[Discussion] Does God have a plan?

[Your Creepy Stalker]

Is God a man or a Surpreme being?

Was the law made for God or man?

Does a dog follow the same laws as a human?

A story told by men to explain things, and to control other men.

The law was made for men, by men. The lawmaker follows his own rules.

A dog is not considered a sapient being capable of understanding right and wrong. A man or a god should be capable of understanding the difference.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

You must be registered for see images

So like the bible doesn't exist right?

The bible exists, and in that bible, God has done both kinds of intervention. He intervenes by the pacifist term of intervention (good), and he also responds to conflicts by killing them. Men, women, and children. Great job intervening there, even though you have the power to not have to kill men, women, and children!

We get that he doesn't have a code of laws for himself. But this does not mean that he is above morality. When you have the ability to do Good deeds and you don't? You instead do Bad deeds? Using the same definitions he himself has given? He is definitely not as moral as you or I. Compared to most of the human race, God is immoral. Biblefax.

So congratulations, ComplexCity. You're defending God's decision to kill children, when he didn't have to.

 

[OG sama]

A story told by men to explain things, and to control other men.

The law was made for men, by men. The lawmaker follows his own rules.

A dog is not considered a sapient being capable of understanding right and wrong. A man or a god should be capable of understanding the difference.

Man needs to follow mans rule because Man is not without sin. God can't sin, nor has he even broken his own moral laws, you just think murder and killing are synonymous with each other, when in reality, one is killing to be killing which is murder, while the other one can be lawful depending on what's done. I have explained this in my previous post actually.

 

[ComplexCity]

Man needs to follow mans rule because Man is not without sin. God can't sin, nor has he even broken his own moral laws, you just think murder and killing are synonymous with each other, when in reality, one is killing to be killing which is murder, while the other one can be lawful depending on what's done. I have explained this in my previous post actually.

Someone with common sense lives

 

[FreakensteinAG]

I feel like I'm talking in circles. I'm not doing this tonight

Sorry, but I'm appearing to talk in circles because you have been doing that far more than I have.

1.And when I use the bible to disprove what you posted then what is the problem? You googled something you didn't understand, got insight on it and you're still unsatisfied

2.Ok, I'm not going to waste my time when the laws clearly apply to man and not God (because he is the epitome of what is righteous) himself which was already explained in the thread for he is the one that kills the wicked and not us unless commanded too.

3.That was the law of the land, a law does not apply to the one who made the law (it was an old law anyway)

4.You asked of events that happened in the bible and I'm using the bible to explain to you why that outcome happen. Don't ask about the book but not expect me to use the book to disprove what you're saying

5.Follow the link and you will have your answer

6.You don't understand jack about the bible

Then proceed to post scripture to try and prove God to be a hypocrite

I swiftly debunk you with the same text

7.This link

8.

You must be registered for see links

Look at all that circular reasoning and backpeddling!

 

[Your Creepy Stalker]

Man needs to follow mans rule because Man is not without sin. God can't sin, nor has he even broken his own moral laws, you just think murder and killing are synonymous with each other, when in reality, one is killing to be killing which is murder, while the other one can be lawful depending on what's done. I have explained this in my previous post actually.

I never said Killing and Murder were the same thing. Murder is a subset of Killing. But hey, if you think a lawmaker is allowed to break the law, that's your problem, not mine.

 

[ComplexCity]

Sorry, but I'm appearing to talk in circles because you have been doing that far more than I have.



Look at all that circular reasoning!

You lack understanding and the willingness to understand I'm not wasting my time

 

[Your Creepy Stalker]

HOLY FUX WITH THIS GARBAGE LOGIC


In that case, no one should be drinking since the law states kids at a certain age cannot drink

Nice strawman, i'll kill it.

The law says you can't drink alcohol if you are under 18 (with some exceptions). But that comparison is pointless because there are people over 18 as well.
If you can find a 17 year old lawmaker drinking alcohol, you would have a point.

 

[ComplexCity]

Nice strawman, i'll kill it.

The law says you can't drink alcohol if you are under 18 (with some exceptions). But that comparison is pointless because there are people over 18 as well.

Strawman?

A Lawmaker must be subject to his own laws, and no lines from ancient propaganda you can quote change this.

What makes this a strawman when it fits the contents of what you're saying? There are people who didn't follow the law in that day and still murdered for the sake of murdering

 

[OG sama]

I never said Killing and Murder were the same thing. Murder is a subset of Killing. But hey, if you think a lawmaker is allowed to break the law, that's your problem, not mine.

Admits they're not the same thing --->still continues to say God is breaking his own laws.

God is not killing in an unlawful way, so he never broke his own law.

 

[Your Creepy Stalker]

Strawman?



What makes this a strawman when it fits the contents of what you're saying? There are people who didn't follow the law in that day and still murdered for the sake of murdering

A strawman is a weak argument made to make your own argument look better. In this case, it doesn't fit because it is legal to drink if you're over 18, but illegal to murder if you exist.

Regardless of the law, the lawmaker MUST follow the law. Even if others do not, the lawmaker must.

 

[ComplexCity]

A strawman is a weak argument made to make your own argument look better. In this case, it doesn't fit because it is legal to drink if you're over 18, but illegal to murder if you exist.

Regardless of the law, the lawmaker MUST follow the law. Even if others do not, the lawmaker must.

So the death penalty just grants 1-UP Lives then
So the law maker didn't make a law for a certain group
So even though the law maker(s) made the law by your logic they are dismissed from the law because of a certain factor

You must be registered for see images

 

[FreakensteinAG]

You lack understanding and the willingness to understand I'm not wasting my time

Alright, let's start over.

We understand that humans are set with a code of laws that we are not allowed to do.

So we don't do them, thus we have some amount of morality to us, not just because we're not allowed to, but because we don't want to do them. This is what altruism is. We do good things not because it rewards us, but because we want to do them. We DON'T do bad things not just because we will be punished, but because we inherently do not want to do them.

So let's switch to God. He is Omnipotent, meaning all-powerful. He can do literally anything in the universe. We have disputes among faction members of humans. He wants the factions to live in peace and not be subject to cruel misery.

What would a moral god do?

A) Force Faction A out of Faction B's land

B) Create a system in which both Faction A and Faction B can live in harmony

C) Create a system in which both Faction A and Faction B can live in harmony, where everybody benefits

D) Faction A is allowed to live in harmony, but Faction B suffers

If you selected D, you selected the answer depicted in Exodus!

If you selected C, you selected the most moral decision of the question set! Both parties benefited, no one died, no one suffered.

What did God do? He selected answer D. Even though he had the powers to give everyone benefits, he made one faction suffer and one faction benefit, when he had the ability to make both factions benefit.

So how moral was his choice? A pretty shitty choice. He had no code of rules, which we get, but he still made an immoral decision.

 

[Your Creepy Stalker]

Admits they're not the same thing --->still continues to say God is breaking his own laws.

God is not killing in an unlawful way, so he never broke his own law.

God Kills. One of the 10 commandments says no Killing. So yes, you cannot deny that he breaks that law.

 

[Aim64C]

The bible exists, and in that bible, God has done both kinds of intervention. He intervenes by the pacifist term of intervention (good), and he also responds to conflicts by killing them. Men, women, and children. Great job intervening there, even though you have the power to not have to kill men, women, and children!

So, let's say someone chooses not to eat, and to simply starve him/her self to death.

Is it God's fault for not intervening?

Likewise - if a group of people commit to a rejection of God and come into conflict with God's will - is it only natural that they be destroyed?

I mean - how crazy that God would make it so that matter can't exist in the same place at the same time. What kind of heinous being creates a world where people can be hit by cars?

We get that he doesn't have a code of laws for himself. But this does not mean that he is above morality. When you have the ability to do Good deeds and you don't? You instead do Bad deeds? Using the same definitions he himself has given? He is definitely not as moral as you or I. Compared to most of the human race, God is immoral. Biblefax.

There is a cult that is fanatically dedicated to abducting women to rape and breed for the purpose of increasing their ranks in a war of conquest.

You are God.

What is the moral means of dealing with this cult and putting an end to their conquest?

So congratulations, ComplexCity. You're defending God's decision to kill children, when he didn't have to.

Well, since you're clearly the expert on God's abilities and wisdom, walk us through how a proper moral deity would have resolved such a case.

 

[Your Creepy Stalker]

So the death penalty just grants 1-UP Lives then

No. Another strawman there, by the way.

 

[ComplexCity]

God Kills. One of the 10 commandments says no Killing. So yes, you cannot deny that he breaks that law.

And then he just ignores the rest of the bible

 

[deadp00l]

Well, God may not be a conscious being, rather just an all powerful energy that has the power over other forces.

And said energy may be guiding the universe towards a state/conclusion. Just like gravity forces celestial bodies to try and reach a spherical shape.

In that case minute details of a human life or any other organic life would be irrelevant and not a part of the "plan".

Not everything need revolve around humans you know.

 

[ComplexCity]

But illegal to murder if you exist.

Regardless of the law, the lawmaker MUST follow the law. Even if others do not, the lawmaker must.

How do you have two contradicting statements in the same post and not notice that they are contrary?


So I'll ask again, the death penalty just grants 1-Up Lives?

You must be registered for see images

 

[BlazeRelease]

The best way to put it (imo) is: When you read a book, do you ever ask if the Author has a plan? Probably not, because you're patient enough to just read the book without trying to edit it. Impatient people pray for things in an attempt to edit life before even finishing the book. There does have to be a God, though. My proof?

Can we make a living organism from scratch?
Can conscience be created?

Can one choose not to be born?

The answer to all three is "no". So something had to incubate the first millions of organisms. Conscience had to stem from somewhere. And someone had to get the ball rolling on birth and death. Just sayin'.

See, this is interesting. Because I didn't reach the same conclusion. I don't think the answer to this is, there is a "God", though I'm not saying there isn't; we don't know yet.

But it's definitely no god that any human or religion could claim to understand or know if.

The conclusion I've reached is that in some type of way, I believe living things have a type of spirit in them, that can't be explained. We have the means to understand these things by now, but when we look, there isn't an answer. I don't know where life came from or how, but "God" is not the only answer. The only thing I can assume is that we are more than just our physical forms, but past that, there simply isn't a way to know what is living things are.