God created a weight so heavy that not even He could lift it
KingOfTheApes
weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
and eat a banana.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How to tell if people descend from the monkey: Give them a banana!
Then watch if they grab it like a monkey.
HotelCharlieOne
news:ae94550a-099c-48f6...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.co
m:
> "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> home now and eat a banana.
>
The other God paradox: God created a very intelligent creature in his
own image. Then, he spent so much time feeding bullshit about his own
greatness into this creature that the creature's brain was filled up
the the resulting creature was left stupid.... very stupid.
Braise the Lard
--
Al Gore did not invent the Internet;
he invented global warming.
~ bumper sticker
�People will do anything to save the world
� except take a course in science.�
Howard C. Hayden
Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn
duke
<comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>and eat a banana.
God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Mitchell Holman
@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>
>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>>and eat a banana.
>
> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
putting a bullet in the Pope.
Why is that?
Earle Jones
<ae94550a-099c-48f6...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
KingOfTheApes <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
*
As a mathematician, I tend to prefer the infinite series version:
"Can God create a weight so heavy that even He could not create
an even heavier weight?"
earle
*
J
"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are? Perhaps you
should work on a spiritual connection with Him and you'd find the answer for
yourself.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
J
"KingOfTheApes" <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ae94550a-099c-48f6...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
You must be speaking of Dale. No wonder, not even God couldn't lift her fat
ass.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Mitchell Holman
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
>> @4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>
>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>>>
>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>
>>
>>
>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>> putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>
>> Why is that?
>>
>>
>
>
> Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are?
Because you are not.
> Perhaps
> you should work on a spiritual connection with Him and you'd find the
> answer for yourself.
Why does the Pope need a bulletproof Popemobile?
Is God powerless to protect him?
Jimbo
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
>
>
>
>
>
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> > news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> > @4ax.com:
>
> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>and eat a banana.
>
> >> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> > And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> > putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> > Why is that?
>
> Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are?
Yeah, you might as well be asking the motivations of imaginary sky
pixies... Wait, same thing...
The Chief Instigator
Be thankful that she'd only punch you once...even you might learn something
from that experience, Junkie. (Of course, you will never be anywhere near
us, excepting your supposed Virginia residence eight years ago.)
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Grand Rapids 3, Houston 1 (October 30)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, November 1 at Texas, 5:05
duke
> Why is that?
Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody dies,
including Jesus the man.
duke
Vacant lot, you have no idea what you're trying to say.
Mitchell Holman
news:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>
>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>>>
>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
>> Why is that?
>
> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
> dies, including Jesus the man.
So why cannot God protect the Pope?
Jimbo
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 31, 6:13 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
>
> >> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> > news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >> > @4ax.com:
>
> >> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >> >>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >> >>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >> >>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >> >>>and eat a banana.
>
> >> >> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >> > And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >> > putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >> > Why is that?
>
> >> Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are?
>
> >Yeah, you might as well be asking the motivations of imaginary sky
> >pixies... Wait, same thing...
>
> Vacant lot,
Well, pedophile earl, I know exactly what I am talking about. You on
the other hand are a perverted piece of shit.
Don Martin
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>>
>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>>>>
>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>
>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>
>>> Why is that?
>>
>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
>> dies, including Jesus the man.
>
>
> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
God converted to Buddhism some centuries ago, and does not give a shit
about the Pope?
aa #2278 If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
The Chief Instigator
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
>>>
>>> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
>>> > news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
>>> > @4ax.com:
>>>
>>> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>> >>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>
>>> >>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>>> >>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>>> >>>and eat a banana.
>>>
>>> >> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>>
>>> > putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are?
>>
>>Yeah, you might as well be asking the motivations of imaginary sky
>>pixies... Wait, same thing...
>
> Vacant lot, you have no idea what you're trying to say.
He has a lot more ideas than you're capable of counting, Lying Cathoholic
Dook. (IMO, as always.)
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
>>@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>
>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>>>>and eat a banana.
>>>
>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
>> Why is that?
>
>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>And, most of all, everybody dies,
>including Jesus the man.
There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
duke
Nah, notown. Firstly, you have NO idea what you're talking about, and that's
evident. You see a demographics associated with a wasted city as indicative of
something other than a wasted city.
Secondly, you are just dying to insult me as though I were one like you. But it
doesn't work. I'm not into children as you are.
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>>
>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>>>>
>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>
>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>
>>> Why is that?
>>
>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
>> dies, including Jesus the man.
> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
I explained that to you above. And the suffering servant plays his part in
those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
duke
NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>>And, most of all, everybody dies,
>>including Jesus the man.
>There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:55:48 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:05:10 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
>>>>@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>>>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>>>>>>and eat a banana.
>>>>>
>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>>
>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>>
>>>> Why is that?
>
>>>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
>>Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>
>NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
You know that story is make-believe.
>>>And, most of all, everybody dies,
>>>including Jesus the man.
>
>>There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
>
>Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
You've been given enough chances to provide evidence. You know you don't
have any, so you make excuses for it.
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
Duke, you are once again confusing an explanation with an assertion.
Mitchell Holman
news:2isre5dhbidehbfs1...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>news:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
>>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
>>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>>>>>
>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>>
>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>>
>>>> Why is that?
>>>
>>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all,
>>> everybody dies, including Jesus the man.
>
>> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
>
> I explained that to you above.
Repeating your claim is not proof.
> And the suffering servant plays his
> part in those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
So the shooting of the Pope was all part
of the Divine Plan?
duke
Wrongo, little foolish boy, you are once again demonstrating your total lack of
comprehension of what God told us. Which is exactly why you are an atheist
wannabe.
Only the ignorant will wander down the path you do.
duke
Ok, here we have ignorant atheist wannabe #2.
>> And the suffering servant plays his
>> part in those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
> So the shooting of the Pope was all part
>of the Divine Plan?
It may turn out to be all the (un)truth you can handle.
duke
>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:42:43 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>alt.atheism:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:55:48 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:05:10 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
>>>>>@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>>>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>>>>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>>>>>>>and eat a banana.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>>>
>>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>>>
>>>>> Why is that?
>>
>>>>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
>>>Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>>
>>NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>
>You know that story is make-believe.
Well, maybe to you it is, like the tooth fairy.
>>>>And, most of all, everybody dies,
>>>>including Jesus the man.
>>
>>>There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
>>Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
>You've been given enough chances to provide evidence. You know you don't
>have any, so you make excuses for it.
I've only been doing that for the last 10 years or so. Where have you been?
Jimbo
Yes, pedophile earl, you are a perverted piece of shit.
Jimbo
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:55:48 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >alt.atheism:
>
> >>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >>>@4ax.com:
>
> >>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>>>and eat a banana.
>
> >>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>> Why is that?
> >>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
> >Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>
> NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>
> >>And, most of all, everybody dies,
> >>including Jesus the man.
> >There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
>
> Not in your dried-out brain,
Not in your moss covered, pedophile enabling brain either.
Jimbo
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:21:34 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >alt.atheism:
>
> >>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in> >>>> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>>>> Why is that?
>
> >>>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
> >>>> dies, including Jesus the man.
>
> >>> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
>
> >>I explained that to you above. And the suffering servant plays his part in
> >>those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
>
> >Duke, you are once again confusing an explanation with an assertion.
>
> Wrongo,
Nope, he is 100% right. You don't know the difference, pedophile
loving earl.
Jimbo
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:18:36 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in> >> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in> >>>> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>>>> Why is that?
>
> >>>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all,
> >>>> everybody dies, including Jesus the man.
>
> >>> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
>
> >> I explained that to you above.
>
> > Repeating your claim is not proof.
>
> Ok, here we have ignorant atheist wannabe #2.
>
> >> And the suffering servant plays his
> >> part in those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
> > So the shooting of the Pope was all part
> >of the Divine Plan?
>
> It may turn out to be all the (un)truth you can handle.
>
It is certainly more truth than you are able to provide, liar earl.
Jimbo
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:06:41 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>>alt.atheism:
>
> >>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >>>>>@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>>>>>and eat a banana.
>
> >>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>>>> Why is that?
>
> >>>>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
> >>>Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>
> >>NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>
> >You know that story is make-believe.
>
> Well, maybe to you it is, like the tooth fairy.
No, it is simply make believe.
>
> >>>>And, most of all, everybody dies,
> >>>>including Jesus the man.
>
> >>>There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
> >>Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
> >You've been given enough chances to provide evidence. You know you don't
> >have any, so you make excuses for it.
>
> I've only been doing that for the last 10 years or so.
What? Lying about providing evidence? You do that quite well.
tirebiter
> "KingOfTheApes" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ae94550a-099c-48f6...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> > weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> You must be speaking of Dale. No wonder, not even God couldn't lift her fat
> ass.
>
does your mythical god have to hide behind your skirts like this?
---
a.a. #2273
Free Lunch
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
<6chte5ds8e8o96c70...@4ax.com>:
Duke, you keep telling boring lies. I shall have to stop reading for a
while. You are not entertaining.
duke
You may find what I say boring, but it's no lie. When you come back, my story
will be the same.
duke
No, providing it, which I did.
duke
The Dukester, American-American
duke
When you return, the truth will still be waiting for you.
Yap
> "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
No wonder the earth is being showered with all the calamities.
We have been telling you religious nuts so !
>
> That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> and eat a banana.
>
> How to tell if people descend from the monkey: Give them a banana!
> Then watch if they grab it like a monkey.
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
Yap
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>
> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >and eat a banana.
>
Yap
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> @4ax.com:
>
> > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> > <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>and eat a banana.
>
> > God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> Why is that?
killed in tsunami?
Yap
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
>
>
>
>
>
> > news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> > @4ax.com:
>
> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>and eat a banana.
>
> >> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> > And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> > putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> > Why is that?
>
> should work on a spiritual connection with Him and you'd find the answer for
> yourself.
Please tell us that you have no answer.
Or simply inform us that your god weren't that great !
>
> --
> J Young
> Jvisi...@live.com
Yap
> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:38f2bp....@news.alt.net:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
> >> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >> @4ax.com:
>
> >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >> putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >> Why is that?
>
> > Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are?
>
>
> > Perhaps
> > you should work on a spiritual connection with Him and you'd find the
> > answer for yourself.
>
>
> Is God powerless to protect him?
It really means that there is no god.
Yap
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>and eat a banana.
>
> >> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
> > And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >putting a bullet in the Pope.
> > Why is that?
>
> including Jesus the man.
Ah, so you admit that Jesus was not a god after all.
You better seek cover, the loons will come with big stone.
Yap
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote innews:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> > <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>
> >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >> Why is that?
>
> > Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
> > dies, including Jesus the man.
>
There is no god, to protect any human.
Yap
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >news:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>
> >>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>> Why is that?
>
> >> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
> >> dies, including Jesus the man.
> > So why cannot God protect the Pope?
>
> those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
But, his hope for a protection from the sky pixie failed miserably.
Yap
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:55:48 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:05:10 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >alt.atheism:
>
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >>>@4ax.com:
>
> >>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>>>and eat a banana.
>
> >>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>> Why is that?
> >>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
>
> NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
Your lie is hereby caught red handed.
>
> >>And, most of all, everybody dies,
> >>including Jesus the man.
>
> Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
Yap
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:21:34 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >alt.atheism:
>
> >>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in> >>>> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>>>> Why is that?
>
> >>>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
> >>>> dies, including Jesus the man.
>
> >>> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
>
> >>I explained that to you above. And the suffering servant plays his part in
> >>those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
>
> >Duke, you are once again confusing an explanation with an assertion.
>
> Wrongo, little foolish boy, you are once again demonstrating your total lack of
> comprehension of what God told us. Which is exactly why you are an atheist
> wannabe.
Yet you lie again.
>
> Only the ignorant will wander down the path you do.
Mitchell Holman
news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Either God is not capable of preventing
tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
he WANTS tragedy to happen.
Yap
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:06:41 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>>alt.atheism:
>
> >>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >>>>>@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>>>>>and eat a banana.
>
> >>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>>>> Why is that?
>
> >>>>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
> >>>Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>
> >>NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>
> >You know that story is make-believe.
>
> Well, maybe to you it is, like the tooth fairy.
>
> >>>>And, most of all, everybody dies,
> >>>>including Jesus the man.
>
> >>>There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
> >>Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
> >You've been given enough chances to provide evidence. You know you don't
> >have any, so you make excuses for it.
>
> I've only been doing that for the last 10 years or so. Where have you been?
Yap
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:24:48 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:43:59 -0600, in alt.atheism
> ><6chte5ds8e8o96c70u0q5hi3860fn19...@4ax.com>:> >>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:41:35 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>alt.atheism:
>
> >>>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>>>news:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>
> >>>>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
handed all the time.
Mavisbeacon
"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...[snip]
>
>
>
> Either God is not capable of preventing
> tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
> he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>
If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of stopping
you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want you to stop
doing it?
Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't want you
to do?
Mitchell Holman
news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
So what is the point of prayer? Everything that happens
is because God wants it to happen, and do you really think
you are going to get him to change his plan?
Yap
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>
> > Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Either God is not capable of preventing
> > tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
> > he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>
> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of stopping
> you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want you to stop
> doing it?
> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't want you
> to do?
Yes, but unfortunately your god is supposed to have created and loved
human.
While it can be tolerance, it does not make any idiotic sense to allow
tragedy such as tsunami to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent
human.
Even we human, once armed with certain power, tends to exercise
justice and righteous kindness to the less unfortunate.
duke
The only reason my hand is red is because I keep beating some sense into your
head.
duke
fl is dreaming.
duke
The unknown is always fearful. God waiting for the righteous brings a lot of
comfort. Are you ready?
duke
>> NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>Show you? Hah, you must be 2000 years old at least?
>Your lie is hereby caught red handed.
Good grief. To think they let you walk among us.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Nov 5, 5:51�pm, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>
>> > Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > � � Either God is not capable of preventing
>> > tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
>> > he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>>
>> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of stopping
>> you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want you to stop
>> doing it?
Is Mavis supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient etc?
>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't want you
>> to do?
>
>Yes, but unfortunately your god is supposed to have created and loved
>human.
>While it can be tolerance, it does not make any idiotic sense to allow
>tragedy such as tsunami to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent
>human.
>Even we human, once armed with certain power, tends to exercise
>justice and righteous kindness to the less unfortunate.
It was yet again a bad analogy that presumed this hypothertical "God"
of hers was as real to you as parents are. If she had provided as much
evidence for it as for parents she might have had a point. But she
hadn't, and she didn't.
I have never understood why they do this. It simply confirms they have
no answer, as well as a few unflattering things about themselves.
Mavisbeacon
"Yap" <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b63773fa-e4dd-41f9...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 5, 5:51 pm, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>
> > Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Either God is not capable of preventing
> > tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
> > he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>
> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of stopping
> you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want you to stop
> doing it?
> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't want
> you
> to do?
...Yes, but unfortunately your god is supposed to have created and loved
human.
Who said it was MY God? I don't claim to own God and my personal beliefs
have nothing to do with an objective debate.
...While it can be tolerance, it does not make any idiotic sense to allow
tragedy such as tsunami to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent
human.
So if you can stop someone doing wrong you should always intervene and
prevent them from doing wrong rather than try to change them so that they
themselves chose not to do something wrong? It makes more sense to prevent
them expressing their freedom and denying them freedom than actually helping
them to change their ways?
How many people are alive in the world? Why do most die and what is the
quality of their life determined by? Is it God who makes a third of the
Children in the world go hungry every day? Is it God who puts people to
death for not believing in atheism or communism or Maoism or whatever? Is it
God who created WMD ? Is it God who allowed genocide in Rwanda Russia
Yugoslavia Sudan East Timor ....?
Apparently your idea seems to be all these things are the responsibility of
God because God allows them to happen! Do you really believe that? And you
think that is logical? Balme most of the death and squalor in the world on a
God in which you don't believe?
...Even we human, once armed with certain power, tends to exercise
justice and righteous kindness to the less unfortunate.
Quite the opposite in fact. Most of the "less fortunate" are in the position
they are in because of the greed and lust for power of people. surely you
already know the world is warming, the oil is running out, the richer people
overconsume and waste and interfere in poverty stricken nations to maintain
their over consumption?
The most powerfull nations in the world rather than justice and
righteousness maintain their inequitable control over the less powerfull!
You tell me you dont know this? You do not know that the US for example with
5 per cent of the worlds people uses about 25 per cent of the worlds oil
every year? That is being "kind" is it?
Mavisbeacon
> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
> news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
>
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Either God is not capable of preventing
>>> tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
>>> he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>>>
>>
>> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of
>> stopping you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want
>> you to stop doing it?
>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't
>> want you to do?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> So what is the point of prayer?
Do you always answer direct questions with questions about entirely
different subjects?
Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole option
left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
> Everything that happens
> is because God wants it to happen,
According to you this is determined by it being the only option loeft but it
isnt the only option left is it?
So yu are advancing it as an unsupported axiom! How do you know?
How do you know God wants bad things to happen? If I can see you are about
to slap a child does that mean I want you to?
>and do you really think
> you are going to get him to change his plan?
Oh I think I see what you are implying.
Is it the old "omniscience implies predetermination" argument?
Are you really claiming that knowing something is going to happen makes you
responsible for it?
If I know how a to make WMD am I responsible for anyone who ever uses WMD?
I would have thought that a prayer is admitting you don't know what will
happen in advance but are willing to accept the outcome if it is part of a
plan, even if you may think you are worse off in the meantime.
For example you may place all your money on a gamble and lose everything you
own. Later you might think that without sinking so low you would never have
abandonded the love of material wealth.
Do you really think that there was no point in a person at the time you
gambled thinking "lose" or "win"?
DO you think people should have no feelings at all about decisions others
take if those decisions do not directly affect them?
Mavisbeacon
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:vqi5f55an5ldmpu62...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 03:57:59 -0800 (PST), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 5, 5:51 pm, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>
>>> > Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> >news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> > Either God is not capable of preventing
>>> > tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
>>> > he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>>>
>>> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of
>>> stopping
>>> you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want you to stop
>>> doing it?
>
> Is Mavis supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient etc?
No just "capable of stopping you" in this example. But faoget about me and
let us not personalise this on me. If YOU are capable of stopping someone
should you restrict their freedom?
>
>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't want
>>> you
>>> to do?
>>
>>Yes, but unfortunately your god is supposed to have created and loved
>>human.
>>While it can be tolerance, it does not make any idiotic sense to allow
>>tragedy such as tsunami to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent
>>human.
>>Even we human, once armed with certain power, tends to exercise
>>justice and righteous kindness to the less unfortunate.
>
> It was yet again a bad analogy that presumed this hypothertical "God"
> of hers was as real to you as parents are.
I didnt suggest it was MY God - the other person brought up the God thing!
and they argued a logical principle . You are foolish if you think analogy
only applies to things that exist! Something may be logically consistant in
principle even if the thing does not exiat! In fact the original poster was
taking this position i.e. that GOD is doing something unfair or
unreasonable! "Reduction to absurdity" is what the argument implies. I would
think they dont actually believeGod exists but that does not matter for the
sake of the argument.
>If she had provided as much
> evidence for it as for parents she might have had a point. But she
> hadn't, and she didn't.
No you miss the point entirely!
If I claim that space aliens eating people is wrong that does not depend on
space aliens existing.
They may or may not exist! But we can bring in a law saying it is illegal
for them to do something.
Likewise laws can be created which may never be broken for example we could
make stealing water on Mars capital crime. But the human race might never
get to Mars.
>
> I have never understood why they do this. It simply confirms they have
> no answer, as well as a few unflattering things about themselves.
I didnt do it! The other posted introduced the idea of God being illogical
by allowing suffering.
I just pointed out that that does not follow! And I pointed out the
ludicrous position of most of the suffering in the world being man made and
assuming the poster does not believe in God how is it they cant apply the
same criticism to man?
Mitchell Holman
news:11e6b$4af2d260$bc8d1d56$12...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CBA3C5F1F32C...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.co
>>>> m:
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Either God is not capable of preventing
>>>> tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
>>>> he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of
>>> stopping you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want
>>> you to stop doing it?
>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't
>>> want you to do?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So what is the point of prayer?
>
> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about entirely
> different subjects?
>
> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
(which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
Which is it?
>
>> Everything that happens
>> is because God wants it to happen,
>
> According to you this is determined by it being the only option loeft
> but it isnt the only option left is it?
Are you saying God cannot control events?
Mavisbeacon
So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and you have
the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you can logically
conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want the event to happen?
>
>>
>>> Everything that happens
>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>
>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option loeft
>> but it isnt the only option left is it?
>
>
> Are you saying God cannot control events?
No.
Are you saying there are only two options?
Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you chose not
to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault even if the
person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not to do it?
I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to be
Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used them to
prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own rules of
showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this example god is
able to act but does not if that action requires him to use powers which are
not within the capability of a human.
In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things happening
then people could not do the same as him could they?
How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
position?
Alan Ford
>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>
> No.
> Are you saying there are only two options?
> Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you chose not
> to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault even if the
> person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not to do it?
>
> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to be
> Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used them to
> prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own rules of
> showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this example god is
> able to act but does not if that action requires him to use powers which are
> not within the capability of a human.
>
> In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things happening
> then people could not do the same as him could they?
> How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
> position?
And more importantly, how much drag do you think Superman's cape has
during his flight? Do you think he has to eat more in order to
compensate for that loss of energy? And if so, what is the best food for
a person from Krypton?
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Mavisbeacon
"Alan Ford" <zzz...@qqq.net> wrote in message
news:hcven4$7no$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using his
super powers. The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to
live just like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to
advance his own position in normal life?
>
>
>
> --
> If you don't beat your meat
> You can't have any pudding
> How can you have any pudding
> If you don't beat your meat?
Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
Mitchell Holman
news:8473a$4af2e627$bc8d1d56$5...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CBA587E64DCn...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:11e6b$4af2d260$bc8d1d56$12...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CBA3C5F1F32C...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>> news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.
>>>>>> co m:
>>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either God is not capable of preventing
>>>>>> tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
>>>>>> he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of
>>>>> stopping you and I really care about it does that imply I don't
>>>>> want you to stop doing it?
>>>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't
>>>>> want you to do?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what is the point of prayer?
>>>
>>> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about entirely
>>> different subjects?
>>>
>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>
>>
>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>
>> Which is it?
>
> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want
> the event to happen?
Evasion noted.
Either God wants natural disasters to happen
or he cannot prevent them.
Which is it?
>>
>>>
>>>> Everything that happens
>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>
>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>
>>
>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>
> No.
> Are you saying there are only two options?
Yes.
__God wants disasters to happen.
__God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
Which is it?
> Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you chose
> not to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault even if
> the person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not to do it?
Bingo.
>
> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to
> be Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used
> them to prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own
> rules of showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this
> example god is able to act but does not if that action requires him to
> use powers which are not within the capability of a human.
>
You are assume Christ had "powers". Unproven.
Mavisbeacon
The analogy id FALSE! Look up "excluded middle" . It is a fallacy!
>
> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
> or he cannot prevent them.
>
> Which is it?
PleASE LOOK UP "EXCLUDED MIDDLE" AND "FALSE ANALOGY" ! It is not a case of
either it is A or B!
Your reasoninbg is simplistic.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Everything that happens
>>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>>
>>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>>
>> No.
>> Are you saying there are only two options?
>
>
> Yes.
But you are saying that if someone is hitting a child either you can stop
them ot you want it to happen. Clearly this is a silly proposition and
anyone can see there are other options and possibilities?
>
> __God wants disasters to happen.
>
> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>
>
> Which is it?
It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not do so
not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt other people.
This is basis ethics/theeology.philosophy 101 ! It has been dealt with in
the very basic of any course on it. I won't argue about angels on the heads
of pins. If you can't accept that the slapping of every child being slapped
which you witness and can stop is not your fault then I really can't help
you.
>
>
>> Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you chose
>> not to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault even if
>> the person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not to do it?
>
>
> Bingo.
So yu think a person slapping a child is your fault if you witness it and
could stop them?
Even if intervening and stopping them takes away their ability to chose for
themselves?
I guess I cant help your nanny state mommy knows best attitide.
You are clearly heqavily influenced by authoritanism - someting for whiuch
youy criticise religions! You are a walking contradiction!
>
>
>
>>
>> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to
>> be Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used
>> them to prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own
>> rules of showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this
>> example god is able to act but does not if that action requires him to
>> use powers which are not within the capability of a human.
>>
>
>
> You are assume Christ had "powers". Unproven.
Notice the word "IF" . I can also say "IF SUPERMAN" but superman does not
have to exist for the analogy to be valid.
Please learn something about logical argument.
But whether Superman or God exists is SEPERATE to the logical flow of the
argument.
duke
The real answer: he allows those things to happen. His promise is for
spiritual salvation,not physical salvation. After all, every man is given the
chance to live one life then die - some before birth and some at a very old age,
some peacefully, and some tragically.
Mitchell Holman
news:4moaf5dos1c8j2isg...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:53:04 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>news:8473a$4af2e627$bc8d1d56$5...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CBA587E64DCn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>> news:11e6b$4af2d260$bc8d1d56$12...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9CBA3C5F1F32C...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>>>> news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>>> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroup
>>>>>>>> s. co m:
You mean he CAUSED those things to happen, no?
> His promise is
> for spiritual salvation,not physical salvation.
How does people dying in natural disasters
contribute to their "spiritual salvation"?
> After all, every man
> is given the chance to live one life then die - some before birth and
> some at a very old age, some peacefully, and some tragically.
Sounds like your god is either malicious
or less than "all mighty".
Great Dayne
> "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> But the Christians do NOT want to get it.
It is argumentative question. It is a loaded question.
It reaches a conclusion based on a false premise.
GOD can make a rock as large as he wants and he can also lift any rock
he wants.
You ask the suggestive question to try to place a limit on deity that
is unwarranted by the
cunning sophistry of men.
Strike 2.
Mitchell Holman
news:3e8c0$4af54315$bc8d1d47$26...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CBBCA46CD554...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:8473a$4af2e627$bc8d1d56$5...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CBA587E64DCn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>> news:11e6b$4af2d260$bc8d1d56$12...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9CBA3C5F1F32C...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>>>> news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>>> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroup
>>>>>>>> s. co m:
We are talking about natural disasters here.
Why do you keep changing the subject?
>
>>
>> __God wants disasters to happen.
>>
>> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>>
>>
>> Which is it?
>
>
> It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not do
> so not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt other
> people.
We are talking about natural disasters here.
Why do you keep changing the subject?
>
> This is basis ethics/theeology.philosophy 101 ! It has been dealt with
> in the very basic of any course on it. I won't argue about angels on
> the heads of pins. If you can't accept that the slapping of every
> child being slapped which you witness and can stop is not your fault
> then I really can't help you.
>
Evasion noted.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you
>>> chose not to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault
>>> even if the person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not
>>> to do it?
>>
>>
>> Bingo.
>
> So yu think a person slapping a child is your fault if you witness it
> and could stop them?
> Even if intervening and stopping them takes away their ability to
> chose for themselves?
>
We are talking about natural disasters here.
Why do you keep changing the subject?
Great Dayne
Damn google double post
duke
>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>>>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>
>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
>>>> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
>>>> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want
>>>> the event to happen?
>>>
>>>
>>> Evasion noted.
>
>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>or he cannot prevent them.
>>> Which is it?
>> The real answer: he allows those things to happen.
> You mean he CAUSED those things to happen, no?
No. Natural disasters are just that, natural disasters.
>> His promise is for spiritual salvation,not physical salvation.
> How does people dying in natural disasters
>contribute to their "spiritual salvation"?
It doesn't to the victims of natural disasters. But it does spiritual wonders
for bringing out the love and compassion of others.
>> After all, every man
>> is given the chance to live one life then die - some before birth and
>> some at a very old age, some peacefully, and some tragically.
> Sounds like your god is either malicious or less than "all mighty".
Nope. God does not bring about natural disasters.
Mitchell Holman
news:qs9bf5173sajcvl63...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:26:27 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the
>>>>>>> sole option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child
>>>>> and you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that
>>>>> means you can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and
>>>>> that you want the event to happen?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Evasion noted.
>>
>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>>or he cannot prevent them.
>>>> Which is it?
>
>>> The real answer: he allows those things to happen.
>
>> You mean he CAUSED those things to happen, no?
>
> No. Natural disasters are just that, natural disasters.
>
If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>> His promise is for spiritual salvation,not physical salvation.
>
>> How does people dying in natural disasters
>>contribute to their "spiritual salvation"?
>
> It doesn't to the victims of natural disasters. But it does spiritual
> wonders for bringing out the love and compassion of others.
So love and compassion require death and destruction?
Amazing.
>
>>> After all, every man
>>> is given the chance to live one life then die - some before birth
>>> and some at a very old age, some peacefully, and some tragically.
>
>> Sounds like your god is either malicious or less than "all
>> mighty".
>
> Nope. God does not bring about natural disasters.
Didn't you say everything in nature was created by God?
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:qs9bf5173sajcvl63...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:26:27 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the
>>>>>>>> sole option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child
>>>>>> and you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that
>>>>>> means you can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and
>>>>>> that you want the event to happen?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>
>>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>>>or he cannot prevent them.
>>>>> Which is it?
>>
>>>> The real answer: he allows those things to happen.
>>
>>> You mean he CAUSED those things to happen, no?
>>
>> No. Natural disasters are just that, natural disasters.
> If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
>hurricanes and earthquakes.
No, he made the elements that can become tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>>> His promise is for spiritual salvation,not physical salvation.
>>
>>> How does people dying in natural disasters
>>>contribute to their "spiritual salvation"?
>>
>> It doesn't to the victims of natural disasters. But it does spiritual
>> wonders for bringing out the love and compassion of others.
> So love and compassion require death and destruction?
> Amazing.
It's the end result of evil mankind.
>>>> After all, every man
>>>> is given the chance to live one life then die - some before birth
>>>> and some at a very old age, some peacefully, and some tragically.
>>> Sounds like your god is either malicious or less than "all
>>> mighty".
>> Nope. God does not bring about natural disasters.
> Didn't you say everything in nature was created by God?
No.
Budikka666
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:12:34 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net>
> > If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
> >hurricanes and earthquakes.
>
> No, he made the elements that can become tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes.
Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
1. Exists
and
2. Actually created anything.
We're waiting.
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 8, 6:55�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:12:34 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net>
>> > � �If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
>> >hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>
>> No, he made the elements that can become tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes.
>
>Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
>present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
>1. Exists
He created the universe and everything in it according to the physicists.
>2. Actually created anything.
All evidence says it.
>We're waiting.
Then you don't have to hold your breath, bud the dud.
Mitchell Holman
news:f34ef555t84kbrlrs...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 05:42:04 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 8, 6:55�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:12:34 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>> <noem...@comcast.net>
>>> > � �If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
>>> >hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>>
>>> No, he made the elements that can become tornadoes, hurricanes and
>>> earthquakes.
>>
>>Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
>>present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
>
>>1. Exists
>
> He created the universe and everything in it according to the
> physicists.
What physicists?
>
>>2. Actually created anything.
>
> All evidence says it.
What evidence?
duke
> What physicists?
All of them.
>>>2. Actually created anything.
>> All evidence says it.
> What evidence?
Something out of nothing into nothing. See how simple that is.
Mavisbeacon
WE are talkiong about people dying in suffereing and who is responsible.
Natural disasters (in the twentieth century) at most kill millions over
decades. Man made probalems kill hundreds of times that!
>
> Why do you keep changing the subject?
I didn't the subject was about a fallacy! You contiune to post more
fallacies.
>
>
>
>>
>> This is basis ethics/theeology.philosophy 101 ! It has been dealt with
>> in the very basic of any course on it. I won't argue about angels on
>> the heads of pins. If you can't accept that the slapping of every
>> child being slapped which you witness and can stop is not your fault
>> then I really can't help you.
>>
>
> Evasion noted.
Of what? You present a fallacious situation and when the fallacy isnt
answered you call it an "evasion"?
The only thing being evaded is LOGIC and that is by you!
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you
>>>> chose not to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault
>>>> even if the person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not
>>>> to do it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bingo.
>>
>> So yu think a person slapping a child is your fault if you witness it
>> and could stop them?
>> Even if intervening and stopping them takes away their ability to
>> chose for themselves?
>>
>
>
>
> We are talking about natural disasters here.
WE are talking about the ability of someone to intervene and the action of
intervening That us the general case. The specific case you cited is God
intervening to stop a tsunami for example.
You claim was that if God didnt stop a tsunami either he does not care about
the people who die or he cant stop a tsunami.
It isd a false analogy!
ANd I cited a simpler example if you can intervene and chose not to. That
does noty make you responsible!
>
> Why do you keep changing the subject?
From the principle of "someoine having the ability to intervene being
responsiuble oif they dont!?
I havent changed from that!
WHy do you keep aviding answering about it?
Alan Ford
>>> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to be
>>> Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used them to
>>> prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own rules of
>>> showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this example god
>>> is able to act but does not if that action requires him to use powers
>>> which are not within the capability of a human.
>>>
>>> In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things
>>> happening then people could not do the same as him could they?
>>> How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
>>> position?
>>
>> And more importantly, how much drag do you think Superman's cape has
>> during his flight? Do you think he has to eat more in order to compensate
>> for that loss of energy? And if so, what is the best food for a person
>> from Krypton?
>
> Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using his
> super powers.
That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
imaginary, fictional characters, their alleged characteristics and the
methods those characters would employ as a response to certain physical
stimuli.
> The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to
> live just like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to
> advance his own position in normal life?
There is no "question of principle" anywhere other than what you claim.
I can also come up with a random question, say "Could Jesus also deflect
bullets fired at him from modern firearms and, if so, why couldn't he
deflect primitive rusty nails and thorns?", then call it the question of
principle.
>> If you don't beat your meat
>> You can't have any pudding
>> How can you have any pudding
>> If you don't beat your meat?
>
> Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
> I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
It's a free country - you do what makes you happy with your meat and
I'll do what makes me happy with mine.
mani deli
>>Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
>>present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
>
>>1. Exists
>
>He created the universe and everything in it according to the physicists.
-who teach in Sunday school.
This boob says he has proof of god's existence until you ask for it.
mani deli
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
>>>present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
>>
>>>1. Exists
>>
>> He created the universe and everything in it according to the
>> physicists.
>
>
>
> What physicists?
Do you really expect an intellegent answer from an ignorant religious
fanatic?
duke
>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:40:48 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
>>>present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
>>
>>>1. Exists
>>
>>He created the universe and everything in it according to the physicists.
>-who teach in Sunday school.
You can't top my answer, mad dog. I asked you atheist wannabes over and over to
give me an equal or better answer that the Supreme Creator, God by name, did it.
And still you hide.
>This boob says he has proof of god's existence until you ask for it.
No, mad dog, I have NEVER stated I have proof, but I have consistently demanded
that all the evidence says that God exists. And people like you have never been
able to refute it.
Heeheeheeheehee.
duke
He should, but he is incapable of comprehending the answer.
Puck Greenman
Yes.
>>>>>>>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I
>>>>>>>>> don't want you to do?
Then you don't care as much as you profess.
Which makes you a hypocrite.
...Is that what your god is?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what is the point of prayer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about
>>>>>>> entirely different subjects?
>>>>>>>c
>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>>>>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
>>>>> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
>>>>> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want
>>>>> the event to happen?
That, or I don't give a damn.
Are we to take it then, that your god, doesn't give a damn?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>
>>>
>>> The analogy id FALSE! Look up "excluded middle" . It is a fallacy!
Binary propositions, are not always fallacies.
The christian churches propose a god which is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all
caring, all sweetness and light, etc, etc.
How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent natural disasters, and
injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which christians claim for
it?
The proposition is, of it's nature, binary; Either God, is all those good things, or it
aint.
There is no middle, to exclude.
The real fallacy here, is your insistence on using illogical analogies. You cannot
compare the natural limitations of humanity, with the omniscience, and omnipotence, of
your god.
>>>>
>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>> or he cannot prevent them.
>>>>
>>>> Which is it?
Perhaps it just don't give a damn, Mitchell.
>>>
>>> PleASE LOOK UP "EXCLUDED MIDDLE" AND "FALSE ANALOGY" ! It is not a
>>> case of either it is A or B!
>>> Your reasoninbg is simplistic.
So you have learned a new phrase.
Unfortunately, your use of it only serves to bring to mind, words like pot, kettle, and
black arse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everything that happens
>>>>>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>>>>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>> Are you saying there are only two options?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>> But you are saying that if someone is hitting a child either you can
>>> stop them ot you want it to happen. Clearly this is a silly proposition and
>>>anyone can see there are other options and possibilities?
Straw man.
We are not omnipotent, for us, there can be many reasons why we do not intervene, not
least of which is the law of the land.
Your god, OTOH, IS omnipotent, supposedly, and it is also touted as a loving and
beneficent god.
If this is true, then for your god to permit the innocent to suffer in these natural
disasters, is a paradox, which can only resolve it's self as - A: it has the power, but
doesn't care, or is malevolent and wants the negative events to happen. In which case, the
" loving and beneficent god.", is a lie.
Or,
B: it does not have the ability to prevent it, so it is not omnipotent.
>>>
>>
>>
>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>
>> Why do you keep changing the subject?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> __God wants disasters to happen.
>>>>
>>>> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is it?
>>>
>>>
>>> It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not do
>>> so not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt other
>>> people.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>
>WE are talkiong about people dying in suffereing and who is responsible.
>Natural disasters (in the twentieth century) at most kill millions over
>decades. Man made probalems kill hundreds of times that!
>
Another straw man.
No, we are not.
There can be no comparison between the intervention of an all powerful god, and the
limited intervention of a human.
Your efforts to conflate the two, is it's self, a fallacy.
snip repetition.
Mavisbeacon
> Mavisbeacon wrote:
>
>>>> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to be
>>>> Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used them
>>>> to prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own rules
>>>> of showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this example
>>>> god is able to act but does not if that action requires him to use
>>>> powers which are not within the capability of a human.
>>>>
>>>> In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things
>>>> happening then people could not do the same as him could they?
>>>> How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
>>>> position?
>>>
>>> And more importantly, how much drag do you think Superman's cape has
>>> during his flight? Do you think he has to eat more in order to
>>> compensate for that loss of energy? And if so, what is the best food for
>>> a person from Krypton?
>>
>> Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using his
>> super powers.
>
> That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
> imaginary, fictional characters,
WRONG! Jesus is a historical figure as a human being as well as any claims
of him being either a Prophet or of him being God.
There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son two
thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great or
Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
>their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would employ
>as a response to certain physical stimuli.
I have no idea what you mean by the above.
>
>> The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to live just
>> like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to advance his
>> own position in normal life?
>
> There is no "question of principle" anywhere
YES THERE ARE!
"that action requires him to use powers
which are not within the capability of a human."
Or from the earlier discussion "whether refusal to act is just because
acting removes free will of the other person"
>other than what you claim. I can also come up with a random question,
My point was not random. It was directly related to the false analogy of -
God is either uncaring or impotent becuase God does not prevent disasters.
>say "Could Jesus also deflect bullets fired at him from modern firearms
>and, if so, why couldn't he deflect primitive rusty nails and thorns?",
>then call it the question of principle.
If he was in fact God he COULD and he could also turn stones into bread.
But the very point is HE DIDNT - WHY didnt he?
Because the point is twofold
1. He didnt act in a way which other humans could not emulate
2. Because God does not intervene does not therefore mean God is callous.
>
>>> If you don't beat your meat
>>> You can't have any pudding
>>> How can you have any pudding
>>> If you don't beat your meat?
>>
>> Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
>> I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
>
> It's a free country - you do what makes you happy with your meat and I'll
> do what makes me happy with mine.
But the quote is a MISQUOTE! it should be "eat your meat"
WHERE is a free country?
Mavisbeacon
"Puck Greenman" <dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q0fgf55ca66vmm3an...@4ax.com...
No it doesn't! Clearly people may ALLOW others to do wrong because they
tolerate them and don't want to restrict their freedom to cause harm even if
harm comes from allowing others such freedom.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I
>>>>>>>>>> don't want you to do?
>
> Then you don't care as much as you profess.
It is a central principle of demiocracy. for example censorship is nbanning
what people do not want. Is it therefore just?
Obviously when it comes to the group doing the banning or the group being
banned I know which group you want to be in!
>
> Which makes you a hypocrite.
>
> ...Is that what your god is?
How am I being hypocritical?
>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what is the point of prayer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about
>>>>>>>> entirely different subjects?
>>>>>>>>c
>>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>>>>>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
>>>>>> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
>>>>>> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want
>>>>>> the event to happen?
>
> That, or I don't give a damn.
You just contradicted yoor "YES" above.
Clearly people may ALLOW others to do wrong because they tolerate them and
don't want to restrict their freedom to cause harm even if harm comes from
allowing others such freedom
>
> Are we to take it then, that your god, doesn't give a damn?
Where did i say anything about MY god?
I just pointed out about the other false analogy made. Please dont try to
"shift the burden".
That is another fallacy!
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The analogy id FALSE! Look up "excluded middle" . It is a fallacy!
>
> Binary propositions, are not always fallacies.
True.
Assuming this one is not IS a fallacy!
>
> The christian churches propose a god which is all powerful, all knowing,
> all loving, all
> caring, all sweetness and light, etc, etc.
Yes so?
>
> How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent
> natural disasters, and
> injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which
> christians claim for
> it?
I think I already answered that. Intervention may remove free will. Also it
isnt the not intervening impliues not caring position you paint. Asked and
answered
>
> The proposition is, of it's nature, binary; Either God, is all those good
> things, or it
> aint.
Yes either God is good and reasonable or God is not.
Because you dont stop someone from expressing their opinion that does not
make you unreasonable does it?
Do you believe in anti Holocaust denial laws for example or in censorship or
holocaust deniers?
>
> There is no middle, to exclude.
If you CHANGE the princinple to "God is either Good or not Good) ther is no
excluded middle.
But the context was assuming "intervention to stop suffering is always good
and reasonable" . But that is not necessarily always true.
>
> The real fallacy here, is your insistence on using illogical analogies.
> You cannot
> compare the natural limitations of humanity, with the omniscience, and
> omnipotence, of
> your god.
I never mantioned anything abut MY God! I only pointed out that the position
that if an omnipotent God does not intervene that does not mean he therefore
does not care.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>>> or he cannot prevent them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is it?
>
> Perhaps it just don't give a damn, Mitchell.
Who is Mitchell? you are babbling?
Perhaps God does not care is a valid proposition however. But not
intervening DOES NOT LOGICALLY PROVE that proposition!
>
>>>>
>>>> PleASE LOOK UP "EXCLUDED MIDDLE" AND "FALSE ANALOGY" ! It is not a
>>>> case of either it is A or B!
>>>> Your reasoninbg is simplistic.
>
> So you have learned a new phrase.
I have referred to such fallacies for years!
>
> Unfortunately, your use of it only serves to bring to mind, words like
> pot, kettle, and
> black arse.
I also used "ad hominem" before. Personbal attack wont prove your point ! In
fact is shows how desperate you are becoming.
>>>>>>>>> Everything that happens
>>>>>>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>>>>>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>> Are you saying there are only two options?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But you are saying that if someone is hitting a child either you can
>>>> stop them ot you want it to happen. Clearly this is a silly proposition
>>>> and
>>>>anyone can see there are other options and possibilities?
>
> Straw man.
NO! YOU are the one saying this binary position is the only possibility. YOU
claim either the person (God or me or you) does not care or can not stop the
other person doing wrong (or something else bad like a disaster happening).
> We are not omnipotent, for us, there can be many reasons why we do not
> intervene, not
> least of which is the law of the land.
But how would not being omnipotent change that when the position is WE CAN
INTERVENE AND HAVE THE POWER TO PREVENT THE ACT?
>
> Your god, OTOH, IS omnipotent, supposedly, and it is also touted as a
> loving and
> beneficent god.
So what even if God was of limited power and could only stop natural
disasters u to acertain size, the PRINCIPLE is the same!
>
> If this is true, then for your god to permit the innocent to suffer in
> these natural
> disasters, is a paradox,
No it isnt! People can also cause or fail to act on things they are capable
of preventing . Whether they are omnipotent is NOT THE ISSUE!
The issue is whether someoine who is CAPABLE OF PREVENTING SOMETHING and who
does not prevent it is unreasonable!
Clearly people are NOT unreasonable in every case that they refuse to act!
>which can only resolve it's self as - A: it has the power, but
> doesn't care, or is malevolent and wants the negative events to happen. In
> which case, the
> " loving and beneficent god.", is a lie.
You need lessons in philosophy and logic!
>
> Or,
>
> B: it does not have the ability to prevent it, so it is not omnipotent.
>
ASked and answered. go and get a qualification in philosophy or logic. You
will deal with such issues very early on. I have already explained it but
you continue to blindly follow your belief.
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>>
>>> Why do you keep changing the subject?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __God wants disasters to happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not do
>>>> so not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt other
>>>> people.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>
>>WE are talkiong about people dying in suffereing and who is responsible.
>>Natural disasters (in the twentieth century) at most kill millions over
>>decades. Man made probalems kill hundreds of times that!
>>
>
> Another straw man.
No it isnt! We are talking about the principle of being able to prevent
something and not doing so!
It isnt always evil to not act or to allow others their freedom even if they
cauyse harm by having such freedom!
Yes we are! YOU claimed God can prevent natural disasters! Andpeople also
can prevent things which may cause harm. But God or people allowing such
things to happen is NOT always wrong!
>
> There can be no comparison between the intervention of an all powerful
> god, and the
> limited intervention of a human.
LOL! You are the one now reifying the argument!
You are using the "for God it is different" argument.
But that is the WHOLE PINT of Christianint isn't it? The point is that
people CAN live like Christ and it is NOT different. No god powers are
required!
>
> Your efforts to conflate the two, is it's self, a fallacy.
>
No it isnt! the laws of reason and logic apply to god just as they do to
man! Otherwist the iodea of a "fallacy" is of no value to any such argument
since you claim falliicies do not apply to a God who does not have to live
by any yardstick that man does!
Please come back when yo accept the basic proinciples of logic and reason.
Puck Greenman
>Who said it was MY God? I don't claim to own God and my personal beliefs
>have nothing to do with an objective debate.
Pathetic, childish, semantics.
About the level I would expect from a slightly slow 12 year old.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 8, 6:55�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:12:34 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net>
>> > � �If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
>> >hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>
>> No, he made the elements that can become tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes.
>
>Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
>present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
>1. Exists
The scientific evidence: The big bang.
>2. Actually created anything.
The only answer.
>We're waiting.
Done, dud.
Mavisbeacon
In spite of your ad hiominem the point is that I dont need to defend
anything about anything I claimed about MY god since I didnt do so!
Yu re clearly trying to switch the focus for YOUR CLAIMS to MY god.
I didn't make any claims about MY God or whether I believed in a GOd.
So dont try to SHIFT THE BURDEN onto me to prove something I didnt claim!
I note you also avoided addressing anything else in the post to which you
replied with this waffle.
Such as:
So if you can stop someone doing wrong you should always intervene and
prevent them from doing wrong rather than try to change them so that they
themselves chose not to do something wrong? It makes more sense to prevent
them expressing their freedom and denying them freedom than actually helping
them to change their ways?
How many people are alive in the world? Why do most die and what is the
quality of their life determined by? Is it God who makes a third of the
Children in the world go hungry every day? Is it God who puts people to
death for not believing in atheism or communism or Maoism or whatever? Is it
God who created WMD ? Is it God who allowed genocide in Rwanda Russia
Yugoslavia Sudan East Timor ....?
Apparently your idea seems to be all these things are the responsibility of
God because God allows them to happen! Do you really believe that? And you
think that is logical? Blame most of the death and squalor in the world on a
God in which you don't believe?
and...
Most of the "less fortunate" are in the position
they are in because of the greed and lust for power of people. surely you
already know the world is warming, the oil is running out, the richer people
overconsume and waste and interfere in poverty stricken nations to maintain
their over consumption?
The most powerfull nations in the world rather than justice and
righteousness maintain their inequitable control over the less powerfull!
You tell me you dont know this? You do not know that the US for example with
5 per cent of the worlds people uses about 25 per cent of the worlds oil
every year? That is being "kind" is it?
Your position is are full of evasion and logical fallacy.
Alan Ford
>>>>> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to be
>>>>> Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used them
>>>>> to prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own rules
>>>>> of showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this example
>>>>> god is able to act but does not if that action requires him to use
>>>>> powers which are not within the capability of a human.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things
>>>>> happening then people could not do the same as him could they?
>>>>> How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
>>>>> position?
>>>> And more importantly, how much drag do you think Superman's cape has
>>>> during his flight? Do you think he has to eat more in order to
>>>> compensate for that loss of energy? And if so, what is the best food for
>>>> a person from Krypton?
>>> Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using his
>>> super powers.
>> That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
>> imaginary, fictional characters,
>
> WRONG! Jesus is a historical figure as a human being as well as any claims
> of him being either a Prophet or of him being God.
And, of course, you'll provide evidence of that right here:
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
>
> There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son two
> thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great or
> Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
What's that got to do with anything? There may be historicity and
artifacts for hundreds of carpenters' sons, but that is beside the
point. The Bible and consequently all of Christianity rests on the claim
that Jesus was an offspring of a deity, not some dime-a-dozen son of a
carpenter. That is what the Bible claims. If you are trying to say that
Jesus could have been just a human being with no divine characteristics
whatsoever, then who gives a shit? That, if anything, disproves the
biblical claims.
>
> Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
Give it a few hundred years of memetics and some clever propaganda
enforced by genocide and Superman can just as well become a person whose
"historicity and artifacts" are indisputable. Look at Scientology and
Mormonism.
>> their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would employ
>> as a response to certain physical stimuli.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by the above.
Not my fault.
>
>>> The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to live just
>>> like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to advance his
>>> own position in normal life?
>> There is no "question of principle" anywhere
>
> YES THERE ARE!
Oh, well, I didn't realize you were going to use capital letters. All my
bases are belong to you now.
> "that action requires him to use powers
> which are not within the capability of a human."
>
> Or from the earlier discussion "whether refusal to act is just because
> acting removes free will of the other person"
>
>> other than what you claim. I can also come up with a random question,
>
> My point was not random. It was directly related to the false analogy of -
> God is either uncaring or impotent becuase God does not prevent disasters.
This, while interesting up to a point, is really a quite irrelevant
issue because in order to even be able to address it, one first has to
show some, *any*, evidence for this alleged "God". So far, we've seen
none. Until that happens, this "God" is as real as Superman.
>
>> say "Could Jesus also deflect bullets fired at him from modern firearms
>> and, if so, why couldn't he deflect primitive rusty nails and thorns?",
>> then call it the question of principle.
>
> If he was in fact God he COULD and he could also turn stones into bread.
> But the very point is HE DIDNT - WHY didnt he?
> Because the point is twofold
> 1. He didnt act in a way which other humans could not emulate
Then why did he multiply the fish, heal [some] blind people, resurrect
[some] dead people and himself, iow he acted in a way which other humans
could not emulate?
> 2. Because God does not intervene does not therefore mean God is callous.
No, it means that he does not exist. Not because of any of this academic
logic, but because there is zero evidence for his existence and
overwhelming evidence that there is nothing even remotely similar to
what you call God.
>>>> If you don't beat your meat
>>>> You can't have any pudding
>>>> How can you have any pudding
>>>> If you don't beat your meat?
>>> Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
>>> I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
>> It's a free country - you do what makes you happy with your meat and I'll
>> do what makes me happy with mine.
>
> But the quote is a MISQUOTE! it should be "eat your meat"
Call the quote police.
>
> WHERE is a free country?
You got a point there. Nowhere, really.
Puck Greenman
>> That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
>> imaginary, fictional characters,
>
>WRONG! Jesus is a historical figure
...And your evidence for that assertion is ... What, Exactly?
> as a human being as well as any claims
>of him being either a Prophet or of him being God.
>
>There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son two
>thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great or
>Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
So produce some of this objective evidence.
>
>Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
>
>
>>their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would employ
>>as a response to certain physical stimuli.
>
>I have no idea what you mean by the above.
>
What: Not convenient?
snip remaining blather.
mani deli
>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:52:45 -0500, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:40:48 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
>>>>present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
>>>
>>>>1. Exists
>>>
>>>He created the universe and everything in it according to the physicists.
>
>>-who teach in Sunday school.
>
>You can't top my answer, mad dog. I asked you atheist wannabes over and over to
>give me an equal or better answer that the Supreme Creator, God by name, did it.
>And still you hide.
---no god ever did a damned thing!
>>This boob says he has proof of god's existence until you ask for it.
>
>No, mad dog, I have NEVER stated I have proof, but I have consistently demanded
>that all the evidence says that God exists. And people like you have never been
>able to refute it.
The only evidence you can claim comes out of you book of babble.
That's as much evidence as Superman comics
>Heeheeheeheehee.
Seems his hemorrhoids itch
>The Dukester, American-American super American religious fanatic.
>*****
>"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>Pope Paul VI
>*****
Nothing fails like prayer.
mani deli
>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 05:42:04 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Nov 8, 6:55�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:12:34 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net>
>>> > � �If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
>>> >hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>>
>>> No, he made the elements that can become tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>
>>Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
>>present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
>
>>1. Exists
>
>The scientific evidence: The big bang.
The answer for Sunday Shool kids and ignorant religious fanatics.
>>2. Actually created anything.
>
>The only answer.
>
>>We're waiting.
>
>Done, dud.
You sure are, stupid!
Puck Greenman
Yes,, it does.
If you cared, you would stop me.
>Clearly people may ALLOW others to do wrong because they
>tolerate them and don't want to restrict their freedom to cause harm even if
>harm comes from allowing others such freedom.
>
>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't want you to do?
>>
>> Then you don't care as much as you profess.
>
>It is a central principle of demiocracy. for example censorship is nbanning
>what people do not want.
Censorship, is the minority, forcing their will on the majority.
What people don't want, they won't pay for.
The fact that a need is felt to censor a thing, indicates that people DO want it.
> Is it therefore just?
>Obviously when it comes to the group doing the banning or the group being
>banned I know which group you want to be in!
>
>>
>> Which makes you a hypocrite.
>>
>> ...Is that what your god is?
>
>How am I being hypocritical?
>
You tell us how much you care, yet when the situation arises whereby you have the ability,
and the opportunity, to put your caring into action, you pass by on the other side of the
road.
>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So what is the point of prayer?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about
>>>>>>>>> entirely different subjects?
>>>>>>>>>c
>>>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>>>>>>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
>>>>>>> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
>>>>>>> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want
>>>>>>> the event to happen?
>>
>> That, or I don't give a damn.
>
>You just contradicted yoor "YES" above.
Reading for comprehension, aint your strong suit, is it, Mavis?
It the above scenario, I am the one clouting the kids.
How does my not caring if you batter your's, contradict my reply?
>Clearly people may ALLOW others to do wrong because they tolerate them and
>don't want to restrict their freedom to cause harm even if harm comes from
>allowing others such freedom
>
But we are discussing a god, and natural disasters, not people.
>
>>
>> Are we to take it then, that your god, doesn't give a damn?
>
>
>Where did i say anything about MY god?
>
That is what we are discussing, that is what all of these silly analogies of your refer
to.
Or are you trying to change the subject?
>
>I just pointed out about the other false analogy made. Please dont try to
>"shift the burden".
>That is another fallacy!
>
Word of advice: Don't use terminology, which you do not understand.
That includes all assertions to fallacies, and references to logic.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The analogy id FALSE! Look up "excluded middle" . It is a fallacy!
>>
>> Binary propositions, are not always fallacies.
>
>True.
>Assuming this one is not IS a fallacy!
>
>>
>> The christian churches propose a god which is all powerful, all knowing,
>> all loving, all
>> caring, all sweetness and light, etc, etc.
>
>Yes so?
>
>>
>> How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent
>> natural disasters, and
>> injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which
>> christians claim for
>> it?
>
>I think I already answered that.
I do not recall reading that.
> Intervention may remove free will.
Where, in the bible, does it mention man having free will?
The only place that freewill is mentioned in the bible, IIRC, is in Leviticus, and is
referring to "freewill offerings". i.e. sacrifice.
> Also it isnt the not intervening impliues not caring position you paint.
Then what is it?
> Asked and answered
Well, asked, anyway.
>
>>
>> The proposition is, of it's nature, binary; Either God, is all those good
>> things, or it
>> aint.
>
>Yes either God is good and reasonable or God is not.
>
>Because you dont stop someone from expressing their opinion that does not
>make you unreasonable does it?
Irrelevant, I am not omnipotent and omniscient.
>
>Do you believe in anti Holocaust denial laws for example or in censorship or
>holocaust deniers?
>
I know that such, exist; belief is irrelevant.
>>
>> There is no middle, to exclude.
>
>If you CHANGE the princinple to "God is either Good or not Good) ther is no
>excluded middle.
There is nothing to change, your god id either all good, or not all good: Or are you now
going to invent gray areas, for your god.
>
>But the context was assuming "inteyrvention to stop suffering is always good
>and reasonable" . But that is not necessarily always true.
>
Suggest a scenario, where in, it is not good.
>
>>
>> The real fallacy here, is your insistence on using illogical analogies.
>> You cannot
>> compare the natural limitations of humanity, with the omniscience, and
>> omnipotence, of
>> your god.
>
>I never mantioned anything abut MY God! I only pointed out that the position
>that if an omnipotent God does not intervene that does not mean he therefore
>does not care.
So you don't believe in this "God"(capitalised); Right?
>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>>>> or he cannot prevent them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is it?
>>
>> Perhaps it just don't give a damn, Mitchell.
>
>
>Who is Mitchell? you are babbling?
You really are stupid, aren't you.
" Mitchell", is the person who asked, " Which is it?"
Don't you even look to see who you are talking to?
>
>Perhaps God does not care is a valid proposition however. But not
>intervening DOES NOT LOGICALLY PROVE that proposition!
>
Unless you can offer some other logical reason why an all loving, all caring, all
powerful, being would NOT intervene, given the world's history, and the atrocities
committed in it's name, if no others, also, of course assuming that such a thing exists,
then "God doesn't give a damn", must be the default position.
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> PleASE LOOK UP "EXCLUDED MIDDLE" AND "FALSE ANALOGY" ! It is not a
>>>>> case of either it is A or B!
>>>>> Your reasoninbg is simplistic.
>>
>> So you have learned a new phrase.
>
>I have referred to such fallacies for years!
>y
And yet, over the last several weeks, even when you have been faced with the excluded
middle fallacies, you have not only not mentioned them, but have not recognised them.
Until, that is, your own, excluded middle, fallacies, were pointed out.
Why would that be?
>>
>> Unfortunately, your use of it only serves to bring to mind, words like
>> pot, kettle, and
>> black arse.
>
>
>I also used "ad hominem" before. Personbal attack wont prove your point ! In
>fact is shows how desperate you are becoming.
>
Once again you use a term, incorrectly.
Your line, "Your reasoninbg is simplistic.",is an ad homonym.
I, OTOH, was merely making an observation, completely aside from the subject matter of the
debate.
An insult, if you understand that better.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>> Everything that happens
>>>>>>>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>>>>>>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>> Are you saying there are only two options?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But you are saying that if someone is hitting a child either you can
>>>>> stop them ot you want it to happen. Clearly this is a silly proposition
>>>>> and
>>>>>anyone can see there are other options and possibilities?
>>
>> Straw man.
>
>NO! YOU are the one saying this binary position is the only possibility. YOU
>claim either the person (God or me or you)
Diversion.
We are only discussing your god.
> does not care or can not stop the
>other person doing wrong (or something else bad like a disaster happening).
>
As I said, only your god, or any god that you care to imagine, for that matter.
>
>> We are not omnipotent, for us, there can be many reasons why we do not
>> intervene, not
>> least of which is the law of the land.
>
>But how would not being omnipotent change that when the position is WE CAN
>INTERVENE AND HAVE THE POWER TO PREVENT THE ACT?
>
Straw man.
We are discussing your god, not mortals.
>
>>
>> Your god, OTOH, IS omnipotent, supposedly, and it is also touted as a
>> loving and
>> beneficent god.
>
>
>So what even if God was of limited power and could only stop natural
>disasters u to acertain size, the PRINCIPLE is the same!
>
No, it isn't.
It is a question of ability, which is why your analogies, involving humans, are fallacies.
You expect humans, with limited ability, to act, but excuse your god, with it's UNLIMITED
ability, for not acting.
If your god had only limited ability, then it's inaction would be excusable, but that aint
the claim for your god; is it?
>>
>> If this is true, then for your god to permit the innocent to suffer in
>> these natural
>> disasters, is a paradox,
>
>No it isnt!
Yes it is.
> People
People are irrelevant, we are discussing a god.
> can also cause or fail to act on things they are capable
>of preventing . Whether they are omnipotent is NOT THE ISSUE!
>The issue is whether someoine who is CAPABLE OF PREVENTING SOMETHING and who
>does not prevent it is unreasonable!
>
>Clearly people are NOT unreasonable in every case that they refuse to act!
>
>
>>which can only resolve it's self as - A: it has the power, but
>> doesn't care, or is malevolent and wants the negative events to happen. In
>> which case, the
>> " loving and beneficent god.", is a lie.
>
>
>You need lessons in philosophy and logic!
>
Of course I do.
BTW, can you say, "Ad homonym."?
>
>>
>> Or,
>>
>> B: it does not have the ability to prevent it, so it is not omnipotent.
>>
>
>ASked and answered. go and get a qualification in philosophy or logic. You
>will deal with such issues very early on. I have already explained it but
>you continue to blindly follow your belief.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you keep changing the subject?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __God wants disasters to happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not do
>>>>> so not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt other
>>>>> people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>>
>>>WE are talkiong about people dying in suffereing and who is responsible.
>>>Natural disasters (in the twentieth century) at most kill millions over
>>>decades. Man made probalems kill hundreds of times that!
>>>
>>
>> Another straw man.
>
>No it isnt!
Yes it is.
> We are talking about the principle of being able to prevent
>something and not doing so!
>
Only in so far as it relates to your god.
>It isnt always evil to not act or to allow others their freedom even if they
>cauyse harm by having such freedom!
>
And what about those who are harmed, when your god could have prevented it?
Yes, a god, not people.
> Andpeople also
But only you are trying to include people, in order to avoid answering difficult questions
about your god.
>can prevent things which may cause harm. But God or people allowing such
>things to happen is NOT always wrong!
>
>>
>> There can be no comparison between the intervention of an all powerful
>> god, and the
>> limited intervention of a human.
>
>LOL! You are the one now reifying the argument!
>
Are you now denying your god, and claiming that it is merely an abstract?
>
>You are using the "for God it is different" argument.
Yes, but I am reversing it, it is only a fallacy, when used to excuse your god of
inaction, failure, etc.
I am pointing out how your mythology, proclaims your god to be capable of anything, but
cannot be shown to be responsible for anything useful, or compassionate.
>
>But that is the WHOLE PINT of Christianint isn't it? The point is that
>people CAN live like Christ and it is NOT different. No god powers are
>required!
>
Non sequitur.
>
>>
>> Your efforts to conflate the two, is it's self, a fallacy.
>>
>
>No it isnt!
Yes it is.
> the laws of reason and logic apply to god just as they do to
>man! Otherwist the iodea of a "fallacy" is of no value to any such argument
>since you claim falliicies do not apply to a God who does not have to live
>by any yardstick that man does!
And another straw man
>
>Please come back when yo accept the basic proinciples of logic and reason.
>
And again; can you say, "Ad homonym."?
duke
>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:11:16 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:52:45 -0500, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:40:48 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
>>>>>present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
>>>>
>>>>>1. Exists
>>>>
>>>>He created the universe and everything in it according to the physicists.
>>
>>>-who teach in Sunday school.
>>
>>You can't top my answer, mad dog. I asked you atheist wannabes over and over to
>>give me an equal or better answer that the Supreme Creator, God by name, did it.
>>And still you hide.
>
>---no god ever did a damned thing!
God is his name. Supreme Creator is his game. You just don't want to accept
reality, mad dog.
Our universe appeared as an act of creation some 13.7 billion years ago. It
didn't "always" exist even though 13.7 billion years is a long time. And it
didn't appear in it's present size, but as an infinitely small point of mass of
infinite density.
You can play your little games, but you have no support for them.
>>>This boob says he has proof of god's existence until you ask for it.
>>No, mad dog, I have NEVER stated I have proof, but I have consistently demanded
>>that all the evidence says that God exists. And people like you have never been
>>able to refute it.
>The only evidence you can claim comes out of you book of babble.
Take the bible out of it and you still get the same result - creation.
The Dukester, American-American
duke
>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:14:42 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 05:42:04 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 8, 6:55�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:12:34 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net>
>>>> > � �If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
>>>> >hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>>>
>>>> No, he made the elements that can become tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>>
>>>Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
>>>present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
>>
>>>1. Exists
>>
>>The scientific evidence: The big bang.
>
>The answer for Sunday Shool kids and ignorant religious fanatics.
And the world of science and physics.
>>>2. Actually created anything.
>>The only answer.
>>>We're waiting.
>>Done, dud.
>You sure are, stupid!
No. but you are.
Mavisbeacon
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:50:48 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>>> That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
>>> imaginary, fictional characters,
>>
>>WRONG! Jesus is a historical figure
>
> ...And your evidence for that assertion is ... What, Exactly?
Posted in other reply.
And you evidence for Socrates and Alewxander the Great is?
>
>
>
>> as a human being as well as any claims
>>of him being either a Prophet or of him being God.
>>
>>There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son
>>two
>>thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great or
>>Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
>
> So produce some of this objective evidence.
Posted in other reply.
Care to produce evidence for Socrates or Alexander?
>
>
>>
>>Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
>>
>>
>>>their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would
>>>employ
>>>as a response to certain physical stimuli.
>>
>>I have no idea what you mean by the above.
>>
>
> What: Not convenient?
No just not making any sense.
Mavisbeacon
> Mavisbeacon wrote:
>
>>>>>> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to
>>>>>> be Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used
>>>>>> them to prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own
>>>>>> rules of showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this
>>>>>> example god is able to act but does not if that action requires him
>>>>>> to use powers which are not within the capability of a human.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things
>>>>>> happening then people could not do the same as him could they?
>>>>>> How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance
>>>>>> his position?
>>>>> And more importantly, how much drag do you think Superman's cape has
>>>>> during his flight? Do you think he has to eat more in order to
>>>>> compensate for that loss of energy? And if so, what is the best food
>>>>> for a person from Krypton?
>>>> Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using
>>>> his super powers.
>>> That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
>>> imaginary, fictional characters,
>>
>> WRONG! Jesus is a historical figure as a human being as well as any
>> claims of him being either a Prophet or of him being God.
>
> And, of course, you'll provide evidence of that right here:
Yes indeed it is called the historicity of Jesus.
From the good old wikipedia:
With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of
biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from
Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was
accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman
Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.
^ Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave
(New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964; D. A.
Carson, et al., p. 50-56; Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the
Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108; John Dominic Crossan,
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant,
HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii; Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78, 166, 200;
Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred A. Knopf,
1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266; John P. Meier, vol. 1:68, 146, 199,
278, 386, 2:726; E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37.; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness
of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright, The Meaning of
Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83, 100-102, 222; Ben
Witherington III, pp. 12-20.
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________
>
>>
>> There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son
>> two thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great
>> or Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
>
> What's that got to do with anything?
Well you believe Alexander the Great or socrates existed don't you?
>There may be historicity and artifacts for hundreds of carpenters' sons,
>but that is beside the point.
Nope. We are discussing Jesus of Nazereth the person written about in the
Bible.
Not just any Carpenters son! and there is not to my knowledge much else
about any other carpenters sons from Nazareth about 2000 years ago!
>The Bible and consequently all of Christianity rests on the claim that
>Jesus was an offspring of a deity,
But that is NOT the issue you raised! The deity of christ and THE
HISTORICITY OF JESUS are two DIFFERENT subjects.
The exiostance of a MAN Jesus rather than an imaginary fictional charachter
is the issue your raised and NOT the claim that that man was also God!
> not some dime-a-dozen son of a carpenter.
But you have not other historical evidence for dozens of other carpenters
sons from Nazareth at that time do you?
>That is what the Bible claims.
But WHAT THE BIBLE CLAIMS is not the issue! The issue YOU raised was about
jesus being a fictional charachter. there is aas much evidence for him than
for other people that you accept existede and he was only a carpenters sonm
whereas the others may have been the greatest philosophers of all times opr
the Greatest Military rulers.
>If you are trying to say that Jesus could have been just a human being with
>no divine characteristics whatsoever, then who gives a shit?
Apparently YOU since YOU RAUISED THE ISSUE of Jesus being a fictional
charachter! I only pointed out unlike superman there is a historicity to
Jesus as a real person.
>That, if anything, disproves the biblical claims.
Actually NO it doesnt but it would be a heretical claim. But that is a
DIFFERENT ISSUE!
>
>>
>> Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
>
> Give it a few hundred years of memetics and some clever propaganda
> enforced by genocide and Superman can just as well become a person whose
> "historicity and artifacts" are indisputable.
Memetics itself is disputable. Dawkings has abandoned it and the Academic
Journal is not in publication anymore!
If you believe in memetics you believe in a false science.
>Look at Scientology and Mormonism.
What should I? I diodnt make any claims abut them or about Jesus being God!
YOU introduced that red herring.
>
>>> their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would
>>> employ as a response to certain physical stimuli.
>>
>> I have no idea what you mean by the above.
>
> Not my fault.
It is you seem incapable of using coherent English and a tenjdency to slide
into waffle qand gobbledigook with pseudo scientific leanings.
>>
>>>> The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to live just
>>>> like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to advance
>>>> his own position in normal life?
>>> There is no "question of principle" anywhere
>>
>> YES THERE ARE!
>
> Oh, well, I didn't realize you were going to use capital letters. All my
> bases are belong to you now.
It is clearly indicated above in plain English.
>
>
>> "that action requires him to use powers
>> which are not within the capability of a human."
>>
>> Or from the earlier discussion "whether refusal to act is just because
>> acting removes free will of the other person"
>>
>>> other than what you claim. I can also come up with a random question,
>>
>> My point was not random. It was directly related to the false analogy
>> of - God is either uncaring or impotent becuase God does not prevent
>> disasters.
>
> This, while interesting up to a point, is really a quite irrelevant
n o it isnt it is germane to the discussion and your claim that NO PRINCIPLE
is asserted in the above discussion!
> issue because in order to even be able to address it, one first has to
> show some, *any*, evidence for this alleged "God". So far, we've seen
> none. Until that happens, this "God" is as real as Superman.
You have not been following the discussion this has been dealt with already.
all Pink Giraffes eat leaves
Arnold is a pink Giraffe
We can logically conclude Arnold eats leaves whether or not Pink Giraffes
god or Superman exist!
The assumption was made by the OTHER poster that IF God exists then God is
not all powerful or callaus.
There were several logical fallacies in that reasoning which have been
pointed out.
>>
>>> say "Could Jesus also deflect bullets fired at him from modern firearms
>>> and, if so, why couldn't he deflect primitive rusty nails and thorns?",
>>> then call it the question of principle.
>>
>> If he was in fact God he COULD and he could also turn stones into bread.
>> But the very point is HE DIDNT - WHY didnt he?
>> Because the point is twofold
>> 1. He didnt act in a way which other humans could not emulate
>
> Then why did he multiply the fish, heal [some] blind people, resurrect
> [some] dead people and himself, iow he acted in a way which other humans
> could not emulate?
Other humans apparently COULD and DID perform miracles!
And Jesus Christ according to the stroy never did these things for his own
personal gain but as charitable acts.
>
>> 2. Because God does not intervene does not therefore mean God is callous.
>
> No, it means that he does not exist.
No it DOES NOT! If you do not intervene does that mean you do not exist?
>Not because of any of this academic logic, but because there is zero
>evidence for his existence and overwhelming evidence that there is nothing
>even remotely similar to what you call God.
Really?
What do you mean by "evidence"?
And where did I define God?
>
>>>>> If you don't beat your meat
>>>>> You can't have any pudding
>>>>> How can you have any pudding
>>>>> If you don't beat your meat?
>>>> Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
>>>> I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
>>> It's a free country - you do what makes you happy with your meat and
>>> I'll do what makes me happy with mine.
>>
>> But the quote is a MISQUOTE! it should be "eat your meat"
>
> Call the quote police.
Id prefer if you actually used proper english and didnt distort what people
stated.
>>
>> WHERE is a free country?
>
> You got a point there. Nowhere, really.
Where is this "nowhere" place?
If one can be free in thios nowhere place then care to give me directions?
>
> --
> If you don't beat your meat
> You can't have any pudding
> How can you have any pudding
> If you don't beat your meat?
You are misquoting Pink Floyd