Philosoft

Come on, Rad. If "omnipotence" includes at least the ability to bring about any logically possible state-of-affairs, it follows ineluctably that God can bring about any amount of long- and short-term good with or without suffering.
Neither do you.

Radorth

#5

Hmmm. Let me think. People getting saved in their death momnet, which no other religion or philosophy can offer, gang members washing your car instead of stealing it, hopeless marriages and families brought together again, my kid going from C's and D's to B's and A's in school almost overnight (after attending "The Call" at age 12). You know, that sort of thing. Of course you'd have to decide your philosophy isn't that useful, hit bottom and pray to find out what God can do. That's usually how it works.

Of course this question is rather gratuitous. You cannot reject what has not been offered and the Bible clearly says Jesus preached to the "spirits" of previous generations. I'm sure most Christians would say that the ignorant are either not held accountable, or are judged by their own rules and consciences, as Paul said in Romans. So our "objective" jounalist is here simply commenting out of ignorance, part of which is willful I suspect.

Rad

Radorth

Uh huh. He should allow free will until somebody does something evil, then revoke it. BTW, would that include revoking the right to an abortion if God said abortion was evil? Or would you just have him eliminate the sex drive until one was married and was responsible enough to have a child, then flick a switch?

Yeah we know your logic. "God should allow free will, but not really." And this same logical thinking invariably questions whether the "works of the flesh" are evil, or the commandments of God are moral.

"God should stop evil, but only if I personally agree it is evil."

Heh.

Rad

Daggah

You are constantly talking about this, but you never get around to saying why we should care. This little tidbit doesn't PROVE ANYTHING. It has nothing to do with logical argument whatsoever! Even if it really WAS unique to your cult, uniqueness doesn't equal truth.

Counting the hits and ignoring the misses. You conveniently ignore that atheists have the lowest represented population in American prisons, or that the poorest crime-ridden neighborhoods are not dens of atheism. You ignore the fact that born-again Christians have the highest divorce rates in the country (and atheists have one of the lowest!) You ignore the many children of all different religions or philosophies who have done the same thing your kid has done (and Radorth having kids - now THAT is a freaking scary thought. Brainwashed him yet, Rad?)

I've hit bottom. I hit bottom before I even THOUGHT about becoming an atheist. God was nowhere to be found.

Littledrummerboy

It was foolish for your friend to reckomend the book to you. I have several atheistic friends (I am Christian) and I would not only not give them that book, but I would never outright try to persuede them to convert. To comment on the book (I've read the Case for Christ...and as is the case with most of "men of the moment" in Christianity, I was not impressed) it is made for "newbie" Christians, or for those with a faith only as strong as their will, intellegence etc. which is not very. Yes the book does require some faith in something substantial...something Atheists, by definition, do not have, even if some atheists say they have faith that there is no God, that is not substantial faith, if it is faith at all...I'm not sure what to think of that subject (I read the other thread). Your friend should have know, assuming he/she read the book, that your lack of faith would have been a barrier the book could not break down. Thanks

Stephen :notworthy

Radorth

HAHAHAHAHA!

This is such total BS. The average atheist feels too persecuted to write "atheist" on a form to begin with, so of course we have absolutely no way of knowing this. They only comprise about 5% of the population, while the prison population is about 1% of the total population. So now we are talking a fraction almost unmeasurable anyway. I can make a better argument that ONLY NON-CHRISTIANS GO TO PRISON because they refuse to follow the Sermon on the Mount.

We've just had one atheist admit he writes "Roman Catholic" on his forms when he doesn't believe any of it. I'm surprised you didn't say something which included the word "liar."

Ignoring the misses? Glad you brought it up. I don't like to compare holiness until atheists dare to try. But what WERE all those atheists doing while Stalin was slaughtering his own army officers, not to mention anyone who looked at him funny? You would think such holy people would attempt a serious coup or something (as in Hitler's case).

But since so many atheists believe in "survival of the fittest" I suppose their apathy is explicable.

Rad

Bree

I'd love to see this argument played out; please feel free to start a new thread, as I'd hate to see this one derailed.

Philosoft

I wish you'd read more carefully. I'm just pointing out the logical implications of omnipotence. I am under no burden to indicate a "better way." It's quite enough to show that God could, by virtue of his omnipotence, do things differently.

I have nowhere stated that God "should" do anything. All I can do is indicate the logical implications of omnipotence and observe that some states-of-affairs seem to contain unnecessary suffering.

If God exists, it is consistent with his will that I judge the deaths of children in war zones generally unnecessary. I can think of no good reason that, say, 200 fewer children should die per year in war zones.

If God had a good reason to allow the current number of children to be killed, I probably wouldn't need to know what that reason is. Merely knowing there is a reason should be sufficient.

Yellum Notnef

Don't hold your breath.

lpetrich

Radorth:
Kyle did OK on #3 although he of course has no idea how life originated, but somehow knows God did not contribute.

Can one be sure that it wasn't time travelers seeding the Earth ~4 billion years ago?

Yeah how is it all those Christians made up all those songs about love and peace,

As opposed to those who made up all those songs about war and hate?

wanted the Roman bloodgames stopped,

Because they were idolatrous. And consider that the early theologian Tertullian enjoyed the thought of people he disliked suffering in Hell.

think you should not even argue with tendentious people,

Like they themselves?

refused to do anything but drive ambulances in war, think the war in Iraq is ascriptural

Tell that to our President. And all the fundies who love the Iraq War.

and rebuild their enemies countries at enormous expense when they do fight?

???

Apparently God put the word "love" in the Bible one too many times, so we are all inadvertantly disobeying him.

Except that the Bible has a LOT of unloving things in it.

Hmmm. Let me think. People getting saved in their death momnet, which no other religion or philosophy can offer,

How is that any different from one's last words being "there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet"?

gang members washing your car instead of stealing it,

And do they also say to muggers, "Mug me again"?

hopeless marriages and families brought together again,

And sometimes the opposite -- which is more in accord with Jesus Christ's teaching about family life, that he was coming to break up everybody's families.

Of course you'd have to decide your philosophy isn't that useful, hit bottom and pray to find out what God can do. That's usually how it works.

The old "no atheists in foxholes" argument. Except that there have been numerous atheists in foxholes. And that "See you in heaven" are not common last words.

You cannot reject what has not been offered and the Bible clearly says Jesus preached to the "spirits" of previous generations.

News to me.

... would that include revoking the right to an abortion if God said abortion was evil?

Why not? And why not give us an aversion to getting abortions and be done with it?

Or would you just have him eliminate the sex drive until one was married and was responsible enough to have a child, then flick a switch?

Or better yet, get rid of it altogether, as hinted at in Matthew 19:12