Disobedience has consequences.

[LostMarbels]

It pains me to hear the English language scream when it's being tortured. The dictionary, Martin Luther, John Calvin and the Roman Catholic Church all disagree with you.

That being said, I'm sure you'll agree then that we should immediately revoke tax exempt status for all Christian churches, since that's only reserved for religions.

Once I answer it will go directly to #6:

You see oi-antz? Textbook answer. Do you see how this has nothing at all to do with the conversation at hand? That's because of rule #5. His intention is to exaggerate my point to a point where it is indefensible. Once I cant defend his newly stated position, of my position, he will bring in rule #2 and try to shut me down out of embarrassment. Can you see the pattern buddy? This is why I stopped you before you dove head long into this. You have to make the conversation to your benefit, and to your necessity of what you need to learn from it. I already know what "religion" is, and it sounds like you do also but an atheist may fill in a gap by asking something a Christian wouldn't even consider. Just sit back, let them run in circles and exploit the situation to your benefit. That's all you can really do.

 

[LostMarbels]

Man's ideals are religion. This is why Jesus Christ himself flipped tables and whipped a person in the house of God. Religion is an affront to God.

 

[LostMarbels]

True, the guy is being a goof! Christianity is a religion! Good grief!

Jas 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

That, is God's definition of religion. Why do you think God, as Jesus Christ came against the religious people of his time?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I already know what "religion" is, and it sounds like you do also but an atheist may fill in a gap by asking something a Christian wouldn't even consider. Just sit back, let them run in circles and exploit the situation to your benefit. That's all you can really do.

Lol. You're a hoot. You redefine words to fit your purposes, which is intellectually dishonest, and then you criticize me...

And you just had a Christian disagree with you and state that Christianity is a religion. I'm pretty sure that I can found countless other Christians that would say the same thing.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Time for a repost:

If only that meme actually resolves the issue. It doesn't.

No one is saying that human beings shouldn't have any responsibility in controlling themselves. The question is why doesn't God lift his omnipotent pinky to prevent evils from people who don't choose to control themselves.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TillICollapse]

Dont even go there. This is how they operate. Dawkins, a biologist and a strong proponent of atheism, has written many books on the subject, the most recent being "The God Delusion". From a philosophical perspective you could try Antony Flew's "God and Philosophy", or go straight for the classics like Karl ("religion is the opiate of the masses") Marx, Friedrich ("God is dead") Nietzsche, Michael Martin, or Bertrand ("Why I am not a Christian") Russell. There is also George Smith's "The Case Against God", or Sam Harris' "The End of Faith"

If you're going to quote other websites verbatim, you may want to provide a link:

http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-Religious-People-if-You-Are-an-Atheist

The web can be a great jumping point for understanding the basics, and any number of books on the subject can be found at your local bookstore. Richard Dawkins, a biologist and a strong proponent of atheism, has written many books on the subject, the most recent being "The God Delusion". From a philosophical perspective you could try Antony Flew's "God and Philosophy", or go straight for the classics like Karl ("religion is the opiate of the masses") Marx, Friedrich ("God is dead") Nietzsche, Michael Martin, or Bertrand ("Why I am not a Christian") Russell. There is also George Smith's "The Case Against God", or Sam Harris' "The End of Faith"… the list is endless!

Something you may want to familiarize yourself with, are the following concepts. They may give insight into your own statements, as well as those of others:

ad hominen
Straw man argument
Argument from Ignorance
Circular reasoning
Moving the Goalposts
Tu Quoque
Begging the Question
Falsifiability
Scientific evidence
Arthur C. Clarke's Three Laws (pay special attention to the 3rd one)
psychological projection
apophenia

It's a start.

Personally, I'm not much for "debating", and I typically do not set out to dress someone down. So keep in mind that some of us learn these ways, genuinely.

 

[LostMarbels]

Lol. You're a hoot. You redefine words to fit your purposes, which is intellectually dishonest, and then you criticize me...

And you just had a Christian disagree with you and state that Christianity is a religion. I'm pretty sure that I can found countless other Christians that would say the same thing.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Not all Christians have a true relationship with, or understanding of God. Not my words. It's it in the bible.

 

[TillICollapse]

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Not all Christians have a true relationship with, or understanding of God. Not my words. It's it in the bible.

Also, are you aware of the No True Scotsman ?

 

[LostMarbels]

Also, are you aware of the No True Scotsman ?

I'm discussing biblical topics. I can not be bound to a non biblical topic in-order to discuss the bible.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm discussing biblical topics. I can not be bound to a non biblical topic in-order to discuss the bible.

You mean like implying that other Christians aren't really Christians because they don't believe as you do?

 

[TillICollapse]

I'm discussing biblical topics. I can not be bound to a non biblical topic in-order to discuss the bible.

The Bible doesn't say, "Not all Christians have a true relationship with, or understanding of God." You said, "Not my words." and "It's in the Bible."

Except that's not in the Bible. In fact, "Christian" is only used a couple of times in the entire NT. And not once by Jesus that I'm aware of. That verse you quoted, taken in context, would have been uttered BEFORE the term "Christian" was ever used one time to describe anyone. I don't see where "Christian" is defined in the entire standard Protestant set of scriptures. The history of the term as we know it, started in Antioch. So even if you want to use circular referencing, your own statement doesn't seem to be substantiated by the scriptures.

 

[oi_antz]

What does it say about his character?

I know what I think, but I am more interested at this, to know what you think. Can you please describe what you think this says about His character?

An omniscient and omnipotent being could remove the weeds entirely without harming the crop.

I don't think so, when you translate this into the real situation that the parable is describing. In the real situation, you have people that are wheat and people that are weeds sharing the same world, living alongside each other. Often there is weeds and wheat within the same family. Imagine the situation, if God is to come along and pluck out those who were not of suitable character. Do you think it is possible, given what you know about human attitudes, that He could do this without causing some of the wheat to lose confidence or faith or love for Him?

An omniscient being would not know that his enemy had malicious intent? An omniscient being can make himself fall "asleep" to certain realities?

I expect that He probably did know, but I am also certain that He knows others would not believe Him if He made such an accusation without evidence. If He was to do that, to charge His enemy without evidence, surely you would expect Him to lose the support of some who have a greater sense of justice than those who follow in blind faith. I do believe He has followers who respect Him for His just rulership as evidenced and not just through trusting in blind faith, the sort of attitude I am sure comes to mind quite readily as I say this (if you have been following the thread).

 

[Messy]

If only that meme actually resolves the issue. It doesn't.

No one is saying that human beings shouldn't have any responsibility in controlling themselves. The question is why doesn't God lift his omnipotent pinky to prevent evils from people who don't choose to control themselves.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Why didn't God just heal everyone before Jesus came? Because He needs a Body to do something here. God gave the authority over the earth to Adam who gave it over to satan. That's why He had to become man to take the authority back and then He gave the authority to His Body on earth, the church. He can't do anything on earth unless His people pray. If He wants to do a miraculous food multiplication in Africa He needs someone who uses his God given authority and does that or He needs people to just give their money to the poor. The devil has more followers than He and He can't just 'lift His pinky' any time anyone wants to wrong someone else.
He could end it all, but first He wants a lot of people saved, He waits for the harvest of souls to get saved.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why didn't God just heal everyone before Jesus came? Because He needs a Body to do something here.

What?!? I've never heard that one before. That's an amazing limitation on God's power.

God gave the authority over the earth to Adam who gave it over to satan.

That's a convenient excuse. It doesn't explain why an omniscient God would do that.

That's why He had to become man to take the authority back and then He gave the authority to His Body on earth, the church.

Why not simply keep that authority?

He can't do anything on earth unless His people pray.

What an amazingly limited God you have. However, nothing stopped God from flooding the world. I don't think that your theology holds water, so to speak.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[oi_antz]

Any expression of speech be it incitement to violence or incitement of a viewpoint that could be harmful is "dangerous" but the implications of censorship are a far bigger danger.

What makes the implications of censorship a far bigger danger?

No.

Ok, I summarised the relevant point anyway. He said one thing and I said another, then the thread got locked for being off-topic to the forum.

No. What I am saying to is that if God punishes people for what they thought in life, if God institutes a punishment, a response, a 'consequence' for not believing in him then he is showing an unjust contempt of free speech. He is punishing people literally for what they think.

That seems like an unrealistic hypothetical scenario. Do you have any reason to believe or to support a belief that this is His intention?

I think God, if he exists, and if he has hell waiting for non-believers is showing contempt towards freedom of conscience.

I believe an opposite conclusion, since I have what I consider a more robust and authentic understanding of His intention, that getting rid of those who did not believe what He told them they need to believe is an ultimate consequence of them having ignored their conscience. There can be no other conclusion, unless you are suggesting that God expects us to believe things that are not moral and therefore conflict with our conscience (I would expect you to want to suggest this is so, and if so, please be prepared to substantiate that opinion).

I said representative democracy. We vote in parties and individuals we would like to represent us in government. We do not get a direct say in what they do necessarily but they are voted into office.

There is no party in my country's government which represents me, and I dare say it could not be possible. Nevertheless I did cast a vote for the party I believe my vote was strategically best placed for (that it makes such little difference anyway, at least I did my best). So, there is no such thing as representative democracy, insofaras democracy is defined as "government by the people". Unless a government was accountable to the people, which I do not know of such a system having been implemented. All I know is that every three years here, we get to tick on box in favour of one group of people, then they get to do what they can for the next three years and I see it is the same in most of the Western world.

A democratically elected oligarchy or a representative democracy are both adequate (albeit the former is a much more cynical and selective definition that may not apply to many countries such as Iceland or Switzerland).

"Adequate" for what purpose?

What false truth am I propagating?

I am only 'targeting' those who defend it. You do not and thus we have little gripe.

In accepting the idea that God is unjust, and entertaining that idea, you are contributing to the propagation of that idea. Since there is no scriptural basis for the idea of everlasting torment, yet you continue to promote the assumption that there is, you are propagating an untruth. I am telling you that it makes you complicit in the propagation of untruth. The better thing to do would be to force people to prove that this idea (if that is what they believe is true), is in fact true. But you don't do that. You appeal to those people, accept the assumption that it is true (when it is not), then encourage them to make all sorts of blasphemies in God's name. You should know better. I am not so sure it is fair to say the same about them.

 

[oi_antz]

An omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god could have created us with the free will to cause suffering to each other, but without the inclination.

As I understand the story, that is what He did. Can you please describe your understanding of what the "inclination" is due to?

 

[oi_antz]

Dont even go there. This is how they operate. Dawkins, a biologist and a strong proponent of atheism, has written many books on the subject, the most recent being "The God Delusion". From a philosophical perspective you could try Antony Flew's "God and Philosophy", or go straight for the classics like Karl ("religion is the opiate of the masses") Marx, Friedrich ("God is dead") Nietzsche, Michael Martin, or Bertrand ("Why I am not a Christian") Russell. There is also George Smith's "The Case Against God", or Sam Harris' "The End of Faith"

LOGIC 1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration :

Most use logic in a Plausible manor. Plausible is having a persuasive manner in speech or writing pertaining to a subject. So they never really are trying to "prove" anything. Just to be persuasive in refuting the criteria you set out. If you notice rarely if ever will they give a direct answer, instead they ask more questions. This is quite literally directly out of a hand book on how to win arguments:

View attachment 158900

You see? This isn't a debate. You and me are idiots that need to be put into there place, and this "conversation" is seen as something to be won by the atheists. Personally, I don't come here looking to teach anything. Because nobody here is actually having a conversation. The constant pounding, and ridicule to me is like a forge working steal. I come here for temperance. I learn understanding, patience, logic, and usually have to hit my bible allot to answer so I learn allot. There is no "wining" this. Just take what they give you and learn from them. It's kind of like farming an area of a game for resources.

Do not lose sight of this:

We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God

Nobody can hide from the truth, they can only avoid it.

 

[oi_antz]

View attachment 158904

View attachment 158905

Once I answer it will go directly to #6:

View attachment 158906

You see oi-antz? Textbook answer. Do you see how this has nothing at all to do with the conversation at hand? That's because of rule #5. His intention is to exaggerate my point to a point where it is indefensible. Once I cant defend his newly stated position, of my position, he will bring in rule #2 and try to shut me down out of embarrassment. Can you see the pattern buddy? This is why I stopped you before you dove head long into this. You have to make the conversation to your benefit, and to your necessity of what you need to learn from it. I already know what "religion" is, and it sounds like you do also but an atheist may fill in a gap by asking something a Christian wouldn't even consider. Just sit back, let them run in circles and exploit the situation to your benefit. That's all you can really do.

Yes, but you need to breathe and assess the problem and attempt to resolve it. Don't get all like this, frustrated because that makes you fun.

What word do you use to desribe Christianity then, if you would rather not use the word "religion" when "religion" is the contextually correct word to use?

 

[oi_antz]

If only that meme actually resolves the issue. It doesn't.

No one is saying that human beings shouldn't have any responsibility in controlling themselves. The question is why doesn't God lift his omnipotent pinky to prevent evils from people who don't choose to control themselves.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Oh, I showed this to Davian earlier, maybe it will be relevant to this question too:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+6:10-11&version=NIV

.. and while Davian laughed at it (because that is the sort of person he is these days), I think you might find something far more serious to consider in it. Especially when you put it in conjunction with what I just explained to Archeopteryx about the necessity of gaining evidence for just actions.

 

[oi_antz]

I'm discussing biblical topics. I can not be bound to a non biblical topic in-order to discuss the bible.

I did a facepalm when I saw this. It is not a race to win, and you have invested into it more than you need to. Have a coffee man, chill out a bit, and bring back that pleasant patient stuff you had yesterday and the day before. That was nice!