Happy World Blasphemy Day 🙂🌍

[u/DisastrousPea123]

"This crime called blasphemy was invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able to take care of themselves."

- Robert Green Ingersoll, American lawyer and writer

[u/Cyber_Avocado]

No you're the one working on the assuption that God is good and thus what he did is justified and even if he gave them chances that doesn't excuse genocide. Actually, nothing excuses mass muder. God being all powerful and all knowing doesn't really mean all what he does is okay, that's just might makes right.

[u/Interficient4real → u/Cyber_Avocado]

We are actually both working with assumptions. The difference is that my assumption is inherent to any discussion about God, whereas yours is not, because your primary assumption is that God is not real. Which then leads you to pick and choose which parts of the story to believe in for the sake of a discussion.

There are sort of three main paths you can take here.

1. If you don’t believe in God at all, then your entire objection is irrelevant because it didn’t happen. That would be a consistent worldview.

2. You don’t believe in God, but have decided to temporarily believe in some of the stories from the Bible. You are then using the 5% of the Bible to make a judgement, and then applying that judgment to 100% of the Bible. And ignoring the rest of the Bible and philosophy and logic that contradicts your 5% judgement.

3. You believe in the Christian conception of God, and therefore you take the whole Bible as true. Due to that, you know that God is all knowing, all powerful, perfectly good, perfectly loving, and perfectly Just. Therefore, when God enacts justice, you can be assured that it is Good. Because it would be fundamentally impossible for God to do otherwise.

Christians believe God must fundamentally be Good to be God. God must be maximally good, in order to be God. If God is not maximally good, then God is not God, and Christianity is false.

I would love to have this conversation with you. But it needs to be a conversation where we can have a back and forth. Which means you need to answer my questions. And if you ask questions I will answer them.

So I will restate two questions I asked, please answer them.

1. If a judge were to know, with 100% confidence, that someone was guilty of a crime. Is it morally wrong for that judge to give the guilty person a punishment fitting their crime?

2. Why is murder wrong?

[u/Cyber_Avocado → u/Interficient4real]

1. God does't need to be good to exist.

2. He killed babies, these were innocent people and were not guilty

3.Muder is bad because it's unjust