How is this related to the thread in any way???
Pestilence, Bible quote…seems related. 
3 Likes
It’s not a bible quote.
Unless you attend the Church of Tarantino, I guess.
C’mon, Tarantino gets a little poetic license. Self-quarantine making you tetchy?
What are you, fucking talking to me?
Get stuffed
ETA: Anyways, I fuckin invented social distancing…
1 Like
Of course not. It was a rhetorical question. 
I don’t know what your point is, especially since verbal tone is missing from this post.
1 Like
Evidently she’s talked to God.
It comes under #2- God is malevolent.
Unless you believe people who get corona virus deserve to be punished, more than those who don’t get it. Or God has lousy aim.
No, Coronavirus is just a reason to bring up the old Euthyphro problem and give it a modern focus.
Not quite. What @Andrew0409 said and what you said are two different things.
You are saying God is evil.
@Andrew0409 is saying that humans in general may have done something to deserve it. It’s not like this is the first time humans faced a heavy penalty. For example, the great deluge that seemed to have been referenced by disconnected cultures suggest that it was a true event in human history. And according to the Bible, it was a judgment against mankind for all of the wickedness that was more or less seen as normal behavior by humans.
1 Like
How about this.
God: Here are the rules for living a good life.
Humans: FFS that’s a lot of rules.
Jesus: Here’s just two.
Humans: Meh, seems like a lot still.
God: Well, you gonna learn today
4 Likes
Euthypro’s dilemma is about where morality is internal or external to God. What you’re talking about is the problem of evil.
1 Like
Why blame God here anyway?
He didn’t tell idiots to eat animals like pangolins or bats. Or play with virii in a lab. Stupid people decided to do stupid things and it’s not up to God to baby everyone for their stupid actions. The whole reap what you sow rule
2 Likes
I don’t hear anyone blaming God for global warming or WW1?
1 Like
From singular to plural with no reason (unless you’re indirectly making a trinitarian argument)? 
Face the wrath of my inner English teacher! 
If you really mean to say God is non-binary and therefore naturally suited to the 3rd person plural (and to hell with all traditional theological literature), then it’s just a Pronoun Wars argument, and we have another thread for that. 
God isn’t a “it” for me. She/He is a being.
They/them.
Now if you’re mocking my grammar, enjoy. I’ll have you ROFLOL with my spelling. 
1 Like
The problem isn’t really about your grammar. The problem is the limitations of human language to describe an entity that exists beyond human comprehension.
The truth is, nobody knows exactly what God is. However, many people (including myself) believe God is a sentient life form who is intelligent, emotional, creative and good. God is not an “Earthling” but also not merely an alien as God exists outside of the space-time continuum, hence God’s omniscience. Describing anything, sentient or otherwise, that exists in a realm outside of what we can see is like asking a blind person to describe something or someone 100 meters away from him.
How would one imagine a being that is so loving that it allows us to have free will?
That’s a love that I can’t fully comprehend.
And I was being sarcastic about YY’s post.
Imagine you are a parent. And you lock up your kids in a cage and never allow them to go out and play, never allow them to experience life outside of a cage you built for them. How could you as a parent call that love? How could you expect those kids to love you back?
1 Like
What, my little bro was here? I thought I told him to stay away from the site… 
2 Likes