God Is A Psychopath

[phands]

We can focus on one clear event that Chridtians take literaly. The flood.

God killed all sutace life by drwing except for the Ark.

Where is the morality, godly compassion, and godly love in that?

It is the kind of behaviour we associate with the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Absolute loyalty or torture and death.

and what about forgiveness? Another so-called xtian value that quietly got forgotten in the rush to genocide. Gawd is a despicable psychopathic sack of shit.

 

[Lion IRC]

We can focus on one clear event that Christians take literally. The flood.

God killed all surface life by drowning except for the Ark.

No. He literally didn't.
Go back and read it (again?)

 

[Lion IRC]

If you knew (or thought) that the end justified the means you would not account the Flood as a psychopathic act.

By all means argue, if you must, about whether the end did justify the means - but that is a separate argument.

A psychopath would never plead their case in terms of ethics or morality.
Psychopaths don't care about whether their actions are justifiable in terms of good versus evil.

 

[Copernicus]

For a morally justifiable reason.
Antibiotics are medically intended to cause mass extermination - for an end justifies the means purpose.
Cancer drugs are intended to have an end justifies the means result.
Nobody says they are pleasant - we say they are the least worst option.

If killing everybody is the best option available to god, then I shudder to think what the other options might have been...

Firstly, (since Jobar insists on literalism) He didn't kill everybody.
Secondly, the other worse option was to let humans continue the violence.

There was no better option than the Flood???? What about making the victims temporarily invulnerable or whisking them off to safety? What about the Jesus option? Oh, wait. That didn't occur to him until later, because even an omniscient being wouldn't think that far ahead. First he had to try the flood and mass murder. Then he dreamed up the Jesus solution. An omniscient being that can't figure out all of the angles right away. An omnipotent miracle worker with limited options. What is so illogical about that?

 

[steve_bank]

If you knew (or thought) that the end justified the means you would not account the Flood as a psychopathic act.

By all means argue, if you must, about whether the end did justify the means - but that is a separate argument.

A psychopath would never plead their case in terms of ethics or morality.
Psychopaths don't care about whether their actions are justifiable in terms of good versus evil.

You are justifying then alleged drowning of humanity.

Hitler thought Jews were bad and tried to exterminate them. God thought humans had gone astray and drowned them.

Hard to see a moral difference, other that the alleged god is omnipotent and can do anything without restrain or reason.. God can require morality, nut does not have to be moral. And that is the Christian paradigm evidence by the Vatican and sex abuse. The Vatican defines morality with t eternal penalties for followers, but does not seem to be bound by morality. Ends justifies the means.

 

[Wiploc]

Watching atheists create God in their own preferred image.

We'd create him in a much more benevolent image than the theists did.

 

[Lion IRC]

Sure. Benevolent to your own subjective wish thinking.

Impotent God.
Irrelevant God.
Tame God.
Perform on demand God.
Post-modern, tolerant of all things God.

...quite tempting actually.
Live like there's no tomorrow

 

[phands]

Watching atheists create God in their own preferred image.

We'd create him in a much more benevolent image than the theists did.

Which is an admission that gawd is made-up.

 

[atrib]

For a morally justifiable reason.
Antibiotics are medically intended to cause mass extermination - for an end justifies the means purpose.
Cancer drugs are intended to have an end justifies the means result.
Nobody says they are pleasant - we say they are the least worst option.

If killing everybody is the best option available to god, then I shudder to think what the other options might have been...

Firstly, (since Jobar insists on literalism) He didn't kill everybody.
Secondly, the other worse option was to let humans continue the violence.

Biblegod killed everybody to protect them from killing each other. Wow!

Biblegod: "Only I do the killing around here. Let me show you amateurs how its done!"

You need to try harder. Take some lessons from Lumpy, for example. Like you, he has nothing to work with, but week after week, year after year, he doesn't give up. I give him an A for effort, although he only gets an F for content.

 

[abaddon]

Watching atheists create God in their own preferred image.

We'd create him in a much more benevolent image than the theists did.

Which is an admission that gawd is made-up.

No it's an observation that most atheists are more benevolent than the biblical theists. That God doesn't exist is as trivial as "rocks are hard". So is the observation that a mythic explanation for why life's hard isn't rational.

God is not a psychopath because he's a reflection of ancient theist minds. What's that about? And why do contemporary people stick with it? Those are the only apt questions anymore.

-----------------------------------

ETA: Oh, you were addressing LIRC through this other post. Still it's pretty clear the primary concern of theists is meaning. If that's not addressed then nothing much is.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We can focus on one clear event that Christians take literally. The flood.

God killed all surface life by drowning except for the Ark.

No. He literally didn't.
Go back and read it (again?)

Genesis 6-9

4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

...

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

What a surprise, a Christian fundamentalist who's too lazy to study his own sacred book, yet is very opinionated. So common it's a stereotype

 

[DBT]

If you knew (or thought) that the end justified the means you would not account the Flood as a psychopathic act.

By all means argue, if you must, about whether the end did justify the means - but that is a separate argument.

A psychopath would never plead their case in terms of ethics or morality.
Psychopaths don't care about whether their actions are justifiable in terms of good versus evil.

Omniscience and Omnipotence should allow a solution that does not involve murder. Plus the bible tells us that it is God who is the Author of Evil and the Creator of division and conflict.

 

[phands]

Still waiting, LIRC

You issued and reissued the challenge. Now have the courage to actually defend what you said....

You have studiously ignored evidence from the babble time and again, even as you say there's nothing there you wouldn't defend. So defend.....

I note that, as usual, having been utterly destroyed in his ASSertion that LIRC hurriedly moved on and changed the subject away from his dismal lack of knowledge of the babble.

What utter and complete horseshit. Once again you demonstrate your stunning ignorance of the evil bible. And yet again, you open your mouth and remove all doubt.


http://www.evilbible.com/

or



or



or

Drunk With Blood includes a separate account for each of God's 158 killings. These stories fill the pages of the Bible, yet they are seldom read in church and are ignored by most Bible believers, which is a shame because God is so proud of his killings:
"I kill ... I wound ... I will make mine arrows drunk with blood and my sword shall devour flesh." Deuteronomy 32:39-42
You've probably hear of a few of God's killings. Noah's Flood,Sodom and Gomorrah, David and Goliath, maybe. But there are over 150 others that are unknown to pretty much everyone, believer and nonbeliever alike.
Did you know, for example, that God:
*Forced friends and family to kill each other for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf?
*Burned Aaron's sons to death for offering him strange fire?
*Burned complainers to death, forced the survivors to eat quail until it literally came out their noses, sent "fiery serpents" to bite people for complaining about the lack of food and water, and killed 14,700 for complaining about his killings?
*Buried alive those that opposed Moses (along with their families)?
*Burned 250 men to death for burning incense?
*Rewarded Phinehas for throwing a spear though the bellies of an inter-tribal couple while they were having sex?
*Ordered, assisted in, or approved of dozens of complete genocides?
*Accepted human sacrifice in the cases of Jephthah's daughter and Saul's seven sons?
*Helped Samson murder thirty men for their clothes, slaughter 1000 with the jawbone of an ass, and kill 3000 civilians in a a suicide terrorist attack?
*Smote the Philistines of several cities with hemorrhoids in their secret parts?
*Killed a man for trying to keep the ark of the covenant from falling and 50,070 for looking into the ark?
*Approved when David bought his first wife with 200 Philistine foreskins?
*Killed King Saul for not killing every Amalekite as he told him to do?
*Slowly killed a baby to punish King David for committing adultery?
*Killed 70,000 because David had a census that he (or Satan) told him to do?
*Sent a lion to kill a prophet for believing another prophet's lie, another lion to kill a man for not smiting a prophet, and some more lions to kill people that didn't fear him enough?
*Killed 450 religious leaders who lost a prayer contest with Elijah and burned 102 men to death for asking Elijah to come down from his hill?
*Sent two bears to rip apart 42 boys for making fun of Elisha's bald head?
*Killed 27,000 Syrians by having a wall fall on them, sent an angel to kill 185,000 sleeping soldiers, interfered in human battles to kill a half million Israelite and a million Ethiopian soldiers?
*Killed King Ahab for not killing a captured king, and then sent King Jehu on a series of mass murders to kill all of Ahab's family and friends who had ever "pissed against a wall?"
*Killed Job's ten children in a bet with Satan?
All of these killings, and more, are found in the Bible

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GCYPUTO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1


I await some logical fallacies and blame-shifting...

 

[steve_bank]

Ne has raised the Christian shield. Nothing gets in.

 

[Learner]

Omniscience and Omnipotence should allow a solution that does not involve murder. Plus the bible tells us that it is God who is the Author of Evil and the Creator of division and conflict.

Generally, across a wide spectrum among various people throughout, we have this understanding that Omniscience and Omnipotence would (as it seem to us) be an ability to always avoid death and disaster.

Who says that being Omniscience and Omnipotent doesn't require "first" an experience in the first place ..who knows ? It is written, God says that HE "regrets" having made man and certain things. By biblical context and consistency : Who's test did God actually fail if HE HIMSELF is Creator and there's none above HIM? Although HE seems to have "failed" man's test (in some mens eyes).

And so, for arguments sake ... because we have made the definition (suiting one POV of logical comprehension)... Omniscience and Omnipotence would be the "special atributes" to "avoid" events as described in the bible. Do these definitions "really" mean that :to have regrets as GOD mentions in Genesis, so to speak... mean HE can't be GOD or a Creator by what we think these foreknowing qualities should be, as IF it were fully known to us to even make the case?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, why doesn't he just roll back time when things don't go his way and then change the outcome to something he'd prefer better?

That worked for Thanos.

 

[phands]

and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Seems gawd isn't terribly good at doing what he says, given that a lot of fish and amphibians would have been just fine with all that water....plus bacteria and amoebae. And if gawd destroyed every living substance, what did they eat after the flood?

But then, what do you expect from the vacuous ramblings of bronze-age goatherders?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Omniscience and Omnipotence should allow a solution that does not involve murder. Plus the bible tells us that it is God who is the Author of Evil and the Creator of division and conflict.

Generally, across a wide spectrum among various people throughout, we have this understanding that Omniscience and Omnipotence would (as it seem to us) be an ability to always avoid death and disaster.

Who says that being Omniscience and Omnipotent doesn't require "first" an experience in the first place ..who knows ? It is written, God says that HE "regrets" having made man and certain things. By biblical context and consistency : Who's test did God actually fail if HE HIMSELF is Creator and there's none above HIM? Although HE seems to have "failed" man's test (in some mens eyes).

And so, for arguments sake ... because we have made the definition (suiting one POV of logical comprehension)... Omniscience and Omnipotence would be the "special atributes" to "avoid" events as described in the bible. Do these definitions "really" mean that :to have regrets as GOD mentions in Genesis, so to speak... mean HE can't be GOD or a Creator by what we think these foreknowing qualities should be, as IF it were fully known to us to even make the case?

Omniscience means knowing the future. No test required. Don't be an arse. These are words you can look up. Perhaps look them up before opening your mouth?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Omniscience means knowing the future. No test required. Don't be an arse. These are words you can look up. Perhaps look them up before opening your mouth?

Well, in order to get around any of the problems of a tri-Omni god, you need to redefine at least one of the Omnis to make it slightly less Omni.

 

[Learner]

Omniscience means knowing the future. No test required. Don't be an arse. These are words you can look up. Perhaps look them up before opening your mouth?

Perhaps I wasn't clear as you seem to be doing the very "opening your mouth " thing but I'll take it as my fault.

Sure we know what it reads ... but.... for example :How is it explained by looking it up , that an Omniscience can (or can not) be attained?

Test? Better than the test-not-required ...there IS NO test (argument) here (for any failure) in this regard. i.e. God being the "ultimate" very top (No one above to answer to) .., bilblically saying as accordance to the scripture (and consistency).