wordsmyth

Why do theists insist that nothing is impossible for God(s) in one breath and then claim there are things impossible for even God(s) to do in the next.

It seems to me that they need to take the 'omni' out of their God(s) attributes. However, then it would not be a god in the traditional sense, but instead simply a powerful being. If that is the criteria for god-hood, then I must be God to my cat because I am far more potent, scient, and benevolent (generally) than her.

WinAce

I'm surprised that Vanderzyden, GeoTheo, luvluv and others haven't commented yet, especially since it's addressed to "Christians"...

BTW, my rebuttal to JP Holding is in the making. When you get down to it, there's not really much in their frantic arguments except hand-waving, is there?

parkdalian

I found a copy of The Questions of Zapata on usenet, (Google Groups search)
cleaned it up a bit and copied it to <a href="http://www.geocities.com/dronjones/zapata.htm" target="_blank">this URL</a>.

There were a fair number of common typos that the word processor caught, but it probably needs a good proofreader for the many proper names in the text.

Amos

Hi WinAce, the reason why you do not believe in the flood is because you are not an ark builder. Ark builders are people of faith who faithfully contribute 10 % of their time towards self-reflection in relation to their destiny here on earth, and they must do this along the lines of a religious paradigm.

The accumilated data presented by religion is absorbed and retained in the subconscious mind where it becomes the vessel needed to keep us afloat when the involutionary floodgates open that will end in the tempest of human life.

Up until the recent medical revolution this was called involutionary melancholia which was involutional because it was persistent while not situation related. In other words, the sign of Jonah arrived despite the fact that he was on a paid fare and the storm intensified while he was asleep below the surface of human relations.

The flood is equal to the Grand Inquisition wherein is presented "all that we have and all that we pretent to be" (the flood), in answer to the question "who am I and what is my purpose here on this earth." The answer to this question will be that we are non-rational beings by nature first (and therefore retain only "one of each" in the ark) and that our faculty of reason is second to us by our imagination only (just opposite to "cogito ergo sum").

So the flood is just a very effective parable to describe the transformation of the human mind.

Does that answer your question on the flood? and should I do another one?

WinAce

Check out my <a href="http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/UAHQ/webpages/winace/reply2jph.htm" target="_blank">reply</a>

BTW, interesting point of view, Amos.

wade-w

I just finished my first reading of your reply. One thing jumped out at me. I may have more feedback for you later, after I go over it more carefully, but I thought you might want to correct this factual error quickly.

The supposed resurrection was well into the iron age.

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]</p>

WinAce

*Does so* Thanks. How silly of me.

Plebe

Might want to create more question/answers based on some of this material which I am cutting and pasting from some of my earlier posts. The link to "A Parable" is a favorite non-tract which I've added to my disk of non-tracts that are printed out for those who would proselytize me:
..Below are some links to help Christians to know why Agnostics-Atheists feel Christianity has been thoroughly debunked. I have selected those articles and results of the search engines which cover the history of both Jewish and Christian Bibles and the influence of Zoroastrianism/Mithraism on both which is little known outside of Seminary and scholarly circles. You see, the vast majority of Christians are ignorant from a scholarly perspective and it isn't until they meet up with someone who knows where to find this scholarship that they begin to seriously realize there is verity to their doubts about the key tenets of their faith.
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/index.shtml</a>
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap29.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap29.html</a>

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/4/4zoroa94.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/4/4zoroa94.html</a>

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/virgin_birth.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/virgin_birth.html</a>

here

Another

Non-tracts re Christianity, Women's rights and slavery can be found at <a href="http://www.ffrf.org" target="_blank">http://www.ffrf.org</a>

In closing, let me leave with a parable:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/alex_matulich/why_i_believe/8_apndx.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/alex_matulich/why_i_believe/8_apndx.html</a>

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

galiel

No disrespect, WinAce, for the effort you put into this, but it seems to me all your arguments are restatements of the cogent one Epicurus posed more than 2,000 years ago:

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;
Or he can, but does not want to;
Or he cannot and does not want to.
If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.
If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.
But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil,
Then how come evil in the world?"

WinAce

Umm... OK... *Checks*

As you can see, only section B expounds on evil and suffering.

[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: WinAce ]</p>