The main issue with Christianity

Frank Apisa said:
Gonna be another response with a couple of answers included...and I am going to wind about for bit.

On a micro level, my mother and father "created" me...and I suppose that means they have (had) authority over me. And for the first 8 - 10 years of my life, they exercised it rather forcefully. At that point, the authority slowly diminished...and age 17 I left the family home and enlisted in the US Air Force. From that point on, their authority over me was close enough to zero...as to be considered zero.

And that is how the "creation" authority ought to be.

It is my opinion that IF there is a god...and if that god "created" me (via the methodology used by humans)...its authority over me is even closer to zero than the "zero" mentioned above for my parents.
Click to expand...
I'm definitely interested in this perspective.

You describe quite well what commonly happens with children as they grow older. They are under their parents authority until they "come of age" (a "my house my rules" sort of thing. This is likewise to what I mentioned earlier, which is the model within a household in which the husband has authority over the wife and any children brought into the world).

Under this view, you've now grown up and are "of age", so IF there is a god and IF this god "created" you, then he can now bugger off as you're now "of age" and in control of your own life, household, etc... Interesting indeed.

I'd like to highlight another view of authority, one of which is a more "4th commandment" view. This is a view in which parents are to be honored/respected and later cared for in their old age by their children (as a sort of thanks/repayment for them bringing those children into the world to begin with and for rearing them throughout childhood). In this manner, parents are always treated by their children as authority figures, even if they are no longer directly an authority over their children since they've moved out. At this point it's more about retaining order (and about respect) than it is about rearing/capabilities. I'd argue that, IF there is a god who "created" the human species, then there should likewise be that sort of retained order/respect that one has for those who made it possible for one to exist in the first place (which one has for one's parents, and ultimately all the way up the line to one's god, assuming existence of said god and the "creation" of the human species by said god).

I guess where I'm ultimately going with this first line of reasoning (to speed things up) is that, since God is the author of life, God has the inherent right to give/take that life wherever/whenever he pleases, similar to how an author of a book has the right to take the storyline in whatever direction he/she pleases. Given this, I believe one can reasonably conclude (under the view of Christianity, of course) that God is the ultimate authority over all life forms, similar to how an author is the ultimate authority over all characters within a book). Re: his creation within the universe, God gets to decide who lives and who dies (and when one lives/dies), similar to how, re: his book, an author gets to decide who lives and who dies (and when one lives/dies). The author has ultimate authority over his book; God has ultimate authority over his creation within the universe.

Unless you wish to further discuss this first part of the discussion, which establishes the existence of authority via the action of initially "bringing about", I'd also like to dive into my second (and stronger) line of reasoning, which is more focused on the paradigm of organized government, and which ultimately addresses the (false) claim that God commits murder/genocide.

The first question regarding this second part of the discussion would be: "Is one duty of a governing authority (such as a county government, a state government, or a federal government) the duty to serve justice to a party that has been found guilty of a crime? (meaning, e.g., years in jail for homicide, a fine for driving over the speed limit, etc.)

Frank Apisa said:
I certainly can think of scenarios where a god could be the creator of all life...and desire (and have) no authority over that life whatsoever. I am sure you can also.
Click to expand...
I definitely can.

Frank Apisa said:
Now, if you are asking if Christianity is of like mind...I would say, "No, it is not." For Christianity...the god has almost limitless authority over life. For almost all modern gods, that it the situation that prevails. (Earlier gods were not imbued with that quality.)

I invite discussion on this.
Click to expand...
Right, and this is the viewpoint that I'm focusing on in my first line of reasoning, since this thread (and even this particular discussion) is about Christianity. This is essentially what I wished to establish with the first line of reasoning, that per Christianity, God is the ultimate authority over life (as he brought about the existence of life itself).

If you're okay with it, as I said, I'd like to move forward into my second line of reasoning, focusing on the paradigm of organized government and how it functions.
 
gfm7175 said:
I'm definitely interested in this perspective.

You describe quite well what commonly happens with children as they grow older. They are under their parents authority until they "come of age" (a "my house my rules" sort of thing. This is likewise to what I mentioned earlier, which is the model within a household in which the husband has authority over the wife and any children brought into the world).

Under this view, you've now grown up and are "of age", so IF there is a god and IF this god "created" you, then he can now bugger off as you're now "of age" and in control of your own life, household, etc... Interesting indeed.

I'd like to highlight another view of authority, one of which is a more "4th commandment" view. This is a view in which parents are to be honored/respected and later cared for in their old age by their children (as a sort of thanks/repayment for them bringing those children into the world to begin with and for rearing them throughout childhood). In this manner, parents are always treated by their children as authority figures, even if they are no longer directly an authority over their children since they've moved out. At this point it's more about retaining order (and about respect) than it is about rearing/capabilities. I'd argue that, IF there is a god who "created" the human species, then there should likewise be that sort of retained order/respect that one has for those who made it possible for one to exist in the first place (which one has for one's parents, and ultimately all the way up the line to one's god, assuming existence of said god and the "creation" of the human species by said god).

I guess where I'm ultimately going with this first line of reasoning (to speed things up) is that, since God is the author of life, God has the inherent right to give/take that life wherever/whenever he pleases, similar to how an author of a book has the right to take the storyline in whatever direction he/she pleases. Given this, I believe one can reasonably conclude (under the view of Christianity, of course) that God is the ultimate authority over all life forms, similar to how an author is the ultimate authority over all characters within a book). Re: his creation within the universe, God gets to decide who lives and who dies (and when one lives/dies), similar to how, re: his book, an author gets to decide who lives and who dies (and when one lives/dies). The author has ultimate authority over his book; God has ultimate authority over his creation within the universe.

Unless you wish to further discuss this first part of the discussion, which establishes the existence of authority via the action of initially "bringing about", I'd also like to dive into my second (and stronger) line of reasoning, which is more focused on the paradigm of organized government, and which ultimately addresses the (false) claim that God commits murder/genocide.

The first question regarding this second part of the discussion would be: "Is one duty of a governing authority (such as a county government, a state government, or a federal government) the duty to serve justice to a party that has been found guilty of a crime? (meaning, e.g., years in jail for homicide, a fine for driving over the speed limit, etc.)


I definitely can.


Right, and this is the viewpoint that I'm focusing on in my first line of reasoning, since this thread (and even this particular discussion) is about Christianity. This is essentially what I wished to establish with the first line of reasoning, that per Christianity, God is the ultimate authority over life (as he brought about the existence of life itself).

If you're okay with it, as I said, I'd like to move forward into my second line of reasoning, focusing on the paradigm of organized government and how it functions.
Click to expand...

I will make one comment on this response of yours...and then we can move onto whatever you would prefer to move to.

MY COMMENT is going to involve a restructuring of something you wrote...and I am going to assume you will not have serious problems with that restructuring.

You wrote, "God has the inherent right to give/take that life wherever/whenever he pleases..." which I would like to restructure to, "God has the inherent right to have total authority over the entire of Its creation...including dominion, realm, and populace."

Okay...let us allow this as a given. But then, inherent in the..."has the inherent right to..." is the inherent right not to exercise that authority. The God could have the right to exercise that authority...or, for whatever reason, the right not to exercise it.

My own feeling (nothing more than a "feeling") is that a God would more likely refuse to exercise that right than to exercise it. Same thing goes with a parent, who at some point would see the advisability of no longer exercising that authority...and allowing the progeny the opportunity to become what they will...to make its own mistakes so necessary to effective maturity. A God, to my way of thinking, would create a world and populate it...and then let it mature on its own...without the exercise of any authority, because the exercise of authority is more likely to lead to retardation of maturation...than speeding it or making it a better maturity.

But we can put that aside for now...and let's consider your new point.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I will make one comment on this response of yours...and then we can move onto whatever you would prefer to move to.

MY COMMENT is going to involve a restructuring of something you wrote...and I am going to assume you will not have serious problems with that restructuring.

You wrote, "God has the inherent right to give/take that life wherever/whenever he pleases..." which I would like to restructure to, "God has the inherent right to have total authority over the entire of Its creation...including dominion, realm, and populace."

Okay...let us allow this as a given. But then, inherent in the..."has the inherent right to..." is the inherent right not to exercise that authority. The God could have the right to exercise that authority...or, for whatever reason, the right not to exercise it.

My own feeling (nothing more than a "feeling") is that a God would more likely refuse to exercise that right than to exercise it. Same thing goes with a parent, who at some point would see the advisability of no longer exercising that authority...and allowing the progeny the opportunity to become what they will...to make its own mistakes so necessary to effective maturity. A God, to my way of thinking, would create a world and populate it...and then let it mature on its own...without the exercise of any authority, because the exercise of authority is more likely to lead to retardation of maturation...than speeding it or making it a better maturity.

But we can put that aside for now...and let's consider your new point.
Click to expand...
I'm okay with the restructuring, but I'd have to be clear on the specifics of the wording, with ultimate regard to the concept of 'relinquishing' vs the concept of 'delegating'. I assume that you meant your restructuring of my statement in the manner of 'delegating' authority (meaning that God still holds ultimate authority over what he has delegated if he ever wishes to exercise it) and not in the manner of 'relinquishing' authority (meaning that God has given up bits of authority and no longer possesses them). Under the 'delegation' assumption of what you meant, I am okay with the restructuring.

So, yes, I feel good with where this first point went and I'd like to move forward: "Is one duty of a governing authority (such as a county government, a state government, or a federal government) the duty to serve justice to a party that has been found guilty of a crime? (meaning, e.g., years in jail for homicide, a fine for driving over the speed limit, etc.)
 
gfm7175 said:
I'm okay with the restructuring, but I'd have to be clear on the specifics of the wording, with ultimate regard to the concept of 'relinquishing' vs the concept of 'delegating'. I assume that you meant your restructuring of my statement in the manner of 'delegating' authority (meaning that God still holds ultimate authority over what he has delegated if he ever wishes to exercise it) and not in the manner of 'relinquishing' authority (meaning that God has given up bits of authority and no longer possesses them). Under the 'delegation' assumption of what you meant, I am okay with the restructuring.
Click to expand...

Let's spend a moment more here. The restructuring was just to give greater universality to what you proposed. More than just taking life if desired, I wanted to inform you that I was considering your question in a wider context. That being said, though...IF there is a God...the fact that the God could have total authority over its creation (SHOULD IT CHOOSE TO EXERCISE SUCH AUTHORITY) should not be taken as certainty that it has, or would, exercise such authority.

My own guesses are that any god creating something like what we humans call "the universe" would never even consider exercising any kind of authority over it. Never! Having said that, I am willing to acknowledge that it might. I cannot for a second imagine why it would...BUT IT MIGHT.

Now...whatever we are working with from this point on has two very serious caveats...and I want to be sure you are acknowledging them.

Caveat #1: Whether or not there are any gods is still an unknown. There is no way I can think of to estimate the likelihood that there is at least one god...or the likelihood there are no gods. So I cannot in any way say one seems more likely than the other. Any assertions as to the likelihood one way or the other by atheists or theists...is as much a blind guess as the blind guess that there is a god or that there are no gods.

Caveat #2: IF there is at least one god...any assertions or assumptions about Its nature are not the product of logic or reason or math or science. It still is totally guesswork. So assigning it the property of wanting authority is of no greater value as assigning it the property of wanting nothing to do with authority.

I am assuming we are clear on that. If you want to discuss it further, let us do so. I do not want to go further without that being established.



So, yes, I feel good with where this first point went and I'd like to move forward: "Is one duty of a governing authority (such as a county government, a state government, or a federal government) the duty to serve justice to a party that has been found guilty of a crime? (meaning, e.g., years in jail for homicide, a fine for driving over the speed limit, etc.)
Click to expand...

Please save this until after we establish agreement on the above. If we are in agreement, just put it up for consideration once again.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Let's spend a moment more here. The restructuring was just to give greater universality to what you proposed. More than just taking life if desired, I wanted to inform you that I was considering your question in a wider context.
Click to expand...
That's what I figured you were doing, and generally speaking I'm good with that. I just wanted to be sure that the distinction between the words 'delegate' and 'relinquish' was understood.

Frank Apisa said:
That being said, though...IF there is a God...the fact that the God could have total authority over its creation (SHOULD IT CHOOSE TO EXERCISE SUCH AUTHORITY) should not be taken as certainty that it has, or would, exercise such authority.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, I'm good with this.

However, as I'd prefer this discussion to stay strictly within the context of Christianity, I suggest that, as an assumed given, we stick to the Christian viewpoint that, per the Bible, God DOES have total authority over his creation (because he is the source of its existence) and that he chooses to exercise said authority. Parts of said authority have been delegated to others (e.g. humans have authority over all the Earth, fathers have authority over their households, governments have authority over their citizens, etc), but all those delegations are still ultimately subject to God's authority.

I realize and accept that there are other completely sensible ways to look at this authority topic, even from within a general theistic scope, but like I said, I would like to stick within an even more narrowed down Christianity scope, as detailed per the text of the Holy Bible.

If you likewise accept, as a given for purposes of this discussion, that per Christianity (specifically the Bible), God does have ultimate authority over his creation (because he brought it all into existence), and that God does exercise said authority over his creation (whether via directly or via his numerous delegations of it), then I'm ready to move forward with "Part 2" of my questions.

Frank Apisa said:
My own guesses are that any god creating something like what we humans call "the universe" would never even consider exercising any kind of authority over it. Never! Having said that, I am willing to acknowledge that it might. I cannot for a second imagine why it would...BUT IT MIGHT.

Now...whatever we are working with from this point on has two very serious caveats...and I want to be sure you are acknowledging them.

Caveat #1: Whether or not there are any gods is still an unknown. There is no way I can think of to estimate the likelihood that there is at least one god...or the likelihood there are no gods. So I cannot in any way say one seems more likely than the other. Any assertions as to the likelihood one way or the other by atheists or theists...is as much a blind guess as the blind guess that there is a god or that there are no gods.

Caveat #2: IF there is at least one god...any assertions or assumptions about Its nature are not the product of logic or reason or math or science. It still is totally guesswork. So assigning it the property of wanting authority is of no greater value as assigning it the property of wanting nothing to do with authority.

I am assuming we are clear on that. If you want to discuss it further, let us do so. I do not want to go further without that being established.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, I am okay with all of this, but it does split off from what I wish to focus on, which is strictly a Christianity biblical viewpoint.

Caveat #1 is wholly accepted, and I do accept that while I am focusing this discussion strictly within the Christianity biblical viewpoint, which yields particular answers with regard to your caveats, that one could reasonably approach it from a different viewpoint and reasonably reach a different conclusion so long as certain "givens" are agreed upon just like certain "givens" are being agreed upon with regard to Christianity.

Same goes for Caveat #2.
 
gfm7175 said:
That's what I figured you were doing, and generally speaking I'm good with that. I just wanted to be sure that the distinction between the words 'delegate' and 'relinquish' was understood.


Generally speaking, I'm good with this.

However, as I'd prefer this discussion to stay strictly within the context of Christianity, I suggest that, as an assumed given, we stick to the Christian viewpoint that, per the Bible, God DOES have total authority over his creation (because he is the source of its existence) and that he chooses to exercise said authority. Parts of said authority have been delegated to others (e.g. humans have authority over all the Earth, fathers have authority over their households, governments have authority over their citizens, etc), but all those delegations are still ultimately subject to God's authority.

I realize and accept that there are other completely sensible ways to look at this authority topic, even from within a general theistic scope, but like I said, I would like to stick within an even more narrowed down Christianity scope, as detailed per the text of the Holy Bible.

If you likewise accept, as a given for purposes of this discussion, that per Christianity (specifically the Bible), God does have ultimate authority over his creation (because he brought it all into existence), and that God does exercise said authority over his creation (whether via directly or via his numerous delegations of it), then I'm ready to move forward with "Part 2" of my questions.


Generally speaking, I am okay with all of this, but it does split off from what I wish to focus on, which is strictly a Christianity biblical viewpoint.

Caveat #1 is wholly accepted, and I do accept that while I am focusing this discussion strictly within the Christianity biblical viewpoint, which yields particular answers with regard to your caveats, that one could reasonably approach it from a different viewpoint and reasonably reach a different conclusion so long as certain "givens" are agreed upon just like certain "givens" are being agreed upon with regard to Christianity.

Same goes for Caveat #2.
Click to expand...

gfm...I may be working under a misapprehension here.

I have been conceiving of this conversation as a discussion of my comment (with which you disagree) that abortion is not murder. You asserted several times that abortion IS murder.

THAT is what I am discussing.

If you are discussing, "The majority of Christianity considers abortion to be murder"...I will concede right now without further argument that a majority of Christians consider abortion to be an instance of murder...and a sin.

There is no way I would engage you or anyone else on that topic.

I am due a question at this point...and here it is:

Since it is a given, of what value is a discussion about whether or not a preponderance of Christians consider abortion to be a sin...and to be murder or tantamount to murder?
 
Guille said:
No, you don't. Christians are parasites. I can't count how many fucking christians I've met who are total douchebags but think they're saved because they go to church once a week. They don't actually do anything though. I'm not a christian but I've spent a lot more time in the parish warehouse, more than the "real" christians have. I have no fucking respect for christians period.
Click to expand...

your perspective is clouded by your ignorance.........but I have respect for you despite that......
 
Frank Apisa said:
So...the same kind of (what you see as an) inconsistency of position happens for you as for me...and as happens for all sane, reasonable, intelligent people when discussing complicated issues like this.

Yeah...there are exceptions.

Here is my position: If a woman with a pregnancy occurring in her own body decides that she wants to terminate that pregnancy...she should be allowed to do so. No laws should be passed that says she has lost control over her body and that she must do as the government requires with regard to her pregnancy. And she must be allowed to do so with adequate, safe medical assistance.

I think you understand that completely.
Click to expand...

yes.....you want to help the woman kill her unborn child.......you've made that abundantly clear......
 
Frank Apisa said:
By the way, although I am no longer a Christian...I am well versed in the religion and enjoy discussions of all aspects of it.

Why not put your "particular aspect out here" for general discussion?
Click to expand...

like most who converted to aggressive atheism, I find your "well versed" education to be nothing but lies.......
 
gfm7175 said:
FINALLY, a truthful statement from you, and it speaks volumes.

Frank Apisa: "I do not accept that abortion is the killing of a living human."

This is a perfect display of what has been happening here, and of what IBD has so aptly dubbed "Frank Apisa Syndrome".

You have been asked two simple questions, and your honest responses to them (which you attempt to keep hidden behind your EVASIVE and DISHONEST responses to them, in order for you to "keep the faith") are as follows:

[1] The species of the fetus is indeterminate. (IOW, your "I DO NOT ACCEPT!" of the science that clearly identifies the species of the fetus as being 'human'.)

[2] The significance of the presence of a fetal heartbeat is indeterminate. (IOW, your "I DO NOT ACCEPT!" of the global medical community's axiom: "if there is a heartbeat, then there is life"... Ergo, the fetus is "living".

Your "I DO NOT ACCEPT!" response towards the truth does not make the truth go away. You cannot avoid it, and I will relentlessly continue to post it.
Click to expand...

there are many other things about science he does not accept.....
 
Frank Apisa said:
The god of the Old Testament did the killing.
Click to expand...

so why are you taking the authority of God unto yourselves?......

and I am not referring to the authority you are currently discussing......I am talking about the authority to command the angel of death to kill the first born children of the Egyptians.....you folks have taken the authority to kill 65M first born children and it wasn't even for the purpose of a plan of salvation of all humanity.......seems rather selfish of you......
 
Last edited:
Frank Apisa said:
gfm...I may be working under a misapprehension here.

I have been conceiving of this conversation as a discussion of my comment (with which you disagree) that abortion is not murder. You asserted several times that abortion IS murder.

THAT is what I am discussing.

If you are discussing, "The majority of Christianity considers abortion to be murder"...I will concede right now without further argument that a majority of Christians consider abortion to be an instance of murder...and a sin.

There is no way I would engage you or anyone else on that topic.

I am due a question at this point...and here it is:

Since it is a given, of what value is a discussion about whether or not a preponderance of Christians consider abortion to be a sin...and to be murder or tantamount to murder?
Click to expand...
If this is what you're discussing, then we're discussing two completely different things atm. I'm not discussing the abortion issue at all (thus why I'm not answering this particular question of yours... I'd gladly answer another one that is on topic with what I'm discussing); I'm discussing the issue of God supposedly "committing murder/genocide". I recall you wanting to go through that particular discussion with me and to show you why I disagree with Q-boy's position (and your position) that the Christian God committed murder/genocide. That's what I'm going through right now.

At this point, it seems that we are agreed that, strictly per the scope of Christianity (the Bible), God does have ultimate authority over his creation (which includes human life) and that God does exercise said authority. If we are agreed, I'd like to move forward with part #2.
 
gfm7175 said:
If this is what you're discussing, then we're discussing two completely different things atm. I'm not discussing the abortion issue at all (thus why I'm not answering this particular question of yours... I'd gladly answer another one that is on topic with what I'm discussing); I'm discussing the issue of God supposedly "committing murder/genocide". I recall you wanting to go through that particular discussion with me and to show you why I disagree with Q-boy's position (and your position) that the Christian God committed murder/genocide. That's what I'm going through right now.

At this point, it seems that we are agreed that, strictly per the scope of Christianity (the Bible), God does have ultimate authority over his creation (which includes human life) and that God does exercise said authority. If we are agreed, I'd like to move forward with part #2.
Click to expand...

Okay...we have been on different paths. I do not remember asking for a discussion on the issue of whether the god of the Bible committed murder/genocide, but I certainly am willing to discuss it...although to discuss it within the bounds of Christianity would be close to an absurdity.

There is no way the Bible...or any Christian tradition would indicate that anything the god of the Bible did is anything like murder/genocide. The Bible and Christian tradition would not accuse the god of the Bible of jaywalking. So, of course, sticking strictly to within the bounds of Christianity...would yield a walk-over win in such a discussion.

I am not interested in what Christianity says about what the god of the Bible did...they are captives. It would be like taking the word of a Ugandan about the character of Idi Amin (when he was in power)...while Amin was standing over him/her with a machete in hand. I am interested only in reading what the god did described...and then assigning/assessing a morality to it myself.

With that in mind...yes, the god of the Bible (according to Christianity) has total authority over "its creation"...and I agree that one duty of a governing authority (such as a county government, a state government, or a federal government) to serve justice to a party that has been found guilty of a crime?

Allow me to add that the "to serve justice" must itself be just...be proportional to the crime committed.

My turn for a question:

If you have a favorite...what is your favorite television program?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yes he does........he said the aborted child was not alive and not human......there are no worse lies than that.......
Click to expand...

Obviously he says a lot of things about Trump and people who like Trump which are ridiculous, but I think he believes what he says, he does not say things that he knows to be untrue in my experience over three sites going back to prob 2006.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top