Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
This Is Church, Dammit !!!
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
“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?”
Epicurus (Greek philosopher, BC 341-270)
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
It just means that He loves freedom more than good or evil. Creating free creatures requires the possibility of evil.
I never understood why people even fall into that Epicurean dilemma -- at least in a philosophical sense. For me, it's hardly relevant, because if I were creating free creatures, I too would permit evil.
Either way, it hardly disproves the existence of God. Merely shows that you are making your belief conditional of God answering your standards for Him, as opposed to the evidence one way or another.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Okay, if religion is for the weak minded, prove it. Prove there is no God.
How can one prove what isn't there isn't really there... Prove there are no minotaurs.
Okay, if religion is for the weak minded, prove it. Prove there is no God.
How can one prove what isn't there isn't really there... Prove there are no minotaurs.
I don't have to. I'm not making any assertions about people who believe in minotaurs. YOU are making a claim about people who are religious. In that you are making an assertion, you must be able to prove it is true. Continue.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Okay, if religion is for the weak minded, prove it. Prove there is no God.
How can one prove what isn't there isn't really there... Prove there are no minotaurs.
I don't have to. I'm not making any assertions about people who believe in minotaurs. YOU are making a claim about people who are religious. In that you are making an assertion, you must be able to prove it is true. Continue.
No, he has to "prove" that religion is for the weak minded, he doesn't have to prove something doesn't exist because that is impossible.
Believing something exists because it can't be proven to not exist is not a good reason.
Okay, if religion is for the weak minded, prove it. Prove there is no God.
How can one prove what isn't there isn't really there... Prove there are no minotaurs.
I don't have to. I'm not making any assertions about people who believe in minotaurs. YOU are making a claim about people who are religious. In that you are making an assertion, you must be able to prove it is true. Continue.
No, he has to "prove" that religion is for the weak minded, he doesn't have to prove something doesn't exist because that is impossible.
Believing something exists because it can't be proven to not exist is not a good reason.
True enough -- but I was giving him an easy out. Prove there is no God, and the rest follows. If he wants to TRY and prove religion is for the weak-minded, he can. but obviously taht would require years of cognitive research, something he can't possibly do in this short bit of time we have here on the internet.
My point was made and you are making it for me -- that the "strong-minded" or at least the rational don't make unproevable assertions -- which is what our friend did. This disqualifies him from a discussion of wjo is and who is not strong-minded, i that he has shown from the very outset a willingness to engage in irrationality.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Okay, if religion is for the weak minded, prove it. Prove there is no God.
How can one prove what isn't there isn't really there... Prove there are no minotaurs.
I don't have to. I'm not making any assertions about people who believe in minotaurs. YOU are making a claim about people who are religious. In that you are making an assertion, you must be able to prove it is true. Continue.
No, he has to "prove" that religion is for the weak minded, he doesn't have to prove something doesn't exist because that is impossible.
Believing something exists because it can't be proven to not exist is not a good reason.
True enough -- but I was giving him an easy out. Prove there is no God, and the rest follows. If he wants to TRY and prove religion is for the weak-minded, he can. but obviously taht would require years of cognitive research, something he can't possibly do in this short bit of time we have here on the internet.
My point was made and you are making it for me -- that the "strong-minded" or at least the rational don't make unproevable assertions -- which is what our friend did. This disqualifies him from a discussion of wjo is and who is not strong-minded, i that he has shown from the very outset a willingness to engage in irrationality.
It's not irrational to doubt somethings existance without actively proving its non-existance. I assume you actively doubt fairies and wizzards without going through the trouble of proving that they don't exist. If I came to you tommorrow and demanded your shoes in order to build homes for the fairies living on your shoulders you would dismiss me as insane and wouldn't go through the trouble of proving your assumptions.
No one conclusively denies that a god could exist, the rational approach is to say that we highly doubt your idea of a personal god and therefore the burden of proof lies on you to prove its existance.
Okay, if religion is for the weak minded, prove it. Prove there is no God.
How can one prove what isn't there isn't really there... Prove there are no minotaurs.
I don't have to. I'm not making any assertions about people who believe in minotaurs. YOU are making a claim about people who are religious. In that you are making an assertion, you must be able to prove it is true. Continue.
No, he has to "prove" that religion is for the weak minded, he doesn't have to prove something doesn't exist because that is impossible.
Believing something exists because it can't be proven to not exist is not a good reason.
True enough -- but I was giving him an easy out. Prove there is no God, and the rest follows. If he wants to TRY and prove religion is for the weak-minded, he can. but obviously taht would require years of cognitive research, something he can't possibly do in this short bit of time we have here on the internet.
My point was made and you are making it for me -- that the "strong-minded" or at least the rational don't make unproevable assertions -- which is what our friend did. This disqualifies him from a discussion of wjo is and who is not strong-minded, i that he has shown from the very outset a willingness to engage in irrationality.
It's not irrational to doubt somethings existance without actively proving its non-existance. I assume you actively doubt fairies and wizzards without going through the trouble of proving that they don't exist. If I came to you tommorrow and demanded your shoes in order to build homes for the fairies living on your shoulders you would dismiss me as insane and wouldn't go through the trouble of proving your assumptions.
No one conclusively denies that a god could exist, the rational approach is to say that we highly doubt your idea of a personal god and therefore the burden of proof lies on you to prove its existance.
This has nothing to do with doubt. The person I am discussing with has made a bold assertion that people who believe differently than he does on this subject are weak-minded.
You are entitled to all the doubt you wish to have; what you are not entitled to do is to make unproveable assertions, and personal attacks on the cognitive faculties of others. That is why our friend above did.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The justice of God is only experienced by those who are united with Jesus. All who reject the saving grace of faith in Jesus still will suffer the fierce wrath of God. Are you not familiar with these themes all throughout the NT? What about Revelation 3 where Jesus says He will personally kill Jezebel's children unless they repent? Isn't that judgment? Or the lake of fire that all unbelievers will go, and their smoke will forever ascend before the Lamb? I could go on and on, but not everyone is excused from judgment - only those who have hid themselves in Jesus by faith.
MMO migrant.
The justice of God is only experienced by those who are united with Jesus. All who reject the saving grace of faith in Jesus still will suffer the fierce wrath of God. Are you not familiar with these themes all throughout the NT? What about Revelation 3 where Jesus says He will personally kill Jezebel's children unless they repent? Isn't that judgment? Or the lake of fire that all unbelievers will go, and their smoke will forever ascend before the Lamb? I could go on and on, but not everyone is excused from judgment - only those who have hid themselves in Jesus by faith.
Of course I am familiar with every piece of scripture you cite. I am equally familiar with all the scripture that says every knee shall bow and how Christ upon rising shall draw ALL into Himself, and scripture after scripture that say the opposite of what you say. You choose to come down on the paradox in a manner that places certain people in hell for eternity -- I choose to view the data another way.
God pured ALL His wrath out on the cross. Scripture clearly says this. ALL means all to me.
fishermage.blogspot.com
MMO migrant.
Phil 2 doesn't mean everyone will get saved. Paul is quoting Isaiah 45 - check out the context
Also, I remember us having this conversation on these forums about your stance. Those conversations have seriously impacted me and I've considered those verses a lot. However, I believe the paradox is explained at the Cross
MMO migrant.
Phil 2 doesn't mean everyone will get saved. Paul is quoting Isaiah 45 - check out the context
Also, I remember us having this conversation on these forums about your stance. Those conversations have seriously impacted me and I've considered those verses a lot. However, I believe the paradox is explained at the Cross
It doesn't mean it to you; but to me that and other quotes do. I don't feel I am pulling anything out of context; I came to my conclusions the same way as you did -- only my conclusions are different than yours.
fishermage.blogspot.com
This is usually where we part ways and the debate stops, as I cannot convince you and you cannot convince me. All we can do is supply the Scriptures we have and let the Holy Spirit guide us into all truth.
/salute
MMO migrant.
Amen, brother. But it shows the angry souls on these boards how people can disagree most intensely and pasionately, yet never stoop to trash talk.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Amen, brother. But it shows the angry souls on these boards how people can disagree most intensely and pasionately, yet never stoop to trash talk.
You do know though that this line can be interpreted easily as "holier than though" right?:)
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Amen, brother. But it shows the angry souls on these boards how people can disagree most intensely and pasionately, yet never stoop to trash talk.
You do know though that this line can be interpreted easily as "holier than though" right?:)
That would just show the insecurities of the interpreter.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Amen, brother. But it shows the angry souls on these boards how people can disagree most intensely and pasionately, yet never stoop to trash talk.
You do know though that this line can be interpreted easily as "holier than though" right?:)
That would just show the insecurities of the interpreter
Or that they may lack the means to communicate their point.
And against zealotry that's always hard to do even for the better articulated among the humanity.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Amen, brother. But it shows the angry souls on these boards how people can disagree most intensely and pasionately, yet never stoop to trash talk.
You do know though that this line can be interpreted easily as "holier than though" right?:)
That would just show the insecurities of the interpreter
Or that they may lack the means to communicate their point.
And against zealotry that's always hard to do even for the better articulated among the humanity.
Sure, that's a good point, but it's not an excuse for the kind of bad behavior we see on this site. It would be so much cooler if we could all just actually discuss things, and obviously MARVVLL is capable of doing that; so are you. It is far from something exclusive to a faith or philosophy.
fishermage.blogspot.com