Consigning God to the Dustbin

[RichardY]

Curious, what is the idea of God for people on the forum? After reading some of Aristotle I came to the conclusion that God is essentially chance. Without any empiricism, what essentially is the idea of God? Does anyone agree with me that God is Chance; or thinking of the movie Excalibur, "Fortuna".

In an Atheistic denial of God. The term Atheist is problematic, I liken it to a kid being smoothered in strawberry juice, denying he has eaten any strawberries.

So having despatched God, Goodfellas style.  "Go get your f**king shinebox". The next step would be to dispose of "the evidence". How can one finally consign God to Oblivion, not to think of God as garbage, but less than that. There are people who supposedly have never had problems with conceiving of somekind of God or misplaced feeling, how fortunate I guess they are. Perhaps never having conceived of the possibility of some kind of God, they may hazard a guess, as to the madness of the many.

 

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”

[Donnadogsoth]

God is the Logos, essentially. Without the Logos we exist outside natural law, instead in chaos and the "law of the jungle".

The ontological problem with chaos (luck) as the ruling principle of nature, is that it can't explain where structure comes from. Pure chaos is pure structurelessness, not pure creativity.  The world is obviously not unstructured, and instead displays outrageous amounts of structure, perhaps infinitely so.

One way to look at is to look at the entropic state of the universe as we find it, given a value N.  As time increases, according to popular science, N increases. Fine, but try winding time back to the beginning of the universe, N must decrease.  At some point N = 0. Atheists have no counter to this, other than waving "chaos" in our face.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

As a Roman Catholic; God is the creator of all our common ancestors and the architect of the universe as well as the ultimate judge of whether I'm a half way decent human being or a sinful degenerate. 

I don't know if God is real but really I do not care. What I care about is the moral lessons of Christendom as well as the weight God has on the souls of those who believe in Him (and by extension how that weight is often enough to tame the behaviors of those who naturally lack consciences).

Personally I have always had at least a superstitious belief in a god and therefore had no trouble at all accepting the idea of God. Even though I don't really believe in God I still feel something within me that does and demands that I behave rather than be evil or something between evil and okay as well as something that tempts me to be good. 

There was a time where I was a proper atheist: that is to say someone who considered it moral to destroy God and any memory of God as well as impose the "rationality of atheism" upon the world. Not coincidentally it was while I was in my Communist phase. As I outgrew Communism I returned to God and began to really appreciate Christianity and how that created the conscience of the West and became the foundation for even the moral codes of those who claim to be without God. And well...

...I self-identify as a Roman Catholic more for the code than the ultimate justification of the code (i.e. that the code is moral because it is to the greater glory of God) as well as more for the values than where the values are said to come from. I am definitely willing to keep company with strong religious believers so long as they can reason their faith and are willing to ultimately answer an "I don't know" when they truly don't know. While religious folks come in many varieties the ones I've been exposed to have been generally humble and wanting to do good even if they don't/didn't believe much in God Himself. This is a massively stronger culture than the decadent and irresponsible atheist who has no values and beliefs and is therefore not even an individual let alone a realized human being. 

To respond to Nietzsche: man clearly cannot become like God, therefore we must revive God and return Him to command lest man continue to wander himself off a cliff like a coop of headless chickens.

[RichardY]

13 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

The ontological problem with chaos (luck) as the ruling principle of nature, is that it can't explain where structure comes from. Pure chaos is pure structurelessness, not pure creativity.  The world is obviously not unstructured, and instead displays outrageous amounts of structure, perhaps infinitely so.

Would you say that there is a finite amount of matter though in existence? If so, why should there not be any particular order to it, i.e chaos? (in the beginning there was darkness) Why given another form of disorder/chaos (chance)(Let there be light) should there not be order formed from two types of chaos. Kind of like 2 negatives making a positive. Would you equate structure to order, if not what would you say is the distinction?

13 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

One way to look at is to look at the entropic state of the universe as we find it, given a value N.  As time increases, according to popular science, N increases. Fine, but try winding time back to the beginning of the universe, N must decrease.  At some point N = 0. Atheists have no counter to this, other than waving "chaos" in our face.

Though does time increase like a balloon? or is it like some form of continium stretching out to eternity. Maybe entropy varies as matter interacts, perhaps varying forms of consciousness provides a way of counteracting entropy as uncertainty is partially resolved is consciousness.

Given uncertainty i.e chance, winding back time is impossible, as micro affects would make it impossible to determine emergent phenomena, although consciousness & memory allows some "rough" winding back of time.

"We all have our time machines, don't we. Those that take us back our memories...And those that carry us forward, our dreams." - The Time Machine (2002)

13 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

God is the Logos, essentially. Without the Logos we exist outside natural law, instead in chaos and the "law of the jungle"..

So instead of God, why not start a society called the Vulcans or something. 

What is the Logos how does one bring it into existence? Is it merely through truthful speech? What about truthful expression?

Was listening to Geanology of Morals as another member had mentioned the book and I remember Nietzche referencing even the Greek God Zeus being subject to chance. My point being that with uncertainty, how does the Logos or Judeo-Christian God reign supreme and wouldn't this is turn destroy freewill? Unless God is outside of spacetime, different universe.

 

[Donnadogsoth]

Would you say that there is a finite amount of matter though in existence? If so, why should there not be any particular order to it, i.e chaos? (in the beginning there was darkness) Why given another form of disorder/chaos (chance)(Let there be light) should there not be order formed from two types of chaos. Kind of like 2 negatives making a positive. Would you equate structure to order, if not what would you say is the distinction?

A Leibnizian universe would have no limit on how much matter could exist, because matter is just a reflection/shadow of the interactions between principles/monads. That is, there is the real/higher universe of substance, and the shadow/sensory universe which we see around us. There is no limit to matter in such a universe.

What we see in the universe around us is an ongoing process of increase of order/structure (same thing as far as I can tell); this structure is brought into existence by the activity of God and man. This view makes the universe infinite in terms of development potential.

Though does time increase like a balloon? or is it like some form of continium stretching out to eternity. Maybe entropy varies as matter interacts, perhaps varying forms of consciousness provides a way of counteracting entropy as uncertainty is partially resolved is consciousness.

Given uncertainty i.e chance, winding back time is impossible, as micro affects would make it impossible to determine emergent phenomena, although consciousness & memory allows some "rough" winding back of time.

We all have our time machines, don't we. Those that take us back our memories...And those that carry us forward, our dreams." - The Time Machine (2002)

Don't know.  Are you talking about chaos theory/fractals?

So instead of God, why not start a society called the Vulcans or something.

?

What is the Logos how does one bring it into existence? Is it merely through truthful speech? What about truthful expression?

The Logos is the ordering/creative aspect of God. In the human soul it combines with the Holy Spirit (charity, agape, love of neighbour). Christ was the Logos from whom the Holy Spirit flowed. Societies that conform to this prosper (through truthfulness in speech, expression/action); those that don't will die.

Was listening to Geanology of Morals as another member had mentioned the book and I remember Nietzche referencing even the Greek God Zeus being subject to chance. My point being that with uncertainty, how does the Logos or Judeo-Christian God reign supreme and wouldn't this is turn destroy freewill? Unless God is outside of spacetime, different universe.

God is eternal, existing in an unending “now” that is “sideways”/”parallel” to spacetime, if you want to try to visualise it. God sees all decisions men make as if they were making them simultaneously.

 

[Boss]

On 4/22/2018 at 1:01 AM, RichardY said:

Curious, what is the idea of God for people on the forum?

My idea of God is I think faith is required to conceive of God, as there is no proof for it. I think faith is better than belief as at least with faith you understand and let others know there is no proof. So I personally dont really debate people about their faith 

[RichardY]

What I'm getting is that there is an ultimate good (God) and that to "believe" in God is to take a "Leap of Faith" that some form of ultimate good is not only possible, but actual. Basically "surrendering" or conceeding your will to God.

Whether this is through a Puppetmaster's realization of the Best of all Worlds, Leibnizian and German Continental Philosophy. Or to conceed obedience to the moral law of God the best that can be understood; through some kind of Substance Dualism, though this involves the indivisibilty of the soul and moral responsibility.

In actuality there is chance instead of God and given that we can not know a German Continental noumenal realm. And any substance dualism and the world beyond, which could be a deception, demon or madness. There is only oblivion.

Explain creation? No explaination for creation can be given. Though that it is, all one can do is work with what one has. The only "explanation" is Pantheism or the mind of god, though as one can not conceive of the mind of God, no explanation can be understood.

If God is the Ultimate Good however and chance is prevalent instead of God. Perhaps there is no Ultimate good, only right action defined as good. To "be good" (E.T.)

[Jsbrads]

From the top y’all:

It isn’t God is chance, it is God or chance that created the universe.

 

Entropy was never Zero. At 10^-32 secs, the universe was the size of a grain of sand and incredibly hot (lots of Entropy) and the energy was unevenly distributed within that grain of sand.

Entropy is increasing, life inside the universe can’t reverse it so long as it is a closed system.

 

If your God doesn’t exist, your moral system is flawed. I am not saying your moral system isn’t the best moral system, I’m just saying it can’t be perfect without a God.

Were our planet created by incredibly intelligent aliens billions of years ago, and they made our DNA, and should they state what ethical system we should use, I can legitimately reply, “Well Yeah, that’s just your opinion man.”

I enjoyed learning from you that faith can be in an ethical system, not in the God named for it.

 

Two types of chaos (aka positive Entropy) do add together, but they are both positive values and they are additive, not multiplicative. 

True, our winding backwards of time is limited, the law of Entropy, doesn’t require our ability to wind back time, it supersedes it.

Yes, God is outside our universe, within it, etc. Our universe may be inside the mind of God. Much like we can create AI and not know what it will do, God can create us, know what we will do and still allow us the free will to do it, even if it isn’t in the best interests of ourselves/the creatures he created.

 

The universe isn’t infinite, it was created with a finite quantity of energy.

 

The universe was created. It isn’t possible it was created by chance.

[GoodJBoy]

By definition, G-d is the cause of existence of something.  I believe there is One G-d that is the cause of existence of time, space, matter, energy, and everything.  As such, He is not subject to this qualities but defines them.  As such, He is not to be found in time or space or matter or energy but His Revelations of "His Character" are found there.  If you shall ask me to proof it to you, I will ask you to proof me wrong.  lol  I believe and try to have faith in G-d.  For those who believe in G-d, He is obviously and purposely keeping His existence a mystery that is currently impossible to proof.  

[RichardY]

Why not deal with what we know, rather than presuppose some creator? Is that necessary? I don't know, but what I do know is X, Y & Z. I do know there is a finite amount of matter in the univerese logically. Could it be otherwise? I don't know.

The following is me musing on various metaphysical positions. To write all my thoughts out in full would take too long. To try and eliminate God, I think the most viable metaphysical positions are Subjective Idealism or Nietzschean Physicialism.

---------------------------------------------------------

The Leibnizian Best of all Worlds (Monadology - Neoplationism), is kind of f*cked up, you could literally torture somebody, but in the end it'll all work out for the best. The idea kind of stuck after listening to "Bertrand Russel history of Western philosophy", referring to Leibniz corresponding with Katherine the Great, oppressing peasents. Basically "You're torturing them for their own good." - WRONG

Absolute Idealism (Empiricism), Islam, (allah wills it), Determinism.(Collective Solipsism). Satre. Existence precedth Essence (The fact of being, comes before consciousness). While in some sense, this makes the most sense if you think of a person as a TV set. Also has Utilitarianism as an offshoot- WRONG

Subjective Idealism (The Mind of God) Man is however, morally superior and morally worse than God. Only read some of Carl Jung's Answer to Job, which I think had a Subjective Idealist vibe about it- POSSIBLE
Substance Dualism Perhaps possible, but irrevelant to consider if consciousness is acknowledged, rather than be put off to another dimension or universe. Iceing on the cake.

Transcendental Idealism (Rationalism) Good people can't be fundamentally Evil. Evil people can't be fundamentally Good. Listening to "Kant's Critique of Pure Reason" he literally says "philosophy is worse than useless."- IRREVELANT. In the realm of Mathematics.

Nietzschean Physicalism. (Imperfect Knowledge). Despite many people considering Nietzsche to be a Moral Nihilist, he is not a Moral Nihilist. Other wise he would not have wrote "On the Genealogy of Morality". Instead he chose to focus on amorality as opposed to morality. Through his works Thus spoke Zarathustra and the AntiChrist(though he went crazy shortly after). I think there is kind of a Sacred & Profane element to Nietzscean Physicalism.

"Horah for the Pirate King!"  Ecce Homo - Behold the Man.

Rand Objectivism. (Perfect Knowledge) Rand is the moral nihlist, A is A. How can there be morality when you deal with perfect knowledge? 
"I am the very model of the modern major general" - Possible, but not human. Maybe even Satanic,  the philosophical outlook was used by satanic orgaisations apparently.

----------------

Consciousness occurs before matter - God.
Consciousness occurs during matter - A Person.
Consciousness occurs after matter - A TV Set.

 

[MahtiSonni]

On 4/22/2018 at 2:01 PM, RichardY said:

Curious, what is the idea of God for people on the forum?
 

I am a Christian (who converted at age 27 from atheism).  I view God as a bit like a game designer writ large, and believe His nature is shown to us mostly by the New Testament, and, with the NT as a lens, through the Old Testament as well. I find it the most rational and sensible worldview I've ever encountered.

I believe I'm quite good at answering questions concerning Christianity, so fire away if you've got some.

[Donnadogsoth]

13 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

I am a Christian (who converted at age 27 from atheism).  I view God as a bit like a game designer writ large, and believe His nature is shown to us mostly by the New Testament, and, with the NT as a lens, through the Old Testament as well. I find it the most rational and sensible worldview I've ever encountered.

I believe I'm quite good at answering questions concerning Christianity, so fire away if you've got some.

Why should we trust God's character?

[MahtiSonni]

10 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Why should we trust God's character?

The way you ask sounds like no matter what the answer is you won't.  However, that doesn't stop me from answering to benefit the genuinely curious.

Firstly, God is consistent.  What He has claimed has so far also happened.

Second, God has given us the best morality known to man.  Adhering to them leads to a fruitful and a good life.

Third, God's game, God's rules.  Ignore them at your peril.  On both personal and civilizational level.

Fourth, God knows the hearts of men.  The Bible has examples of pretty much every sort of temptation, evil and failure man has ever committed, complete with the fruit of those particular trees.  If you listen to God, there's very few things about human nature that will ever baffle or surprise you.

Fifth, God's book has proven remarkably accurate where it concerns historical events.

Sixth, the Christian worldview is essential to both science and civilizational achievement.  It is not by fluke that Christendom became by far the best civilization known to man by any measurable standard.

Seventh, Jesus Christ is the only way to free people from the shackles of sin that enslave those who reject Him.

 

There are other reasons, but I consider those the most pertinent.

[Donnadogsoth]

15 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

The way you ask sounds like no matter what the answer is you won't.  However, that doesn't stop me from answering to benefit the genuinely curious.

Firstly, God is consistent.  What He has claimed has so far also happened.

Second, God has given us the best morality known to man.  Adhering to them leads to a fruitful and a good life.

Third, God's game, God's rules.  Ignore them at your peril.  On both personal and civilizational level.

Fourth, God knows the hearts of men.  The Bible has examples of pretty much every sort of temptation, evil and failure man has ever committed, complete with the fruit of those particular trees.  If you listen to God, there's very few things about human nature that will ever baffle or surprise you.

Fifth, God's book has proven remarkably accurate where it concerns historical events.

Sixth, the Christian worldview is essential to both science and civilizational achievement.  It is not by fluke that Christendom became by far the best civilization known to man by any measurable standard.

Seventh, Jesus Christ is the only way to free people from the shackles of sin that enslave those who reject Him.

 

There are other reasons, but I consider those the most pertinent.

As nontrivial as your reasons are, they don't cut to the meat of the matter which is the existence of evil.  Consider a hypothetical conversation with Ray Comfort:

Ray:  Have you ever stolen anything?

Me:  Yes.

Ray:  What do you call someone who steals things?

Me:  A thief.  But I have a question for you.

Ray:  Sure.

Me:  If I have a rabid dog in a cage, and I let it out and it bites someone, am I guilty?

Ray:  Of course.

Me:  What am I guilty of?

Ray:  Oh I don't know, endangering the public?

Me:  How about criminal negligence?

Ray:  Yeah okay, criminal negligence.

Me:  Now, the universe is in a fallen state, according to you, right?

Ray:  Right.

Me:  What caused it to be in that state?

Ray:  Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden.

Me:  And who instigated that sin?

Ray:  The devil.

Me:  And who let the devil into the Garden?

Ray:  God did.

Me:  And what does that make God guilty of?

Ray: . . .

Care to answer for Ray?

[MahtiSonni]

5 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

As nontrivial as your reasons are, they don't cut to the meat of the matter which is the existence of evil. 

Were there no evil there would be absolutely no need for either Christianity or Christ to ever have existed.  Funny that you think it would be a problem.

The possibility of evil directly results from having moral freedom, and because of that, responsibility.

Care to answer for Ray?

The hypothetical Ray appears to be an idiot who can't grasp the concept of free will.

[neeeel]

On 9/20/2018 at 7:21 AM, MahtiSonni said:

Firstly, God is consistent.  What He has claimed has so far also happened.

Second, God has given us the best morality known to man.  Adhering to them leads to a fruitful and a good life.

Third, God's game, God's rules.  Ignore them at your peril.  On both personal and civilizational level.

 

He isnt consistent, in the sense of giving us a morality, and then ignoring it himself ( by killing off millions in the bible).

My game, My rules is not in any way moral

[MahtiSonni]

1 hour ago, neeeel said:

He isnt consistent, in the sense of giving us a morality, and then ignoring it himself ( by killing off millions in the bible).

Not only does your question refute itself, it is also so hilariously absurd that it's hard the decide where to begin with it.  First, if you give someone rules to play a game you're not subject to them unless you're playing it.  For example, if you invent boxing and tell folks how to do it, you're really not bound to the rules of boxing while you're cooking.  Second, killing isn't categorically forbidden in the Bible - far to the contrary.

Quote

My game, My rules is not in any way moral

It is not a moral statement, it is a practical one.  If you're playing Super Mario, it's no use trying to use Fus-Ro-Dah or to start a bank.

[Donnadogsoth]

10 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

Were there no evil there would be absolutely no need for either Christianity or Christ to ever have existed.  Funny that you think it would be a problem.

The possibility of evil directly results from having moral freedom, and because of that, responsibility.

 

 

The hypothetical Ray appears to be an idiot who can't grasp the concept of free will.

Yes, Mahti, but why is God not to be held responsible for loosing the freely-willed devil on the world?  If I've got a superintelligent supercriminal in my super jail and I let him go, how is it not partly my fault when he inevitably commits a crime?

[MahtiSonni]

46 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Yes, Mahti, but why is God not to be held responsible for loosing the freely-willed devil on the world?  If I've got a superintelligent supercriminal in my super jail and I let him go, how is it not partly my fault when he inevitably commits a crime?

Because he was not created a devil but a cherub. Hitler wasn't conceived as a monster either. Do you hold his parents responsible for his crimes?

[Donnadogsoth]

21 minutes ago, MahtiSonni said:

Because he was not created a devil but a cherub. Hitler wasn't conceived as a monster either. Do you hold his parents responsible for his crimes?

If Hitler's parents were OMNISCIENT and knew what he would turn into, then yes.

[MahtiSonni]

9 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

If Hitler's parents were OMNISCIENT and knew what he would turn into, then yes.

"Omniscient" is an extra-biblical doctrine I don't subscribe to. It is also an oxymoron when combined with being God.

[Donnadogsoth]

38 minutes ago, MahtiSonni said:

"Omniscient" is an extra-biblical doctrine I don't subscribe to. It is also an oxymoron when combined with being God.

God made this wonderful cherub and then said "Oops!  Didn't see that coming!" when it turned into the ultimate demon of darkness?  And then he didn't do anything about it but let it corrupt (a) His wonderful universe and (b) the very race he had made in His image?  And he just keeps this thing around to help screw up this race even more throughout its entire miserable history?

[MahtiSonni]

11 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

God made this wonderful cherub and then said "Oops!  Didn't see that coming!" when it turned into the ultimate demon of darkness?

Lots of bitterness and snark there to hinder your ability to think about the subject rationally.

Would you prefer only an illusion of choice over a real one?  The latter is what you're criticizing here, and it is both a necessary requirement for morality and responsibility, not to mention love.

And then he didn't do anything about it but let it corrupt (a) His wonderful universe and (b) the very race he had made in His image?

He had already given the responsibility for the world over to the man, who in turn gave it over to Satan.  Have you truly given a gift if you take it away the moment you don't approve of its use?

And he just keeps this thing around to help screw up this race even more throughout its entire miserable history?

He made use of the situation: now we get to reveal who we are through the life we lead.  Besides, it's not like Satan's regency is forever: when Christ comes back kicking ass and taking names the beast is done.

[Donnadogsoth]

11 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

Lots of bitterness and snark there to hinder your ability to think about the subject rationally.

Would you prefer only an illusion of choice over a real one?  The latter is what you're criticizing here, and it is both a necessary requirement for morality and responsibility, not to mention love.

 

 

He had already given the responsibility for the world over to the man, who in turn gave it over to Satan.  Have you truly given a gift if you take it away the moment you don't approve of its use?

 

 

He made use of the situation: now we get to reveal who we are through the life we lead.  Besides, it's not like Satan's regency is forever: when Christ comes back kicking ass and taking names the beast is done.

If real choice means a monstrous God burning me, everyone I know, and mediaeval China to boot in Hell, then no I don't want a real choice.

Actually, if you give a child a knife and he immediately starts stabbing his playmates with it, you DO take it away.

And if you cause that child to be schizophrenic and hear voices telling him to stab his playmates, YOU'RE responsible.

[RichardY]

On 9/19/2018 at 6:49 AM, MahtiSonni said:

I am a Christian (who converted at age 27 from atheism).  I view God as a bit like a game designer writ large, and believe His nature is shown to us mostly by the New Testament, and, with the NT as a lens, through the Old Testament as well. I find it the most rational and sensible worldview I've ever encountered.

I believe I'm quite good at answering questions concerning Christianity, so fire away if you've got some.

How are you compassionate? Perhaps being appropriate to talk about the figure of Christ, depending on who you listen to, the Anti-Christ isn't a false Christ but the imbues some of the inhumane elements.

[MahtiSonni]

13 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

If real choice means a monstrous God burning me, everyone I know, and mediaeval China to boot in Hell, then no I don't want a real choice.

Actually, if you give a child a knife and he immediately starts stabbing his playmates with it, you DO take it away.

And if you cause that child to be schizophrenic and hear voices telling him to stab his playmates, YOU'RE responsible.

Why do you quote me when you answer none of my questions and talk past everything I've said, ignoring even the points that show how utterly silly and baseless your bitter drivel is?

It is as if you're trying to do a sermon and not have a conversation.

[MahtiSonni]

5 hours ago, RichardY said:

How are you compassionate?

I don't understand the relevance of the question.

Perhaps being appropriate to talk about the figure of Christ, depending on who you listen to, the Anti-Christ isn't a false Christ but the imbues some of the inhumane elements.

Well, listening to anti-Christians and other people who have not read the relevant parts of the Bible can lead you into funny ideas about stuff it concerns.  I'm not sure why to do so, though.  It is a bit like listening to the loon claiming to be Napoleon and ignoring what history books tell about the man.

[Donnadogsoth]

13 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

Why do you quote me when you answer none of my questions and talk past everything I've said, ignoring even the points that show how utterly silly and baseless your bitter drivel is?

It is as if you're trying to do a sermon and not have a conversation.

"Have you truly given a gift if you take it away the moment you don't approve of its use?"

Didn't I answer that question?

"Do you hold his parents responsible for his crimes?"

Didn't I answer that question?

So you're a liar.  Are you acting in bad faith, too?  Just a Christian troll?

Have a conversation about what?  About something that wants to burn me?

How about this question for you:  why do you worship something that wants to burn people?

How about this question for you:  Are you a Catholic?  If not how can you expect to be saved outside the Church?

[RichardY]

16 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

I don't understand the relevance of the question.

Well you say you are Christian, Christians are usually compassionate, following the example of Christ. Was interested empirically, what you do to help people.

[MahtiSonni]

11 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

"Have you truly given a gift if you take it away the moment you don't approve of its use?"

Didn't I answer that question?

Not really, though it is apparent from your anecdote provided in lieu of an answer that you hate having responsibility, freedom to choose, not to mention the very concept of a meaningful existence, and that you're offended because God stays consistent with his word when He has given it.  You see yourself, and apparently everyone else as well (except God), as an irresponsible child.

Quote

"Do you hold his parents responsible for his crimes?"

Didn't I answer that question?

No.  Your answer was an answer to a question that was not asked.  I'm not interested in hypothetical omniscient (in your very own imagined definition of the term) Hitler's parents that somehow would behave exactly the same as those who weren't.

 

So you're a liar.

I'm that and a whole lot worse, if we get biographical here, but I have not done so here.  It appears we have two very different conceptions about what answering questions means.

 

Are you acting in bad faith, too?

No.  I'm happy to hear you're aware of your approach, though.

 

Just a Christian troll?

I'm sure you experience it that way as you've treated me like one from the start.  I let people choose how they want to approach a conversation and then adapt to it so that they feel comfortable.  I'm flexible that way.

 

Have a conversation about what?

Christianity, God, pick one or both.

 

About something that wants to burn me?

Hell wasn't made for people.  Everyone who goes to hell chooses it themselves.  The thing, though, is, that either one says to God: "thy will be done", or God says to said one: "thy will be done".  It's really reaping what one sows.  You're acting as if someone was torching you when an actual analogy would be insisting on jumping off a cliff to a great fall onto sharp rocks and then blaming the only one who says you really shouldn't.

 

How about this question for you:  why do you worship something that wants to burn people?

I already told you that wanting to burn people isn't the reason Christ came to save us from that fate.  You really don't have any understanding about the things you're spewing your vitriol on.

 

How about this question for you:  Are you a Catholic?

No, though I recognize the attempt at tarring me with guilt by association.

 

If not how can you expect to be saved outside the Church?

You do not understand what the church of Christ is.  I offer a Bible verse to answer:  "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."

Edited September 24, 2018 by MahtiSonni
The quote /quote -tags don't work right. Maybe that's a browser problem or just me, but I believe the above is still possible to read correctly.

[MahtiSonni]

8 hours ago, RichardY said:

Well you say you are Christian, Christians are usually compassionate, following the example of Christ. Was interested empirically, what you do to help people.

I'm not interested in sharing my personal life with strangers.

[neeeel]

58 minutes ago, MahtiSonni said:

Hell wasn't made for people.  Everyone who goes to hell chooses it themselves.  The thing, though, is, that either one says to God: "thy will be done", or God says to said one: "thy will be done".  It's really reaping what one sows.  You're acting as if someone was torching you when an actual analogy would be insisting on jumping off a cliff to a great fall onto sharp rocks and then blaming the only one who says you really shouldn't.

nope. Jumping off a cliff, you can see the rocks, you know what will happen, in that sense you are choosing to insist on jumping off a cliff. No one has ever seen hell, or heard god. Theres no proof that any of it is actually real. You are framing it as if god has no agency, doesnt choose anything, or if he does choose something, whatever he chooses is perfectly moral. He has set up a system where you burn for eternity simply for not believing that he exists. You cant choose to believe in something you dont believe in. 

 

Your analogy is awful. 

[Donnadogsoth]

16 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

Hell wasn't made for people.  Everyone who goes to hell chooses it themselves.  The thing, though, is, that either one says to God: "thy will be done", or God says to said one: "thy will be done".  It's really reaping what one sows.  You're acting as if someone was torching you when an actual analogy would be insisting on jumping off a cliff to a great fall onto sharp rocks and then blaming the only one who says you really shouldn't.

Oh, you're one of those Christians, are you?  God says jump off a cliff or eat a bag of nails, your choice.  Your God will not give me what I want after I die, because I would choose annihilation, not being tortured for eternity.  Why do you want to worship a God who wants to hurt people?

[RichardY]

15 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

I'm not interested in sharing my personal life with strangers.

Fair enough. But being a Christian isn't?

[MahtiSonni]

6 hours ago, RichardY said:

Fair enough. But being a Christian isn't?

Despite having a question mark in the end of that sentence it lacks an understandable question.