Author Topic: An Apology To God, Country, and Community  (Read 3985 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sgt.Winters

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2030
  • Wut
    • View Profile
  • Nick: look at me
  • Side: Union
Re: An Apology To God, Country, and Community
« Reply #30 on: February 11, 2020, 11:48:23 pm »
Quote
You still don't get it. By your beliefs, the world is meaningless, making you, Sgt. Winters without meaning, making every argument you make meaningless. So you lose by default, because a creature without meaning is unable to make arguments.


To be quite frank, your own beliefs should render you without meaning as well. As stated above, even The King of Jerusalem, a man famed for his wisdom and valor, had ultimately concluded all actions fulfilled by man were vapid and nonsensical. All men, whether wise or stupid, strong or weak, rich or poor, would be rendered mute by the inescapable march of time. He then concludes that one need only be kind and enjoy the earthly pleasures bestowed upon them (Satre?). Of course, the narrator in his epilogue infers a completely different approach, but it is the Bible so this should be expected. You then have to realize that man is fallible, and if man is fallible, then the Bible must be too.

The only perfect man according to this particular Abrahamic would be Christ (though cursing a fig tree for being out of season might disqualify him from that venerable position), as he is essentially a manifestation of God's will. Jesus is our savior; the one who shall not lead us astray, but instead guide man into understanding that the only way to enter God's eternal kingdom is through him. This is perhaps the most confusing aspect of the entire theological quandary that presents itself in Christian Canon. For why would God allow Eve to sin by coveting the forbidden apple, thereby cursing all who would come after her to be damned if absolution had not been received? Furthermore, why would he wash away the sins of man through means of a global flood, if he had enabled the possibility to sin from the beginning?  Why is he trying to save mankind through the means of Christ if the origins of sin had been one he himself had constructed from the cosmos? If this is a test, then it is a poorly thought out one. Eternal punishment from a seemingly all-loving God seems to be contradictory. Finally, if there is indeed a purpose to all of this, do we have the free will required to deny it?

The book of Ecclesiastes is considered canonical by all accounts. However, if one were to factor in the possibility of you belonging to one of the many other various denominations (of which there are estimated to be anywhere between 1,400 to 33,000), then your mileage may very.  One could draw the conclusion that extracting any sort of information from Biblical sources and labeling it as truthful could be viewed as contradictory in and of itself.

You needn't look any further than the numerous paradoxes, illogical statements, and antithetical verses that are scattered throughout the Old/New Testament.

For more information, see here: http://bibviz.com


Quote
That begs the question: How can something that is created be without meaning? Well...It can't. Everything that is created has a purpose for being created. But I'm not going to stay on this for too long because it seems you like to keep your eggs in many different baskets so lets try another way in your worldview.

By what definition are we defining purpose here? Is the purpose of grass to be eaten by a Zebra, who in turn shall be devoured by a pack of lions? A stillborn is created from the womb of its mother, and yet no purpose can seemingly be derived from it, only grief. If I were to postulate from your previous examples, you must assume that creation inherently necessitates purpose. That is true only from a human perspective. A watch is built by its owner in order to tell the time of day; a car manufactured  to drive from point a to b; a rifle produced for the intention to kill. Naturally, it would only make sense to us specifically to ask the question that because we are here, then we must be here for a purpose instilled prior to our arrival. I must ask you then, as to why would God produce such a gigantic cosmos (of which the observable portion isn't even said to resemble that of a whole number), if we were to be the sole inhabitants. Seems like an awful waste of space, no? If their purpose is to serve as celestial decorations that we may gaze upon when night falls, then surely an omnipotent God would have designed it a bit better, considering they keep blowing up, or getting sucked by black holes, take your pick. Mathematically speaking, there would inevitably some sort of life that has formed on some distant planet completely out our reach. If the only path to salvation is through the means of Christianity, then you should pray that God has graced them with his presence, else they suffer eternal hellfire at the hands of Satan.

If you wish to be provided with a more local example, look no further than the appendix present within our own bodies. Evolutionarily speaking, it no longer serves a purpose. It's a vestigial organ, phased out slowly over hundreds of thousands of years, and yet it still remains apart of the man's bodily anatomy. Spartan may be better equipped to answer this, but still I must beg the question; other than possibly bursting open and causing us immense pain, what purpose does this appendix currently serve? Should it not have been eliminated slowly if all things are created with inherent meaning like you claim?


Quote
So if we were to believe that we are "going along for the ride" and that the chemicals in our brain are making all the decisions for us, you, Sgt. Winters, are still not making any arguments. You are unable to form your own ideas or even write this entire spiel because everything you do is a chemical determined process therefore you are unable to make ANY FORM of argument.

I struggle to see the connection you are attempting to make here. While there are aspects of neuroscience that indicate that we cannot control certain aspects of the way we respond to things (such as the fight or slight response), it does not purport the assertion that we have no direct jurisdiction over our own actions. The chemicals that control us are still us despite claims to the contrary. Just because a painting is a collection of oils and colors splattered onto a blank canvas, does not take away from the fact that it is still it's own object. The very machines we are using right now are nothing but zeroes and ones displayed on a screen, but they certainly create a far more vivid image than that.

From the Christian point of view, surely you must realize that the God you espouse states throughout the entirety of the Bible to be the following: omniscient (John 1 3:20), omnipotent (Matthew 19:26), omnipresent (Psalm 139), transcendent (Isaiah 57:15), infinite (1 Kings 8:27), incorporeal (John 4:24), impeccable (Hebrews 6:18), and utterly incomprehensible (Isaiah 40:28). Psalm 139:4 even goes as far to say that God already knows what we shall say before the words are even uttered from our lips. Isaiah 46:9-10 goes EVEN further in stating that God knows how the world shall end, along with every single event preceding it. From this we can assume that God is the past, present, and future. His immutable plan has simultaneously been played and not been played. He already knows what shall occur because he has deemed it so. You could say that this has all been predetermined by an ordinance of heavenly proportions. Hm?


Quote
But, for some reason I think you may try to flip-flop or use your rhetoric expertise to try and navigate your way out of the trap you set for yourself because I'm not even sure you know what you believe in.

I don't really believe in anything. Except the word belief implies that I have faith in something that is even completely void of meaning. Oh, the conundrums of ontological knowledge! How deep they stab at my very being!


Quote
I think you have a misconstrued view of God and what he does, which is why you're coming to these strange conclusions. You have the stereotypical atheist view that God is supposed to be some superhero who comes in and saves the day every time something wrong is going to happen (Or at least thats what you want God to be). As I said or at least hinted at before: God is trying to teach us LESSONS. If he just came in and saved the day by his own hand every time something went wrong we wouldn't learn anything. It seems to me that you want a God who can be pushed over, or one that gives you anything you want because you want it. The thing is, people don't know what they want or what they need; like you pointed out, look at the state of humanity right now.

The "stereotypical" view that you reference here isn't entirely without merit. If anything, God in this context is a maniacal supervillian. He destroyed Sodom and Gommorah, flooded the world clean save for Noah, his family, and two pairs of every animal species (all 8.7 million of of them somehow), and helped the Israelites murder innumerable amounts of people at Jericho, Bashan, Hesbon, and many others. For lesser known instances, you may pick from any of these: ordering bears to maul children for their mocking of Eliseus (4 Kings 2:23-24), asking Abraham to sacrifice his own son (Genesis 22:1-12), assisting Sampson after losing a bet by helping him kill all 30 of his companions (Judges 14:1-19), wrestling with Jacob for seemingly no other reason than to be a dick (Genesis 32:22-31), and pretty much everything that happens to Job that is he is responsible for (can be found in the Ketuvim section of the Hebrew Bible). If these are lessons, in combination with all sorts of supernatural occurrences that heavily resemble that of magic, then they are doing a piss poor job of teaching anyone anything. Can't he just come down here and tell us to stop killing each other and be kind, rather than communicate through cryptic messages and genocide?

Quote
I don't understand why you're puzzled by what I said because of course I'm going to answer your question from the perspective off the Christian belief.

I mean, usually most modern Christians debate using methods originating with Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, or William Craig. Some of your rhetoric came of as something an 18 year old Mormon on his mission would exclaim, which is unconvincing really.


Quote
Also I know I'm coming off as condescending, but I just don't understand why you wear this pessimistic, painful, and pointless belief if it causes you so much suffering. I would surmise it's because you believe you're taking the ultra hardcore blackpill, but as you have said if you realize that this is all predetermined why are you still here? Why is anyone still here? We should have no issue killing ourselves because its only a logical conclusion if we realize that we are merely programmed machines and there is no real reason to exist. Then one would say that it's merely an "illusion", but you already stated that you apparently don't subscribe to that thinking.

See above. If our fates our predetermined, then everything that happens will do so as it was meant to. There would be no need to kill myself simply due to the fact that life has no set meaning, though you are correct in assuming that it complicates the clusterfuck we have found ourselves in. Perhaps I wear this mantle of suffering because it is the only thing that makes sense to me. It is true that I am seeing all too negatively, much in the sense as you would think a person that only sees thing in a positive sense (aka the Pollyanna principle) is being dishonest as well. Reading Epitectus might help with this.


Quote
I'm more than willing to explain myself further, and I would be interested to hear why you came to be the way you are as well, but I'd prefer Steam PMs since it would be pretty personal.

There will be no need for that. The state of my mental being is mostly the product of the environment once more (seeing children suffer from leukemia in person didn't really help either). American culture encourages these sorts of thoughts. The media needs you to get scared, politicians require outrage, it is a cycle that perpetuates pain. The current position that Humanity has found itself in is also rather exhausting. Much of Western philosophical and political thought could even be narrowed down to this simple formula of constant struggle. Maybe that's why the Eastern thinkers tend to be viewed in the way that seeks peace with existence, or whatever the hell it is that they do.







Offline Maple™

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 926
  • GLORIOUS MELEE
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Boy Wonder
  • Side: Neutral
Re: An Apology To God, Country, and Community
« Reply #31 on: February 12, 2020, 05:16:53 am »
Spoiler
Quote
You still don't get it. By your beliefs, the world is meaningless, making you, Sgt. Winters without meaning, making every argument you make meaningless. So you lose by default, because a creature without meaning is unable to make arguments.


To be quite frank, your own beliefs should render you without meaning as well. As stated above, even The King of Jerusalem, a man famed for his wisdom and valor, had ultimately concluded all actions fulfilled by man were vapid and nonsensical. All men, whether wise or stupid, strong or weak, rich or poor, would be rendered mute by the inescapable march of time. He then concludes that one need only be kind and enjoy the earthly pleasures bestowed upon them (Satre?). Of course, the narrator in his epilogue infers a completely different approach, but it is the Bible so this should be expected. You then have to realize that man is fallible, and if man is fallible, then the Bible must be too.

The only perfect man according to this particular Abrahamic would be Christ (though cursing a fig tree for being out of season might disqualify him from that venerable position), as he is essentially a manifestation of God's will. Jesus is our savior; the one who shall not lead us astray, but instead guide man into understanding that the only way to enter God's eternal kingdom is through him. This is perhaps the most confusing aspect of the entire theological quandary that presents itself in Christian Canon. For why would God allow Eve to sin by coveting the forbidden apple, thereby cursing all who would come after her to be damned if absolution had not been received? Furthermore, why would he wash away the sins of man through means of a global flood, if he had enabled the possibility to sin from the beginning?  Why is he trying to save mankind through the means of Christ if the origins of sin had been one he himself had constructed from the cosmos? If this is a test, then it is a poorly thought out one. Eternal punishment from a seemingly all-loving God seems to be contradictory. Finally, if there is indeed a purpose to all of this, do we have the free will required to deny it?

The book of Ecclesiastes is considered canonical by all accounts. However, if one were to factor in the possibility of you belonging to one of the many other various denominations (of which there are estimated to be anywhere between 1,400 to 33,000), then your mileage may very.  One could draw the conclusion that extracting any sort of information from Biblical sources and labeling it as truthful could be viewed as contradictory in and of itself.

You needn't look any further than the numerous paradoxes, illogical statements, and antithetical verses that are scattered throughout the Old/New Testament.

For more information, see here: http://bibviz.com
[close]
"This is why I speak to them in parables:

Though seeing, they do not see;
    though hearing, they do not hear or understand." Mat 13:13

It sounds like you're copy pasting arguments from r/atheism into your dialogue because its quite evident that you have never read the bible or at the very least you take it extremely literally (which is pretty ironic since you present yourself to be knowledgeable).

What the Preacher was imparting to the reader is that a life filled with the pursuit of carnal/fleeting desires is a life not worth lived. Because when you are in the presence of The Lord, you will not be taking your possessions with you, and you will realize all the time you spent studying Dawkins, Hitchens, Nietzsche, etc. was fruitless.
You ask "Why would God allow Eve to sin?" This makes it pretty clear to me that you're just using somebody else argument to fall back on because I've answered this question so many times for you: (Here I'll put it in all caps so you see it this time)

GOD GAVE US FREEWILL; HE ALLOWS US TO REJECT HIM

Have you ever taken a test before? Yes? Are there wrong answers in a test? Yes? Okay. I can only explain this to you in so many different ways.

Spoiler
Quote
That begs the question: How can something that is created be without meaning? Well...It can't. Everything that is created has a purpose for being created. But I'm not going to stay on this for too long because it seems you like to keep your eggs in many different baskets so lets try another way in your worldview.

By what definition are we defining purpose here? Is the purpose of grass to be eaten by a Zebra, who in turn shall be devoured by a pack of lions? A stillborn is created from the womb of its mother, and yet no purpose can seemingly be derived from it, only grief. If I were to postulate from your previous examples, you must assume that creation inherently necessitates purpose. That is true only from a human perspective. A watch is built by its owner in order to tell the time of day; a car manufactured  to drive from point a to b; a rifle produced for the intention to kill. Naturally, it would only make sense to us specifically to ask the question that because we are here, then we must be here for a purpose instilled prior to our arrival. I must ask you then, as to why would God produce such a gigantic cosmos (of which the observable portion isn't even said to resemble that of a whole number), if we were to be the sole inhabitants. Seems like an awful waste of space, no? If their purpose is to serve as celestial decorations that we may gaze upon when night falls, then surely an omnipotent God would have designed it a bit better, considering they keep blowing up, or getting sucked by black holes, take your pick. Mathematically speaking, there would inevitably some sort of life that has formed on some distant planet completely out our reach. If the only path to salvation is through the means of Christianity, then you should pray that God has graced them with his presence, else they suffer eternal hellfire at the hands of Satan.

If you wish to be provided with a more local example, look no further than the appendix present within our own bodies. Evolutionarily speaking, it no longer serves a purpose. It's a vestigial organ, phased out slowly over hundreds of thousands of years, and yet it still remains apart of the man's bodily anatomy. Spartan may be better equipped to answer this, but still I must beg the question; other than possibly bursting open and causing us immense pain, what purpose does this appendix currently serve? Should it not have been eliminated slowly if all things are created with inherent meaning like you claim?
[close]

How is purpose from creation something that man came up with? Tree's are necessary for life because they release oxygen is order for us to breathe. Water allows life to thrive. Our eyes allow us to perceive the world. Of course in a sense you are right because we are not able to discern the true essence of something; that is called Truth and God is Truth.
Also its disingenuous to ask me to answer very specific basis-by-basis questions that I of course could never answer in confidence (What is the purpose of a baby that dies in the womb? What is the purpose of this one guy who lives in a sewer and has every disease known to man?) because I am not God and I do not have all the answers for why the world is as it is.

Spoiler
Quote
So if we were to believe that we are "going along for the ride" and that the chemicals in our brain are making all the decisions for us, you, Sgt. Winters, are still not making any arguments. You are unable to form your own ideas or even write this entire spiel because everything you do is a chemical determined process therefore you are unable to make ANY FORM of argument.

I struggle to see the connection you are attempting to make here. While there are aspects of neuroscience that indicate that we cannot control certain aspects of the way we respond to things (such as the fight or slight response), it does not purport the assertion that we have no direct jurisdiction over our own actions. The chemicals that control us are still us despite claims to the contrary. Just because a painting is a collection of oils and colors splattered onto a blank canvas, does not take away from the fact that it is still it's own object. The very machines we are using right now are nothing but zeroes and ones displayed on a screen, but they certainly create a far more vivid image than that.

From the Christian point of view, surely you must realize that the God you espouse states throughout the entirety of the Bible to be the following: omniscient (John 1 3:20), omnipotent (Matthew 19:26), omnipresent (Psalm 139), transcendent (Isaiah 57:15), infinite (1 Kings 8:27), incorporeal (John 4:24), impeccable (Hebrews 6:18), and utterly incomprehensible (Isaiah 40:28). Psalm 139:4 even goes as far to say that God already knows what we shall say before the words are even uttered from our lips. Isaiah 46:9-10 goes EVEN further in stating that God knows how the world shall end, along with every single event preceding it. From this we can assume that God is the past, present, and future. His immutable plan has simultaneously been played and not been played. He already knows what shall occur because he has deemed it so. You could say that this has all been predetermined by an ordinance of heavenly proportions. Hm?
[close]

Isn't it ironic that you acknowledge all these characteristics of God yet you yourself are attempting to question his methods? You say he is past, present, and future, yet you then say that his plan is fallible. (Also some more of your copy-pasting)

Spoiler
Quote
I think you have a misconstrued view of God and what he does, which is why you're coming to these strange conclusions. You have the stereotypical atheist view that God is supposed to be some superhero who comes in and saves the day every time something wrong is going to happen (Or at least thats what you want God to be). As I said or at least hinted at before: God is trying to teach us LESSONS. If he just came in and saved the day by his own hand every time something went wrong we wouldn't learn anything. It seems to me that you want a God who can be pushed over, or one that gives you anything you want because you want it. The thing is, people don't know what they want or what they need; like you pointed out, look at the state of humanity right now.

The "stereotypical" view that you reference here isn't entirely without merit. If anything, God in this context is a maniacal supervillian. He destroyed Sodom and Gommorah, flooded the world clean save for Noah, his family, and two pairs of every animal species (all 8.7 million of of them somehow), and helped the Israelites murder innumerable amounts of people at Jericho, Bashan, Hesbon, and many others. For lesser known instances, you may pick from any of these: ordering bears to maul children for their mocking of Eliseus (4 Kings 2:23-24), asking Abraham to sacrifice his own son (Genesis 22:1-12), assisting Sampson after losing a bet by helping him kill all 30 of his companions (Judges 14:1-19), wrestling with Jacob for seemingly no other reason than to be a dick (Genesis 32:22-31), and pretty much everything that happens to Job that is he is responsible for (can be found in the Ketuvim section of the Hebrew Bible). If these are lessons, in combination with all sorts of supernatural occurrences that heavily resemble that of magic, then they are doing a piss poor job of teaching anyone anything. Can't he just come down here and tell us to stop killing each other and be kind, rather than communicate through cryptic messages and genocide?
[close]

[Insert Mat 13:13 quote]
   Again, most of these are parables. You are superimposing God with your human traits. Him taking life is not evil because he is the creator of all life. And before you make assumptions, you cannot make a metaphor of God being a King who doesn't obey his own rules because again you would be comparing him to a human king. Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed because there were no more virtuous people left in the cities. Abraham pleaded with God to save the cities if there was 50 righteous people left within the walls, then 45, then 40, then it came down to if there was 1 righteous person left he would spare the city. There was none left. With Noah and the flood, literally every single man and woman was filled with wickedness in their hearts, all except Noah. So he destroyed the rest of man and left Noah to be the father of the new world. I'm not going to explain every reference you made, but I'm sure you get the gist.

Well...he has come down and told us to do these things...such as when he creates the Decalogue. How many times does he have to come down or perform some miracle for you in order for you to accept him? It seems like most people treat him as some cheap magician who will give you a parlor trick every time you ask. God doesn't have issues, we have issues.

Spoiler
Quote
I don't understand why you're puzzled by what I said because of course I'm going to answer your question from the perspective off the Christian belief.

I mean, usually most modern Christians debate using methods originating with Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, or William Craig. Some of your rhetoric came of as something an 18 year old Mormon on his mission would exclaim, which is unconvincing really.
[close]

I don't feel like to I need to appeal to any Christian/Theist philosopher's authority in order to make my argument. If I added more adjectives and esoteric verbiage would you think of me more kindly? It isn't an entirely complex thing I was trying to explain; you asked me "Why does God allow evil" and the answer for that is pretty simple. If anything I am borrowing ideas from Rene Girard.

At the end of the day there are millions of way to be wrong, but only one way to be right. I don't think it matters what I say to you or if I used any of the methods from Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, or William Craig. Somebody you barely know over NW isn't going to be able to invoke the reactions necessary for change. At this point we are just debating for brownie points. I'll listen to your response to what I wrote, but I don't think I'm going to respond (at least in a polemic nature).

Offline Sgt.Winters

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2030
  • Wut
    • View Profile
  • Nick: look at me
  • Side: Union
Re: An Apology To God, Country, and Community
« Reply #32 on: February 12, 2020, 08:13:48 am »
Quote
"This is why I speak to them in parables:

Though seeing, they do not see;
    though hearing, they do not hear or understand." Mat 13:13

It sounds like you're copy pasting arguments from r/atheism into your dialogue because its quite evident that you have never read the bible or at the very least you take it extremely literally (which is pretty ironic since you present yourself to be knowledgeable).

What the Preacher was imparting to the reader is that a life filled with the pursuit of carnal/fleeting desires is a life not worth lived. Because when you are in the presence of The Lord, you will not be taking your possessions with you, and you will realize all the time you spent studying Dawkins, Hitchens, Nietzsche, etc. was fruitless.
You ask "Why would God allow Eve to sin?" This makes it pretty clear to me that you're just using somebody else argument to fall back on because I've answered this question so many times for you: (Here I'll put it in all caps so you see it this time)

GOD GAVE US FREEWILL; HE ALLOWS US TO REJECT HIM

Have you ever taken a test before? Yes? Are there wrong answers in a test? Yes? Okay. I can only explain this to you in so many different ways.

Let's get this straight. God creates man with free will, therefore allowing us to make decisions of our own volition. From here, there are two possibilities (or three if you want to get diverse): either reign with him in eternal bliss, or be damned to hellfire. Why then, for the love of all that is somewhat good in this world, does he bother in the first place? Does he get a kick out of seeing those who rejected him suffer horribly? God apparently loves man, so why does he gamble with the possibility of them burning in hell? If this world serves as but a test to gain access to Heaven, then what is the purpose of that plain of existence? To preach and sing, to the same damn deity, day in and day out, for eternity? I don't think most Christians even contemplate what eternity actually is. Let me put it simply, it never ends,ever . You will be doing the same monotonous tasks forever. There will be no rest or reprieve, only the simple awareness that this is the endgame for your soul. Since I've never seen a Christian ever answer this question without wandering into the territory that is circular reasoning, I'm going to have to assume it is all part of that great plan you and your crowd keep raving about. Come to think of it, why does God even bother sending Jesus to help? He is omniscient! He already knows what the fuck is going to happen. Could it be possible that God himself lacks free will?

There are at least 2 billion Christians in this world. Since most of them certainly aren't living up to the standards of virtue Christ (or really any prophet) had spoken of, we can safely assume that most of them aren't going up to chill in the clouds. As for the 5 billion other people of this planet, who consist of both religious and nonreligious groups, what shall happen to them? In your eyes, what constitutes admission into the Kingdom of Heaven? Evangelicals keep yelling into my ear that acceptance of Jesus is required, but the Jesuits pleasantly preach that all that is required is to be a good person. It seems to me, that given all our flaws (which, according to God, were created in his image), the majority of us are doomed to eternal suffering no matter how hard we try.

Since apparently I took it too literally (how else am I suppose to interpret women being attracted to men whose genitals resemble that of a donkey's?), I would kindly like you to ask your God for a more up-to-date version. You see, this Bronze Age humor and enigma really isn't going to click with most who live in the 21st Century (why do you think so many people can't understand Shakepseare worth shit?). It's quite difficult not to sound like a braindead lackey when it comes to my responses regarding the reasoning believers use, considering it is the SAME SHIT EVERY TIME. I understand from the Christian perspective that isn't supposed to be easy, but I'm sure you can understand my difficulty in trying to see which particular sect is supposedly the correct one when they all claim to be speaking the truth. They all interpret the words differently, cherry pick what verses to put on their walls, and where to put their money into come Sunday Service. How could I sleep at night knowing that there is a distant possibility all those poor Cathars the Crusaders decided to mercilessly butcher were the right ones all along?


Quote
How is purpose from creation something that man came up with? Tree's are necessary for life because they release oxygen is order for us to breathe. Water allows life to thrive. Our eyes allow us to perceive the world. Of course in a sense you are right because we are not able to discern the true essence of something; that is called Truth and God is Truth.
Also its disingenuous to ask me to answer very specific basis-by-basis questions that I of course could never answer in confidence (What is the purpose of a baby that dies in the womb? What is the purpose of this one guy who lives in a sewer and has every disease known to man?) because I am not God and I do not have all the answers for why the world is as it is.

Ah, but you see, you should know why the world is the way it is. Was it not Eve who plucked from the tree, which in turn angered God in such a manner as to cast her and Adam from the Garden of Eden? Genesis states that this is where the Fall of Man had its conception. According to scripture, the actions Eve committed that fateful day had corrupted the nature of not only the world, but man itself. The toils faced, losses suffered, and confusions casted are entirely the fault of one woman's inability to resist the temptations of a deceptive serpent. Please do tell what sort of parable I am supposed to draw from this instead of taking it somewhat literally.  If by some chance this is all true, then the first question I'd like to ask God is what levels of justification are required to allow little Katie to go through chemotherapy for the slim chance of remission, only to die and suffer in hellfire for having been a practitioner of astrology and not Christianity.


Quote
Isn't it ironic that you acknowledge all these characteristics of God yet you yourself are attempting to question his methods? You say he is past, present, and future, yet you then say that his plan is fallible. (Also some more of your copy-pasting)

The point seems to have flown across your head. These characteristics of God that I list seem to negate any notion of complete free will over our actions. If has seen the future, known from the very beginning what shall take place, AND be aware of everything every aching moment of his existence, then how can you say it isn't already predetermined? His methods are fallible because this was obviously written by destitute desert nomads who clearly didn't think it through on what it meant to be an all-powerful deity. How can free will be reconciled with the fact that this is all seemingly preordained by God himself? These accounts are the only of which that even remotely imply his supposed power, so there really isn't anything else we can go off of. I'm also not going to skim through the whole damn book when there are more convenient resources to look towards. Sure, I could have gone ahead and gotten completely different examples of the verses in order to further argue the point, but it would have been a complete drag and I'm already on the verge of collapse as it is.


Quote
Again, most of these are parables. You are superimposing God with your human traits. Him taking life is not evil because he is the creator of all life. And before you make assumptions, you cannot make a metaphor of God being a King who doesn't obey his own rules because again you would be comparing him to a human king. Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed because there were no more virtuous people left in the cities. Abraham pleaded with God to save the cities if there was 50 righteous people left within the walls, then 45, then 40, then it came down to if there was 1 righteous person left he would spare the city. There was none left. With Noah and the flood, literally every single man and woman was filled with wickedness in their hearts, all except Noah. So he destroyed the rest of man and left Noah to be the father of the new world. I'm not going to explain every reference you made, but I'm sure you get the gist.


I would consider myself speechless, but at this point nothing really shocks me. If this is the case, then what exactly am I supposed to compare him to? Is he above reproach and criticism simply because his reasoning is beyond our understanding? Are we just meant to ignore any sort of moral implication due to him being nonhuman? This sounds outright tyrannical, psychopathic, and borderline narcissistic. If he is so angered over what we do, then perhaps he shouldn't have cursed us with the tendency to be such rebellious little shits.

Also, I do not see how in the living fuck the whole world was deemed to be wicked (excluding Noah). It reads out of something you would expect to find in Discworld or Wheel of Time. Furthermore, there would be nowhere near enough genetic diversity to pull off the repopulation of the Earth from several couples. I simply refuse to forgo a scientific answer in this regard, there is no reason to make an exception other than to fit the narrative. Even if this too is also a parable, what exactly is it's lesson? That if we are all are wicked at heart, then God shall wash us away, leaving only the righteous to inherit what remains? If thats the case, then why the fuck hasn't another one happened yet? Humanity clearly isn't living up to Biblical standards, and there isn't a chance in hell we will, so he might as well get it over with. Or is this another instance where his decisions cannot be understood due the incorporeal state of being?


Quote
Well...he has come down and told us to do these things...such as when he creates the Decalogue. How many times does he have to come down or perform some miracle for you in order for you to accept him? It seems like most people treat him as some cheap magician who will give you a parlor trick every time you ask. God doesn't have issues, we have issues.

Considering the Bible portrays him as acting incredibly more bloodthirsty than miraculous (or is it just that divine reasoning of his?), I imagine it would take quite a bit for any non-believer to even remotely consider it.


Quote
I don't feel like to I need to appeal to any Christian/Theist philosopher's authority in order to make my argument. If I added more adjectives and esoteric verbiage would you think of me more kindly? It isn't an entirely complex thing I was trying to explain; you asked me "Why does God allow evil" and the answer for that is pretty simple. If anything I am borrowing ideas from Rene Girard.

At the end of the day there are millions of way to be wrong, but only one way to be right. I don't think it matters what I say to you or if I used any of the methods from Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, or William Craig. Somebody you barely know over NW isn't going to be able to invoke the reactions necessary for change. At this point we are just debating for brownie points. I'll listen to your response to what I wrote, but I don't think I'm going to respond (at least in a polemic nature).

Fair enough. You are under no obligation to operate under any sort of the many preexisting arguments that have been laid out. I'll respect you at least in that regard. It's clear that we won't be able to see our conflicting perspectives change drastically, so I concur that the need for rigorous debate has ceased. This was a far more productive conversation than what I usually contend with at school. You've provided much to think about, and allowed me the opportunity to examine my views more closely. For this I thank you. Have a good one.



Offline AlekoTheGreek

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 1786
  • Alex, born in the year of the false spring
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 16th AlekoTheGreek
  • Side: Neutral
Re: An Apology To God, Country, and Community
« Reply #33 on: February 12, 2020, 09:18:42 am »
I only bothered reading the first couple of paragraphs.

The human species did NOT fail miserably, do not raise your own experiences and failings on a global level.


|Viper|

  • Guest
Re: An Apology To God, Country, and Community
« Reply #34 on: February 12, 2020, 04:33:27 pm »
Winters stfu and man up and deal with it like the rest of us you Samsung Fridge maker!!!

Offline Eamon

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 2908
  • LtCol of the 15th_YR
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Irish
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: An Apology To God, Country, and Community
« Reply #35 on: February 12, 2020, 06:27:47 pm »
I only bothered reading the first couple of paragraphs.

The human species did NOT fail miserably, do not raise your own experiences and failings on a global level.

Victim