Knowing everything and allowing evil

[chi pan]

You are misquoting me in every direction.

How can I misquote you when I never quoted you?

I did not say man cannot be good. In fact the bible calls many of the prophets very good people. I never said man cannot be good.

Fact: Christian's believe that god is the standard for good.
Fact: Christian's also believe that no man can be good (sinless) by god's standards.

Conclusion: No man can be good.

And how exactly does the Christian beliefs create unhappiness? In order to believe that you must exclude the millions of Christians who are happy.

Pay attention. I said happiness OR rationality. Most people simply choose the former over the latter. A rational Christian cannot be happy and a happy Christian is not rational.

The bible actually teaches us how to be most happy. By following his commandments.

Following the commandments. Translation: stop thinking for yourself and do as I say. Which requires giving up your rational faculty.

He wants us to live for him.

A rational person would rather live for himself.

To get married and have children and love them. Not to worry about money. To put God first, then others, then yourself. To be honest with one another and not hurt one another.

And he wants all this irrespective of a person's own wishes. These things would make a rational person happy only if he chose those actions rationally and for his own purpose. To chose these based on god's wishes and be happy would require him to give up his rationality.

Does lying, stealing, hurting and such create happiness? No and this is why God says don't do it.

It does seem to do so for liars, thieves and sadists.

And you take this deserving thing completely the wrong way. We do not deserve God's grace, mercy, and forgiveness. But what do we do about it? We do our best to give back to God; not destroy ourselves. We use it in a constructive manner so we can make God proud and give him as much as we can give. This is how you interpret it. You can't include the bad without the good.

I find the word "grace" meaningless.
Deserving mercy is a contradiction in terms. If you deserve it, it isn't mercy, it is justice.
And the concept of deserving forgiveness would apply only if there was a sin in the first place. Which brings us back to your definition of human nature as inherently sinful.
Why would we need to give anything back to god when we haven't taken anything?
Why would not destroying ourselves be considered "giving back"?
What about the fact that accepting things on faith is the simplest way of destroying oneself?
Why does the constructive way of making god proud is so self-destructive?

And finally, do you say that by our good actions we become deserving of things we were previously undeserving of? That a good person deserves a place in heaven irrespective of whether he believed in god?

Yes you did quote me but that's besides the point. Let me rephrase it you did quote me in entirety but the problem is your interpretation of what I said.

I don't accept the definition of good you put up there. Good does not equal sinless. You can have sin and still be good. The sin itself is not good but being good does not require perfection. But yes, you are right in saying God or Jesus is the standard for living a good life. This does not mean they are interchangeable. Jesus is as good as you can get, the highest standard possible. This does not mean you need to go that far to be good. An 100% is good but a 94% is still an A thus good.

Your happiness or irrational statement doesn't make sense. Happiness itself is irrational so why are you trying to rationalize it? I am happy that I have a father in heaven who is helping me at all times in my life. I am happy that I'm going to heaven even though I don't deserve it. I'm happy that whenever I get sad or confused I always have someone to turn to. I don't know about you but to me these are very good reasons to be happy.

I did not say stop what you're thinking and do as they say. You can actually think, look, and find a reason for every commandment if it makes you feel better. God has a reason for every commandment, he is not just being arbitrary. Sin causes pain and such and just like a parent needs to say do as I say to their child and they may not understand the reason, so does God.

Living for yourself is a sad way to live. Even atheists have said don't live for yourself, live for others. A good quote from someone I don't remember who said it was "if you aren't willing to die for something, you haven't found a good reason to live." I find it more rewarding to give to people than to give to myself. You may think it irrational but gratitude from someone else is very rewarding in itself.

No, choosing to follow God does not require you to give up rationality or happiness. That's like saying you can't be happy when you are given a car, only when you get it yourself. If you raise a family because God told you so, the rewards are the same as when you make the decision on your own. You cannot take rewards from actions because you followed someone else's advice.

Sin only works out for those who don't get caught. However, it has many limitations. When someone steals all their money, they find that the money loses value. They realize money doesn't make them happy. Those who lie hurt themselves and others. Hurting does not create happiness. As you said, the thought of them being happy is irrational. I don't know how anyone can convince themselves to be happy when they've truly hurt someone else.

This second to last paragraph is funny. First you say deserving and mercy are contradictions. I completely agree. However I said we are not deserving of his mercy. You may say this is redundant but not contradictory. We haven't taken anything? God has made everything on this earth including us. This earth is imperfect and will perish. God will make a new heaven and a new earth and if we want to have a part in that we must repent for our sins or disobedience. He doesn't have to give it to you but he can and he will if you accept Christ as your savior. And no, not destroying ourselves is not considered giving back. Spreading the word of God is considered giving back. Doing the plan God has for your personal life is considered giving back. And accepting something by faith is not self destructive. As a kid, you may not understand why your mother says don't talk to strangers but it's not destructive to listen anyway. God wants to protect you, but if you don't listen to him you may hurt yourself and others. This is destructive.

I find your last paragraph funny too. First, the bible says all have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God. Second, in your second paragraph you said you must be without sin to be good. So that means there is not a single person who can be good enough by your own words. This also just so happens to be exactly right. No one can be good enough to go to heaven. You want to know what I believe is the way to heaven? I believe Jesus when he said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father but through me." simple as that.

---

As for you saying Jesus did not claim to be God, I will comment on that. You made a claim and therefore I can refute it.

Of course you can refute it in that absurdly limited way. Everything in the Bible can be refuted using the Bible itself because it's a cannon of extreme contradictions.

Every verse in the biblical cannon be refuted using another verse.

Here's a perfect example.:

John.5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

So the father judgeth no man?

Then later Jesus crys out from the cross, "Luke.23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do"

Why would Jesus be asking the father to forgive people if the Father judgeeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son"

These fables are grossly contradicting at every turn of the page. So they can't be trusted to hold any truths. The Biblical cannon is a blatant untrustworthy doctrine that is riddled with endless self-contradictions.

You say:

Your next claim saying Jesus said he did not come for the righteous but the unrighteous. He is not saying they do not need salvation. In fact, he talks many times pointing out even the Pharisees who devoted their lives to following the law were not perfect. Surely even you know of that. He spat in their faces many times (figuratively). Everyone needs salvation, but he was saying he didn't come to spend all his time with the righteous but the unrighteous. Not the rich but the poor. He was helping those who needed it most.

First off, Jesus didn't say that the Pharisees were "righteous". On the contrary he called them hypocrites.

More you say that Jesus did not spend time with the rich but with the poor because the poor are more likely to need help. But that flies in the very face of other places in this cannon when it has Jesus saying the following:

Matt.19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

According to this verse Jesus is stating that rich people are far more likely to need salvation than poor people. He also called the Pharisees hypocrites which is not good. Therefore if Jesus wanted to actually help someone he should have been spending all his time with the Pharisees since clearly they would have needed help the most.

Just the opposite of what you have suggested.

If you want me to refute claims all you have to do is make them and actually back them up. Nuh uh doesn't prove anything.

It would be impossible for you to refute my claims by using the biblical cannon. The biblical cannon is nothing more than an endless book of lies and contradictions.

Besides, you totally avoid the most important point I've made. No doubt because you can see that it's an irrefutable point.

On the Cross Jesus said (according to these absurd myths), "Father forgive them for they know not what they do"?

Ignoring the fact that this is already a blatant contradiction because it had previously been proclaimed in this cannon the the Father judgeth no man and has committed all judgement unto the Son, this verse still flies in the face of any verses or interpretations that proclaim that it's necessary for people to either believe that Jesus was divine, or to ask him for forgiveness.

The people that Jesus forgave here did neither of these things. They did not recognize his divinity, nor did they ask him for forgiveness. Yet he forgave them anyway on the grounds that "They know not what they do".

Therefore if you are going to give this story any credibility at all you must honor the fact that Jesus easily forgave people who not only did not believe that he was divine, nor asked him for forgiveness, and they were also beating him to a pulp and nailing him to a pole but he still forgave them.

Well, if you can believe that (and if you believe in these biblical fables then you must believe this, you have no choice in the matter.

So to hold out that anyone needs to ask Jesus forgiveness for anything, or that it's important that anyone believe that Jesus was divine, is utter nonsense. Based on the very words attributed to this man.

He forgave people who did not believe he was divine, nor did they ask him for forgiveness. He forgave them based entirely on the principle that they know not what they do.

And if he forgave such violent people who were in the middle of crucifying him, then he most certainly would automatically forgive the average person who simply doesn't believe in him.

Christians insist on using Jesus as a hate tool. They use him in a hateful way by proclaiming that anyone who doesn't join and support Christianity will be rejected by Jesus and condemned (because it states that utterly contradicting nonsense other places in this cannon)

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

If Jesus forgave the people who crucified him solely because they "knew not what they do", then clearly these words of John above are outright lies. Either John was lying, or Jesus was lying.

You can't have the cake and eat it too.

You can either accept that John is a liar, and that about 99.9% of the words in the bible are totally untrustworthy lies and contradictions, or you can just recognize that the whole damn thing is a superstitious fable.

That choice is up to you.


But trying to hold it up as being a 'consistent' picture whilst simultaneously demanding that Jesus hates non-believers and will condemn them to hell. Or even that he demands that people seek forgiveness before he will forgive them is utter nonsense.

This biblical cannon cannot support that kind of Christian hatred in the name of Jesus.

Christian hatred in the name of Jesus is of their own making. They necessarily need to spit in the face of Jesus in order to hold him out as the hateful monster they so desperately desire him to be.

This cannon clearly has Jesus saying, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do"

These people neither recognized Jesus' divinity, nor did they seek or ask for forgiveness for what they were doing.

So clearly this cannon of fables, has Jesus forgiving people freely with no strings attached.

Any Christian who claims that Jesus requires to be recognized, or that his forgiveness needs to be requires, our outright liars.

They are lying about what these fables even have to say about this man.

So as long as you continue to support Christianity, you are continuing to support lies about Jesus in a spirit of hatefulness toward non-believers.

First, I find it funny that when you use the bible to say Jesus was not God that's ok but when I use it to prove you wrong, you consider it absurdly limited. Either we can talk about the bible as if it were true or not but not both at the same time. If you want to quote the bible to make a claim, I will quote the bible to prove you wrong.

You are taking sentences out of the bible and trying to say they contradict one another. Read the passage, not the sentence. Then you will understand.