Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    It isn't done, so that proves there is no God.
    Were it to be done - it proves that God is a nasty, autocratic tyrant who denies people the right to free speech.

    Children in the market place.
    But no one could say the second one! But, yes, doing so would restrict free will, so God doesn't do it. I guess? Good thing God ain't a micromanaging anal sphincter that fundy atheists accuse Him of being. Fundy atheists think anyone who dares to disagree with them are also anal sphincters.
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Watching Gary is like watching a street preacher. They don't know what they're talking about, are thoroughly convinced they're authorities, and you just want to see what crazy thing they'll say next.
      You're being unfair to street preachers. I know at least one who's quite knowledgeable.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • Dear conservative/orthodox Christians:

        Every time you step inside a church; every time you open your Bible; every time you begin to pray, ask yourself these questions:

        1. Why would a "perfect" God need or want to create a universe with little creatures and beings? Was he bored, lonely?

        2. Why would an "all-knowing" God create human beings if he knew that by the time of Noah he would "regret" having made them?

        3. Why would a "just" God condemn billions of human beings, for thousands of years, to lives of massive suffering, disease, violence, and death solely due to the disobedience of two of them?

        4. Why would a "loving" and "merciful" God condemn all of mankind to horrific suffering in this life and for most, horrific eternal torment in the next, just for the crime of eating some of his fruit?

        If this God exists, he is neither perfect, all-knowing, just, loving, or merciful. If this God exists he is malevolent, indecisive, unjust, vindictive, and merciless. If this God exists, he is a Monster.
        Last edited by Gary; 08-29-2015, 01:09 PM.

        Comment


        • *Yawn*

          Look Gary. Just because you never bothered to ask yourselves these questions doesn't mean the rest of us haven't. It's just looking at the problem of evil.

          My interview with Clay Jones on the problem of evil.

          My interview with Greg Ganssle on God and the problem of evil.

          My interview with David Wood on the problem of evil.

          My Ebook I cowrote with an atheist on this problem.

          Most of us have done something you apparently didn't do. We've thought about our worldview.

          How about you think about yours and tell us your explanation for why there's evil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gary View Post
            Dear conservative/orthodox Christians:

            Every time you step inside a church; every time you open your Bible; every time you begin to pray, ask yourself these questions:

            1. Why would a "perfect" God need or want to create a universe with little creatures and beings? Was he bored, lonely?

            2. Why would an "all-knowing" God create human beings if he knew that by the time of Noah he would "regret" having made them?

            3. Why would a "just" God condemn billions of human beings, for thousands of years, to lives of massive suffering, disease, violence, and death solely due to the disobedience of two of them?

            4. Why would a "loving" and "merciful God condemn all of mankind to horrific suffering in this life and for most, horrific eternal torment in the next, just for the crime of eating some of his fruit?

            If this God exists, he is neither perfect, all-knowing, just, loving, or merciful. If this God exists he is malevolent, indecisive, unjust, vindictive, and merciless. If this God exists, he is a Monster.
            All of that is grounds to re-examine the teachings about the nature of God perhaps- but it doesn't impact on whether he exists in the least. All that does is give reasons for why (in your opinion) we should not love God. Of course, that assumes that you know enough about God to be making such evaluations - which you don't.

            1/ He must have considered that he had a good reason.
            2/ Question based on a dangerously oversimplified view of what it means to be all knowing.
            3/ A failed mission to rescue humanity from such a fate would answer adequately. Of course that would impact on the oversimplified view of God's omnipotence.
            4/ No Biblical support for the concept of eternal torment exists - insofar as torment being inflicted by God or his agents is concerned.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
              *Yawn*

              Look Gary. Just because you never bothered to ask yourselves these questions doesn't mean the rest of us haven't. It's just looking at the problem of evil.

              My interview with Clay Jones on the problem of evil.

              My interview with Greg Ganssle on God and the problem of evil.

              My interview with David Wood on the problem of evil.

              My Ebook I cowrote with an atheist on this problem.

              Most of us have done something you apparently didn't do. We've thought about our worldview.

              How about you think about yours and tell us your explanation for why there's evil.
              I have no idea why there is evil.

              But I do know the definitions of the words "perfect", "good", "just", "merciful", etc. and your alleged god's behavior fails to meet the definitions of these very basic words. I don't need to listen to your spin or the spin of any other ancient-snake-oil salesman to explain why these words do not mean what every child knows that these words mean.
              Last edited by Gary; 08-29-2015, 01:20 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                All of that is grounds to re-examine the teachings about the nature of God perhaps- but it doesn't impact on whether he exists in the least. All that does is give reasons for why (in your opinion) we should not love God. Of course, that assumes that you know enough about God to be making such evaluations - which you don't.

                1/ He must have considered that he had a good reason.
                2/ Question based on a dangerously oversimplified view of what it means to be all knowing.
                3/ A failed mission to rescue humanity from such a fate would answer adequately. Of course that would impact on the oversimplified view of God's omnipotence.
                4/ No Biblical support for the concept of eternal torment exists - insofar as torment being inflicted by God or his agents is concerned.
                You are correct in that these facts do not change whether or not Yahweh exists or whether or not he is the Creator. But what it does show is that Yahweh is not who and what he claims to be. He is either a liar, or, he only exists or has existed in the wild, superstitious imaginations of the Bronze Age nomads who invented him and those who have subsequently fallen for their tall tale for the last four thousand years.

                Please explain how a perfect god can "regret" having created something? Regretting doing something means you made a mistake. Let's hear how you spin yourself out of this.
                Last edited by Gary; 08-29-2015, 01:21 PM.

                Comment


                • You are correct in that these facts do not change whether or not Yahweh exists or whether or not he is the Creator. But what it does show is that Yahweh is not who and what he claims to be.
                  No - it shows that he is not what men claim he is. It is like a young child making exaggerated claims about his father ... he might truly believe that what he says is true, but that has no impact on reality. What does God claim he is ... explicit claims. You don't know.
                  Oversimplified, rationalised, and just plain wrong claims - and whether they are made by church or atheist - you unquestioningly buy into them: your own claims (and possibly beliefs) to the contrary notwithstanding. You haven't examined the claims for yourself - all you've done is turn to people who declare themselves authorities on the issues pertaining.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                    I have no idea why there is evil.

                    But I do know the definitions of the words "perfect", "good", "just", "merciful", etc. and your alleged god's behavior fails to meet the definitions of these very basic words. I don't need to listen to your spin or the spin of any other ancient-snake-oil salesman to explain why these words do not mean what every child knows that these words mean.
                    Then you have a problem. My worldview has an explanation for evil. Yours doesn't.

                    Also, go ahead. Define those words you said you know the definition of.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                      Watching Gary is like watching a street preacher. They don't know what they're talking about, are thoroughly convinced they're authorities, and you just want to see what crazy thing they'll say next.
                      That's not fair to street preachers. I did street preaching once, but to be fair, it was more reading the Gospel of John in public than preaching.

                      I think I've seen every single New Atheist talking point in this thread. The "invisible security guard in the sky" comment completed the list.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                        That's not fair to street preachers. I did street preaching once, but to be fair, it was more reading the Gospel of John in public than preaching.

                        I think I've seen every single New Atheist talking point in this thread. The "invisible security guard in the sky" comment completed the list.
                        Do you have to go to the hospital for hyponatremia now?
                        If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                        Comment


                        • Would it be better if I changed it to televangelists?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            No - it shows that he is not what men claim he is. It is like a young child making exaggerated claims about his father ... he might truly believe that what he says is true, but that has no impact on reality. What does God claim he is ... explicit claims. You don't know.
                            Oversimplified, rationalised, and just plain wrong claims - and whether they are made by church or atheist - you unquestioningly buy into them: your own claims (and possibly beliefs) to the contrary notwithstanding. You haven't examined the claims for yourself - all you've done is turn to people who declare themselves authorities on the issues pertaining.
                            God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind. ---Numbers 23:19

                            So which is it? God never changes his mind or he changed his mind about the wisdom of creating man? You can't have it both ways. It's one or the other. Any other twisting of these two passage is pure spin.

                            And saying that God's ways are incomprehensible to mankind, and that is why we ignorant mortals cannot understand why these two passages are not in conflict, is the pathetic fallback answer when Christians are caught in a corner with their pants down around their ankles; their silliness exposed to the world for all to see, except, of course, themselves, who continue to argue that somehow X and Y say and mean the same thing.
                            Last edited by Gary; 08-29-2015, 04:44 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Gary reads the text like a fundamentalist not realizing anthropomorphic language takes place. Even the patristics early on in the church saw this. Try reading Mark Sheridan's Language for God in Patristic Tradition.

                              This is just pathetically weak argumentation.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                                Gary reads the text like a fundamentalist not realizing anthropomorphic language takes place. Even the patristics early on in the church saw this. Try reading Mark Sheridan's Language for God in Patristic Tradition.

                                This is just pathetically weak argumentation.
                                Spin, spin, and more spin. Slick Willy (Bill Clinton) was more convincing with his " 'is' does not always mean 'is' " argument.

                                The Early Church Fathers were the original "masters of spin".

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X