Epicurean paradox defeated.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-02-2014, 07:33 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(16-02-2014 11:15 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 10:19 PM)Drich Wrote:  What better proof of God than God? If you want all you need to establish and maintain a relationship with God simply A/S/K for the Holy Spirit as outlined in Luke 11.

What better way to believe than to believe? If you just believe in it, then you'll believe in it! It's tautologically simple!

I guess the fault lies with us, guys. We're not credulous enough. Also, don't be too credulous regarding the wrong things. It'd probably be bad if we decided to believe in believing in Allah, or something.

It's called The Courtier's Reply.

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
16-02-2014, 09:56 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(16-02-2014 07:33 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  It's called The Courtier's Reply.

Thanks for the tip, first I've heard of the term.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2014, 10:07 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 01:40 PM)Drich Wrote:  If we were not given the choice this life affords (including the option to be evil) then we would have simply been created to either spend an eternity with God or to Spend an eternity in Hell.
Calvinism?

Just asking.

Humans arrived on Earth on 22 October 4004 B.C. A few of us are still trying to repair the ship.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2014, 10:13 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(09-02-2014 02:47 PM)Drich Wrote:  Epicurus ... was not speaking of the God we are speaking of.
Apply the questions to any god. Yahweh, Zeus, Jupiter, Allah, Shiva, Woden, Tanj, whoever.

Humans arrived on Earth on 22 October 4004 B.C. A few of us are still trying to repair the ship.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 03:37 AM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2014 11:39 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
I really hate just how willfully ignorant you are. You have almost elevated it to an art, a sad, sad art....

(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(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[sic] this term are using it incorrectly.

Most of you tea bags (you included) think that 'No true scotsman' refers to a senerio[sic] 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[sic] that need to be met inorder[sic] 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[sic] 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[sic] 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[sic] your not a Scotsman or in this case a Christian.


Yeah, but you do not have the authority to set that criteria; and that very criteria has been debated for thousands of years. You do not get to unilaterally define what is and is not 'Christianity' for the entire world. The fact that there are hundreds of self identifying 'Christian' denominations that would disagree with you (and could quote scripture in support of their position) is the whole fucking point. If there was just one exact uniform set of criteria that was easily discernible from the text, there would be just one Christianity, not the multitudes of Christianities. The very existence and the continuous splitting of the denominations instead of unification proves your own point invalid.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic] of being a ___________.

John 3:16 Includes a prequsite[sic] 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[sic] God's own from everyone else.


Hell lasts for eternity, correct? So that too can be considered 'everlasting life', just a really shitty one full of suffering (as opposed to endlessly kissing god's ass). See that? A different interpretation that is entirely valid within the text. Simply put, your interpretation is not the be-all-end-all correct one, and far smarter men than you have failed to reconcile a great many things in the Bible and their conflicting doctrines. This is why nothing is ever 'clear' when it comes to the Bible.

Also, did you forget Matthew 19:16-21?

And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man *said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

What about James 2:24?

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.


So it turns out that it's not as simple as just believing. Others can, and indeed will argue, that you must also keep the commandments, live a simple life giving away anything more than what you absolutely need to others less fortunate, and do other good works. Do you give away all you do not need to the poor? If you're browsing this forum on anything more than a public library computer, you're not doing all you can do, and thus you're not a True Christian™! Q.E.D.

Funny how you pretend that a fundamental problem of your faith has been soundly resolved. Actually it's not that funny, because you're either very ignorant or a liar.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic] up the bibleical[sic] truth that not all are His Children.

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


Like I said, you do not get to unilaterally define what a Christian is, and you've missed some bits as illustrated by Matthew 19 and James 2 above. FAIL.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic] 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[sic] school understanding of christianity[sic] 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[sic] the God of the bible.


Yep, you are that fucking stupid. As evidence I cite Matthew 19 & James 2 (above) and the entire history of Christianity (including but no limited to the Protestant Reformation), and the mere existence of thousands of denominations of Christianities. There is not just one Christianity, and you do not get to define it unilaterally. Nor do you get to unilaterally define atheism or tell me what I believe in, you presumptuous fucktard.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic] 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[sic] with the little you can do why should anyone believe you would be responsiable[sic] enough to end world hunger if you indeed had God's power?

I do not have power over all creation, your god supposedly does. I have the empathy to help them, indeed I have donated to Doctors Without Borders you condescending prick. If it was as simple as wishing it all away with a single thought, if nothing more was needed than the desire and the empathy to do so; it would already be done. Your god is supposedly not nearly as limited in how he affects this world as I am; so what's his excuse, and why can't he give it himself?



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic]... 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.

You are that fucking stupid, and what a gross oversimplification. Also I don't want your god to let me do anything, I don't seek permission for my actions from things I don't believe exist. Seriously, do you get caught up in asking Zeus for permission to wipe your own ass?




(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

Sometimes you're so stupid you're not even wrong. See everything above.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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?

Both his perceived problems, and his fixes. Garden of Eden? He can't see how two mind slaves who are given no context for anything might disobey him, and when they inevitably do (which he should have seen coming, and one wonders why he allowed it to happen) punishes them and all mankind forevermore. What is the point in giving us a will if he punishes us for eternity if you don't use it in the exact way he proscribes? What is the point in making people who he know will disobey him and end up in Hell? Why even make a Hell? If he just wanted pure obedience, a universe full of rock would have sufficed; I guarantee none of them would disobey him. If it's so important to obey him and believe in him, why doesn't he give us the evidence to make an informed decision? He has to know what kind of evidence would be required to convince the most ardent skeptic, and yet he gives nothing that is objectively verifiable; and being in all ways identical to all of the other 'imaginary' god concepts that sound just like him (why did he even allow other faith one wonders).

If there was a superior being that at all cared for us, it would be imperative on him to make his will known clearly and explicitly (and not interpreted through your sorry ass). Given the power you attribute to him, he could easily do this in an objectively verifiable and repeatable way, yet he has not. So either he lacks the power, or he doesn't care to. You seem to think he has power over all creation, so I'm going with 'fucked in the head sadist'.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic] 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.

Yep, fucked in the head sadist and not worthy of anything but contempt and derision. Thanks for clearing that up for us. Thumbsup



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

Right, did you miss the cavalcade of former believers here who did just that? Oh, but I'm sure you'll say that they didn't really mean it and weren't being True Christians™, am I right? Weeping



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic] 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.

Who wants to spend eternity with a fucked in the head sadist again? Consider

Oh, right, you do. Weeping


(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic] from the dead and still they refused to believe.

If Christ was alive for 2000 years the easiest arguement[sic] 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[sic] 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.

There is no reason to believe that anyone witnessed anything, as the Gospels are not evidence for the Gospels; and this has been explained to you for the umpteenth time. A physically immortal Jesus (you know, immune to Roman nails and more) might at least be naturally inexplicable, whereas the Gospels are entirely naturally explainable.

Plus, I said it would at least be something, as opposed to what we have right now which is a huge pile of fuck all.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic] on our behalf. We have access to God personally and on an indivisual[sic] bases. What more proof of God is there than God?

Please provide evidence for this 'Holy Spirit' so that we may differentiate from everyone else who claims the exact same thing, but in the names of other gods and for purposes that contradict with your own. Drinking Beverage

Also, it's not according to 'Christ himself'; you ignorant fucktard. You don't have any fucking idea what he said, if he even existed. Once again...

...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.

Yep, you really are that fucking stupid. The Gospels are not evidence of anything outside of the religious beliefs (and not facts) of a particular Jewish cult.

Guess what? Your Holy Spirit is objectively no different than the voices heard by David Koresh or Jim Jones. I'm sure they too thought they thought they were experiencing the 'self authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit' as William Lane Craig calls it. They too thought they were good Christians and 'men of god' as they killed their followers and themselves. So please forgive me if if I don't give that voice inside your fucking head the same level of authority you think it deserves; because there is every reason to think it is nothing more than just your fucking ego. Drink your own damn Kool-Aid, and don't be surprised when everyone else tells you to fuck off; because we've seen the aftermath of Jonestown, and the very real death and destruction that sort of delusion causes.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Uh, move the goal post much?
explain.. what follows is not an explaination[sic].

You asked one question, didn't like my glib answer, so you changed the parameters of the question. You moved the goal posts fucktard.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic] to sin? If so what would then be the point of this life?

One: You're assuming 'sin' actually exists outside of being just a concept without any evidence to back it up.

Two: Interfering with someones actions does not limit their cognitive freewill.

Three: The point is whatever they choose to make out of it. I'm not so conceited as to demand there be a particular point to it. So you don't have the mental capacity to live your life without your purpose handed to you on a silver platter, not everyone else is so limited.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic] '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?

If I was a fucking god I could make anything I want out of thin fucking air you dumb-ass, I need not take anything away from those that have it to provide for those who don't have any. Your god specializes in creation ex nihilo, if I had that power then your point is meaningless.

Thanks for showing once again that you have zero imagination, and your reading comprehension is absolute shit.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic] 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?[sic] where someone could give you a drug or something that would seperate[sic] 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[sic]. All violent crime is gone, but white lies and gossip abound. if this was all you knew and you saw the destructivness[sic] 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

Okay, so you have some imagination, it just really fucking sucks.

For starters, your 'what if' involving souls is pointless; you need to prove the existence of souls beyond a reasonable doubt first. You also need to prove the existence of 'sin' as more than just a concept beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'd simply limit actions that caused harm and suffering, and provide for everyone's needs. Sure you can gossip, but what would be the point or the gain? Everything you'd need would be provided, and any potential harmful action that might arise I'd simply stop, and explain to that person why I had intervened. Your actions are only limited insofar as they affect other conscious creatures. The rules would be clear and easy to follow, made known to everyone the world over without contradiction or miss-translation; and I would simply forgive those that failed to live up to them because we are only human after all. Full transparency here, I'd be a very progressive god. Without having to fight for survival, humanity could turn around and stop fighting with itself and really progress forward as a species.


"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?"

I don't think he exists, and that the universe is ultimately indifferent to our existence. You could remove us, and all visible matter in the universe, and the universe would be largely the same.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 09:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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

[Image: Godzilla-Facepalm-godzilla-30354011-640-387.jpg]

If you could project any harder...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
17-02-2014, 08:21 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(17-02-2014 03:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I really hate just how willfully ignorant you are. You have almost elevated it to an art, a sad, sad art....

(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  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[sic] this term are using it incorrectly.

Most of you tea bags (you included) think that 'No true scotsman' refers to a senerio[sic] 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[sic] that need to be met inorder[sic] 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[sic] 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[sic] 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[sic] your not a Scotsman or in this case a Christian.


Yeah, but you do not have the authority to set that criteria; and the very criteria has been debated for thousands of years. You do not get to unilaterally define what is and is not 'Christian' for the entire world. The fact that there are hundreds of self identifying 'Christian' denominations that would disagree with you (and could quote script in support of their position) is the whole fucking point. If there was just one exact uniform set of criteria that was easily discernible from the text, there would be just one Christianity, not the multitudes of Christianities. The very existance and the continuous splitting of the denominations instead of unification proves your own point invalid.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  again none of these examples have anything to do with the establish prequsites[sic] of being a ___________.

John 3:16 Includes a prequsite[sic] 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[sic] God's own from everyone else.


Hell lasts for eternity, correct? So that to is also 'everlasting life', just a really shitty one. See that? A different interpretation that is entirely valid within the text. Simply put, your interpretation is not the be-all-end-all correct one, and far smarter men than you have failed to reconcile a great many things in the Bible and their conflicting doctrines. This is why nothing is ever 'clear' when it comes to the Bible.

Also, did you forget Matthew 19:16-21?

And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man *said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

What about James 2:24?

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.


So it turns out that it's not as simple as just believing. Others can, and indeed will argue, that you must also keep the commandments, live a simply life giving away anything more than what you absolutely need to others less fortunate, and do other good works. Do you give away all you do not need to the poor? If you're browsing this forum on anything more than a public library computer, you're not doing all you can do, and thus you're not a True Christian™! Q.E.D.

Funny how you pretend that a fundamental contradiction of your faith has been soundly resolved. Actually it's not that funny, because you're either very ignorant or a liar.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  Strawman. I clearly did not say any of this. i said God's love is Boundless for His Children. The I brough[sic] up the bibleical[sic] truth that not all are His Children.

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


Like I said, you do not get to unilaterally define what a Christian is, and you've missed some bits as illustrated by Matthew 19 and James 2 above. FAIL.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  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[sic] 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[sic] school understanding of christianity[sic] 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[sic] the God of the bible.


Yep, you are that fucking stupid. As evidence I cite Matthew 19 & James 2 (above) and the entire history of Christianity (including but no limited to the Protestant Reformation), and the mere existence of thousands of denominations of Christianities. There is not just one Christianity, and you do not get to define it unilaterally. Nor do you get to unilaterally define atheism or tell me what I believe in, you presumptuous fucktard.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  There shouldn't be now. Western soceity[sic] 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[sic] with the little you can do why should anyone believe you would be responsiable[sic] enough to end world hunger if you indeed had God's power?

I do not have power over all creation, your god does. I have the empathy to help them, indeed I have donated to Doctors Without Borders you condescending prick. If it was as simple as wishing it all away with a single thought, if nothing more was needed than the desire and the empathy to do so; it would already be done. You god is supposedly not nearly as limited in how he affects this world as I am; so what's his excuse, and why can't he give it himself?



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  The supplies are here. the Money is here, the need is real.. Everything needed to end this problem is avaiable[sic]... 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.

You are that fucking stupid, and what a gross oversimplification.




(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  Laugh out load Ahh, no. This is not even close to the reference material I asked for.

Sometimes you're so stupid you're not even wrong. See everything above.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  what was 'fucked up' in your best estimation?

Both his perceived problems, and his fixes. Garden of Eden? He can't see how two mind slaves who are given no context for anything might disobey him, and when they inevitably do (which he should have seen coming, and one wonders why he allowed it to happen) punishes them and all mankind forevermore. What is the point in giving us a will if he punishes us for eternity if you don't use it in the exact way he proscribes? What is the point in making people who he know will disobey him and end up in Hell? Why even make a Hell? If he just wanted pure obedience, a universe full of rock would have sufficed; I guarantee none of them would disobey him. If it's so important to obey him and believe in him, why doesn't he give us the evidence to make an informed decision? He has to know what kind of evidence would be required to convince the most ardent skeptic, and yet he gives nothing that is objectively verifiable; and being in all ways identical to all of the other 'imaginary' god concepts that sound just like him (why did he even allow other faith one wonders).

If there was a superior being that at all cared for us, it would be imperative on him to make his will known clearly and explicitly (and not interpreted through your sorry ass). Given the power you attribute to him, he could easily do this in an objectively verifiable and repeatable way, yet he has not. So either he lacks the power, or he doesn't care to. You seem to think he has power over all creation, so I'm going with 'fucked in the head sadist'.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  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.

Yep, fucked in the head sadist and not worthy of anything but contempt and derision. Thanks for clearing that up for us. Thumbsup



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  Actually only those who A/S/K as outlined in Luke 11 do in this life.

Right, did you miss the cavalcade of former believers here who did just that? Oh, but I'm sure you'll say that they didn't really mean it and weren't being True Christians™, am I right? Weeping



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  What makes you again think that I or God wants everyone? Infoact[sic] 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.

Who wants to spend eternity with a fucked in the head sadist again? Consider

Oh, right, you do. Weeping


(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  There would always be a reason to doubt. Even while Christ was alive there were those who witnessed what He had done, His resurection[sic] from the dead and still they refused to believe.

If Christ was alive for 2000 years the easiest arguement[sic] 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[sic] 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.


There is no reason to believe that anyone witnessed anything, as the Gospels are not evidence for the Gospels; and this has been explained to you for the umpteenth time. It might at least be naturally inexplicable, whereas the Gospels are entirely naturally explainable.

Plus, I said it would at least be something, as opposed to what we have right now which is a huge pile of fuck all.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  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?

Please provide evidence for this 'Holy Spirit' so that we may differentiate from everyone else who claims the exact same thing, but in the names of other gods and for purposes that contradict with your own. Drinking Beverage

Also, it's not according to 'Christ himself'; you ignorant fucktard. You don't have any fucking idea what he said, if he even existed. Once again...

...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.

Yep, you really are that fucking stupid. The Gospels are not evidence of anything outside of the religious beliefs (and not facts) of a particular Jewish cult.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  explain.. what follows is not an explaination[sic].

You asked one question, didn't like my glib answer, so you changed the parameters of the question. You moved the goal posts fucktard.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  how so would you remove people's ablity to sin? If so what would then be the point of this life?

One: You're assuming 'sin' actually exists outside of being just a concept without any evidence to back it up.

Two: Interfering with someones actions does not limit their cognitive freewill.

Three: The point is whatever they choose to make out of it. I'm not so conceited as to demand there be a particular point to it. So you don't have the mental capacity to live your life without your purpose handed to you on a silver platter, not everyone else is so limited.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  But, again there are currentl[sic] '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?

If I was a fucking god I could make anything I want out of thin fucking air you dumb-ass, I need not take anything away from those that have it to provide for those who don't have any. Your god specializes in creation ex nihilo, if I had that power then your point is meaningless.

Thanks for showing once again that you have zero imagination.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  Then within a generation or two the 'sins' you would allow would in the minds of the 'morally' selfrighteous[sic] 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?[sic] where someone could give you a drug or something that would seperate[sic] 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[sic]. All violent crime is gone, but white lies and gossip abound. if this was all you knew and you saw the destructivness[sic] 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

Okay, so you have some imagination, it just really fucking sucks.

For starters, your 'what if' involving souls is pointless; you need to prove the existence of souls beyond a reasonable doubt first. You also need to prove the existence of 'sin' as more than just a concept beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'd simply limit actions that caused harm and suffering, and provide for everyone's needs. Sure you can gossip, but what would be the point or the gain? Everything you'd need would be provided, and any potential harmful action that might arise I'd simply stop, and explain to that person why I had intervened. Your actions are only limited insofar as they affect other conscious creatures. The rules would be clear and easy to follow, made known to everyone the world over without contradiction or miss-translation; and I would simply forgive those that failed to live up to them because we are only human after all. Full transparency here, I'd be a very progressive god. Without having to fight for survival, humanity could turn around and stop fighting with itself and really progress forward as a species.


"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?"

I don't think he exists, and that the universe is ultimately indifferent to our existence. You could remove us, and all visible matter in the universe, and the universe would be largely the same.



(15-02-2014 12:56 PM)Drich Wrote:  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

[Image: Godzilla-Facepalm-godzilla-30354011-640-387.jpg]

If you could project any harder...

Thanks Evo, that was a very entertaining read with my morning coffee. Thumbsup

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
18-02-2014, 10:45 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(17-02-2014 03:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I really hate just how willfully ignorant you are. You have almost elevated it to an art, a sad, sad art....
Let see how you respond with an equal oppertunity to show me that I am in the wrong when you think the oppertunity arises.. Will you do so humbly with a meek and contrite heart, or will you 'try' to out arrogant the 'arrogant?' Will you blaze a trail, or show yourself to be a hypocrite?Consider
I havn't read ahead at this point but i feel a disturbance in the force.

Quote:Yeah, but you do not have the authority to set that criteria; and that very criteria has been debated for thousands of years.
ahh, no it hasn't. Durning the time of the apstoles it was clear and dry their efforts in the day to day of the church ensured that. Then the 'Catholic church' came in and made it uniform. About 500 years ago the reformation happened.. So at best you arguement can only say for 500 or so years was this processed argued. But even then you arguement fails, because i am not repersent any of the above mentioned christian expressions/religions. My only guide is the bible. I do not look to any creeds, counsels, traditional doctrines, or a series of men who like funny big hats. I am repersenting biblical Christianity only, and as such there is freedom in said biblical Christianity to worship by or through Creeds, coucsels, traditional doctrines, and or a series of men who like big funny hats. (This means none are right, but on the plus side we do not have to be, if we follow the core principles of Christianity.)

Quote: You do not get to unilaterally define what is and is not 'Christianity' for the entire world.
God did in the bible. I get to point out whether a specific expression is correct or not, using this core principles as a guide.

Quote:The fact that there are hundreds of self identifying 'Christian' denominations that would disagree with you (and could quote scripture in support of their position) is the whole fucking point. If there was just one exact uniform set of criteria that was easily discernible from the text, there would be just one Christianity, not the multitudes of Christianities. The very existence and the continuous splitting of the denominations instead of unification proves your own point invalid.
There is one exact uniform text. And, what's more it is simple to understand. Christ was asked what was the most important rules concerning the worship of God and He answered: Love your Lord God with all of your being (Heart, Mind, Spirit and Strength) the second most important thing is to Love your neighbor as your self. The whole 'Law' hangs on these two commands.

Meaning if one can follow these two commands and always do these two things when ever a situation arises we will be walking the path Christ set for us. What does this mean as far as which expression of Christianity is correct? It means because we are all different we will want to worship differently. This translates into many different kinds of churches or denominations.

Example: If an intelectual man worships God with all of his being he will want to focus on the things that can and will show case his ablity to think and reason, so his church will contain alot of thinking reasoning and dry preaching. On the other hand if a more emotional passionate person worships with all of his being, his expression of his faith may include music, dancing shaking and whatever else.

Now would the intelectual be able to worship God with all of his being in a music filled room with people dancing and shaking in the isles? Then would the Carasmatic be able to worship God with all of his being while in a study hall?
The answer to both is no.
So which is the right way to worship? neither and both depending on who you are and how you need to follow God to worship Him as you have been commanded.

So why does your arguement fail? Because you are concerned with establishing How to define Christianity through specific acts, when biblical Christianity is infact established on the oppsite end. It is to the Why we do what we do is of paramount importance, not the what.

Jesus Said: "what ever you bind here on Earth will be Bound in Heaven and what we loose here on Earth will be loosed in Heaven." Meaning what ever we believe to be 'law' concerning our beliefs we will be judged by, and whatever we find freedom in will also be counted as freedom.
So long as we can keep the two greatest commands in sight. (We can't do something God has forbidden and offer it as an expression of love.) That would be like you cheating on your wife because you want to show her how much you love her.

Quote:Hell lasts for eternity, correct?
Hell does, but there is nothing in Scripture that says we do as well.

Quote: So that too can be considered 'everlasting life', just a really shitty one full of suffering (as opposed to endlessly kissing god's ass). See that? A different interpretation that is entirely valid within the text. Simply put, your interpretation is not the be-all-end-all correct one, and far smarter men than you have failed to reconcile a great many things in the Bible and their conflicting doctrines. This is why nothing is ever 'clear' when it comes to the Bible.
Ah, no. In the same text Hell is not refered to as life but it is identified as the Second death. or the grave. In all of the parables Christ mentions 'Those who will be divided and cast out into the 'fire' It is to be burned up or consumed by the fire.' in both instances the verbage indicates that the Hell fire will destroy the one who goes into it.

Quote:Also, did you forget Matthew 19:16-21?

And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man *said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; [u]and come, follow Me.” [u] "If you wish to be Complete." Sell everything and Follow Christ.

This was not the qualifier for Heaven. it was the Qualifier to 'be complete.' Or rather as Christ put it "to have great reward in heaven." Meaning it is possable to goto Heaven and be the equalivant of a homeless person for all eternity. Or you can go and live like a King. Christ Gave the requirement to live like a homeless person first. (follow the Law.) the Second thing Christ offered was to live like a King. The rich young man knew he could not meet the requirements to live like a King.

[quote]What about James 2:24?

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Indeed.

Quote:So it turns out that it's not as simple as just believing.
Not true for a 'belief without works is dead.' Meaning if one believes works will follow, so again belief in of itself is indeed enough if one is true to his beliefs. did you get that?

If one believes he will produce works. If one says he believes but does nothing then he does not truly believe. This means that again belief(True belief) in of itself is enough for eternal life as Christ said in John 3:16.

Quote: Others can, and indeed will argue, that you must also keep the commandments, live a simple life giving away anything more than what you absolutely need to others less fortunate, and do other good works. Do you give away all you do not need to the poor? If you're browsing this forum on anything more than a public library computer, you're not doing all you can do, and thus you're not a True Christian™! Q.E.D.
I completely agree, why? because it underscores my inital point. Because as you have so expertly established that there are 'true belief requirements' for being a Christian. as such it removes any identification as one being a True Christian or not, well outside the realm of a No true scotsman fallacy.Smartass

Quote:Funny how you pretend that a fundamental problem of your faith has been soundly resolved. Actually it's not that funny, because you're either very ignorant or a liar.
I would like to now take the time to point back up top to my first point. Where I predicted that you would indeed take this oppertunity to be arrogant and appearently a hypocrite when you thought the oppertunity presented itself.

If you can see past all the red, now look again at how i worded my post to this point. I passed on several key oppertunities to call you names and point out how great I am. If you care to take the time to to look at all my posts you will see this pattern repeat more often than not.

Before we continue on I think there are some key points here I made/Corrected in your understanding of biblical Christianity. Before we proceed i would like for you to ask questions or make your comments here because the rest of what I will have to say will no doubtly be based on this.
(I haven't read the rest of your post yet, but it looks like we will be headed in that direction.)

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
18-02-2014, 11:18 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(18-02-2014 10:45 AM)Drich Wrote:  God did in the bible. I get to point out whether a specific expression is correct or not, using this core principles as a guide.

So does everyone else. And you disagree on fundamental points while using the same scripture as a reference.

(18-02-2014 10:45 AM)Drich Wrote:  Hell does, but there is nothing in Scripture that says we do as well.

Oh, but there is. According to this argument (which includes numerous Greek translations and scripture), you do suffer eternally in hell. Because, just like you, this person gets to point out whether a specific expression is correct or not.

http://carm.org/hell-eternal

Maybe you should take some time to get Christians on the same page. This "doctrine disparity" isn't helping you at all.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like guitar_nut's post
18-02-2014, 11:30 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
So Drich, you state the Bible is the exact uniform text to abide by, and then said "we can't do something God has forbidden" later in the last post. Do you really avoid doing what God has forbidden? There are laundry lists in both the OT and NT of forbidden things, acts, and thoughts that you shall not partake in - do you follow the rules or remain a hobbyist christian and ignore 90% of Gods word of what is forbidden?

“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
[+] 3 users Like Timber1025's post
18-02-2014, 11:44 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
Drich, your claimed "defeat" of the "paradox" of Epicurus (which is only a paradox if your deity exists and has the attributes of omnibenevolence and omnipotence) has descended into a morass of you making unsupported statements.

Withdraw your claim. It is incorrect. I am satisfied that you are not going to present anything which remotely approaches what you claimed that you could.

Congratulations on confirming my already entrenched dislike of evangelists like yourself. Dislike not because of your message, but because of your disgusting habits of trying to palm off weak arguments on the unsuspecting, to try and get them to join your ridiculous cult. I wouldn't dislike you if you had the basic decency not to present some fatuous crap as a knock down argument, to either a. admit that it was fatuous crap or b. not bother presenting it and call it one of God's mysteries.

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
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: