Christians, anything wrong with the following?

[Muffled]

But not the guy who nearly sterilized the earth once with water, intends to do it again with fire, cursed man to work the fields and women to pain in childbirth because some kids at an apple that he dangled before them at the advice of a demon he cast to earth (thanks for that) and left them alone with, and has created a master demon and a fiery torture pit in which he intends to toss most of humanity to suffer gratuitously forever.

Name a greater enemy of humanity in all of history or fiction.

I believe you qualify.

 

[1robin]

Thanks for the nice response. I disagree with you, but it's nice to trade responses with someone who does not resort to ad hominems and hysteria as a defense.I'm having trouble figuring out how the multiple quote thing works, so I am going to simply post in red after your responses. Hope this does not confuse things too much.

If you send me a private message I will explain how to quote sentences or paragraphs however you want. For now I will try to navigate your color coding.

I am also glad to hear from you again.

Fair criticism.

I didn't mean to be critical. I just saw that you were evaluating my claims in a different context than that which they were given in. I can go either way, but I can't go both ways. So do you want to discuss the cartoon or evidence for God's existence?

Don't know how you arrived at the statistics, but can accept them. It might also be fair to say that those 90% may have additional various beliefs that do not match yours.

To tell you the truth I have just heard it so much and it matches my personal experience so well that I consider it at least in the ballpark.

Several issues here.
1. I would imagine that no other Christian that has ever lived shares 100% of every belief I have about the bible.
2. The bible contains 750,000 words containing thousands upon thousands of doctrines and historical claims. It would be a miracle to find two Christians that believed identical conclusion about the entire bible.
3. Disagreements come in many kind. Extremely meaningful as in how do we get to heave, little less important as in were the nails pounded through Christ's wrists or palms, to not very important like how many horses and stalls did Kind David really have, to completely meaningless like exactly how tall Goliath was.

So before a distinction between Christians could make any real difference you would have to be very specific.

I was talking about objective morality. It wasn't an argument against the existence of god, but an argument against the existence of objective morality. For morality to be truly objective, it would mean that god is subject to it just as we would be. It would be outside of and preexist him. If morality is subject to the mind of god, then it isn't truly objective. He can change it if he wishes, and seems to have done so.

Ok this is very important.

1. God did not find some previously existing moral code which bound him.
2. He did not make up morality on a whim.
3. Something does not become wrong because he forbids it, or right because he commands it.
4. God has absolute sovereignty over everything.
5. God can do anything that is logically coherent. He can't make a square circle for example.
6. So where did morality come from? It came from his nature. God is eternal and unchanging. His nature has determined what was right and what was evil prior to creation. In fact there was never an instant when God's nature had not already established moral values and duties.
7. His moral commands simply flow from his nature.
8. So there is no Euthyphro's dilemma with God.
9. If God is not the source for all objective facts then the word objective no longer applies to anything and should no longer be used.

Yes, that pretty much describes the universe. Humans ascribe the descriptive terms of evil, good, etc.

No that is what happens when a biologist attempts philosophy. Your right to point out that humans call things good and evil. However if God does not exist there is no good to be or evil to avoid. Without God you can only justify nihilism, anarchy, might makes right, or complete self interest.

I will give you one example of the thousands of things at stake depending on God's existence. Racial equality only exists if God does. Evolution has never created two completely equal things since the universe came into being. We are tall, short, fat, skinny, black, red, white, male, female, athletes, biologists, we are all unequal from the stand point of nature. However if God exists then racial equality does have a true foundation. It doesn't have one in nature so if it exists then it must transcend nature (be supernatural). The same situation exists for all of mankind's most cherished beliefs whether they are human rights, the sanctity of human life, the inherent dignity of men, justifiable selfless acts, objective meaning, objective worth, a hope beyond the inevitable grave, etc.......

 

[Father Heathen]

I believe I am saying that of those who consider it extortion.

So rational people? How could those that have advanced humanity be its enemy?

 

[Father Heathen]

I believe you qualify.

Here, take a bite of this **** sandwich. What? You don't want to? Why do you hate humanity so much?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

None of which will remain unchanged. Since everything you find contentment in now will all be lost then your present circumstances are not really relevant.

Non sequitur. Your conclusions don't follow from your premises.



There are Christian organizations that tend to every segment of society that has been forgotten (and they usually have the highest success rate). Conservative Christians are the most charitable demographic on earth.

I take it your house isn't on fire currently, is not being subject to an earth quake, and is not being burglarized, at the moment but I bet you have acted to prevent and insured against those things should they occur. Why do you spend money to protect your self against rare things but have no need for what has been 100% lethal and occurs to everyone.

I don't know what that means.

By that bizarre standard God would have to be your slave before he could exist. The claim of absence of evidence carries a burden. For it to hold water you must show that we should have more evidence for God's existence than we do. How on Earth are you going to meet that burden?

Your posting is unusually opaque. Once again, I don't know what you are saying. More plain language would be of value here.

[/QUOTE]your going to get exactly what you chose in the end. [/QUOTE]

No, I have no say regarding my ultimate fate.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You do not act like someone who merely disbelieves, but one who hates the very thing he says he does not believe in.

Thanks for sharing your assessments about me. Have we crossed that line now? Shall we begin positing about oe another according to your choice?

[/QUOTE] So far you batting about a thousand on being wrong[/QUOTE]

Why would I defer to your judgment?

I'd say that you have been wrong with your every comment. I say that I understand scripture better than you. How can we decide?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Made in the image of God means that we are moral agents, personal, and that we have a scaled down version of God's sovereignty

No, it doesn't. It means that God has a thumb. We are made in that image.

Anybody can make this stuff up as they go. Your attempt at mythopoeia was typical f the process..

 

[littlefire]

This is an image (created in 2013 I believe) that first appeared on the Betty Bowers ("America's Best Christian") web site, which has since found itself popping up across the internet---it was recently posted in a thread here on RF. It's a parody of the For Dummies instructional/reference books.

I realize some Christians might take exception to it, perhaps as an abuse of a well known theme of Jesus knocking on the door, but aside from that, as a succinct summery of Christian salvation I believe it's spot on.

Any disagreements?

.

Objection: The brand of Protestantism I experienced was more insidious in that the irony could not be so easily spotted. It was veiled in layers of rhetoric to gaslight adherents into believing that any torturous fate was brought upon themselves and summarily deserved, tantamount to a battered spouse taking the blame for their own abuse. But my experience with Christianity was particularly bad.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Who decides what are fair laws? I've heard it said "prisons are for people who make their own rules", they obviously disagree with the rules of others, thinking them unfair.

People are unfairly imprisoned all the time. That doesn't help your point.

A sinner has condemned himself to righteous judgement so Jesus isn't doing anything to them. One brings condemnation on himself.

Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, however, serve as a substitute for the judgement of sin for those who believe it.

So ... take responsibility for your own actions, unless you can throw Jesus under the bus to save your own skin. Got it.

I believe in the cake or death argument. It's so much simpler to decide. Cake or death?

I don't like cake.

If there is a god, he would be a being of pure love and pure logic, therefor anything devoid of reason or compassion cannot be of god.

Gods don't have to be nice. Not deserving worship is not the same thing as not existing.

So you say. But God gives mankind a choice Cake or death. Some will choose cake, and some will choose death. With freedom to choose as a cherry on top. Sounds pretty nice.

I think Jesus disagrees. The parable of the talents suggest we get what we pay for. Put in 10% effort, get 10% payback. Put in 100% effort ...

God: You have a choice: cake or death.

Me: I hate cake. I don't even eat sweets, really. Got any potato chips?

God: I can make an entire universe, but I only serve cake or death.

Me: Life can be kind of miserable. Death is often an attractive option.

God: You're supposed to pick cake with your free will.

Me: It isn't even the most nutritious food. What happened to the Water of Life?

God: Nestle bought it. Do you want your cake or not? I want you to make the right choice.

Me: The right choice is to deny any of these options are the right one. Mind ... blown!

I don't really like disney land. That would be like hell to me. I don't have to go anywhere to meet my savior. Most likely be just a pile of dust and bones lying in a grave, no future at all except the resurrection.

But you'll take the cake? I can't help but notice some inconsistencies in your logic.

Jesus himself never advocated violence.

Assaulting people with whips didn't happen? Chasing pigs off a cliff (which served to destroy some poor dude's livelihood, stink up the place with disease-ready filth for ages, and give everyone nightmares of squealing followed by splattering) didn't happen? Killing a fig tree that wasn't supposed to have figs on it didn't happen (did Jesus own the tree? did the real owner appreciate some random dude coming by and killing his livelihood?)?

At best, Jesus is ... inconsistent ... with his teachings.

There is no third, "mankind strikes out on his own" option. You are either serving God or you are serving someone else.

And yet Jesus told us to let our lights shine. If we have no lights, we cannot follow that directive, can we?

But why risk it. Just look up Jesus Christ on google and you will you find it.

We will be saved from things God Himself set up apparently? Is it like when Christians tell us they are like warning us that our house is on fire and that it's moral to do so? Because many of us realized long ago that the "warning system" is also the one with the matches....

Is unbelief a failure of God?

Yes. You don't give someone a broken computer and then complain that they can't look for your emails.
EDIT:
Rameses 2: Yo, Moses, go build bricks without straw, LOL.
God: *writes down memo* Don't ... need ... to ... supply ... workers ... and ... can ... complain ... they ... are ... failures. Got it.

Is God so incompetent He doesn't know what "education" or "rehabilitation" or anything is? You know what's annoying? Working in healthcare without all the proper supplies, from gloves to paper to diapers. How can I possibly be expected to do my job if I am not properly supplied by the owner?

Jesus told doubting Thomas that believing on faith is better than having proof.

And yet we are to judge a tree by its fruit, implying we NEED to verify things in order to move on with our lives. Christianity loves to whine about people being misled into living in Satan's world or something, but those people put up as much critical thinking skills as many "saved" people, right?

1. Jesus died to save us from our selves not from anything he will do?

Except I'm still being held to the standard that I am responsible for my status in front of God, so I'm unclear where Jesus fits in to all this.

Like Christ being a doctor that has created the cure for the disease everyone on the other side of the door have, which their own behavior has both created and spread. He paid for the cure himself, he doesn't charge for it, and he will not force anyone to take it.

Or he's like a pharmacology company that created the disease and this is more like damage control?

In the end they get what they actually desired, eternal separation from God

God's omnipresent, yes? Separation is impossible with omnipresence. It's basically the definition of the word: "being everywhere".

Did Christ offer forgiveness or demand payment from those who nailed him to the cross?

Do we see where any of those people went after they died?

Because if it isn't true your fleeting life will end in annihilation, but if it is true there is hope of eternal contentment. Denying Christ is an infinite net loss.

Actually, it's not. The beauty of annihilation is that I'm not around to suffer anything. I get the last laugh.

Without God no objective moral values exist

I don't see objective moral values WITH "Bible God" existing, since morality seems conveniently defined to sway with His moods.

Christ himself told the apostles to touch him physical after resurrection specifically to show them he was not merely a spirit. He is called the first fruit, the first resurrection to a perfect spiritual body from death.

He isn't spirit but has a spirit body? Huh?

We will be given new bodies that lack all the flaws our current bodies have.

Jesus' perfect spirit body still had nail holes in it. No word yet as to all the other stuff. He should've resurrected looking like hamburger meat, considering all the flogging and torture and stuff. Jesus' perfect spirit body was so perfect that apparently "all Jews look alike", because the followers he had who had spent God knows how long with him seriously needed nail holes to confirm his identity....

You accuse the only human for which no evidence exists that he ever harmed another living thing

ROFLMAO! WE JUST MENTIONED THE PIGS AND THE TEMPLE AUDIENCE AND THE FIG TREE AND ...

 

[rusra02]

If Jehovah had not sent his son, what would our situation be?
Since Adam brought sin into the world, death spread like a malignant cancer to all of us.( Romans 5:12) We would have no hope of living forever, but would die eternally in our sins. But "God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) Now, if we choose to reject God's gift, what hope do we have? I believe the Bible answers that question clearly; "The one who exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; the one who disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." (John 3:36) I believe it is like a benefactor offering to pay off a huge debt that has put us into bankruptcy. If we say; "no thanks, I prefer bankruptcy", who is to blame for our situation?

 

[ratiocinator]

If Jehovah had not sent his son, what would our situation be?
Since Adam brought sin into the world, death spread like a malignant cancer to all of us.( Romans 5:12) We would have no hope of living forever, but would die eternally in our sins. But "God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) Now, if we choose to reject God's gift, what hope do we have? I believe the Bible answers that question clearly; "The one who exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; the one who disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." (John 3:36) I believe it is like a benefactor offering to pay off a huge debt that has put us into bankruptcy. If we say; "no thanks, I prefer bankruptcy", who is to blame for our situation?

So, one man Adam (or whatever he represents) was a naughty boy, so god not only punished him but made us all pay, so that we have no choice but to all be sinners. So we are basically threatened with punishment for the crime of being punished by god - so god kills his own son and, for no readily apparent reason, this can save us from the punishment for being punished but only if we actually believe this bizarre story.

Is that it?

 

[rusra02]

So, one man Adam (or whatever he represents) was a naughty boy, so god not only punished him but made us all pay, so that we have no choice but to all be sinners. So we are basically threatened with punishment for the crime of being punished by god - so god kills his own son and, for no readily apparent reason, this can save us from the punishment for being punished but only if we actually believe this bizarre story.

Is that it?

No, it isn't.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, it isn't.

What did I get wrong?

 

[rusra02]

What did I get wrong?

For one thing, God did not punish us by giving us the gift of life we now enjoy, however briefly. He was not obligated to help us in any way, but his love moved him to give us back what Adam lost for us.

 

[ratiocinator]

For one thing, God did not punish us by giving us the gift of life we now enjoy, however briefly.

That isn't what I said. Why are we all sinners? Hint: if it was a genuine choice, you wouldn't expect 100% failure.

He was not obligated to help us in any way, but his love moved him to give us back what Adam lost for us.

I'm not Adam - why should I have lost something due to what Adam did?

 

[1robin]

Non sequitur. Your conclusions don't follow from your premises.

5 posts to me alone in 40 minutes? You must not do much research.

There are Christian organizations that tend to every segment of society that has been forgotten (and they usually have the highest success rate). Conservative Christians are the most charitable demographic on earth.

Your not spending sufficient time on each post is showing. What you quoted above is simply my statement. I make grammatical mistakes all the time, but one like you made above really confuses a discussion.

I don't know what that means.

You said something about your not caring about the bible because you do not believe in an after life. I responded that you probably do not believe you will have a car wreck on your next trip but I bet you still bought insurance just in case.

Your posting is unusually opaque. Once again, I don't know what you are saying. More plain language would be of value here.

My posting? Go back and look at the post of yours I am responding to.

All claims that are founded on a lack of evidence carry a burden. You must first show that if X exists then Y amount of evidence should exist, then you must show that less than Y amount of evidence actually exists. For the specific claim you made your burden is impossible.

I had to delete another statement of mine because you formatted it incorrectly which confused me again.

No, I have no say regarding my ultimate fate.

If God exists (and you couldn't possibly know he doesn't) then you choosing not to decide was still a choice. There is no hero in neutrality, no salute to your surrender, nothing novel in you fate....... actually that last bit is a Rush lyric.

 

[1robin]

Thanks for sharing your assessments about me. Have we crossed that line now? Shall we begin positing about oe another according to your choice?

I was referring to your style of argumentation and what it suggests, is that not relevant?

You did it again, so I deleted the statement you quoted incorrectly. That is the same error occurring 3 times in 2 posts so far.

Why would I defer to your judgment?

My job is to defend truth and point out falsehoods, it isn't to make you believe them.

I say that you have been wrong with your every comment. I say that I understand scripture better than you. How can we decide?

Apparently personal assessments are important enough to post after all. Now that we have done so, I have given you scriptures or paraphrased biblical doctrine that defy every claim about the bible you have made. If you want to see who is right then pick any one of them, drop everything else, then we can see who was right. Your choice.

 

[1robin]

No, it doesn't. It means that God has a thumb. We are made in that image.

Anybody can make this stuff up as they go. Your attempt at mythopoeia was typical f the process..

I told you before that the next absurdity you post I was going to halt my participation in our discussion. I couldn't decide whether the above was enough of an absurdity to pull the trigger. I always gamble on the side of forgiveness, so I will not end this here, but your close.

God has no physical attributes so bringing up any physical analogy to explain what "created in his image" means is pathetic. My explanation is by far the consensus among billions of Christians, yours is not sincerely believed by anyone. You need to pick up your game, and soon.

 

[1robin]

@Kelly of the Phoenix

Every time you show up and post a response to me, I respond, then you disappear for a few weeks. That does not make for a debate. Sorry but I cannot justify it.

 

[rusra02]

That isn't what I said. Why are we all sinners? Hint: if it was a genuine choice, you wouldn't expect 100% failure.


I'm not Adam - why should I have lost something due to what Adam did?

You didn't lose it. You never had it. When Adam and Eve had children, both were sinful and in the process of dying. They could not produce sinless children. If not for Jehovah's undeserved mercy, none of us would have any hope, IMO. I believe because Jehovah provided what was needed to save us from sin, and give us what Adam squandered, we can have hope. (Romans 6:23)