Adolf Hitler - The World's Most Infamous Creationist

[AV1611VET]

Well, let me tell you...

...first, I don't think that killing people as punishment, or as warning, or because you are angry, or for any other reason is a good idea.

Ya ... that's why Charles Manson's ilk are wasting away in prison at taxpayers' expense.

...second, I don't think that even if I would see any reason for killing people, killing some random people on the opposite of the Globe for punishment, warning, anger or whatever can be aligned with the concept of "justice" or "mercy".

Well you're certainly no DAVID, are you?

2 Samuel 6:6 And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.
2 Samuel 6:7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.
2 Samuel 6:8 And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzzah: and he called the name of the place Perezuzzah to this day.

Yet, even when he was angry and fearful, he said:

2 Samuel 6:9 And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and said, How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?

There's nothing wrong with getting angry at God ... as long as you get over it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Everything that God commands is good. Even if it means immense suffering and killing.

That's rich ... especially coming from an evolutionist.

I take it you're against deer hunting? egg farms? biology experiments?

I mean, don't you care about your relatives?

 

[Freodin]

Ya ... that's why Charles Manson's ilk are wasting away in prison at taxpayers' expense.

57 people died in that earthquake that you said was from God. And it seems that you see no difference between them - and all the others from all the other events on your little list alone - and "Charles Manson's ilk". But it is OK, because perhaps some of them - a precious few of them - might have been "washed clean" and can stand before God without blemish.
And for those who weren't "washed clean"... tough luck for them, right? They got what they deserved, right?

Kill them all and let God sort them out... or so it was said.

But perhaps you can tell me again why all those people had to die?

Well you're certainly no DAVID, are you?

2 Samuel 6:6 And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.
2 Samuel 6:7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.
2 Samuel 6:8 And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzzah: and he called the name of the place Perezuzzah to this day.

Yet, even when he was angry and fearful, he said:

2 Samuel 6:9 And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and said, How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?

There's nothing wrong with getting angry at God ... as long as you get over it.

Get over it, sure. As long as you are still alive in order to do so. And don't you dare to still be angry at God for killing you for trying to save his bauble box... because unfortunately for you, you won't be on good terms then.

But that is only for those of us who still have a conscience. Sycophants just use their "get out of jail free" card.

 

[Klonz]

Not at all. God has His own timing. So if you sincerely asked, and really wanted to know that He exists He will answer you. He will.

Shouldn't people who literally "hear" God talking to them seek psychiatric help?

 

[AV1611VET]

And for those who weren't "washed clean"... tough luck for them, right?

If you want to live in a Christian nation as an atheist ... or any kind of unbeliever ... where God warns:

1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

... then I would suggest you're playing with fire -- literally.

15 atheists on a bus, going around dangerous mountain curves, with a born-again [but] homosexual driver, and God decides it's time to judge him.

What do you think happens?

 

[AV1611VET]

(Here we go again.)

Shouldn't people who literally "hear" God talking to them seek psychiatric help?

This country's most sought-after evangelist (at the time) had just such an ordeal, until his wife was able to get a Christian psychiatrist to override the non-Christian's psychiatrist's orders and get him out of the psychiatric unit.

He had gone to ER due to an accident, and ended up in the psyche ward.

In short, this is one of the reasons why we have Christian psychiatrists.

To put people who think like you in their place.

 

[Freodin]

If you want to live in a Christian nation as an atheist ... or any kind of unbeliever ... where God warns:

1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

... then I would suggest you're playing with fire -- literally.

15 atheists on a bus, going around dangerous mountain curves, with a born-again [but] homosexual driver, and God decides it's time to judge him.

What do you think happens?

Say, have you ever heard about the first rule of holes?

 

[Klonz]

(Here we go again.)



This country's most sought-after evangelist (at the time) had just such an ordeal, until his wife was able to get a Christian psychiatrist to override the non-Christian's psychiatrist's orders and get him out of the psychiatric unit.

He had gone to ER due to an accident, and ended up in the psyche ward.

In short, this is one of the reasons why we have Christian psychiatrists.

To put people who think like you in their place.

Christian psychiatrist. lol Two words combined that don't make sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Christian psychiatrist. lol Two words combined that don't make sense.

Doesn't surprise me.

Kinda like "God created," or "ex nihilo," isn't it?

 

[Freodin]

If you want to live in a Christian nation as an atheist ... or any kind of unbeliever ... where God warns:

1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

... then I would suggest you're playing with fire -- literally.

15 atheists on a bus, going around dangerous mountain curves, with a born-again [but] homosexual driver, and God decides it's time to judge him.

What do you think happens?

Let's see...

15 Atheists, bus on dangerous mountain curves, homosexual born again driver who is about to be judged by God...



...well, the bus, the driver and all the atheists will arrive safely at their destination. God's judgement of the driver resulted in a freak bushfire and a bridge collapsing some 500 km from the dangerous mountains, killing and injuring 25 people.



Can you explain again the connection between the Clinton-Assad talk and the Californian earthquake?

 

[bhsmte]

Shouldn't people who literally "hear" God talking to them seek psychiatric help?

In general, hearing voices with no one present in the flesh, is a cause for concern.

 

[bhsmte]

(Here we go again.)

This country's most sought-after evangelist (at the time) had just such an ordeal, until his wife was able to get a Christian psychiatrist to override the non-Christian's psychiatrist's orders and get him out of the psychiatric unit.

He had gone to ER due to an accident, and ended up in the psyche ward.

In short, this is one of the reasons why we have Christian psychiatrists.

To put people who think like you in their place.

AV, how would the christian shrink determine when it is a problem to hear voices?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, how would the christian shrink determine when it is a problem to hear voices?

He wasn't "hearing" voices.

What happened was, he was asked a series of questions:

1. Do you look forward to dying?
2. Do you talk to someone when no one's around?
3. Are you being watched?

Things like that.

He told the psychiatrist that God talks to him through His Word, the Bible.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Why would God not favour me? I have led a very moral life.

And I have never supported Genocide, Slavery, and Misogyny for personal gain.

So if God is moral and all-loving, I'm the one going to Heaven.

I'm diverting the topic a bit here:

I've never understood why atheists and other non-religious people often say that if God was truly loving and forgiving, He would allow them into heaven because they are "good" people.

I haven't put "good" people in quotation marks because I think being an atheist automatically makes you bad. I've put it in quotation marks because the vast majority of atheists and non-religious people I've spoken to don't actually believe in objective morality - yet when they argue that they should be allowed into heaven, regardless of whether or not they believe in God, they speak as though goodness were something that exists independant of human thought, something we can measure, something tangible. All of a sudden goodness becomes something objective again. They are "good", no matter what anyone else (including God Himself) thinks of them.

Perhaps you are a good person - but by whose standards? Your own personal standards? By the standards of modern, Western society? If you lived in a different time, a different place, would you have been against slavery, misogyny and genocide? The vast majority of people throughout history certainly weren't.

(This is probably a subject better suited for another thread though.)

 

[mathetes123]

I'm diverting the topic a bit here:

I've never understood why atheists and other non-religious people often say that if God was truly loving and forgiving, He would allow them into heaven because they are "good" people.

I haven't put "good" people in quotation marks because I think being an atheist automatically makes you bad. I've put it in quotation marks because the vast majority of atheists and non-religious people I've spoken to don't actually believe in objective morality - yet when they argue that they should be allowed into heaven, regardless of whether or not they believe in God, they speak as though goodness were something that exists independant of human thought, something we can measure, something tangible. All of a sudden goodness becomes something objective again. They are "good", no matter what anyone else (including God Himself) thinks of them.

Perhaps you are a good person - but by whose standards? Your own personal standards? By the standards of modern, Western society? If you lived in a different time, a different place, would you have been against slavery, misogyny and genocide? The vast majority of people throughout history certainly weren't.

(This is probably a subject better suited for another thread though.)

I agree. Atheists have no basis for making moral arguments. In the absence of an absolute, transcendent moral law giver (God), morality becomes nothing more than a matter of personal opinion. They betray their lack of faith in atheism when they make moral arguments as if there were objective moral laws about which we should all agree, which would imply there must be a moral law giver.

 

[biggles53]

I agree. Atheists have no basis for making moral arguments. In the absence of an absolute, transcendent moral law giver (God), morality becomes nothing more than a matter of personal opinion. They betray their lack of faith in atheism when they make moral arguments as if there were objective moral laws about which we should all agree, which would imply there must be a moral law giver.

No.

You present a False Dichotomy fallacy.....either there must be "an absolute transcendent law giver" OR "personal opinion" of the individual....

Why can there not be a moral code based upon the consensus of MANY individuals living in communities............which is exactly what we DO find.....!?

 

[mathetes123]

No.

You present a False Dichotomy fallacy.....either there must be "an absolute transcendent law giver" OR "personal opinion" of the individual....

Why can there not be a moral code based upon the consensus of MANY individuals living in communities............which is exactly what we DO find.....!?

You have to ask yourself, why are there morals about which we all agree as if they were ingrained on our conscience? Where did these morals come from? Where did our conscience come from?

It would still be opinion. Truth is not something that is determined by consensus. A majority can agree on something, but that consensus does not make it either true or moral.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

No.

You present a False Dichotomy fallacy.....either there must be "an absolute transcendent law giver" OR "personal opinion" of the individual....

Why can there not be a moral code based upon the consensus of MANY individuals living in communities............which is exactly what we DO find.....!?

Because collective opinion is still opinion - or to put it another way, just because everyone says something is right or wrong does not make it right or wrong.

A lot of us would also find many of these collective opinions (to put it mildly) distasteful. You'd be rather shocked at the number of Middle-Eastern women - women, not men - who support wife-beating.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm diverting the topic a bit here:

I've never understood why atheists and other non-religious people often say that if God was truly loving and forgiving, He would allow them into heaven because they are "good" people.

I haven't put "good" people in quotation marks because I think being an atheist automatically makes you bad. I've put it in quotation marks because the vast majority of atheists and non-religious people I've spoken to don't actually believe in objective morality - yet when they argue that they should be allowed into heaven, regardless of whether or not they believe in God, they speak as though goodness were something that exists independant of human thought, something we can measure, something tangible. All of a sudden goodness becomes something objective again. They are "good", no matter what anyone else (including God Himself) thinks of them.

Perhaps you are a good person - but by whose standards? Your own personal standards? By the standards of modern, Western society? If you lived in a different time, a different place, would you have been against slavery, misogyny and genocide? The vast majority of people throughout history certainly weren't.

(This is probably a subject better suited for another thread though.)

I agree.

 

[bhsmte]

You have to ask yourself, why are there morals about which we all agree as if they were ingrained on our conscience? Where did these morals come from? Where did our conscience come from?

It would still be opinion. Truth is not something that is determined by consensus. A majority can agree on something, but that consensus does not make it either true or moral.

To answer the question in your first paragraph, it is because some things are so socially unacceptable, they are ingrained in you when you are young (most likely by your parents) as being unacceptable. Also, the impact of not being socially outcast is huge and impacts everyone, unless they are a sociopath.