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

So Hell is a lie, right?"No more pain and suffering"?Thanks for clearing that up. No, you haven't. Let me know when you do.

It doesn't follow that God is evil, EVEN IF HE DOES EVIL.Now what could I mean by that exactly? What if it's all I said without explaining? You might conclude certain things, might you not, it might be easy to conclude certain things.Yet, ultimately, you should not lean on your own understanding, if my understanding is higher, because you will not understand what I say and therefore try and make sense of it relative to your own opinion, experience etc...You think I am "deep" into something? I don't think you have proved anything other than you can know right and do wrong.My original point still stands. Unless you are completely righteouss, how can your mind make a sound judgement? You are a person whom has views RELATIVE to your opinions, morals, worldview, etc. You can only make a conclusion based on that relativity.

So can we take it from this that God is in fact capable of evil acts after all?

I knew you'd mention hell. But God has made a way to not go there. It does not follow that he is evil or wicked because men insist on going there, when he makes it clear that his will is that they will inherit the kingdom.I have mentioned some of the problems with what you say but your attitude indicates to me that it would not matter what I say, therefore what I say increases in wisdom and decreases in understanding. For you do not want to understand, making yourself god.

Is that what I meant? What are, "evil acts".Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I'll give you a whopping clue my confused friends.Why would God, now you have concluded he is evil, want to save any that are not evil? Why did he save Lot? Why did he save Noah? Why did he bless Israel when they were righteous, and curse them when they were evil?If his motive is evil, Him being evil?Through the process of reductio ad absurdum, it should follow that he would kill them all, in the most evil way, especially the righteous. (Remember, relative moral opinions don't count as they differ. Jack the ripper might find it moral to kill innocent people).I state you "know righteousness and sin", but your morals allow sin. Knowing righteousness does not make you righteous, or stop you from sinning. Even Jack knew he was in the wrong because he ran.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Thanks for the exchange.
Hope things are well ... I have no comment here, other than ...This type of logic is being promoted by a man who contends that Joshua the Anointed One was a Levitical animal sacrifice, and so ...This man has seemingly not yet learned what these words mean ... Please be careful with what these types promote.This is not pointed at you brutha Stragg.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

I have not revealed what I meant.perhaps I am just evil, or I have a twisted logic?What do you think? (Clear lucid answers are preferrable).Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

it isn't let let Mike preach and preach and preach.Any chance you might add something to the topic?Didn't think so.

---

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

Then you might have chosen your words with more care.Let's look at it again in slow motion.I suggested that the biblegod might be bad.You replied that the biblegod had promised that at some unspecified time in the future, there would be "no more pain and suffering".Quizzed further on this subject, you admit that you think that this supposed promise was a lie, and that in fact some people will experience pain and suffering forever.But if this whole "no more pain and suffering" promise is a lie, then how does the fact that the biblegod told that lie prove that he is good?If the priest of Tezcatlipuca tells me that Tezcatlipoca has promised that one day it will rain beer, but that according to the doctrines of his religion Tezcatlipoca is not telling the truth, then this doesn't incline me to worship Tezcatlipoca as the Giver of Beer. It inclines me to despise Tezcatlipoca as the Father of Lies. And yet, curiously enough, of the two of us it is you who goes around claiming to speak for God, and telling us what he thinks and what his opinions are.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you seriously think that when I said "neither will there be pain or suffering", that I didn't mean the kingdom, and you think it follows that it is a lie? Then my friend, I am completely content to discontinue saying anything at all.Didn't you hear of the "old system of things?" "neither shall there be any more curse". the context is that this present day situation humans are in, is not how it will be when the kingdom comes.Boy - no wonder you have such troubles with the bible. You simply twist any thing you can twist to suit your argument.Oh well, good luck with that. Bye .

Your argument fails twice.First, because if your logic was good, it would follow by the same "process of reductio ad absurdum" that if Hitler was really evil, then he would have killed the Jews in the most evil way possible, rather than by the relatively quick and humane method of gassing them. By your logic, we would have to conclude that Hitler's motives were not evil.Second, because surely if the biblegod thought that he should murder the people who died in the Flood, he also presumably decided that they should burn in Hell for ever, which is the nastiest thing that he could possibly do to them.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So, just to be clear about this. When you said "neither will there be pain and suffering", you were implicitly excluding the people who would suffer pain for all eternity?Hey. let me use my Godlike powers. By my quasi-divine beneficence, everyone reading this post will win their state lottery this week.What's that? You didn't win? Well, obviously when I said that "everyone" would win, I meant everyone except for the people who wouldn't win.If you call me a liar for saying that everyone reading my post would win the lottery, you're just twisting my words. After all, the biblegod himself said that there would be "no more pain and suffering", when what he meant was that there would be no more pain and suffering except for the people whom he condemned to an eternity of pain and suffering. So if I'm a liar, so is he. I did not twist your words. I quoted them. If you now feel a desperate urge to backpedal, this is not dishonesty on my part.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well I am glad that we agree on that. Your contradictory nonsense gets more internally confused with every post. Twisted logic? That is an easy question to answer. Evil? Well that suerly brings us back to the questions you are unable to answer. Should he rape Suzy? I think you have dug a hole for yourself. I think that Dr Adequate has exposed the contradictions and flaws in your position with consumate clarity. I think you are now talking in pseudo-intellectual riddles to try and sound clever whilst at the same time backing out of the argument that you know you cannot defend.Is that clear and lucid enough for you?

So, this is still worrying me. I think that I shouldn't rape Suzy, but according to you, unless I am completely righteous, I can't know whether I'm right or wrong. The view that I shouldn't rape her, as you've explained to me, is just my personal view "based on my relativity", whatever you mean by this.And damn, I so want to fuck Suzy; and, as you have explained to me, my moral opinion that I shouldn't rape her counts for absolutely nothing. So I guess that weighing my real desires against my totally negligible moral viewpoint, I should rape her, right?But I don't feel entirely happy about that, so I'll toss the coin again --- heads, I won't rape Suzy. Tails, I will. So far, the coin has come down heads twice, fortunately for her, but you know the old saying: "Third time lucky"? Well, today I'm feeling lucky ...... hold on, I have a better idea. I'll leave it up to you. Here's what I'm going to do.If you tell me that I should rape Suzy, I'll rape Suzy.If you tell me that I shouldn't rape Suzy, I won't rape Suzy.And if you won't answer the question, then I shall take silence as consent, and assume that you think it's OK for me to rape Suzy. So I'll rape Suzy.It's all down to you now. Should I rape Suzy?Everyone else reading this thread can tell me that it's wrong to rape Suzy. Everyone not sharing your twisted moral philosophy can tell me clearly and succinctly that rape is wrong. I urge them to prove my point by replying to this post and posting the words: "No, you shouldn't rape Suzy".But you --- according to the philosophy that you preach --- cannot tell me that it would be wrong to rape Suzy. So either the question of whether I should rape Suzy is up in the air, and I might as well toss a coin to decide it --- or there is something profoundly wrong with your moral philosophy.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.