Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Presumably to continue and allow his creation to have free will, perhaps the third best gift ever given to man.

Is it, though? In the universe created by your god, exercising free will leads to much suffering during our lifetimes, and eternal suffering for a great many people afterwards. Had he designed us to be incapable of sin, every one of us would enjoy an eternity by his side in heaven.

In this context, what is the value of being able to choose? What good is it to have been capable of sin? Wouldn't we be better off with just the one choice?

In a similar vein, God could still have given humans free will and prevented sin by using his omniscience to permit the creation of only those people who would always - of their own free will - behave in a manner pleasing to God.

Boru

[Sheldon]

I am not an expert in superstition of course, or theology if you want to pretend, but it seems to me that the more autonomy or choice any entity has, the more culpable that entity must be for its actions. It's impossible to imagine more autonomy or freedom of choice than an entity that was both omniscient and omnipotent. Of course apologists usually offer omnipotent lite as a desperate rationalisation, to try and pretend limitless power has limits, but this doesn't help, as the notion of both omnipotence and omniscience inevitably violate the law of non contradiction, it cannot be otherwise. 

Now, @TheWhiteMarten, I have asked several times, can you demonstrate anything approaching any objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural, or that these ideas are even possible? I have noticed over the years, how reticent apologists become when anyone asks this. And to avoid semantics, all those words are in the dictionary for you.

[Belacqua]

It's impossible to imagine more autonomy or freedom of choice than an entity that was both omniscient and omnipotent.

I understand that you're not interested in studying theology at all. But since the time of Plato philosophers have answered this question in a way that you haven't thought of. 

To a theologian, the way you are imagining God is a blatant straw man. If you were to be serious about discussing religion someday you could learn about these things.

[h4ym4n]

6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.


You know god loathes you?

It tells you this right in the front of the book you don’t read or understand.

Bro... :lol:

Appreciate that one, that was good. Sometimes it's worth it.

Check mate

[The Architect Of Fate]

I understand that you're not interested in studying theology at all. But since the time of Plato philosophers have answered this question in a way that you haven't thought of. 

I how you can't offer criticism yourself and all you can do is say someone else has 

To a theologian, the way you are imagining God is a blatant straw man. If you were to be serious about discussing religion someday you could learn about these things.

Again I love how you can't offer up a valid criticism yourself and just scream "strawman " and declare him ignorant.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I am not an expert in superstition of course, or theology if you want to pretend, but it seems to me that the more autonomy or choice any entity has, the more culpable that entity must be for its actions. It's impossible to imagine more autonomy or freedom of choice than an entity that was both omniscient and omnipotent. Of course apologists usually offer omnipotent lite as a desperate rationalisation, to try and pretend limitless power has limits, but this doesn't help, as the notion of both omnipotence and omniscience inevitably violate the law of non contradiction, it cannot be otherwise. 

Now, @TheWhiteMarten, I have asked several times, can you demonstrate anything approaching any objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural, or that these ideas are even possible? I have noticed over the years, how reticent apologists become when anyone asks this. And to avoid semantics, all those words are in the dictionary for you.

But remember your a big dummy dumb according to Bel who can't seem to muster an actual criticism himself

[Sheldon]

It's impossible to imagine more autonomy or freedom of choice than an entity that was both omniscient and omnipotent.

I understand that you're not interested in studying theology at all. But since the time of Plato philosophers have answered this question in a way that you haven't thought of. 

It'd be refreshing if you actually posted one, that you presumably think addresses my point, rather making assumptions and name dropping. Of course were these innate contradictions addressed, this on it's own would not remotely evidence a deity, or that a deity is even possible. 

As for studying theology, well how much time have you spent studying dragon husbandry? Now I don't like to make assumptions about people, so my apologies if you're an expert, but if you knew fuck all about this, and someone claimed they'd bread dragons, but they were invisible and undetectable in any objective or empirical way, would you be rushing off to dedicate your life to the topic? 

If someone makes a claim, it is incumbent on them to epistemologically justify those claims. Now of course if I deny known facts through ignorance, as creationists are want to do for example, then that is a different matter. However if there is a broad consensus based on objective evidence that an omniscient and omnipotent deity is possible, by all means offer some citations, rather than vaguely and sententiously pointing to theological and philosophical study over millennia, as merely name dropping makes you some sort of expert.

FYI on its own...how long an idea or belief has existed, tells us no more about the validity or truth of it, than the number of people who hold a belief. 

To a theologian, the way you are imagining God is a blatant straw man.

1. I didn't imagine anything. 
2. I assigned no claim to theologians.
3. It's those that are both straw men.
4. The claim for omniscient and omnipotent deity, is one I have personally addressed from various apologists of various faiths. 
5. That my experiences in 4 isn't universal among theists and or deists is a given, nor did I remotely imply otherwise.

If you were to be serious about discussing religion someday you could learn about these things.

Fuck you, you arrogant self opinionated cock. 

Well done, you finally exhausted even my patience with your sententious 3rd rate name dropping, and endlessly irrational and facile responses. I actually felt a little sorry for you when I started here, as I thought people were being unnecessarily harsh, mea culpa maxima, my profound apologies to them for that assumption.

[Sheldon]

I am not an expert in superstition of course, or theology if you want to pretend, but it seems to me that the more autonomy or choice any entity has, the more culpable that entity must be for its actions. It's impossible to imagine more autonomy or freedom of choice than an entity that was both omniscient and omnipotent. Of course apologists usually offer omnipotent lite as a desperate rationalisation, to try and pretend limitless power has limits, but this doesn't help, as the notion of both omnipotence and omniscience inevitably violate the law of non contradiction, it cannot be otherwise. 

Now, @TheWhiteMarten, I have asked several times, can you demonstrate anything approaching any objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural, or that these ideas are even possible? I have noticed over the years, how reticent apologists become when anyone asks this. And to avoid semantics, all those words are in the dictionary for you.

But remember your a big dummy dumb according to Bel who can't seem to muster an actual criticism himself

I am a big dummy, or if one prefers a middling intellect, with a mediocre formal education. However he never actually addresses what I have said, and can't avoid sententious posturing and name dropping, without actually offering any depth or valid criticism. 

1. Dropped Plato's name in, check.
2. Pointed out I knew fuck all about [philosophy, check. 
3. Implying he does, check. 
4. Never actually addressed any specifics, check. 



It's beyond tedious now, and I no longer have the patience to indulge what has all the appearance of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Paleophyte]

Is that why he dooms people to hell if they don't believe in him? Some free will there! "Think as I command or suffer for eternity!"

People doom themselves to hell when they choose to reject a place in God's presence, and yet again atheists struggle with even the most basic of concepts and think themselves master theologians.

Pathetic victim blaming concocted centuries after your savior got himself tacked up so that his legend would have some purpose. We all know who wrote the rules according to your mythos.

[Paleophyte]

I understand that you're not interested in studying theology at all. But since the time of Plato philosophers have answered this question in a way that you haven't thought of.

And there's Bel with his passive-aggressive mind-reading act. Philosophy: the study of everything that Plato got wrong.