How Many Gods Don't You Believe in?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Who can compare to my God Jehovah? Someone tell me

Literally almost every other one.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

How can someone with a recorded family history not to know his real origin and the God who brought salvation to his ancestors?

Recorded how? Hebrew wasn’t a written language yet.

 

[EconGuy]

Well value as I understand it is assigned and not inherent

Don't you mean that value, as you are defining in your examples, is subjective, not assigned?

The way I understand it is assigned value is externally determined or objective, while subjective value is internally determined or subjective, based on individual preferences and judgments.

The reason I ask is you are either going to concede or I'm going to learn something, so please don't take this me correcting you, so much as ensuring that I understand.

Respectfully,

EG

 

[EconGuy]

Who can compare to my God Jehovah? Someone tell me. His word has lasted until now and will last forever... I don't know of any god that can compare to Him.

Well, let's see. Your god is a jealous, vengeful, and bloodthirsty tyrant who commands his followers to kill, maim, and enslave their enemies. He has a long and bloody history of smiting people with plagues, floods, and other natural disasters. And he's so insecure about his own power that he demands that his followers worship him exclusively.

So, who can compare to your god? Well, for starters, there's the god of the Greeks. He's a bit of a philanderer, but he's also a lot more fun than your god. And then there's the god of the Romans. He's a bit of a hedonist, but he's also a lot more tolerant than your god. There's that guy from India, he's pretty chill, and he's got some good insights on the nature of reality. But he's not really a god, so he doesn't really count, but at least we know he existed, so there's that.

But if you're really looking for a "god" who can compare to your god, I would suggest the "god" of the atheists. The "god" of reason, compassion, and justice. A "god" that doesn't demand worship or punish those who don't believe. Of course, there is no god of the atheists, just reason, the best that humanity has to offer.

Prove me wrong.

 

[danieldemol]

Don't you mean that value, as you are defining in your examples, is subjective, not assigned?

The way I understand it is assigned value is externally determined or objective, while subjective value is internally determined or subjective, based on individual preferences and judgments.

The reason I ask is you are either going to concede or I'm going to learn something, so please don't take this me correcting you, so much as ensuring that I understand.

Respectfully,

EG

What I meant to say is that the value of something is decided on by the individual as opposed to being an inherent property that belongs to an idea independent of humans giving it.

So to use your words I meant it is subjective. Sorry if I used a wrong or confusing term.

 

[1213]

So very loving. So very kindly drowning, burning,
and chopping up so many children.

What say you, if mom tells to his child, "don't put your hand in fire, it will hurt". And then the child does it anyway, is it mom's fault? If the child then complains and accuses his mom for that he burned his own hand, is it in your opinion reasonable and right?

 

[RestlessSoul]

You seem to be ignoring a great deal by this view - as to acquiring land so as to spread the gospel, for example.

I doubt anyone ever acquired land by force, that didn't either build on it, put it to the plough, or otherwise exploit it's resources. Any spreading of the Gospel to it's original inhabitants would have been purely incidental.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I doubt anyone ever acquired land by force, that didn't either build on it, put it to the plough, or otherwise exploit it's resources. Any spreading of the Gospel to it's original inhabitants would have been purely incidental.

Possibly and possibly not.

 

[Audie]

I doubt anyone ever acquired land by force, that didn't either build on it, put it to the plough, or otherwise exploit it's resources. Any spreading of the Gospel to it's original inhabitants would have been purely incidental.

"When white man came, they said, 'Let us pray'.

We had the land, they had the Bible."

Do you know how the rest of it goes?

 

[Audie]

Possibly and possibly not.

Possibly not much purity ?

 

[Audie]

What say you, if mom tells to his child, "don't put your hand in fire, it will hurt". And then the child does it anyway, is it mom's fault? If the child then complains and accuses his mom for that he burned his own hand, is it in your opinion reasonable and right?

I know what I say to irrelevant chanting.

Or the punishment for some depraved
psycho who sent a killer to murder children for
what some other crime boss had done.

 

[EconGuy]

So to use your words I meant it is subjective. Sorry if I used a wrong or confusing term.

No need to apologize, I was just making sure I understood the terms, that said I agree with your post.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Possibly not much purity ?

Perhaps, but I doubt if we could disentangle the religious motives from the other ones he mentioned.

 

[Muffled]

Jehovah is the only one who works.

 

[Muffled]

My kitchen God exists.
At least his lil statue does.

I believe you are just as likely to break your egg yokes with or without it.

 

[Audie]

I believe you are just as likely to break your egg yokes with or without it.

Are you even aware that you just babble nonsense?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Bull. You can di

If this forum, which is supposed to be for talking about religion, was stripped of comments that could be classified as proselytism, the religion forum would be an atheist philosophy forum, not suitable for religious people. I know that's what atheists want to do... but they should be transparent and stop playing cat and mouse.

Bull. You can discuss religion without sounding like a used car salesman.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And while we're on the subject of forum rules... this is another one of them:

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.

Happens mostly to atheists from my experience, not by them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Happens mostly to atheists from my experience, not by them.

Yeah, the one common from atheists and it is a minority of them, is in effect the claim that their opponent is not rational, but they are when it comes to coping with how to be a human.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Trying to discredit Christians is just another morbid tactic of anti-Christians.

The verbal abuse to which Christians are subjected in this forum is unbelievable, while believers of non-biblical religions and practices are almost ignored by non-believers in this sense, and even receive a friendly treatment.

To think that Jesus was only crucified. He could have been criticized on a message board.