Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scombrid · 02-13-2003, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
He's fine with me, and he is who he is. The fact that I find a fault doesn't mean he has one

I specifically answered this. Please read the thread.

I specifically answered this.

He did die by his own will. Remember, he could have called down legions of angels by snapping his fingers, but his purpose would not have been accomplished.

He came when he came. As usual we like to make a lot of sick history before we learn anything. God seems surprised himself at how evil the world had become. I sometimes wonder if he comtemplated all the evil that would be invented.

BTW, can an omnipotent God choose not to be omniscient? Just questioning your pedantic definitions.

Rad

So he's clueless? You need to reconcile this view with the rest of Christianity.

Yellum Notnef · 02-13-2003, 08:27 AM

It looks like Radorth has decided to ignore my questions yet again.

He`s apparently under the impression that he can pull the most ridiculous answers straight out of his ass and we`ll just forget about it.

Dr Rick · 02-13-2003, 08:31 AM

"Why did God need to use crucifixion instead of some other method?"

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
I specifically answered this.

If you did, I missed it, too. Would you please repost it?

"So, please tell me, how would God not be able to achieve any goal he wants by snapping his fingers?"

Quote:

I specifically answered this.

If you did, I missed it, too. Would you please repost it?

"What's wrong with Jesus dying of old age? Or just dying by his own will?"

Quote:

He did die by his own will. Remember, he could have called down legions of angels by snapping his fingers, but his purpose would not have been accomplished.

Why did God need to use crucifixion instead of some other method?

"Why does he need to be murdered in a specific way by someone before he can forgive totally unrelated sins? Or, if I may add yet another tangent, why didn't God bother sending Jesus to the folks before the flood, or to convert Adam and Eve?"

Quote:

God seems surprised himself at how evil the world had become. I sometimes wonder if he comtemplated all the evil that would be invented.

A god that knows all could not be surprised or fail to know an outcome.

Rick

Radorth · 02-13-2003, 08:45 AM

Thus saith the all wise, all knowing Rick.

Rad

02-13-2003, 08:51 AM

Well, like many if not most debates on this subject, our choices seem to reduce to "god is either

1. non-existent,
2. a sick, sadistic scumbag who is unworthy of any sane human's consideration, or
3. a really nice guy, humans' best friend, the fact of which is beyond human understanding now, but one day we will understand, so just trust him (or, rather, the word of other humans like Radorth who vouch for him) and get on board, or suffer the ultimate consequences."

Since it's all based on faith or assumption, I'm going to have to go with choice #1. To me, this seems to be the sane choice - otherwise, isn't one just taking an airborne fornication at a rotating pasty?

SanDiegoAtheist · 02-13-2003, 11:02 AM

Radorth - I guess I, and it appears everyone else, missed your replies.

I request that you reply to my 4 questions I listed earlier, by quoting them and addressing all the concerns in those questions, in a clear manner. You have not done such, and despite reading through all your posts, I find that your 'answers' to these questions are typically lacking - indeed, most of them are exactly what other people have said here - dodges (e.g. redefining "justice" to be some form of unknown "god-justice" which allows one person to be punished in place of another....the opposite of human "justice").

Saying that you have answered them, when in fact it appears to us that you simply have dodged them, doesn't cut it around here.

As a refresher, here's one though that you clearly have NOT answered...

HOW is it that "Justice" is in any way shape or form served by having another punished in place of the one who committed the crime? Please note, NO dodge of "God-justice" different from our own is acceptable, as this "sacrifice" is in fact completely INIMICABLE to our definition of "Justice", and if you simply redefine your term as applies to God, then you claim that God is in fact NOT JUST - because our term is the only one we can define.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

winstonjen · 02-13-2003, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hedwig
We?

Look out everyone! Radorth's a schitzophrenic with multiple personalities!

Just kidding.

winstonjen · 02-13-2003, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Yes, and then he would still be omnipotent, but not omniscient.

That's an interesting point, Dr. Rick. I think that omnipotence would have to incorporate omniscience, given that knowledge is power. So if the Xian god isn't omniscient, it follows that he isn't omnipotent either.

Jayjay · 02-14-2003, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
I specifically answered this. Please read the thread.

I have read the thread, and you didn't answer it. This is exactly the kind of evasive action I was talking about: you make up something non-relevant to the issue, then pretend you've given answers, and do the "victory dance" as someone put it.

If you think that me, dr. Rick, SanDiegoAtheist, Naked Mage and others are mistaken, and you did answer the tough questions, please quote yourself. I'm not holding my breath though.

Quote:

He did die by his own will. Remember, he could have called down legions of angels by snapping his fingers, but his purpose would not have been accomplished.

Again, you are making a (deliberate?) misinterpretation. The question was not about whether Jesus could've avoided dying, but whether he could've died without the pointless crucifixion plot. Big difference.

Quote:

He came when he came. As usual we like to make a lot of sick history before we learn anything. God seems surprised himself at how evil the world had become. I sometimes wonder if he comtemplated all the evil that would be invented.

I take your non-answer as an admission of that you have no clue as to why God supposedly did what he did. Which was my point exactly: if he had tripped over instead of being crucified, you'd think it was just as brilliant. And please forget to smokescreen tactics about evil, unless you can actually explain how a symbolic sacrifice gets rid of it in ways that snapping fingers doesn't.

(Again, feel free to quote your earlier posts if you think you have answered this.)

Quote:

BTW, can an omnipotent God choose not to be omniscient? Just questioning your pedantic definitions. Why does he have to be omniscient to be "good"? IMO, this is just an inane assumption with no basis.

I think this passage was directed at someone else. I am making no such assumption.

RS508 · 02-14-2003, 12:29 PM

Here's another question:

Heaven is without sin?

What makes you think that souls going to heaven are suddenly without sin?

They were sinful here on earth. They were forgiven at death if they followed the Xian rules etc... That doesn't mean they never committed the sins, it just means they were forgiven. In our society, what is the incidence of repeat offenders from our penal system?

If you are suddenly without sin it means that you no longer possess the same "qualities" that you had here on earth. In other words you have a radically different personality and you wouldn't be you.

RS

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2003, 08:27 AM	#92
Yellum Notnef Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Gone Posts: 4,676	It looks like Radorth has decided to ignore my questions yet again. He`s apparently under the impression that he can pull the most ridiculous answers straight out of his ass and we`ll just forget about it.

02-13-2003, 08:45 AM	#94
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Thus saith the all wise, all knowing Rick. Rad

02-13-2003, 08:51 AM	#95
Robert G. Ingersoll Guest Posts: n/a	Well, like many if not most debates on this subject, our choices seem to reduce to "god is either 1. non-existent, 2. a sick, sadistic scumbag who is unworthy of any sane human's consideration, or 3. a really nice guy, humans' best friend, the fact of which is beyond human understanding now, but one day we will understand, so just trust him (or, rather, the word of other humans like Radorth who vouch for him) and get on board, or suffer the ultimate consequences." Since it's all based on faith or assumption, I'm going to have to go with choice #1. To me, this seems to be the sane choice - otherwise, isn't one just taking an airborne fornication at a rotating pasty?

02-13-2003, 11:02 AM	#96
SanDiegoAtheist Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: San Diego, CA, USA Posts: 281	Radorth - I guess I, and it appears everyone else, missed your replies. I request that you reply to my 4 questions I listed earlier, by quoting them and addressing all the concerns in those questions, in a clear manner. You have not done such, and despite reading through all your posts, I find that your 'answers' to these questions are typically lacking - indeed, most of them are exactly what other people have said here - dodges (e.g. redefining "justice" to be some form of unknown "god-justice" which allows one person to be punished in place of another....the opposite of human "justice"). Saying that you have answered them, when in fact it appears to us that you simply have dodged them, doesn't cut it around here. As a refresher, here's one though that you clearly have NOT answered... HOW is it that "Justice" is in any way shape or form served by having another punished in place of the one who committed the crime? Please note, NO dodge of "God-justice" different from our own is acceptable, as this "sacrifice" is in fact completely INIMICABLE to our definition of "Justice", and if you simply redefine your term as applies to God, then you claim that God is in fact NOT JUST - because our term is the only one we can define. Cheers, The San Diego Atheist

02-14-2003, 12:29 PM	#100
RS508 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: CA Posts: 16	Here's another question: Heaven is without sin? What makes you think that souls going to heaven are suddenly without sin? They were sinful here on earth. They were forgiven at death if they followed the Xian rules etc... That doesn't mean they never committed the sins, it just means they were forgiven. In our society, what is the incidence of repeat offenders from our penal system? If you are suddenly without sin it means that you no longer possess the same "qualities" that you had here on earth. In other words you have a radically different personality and you wouldn't be you. RS

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.