Epicurean paradox defeated.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-02-2014, 10:54 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(20-02-2014 01:21 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 11:44 AM)morondog Wrote:  Drich, your claimed "defeat" of the "paradox" of Epicurus (
As it relates to christainity

You mean YOUR own christianity right? Given you have said that your god is not omni-max, then Epicurus' paradox cannot be applicable, can it? It can only.be applied to omni-max deities, which some versions of christianity assert.

Wait... is THAT what you meant? That epicurus's paradox is not applicable to YOUR version of christianity?


If you don't want a sarcastic answer, don't ask stupid questions. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ivaneus's post
20-02-2014, 11:06 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(20-02-2014 10:13 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 05:06 PM)toadaly Wrote:  ...and if he believed god was telling him to do those things, he certainly would do them. Sadcryface

If I were an OT Jew, and got the order.. It would be the Jewish version of 'Allah Akbar!' Evil_monster

I don't doubt it much. I haven't decided yet whether you're a dedicated troll - maybe this is material for a psych paper or something, or a real life sociopath. I'm leaning toward the latter.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2014, 11:08 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(20-02-2014 10:54 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Are we now comparing jebus crisp to spiderman?

Consider

Popcorn

...IMHO, we're just brawling at this point. The real content of this thread died on about page 2.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes toadaly's post
20-02-2014, 11:10 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(20-02-2014 10:54 PM)ivaneus Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 01:21 PM)Drich Wrote:  As it relates to christainity

You mean YOUR own christianity right? Given you have said that your god is not omni-max, then Epicurus' paradox cannot be applicable, can it? It can only.be applied to omni-max deities, which some versions of christianity assert.

Wait... is THAT what you meant? That epicurus's paradox is not applicable to YOUR version of christianity?

Didn't you know? DreckSack's version of Xtardianity is the ONLY legit version. The Real, One True Version. He's got a direct pipeline to gawd. Hobo

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
20-02-2014, 11:18 PM (This post was last modified: 20-02-2014 11:27 PM by Chas.)
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(20-02-2014 01:24 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 03:34 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  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?
yes

Quote:What about teaching about hell to children?
Absolutly

Quote:How about why rape is perfectly OK in most circumstances?
Examples?

Quote: 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!?!
The why is because these acts in of themselves hold no intrinsic righteous value. what makes them right or wrong has to do with what God says about them.

You are morally retarded. In fact, your morals are disgusting and, if followed, would get you arrested or beaten to death. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
20-02-2014, 11:23 PM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2014 06:52 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(20-02-2014 02:02 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 11:08 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.
what[sic] makes you think there is a voice in my head? Direction from the Holy Spirit rarly[sic] if ever is internalized. Meaning it is direction that comes from without not with in.

Dowsing rods are bullshit too. Also, have your read Alla's posts? She gets visions and her Holy Spirit talks to her and tells her that Joseph Smith and his teachings are authentic. How about you go figure out why you two don't seem to agree before you try to convince anyone else of your spirit's 'authority' over anything.



(20-02-2014 02:02 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 11:08 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.
i[sic] saw where You[sic] did quote scripture but your exegesis was less than... accurate.

Contradictions are still contradictions, and simply dismissing and ignoring them doesn't magically make them go away fucktard.



(20-02-2014 02:02 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 11:08 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  "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.
By exact uniform text what makes you think i was speaking of the orgins[sic] of biblical scholarship as you understand it?

Could you be any more purposely obtuse? I doubt it. The point being that there are more discrepancies between the manuscripts than there are letters in the Bible, so it simply is not possible to to make a definitive accounting of anything that was said. How many Bible translations exist? How many church denominations exist? This might be a surprise to you, but there are actually people who go to school and study this stuff, and they do so without pulling bullshit out of their ass to make excuses for the parts of the book they don't like.



(20-02-2014 02:02 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 11:08 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So that includes Heaven too, right?
No, because we are directly told we will live with God for eternity.
(18-02-2014 11:08 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What about all of the 'everlasting life' bits?
The everlasting 'bits' point to the eternal nature of Hell itself not our ablity[sic] to endure it.

Can you please quote the bit in the Bible where it says 'Oh, you know that whole Hell and Damnation thing we staked onto Judaism? Well, it sucks and lasts forever, but if you get sent there you will eventually cease to exist. Bonus, right?'



(20-02-2014 02:02 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 11:08 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  See, contradictions everywhere!
Facepalm ah,[sic] no.

Just because you're too willfully ignorant to acknowledge them, doesn't make them go away.



(20-02-2014 02:02 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 11:08 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.
the[sic] following was taken on another discussing i am having but it applies to you as well.
Have you ever been to California?

How would you describe it? As a desert, a place were dense Forrests[sic] reside a state that boarders the sea? Mountainous? Warm year round? Cold year round? Over populated, Barron, massive cities? Endless country side? Consertive,[sic] liberal?

What about all of the above? How can one reconcile all of these conflicting descriptions of one state and yet all of them still be true? In a word perspective. In the description above each description describes a different aspect of that state, like wise Each one of your hell words describes a different aspect of Hell. Very few if any one person can fully understand the depths of Hell, so the various writers were all given a piece.

Your justification for this is bullshit pulled out of your ass in an attempt to reconcile the fact that there is a clear demarcation line where the 'eternal torture' bit simply appears. You know there is a much simpler explanation that requires far less assumptions and mental gymnastics than that pile of self aggrandizing apologetic tripe you just vomited up? Hell is nothing more than a concept, its is the stick to go along with the carrot, it's is simply the bad cop routine.


What if someone told you that 2000 years ago California was the seat of a massive empire of ancient Bigfoot people that built gigantic steel cities? Sans any evidence for his claim, would you reconcile this by assuming that he was merely telling you a piece of California's history that others somehow managed to have missed? Or would you conclude that there was some wild making up of shit going on? By your own logic, you ought to believe in the Bigfoot Steel Empire.



(20-02-2014 02:02 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 11:08 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
Quote:"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.
allow[sic] me to break it down for you:
The young man ask:
16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good[a] Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”

Jesus responds: "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

The boy: Which ones?

Jesus: “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’[d] and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

According to Christ at that time, that was the requirements for the young man.

Then the boy felt like their should be more so he asks: “All these things I have kept from my youth.[f] What do I still lack?”

Jesus Answers:21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

If you want to be perfect.. Did you see it? how[sic] is it possiable[sic] for one to be perfect if Christ in 17 just said no one is even 'good' except God? the young man wanted to earn his way to heaven which is not possible. because we need be perfect. Only God is perfect. It is this perfection that we are baptized into when we accept Christ's attonement.[sic]

But again entering Heaven is not the same as living well there.

1. Only god is perfect? Define your use of 'perfect', then cite evidence that this applies to your god and your god only. Also, please cite evidence he exists. Good luck with that.

2. Scapegoating is immoral, and cosmic scapegoating in the name of Jesus doesn't change that.

3. So Jesus sold this young man a load of worthless bullshit and lied to him about getting into Heaven. How nice of your sinless... wait... isn't lying a sin? Might want to check that and pull a different bullshit spin job out of your ass next time.



(20-02-2014 02:02 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 11:08 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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
quoting[sic] scripture to you guys is like throwing water at the wicked witch of the west. If one does so without first getting permission I will make an enemy for life.

If you want scripture I love to quote it. just let me know when you had enough.

The irony is lost on you.



(20-02-2014 02:02 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 11:08 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Nope.
Ya-huh[sic]
(18-02-2014 11:08 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The verses I quoted disagreed with what you initially said,
nut-huh, other show me.

You are trying to delineate who is and who is not a 'Child of God', so that they can get saved and everyone else gets fucked (which getting back to your OP, makes your god malevolent and the Epicurean Paradox simply no longer applies). You quoted some passages, made some other shit up based on your own skewed (and I'm sure you'd say 'inspired') interpretation, to which I quoted other passage that contradicted the prerequisites you were claiming. You quoted John 3:16 to which I quoted Matthew 19:16-21 and James 2:24.

One has to wonder though, if this shit really is all that important, why does your god need your dumb-ass to interpret it in a poor attempt to fix the apparent problems with it? One would think he could have written something better than this pile of unfounded bullshit. Weeping


TL;DR Version.

Drich's problem is his constant string of unwarranted assumptions that he makes to fix everything he doesn't like in the Bible and to justify his wild making up of shit; and he uses his 'Holy Spirit' to tell him that his interpretations and assumptions are correct. Epic failure ensues.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-02-2014, 11:39 PM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2014 01:18 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(20-02-2014 09:48 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 03:08 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The more you type, the more you sound like a battered housewife continuously making excuses for the behaviour of her clearly dangerous and abusive husband...
The ironic thing is.. I/we won't be the ones who get battered. Those who have been given the charge to care for this world, but do nothing except judge how it is not right will I turn be judged using the measure they used to judge God.

No, the ironic thing is you already are. We all already see your black eye and the way you jump every time your 'husband' calls out for you. Maybe if you only prostrated yourself some more, then he would really love you; but it's not his fault he doesn't, it's yours for not being perfect enough for him and his standards. Your husband says he loves you after all, you just know it because he said so and so that must mean it's true; even if he beats you relentlessly. The only one who doesn't see that you're stuck in an abusive one-sided loveless relationship is you.

Welcome to Stockholm syndrome.



(20-02-2014 09:53 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 03:46 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Not at all. I simply do not deign to 'debate' shit flinging orangutans like yourself (and thus stoke your already inflated ego by pretending like you have any legitimacy), I merely go around cleaning up the mess because someone has to. I do this, so that others need not suffer.

I am the poster this forum needs, not the one it deserves. /Batman
So how are you going to stop me if your not willing to face me? Will you hurl insults from the side lines like mocking bird? Maybe ask him how that's working for him before you waist your time.

How precious, the shit flinging orangutang thinks he's not already trapped in his cage at the zoo, just being starred at by people on the other side of the glass for the purposes of their own amusement.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-02-2014, 11:41 PM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(20-02-2014 01:21 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 11:44 AM)morondog Wrote:  Drich, your claimed "defeat" of the "paradox" of Epicurus (
As it relates to christainity

Facepalm Are you stupid ? Yes you are. Your *Christian* God is either evil or not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent, for the paradox not to apply, *or* you haven't solved the paradox. Full stop. Just bleating "as it relates to Christianity" doesn't get you out of this.

Fucken Rolleyes Just admit that you're obviously, glaringly incorrect in your claim and we can move on to more exciting things like where your stupid God says I can put my penis.

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
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
21-02-2014, 12:43 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(20-02-2014 11:41 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 01:21 PM)Drich Wrote:  As it relates to christainity

Facepalm Are you stupid ? Yes you are. Your *Christian* God is either evil or not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent, for the paradox not to apply, *or* you haven't solved the paradox. Full stop. Just bleating "as it relates to Christianity" doesn't get you out of this.

Fucken Rolleyes Just admit that you're obviously, glaringly incorrect in your claim and we can move on to more exciting things like where your stupid God says I can put my penis.

Before or after you've had it's 'intelligently designed' foreskin removed? Consider

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
22-02-2014, 10:13 AM
RE: Epicurean paradox defeated.
(20-02-2014 11:06 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 10:13 PM)Drich Wrote:  If I were an OT Jew, and got the order.. It would be the Jewish version of 'Allah Akbar!' Evil_monster

I don't doubt it much. I haven't decided yet whether you're a dedicated troll - maybe this is material for a psych paper or something, or a real life sociopath. I'm leaning toward the latter.

Let's say you had absolute proof God exists Not just you but the whole nation you lived in. absolute unagruable proof. Now God tells you Satan is empowering a neighboring country to wipe you and your people off the planet. But, if you follow His lead He will assure you victory over them.

What would you do? Would you sit on your thumb or would you defend your home, your family your people?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: