Christian-based programmign languages

Can you recommend any?

>>40
Or to put it another way, teapots and pink unicorns.

>>1-1000
 YHBT  

Ruby. Mormon.

>>40
the "problem of evil" only exists if you assume an absolute morality that isn't defined by god. if god defines morality, then whatever god does is good, and if god is also omnipotent and omniscient, then evil does not exist.

>>44
``Evil'' itself is a fairly relative thing. Something could be evil to a person, and good to another one. Absolute good/evil is impossible to define. Evil wouldn't exist if the game only had winners. Things are a lot more gray in the real world, than just black and white.

That's just semantics. Don't stoop to their level, talk about concretes. Like you can ask a Christian ``Would your God allow a small child to be raped?'', and they'll answer ‘‘⸘Allow it‽ Dude, our priests are at the very forefront of small child raping technology.” and you'll be like ``okaaaay, right. actually, just get the hell away from me"

>>44
"Evil" doesn't just mean "morally wrong" or "bad." Suffering is evil, and any being that is truly omnibenevolent would want to eliminate as much suffering as possible. If that being were also omniscient, he would know of all current and future suffering. On top of *that*, if he were omnipotent, then he would have the power to end suffering. However, people suffer. Therefore, no such being exists.

Like I said, you can logically keep a "creator," which you could call "god" if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, although the only property you could honestly ascribe to that being is "able to cause the Big Bang." Any other properties, including intelligence, are not merited by the evidence.

On relativity of morality.
Is killing a chicken to eat evil?
Is stepping on an ant by accident evil?
Is a lion killing you for food evil?
Is cutting down a tree to build a house evil or growing some corn to make bread evil?
As you can see, morality is relative, and what is fine for you, may not be fine for another being.
Or how about, a religious person cutting down another person for doing an act which his religion considers offensive, while the same act is perfectly fine for most people not of that religion (to simplify things, let's say that the act causes no victims and is completly harmless). The religious person, in his own personal morality would regard the act as evil, while the other person would regard it as good or neutral. I could show such fine lines all day, but if you think a bit, you'll see that morality is a very relative thing. Omnibenevolence is likely impossible as what someone considers good may be considered, or percieved as straight out evil by another being. While in a (relatively) perfect world (filled with completly likeminded individuals, and nothing else) such a thing could exist, reality is not like that.

>>44-48
I'm sure you'll enjoy the warped logic presented here:
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

>>49
Something's wrong with redirects.  I keep choosing "I Don't Know If Absolute Truth Exists,"  I answer with the logical non-fallacy, and keep getting sent back to the original decision.

>>49
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

>>49
How many false dichotomy can you fit onto one website, I mean, oh my god!see what I did there

Does this still work?

>>52
I see that you haven't capitalized ``God''. Also, sage.

>>54
EXPERT OBSERVATION

>>55
[b][i][u]EXPERT ^BBCODE _PROGRAMMER[/b][/i][/u]

>>56
[b][i][u][o][s]EXPERT ^BBCODE [sub]FAILURE[sub][/s][/o][/u][/i][/b]

>>54
I see you use faggot quotes.

>>57
Oh god the irony oops, did it again

>>59
Oops!
I did it again
I broke your^BB_CODE
I'm not thatEXPERT!

>>54
``God'' isn't a proper noun in that expression, so it shouldn't be capitalised.