If you were God, what kind of God would you be?

Again Mike I got to ask. Can you please stop the preaching and attempt some semblance of staying on topic?Do you even read what topics are about? We do not need or want your preaching.OP asks
If you were God, what kind of God would you be?Can you answer without preaching?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I would be the Judgement God. I would bring real-world hurt and pain to those who hurt others... none of this waiting till some undefined period of time thousands of years into the future bullcrap to give evildoers their evil dues while letting them destroy the lives of innocent people their 80 years on Earth.Unlike the peewee Yahweh, I could never just procrastinate punishment of the wicked... putting it off for thousands of years lazing on my ass while the innocent suffered. A LOT different than this one, that is for sure.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

You've been Gremled!

Mike, please stop preaching and pay attention to what other people actually say. I am not going to repeat endlessly what I wrote before. You go back and read it again, then reply with an appropriate answer. Until you do so, I am going to ignore you.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Well, of course that's easy to say. But actions speak louder than words.If I wrote down on a piece of paper: "Hitler is light, and in him there is no darkness at all", that wouldn't magically make the Holocaust not wrong, would it? Well, he would say that, wouldn't he. But should we not judge him by his actions rather than by his boastful words about himself? Hitler kept going on about what a splendid chap he was.That his ways are not my ways, I freely concede. For example, I have committed genocide less often. And if I wrote on a piece of paper: "Trust in Hitler and not on your own understanding", would that suffice to suspend your moral judgment with regard to him?---The trouble with your whole line of argument is that you can defend anyone by assuming that they were in the right. Like this.Me: Hitler was a bad man.Nazi: No he wasn't.Me: But he started WWII and instigated the Holocaust.Nazi: Those were good things to do.Me: But I find his actions morally revolting.Nazi: Yes, exactly --- you find his actions morally revolting. This is because, unlike Hitler, your moral sense is imperfect. If you were a truly good person, like Hitler, then you would know what a splendid thing the Holocaust was.Me: But I think his actions were wicked.Nazi: You think so. But it is written in Mein Kampf that Hitler was a simply splendid chap.Me: You proffer Hitler's own advertisement for himself as evidence of his character?Nazi: Of course. As this testimony comes from a perfectly moral man who was incapable of lying, there can be no more unimpeachable source.Me: I feel this argument is becoming somewhat circular ...---And of course the way I break the circle of the argument is that I do know the difference between right and wrong, and I know that I know this. Perhaps I don't know it perfectly, but even a man half-blind can tell the difference between light and darkness.But you enter into the circular argument --- and so there is no atrocity that you cannot justify, no God so false that you cannot worship him, no creature so daemonic that you couldn't swear that he was divine.But why should I, standing outside the circle of your argument, ever be persuaded to enter into it --- any more than I would be tempted by similarly circular arguments to worship Satan or Moloch or Baal?

Aztec: You should worship Tezcatlipoca.Me: Why?Aztec: Because he's infinitely good, and therefore worthy of worship.Me: But doesn't he enjoin human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism on his followers?Aztec: Oh, good, I see you've been reading up on him. What's your point?Me: Well, isn't that kind of ... bad? And therefore in contradiction to your claim that he's infinitely good?Aztec: But Tezcatlipoca wants human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism!Me: That would be kind of my point. It seems to me that if he wants bad things, then (if he exists) he is himself bad.Aztec: But since Tezcatlipoca wants these things, and since he is infinitely good, they can't possibly be bad things. So your argument fails.---Now, if you can see the problem with his reasoning, then please note that it holds up a mirror to yours.In order for me to judge between various claims about the attributes of an infinitely good being, I have to stand outside the circle of reasoning that begins with the premise that the being in question is infinitely good --- and instead apply my own moral sense, imperfect though it may be, to those claims.And, standing outside these charmed magical circles of reasoning, I see no reason why I should step inside any one of them. Why should I follow you round and round your magic circle rather than following the priest of Tezcatlipoca? How can I find your reasoning valid without finding his reasoning valid also?But you can't both be right.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I've been waiting for you to answer my posts. While I'm waiting, one last conundrum. Should I rape Suzy?Let me explain. I am (for the purposes of this discussion) highly sexually attracted to a woman called Suzy. She, on the other hand, is not attracted to me at all.Now, I am not morally perfect. But my judgment is that it would be wrong for me to gratify my sexual urges by raping Suzy, whereas it would be right for me to abstain from doing so. My imperfect human morality tells me that I shouldn't rape Suzy.But the biblegod might think something completely different. After all, I find his decisions about murder and rape and genocide and infanticide and slavery utterly shocking. Apparently his morality is completely different from my morality, and often his morality is in favor of his followers doing cruel and brutal and senseless acts of violence. Therefore, he might disagree with me completely about whether I should rape Suzy.So, should I rape Suzy? According to me, NO, NO, A HUNDRED TIMES NO. But that's just me. However, according to you, what matters is not what I think, but what the biblegod thinks --- the same biblegod who murdered everyone in the world except Noah, his kids, and their wives ---- the same biblegod who told his chosen people to commit rape against the women of the people they conquered --- the same biblegod whose morality is totally incomprehensible to me and fills me with disgust.So according to my standard of morality, I should not rape Suzy. But perhaps according to the biblegod's standard of morality, I should rape Suzy. And he would be right. After all, my standard of morality is, as you have explained, inferior to that of the biblegod, and, as is obvious, my standard of morality is completely different from that of the biblegod.So, once I have discarded my own imperfect human ideas of good and evil --- should I rape Suzy? Apparently, I have no idea. To know that, I'd have to be able to read the mind of the biblegod. Until then, it seems, I might as well toss a coin.OK ... biblegod ... give me a sign ... if the coin comes down heads, I won't rape Suzy ...And then you have the nerve to accuse your opponents of "moral relativism". Your argument abolishes everything we think we know about good and evil. EVERYTHING. However wicked an action is, it would be good if the biblegod was in favor of it.

Sorry I didn't answer your post, I have a pretty heavy response team working against me.I don't accuse anyone of moral relativism, it simply follows in a world where there is no innate purpose, as the universe would not care what your morals were/are.The argument isn't really quite about morals, it's about relative moral judgements giving you a certain flawed conclusion. Afterall, as I have stated, the bible states that there is no darkness or sin, in God, "at all" or "whatsoever" in other versions, I believe.So any conclusion from reading the bible, that God is wicked, is a guaranteed FALSE conclusion. Now you have to ignore your relative intepretation, relative to your atheism, doubt, disbelief and morals.There is no point in saying that you are imperfect and then believing you can still judge God who is not imperfect.If a judge who lies, says; "liar be punished", he is a hypocrite. If a judge who lusts says; "rapist, go to jail", he is a hypocrite.You see, the bible does not see sin as seperate, but generic, and prevailent in ALL people, therefore to judge "sin" you must be perfect.So it is no good going on about moral judgement. That is not the issue, you are infact identifying or trying to identify sin. But the bible teaches that God acts against sin, by "creating evil". God said he would bless AND CURSE because he is a just God.So if you say, "rape is wrong, I don't rape it digusts me."I say, have you ever lusted over a woman? Then you have commited adultery in the heart, as Christ indicated, therefore how can you judge sin, being a sinner?"Trust God and lean not on your own understanding" --Proverbs--Why? Because, "my thoughts are higher than your thoughts, and my ways are higher than your ways".This world is FULL of sin, because mankind wanted it that way. What did God want? Eden, what does God intend? Heaven.I don't recall murder in heaven, do you? I seem to remember Eden being a place where there was no death, or sin, yet you have a conclusion that God is wicked?If God is wicked, then it should not follow that in Revelation it says, "neither will there be any more pain".Why would a wicked God DESIRE a system where there is no more pain and suffering, no more killing?So you see, you have a VERY relative opinion about all of this, and I have hardly even started to mention some of the problems with what you say!

That's fine. In your own time. See your post #57.---I'll come back to you in a few minutes. I smoke, and I've promised my wife that I'll smoke outside, so this is what I'm going to do right now.

So should he rape Suzy or not?I cannot find the answer in your response.

You write: But this doesn't answer my points. I had two points, I believe. Let me recapitulate them.POINT 1: You can excuse anyone like that.You could say that Hitler was perfect, and I could say: "Hey, but what about the Holocaust?" and you could reply: "Well, since Hitler is perfect, the Holocaust must have been good, so the Holocaust doesn't prove that Hitler was bad."Or you could say that Tezcatlipoca was perfect, and I could say: "Hey, but what about all the human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism?", and you could reply: "Well, since Tezcatlipoca is perfect, human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism must be good, so they don't prove that Tezcatlipoca is bad."Do you see the problem?Why should I believe that your argument that the biblegod is perfect without also accepting the Nazi's argument that Hitler is perfect and the Aztec's argument that Tezcatlipoca is perfect? What's the difference? They all sound equally stupid and illogical to me.POINT 2: Should I rape Suzy?My point is this. Your argument pulls out all concepts of good and evil out from under my feet. I thought I knew that rape was wrong. But according to you it would be right if the biblegod approved of it. And I don't know what he's thinking. According to the Bible, he has all sorts of ideas about what is right and wrong that would never occur to me.So if I accept that the biblegod is the ultimate standard of what is right and wrong, then I have to conclude that I don't know the difference between right and wrong, either generally or in specific cases. In which case, I don't know whether I should or shouldn't rape Suzy.---Please address one or both of these points. Don't just tell me again what you believe --- I know what you believe. You have preached enough, it is time for you to try to justify your preaching.

It's not that I don't pay attention to what people say, it's that I give responses according to my own outlook. It might "seem" I do not hear or understand, but I am not here to amuse people completely, I am here to give my own take on things.I give and give, and others receive of me, this is my nature. I answer questions, but people can't answer mine.It is frustrating that when I know I make a powerful point, it is ignored. But God is not a wilfull person in that sense. He'll make his point, then he'll let you do what you want with it, as he knows you will. I am one and you are many. This might give an illusion that my posts are of less woth. Infact, they have to be much quicker posts, and they are therefore much scruffier grammatically, and structurally.

Logically, whether you like it or not I have disposed of the rape argument. Therefore I do not need to answer. The other question about Hitler is much better, but I tell the truth, and not lies. The second question is gone because of what I stated, but the Hitler example is not refuted. The followers would state that they are perfect or "correct", therefore your analogy is a good one on a logical level, as it would follow.Why should you?I could only really point to Christ, who is God in the form of man. You see, this is why I say that studying what the bible actually means other than on a syntax level, is correct.Christ said, "therefore the son of man is also Lord of the sabbath". (Because the sabbath or shabbat, was made for man.)Why would God only be able to be Lord of the sabbath if he was a man, when he is God? Because God gave "man", or "mankind", AUTHORITY on the earth. Therefore God is not able to be in charge of the sabbath, unless he is a man, because God is so faithful to his word, and SOVEREIGN. (As I previously mentioned).So when God became man, he took authority over the earth. Satan OFFERED the earth to Christ, but it would infact have made Christ subject to the devil because the devil already had the authority, when mankind SINNED.So now we have sin - which gives the enemy authority, and righteousness, that gives complete authority. A completely righteous man in this world is not subject to the sinful nature, nor any sickness or afflictions that come from the enemy.CHRIST was and IS this MAN, the "LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS".HIS LIFE on earth, is my moral "example" against people like Hitler and other tyrants. Christ said, "if you have seen me you have seen the Fether."Now we know the Father's nature, through the new covenant which is called the law of the Spirit of life, not the law of SIN and death.I have explained enough for you to give this some thought.You KNOW the difference between righteousness and sin. If you think Hitler is the same as Christ, then what else can I say.How is it that atheists only ever point to the law of sin and death as God's example, when God's example is Jesus Christ, which the whole law and prophets point to, screaming out, "this is the way, this is the way - not this way!!"So I can only, and you can only, judge a man based on how he is, can you not?I have finished participating for now, as I know that it is futile to try and convince you of anything, no matter how hard I try.

Dude you started down the morality line here. Should he rape Suzy?How do we know what god thinks is "good" or "bad" at any given time? And if he ever changes his mind how will we know?

But you're digging yourself deeper into your pit.Look, according to me it would be a sin to rape Suzy.But according to you, it seems that I don't really know that. I cannot, you say, "identify sin". Since I am a sinner, and since I have "lusted over a woman", I am in no position to judge. I don't actually know whether it would be a good or a bad thing to rape Suzy. As you say, it's "no good going on about moral judgement".OK, I'll toss a coin again. It came down heads last time, so Suzy is as yet unraped. Now ... heads, I won't rape Suzy ...Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You admit that? But that is exactly what you have been denying for the last umpteen posts.If you will admit that I know the difference between righteousness and sin, then what the heck have we been arguing about?I do indeed know the difference. This is why I know that the biblegod, if he existed, would be evil.