Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bazz99

Is it actually impossible to reason with a devout christian?

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, florduh said:

The hard questions are hard. :die:

How do I explain this....how about with another evasive example.  Reconcile our lives to all the parameters involved with climate change.....a huge number of interactions all happening at once to produce a moment of weather.....   Now imagine you are God...you have all these interactions programmed such that they all lead to the plan that is our lives...every interaction, every moment, every hardship, every good time, leading to where we are to be finished in His plan....and simultaneously in the plan of others.  The arrogance that we understand climate change is synonymous with the arrogance we display in defining someone else's correctness.  And you never know....could all be a manifestation of God that He's planning to keep of cast away at His whim, a leaf on his existence called humanity.  Consider this the answer to the ten year old sex slave inquiry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Moonobserver said:

One point at least must be ceded to Christianity: Christians believe in a deity who knows what it is to suffer. In the image of Christ on the cross, Christians see a god who isn't distant from human suffering but is, rather, to be found right in the middle of it. It's a powerful image, and a powerfully meaningful and comforting one to the Christian. Even if they can't end suffering, they find God in it with them.

 

If god suffered, but can do nothing to end human suffering, then he is surely impotent and not omnipotent.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

How do I explain this....how about with another evasive example.  Reconcile our lives to all the parameters involved with climate change.....a huge number of interactions all happening at once to produce a moment of weather.....   Now imagine you are God...you have all these interactions programmed such that they all lead to the plan that is our lives...every interaction, every moment, every hardship, every good time, leading to where we are to be finished in His plan....and simultaneously in the plan of others.  The arrogance that we understand climate change is synonymous with the arrogance we display in defining someone else's correctness.  And you never know....could all be a manifestation of God that He's planning to keep of cast away at His whim, a leaf on his existence called humanity.  Consider this the answer to the ten year old sex slave inquiry.

 

Well, at least Edgarcito has changed his stance from being covertly evasive to being overtly evasive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

How do I explain this....how about with another evasive example.  Reconcile our lives to all the parameters involved with climate change.....a huge number of interactions all happening at once to produce a moment of weather.....   Now imagine you are God...you have all these interactions programmed such that they all lead to the plan that is our lives...every interaction, every moment, every hardship, every good time, leading to where we are to be finished in His plan....and simultaneously in the plan of others.  The arrogance that we understand climate change is synonymous with the arrogance we display in defining someone else's correctness.  And you never know....could all be a manifestation of God that He's planning to keep of cast away at His whim, a leaf on his existence called humanity.  Consider this the answer to the ten year old sex slave inquiry.

 

OR, it could be aliens.

 

Yes, I'm going with aliens.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

If god suffered, but can do nothing to end human suffering, then he is surely impotent and not omnipotent.

 

 

I wasn't making any comment about a deity's abilities; I was just pointing out something about a particular religion's take on the human condition in relation to the infinite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, florduh said:

 

OR, it could be aliens.

 

Yes, I'm going with aliens.

 

 

Balderdash. It's the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Moonobserver said:

I wasn't making any comment about a deity's abilities; I was just pointing out something about a particular religion's take on the human condition in relation to the infinite.

 

Yes, I can see that, Moonobserver.

 

And I was just pointing out that a deity who suffers with us, but who can do nothing to end our suffering doesn't deserve the epithet, omnipotent.  Impotent is a better fit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, florduh said:

 

OR, it could be aliens.

 

Yes, I'm going with aliens.

 

Your responses are as keen as Walters... how cool is that.  You two may retire to the cafeteria now... soft food tonight... Golden Girls on later...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2019 at 11:46 PM, Moonobserver said:

If you're expecting a Biblical perspective from me, you haven't seen many of my posts. 

 

Happy endings may not be guaranteed, but they're far from random. That being said, I'm glad I don't live in your world, where nothing good ever happens. I've seen people I love go through unspeakable tragedy----even been through some myself----but you know what? I've seen them come through it with courage and wisdom. And for your badly-needed information, I've done my share of traveling. I've personally MET Holocaust survivors who lived to inspire a younger generation to make the future better than the past. THAT is good winning out over evil. I've MET former drug dealers who now inspire that same generation to make better choices. THAT is good winning out over evil. So don't try to win me over to your acrimonious nihilism. It's not worth buying. 

 

Ok, let me back up here.  I was not attacking the person - and I apologize if that is what I did.  I was arguing the notion that good always wins out in the end.  I'm not saying nothing good ever happens in my world - or anyone's world, for that matter.  I'm saying that evil (or painful/bad outcomes) can and does prevail at times.  If I understood you correctly, you implied that evil never prevails. And that is the point with which I disagree. Of course we can all find instances of resilience.  I have plenty of those stories as well.

I didn't think the example of Hitler being defeated - although that was certainly a good thing- somehow balanced out the fact that he got away with inflicting tremendous suffering on humanity.  Sure there are survivors who have overcome and inspired others.  But I have taken care of holocaust survivors who continue to relive their nightmare, now with the added suffering of dementia.  And for every drug dealer turned motivational speaker, there are probably hundreds of others who have contributed to teenage deaths from overdosing. 

So, anyway, yes there are times when good is "winning out over evil."  However, there are just as many times (perhaps more) when evil wins out over good.  I am not a nihilist.  I'm a realist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

How do I explain this....how about with another evasive example.  Reconcile our lives to all the parameters involved with climate change.....a huge number of interactions all happening at once to produce a moment of weather.....   Now imagine you are God...you have all these interactions programmed such that they all lead to the plan that is our lives...every interaction, every moment, every hardship, every good time, leading to where we are to be finished in His plan....and simultaneously in the plan of others.  The arrogance that we understand climate change is synonymous with the arrogance we display in defining someone else's correctness.  And you never know....could all be a manifestation of God that He's planning to keep of cast away at His whim, a leaf on his existence called humanity.  Consider this the answer to the ten year old sex slave inquiry.

 

To add to LF's comment, the above is not christianity. It's actually heretical to orthodox christianity just to make that clear. 

 

According pantheistic philosophy, you are correct about the the 10 year old girl. And according to omnipresence, you are also correct. Orthodox christians subscribe to belief in the omnipresence of god, but then pussy foot away from the necessary implications. The implications of omnipresence is being present everywhere, which, amounts to be everything. Try figuring out to be present everywhere without being everything. I've challenge orthodox christian apologists to do it. They either drop it, evade or fail at trying. 

 

An omnipresent go who is all, has to be both the good and evil, light and darkness, pain and pleasure, or any such dualistic concept. The god is raper and the rapped, if the god is everything. 

 

But then here's the kicker. That which is everything, is no one specific thing. It's just the totality. And ultimately, it's not even a god as traditionally conceptualized. It's just existence itself, the universe, and so on. That's why pantheism and atheism run together in a lot of cases. 

 

But one thing is for certain, what we're discussing is NOT orthodox christianity

 

So we are not reasoning here with an orthodox christian concerning orthodox christianity. We're reasoning with an apostate christian full of unorthodox claims and views who can't very well represent christianity in this exchange. We're discussing whether it's possible to reason with a heretical christian is what we've been doing for several pages. And to some extent the answer is yes, we can. But, there's still a lot of baggage to be found in the evasion department nonetheless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 10:34 AM, sdelsolray said:

Poster Edgarcito is demonstrating why it can be difficult, if not impossible, to reason with a devout Christian.

 

At this point it worth asking if Edgarcito is a "devout Christian" in the context of what we'd normally consider a devout Christian considering he's somewhere between God is a separate entity unto itself, and God is simply everything... you, I, the rock, the grass. Sounds like the force Master Yoda described. See Josh's post above for his take on this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 12:16 PM, Edgarcito said:

It just seems as if a few of you are setting snares rather than discussing.  I don't like that attitude and don't really care to visit when I believe this to be the case.....mostly the Redneck Professor and Walter.  The rest of you seem mostly free of this. Maybe it's just me. 

 

I think the point of the questions was to point out the inconsistency of believing that God is all loving, and created the conditions for suffering at the same time.

 

Not so much a snare, but a path of logical thinking. But I guess if answers to certain questions highlight flaws in ones belief one can think of them as 'snares'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I think the point of the questions was to point out the inconsistency of believing that God is all loving, and created the conditions for suffering at the same time.

 

Not so much a snare, but a path of logical thinking. But I guess if answers to certain questions highlight flaws in ones belief one can think of them as 'snares'?

Well the version I read said God is love... not God was only love.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, freshstart said:

Ok, let me back up here.  I was not attacking the person - and I apologize if that is what I did.  I was arguing the notion that good always wins out in the end.  I'm not saying nothing good ever happens in my world - or anyone's world, for that matter.  I'm saying that evil (or painful/bad outcomes) can and does prevail at times.  If I understood you correctly, you implied that evil never prevails. And that is the point with which I disagree. Of course we can all find instances of resilience.  I have plenty of those stories as well.

I didn't think the example of Hitler being defeated - although that was certainly a good thing- somehow balanced out the fact that he got away with inflicting tremendous suffering on humanity.  Sure there are survivors who have overcome and inspired others.  But I have taken care of holocaust survivors who continue to relive their nightmare, now with the added suffering of dementia.  And for every drug dealer turned motivational speaker, there are probably hundreds of others who have contributed to teenage deaths from overdosing. 

So, anyway, yes there are times when good is "winning out over evil."  However, there are just as many times (perhaps more) when evil wins out over good.  I am not a nihilist.  I'm a realist.

You took the time to clarify, so I'll do the same.

 

You took my meaning to be that evil never prevails. For my part, I was taking issue with TheRedneckProfessor's assertion that evil "invariably prevails". You misunderstood me, and perhaps I misunderstood him. 

 

Some of evil's effects may be *lasting*, but that doesn't make evil's victory *total*. Evil never totally prevails as long as some good is made of what survives, and that's always possible. I do, however, reject the notion that evil victories are more frequent than good ones; if they were, humankind wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I think the point of the questions was to point out the inconsistency of believing that God is all loving, and created the conditions for suffering at the same time.

 

Not so much a snare, but a path of logical thinking. But I guess if answers to certain questions highlight flaws in ones belief one can think of them as 'snares'?

 

Yes, inconsistent. 

 

40 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Well the version I read said God is love... not God was only love.  

 

Your move was to move away from orthodox thinking and introduce pantheistic philosophy in order to try and reconcile a loving god who is able, but unwilling to end suffering.

 

What's happened here is what I often do to christians - push them towards reaching for a pantheistic conclusion. And then hammering them down on the fact that they had to part ways with christianity in order to get there. Just to make the point. 

 

They generally resist at all costs. Because they know that a pantheistic god will domino effect through "everything" and the entire biblical struggle and conflict between good and evil is rendered meaningless, basically. The bible takes a hit. Eastern philosophy takes a position above christian theology in terms of scope and depth concerning spiritual thinking. And the christian is finally rendered apostate. 

 

So no, the move you made doesn't bode well for a devout christian believer. If anything, it's takes you out and away from christianity......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Isn't this emotional justification?

So you went back to this instead of quoting said "emotional" posts I requested you to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Moonobserver said:

One point at least must be ceded to Christianity: Christians believe in a deity who knows what it is to suffer. In the image of Christ on the cross, Christians see a god who isn't distant from human suffering but is, rather, to be found right in the middle of it. It's a powerful image, and a powerfully meaningful and comforting one to the Christian. Even if they can't end suffering, they find God in it with them.

The difference being that jesus went into his suffering secure in the knowledge that it would be over and done three days later.  Geez, what a sacrifice.  🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Eastern philosophy takes a position above christian theology in terms of scope and depth concerning spiritual thinking

Hardening back to @Karna's earliest post, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Moonobserver said:

perhaps I misunderstood him. 

You did.  I was speaking strictly in terms of the christian ideas that: a). god has a plan for everybody and b). that god refuses to interfere with free will.  Ultimately, to marry these two ideas, one must concede that god plans for the ten-year-old girl to be raped, and he plans to do nothing to prevent it.  Likewise, god planned for 6.5 million Jews to die, and planned to do nothing to prevent Hitler from doing it.  In this mentality, evil will invariably prevail because god will do nothing to stop it.  Here again, I am speaking strictly about the christian god; and I am not discounting the triumph of noble people in the face of cruelty or atrocity. 

 

Most christians, when pressed to reconcile these two beliefs, cannot do so.  Either they go down the path of, "well, god had a plan, but evil men got in the way"; or they will claim that god is mysterious, or they will eventually concede, as edgarcito has done, that there is no way a loving god can plan to allow a ten-year-old girl to be raped and not do anything to stop it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

So you went back to this instead of quoting said "emotional" posts I requested you to. 

If I posted something you would have denied it emotional.....it being subjective.  Point being, you rationalize emotion a valid response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Yes, inconsistent. 

 

 

Your move was to move away from orthodox thinking and introduce pantheistic philosophy in order to try and reconcile a loving god who is able, but unwilling to end suffering.

 

What's happened here is what I often do to christians - push them towards reaching for a pantheistic conclusion. And then hammering them down on the fact that they had to part ways with christianity in order to get there. Just to make the point. 

 

They generally resist at all costs. Because they know that a pantheistic god will domino effect through "everything" and the entire biblical struggle and conflict between good and evil is rendered meaningless, basically. The bible takes a hit. Eastern philosophy takes a position above christian theology in terms of scope and depth concerning spiritual thinking. And the christian is finally rendered apostate. 

 

So no, the move you made doesn't bode well for a devout christian believer. If anything, it's takes you out and away from christianity......

When you look at the Bible and it says x and y, and then later adds z, the reasonable approach is how does x,y, and z fit together under one idea.  Jesus promises to end suffering at His return.  I'm unclear how each of you over and over and over move towards "God is unwilling to end" our suffering......especially since it's reasonable to place ourselves post Jesus and pre return of Jesus.....where God has given control over to the evil we witness.  Am I the only one who remembers this part of the story? 

 

My proposal was that all these interactions are allowed in that they serve a purpose in God's plan....hardship and all. 

 

Yet we can't seem to get past God doesn't want to stop it....impotent God.  Say something else.....we've heard it and it's not part of the story that I can tell.  xoxo Edgarcito.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

they will eventually concede, as edgarcito has done, that there is no way a loving god can plan to allow a ten-year-old girl to be raped and not do anything to stop it. 

Please copy and paste where you see me concede please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Please copy and paste where you see me concede please...

I believe god's creation manifests copying and pasting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

When you look at the Bible and it says x and y, and then later adds z, the reasonable approach is how does x,y, and z fit together under one idea.  Jesus promises to end suffering at His return.  I'm unclear how each of you over and over and over move towards "God is unwilling to end" our suffering......especially since it's reasonable to place ourselves post Jesus and pre return of Jesus.....where God has given control over to the evil we witness.  Am I the only one who remembers this part of the story? 

 

My proposal was that all these interactions are allowed in that they serve a purpose in God's plan....hardship and all. 

 

Yet we can't seem to get past God doesn't want to stop it....impotent God.  Say something else.....we've heard it and it's not part of the story that I can tell.  xoxo Edgarcito.

If one believes in deity of any sort, the belief that God (for lack of a better word) will eventually end all suffering is perfectly legitimate. It can't be proven since it's an inductive argument, but it is a legitimate belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moonobserver said:

If one believes in deity of any sort, the belief that God (for lack of a better word) will eventually end all suffering is perfectly legitimate. It can't be proven since it's an inductive argument, but it is a legitimate belief.

 

Legitimate belief? Then the belief in Santa is also legitimate. More correctly, it's an unfounded belief/wishful thinking. People believe in Xenu, but is that legitimate? The word "legitimate" means more than simply that people believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.