Epicurean paradox defeated.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2014, 03:20 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(18-02-2014 01:00 PM)Drich Wrote:  You did not understand the greater point I was making did you?

In Short doctrinal differences are encouraged in biblical Christianity if these differences are based on our best understandings.

I'll repeat myself: This "doctrine disparity" isn't helping you at all.

Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. (Hebrews 13:9)

Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. (James 3:1)

The greatest point of all, and the point you cannot relate to, is that you claim this to be the divine word of god and the rule set by which eternal damnation or salvation will be achieved. Your religion then proceeds to interpret it as you all individually see fit, each theist citing different rules based on your own interpretation of the day. Now you're telling me that variations of the rule set are encouraged? There are multiple paths to salvation? There both is and isn't mortal sin? Believing is both enough and not enough? You can and can not be forgiven for everything? These aren't small fringe group beliefs. These are conflicting beliefs within major groups of Christianity.

If you want to continue dancing around all these arguments, you're going to need to stop shooting yourself in the foot.

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
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
18-02-2014, 03:34 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(18-02-2014 10:45 AM)Drich Wrote:  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.

Drich, since my previous questions go unanswered, I would like to ask another if I may. If what you call "biblical christianity" is about the reasons behind what is stated in the book, do you agree with the "why" behind everything called an abomination, absurd and violent punishments, beating and owning humans as property, killing infants, discrimination and taking advantage of young virgin girls? What about teaching about hell to children? How about why rape is perfectly OK in most circumstances? We know the "what" from the bible: rape, slavery, and killing all and any threats are acceptable, but do you agree with the "why" - Huh, do ya!?!

“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
18-02-2014, 10:30 PM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2014 11:11 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(18-02-2014 01:01 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 12:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I'll get back to this once I have more free time later tomorrow morning. Stay tuned folks, as I will proceed to burn down Drich's feeble arguments once again. But for now, I need to get some sleep.

If you wish to really bun something Down I have an open invite for anyone who wants to take it in the boxing ring.


[Image: mlfw697_ha%20ha%20ha%20no.png]

I don't know if you know this, but debates have rules; like having to show evidence for your claims. The only 'evidence' you have is the Gospels and your own delusion, which are not evidence; end of discussion, full stop. You simply aren't worth debating, presuppositional apologists never are.

So far this is the equivalent of a cat playing with a mouse before it eats it. I don't do it because I need to, I do it because it's fun.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
18-02-2014, 11:08 PM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2014 10:28 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(18-02-2014 10:45 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(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[sic] to show me that I am in the wrong when you think the oppertunity[sic] 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[sic] read ahead at this point but i feel a disturbance in the force.

You're a presuppositional apologists that relies on the Holy Spirit, completely oblivious to your own ignorance because you think that voice in your head is your god and not your own ego. My critique still stands.



(18-02-2014 10:45 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 03:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yeah, but you do not have the authority to set that criteria; and that very criteria has been debated for thousands of years.
ahh,[sic] no it hasn't. Durning[sic] the time of the apstoles[sic] 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[sic] can only say for 500 or so years was this processed argued. But even then you arguement[sic] fails, because i am not repersent[sic] 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[sic] biblical Christianity only, and as such there is freedom in said biblical Christianity to worship by or through Creeds, coucsels,[sic] 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.)

Did you miss the part where I quoted the Bible at you and showed that your own interpretation was in complete contradiction with other verses in the Bible? Yep, you still are that stupid.



(18-02-2014 10:45 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 03:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

Did you miss the part where I quoted the Bible at you and showed that your own interpretation was in complete contradiction with other verses in the Bible? Yep, you still are that stupid.




(18-02-2014 10:45 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 03:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic] man worships God with all of his being he will want to focus on the things that can and will show case his ablity[sci] to think and reason, so his church will contain alot[sic] 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[sic] 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[sic] 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[sic] fail? Because you are concerned with establishing How to define Christianity through specific acts, when biblical Christianity is infact[sic] established on the oppsite[sic] 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.

"There is one exact uniform text."

If you are that ignorant of the entirety of modern Biblical scholarship and study, its no wonder you're dumb as a fucking rock. You couldn't be farther from the truth. To quote Bart Ehrman (a real Biblical scholar) "There are more variants between the manuscripts than there are words in the Bible". Once again, you are selectively taking some parts of the Bible at face value, ignoring other parts, and trusting it is all somehow authentic. Your methods are fundamentally flawed, end of story. You cannot base anything on what Jesus supposedly said, because nobody actually knows what Jesus said (if he even existed); we just live in a world where delusional fucks like yourself think you know what he said.




(18-02-2014 10:45 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 03:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Hell lasts for eternity, correct?
Hell does, but there is nothing in Scripture that says we do as well.

So that includes Heaven too, right? What about all of the 'everlasting life' bits? See, contradictions everywhere!



(18-02-2014 10:45 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 03:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic] 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[sic] indicates that the Hell fire will destroy the one who goes into it.

Yeah, and in the Old Testament there is absolutely no mention of anything resembling the Christian Hell; which is clearly just a synthesis and extrapolation of the Greek concept of Hades. The god of the Old Testament was an asshole, but at least when you had died and the ground covered you over, he was in effect done with you.




(18-02-2014 10:45 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 03:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic] to goto[sic] Heaven and be the equalivant[sic] 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.

Wow, and you can't even quote your scripture this time? Come on, aren't you a 'Biblical scholar' and not just an empty shill of a internet Jesus troll? You must be trying really hard to make shit up on the fly. Come on now, I quoted your own fucking book right back at you, and the best you can do is pull something out of your ass to say it doesn't count? Yeah, color me not impressed.



(18-02-2014 10:45 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 03:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What about James 2:24?

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

See point above.



(18-02-2014 10:45 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 03:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

All you did is show that the Bible fundamentally disagrees with itself, and that you really suck and making up excusing to ignore the fact that they do. Also you missed another chance to quote scripture with specific citation, now you wouldn't just be making shit up again about what the Bible says, would you? How is Jesus supposed to know you're studying his book if you can't be more specific? Laughat



(18-02-2014 10:45 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 03:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic] 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

Nope. The verses I quoted disagreed with what you initially said, and there are even more that disagree with what I quoted. The Bible fundamentally disagrees with itself, so it is not possible to come to any criteria outside of ignoring certain passages. This is the history of the Christian faith, a long line of people who thought they had the interpretation, the divinely inspired doctrine, and the answers to the questions raised by the books inherent problems.

You are not unique, you are not original, you do not have the answers. What you have is the ego, self delusion, and the ignorance to think you do.



(18-02-2014 10:45 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 03:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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[sic] to be arrogant and appearently[sic] a hypocrite when you thought the oppertunity[sic] 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[sic] 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[sic] 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.)

You simply are ignorant and a liar. Oh, did that make you butthurt?


[Image: h2941AF54]


Then pull your head out of your ass, actually study your Bible (no, don't just read it, reading the Bible is not studying it). Get yourself a real education. Go study logic, the burden of proof, and the evaluation of evidence. Study the history surrounding your Bible, such as it's pagan polytheistic origins in the Canaanite religion, and that Christianity appears to be nothing more than just another Greek mystery religion. All you have right now is your own interpretation stacked against the accumulated knowledge and research of an entire field dedicated to studying your particular cult. It really is sad how woefully ignorant you are of your own religion and your own supposedly holy book.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-02-2014, 08:47 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
Is this thread really still going? Shocking

The OP's argument was thoroughly countered early on, the Epicurean argument is logically airtight.

So, WTAF? Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
19-02-2014, 10:56 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(19-02-2014 08:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  Is this thread really still going? Shocking

The OP's argument was thoroughly countered early on, the Epicurean argument is logically airtight.

So, WTAF? Dodgy

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch. Cue 21 pages of saying the paradox is defeated by God not actually being omnipotent or omnibenevolent, and then claiming that he still totally is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
19-02-2014, 11:29 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(19-02-2014 08:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  Is this thread really still going? Shocking

The OP's argument was thoroughly countered early on, the Epicurean argument is logically airtight.

So, WTAF? Dodgy

Oh, no doubt Chas. This is less dealing with the meat of the OP, and more myself simply not letting Drich defecate all over the forum without calling him out on it.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2014, 11:48 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(19-02-2014 11:29 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  This is less dealing with the meat of the OP, and more myself simply not letting Drich defecate all over the forum without calling him out on it.

Heh. He's threadshitting in his own thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
19-02-2014, 12:03 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(19-02-2014 11:48 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(19-02-2014 11:29 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  This is less dealing with the meat of the OP, and more myself simply not letting Drich defecate all over the forum without calling him out on it.

Heh. He's threadshitting in his own thread.

I've seen AF.org, and I'm not about to let his stupidity spread unanswered any more than it already has.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-02-2014, 11:41 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
Preach it, brother EK!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: