you do youquash said:
Rationalizing a spiritual benefit for suffering is a waste of time. Humanism gets you to the same place without threatening eternal suffering for failure to worship.
LIB,MR BEARS said:you do youquash said:
Rationalizing a spiritual benefit for suffering is a waste of time. Humanism gets you to the same place without threatening eternal suffering for failure to worship.
You know the gospel at least if not better than I do. You chose to walk away.
According to you, Mother Teresa, Adolph Hitler and yourself, when all is said and done, end up in a fertilizer pit. One, no more valuable than the next.
No rationalization needed here.
premise "our lives it's our opinions"LIB,MR BEARS said:
Yes, I'll impact it with my version of good or bad. You'll impact it with your version of good and bad. Mother Teresa impacted it with her version of good and bad. Hitler impacted the world with his version of good and bad. Ultimately, it's our own opinions and all become fertilizer.
In the atheist worldview, yes.Waco1947 said:premise "our lives it's our opinions"LIB,MR BEARS said:
Yes, I'll impact it with my version of good or bad. You'll impact it with your version of good and bad. Mother Teresa impacted it with her version of good and bad. Hitler impacted the world with his version of good and bad. Ultimately, it's our own opinions and all become fertilizer.
Conclusion Ultimately We become fertilizer"
Humans are simply their opinions?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"What you are calling good (pain and suffering0 is not longer good and becomes bad, if the justification, cause, or need for pain and suffering can be eliminated. An all loving god would not stand by when he has the power to change the dynamic. In fact, an all loving god would never have made such a creation in the first place. "TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"Why wouldn't He? If the good reason for allowing suffering can be eliminated, then there is no longer a good reason. "TexasScientist said:
His brain is choosing religious rote over critical thinking. You tell me how an all loving god, who is all powerful, can be internally consistent, if they allow pain and suffering. By definition, if they are all loving, they would use their overarching power to eliminate any 'good' reason for suffering. To do otherwise would mean they are not all loving.Quote:Quote:Quote:
If the good reason is better for the person, then it would be more loving.
Critical thinking would be to consider the possibility that your perspective isn't the end all-be all, the possibility that your perspective may not allow you to see everything there is to consider, and therefore your judgement is limited. You lack this.
Rote thinking is thinking in a fishbowl, stuck by the arrogance of your perspecitve.How can the 'good' reason for suffering be better for the person, if there is power to change the reason to no reason for suffering? If a god has the power to change a reason, then there is no such thing as a good reason for suffering.Quote:
If the good reason is better for the person, then it would be more loving.Not really. My view allows for the possibility of there being a reason for pain and suffering, but it requires the admission that a god who allows it is either not all powerful, or is not all loving. In such a case the 'good' reason could be that the god receives pleasure from suffering.Quote:
Critical thinking would be to consider the possibility that your perspective isn't the end all-be all, the possibility that your perspective may not allow you to see everything there is to consider, and therefore your judgement is limited. You lack this.Isn't that really the definition of religion?Quote:
Rote thinking is thinking in a fishbowl, stuck by the arrogance of your perspecitve.
"How can the 'good' reason for suffering be better for the person, if there is power to change the reason to no reason for suffering?"
If there exists a good reason that is better for the person, then changing or eliminating the reason would be less better for the person. Why would an all-loving God do that?
Why wouldn't He? If the good reason for allowing suffering can be eliminated, then there is no longer a good reason.
"If a god has the power to change a reason, then there is no such thing as a good reason for suffering."
How do you know that having no suffering is necessarily "better"? Assumption from a limited perspective.
Will there be pain and suffering in heaven? Isn't heaven supposed to be a better place free from pain and suffering? If so, then it stands to reason no suffering is better, when there is a better alternative.
"Not really. My view allows for the possibility of there being a reason for pain and suffering, but it requires the admission that a god who allows it is either not all powerful, or is not all loving. In such a case the 'good' reason could be that the god receives pleasure from suffering."
Your view allows for the possibility of there being a reason, but not a good reason. Therefore you are still arguing in a fishbowl, stuck in the arrogance of your limited perspective.
No, you're not reading what I said. There could be a good reason, but it requires a god who is either not all powerful, or all loving.
"Isn't that really the definition of religion?"
No, it's a description of "rote thinking". It can be exhibited anywhere, and not exclusive to anything. It's descriptive of your reasoning here. Are you religious?
Rote thinking is a characteristic of religion. I can't think of any better analogy for religion than your fishbowl.
Why would a loving God eliminate what is good?
What you are calling good (pain and suffering0 is not longer good and becomes bad, if the justification, cause, or need for pain and suffering can be eliminated. An all loving god would not stand by when he has the power to change the dynamic. In fact, an all loving god would never have made such a creation in the first place.
"Will there be pain and suffering in heaven? Isn't heaven supposed to be a better place free from pain and suffering? If so, then it stands to reason no suffering is better, when there is a better alternative. "
Suffering first, THEN relief from all suffering in heaven - perhaps that IS is the "better" alternative compared to never having suffering at all?
Why? How about skipping the pain and suffering by going straight to heaven?
Another assumption from a limited perspective on your part.
"No, you're not reading what I said. There could be a good reason, but it requires a god who is either not all powerful, or all loving."
Right, that's your argument.
It's the same argument a child makes when his parents don't give him candy for dinner. The child thinks he knows enough to judge, but he doesn't. Assumption from a limited perspective.
A parent tries to protect a child by not allowing harm to befall them. In fact a loving parent will do everything in their power to prevent harm befalling their child. A loving god who has the power to change the world and create heaven would do the same.
"Rote thinking is a characteristic of religion. I can't think of any better analogy for religion than your fishbowl. "
You are the one demonstrating fishbowl thinking here, not the religious.
The fact that you can't think of a better analogy might be an indicator.
I'm just pointing out the obvious, your analogy relates directly to religious perspectives. The religious can't get out of the fishbowl, because they are unwilling to look beyond the confines of their beliefs, and are unwilling to question or examine their beliefs, because they think they already know or have the answers.
I'm not calling pain and suffering good. I'm calling God's reason for allowing it good.
If that reason is eliminated, then He is eliminating what is good. Eliminating a good would be bad.
So again, why would a good God do that? Wouldn't you then accuse Him of not being good?
"Why? How about skipping the pain and suffering by going straight to heaven?"
If pain and suffering first before going to heaven is better, it would be more loving not to skip it.
"A parent tries to protect a child by not allowing harm to befall them. In fact a loving parent will do everything in their power to prevent harm befalling their child. A loving god who has the power to change the world and create heaven would do the same. "
Just as children don't know as much as the parents, the parents don't know as much as God.
If the parents knew what God knew, that allowing temporary harm to befall their child will lead to something much greater for them for eternity, they would do what God would do, and allow the harm.
"The religious can't get out of the fishbowl, because they are unwilling to look beyond the confines of their beliefs, and are unwilling to question or examine their beliefs, because they think they already know or have the answers."
You are doing the same thing here, when you arrogantly assume you know as much as God, and can definitively state that God can't possibly have a good reason for allowing pain and suffering.
If God has a reason for allowing pain and suffering, yet he has the power to change that reason in order to eliminate pain and suffering, then that reason is no longer good, is it?Quote:
I'm not calling pain and suffering good. I'm calling God's reason for allowing it good.
If that reason is eliminated, then He is eliminating what is good. Eliminating a good would be bad.
So again, why would a good God do that? Wouldn't you then accuse Him of not being good?
Then, if pain and suffering is better before going to heaven, why have heaven at all? Just leave it as its is.Quote:
If pain and suffering first before going to heaven is better, it would be more loving not to skip it.
Isn't that what Jehovah's Witnesses believe? Temporary harm wouldn't be necessary for an all loving, all powerful, all knowing god. What you describe is a less than all loving, and all powerful god.Quote:
Just as children don't know as much as the parents, the parents don't know as much as God.
If the parents knew what God knew, that allowing temporary harm to befall their child will lead to something much greater for them for eternity, they would do what God would do, and allow the harm.
Isn't it arrogant to presume the trials and tribulations of this life are preparing you for something better, especially when there is no objective evidence for making such claim. If there were a god, he/she may not be all loving.Quote:
You are doing the same thing here, when you arrogantly assume you know as much as God, and can definitively state that God can't possibly have a good reason for allowing pain and suffering.
I think it is somewhat variable, but primarily a strong emotional desire and maternal reproductive drive.LIB,MR BEARS said:
TS, why do women have a second child, especially women who had a difficult pregnancy and delivery with child one?
what emotion(s) are driving this desire?TexasScientist said:I think it is somewhat variable, but primarily a strong emotional desire and maternal reproductive drive.LIB,MR BEARS said:
TS, why do women have a second child, especially women who had a difficult pregnancy and delivery with child one?
Joy, pleasure, acceptance.LIB,MR BEARS said:what emotion(s) are driving this desire?TexasScientist said:I think it is somewhat variable, but primarily a strong emotional desire and maternal reproductive drive.LIB,MR BEARS said:
TS, why do women have a second child, especially women who had a difficult pregnancy and delivery with child one?
Is there a reason you leave love out? Surly it is not a foreign concept to you.TexasScientist said:Joy, pleasure, acceptance.LIB,MR BEARS said:what emotion(s) are driving this desire?TexasScientist said:I think it is somewhat variable, but primarily a strong emotional desire and maternal reproductive drive.LIB,MR BEARS said:
TS, why do women have a second child, especially women who had a difficult pregnancy and delivery with child one?
You list "Joy, pleasure, acceptance" ( leaving out "love" as a possible factor) as reasons that a woman would go through the weeks of sickness, months of discomfort and hours of excruciating pain. What logical reason would a woman do this? Most women do this by choice and quite often repeatedly.TexasScientist said:Joy, pleasure, acceptance.LIB,MR BEARS said:what emotion(s) are driving this desire?TexasScientist said:I think it is somewhat variable, but primarily a strong emotional desire and maternal reproductive drive.LIB,MR BEARS said:
TS, why do women have a second child, especially women who had a difficult pregnancy and delivery with child one?
In an atheistic, naturalist universe, how you affect the world was not the result of your free will and choice. You were going to affect the world, how the physical laws governing the atoms and molecules in your brain already determined you were going to affect the world. The idea of attaching any sort of merit to your actions is absurd and meaningless. You, Txscience, and Waco47 still have not shown there to be a possibility of it being otherwise in your naturalist universe.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:you do youquash said:
Rationalizing a spiritual benefit for suffering is a waste of time. Humanism gets you to the same place without threatening eternal suffering for failure to worship.
You know the gospel at least if not better than I do. You chose to walk away.
According to you, Mother Teresa, Adolph Hitler and yourself, when all is said and done, end up in a fertilizer pit. One, no more valuable than the next.
No rationalization needed here.
Our bodies end up the same. How we affected the world is different.
TS and q can speak for themselves. As a Christian I reject and old theism that you support.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:In an atheistic, naturalist universe, how you affect the world was not the result of your free will and choice. You were going to affect the world, how the physical laws governing the atoms and molecules in your brain already determined you were going to affect the world. The idea of attaching any sort of merit to your actions is absurd and meaningless.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:you do youquash said:
Rationalizing a spiritual benefit for suffering is a waste of time. Humanism gets you to the same place without threatening eternal suffering for failure to worship.
You know the gospel at least if not better than I do. You chose to walk away.
According to you, Mother Teresa, Adolph Hitler and yourself, when all is said and done, end up in a fertilizer pit. One, no more valuable than the next.
No rationalization needed here.
Our bodies end up the same. How we affected the world is different.
You, Txscience, and Waco47 still have not shown there to be a possibility of it being otherwise in your naturalist universe. No, I am not an atheist but a Christian and Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.
I think Paul wrote a letter to Timothy you may want to read.Waco1947 said:TS and q can speak for themselves. As a Christian I reject and old theism that you support.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:In an atheistic, naturalist universe, how you affect the world was not the result of your free will and choice. You were going to affect the world, how the physical laws governing the atoms and molecules in your brain already determined you were going to affect the world. The idea of attaching any sort of merit to your actions is absurd and meaningless.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:you do youquash said:
Rationalizing a spiritual benefit for suffering is a waste of time. Humanism gets you to the same place without threatening eternal suffering for failure to worship.
You know the gospel at least if not better than I do. You chose to walk away.
According to you, Mother Teresa, Adolph Hitler and yourself, when all is said and done, end up in a fertilizer pit. One, no more valuable than the next.
No rationalization needed here.
Our bodies end up the same. How we affected the world is different.
You, Txscience, and Waco47 still have not shown there to be a possibility of it being otherwise in your naturalist universe. No, I am not an atheist but a Christian and Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.
My theism process and existentialist theologies. Because I am Christin I believe in an all powerful of God of love and Scriptures support that position.
All theologies are existential rand regardless of what one may say about beliefs. What really matters is what do with my life right and right in this moment. The Biblical Christian faith and Jesus continually say it is what a disciple does that determines whether they a life. That is existential theism.
The decisive claim on my life is my decision for Jesus Christ. That claim is love and it is lived existentially.
You are not a Christian. You don't believe the very first sentence of the bible, and you don't believe Jesus was bodily resurrected. You are likely the most confused and deceived person on this forum.Waco1947 said:TS and q can speak for themselves. As a Christian I reject and old theism that you support.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:In an atheistic, naturalist universe, how you affect the world was not the result of your free will and choice. You were going to affect the world, how the physical laws governing the atoms and molecules in your brain already determined you were going to affect the world. The idea of attaching any sort of merit to your actions is absurd and meaningless.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:you do youquash said:
Rationalizing a spiritual benefit for suffering is a waste of time. Humanism gets you to the same place without threatening eternal suffering for failure to worship.
You know the gospel at least if not better than I do. You chose to walk away.
According to you, Mother Teresa, Adolph Hitler and yourself, when all is said and done, end up in a fertilizer pit. One, no more valuable than the next.
No rationalization needed here.
Our bodies end up the same. How we affected the world is different.
You, Txscience, and Waco47 still have not shown there to be a possibility of it being otherwise in your naturalist universe. No, I am not an atheist but a Christian and Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.
My theism process and existentialist theologies. Because I am Christin I believe in an all powerful of God of love and Scriptures support that position.
All theologies are existential rand regardless of what one may say about beliefs. What really matters is what do with my life right and right in this moment. The Biblical Christian faith and Jesus continually say it is what a disciple does that determines whether they a life. That is existential theism.
The decisive claim on my life is my decision for Jesus Christ. That claim is love and it is lived existentially.
I have several times. Refresh my memory. What did I miss?LIB,MR BEARS said:I think Paul wrote a letter to Timothy you may want to read.Waco1947 said:TS and q can speak for themselves. As a Christian I reject and old theism that you support.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:In an atheistic, naturalist universe, how you affect the world was not the result of your free will and choice. You were going to affect the world, how the physical laws governing the atoms and molecules in your brain already determined you were going to affect the world. The idea of attaching any sort of merit to your actions is absurd and meaningless.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:you do youquash said:
Rationalizing a spiritual benefit for suffering is a waste of time. Humanism gets you to the same place without threatening eternal suffering for failure to worship.
You know the gospel at least if not better than I do. You chose to walk away.
According to you, Mother Teresa, Adolph Hitler and yourself, when all is said and done, end up in a fertilizer pit. One, no more valuable than the next.
No rationalization needed here.
Our bodies end up the same. How we affected the world is different.
You, Txscience, and Waco47 still have not shown there to be a possibility of it being otherwise in your naturalist universe. No, I am not an atheist but a Christian and Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.
My theism process and existentialist theologies. Because I am Christin I believe in an all powerful of God of love and Scriptures support that position.
All theologies are existential rand regardless of what one may say about beliefs. What really matters is what do with my life right and right in this moment. The Biblical Christian faith and Jesus continually say it is what a disciple does that determines whether they a life. That is existential theism.
The decisive claim on my life is my decision for Jesus Christ. That claim is love and it is lived existentially.
Calm down. I'm a Christian. And Jesus is My Lord.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You are not a Christian. You don't believe the very first sentence of the bible, and you don't believe Jesus was bodily resurrected. You are likely the most confused and deceived person on this forum.Waco1947 said:TS and q can speak for themselves. As a Christian I reject and old theism that you support.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:In an atheistic, naturalist universe, how you affect the world was not the result of your free will and choice. You were going to affect the world, how the physical laws governing the atoms and molecules in your brain already determined you were going to affect the world. The idea of attaching any sort of merit to your actions is absurd and meaningless.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:you do youquash said:
Rationalizing a spiritual benefit for suffering is a waste of time. Humanism gets you to the same place without threatening eternal suffering for failure to worship.
You know the gospel at least if not better than I do. You chose to walk away.
According to you, Mother Teresa, Adolph Hitler and yourself, when all is said and done, end up in a fertilizer pit. One, no more valuable than the next.
No rationalization needed here.
Our bodies end up the same. How we affected the world is different.
You, Txscience, and Waco47 still have not shown there to be a possibility of it being otherwise in your naturalist universe. No, I am not an atheist but a Christian and Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.
My theism process and existentialist theologies. Because I am Christin I believe in an all powerful of God of love and Scriptures support that position.
All theologies are existential rand regardless of what one may say about beliefs. What really matters is what do with my life right and right in this moment. The Biblical Christian faith and Jesus continually say it is what a disciple does that determines whether they a life. That is existential theism.
The decisive claim on my life is my decision for Jesus Christ. That claim is love and it is lived existentially.
Regardless, though you are not an atheist, the conundrum for you is this: you don't believe God has the power to move atoms and molecules. But you are then left to explain how YOU can do it, when you move the atoms and molecules in your brain when you freely "choose" your actions. So why is it that you can do it, but God can't?
If you say that the atoms and molecules in your brain are moving on their own according to physics, then that ultimately means that you aren't really choosing your actions out of free will. Your actions are determined by the physical laws of the universe, and nothing else. This means there was no "decision for Jesus Christ" on your part.
So your theology fails internally. On the one hand, you believe in a universe governed ONLY by physical laws without any supernatural interference, and on the other, you insist that one can "choose" their actions and "choose" to love and follow Jesus, when true "choice" can only exist if there is some kind of supernatural force outside the bounds of the physical universe. You can't have it both ways.
if I understand your religion correctly, then that thief is still hanging on the cross.Waco1947 said:Calm down. I'm a Christian. And Jesus is My Lord.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You are not a Christian. You don't believe the very first sentence of the bible, and you don't believe Jesus was bodily resurrected. You are likely the most confused and deceived person on this forum.Waco1947 said:TS and q can speak for themselves. As a Christian I reject and old theism that you support.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:In an atheistic, naturalist universe, how you affect the world was not the result of your free will and choice. You were going to affect the world, how the physical laws governing the atoms and molecules in your brain already determined you were going to affect the world. The idea of attaching any sort of merit to your actions is absurd and meaningless.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:you do youquash said:
Rationalizing a spiritual benefit for suffering is a waste of time. Humanism gets you to the same place without threatening eternal suffering for failure to worship.
You know the gospel at least if not better than I do. You chose to walk away.
According to you, Mother Teresa, Adolph Hitler and yourself, when all is said and done, end up in a fertilizer pit. One, no more valuable than the next.
No rationalization needed here.
Our bodies end up the same. How we affected the world is different.
You, Txscience, and Waco47 still have not shown there to be a possibility of it being otherwise in your naturalist universe. No, I am not an atheist but a Christian and Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.
My theism process and existentialist theologies. Because I am Christin I believe in an all powerful of God of love and Scriptures support that position.
All theologies are existential rand regardless of what one may say about beliefs. What really matters is what do with my life right and right in this moment. The Biblical Christian faith and Jesus continually say it is what a disciple does that determines whether they a life. That is existential theism.
The decisive claim on my life is my decision for Jesus Christ. That claim is love and it is lived existentially.
Regardless, though you are not an atheist, the conundrum for you is this: you don't believe God has the power to move atoms and molecules. But you are then left to explain how YOU can do it, when you move the atoms and molecules in your brain when you freely "choose" your actions. So why is it that you can do it, but God can't?
If you say that the atoms and molecules in your brain are moving on their own according to physics, then that ultimately means that you aren't really choosing your actions out of free will. Your actions are determined by the physical laws of the universe, and nothing else. This means there was no "decision for Jesus Christ" on your part.
So your theology fails internally. On the one hand, you believe in a universe governed ONLY by physical laws without any supernatural interference, and on the other, you insist that one can "choose" their actions and "choose" to love and follow Jesus, when true "choice" can only exist if there is some kind of supernatural force outside the bounds of the physical universe. You can't have it both ways.
Now pull apart my Premises and conclusion.
Premise #1 As a Christian I reject and old theism that you support.
My theism process and existentialist theologies.
Premise 2 Because I am Christin I believe in an all powerful of God of love and Scriptures support that position.
Premise 3. All theologies are existential rand regardless of what one may say about beliefs. What really matters is what do with my life right and right in this moment.
Premise 4. The Biblical Christian faith and Jesus continually say that it is what a disciple does that determines whether they a life. That is existential theism.
Conclusion The decisive claim on my life is my decision for Jesus Christ. That claim is love and it is lived existentiall
Now which premises are wrong?
No, love of children, love for a partner. My answer wasn't all inclusive.LIB,MR BEARS said:Is there a reason you leave love out? Surly it is not a foreign concept to you.TexasScientist said:Joy, pleasure, acceptance.LIB,MR BEARS said:what emotion(s) are driving this desire?TexasScientist said:I think it is somewhat variable, but primarily a strong emotional desire and maternal reproductive drive.LIB,MR BEARS said:
TS, why do women have a second child, especially women who had a difficult pregnancy and delivery with child one?
Your theology has been destroyed repeatedly on this forum. The really sad thing is, you're not able to comprehend any of it. God have mercy on you.Quote:
Calm down. I'm a Christian. And Jesus is My Lord.
Now pull apart my Premises and conclusion.
Premise #1 As a Christian I reject and old theism that you support.
My theism process and existentialist theologies.
Premise 2 Because I am Christin I believe in an all powerful of God of love and Scriptures support that position.
Premise 3. All theologies are existential rand regardless of what one may say about beliefs. What really matters is what do with my life right and right in this moment.
Premise 4. The Biblical Christian faith and Jesus continually say that it is what a disciple does that determines whether they a life. That is existential theism.
Conclusion The decisive claim on my life is my decision for Jesus Christ. That claim is love and it is lived existentiall
Now which premises are wrong?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"If God has a reason for allowing pain and suffering, yet he has the power to change that reason in order to eliminate pain and suffering, then that reason is no longer good, is it?"
No, if God changes the good reason in order to eliminate pain and suffering, he would be changing what is already good. Does He need to do that?
-- Wouldn't he be changing the 'good' to the better? You can't justify your statement.
"Then, if pain and suffering is better before going to heaven, why have heaven at all? Just leave it as its is."
Because heaven after pain and suffering is better than no heaven after pain and suffering.
-- That's not logical. All powerful god can make heaven better without pain and suffering if he chooses.
"Isn't that what Jehovah's Witnesses believe? Temporary harm wouldn't be necessary for an all loving, all powerful, all knowing god. What you describe is a less than all loving, and all powerful god."
Well, then that would mean both you and Jehovah's Witnesses aren't logically correct.
--If you are right, then why does the NT imply god will heal the sick? Why would Jesus heal the infirm, if they are better off to suffer. Why is it better for some to suffer more than other? Why would you seek out medical care, if you are better off to suffer? Why would you try to improve your life at all, if you are better off in the afterlife for having immensely suffered in this life? Where is there any logic in your argument?
"Isn't it arrogant to presume the trials and tribulations of this life are preparing you for something better, especially when there is no objective evidence for making such claim. If there were a god, he/she may not be all loving."
Of course there is objective evidence, including but not limited to the historical testimonies of those who witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The objective evidence of the universe, the earth, life on earth, us humans and the unfathomable machinery that is the human body, and DNA the digital code to build it - all points to design and intelligence, a mind. You observe the same objective evidence, but come to a different conclusion (which involves a lot of denial, and a whole lot more faith, ironically).
-- There are no historical testimonies of those who witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. There are only stories of stories that were written down in final form centuries later from tales that began with at best third hand written reports. There is no evidence that any of Jesus followers wrote down any chronology or history of Jesus (most probably couldn't read or write). The evidence of reality reveals that the universe, earth, life and DNA etc. are all the products of physical processes that do not require, nor is there evidence of any behind the scenes shenanigans to account for anything. You're denying the evidence of reality to insert a non-evidentiary primitive people's supernatural being where one is not needed to explain anything.
The arrogance in your thinking is that you're putting your perspective on the same level as an all-knowing being, which, even if you don't believe in an all-knowing being, is logically absurd. The religious aren't doing that.
-- Are you really telling me that it is not arrogant to believe in a sugar daddy that is ultimately going to take care of you, in order to make our plight in life more palatable, and for some easier to cope? How is it arrogance to observe the evidence of reality, and accept it for what it is?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:In an atheistic, naturalist universe, how you affect the world was not the result of your free will and choice. You were going to affect the world, how the physical laws governing the atoms and molecules in your brain already determined you were going to affect the world. The idea of attaching any sort of merit to your actions is absurd and meaningless. You, Txscience, and Waco47 still have not shown there to be a possibility of it being otherwise in your naturalist universe.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:you do youquash said:
Rationalizing a spiritual benefit for suffering is a waste of time. Humanism gets you to the same place without threatening eternal suffering for failure to worship.
You know the gospel at least if not better than I do. You chose to walk away.
According to you, Mother Teresa, Adolph Hitler and yourself, when all is said and done, end up in a fertilizer pit. One, no more valuable than the next.
No rationalization needed here.
Our bodies end up the same. How we affected the world is different.
You are making stories about me. Careful reading might show that your classical/orthodox theim no longer speaks to secular humans.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your theology has been destroyed repeatedly on this forum. The really sad thing is, you're not able to comprehend any of it. God have mercy on you.Quote:
Calm down. I'm a Christian. And Jesus is My Lord.
Now pull apart my Premises and conclusion.
Premise #1 As a Christian I reject and old theism that you support.
My theism process and existentialist theologies.
Premise 2 Because I am Christin I believe in an all powerful of God of love and Scriptures support that position.
Premise 3. All theologies are existential rand regardless of what one may say about beliefs. What really matters is what do with my life right and right in this moment.
Premise 4. The Biblical Christian faith and Jesus continually say that it is what a disciple does that determines whether they a life. That is existential theism.
Conclusion The decisive claim on my life is my decision for Jesus Christ. That claim is love and it is lived existential
Now which premises are wrong?
Do yourself a favor. Go to a Christian, and tell them what you believe - that God did NOT create the heavens and the earth (very first sentence of the bible) and that Jesus was NOT bodily resurrected. Ask them if that makes you a Christian or not.
Your 2nd premise states, "I believe in an all powerful of God of love". So you believe He is all-powerful now? This is a radical change from your stated beliefs, if this is what you meant. I suspect it isn't.
** Not sure why my post is printed all in bold, won't let me fix it**
This thread must have 100s of 1000s of followers with people taking sides and even making T-shirts. I saw a guy coming out of the gym yesterday wearing one that read "No Pain, No Gain"Oldbear83 said:
TS: That's not logical. All powerful god can make heaven better without pain and suffering if he chooses.
Also TS: -- Are you really telling me that it is not arrogant to believe in a sugar daddy that is ultimately going to take care of you, in order to make our plight in life more palatable, and for some easier to cope? How is it arrogance to observe the evidence of reality, and accept it for what it is?
Well which is it? Should we be pain-free, or is it 'arrogant' to believe in an end to pain?
Also, TS continues to ignore the possibility, I would say likelihood, that suffering serves a purpose.
If there is an all loving, all powerful, god, then why shouldn't there be an end to pain?Oldbear83 said:
TS: That's not logical. All powerful god can make heaven better without pain and suffering if he chooses.
Also TS: -- Are you really telling me that it is not arrogant to believe in a sugar daddy that is ultimately going to take care of you, in order to make our plight in life more palatable, and for some easier to cope? How is it arrogance to observe the evidence of reality, and accept it for what it is?
Well which is it? Should we be pain-free, or is it 'arrogant' to believe in an end to pain?
Also, TS continues to ignore the possibility, I would say likelihood, that suffering serves a purpose.
Yes.LIB,MR BEARS said:This thread must have 100s of 1000s of followers with people taking sides and even making T-shirts. I saw a guy coming out of the gym yesterday wearing one that read "No Pain, No Gain"Oldbear83 said:
TS: That's not logical. All powerful god can make heaven better without pain and suffering if he chooses.
Also TS: -- Are you really telling me that it is not arrogant to believe in a sugar daddy that is ultimately going to take care of you, in order to make our plight in life more palatable, and for some easier to cope? How is it arrogance to observe the evidence of reality, and accept it for what it is?
Well which is it? Should we be pain-free, or is it 'arrogant' to believe in an end to pain?
Also, TS continues to ignore the possibility, I would say likelihood, that suffering serves a purpose.
Did I choose to tell a joke?
Did I choose to tell a bad joke?
Are bad jokes predetermined?
Hmmmmm
Because then LIB wouldn't be able to tell his jokes, and shouldn't he have that freedom?TexasScientist said:If there is an all loving, all powerful, god, then why shouldn't there be an end to pain?Oldbear83 said:
TS: That's not logical. All powerful god can make heaven better without pain and suffering if he chooses.
Also TS: -- Are you really telling me that it is not arrogant to believe in a sugar daddy that is ultimately going to take care of you, in order to make our plight in life more palatable, and for some easier to cope? How is it arrogance to observe the evidence of reality, and accept it for what it is?
Well which is it? Should we be pain-free, or is it 'arrogant' to believe in an end to pain?
Also, TS continues to ignore the possibility, I would say likelihood, that suffering serves a purpose.
exactl... no wait.Sam Lowry said:Because then LIB wouldn't be able to tell his jokes, and shouldn't he have that freedom?TexasScientist said:If there is an all loving, all powerful, god, then why shouldn't there be an end to pain?Oldbear83 said:
TS: That's not logical. All powerful god can make heaven better without pain and suffering if he chooses.
Also TS: -- Are you really telling me that it is not arrogant to believe in a sugar daddy that is ultimately going to take care of you, in order to make our plight in life more palatable, and for some easier to cope? How is it arrogance to observe the evidence of reality, and accept it for what it is?
Well which is it? Should we be pain-free, or is it 'arrogant' to believe in an end to pain?
Also, TS continues to ignore the possibility, I would say likelihood, that suffering serves a purpose.
Ahhh! I get it. But would a loving god allow us to suffer his jokes? IDKSam Lowry said:Because then LIB wouldn't be able to tell his jokes, and shouldn't he have that freedom?TexasScientist said:If there is an all loving, all powerful, god, then why shouldn't there be an end to pain?Oldbear83 said:
TS: That's not logical. All powerful god can make heaven better without pain and suffering if he chooses.
Also TS: -- Are you really telling me that it is not arrogant to believe in a sugar daddy that is ultimately going to take care of you, in order to make our plight in life more palatable, and for some easier to cope? How is it arrogance to observe the evidence of reality, and accept it for what it is?
Well which is it? Should we be pain-free, or is it 'arrogant' to believe in an end to pain?
Also, TS continues to ignore the possibility, I would say likelihood, that suffering serves a purpose.
I'm not demanding anything. I just point out what is obvious.Oldbear83 said:
What I keep seeing here is that you are demanding that God, however we define Him/Her/It, must bide by your rules, your comprehension, your standards.
That is, TS, you want to be God.
Common enough, but I wonder if you see it.
