The main issue with Christianity

[BidenPresident]

It's hard for you to imagine anything. There's no delicate way to put this. You're stupid. All people who have seen your posts know this. They are not laughing with you.

Into The Night of Stupidity. Later jerkoff.

 

[Ross Dolan]

An understandable feeling, yet I'd argue that the blood-sacrifice was the precise moment in which perfect justice fused together with perfect love.

Okay.

So...do it.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Give your proof.

There is no way to do it.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Dictionaries do not own the English language and do not define any words. Dictionaries tell one how to spell words, how to pronounce them, and how they are commonly used, to include common misusages. Dictionaries are awash in erroneous usages that are nonetheless common misusages, which is why they are included.

Note: Anyone who mistakenly believes that dictionaries somehow define words needs to explain how three different dictionaries will all have differing "definitions" for the same word(s).

I agree...and have written those same thoughts often.

Dictionaries tell us how a word is used at a particular time. We have no differences there.

Frank, it's not that simple.

I think it is, although I am going to agree with what you say in the follow up to this comment.

You and I could theoretically have a philosophical discussion in which I present my reasons for knowing that there are no gods. There would be plenty of discussion as to what it means to be "knowable" in the first place. In order for us to have any sort of meaningful discussion, we would have to get semantics straight so that we avoid falling into the trap of absolutely nothing being knowable. If I see a book on the table in front of me, can I say that I know that there is a book on the table in front of me, or are we locked into everything being a potential illusion from a Doc Dutch drug-binge spiritual journey and there might not even be a table in front of me?

We could have such a discussion. I have had such a discussion on several occasions through the years. Actually "knowing" something is not as cut and dry as some suppose. I read a thesis on that issue written by Richard Feynman that explored that concept in great depth. But, as you say next, we can agree to extend the word "know" to include thoughts such as "I know my name if Frank"; "I know Abraham Lincoln was once president of the United States"; "I know the capital of France is Paris."

We do no harm to logic in making that extension.

Once we agree to extend "knowable" into a reasonable domain of perceptions and reasoning, I could argue, for example, that the random nature of the observable universe precludes any sort of intelligent creator, and that one can know things through deductive reasoning, not only from direct observations, and that the observable universe shows us all the information we need to deduce the correct answer.

You could argue it, but it would be a totally illogical argument. There is absolutely no way to arrive at "therefore there are no gods."

You might disagree ... but we would be discussing the matter and the point would remain to be resolved ... until a third person joins the discussion and presents different arguments.

I would disagree...and I suspect that any logician would disagree with a conclusion that "there are no gods" has been established logically.

So agnosticism is the position of he who argues that a set of beliefs is unknowable. He who argues that a set of beliefs is knowable is not agnostic on that issue.

You are correct that anyone who argues that a set of beliefs is knowable is not agnostic on that issue, but an agnostic could easily argue that a set of "beliefs" MAY be knowable is not compromising his/her agnosticism on that issue in any way.

Let me jump to the error you are making in all this.

I am not making an error on this.

Theism and agnosticism are completely independent. Nonetheless, you are trying to link them. Further, you are trying to establish absolute truth values for the knowability of various theistic beliefs. All you are going to accomplish is to state your positions. Therefore, if you are going to go through the trouble of thinking through where you stand on the knowability of various theistic beliefs, you might as well start a thread to allow others to share their positions. Make sure you establish what it means to be knowable, and expect that to be a separate sub-thread running through the thread.

My point is that agnosticism is a position on knowability (of certain beliefs). Agnosticism is not any particular set of beliefs.


Nope. It behooves you to realize that this person's faith/theism holds that his deity has been "revealed" and that he therefore claims to know that his deity exists. The Global Warming faith similarly claims that global warming is the "observed" (revealed) warming of the earth and claims to know that the cause is anthropogenetically altered fruits and vegetables. In both cases, the claim of knowing is part of the faith and is simply what is believed, despite the claim of something being known.

I don't think we need to discuss how the mere claim of something being known does not make it so (Climate Change anyone?). Someone who claims to know something per his faith is making a theistic profession, not a statement of absolute truth.

This last bit is unworthy of all the thought you put into the issue earlier, Mann. It is an attempt to pretend that a blind guess is something more than just a blind guess.

In any case, descriptors suck. Try to make your case without using the descriptors...and see how that goes.

 

[Ross Dolan]

No one can take you seriously for saying such absurd things, Into the Night.

There is nothing absurd in what he said there.

The reality is that dictionaries do not define words...they tell us how they are used at a particular moment in time. The meaning of words often change.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I love how you couldn't answer the question yourself. Why don't you try READING THE BIBLE for a change. Maybe you'll learn something about Christianity.

perhaps you should.......God did order a tribe killed, because they worshipped using human sacrifices......the left orders people killed because they want political superiority......now maybe you're learned something about God.........

 

[Litmus]

Every Christian: I believe.

End of story. No need to be rational.

morality is rational.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Who is the provider of life (according to Christianity/The Bible)?

So you can't or won't answer the question? Got it. It's definitely uncomfortable.

 

[gfm7175]

Tell me you see this, gfm.

Yes sir, I do.

Think about it. Put two kindergarteners into a space filled with delights and toys and tell them they are free to play and indulge with everything in the space EXCEPT A BOX WHICH SITS IN THE CENTER OF THAT SPACE. MY GUESS: 99.999999999999999% of the attention of the kids will center on that box. Fuck the "delights"; fuck the other toys. All they would want to know if what is in the box...and how to play with or delight in it.

Any 5 year old would tell you that.

Right you are! That's something that is a part of 'human nature' (wanting to know what is being kept secret from us, even if it might [WOULD SURELY!] harm us). Notice the particular wording differences between God, Eve, and Satan in Genesis 2 and 3 pertaining to the forbidden tree and how Satan introduced doubt into Eve's mind (and how Eve reworded God's command before the doubt was introduced). That could be a whole separate discussion of its own.

Anyway, I would suggest that this corrupted part of 'human nature' as you described didn't exist until after Satan's temptation and the succumbing to it during The Fall™. Before The Fall™, it is believed that a part of Adam/Eve's uncorrupted 'human nature' included a blissful state of no temptation.

For a god not to realize it is beyond comprehension.

I would suggest that God DID realize what would happen and that it was all a part of The Plan™.

And what on Earth was the reason for putting a Satan-like creature to tempt them?

Likewise, all a part of The Plan™. I do think there's good reason for doing so though, and I will attempt to convey my understanding of why God would even bother at all with creating Satan and a forbidden tree.

First, the forbidden tree. Why create such a tree just to forbid eating from it? Why tell Adam/Eve that they can delight in ALLLLLL these other trees, but just not THIS tree? Answer: Free will. It is impossible to potentially break a law if no law exists to break. By creating a "forbidden tree", God introduced law to mankind and the ability to willingly disobey him (challenge his authority).

As for Satan, it is believed that he was originally made perfect as well, but that he later (after Genesis 1:31, before Genesis 3:1) willingly chose to challenge God's authority in heaven. Some time after this rebellion event is when he approached Eve and craftily tempted mankind into challenging God's authority on Earth.

A reasonable follow up question would be why bother going through all of this? Why not just create perfect and keep it perfect? Why allow all of the suffering/pain/etc between the creation event and the restoration event? Answer: Perfect fellowship with God, and perfect glorification of God. At the end of this, believers in Christ can intimately know and live with a God who not only created us, but has now additionally redeemed us and will later restore us back into a perfect state. This sense of sacrificial (agape) love and deepest intimacy and care for fellowship with us couldn't have been realized apart from The Fall™.

They were tempted the second the god said they could not partake of the fruit of just one tree. 99.9999999999999999% of their attention was going to be focused on that one tree and the possible taste of its fruit.

I'd say that this is a presentism fallacy on your part (maybe due to not understanding or overlooking Christian theology on this matter). As I described earlier before getting to this point of your response, it is Christian belief that Adam/Eve had a different (uncorrupted) 'human nature' before The Fall™ in which they did not experience temptation as mankind experiences it today (and has experienced it ever since The Fall™).

 

[BidenPresident]

There is no way to do it.

Right. You just say stuff. Not interested.

 

[gfm7175]

Your version of God is not all powerful. YOU set it up. That's what you got. Too bad you aren't smart enough to understand that point.

Your version of God is "married bachelor" illogical.

 

[BidenPresident]

There is nothing absurd in what he said there.

The reality is that dictionaries do not define words...they tell us how they are used at a particular moment in time. The meaning of words often change.

You are as fucking stupid as that asshole. I don't think I will read your stupid nonsense anymore. You really are a moron.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Right. You just say stuff. Not interested.

Great. So you will butt out, right?

 

[Ross Dolan]

You are as fucking stupid as that asshole. I don't think I will read your stupid nonsense anymore. You really are a moron.

I am far from a moron, but if you do not want to read what I write...fine with me.

So...from now on you will butt out, right?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Your version of God is "married bachelor" illogical.

You still don't know what 1Sam15:3 is about do you? Interesting. Why don't you read the bible? (When you do get around to it, maybe you'll be brave enough to answer my question.)

 

[Ross Dolan]

Yes sir, I do.


Right you are! That's something that is a part of 'human nature' (wanting to know what is being kept secret from us, even if it might [WOULD SURELY!] harm us). Notice the particular wording differences between God, Eve, and Satan in Genesis 2 and 3 pertaining to the forbidden tree and how Satan introduced doubt into Eve's mind (and how Eve reworded God's command before the doubt was introduced). That could be a whole separate discussion of its own.

Anyway, I would suggest that this corrupted part of 'human nature' as you described didn't exist until after Satan's temptation and the succumbing to it during The Fall™. Before The Fall™, it is believed that a part of Adam/Eve's uncorrupted 'human nature' included a blissful state of no temptation.


I would suggest that God DID realize what would happen and that it was all a part of The Plan™.


Likewise, all a part of The Plan™. I do think there's good reason for doing so though, and I will attempt to convey my understanding of why God would even bother at all with creating Satan and a forbidden tree.

First, the forbidden tree. Why create such a tree just to forbid eating from it? Why tell Adam/Eve that they can delight in ALLLLLL these other trees, but just not THIS tree? Answer: Free will. It is impossible to potentially break a law if no law exists to break. By creating a "forbidden tree", God introduced law to mankind and the ability to willingly disobey him (challenge his authority).

As for Satan, it is believed that he was originally made perfect as well, but that he later (after Genesis 1:31, before Genesis 3:1) willingly chose to challenge God's authority in heaven. Some time after this rebellion event is when he approached Eve and craftily tempted mankind into challenging God's authority on Earth.

A reasonable follow up question would be why bother going through all of this? Why not just create perfect and keep it perfect? Why allow all of the suffering/pain/etc between the creation event and the restoration event? Answer: Perfect fellowship with God, and perfect glorification of God. At the end of this, believers in Christ can intimately know and live with a God who not only created us, but has now additionally redeemed us and will later restore us back into a perfect state. This sense of sacrificial (agape) love and deepest intimacy and care for fellowship with us couldn't have been realized apart from The Fall™.


I'd say that this is a presentism fallacy on your part (maybe due to not understanding or overlooking Christian theology on this matter). As I described earlier before getting to this point of your response, it is Christian belief that Adam/Eve had a different (uncorrupted) 'human nature' before The Fall™ in which they did not experience temptation as mankind experiences it today (and has experienced it ever since The Fall™).

The folk who are blindly guessing that there is a GOD...and then blindly guessing that the GOD has the attributes with which this god is imbued...have an intellectual tiger by the tail. They are doing their best to make possible explanations for why such a god would exist and have those qualities...seem reasonable. You, igm, are doing your best to make possible explanations for those things seem reasonable.

And you are doing a damn fine job...with what you have to work with.

The builders of the tower that forms my on-line avatar might, if they were brought back to life, attempt such a justification of their choice of land for the edifice. But the fact is, they fucked up...probably because of the lack of modern technology that could easily show the area was unsuitable for that task.

The apologists for Christianity (and for the Abrahamic god) have that same kind of problem. There is a faulty foundation for Christianity...and all the clever suggestions attempting to make it seem "not faulty" are more akin to putting lipstick on a pig than reasonable explanations for why the human predicament is.

If you could see it from out here...away from the need to accept it no matter what...you would cringe.

There may well be a GOD. This thing we humans call "the universe" may be a creation...and its creator can reasonably be designated a GOD.

With as much love and respect as I can muster, though, I must say this. To suppose that any such creator (IF one actually exists) is anything like the god you good folk worship...is so insulting and demeaning that one has to wonder why anyone would do it.

Anyone convinced that there is a creator GOD should immediately withdraw from any consideration of the Abrahamic god...the god Jesus worshiped.

 

[Litmus]

The folk who are blindly guessing that there is a GOD...and then blindly guessing that the GOD has the attributes with which this god is imbued...have an intellectual tiger by the tail. They are doing their best to make possible explanations for why such a god would exist and have those qualities...seem reasonable. You, igm, are doing your best to make possible explanations for those things seem reasonable.

And you are doing a damn fine job...with what you have to work with.

The builders of the tower that forms my on-line avatar might, if they were brought back to life, attempt such a justification of their choice of land for the edifice. But the fact is, they fucked up...probably because of the lack of modern technology that could easily show the area was unsuitable for that task.

The apologists for Christianity (and for the Abrahamic god) have that same kind of problem. There is a faulty foundation for Christianity...and all the clever suggestions attempting to make it seem "not faulty" are more akin to putting lipstick on a pig than reasonable explanations for why the human predicament is.

If you could see it from out here...away from the need to accept it no matter what...you would cringe.

There may well be a GOD. This thing we humans call "the universe" may be a creation...and its creator can reasonably be designated a GOD.

With as much love and respect as I can muster, though, I must say this. To suppose that any such creator (IF one actually exists) is anything like the god you good folk worship...is so insulting and demeaning that one has to wonder why anyone would do it.

Anyone convinced that there is a creator GOD should immediately withdraw from any consideration of the Abrahamic god...the god Jesus worshiped.

spirituality is a living energetic choice within an individual, and a way of behaving towards other humans....

all other considerations and framing are false and political.

 

[Ross Dolan]

spirituality is a living energetic choice within an individual...

I agree completely with this.

, and a way of behaving towards other humans....

Ahhhh...much too muddy.

Everything in a person's life influences a way of behaving towards other humans. Many of the most "spiritual" are horrible in their behavior...just as many of those who are not spiritual are horrible. AND...many who are "spiritual" are very decent toward others...just as many who are not spiritual are very decent towards others.

The spirituality...the blind guessing...makes almost no difference at all.

...all other considerations and framing are false and political.

That is just silly thinking on your part, AI. Re-think it.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Frank, if I'm too old to worry about this religion nonsense,
what the hell are you?

Spend your time thinking about important things.

What's your favorite kind of tomato sauce on pasta?.

 

[Litmus]

I agree completely with this.




Ahhhh...much too muddy.

Everything in a person's life influences a way of behaving towards other humans. Many of the most "spiritual" are horrible in their behavior...just as many of those who are not spiritual are horrible. AND...many who are "spiritual" are very decent toward others...just as many who are not spiritual are very decent towards others.

The spirituality...the blind guessing...makes almost no difference at all.



That is just silly thinking on your part, AI. Re-think it.

it's not muddy.

you're just a moral relativist.

the golden rule is obvious. it's not even to do with supernatural things.

elites hate the golden rule, and actual morality.

mass murdering eugenicists hate the golden rule.