Jesus should've come by now?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-12-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(04-12-2014 03:17 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 02:45 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  No, you added an incorrect interpretation of one Matthew verse to another incorrect one for a second verse.

I disagree. What's your interpretation of them?

(04-12-2014 02:45 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I would disagree with you about a clear book. First, because many words in English and other languages have multiple meanings.

So then you're saying that your god is incapable of choosing words that have no ambiguity?

(04-12-2014 02:45 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Did you know that right after the verse you've cited, some of the apostles do get to see and hear from God the Father, Moses, Elijah and a transfigured Jesus? And before you disagree, it doesn't say the son of man coming OUT OF His Kingdom to return to Earth, it says IN His Kingdom. We fundies take every word more seriously than you take every phrase. Do you disagree? Do you take the Bible and Bible study as seriously and devoutly as we Q do?

Well, for someone that takes every word so seriously, you missed a very important one: "coming". At best, the example you provided of Jesus supposedly in his kingdom is simply Peter, James, and John seeing Jesus supposedly in his kingdom (and frankly that's a big stretch), not coming in his kingdom. "Coming" clearly means "returning" because, at this point in the bible, Jesus is already here. He must first leave in order to be able to come.

(04-12-2014 02:45 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  My last point isn't a straw man. Why? Because I've seen in my research looking around these forums, now a member for some time, that constantly atheists play the "Can't prove a negative" card and so on rather than giving proof for what they believe. Now, you don't have to prove what you believe either, but it's a belief until you do and by blind faith until you do. I imagine some at this forum will disagree with that last statement. Dodgy

Sorry if you don't like reality and the way logic works. It's a fact that you can't prove a negative. So no one can prove that god does not exist. But this is a strawman because I and most people here don't claim god does not exist. We claim that there is no evidence for a god and so we therefore don't have a belief that a god exists. Regarding that, plenty of solid reasons are given constantly by many people here. So your claim that you hear nothing but excuses and attacks is in fact a strawman.

That sounds reasonable but erchomai or "coming" has multiple meanings. Let's count how many agree with your interpretation and with mine:

yours - to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning

mine - to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public

metaphors

mine - to come into being, arise, come forth, show itself, find place or influence

mine - be established, become known, to come (fall) into or unto

mine - to go, to follow one

As to the other, of course, God can use words without ambiguity. You may not be familiar with the lure of scripture, a trap for the unwary, a delight for the adherent. Contradictions that you find are a great goad to Bible study for others, who delight in finding the answers. What if we pushed your point a bit to resolve that God should communicate without ambiguity to all persons? Then we would be ducking the hundreds of scriptures that say that God is hidden from men because of sin and etc.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 01:48 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(05-12-2014 12:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  mine - to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public

Nope. You attempted to claim the following could have been his coming in his kingdom:

(04-12-2014 02:45 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Did you know that right after the verse you've cited, some of the apostles do get to see and hear from God the Father, Moses, Elijah and a transfigured Jesus? And before you disagree, it doesn't say the son of man coming OUT OF His Kingdom to return to Earth, it says IN His Kingdom.

Jesus didn't need to appear. He was already standing in front of them in the first place.

(05-12-2014 12:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  mine - to come into being, arise, come forth, show itself, find place or influence

Nope. Jesus already existed too and was already standing before them. And, with all his followers, he was already in a place of influence.

(05-12-2014 12:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  mine - be established, become known, to come (fall) into or unto

Nope again. He was already known to his followers. And the example you gave of "coming in his kingdom" didn't make him known to any new followers.

(05-12-2014 12:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  mine - to go, to follow one

This one doesn't even make any sense in the context of "coming in his kingdom".

You know, as long as we're being silly, you forgot about coming as in ejaculating. Facepalm

(05-12-2014 12:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  As to the other, of course, God can use words without ambiguity. You may not be familiar with the lure of scripture, a trap for the unwary, a delight for the adherent. Contradictions that you find are a great goad to Bible study for others, who delight in finding the answers. What if we pushed your point a bit to resolve that God should communicate without ambiguity to all persons? Then we would be ducking the hundreds of scriptures that say that God is hidden from men because of sin and etc.

I see. So your god isn't bothered by the fact that his game playing may cause many people to needlessly suffer the worst possible torture for eternity because they simply couldn't figure out what this god expects from them. Dodgy

Why does god need a book at all? You know, if he had something he wanted us to understand, he could simply will it and we would understand. Consider

As for the "hidden because of sin" part, an omnipotent god can do anything so clearly that's his choice. So this answers nothing about why he doesn't communicate more clearly than with that book that nobody can agree upon what it means.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 01:55 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(05-12-2014 12:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  What if we pushed your point a bit to resolve that God should communicate without ambiguity to all persons?




Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(05-12-2014 01:48 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(05-12-2014 12:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  mine - to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public

Nope. You attempted to claim the following could have been his coming in his kingdom:

(04-12-2014 02:45 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Did you know that right after the verse you've cited, some of the apostles do get to see and hear from God the Father, Moses, Elijah and a transfigured Jesus? And before you disagree, it doesn't say the son of man coming OUT OF His Kingdom to return to Earth, it says IN His Kingdom.

Jesus didn't need to appear. He was already standing in front of them in the first place.

(05-12-2014 12:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  mine - to come into being, arise, come forth, show itself, find place or influence

Nope. Jesus already existed too and was already standing before them. And, with all his followers, he was already in a place of influence.

(05-12-2014 12:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  mine - be established, become known, to come (fall) into or unto

Nope again. He was already known to his followers. And the example you gave of "coming in his kingdom" didn't make him known to any new followers.

(05-12-2014 12:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  mine - to go, to follow one

This one doesn't even make any sense in the context of "coming in his kingdom".

You know, as long as we're being silly, you forgot about coming as in ejaculating. Facepalm

(05-12-2014 12:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  As to the other, of course, God can use words without ambiguity. You may not be familiar with the lure of scripture, a trap for the unwary, a delight for the adherent. Contradictions that you find are a great goad to Bible study for others, who delight in finding the answers. What if we pushed your point a bit to resolve that God should communicate without ambiguity to all persons? Then we would be ducking the hundreds of scriptures that say that God is hidden from men because of sin and etc.

I see. So your god isn't bothered by the fact that his game playing may cause many people to needlessly suffer the worst possible torture for eternity because they simply couldn't figure out what this god expects from them. Dodgy

Why does god need a book at all? You know, if he had something he wanted us to understand, he could simply will it and we would understand. Consider

As for the "hidden because of sin" part, an omnipotent god can do anything so clearly that's his choice. So this answers nothing about why he doesn't communicate more clearly than with that book that nobody can agree upon what it means.

You seem to find coming in his kingdom ambiguous in meaning. So why are we arguing about it? Let's not do that. not worth it IMO.

Yes, God could will it, or use a book, or use, um 66 books, or 66 million books, or be an FSM or Krishna or Zeus. The trouble I'm having here is I humbly confess I'm not personally humble but have enough humility (Smile) to agree with apologists who've pointed out: How come finite beings are always telling God they know how it should be/shall be/would have been done? Consider

I like it put this way--we agree there are certain butterfly effects, and one small action can have great consequences elsewhere. And if we don't agree, consider recent phenomenon such as when a few of a species found their way to Australia and etc. and played havoc over time with crops and animals...

...I totally get that atheists get upset when someone suffers, for example, and says, "I can't see the good there." I get it! I get it when Christians say THE SAME THING. That's fine. But the butterfly effect teaches me that when a little child dies and goes to heaven, the child could have grown up to live a lovely life on Earth, too or could have been ten times worse than Hitler. So it's a challenge for me to here someone with finite knowledge say they understand anything better than an infinite being.

The Bible teaches several points that dovetail here: a) man is hidden from God because of sin so there is some obliqueness there in understanding b) anyone who wishes it can get a lot of the un-hiding accomplished, and even on any matter that upsets them--like, say, suffering and the nature of suffering c) the Bible is a terrific thing to have and study, but people without it have consciences and laws and all kids of other wonderful tools to figure out right from wrong and etc. - and mercy if they are disabled and cannot d) if we can figure out right from wrong, if we know good and evil since momma and poppa snacked from that old tree, we cannot possibly be in heaven or hell and say, "I didn't know there were consequences to what I do!" and etc.

Actually, we can take conscience and make a case that you DO have what you need internally to respond to Jesus without a Bible.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(05-12-2014 03:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You seem to find coming in his kingdom ambiguous in meaning. So why are we arguing about it? Let's not do that. not worth it IMO.

You're kidding, right? I give you 1 meaning and you give me 4, but it's me that finds it ambiguous? Dodgy

(05-12-2014 03:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, God could will it, or use a book, or use, um 66 books, or 66 million books, or be an FSM or Krishna or Zeus. The trouble I'm having here is I humbly confess I'm not personally humble but have enough humility (Smile) to agree with apologists who've pointed out: How come finite beings are always telling God they know how it should be/shall be/would have been done? Consider

Oh FFS! Mysterious ways. Figures. Facepalm

(05-12-2014 03:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I like it put this way--we agree there are certain butterfly effects, and one small action can have great consequences elsewhere. And if we don't agree, consider recent phenomenon such as when a few of a species found their way to Australia and etc. and played havoc over time with crops and animals...

Butterfly effects? If I understand you correctly, you're saying this could by why god uses the Bible? Why does your god make things so difficult? Even I as a "finite being" can see that "zap, now everyone understands" is far easier and more efficient.

(05-12-2014 03:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ...I totally get that atheists get upset when someone suffers, for example, and says, "I can't see the good there." I get it! I get it when Christians say THE SAME THING. That's fine.

Christians DON'T say the same thing. Sure, they say they are upset, but they also say "it's ok" because it's part of god's glorious, innocent, wonderful, unbelievably awesome plan. Fuck that asshole and his plan! Angry

(05-12-2014 03:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But the butterfly effect teaches me that when a little child dies and goes to heaven, the child could have grown up to live a lovely life on Earth, too or could have been ten times worse than Hitler. So it's a challenge for me to here someone with finite knowledge say they understand anything better than an infinite being.

See what I mean? "It's all god's wonderful plan. Take that child now before it has a chance to grow up and become like Hitler!" Holy crap that's unbelievably stupid! I'm sorry, I don't usually use the word "stupid" in a discussion like this, but that IS stupid! Your god should know whether that child will become like Hitler so, if the child won't grow up to be like Hitler, I assume your god would let the child live. So the only reason for killing the child is to stop the child from becoming like Hitler. Do you realize how that contradicts free will? Consider

That's a huge problem with theists. Everything in isolation sort of makes sense, but they never recognize how the pieces can't fit together.

(05-12-2014 03:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Bible teaches several points that dovetail here: a) man is hidden from God because of sin so there is some obliqueness there in understanding b) anyone who wishes it can get a lot of the un-hiding accomplished, and even on any matter that upsets them--like, say, suffering and the nature of suffering c) the Bible is a terrific thing to have and study, but people without it have consciences and laws and all kids of other wonderful tools to figure out right from wrong and etc. - and mercy if they are disabled and cannot d) if we can figure out right from wrong, if we know good and evil since momma and poppa snacked from that old tree, we cannot possibly be in heaven or hell and say, "I didn't know there were consequences to what I do!" and etc.

Translation: a) God's design caused him to hide from humans. b) His sadistic nature requires us to suffer so he can stop being so cowardly and come out. c) The bible serves no purpose that isn't already served other ways. d) Adam and Eve got blamed for doing something that they couldn't yet know was wrong, but now they know there are consequences because god doesn't play fairly.

Got it. Thumbsup

(05-12-2014 03:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Actually, we can take conscience and make a case that you DO have what you need internally to respond to Jesus without a Bible.

No, it's a case that morality doesn't come from Jesus.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
05-12-2014, 04:36 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(05-12-2014 03:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You seem to find coming in his kingdom ambiguous in meaning.

Nope. It seems pretty straightforward. You seem to be trying to twist its meaning so that scripture that failed to come true might be interpreted differently.

Quote:So why are we arguing about it? Let's not do that. not worth it IMO.

Because you refuse to accept the immediate and obvious explanation, that what scripture records Jesus as having said didn't happen.

Quote:I like it put this way--we agree there are certain butterfly effects, and one small action can have great consequences elsewhere. And if we don't agree, consider recent phenomenon such as when a few of a species found their way to Australia and etc. and played havoc over time with crops and animals...

The "butterfly effect" and invasive species are two entirely separate phenomena.

Quote:But the butterfly effect teaches me that when a little child dies and goes to heaven, the child could have grown up to live a lovely life on Earth, too or could have been ten times worse than Hitler.

So your Allmighty God (1) creates a child then (2) kills that very same child in some horrible a gruesome fashion because (3) that child had free will and would have grown up to be a monster except (4) God snuffed him out.

You don't fuck about when you say He works in mysterious ways. That's just an imbecilically inefficient form of sadism masquerading as a deity. Must be a whole shit-ton of Hiltlers growing up in third world nations. (OT: What is the correct collective noun and plural for Hitler?)

Quote: So it's a challenge for me to here someone with finite knowledge say they understand anything better than an infinite being.

Don't screw with infinity. It'll mess you up every time. According to the math, you can't know anything about an infinite being. And by you I mean you, the joker with the cross around his neck.

Quote:The Bible teaches several points that dovetail here: a) man is hidden from God because of sin so there is some obliqueness there in understanding b) anyone who wishes it can get a lot of the un-hiding accomplished, and even on any matter that upsets them--like, say, suffering and the nature of suffering c) the Bible is a terrific thing to have and study, but people without it have consciences and laws and all kids of other wonderful tools to figure out right from wrong and etc. - and mercy if they are disabled and cannot d) if we can figure out right from wrong, if we know good and evil since momma and poppa snacked from that old tree, we cannot possibly be in heaven or hell and say, "I didn't know there were consequences to what I do!" and etc.

Translation: I we wish hard enough and squint at it the right way we can make scripture say anything we want.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
05-12-2014, 04:42 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(05-12-2014 04:07 PM)Impulse Wrote:  See what I mean? "It's all god's wonderful plan. Take that child now before it has a chance to grow up and become like Hitler!" Holy crap that's unbelievably stupid! I'm sorry, I don't usually use the word "stupid" in a discussion like this, but that IS stupid! Your god should know whether that child will become like Hitler so, if the child won't grow up to be like Hitler, I assume your god would let the child live. So the only reason for killing the child is to stop the child from becoming like Hitler. Do you realize how that contradicts free will? Consider

It also rather begs the question, Why the fuck didn't God kill Hitler as a baby? Whoops! Missed one!

Seriously? How many layers of incompetence and cruelty do you want to go down through here?

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
09-12-2014, 11:54 AM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(05-12-2014 04:07 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(05-12-2014 03:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You seem to find coming in his kingdom ambiguous in meaning. So why are we arguing about it? Let's not do that. not worth it IMO.

You're kidding, right? I give you 1 meaning and you give me 4, but it's me that finds it ambiguous? Dodgy

(05-12-2014 03:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, God could will it, or use a book, or use, um 66 books, or 66 million books, or be an FSM or Krishna or Zeus. The trouble I'm having here is I humbly confess I'm not personally humble but have enough humility (Smile) to agree with apologists who've pointed out: How come finite beings are always telling God they know how it should be/shall be/would have been done? Consider

Oh FFS! Mysterious ways. Figures. Facepalm

(05-12-2014 03:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I like it put this way--we agree there are certain butterfly effects, and one small action can have great consequences elsewhere. And if we don't agree, consider recent phenomenon such as when a few of a species found their way to Australia and etc. and played havoc over time with crops and animals...

Butterfly effects? If I understand you correctly, you're saying this could by why god uses the Bible? Why does your god make things so difficult? Even I as a "finite being" can see that "zap, now everyone understands" is far easier and more efficient.

(05-12-2014 03:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ...I totally get that atheists get upset when someone suffers, for example, and says, "I can't see the good there." I get it! I get it when Christians say THE SAME THING. That's fine.

Christians DON'T say the same thing. Sure, they say they are upset, but they also say "it's ok" because it's part of god's glorious, innocent, wonderful, unbelievably awesome plan. Fuck that asshole and his plan! Angry

(05-12-2014 03:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But the butterfly effect teaches me that when a little child dies and goes to heaven, the child could have grown up to live a lovely life on Earth, too or could have been ten times worse than Hitler. So it's a challenge for me to here someone with finite knowledge say they understand anything better than an infinite being.

See what I mean? "It's all god's wonderful plan. Take that child now before it has a chance to grow up and become like Hitler!" Holy crap that's unbelievably stupid! I'm sorry, I don't usually use the word "stupid" in a discussion like this, but that IS stupid! Your god should know whether that child will become like Hitler so, if the child won't grow up to be like Hitler, I assume your god would let the child live. So the only reason for killing the child is to stop the child from becoming like Hitler. Do you realize how that contradicts free will? Consider

That's a huge problem with theists. Everything in isolation sort of makes sense, but they never recognize how the pieces can't fit together.

(05-12-2014 03:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Bible teaches several points that dovetail here: a) man is hidden from God because of sin so there is some obliqueness there in understanding b) anyone who wishes it can get a lot of the un-hiding accomplished, and even on any matter that upsets them--like, say, suffering and the nature of suffering c) the Bible is a terrific thing to have and study, but people without it have consciences and laws and all kids of other wonderful tools to figure out right from wrong and etc. - and mercy if they are disabled and cannot d) if we can figure out right from wrong, if we know good and evil since momma and poppa snacked from that old tree, we cannot possibly be in heaven or hell and say, "I didn't know there were consequences to what I do!" and etc.

Translation: a) God's design caused him to hide from humans. b) His sadistic nature requires us to suffer so he can stop being so cowardly and come out. c) The bible serves no purpose that isn't already served other ways. d) Adam and Eve got blamed for doing something that they couldn't yet know was wrong, but now they know there are consequences because god doesn't play fairly.

Got it. Thumbsup

(05-12-2014 03:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Actually, we can take conscience and make a case that you DO have what you need internally to respond to Jesus without a Bible.

No, it's a case that morality doesn't come from Jesus.

If I can restate my point, please, more succinctly. The Bible is a great guidebook for life that not all people have. I don't think it's "a mysterious way" that it wasn't distributed per your wishes that God place inside its entire contents for all of us internally--I think that's a little awkward in construction, but also, regarding salvation, all of us have a conscience (if we are mentally fit--if not, there is mercy).

Put another way, the Bible is great as a guide to this life. But it is not needed for God to accurately "sort" people for the afterlife. Therefore IMO all people have a conscience but not a set of the scriptures. Does that make better sense to you? Sorry for being unclear before.

The butterfly effect is an aside, but it has helped me find peace about many things including the nature of suffering. Or if you like, the opposite of the butterfly effect with a large event. I'm displeased when both Christians and atheists comment on things like hurricanes, as if hurricanes only interfere with human life. Hurricanes cleanse overgrowth that can catch fire, alter water tables and the courses of rivers, etc. Both Xians and atheists who complain about storms of weather are being a little anthropocentric for my taste. Would you agree?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 12:09 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(09-12-2014 11:54 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm displeased when both Christians and atheists comment on things like hurricanes, as if hurricanes only interfere with human life. Hurricanes cleanse overgrowth that can catch fire, alter water tables and the courses of rivers, etc. Both Xians and atheists who complain about storms of weather are being a little anthropocentric for my taste. Would you agree?

You're doing it again, no atheists think a hurricane has intent, they call BS when theists try to explain it in the context of their god's intent.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 12:26 PM
RE: Jesus should've come by now?
(09-12-2014 11:54 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If I can restate my point, please, more succinctly. The Bible is a great guidebook for life that not all people have. I don't think it's "a mysterious way" that it wasn't distributed per your wishes that God place inside its entire contents for all of us internally--I think that's a little awkward in construction, but also, regarding salvation, all of us have a conscience (if we are mentally fit--if not, there is mercy).

The bible is a book that is understood by few (if any), interpreted by many, has countless interpretations, is ambiguous, full of contradictions and stories that don't fit well even if not directly contradictory, has many authors, has been embellished and plagiarized, and... never mind that's enough. But you call it "a great guidebook". Really? Rolleyes

(09-12-2014 11:54 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Put another way, the Bible is great as a guide to this life. But it is not needed for God to accurately "sort" people for the afterlife. Therefore IMO all people have a conscience but not a set of the scriptures. Does that make better sense to you? Sorry for being unclear before.

Yes, the bible is unrelated to conscience. But, from the Christian perspective, it is intended as a way to understand god's expectations of us. I suppose it would be possible to get to heaven without that (still Christian perspective here), and of course god wouldn't need it, but what's the point of it then if god intended the book to help us, but it doesn't. I stand by my point that it would have been far better if your god simply willed the understanding into us instead of communicating through a confusing, nonsensical book.

(09-12-2014 11:54 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The butterfly effect is an aside, but it has helped me find peace about many things including the nature of suffering. Or if you like, the opposite of the butterfly effect with a large event. I'm displeased when both Christians and atheists comment on things like hurricanes, as if hurricanes only interfere with human life. Hurricanes cleanse overgrowth that can catch fire, alter water tables and the courses of rivers, etc. Both Xians and atheists who complain about storms of weather are being a little anthropocentric for my taste. Would you agree?

Hurricanes - why do you constantly seem to miss the forest for the trees? All of the "pluses" that you raised about hurricanes could easily be accomplished by your god another way without the death, suffering, and destruction. Why do you keep making excuses for you god's obvious failures? Consider

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: