Theodicy of Divine Chastity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-04-2015, 10:31 PM
RE: Theodicy of Divine Chastity
(11-04-2015 10:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556), the zealot for papal authority and founder of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, wrote:

"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

Weeping

Those who came after him seem to put that into practice alright - at least the ones we get here.

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
12-04-2015, 09:39 AM
RE: Theodicy of Divine Chastity
(11-04-2015 09:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-04-2015 09:27 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  That is one of the most retarded apologetic excuses I have ever heard. Why doesn't the fact that you waste your time in apologetics shine a bright light on the fantasy you all try to validate? All this in 2015 - embarrassing humans!

You have to understand they have been indoctrinated for years into this cult. They're taught to repeat that garbage by rote, like a knee-jerk reflex to a neurologist's hammer. They've heard it so often they actually think it has any real meaning. Since they actually buy it, they think it's reasonable to repeat it, and actually expect others to buy it also. Its safety in numbers.

Oh I get it Bucky, I was raised catholic in a big Italian family. What frustrates me is how smart adults buy into all the dogma and presuppositionalist claims, to which I realized were human fantasy at about age 9!

“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
12-04-2015, 10:32 AM
RE: Theodicy of Divine Chastity
(11-04-2015 08:37 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  
(11-04-2015 08:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Why ? Yet you claim your deity is powerful enough to stop the chain. It's EXACTLY the sort of excuse one would expect a cult to make up to explain what is observed which is entirely 100% consistent with the same state that would occur if there was no deity. Why is there a deity that *could* cure cancer in innocent children but does not ? Why ? Cuz it's all bs, and you people *must* cook up crap like "divine chastity" to "apologize" for the inaction of your (supposed) deity. There is a reason 10 % of Americans are ex-Catholics. The god in the Old Testament (Yahweh Sabaoth ... the Babylonian war god, the 70th son of El Elyon, the chief Babylonian deity) was an action hero. He acted *directly*, and the Hebrews believed he did. Now you claim he acts "indirectly* ? When exactly did *that* change, and why ? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that modern humans know a lot more about reality, would it ? Facepalm
One cannot give a power away and yet hold it at the same time. By "stopping the chain", God would take the power to affect the world, which is the same withholding of gift as if He didn't give it away in the first place.

Well, so much for the whole omnipotence thing that God had going for him.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2015, 11:04 AM
RE: Theodicy of Divine Chastity
Bucky Ball:

- re your comment about God being subject to reality versus the other way around... I'm not entirely clear on the exact nature of your objection. I will guess that you are talking about God being able to cause logically impossible situations (like giving something and keeping it at the same time) to obtain. Well, I just wouldn't consider that to be a necessary condition of omnipotence. If you go back to the MOADJ (the origin of this discussion), I wouldn't consider complaining that a being can't cause logically impossible situatins to obtain to be a complaint based on a coherent evaluative standard.

- As for your excerpt from the article, you gave us some nice quotes afterwards, but what you didn't do was read through the rest of the article(s) that explains how God's perfect opposition of evil is compatible with the existence of evil. If you are going to make fun of what someone says like that, at least make sure that person hasn't answered the objection you are going to use to make fun of them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2015, 11:33 AM
RE: Theodicy of Divine Chastity
(12-04-2015 11:04 AM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  Well, I just wouldn't consider that to be a necessary condition of omnipotence.

This should be good for a laugh, how would you define omnipotence? I can give you a simple definition -an imaginary concept, just like your god, and that is certainly not a coincidence.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
12-04-2015, 11:52 AM
RE: Theodicy of Divine Chastity
(11-04-2015 08:02 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  So in a sense the reason why God rarely directly intervenes in the world is because God delegates the power to affect those aspects of the world to created persons.

Just a lame apologist argument in defense of a clearly inept being that is far from omnipotent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Foxen's post
12-04-2015, 12:11 PM (This post was last modified: 12-04-2015 12:24 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Theodicy of Divine Chastity
(12-04-2015 11:04 AM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  Bucky Ball:

- re your comment about God being subject to reality versus the other way around... I'm not entirely clear on the exact nature of your objection. I will guess that you are talking about God being able to cause logically impossible situations (like giving something and keeping it at the same time) to obtain. Well, I just wouldn't consider that to be a necessary condition of omnipotence. If you go back to the MOADJ (the origin of this discussion), I wouldn't consider complaining that a being can't cause logically impossible situations to obtain to be a complaint based on a coherent evaluative standard.

I am not talking about a god being able to cause logically impossible situations. That's childish tripe.
Read what I said again.
Your god is inextricably and necessarily embedded in Reality by the very definition of it's "existing" and thereby cannot be the creator of that Reality in which it MUST participate, (for your definitions to be true). A god that exists does not *not exist*. Reality is larger than your god, and always was, as long as it existed.

I did read the entire article. I reject the intellectually dishonest nonsense presented. There is no apologetic necessary or possible for a god that could stop unnecessary suffering, yet does not. Your deity is an evil monster, and no amount of verbal fan-dangle will ever change that. Your deity (supposedly) is such a grudge-keeper, it actually required it's son to die, before it could forgive. THAT god is evil, and so embedded in the fabric of (your) Reality it couldn't escape if it tried.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2015, 12:27 PM
RE: Theodicy of Divine Chastity
Every time this shows up on new posts I read it as - The Idiocy of Divine Chastity. Facepalm

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Anjele's post
12-04-2015, 12:36 PM
RE: Theodicy of Divine Chastity
(11-04-2015 10:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Just look at how idiotic this is : "Our stance is that God, being infinitely good, is infinitely opposed to evil in every form, and is acting against every evil with the fullness of his power despite appearances to the contrary. Furthermore, we believe that this relationship of perfect opposition between God and evil applies to every evil regardless of how seemingly insignificant, and that this includes all instances of innocent human suffering."

But this is the problem with all Christian apologetics isn't it. "Those who do not share the faith are not being asked to agree with any of our assumptions, but to simply make a decision to temporarily suspend disbelief in order to understand the coherence of the proposed explanation on its own terms." Let's purely for the sake of argument stipulate a premise which is neither self-evident nor obvious and see where it leads. Okay. That was fun. But when the movie's over and the temporary suspension of disbelief is removed what ultimately has been accomplished? A brief moment of entertainment at best.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
12-04-2015, 01:17 PM
RE: Theodicy of Divine Chastity
CSF, we can discuss but I don't need to read your article if you cannot answer the logic. As I see it the logic is unassailable, so by asking us to read long articles you are essentially asking us to read a lot of information about a known-to-be-false statement (that god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient).

It's like... asking us to read about properties of square triangles. Sure we can do that, but there is no such thing as a square triangle. I can't be arsed to read a guy's research dissertation on square triangles unless he's gonna somehow first show me that a square triangle is actually something that can exist.

So:
A. In your own words, please concisely state the problem of evil.
B. What is evil, according to you?
C. Please provide an outline of the argument contained in the articles you linked, telling us how the problem of evil may be solved without God being either evil or incompetent?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: