John A. Broussard

As I repeatedly deal with this issue, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the "ancillary advantages" are the excuse that the theistic god (and that god's followers) use because they secretely enjoy the original suffering that occurs.

Their thinking goes something like this:
"Oh goody, another hurricane. But I can't come right out and enjoy the suffering it's going to cause even though it is pleasant to contemplate. So I'll keep talking about all the ancillary advantages to all that suffering."

bfniii

before i start, i must congratulate you on the most insightful and civil post i have read from you. so you're not just a pretty face after all.

young people are not the only people who convert to christianity. furthermore, there are young, susceptible people who become atheists. you also assume that conversions of any type are ill-motivated.

what is a "higher use"?

i have news for you, there are ignorant and superstitious non-christians too.

so christianity produces nothing of value? i'm fairly certain that you are educated enough to know this isn't true.

the "church" is not christianity. the church is people. sometimes people, even christians, act outside the mandates of christianity. criticizing church and christianity are two totally different things.

the church has produced bad and good. what's your point?

hurling the elephant.

what's "early"?

1. people have suffered for non-christian reasons as well as christian reasons. the issue is not christianity, it is what suffering means.
2. what does the existence of suffering have to do with the alleged validity of christianity?

i agree. the conflict in iraq doesn't bring us any closer to the end than any other event or action. i sense that you are saying that christianity teaches ridiculous things. i don't totally agree, but i get your meaning. as i said above, non-christian teaching isn't without fault either.

some might say geniune

a subjective evaluation

there are people who aren't/weren't forced who are intelligent who are christians. what about them? christianity isn't the result of any roman actions.

not in every case.

that is, without question, an oversimplification.

that is where we part ways. He isn't trying to save us from Himself.

we may have been created in His image, but that has nothing to do with Him holding us accountible for our choices.

oh there's plenty of evidence for it, but i understand you don't like it. there's nothing wrong with that.

obfuscation indeed. i feel like i spend the majority of the time here dispelling inaccurate notions about christianity. these misperceptions are thoroughly pervasive. the problem i have is that the people i engage with are not willing to objectively analyze their misperceptions in order to accurately reproduce what christianity actually is or stands for.

in what way does that statement, or any other, lack substance? if you're going to make the accusation, let's get specific.

another simplification. it can provide multiple benefits.

whoa wasn't the point. the point was, if God is omniscient, how could He not have a plan for the eventuality that man would disobey?

now that was time well spent! :thumbs:

John A. Broussard

Suffering has a great deal to do with the alleged validity of christianity. If Christians believe that their god is all powerful and that he is an all loving god, then suffering makes that view completely ridiculous as I have pointed out to you time, after time. An all-powerful god either doesn't want to prevent suffering or can't prevent it without causing worse problems. Take your pick.

Now, I would guess that thoughful Christians no longer hold to the inherent contradiction contained in a simultaneous belief of an all-knowing and all-loving god, but less thoughtful Christians still cling to that view. In this instance, I'm referring to the latter variety of Christian.


I can see why you haven't had much success in dispelling either the accurate or inaccurate ones.

rlogan

A dodge.

Thank god.

Strawman.

GDP, medical research, and etc. are not "motivations". They are measurable effects of progress in spite of superstitious genius.


Duh. I listed several.

dodge.


Red herring.


Meaningless pedantry.

refer to previous post.



nonresponsive.

pretense of stupidity.


Two wrongs making one of them right.

duh. "Just and loving god"

your god is an asshole.




I sense that this is the plain english reading of what I wrote emphatically.

Don't you get tired of doing this?



Two wrongs make one of them right...again.


So you are genuinely without morality?


another dodge.


Obviously wrong.


miserable excuse.


You mean largely correct.


Superstitious Gibberish.



How charitable. Please bring god to the table.

God sacrificing himself to save himself from himself, etc....


It was. You are so wrapped up in your interwoven gibberish that it is impossible to extricate yourself from it.

Haw! Integrity of free will. gobble gobble gobble.



God is omniscient as a solution to the problem of maximizing adherents in a context of competing religions. So you have the wrong question.

If this specific proposed god is not omniscient, then how does this religion do in competition with others? well, he isn't a very good candidate in the long run.

Toto

Moderator's advisory:

The last dozen or so posts have wandered from Biblical Criticism and History, but this thread is too long and complicated to split. It may be closed if it continues to stray from the focus of this forum.

Consider starting threads in some other forum if you want to discuss the problem of evil or the nature of god.

Johnny Skeptic

Ok, how about some reasonable proof from Christians that Jesus healed people and fed 5,000 people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: I am still waiting for you to tell us where Wikipedia accurately dates the Tyre prophecy, and by what means any prophecy can be accurately dated.

As I said in my previous post, I would like for Christians to try to reasonably prove that Jesus healed people and that he fed 5,000 people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish.

John A. Broussard

Miracle.


Virgin birth?

Miracle.


Resurrection?

Miracle.


Sun stopped in the sky?

Miracle.



It's miracles piled on miracles.
You can't fight it. It's miracles all the way down.

bfniii

this is true in a certain sense, but we don't know that our existence is a case of God not being able to prevent it.

unless it violates some other factor of our existence. again, He may have a good reason for creating the world we live in the way it is. furthermore, heaven may be the world you are lobbying for.

excluded middle

bfniii

because He respects our ability to choose.

this is still a case of excluded middle