Epicurean Paradox

[Drich]

[quote='genkaus' pid='274277' dateline='1334729035']
[quote]My understanding is much better that yours, apparently. Apart from judging his gods by their characteristics, Epicurius is also setting up standards for minimum qualification to be a god, i.e. you should atleast be able or willing to prevent evil. [/quote]
I've already had this discussion several times in this thread. go back and address the points that have already been made.

[quote]Thus, Epicurus had the foresight to provide a generic criteria for classification into godhood, fully knowing that many other poser gods would want to try and take on the paradox. Your god failed the criteria, thereby making him an inferior wannabe god to the actual Epicurean gods. [/quote] this point has already been made as well.
I guess someone else had the foresight to make this point before you did. If you wish to talk about it then go back and address what has already been said.

[quote]No, I'm, saying that unlike the Jews who did not see the paradox coming, Epicurus expected that there would be wannabe, poser gods and in order to separate the good stock from shit, he set up an explicit standard for what can be considered a god. Your god simply failed that standard. [/quote] oh wait, asked and answered. just like everything else you have ask.. or do you think you after 21 pages you are the first atheist to come up with your questions?



[quote]I don't think that your Hebrew god even entered into his considerations. He didn't design the standard with your god in mind. And your god still failed. [/quote]Again basic reading comprehension failure. Otherwise you would know this is exactly what I said, and you would understand how and why the contrast between "deities" and the comparison his/your comparison of them will not work.

[quote]Now, an examiner (Epicurus) has setup a standardized test for students (wannabe gods) who want to claim a certain degree (godhood). Certain students (Epicurean gods) pass the test. Another one (Hebrew god) who wants to claim the degree but fails the test. Now, comparison between the two is automatic and the one who failed is automatically judged inferior. What's so difficult about this simple concept? [/quote]
You have been proven to be a waister of my time, so you no longer have the right to ask that I personally tailor an in depth biblical responses to you. Especially when all of your questions have been asked and answered already. If you want to be apart of the conversation then go back and find what has already been discussed and address the points that have already been made.

If you show an honest effort I will consider taking you seriously again. Otherwise know I have identified you as a troll and will be treated accordingly.

---

[quote='NoMoreFaith' pid='274372' dateline='1334755813']

[quote]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.[/quote]
Perhaps that should be the next thread.
types of Christianity.
[quote]
As above. Too many versions to be addressed, that is not a strong point of your faith you know. [/quote]
this is another good topic to discuss. Why there are so many different versions.

[quote]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.[/quote]Which i can not do unless the the other person is willing to yield their idea of christianity is not the only idea of it. which on this website has happened once so far.

[quote]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. [/quote]That is unless you or anyone else wants to honestly test God by the standards He has given us to test Him by.

Which is the underlining lesson of this whole thread. Why judge God by any other standard other than the one He has set before us. Like you said if you were God you would not be concerned with how other interpreted your religion. May I add that God because He has gone through such great lengths, He is also not concerned with meeting anyone on their terms. especially when He has paid such a high price to offer His own. Like wise if one is to make an honest go of what has been provided then He is not willing to let anyone go or ignore them. (parable of the lost sheep and the lost coin.)

[quote]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.[/quote]Which is why this topic and others needed to be readdressed.

[quote]See my first reply. We are not responsible, to understand each one of every thousands sects.[/quote]that is not what I am asking. I am asking that you simply approach what is being said with an open mind rather than challenge or quickly dismiss anything that was not apart of the sect you understood to be Christianity.

[quote]I think we can accept you do not hold traditional views on religion. [/quote]Religion no. Christianity yes. Because my views are modeled straight out of the original blue print found in the bible. The writers of the NT do not make any apologies for God and neither to I. Everything is taught from complete chapters and paragraphs. I do not use cut up verses and arrange them in a particular way to create "doctrine." I speak where the bible Speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent.

[quote]Nothing wrong with that, we would be quick to invoke the fallacy ad populum if it was argued otherwise.[/quote]

[quote]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. [/quote]
Agreed, and all that i ask is that "we" look past our initial perception to who God is as reveled by the bible and why He does what He does.

[quote]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 recognize 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.[/quote]
I have admitted that I am not perfect and I know i have far to go. I did not grow up in the church and I have not been conditioned to say think or act certain way. Which is a bit of a double edged sword. In that I am not tied to the religious beliefs of my fathers but at the same time I have many other issues to sort out as well. These issues seem to come to the surface more quickly when I am bombarded with many harshly worded responses. But I am working on it. I know just a few years ago i would not have been able to come here and do this for all that I might have to say. I am making progress. (Which is all God expects of any of us)

[quote]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 [/quote]Fair enough.