Spin-off of Why I believe
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-04-2017, 01:47 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
SeaJay Wrote:The original Hebrew also says 'evil'.
It doesn't matter. Original Hebrew is copy of copies of some other copies. Copies can have errors. Copies are not written by inspired men(prophets)
SeaJay Wrote:The Judeans know their bible, their history,
It doesn't matter what they know. What is important is this: is their understanding correct?
SeaJay Wrote:and if I'm not mistaken, aren't they very meticulous when it comes to writing down their letters?
I don't know. Do you?

English is my second language.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2017, 01:51 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
SeaJay Wrote:Sorry Alla but I can only comment on the words that I read on a page.
Of course.
You probably believe that books have no errors. I believe that books have errors. I believe that mortal men screw things all the time.

English is my second language.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Alla's post
16-04-2017, 02:15 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
I know I'm late to this little shindig, but It's been a while and my knives have gotten dull. To yogi_bear I'm very glad you said your sensibilities are not delicate. Let's uh.. let us hope that's true.Big Grin

Everyone else this a long post so if you are tired of the conversation then feel free to skip over.

(11-04-2017 11:04 AM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Well not having been to every bible school I can't speak for what was taught there, but at the bible school I attended I was taught to treat others the way you would want them to treat you and even to do good to those who hate you. And no I'm not blameless but I strive to follow those teachings.

Let's start this off with a simple question: Why doesn't your god strive to follow these teachings, like...at any point in the book? Between sanctioning slavery, commanding genocide, commanding the abduction and rape of preteen girls, demanding and accepting human sacrifice, and many many many others. That's just the Old Testament, in the New Testament we get this lovely new idea that god has designed (in his eternal love) a system of infinite punishment for finite crimes, and not just punishment but torture. I'm going to leave aside, for now at least, that according to god one of the things deserving of an eternity of torture is an unwillingness to be gullible.
This system of "justice" if it were applied anywhere on earth by a dictator would be viewed as monstrous and rightly so. If a country today announced to the world that they will be punishing thought crime with unending and disproportionate torture for life most civilized people would be outraged. And if followers of that dictator tried to label that man as the ultimate moral authority possessing infinite love and mercy the rest of us would laugh ourselves to death at the absurdity of it all.

(11-04-2017 02:59 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  The problem with doing something to earn brownie points by doing good from my view point as a Christian is God knows my heart and there are no brownies for things done for selfish reasons.
It depends on which part of the Bible you read, which denomination you are, and frankly which sections of gods "immutable truth" you choose to ignore to protect your own morality. In some people's opinion, including that of several writers in the Bible it's self, doing good is entirely irrelevant with good works being little more than dirty rags. All that is required is to believe. Which makes the criteria for salvation gullibility more or less by definition. How willing are you to believe ludicrous claims without evidence?

(11-04-2017 02:59 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  If a child carries out garage expecting to be given a dollar or two is one thing if a child carries out the garbage simply because he loves his parents that is another thing entirely
And it's another thing ENTIRELY for a child to carry out the garbage because his father tells him that if he does not do so he will be chained in the basement and tortured. FOREVER.

(11-04-2017 04:53 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Unless you have evidence of a suicide bomber of any age yelling anything other than Allahn Akbar I can only assume your are:

1 lacking knowledge of different religions of the world and Christianity

I can only assume that you are willfully ignorant and have never had any reason or desire to evaluate your own biases to say something this profoundly uninformed. You want evidence? Fine, here you go.

The Tamil Tigers were a left-wing Hindus group fighting against a Buddhist majority.

That's just one example, which was all that was required to show your own ignorance, but there are more. For example, 76 suicide bombings between 1980 and 2003 were not Islamic in origin. Hell there were NO suicide bombings during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, it was practically unheard of prior to 1983.

That's just suicide bombings, though if you expand it out to include bombings that are not suicidal in nature, mass shootings, and other forms of terrorism-related violence then you have a SERIOUS problem because the monopoly on terrorism you seem to think Muslims have just evaporates.

Christian Terrorism is alive and well and has been for decades.

I could muddy your waters even more by pointing out the only people to ever build and use an atomic bomb Christians and that their target was a non-Christian civilian population. And that they did it twice.

(11-04-2017 04:53 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  2 seriously out of touch with current events
More Americans have been killed by Christian terrorists than Islamic terrorists since 9/11. You are not just out of touch with reality YOU are out of touch with current events.

(11-04-2017 04:53 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  3 your hostility towards God is showing and duly noted
No one here is "hostile to your god" they are hostile, if they are hostile at all, to your ignorance and your inability to reason past your bias.

(11-04-2017 06:48 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  I would say neither faith is wrong but is simply an indication of their adherence of a belief they hold to be true.
That is frankly just nonsense word salad and such a bald-faced attempt at avoiding the question that I can't believe that wasn't the point when you wrote it. Islam and Christianity, while sharing an origin, make mutually incompatible claims and can not both be right. One, or both, HAS to be wrong.

(11-04-2017 06:48 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Perhaps it would be better to ask why is the object of one person's faith right and the ofject of another person's wrong? I would then say neither is wrong to them.
That is not what he asked and you know it, he did not ask if you thought it was right or wrong to THEM. You are being dishonest sir.

(11-04-2017 06:48 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  There in lies the problem with relative truth as opposed to absolute truth.
It's only a problem in this instance because you refused to answer the question that was ACTUALLy asked of you and instead answered a question that you created out of thin air.

(11-04-2017 06:48 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  So as not to dodge the question of why is one is right and one wrong I would simply ask, Is it right to kill someone simply for what they believe.
Not answering the question is by definition dodging it and you at no point answer it, you spent that ENTIRE post dodging the question.

(11-04-2017 08:42 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  I don't submit this as proof of any claim, it is however testimonials in book form by a medical doctor. Sorry for the delay in responding: http://drelaine.com/do-you-believe-in-mi...octors-do/

Do you bother to read anything from that site or did you just link to the first book you could find that had a doctor talking about miracles? Because I did and she comes off as an other "alternative medician" fraudster who believes in "superhealing" and that diseases are somehow related to your "spirit".

For example:

"The energy of the spirit: Personal and social connectivity focuses on finding meaning and purpose and setting intentions accordingly, which allows the body to function with greater ease and efficiency."
Ya, I'd love to see what peer-reviewed medical journal demonstrated that spirit energy makes you heal faster.

All that link did was convince me of your credulity and desire to latch on to ANYTHING you think might stand a chance of legitimizing your beliefs.

(11-04-2017 10:32 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  I acknowledge modern medicine cures and do so asking for no additional proof as the data and results speak for themselves.
I want you to keep the above in mind.

(11-04-2017 10:32 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Now am I being an irrational gullible nitwit etc for believing in praying for the sick with no "provable" evidence that prayer has any effect for the sick?
Yes, you are. You ABSOLUTELY are. Believing in things for which there is no evidence, and in this case evidence against, is by it's very nature both irrational and a sign of gullibility.
I asked you to keep something in mind which was "results speak for themselves" and in every instance where we test the efficacy of prayer it FAILS ENTIRELY. The results of prayer also speak for themselves and that is that it is utterly and entirely useless.

(11-04-2017 10:32 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  I have no idea what answers you will get just try it.
The first two questions are worthless, as what a doctor personally believes about prayer says absolutely nothing about it's effectiveness and the third question will get a "no" or a collection of anecdotes which are not evidence.

(11-04-2017 10:32 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  I got no right wing links, no BS polls, nothing but doctors at random giving their own testimony.
The plural of anecdote is not evidence and unless they can demonstrate a causal link between prayer and healing all your testimony adds up to jack and shit to be blunt. You won't even have an anecdote at that point you will just have assertions by people about phenomena they can't explain.

(11-04-2017 10:32 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Do that and if everyone comes back empty then fine everyone would be well within their rights to logically assume I am an irrational gullible nitwit.
No sorry, no one has to do that at all to be justified in their view that you are irrational and gullible. All that is required for that view to be justified is for YOU to profess belief in a thing that, in this case, has already been scientifically demonstrated to be false. You believe a thing for which you have no evidence and no number of people sharing anecdotes makes the lack of evidence trivial nor does it dismiss the fact we have good evidence to the contrary of your belief.

Prayer has a success rate no higher than basic chance, and it's no more effective than just talking to the couch. That is all any rational person requires to dismiss claims to its usefulness.

(11-04-2017 10:32 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  But even still yes I will pray for those sick and hurting
This is your biggest problem by orders of magnitude. You do not care what the truth is at all. Despite the fact you think that answers in favor of your position should be compelling arguments to us yet somehow answers that are NOT in favor of your position, from the same sources, are not compelling arguments to you.

You set a challenge to us to defend your belief yet in the same breath you state that YOU YOURSELF won't acknowledge these answers if they don't support your conclusion and that you will believe what you want to believe regardless of evidence. Which is a textbook example of gullibility and irrationality.

(12-04-2017 08:13 AM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  I presented that three opposing worldviews each believe they are right in their "own" eyes and in reality this three worldviews do claim that each is right in their own eyes.
Atheism is not a worldview, it is the rejection of claims made by the religious that have not met their burden of proof. Atheism is a single answer to a single question and does not contain dogma or a world view.

(12-04-2017 08:13 AM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  This is only possible if one accepted that truth is relative.
Something is either A or it is not A. He asked you why you believe that your faith is the correct faith instead of some other faith. And you spent your entire post avoiding having to justify your faith by making up an unasked question and trying to answer that instead.

(12-04-2017 08:13 AM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Can either side provide definitive proof that God does or does not exist. No. So again both can be wrong and only one right yet there is no definitive proof.
No. No no no no no. That is not how logic works. Let me be absolutely clear as I d not want to have to repeat this again and again like Ihave with so many theists before. We have ZERO obligation to provide any evidence that your god does not exist, you have the sole obligation to prove that your assertions are accurate. Yours is the burden of proof and it is not anyone else's.
If you can not show that your god exists than the belief is irrational because to believe in things with which there is no evidence IS irrational. To reject unevidenced claims IS entirely consistent with rationality and skepticism. Atheism is the rejection of claims which do not meet their burden of proof.

(12-04-2017 08:13 AM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  This is the dilemma that brought in play Pascal's wager
Pascal's wager is one of the most idiotic, nonsensical, and buffonish arguments ever put forward.

(12-04-2017 08:13 AM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Is it right to kill a baby because if god tells you to? ....If our view is that God is holy good and just and all knowing then is it possible for me to say it's right or wrong.
And that is a huge problem for me because you have just admitted that your moral compass is decided by the whims and desires of a thing you can't even demonstrate is real. The foundation for your moral compass is indistinguishable from a delusion.

But let me answer your question from a biblical perspective. Abraham certainly believed it was morally right to murder a child and moreover he believed it was well within gods character, as he knew it, to ask people to murder their children. Moses certainly thought it was moral to murder children as he makes ZERO attempt to talk god out of, or otherwise resist in any way, gods plan to murder a bunch of babies himself. The man, in fact, yells at his forces for NOT murdering babies at one point. Noah raises no objections, nor does he resist in any way, gods plan to drown the entire world which includes a whole metric fuck ton of babies. Lot does not object to god destroying two entire cities, babies and all, when god decides to do just that, though in Lots defense he was probably too busy raping his daughters or trying to offer them to crowds to be raped to bother with resisting a genocide.

You know what all of those men have in common though? According to your god they are all examples of the most righteous men alive at their respective times. So yes here allow me to answer your question: Yes. YES. According to god and to every person god considered righteous and moral it is ABSOLUTELY moral to kill children if the guy who wrote "thou shalt not kill" decides some babies need some killing.

(12-04-2017 08:13 AM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Is God a murderer for killing the Egyptian babies?
The fact that you even have to ask if it's murder to kill babies en mass who have committed no crime shows exactly how broken and diseased your morality is when actually evaluated.

(12-04-2017 08:13 AM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Have you ever considered that from the position of the Israelites?
There is no context or situation in which mass infanticide is a rational or ethical response to any crime or oppression by an adult population. For someone who worried about opening the door to genocide you sure seem happy to defend and make excuses for genocide. Drinking Beverage

(12-04-2017 08:13 AM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Do you consider slavery wrong?
I sure do, but your god doesn't as one of the first things he does upon freeing his people from "evil torturous slavery" is instruct them on how they can go about enslaving each other and the people around them. Have you even read the bloody book?

(12-04-2017 08:13 AM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Do you consider evil torturous slavery even more wrong?
I sure as FUCK do, but again your god does not as he lays down clear rules on how to morally beat a slave to death. He then comes to earth himself and what does he have to say about slavery? Obey even cruel masters.

(12-04-2017 08:13 AM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Suppose your were that Israelite father slave and Pharoah killed "your" son because he feared your growing numbers. Was that ever right.
No it's not right, but we are in luck because it never happened.

(12-04-2017 08:13 AM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Is God then a murderer because He killed the Egyptian babies to free you from further slavery and evil?
YES! How the fuck do you not understand that mass infanticide is not only morally wrong but also an idiotic solution to the problem it's trying to solve? Why not kill, oh I don't know, all the soldiers keeping your followers in bondage? You know...the people he ends up killing later anyway because his "murder all the babies" plan fails? Why murder babies who have had absolutely no say or hand in institutionalized slavery?
The entire story of the Exodus makes god look like a fucking sadistic idiot. From requiring blood sacrifice to be able to tell the difference between one baby and another, from requiring 10 different attempts to get pharaoh to wise up, to killing a bunch of innocent babies to make a point which in the end doesn't even fucking work so he has to drown an entire army, to taking 40 years to lead people through a stretch of land you can walk is 6 days.

(12-04-2017 08:13 AM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Was the United States murderers for killing the Japanese babies with those two bombs?
Yes, unequivocally the American government murdered non-combatants. This is also just a stupid comparison, as the atomic bombs didn't target babies specifically, the Japanese had not enslaved all of the US, and the US didn't have the power of a god to just snap his fingers and fix the problem instantly with no bloodshed.

(12-04-2017 08:13 AM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  If one fairly studies the Bible in context one will find that God's judgment is always based on evil?
No, not at all and I can't see how any unbiased reading of the text could ever come to that conclusion. You are inventing context to get around your cognitive dissonance with your view that god is "holy good" and the fact his go-to solution for any problem seems to be genocide. Or that he is willing to kill whole armies for you in exchange for your willingness to burn your daughter alive.

But let's go a bit deeper with the myth of the Tower of Babel. While it's commonly believed, and taught, that god is angered by their attempts to "reach heaven" that is not actually the case. "Heaven" is a mistranslation but let's skip over that as it's not really important:

4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

This is a story about how god, seeing man united in peace towards a common goal decides to that just won't do for his plan and precedes to divide and undermine his own children to keep them from accomplishing their goals. God's judgment in the old testament is almost NEVER about evil, it is about people not doing what he tells them to do with the myth of Adam and Eve being the most glaring example.

(12-04-2017 08:13 AM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Are you going to dodge this question; Is it right to kill a baby in the womb just because one wants to?
Considering you just spent a whole post arguing that it was moral you sure seem to fucking think at is as long as it's not you that has to do the killing. Hell under the Christian worldview god has a plan for everyone, and considering 50% of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage it seems God is happy to kill half of all the people who would have ever lived "just cause he felt like it". What kind of sadistic lunatic has written into his plan "kill 50% of all babies ever"?

But fair enough I won't dodge your question, though not directed at me.

Is it wrong for me to kill a baby just cause I feel like it? Yes. Is it wrong for a woman to terminate a pregnancy? No, because it's her womb and she has bodily autonomy.
Good luck trying to find the moral high ground on that statement now that I've howitzerd your position to pieces.

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  I believe it is quite easy to make a distinction between what I believe about the creator God and something that is merely imaginary.
The only way to determine if something is real is to demonstrate that it is, but still go ahead.

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  I say that if something is always presented and aways accepted by a majority of the people and the majority of the time is a good indication it is merely imaginary.
And you would be wrong. Something being real or imaginary is not decided by vote, a claim in not more likely to be true because more people believe in it.

More importantly, you are shooting yourself in the foot off the bat as there are WAY more people that believe your god is imaginary than who think it's not. Christianity makes up less than 1/3rd, and that's not taking into account many denominations that think other denominations are not "real" Christians.
More than 2/3rds of the worlds population DOES think your god is imaginary.

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Also if it presents itself as merely imaginary it would be accepted and viewed as merely imaginary. A few examples I would present as meeting what I would think qualifies for an accepted view of what would be merely imaginary would include: the tooth fairy, fairytales, the Easter bunny, Flying Spaghetti Monster ( by self definition) , pink unicorns etc. it can reliably stated then that theses are merely imaginary by the majority of people.
By this definition ALL the gods that have ever been truly believed in are on equal footing, so how did you determine that your god was the right god out of the 10000+ gods that have ever been presented as real?

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Then what would serve reliably that there is a distinction between the God I believe as not just merely imaginary compaired to those above.

Um...no. All you have shown is that there are people who actually believe your god is real, not that your god IS actually real or demonstrably different than something from your imagination that you jsut happen to think is real.

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  The God I believe on is not taught and accepted by the majority of the people the majority of the time as being merely imaginary.
Actually it is. As of 2012 the vast majority of people DO think your god is imaginary which is why the vast majority fo people don't share your religion let alone your denomination.

But it gets worse. You, I presume, do not worship a god that demands you murder gay people. However, there ARE Christians who DO worship a god who does. So you can't even really claim the full 3rd of Christians as you both worship a different idea of what the Christian god actually is as you can't both be right. I can take that step further and say that the only person that believes in your version of the Christian god ........is you. Which puts you rather firmly in the minority.

That said though even if we ignore that the Christian god is still not believed to be real by nearly 70% of the worlds population. So um...thanks for showing your god is likely to be imaginary by your own criteria?

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  The God I believe in does not define Himself as merely imaginary.
Wow. Are you serious? Ok, so what?

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  I acknowledge that there are those who do teach and accept the God I believe as merely imaginary.
And they are the majority so by your own rules.....Drinking Beverage

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  There are what I consider to be examples that the God I believe in is distinguished as much more than merely imaginary.
They were failures. The only way to distinguish what is real from what is not real is by a demonstration that it IS real.

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  God is taught that His Son Jesus came to earth. Is this just merely imaginary?
Yes, unless you can show otherwise.

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  The fact that the Georgia calendar marks that date and has been used and acknowledged that point in time with the designation BC and A. D. For hundreds of years to denofe that birth is more than merely imaginary
And Muslims have their own calendar as do the Chinese, the Mayans, and hey nearly every other culture. Does that mean that every single god is more than imaginary? I could, right now, set up a calendar with BS and AS with BS meaning Before Serenity and AS meaning After Serenity based on the date of the Battle for Serenity Vally a fictional event. That would not make the event nor the location anything more than imaginary.

Hell I have actual footage of the battle

Do you have footage from mary's gynecological exam?

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  The founding fathers declared "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

1.) The inclusion of the word "creator" was actually contentious and not included in any of the original drafts. Many believe Jefferson argued for "by nature" but that it was changed before submission to congress to appease the more religious members of Congress into voting in heir favor.

2.) There are ton of "creator" gods out there not just yours. You can't lay claim over the entire notion of "creator."

3.) Not every person involved in that declaration was a Christian, Thomas pain and Ethan Allen sure as shit were not, or even the same kind of Christian as you who believed in the same god. None of them did likely.

4.) So what?

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  To declare our unalienable rights are endowed on us by a Creator is definitely not viewing the God I believe in as merely imaginary.
And that says nothing at all about whether your god actually IS real or just an imaginary idea.

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Our National Motto "In God We Trust" , a law of the land since 1956 and first appearing on coins in 1864 is anything but merely imaginary
The coin is not imaginary, the slogan is both real and a clear violation of the First Amendmant, however that does not make the GOD real or provide any way to tell if it si real.

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.” Merely imaginary?
The phrase is real but that doesn't say anything about if god is. This is stupid, do you understand what I am saying? The rules you are setting up to show your god as more than imaginary work for ALL gods and seeing as how you already admitted that they can't ALL be real it's a worthless rule. You have not gotten a single step closer to showing your gods is anything more than imaginary.

"God is written on a coin and people in olden times believed so how can not be real?" Seriously dude? You might as well be asking how you mine for fish for all the intelligence your displaying here.

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  If one simply looks there is a multitude of evidence that the God I believe in is reliably distinguished differently than those above as merely imaginary when compared to fairy tales etc.
You have provided nothing that comes close to being "evidence". You haven't even provided a coherent argument except for the one that proves you wrong. Facepalm

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  But is being presented as evidence that there is a multitude of evidence that there is a real distinction between the God I believe in and the other things noted above as merely imaginary.
So wait....what? Hold on. So if I'm reading this correctly....it's not being presented as evidence that god is real just as evidence that there is evidence that he is real and that that evidence is ....we wrote his name on stuff and some people think he's real.

And you think that's enough to tell the real from the imaginary?

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
16-04-2017, 02:26 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(15-04-2017 12:07 PM)Alla Wrote:  Satan takes what is good and true and corrupts it.
I don't know what bible you read but in every one I've ever read he comes off as way less of a psychotic asshole than your god does. I mean he's not genocidal where your god is, he does outright endorse slavery where your god does, he doesn't drown babies where your god does, he never once asks for a blood sacrifice where your god does, he never rewards a man's willingness to set his daughter on fire where your god does, he never tries to solve any problem he or his followers are having by murdering a bunch of children or nailing a guy to a tree, he doesn't murder a bunch of kids via bear mauling cause they called a bald man bald.

In fact what methodology or criteria did you use to determine that Satan is the bad one and god is the god one? Wait wait let me guess someone told you so right?

(15-04-2017 12:24 PM)Alla Wrote:  Exactly, because it must be an opposition in all things.

Why? Says who?

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
16-04-2017, 02:30 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
Good to see you back WD. I will bet that at most one or two of your points will be addressed if any but I enjoyed the dismantling. 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
16-04-2017, 02:35 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
I bet that zero of WD's points will be addressed.

English is my second language.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alla's post
16-04-2017, 02:41 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(15-04-2017 06:14 PM)Alla Wrote:  I don't believe that God can create men who are incapable of sin. Even God is capable to sin (theoretically) - He has freedom to choose between good(right) and evil(wrong).
Satan and the rest of God's children are created in God's image, it means we all as Gods have moral agency - freedom to choose between good and evil.

The problem with that for you is that if god has moral agency and can choose right from wrong we can evaluate his decisions....and what we see time and time again is someone who appears to be a fucking psychopathic idiot. You basically worship the Kim Jong-un of gods which is more hilarious then your holy book already is.

(15-04-2017 06:14 PM)Alla Wrote:  
Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:Your god created hell, ultimate suffering, an eternal lake of fire, endless furnace, etc.
Your god created hell planning to use it to torture sentient, weaker beings that he created.
I don't believe this doctrine is true.
Which part?

(15-04-2017 06:14 PM)Alla Wrote:  I don't believe in this doctrine.
I believe that this doctrine is true: Christ was sent to redeem ALL God's children who lived, live and will live on Earth. Christ atoned and this is why every man will be saved from hell.
If that's the case why create a hell in the first place if you have no intention of using it? Why create a rigged game where you will need a hell? Your shit, as always, doesn't make any kind of sense.

(15-04-2017 06:14 PM)Alla Wrote:  God prevents evil only when evil interferes with His plan.
Stopping evil only when it's convenient for you or interferes with your plan pretty much makes you not omnibenevolent by definition. Why isn't an omnibenevolent creatures plan not the interference of evil as it's default?

(15-04-2017 06:14 PM)Alla Wrote:  God did not create evil.
According to the bible he did, and you can't just assert that anything you don't like in a book is a mistranslation you actually have to show that it is. how do you know a single word in the book is correct? What methodology do you use? Is it.....anything you disagree with personally is wrong? I bet it is.

(15-04-2017 06:14 PM)Alla Wrote:  If a man or woman never experienced evil, he or she will never become like Gods.
Prove it.Drinking Beverage

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
16-04-2017, 02:42 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(16-04-2017 02:35 PM)Alla Wrote:  I bet that zero of WD's points will be addressed.

I agree with you, but not in the way you think. Drinking Beverage

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2017, 02:47 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:Isn't that just a cop out for all the shitty things that happen?

I can not refute this argument.

Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:Like a four year old dying of cancer -- it's part of god's plan because otherwise it wouldn't have happened?
I believe that it is important to learn pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow in this life.

Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:Then obviously you also can't say...wait...stop...don't bother there are no gods at all

English is my second language.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2017, 02:48 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe

Good to see you dude!

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: