Announcement

Collapse

Church History 201 Guidelines

Welcome to Church History 201.

Believe it or not, this is the exact place where Luther first posted the 94 thesis. We convinced him to add one.

This is the forum where the Church and its actions in history can be discussed. Since CH201, like the other fora in the History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here. This means that anything like Ecclesiology can be discussed without the restrictions of the Ecclesiology forum, and without the atmosphere of Ecclesiology 201 or the Apologetics-specific forum.

Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is and such is not the area to try disembowel anyone's faith.

If you need to refresh yourself on the decorm, now would be a good time.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

International Fellowship of Christians and Jews

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars."
    Argument form Incredulity? A logical fallacy.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post

      Argument form Incredulity? A logical fallacy.
      No it is a statement that belies a belief that a beneficent creator supreme being can deliberately create a creature that inflicts suffering [being eaten alive] on another of its creations.

      Likewise all those other pathogens, parasites etc which afflict various living creatures including human beings. Why did this benign, omniscient, and omnipotent creator being wish to inflict all that misery and suffering on innocent creatures in the first place?

      We come straight back to Epicurus.

      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

        No it is a statement that belies a belief that a beneficent creator supreme being can deliberately create a creature that inflicts suffering [being eaten alive] on another of its creations.

        Likewise all those other pathogens, parasites etc which afflict various living creatures including human beings. Why did this benign, omniscient, and omnipotent creator being wish to inflict all that misery and suffering on innocent creatures in the first place?

        We come straight back to Epicurus.
        It is a logical fallacy. You are imagining that you have all of the facts and are as smart as God. Both are wrong. A simple reading of Genesis would cure that and prove you wrong. But you have shown over and over that you don't bother to actually read the bible, just books critical of it.


        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post

          It is a logical fallacy.
          No it is not.

          The question I put cannot be adequately addressed. If the supreme creator being is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent why does it create/permit suffering and misery?


          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            No it is not.

            The question I put cannot be adequately addressed. If the supreme creator being is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent why does it create/permit suffering and misery?

            Read Genesis.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post

              Read Genesis.
              And another "cop out".
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                No it is not.

                The question I put cannot be adequately addressed. If the supreme creator being is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent why does it create/permit suffering and misery?

                You are, not surprisingly, demonstrating profound ignorance of who God is.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                  And another "cop out".
                  Then stop copping out and read Genesis. Once you can repeat back to me what we Christians actually believe about God and Creation, then I will be happy to discuss it with you. Your ideas of God and creation are completely wrong, therefore your conclusion is also wrong. How can you expect to prove the Christian God as impossible if you don't even understand what we believe about God?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                    Then stop copping out and read Genesis. Once you can repeat back to me what we Christians actually believe about God and Creation, then I will be happy to discuss it with you. Your idea of God and creation are completely wrong, therefore your conclusions is also wrong. How can you expect to prove the Christian God as impossible if you don't even understand what we believe about God?
                    Am I to understand from the above that you do not believe that your creator supreme being is omnipotent, omniscient, or benevolent?
                    "It ain't necessarily so
                    The things that you're liable
                    To read in the Bible
                    It ain't necessarily so
                    ."

                    Sportin' Life
                    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      Am I to understand from the above that you do not believe that your creator supreme being is omnipotent, omniscient, or benevolent?
                      Your attempts to define Him in your own terms for your own purposes are downright goofy. You're gonna need a bigger box.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                        You are, not surprisingly, demonstrating profound ignorance of who God is.
                        My emphasis.

                        Do you envisage your deity as akin to the neighbour who lends you his lawn-mower when yours requires maintenance? Or that you invite round for drinks during a summer's afternoon?
                        "It ain't necessarily so
                        The things that you're liable
                        To read in the Bible
                        It ain't necessarily so
                        ."

                        Sportin' Life
                        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                          My emphasis.

                          Do you envisage your deity as akin to the neighbour who lends you his lawn-mower when yours requires maintenance? Or that you invite round for drinks during a summer's afternoon?
                          When you're ready for a serious discussion, please let me know.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                            Am I to understand from the above that you do not believe that your creator supreme being is omnipotent, omniscient, or benevolent?
                            He is so much more than you can imagine. And again you are making a conclusion without having all the facts. Reading Genesis will cure your ignorance. How can we have a discussion if you don't know the source material? Do your homework.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              This is the only board I could identify that was vaguely relevant for this topic.

                              I have just had a chat to a friend in UK who told me about a documentary that went out a few nights ago on British television about this organisation. I have watched the trailer here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KKKJweWP_8.

                              However, I wonder if anyone who posts here knows anything about [or is involved with] this organisation.

                              I found one or two Christian sites that seemed rather hostile to its programme and also found the IFCJ's Financial Summary online https://www.ifcj.org/who-we-are/financial-summary/ but was intrigued by its request for money to feed the hungry where the site states: https://help.ifcj.org/donate/16/53

                              You can help provide ongoing care and basic necessities like food, medical assistance, and shelter for a Jewish person in dire need.

                              Your monthly gift is tax deductible and will provide a critically important, ongoing source of care and support for the neediest of God's people in Israel, and around the world — including innocent children, impoverished families, and elderly Holocaust survivors.


                              The inclusion of Israel in that statement suggests that the Israeli Welfare system so ineffectual it cannot feed and provide medical treatment for its citizens.

                              It appears that this thread was not at all about a civil discussion on IFCJ, but a dishonest attempt to battle with Christians.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                                It appears that this thread was not at all about a civil discussion on IFCJ, but a dishonest attempt to battle with Christians.
                                Not at all but if people want to make their case they are free to do so. Nobody forced Sparko to react to my final point in my post #9. It did, after all, contain a smile emoticon.
                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

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