God.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Nope, sure isn't. And how anybody could consider that an all-powerful God was in any way compatible with a free willed humanity is beyond me.

Well, theism traditionally invokes the bible, and the bible is very clear on God's omnipotence. Because of that theists usually try to avoid unorthodox solutions to the problem of evil because they're a subset of unpopular solutions to the problem of evil.

Of course the unpopular solutions are also often the least problematic. For example, denying the existence of evil.

[devonin]

the bible is very clear on God's omnipotence

Being someone who isn't forced to labour under the absurd hypothesis that the Bible is 100% complete and utter factual truth, I'm perfectly able to reconcile the idea that on this count the bible is simply mistaken.

[Kilroy_x]

Well, you've just alienated yourself from a very large number of theists then. Claiming the Bible is misread or misinterpreted is one thing, and can usually be done without arousing ire, but outright claiming that it's wrong? If the Bible isn't an object of divine perfection, who's to say how much of it is true at all? Why use it as evidence of anything in this case?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Well, you've just alienated yourself from a very large number of theists then.

being the kind of theist that is a deist alienated me from a very large number of theists well before I said any of this. I think I can cope.

Claiming the Bible is misread or misinterpreted is one thing, and can usually be done without arousing ire, but outright claiming that it's wrong?

Claiming that a book written by humans, translated by humans, interpreted by humans, and read by humans is prone to the same degree of fallibility as humans seems to me to be the only logical course of thought. I'm sorry to those who are happy to forget how the telephone game works if they have an issue.

If the Bible isn't an object of divine perfection, who's to say how much of it is true at all?

Historians, thelogians, geologists, astronomers, they've all pointed out many ways in which the bible is correct, describes historical events, and valid scientific phenomena. I just think it incredibly naive and foolish to assume that simply because some of it is correct, it all is. Especially when the leading proof of its correctness is that it itself states its correctness.

Why use it as evidence of anything in this case?

I only use the bible as evidence of the beliefs of christians, which are just as allowed to be incorrect as the beliefs of anyone else. You will only ever find me presenting accounts in the bible as fact if a) They have been corroborated by other evidence sufficient to me to warrant presenting them that way or b) I'm playing devil's advocate.

[Coolgamer]

Originally Posted by devonin

Nope, sure isn't. And how anybody could consider that an all-powerful God was in any way compatible with a free willed humanity is beyond me.

Please prove that simply because the church has promoted these things, that God promotes these things, bearing in mind the concept of a free-willed humanity.

If the Bible is the word of God, then when the Bible claims God commanded acts of rape, murder, genocide, etc., then those things were gods will. It says it quite plainly in the Bible that it is GOD who ordered those events I referred to.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Historians, thelogians, geologists, astronomers, they've all pointed out many ways in which the bible is correct, describes historical events, and valid scientific phenomena.

...And the Phlogiston theory of heat correctly describes rust as a form of combustion. What's your point?

You will only ever find me presenting accounts in the bible as fact if a) They have been corroborated by other evidence sufficient to me to warrant presenting them that way or b) I'm playing devil's advocate.

Ok.

[Coolgamer]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

And, judging by your almost nonexistent knowledge (Read: I don't like what you said, so you must not know what you're talking about!) of Christianity, you haven't even given God one of those.



Do tell how God "attacks" homosexuals. (Are you serious?)



Or any of these.



Then tell me (since you claim to have taken a "true rational look" at God and what he stands for), why your extensive (but I'll accept a little more than minimal) scriptural knowledge suggests that God was some sort of murderer in this situation, and didn't actually forgive our sins. (Even if that doesn't qualify as murder, he has directly killed entire cities by his own hand. He seemed to really dislike women in the Bible. I wonder why that would be in a male-dominated society? Control, perhaps?)

God did it for the lulz, mirite? (If he did it at all, then it's odd that since he knows all, that he would create a son solely to be killed, in order to purge OUR sins, even though I certainly had nothing to do with the death of Jesus.)

See what I'm doing, here? I'm giving a "true rational look" at your statements. (No, you're dismissing them.) Your claims are wholly fabricated and devoid of critical thought. (I have fabricated nothing. Perhaps you should study YOUR religion's history a bit more.)

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Funny, you haven't responded to any of my follow-up posts?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Coolgamer

If the Bible is the word of God, then when the Bible claims God commanded acts of rape, murder, genocide, etc., then those things were gods will. It says it quite plainly in the Bible that it is GOD who ordered those events I referred to.

I'm disagreeing that the bible is the direct word of God, you see. Thus why I disagree that simply because it says so in the bible, it necessarily follows that God approves.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_X

...And the Phlogiston theory of heat correctly describes rust as a form of combustion. What's your point?

My point was that there are in fact people who will point to aspects of the bible as being correct and factual, but that it does not follow that all of it is...I'm not really sure why you felt the need to lodge a disagreement with that.

[Coolgamer]

Originally Posted by devonin

I'm disagreeing that the bible is the direct word of God, you see. Thus why I disagree that simply because it says so in the bible, it necessarily follows that God approves.

My point was that there are in fact people who will point to aspects of the bible as being correct and factual, but that it does not follow that all of it is...I'm not really sure why you felt the need to lodge a disagreement with that.

So in other words, the Bible is in doubt and no one knows what a certain deity may or may not have ordered. Great. Let me know when you sort that out, I'll be over here, thinking for myself.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Coolgamer

So in other words, the Bible is in doubt and no one knows what a certain deity may or may not have ordered.

Well, thank you for conceding the point so readily, and admitting your mistake. Its big of you.

Great. Let me know when you sort that out, I'll be over here, thinking for myself.

Please explain to me how calling you on your blanket statements on faulty evidence means I am not thinking for myself? On the contrary, I rather think it shows a great deal of independant thought.

[Coolgamer]

Originally Posted by devonin

Well, thank you for conceding the point so readily, and admitting your mistake. Its big of you.





Please explain to me how calling you on your blanket statements on faulty evidence means I am not thinking for myself? On the contrary, I rather think it shows a great deal of independant thought.

Well, to say that you don't believe in the Holy Book is a good sign, but it also makes me wonder why you still claim to be part of the religion based on its every word.

You're confusing me. It's a basic part of the religion- you must believe that the book is the word of god.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Coolgamer

Well, to say that you don't believe in the Holy Book is a good sign, but it also makes me wonder why you still claim to be part of the religion based on its every word.

Wherever did you get the wacky idea that I'm a practicing devout Catholic? I'm a deist. My religious beliefs are completely at odds with my Catholic upbringing. Just because I don't believe it myself doesn't mean I am incapable of being the one to defend it when it is attacked in silly ways. I'll Devil's Advocate for the Devil if nobody suited to the task is doing so.

[Coolgamer]

Originally Posted by devonin

Wherever did you get the wacky idea that I'm a practicing devout Catholic? I'm a deist. My religious beliefs are completely at odds with my Catholic upbringing. Just because I don't believe it myself doesn't mean I am incapable of being the one to defend it when it is attacked in silly ways. I'll Devil's Advocate for the Devil if nobody suited to the task is doing so.

My mistake then. Sorry about that.