Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
What's G.I.G.O.?G.I.G.O.
What's G.I.G.O.?G.I.G.O.
Maybe a good idea to move it to another thread.Oh 100% true, in my anecdotal experience. We drink liquor too, and smoke cigrits!
A little off topic, and if you want to pursue it we'll bow it out of the thread, but it's rooted in a firm belief in the relative gravity, weight or seriousness of particular sins. There are so many sins. It's conceptually, as far as I'm concerned, just a big disorganized pile of stuff, all the sins. Catholicism does divide the pile into two, one pile is grave sins, and all the rest of light. They are all still sins, but here's where the Church's beliefs about participating in Holy Communion comes in: if you commit even a single grave sin, you ought to go to confession and reconcile with the Body of Christ before receiving Communion again.
Given these circumstances, we do focus our attention always on that pile of grave sins, and work as hard as possible with the Lord's help to avoid them completely. What we do with His help regarding the much, much larger pile of light sins, is simply a distant second place to avoiding grave matter. And especially when avoiding grave sins feels difficult, like it's a little more than what the Lord calls an easy yoke and a light burden, we can blow off steam with light sins and still remain in full communion with the Church, able to partake of the Lord's body and blood in the Eucharist, which spiritually feeds us by cleansing us of the temporal consequences of our light sins and fuels our development as we seek to become transformed indefinitely, conformed to the image of Christ through His Word and His Church's sacraments (we believe He is Really Present in all of them).
It is a pity that precludes you from manifesting Christ on earth.I swear all the time. Like a drunken sailor on leave. It's really pretty ugly, my mouth. I wish I could change it, but it's how I think. I can censor my mouth, control my tongue, but I can't censor my thoughts, I think 'in swear'. It's my native tongue. When I think in my native tongue (which everyone should always do), I swear.
Do you know what the constitution really is?Our veterans carry around with them the heaviest heart for our Constitution, just naturally, all of them, as a group. The only way a moral man can reconcile shooting people and preparing to shoot people is to mentally tie it together with an absolutely righteous purpose. And that is what American troops past, present and future are all doing by virtue of their service and sacrifice.
The only problem with most veterans is that when it comes time to consider buying better government services for them, they as a super majority would rather put up with their conditions, if it means that the present and future troops have even slightly better guns. I use guns here to signify an umbrella concept that includes everything that the ideal military can have, including luxuries, anything at all to make our current and future troops better able to survive. Guns, missiles, battleships, aircraft carriers, nukes, nukes, rifles, food, food, fuel, armor, armor, etc., etc.
So we might have to force it on them. The thing is their service to our Constitution, if not their sacrifice, is not over just because their tours of duty are up. They must continue to be healthy, we want all of our veterans to live well into old, old age. They are one of our physical anchors to upholding, defending and protecting our moral and righteous Constitution.
Wow thanks for your pity.It is a pity that precludes you from manifesting Christ on earth.
Actually He says my light sins are automatically forgiven me in an eternal sense, and when I licitly receive His body and blood in Holy Communion, I'm also forgiven in the temporal sense. He takes cares of me.Repentance is still available to you though, and with the power of God helping you, you can quit offending Him.
lol. Manifestly untrue. Rather, it's the opposite of irresponsibility, and a particularly moral opposite of irresponsibility to boot.Do you know what the constitution really is?
A false idol.
I was offering no pity.Wow thanks for your pity.
You will need to provide the bible verse stating that.Actually He says my light sins are automatically forgiven me in an eternal sense, and when I licitly receive His body and blood in Holy Communion, I'm also forgiven in the temporal sense. He takes cares of me.
Let's see...men die to protect it, and they serve under it, it is in parts the opposite of what God desires, and it seems men are ready to die for it.lol. Manifestly untrue. Rather, it's the opposite of irresponsibility, and a particularly moral opposite of irresponsibility to boot.
The premises of It is good to exist and existing in a state of well-being is better than in a state of misery are foundational and are technically discretionary, but only obliquely so. Who makes the claim it is better to not exist? You point to basically suicidal individuals as proof that everything is just an opinion without God. It is a very lame approach.Not everyone agrees it is better to exist than not to. So which is more correct, you, or the other guy? And why, since you are both basing your opposite conclusions on the same inputs?
Evolution would not occur unless individuals died. There would be no human existence if life was not temporary. Your dichotomous thinking leads to nonsensical conclusion: If I cannot live forever, then there is no point in being born. It is moral to strive for conditions where each human being has an ample chance to live a full lifespan without undue misery and hardship.If it is a universal value to exist over not existing, and nature's normal course results in you not existing, then nature is inherently immoral.
This part only relevant to non-Catholicism....
The second very weak layer you ride on is the conceit that the Bible gives everyone a bedrock foundation which is absolute. It doesn't. The Bible is vague and downright contradictory. It is obvious that morality based on the Bible is little better than morality based on tea leaves. You cannot deny the vast array of different beliefs among Christian sects. You cannot say your vision is the one correct one when people within your own congregation differ in their views. The realization that other sects have a resolve of righteousness equal to yours and yet they differ should give you pause. It doesn't. You parrot off the notion that God gives you certainty, and everyone else just has opinions. It is a game of pretend. ...
When you claim this kind of thing you strip the concept of rights of any actual meaning.
My neighbor was killed by a drunk driver.
Should I go to his grave and say don't worry you have the absolute right to life, JR says so. He will still be dead.
Rights are contingent on an explicit or implicit social contracts.
Rights have limits.
There are legitimate circumstances when they will be impinged upon by the government,
and sometimes private citizens.
Rights are not absolute in that there is no guarantee that they cannot be illegitimately violated.
Persons have a corollary right to recourse when their rights are violated that the government is willing to enforce.
Your life could be taken in mistaken self-defense whereby you are incorrectly perceived as an aggressor and killed for it.
It is quite possible no criminal charges succeed in punishing your killer.
Your family may get survivor damages if your attacker is deemed negligent.
The state can end your life but only after due process.
You can be legitimately ordered to shelter in place during a hurricane or infectious disease emergency.
If you do not comply, you can rightfully be jailed.
If your worship behavior includes elements that is legislated against for all persons, you can be be prosecuted.
If you yell "Fallacy of Appeal to Incredulity" in a group of atheists, you will be held liable for damage incurred by the crowd trying to exit the building.
Property can be appropriated for public use along as you are fairly compensated.
Not if you have a felony.
Not if you leave a bruise.
CPS will open a case on you.
One right you exercise continually.
Semantics.
Also, as noted above, your rights can be legitimately curtailed
due to [JR: I'm going to assume you meant to say "circumstances" here] that you did not even create.
A compelling government interest can trump your rights legitimately.
A criminal or interloper can violate your rights.
You will have recourse but no absolute guarantee.
Aspirations of absolute morality are borne of binary thinking not realism.
The premises of It is good to exist and existing in a state of well-being is better than in a state of misery are foundational and are technically discretionary, but only obliquely so. Who makes the claim it is better to not exist? You point to basically suicidal individuals as proof that everything is just an opinion without God. It is a very lame approach.
The second very weak layer you ride on is the conceit that the Bible gives everyone a bedrock foundation which is absolute.
It doesn't.
The Bible is vague and downright contradictory.
It is obvious that morality based on the Bible is little better than morality based on tea leaves.
You cannot deny the vast array of different beliefs among Christian sects.
You cannot say your vision is the one correct one when people within your own congregation differ in their views.
The realization that other sects have a resolve of righteousness equal to yours and yet they differ should give you pause.
It doesn't. You parrot off the notion that God gives you certainty, and everyone else just has opinions. It is a game of pretend.
Evolution would not occur unless individuals died.
There would be no human existence if life was not temporary.
Your dichotomous thinking leads to nonsensical conclusion: If I cannot live forever, then there is no point in being born.
It is moral to strive for conditions where each human being has an ample chance to live a full lifespan without undue misery and hardship.
Accepting simple premises is easier than accepting the fantastic stories in thick book.
The morality flowing from the premises can be objectively evaluated and revised.
The wisdom of the Bible can be included in making hypotheses.
On the contrary, it's a statement of fact. Rights were endowed to man by our Creator, an authority higher than man. They are not dependent on other men agreeing to not violate them.
This is an escalation of violence. The state intentionally kills someone who has not intentionally killed. If Negligence - which could be borne of mere cognitive lapse in capacity, not intentional ill will or even recklessness - is sufficient to trigger the death penalty, unrest would abound. I personally would subvert the government so readily prone to escalate violence. Simplistic eye for an eye notions are an antiquated basis for law.I'm sorry to hear that.
The drunk driver should be tried for capital negligence, and upon conviction, executed.
Why insert the word absolute when rights are clearly relative to circumstance.Don't be absurd.
Your neighbor, when he was alive, had the right to life. The drunk driver unjustly and without the right to do so, took your neighbor's life, depriving him of access to his rights.
I notice a giant thread of nonsense in your thinking. I gave numerous example where rights are limited by circumstances other than crimina behavior of the right holder.Only when the person commits a crime. When a man commits a crime, he cedes certain rights applicable to the crime he commits, until the debt of justice is paid off. Theft? Right to own property. Assault or physical injury? Right of life, limb, and freedom of movement. Murder, rape, kidnapping? Right to life.
The punishments for those respective crimes are restitution, corporal punishment, and the death penalty.
Only during the commission of a crime, or to prevent a crime from occurring.
Notice a theme here yet?
It is a distinction without a difference. Rights are by in large qualified rights.Which would be a violation of my right to life, but not a taking away of my right to life.
Do you see the difference?
Which would be a failure of the government to enforce justice.
Old world thinking that will lead to more strife than benefit. It is not moral to apply the death penalty for unintentional homicide and non-homicidal crimes because it escalates violence and strife. People lose loved ones unjustly when the government acts in a broad and demonstrably unfair fashion.In the scenario, my killer would have committed the crime of deadly negligence, and SHOULD be put to death.
But executing people is humane?Wrong. The government does not have the right to jail anyone. That's inhumane.
An example of two cases where religious practices were barred involve the use of a hallucinogen in one and the practice of animal sacrifice in another. The mainstream religion is catered to and obscure sects are the ones who are denied the freedom to practice as their tradition dictates. Catholics were give exemption in use of wine during prohibition.Anyone and everyone has the right to worship whoever/whatever they want. But their right to worship does not give them the right to commit crimes.
So, you do see how the right to own property is qualified then. (AND its fair market value compensation)For government needs and infrastructure ONLY, the government has the ability to purchase real property from unwilling sellers at quintuple its value.
In emergency situations, houses and cars have been commandeered and rightfully so.It does not have the right to take my house and turn it into a motel for homeless people, or my car and use it for a taxi service, or my computer and use it to hunt cyber criminals.
Your view would result in the killing of of low level offenders at a higher rate than abortion. And, you consider this more moral and just?If a man has previously committed a crime with a deadly weapon, in a just system, he would have been executed upon conviction. There wouldn't be a "walking around with a criminal record," since the scales of justice would have already been met.
You sound like you would be a horrible parent. There are so many consequences that are just as effective but do not model violence to children. Why stick with violence then?Blows that hurt cleanse away evil, As do stripes the inner depths of the heart. - Proverbs 20:30 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs20:30&version=NKJV
The KJV renders the first part of that verse as "the blueness of a wound."
If it doesn't leave a mark, it's not hard enough or painful enough for child to realize that they shouldn't do what they did again. This goes for adults too.
And the CPS shouldn't exist.
If you own a chalet on a snow top mountain, an injured skier can enter your building out of necessity and not be charged criminally. This is a good result. Qualified rights are better than absoltue rights for the reason that the needs of others can be balance with individual rights.Insulting me doesn't help your argument, and won't work, Skeeter.
I am guaranteed my rights. What I don't have any absolute guarantee of is that my rights will not be violated by someone who willfully breaks the law.
Most often Suicide is associated with mental illness and drug addiction and you still hold it out as proof that reasonable minds can differ?It's not a lame approach. It's a perfectly valid point.
What gives you the right to say that, for the suicidal individual, it is better to exist?
Would you force them to live in misery?
It's a pretense. Check out the secondary definition of conceit.It's not conceited.
Stupra.And yes, the Bible DOES give man a solid foundation of morals, because it comes from the One who made us.
Wrong. You should give up trying to call out fallacies. You have trouble applying them logically. The diverse reaction to the Bible is evidence that it is a least poorly written. A clear text would yield more consistent interpretation. A manual that helps most put their furniture together is a good manual while another obtuse and contradictory version yields mixed results is a bad one. This has nothing to do with an appeal to authority or tradition. It is a practical empirical comparison.This is an appeal to popularity and an appeal to tradition.
Even among Bible literalists, results differ. If the Bible were user friendly and based on absolute mortality, we would predict much more consistency than we see.What people believe has no bearing on right or wrong.
Beliefs of different groups of Christians have no bearing on what is right or wrong.
That's why instead of appealing to the different Christian sects, we go straight to what the Bible says first, and then go from there.
What it says is even under dispute, Different translations are favored. Different passages accepted as cannon. The language is antiquated. You descibe a simple task but its actually daunting. And would you have come up with is immoral in effect with injustice the rule rather than the exception.As for me, I go to scripture first, to see what it says. If what other people think differently than what it says, then I reject their beliefs in favor of Scripture.
How could cutting off the head of a baby possibly result in such effects? Sounds like what Jesus did - sacrificing himself to undue what a previous rule rather than just changing the rule. I am not answering a hypothetical that has no rational basis.So if cutting the head off of one baby would guarantee every other human being that exists and ever will exist will have an ample chance to live a full lifespan without undue misery and hardship, would you be the one wielding the blade?
keep on truckin because comedy ain't your thing.The Bible is thick in proportion to the thickness of people's skulls. Yours included.
The diversity of interpretations of the Bible argues against that simplicity. Sometimes things are hard to understand because they are nuanced and abstract, sometimes things are hard to understand because they do not make sense.And it even presents simple premises that any child can easily comprehend.
That's your opinion.The premises of It is good to exist and existing in a state of well-being is better than in a state of misery are foundational and are technically discretionary, but only obliquely so. Who makes the claim it is better to not exist? You point to basically suicidal individuals as proof that everything is just an opinion without God. It is a very lame approach.
No, it's etched in stone.The second very weak layer you ride on is the conceit that the Bible gives everyone a bedrock foundation which is absolute. It doesn't. The Bible is vague and downright contradictory.
Thus, in your morality, death is actually advantageous. In mine it is something to be avoided and defeated.Evolution would not occur unless individuals died. There would be no human existence if life was not temporary.
Nope. If you cannot live forever, you should do whatever feels good to you, because tomorrow you may die. And death is preferable to everyone's existence at some point in their lives, if this life is all there is. Thus, any morality that makes you feel good is the morality that you would be a proponent of. The same for any murderer, adulterer, child raper, etc.Your dichotomous thinking leads to nonsensical conclusion: If I cannot live forever, then there is no point in being born.
Why?It is moral to strive for conditions where each human being has an ample chance to live a full lifespan without undue misery and hardship.
Like this one?Accepting simple premises is easier than accepting the fantastic stories in thick book.
So morality must evolve? Then even by your own "standards", your morality isn't very good, because your standard is never as good as it could get--thus you have to be looking, if you care about morality, for the next standard to come along--thus, you've shown your standard of morality to be unfit by your own standard. Which is what I said in the first place--atheist morality is only one guy's opinion vs the next guy's. And the strongest will get to enforce his by subjugating or killing the weaker. How strong are you, Skeeter?The morality flowing from the premises can be objectively evaluated and revised. The wisdom of the Bible can be included in making hypotheses.
Yes it is. It's an opinion I support. This is where you are suppose to refute it!That's your opinion.
Because you say so. Because you think your book says so. This is where you are suppose to refute the evidence I provided and offer your own to support the notion that you have access to an absolute source of infallible guidelines.No, it's etched in stone.
No, it's not. My point of view accepts the conditions that are evident, finds a silver lining, and makes the best of a temporary situation rather than pretend.Thus, in your morality, death is actually advantageous. In mine it is something to be avoided and defeated.
Nope. Are you talking about social darwinism again?In yours, the "less" good should die to help the "better". In mine, the better die to help the lesser.
Who here has embraced hedonism? You create a strawman here. Stop that. Maybe comment on my actual position.Nope. If you cannot live forever, you should do whatever feels good to you, because tomorrow you may die. And death is preferable to everyone's existence at some point in their lives, if this life is all there is. Thus, any morality that makes you feel good is the morality that you would be a proponent of. The same for any murderer, adulterer, child raper, etc.
Morality will improve over time--yes. I would not call it evolution. I would expect new technologies to require the most change. Balancing individual and collective needs could reach a point where little change will be necessary given quite optimal results.Why?
Like this one?
On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
So morality must evolve? Then even by your own "standards", your morality isn't very good, because your standard is never as good as it could get--thus you have to be looking, if you care about morality, for the next standard to come along--thus, you've shown your standard of morality to be unfit by your own standard. Which is what I said in the first place--atheist morality is only one guy's opinion vs the next guy's. And the strongest will get to enforce his by subjugating or killing the weaker. How strong are you, Skeeter?
I just did. You agreed with me. Your thread should be closed now.Yes it is. It's an opinion I support. This is where you are suppose to refute it!
No. That would be for a thread about true morality. Yours is only about atheist morality.Because you say so. Because you think your book says so. This is where you are suppose to refute the evidence I provided and offer your own to support the notion that you have access to an absolute source of infallible guidelines.
You only accept the conditions you want to accept. Why is that less pretentious?No, it's not. My point of view accepts the conditions that are evident, finds a silver lining, and makes the best of a temporary situation rather than pretend.
No, I'm talking about your view of nature.Nope. Are you talking about social darwinism again?
There's not that much to say. Animals have done just fine for billions of years, eating, kidnapping, stealing from, and raping each other, and now you want to make yourself and a few others comfortable until you disappear forever.Who here has embraced hedonism? You create a strawman here. Stop that. Maybe comment on my actual position.
You should at least address the topic before you start bashing the other side.The Conservative Christian view is the more selfish because it focuses on individual salvation over community. Want of a lower level of government and regulation allows greater exploitation of working class individuals by upper class individuals. Unbridled Capitalism is basically social darwinism run amok.
Who decides the results are optimal? You? Societies fail under athiest leadership--always.Morality will improve over time--yes. I would not call it evolution. I would expect new technologies to require the most change. Balancing individual and collective needs could reach a point where little change will be necessary given quite optimal results.
Even if there is creator, it does not follow that he has the power to declare what rights their creation can have.
Living sentient beings are not property.
If humans create sentient artificial intelligence,
we would be acting immorally if we tried to dictate rights based on the mere fact the new beings would not exist without us.
A better moral understanding will be demonstrated by healthy practice not our status as an authority.
This is an escalation of violence.
The state intentionally kills someone who has not intentionally killed.
If Negligence - which could be borne of mere cognitive lapse in capacity, not intentional ill will or even recklessness
- is sufficient to trigger the death penalty, unrest would abound.
I personally would subvert the government so readily prone to escalate violence.
Simplistic eye for an eye notions are an antiquated basis for law.
Why insert the word absolute when rights are clearly relative to circumstance.
I notice a giant thread of nonsense in your thinking.
It is a distinction without a difference.
Rights are by [and] large qualified rights.
A success in avoiding insurrection.
A government that escalates violence should not stand.
Old world thinking
that will lead to more strife than benefit.
It is not moral to apply the death penalty for unintentional homicide
and non-homicidal crimes
because it escalates violence and strife.
People lose loved ones unjustly when the government acts in a broad and demonstrably unfair fashion.
The death penalty is not a deterrent
for unintentional crimes.
It is not a simple thing to avoid unintentional actions. They are unforeseen and out of the control of the person.
Some events are true quirks of fate.
But executing people is humane?
An example of two cases where religious practices were barred involve the use of a hallucinogen in one
and the practice of animal sacrifice in another. The mainstream religion is catered to and obscure sects are the ones who are denied the freedom to practice as their tradition dictates. Catholics were give exemption in use of wine during prohibition.
So, you do see how the right to own property is qualified then.
(AND its fair market value compensation)
In emergency situations, houses and cars have been commandeered and rightfully so.
Your view would result in the killing of of low level offenders at a higher rate than abortion.
And, you consider this more moral and just?
You sound like you would be a horrible parent.
There are so many [methods] that are just as effective but do not model violence to children.
Why stick with violence then?
If you own a chalet on a snow top mountain, an injured skier can enter your building out of necessity and not be charged criminally. This is a good result.
Qualified rights are better than absolute rights for the reason that the needs of others can be balance with individual rights.
Most often Suicide is associated with mental illness and drug addiction and you still hold it out as proof that reasonable minds can differ?
It's a pretense. Check out the secondary definition of conceit.
Supra.
Wrong.
The diverse reaction to the Bible is evidence that it is a least poorly written.
A clear text would yield more consistent interpretation.
A manual that helps most put their furniture together is a good manual while another obtuse and contradictory version yields mixed results is a bad one.
This has nothing to do with an appeal to authority or tradition. It is a practical empirical comparison.
Even among Bible literalists, results differ.
If the Bible were user friendly and based on absolute morality,
we would predict much more consistency than we see.
What it says is even under dispute, Different translations are favored. Different passages accepted as cannon.
The language is antiquated.
You describe a simple task but its actually daunting.
And would you have come up with is immoral in effect with injustice the rule rather than the exception.
How could cutting off the head of a baby possibly result in such effects?
Sounds like what Jesus did - sacrificing himself to undo what a previous rule rather than just changing the rule.
I am not answering a hypothetical that has no rational basis.
keep on truckin because comedy ain't your thing.
The diversity of interpretations of the Bible argues against that simplicity.
Sometimes things are hard to understand because they are nuanced and abstract,
sometimes things are hard to understand because they do not make sense.
Yes, it does.
They are the property of the Creator.
The human brain is a network of neurons that excite or inhibit each other. The mechanics of our biological computer do not erase our consciousness, identity or autonomy. The hypothetical you were given and that you refuse to deal with involves an electronic network that approaches the level of the human brain. Why not accept the scenario and respond?There is no such thing. A computer doesn't know what a computer is. It doesn't "know." It's simply the movement of ones and zeros.
Reality? You say this after offering a scenario where cutting off a baby's head eliminates all suffering? Ever wonder why religious fiction was never a phenomena like science fiction? Religion is fiction, a useful fiction that has helped humans have a sense of meaning and deny the harsh realities of death. Some people are far too knowledgeable to accept simplistic (and faux complex) notions. Why fight them and judge them? We are all trying to makes sense of our short journey. I have compassion for all. I like Christians who accept that their beliefs are based on faith and personal revelation more than those who pretend they have iron clad logic and evidence.Humans are FAR different (though not dissimilar) from computers. We are self-aware. We are more than just flesh and blood, we are body, soul, and spirit, two of those things are not physical.
You're in the realm of science fiction. Come back to reality, please.
Why are living self-aware beings fully capable of self-determination, beholden to the mechanics that created them?
The human brain is a network of neurons that excite or inhibit each other. The mechanics of our biological computer do not erase our consciousness, identity or autonomy.
The hypothetical you were given and that you refuse to deal with involves an electronic network that approaches the level of the human brain. Why not accept the scenario and respond?
Reality?
You say this after offering a scenario where cutting off a baby's head eliminates all suffering?
Ever wonder why religious fiction was never a phenomena like science fiction?
Religion is fiction,
a useful fiction that has helped humans have a sense of meaning and deny the harsh realities of death.
Some people are far too knowledgeable to accept simplistic (and faux complex) notions.
Why fight them and judge them? We are all trying to makes sense of our short journey.
I have compassion for all.
I like Christians who accept that their beliefs are based on faith and personal revelation
more than those who pretend they have iron clad logic and evidence.
Thank you for your earnest responses.
Think of it this way: You can transfer a heart from one person to the next (hopefully after the donor has died), and the person who receives it will still be the same person, just with a different heart.
The question is why would it be rational to expect creatures to take a servile and supplicatory stance toward their creator especially when the form of the creator's dictates can be proven speculative?Those living self-aware beings fully capable of self-determination were not made by "mechanics."
They were made by a Being who is living, personal, relational, good, and loving, Who imparted some of His qualities into them when He created them.
Our brain is not simply a network of neurons. It is an interface between that which is physical, one's body, with that which is not physical, one's soul/spirit.
I did. And I did again above.
I'll say it again: Our brains are the interface between one's body and one's soul/spirit.
A computer is just a bunch of physical parts (including the electrons that flow through them). There's nothing else there.
Think of it this way: You can transfer a heart from one person to the next (hopefully after the donor has died), and the person who receives it will still be the same person, just with a different heart.
But, assuming you had the technology and know-how to do so, if you were to transplant one person's brain into another body, the brain would still contain the "essence" of the first person, not the second.
Again, you don't get the irony here?Again, it's a hypothetical to test your reasoning. Why are you so scared to answer it?
A wild claim. Quite sad to realize you view the human mind so weak.If God does not exist, then there is no meaning in anything, and thus, it is useless to ponder what the meaning would be.
In contrast to many Christians, why do conservative Christians come off as incapable of empathy, sadistic, and nearly psychopathic?That's nice. Too nice, if you ask me.
I despise people who pretend to be humble but enjoy their narcissism via a thin veneer of piety.So, basically what you're saying is that you prefer flights of fancy over logic and evidence, because no one here is pretending to have something they don't.
The question is why would it be rational to expect creatures to take a servile and supplicatory stance toward their creator especially when the form of the creator's dictates can be proven speculative?