Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
#76

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
I don't think I've seen so much mindless drivel here as I have from this person Drich.

Fuck me sideways... it has to be the influence of medication!  No sane person could
seriously believe all this crap he/she posts.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 3 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Bucky Ball, brunumb, Gwaithmir
Reply
#77

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
[Image: b0cd050cac32eff28ec173918cd3e770.png]
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
The following 1 user Likes EvieTheAvocado's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#78

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 02:13 PM)Drich Wrote: you do now... or are yu say you knew this when i started two weeks ago?

I've known this for years because I've known you for years. I know you from over on AF.

Quote:again no. again I am not explaining how God is Good. I'm telling you God simply does not align himself with man's definition of Good. 

That's what I said ... you're going against the standard interpretation. Most people think he's' good but you don't. Not in the same sense, at the very least.

Quote:No, I simply pointed out God never claims to be good in the bible ever.

Doesn't this contradict ...

Quote:Only one time Jesus said God was good
... this?

Do you consider Jesus to be God incarnate? Is Jesus God in another form?

If so, when Jesus says God is good isn't that God saying God is good?

And doesn't that contradict you saying that God never said he was good?
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#79

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 04:30 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(08-15-2019, 02:49 PM)Drich Wrote: Clearly you misunderstand anything you do not already think you know, and it seems like there is very little open minded room to discuss anything else....

Mate... seriously... I think you've lost the plot.  For one thing, your repeated "fish tank" analogy is fatally
flawed, for reasons obvious to any rational thinker or student of logic.
here's the thing old sport, any student of logic knows that analogies only have to work on the level being used. they do not have to work on every single level. Meaning if you think what I have said does not fit your understanding of the church I am saying you understanding of the church is wrong.

But if you want to say the filter in the tank is representative of some paradox or some off shoot that was not used in the original analogy then know that is a non sequitur, and is not counted against the analogy but a fallacy of logic. As the anaology does not have to contend with every possible angel of use. Just in how I used it.

Quote:And you make the common error that most Christians (and/or theists) make, that is presupposing that God
or gods actually exist in order to substantiate your claim(s)—which is of course a classic non sequitur.
I do not assume anything. When I was an atheist I assumed there was no God. Then one day God... showed up. one in the form of a dream I will gladly repost if asked to and in the form of a real life messenger/angel which again I would gladly repost if asked as to not break the preaching rule.
Quote:As an atheist, I could make the following argument—"miracles cannot be manifested because no gods exist".
Then I easily point out how wrong that statement is simply by contextualizing what a miracle would be in the eyes of a man who lived 2000 years ago. Let's say a talking donkey or snake for instance. crazy impossible miracle huh? till in interject the modern word "voice over." Then the impossible becomes a modern day blockbuster movie:


Here is your greatest failure.. You assume God has to be all magic mystery and always outside of the understanding of man. When the bible never says we will not be able to understand or perform our own version of said miracles. in fact Jesus said I must leave so one greater than I can come and indewell the church so it's members can not only do the things Christ did but greater miracles than christ ever did!

Again, this does not mean it has to be magic. what makes a miracle a miracle is the will of God. Again another wrong assumption you reek of is the idea God must move supernaturally in everything he does! When in fact if God is the alpha and omega and creator of everything Why would he create a universe that he could only move and work supernaturally in? Would it not be a master designers primary purpose when creating something like the known universe to do so in such a way as to naturally access and change agument ect in a way that is inline with how you would naturally do things? Why create something you have to always circumvent? why create something you always are fighting?
So then wouldn't you create something that naturally produced a product that you wanted or something you could easily manipulate to produce a product that you wanted?

I we can figure stuff like that out and can access our creations because we build in little service access points and back doors, then why would you assume God has to write new magic code every time he wanted something done... you know something that might look like magic to a man who lived 3000 years ago, but to a modern man looks or sounds like eddie murphy as donkey in shrek!

Quote:It's just as equally a conclusion that doesn't follow logically from the previous statement. 
You assume too much. your arguments are old fat and lazy. learn to ask a question.this is not my first date. I've been doing this alot longer than you have Winking

Quote:You have to prove
that your god exists before claiming any/all other happenings credited to him
That's the thing isn't it.. the paradox of proof? or are you not yet familiar with this term?
The paradox of proof states that if God is who he claims to be the alpha and omega (all powerful) and he claim to hide himself from people like you then providing you with proof would put me in a position to usurp God's authority. or rather if "science' could proove there is a God then that would not be God... As science has produced God who is supposed to be hiding from the likes of it. Which means if I can 'proove' god to your standard then he would not be god.

The solution? It is not up to us to prove God exists. it is up to God... to prove God exists..
Weeping If there was only a way or a promise God made to prove himself, something we could hold on to something or some way that God will allow us to obtain that one on one meeting if we infact need that..

Dance
oh, wait a tick a promise does indeed exist, but again it is on God's terms and not your own.. if you want to hide behind the veil of science God will not disturb you there. he will allow you your veil and your thoughts. however if you want proof as with any other larger than life thing or place, you have to go toit/him on his terms. If the grand canyon does not come to you and demands you go to it to fully encapsulate it's compete majesty then you will also have to go to God on his terms. 

God is not a genie he is not my old grand pappy he is not your buddy or friend. He will not be summoned nor do magic tricks for you. however he did leave a provision for those of us who need to know. He has promised his children this gift if they seek it on his terms.

Quote:—just as I'd have to define what
a miracle is in order to refute it by denying the existence of gods.

Put simply, gods don't exist, nor do miracles that they purportedly perform.
maybe not to you, but look at the changes to the word you had to make inorder to be so sure and absolute. Your miracles must be magic that man can not figure out Your god must also be magic but is willing to subject himself to expermination and or be willing to do magic tricks to prove himself to you... Where in the bible has any of they been offered to any of us?

If you want to have an understanding of how a man who lived 2000 years ago views modern times, just read some of the book of revelation. It is not a book of prophesy as many think. it is a book of history recorded by a man from that era describing modern evens in his own understanding and vocabulary... so then is it hard to imagine if God were simply a more advanced being, that he would seem to be magic to people back then?


If you and or science find God for realsies you will note he is a transdimensional being outside of space time. Now if i said that to an open minded version of yourself you would think that is remotely plausible... however say the word God and you get
Reply
#80

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-16-2019, 03:58 PM)Drich Wrote: When I was an atheist I assumed there was no God. Then one day God... showed up. one in the form of a dream

Do you honestly think that dreams can be reliable evidence of truths about reality?
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
The following 2 users Like EvieTheAvocado's post:
  • Gwaithmir, Deesse23
Reply
#81

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
This may be of interest:

PART ONE:



PART TWO:



For those who have time for two podcast episodes.
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#82

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 05:18 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(08-15-2019, 01:56 PM)Drich Wrote: The blood sacrifice does make sense in a modern context when you look at what the bible describes and apply it to modern/historical examples.

The "sacrifice of Christ" in and on itself isn't good or bad. It's just a spell. It's the solution to a problem caused by a blood curse applied earlier in the story. What made the blood curse horrible and thus the sacrifice the noblest of all thing was that this curse basically condamned all of humanity to suffer for all eternity. The entire thing doesn't make any sense if you don't believe in this specific type of magic or magic at all or if you don't believe the story in the first place (that such curses and spells were casted at some point by a deity). One could also believe in this specific type of magic and the story and not believe the "sacrifice of Christ" was sufficient to break the divine blood curse because Jesus wasn't of divine blood. There are plenty of conditions to accept the morality of such event. Then someone could question the morality of a univers in which blood magic is a thing in the first place, but the Bible and its surrounding myths imply that God is bound by the rules of magic not above or independant of them.

So you are saying because you can semi explain this in a haphazardly way using a semi historical/semi hoodoo voodoo magic context (that does not actually apply to this narrative) there are no morder examples where blood being used to save others?

If not that screams of desperation and a closed mind refusing to accept that there are indeed many modern contexts where life pays for the condemned or those who will die. There are thousands of stories of self sacrifice on and off the battle field there are many more of parents trading life for life that are billions of untold stories where parents work themselves to death giving up their dreams and personal aspirations to sacrifice for others.

but no all you want to see is the hoodoo voodoo. I guess I will leave you with that if that is all you want to see and hear.
Reply
#83

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 05:44 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(08-15-2019, 02:31 PM)Drich Wrote: if you trying think this and are not just trying to dismiss this idea without reason, then you do not fully understand what is being implied here. I am saying our understanding of pain is subjective. that no matter how little we actually are expected to endure no matter how light our load is, if we do not have anything worse to compare it to, what ever we know we will treated it like the end of the world.

Indeed, because such is the limits that would have been imposed on us if there were a creator deity. If you make a world with weak, feeble creatures, you are responsible of their weakness and feebleness and can't use it morally against them. "It could be worse" doesn't alievate or excuse anything.
but again, the responsiblity or demand to take out all of the really dangerous stuff has taken effect... What I am saying and you still don't seem to get is that our worst will always be akin to rape and murder no matter how harmless it really is. Let's say a white lie was the worst sin one could commit. then that form of lying would be the rape and murder of that world.

Because you do not have an understanding of what is worse, whatever trivality you endure will be the end of the world if you are so protected.

Quote: But again if you knew this person who kicked you in the balls had with in his scope and power to make all of those other things happen would you not then be grateful all you got was the kick in the balls and not everything else plus?

Quote:Absolutely not. An asshole is still an asshole even if he is not assholish as he could be or want to be. Being grateful toward such a person would be to grovel by a tyrant in the hope nothing worse happens instead of overthrowing the tyrant or simply calling the tyrant for what he is: an evil brute. A being of great physical might has a moral responsibility to use that might for good things (or not at all) not the torture of random people or sow fear into others and insulate himself from any responsibility by saying "well it could have been worse". The more powerful a person is, the greater its moral responsibility and harshness of judgement. An all powerful being will be judged against absolute perfection and anything less would make it evil. With great power comes great responsibility. 
this is just proud entitlement.. A righteous man would have first asked what was the reason for the ball kicking in the first place? IE why is the man kicking you in the balls. You being proud and full of self assume you are with out guilt. What if you raped the mans 14 year old daughter, and deserve much worse and he could have delivered to you much worse. but a ball kicked is all that was allowed?


Quote:what makes you think that?

Quote:You are responsible of what you create, how you make and why. You were not forced to make anything, but if you decide to, you are morally responsible for it.
new perspective... let's say this is all the matrix. or the episode of STTG where picard's consciousness is sucked into that satellite and he plays the role of kamin and runs the course of his man's life in this simulation that lasts only a few mins.. in that time he live a whole life time and experienced everything the real kamin did. pain loss love a full life, even the threat of death and senility. Again all in a computer simulation, even if kamin was raped and murdered picard himself would be no worse for wear. absolutely no harm would come to picard and nor no lasting psychological effects. as his computer world albeit real to him in the moment was not the real plain of existence.
now..
Did the designers of that satellite put picard in harms way in any way shape or form? yet to picard the dangers he faced the losses he endured where 100% real, as his whole life played out in front of him in real time. to him in at 'fish tank'  everything was just as real as it is was aboard the enterprise. His losses where real to him his injuries where real to him his love and his shinning moments where real in that moment in that life that took all of 3 mins in the real world to play out.

In truth picard in that episode like us in this world are protected from the real dangers while in this matrix while in this sim/life. now because they are the worst things we can endure, we assign those evils to our life in this world the level of super immoral world changing events, simply because we have nothing else to compare it to. 

Now did picard bitch and complain because his dangers where too real even if they where did he curse the makers of the satellite for subjecting him to great loss and pain? no he grew immensely from that 3 min experience and it changed the fabric of his character from that point on. he has a whole other life time of experience he could draw from and all it cost was just the briefest moment in time..

This believe it or not is how the bible describes our existence here in this world.


https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708803/plo...tt_stry_pl

Quote:Sorry no.. God created the ocean, and owns the tank.. Again everything in the tank is own and directly controlled by satan,

Satan exists because of God. He wanted him to exist and control things because he wants it else he would have killed him, never created him in the first place or rendered him completely powerless. God is just as responsible for what happens in the "fish tank" than your Satan.
[/quote]
To a degree yes! I've already addressed this.. Satan's purpose is to help sift those who want to live in the tank and those who want to move on to the ocean. even in his defiance satan lays a role in God's plan.
Reply
#84

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-16-2019, 03:58 PM)Drich Wrote: Here is your greatest failure.. You assume God has to be all magic mystery and always outside of the understanding of man. When the bible never says we will not be able to understand or perform our own version of said miracles. in fact Jesus said I must leave so one greater than I can come and indewell the church so it's members can not only do the things Christ did but greater miracles than christ ever did!

Too bad for you sport, that is basically a non-Biblical position. 100 % false.
(I know "unfathomable is a big word for you, but maybe you heard of this thing called a "dictionary").

Job 9:10 "Who does great things, unfathomable, And wondrous works without number"
Job 28:3 "Mankind limits the darkness as they search the deepest depths for ore in unfathomable darkness."
Psalm 92:5 "How great are your works, LORD! Your thoughts are unfathomable"
Proverbs 25:3 "Just as the heavens are high and earth is deep, so the heart of a king is unfathomable
Romans 11:33 "O how deep are God's riches, and wisdom, and knowledge! How unfathomable are his decisions and unexplainable are his ways!"
Ephesians 3:8 "To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ"


Maybe you could sign up for Sunday School, and start in maybe 3rd Grade Bible class.
You're not only NOT "Bible based", you know nothing about it, and since you belong to no Christian community, you have no way to be corrected in your heresies by that community. Your insane ramblings here are a total scandal to Christianity. Your arrogant pride is sending you to hell.
Reply
#85

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
[Image: 113741-Saint-Augustine-Quote-Never-judge...-abuse.jpg]
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • EvieTheAvocado
Reply
#86

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-16-2019, 04:06 PM)Drich Wrote: So you are saying because you can semi explain this in a haphazardly way using a semi historical/semi hoodoo voodoo magic context (that does not actually apply to this narrative) there are no morder examples where blood being used to save others?

Not really no. In the context of the biblical narrative, the sacrifice of Chirst is a spell to break a blood curse. That doesn't mean that a sacrifice in the sense of a person dying for another to survive isn't possible. I would also like to point out that hoodoo and voodoo people do not believe nor practice blood magic in general.

Quote:There are thousands of stories of self sacrifice on and off the battle field there are many more of parents trading life for life that are billions of untold stories where parents work themselves to death giving up their dreams and personal aspirations to sacrifice for others.

These are tangible acts that have a direct effect on tangible problem. The parent who work himself/herself to death to provide to his or her children sacrifice his hopes and dreams, actually dies in the process, and in exchange actually provide his children with resources to combat a problem of scarcity of resources. A soldier who takes a bullet or a sword for another, dies in the process, but save another from the danger of the bullet or sword in question. Tangible problems are solved with tangible actions. The consequences of those sacrifice are permanent, the result tangible and completely naturalistic in process.

Such is not the case with Jesus's sacrifice. His, deals specifically with a supernatural cause and solves it using supernatural means. That makes it magical in nature and more specifically a subset of blood magic because that's the type of magic used there. If Jesus had lifted the curse of original sin by using a formula, it would have been through "words of power" (a bit like how God created the world in Genesis; he "spoke it into being"). If he had called unto other supernatural beings it would have been a form of shamanism or demonology. If it was on the ghost of dead people, it would have been necromancy. There are many forms of magic, not all of which were believed by Ancient Hebrews who wrote the narrative of the Bible, but blood magic, amongst others, was something in which they believed.
The following 3 users Like epronovost's post:
  • Szuchow, Bucky Ball, brunumb
Reply
#87

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-16-2019, 06:23 PM)epronovost Wrote:  There are many forms of magic, not all of which were believed by Ancient Hebrews who wrote the narrative of the Bible, but blood magic, amongst others, was something in which they believed.

It's everywhere in the OT ..... blood sacrifices.
Everywhere.
It's what the priests did.
All.
The.
Time.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • TheGentlemanBastard
Reply
#88

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-16-2019, 05:11 PM)Drich Wrote: but again, the responsiblity or demand to take out all of the really dangerous stuff has taken effect... What I am saying and you still don't seem to get is that our worst will always be akin to rape and murder no matter how harmless it really is.
 
Let's say a white lie was the worst sin one could commit. then that form of lying would be the rape and murder of that world.

Because you do not have an understanding of what is worse, whatever trivality you endure will be the end of the world if you are so protected.


That's a strange and very stupid argument for several reasons. First, it assumes that our sensation are primitive. I never lost a child to a sick murderer. I never met anybody who has ever suffered like so. I have heard that it's a thing that happened and is thus possible, but I can only imagine how terrible this would be. I suffered several losses in my life. I lost friends and I lost beloved pets. Never have I thought that my feelings were equal or akin to that I would feel if my daughter was to be murdered. I have a skill called insight. It grants me a knowledge, if not perfect at least approximate, of the depth of my feelings and my emotional capacity. I can make thought experiments of all sorts. What your argument assumes is that we have no capacity for emotional insight, that we cannot know that our emotional and sensation range is wider then those we experiment currently. I know I can be angry enough to hurt or even kill someone. I never felt it for real, but I know this capacity for rage exists, not only because I have experimented anger before, but also because I can think on my emotions. It's skill you can train too. Some people are better at it then others. God could grant a perfect or better insight capacity if such was needed.

The second reason is that it assume any form of discomfort is necessary at all. We could live in a perfect world where everybody has all they want all the time without any effort. The thrid reason is that it assume that human psychology is "necessary". That for the world to be a world we have to be in it as we are here and now. You are full of presuppositions.

Quote: this is just proud entitlement.. A righteous man would have first asked what was the reason for the ball kicking in the first place?

A charitable mind would have assumed that the context of my very crude example implied I was innocent, but I suppose you suffered from a lapse of righteousness there that does not serve your argument as you will notice after I explore the rest of your story.

Quote:IE why is the man kicking you in the balls. You being proud and full of self assume you are with out guilt. What if you raped the mans 14 year old daughter, and deserve much worse and he could have delivered to you much worse. but a ball kicked is all that was allowed?

You just smuggled the problem of divine responsability elsewhere. Why was I allowed to rape someone? God is responsible for my ability to rape that girl (he could have mande her impossible to rape in several ways) and also for my unrestrained desire for it. He made my mind capable of those things in the first place. He is then responsible for both my need of punishment and my punishment. Again, if you have all the powers, you have all the responsabilities.  

Quote:This, believe it or not, is how the bible describes our existence here in this world.

I do know that the NT describes this world as being only a "testing ground" and that we are some sort of supernatural transdimentional creatures who will live forever in another plane of existance who is perfect for those who passed the test and even worst than worst for those who failed it. I simply don't believe in such a ridiculous assertion. 

In my opinion, this doesn't change the fact that the deity of such a fantasy is still an evil monsters. He could be worst fair enough. But he is still evil nonetheless. Fidel Castro was no Stalin, but he was still a cruel tyrant. His only saving grace, is that the absurd and cruel treatment of some people will end and be replaced by a perfect treatment later.    

Quote:To a degree yes! I've already addressed this.. Satan's purpose is to help sift those who want to live in the tank and those who want to move on to the ocean. even in his defiance satan lays a role in God's plan.

Satan, thus, isn't in defiance, he just think he is, but God is tricking him into playing his sick game of "sort out the fish".
The following 1 user Likes epronovost's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply
#89

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-16-2019, 06:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(08-16-2019, 06:23 PM)epronovost Wrote:  There are many forms of magic, not all of which were believed by Ancient Hebrews who wrote the narrative of the Bible, but blood magic, amongst others, was something in which they believed.

It's everywhere in the OT ..... blood sacrifices.
Everywhere.
It's what the priests did.
All.
The.
Time.

They still do. The doctrine of transubstantiation and consubstantiation in holy mass are nothing but explanation of the mechanic of a form of ritualistic blood magic. The only problem is that since people no longer believe or really understand such superstitions so these aspect of Christianity have been swept under the rug. Christian rituals are also filled with alchemical rituals and words of power.
Reply
#90

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 06:38 PM)mordant Wrote:
(08-15-2019, 02:03 PM)Drich Wrote: 1) I do not mix in tradition or religious rules. I speak where the bible speaks and endeavor to remain silent where the bible is silent. I do not fill in with religious ideas or rules where the bible is silent.

The Bible is silent about a lot of stuff and vague about a lot more.
silence = freedom in most cases. a go at your own discretion as long as it benefits God. which again points back to only the two rules of Christianity!

Quote: It is not so much that people set out to say things that aren't in the Bible, but that they pretty much HAVE to.
actually they do not. They do only because they are trying to make the jewish paradigm of morality work for christianity. Christianity is NOT a morality based religion. it is all about freedom and atonement. Christ himself say all are evil and none are worthy, that it is only through him that we enter heaven. That means there is freedom and discretion where ever the bible is silent and the two rules of christianity do not apply! Remember love for God and love for our neighbors is what it is all about.

Quote: If I were a pastor and someone came to me and poured their heart out about how they are convinced they are a man in a woman's body or vice-versa, and I want to give them "Biblical" advice, I have to apply Biblical principles where they don't exist. The Bible doesn't say, "If thou thinkest thou art a different gender than thy body parts shew, thou art fulle of shytte". It doesn't address that specific issue at all, one way or the other.
If it were me... I'd look u what the roles of unics played and how they where apart of society. yes they where often time physically castrated but Christ also points out that some where born 'unics.' meaning A-sexuals. You also have to remember the likelihood of a real "T" coming to you is next to nil as .3 to .6% struggle with this issue.

Quote:My other option is to say, don't worry about it, go get your reassignment surgery because the Bible doesn't say that you can't. Most fundamentalists however don't do that. That's more of a liberal Christian concept to hold one's faith loosely and not impose or interpolate too much. The fundamentalist way is generally to pearl-clutch and berate such a person for their perverse desires and thinking, and insist they should be grateful for the body god gave them, rather than blaspheme.
again these are things when you are concerned about trying to follow a moral example. when the burden of this action should not be on the preacher but more so on the individual in that how does gender reassignment honor God. how is this loving God with all of your being? how is this loving your neighbor as yourself? how can you love your neighbor when you are completely wrapped up in yourself? how does a servant serve when they are consumed with self?
how will any of this change with or without a schmeckle??? If one is this consumed with self then that is a matter that needs to be addressed first as they are indeed in violation of the love God first rule.

Only two rules but because they are about love they encompass alot!.

Quote:Even fundamentalists make up stuff out of whole cloth. The "age of accountability" is not found (nor hinted at) anywhere in scripture, but it's pretty much a universal teaching that your 8 year old that got ran over by a bus isn't in hell because they didn't make a profession of faith yet.
there has been more than once where I had to come back the bible is silent and then again go over how love for God and love for man can be extrapolated from this action. if there is none then the bible says it is probably better left undone.

(08-15-2019, 02:03 PM)Drich Wrote: 2) I do not use scrap book theology to explain doctrine.
meaning I do not take very [sic] portions compile them and use them to say something the bible does not say. everything I try and repersent [sic] is contextually found [sic].
Quote:I'm assuming very = various and found = sound.

So you are making a point here about context.

I have to point out that there are many hermeneutical systems that all claim to "rightly divide the word of truth", meaning, to interpret correctly and in the light of context. It is fine and dandy to have your two tidy rules but the devil is in the details. "Context" for me as a dispensationalist was not the same "context" of someone who isn't a dispensationalist. The way it was taught to me, the applicability of a command or instruction had to be understood in the "context" of what group of people it was addressed to, in what era. So there wasn't just the obvious textual context, but the (often imagined and usually overthought) historical and cultural and spiritual context.
here's the thing if and when you question all things and hold on to what is good you find out that lables don't apply because you are not trying to make the word say something it is not intended to say. in fact there are alot of I don't knows as the bible does not say.. then you can go into the mre traditional teachings like I will say IDK the bible does not say, but the catholics believe this, and the methodist believe this, and or here is what I think. but again the importance is to be like paul in matters like these..." we have no command from God but here is what I have to say...."

(08-15-2019, 02:03 PM)Drich Wrote: 3) this is the most important one. because there are only two rules to biblical Christian as Christ Himself points them out, if I can follow them then my interpretation of the bible does not have to be 100% correct. This is true for all Christ centered religions. and even those who do not proclaim to be christian.

Quote:This is a non-sequitur as far as I can see. If it's important not to (1) make stuff up or (2) take it out of context then you can't just turn around and say that mistakes, however well-intentioned, aren't important or consequential or that how you describe or understand context isn't a big deal. If you follow a less than correct interpretation of the Bible then what is the point of your two rules to begin with?
it's not if Heaven is your only end goal. The only reason we need to rightly divide the bible in this life... is to grow and use the gifts we have been given. however if we have not been given the gifts of hermeneutics, then we are not responsible for rightly dividing the word let alone know for sure this is or is not the exact right path, or know when Jesus is comming back or when and if the rapture is going to take place... again for the same grace and atonement we receive when we sin is all the more available when we are following God's two rules and simply don't know any better..

Think parable of the talents. if God did not give you the 'talent of understanding' then you are not responsible to do anything with it. If we have only been given the one talent and that is the ability to say sing... then we are to use that talent to honor God. no where is written that a man be responsible for a talent the lord did not give them.

Quote:I will give you props for consistency though. Christians say it's important not to sin, and yet even theoretically the cruelest dictator with any amount of blood on his hands will benefit from a last-second deathbed repentance. You guys always love having it both ways.
not sinning is apart of it, but it is an effect.. The of love for God and love for your neighbor.. That is what this life is all about. God is not a fool nor is he bound to loop holes as YOU may see them.  If the purpose of life is to show you who you are, and you spend your life as a wicked man and think you can loop hole your way to heaven then you think God is a fool. Let's pretend for a second he is not... then in the bible he should be able to tell us he is going to be able to judge us by who we really are and not because we prayed a prayer or did some death bed chant... and we find this in mat 7 and heb 4. both times Jesus is judging us and knows who we are despite the right we give ourselves to be called Christian. I labels mean nothing to God/Christ and He decides who is and who is not Christian despite the labels we put on our selves. 

Remember the goal for not sinning, and our death bed conversion is love. It is not something you can just do to earn righteous.. It's like loving a woman. If you love a woman you buy her flowers remember her birthday and do things she likes. the idea behind to those actions is a manifestation of that love. Now you cant just do those things and create love.. You do those things out of love. without love being without sin and death bed confessions are meaningless.

Quote:The bottom line for me is that every Christian cherry picks / invents their personal beliefs and the Bible, like all holy books, is written in such a vague and hazy and inconsistent and often conflicting fashion that you can do that and appeal to the scripture as authority for your decisions anyway.
which was apart of the design of Christianity from the beginning. Think about it what is the greatest command??

Love your lord God with all of your being.. Then love your neighbor as yourself..

So if you take the greatest command and love God with all you are, because you are a little different, your expression of love will differ from mine alittle. but over the range of all of humanity these little difference add up to big changes. Because if a guy who has been given the talent of song is to worship God with all of his being then his worship service will have to be dramatically different than mine... someone who worships in study and reflection who almost hates music in study. because of this reason there is a split in the church.

Think about what Paul say about the church being the body of Christ. where Jesus is the head. each member of the church rather each denomination (our word not theirs) acts as a different body part all with different functions, and all serve the body in different ways.. So what if you were correct and there was only to be one church.. let say the church was built around the eye and how it serves the body.. there would be a ton of things in that church to look at read and contemplate/examine. And for any eye their all encompassing love of God as a eye is full filled. but what if you are an ear.. lots to look at in the church of the eye but nothing to listen too... so how are the ears of the church supposed to worship God with all that they are if there is nothing to listen to as an ear?

That is why we are told we are not to judge one another's form of worship, to each as long as they are making full use of their abilities are justified through the same atonement offered when we sin. meaning we ears do not have to have everything figured out or have to be right about what we do have figured out as long as Jesus Christ is at the center of all of our efforts.

One other point is look at the NT. You have the gospels, which talk about Christ. then in acts we establish the church and every book after than speaks to the different denominations. The books of peter speak to his churches and the things he taught which conflict with the things paul taught. and the books to the various cities Rome galatia corinth ect.. where letter specifically written to those conjugations. each one different each one dealing with different problems as they arose.

If there was to be one church one set of rules like the jews had... Where is the book of rules like the jews had? not one of the letters written spell out or define the church or it's rules in one place. the apostles simply dealt with issues as they came up, where the two rules Christ gave was misinterpreted or did not cover.
Reply
#91

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-16-2019, 07:13 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(08-16-2019, 06:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(08-16-2019, 06:23 PM)epronovost Wrote:  There are many forms of magic, not all of which were believed by Ancient Hebrews who wrote the narrative of the Bible, but blood magic, amongst others, was something in which they believed.

It's everywhere in the OT ..... blood sacrifices.
Everywhere.
It's what the priests did.
All.
The.
Time.

They still do. The doctrine of transubstantiation and consubstantiation in holy mass are nothing but explanation of the mechanic of a form of ritualistic blood magic. The only problem is that since people no longer believe or really understand such superstitions so these aspect of Christianity have been swept under the rug. Christian rituals are also filled with alchemical rituals and words of power.

Somewhere in Pew's data, in one survey, they asked Catholics what "transubstantiation" means.
50 % didn't know, (or maybe more).
Somehow "re-enacting" a sacrifice that (supposedly) was done "once for all" seems just a bit absurd.

Also one of the things I have to bite my tongue on, when my Catholic friends talk about "things", is the word "substance". In 2019 has no meaning. It used to have meaning in pre-scientific days. Today it's meaningless ... yet there are hundred of thousands of clerics who would try to use the concept, looking you straight in the face and say "transubstantiation changes the *substance* of bread and wine". We know what bread and wine are made of today, atomically and chemically. There is no *layer* called "substance". The entire edifice of the RC Church is built on nothing but unexamined bullshit.
Reply
#92

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 06:57 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(08-15-2019, 02:49 PM)Drich Wrote: AND AGAIN in the analogy God creates the tank and gives it over to us. We give it to satan in exchange for the illusion of freedom sin brings. Now because satan is the master of sin... he own us and everything else in the tank. It' God's tank... Satan's reef and fish. Satan feeds the fish to fatten them up and eventually fry them.

Oh, so your god was so unutterably thick that he gave the fish tank to a couple of people who literally couldn't tell the difference between good and evil an then expected them to do the right thing. I see the difference now. Thank you for clearing up which type of criminal incompetence we were discussing.

Your devil is nearly as stupid as your god, feeding his fish poison to fatten them up. Doesn't he understand the benefit of making people indolent, fat, and lazy?

are you that thick? did you not see or understand that God was helping the people personally with their tank? That the lie in all of this was that they did not need God that if they ate from the tree of knowledge that they would be as smart as God and could do for themselves?

When in fact they did not need to know good from evil. They only need do what God told them to do.
Reply
#93

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-16-2019, 07:24 PM)Drich Wrote:
(08-15-2019, 06:57 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(08-15-2019, 02:49 PM)Drich Wrote: AND AGAIN in the analogy God creates the tank and gives it over to us. We give it to satan in exchange for the illusion of freedom sin brings. Now because satan is the master of sin... he own us and everything else in the tank. It' God's tank... Satan's reef and fish. Satan feeds the fish to fatten them up and eventually fry them.

Oh, so your god was so unutterably thick that he gave the fish tank to a couple of people who literally couldn't tell the difference between good and evil an then expected them to do the right thing. I see the difference now. Thank you for clearing up which type of criminal incompetence we were discussing.

Your devil is nearly as stupid as your god, feeding his fish poison to fatten them up. Doesn't he understand the benefit of making people indolent, fat, and lazy?

are you that thick? did you not see or understand that God was helping the people personally with their tank? That the lie in all of this was that they did not need God that if they ate from the tree of knowledge that they would be as smart as God and could do for themselves?

When in fact they did not need to know good from evil. They only need do what God told them to do.

Are you that thick ?
You claim to run a business.
You think you can get people to understand your side by insulting them ?
You really are mentally ill.
Your hermeneutic of insult demonstrates you are no Christian.
Reply
#94

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 08:49 PM)airportkid Wrote:
(08-15-2019, 02:49 PM)Drich Wrote: ... NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES GOD CLAIM TO BE ALL LOVING!!! ...

Jeremiah 31.3:  ...The Lord appeared to us in the past, saying: I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with unfailing kindness ...

There are several other passages that define God's love in superlative terms, but they speak for God; they aren't voiced by the grand old lover himself as he booms here in Jeremiah.

Now I expect there will be quibbles made that this too is someone quoting God, that what's said isn't necessarily comprehensive, or applicable to everyone, or was spoken with an unauthorized font, or is a mistranslation, or that what's being talked about is tennis scores, etc.  Such is the plastic "mind" of one whose mind is rigid as concrete and therefore infinitely flexible. 

???? Do you not understand the claim I made? Because I do not see where God is proclaiming to love all of man kind unconditionally here. even in Jer 31:3The Lord appeared to us in the past. He said,

“I have loved you with a love that lasts forever.
    I have kept on loving you with a kindness that never fails.
I will build you up again.
    Nation of Israel, you will be rebuilt.


Keeping in mind the jews have been enslaved and are in captivity at this moment To you... is this love? in love would you sell you children into slavery?
And..
Again this love for Israel does not include you. this does not include anyone but jews
Reply
#95

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-15-2019, 11:06 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(08-15-2019, 09:15 PM)Drich Wrote: For God so loved the world he gave his son.... THAT WHO SO EVER BELIEVES... Shall have eternal life.

Strange that the faithful die just like the skeptic and that no matter how much faith you have in the lifting of a blood curse through a blood sacrifice, nobody has eternal life in any capacity except perhapse for two specific species of jellyfish and polyp.

or perhaps one man's death is another birth even though the process looks the same..
Reply
#96

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-16-2019, 12:13 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Actually when the young man in Matthew asked Jesus, (not Drippy) what he had to do to gain eternal life, ..... did Jesus say "believe in me" ? Nope. He said "keep the commandments".

because for that young man was a OT jew as Christ had not yet died on the cross and the Holy spirit had not been given over to the church.

Christianity did not become the new religious paradigm at the birth of christ as some would have you believe it became the new religion of God upon the resurrection.

So before the resurrection everyone was still an OT jew even if the calendar was printed to start at the birth of Christ.
Reply
#97

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-16-2019, 03:15 PM)Drich Wrote: [quote="Cheerful Charlie" pid='139098' dateline='1565885866']
The nature of man's moral nature argument.

If God creates all, he also creates mankind.
If God creates man, God must design man.
Man was not complete. Tell me after reading genesis 3 if you think Adam and eve living in a garden complete naed but unaware of their nakedness represents a fully development [quote]

So, there are naked, and not having eaten of the Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil, did not know that was evil.  After eating the magic fruit, they realize they are doing wrong and create clothing, tipping off God that they had in fact eaten of the magic fruit.

Wow!  That God certainly is a joker, isn't he?  Now, why would God do this?  Why did God want to keep mankind, stupid and mortal?  This is a silly myth.
It's time to meditate on the Pure White Light of Stupidity!
Let's hear it for our Guru. One, two, three!
DISCIPLES: Gee...You...Are...You...
- Firesign Theater


Cheerful Charlie





Reply
#98

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-16-2019, 04:03 AM)grympy Wrote: @Drich,

So sorry about your dad. I saved my hatred for the arseholes who taught me .(if you'll excuse the expression) The De La Salle brothers at their academy of applied brutality.

Growing up , I thought  my dad was a complete cunt.   A bully, and emotionally abusive , of my mother, of me, of my sister and of my brother when he came along.

Yet my father was the most ethical person I've ever met, and was capable of acts of kindness  and compassion. What's wrong with that picture?.

Because a child understands the 'what'" but not the 'why", all I saw was a cunt, of  whom I was very afraid.  Consequently, I left home at 18. Still saw him because I still wanted to see my mother.

When  dad was 70, he was diagnosed with PTSD from WW2--He was in the Australian Air Force , flew  reconnaissance in North Africa and the Middle East.--- That knowledge was too little, too late.

Dad died in 2006. We never really understood each  other. Father and sons is hard.

indeed. which is why we must push past our own ideas of evil, and do what we can out of whatever love remains even if not for just the idea of you growing up and becoming the dad he should have been. Sometimes you will get rewarded with the why as you did or maybe just the idea of peace of mind knowing you did what you could with what you where given. Nothing worse than what if.. or if I only had some more time.

Work with them when you can. set boundaries both of you agree to and put the effort in you wish they put in so many years ago. END the cycle of bullshit and crappy dads with you. decide you are going to be the last casualty of this generational war. Even if it is not the closure you want there is peace that can be found

that is what I learned and I saw and maybe course corrected my own fate even if it was to a lessor degree of evil I was going to still be him on some level.
The following 1 user Likes Drich's post:
  • grympy
Reply
#99

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-13-2019, 04:50 PM)Drich Wrote:
(08-13-2019, 02:20 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(08-12-2019, 07:30 PM)Drich Wrote: Put it this way.
let say you had a fish tank, and the worst thing that could ever happen to one of your prized fish is someone mixes up the food and gives them fresh water fish food or the salt in the tank is off.. maybe they get sick. or maybe the become acustom to your specific tank and can not live anywhere else..

Now in this tank, to those fish, the wrong food.. is akin to rape and murder because they do not know the true evils of the deep blue sea.

That's the joy of being omnipotent. You can always conjure better fish food from raw firmament. You never have to settle for a lesser of evils because you don't have to accept any at all. Or are you suggesting that your deity is too stoopid to keep a goldfish alive?

again, READ the analogy. God owns the tank, everything in it belongs to satan. This means God yes owns the world, however satan owns all of the slaves/fish who can live outside of the tank. Which means Satan is the one feeding the fish. why feed the fish? to fatten them for the fry!!!

So, God puts Satan in his tank and sits by twiddling his thumbs knowing Satan will be ravaging his fishes.  He could remove Satan, a source of evil but does not.

Now let us examine the claims made about God's omniscience.  God knows all including the future, and God creates all.  If God creates all, God must choose and initial starting state for his creation.  Since he is omniscient, he knows how that creation will unfold.  If Hitler exists and causes great evil, that is because God created that world with an evil Hitler and evil Nazis.

If Satan ravages a "fish", God created that fish being ravaged by Satan.  God is personally and directly responsible for all moral evil that has ever existed, does exist now, and will exist in the future.  Nothing belongs to Satan.  Satan is just another fish, predestined by God to do evil.  God therefore IS evil.
It's time to meditate on the Pure White Light of Stupidity!
Let's hear it for our Guru. One, two, three!
DISCIPLES: Gee...You...Are...You...
- Firesign Theater


Cheerful Charlie





The following 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply

The Evil God Challenge by Stephen Law
(08-16-2019, 08:31 AM)brunumb Wrote:
(08-15-2019, 09:15 PM)Drich Wrote: I don't see it there charlie... I see conditional love...

For God so loved the world he gave his son.... THAT WHO SO EVER BELIEVES... Shall have eternal life.

Do you see that red bit? in america that is called a condition... I don't know what you frenchies call it but when someone says If you do X and i will do Y like if you believe I will give you eternal life...

I think you've got it wrong. 
For God so loved the world he gave his son.  There is no condition associated with God giving his son.  He did that unconditionally and his love was therefore unconditional.  The rest just describes his reason for the act.  He had to get himself off the hook for somehow condemning his beloved humans to death.  Whether you believe or not, whether you qualify for eternal life or not, God still gave his son.  That's unconditional love.

lets look at the passage shall we?
16 Yes, God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him would not be lost but have eternal life.17 God sent his Son into the world. He did not send him to judge the world guilty, but to save the world through him. 18 People who believe in God’s Son are not judged guilty. But people who do not believe are already judged, because they have not believed in God’s only Son.

context says everything..

God's sacrifice and death of his son resulting in eternal life was not for the world... yes the world is invited but the world will not experience eternal life... as the love of God here is conditional to only those who believe, everyone else is subject to the wrath of God in Hell.

So how can you unconditionally love someone and send them to hell? no you send those who you do not love to hell. who are those according to this passage? those who do not believe!

IE God love is based on the condition you believe.

Now again I will agree God's love is great enough to invite everyone, but stop at heaven with belief. which means the love offered to everyone is limited. this is not unconditional omni benevolent love.

Again the love offer stops with sending his son and belief. but extends into eternity for believers but ends in hell for non believers..

this is basic christianity 101 why is this being debated? Is it everyone inclination to argue the exact opposite despite how basic a truth I represent?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)