Better reasons to quit Christianity

[catfish]

You forgot to mention my reason... To bring about the "New Covenent"

"Christianity" has been used and abused by those in power to control the masses for centuries.

Hell is used to scare the populace into conformity.
Tithing is used to bilk the populace out of their money.
"Brotherhood" has been used to exclude people of different faiths and customs.

I would love to see the wealthiest organization in the world use their money to end world hunger, wouldn't you?

I would say that your answer falls under one (or perhaps all three) of these categories. Wouldn't you?

---

Hey all:

I think I've responded to everyone. Please let me know if I missed one of your posts. When you have the time, I'd like to know what you think of my responses.

---

I should amend my previous statement. The answers given so far fall under four main categories:

1. There's no reason to restrict my behavior
2. There is no God
3. There is no soul that survives the body after death, and so, no judgement for one's behavior
4. The Bible is not a reliable, historical document

Hi again spockrates.

What I think of your responses is that you have your mind made and nothing anyone says will change it. I posted a couple of threads about direct contradictions which most here seem to be afraid to deal with.

Atheists don't want to deal with them because they show God is not as bad as they claim the Bible shows. Christians don't want to deal with them because it goes against the "infallible" theory.

Anyways, my reason falls under none of your above reasons.

Basically, here's my reason.

Bringing about the "New Coveneant" as described in the Bible would mean there will be no more disagreements. Everyone will know God, everyone will stop being dickheads and trying to force their beliefs on others. When a person has "God's Law" written on their hearts, there will be no need to restrict your behavior as it would be righteous.

I think the Bible is very reliable.
When it says the scribes lied, I believe it.
When it says the prophets lied, I believe it.
When it says people have oppressed their neighbors, I believe it.

[spockrates]

I'm sorry, I must have missed your question. Please repeat it.

Here:

If you have a God who knows everything and is everywhere with at least enough power to create the universe, why is it that he is capable of not dictating the choices of every person ever to live? By creating a world with beings capable of choice he is necessarily creating a world where he predetermined the choices of everyone.

A God who knows everything before he creates everything is creating a world where he willed every being to make the choices they do.

Thank you. I'd say that I don't see how knowing what someone will do is the same as making someone do. For example, let's say I live in the 1980s and create a time machine. I travel to the year 2000 and learn that a guy named Bill Gates has created a corporation called Microsoft that has made hundreds of millions. I travel back to the 1980s and invest in Microsoft and make a fortune. Now, my knowing Bill Gates would create a corporation that was successful does not mean that I caused Bill Gates to do this.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean when you say the word omnipotence. Please explain what omnipotence is.

Omnipotent isn't even an issue unless you are saying that your God is omnipotent.
I'll repeat this too:
Omnipotence is the ability to perform and action, think any thought, or otherwise act in any conceivable way. The capacity to do so, not that he would or does. That's as clear as it gets.

OK, so is it possible for someone who has the power to become perfectly honest to also be omnipotent?

Yes. Perfect justice, perfect love, perfect honesty- they all preclude the ability to perform the antithesis of themselves.

The reason I ask is because I'm still not sure I comprehend what you believe the word omnipotent to mean.

Nothing is impossible. If I were omnipotent I could do anything.

Once I have a working definition in mind, you and I can measure concepts of an omnipotent God against it.

Do you believe your God to be omnipotent? If not, then this discussion is moot.

We cannot come to an agreement that it is impossible for God to be omnipotent if we don't first come to an agreement on what omnipotence is! Don't you agree?

Omnipotence is logically impossible, but if your God can invalidate logic then that isn't a problem. Your God could then lie, cheat, steal, murder, rape, and torture while still being perfectly good, because he would be truly omnipotent. He could create a stone he is unable to lift, then lift it. Things like that.

Now if you, or I find that our proposed definition is not logical, no worries!

Yeah, omnipotence is, by it's nature, illogical.

We can just modify it until we agree that we agree as to what the correct concept of omnipotence is.

Or we could stick with a God who simply has the power to create worlds, answer prayers, create miracles, and other Godly things that Gods do, like I originally suggested. If the isn't your God then my argument is needless.

We will then be in a better position to come to some agreement as to whether God can be omnipotent and also omniscient and omnibenevolent.

...While maintaining free will as a trait for all humans.

I think you said omnipotence is the power to do anything and everything, but perhaps I misunderstood. So please tell me so I can be sure what you mean: What is omnipotence?

I already have. You asked three times in this one post, and I answered twice. I think that'll do.

I have to apologize. I made a major revision of my post prior to you posting your response, but your response was to my original post. Please allow me to repeat my revised post and respond to it, as I believe it addresses some of your points:

I'm not sure your concept of omnipotence actually is real. For you said: "Omnipotence is the capacity to do anything." My question about this premise is this: Is it possible to have the capacity to make a being that is 100% honest 100% of the time and (at the same time) 100% dishonest 100% of the time? I don't see how it is, do you? So how can omnipotence be "the capacity to do anything," since this one thing not even any omnipotent being could do?

So don't you agree it is impossible for even an omnipotent being to make a person who lies and who is (at the same time) perfectly honest? It appears that it is not possible for anyone--whether he be God, or omnipotent Ed! Neither one could make little people who were perfectly honest all of the time and perfectly dishonest all of the time. Thus, it seems we need a different concept of omnipotence, since this one is flawed. For I think you might agree that omnipotence cannot possibly be the capacity to do anything when there is one thing impossible for even an omnipotent being to do.

So I have to ask the question again: What is omnipotence?

---

Agreed. Suffering has no meaning if it never ends. But if there is an eternity, then the suffering would seem (once there) but a blink of the eye. Reminds me of my sons crying when I took them to to get their first vaccinations. I told them it would sting, but it would be over soon. I didn't like seeing them cry, but I knew the moment of pain would save them a lifetime of pain should they contract the disease against which the vaccine would otherwise protect them. If there is a heaven, then it will be worth it, no matter how severe and prolonged the suffering in time.

Do you believe in an eternal hell?

The concept seems to be taught by scripture, yes. Why do you ask?

True. For them I would expect (if there is a God who is both just and loving) that the momentary suffering would be worth it once in eternity.

So a very short life of unusual suffering qualifies you for an eternal reward?

I'd say it would be just for God to compensate those who suffer, yes.

Yes, that would be true if the omniscient one existed in time and was waiting for the future, but it would not be true is the omniscient one existed outside of time and was already there in the future. God might look at us like one might look at a timeline in an open book. He might already see what we are going to do, but he would not already see what he is going to do, because he would have already done it. God isn't waiting for the future, he is already there.

The God you're describing can't change anything, because it's already done everything its ever going to do. If the concept of doing something doesn't contract the nature of something outside of time, since time is the only context in which doing something makes sense.

Rather than saying a God who exists in a dimension outside space and time cannot change anything, I'd say it is possible such a God (if he exists) has already changed things. That is, he has if he has the power to reach into time at any point in time and make changes any time he wants. For him (as the Rush song puts it), "time stands still." He would have all the time he needed to enter any point in time any time he wanted and make any change he wanted and then see the result at the end of time. The timeline of time, we might imagine, is not a done deal, but a work in progress. You have to think outside the box of time and imagine what someone who existed in a time outside of time might be able to do.

I don't believe there is such as thing as unlimited quantity of power.

I agree, which is why 'omnipotence' is a word with no referent in reality. Seriously, you're arguing for the most unlikely conceivable God, just a pile of omni-attributes that was the culmination of generations of people claiming my God is bigger/better/wiser/more powerful than yours.

True, your concept of omnipotence might have no referent in reality, but that does not mean that my concept (or the concept someone else has) of omnipotence does not have a referent in reality, I think. To say that your concept is unreal and so no concept is real is to create a straw man and knock it down, I think. Why not consider the concept of someone else before dismissing it as unreal as your own?

Not if the word die has a different meaning than the one you are attributing to it.

That's exactly what I meant by cognitive acrobatics. If you have to say 'die' doesn't mean 'die' in the usual sense in order to keep believing what you already believe, you don't hesitate.

But you were a Penecostal. Weren't you taught the difference between physical death and spiritual death? Before rejecting the idea that the Bible gives different meanings to the word death depending on the context, you should first ask what I think the word die means in the context we are discussing, don't you think?

Actually, it depends on what omnipotent is. I'd say it can be the freedom to choose to do anything, but it cannot possibly be the freedom to do everything. Should I explain my meaning?

No. I know that taking omnipotent to mean what it says is ridiculous, but you don't want to give up the word, so you will seek a new meaning for it that doesn't mean 'all-powerful' so you can continue saying the word that means 'all-powerful' while actually meaning something else. Then you will go through life having to explain what you mean by 'omnipotent' to people who insist on thinking it means what omnipotent means: all-powerful.

Note that the KJV never uses the word 'omnipotent'.

The KJV also doesn't use the word Trinity, either, but I'm sure you were taught how the concept is clearly taught in scripture--unless, of course, you used to be a Oneness Penecostal. In that case, you were taught Modalism, which is a word that is also not in the Bible.



I propose we use the meaning of the word omnipotent that is not logically absurd. If we say, like some mistakenly believe, that omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then that means it is the power to make a person 100% honest 100% of the time and (at the same time) 100% dishonest 100% of the time. If we say omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then it would be the power to make a circle that is not only perfectly round, but also has four right angles at the same time. If we say omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then it would be the power to make an object that is completely white and completely black at the same time. Such propositions are self-contradictory, illogical and absurd!

So I don't see anyway it is logically possible for omnipotence to be the power to do absolutely anything at all--no matter how utterly ridiculous it is. What I suggest is that omnipotence is instead the power to do anything that is not self-contradictory, is not illogical and is not absurd. Would you agree with this definition of the word? Or do you think it nonsensical for me to make such a suggestion?

[Cato]

Isn't this the basis for your ruse? Omnipotence has a definition. Who are you to redefine it to conform to your god's characteristics? Why not just admit that your god is not omnipotent?

[spockrates]

Isn't this the basis for your ruse? Omnipotence has a definition. Who are you to redefine it to conform to your god's characteristics? Why not just admit that your god is not omnipotent?

Hey, Cato. I'm saying it is possible we are misunderstanding what omnipotence is when the definition we give it makes no rational sense. How is it possible for anyone, no matter how powerful, to do something logically absurd? If you were omnipotent, could you make a perfectly round circle that had right angles? If the answer is, "No, of course not!" then I think we need to reconsider whether we are misunderstanding what omnipotence is. If the answer is, "Yes, nothing would be impossible for me to do if I were omnipotent!" then you have to demonstrate how a perfect circle could have right angles. If we cannot imagine something, because it is utterly ridiculous, then isn't our suggestion of what omnipotence is utterly ridiculous? As the ex-atheist C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, omnipotence is not the power to accomplish the absurd.

I'm thinking that if you say omnipotence is the power to do any illogical and absolutely nonsensical thing, then I'd have to admit that the Christian concept of God is one that is not omnipotent, but has power of a different kind. But what do you think, my friend? Is your opinion that the fact that God cannot accomplish the absurd is proof that a Christian concept of a God (who is powerful enough to accomplish anything that is not absurd) is faulty?

For me, personally, if I'm going to reject the idea of God, I want to be intellectually honest about it. I want to reject the concept Christians have that makes the most rational sense, not some misconception of God and his attributes that is nonsense. Otherwise Christians, when I explain why I no longer believe in God will mock me and say, "You idiot! You haven't rejected the real God, but only your feeble misconception of him!" See from where I'm coming?

---

I would say that your answer falls under one (or perhaps all three) of these categories. Wouldn't you?

---

Hey all:

I think I've responded to everyone. Please let me know if I missed one of your posts. When you have the time, I'd like to know what you think of my responses.

---

I should amend my previous statement. The answers given so far fall under four main categories:

1. There's no reason to restrict my behavior
2. There is no God
3. There is no soul that survives the body after death, and so, no judgement for one's behavior
4. The Bible is not a reliable, historical document

Hi again spockrates.

What I think of your responses is that you have your mind made and nothing anyone says will change it. I posted a couple of threads about direct contradictions which most here seem to be afraid to deal with.

Atheists don't want to deal with them because they show God is not as bad as they claim the Bible shows. Christians don't want to deal with them because it goes against the "infallible" theory.

Anyways, my reason falls under none of your above reasons.

Basically, here's my reason.

Bringing about the "New Coveneant" as described in the Bible would mean there will be no more disagreements. Everyone will know God, everyone will stop being dickheads and trying to force their beliefs on others. When a person has "God's Law" written on their hearts, there will be no need to restrict your behavior as it would be righteous.

I think the Bible is very reliable.
When it says the scribes lied, I believe it.
When it says the prophets lied, I believe it.
When it says people have oppressed their neighbors, I believe it.

In which discussion thread of yours have I not participated catfish? I'd be happy to do so, just let me know.

What do you think I've made up my mind about? Please be more specific.

[Skepsis]

I have to apologize. I made a major revision of my post prior to you posting your response, but your response was to my original post.

Well... O.K.

I'm not sure your concept of omnipotence actually is real.

Only in concept is omnipotence possible. I have said this a couple times already.

For you said: "Omnipotence is the capacity to do anything." My question about this premise is this: Is it possible to have the capacity to make a being that is 100% honest 100% of the time and (at the same time) 100% dishonest 100% of the time?

No, it is logically contradictory. A truly omnipotent being would be able to ignore logical contradictions, but the repercussions would be dire.

So how can omnipotence be "the capacity to do anything," since this one thing not even any omnipotent being could do?

A being that could ignore the most basic logical laws could perform that action. Most people don't think of their God as basely illogical, hell, a-logical, when they describe him/it. Do you?

Thus, it seems we need a different concept of omnipotence, since this one is flawed.

I'll say it again- omnipotence, if it is to coexist with logical laws, is only possibly true in concept. It cannot exist with logical laws in place, or has to bypass/ignore them.

For I think you might agree that omnipotence cannot possibly be the capacity to do anything when there is one thing impossible for even an omnipotent being to do.

Logically, yes. Please read my posts.

So I have to ask the question again: What is omnipotence?

Please answer the original question. We do not need a working definition of omnipotent because neither I nor you believe an omnipotent being to be logically possible. Talking about a being that can bypass the laws of logic is silly. Theists use it to make God even more unfalsifiable. In other words, it's useless to talk about a God who cannot be proven or disproven with either observable, repeatable, verifiable data or with logical analysis.
On that note, we need to get back to the more salient point- can a God create a world with free will despite knowing beforehand how every being would act? Not just this, but choosing a world among many, knowing how each being in that world would behave?
God would necessarily be deterministic if he had these attributes and made the world, as theists propose.

[Lion IRC]

I think the word omnipotent is pretty simple to understand. It isnt nuanced.

If you are going to call God Omnipotent – able to do ANYTHING, then by that definition, any subsequent claim that God MUST do this or must do that fails outright. An omnipotent being is neither compelled nor restrained.

Knowledge is power. And the ability - not the compulsion - to know a certain thing is just another ability on God's list of infinite abilities.

I resolve the so-called omnipotence/omniscience paradox easily enough by accepting that God equally has the ability to know and not to know.

[Faith No More]

I resolve the so-called omnipotence/omniscience paradox easily enough by accepting that God equally has the ability to know and not to know.

What the hell does that even mean?

[spockrates]

I have to apologize. I made a major revision of my post prior to you posting your response, but your response was to my original post.

Well... O.K.

I'm not sure your concept of omnipotence actually is real.

Only in concept is omnipotence possible. I have said this a couple times already.

For you said: "Omnipotence is the capacity to do anything." My question about this premise is this: Is it possible to have the capacity to make a being that is 100% honest 100% of the time and (at the same time) 100% dishonest 100% of the time?

No, it is logically contradictory. A truly omnipotent being would be able to ignore logical contradictions, but the repercussions would be dire.

So how can omnipotence be "the capacity to do anything," since this one thing not even any omnipotent being could do?

A being that could ignore the most basic logical laws could perform that action. Most people don't think of their God as basely illogical, hell, a-logical, when they describe him/it. Do you?

Thus, it seems we need a different concept of omnipotence, since this one is flawed.

I'll say it again- omnipotence, if it is to coexist with logical laws, is only possibly true in concept. It cannot exist with logical laws in place, or has to bypass/ignore them.

For I think you might agree that omnipotence cannot possibly be the capacity to do anything when there is one thing impossible for even an omnipotent being to do.

Logically, yes. Please read my posts.

So I have to ask the question again: What is omnipotence?

Please answer the original question. We do not need a working definition of omnipotent because neither I nor you believe an omnipotent being to be logically possible. Talking about a being that can bypass the laws of logic is silly. Theists use it to make God even more unfalsifiable. In other words, it's useless to talk about a God who cannot be proven or disproven with either observable, repeatable, verifiable data or with logical analysis. ...

You get no argument from me, there. If omnipotence is the ability to accomplish absolutely anything, no matter how logically contradictory, or absurd, then yes, I agree, any God who has this attribute is illogical and absurd, and should be rejected on those grounds. It would be illogical to believe in such a God.

[The Grand Nudger]

I propose we use the meaning of the word omnipotent that is not logically absurd. If we say, like some mistakenly believe, that omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then that means it is the power to make a person 100% honest 100% of the time and (at the same time) 100% dishonest 100% of the time. If we say omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then it would be the power to make a circle that is not only perfectly round, but also has four right angles at the same time. If we say omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then it would be the power to make an object that is completely white and completely black at the same time. Such propositions are self-contradictory, illogical and absurd!

So I don't see anyway it is logically possible for omnipotence to be the power to do absolutely anything at all--no matter how utterly ridiculous it is. What I suggest is that omnipotence is instead the power to do anything that is not self-contradictory, is not illogical and is not absurd. Would you agree with this definition of the word? Or do you think it nonsensical for me to make such a suggestion?

Sounds fine and dandy. On that note, while some waste their time worshipping a creature constrained by logic I'll spend my time feeling awe and reverence for the thing that gave rise to those "laws of logic"...since they're clearly superior than this god creature to begin with. fewer bullshit fairy tale attachments, no fucking ridiculous commandments. Lets start making your god tales consistent with logic btw, would you like to do that? I doubt it very much. I think this is a tactic used only within a narrow scope to evade an argument for which the original proponents of these god's powers were completely and utterly ignorant of (not that they should have been...because the argument against omnipotence is older than the christian god to begin with).

[Skepsis]

:BOUNCE-BALL:

Can I expect an answer to my original question anytime soon, on free will of individuals?

---

Stop the presses!

Thank you. I'd say that I don't see how knowing what someone will do is the same as making someone do. For example, let's say I live in the 1980s and create a time machine. I travel to the year 2000 and learn that a guy named Bill Gates has created a corporation called Microsoft that has made hundreds of millions. I travel back to the 1980s and invest in Microsoft and make a fortune. Now, my knowing Bill Gates would create a corporation that was successful does not mean that I caused Bill Gates to do this.

I didn't notice that you did answer this. Sorry I missed it.

Just knowing beforehand doesn't cause this to happen, you're exactly right. But If you created a world knowing beforehand that Bill Gates would make billions and setting it in motion to achieve that outcome, (rather than another outcome that could arise from the infinite other universes God was capable of creating) then I would say that Bill Gate's free will is nothing but an illusion in that world. He might think he is choosing to do things, but the choices were already made when God created the universe in which he now exists.