Epicurean Paradox

[NoMoreFaith]

two thing the first addresses the next talking point. you accuse me of insulting you simply because you do not/can not understand basic christianity.

Its hardly our fault theres too many versions of Christianity. More to the point, most Christians don't seem to understand Christianity according to you.
You do a great job of pretending you are not just one of many interpretations however. Kudos.

we can not continue unless you address how you understand biblical Christianity.

As above. Too many versions to be addressed, that is not a strong point of your faith you know. Whether you are pop christianity or biblical christianity or rice krispie christianity. We can't tell you what you believe, the burden is on you to provide clarity of what you believe.

Understand, that many of us are atheists, there is no more cause for us to read the bible, as the qu'ran, twilight novels, or any other text in order to argue the philosophical aspects of what defines a God.

This topic has gone on for a long time, much of it merely because you are separating yourself from the majority of Christian belief with "biblical christianity". Its nothing more than another sect. Don't get angry with us because your compatriot believers diluted what you believe into an incomprehensible mess.

It is not my fault you guys do not take the time to process what is given and simply assert what you remember christianity to be about.

See my first reply. We are not responsible, to understand each one of every thousands sects.

Would you agree with the following statement;

To mankind, God appears immoral, as morality has no meaning to God, only righteousness.

I make no judgments from this statement, I merely want to be sure we both agree on a concept.

without question just look at all of the arguments for a malevolent God just in this thread. Which again boils down to a simple matter of perspective.

I think we can accept you do not hold traditional views on religion. Nothing wrong with that, we would be quick to invoke the fallacy ad populum if it was argued otherwise.


I'd like to propose a compromise. In context of Epicurus, that to your own interpretation of God rather than other forms of Christianity, that the paradox is not so much resolved but can be rephrased "If he is able but not willing, then he appears malicious."

Appearance must be taken into context that without your personal interpretation of things, he does indeed appear so.

Since the debate is not whether what you believe is actually true or not, I see no problem in conceding that your personal worldview necessitates an amendment to Epicurus in your particular instance.

I recognise a lot of prior ground has been wasted on more popular views of Christianity, yet I don't think that is unreasonable as the vast majority of those we debate with hold a more popularist view on things, so I still think you are quick to anger and condescension if you are misunderstood, but that is still largely the fault that you do not clarify your differences from other forms of Christianity enough.

I still think you're a nut, but I can accept that in your particular fairytale, the paradox does not have full application in its purest form