God cannot be an omnipotent person

Al G. Funguy
atheist
Posts: 33
Joined: 2012-01-13
User is offlineOffline
God cannot be an omnipotent person

As von Mises argues in http://mises.org/books/ultimate.pdf

"Natural theology saw the characteristic mark of deity in freedom from the limitations of the human mind and the human will. Deity is omniscient and almighty. But in elaborating these ideas the philosophers failed to see that a concept of deity that implies an acting God, that is, a God behaving in the way man behaves in acting, is self-contradictory. Man acts because he is dissatisfied with the state of affairs as it prevails in the absence of his intervention. Man acts because he lacks the power to render conditions fully satisfactory and must resort to appropriate means in order to render them less unsatisfactory. But for an almighty supreme being there cannot be any dissatisfaction with the prevailing state of affairs. The Almighty does not act, because there is no state of affairs that he cannot render fully satisfactory without any action, i.e., without resorting to any means. For Him there is no such thing as a distinction between ends and means. It is anthropomorphism to ascribe action to God. Starting from the limitations of his human nature, man's discursive reasoning can never circumscribe and define the essence of omnipotence."

 

Thus, if God exists, he cannot be an omnipotent person.

Either

1) He's just a rather powerful person, not worthy of awe but maybe still worth trying to appease. There could easily be extraterrestrial entities that are greater than him.

or

2) He's more like a catatonic vegetable. It is absurd to think of him as acting and having values or goals and plans like a human being does. There's no reason to expect that you can influence him through prayer or please him through good acts, like you might try to influence or please your neighbor.

 


rogersherrer
Theist
rogersherrer's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-09-22
User is offlineOffline
 Well of course not, the

 Well of course not, the statement itself is self-contradictory. 

person-A human being regarded as an individual

God cannot be an omnipotent person because God is not a person, he is a God. That's like saying bears cannot be large horses. Whether or not you believe in a higher power or not is irrelevant, because your definition of a transcendent being is incorrect. 

"Part of the broader task of Christian scholarship is to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women."
-~William Lane Craig~-


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Regardless of

rogersherrer wrote:

 Well of course not, the statement itself is self-contradictory. 

person-A human being regarded as an individual

God cannot be an omnipotent person because God is not a person, he is a God. That's like saying bears cannot be large horses. Whether or not you believe in a higher power or not is irrelevant, because your definition of a transcendent being is incorrect. 

 

the OP, I'd be keen to hear you describe some coherent characteristics of a 'transcendent being' that are not naked assertions, Roger. 

I'd be keen on your description of the nature of Jesus before the crucifixion. Was he man, god - both?  

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


rogersherrer
Theist
rogersherrer's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-09-22
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

rogersherrer wrote:

 Well of course not, the statement itself is self-contradictory. 

person-A human being regarded as an individual

God cannot be an omnipotent person because God is not a person, he is a God. That's like saying bears cannot be large horses. Whether or not you believe in a higher power or not is irrelevant, because your definition of a transcendent being is incorrect. 

I'd be keen on your description of the nature of Jesus before the crucifixion. Was he man, god - both?  

 

I don't think the original post is referring to the son of God, but instead a deity or creator. Looking at the trinity, Jesus Christ was not the creator of the universe. With that said, let's look at "God" from a more broad view. Not necessarily Yahweh, Christ, or any other religious title, but a higher power who created the universe. The OP to me was describing a transcendent being, and not a title for Him or anything doctrinal. If my inference is hasty, don't be afraid to tell me where I'm wrong. 

"Part of the broader task of Christian scholarship is to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women."
-~William Lane Craig~-


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi again

rogersherrer wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

rogersherrer wrote:

 Well of course not, the statement itself is self-contradictory. 

person-A human being regarded as an individual

God cannot be an omnipotent person because God is not a person, he is a God. That's like saying bears cannot be large horses. Whether or not you believe in a higher power or not is irrelevant, because your definition of a transcendent being is incorrect. 

I'd be keen on your description of the nature of Jesus before the crucifixion. Was he man, god - both?  

 

I don't think the original post is referring to the son of God, but instead a deity or creator. Looking at the trinity, Jesus Christ was not the creator of the universe. With that said, let's look at "God" from a more broad view. Not necessarily Yahweh, Christ, or any other religious title, but a higher power who created the universe. The OP to me was describing a transcendent being, and not a title for Him or anything doctrinal. If my inference is hasty, don't be afraid to tell me where I'm wrong. 

 

I get you, Roger.

The issue I have is with claiming such and such definition of a transcendent being is flawed, given this quality is bizarrely described as something that is 'not of the physical world' and must therefore be opaque to our senses and conceptualization. In other words, unknowable. Sure, a physical person cannot be described as being outside of the material world but it seems to me a hypothetical external first cause cannot be described in this way, either. The word 'transcendence' is a label that when teased off reveals a hidden appeal to complexity.

I brought Jesus into this, although it does not relate to the OP directly, because in my evangelical protestant upbringing this individual was claimed to be both god and man. The bible certainly supports the contention Jesus was god. "In the beginning was the word and the word was made flesh and dwelt among us," writes John. Further, Jesus was purported to say, "Before Abraham was, I am", "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" and the "Father is in me and I in him". In Colossians Paul writes of Jesus "By Him all things were created". To Timothy he writes "God was made manifest in the flesh". And Thomas says after being berated for empiricism, "My lord, my god."

So - was Jesus god or was Jesus human? Can a human being or a 'human' god be transcendental, or is this impossible label no more than a philosophical broomstick that unseats the fundamentally human nature of the Trinity and of Jesus? Trinitarianism is such a curious and unwieldy construct. Surely this bizarre edifice is replete with the artifacts of the past. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
William Lane Craig Dude

Hey,

The "theist" with the william lane craig picture, you do realize that william lane craig is going to hell right? He denies sola scriptura and is  a heretic closet Roman Catholic.

Just a heads up, advice from him is foolish, Craig is a major loon.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


rogersherrer
Theist
rogersherrer's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-09-22
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hey,The

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey,

The "theist" with the william lane craig picture, you do realize that william lane craig is going to hell right? He denies sola scriptura and is  a heretic closet Roman Catholic.

Just a heads up, advice from him is foolish, Craig is a major loon.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

A closet Roman Catholic? That's a pretty big accusation Jean, I would love to see your evidence for this statement. I've heard him say multiple times that he respects the Catholic Church and it's tradition, but objects to issues that deal with Sola Scripture, salvation through faith vs merit, and the Catholic doctrine when it comes to Mary. As I said before, I'm eager to see what basis you have for the assumption of Dr. Craig being a "heretic closet Roman Catholic". I also read your previous post in another thread about taking a class taught by Dr. Craig. Where was it, what was the class, and what year? I'm not asking to come off as snarky or that I don't believe you, it's just that I have also taken a class under Dr. Craig. My picture of him and his teachings were completely opposite of yours afterwards, which is why I'm interested on your previous experience with him.

As for him going to hell, that certainly isn't a judgment I would want to make on somebody who makes a living arguing for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and the Judeo-Christian God. I believe in theistic evolution, the big bang theory, and the polio vaccine, does this mean that I will be damned to hell? I don't know much about your background Jean, but I'm not sure I agree with you that disputing one specific doctrinal issue (if he even did hypotethically) sends one to eternal damnation. Do you not believe that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone? If not, I'm eager to hear your interpretation on how one received Heaven. Faith and works? No matter what a person does, I can never find myself saying that they will definitively burn in hell because their interpretation of scripture differs from mine. Even though we can dissect a person's actions or opinions, we can never know the spiritual aspect of their lives. That goes for anybody, not just one certain Christian apologist who you happen to dispute.

"Part of the broader task of Christian scholarship is to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women."
-~William Lane Craig~-


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

rogersherrer wrote:

I believe in theistic evolution [and] the big bang theory ...

You know, after debating AtheistsNightmare on young earth creationism, reading those words makes it all worthwhile.  Hey, you should help us talk some sense into him; he thinks the earth is 6,000 years old, and doesn't believe in the big bang or evolution.  I think I told him about theistic evolution -- I don't remember. 


rogersherrer
Theist
rogersherrer's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-09-22
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

rogersherrer wrote:

I believe in theistic evolution [and] the big bang theory ...

You know, after debating AtheistsNightmare on young earth creationism, reading those words makes it all worthwhile.  Hey, you should help us talk some sense into him; he thinks the earth is 6,000 years old, and doesn't believe in the big bang or evolution.  I think I told him about theistic evolution -- I don't remember. 

When examining the arguments (or lack thereof) for a young Earth, to me it rivals the flat Earth society. In my opinion, it gives Christianity a bad name as anti-scientific when people say you cannot believe in evolution in order to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ. On the contrary actually, as natural selection and the big bang only strengthen my faith in a higher power. Examining the book of Job in the old testament, I'm surprised that we don't have an "Answers in Job" website arguing the existence of pillars that hold up our planet. People like Ken Ham and Inmate Hovind do not help our cause by selling snake oil as scientific peer reviewed evidence. Instead, they become unfortunate caricatures and strawmen for the Christian faith.

I am impressed though that there is even one person on RR that has attempted to argue that the world is merely thousands of years old. Which thread is it Philosophicus? I'd love to see his/her recylced points and the "evidence" for them. There's a reason why the vast majority of effective Christian apologists (Craig, Collins, McGrath, Lennox, D'Souza, Lewis) dismiss YEC as merely wishful thinking. Dr. Alister McGrath and Francis Collins are two of my favorites who have written books on the compatibility of evolution and a faith in the Holy Bible. Dr. Craig has said he is agnostic on the subject of evolution, but certainly does not dispute the idea that it easily goes hand in hand with God. C.S. Lewis was a firm believer in theistic evolution, and arguably the greatest apologist for Christianity we have seen.

"Part of the broader task of Christian scholarship is to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women."
-~William Lane Craig~-


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
rogersherrer wrote:No matter

rogersherrer wrote:

No matter what a person does, I can never find myself saying that they will definitively burn in hell because their interpretation of scripture differs from mine.

All right, but what happens to me (an atheist) when I die?

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10369
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I am impressed though that

"I am impressed though that there is even one person on RR that has attempted to argue that the world is merely thousands of years old."

Pick 50 random topics in atheist vs theist. You'll likely find at least half of them contain at least one YEC (young earth creationist).

Congrats on being in the minority of theists who have a brain they are willing to use. My estimation is that you are quite rare. Just don't expect me to believe or care about things that primitive cultures made up to answer questions they couldn't answer.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

rogersherrer wrote:

I am impressed though that there is even one person on RR that has attempted to argue that the world is merely thousands of years old. Which thread is it Philosophicus? I'd love to see his/her recylced points and the "evidence" for them.

His thread is called Fallacies of Evolution Require Extreme Faith

 


rogersherrer
Theist
rogersherrer's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-09-22
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

rogersherrer wrote:

No matter what a person does, I can never find myself saying that they will definitively burn in hell because their interpretation of scripture differs from mine.

All right, but what happens to me (an atheist) when I die?

 

There's a difference between having a different view on one specific doctrinal issue and completely disregarding/denying the entire Bible as myths and fairy tales. The fact that Dr. Craig has clearly accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as his savior wholeheartedly is what puzzles me about Jean's judgment.

As for the question "where do atheists go when they die?", to me it's obvious that the answer is not Heaven. If you knowingly reject the bible and the gift of salvation, then you do not deserve it's rewards. With that said, I would never find myself personally casting that judgment on another person because in the end, the Bible states that it isn't my decision to decide that fate.

"Part of the broader task of Christian scholarship is to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women."
-~William Lane Craig~-


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
rogersherrer wrote: Well of

rogersherrer wrote:

 Well of course not, the statement itself is self-contradictory. 

person-A human being regarded as an individual

God cannot be an omnipotent person because God is not a person, he is a God. That's like saying bears cannot be large horses. Whether or not you believe in a higher power or not is irrelevant, because your definition of a transcendent being is incorrect. 

If God has limits and cannot do or be something, then you cannot call it "all powerful". "all" means no limits, so it would have to have the capability of being a person at the same time as being a God.

But let me clue you in on something, there is no god, there never was, not yours not any. Humans simply make up gods because the idea of having a super parent is appealing to them and it is also a way to ignore psychologically one's own finite existence

In "The God Delusion" By Richard Dawkins he describes this placebo gap filling as the moth mistaking the light bulb for the moonlight.

There is a very evolutionary reason that humans default to gaps. The antelope on the African plains doesn't always have time to asses whether the tall grass is moving because of wind, or if it is being moved by a stalking lion.

Centering around a false belief CAN produce the social trait of safety in numbers. The Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years falsely believing the sun was a god.

Deity claims are merely our own projection of our own wishful thinking.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


rogersherrer
Theist
rogersherrer's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-09-22
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:rogersherrer

Brian37 wrote:

rogersherrer wrote:

 Well of course not, the statement itself is self-contradictory. 

person-A human being regarded as an individual

God cannot be an omnipotent person because God is not a person, he is a God. That's like saying bears cannot be large horses. Whether or not you believe in a higher power or not is irrelevant, because your definition of a transcendent being is incorrect. 

If God has limits and cannot do or be something, then you cannot call it "all powerful". "all" means no limits, so it would have to have the capability of being a person at the same time as being a God.

But let me clue you in on something, there is no god, there never was, not yours not any. Humans simply make up gods because the idea of having a super parent is appealing to them and it is also a way to ignore psychologically one's own finite existence

In "The God Delusion" By Richard Dawkins he describes this placebo gap filling as the moth mistaking the light bulb for the moonlight.

There is a very evolutionary reason that humans default to gaps. The antelope on the African plains doesn't always have time to asses whether the tall grass is moving because of wind, or if it is being moved by a stalking lion.

Centering around a false belief CAN produce the social trait of safety in numbers. The Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years falsely believing the sun was a god.

Deity claims are merely our own projection of our own wishful thinking.

 

 

I understand your first sentence, but I'm not sure I see the relevancy of the rest of your post. Whether or not God is necessarily real, the point I'm making doesn't require his existence. The original poster asked if God could be an omnipotent person, completely hypothetically. I responded that if God is real, by definition he would not be human. I obviously dispute the rest of your post, but it's a red herring to me.

"Part of the broader task of Christian scholarship is to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women."
-~William Lane Craig~-


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:f you knowingly

Quote:
f you knowingly reject the bible and the gift of salvation, then you do not deserve it's rewards. With that said, I would never find myself personally casting that judgment on another person

I knowingly reject it because it is a book of myth, just like you reject the Koran and just like you reject the Rig Vedas.  The bible is a  book written over 40 books with even more left out, written by 40 authors over 1,000 year period. Genesis alone is laughable as far as science. It magically pops an adult man out of dirt. Magically pops an adult woman out of BONE. It treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light.

Not to mention it takes TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a human baby, which puts a damper on the virgin birth story. And since I know what rigor mortis is, that puts a damper on the story of the alleged Jesus Character's death.

The bible is not a gift at all, it is a shackle on humanity, just like all human made up superstitions.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's nice Roger accepts

 

rogersherrer wrote:

As for the question "where do atheists go when they die?", to me it's obvious that the answer is not Heaven. If you knowingly reject the bible and the gift of salvation, then you do not deserve it's rewards. With that said, I would never find myself personally casting that judgment on another person because in the end, the Bible states that it isn't my decision to decide that fate.

 

the veracity of evolutionary theory but he spoils it with this stuff. On the basis of no evidence whatsoever he accepts the fallacious appeal to force contained at the heart of judaism, islam and christianity - you must believe this flock of untestable assertions or you will die. By default Roger must agree with the foolery in Genesis that proposes with no supporting evidence, that all humans are born 'fallen' and deserving to die. A punishment not for sin but for the 'crime' of existence. Here, in its core moral inconsistency, is the black heart of monotheism I so bitterly oppose.  

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


rogersherrer
Theist
rogersherrer's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-09-22
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

rogersherrer wrote:

As for the question "where do atheists go when they die?", to me it's obvious that the answer is not Heaven. If you knowingly reject the bible and the gift of salvation, then you do not deserve it's rewards. With that said, I would never find myself personally casting that judgment on another person because in the end, the Bible states that it isn't my decision to decide that fate.

 

the veracity of evolutionary theory but he spoils it with this stuff. On the basis of no evidence whatsoever he accepts the fallacious appeal to force contained at the heart of judaism, islam and christianity - you must believe this flock of untestable assertions or you will die. By default Roger must agree with the foolery in Genesis that proposes with no supporting evidence, that all humans are born 'fallen' and deserving to die. A punishment not for sin but for the 'crime' of existence. Here, in its core moral inconsistency, is the black heart of monotheism I so bitterly oppose.  

 

If God is all loving, then how could he send people to hell? I confess that this question for me as a Christian is one of the hardest issues. No Christian likes the doctrine of hell. I truly wish with all my heart that universal salvation were true. But to pretend that people are not sinful and in need of salvation would be as cruel and deceptive as pretending that somebody was healthy even though you knew that he had a fatal disease for which you knew the cure. In order to receive forgiveness, we need to place our trust in Christ as our Savior and the Lord of our lives. But if we reject Christ, then we reject God's mercy and fall back on His justice. And you know where you stand there. If we reject Jesus' offer of forgiveness, then there is simply is no one else to pay the penalty for your sin--except yourself. The issue I think as Christians is not whether we like the doctrine of hell; the issue is whether the doctrine is possibly true. I believe that no inconsistency exists between the Christian conceptions of God and hell. If you or Brian are to maintain that they are inconsistent, then the burden of proof rests upon your shoulders.

Also, I noticed that both of you mentioned Genesis in your posts. To me, Genesis is one of the most fascinating and relevant books in the Bible, if read appropriately.  A big question for me when I first converted to Christ was what to make of the book of Genesis. I think that while I take the Bible as true, I also use common sense and realize that the entire old testament is not meant to be taken literally. Figurative languages from metaphors to everything else can be found in both the old and new testament. The originator of the Adam and Eve story had no way of telling why we behave the way we do. And yet he identified with remarkable insight the root of the problem. He knew that the real source of our sinful tendencies lay within us and not in external influences. Regardless of how the environment and social conditions might be improved, important and helpful though these could be, he knew that such remedies only scratch the surface; man lives in the grip of an irresistible influence which dooms to failure all his attempts to live selflessly as God's representative on earth. Whether one chooses to ascribe that influence to the actions of someone in the past called Adam, or to the actions of ancestral ape-like creatures, seems to me immaterial. The message is the same: the source of sin lies within each one of us. It doesn't have to be a literal story in order to be true. I read the Bible every day, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to believe in outlandish theories such as "the Earth is 6,000 years old" in order to keep my Holy book literal. To me, that simply sounds like grasping at straws.

 I think it's important to note how much we actually agree when it comes to science and life in general. You believe in the theory of evolution, I believe in the theory of evolution. Obviously, the key difference being that I think this extreme improbability of circumstances was carried out by a higher power. The magnificent and flabbergasting fine tuning of our universe has a cause of it's complexity, and that cause is God.

 

"Part of the broader task of Christian scholarship is to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women."
-~William Lane Craig~-


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
rogersherrer wrote:Brian37

rogersherrer wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

rogersherrer wrote:

 Well of course not, the statement itself is self-contradictory. 

person-A human being regarded as an individual

God cannot be an omnipotent person because God is not a person, he is a God. That's like saying bears cannot be large horses. Whether or not you believe in a higher power or not is irrelevant, because your definition of a transcendent being is incorrect. 

If God has limits and cannot do or be something, then you cannot call it "all powerful". "all" means no limits, so it would have to have the capability of being a person at the same time as being a God.

But let me clue you in on something, there is no god, there never was, not yours not any. Humans simply make up gods because the idea of having a super parent is appealing to them and it is also a way to ignore psychologically one's own finite existence

In "The God Delusion" By Richard Dawkins he describes this placebo gap filling as the moth mistaking the light bulb for the moonlight.

There is a very evolutionary reason that humans default to gaps. The antelope on the African plains doesn't always have time to asses whether the tall grass is moving because of wind, or if it is being moved by a stalking lion.

Centering around a false belief CAN produce the social trait of safety in numbers. The Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years falsely believing the sun was a god.

Deity claims are merely our own projection of our own wishful thinking.

 

 

I understand your first sentence, but I'm not sure I see the relevancy of the rest of your post. Whether or not God is necessarily real, the point I'm making doesn't require his existence. The original poster asked if God could be an omnipotent person, completely hypothetically. I responded that if God is real, by definition he would not be human. I obviously dispute the rest of your post, but it's a red herring to me.

None of it is a "red herring" It is simple logic.

ALL cannot by definition have limits.  That is just on the aspect of claiming "all powerful" as an attribute,  Either way "all" means the capability of either/or AND BOTH even at the same time, which in reality is a logical absurdity.

Humans make up gods, period. Nothing hard to understand about that or "red herring" about that.

Nothing outside of biological evolution thinks. Thoughts require a material process. They are not things themselves just like running is not a thing, but  a word we use to describe the physical process of legs moving faster in a forward motion. "Thoughts" is merely a word we use to describe the communication results of the brain in action, just like running describes the motion of legs.

God as a concept is absurd, but it is ALSO a scientific absurdity. AND on top of that ESPECIALLY the traditional religions have books written an an ignorant antiquity so anything those books claim is bull.

The earth is 4 billion years old and the universe is 14 billion years old. And on top of that we are stuck on a violent planet full of disease, war and crime, and death, which has never stopped in our evolution. And we cant even get off this rock.

You'd have me believe in a god after all that time, ineptitude and cruelty? If you want to see yourself as a lab rat or toy or minion merely there to suck up to someone, you can. I see life for what it is, not a stupid fantasy written by scientifically ignorant people.

Here is he reality you don't want to face. 1 billion years ago there were no humans, there were no gods for humans to make up. 20 billion years from now, no one will remember you or me or any of the gods invented by humans. When our species goes extinct all our myths will die with us because there wont be any future generation for humans to sell their myths too. The planet will eventually die and all life on it and the universe will continue without us.

I am sorry that scares you, but that is reality, not some ancient book of myth. It doesn't scare me at all because it frees me up to worry about myself and do the best I can NOW and enjoy my life now, without stressing out about things that cannot be changed because of selfish narcissistic whims.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
rogersherrer wrote:If God is

rogersherrer wrote:

If God is all loving, then how could he send people to hell? I confess that this question for me as a Christian is one of the hardest issues. No Christian likes the doctrine of hell. I truly wish with all my heart that universal salvation were true. But to pretend that people are not sinful and in need of salvation would be as cruel and deceptive as pretending that somebody was healthy even though you knew that he had a fatal disease for which you knew the cure. In order to receive forgiveness, we need to place our trust in Christ as our Savior and the Lord of our lives. But if we reject Christ, then we reject God's mercy and fall back on His justice. And you know where you stand there. If we reject Jesus' offer of forgiveness, then there is simply is no one else to pay the penalty for your sin--except yourself. The issue I think as Christians is not whether we like the doctrine of hell; the issue is whether the doctrine is possibly true. I believe that no inconsistency exists between the Christian conceptions of God and hell. If you or Brian are to maintain that they are inconsistent, then the burden of proof rests upon your shoulders.

Um, dude, this entire section is copied almost word-for-word from one of William Lane Craig's debates. I mean, there's nothing wrong with using other people's writing, but you should really give them credit.

Here are two links if anyone wants proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-EP6LVhYOc&feature=related

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-bradley1.html

 

rogersherrer wrote:

As for the question "where do atheists go when they die?", to me it's obvious that the answer is not Heaven. If you knowingly reject the bible and the gift of salvation, then you do not deserve it's rewards. With that said, I would never find myself personally casting that judgment on another person because in the end, the Bible states that it isn't my decision to decide that fate.

So, are you saying that Hell is simply "not Heaven"?

 


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Roger

Hi Roger,

lol, wow. Just wow. William Lane Craig is a wolf in sheeps clothing. He hangs out with Craig Hazen, Greg Koukel (who i debated apologetics methods and Roman Catholicism being a cult) Roman Geisler among many more roman/"protestant" "wolves"

He fervantly is well known for his position of middle knowledge a Roman Catholic doctrine that HE HIMSELF admits can be found in the origins of the jesuits and the counterreformation. I personally took a semester under William Lane Craig for the purposes to ask him questions and to study him at Biola University in Southern California. I had lunch with him, and everything. He personally told me that he denies sola scriptura, so for him to contradict it and with the sex fest he has with Roman thinking it's no wonder he's a liar.

Middle knowledge has to do with foreknowledge which was what the class was primarily about in relation to time.

Since Craig told me, and since consistency applied middle knowledge denies the fundamental orthodox teaching of sola scriptura, William Lane Craig is a heretic and is going to hell.

I also met Bob Pastiano however you spell his name before he died, grectchen never knew which is a funny story.

Bob is the one that put together for craig the Great Debate in 86 or whenever. we were up until 7 in the morning i arrived at about 11 talking and discussing. Even though He was a Biola freak like J.P Moreland and the like, i had a blast messing with him.

Craig debates like a catholic, thinks like a catholic, walks like a catholic and quacks like a protestant.

He is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Stay far far away from it.

Oh and craig and the Roman catholics are buddies, and he is with the atheists just like you are with the atheists. He is known as a Rationalist (capital R) and has personall told me he was an empirical Rationalist.

Oh, and you know he is a self proclaimed molinist? you know the guy who killed thousands of protestants during the counter reformation? Roger? Roger, Hello!!!!! lol. The earth is only 6 to 10 thousands years old. When atheists start high fiving you on Chrisitan thinking, you got problems.

Respectfully,
 

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Roger

 

rogersherrer wrote:

I think it's important to note how much we actually agree when it comes to science and life in general. You believe in the theory of evolution, I believe in the theory of evolution. Obviously, the key difference being that I think this extreme improbability of circumstances was carried out by a higher power. The magnificent and flabbergasting fine tuning of our universe has a cause of it's complexity, and that cause is God.

 

Look - I don't 'believe' in the theory of evolution. I accept that the scientific method based on the formulation and testing of modifiable hypotheses, offers the best way humans can strip reality of subjective bias and motivated reasoning. That's pretty much all there is to it. I do not think there is absolute truth that is knowable to me. My inputs are not sensitive enough to give me serious context of the true nature of things and my linear consciousness disallows a capacity to conceptualize or view a cross section of reality in real time.  

The issue I have with the central elements of what you say are that you are similarly hamstrung and yet you wheel out a fallacious appeal to complexity bigger than the entire universe, to wit: 'the flabbergasting fine tuning of our universe has a cause, that cause is god'. This, Roger, you do not know and your conviction there is no explanation for what you cannot comprehend other than that which you assert does you no credit. 

As the son of preacher and a missionary, many are the times I have heard my family bemoan the moral inconsistency apparent in the doctrine of original sin, a story too silly to repeat here. They don't like it they say, but sorry, these are the immutable rules of the hypothetical external first cause. There's simply nothing we can do. If you don't accept salvation, well, then it's your own fault, really. We are praying for you, but we still worship and love your torturer and murderer. 

But they and you fail in your attempt to side-step the completely arbitrary 'justice' outlined in the bible and simply underscore the central immorality of contrived christian doctrine. To say there is no inconsistency in the christian concepts of god and hell must be really straining your assertion tommy gun.

If we are to continue this conversation coherently, I want you first to define god with proofs. I want you define hell with proofs. I want you to explain how it is you have measured god's system of justice and found that it is appropriate as a blanket response, not to acts of moral wrong, but to a refusal to be bullied into accepting broken reasoning. 

It's my contention that you don't know what god actually is. That you have never seen hell. That you can say nothing sensible about god's justice. You cannot define what constitutes a sin given your inability to perceive context. Nor can you define morality or map its boundaries. Instead Roger, and without actually understanding what you are talking about, you are prepared to consign the bulk of humanity to hell in order to save yourself from a threat.

Here is the cruel and selfish face of monotheism stripped of its posturing and its incomprehensible devices. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Roger,

lol, wow. Just wow. William Lane Craig is a wolf in sheeps clothing. He hangs out with Craig Hazen, Greg Koukel (who i debated apologetics methods and Roman Catholicism being a cult) Roman Geisler among many more roman/"protestant" "wolves"

He fervantly is well known for his position of middle knowledge a Roman Catholic doctrine that HE HIMSELF admits can be found in the origins of the jesuits and the counterreformation. I personally took a semester under William Lane Craig for the purposes to ask him questions and to study him at Biola University in Southern California. I had lunch with him, and everything. He personally told me that he denies sola scriptura, so for him to contradict it and with the sex fest he has with Roman thinking it's no wonder he's a liar.

Middle knowledge has to do with foreknowledge which was what the class was primarily about in relation to time.

Since Craig told me, and since consistency applied middle knowledge denies the fundamental orthodox teaching of sola scriptura, William Lane Craig is a heretic and is going to hell.

I also met Bob Pastiano however you spell his name before he died, grectchen never knew which is a funny story.

Bob is the one that put together for craig the Great Debate in 86 or whenever. we were up until 7 in the morning i arrived at about 11 talking and discussing. Even though He was a Biola freak like J.P Moreland and the like, i had a blast messing with him.

Craig debates like a catholic, thinks like a catholic, walks like a catholic and quacks like a protestant.

He is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Stay far far away from it.

Oh and craig and the Roman catholics are buddies, and he is with the atheists just like you are with the atheists. He is known as a Rationalist (capital R) and has personall told me he was an empirical Rationalist.

Oh, and you know he is a self proclaimed molinist? you know the guy who killed thousands of protestants during the counter reformation? Roger? Roger, Hello!!!!! lol. The earth is only 6 to 10 thousands years old. When atheists start high fiving you on Chrisitan thinking, you got problems.

Respectfully,
 

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Jean, you're going to need to provide some evidence if you expect anyone to believe all those claims...

On a similar note, I've noticed a striking pattern among your posts: almost every one consists of assertions of how awesome you are and how horrible those who disagree with you are. Furthermore, your evidence for these claims consists mainly of quotes from the Bible and statements about logic. Surprisingly enough, you do actually seem to be well-versed in the basics of logic. Of course, it may only seem that way because I myself know very little about the subject...

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Jean

blacklight915 wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Roger,

lol, wow. Just wow. William Lane Craig is a wolf in sheeps clothing. He hangs out with Craig Hazen, Greg Koukel (who i debated apologetics methods and Roman Catholicism being a cult) Roman Geisler among many more roman/"protestant" "wolves"

He fervantly is well known for his position of middle knowledge a Roman Catholic doctrine that HE HIMSELF admits can be found in the origins of the jesuits and the counterreformation. I personally took a semester under William Lane Craig for the purposes to ask him questions and to study him at Biola University in Southern California. I had lunch with him, and everything. He personally told me that he denies sola scriptura, so for him to contradict it and with the sex fest he has with Roman thinking it's no wonder he's a liar.

Middle knowledge has to do with foreknowledge which was what the class was primarily about in relation to time.

Since Craig told me, and since consistency applied middle knowledge denies the fundamental orthodox teaching of sola scriptura, William Lane Craig is a heretic and is going to hell.

I also met Bob Pastiano however you spell his name before he died, grectchen never knew which is a funny story.

Bob is the one that put together for craig the Great Debate in 86 or whenever. we were up until 7 in the morning i arrived at about 11 talking and discussing. Even though He was a Biola freak like J.P Moreland and the like, i had a blast messing with him.

Craig debates like a catholic, thinks like a catholic, walks like a catholic and quacks like a protestant.

He is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Stay far far away from it.

Oh and craig and the Roman catholics are buddies, and he is with the atheists just like you are with the atheists. He is known as a Rationalist (capital R) and has personall told me he was an empirical Rationalist.

Oh, and you know he is a self proclaimed molinist? you know the guy who killed thousands of protestants during the counter reformation? Roger? Roger, Hello!!!!! lol. The earth is only 6 to 10 thousands years old. When atheists start high fiving you on Chrisitan thinking, you got problems.

Respectfully,
 

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Jean, you're going to need to provide some evidence if you expect anyone to believe all those claims...

On a similar note, I've noticed a striking pattern among your posts: almost every one consists of assertions of how awesome you are and how horrible those who disagree with you are. Furthermore, your evidence for these claims consists mainly of quotes from the Bible and statements about logic. Surprisingly enough, you do actually seem to be well-versed in the basics of logic. Of course, it may only seem that way because I myself know very little about the subject...

 

Jean has no interest in taking us seriously, he is just here to poke us. I only take him on to put him on display. The OP is at least making an attempt to engage us. Jean is merely a troll.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello Extremeist,

You said:

Quote:
As the son of preacher and a missionary, many are the times I have heard my family bemoan the moral inconsistency apparent in the doctrine of original sin, a story too silly to repeat here. They don't like it they say, but sorry, these are the immutable rules of the hypothetical external first cause. There's simply nothing we can do. If you don't accept salvation, well, then it's your own fault, really. We are praying for you, but we still worship and love your torturer and murderer.

Oh come one, i have to hear it now. What are you talking about? what did your parents say was the moral inconsistency apparent in the doctrine of original sin?

And they were pastors? What the hell? lol. But they were charismatic pentecostal which is typically a very weak denomination.

Original sin is the driving point as to why Jesus came and rescued His own from evil and sin. What's the silly story Extremeist? Is your name Brian? anyway.

____________

Brian,

calling me a troll because you are not intellectualy intelligent enough to keep up with sound argument only masks how dumb you are and the results of public school education. I am not a troll, Just a consistent Chrisitan that whips you over and over with sound truth.

Brian, when you are burning in hell, and flames are engulfing you, your bones and tissue start to melt and yet you can't die, you will remember me. I will be haunting you in your memories in hell, because you're just a prideful selfish man with a anger issues.

I' amazed your wife married you with two degrees, i mean, who can she talk to intellectually in the hose that understands her most? the dog?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Original sin is the

Quote:
Original sin is the driving point as to why Jesus came and rescued His own from evil and sin.

So please explain the manufacturing waste by the manufacturer Jesus/god/split personality, that allowed all the trash in the first place.

If I owned a business and produced that much waste I wouldn't be in business that long.

"Jesus" didn't "rescue" his own any more than Muslims think they are trying to save the world. There are just idiots who think invisible friends will save them and are chosen. Your god in reality is nothing more than the same selfish narcissism of Muslims and Jews. It is a placebo humans invent, a fictional super hero humans invent to justify harm to others to maintain the alpha male status.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian

Hi Brian,

Jesus is not an eternal Being but was created about 2000 years ago. Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity is eternal and is actually shown in various theophanies like in Genesis 19:24 when the YahVeh in heaven gave fire to the Yahveh  on earth and the Yahveh on earth shot the fire and Soddom and Gomorrah. What would Jesus Bomb? This is a good example for that bumper sticker.

However, in order for God to send a mediator for mankind, to live perfectly in obedience to the father, the incarnation toook place in which God became man. So Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. Thus when He was incarnate, He had two natures.

Which is interested since He BOUND Himself in time and space because He loves His own perfectly. Anyway, when Jesus Christ was murdered by the Jews (Acts 2:38), and then conqeared death and was risen by the power of the Holy Spirit (see Ephesians 1:13-21). He gave us a way out. By Him mediating for us before the Father.

When the Father judges us, He sees our sins and judges us to hell. BUT when He sees Jesus in front of us, the Father does not see our sins at all, but the perfect righteousness of Jesus covering out sins completely eliminating them and in that way, Jesus MEDIATES between God the Father and Man.  If you do not have Jesus to mediate for you in the Father's presence, then you are judged by your deeds and not by Christ's deeds.

Thus we are one with Christ and Christ is one with us. While the children of satan are one with satan whether they know it or not. A good sign of this is absolutely no fear of God or hell.

The Muslims do not have this understanding of rescue. The Greek word for Save or Salvation is (Sozo) which means RESCUE. Christ is rescuing you from hell.

I worked with Top Chrisitan apologists in 2001 and folloiwng on Islam. Have lectured on it. The FBI has visited me and the person I was working with. Islam does not have this message at all. Salvation which is different from Christianity is by works not by grace, which is antithetical to Christianity.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello Extremeist,

You said:

Quote:
As the son of preacher and a missionary, many are the times I have heard my family bemoan the moral inconsistency apparent in the doctrine of original sin, a story too silly to repeat here. They don't like it they say, but sorry, these are the immutable rules of the hypothetical external first cause. There's simply nothing we can do. If you don't accept salvation, well, then it's your own fault, really. We are praying for you, but we still worship and love your torturer and murderer.

Oh come one, i have to hear it now. What are you talking about? what did your parents say was the moral inconsistency apparent in the doctrine of original sin?

And they were pastors? What the hell? lol. But they were charismatic pentecostal which is typically a very weak denomination.

Original sin is the driving point as to why Jesus came and rescued His own from evil and sin. What's the silly story Extremeist? Is your name Brian? anyway.

____________

Brian,

calling me a troll because you are not intellectualy intelligent enough to keep up with sound argument only masks how dumb you are and the results of public school education. I am not a troll, Just a consistent Chrisitan that whips you over and over with sound truth.

Brian, when you are burning in hell, and flames are engulfing you, your bones and tissue start to melt and yet you can't die, you will remember me. I will be haunting you in your memories in hell, because you're just a prideful selfish man with a anger issues.

I' amazed your wife married you with two degrees, i mean, who can she talk to intellectually in the hose that understands her most? the dog?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

FYI JACKASS, I graduated a 4 year college that Jerry Falwell dropped out of.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian

Brian,

That doesn't say much. 12 years of public education and then bam weak college education. You are only an agnostic pagan because to you it justifies the sin in your life. There is no logical rational explanation for you other then you know you are a filthy rodent and you want to remain that way with zero consequences.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Brian,

That doesn't say much. 12 years of public education and then bam weak college education. You are only an agnostic pagan because to you it justifies the sin in your life. There is no logical rational explanation for you other then you know you are a filthy rodent and you want to remain that way with zero consequences.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

What bugs you about me? I know, it is that I wont put up with your bigoted bullshit. You fucked with the wrong guy when you picked on my x wife. Don't worry, I won't step on you physically like the cockroach you are. You spew enough bigoted bullshit to make yourself look like the ass you are.

And what of that godless "Jap" I married? TWO SCIENCE DEGREES!  She has more brains than you will ever have in your entire life. But despite the fact that she, AND HER ENTIRE COUNTRY, has a fraction of our crime rate, she deserved it.

YOU ARE THE PIECE OF SHIT

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian

Hi Brian,

Nothing bugs me about you, you're just a typical arrogant fool who denies God so as not to have any accountability for his actions. You want to live in freedom to behave like an animal and murder people and then have zero accountability, this is why you hate God.

Ex-Wife? Oh that makes sense. was it over your anger issues and/or your adultery. Chrisitanity would have solved your marriage problems and helped you have a happy marriage.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean, Jean, Jean

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello Extremeist,

You said:

Quote:
As the son of preacher and a missionary, many are the times I have heard my family bemoan the moral inconsistency apparent in the doctrine of original sin, a story too silly to repeat here. They don't like it they say, but sorry, these are the immutable rules of the hypothetical external first cause. There's simply nothing we can do. If you don't accept salvation, well, then it's your own fault, really. We are praying for you, but we still worship and love your torturer and murderer.

Oh come one, i have to hear it now. What are you talking about? what did your parents say was the moral inconsistency apparent in the doctrine of original sin?

And they were pastors? What the hell? lol. But they were charismatic pentecostal which is typically a very weak denomination.

Original sin is the driving point as to why Jesus came and rescued His own from evil and sin. What's the silly story Extremeist? Is your name Brian? anyway.

____________

Brian,

calling me a troll because you are not intellectualy intelligent enough to keep up with sound argument only masks how dumb you are and the results of public school education. I am not a troll, Just a consistent Chrisitan that whips you over and over with sound truth.

Brian, when you are burning in hell, and flames are engulfing you, your bones and tissue start to melt and yet you can't die, you will remember me. I will be haunting you in your memories in hell, because you're just a prideful selfish man with a anger issues.

I' amazed your wife married you with two degrees, i mean, who can she talk to intellectually in the hose that understands her most? the dog?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Jean, you really are a piece of work.  I haven't had the pleasure of reading your posts for very long now, but I''m fascinated

 

how someone can have your convictions.  Please save me the trouble of tracking thru your posts and give me a short run-down of where

you picked up your ideas, just so I ca be a little more prepared on how to relate to someone with your perspective.  Really, I've never

encountered anyone who believes all the things you do all at the same time.  If I was you I would start up my own sect. I mean, if you already have a seat saved

saved for you next to Jesus, why not cash in on all the poor saps out there with their tongues hanging out.  They're gonna give it up to someone

anyway. Why shouldn't it be you? I think with some machine guns and kool-aid you could go far. jk  Or better yet, why don't you write

"The Next Testament"?  That would give us material forever! lol You told me I should start up a sandwich shop-

If I do I'm gonna have the Jean Chauvin 3" sub.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi TonyJeffers

Hi TonyJeffers,

While that was entertaining ad hominems absuives, it served no intelliectual merit. All my thinking is a reflection from Scripture. My conscious stand strong and on Scripture Alone.

Unless you can show me where my thinking is wrong from Scripture, I will not change. But it's not wrong, because i've done my homework.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3563
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
rogersherrer wrote:  If we

rogersherrer wrote:

 

 If we reject Jesus' offer of forgiveness, then there is simply is no one else to pay the penalty for your sin--except yourself.

 

  Assuming the Christian mythology is true then Jesus did not pay the penalty for sin.  What is the penalty for sin ?  To be cast eternally into the Lake of Fire.  The penalty for sin is not a temporary experience but an eternal one. 

Jesus, metaphorically speaking, dipped his toe into the sufferings of Hell for a few moments and then returned to the glory of Heaven to forever live in Paradise.  He did not serve the sentence that an unforgiven sinner would have experienced.  Jesus did not pay the penalty he merely peeked inside, hung around for a few minutes and left, never to return.  I guess being Jesus means you can fall back upon diplomatic immunity to avoid fulfilling your obligations.  

 

 

 

rogersherrer wrote:
The originator of the Adam and Eve story had no way of telling why we behave the way we do. And yet he identified with remarkable insight the root of the problem. He knew that the real source of our sinful tendencies lay within us and not in external influences.

 

  Wrong, the source of sin is not some "sin nature" that "lay within us".   It is the ability to choose, otherwise referred to as free will.   Lucifer / Satan was cast from Heaven after he allegedly defied God.  No sin nature within him precipitated his rebellion.  Adam and Eve were cast from the Garden of Eden after they chose to defy God.  No sin nature was needed. The simply exercised their free will.

 

 

rogersherrer wrote:
The message is the same: the source of sin lies within each one of us.

 

  And after you've entered into Heaven in your new sinless body that is now lacking that "source", will you be incapable of simply choosing to sin ?  Will your free will remain intact ? Could you trip up as Lucifer allegedly did and simply choose to defy God ?   It's happened before.

 

 

rogersherrer wrote:
The magnificent and flabbergasting fine tuning of our universe has a cause of it's complexity, and that cause is God.

 

 If you say so... ( shrugs shoulders )

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TonyJeffers,

While that was entertaining ad hominems absuives, it served no intelliectual merit. All my thinking is a reflection from Scripture. My conscious stand strong and on Scripture Alone.

Unless you can show me where my thinking is wrong from Scripture, I will not change. But it's not wrong, because i've done my homework.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I was just havin' some fun w u, but I sincerely would like to know what religious background you hailed from. Even if you don't hold

fast to what you were taught, it still had to have some reflection on your views- even if your views are the result of disagreeing with everything

you were raised to believe -as are my own views.  You really should feel sorry for me. My family was Nazarene.  I think just because it was the

closest church to our house. seriously 

 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2368
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
to Tonyjeffers

                             I never feed the trolls what's its name is just one more irritating worthless piece of crap, respectfully.  I am interested in nazarenes,  there is one time the jesus charactor  is refered to as Jesus the nazarene. That reference was not the home town but the sect.  In BCE/CE nazarenes were an austere sect;  no dancing, no drinking, nothing but pure devotion to yahveh.     Is the modern sect you left still the same?

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

                             I never feed the trolls what's its name is just one more irritating worthless piece of crap, respectfully.  I am interested in nazarenes,  there is one time the jesus charactor  is refered to as Jesus the nazarene. That reference was not the home town but the sect.  In BCE/CE nazarenes were an austere sect;  no dancing, no drinking, nothing but pure devotion to yahveh.     Is the modern sect you left still the same?

 

I've been to 2 different Nazarene churches here in central Illinois n they r basically the same. It's a typical

hypocritical bunch. Not devotional on all those things but drinking at all is a no-no, even tho I hail from a long line of alchohoics and my immediate family didn't mind those who partied-me and my brother certainly did. The folks would buy us all beer just to stay home and drink. It's an easy sect to be a part of

because not much is required of them except to live in guilt. They just go thru the motions. Basically if you don't

say God Damn, drink, or let your kids have sex in your home then you're going to heaven. Weekend nights at home

watching Billy Graham after letting loose watching Hee-Haw or the Grand Ole Opry. Lot's of southern heritage.  Most

of them are good people just standing in line like sheep. They do all seem to share one good quality of helping each

other out in everyday life, like tending to the ill, elderly, or just lending hand labor.  They befriend others almost exclusively

within the church because they are just too lame and boring for anyone else. I remember being creeped out as a young child by

their phony practices during service, like raising their hands up and going up to the altar, with the occasional embarrassing stand up

crying testimony right out of nowhere. And the requisite to teach children is just to be coherent enough to speak. I give 'em points

for not being a very political group tho.

 And for the record I was never really part of the Nazarene church. I stopped going as a young teenager. I became a Christian on my own

in my early 20's. I studied on my own and followed the teachings of Dr. Gene Scott. He was a unique character. Look him up if you haven't

heard of him. He had a huge following and at one time was the most broadcast teacher on earth by way of shortwave radio.

I have some of his videos. My favorite was called "Grace-even for assholes".

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Tony Jeffers

Hey Tony Tony,

I actually do feel sorry for you and now understand why you became an atheist. If I was not a Chrisitan (most Nazarene's are not chrisitans) I'd be an agnostic calling myself an atheist also.

My father was an alcoholic. All my siblings are like that slut Rush Limbaugh talked about the other day. I grew up in divorce and hate and abuse the whole nine yards.

When I was 12, I had just gotten home from school and alone. The Mormon Missionaries knocked on my door. They cracked huge attitude with me. They told me i' m not allowed to do any of my own research, but to just wait for their missionary lessons, there were 12 back then. lol. That pissed me off.

So at the age of 12 I walked 20 miles to Desert Book Store and bought 2 books. A Fascimle 1830 and Book of Commandments 1833. I compared the contradictions between the current 1981 book of mormon and the currect Doctrine of Covenants Originally called the Book of Commandments.

Anyway, they stopped coming.

My mother got me a bible when I was 12 and I chose for no apparent reason to read the book of Revelation. That scared the hell out of me as a kid. I had nobody to explain to me what this was. lol. Then when I got over that, i decided to try an Old Testament book and flipped to Daniel lol. That scared the shit out of me lol. Finally as I continued to read, God gave me a hunger for His Word and changed my nature and gave me faith.

 

Since then My library is around 10,000 volumes and is worth a lot of money to this day. I have several on all kinds of cults and religions. The Hadith, Satanism, pretty much everything. But dominately it is on Greek New Testamants and Hebrews Bibles and and some resource books. I do have some pretty rare High Criticism books from the 1800's.

Anyway, to understand how various weird cult religons thing, at the age of 12 I would grab the yellow pages and call cults and religions from around the area and sometimes around the world. i would talk to all kinds of people for hours at a time over the phone. Not to argue, but to study and understand. From 12 to 14 , I probably called around 2000 different people.

The very first guy I called worshiped the Greek gods. I asked him what god was his favorite and he said the penis. This guy was a freak lol.

Anyway, at 15 I use to hang out around the universities and talk to professors about evolution and take notes. I visited every single subject that opposed Chrisitanity. i needed to understand their thinking and I did.

After that I met Dr. Steve Austin. At that time he was the only Christian Ph.D geologist in the world. There may have been one more i'm not sure. Geologists are paid by a board for their views. If they do not subscribe to them, they do not get paid and they get humilated thus they are cowards to think outside the box.

Anyway, I worked with Dr. Austin primary researcher and we became good friends. He has done more work on Mt. Saint Helens then any scientiests alive and has shown the similarities of how the so called millinos of year of strata theory to have been done in a matter of seconds by Mt. Saint Helens. Similar examples are found in the Little Grand Canyon formed by steam and a very hot mud slide. The little Grand Canyon which he named is 100 feet tall and has a creek runing through it.

I've hiked and gone to hundrends of places. Was there when Dr. Robert Gentry came up with his theory of the radiactive layers found in graphite and trapped in various circles where you have decay upon decay. Since then I have worked with world famous Christian apologists and have been in various debates and written various books.

By the way, I am pretty hardcore. I challenged a satanist that i'll go to a ritual with him if he goes to church with me, he said no.

The thing is tony, I went out passionately and found on every single thing I could by myself. I would invite the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses over for lunch and eventually they all stopped coiming and put me on some black list lol.

This is absolutely what I know. Chrisitanity is the only philosophical area of thinking that is absolutely true and based on valid and sound thinking and everything else is wrong. I've done my homework. And not one person on here or anywhere else has even come close to a refutation, but instead temper tantrums.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi

Hi,

The Nazarene's are actually pretty weak. They are rooted in the Azusa movment of the early 20th century. They broke off of Parson's church and the Church of God splinters and became a kind of conservative among the charismatic freaks.

I was at the 100th anniversay of the Azusa Conference in 2006. I was the only person there that was not a wild tongue person. I walked all over L.A. and even went through South Central. I'm amazed i wasn't shot. I ended my tour at Angeles Temple in L.A. I had a few talks about the Nazarene church.

Charismatic churches are all completely weak and borderline heresy. Nazarene is just among that group and are pretty much dead in the water. If I had attended the Nazarene church as a yout I probably would be a completely whimp like 99.999% of all the Chrisitans are of today.

Tony, lol, this is actually completely consistent and understandable now as to why you're considering atheism, lol. You were never a Chrisitan to begin with and the Nazarene's sucked you dry. lol. wow.

Lee Stroble is down there in Chicago. Huge church. I do not like Lee Stroble at all and completely disagree with his approach towards Christianity but it has to be better then the Nazarene's.

But typically, the pastor with only a 100 members of his congregation, that only gets paid once a month that is barely enough to feed his family on. The pastor that actually is a pastor and visits his flock when they are sick in the hospital. Who helps them and counsels them in crisis. Who works hard with his hands and is completely Biblical and totally not recognized by anybody, those are the realy true Christians. Those types of churches are very hard to fine and are worth their weight in gold.

But as a general rule of thumb, typically all large churches have compromised are are seeker churches.

I have pity on your depressing past of church membership.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).