If you believe that God Exists, is Good, Cares and is Powerful....

Sheldon said:

I don't believe in a deity obviously, but I still don't think that is morally true, it would however mean that the moral moratorium on killing is subjective, if a deity could set aside arbitrarily.

Click to expand...

It's a rule set by God for finite humans and only in a certain context. Murder and self-defense for example are two different things.
It's not a rule imposed on God by God.

Sheldon said:

I don't agree, men and women create babies, I don't think it is moral for them to do what they want with that baby.

Click to expand...

So you are anti abortion, I assume?

Sheldon said:

I don't agree, men and women create babies,

Click to expand...

But they don't. God creates all life. We have a responsibility to that child, born or unborn, because of our role in causing it to be conceived, but we don't do the creating.

Sheldon said:

Almost as if morals are entirely subjective . . .

Click to expand...

And in some cases, merely hypothetical.

If a human asks why is a human not being loving.

The topic chosen. By humans as humans identifying correct human behaviour as humans are family first.

Equal by conscious self identification.

You live on a planet that is reactive kills you anytime.
You live being doing living within a heavens that is reactive and can kill you.

So you quote particular causes form unnatural death. About God the planet body.

Consciousness owns natural death.

So you think about it. You claim the evil God that kills humans is its fault. God does it as it's not human choice.

Taught the human family to kill you also.

So you ask why.

We live using the exact same environmental conditions. Even the beast animal loves its babies.

All humans are babies.

Natural to love.

So we know something wrong and evil about the creator body...earth it's heavens changed our thoughts. To copy I want humans destroyed.

The answer the star fell. It was moving by burning gases. Our heavens gas burning was voiding. It forced burning gases to fall as it couldn't cool in space void.

As the star was not meant to be in our space.

Moon star was. Earth was...falling stars not allowed.

As the mind burnt changed its chemical behaviours.

We were taught.

We said God earth kills us whenever it reacts and is out of our control. But so too did Satan star fall change our biological mind.

We DNA changed. The damaged life behaviour given to babies. We learnt why unloving self destructive personalities were born.

As they agree with destruction by choice of personal presence.

Once the founding church stated scientists were criminals. As their minds were so evil by thinking concepts.

So humans who realised worked in the order by solace meditation prayer tried to recondition their minds.

It didn't work.

The teaching said science heats earths cool heavens gases by mass burning out to get a gas.

Equals equals in science is not equals equals in space pressure cooling heavens.

Why the star came as they passed through earths heated space.

And came back and hit earth.

It was realised.
It was stated exact.
It was said evil causes of human sciences.

No other reason to write the correlated life sacrificed documents unless sacrifice occurred.

It's not science so it doesn't make scientific sense for any logical rational reader.

Hence trying to make it be science is the ludicrous part of a human review.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

Then how do you explain the immense evil that Vladimir Putin is inflicting on Ukraine? Bombing of maternity hospitals, killing of children, murder of civilians who have no part in whatever his grievance is...

In all of this, where is this good, caring and powerful God? Busy playing Bingo? Visiting another galaxy?

Does God love Putin and hate Ukraine?

Click to expand...

Vladimir Putin has just as much freedom to act as any other human being.

God promises that we are all free while we sojourn here in mortality - for it is our probationary period.

If He were to directly intervene here - then He would always need to intervene - and none of us would have free will.

And that would defeat the entire purpose of us coming into mortality.

Fallen Prophet said:

Vladimir Putin has just as much freedom to act as any other human being.

God promises that we are all free while we sojourn here in mortality - for it is our probationary period.

If He were to directly intervene here - then He would always need to intervene - and none of us would have free will.

And that would defeat the entire purpose of us coming into mortality.

Click to expand...

Father's man's origin spiritual self wasn't a theist for science.

Rationally holy father holy mother lived with holy human babies for some time before returned star fall that had killed off dinosaurs came back.

Lucky for life our atmosphere had cooled it's gas mass.

Was when science by mind was reintroduced hearing man's voice falsely in his own head.

So he possesses his own self by past man's evil choices.

Which is proven. He acts out the nuclear event that nature once owned himself.

Physically.

Which is the warning of man's scientific AI self possession.

He becomes virtually robotic and unfeeling. Instead just acts out life's destruction physically as natural as God Jesus terms had saved life.

Hence if you believe you are Jesus. You are of holy mind mind pursuits self mind control. Holy Choice. Reconciliation and holy acts of kindness and care healing feeding the poor and sick.

As the rich man began his holy church as I am rich I was harmed I am conscious I am spiritual and I only choose for Jesus.

As the churches owned founding brothers rich man.

Fallen Prophet said:

Vladimir Putin has just as much freedom to act as any other human being.

God promises that we are all free while we sojourn here in mortality - for it is our probationary period.

If He were to directly intervene here - then He would always need to intervene - and none of us would have free will.

And that would defeat the entire purpose of us coming into mortality.

Click to expand...

You know, the thing that drives me craziest about this topic (surprisingly, it's not some of the pablum that believers spout) -- is the plain truth that Vladimir Putin is now unquestionably guilty of very real war crimes and crimes against humanity, and he will never face justice for it.

Believers, of course, can make all the claims they like about God meting out justice in "the afterlife," but they've no way to back up that claim -- and none of Putin's victims, or the loved ones they leave behind in grief, will see justice done. And they need to.

To me, this is just more proof of the non-existence of anything even remotely like any of the versions of the Abrahamic god.

Human justice is so very much better than this supposed god's. If we know about a heinous criminal, we render him incapable of doing more harm as soon as possible, even before a trial is complete. And when the trial is complete and he's found guilty, we protect society further -- sometimes for the life of the culprit (and that doesn't take killing him to do).

But this foolish God -- no, He leaves the criminal to do more damage, commit more atrocities, impose misery upon misery upon misery on thousands and millions of innocent people, preferring to postpone even an incarceration without bail until he can be tried.

It is too ludicrous to contemplate. It really is.

The theme why.

Science.

Who thinks they represent a deity?

Men do.

Who acted out man's idolisation in deification?

Men did.

Why should be questioned.

Did they self deitise before?

No they were rich. Title of imposed. Is that deification in family roles?

Yes. Not great grandma grandpa.

Rich titles. King queen. Over lording family by self imposed entitlement.

So humans who used science to thesis I want the power of the gods theories.... I want power for what reason?

Inventions. To build inventions trade. To sell. To have sources to operate machines.

Oh. So they had gods holy grail then powers?

Yes. As you don't have it anywhere else for any other reason than invention.

Did they control powers?

No. They only took them for various inventive trades.

Before brain irradiation.

As inferring a king to an everyday human is fake actually.

As an everyday human is just a family member. Once no rich man no poor man just natural man.

So you write a book. You know heavy metal radiating causes burnt your brain by hot gas and Hot water.

You gained dementia Alzheimer's...your brain dysfunction caused changed speech so you learnt new ways of talking. You became non intelligent about what you never owned....science.

We lived the proof.

So Russia was hit by the star. Nuclear memory in men returned AI advised communicative feedback.

Psychics re emerged. Hearing of voice emerged everywhere.

Putin thought himself a type of Jesus. Celebrity. Owned a purpose.

The theme science suggested A dam damnation mad. Himself. Said by man's scientific summation.

Brain changed of causes yet science isn't mad. He tried to warn you choosing science was mad as a review from life harm. Life changed. Mind belief. Causes the effects and possesses man's motivation.

In society where only family lives.

No man is God owned a review. It was summarised. It was a law argument. The book shut.

Human scientists re opened the book to refer from it again by their choice.

No preaching it had summarised.

So you now read from a book that you re opened and it states don't self idolise as consciousness realised. Don't false preach being science itself.

You had to read it again yet you already knew. Wrote the evidence many man nation attack. It was you who argued and gained a new social legal system outside of religious temple science.

Religious as science was first practiced in the temple and it wasn't human life they discussed. Ignored as usual.

The attack on life when temple destruction from failure to cool like power plants occurred was a summary of causes.

To gain the new legal status against science invention trade and power resource.

Subduction Zone said:

Not really. When a God mirrors the beliefs of his believers that is evidence of it being anthropomorphological. Look at the God of the Bible. He learns s the people that he rules learns. His morals improve in the New Testament. They are still faulty. but they are better. That indicates that he is man made.

Click to expand...

Honestly, you haven't given any real proofs to support your statements. However, since you injected "morals" into the topic, you have disproved your own statements. How? Because, God is not a moral being!

The notion of God as subject to duties or obligations (and as acting in accordance with them) would, I think, have been thought of by [Aquinas] as an unfortunate lapse into anthropomorphism, as reducing God to the level of a human creature. (Davies, Brian. Thomas Aquinas on God and Evil (Kindle Locations 1253-1255). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition).

In Romans 2:15 it is recorded that the law is written into their (humans) hearts. Thus, man has a built-in conscience, given by God. This verse alone refutes the idea that the True God is manmade. Hence, humans are moral beings because we have a certain nature. We have a law written on our hearts that reflects this moral aspect of our being that God gave us.

But God has no such nature. He has no moral law written on his heart. He does not become more virtuous. He does not live up to some standard of goodness. He is not even his own standard—whatever that even means. To say that he would not do something that would be considered wrong since his character is in accordance with goodness is still to subordinate his character to something else, or to compare it to something “external” to him. Is this not the point of Job? When Job wants to take God to court the obvious question is raised, “Who would be the judge?” God’s answer to Job as to why God allowed such evil to befall Job is basically, “I’m God and you are not.” (Dr. Brian Huffling)

God is not a human and is not bound by a human body, does not have changing passions/emotions, and is not constrained or bound by human morality. He cannot be moral or immoral since there is no standard that he measures up to or virtues to fulfill. If there were a standard that was not part of him, then he would not be God. (Dr. Brian Huffling)

Therefore, the idea that the bible is as bad as it gets when it comes to anthropomorphism is actually invalid, because there is a True and Supreme God that rejects this concept (in my opinion).

When men named a man as a group of men human's denoted is by a penis. Says he him he is in a Think ing status the definition is man self inferred.

Man told men and men agreed told man is first. So consciousness says as a man speaking I already own the God advice. Claiming he thought it himself.

Re iterating his own advice to agree his man advice about God was by men only.

Is not any God.

As God in human science is observed as a fixed non fission planet mass owning a natural heavens.

With no he him his inferred purpose.

So as man thought science yet man is self imaged back by machine Ai causes he continually advised himself he him his is not any God. But spoke for God as if he owned god.

The intent was to get gods powers for machines so it's only science direct. As stated by man to men.

Proven by the talking inferences heard recorded of man's adult voices speaking. After ice age regained man's scientific thesis.

Yet the topic is first God in science as natural mans observations.

As you have to be a human to thesis. You can't thesis science unless the planet and heavens exists to be conscious.

An example you talk God then say he is not moral or immoral.

As a man is expressive of both those positions as a he it proved as you lied about owning being only a theist first you surely are man self possessed by science causes.

DKH said:

Honestly, you haven't given any real proofs to support your statements. However, since you injected "morals" into the topic, you have disproved your own statements. How? Because, God is not a moral being!

The notion of God as subject to duties or obligations (and as acting in accordance with them) would, I think, have been thought of by [Aquinas] as an unfortunate lapse into anthropomorphism, as reducing God to the level of a human creature. (Davies, Brian. Thomas Aquinas on God and Evil (Kindle Locations 1253-1255). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition).

In Romans 2:15 it is recorded that the law is written into their (humans) hearts. Thus, man has a built-in conscience, given by God. This verse alone refutes the idea that the True God is manmade. Hence, humans are moral beings because we have a certain nature. We have a law written on our hearts that reflects this moral aspect of our being that God gave us.

But God has no such nature. He has no moral law written on his heart. He does not become more virtuous. He does not live up to some standard of goodness. He is not even his own standard—whatever that even means. To say that he would not do something that would be considered wrong since his character is in accordance with goodness is still to subordinate his character to something else, or to compare it to something “external” to him. Is this not the point of Job? When Job wants to take God to court the obvious question is raised, “Who would be the judge?” God’s answer to Job as to why God allowed such evil to befall Job is basically, “I’m God and you are not.” (Dr. Brian Huffling)

God is not a human and is not bound by a human body, does not have changing passions/emotions, and is not constrained or bound by human morality. He cannot be moral or immoral since there is no standard that he measures up to or virtues to fulfill. If there were a standard that was not part of him, then he would not be God. (Dr. Brian Huffling)

Therefore, the idea that the bible is as bad as it gets when it comes to anthropomorphism is actually invalid, because there is a True and Supreme God that rejects this concept (in my opinion).

Click to expand...

Glad it is (as you say), "in my opinion."

But wow, talk about sophistry. I might suggest your post be entered into the OED as a classic example.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

Glad it is (as you say), "in my opinion."

But wow, talk about sophistry. I might suggest your post be entered into the OED as a classic example.

Click to expand...

Which statements in my post do you consider to be false or misleading?