Did the Jesus part ruin it?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-05-2016, 04:51 PM
RE: Did the Jesus part ruin it?
(02-05-2016 07:59 AM)Alla Wrote:  
(30-04-2016 10:12 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  Matthew 25:46 for a start.

But this notion of a god tormenting anyone at all for any span of time fully contradicts the notion of a merciful, ALL KNOWING agglomeration of intelligent energy: it supposes such a being has the maturity and demeanor of a 3 year old having a tantrum - masturbating its rage center to high climax as its own creations do exactly what it knew they'd do.

There's been a lot of supposition here and in many other threads that pain is a problem to be avoided, or that pain in and of itself is a problem. Pain is not only not a problem it is crucial to survival. Pain is an evolutionary adaptation that serves as a warning that anatomical integrity is being threatened. A sharp penetration of the skin produces the immediate possibility of excess blood loss and bacterial invasion, either of which could prove lethal. So such an event hurts, to call attention to it in a manner that is difficult to ignore - it's UNPLEASANT.

I'm sure psychological pain serves the same purpose, to warn that emotional circumstances are severe enough to cause lasting harm if not dealt with (unfortunately what hasn't yet evolved sufficiently is a more complete warning system that informs of remedies but our own advance of knowledge makes up for that shortcoming).

In any case a deceased person no longer extant as a biological organism isn't going to feel pain, nor have any need to. If some sick sadistic asshole of a god has plans to make post-death existence unpleasant, it won't be by pain, and wouldn't have any point, in that the intent of punishment is to deter repetition of an offence, but such repetitions would be impossible post-death.

Mat 25:46. It does NOT say "for eternity"

No, it says 'eternal punishment' which means exactly the same thing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2016, 06:13 PM
RE: Did the Jesus part ruin it?
RobbyPants Wrote:Creation: Matter cannot be created from nothing, yet the creation stories in Genesis say God did exactly that.
The creation story does NOT say that God created matter. It does NOT say God creates things out of nothing.
RobbyPants Wrote:Virgin birth: Humans get two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent. Since Mary's impregnation is described as the spirit coming upon her (heh), I can only imagine this involves the creation of genetic material inside of her.
Where exactly does it say that Mary's impregnation = spirit coming upon her?
RobbyPants Wrote:We cannot chemically transmute water to wine
God uses natural laws we do NOT know yet.
By taking water God is teaching(gives us a hint) that He doesn't create things out of nothing.
RobbyPants Wrote:The bread and fish miracle involves creating matter from nothing.
It is all about organizing and re-organizing elements. God uses natural laws we do NOT know yet. God does not create something out of nothing.
RobbyPants Wrote:Global flood: There are a lot of problems involving the flood story. What we know about genetics would mean the genetic bottleneck post flood would be extremely narrow, and many species would have died out due to a single run-in with a disease. The plants that were underwater would have died, and there'd be little or no food for the herbivores. What we know about biology says that you need a much larger population of prey compared to the carnivores. With animals being brought to the ark in twos, many species would have been hunted to extinction before they could procreate. The hunters would subsequently starve. There's no geological evidence of a world-wide flood, and there are many fragile rock formations that would not exist.
God uses natural laws that we do NOT know yet.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alla's post
02-05-2016, 06:24 PM
RE: Did the Jesus part ruin it?
(02-05-2016 04:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 07:59 AM)Alla Wrote:  Mat 25:46. It does NOT say "for eternity"

No, it says 'eternal punishment' which means exactly the same thing.


"eternal punishment" means that it always existed, exists and will always exist.
if something has a beginning then it is not eternal any more.


Let's say "to be alone in a cell" is a punishment that was used from eternity till now and will be used in eternity.
This punishment can be called "eternal punishment", exists and is used from eternity to eternity
Let's say I was punished. There is a beginning of my punishment. But if there a beginning it can be an end.

So, God never said anything about being punished FOREVER.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2016, 08:24 PM
RE: Did the Jesus part ruin it?
(02-05-2016 06:24 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 04:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it says 'eternal punishment' which means exactly the same thing.


"eternal punishment" means that it always existed, exists and will always exist.
if something has a beginning then it is not eternal any more.

Read it again:
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

I'm sorry that your comprehension of English is so poor. You should work on that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2016, 08:32 PM
RE: Did the Jesus part ruin it?
(02-05-2016 08:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 06:24 PM)Alla Wrote:  "eternal punishment" means that it always existed, exists and will always exist.
if something has a beginning then it is not eternal any more.

Read it again:
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

I'm sorry that your comprehension of English is so poor. You should work on that.
Alright.
Where does it say that God Yahweh will be tormenting humans for eternity?

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2016, 09:04 PM
RE: Did the Jesus part ruin it?
(02-05-2016 08:32 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 08:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  Read it again:
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

I'm sorry that your comprehension of English is so poor. You should work on that.
Alright.
Where does it say that God Yahweh will be tormenting humans for eternity?

Where does it not? "Then they will go away to eternal punishment..."
Your weasel-wording does not change the meaning of that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
02-05-2016, 09:36 PM
RE: Did the Jesus part ruin it?
(02-05-2016 09:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 08:32 PM)Alla Wrote:  Alright.
Where does it say that God Yahweh will be tormenting humans for eternity?

Where does it not? "Then they will go away to eternal punishment..."
Your weasel-wording does not change the meaning of that.
where does it say that "eternal punishment" = tormenting humans

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2016, 09:32 AM
RE: Did the Jesus part ruin it?
(02-05-2016 06:13 PM)Alla Wrote:  
RobbyPants Wrote:Creation: Matter cannot be created from nothing, yet the creation stories in Genesis say God did exactly that.
The creation story does NOT say that God created matter. It does NOT say God creates things out of nothing.

From where did this matter come? It was either already there or it wasn't.


(02-05-2016 06:13 PM)Alla Wrote:  
RobbyPants Wrote:Virgin birth: Humans get two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent. Since Mary's impregnation is described as the spirit coming upon her (heh), I can only imagine this involves the creation of genetic material inside of her.
Where exactly does it say that Mary's impregnation = spirit coming upon her?

Luke 1:35

"35 And the angel said to her,

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
therefore the child to be born[a] will be called holy,
the Son of God."


and

Matthew 1:18

"18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ[a] took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;"


The Holy Spirit did something and created a human child with a human mother. Given that Jesus wasn't female, the Holy Spirit would have had to contribute at least half of the genetic material.

Seems outside of the bounds of "natural laws" to me... although you still haven't defined those, yet.


(02-05-2016 06:13 PM)Alla Wrote:  
RobbyPants Wrote:We cannot chemically transmute water to wine
God uses natural laws we do NOT know yet.
By taking water God is teaching(gives us a hint) that He doesn't create things out of nothing.

There are two very big problems with your "God did natural processes we just don't understand line of reasoning:
  • It's an ad hoc assertion with no evidence. You can't actually back that statement. It's an argument from ignorance.
  • If that type of reasoning were valid, it cuts both ways. I could use it against your objecting that brought this whole conversation up. I could simply say that God could use natural processes we just don't understand yet to feel physical pain without being physical.
So, given that you can't use an argument from ignorance to explain how transmutation could be done "naturally", do you want to explain this another way?


(02-05-2016 06:13 PM)Alla Wrote:  
RobbyPants Wrote:The bread and fish miracle involves creating matter from nothing.
It is all about organizing and re-organizing elements. God uses natural laws we do NOT know yet. God does not create something out of nothing.

Chemical reactions like that don't just happen. You can't take all of the elements that would be used to make a fish, put them in a bowl, and get a fish. I suppose it could be done on a nuclear level, too (splitting atoms and rearranging them), but either way, the energy input into this process would be insane. And it's not like that processes could be in any way described as "natural". You're just kicking the can one step further down the road until you don't understand it, and then assuming that God somehow just did it naturally.


(02-05-2016 06:13 PM)Alla Wrote:  
RobbyPants Wrote:Global flood: There are a lot of problems involving the flood story. What we know about genetics would mean the genetic bottleneck post flood would be extremely narrow, and many species would have died out due to a single run-in with a disease. The plants that were underwater would have died, and there'd be little or no food for the herbivores. What we know about biology says that you need a much larger population of prey compared to the carnivores. With animals being brought to the ark in twos, many species would have been hunted to extinction before they could procreate. The hunters would subsequently starve. There's no geological evidence of a world-wide flood, and there are many fragile rock formations that would not exist.
God uses natural laws that we do NOT know yet.

Argument from ignorance, again. I can simply tell you that God could experience physical pain nonphysically using natural processes we don't understand yet.


You can't have it both ways. Either God does magic that you can't explain, or anything could be described "naturally" (so long as you're willing to shift the goal posts endlessly), even including the things you don't want to believe. Which is it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2016, 10:01 AM
RE: Did the Jesus part ruin it?
(02-05-2016 06:13 PM)Alla Wrote:  
RobbyPants Wrote:Creation: Matter cannot be created from nothing, yet the creation stories in Genesis say God did exactly that.
The creation story does NOT say that God created matter. It does NOT say God creates things out of nothing.
RobbyPants Wrote:Virgin birth: Humans get two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent. Since Mary's impregnation is described as the spirit coming upon her (heh), I can only imagine this involves the creation of genetic material inside of her.
Where exactly does it say that Mary's impregnation = spirit coming upon her?
RobbyPants Wrote:We cannot chemically transmute water to wine
God uses natural laws we do NOT know yet.
By taking water God is teaching(gives us a hint) that He doesn't create things out of nothing.
RobbyPants Wrote:The bread and fish miracle involves creating matter from nothing.
It is all about organizing and re-organizing elements. God uses natural laws we do NOT know yet. God does not create something out of nothing.
RobbyPants Wrote:Global flood: There are a lot of problems involving the flood story. What we know about genetics would mean the genetic bottleneck post flood would be extremely narrow, and many species would have died out due to a single run-in with a disease. The plants that were underwater would have died, and there'd be little or no food for the herbivores. What we know about biology says that you need a much larger population of prey compared to the carnivores. With animals being brought to the ark in twos, many species would have been hunted to extinction before they could procreate. The hunters would subsequently starve. There's no geological evidence of a world-wide flood, and there are many fragile rock formations that would not exist.
God uses natural laws that we do NOT know yet.

Then how do you gods physical natutal law limits?

Anyone's knowledge of natural laws is irrelevant to knowing what God could or not do of god could have natural laws we don't know.

Are you this big powers thirst or so dependent on expressing to others you have feelings if special knowledge that you make shit up at people you proclaim to know?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2016, 10:26 AM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2016 10:30 AM by Chas.)
RE: Did the Jesus part ruin it?
(02-05-2016 09:36 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 09:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  Where does it not? "Then they will go away to eternal punishment..."
Your weasel-wording does not change the meaning of that.
where does it say that "eternal punishment" = tormenting humans

Oh, for fuck's sake. Facepalm Who do you suppose "they" are? Dodgy

Here is the context since you're too fucking lazy to look it up yourself:

44 Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
45 Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'
46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: