7thangel

Are you a Protestant?:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Kimpatsu

Yes; I protest this nonsense.
I'm really a Catholic, because my rejection of god is wholesome.

7thangel

I understand you, Reverend Kim. Tell me, are you allowed to serve as Devil's Advocate outside of the Church council? Albert Cipriani will surely not like the idea.

Hawkingfan

Forget about the stone. In regards to omnipotence paradoxes, how about the fact that god "powerfully" eradicated all evildoers at The Flood in order to rid the world of evil, yet one generation later evil is back rearing its ugly head and is still around today. That's omnipotence?

7thangel

Yes!!!! If there will be no evil that existed after the flood, nobody will crucify Christ.

BTW, everyone born posseses and "earthly" image first, before having the image of the heavenly. Some remain in that eathly image the rest of their lives. Earthly image meant evil image, an image of a sinner. So every one who gets save need a saviour and passes the process of sanctification. Evil will cease to reign on humanity only after the resurrection. That was the promise of God.

Hawkingfan

Then it was totally unnecessary to kill off humanity at the flood. God had planned to send Christ to die for their sins at a later time. They died in vain. Perhaps god is not omnibenevolent.

7thangel

Of a truth, God is not in debt to love us. So we cannot actually demand benevolence from God. Thus, he can chose a few, instead of all, in chosing those who are saved. The love that God bestowed upon us is called "grace." Because our relationship unto God is simply the likeness of clay-potter relationship. We just that we need to understand them

Now the story of Christ, including the histories and laws of the Bible, do actually teach us to understand the grace of God. God had even showed us even what we seem as evil nature of God. But that is how, IMO, the way the exact meaning of God's graciousness.

Hawkingfan

So? For him to purposely and arbitrarily destroy some and not others who are no different is sick.
So god is not omnibenevolent. He is not just. God asks us to love him yet, he cannot love us. You can't have it both ways. You cannot brag about god's faithful "love" and spew John 3:16 to "prove" his love, and then say god is justified in favoritism for allowing us to be saved by Calvary but drowning others at the flood who weren't any more sinful than we are. I'm not really asking for benevolence anyway. How about justice and equality? Is that too much to ask for?
That is not just. And his "choices" are totally arbitrary, since he chose to kill people in the flood for no reason at all and allowed others to be saved without drowning them, yet, were no different than the ones who were drowned.
What do you call what god bestowed upon those in the flood? Was he showing "grace" when he drowned innocent children and babies?
I'd say it's more like a big, life-sentenced inmate and his bitch.
Christians always point to Christ when they want to talk about the "love" of god and the "grace" of god, yet, blow off the fact that god did not show "love" and "grace" to those in the flood, so they offer up excuses like "God does not have to love everybody". Nonsense.

7thangel

Not really, if you knew that men are nothing but worms.

Yes, too much to ask for a clay to ask the potter of equality.

Who told you there is no reason at all?

Grace were not meant for everyone, that is why "few" were chosen.

Nice words, could you say more constructive rated R words? I mean something "adults," or "mature," people can appreciate.

Nonsense? Even you, as an atheist, do you love everybody? Do you forgive everybody? I just hope that you listen and try to understand, and not make biased conclusions.

Kimpatsu

What about those of us who are supermen? Intellectual supermen such as Richard Dawkins, Robert Ingersoll, Ludovic Kennedy, Charles Bradlaugh, Clarance Darrow, Isaac Asimov, Bertrand Russell...
But enough to ask the theist to demand that you superstitious ones supply evidence of their superstition.
Logic. Why kill an entire species, and yet allow the wickedness to surface again within the very generation that he pledged to save.
(Besides, this argument is actually futile, because the Flood never took place.)
Based on what? They clearly weren't the best specimens of humanity. A god that whimsical is not worthy of recognition, let alone praise.
Non sequitur, because adult and mature people have no need of imaginary friends in the sky. We know, scientifically, that gods do not exist.
No, we don't forgive everybody, but unlike gods, we give them a second chance. We believe in education. Anyone can be rehabilitated (i.e., "learn better"), even if it takes 10,000 years. What we don't do is condemn them to eternity in a lake of fire for nothing more than failing to recognise a deity who has yet to offer a single shred of evidence as to their existence. You'd think a god desperate to be worshipped would have supplied at least a name and address by now.