The main issue with Christianity

Quincunx said:
I will take this as admission that you talk a big game while understanding nothing about the topic.
Click to expand...
You haven't been able to correctly a single fucking question posed to you ... on any topic. You are the one that is nothing but hot air and "talking a big game."

I know, I know ... you were so sure that you were fooling everyone, I get it. You know I hate to be the one to splash you with cold water but you are just another leftist moron who thinks he is a thuper-geniuth.
 
BidenPresident said:
What is that false premise?
Click to expand...

If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

in this argument?....."if God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good"........there is another alternative, which is that he has created a universe in which human beings have free will, thus allowing us to act either for good or for evil, because free will IS good......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

in this argument?....."if God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good"........there is another alternative, which is that he has created a universe in which human beings have free will, thus allowing us to act either for good or for evil, because free will IS good......
Click to expand...

God created flawed beings.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

in this argument?....."if God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good"........there is another alternative, which is that he has created a universe in which human beings have free will, thus allowing us to act either for good or for evil, because free will IS good......
Click to expand...

Why is free will good?
 
gfm7175 said:
Just as Colt didn't create violence, God didn't create sin. Blaming Colt for violence is just plain stupid, and so is blaming God for sin.
Click to expand...
I realize you didn't ask for my opinion, but I'd like to chip in 2-cents here. I really think your position is much stronger if you stick with the theological position that the apparent conundrum of the "omniscient creator's timeline (The Plan)" with "free will" is simply a great mystery (admittedly a question of faith), and that "sin" is nothing more than a way to reference the extent that free will has detracted from The Plan.

I don't know if you are familiar with the word "privation" (noun) but it is a useful word that can be helpful here. Some things aren't really things, but are the absence of something else, hence a privation. There really is no such thing as darkness; there is only light and/or the lack thereof. There is no such thing as cold; there is only thermal energy and/or the lack thereof. Darkness and cold are privations. Similarly, your description of "sin" is more of a privation. There is only "perfection" and/or the lack thereof. Wherever free will causes a lack of perfection (or a deviation of The Plan) then you refer to that as "sin."

So if a Christian were to ask me "Hey, IBDaMann, what are your thoughts and perceptions on 'sin'?" ... I would first mention that I'm an atheist and that I'm probably not the best person to ask, but if there were no other Christians around, I might give them my two cents as described above.

Oh, by the way, your Colt analogy is likely to bite you on the ... leg. Colt is absolutely responsible for anything and everything that goes wrong with the firearms that it designs and manufactures. Eventually, somebody is going to mention that God is absolutely responsible for anything and everything that goes wrong with the people He designed and manufactured. This is mainly why I suggest you keep "free will" as a "mystery of the faith", and separate God's responsibility from those "sins" that human free will chose.

So that's four cents total.
 
gfm7175 said:
In part, yes. I'm not going to pretend that you are completely off base because you are understanding that the end result is that God disapproves of the behavior and is thus offended by it, but I think you're missing some important details beyond the "personal preference" perspective. Your perspective seems to be more personality focused (and focused on God himself) while mine is more design focused (and focused on God's creation).
Click to expand...

My "focus", gfm, is on the FACT that the reason "sin" exists for Christians is because of the attribute assigned to the god of Christianity...the main one of which, is that damn near everything that humans do, other than adoring that god, offends it.

That, in great part, is the reason today's Christians go to such lengths to disassociate themselves from the god of the Old Testament...THE GOD JESUS WORSHIPED. "The god Jesus worshiped" found many things offensive that modern Christians (and modern people in general), in large part, no longer consider immoral or perverting...and "the god Jesus worshiped" was not offended by many things modern Christians (and modern people in general) deem to be disgusting.

Those who have blindly guessed that a GOD exists may be correct (which necessitates that they may be wrong)...perhaps have bought into notions of the GOD's attributes. To me (this is strictly me), the attributes assigned to the Abrahamic GOD...sound more like the mores and wishes of a relatively unsophisticated, unknowledgeable, superstitious, ancient people...than the dictates of a GOD able to create a universe as immense as ours. Christians may be correct; the ancient Hebrews from whom they derived their GOD may have been correct. And it all may be a flight of fancy...like the flights of fancy of the Greek, Roman and Norse deities.

As I said before, sin is a perversion of the good things that God has made. To put that into other words, sin is the vandalizing of Shalom. (meaning anything that ceases, slows, or otherwise works against God's design for creation (which is universal flourishing and wholeness).
Click to expand...

Sounds good...almost poetic.

The bottom line, though, is that every "sin" is merely something that offends the god. This "what comes first, the taking of offense or the whatever" seems to be opportunistic and gratuitous.


Christians assert that everyone is a sinner (besides Jesus Christ) because everyone has, in one way or another, perverted the good and perfect transcendent order that God has created, working against universal flourishing and wholeness.
Click to expand...

My guess is that Christians assert that everyone is a sinner, because they think it sounds self-effacing...and they consider self-effacement to be something their god demands or likes.
 
BartenderElite said:
Is that it's not aptly named.

A good portion - and I'd say most - of the religion are practices, rituals, rules and philosophies that were never spoken by Christ, or endorsed by Christ.

I think there are some sects that are strictly about the teachings of Christ, who I feel was an ascended being and someone whose words matter, but they're not mainstream Christianity.
Click to expand...

The main issue with Christianity is that it declares man answerable to God. This conflicts with the totalitarian objectives of the left, who view government - the state - as the ultimate authority in the universe.
 
Frank Apisa said:
My "focus", gfm, is on the FACT that the reason "sin" exists for Christians is because of the attribute assigned to the god of Christianity...the main one of which, is that damn near everything that humans do, other than adoring that god, offends it.

That, in great part, is the reason today's Christians go to such lengths to disassociate themselves from the god of the Old Testament...THE GOD JESUS WORSHIPED. "The god Jesus worshiped" found many things offensive that modern Christians (and modern people in general), in large part, no longer consider immoral or perverting...and "the god Jesus worshiped" was not offended by many things modern Christians (and modern people in general) deem to be disgusting.

Those who have blindly guessed that a GOD exists may be correct (which necessitates that they may be wrong)...perhaps have bought into notions of the GOD's attributes. To me (this is strictly me), the attributes assigned to the Abrahamic GOD...sound more like the mores and wishes of a relatively unsophisticated, unknowledgeable, superstitious, ancient people...than the dictates of a GOD able to create a universe as immense as ours. Christians may be correct; the ancient Hebrews from whom they derived their GOD may have been correct. And it all may be a flight of fancy...like the flights of fancy of the Greek, Roman and Norse deities.



Sounds good...almost poetic.

The bottom line, though, is that every "sin" is merely something that offends the god. This "what comes first, the taking of offense or the whatever" seems to be opportunistic and gratuitous.




My guess is that Christians assert that everyone is a sinner, because they think it sounds self-effacing...and they consider self-effacement to be something their god demands or likes.
Click to expand...

Bigoted
Ignorant
Utterly False
 
PostmodernProphet said:
If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

in this argument?....."if God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good"........there is another alternative, which is that he has created a universe in which human beings have free will, thus allowing us to act either for good or for evil, because free will IS good......
Click to expand...

That isn't really the Euthyphro Dilemma per se. Close but not quite.

You should google it. Take some time. Read it. Have a big person help you understand it, then come back.
 
BidenPresident said:
I wish to learn why it is a false dilemma. Please explain.
Click to expand...

This dilemma is usually presented along the lines of asking: "Does God will something because it is good, or is it good because God wills it?"

The apparent issue that this poses when applied to Christianity is that either "good is independent of God (or above God)" or "good is arbitrary to the whims of God".

The answer to the apparent dilemma is that there is actually a third option, and this option posits that "God wills something because he is good". IOW, God's will is a reflection of his immutably perfect moral character (loving, kind, generous, patient, fair/impartial, etc).
 
gfm7175 said:
This dilemma is usually presented along the lines of asking: "Does God will something because it is good, or is it good because God wills it?"

The apparent issue that this poses when applied to Christianity is that either "good is independent of God (or above God)" or "good is arbitrary to the whims of God".

The answer to the apparent dilemma is that there is actually a third option, and this option posits that "God wills something because he is good". IOW, God's will is a reflection of his immutably perfect moral character (loving, kind, generous, patient, fair/impartial, etc).
Click to expand...

So who originally decreed what is "good" and what is "evil"? Remember God, that being than which none greater can be conceived, created all things, all concepts.

You haven't solved the dilemma just by emphasizing "he" in the sentence.

If God didn't decree what is good or bad, who did? And why does God need to adhere to that definition? Is He not all powerful?
 
gfm7175 said:
This dilemma is usually presented along the lines of asking: "Does God will something because it is good, or is it good because God wills it?"

The apparent issue that this poses when applied to Christianity is that either "good is independent of God (or above God)" or "good is arbitrary to the whims of God".

The answer to the apparent dilemma is that there is actually a third option, and this option posits that "God wills something because he is good". IOW, God's will is a reflection of his immutably perfect moral character (loving, kind, generous, patient, fair/impartial, etc).
Click to expand...

Right. So, Plato argues that God cannot be unjust.
 
IBDaMann said:
I realize you didn't ask for my opinion, but I'd like to chip in 2-cents here.
Click to expand...
I do like it when you have something thoughtful to interject, especially if it is to kindly point out a noticed weakness in a bit of reasoning that I have come up with. Most of the people on this forum are incapable of noting issues with even my weakest bits of reasoning, so even those still fly by without me having any reason to fine-tune them or to otherwise toss them aside.

IBDaMann said:
I really think your position is much stronger if you stick with the theological position that the apparent conundrum of the "omniscient creator's timeline (The Plan)" with "free will" is simply a great mystery (admittedly a question of faith), and that "sin" is nothing more than a way to reference the extent that free will has detracted from The Plan.

I don't know if you are familiar with the word "privation" (noun) but it is a useful word that can be helpful here. Some things aren't really things, but are the absence of something else, hence a privation. There really is no such thing as darkness; there is only light and/or the lack thereof. There is no such thing as cold; there is only thermal energy and/or the lack thereof. Darkness and cold are privations. Similarly, your description of "sin" is more of a privation. There is only "perfection" and/or the lack thereof. Wherever free will causes a lack of perfection (or a deviation of The Plan) then you refer to that as "sin."
Click to expand...
I wasn't familiar with the particular word 'privation' (it's not a part of my lexicon), but I am familiar with the concept you described and I do agree that things such as "darkness" aren't really things in and of themselves but are rather the absence of something else.

And yes, I do think that's a good way to boil down what I'm getting at when I say that "sin comes about as the result of a chosen rebellious action" or when I say that I view sin as a "quality control" / "trust" sort of thing.

IBDaMann said:
Oh, by the way, your Colt analogy is likely to bite you on the ... leg. Colt is absolutely responsible for anything and everything that goes wrong with the firearms that it designs and manufactures. Eventually, somebody is going to mention that God is absolutely responsible for anything and everything that goes wrong with the people He designed and manufactured. This is mainly why I suggest you keep "free will" as a "mystery of the faith", and separate God's responsibility from those "sins" that human free will chose.

So that's four cents total.
Click to expand...
Looking back at that analogy, I'm now thinking that it wasn't a good analogy to begin with, and even if it was, then you've definitely highlighted a weakness within it. Obviously, that wasn't the direction I was trying to go with it, but that's definitely a sensible retort that would "score points".

At which point, I'd then be compelled to retort in a manner that would explain how, when humans first came off of the assembly line, they were made to perfection but then later became corrupted by sin (deviated from perfection). That then allows for the "bad manufacturing" retort to be repeated. Uh oh...

Then I'd be compelled to return to the points I made earlier about how the free will design is all part of The Plan for restoring people to the perfection that they had when they originally came off of the assembly line, and that God's free will design is ultimately better than a programmed robot design because it allows for God's creation to willingly love him and desire to fellowship with him rather than simply existing in his presence because he programmed them to do so. (where's the joy in that?)

IOW, it all ultimately comes back to The Plan.
 
Last edited:
it was what we were discussing earlier in this thread.......I don't care enough about your failed arguments to bother googling it......everything you say is invalid....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top