You may be a Fundy GodHating troll if: 2437
You may be a Fundy GodHating troll if: 2438
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 16:46:27 -0700, TheLetterK wrote Since God is by very definition "moral", and all His deeds are "good', being Himself "Good" in His very Nature, any act He does would be...
Donald L McDaniel
What an absurd notion.
I don't need an excuse. If any of the Abrahamic religions are correct, then I could not morally support such a being. To so so would be to go against the very core of my being. Eternal torment would be preferable to worshiping and condoning such a being's obviously immoral acts. However, I seriously doubt they are correct.
If I did, it was probably because I had nothing to say on the matter or didn't pay it much attention.
You may be a Fundy GodHating troll if: 2443
Donald L McDaniel No, it simply holds authority. Much as one could reject the authority of the government...
I butture you, have no such desire anywhere in my being. I'm quite certain that I neither need nor want guidance from anyone but myself. I certainly don't want to go to 'heaven'. It sounds dreadfully. Why would I want to live in eternal paradise?
No, it isn't. Or, if it's making the attempt, it has failed miserably. Not something I would expect from a perfect omnipotent being. particularly one that supposedly knows me better than I know myself.
I worship nothing. Not love, not drugs, not money, not pride. You're talking to someone who lives a more temperate life than most of the highly religious (though I am an extreme free-market capitalist, even if I have little interest in money for the sake of money).
You may be a Fundy GodHating troll if: 2439
The question that I always like to ask these "lay-preachers" such as MacDaniel, is: What is one supposed to DO...
when referencing '2d enbreasties'. A 3d enbreasty (or arguably 4d, since you progress forward through time), would be someone like yourself.
Which lends credence to my idea that God is a 4th dimensional enbreasty who happens to the the sysadmin of a Unix box, which hosts the Universe. We can consider the big bang the start of the last reboot cycle, where a 'big crunch' is the act of shutting down the system. Perhaps there is no evidence of a previous instance of Universe simply because the system crashed and was unable to recover the journal...
You may be a Fundy GodHating troll if: 2441
Donald L McDaniel Excuse me? You have not actually demonstrated this. Why would this bother me? I don't harbor any guilt over my actions. Why would I perform something that I am morally opposed to...
Perhaps we are not actually intentional, but rather expressions of bugs in the universe application ('ants' and 'worms'). This would, of course, be a much simpler solution to the problem of the universe than having a magical man in the sky will us into existence (though that could be accounted for by the act of rebooting the system).
Hey, this could be the start for a new religion. 'Unixism': all bow before the eternal root user!
And who else would do than the supposed products of it's actions? Why grant people free will if it didn't expect them to use it?
Apparently I am both, so yes, 'it' is a proper term. If I'm going to discuss theoretical concepts like 'god', I might as well leave the possibility that your interpretation is wrong and any of the others are correct. There is no reason Christianity is guarantee to be more correct than a native religion practiced by three dozen people in Papua New Guinea.
I most certainly do have a right to judge whoever I see fit to judge.
I can certainly find fault with it, if it exists. I might not be able to do anything about it, but that doesn't change the fact that I could still judge it.
No, it isn't. Even if it exists (as depicted by the Abrahamic religions), I still wouldn't accept it as any kind of personal god. If it has a problem with that, well, it can take it up with my on it's own.
The Greeks, however, extended it to much greater reaches. They were also one of the first people to anthropomorphize gods, and attribute to them human qualities.
There is no evidence of this. The closest you might come was the great bottleneck that occurred a few thousand generations back. Even then, the human population wasn't reduced to two people (that does not provide a large enough genetic base to sustain a species anyway).
Strange, that we can understand each other now.
Which will be an interesting day, to say the least. If it ever occurs. I have my doubts about that.
I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with their actions. It's no more 'wrong' to me, than worshiping a single anthropomorphic god.
Some. There was a huge range of beliefs, not all of which revolving around a "Great Spirit in the Sky".
I would expect a bit more justification than 'my hallucinations told me so'. Typically I expect some sort of ethical argument that would inspire a rejection of their beliefs as 'wrong' or 'immoral'. As long as they aren't bothering me, why should I care what they do. Why would I pbutt judgment on their practices any more than I do yours?
I was including religion derived from 'Christian Scripture' in my statement. All religions with inclusion of the supernatural are fairly strange.
I'm sorry, but that isn't enough justification for me. Even buttuming that god exists as described by your holy test--why should I care what it believes is right or wrong?
No, Christianity is just as 'evil', 'absurd', and 'illogical' as *any* other belief system that incorporates the supernatural as a core focus.
Then I must be quite evil, by your standard. Odd, I don't feel particularly evil. Perhaps it is time I buy that island and move to it with my evil henchmen. We could probably plot some sort of world destruction there. Perhaps it could involve a drill, and a large weapon of some sort...
I've never met any such person, sorry.
Have your though processes become that suppressed by this insbreastution?
Ahh, then I will certainly be rejecting it.
Well, I think most of those around here would fall closer to the 'hate' end of the spectrum, though I doubt anyone here actually hates you.
Fine--just stop trying to convince others of it with such poor arguments. Arguments from authority aren't very effective when the person you're debating doesn't accept the authority you claim to wield (or wield in the stead of someone else).
-- "There is nothing I understand." - poo