http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2012/10/24/17/00/outrage-over-us-politicians-rape-pregnancy-remark Like I have said before, I need not create strawmen, you guys give me everything I need. So does God allow rape to happen? If so, why?
Mourdock .. It amazes me the type of clowns that somehow manage to get elected. Here we have a fellow that claims to know what God thinks !! Despite the Bible has God commanding abortion in the OT laws .. Mourdock somehow has been told by God that God's mind has changed on the issue ! This type of delusion is good reason to send this fellow to the nut-house and not to put him into the senate.
the bible is a fictional book (actually, it is a collection of fictional short stories) about a fictional creature named 'god.' in this book, 'god' seems to be ok with stoning women to death. since we're discussing whether god would be ok with rape, it seems logical that he would, given his seemingly flippant attitude towards the treatment of women.
So the non-belief in God is the same as forcefully violating a woman? Is this another one of your poorly thought out posts?
John McCain is trying to slap some sense into the dummy. So far it's not working. [h=1]John McCain Pledges To Withdraw Richard Mourdock Support If He Doesn't Apologize[/h]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/john-mccain-richard-mourdock_n_2013217.html
Not poorly thought out at all. It is in my opinion called 'turn about'. Ya know.... turn about is fair play. If the atheists and other non-theists desire to mock God then I reserve the right to mock the mockers. If you can't handle the heat in the kitchen, then get out of the kitchen. If you don't like being placed in a proper category along with other things that God allows, then remove yourself from that/those category/ies.
It also seems logical that you have a basic belief in the existence of this god if you are accrediting various events and acts to this god, else you make it a life goal to engage in and potentially participate in the fantasies of this world.
The same reason your God does. But most Christians (contrary to your assertions) don't believe in a wholly theistic God - as in a God who just 'makes' everything happen at a whim - they believe in a God who's both theistic and deistic, in other words there are 'natural laws' which God is bound by 'nature' (or supernature) to follow, and his "omnipotence" does not give him the power to arbitrarily break these laws. This is why evil and starving children in Africa exist, not because God just woke up one morning and decided to make them happen, but because his omnipotence does not give him the power to unilaterally stop them from happening. So unless you understand the laws and physics of the supernatural world, it's a moot point for you to ask "why does God let/make this happen?"
or your dealing with some of the people of this world who may or may not just be having a fantasy, and regardless of whether its real or not follow a character you might think is twisted and base their ideas of what’s good and bad and what should be permitted or punished on its in story judgments and actions. Talking about a characters actions in their story is sensible And being concerned with a story people want to alter the world around makes sense whether that story is fiction or nonfiction or a mix Saying that some 1 who doesn’t believe in gods should never be concerned about the nature of a religions god because they believe it’s a fantasy is itself a fantasy Theists seem to exist so just ignoring religion won’t always spare you from its influence
stoning? for some maybe... but for a rape victim, her rapists punishment.... he has to marry her and can never divorce her - crazy http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy 22:28-29&version=NIV
lol, this is one of the most contradictory, nonsensical posts I've ever read. God is deistic...but also theistic. God is all powerful, but not powerful enough to stop kids from starving to death. herp freaking derp.
If God is good, and starving children are allowed to exist - then it's obvious that God isn't 'allowing' them to starve.
] Your elongated and poorly styled sentence makes no sense. That sentence seems to be all over the radar screen but never making a point. Granted. "Noun 1. concern - something that interests you because it is important or affects you;" So, the concern you spoke of above, is that concern due to either it being important to you or because it affects you? Explain your choice. Logically, if you do not believe in the existence of a god or God, and you don't believe in Heaven or Hell, then your 'concern' is misplaced, because you are concerned about something that you believe does not exist. If something does not exist, then that something cannot affect the physical world in which you live. So where is the logic in being concerned about something that cannot affect you when you believe that the something does not exist? A-Theists seem to exist so just ignoring them won’t always spare you from their influence
A sentence cannot be "elongated" in the internet, only the width it takes to display it on a computer. It looks fine on mine, something wrong with yours? It "seems" to be"? So, is it on the radar or not? If it's all over your radar screen, surely it should not only make one point, but many? Is there something wrong with your radar as well? In which sense? grant    [grant, grahnt] Show IPA verb (used with object) 1. to bestow or confer, especially by a formal act: to grant a charter. 2. to give or accord: to grant permission. 3. to agree or accede to: to grant a request. 4. to admit or concede; accept for the sake of argument: I grant that point. 5. to transfer or convey, especially by deed or writing: to grant property. or perhaps: Grant (money) Surely, if god or God (which one is it?) does not exist, one cannot describe it as "something", since this implies existence. Thus this paragraph does not make sense. Which definition of "exist" applies here? ex·ist (g-zst)intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists 1. To have actual being; be real. 2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed. 3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist. 4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas. 5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur:
1. Despite having this explained to you (slowly) one more than one occasion, my model of God is not subject to your definition. 2. If God is bound by laws, than God is not Omnipotent, and therefore not God. I suggest looking up the definition of Omnipotence. You guys do an excellent job of defeating yourselves at every turn.
So the non-belief in God is the same as forcefully violating a woman? Is this another one of your poorly thought out posts?
...and without her consent. No wonder evangelical cons think women should relax and enjoy it when they're raped. If it's good enough for God, it's good enough for cons.
If god is incapable of stopping children from starving, he's not actually omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, and therefore, capable of stopping children from starving, he is not good.
I see that redundancy is one of your intellectual strong points. In answer to your highlighted question: That seems to be your interpretation.
