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
    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.
    According to Christians, a perfect God, a god who makes no mistakes, created the universe. Humans were the crown jewel of his creation, since they were created in his image and have the ability to make decisions using a free will. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.

    What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. "bad fruit cannot come from a good tree", and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans, therefore the ultimate source of imperfection is God.

    What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

    Dear Readers: Watch how the conservative Christians spin their way out of this one! It would make even Slick Willy blush.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gary View Post
      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".
      No. This is just hermeneutics. This is like saying "It's raining cats and dogs" and someone accusing you of spin because they wanted to find a pet Siamese out there.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        No. This is just hermeneutics. This is like saying "It's raining cats and dogs" and someone accusing you of spin because they wanted to find a pet Siamese out there.
        Slick Willy and Slick Nick.

        What a pair!

        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.
          The Christian objection to the claim that Yahweh-Jesus is the creator of evil and imperfection involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

          This spin is more pathetic than Bill Clinton's, "I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman" claim. It is so pathetically weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

          The argument that God was forced to give humans a free will because if he had made them robots, this would have been unfair and cruel...to them...is preposterous nonsense.

          Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

          Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions, because according to the Bible, there is no sin in heaven. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently? God could have made the original humans to exist in the same state that Christians believe they will exist for all eternity: perfect; possessing a free-will; not being robots; but being blissfully happy.

          Any excuse otherwise is simply spin.

          If the story of Creation and the Fall is true, Yahweh-Jesus was bored in heaven and like an evil child who enjoys torturing defenseless little animals, created animals and humans for the sport of watching them kill each other, rape each other, abuse each other or die of terribly painful, prolonged deaths.

          There is no way around it folks: The alleged Christian god is a sick sadist.

          The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.
          Last edited by Gary; 08-29-2015, 05:35 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gary View Post
            The Christian objection to the claim that Yahweh-Jesus is the creator of evil and imperfection involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

            This spin is more pathetic than Bill Clinton's, "I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman" claim. It is so pathetically weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

            The argument that God was forced to give humans a free will because if he had made them robots, this would have been unfair and cruel...to them...is preposterous nonsense.

            Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

            Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions, because according to the Bible, there is no sin in heaven. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently? God could have made the original humans to exist in the same state that Christians believe they will exist for all eternity: perfect; possessing a free-will; not being robots; but being blissfully happy.

            Any excuse otherwise is simply spin.

            If the story of Creation and the Fall is true, Yahweh-Jesus was bored in heaven and like an evil child who enjoys torturing defenseless little animals, created animals and humans for the sport of watching them kill each other, rape each other, abuse each other or die of terribly painful, prolonged deaths.

            There is no way around it folks: The alleged Christian god is a sick sadist.

            The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.
            All you are doing is making unsupported assumptions that appear to be justified on faith, so let's play a game called 'skepticism' and challenge your claim.

            Why don't you explain to us how a reality without any evil at all (this means NEVER exists at any point in time or space) could actually exist.

            If you can't coherently explain this, then it cannot be conceived of, and if it cannot be conceived of then you have no objection.

            So let's start off with a world with no evil ever existing, how exactly would any moral action be worthy of praise since all moral actions end up being the correct actions?


            You remove any significant of moral praise for doing the right thing, simply because according to your fluffy bunny concept of God there is no way someone can make a wrong moral action.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cornell View Post
              All you are doing is making unsupported assumptions that appear to be justified on faith, so let's play a game called 'skepticism' and challenge your claim.

              Why don't you explain to us how a reality without any evil at all (this means NEVER exists at any point in time or space) could actually exist.

              If you can't coherently explain this, then it cannot be conceived of, and if it cannot be conceived of then you have no objection.

              So let's start off with a world with no evil ever existing, how exactly would any moral action be worthy of praise since all moral actions end up being the correct actions?


              You remove any significant of moral praise for doing the right thing, simply because according to your fluffy bunny concept of God there is no way someone can make a wrong moral action.
              Silly, silly, nonsensical spin.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cornell View Post
                All you are doing is making unsupported assumptions that appear to be justified on faith, so let's play a game called 'skepticism' and challenge your claim.

                Why don't you explain to us how a reality without any evil at all (this means NEVER exists at any point in time or space) could actually exist.

                If you can't coherently explain this, then it cannot be conceived of, and if it cannot be conceived of then you have no objection.

                So let's start off with a world with no evil ever existing, how exactly would any moral action be worthy of praise since all moral actions end up being the correct actions?


                You remove any significant of moral praise for doing the right thing, simply because according to your fluffy bunny concept of God there is no way someone can make a wrong moral action.
                The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to mankind for avoiding God's "righteous" judgment in Hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! This all-powerful God could have appeared to each one of us to give each of us his "Good News" regarding how to escape his divine wrath and "just" punishment for our ancestors' horrific sin of having eaten from his forbidden fruit tree. Or, he could have written his "Word" across the night sky in bright, flashing lights. Or he could have even put a flashing sign on the moon: "Believe in Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior or I'll fry your ass in Hell forever!", but nope, he didn't do any of those things. Instead, in his infinite wisdom, he opted to offer us an indecipherable amalgam of ancient texts which we now call the Bible, as the means for us to avoid the place of torment which he knew he was preparing just for us, even before he decided to create us. This perfect God decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect collection of books, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and preached by imperfect men.

                No two people will ever agree what this perfect Word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, riddled with riddles, or obscured by enigmatic symbolism. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been far better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of pompous Churchmen and wanna-be apologists.
                Last edited by Gary; 08-29-2015, 06:48 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                  The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to mankind for avoiding God's "righteous" judgment in Hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! This all-powerful God could have appeared to each one of us to give each of us his "Good News" regarding how to escape his divine wrath and "just" punishment for our ancestor's horrific sin of having eaten from his forbidden fruit tree, or, he could have written his "Word" across the night sky in bright, flashing lights, or even put a flashing sign of the moon: "Believe in Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior or fry in Hell forever!", but nope, he didn't do any of those things. Instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer an indecipherable amalgam of books which we now call the Bible, as the means for us to avoid the place of torment which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and preached by imperfect men.

                  No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.

                  How do you KNOW what perfection entails if you are not a perfect being yourself?

                  Comment


                  • Oh and Gary you never explained to me how a world with no evil (at any point in time) is even conceivable, if people are supposed to make meaningful moral decisions.

                    So are you capable of backing up your assumptions or do you just make them by faith.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cornell View Post
                      How do you KNOW what perfection entails if you are not a perfect being yourself?
                      Please prove to me that the word "is" really and truly means what the dictionary says it means.

                      Your question to me is just as stupid and nonsensical.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        Please prove to me that the word "is" really and truly means what the dictionary says it means.

                        Your question to me is just as stupid and nonsensical.
                        Knowing what the word means, and knowing how the word is can be known in relation to how it is applied to reality are two different claims.

                        If you know how a perfect being is supposed to run its show then explain to me how you came to this knowledge?

                        You are basically trying to play God and you don't even realize it.

                        Comment


                        • Wow. Even the season one Superfriends cartoon was darker than Gary's idea of a perfect world. Scratch that, no early childhood entertainment is darker than Gary's idea of how the world should be.
                          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                          Comment


                          • Gary probably never thought of this objection before, and this is because he is a lousy skeptic who is incredibly biased and never stops and thinks about whether or not his claims make any sense.

                            He ultimately just pretends to know things that he doesn't really know.

                            Comment


                            • If God rescued us from every dangerous situation that we got ourselves or others into, we'd get in more trouble than a certain nosy reporter with her own "guardian angel" as her coworker.
                              If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                                Slick Willy and Slick Nick.

                                What a pair!
                                Insults? What happened to taking the high road, Gary?
                                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

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