This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule.
God kills when he could just as easily cure. This is irrefutable.
This is a clear violation of the golden rule. The golden rule as articulated by Jesus.
God then is clearly evil.
Do you agree with Jesus that anyone who breaks the golden rule is evil?
Care to speculate as to why Christians adore such a prick of a God?
I don't get it.
They don't....he's a given, and, they are told he's perfect.
They then adjust accordingly.
The primary means involve not counting prickiness, as it would mean being less than perfect, and therefore is considered an exception rather than a trait, etc.
The other way involves looking at prickiness, assuming that it could not be prickiness because Jesus/God did it...and it is therefore good.
Slavery is a good example, in that its obviously condoned, so, magically, the prickiness of owning slaves is morphed into owning other humans as possessions was really more like adopting a child, or hiring an employee, etc....a loving kind act with no prickiness at all.
Or even further, like homosexuality, so the prickiness is embraced as good w/o changing the hate...the hate is GOOD...because god obviously wants you to kill gays, etc.
So, THAT'S mostly how they adore such a prick of a god.
IOW, Christians delude themselves into justifying the un-justifiable.
We humans invented this entire, mythical mess and its supposed conundrums.
"We humans invented this entire..."
What do you mean "WE", paleface???
"This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule."
The Golden Rule existed in human societies long before the modern day doG stories.
Indeed. The golden rule is basically imprinted in our natural instincts.
We are one of the weakest, if not the weakest animal on the planet, and to not follow such a rule instinctively would dramatically reduce our chances at survival.
We might be weak for our size, because our muscles are of less daily use than our brains, but, we are stronger than pretty much all of the insects and flying birds, all the amphibians, most of the reptiles, and most mammals under 100 lb....etc.
Given how many beetle species that there are alone, if you ranked all species according to strength, we would be only fighting a bit below our weight so to speak.
The whole "ant" argument is a red herring of course, as the lighter you are, the more you can lift, etc, compared to your body weight.
So, we DO need, historically, to be social animals, as wolves and chimps, etc, are, because, individually, we are simply an easy meal for large predators or packs of smaller ones, etc.
A grizzly bear is not going to try to eat one ant...a nest, sure. But one 150 lb juicy person is worth it.
I did not mean adult strength.
At birth, we are perhaps the weakest animal on the planet. Mother has to carry us for a long time because we cannot walk the way most animals can at birth.
That dependence is the weakness I was talking about.
We make up for it as adults and have become the top of the food chain but that does not negate that we are quite weak and dependant on others when young.
Ever see a baby marsupial?
Indeed. Note how the baby knows to crawl to the pouch and tit while human babies have to be guided to it.