Epicurus riddle.

[Drich]

Two questions from this religious test suffice to explode dripshit's vision of his wonderful fucking god.

3. You are a product tester and frequently bring your work home. Yesterday, while dressed in a flame resistant suit (up to 3,000 degrees) and carrying the latest model fire extinguisher, you discover your neighbor's house is on fire. As the flames quickly spread, you stand and watch your neighbor's new baby burn to death. Which of the following best describes your behavior?

a. All-powerful
b. All-knowing
c. All-loving
d. Mysterious


7. You are the Creator of the universe. Your chosen people are a tribe of nomadic herdsmen, presently in bondage on one of the millions of your planets. Their ruler is being quite obstinate. Keeping in mind that you possess not only infinite power but also infinite love, your best course of action would be to:

a. Cause the ruler to drop dead of a heart attack
b. Cause the ruler to fall off a cliff
c. Visit the ruler in a dream and persuade him to let your people go
d. Slaughter a great number of innocent babies who had nothing to do with the ruler's policies


Takes a really sick fuck to defend such a 'god' Drippy.

3 Answer: E The story above shows only a single person's perspective who has very limited view and understanding of how the world actually works, and is making a judgement based on an appeal to emotion rather than reality and all the available facts.. for instance fire suits maybe heat resistant, but what good do they do when the wearer can not breath? That is why firemen also are equipped with respirators to go with their heat resistant suits. The two are not integrated so the simply presence of a suit does not mean the wear will be equipped with an air supply. But, stupid people don't know this and very stupid people would fail to make an allowance for such a thing in their no win senerio allowing for someone equipped with a basic level of common sense to crap all over them.

7 Answer: E Allow the striff and struggle of said rebellious leader to cause great grief and put up the strongest fight he can, because the people of that day see that douche bag as a god. So you as God then systematically de-ball Mr. Leader/god in every single aspect of power he is supposed to have, showing your self (GOD) and your people as being far stronger than said leader and his 'world' dominating nation, So that when they leave (having destroyed the most powerful nation in the world at that time) other smaller nation/states will fear them and their God and not attack them in the desert when they will be at their weakest.

[Drich]

Oh boy, I forgot about Jesus bringing thought crime as well as hell. I've been going too soft on Christianity lately.

It must really, really suck to believe this stuff. To believe your lord and master is marking you down for thoughts that simply cross your mind? Man, that would just about do me in.

How many times do we have to go over the same thing???

ATTONEMENT Means their is no Judgment for those who are in Christ.

The law Judges the unsaved only!

This means "Thought crime" Is Your Problem NOT Ours.

Paul tells us in Romans the Law is only used to identify sin/push people to seek atonement, once we have it the law no longer applies!

[Drich]

Yeah, it's stupid. It wasn't a sacrifice at all, it was a charade. The idea that he requires a sacrifice to himself in order to allow himself to not be such a dick is about the stupidest story I've ever heard. And he didn't sacrifice shit. Probably why it didn't work and things still suck as always.

Once in a while when I was a theist starting to have my doubts, I would wonder: "What if the Jesus was really Divine, but  people killed him and then they used 'he died for our sins' as an excuse for murdering god.  Matthew/Mark/Luke/John were just apologists for murdering God being the right thing to do."

I think this SMBC comic sums up what I'm trying to say pretty well:

So.. when you were a 'christian' you never read the old testament? Did you not see the model of atonement played out in the blood sacrifice? had you never read the book of Isaiah?

[Drich]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Opinions on this riddle?

A knock-down argument against the Abrahamic God.

how so?

[Cecelia]

So.. when you were a 'christian' you never read the old testament? Did you not see the model of atonement played out in the blood sacrifice? had you never read the book of Isaiah?

I read both the New and Old Testament.  The more I read of them, the less I believed them.  At first my doubts were on the veracity of the bible, and the bible alone.  I figured that God existed, but the Bible was full of lies.  Too much of it made absolutely no sense to me.  Even metaphorically.  The idea that Death is a result of sin is ridiculous, especially considering that evolution is the best explanation for how we came to be.   Eventually I realized that if the bible is full of lies, there's no reason to believe Jesus was god at all.

[Minimalist]

Like I said, drippy.  Takes a really sick fuck to defend such a "god."   You need to see a shrink and get some medication.

[Joods]

Isn't the free will argument just a poor attempt at passing the buck? I mean the question asked is where does evil come from and they reply free will, but free will also comes from their god so their god still created evil.

And i think the bible also says their god created evil.

doesn't this discussion still beg the question of the possibility of the existence of a non-anthropomorphic god?

If it's been said already, apologies, but please read the rules regarding necro posting.

EDIT to add: especially if the person necroing it has no intention of further participating in the revived thread.

[Mudhammam]

A knock-down argument against the Abrahamic God.

how so?

Because it demonstrates the incompatibility of empirical observation with the claim that there exists a deity whom is both summum bonum and all-powerful, which of course eliminates the God of Judaism and its offshoots.

[Ivan Denisovich]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Opinions on this riddle?

Knockout in the first round. Epicurus already said all that was to say about benevolence of something called god.

[robvalue]

Indeed. The only evidence we have contradicts the explanation being given. Epic fail at the first hurdle. Knee smashed to bits. Won't compete for the rest of the season.

Yet sustains minor concussion. Does not know he is out of the race. Continues to slide slowly along, and crawls beneath each other hurdle, under the delusion that he's about to become world champion.