Guest Furball Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 "If God were to show up and act lovingly then that would be acknowledged." ~mymistake I believe God did show up and acted lovingly. He was crucified. For the few chosen, not for the rest of mankind. Not so loving now is he? Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine. -patti smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Oh yeah, and how does an all powerful being wind up being crucified by mortals unless that all powerful being pulled strings to arrange for it to happen? So God is fully responsible for all that happens. If one single person winds up in hell that is God's doing. Christian theology is self-refuting nonsense. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ The above makes no sense. I make it simple for you. Even if God and Jesus was proven real and the bible was true by all humanity and all scientists Would you love God and choose to be morally accountable to him submit your lifestyle to what he wants? Your answer is no. And your reason for that answer is simple You do not know anything about me or what I would decide under what circumstances. The above is an insult. "[if] God and Jesus was were proven real and the bible was [accepted as] true by all humanity and all scientists," then only immoral people and people too stupid to understand what the Bible clearly states about acts committed by Bible God would worship that horrible, abusive shit. Not saying that Stake Source is immoral, necessarily. He may be merely stupid, as are the majority of fundies who never grow beyond their indoctrination. My Position Stands then.....Unless the bible is re written or UN written. Regardless of any evidence presented. logically his existence will be acknowledge but never his love unless someone goes back in time and re write the dead sea scrolls and all new testament manuscripts in a way that is pleasant to all atheists Once again, there has been no evidence presented. Your position is hypothetical. I don't love imaginary characters from poorly written fiction. Why do you? Regarding love in general, I don't just love someone because someone else or some book tells me to love them or tells me that they are worthy of love. That's stupid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Prove me wrong ficcino. Will you worship and love God and be morally accountable to him forever? If you will I stand corrected Your statement that you "used if the whole time" is incorrect - either a mistake or a lie, I don't know which. You dropped your "if" clause in #52 above, the entirety of which I quote. But I accept that you intended your "if" clause to carry into #52, so I withdraw my "FU". What you said was not what you may have intended. I find the Abrahamic God concept incoherent. if I ever were to go back to religion, I think it would be some form of Vedanta, to which I was introduced as a teenager. I agree with most of Bhim's criticisms of Christianity. There is much that I still miss about the Catholic form of Christianity to which I was loyal, but its propositions amount to a tissue of absurdities. The notion that we need to submit ourselves to God is very dangerously vacuous, because "God" is ill-defined. Too easily, some group of humans take the leadership and claim to speak for God. So submission becomes submission to them. Not cool. Let's have some form of group govt where people's different takes on these abstruse questions are respected. If Jesus appeared to me and asked, Ficino, why do you persecute me? I would first freak out. Then I'd question whether this was only a brain event. It would take something outside of brain events to make me give allegiance. Like maybe, Jesus being my friend, walking and talking with me in real life as the song says, maybe sticking some amputated limbs back on some folks, etc. Not the shit that we actually get from Christianity. The bible says that at the end when Jesus DOES come, he outlines what exactly peoples responses will be but you already know right? Jesus won't be coming. Your book is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 "If God were to show up and act lovingly then that would be acknowledged." ~mymistake I believe God did show up and acted lovingly. He was crucified. So you're happy about the crucifixion? Or unhappy? Or something else? According to the bible, I believe it was all God's plan that this should happen, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 24, 2015 Author Share Posted January 24, 2015 Baa. I will re read if I need to because I was Gone for 3weeks but I will address briefly I do not mean for the sole purpose of knowing the future itself is the reason why God is more moral than Nazis I'm saying because of the result if the future. God had a reason for doing what he did the Nazis did not. If you knew by letting a robber leave the grocery store he would kill 1000 people in a mall. You would not have been so nice to let him leave. God knew ahead of time of the horrible things that Ameikltes would have done to other people Nazis killing people who did nothing *wrong* *and* on top of that who they didn't know if those people would have done anything horrible like killing more people. Kill to stop more killing is what police do. Kill just because....is selfish That's difference between Nazis and God I see, A1. God had a reason for doing what he did and the Nazi did not. So, if the Nazis had a good reason for doing what they did, they would be just as moral as God? Is that what you're saying? . . . And God's 'good reason' was to kill to stop future killing...? Then why didn't God kill Cain, to stop Cain killing Abel? Why didn't God kill Doeg the Edomite? To stop him killing 85 of God's own priests, the men and women of the town of Nob, it's children and infants, it's cattle and donkeys and sheep? None of these had done any harm to King Saul or Doeg. And if you read 1 Samuel 22: 17 you'll see that none of King Saul's other officials raised a hand against the priests - because they knew this was a sinful and evil thing to do. Saul and Doeg were clearly doing wrong ... why didn't God stop them? we can take it even further lol why didnt God hitlers Mom so hitler wouldnt have been born and holcoaust would never have happened? why didnt he kill Hits Moms parents or the parents before them, that all would have prevented hitler how for back do we go?....ok if God stopped all evil then nobody in the whole world shouldnt have been born since adam and eve or since the first common ancestor whichever you believe. Where do we draw the line? want God to start chaning the wind in a specific moment and change the trajectory of all bullets fired to avoid any death? Where do we draw the line? millions of scenarios There's no need to take this any further than the Bible, your argument (God kills to prevent more killing) and my questions to you, A1. So please don't deflect or dodge... just answer them. Here they are again. Why didn't God kill Cain, to stop Cain killing Abel? By your argument, God should have done this, because that's why he ordered the killing of the Amalekites - to prevent further killing. Why didn't God kill Doeg, to stop him killing those 85 priests and everyone else in Nob? By your argument, God should have done this, because that's why he ordered the killing of the Aamalekites - to prevent further killing. Please also note the following, A1. Saul (Doeg's commander) was disobedient to God, was non longer God's anointed in Israel (David was) and was ordering an act of genocide on the people of Nob. They were believers in God, they were Israelites and not evil Aamalekites and they'd done no harm to Saul or Doeg. So, by your very argument God should have killed Saul and Doeg, to prevent further killing. Why didn't God do so? And I'll add a New Testament question about God preventing killing by killing. Matthew 2 : 16 - 18. 16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. 17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: 18 “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.” These babies had done no harm to anyone and they were the children of Israelite families, not the of the wicked Amalekites. Therefore, by your own argument, God should have killed Herod to prevent further killing. Yet he didn't. He even sent a prophecy about this to his prophet Jeremiah, foretelling this event - so God WAS NOT ignorant of the coming slaughter. So why didn't he do something about it, A1? Why did he let it happen when, according to you, he should have prevented it? God ordered the killing of the evil Amalekites to prevent them killing, so why did he let Israelite babies die - when he could have easily struck Herod down? Please answer these scripture-based questions. Thanks, BAA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Off topic for a moment. Having only been on this site just under three months, i was wondering, has any christian at all ever put up a real fight on here, and also has any of them ever brought forth any evidence at all? I know there isn't any real evidence, i was curious if someone at least attempted to provide something -hoping curiosity won't kill this cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Off topic for a moment. Having only been on this site just under three months, i was wondering, has any christian at all ever put up a real fight on here, and also has any of them ever brought forth any evidence at all? I know there isn't any real evidence, i was curious if someone at least attempted to provide something -hoping curiosity won't kill this cat Well what do you mean by "real fight". From time to time we get Christians who are abusive. They usually don't last long. Did you mean a Christian who builds a valid and compelling argument that makes Christianity look legitimate? Nope, that never happens. The closest one can get is to argue that Deism is reasonable. Deism is a philosophy that was popular hundreds of years ago. Basically it says there was some supernatural being who created our world and then abandoned us. The God of deism doesn't care about us, doesn't perform miracles or even listen to our prayers. The deist God did not send any holy scriptures or reveal any knowledge to mankind so all the Bibles and prophecies are wrong. The deist God simply hides in the gaps of our knowledge where we can't prove if he exists or not. But even if deism were true to get from there to Christianity is impossible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Prove me wrong ficcino. Will you worship and love God and be morally accountable to him forever? If you will I stand corrected Your statement that you "used if the whole time" is incorrect - either a mistake or a lie, I don't know which. You dropped your "if" clause in #52 above, the entirety of which I quote. But I accept that you intended your "if" clause to carry into #52, so I withdraw my "FU". What you said was not what you may have intended. I find the Abrahamic God concept incoherent. if I ever were to go back to religion, I think it would be some form of Vedanta, to which I was introduced as a teenager. I agree with most of Bhim's criticisms of Christianity. There is much that I still miss about the Catholic form of Christianity to which I was loyal, but its propositions amount to a tissue of absurdities. The notion that we need to submit ourselves to God is very dangerously vacuous, because "God" is ill-defined. Too easily, some group of humans take the leadership and claim to speak for God. So submission becomes submission to them. Not cool. Let's have some form of group govt where people's different takes on these abstruse questions are respected. If Jesus appeared to me and asked, Ficino, why do you persecute me? I would first freak out. Then I'd question whether this was only a brain event. It would take something outside of brain events to make me give allegiance. Like maybe, Jesus being my friend, walking and talking with me in real life as the song says, maybe sticking some amputated limbs back on some folks, etc. Not the shit that we actually get from Christianity. The bible says that at the end when Jesus DOES come, he outlines what exactly peoples responses will be but you already know right? This response has zero value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 "If God were to show up and act lovingly then that would be acknowledged." ~mymistake I believe God did show up and acted lovingly. He was crucified. The bolded pink thing is the operative one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Off topic for a moment. Having only been on this site just under three months, i was wondering, has any christian at all ever put up a real fight on here, and also has any of them ever brought forth any evidence at all? I know there isn't any real evidence, i was curious if someone at least attempted to provide something -hoping curiosity won't kill this cat There were some Christians who made some valuable contributions to dialogue. The most recent was Wololo. Don't know where he is or whether he'll be back. Ordinary Clay shows up every few months and puts up a fight of sorts, but it's mostly snarky, one or two sentence replies, arguments over definitions, accusations of moral turpitude, references to websites, references to William Lane Craig or books that WLC likes or recommends. OC tries to sound intellectual but posts nothing of any original insight. OC also offers little or no actual evidence for any claim. It's more word games that amount to arguments that Christianity, after all, might not be false. Thumbelina hasn't been around for a while. She would doggedly post scriptural references interpreted through the lens of what some folks thought was Seventh Day Adventism. Most of the others don't get beyond "I believe it's this..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 If 'jesus' was the 'sacrifice' that 'god' decided it had to have - a blood sacrifice, since 'god' apparently decided that was the only way it could 'forgive' man for the 'sin' that 'god' laid on mankind - if 'god' got it's blood sacrifice then why wasn't it 'game over' then and there on the spot? Why has time dragged on and on with more and more people born to go to hell? The 'god' who is not willing that any should perish guarantees that the highest number of human beings imaginable will go to 'hell.' "if God stopped all evil then nobody in the whole world shouldnt have been born since adam and eve..." THAT, at least, would have been compassionate - better that none of us had ever existed rather than we exist to suffer and go to hell. This is all academic of course since the Xtian god is a man-made fantasy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 "If God were to show up and act lovingly then that would be acknowledged." ~mymistake I believe God did show up and acted lovingly. He was crucified. SO WHAT??? We already know you believe all kinds of dumb shit. Doesn't make it real. And it doesn't impress anyone here. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Would I get in trouble if I invited Ironhorse to go outside and play a nice game of hide and go fuck himself? Just wondering. I don't want to get a warning point. You'd get a reputation point from me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Would I get in trouble if I invited Ironhorse to go outside and play a nice game of hide and go fuck himself? Just wondering. I don't want to get a warning point. You'd get a reputation point from me. The rules depend on which forum section you are in. If you have any questions on what is allowed in the Lion's Den just PM Florduh. But keep in mind other sections are suppose to be more polite or more on-topic so it depends. PM whichever mod leads that section for specific questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Off topic for a moment. Having only been on this site just under three months, i was wondering, has any christian at all ever put up a real fight on here, and also has any of them ever brought forth any evidence at all? I know there isn't any real evidence, i was curious if someone at least attempted to provide something -hoping curiosity won't kill this cat Did you mean a Christian who builds a valid and compelling argument that makes Christianity look legitimate? Yeah that was what i was going for. Thanks for answering though. -me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Off topic for a moment. Having only been on this site just under three months, i was wondering, has any christian at all ever put up a real fight on here, and also has any of them ever brought forth any evidence at all? I know there isn't any real evidence, i was curious if someone at least attempted to provide something -hoping curiosity won't kill this cat There were some Christians who made some valuable contributions to dialogue. The most recent was Wololo. Don't know where he is or whether he'll be back. Ordinary Clay shows up every few months and puts up a fight of sorts, but it's mostly snarky, one or two sentence replies, arguments over definitions, accusations of moral turpitude, references to websites, references to William Lane Craig or books that WLC likes or recommends. OC tries to sound intellectual but posts nothing of any original insight. OC also offers little or no actual evidence for any claim. It's more word games that amount to arguments that Christianity, after all, might not be false. Thumbelina hasn't been around for a while. She would doggedly post scriptural references interpreted through the lens of what some folks thought was Seventh Day Adventism. Most of the others don't get beyond "I believe it's this..." Thanks for clearing that up. -me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 If 'jesus' was the 'sacrifice' that 'god' decided it had to have - a blood sacrifice, since 'god' apparently decided that was the only way it could 'forgive' man for the 'sin' that 'god' laid on mankind - if 'god' got it's blood sacrifice then why wasn't it 'game over' then and there on the spot? Why has time dragged on and on with more and more people born to go to hell? The 'god' who is not willing that any should perish guarantees that the highest number of human beings imaginable will go to 'hell.' "if God stopped all evil then nobody in the whole world shouldnt have been born since adam and eve..." THAT, at least, would have been compassionate - better that none of us had ever existed rather than we exist to suffer and go to hell. This is all academic of course since the Xtian god is a man-made fantasy. Great post bdp. I agree on all points. I too, even when i was a christian would have questions, and what you listed about god having his sacrifice and yet still letting time go on and people go to hell really bothered me from time to time. Great post though, thank you. -me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 "If God were to show up and act lovingly then that would be acknowledged." ~mymistake I believe God did show up and acted lovingly. He was crucified. So you're happy about the crucifixion? Or unhappy? Or something else? According to the bible, I believe it was all God's plan that this should happen, right? I believe God created us with free will so therefore I do not believe God plans (or directs) our every move. God exists outside of time. As a result he does not view time in a linear fashion of yesterdays, todays, and tomorrows. He views time in one eternal now, being eternally present to all moments. This means God knows actions of humans through all time but this knowledge does not violate our free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I believe . . . . . . a lot of crazy shit that has no basis in reality. It is not possible for God to be all knowing and for humans to have free will. You may not be smart enough to comprehend why this is not possible but that doesn't make it possible. Seriously you sound like a Star Trek fan trying to argue about how much anti-mater it takes to make a fictional engine travel at warp speed. It's make believe. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 "If God were to show up and act lovingly then that would be acknowledged." ~mymistake I believe God did show up and acted lovingly. He was crucified. So you're happy about the crucifixion? Or unhappy? Or something else? According to the bible, I believe it was all God's plan that this should happen, right? I believe God created us with free will so therefore I do not believe God plans (or directs) our every move. God exists outside of time. As a result he does not view time in a linear fashion of yesterdays, todays, and tomorrows. He views time in one eternal now, being eternally present to all moments. This means God knows actions of humans through all time but this knowledge does not violate our free will. Fail. This partly self-contradictory, partly incoherent bullshit has been refuted many times. And your "I believe" opener is exactly what you should STOP. That you believe this or that is of no consequence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I believe God created us with free will so therefore I do not believe God plans (or directs) our every move. ... More "I believe" from a theist who "believes" he is a True Christian™. This one does not do evidence and rational thinking, just "I believe". ... God exists outside of time. As a result he does not view time in a linear fashion of yesterdays, todays, and tomorrows. He views time in one eternal now, being eternally present to all moments. This means God knows actions of humans through all time but this knowledge does not violate our free will. Well, I was wrong. His mere beliefs have graduated to mere assertions. Claims of fact. More accurately, they are dime a dozen unsupported claims - logical fallacies. Again, no evidence, no rational thought. Just "this is the way it is." This is further evidence of how empty, shallow and myopic Ironhorse's thinking truly is. All this poster has is his religious faith. Why he feels a need to masturbate it on an ex-Christian website is curious to say the least. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 "If God were to show up and act lovingly then that would be acknowledged." ~mymistake I believe God did show up and acted lovingly. He was crucified. So you're happy about the crucifixion? Or unhappy? Or something else? According to the bible, I believe it was all God's plan that this should happen, right? I believe God created us with free will so therefore I do not believe God plans (or directs) our every move. I don't think he directs our every move either. God exists outside of time. As a result he does not view time in a linear fashion of yesterdays, todays, and tomorrows. He views time in one eternal now, being eternally present to all moments. Without time there is no stream of cause and effect. I believe Kant mentioned that time was just a mental construct so I would go so far as to say that we all exist outside of time. Everything occurs in this eternal moment. I think this nullifies sin because sin is a present state of unworthiness caused by a prior action, non-action or thought. Since there is no past there can be no sin. Sin also requires an effect which presumes a future that follows a cause. Since there is only 'now' there can be no sin. This means God knows actions of humans through all time but this knowledge does not violate our free will. But if we go back to the idea that time is real for humans - I believe that divine knowledge of future events pretty much nullifies free will. If God knows for a fact that Bob is going to choose the banana for breakfast on December 1st then: A) Bob's final choice of the banana is not really a choice even though it may appear that way to Bob. Bob cannot really choose something besides the banana if God KNOWS that he will choose the banana. B . Bob's final choice of the Eggo Waffles enforces the idea of Bob having free will but destroys the idea of God having perfect knowledge. Can Bob really choose the Eggos if God KNOWS that Bob will choose the banana? No. That's my take on it , anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 AN APPEAL FOR JUSTUS The Redneck Prof patiently waits for Justus to discuss evolution (not abiogenesis) with him, having first asked on 31 Dec (three times) and then again on Jan 2, 5 and 7. Well heck, I've been in another forum defending my comment that maybe light doesn't travel at the constant speed c ,even in a vacuum. John 16:16 John 16:19 So, you then admit that light cannot change speed and is constant, the reason for this discussion?I almost felt like I was at an inquisition as was being, I almost wanted to scream out I will never deny the Monkeman" But then again, according to my sources,'s' light might be able to travel faster than c. BUT REGARDING THE REDHEAD Fellow, I graciously waived contesting the validity of the Primordial atom hypothesis. I have been waiting on the Redneck to put the horse before the cart with the simple question of what basis did the house of evolution reasonably expect to provide shelter and protection to those who seek refuse from the flood of violent men when abiogenesis and evolution are intrinsically connected like a fetus to the mother. Biological evolution and molecular evolution (the basis of naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis) do have some relation and overlap in the sense that molecular change (in genes) is what drives biological evolution. So, it is not necessarily invalid to join the two especially when you consider that it is hard to draw a definitive line between life and non-life. The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. Source: Atheism.about However, I do find it interesting how one can have any reasonable expectation that scientific principle can be established from a series of random derivates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Sorry thing posted multiple times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts