-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Christianity
- Thread starter Jools
- Start date
antman said:
I really hate the arrogance of that quote - "Atheists. Winning since AD33." Someone was murdered, in fact beyond someone - God in human form who was here to try to save us, so lets treat that with absolutely zero respect and, in fact, actually celebrate His death as a victory of ours. Dare I say it - Neanderthal thinking. Besides, it doesn't matter who's in front at quarter time...
Panthera tigris FC said:
I just love how you keep referring to the OT and neglect to acknowledge the New Covenant made with Man in the NT!
Panthera tigris FC said:
The reason your posts have little credibility with me is that they have no balance. Out of all of the enormous amounts of good work done by Christian Churches and Charities, you post an article on a guy that every Christian I know thinks is either, at worst, a froot loop or, at best, way out of line! If we were supporting his view you'd have something to complain about!
jayfox said:
Absolutely Jay. If this was a groundswell of Christian opinion, he would have a point. I have nothing further to offer on this issue!
jayfox said:
Re-read my post before you go spouting your inaccurate statements.
The OT and even Jesus refers to a vengeful God.
Besides the fact the the OT is Christian scripture and certainly open to interpretation, Jesus himself was also refers to harsh judgement.
Let's start with his own words:
John 15:6
If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
Seems pretty unequivocal to me.
I am not striving for balance....it is irrelevant in this case. Good work is done by both Christians and Non-Christians alike. It is not like Christians have a monopoly on charity...the assertions of some aside. I have on many occasions stated that I appreciate the 'horizontal' effects of religion.
My point, which both you and Djevv fail to acknowledge, is that this is where dogmatic beliefs can lead. Neither of you have pointed out why he is being un-Christian. I am glad that both of you disagree with his stance, but my problem isn't with you in this case but the unthinking, dogmatic stance that characterises organised religion.
evo said:
Similar to what athiests do when they redefined the meaning of atheism:
Here is the dictionary definition from the Standford philosophical dictionary
1. Atheism
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
evo said:
You'll have to do a little googling and study some theology. I'm not doing it for you. You two seem to think Christian thinkers have never addressed these issues :hihi
evo said:
Ever read 1984? He who defines the word holds the whip hand of power. Why did the 'new atheists' redefine atheism? Of course so that is more easily defensible. Anyone who says 'there is no God' attracts the burden of proof.
evo said:
Lol, the only definitive work on God I know of is the Bible. Happy studying! ;D
And another thing I love this stuff on logically possible. The square root of negative 1 is a logical impossibility, yet ask a physicist and she will tell you it exists!
Djevv said:
How have they redefined it? Based on the available information, they do deny the existence of God (at least a theistic God...ie a-thiesm). The difference is that they are willing to be swayed given any new evidence.
Cop out.
Do you think someone who used the term "doublethink" in their post has read 1984?
Words mean what people want we interpret them as. If we disagree on the definition of a word we can work out the dispute through discussion. However, for some reason you are setting up an inaccessible argument with God on the definition of "omnipotence". So, again, how does God define omnipotence and how do you know?
Please elaborate on how 'New Atheists' have redefined atheism.
What I am beginning to understand is that the theist's mind can't cope without 100% certainty.
Given the evidence it would appear that there is no God. If evidence comes to light that supports the presence of God than I (and other atheists) would be swayed. The 'New Atheists' have written polemics outlining why they have taken their position. Saying "God exists" actually attracts the burden of proof. Back to the Russel's teapot we go!
I have studied it. I have also broadened my study into many other areas. You seem incapable of study outside of the bible and apologetics websites.
What has that got to do with the logical problems posted in previous posts?
Panthera tigris FC said:
They now say it is no organised religion. So it seems now that you can believe in a god as long as it not one believed in by the major world religion. NO GOD is how the dictionary defines it. This attracts the burden of proof!
Panthera tigris FC said:
I'll raise yours! Why is it a cop out to ask someone to do some study so they become knowledgable on a subject? It has become apparent to me in over 400 pages of discussion that neither of you know much about how Christians understand the Bible!
Panthera tigris FC said:
Lol, I'll pay that one!
Panthera tigris FC said:
Omnipotent,
1. Strictly said of God (or of a deity) or His attributes: Almighty or infinite in power.
2. gen. All-powerful; having full or absolute power or authority; having unlimited or very great power, force, or influence; exceedingly strong or mighty. b. humourously. Capable of anything; unparalleled; utter, arrant; huge, 'mighty'.
3. absol. or as sb. An omnipotent being; spec. (with the) the Almighty God.
The first definition is the one used in Christian theology. It is not the same as "Capable of anything".
Panthera tigris FC said:
Since we both have the burden of proof I would suggest we are both out orbiting with Russel's teapot. You think there is no evidence, I do. Mexican standoff.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Right now you are imagining you are omniscient and know what I do in my spare time. No doubt you spend plenty of time on anti-apologetics websites. I too have both read and studied the Bible and broadened my studies into other areas. ;D
Panthera tigris FC said:
i is an imaginary number which does not exist in our number system. However it is used in physics for a number of theories (electromagnetism is one). So is it imaginary or not?
Heres another: next time you see a granite, or any plutonic igneous rock, go up to it and say 'begone granite, you are logically impossible, two things can't be in the same place at the same time!'. This is because when plutons intrude they don't push other rocks out of the way, they subsume them!!!It's called 'the room problem'.
Djevv said:
Strawman. Where have they ever said such a thing? Have you read any of their work? Which ones?
My observation is that Christians understand the Bible in a very credulous way that supports their particular worldview and religious view. The claims of particular interpretations to support those views and the wildly different interpretations (such as the one that started this discussion) are evidence of exactly that. I should mention that these same individuals can be very skeptical in other aspects of their lives, but when it comes to their religious beliefs they become amazingly credulous.
I called it a cop out because instead of answering the question, you said 'study'. Either you don't know the answer to the question, or you can't be bothered answering it.
The fact that I don't agree with your interpretation of different aspects of the Bible does not mean I don't understand your interpretation. When I disagree I qualify the reasons for my disagreement.
"Infinite in power" does not mean "Capable of anything"? How do you distinguish them?
Are you saying that God has the attributes of God, when you say he is omnipotent? What does that mean?
Atheists do not unequivocally state that there is no god. They just say, on the balance of evidence, there almost certainly no god. They are not making a claim, but pointing out the logical flaws in the theist's claims. Where is this positive evidence that you claim?
I probably spend more time on apologetics websites than anti-apologetics websites. From discussions that you have weighed in on that I have some knowledge in the area of, I would say that you need to broaden your study before making flawed responses sourced directly from such apologetics websites.
O....k......
How does this relate to my question?
Djevv said:
It appears I need to point out the bleeding obvious to you."Christian thinkers" are human. You were claiming God defines omnipotence.But then ironically complianing that philosophy defining omnipotence was work of mere humans.
It seems to me you aren't the least bit interested in engaging in clear thinking.
antman said:
What? Are you kidding me? What other great religious figure claiming to be God died in AD33 that you know of? You are kidding yourself if you don't think that quote is pointed directly at Christians. I am astounded that you would think otherwise.
jayfox said:
OK, I see what you are saying. Apologies Jayfox.
Epicurus actually lived around the 3rd Century BC so his quote has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with a rejection of the creator god concept.
Get back on your high horse, my mistake.
jayfox said:
Quite simply if God is simultaneously next to me right now and also next to me on the day I die (and at every point in between), free will is a paradox as my entire life is predetermined.
It also makes a mockery of every assertion that God is/was upset with people/events. How could He possibly be upset about something He has known all along would happen. In fact, taking this one step further the conclusion can only be that everything that happens does so by God's will given that He knew it all before creating it.
The other paradox it presents that I can see concerns Hell. You tell me that Hell is eternity without God. Yet for me to be there, Hell must be a place. If it is a place and God is omnipresent, He must be there.
evo said:
You are very sure of yourself but are often and regularly completely wrong on philosophical issues when I check on them. You said that that 'free will' is an illusion, and imply that nearly all philosophers worth their salt don't believe in it. I look it up in what appears to be a reasonably unbiased online philosophical encyclopedia (the Standford) and it informs me that the subject is very contoversial and there are multiple theories. To your credit you later admit this.
I do the same research on omnipotence and find the same thing again. Here look for yourself. This article more or less backs up everything I have said Mr Clear Thinker.
OK, to those who have blamed God for his indifference, for those who dont believe, and for those who cant accept faith.
Check out tonights nine concert, and all those, affected, famous and heroes, that have thanked, and asked for Gods help. Even if you dont feel comfort, there are many that do, and look towards there faith, whatever that may be, to get them through troubled times.
Cheers
Check out tonights nine concert, and all those, affected, famous and heroes, that have thanked, and asked for Gods help. Even if you dont feel comfort, there are many that do, and look towards there faith, whatever that may be, to get them through troubled times.
Cheers