Crowley

Joyfilled:

You claim that we are full of pride and it is this "weakness" that prevents us from attaining the Glory of God. In truth, we ask for nothing more than that which was given to Thomas. Thomas was a disciple of Jesus, yet, even he doubted the power and divinity of Jesus. He required proof that the death and resurrection was not a hoax. He received that proof with his own eyes, ears, and hands. If your God would give to us what he gave to a disciple of Jesus, we would believe.

It is, however, amusing to keep hearing the ask him and you shall receive speeches; that faith is the answer. Thomas had no faith. He did not believe. Yet, he was given DEFINITIVE proof that Jesus had died when asked for it. Why don't we get the same treatment the same level of proof? Thomas had supposedly witnessed the miracles and heard the teachings of Christ yet even he doubted that Christ was a god-man.

So in summation:

No Proof = No God

Give us Proof = We'll stop thinking you're a moron. (Sorry, just my damnable pride getting in the way again.)

Crowley

Howard

Well shoot. By the time I read one of Joyfilled’s OPs and get ready to respond, y’all have turned him into a bloody carcass… sometimes just a pile of gnawed-over bones. Talk about being a fool for Christ, not to mention a glutton for punishment…

Mentalepsy

I want my turn!

That depends on the quality of the evidence and arguments on his side. If they are, in fact, vastly superior, is he still sure to lose?

That depends on the quality of the strategy. If it is, in fact, vastly superior, is he still sure to lose?

If Jesus is the omiscient creator of the universe, I think he probably would know better than I do about many things. Too bad you haven't shown that he is.

Ah, more threats. Let me try, too:

"Those who think they know better than Odin will one day be shown just who is in control of the universe."

You'd better go out and die honorably in battle if you want a place in Valhalla. It's your choice- are you going to gamble with your soul? Do you think Odin is going to be the slightest bit impressed when you tell him about how you loved Jesus with all your heart?

It's really tiresome to hear you go on and on and on and on and ON and ON and ON AND ON AND ON about how we hate God, are angry at God, are rebelling against God, think we're smarter than God, blame God for all our problems, when we don't even believe he exists. What's so hard about that? Do you blame Odin for your problems? Are you angry at Thor for frying your hard drive? Are you listening at all? (No)

If I truly have humility, why would I want to be exalted?

Mentalepsy

Rape? Murder? Hatred? Those are the kind of things God himself has done or has ordered done. Why wouldn't he would forgive me for doing them?

As for forgiving me for rejecting him, nope, it's not gonna happen. If I don't accept him before my time limit is up, I go to hell and burn forever. You've certainly referred to that thinly-veiled fact often enough, as if you get all warm and fuzzy just thinking about it.

What love? We must worship him to get the cure to a poison he infected us with.

It's funny you should ask that. The entire point of Christianity is to let someone else take the fall for your sins. If I do something wrong, I expect myself to be punished for it, not somebody else. That is taking responsibility for your actions. Christianity would have us roasting babies on a spit to punish a murder committed by their parents. If you're really interested in taking responsibility for yourself, I suggest you volunteer for Hell when you meet God.

Are you simply ignoring what you don't like to hear? Atheists do not believe in God. They do not and can not blame God for their problems. Why do you not understand this?

Jack the Bodiless

Joyfilled:

Are you familiar with the TGE Project ?

It's a list of the lame arguments for the existence of God that we have received from theists over the years. I will quote Argument 360:

Alazoral

You know, its a little odd... you never hear about pride being the upfall of mankind. Or pride being the Pitfall: The Mayan Adventure of mankind. Or pride being 'in the zone'. For some reason, which no doubt the cunning linguists here would be able to provide, 'pride' seems forever associated with falling. 'Pride goeth before a falle,' springs to mind.

See, the thing is, I like pride. I quite like being able to take a step back from my hard done work and say "Y'know what, Eris mah gal? I'm really quite proud of that piece." Pride is a very different creature to arrogance. If you're proud of a job well done, you are more likely to improve your skills and keep with whatever you are doing. Child psychologists everywhere tell parents everywhere to tell their children "I'm proud of you, my son/daughter/Mars bar". I might be splitting hairs here, but it seems that arrogance is more of a downfall than pride ever was.

It seems that both your hypothetical attorney-at-law and your general were arrogant, not proud. See, it seems to me that pride is justified. If you're proud of yourself and you don't win, that pride was not justified and you were just being arrogant. That's the difference between Han Solo (cocky, prideful) and Emperor Palpatine (arrogant, up himself). I think you should think before you go beating up perfectly good words with your shiny crusifix. Pride has been your friend. Pride is all about feeling you are worth something and what you are doing is worth something.

That's why some of these suicides you read about in the paper happen. Because people are so 'humble' they think that they cannot affect their reality. Now, I'm not saying Jesus killed these kids, but someone with a beard that long wouldn't be able to get on an American airport without getting felt up by the completely hetrosexual and godfearing guards, if you know what I mean. He comes from the Middle East, too, so he must be the one responsible.

But seriously, folks, I find it kind of disturbing of the actual examples you used, a attorney and a general... first of all, they are rubbish examples. You only have to think about it for a moment to realise that both attorneys and generals have to be certain of every single decision they make. In the courtroom, an attorney relies on his self confidence to speak to the courtroom, then relies on his pride for his work to stop him from killing himself afterwards. A general for the most part IS a minor deity, able to control the fates of millions and generally (haw haw haw) ACTS like it. Because otherwise no-one will listen to him and he would have never been offered the promotion anyway, even if he was a Starfleet general in which case he would have to only save a small gerbil from the borg with a deflector array to get promoted.

The second disturbing thing is, you've kind of made it look like Jesus indirectly endorses the two most societally disruptive occupations on Earth. A lot of what Jesus said if you don't fucking go taking it literally all the time (because if you REALLY took the bible literally all the time you'd have to stone adulterers and such because of all the wacky edits) was "you know, guys, we would be in a much better position without these churches pushing us around, shoving religion around like a weapon and just learning to live with each other peacefully and harmoniously, and just love everything because the world is a really wonderful place". Which is, by any standards, a fantastic point of view that should definitely be followed up. And why its a little odd to say, if someone who redistributes wealth mostly to himself and someone who tells people to kill people listened to Jesus, they would be much better at their respective jobs. Again, you haven't quite thought through your post. This is because your brain has been washed squeaky clean with buzzwords which you use constantly, along with your famed circular logic (Bible is true because the bible is true. Its like saying x=b/c because b = cx.).

Undoubtedly you will respond to this post arguing the semantics rather than the actual logic (which is common among bible-thumpers, because they are taught from birth that the word (even when heavily translated across incompatible languages, all the while edited to suit the current ruling class and re-interpreted a billion different ways) is more important than the intent of the message). Please notice I spent quite a lot of words telling you why you chose a word wrong. Why? Because I'm fucking tired, that's why.

You may also choose to interpret one of the 'poke fun at you' paragraphs literally, like you might just be doing with the Bible (I apologise if you are actually a rational human being, but you know, you should really act like it)*.

* Protip: Its possible to be rational and Christian. In fact, he originally encouraged that kind of thing, you know, the whole 'thinking for yourself' thang. Its just not very 'in' with the current churches.

Protip 2: I'm not Christian.

PS: Dear Christians,
Please stop calling christ 'X'. Every time I see Xian I think 'Xist Pleasure Saucer', ex Church of the Subgenius. Every time I think Xmas I think eczema. If you indeed love your saviour that much, at least do him the fucking honour of spelling out his name in full.
Thank you,
Tsahvahn Alazoral okh Eris.

PS to the PS: Dear Not-Christians: I don't care if you hate Jesus, stop calling Christians Xians, it makes them sound misleadingly sexy.

Mageth

After posting my previous reply to Joyfilled, I realized that when he/she said to me:

That's what lies do to a person.

it may not have been an implication that I was lying, but that was the way the statement struck me initially, in context. However, it may be the case that the intent was something along the lines of "You've been lied to; you've believed lies, and that explains why you contradict yourself." Though I didn't contradict myself, and I don't know of any "lies" I believe. If this interpretation is correct, Joyfilled needs to explain what lies are being referred to. Further, I have no idea why me believing lies is supposed to explain me contradicting myself, which, of course, I didn't do anyway.

But again, my initial interpretation of it may have been correct. Joyfilled may have been implying that me having allegedly lied in the past (which, of course, Joyfilled would have no knowledge of) or on this thread (in which case, Joyfilled needs to point out where, exactly, I have lied) explains why I allegedly "contradicted" myself in this case, which I didn't do. That conclusion doesn't really follow either.

So, Joyfilled, if you're still around, please clear this up for me. What did you mean by the ambiguous statement "That's what lies do to a person"? And if I was wrong in my interpretation and thus wrong in saying that you were implying that I was a liar, please accept my apologies.

Ben Willott

I'm with Goliath on this one. Cough up the evidence please.

Brave Sir Robin

erm... this may be slightly off-topic - but why do you folks waste so much effort on this joyfilled character? It's clear joyfilled has no interest in an actual, reality-based debate or argument.

<parallel-universe Obi-Wan>: "The brainwashing is strong in you, young joyfilled..."

OTOH, it is interesting (uplifting ? ) reading so many well-thought-out, mostly non-confrontational replies to his rhetoric.

Looking at the bright side: any reasonable, questioning christian who takes the time to read joyfilled's comments, and then the subsequent refutation thereof, may at least begin to see that reason is superior to supposed revelation. Hopefully.

So keep at it joyfilled - you may be helping to free christians from the bondage of superstition!

Mageth

You answered your initial question quite nicely. There may be lurkers reading Joyfilled's assertions and our responses.