others. Sorta like Animal Farm.

Sorta like Animal Farm.

Ah. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others? I didn't know George Orwell was in your repertoire of read authors. 😀

So the Bible is inerrant,

Sorta, if you concede that its application should be taken in historical and cultural context and allow for figures of speech, hyperbole and the like.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The confusion is yours in this situation. Two of the greatest geniuses to ever walk the planet (Jesus and Paul) both elevated the word of God over their own thoughts. When a person comes to that conclusion, they are truly contented. Until a person comes to that conclusion, they are faced with a constant need for justification.

Of course, a person can out to their logical conclusions prior to making assessments relative to the initial issue.

The problem does not lie solely within the construct of the forum, but the 'party line' atmosphere the forum facilitates certainly doesn't contribute to clarity.

What sort of forum environment would be conducive to people accepting Jesus? Are you suggesting that peoples' choices are controlled by the other people in the forum? How does that fit in with free will? It sounds suspiciously like you're gently suggesting brainwashing.

Samuel Clemens wanted God to answer to him, without even considering that his own standard of right and wrong, fairness, etc., was derived from his concepts of what God ought to be, according to him.

I am perfectly aware that I have certain standards of how God ought to be. If you think you don't, then why aren't you worshipping Satan or Zeus? Is it only because you think God is more powerful than they are?

My few attempts at posting systematic theology on this forum was directly for the benefit of people such as yourself, Big Dog Problem and Telerion: those who think are typically not going to respond well to evangelical barking, as Nemesio points out in his post here. Therefore, I posted outlines of two critical aspects of theology: the attributes of God and the divine decree.

Your "Divine Decree" thread seemed aimed at people who were already Christians. This is why I never spent much time in it. Are you telling me it was written for thinking atheists? That does not seem consistent with this quote:

With a premise of the Bible as the word of God

Most of us thinking atheists don't accept that premise. That's a premise for Christians, not thinking atheists.