|
The answer to every contradiction in my story is "God wanted that contradiction" duh use your brain, stupids.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 11:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:What is your reaction when one of your creation calls you a bitch? Yes, the right thing for parents to do to their angsty teens is to throw them in a pit of fire for eternity when they talk back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Yes, the right thing for parents to do to their angsty teens is to throw them in a pit of fire for eternity when they talk back. That does not answer my question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:What is your reaction when one of your creation calls you a bitch? I roll for save.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:The church does more good with money than any capitalist I know. Like bribe African politicians to enact death penalties for gays. Anyway, the important part is the money. You can always do more with more money than with less. The same is not true of Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Anyway, the important part is the money. You can always do more with more money than with less. The same is not true of Jesus. Not true, only Jesus is worth anything. Oh hey by the way, can I have some money, I wanna build another palace for the Pope to have a place to poo poo in gold toilets. Kyrie eleison posted:What is your reaction when one of your creation calls you a bitch? Obviously to set it on fire for ever Kyrie eleison posted:That does not answer my question. Oh but clearly a baby who dies before praising my name as daddy needs to be set on fire for ever. This is obvious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
Let me guess: your first impulse when your offspring calls you a bitch, is to be really forgiving and loving of it, and to give it the privilege of eternal life in your Heavenly Kingdom. Right? Am I right here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Let me guess: your first impulse when your offspring calls you a bitch, is to be really forgiving and loving of it, and to give it the privilege of eternal life in your Heavenly Kingdom. Right? Am I right here? Would yours be to beat the poo poo out of them? Should we call CPS on you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 11:36
|
|
|
Do you understand why I'm asking you questions? It's because I'm trying to get you to make your case, make an argument that we can talk about, rather than just have it as 'you need a right' ie- claim and counter-claim. Okay, if you dispute an assumption, if you think it's loaded, then dispute it, but make your case. It's not enough to say "you're misinterpreting me", and then be silent as to the point behind the questions. Where exactly is a 'right' necessary in the logic of a 'judgement'? Is that abstract enough to answer, and if not, why not? And I'm not going to make your case for you on, for example, standards. If you believe that omniscience and omnipotence must necessarily imply a special standard of moral judgement, you must say why. It does not logically follow that omni-whatever gives you a free pass on moral judgment, any more than being blue or tall, or it at least does not immediately follow. You must fill in the gaps, if they can be filled. rudatron fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Do you understand why I'm asking you questions? It's because I'm trying to get you to make your case, make an argument that we can talk about He doesn't have an argument. That's why his whole schtick is "you can't dispute anything I say about God because it's about God and you're just some mortal" Kyrie eleison posted:Let me guess: your first impulse when your offspring calls you a bitch, is to be really forgiving and loving of it, and to give it the privilege of eternal life in your Heavenly Kingdom. Right? Am I right here? No, if I get bored waiting for it to apologize I just start wailing on it forever and ever in feverish glee. *orgasms* Because of my undeniable goodness obviously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Let me guess: your first impulse when your offspring calls you a bitch, is to be really forgiving and loving of it, and to give it the privilege of eternal life in your Heavenly Kingdom. Right? Am I right here? If I had a Heavenly Kingdom within which to offer peoples an eternal life (ostensibly in joy, peace and good conditions), surely I would give it to all, from the lowliest beggar to the most heinous murderer and despicable capitalist. If I withheld that paradise from a single soul (assuming souls exist), I would be a worse monster than any human being has ever been. We are finite beings, of finite means, struggling to live in a physical universe which is hostile and indifferent. If there were a creature that existed beyond that, it would understand the problem of suffering, understand it far better than us, finite men, and if it did not provide salvation for all, no questions asked, it would be a wretched monster. You purport to make necessity unto goodness by declaring, fiat, that a monstrosity is in fact the font of all goodness and by definition morality stems from an immoral and petty monster. By making such ridiculous arguments you place yourself under heavy suspicion of being a lazy troll, but just to be clear, what you present as morality and virtue is in fact monstrous villainy. If true goodness did exist, it would not need anyone to sing its praises, for it would be good, kind and generous. Traits which you seem to find repugnant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
Honestly this exchange of Being Offended that god is insulted or whatever is very strange, considering that most theism (by its own admission) bases itself purely on faith. "The Being I believe in without evidence and that I don't really don't necessarily have to believe in to think or do anything, will gently caress YOU UP BOY if you call it a bitch". It's not enough to posit, abstractly, it's existence or history or whatever. You have to, as an act of faith, believe in it the agency of an organized crime boss. This is what I have faith in! This is what is sacred to me! I, as an act of pure faith, devote myself to something that I can never be sure exists, but that I'm pretty sure acts just like that disturbed kid who burns ants with magnifying glasses. How romantic, to have that devotion! Oh, the drama! rudatron fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 12:22
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Let me guess: your first impulse when your offspring calls you a bitch, is to be really forgiving and loving of it, and to give it the privilege of eternal life in your Heavenly Kingdom. Right? Am I right here? Why would I create something just to have it suffer? What does that say about me?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 12:22
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Why do you hate yourself? I really can't tell if this projection is intentional or not but I can assure you, Kyrie, that the only person who hates themselves here is you. E: Kyrie eleison posted:Let me guess: your first impulse when your offspring calls you a bitch, is to be really forgiving and loving of it, and to give it the privilege of eternal life in your Heavenly Kingdom. Right? Am I right here? Yeah, pretty much. And that's why I'm superior to your God. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
did Jesus masturbate?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:did Jesus masturbate? No, but when he was a teenager he asked his friend to sleep with a whore and then describe the experience to him. Lamb is a seriously great book.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:did Jesus masturbate? I'm no theologian, but p. sure such an act would have impregnated every virgin in the Levant
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Look up some of the rejected gospels that include infancy narratives. They're pretty entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Let me guess: your first impulse when your offspring calls you a bitch, is to be really forgiving and loving of it, and to give it the privilege of eternal life in your Heavenly Kingdom. Right? Am I right here? That would be what an all powerful and merciful being would do. Like you have something to prove if you created everything. Or like the story of Job: Torturing a sentient being and his family to test their loyalty, thats surely cool. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:
I know you already moved the goalposts to 'first instinct' (which is a stupid analogy for a god you say is outside of time since he knew of the insult 9999999999 years before doling out the punishment) but what the gently caress dude? If a literally retarded person or small child or your retarded child (god forbid) calls you a doody-head, you have no compassion? No empathy? The infinitely compassionate, infinitely merciful answer to such a slight is permanent infinite torture? I sincerely hope you don't have children and aren't in a position to be responsible for any whilst you maintain that attitude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Let me guess: your first impulse when your offspring calls you a bitch, is to be really forgiving and loving of it, and to give it the privilege of eternal life in your Heavenly Kingdom. Right? Am I right here? My son is 3 years old and often has trouble controlling his emotions, which is totally normal for a 3-year-old as they simply don't have the same faculties as adults. Sometimes he says things that (from an adult) would be considered hurtful, but they are in no way hurtful because he's 3 years old and I have total power over him in every way. At no point during the exchange do I feel the need to take retribution on him, because I don't fear him and I know that a loving and forgiving attitude will help him to develop his emotional control. When he lashes out, it tells me that he is struggling to control his feelings and he needs my love and support. More than anything I would like to give him the privilege of eternal life in a Heavenly Kingdom, but it is not in my gift. The idea of making him suffer for such a thing is savage, abhorrent, primitive and utterly par for the course when expressed by religious devotees. It's a mysterious parental instinct called teaching by example, as I know that he wants to be more like me. I feel a strong urge to be a good person for him, rather than a petty, spiteful one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That would be what an all powerful and merciful being would do. What's the point of creating the universe if some mortal can just call you a bitch and not get wrecked? Caros posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What's the point of creating the universe if some mortal can just call you a bitch and not get wrecked? Oops, hang on a sec, my creations did things of their own free will, gotta flood the world and wipe em out so I can start over... Trent posted:If a literally retarded person or small child or your retarded child (god forbid) calls you a doody-head, you have no compassion? No empathy? Well, considering he sent bears after children from mocking one of his prophets... Gods kinda petty for being omnipotent. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Really the most shocking thing about that story is that 42 boys couldn't take just two bears.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Really the most shocking thing about that story is that 42 boys couldn't take just two bears. You figure a couple of them would've had knives or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
It was God's will to see them ripped limb from limb, nothing they could do. Now if they'd had chariots of iron maybe...
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
I literally have more compassion for pests than god seems to have for 'his children'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Medieval Medic posted:I literally have more compassion for pests than god seems to have for 'his children'. When a mosquito buzzes into my ear, it has annoyed me. Yet all things have a duty not to. How can the mosquito make up this transgression? By refraining in the future? Of course not, it already owed me that. By gifts or deeds? Of course not, nothing a mosquito does can matter to me, so it has nothing with which to pay for its transgression. Pain can only be paid with pain. The mosquito must suffer. But not just a buzz in the ear, for I as a superior being have much more moral worth than a mosquito. When it buzzes in my ear, it commits an evil many times greater than a simple buzzing, for it has offended Me. It must suffer deeply, agonizingly, eternally. Over and over I will pluck its wings, douse it in acid, burn it in flame, delighting in its screams as its flesh sizzles and burns and bleeds but never dies. Yes, for I am thousands and thousands of times more good than a mosquito, so its punishment for offending me must be thousands and thousands of times as horrific...  I love you, mosquito!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:A thing isn't new just because you or someone else said it is new, hth. Bible and most Christian dogma makes it quite clear that the rewards of following the Word comes in the next life, not this one. In fact, following Jesus's teachings is supposed to catch you a world of poo poo and be super hard, hope this helps. I would argue that much of early Christianity was mortalist. And mortalist largely because of the greek influence. "The Greeks called themselves "the mortals" because they experienced that which is immortal." What is athanatos gnosis? What is immortality? What do people copying sections of Greek and Roman stories to put into their own account of a deity (as previously discussed happens in Luke), in what way do they think? Probably like Greeks. What is immortality for Achilles? The people that the whole concept of Word is taken from (the Stoics), what do they think is immortality? When the first death in Jesus movement happens and the resurrection of the body doesn't happen immediately happen what types of conclusions is that going to lead people to. The concept of an immortal soul independent of a body is a more recent thing! Another explaination of this from A History of Christian Thought, lecture on the Apostolic Fathers Clement. Ignatius. http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2310&C=2310 Emphasis mine: "This identity of truth and being mediates the other side. namely life. Christ gives immortal knowledge, the knowledge which gives immortality. He is the saviour and leader of immortality. He is in His being our imperishable life, He gives both the knowledge of immortality and the drug of immortality. which is the sacrament. Ignatius calls the Lord's Supper the antidotonto me apothanein . the remedy against our having to die, This idea that the sacramental materials of the Lord's Supper are, so to speak, drugs or remedies which produce immortality, has a very profound meaning. It shows. first of all, one thing: these Apostolic Fathers did not believe in the immortality of the soul, There is no natural immortality. otherwise it would be meaningless for them to speak about immortal life. appearing and given to us in Christ, But they believed that man is natural..–..mortal, exactly as the Old Testament believes; that in Paradise man was able to participate in the food of the gods, called the "tree of life", and to keep alive by participating in this Divine power. In the same way the Apostolic Fathers said that with the coming of Christ the situation of Paradise is reestablished. Now we again participate in the food of eternity, which is the body and the blood of Christ, and in doing so we build in ourselves the counter-balance against the natural having to die. Death is the wages of sin only insofar as sin is the separation from God, and therefore God's power to overcome our natural having to die – from dust to dust, as the Old Testament says,. – does hot work any more: and now it works again, in Christ. and it is seen in a sacramentally realistic way in the materials of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Now if you see this, then you can at least say one thing -- that our traditional speaking of the immortality of the soul is not classically Christian tradition, but is a distortion of it, not in a genuine but in a pseudo-Platonic sense." ShadowCatboy posted:I only know a little about BrandorKP's favored author, Paul Tillich, who from what I gather tried to reinterpret Christianity in a more postmodern/existential manner. Whereas traditional theologians defined God as a being which is presumed to exist, Tillich instead works from a definition of "God" that is very... esoteric. Right and where does doing that come from, because it has a long history in Christianity. It comes from the first Christian apology. It's reaction. It comes from responding to: "1) that Christianity is a danger to the Roman Empire. This was the political accusation, that it undermines the structure of this empire. 2) that, philosophically speaking, Christianity is nonsense, a superstition mixed with philosophical fragments. " It's reasonable to expect the same reaction if the same critique is presented. And unless there is a new critique, it's reasonable to expect the same same resolution of the argument. ShadowCatboy posted:Yes, both atheists and theists express some form of "trust" or "dedication" in their beliefs, and they are similar in that respect. Right, and that's the point I've been harping on. Some people in this thread trust in a particular methodology, one that is an idea that people came up with, the scientific method. Some people in this thread trust in a particular story, one that people came up with, but that probably has elements of a real event. I'm an rear end in a top hat that trusts in unknowable Being-itself revealed in Christ Jesus that we encounter in others via the Spirit, which is also an idea that people came up with! But the whole point is, the conversation is between the different choices regarding what each of us has faith in. It's not a conversation between we have faith in and we don't. And you're right, you get to the end of it and it starts over, it just repeats, endlessly, circularly. A repeating conversation about our choices regarding how we relate or link or connect things together. Who What Now posted:I cannot picture Brandor out in the world functioning like an actual adult. What must it be like working with him? Do the people around him live in constant dread of saying something to set him off on another rant? Quiet, reserved, confident, thorough, and excessively professional. You all get an unfiltered almost stream of consciousness fire hose here. Honestly it's because I like most of you (hmmm, maybe I am crazy) and I enjoy arguing with you. In real life, not a goddamn word, nobody knows what my internal beliefs and thoughts are (outside of my wife). Which is weird, considering that I think every single thing posted here is utterly public. Ogmius815 posted:Look up some of the rejected gospels that include infancy narratives. They're pretty entertaining. Or look up some of the rejected gospels that expand on the "beloved" disciple. Beloved is a loaded concept, that implies sex. The images of the beloved disciple are often of a beardless youth, that Greek ideal boy image, meaning it was pretty clearly thought of in the greek sense of "beloved". Great deal of variety in the stories about who Jesus was boning. But most of them are really late 2-3-400's which means it's right they are rejected and marginal. Rejected acts stories are even better. Shark tank self baptisms! Mr Magoo-esc comic relief versions of Paul! CommieGIR posted:The PROCESS is not the issue in the scientific process, the hypothesis being verified or disproved is the part being verified. Right the current hypothesis supported by data and testing changes all the time as new data a new tests happen. That makes it very problematic to live based on beliefs derived in that way. The process isn't absolute it's not universally applicable, they're are other process to reach beliefs that are more appropriate in certain situations. Doubting not placing all of ones trust , in any particular epistemological process, affords one the freedom of being able to choose between them as appropriate situation-ally. Science great for knowing I should use antibiotic to treat this bacterial infection, not great at "What does it mean to be?" Turning to community or tradition great for thinking about "Who am I and where am I from?" Terrible for knowing should I vaccinate my child? Doubt in any one of these things as an absolute, allows for the use of all of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Kyrie, I think that if you got to experience being a father it would radically alter your understanding of the metaphor of Father.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:What is your reaction when one of your creation calls you a bitch? If I had children, my reaction would not be to set fire to them for back-talking me, because I'm not a psychopath. When I was a kid in grade school, there was a boy in my class named Tony. He constantly told tall tales about his older brother, Dirk. Dirk was a commando in the army. Dirk was a black belt in karate. Dirk was the leader of 5 gangs. Dirk was almost drafted by the NFL. Everytime someone would cross Tony, he would threaten: Dirk's gonna get you when he gets out of jail. Or the army. Or army-jail. Dirks gonna come get you, and he's gonna kick your rear end and your dad's rear end while you watch. We never actually knew if Dirk was real or not, but Tony invoked his name whenever he needed to put authority behind something, and some people bought it. You fire and brimstone types remind me of Tony, always invoking the name of your surrogate bully. Always promising damnation for everyone else. I mean, you really really don't see that you're the badguy here, do you? Here's a big part of the reason why I'm an atheist: the universe is simply too vast for the god of the Bible. I could maybe buy your story if it was just the earth and the moon, but there is a vast expanse of stars an maybe, probably, countless planets with intelligent life on them. The god of the bible though, is molded perfectly to humanity's own flawed ideal: with everything we think is cool, and powerful and right. God exists to reaffirm that WE'RE the absolute poo poo. God created the vast universe just for us. God will smite our enemies with eternal hellfire. God grants our wishes when we pray. God redeems us and gives us mansions in space. It seems that god, for all of it's infinite power and wisdom, is just as petty and short-sighted as we are. Like I said, to me the bible is really just humanity's bad, self-insert fan fiction of the universe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Right the current hypothesis supported by data and testing changes all the time as new data a new tests happen. That makes it very problematic to live based on beliefs derived in that way. The process isn't absolute it's not universally applicable, they're are other process to reach beliefs that are more appropriate in certain situations. Doubting not placing all of ones trust , in any particular epistemological process, affords one the freedom of being able to choose between them as appropriate situation-ally. Science great for knowing I should use antibiotic to treat this bacterial infection, not great at "What does it mean to be?" Turning to community or tradition great for thinking about "Who am I and where am I from?" Terrible for knowing should I vaccinate my child? Doubt in any one of these things as an absolute, allows for the use of all of them. No, your argument was that peer review works in a religious setting. This is not true, nor is it peer review. You THINK you know what peer review and rational thinking is, you appear to not know at all. Vaccines and infections are not subject to beliefs, they are subject to evidence, testing, and natural processes. You are trying to apply rational thinking to religion, which is largely fuzzy and wishful thinking. Science is not great at answering "What does it mean to be" Because its a very broad and metaphysical question. While its nice to think about, its not exactly pertinent to existing. There is no evidence for WHY we exist, we just exist, we know how that process came to be, and so far we have encountered no supreme beings involved in the process. You are constantly mistaking the metaphysical for the physical and the real. Metaphysics allows you to pose questions such as "What does it mean to be" but it HAS NO ANSWERS. Its the reason Metaphysics is largely only discussed in philosophy circles, and is no longer a valid scientific approach. Also: Science doesn't deal in absolutes. It deals in probability. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Atheists are some of the dumbest people I've ever met. Good thread OP
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Yes, I've read it You can read Aramaic, then? Or at least Koine Greek?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
oddium posted:Atheists are some of the dumbest people I've ever met. Good thread OP I once heard this phrase uttered, completely without irony: "If english was good enough for Jesus Christ, then it's good enough for me!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
oddium posted:Atheists are some of the dumbest people I've ever met. Good thread OP There are thousands and thousands and thousands of gods from all over the world that I don't believe in with nary a second thought, but when someone else doesn't believe in this one it makes me really mad!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
oddium posted:Atheists are some of the dumbest people I've ever met. Good thread OP  Someones never been to the American South.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Quiet, reserved, confident, thorough, and excessively professional. Apparently not humble, though. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Is there an external reality to which we can refer our ideas to test their truth, or are all ideas "just something that people came up with" all with equal (or perhaps more accurately "no") truth value?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Is there an external reality to which we can refer our ideas to test their truth, or are all ideas "just something that people came up with" all with equal (or perhaps more accurately "no") truth value? Something something BIBLE something something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 18:26
|
|