Epicurean paradox defeated.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2014, 10:24 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(14-02-2014 10:15 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 08:25 PM)ivaneus Wrote:  I saw "redefine evil" (shifting goalposts) and "biblical explanation" (circular definition, begging the question, special pleading, etc. etc.) in the OP and concluded that there will be more fallacies than logic in it. So I promptly (personally) classified this thread in the "Ramblings of the Delusional" section of my brain.

I did enjoy all your responses though. You led Drich on an epic tap-dance. My hats off to you all.Bowing

Laughat
What are you talking about? I used the defination God gave us. If your defination is different then it is you who has misted the goal post.

*definition, idiot.

Nice of ivaneus to mist the goalposts.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
15-02-2014, 12:21 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(14-02-2014 10:11 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 01:56 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  People who attack Christianity tend to focus on the malevolent nature of the Christian god. If you agree that he is malevolent, what's your problem?
because it is not a case of either/or.

God's love is boundless when directed at His children. The point being 'we' are not all His children.

So all you've done is institutionalized the No True Scotsman fallacy, and now use it as an excuse for the actions attributed to your god concept. Because god wouldn't send his children to hell, and if you got sent to hell rather than being forgiven by god's (limited) infinite unconditional love (with conditions), then you weren't one of his True Children™; of course ignoring that this goes hand in hand with a theology that espouses we are all the products of his divine creation.

Yeah, that makes total sense and isn't special pleading at all... Dodgy


(14-02-2014 10:11 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 01:56 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  And by the way, another Christian to whom I happened to mention this conversation made a good point. The "For God so loved the world" quote should mean that he does love everyone, because loving the world without loving all the people in it doesn't make sense. What is there left to love? Comets and nebulae?
Read the rest of the passage.

Yes God so loved the world that He gave humanity a Chance at redemption if they accept Christ. if they do not then they do not get eternal life, meaning they are sent to Hell. As so many of you are quick to point out, would you send someone you love to Hell? Would you send your kids there?

My point is neither would God.

A redemption that would not be needed had your god not screwed the pooch at creation. A redemption that might make sense, if we actually had some evidence of it's divine origin and creation (such as an indestructible original Bible which spawned inerrant copies whenever needed, you know, a real repeatable miracle). Maybe a real immortal Jesus walking the Earth for the last few thousand years? Some tangible, testable, verifiable evidence of this god's existence and it's will; but instead we got nothing.

But to your analogy. Would I send my own kids to Hell? No. Would I send other people's kids to Hell if they didn't believe I existed because I never gave them any reason to think I did? No, and that makes me more moral than your god.

Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
15-02-2014, 02:14 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(13-02-2014 12:25 PM)Drich Wrote:  More specifically God does not claim to be Omni benevolent. If you believe He does it is on your to provide book chapter and verse.

(14-02-2014 09:58 PM)Drich Wrote:  What makes you think God is evil?

Dodgy

So either he is or he ain't. If he is then you're stuck with Epicurus and you haven't solved it at all, why doesn't God fix the evil in the world ? If he ain't then he ain't and he's not worth worshiping. Which is it, God boy ?

If you're gonna come agian with your bullshit of God is nice to *his* kids and no one else, explain to me how that is not evil.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
15-02-2014, 03:53 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(13-02-2014 12:21 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(10-02-2014 11:28 PM)Colourcraze Wrote:  He still hasn't responded to my biblically based argument of god's characteristics... I'm even using his bible parameters, here! What gives?

your one of 30 talking to me. either I missed your post, felt I have already addressed your our points recently, or you started out cussing, which if that were ever the case I just move on. It's one of the three so don't focous on which one it is not.

Thank you so much for your immediate dismissal! If I can persuade you even a little to respond to my points, which were, in fact, biblically based, take a look at post #81.


I guess you missed it, because I used book, chapter, verse, and I didn't use any profanity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 04:31 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
[Image: this-shit-aint-logical.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
15-02-2014, 07:10 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(15-02-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So all you've done is institutionalized the No True Scotsman fallacy,
Please define no true Scotsman use a reference and then apply this verified defination to my work. I have corrected the misuse of this fallacy at least 10 times now, and you people keep returning to the idea that any correction to what you believe to be Christianity is indeed a no true Scotsman fallacy. Now instead of me trying to show a box of rocks how he is wrong the box of rock must prove himself to be right in its usage of the fallacy.
Quote:and now use it as an excuse for the actions attributed to your god concept. Because god wouldn't send his children to hell, and if you got sent to hell rather than being forgiven by god's (limited) infinite unconditional love (with conditions), then you weren't one of his True Children™; of course ignoring that this goes hand in hand with a theology that espouses we are all the products of his divine creation.
just like the post you quoted said. The only condition to God's unconditional love is you must be one of His children. Do you offer unconditional love to all children of the world? If so explain why there are starving children in Africa. Someone who claims to love all children surely would not let them starve.Consider
Quote:Yeah, that makes total sense and isn't special pleading at all... Dodgy
again mis use of a logical fallacy. Unless you provide a supporting defination and context your attempt at an easy dismissal will be dismissed.

Quote:A redemption that would not be needed had your god not screwed the pooch at creation.
Laughat how so?

Quote:A redemption that might make sense, if we actually had some evidence of it's divine origin and creation (such as an indestructible original Bible which spawned inerrant copies whenever needed, you know, a real repeatable miracle).
All anyone need do if he seeks evidence is A/S/K for it.
Quote:Maybe a real immortal Jesus walking the Earth for the last few thousand years? Some tangible, testable, verifiable evidence of this god's existence and it's will; but instead we got nothing.
Jesus walking the earth was explained away by people in His day, simply because they wanted to believe what they wanted to believe over what He taught. This is true now, so what would change if He were here?

Quote:But to your analogy. Would I send my own kids to Hell? No. Would I send other people's kids to Hell if they didn't believe I existed because I never gave them any reason to think I did? No, and that makes me more moral than your god.

Drinking Beverage
What if the raped and murdered your children, what if you gave these 'other' kids food and money to take care of your while you were away and they literally let 2/3's of your children die of sickness and starvation? What if your children's cries out to you were beaten back by these monsters, and your very existence was put into doubt or question because you left them in charge?

So, if all of this happened while you went away you would invite these monsters to live with you and your family under one roof? If so then you too are a monster, because you have no sense of justice nor a basic understanding of what love is.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 08:47 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(15-02-2014 07:10 AM)Drich Wrote:  What if the raped and murdered your children, what if you gave these 'other' kids food and money to take care of your while you were away and they literally let 2/3's of your children die of sickness and starvation? What if your children's cries out to you were beaten back by these monsters, and your very existence was put into doubt or question because you left them in charge?

So, if all of this happened while you went away you would invite these monsters to live with you and your family under one roof? If so then you too are a monster, because you have no sense of justice nor a basic understanding of what love is.

OH, like YOUR god does. Got it. He didn't say "send them to hell for raping and murdering." He said for not BELIEVING -- you know, like YOUR evil, malevolent god.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 09:13 AM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2014 09:32 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(15-02-2014 07:10 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So all you've done is institutionalized the No True Scotsman fallacy,
Please define no true Scotsman use a reference and then apply this verified defination to my work. I have corrected the misuse of this fallacy at least 10 times now, and you people keep returning to the idea that any correction to what you believe to be Christianity is indeed a no true Scotsman fallacy. Now instead of me trying to show a box of rocks how he is wrong the box of rock must prove himself to be right in its usage of the fallacy.


If you keep being corrected on it, it's because you're too fucking stupid to not get the message and stop using it.

Mark puts sugar on his porridge. Tim sees this and comments that no Scotsman would out sugar on their porridge. Mark quips about their friend Sean, who was born and raised in Scotland, and how he does in fact put sugar on his porridge. But Tim replies "Ah, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on their porridge".

Mark is studying history and is troubled by what he reads about past Christians. Tim sees this and comments that no True Christians™ would ever do the things they did. Mark quips about how Hitler and the Nazis where overwhelmingly Christian, and even had 'God With Us' imprinted on their belt buckles. Tim replies "Ah, but no True Christian ™ would ever participate in the Holocaust".

Mark is reading the Bible and starts to worry about the Hell. Tim sees this and comments that a god's love is boundless for His Children. Mark points out their mutual friend Jack, who is gay but also a born-again Christian and a pastor. Tim replies "Ah, but homosexuals are not His Children".


The problem is that you're making caveats for no other purpose than exclusion by fiat. God's love is boundless, except *insert exclusion creating caveat here*; which ironically enough makes it no longer boundless. Its like pointing out how god's supposed unconditional love comes with conditions, it's a mess on it's own terms.


You can't be that fucking stupid...


(15-02-2014 07:10 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  and now use it as an excuse for the actions attributed to your god concept. Because god wouldn't send his children to hell, and if you got sent to hell rather than being forgiven by god's (limited) infinite unconditional love (with conditions), then you weren't one of his True Children™; of course ignoring that this goes hand in hand with a theology that espouses we are all the products of his divine creation.
just like the post you quoted said. The only condition to God's unconditional love is you must be one of His children. Do you offer unconditional love to all children of the world? If so explain why there are starving children in Africa. Someone who claims to love all children surely would not let them starve.Consider


If I had you god's powers, there wouldn't be starving children in Africa, or anywhere else for that matter.

Once again, you can't really be that fucking stupid and completely lacking in all empathy.


(15-02-2014 07:10 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yeah, that makes total sense and isn't special pleading at all... Dodgy
again mis use of a logical fallacy. Unless you provide a supporting defination[sic] and context your attempt at an easy dismissal will be dismissed.

Special Pleading is asking for an exception to the rules, special caveats. They are intrinsic to the No True Scotsman fallacy (Scotts observed doing X, real Scotts don't do X), as it is just a particular example of Special Pleading.


(15-02-2014 07:10 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  A redemption that would not be needed had your god not screwed the pooch at creation.
Laughat how so?

Your god supposedly has power over all creation, and yet fucks thing up bad enough that he needs to send himself back to appease himself by killing himself to make a loophole in the rules he himself created. This entire Rube Goldberg mechanism wouldn't be needed if your god hadn't fucked up (more than once if Noah is to be believed), because if he hadn't fucked up, we would have never need your Jesus.

[Image: tumblr_lo76nouLD01qhk50go1_400.jpg]

For fuck's sake, do you have no imagination left, or has it been completely paved over to make more room for fellating your god concept?



(15-02-2014 07:10 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  A redemption that might make sense, if we actually had some evidence of it's divine origin and creation (such as an indestructible original Bible which spawned inerrant copies whenever needed, you know, a real repeatable miracle).
All anyone need do if he seeks evidence is A/S/K for it.

Sorry, but if you god is as all knowing as you claim, then he already knows why that's not going to convince me; because I know too much about human psychology and self delusion (and your god should know this too). I'm going to need objective, verifiable, corroborated evidence; and that is precisely what your god refuses to give. You god has the power to do so, most would argue that he cares enough to do so; yet all indications are that he will not do so.

How convenient that only those who want to find him, do; but not everyone that wants to actually does. If you are the 'mysterious agent' that god is employing to do his work and make me one of His True Children™, then you and your god have failed miserably.


(15-02-2014 07:10 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Maybe a real immortal Jesus walking the Earth for the last few thousand years? Some tangible, testable, verifiable evidence of this god's existence and it's will; but instead we got nothing.
Jesus walking the earth was explained away by people in His day, simply because they wanted to believe what they wanted to believe over what He taught. This is true now, so what would change if He were here?

If he managed to stay alive for over 2000 years, I'd say that there might be something there to investigate further. Maybe if he had kept a consistent story, a unified set of teachings that actually made sense and were not contradictory, and that when employed actually improved people's lives? If he'd said 'Hey that slavery business you have going on, that's fucked up, stop that!'


But nope, all we have are the hearsay stacked upon hearsay, recorded decades or centuries after the supposed events by non-eyewitnesses into a set of works that clearly plagiarized one another. For whom we lack the originals and also have evidence of contradictions, mistranslations, additions and subtractions from the work; in addition to the included books quoting from other books which were not part of the supposedly divinely inspired works of this god.

It's a fucking mess, and it's a joke that you'd base any of your beliefs about a god on any of it.


(15-02-2014 07:10 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But to your analogy. Would I send my own kids to Hell? No. Would I send other people's kids to Hell if they didn't believe I existed because I never gave them any reason to think I did? No, and that makes me more moral than your god.

Drinking Beverage
What if the raped and murdered your children, what if you gave these 'other' kids food and money to take care of your while you were away and they literally let 2/3's of your children die of sickness and starvation? What if your children's cries out to you were beaten back by these monsters, and your very existence was put into doubt or question because you left them in charge?

So, if all of this happened while you went away you would invite these monsters to live with you and your family under one roof? If so then you too are a monster, because you have no sense of justice nor a basic understanding of what love is.

Uh, move the goal post much?

If I had the same power you attribute to your god, I'd never allow such a circumstance to arise. If I had your gods power I could provide resources for all, so that no one ever needed to fight over them (or better yet, recreate human physiology to no longer need resources, just make metabolism work by magic). I could stop all crimes, including rape, before the crime commenced; simply by intervening. Preventing a rapist from committing his crime once he has committed to it is no more a violation of his will or cognitive freedom is than the fact that he can't fly simply by desiring it because of gravity. If god's intervention is a violation of a criminal's free will, then gravity is a violation of the free will for anyone who simply desires to fly. I could become an educator better than anything humanly possible; but what I wouldn't do is only reveal myself to a group of semi-literate barbarian goat herders in the middle of a fucking desert, then expect other people to ghost write the story for me centuries later.

You are the one defending a fucked in the head sadist with the imagination and intelligence of a not terrible precocious brick wall, so you can go fuck yourself. If there is a monster here, it's not me, because I have demonstrated continuously that I posses more empathy that you are even capable of imagining your god having. Your god's unconditional love comes with conditions, so it's you who does not understand love or justice; you fucking psycho.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like EvolutionKills's post
15-02-2014, 12:56 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If you keep being corrected on it, it's because you're too fucking stupid to not get the message and stop using it.
Laugh out load silly rabbit, My point is your 'correction' in incorrect. And, I am asking you to prove your use of the term. I have provided a reference source for this term no less than 10 times, and explained how the box of rocks on this website who keep misuing this term are using it incorrectly.

Most of you tea bags (you included) think that 'No true scotsman' refers to a senerio where one person can not say to another 'your not a 'scotsman' if you claim to be. This is wrong, IF There are indeed prerequsites that need to be met inorder to be a 'scotsman.' In this case there are conditions that must be met to be a christian and if one does not meet said requirements then by defination that person is not a christian no matter what he says.

It is like you saying you are an american citizen, having been born and lived in england all your life. Your not a US citizen because you have never met a single requirement in being one, No matter what you think or say about it. The same is true about a Christian. There is a very narrow path one has to walk to be a Christian. If you do not nor have ever walked this path then again by defination your not a Scotsman or in this case a Christian.

Quote:Mark puts sugar on his porridge. Tim sees this and comments that no Scotsman would out sugar on their porridge. Mark quips about their friend Sean, who was born and raised in Scotland, and how he does in fact put sugar on his porridge. But Tim replies "Ah, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on their porridge".

Mark is studying history and is troubled by what he reads about past Christians. Tim sees this and comments that no True Christians™ would ever do the things they did. Mark quips about how Hitler and the Nazis where overwhelmingly Christian, and even had 'God With Us' imprinted on their belt buckles. Tim replies "Ah, but no True Christian ™ would ever participate in the Holocaust".

Mark is reading the Bible and starts to worry about the Hell. Tim sees this and comments that a god's love is boundless for His Children. Mark points out their mutual friend Jack, who is gay but also a born-again Christian and a pastor. Tim replies "Ah, but homosexuals are not His Children".
again none of these examples have anything to do with the establish prequsites of being a ___________.

John 3:16 Includes a prequsite in that "Anyone who believes shall have ever lasting life." Which means all who do not. do not meet the minimum requirements for what is offered, meaning they are not a follower of Christ/Child of God and are indeed subject to Hell. As such they are not entitled to the Grace nor mercy bestowed upon God's Children.

You can mis-classify this all you want but bottom line, God does not put His Children in Hell, and He tells us this all over the bible. Jesus Illustrates this in at least 4 or 5 different parables. Christ himself clearly seperates God's own from everyone else.

Quote:The problem is that you're making caveats for no other purpose than exclusion by fiat. God's love is boundless, except *insert exclusion creating caveat here*; which ironically enough makes it no longer boundless. Its like pointing out how god's supposed unconditional love comes with conditions, it's a mess on it's own terms.
Strawman. I clearly did not say any of this. i said God's love is Boundless for His Children. The I brough up the bibleical truth that not all are His Children.

I've got 5 parables that describe this seperation that Jesus Himself told do you want to read them?

Quote:You can't be that fucking stupid...
Your making a biblical claim show me book chapter and verse that supports what you believe. Otherwise you will have to admit that your arguement is not contextually supported by the bible and you simply believe this about your version of god on a matter of faith, or you have to admit your sunday school understanding of christianity is flat out wrong.

Think about it for a minute. There is a reason you are an atheist. Because you know your version of god can not exist. this however does not mean your version truly repersents the God of the bible.

Quote:If I had you god's powers, there wouldn't be starving children in Africa, or anywhere else for that matter.
There shouldn't be now. Western soceity throws away more food than is needed to feed everyone who does not have enough. This means you are in a position to make a difference, but choose not to. So if your not responsiable with the little you can do why should anyone believe you would be responsiable enough to end world hunger if you indeed had God's power?

Quote:Once again, you can't really be that fucking stupid and completely lacking in all empathy.
The supplies are here. the Money is here, the need is real.. Everything needed to end this problem is avaiable... So again why do these people still suffer? "you can't really be that fucking stupid and completely lacking in all empathy."
After all it is not like there just simply not enough food or water on the planet. It's just people like you have it and don't want to put yourself in a position to share. you want God to let you keep all of the over abundance you have and just provide them with what they need. Rather than you simply share what you have.

Quote:Special Pleading is asking for an exception to the rules, special caveats. They are intrinsic to the No True Scotsman fallacy (Scotts observed doing X, real Scotts don't do X), as it is just a particular example of Special Pleading.
Laugh out load Ahh, no. This is not even close to the reference material I asked for.

Quote:Your god supposedly has power over all creation, and yet fucks thing up bad enough that he needs to send himself back to appease himself by killing himself to make a loophole in the rules he himself created. This entire Rube Goldberg mechanism wouldn't be needed if your god hadn't fucked up (more than once if Noah is to be believed), because if he hadn't fucked up, we would have never need your Jesus.
what was 'fucked up' in your best estimation?

Quote:knows why that's not going to convince me; because I know too much about human psychology and self delusion (and your god should know this too). I'm going to need objective, verifiable, corroborated evidence; and that is precisely what your god refuses to give. You god has the power to do so, most would argue that he cares enough to do so; yet all indications are that he will not do so.
Have you ever considered that 'my God' does not care to prove Himself to you? That maybe your just one of the undesirables He wants to sift out rather than incorperate into the fold? Remember 'we' are not all His children. Not all are loved. I don't know personally, but MAYBE your not one of these people.

Quote:How convenient that only those who want to find him, do;
Actually only those who A/S/K as outlined in Luke 11 do in this life.

Quote:but not everyone that wants to actually does. If you are the 'mysterious agent' that god is employing to do his work and make me one of His True Children™, then you and your god have failed miserably.
What makes you again think that I or God wants everyone? Infoact God only wants those who want to be with Him. My job is to help people who want to know how to do that. The rest can do what they like.


Quote:If he managed to stay alive for over 2000 years, I'd say that there might be something there to investigate further. Maybe if he had kept a consistent story, a unified set of teachings that actually made sense and were not contradictory, and that when employed actually improved people's lives? If he'd said 'Hey that slavery business you have going on, that's fucked up, stop that!'
There would always be a reason to doubt. Even while Christ was alive there were those who witnessed what He had done, His resurection from the dead and still they refused to believe.

If Christ was alive for 2000 years the easiest arguement off the top of my head is: "Because Christ wandered the globe preaching His message we have no 'proof' that the man who currently claims to be Christ is indeed God. Then there would be some medical explaination as to why He could live as long as He could live. There is always a reason not to believe that is why we have been put here on this earth apart from the known Glory of God. To erase all doubt would void out the purpose of this life.


Quote:But nope, all we have are the hearsay stacked upon hearsay, recorded decades or centuries after the supposed events by non-eyewitnesses into a set of works that clearly plagiarized one another. For whom we lack the originals and also have evidence of contradictions, mistranslations, additions and subtractions from the work; in addition to the included books quoting from other books which were not part of the supposedly divinely inspired works of this god.
Actually we have something better than Christ here with us now. (His words not mine) We have been given the Gift of the Holy Spirit. According to Christ Himself it was the Holy Spirit that empowered him while He was here. It is this same holy Spirit that wrote the bible and interceeds on our behalf. We have access to God personally and on an indivisual bases. What more proof of God is there than God?

Quote:Uh, move the goal post much?
explain.. what follows is not an explaination.

Quote:If I had the same power you attribute to your god, I'd never allow such a circumstance to arise.
how so would you remove people's ablity to sin? If so what would then be the point of this life?

Quote:If I had your gods power I could provide resources for all, so that no one ever needed to fight over them (or better yet, recreate human physiology to no longer need resources, just make metabolism work by magic).
But, again there are currentl 'resources for all.' However a small percentage holds the worlds wealth. if you were God would you steal from the rich and give to the poor? Or would you make the rich give to the poor?
How would you accomplish this redistribution of wealth?
Quote:I could stop all crimes, including rape, before the crime commenced; simply by intervening.
Then within a generation or two the 'sins' you would allow would in the minds of the 'morally' selfrighteous would simply take the place of rape. Meaning 'rape' is only rape in our minds because little worse can happen. What if soul stealing were possiable? where someone could give you a drug or something that would seperate your soul from your body, forcing you essence to aimless wander while they kept what was left?
Then rape would loose some of it bite would it not? No imagine the other extream. All violent crime is gone, but white lies and gossip abound. if this was all you knew and you saw the destructivness of gossip then gossip would then become as evil as rape. Then the self righteous would cry out as to why a 'good God' would allow such an evil thing as gossip.

So what then? would you remove gossip? would you remove sin all together? what if I did not want to live in this world/your world? would you force me to live in a sinless world if i did not want to?

so again take what I just said and truly ask yourself, what is it you think God is doing right now with all of us and this life He has given us to live?

Shocking

Quote:You are the one defending a fucked in the head sadist with the imagination and intelligence of a not terrible precocious brick wall, so you can go fuck yourself. If there is a monster here, it's not me, because I have demonstrated continuously that I posses more empathy that you are even capable of imagining your god having. Your god's unconditional love comes with conditions, so it's you who does not understand love or justice; you fucking psycho.
Not much of a thinker are you? Good thing this website does not make you guys take a test or something like that.Big Grin

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 01:13 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
Quote:But nope, all we have are the hearsay stacked upon hearsay, recorded decades or centuries after the supposed events by non-eyewitnesses into a set of works that clearly plagiarized one another. For whom we lack the originals and also have evidence of contradictions, mistranslations, additions and subtractions from the work; in addition to the included books quoting from other books which were not part of the supposedly divinely inspired works of this god.
Actually we have something better than Christ here with us now. (His words not mine) We have been given the Gift of the Holy Spirit. According to Christ Himself it was the Holy Spirit that empowered him while He was here. It is this same holy Spirit that wrote the bible and interceeds on our behalf. We have access to God personally and on an indivisual bases. What more proof of God is there than God?

It is not proof of God if you cannot prove this "holy spirit" thing even exists. Please show me the money on this intangible spirit.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: