tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post842467154485162637..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: God Cannot Exist if Yahweh Didn't.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger145125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67733982524523324822010-11-07T11:15:59.537-05:002010-11-07T11:15:59.537-05:00Breckmin,
In heaven there will be no sin but ther...Breckmin,<br /><br />In heaven there will be no sin but there will still be choice - yes?Samuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06102533726798834757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53316078299695886492010-11-07T03:28:54.799-05:002010-11-07T03:28:54.799-05:00ra or ro is a reference to calamity or judgment or...ra or ro is a reference to calamity or judgment or ill circumstances.<br /><br />IOW, natural evil is different from our moral evil (or our sin).<br /><br />No where does it say that God creates "sin." <br /><br />Sin is a potential byproduct of choice - and choice is necessary in order to be able to love.<br /><br />God doesn't create our "sin." We are little creators created in God's Image and WE choose to disobey God and commit such sin.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4493345875538078282010-10-27T23:47:39.275-04:002010-10-27T23:47:39.275-04:00I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the numer...I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the numerous quotes in the Bible specifically implying that evil came from God. Isaiah 45:7 comes to mind.Ivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07215674328554486283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88967540575973398912010-10-24T19:29:16.350-04:002010-10-24T19:29:16.350-04:00I see that my little post has garnered 141 comment...I see that my little post has garnered 141 comments. Goodness gracious.Samuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06102533726798834757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42907903566681748492010-10-24T19:09:29.053-04:002010-10-24T19:09:29.053-04:00"Yahweh did not exist. He is much too tribal ..."Yahweh did not exist. He is much too tribal of a god," <br /><br />I would agree that your "concept of YHWH" doesn't exist...but that is because you do not currently "see Him" as a Holy Infinite Creator Who is omniscient, all-LOGICALLY-powerful, or the Incredible God that the Christian who is saved by Him sees Him (spiritually) as (a Loving Heavenly Father Who adopted them).<br /><br /><br />"created the world in conflict with the sea God Rahab,"<br /><br />symbolic of Egypt which is symbolic of this world system (that enslaves us) that Jesus crushed at the Cross (Psalm 89:10 'deadly wound'). It is all symbolic of real struggle between the flesh, the world and the devil.<br /><br />"married to Asherah,"<br />What WIlliam Dever believes about a group of Israelites doesn't change Orthodox Monotheism. Did Moses believe YHWH was married?<br /><br />You are above these last two allegations.<br /><br />"accepted child sacrifice,"<br /><br />Does an Orthodox Jew believe this?<br />Do mature Christian apologists (usually evangelical,btw) take this interpretation?<br /><br />Records of child sacrifices do NOT mean God somehow "accepted" them.<br />Even the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter which models the Virgin Christ was seen as a mistake (for a human to make such a vow) by both Christian and Hebrew expositors.<br /><br />"commanded genocide,"<br /><br />Judgement. Other than your use of the English word genocide which fails to deal with the reasons for God's judgement...I do not disagree with it.<br /><br /><br />"forbid worship of all other gods"<br /><br />Logical. We should only worship our Creator Who it is RIGHT for us to worship (love/thank/pray/fellowship with spiritually)<br /><br />Question: Why would you argue against a person only worshipping their Creator?<br /><br /><br />"(didn't deny their existence),"<br /><br />there are all sorts of finite beings other than humans who can be idols of worship or gods with a little "g"<br /><br />"and chose Israel like the others gods did to other nations."<br /><br />You could ask "who was counterfeiting who?" but that would be an over-simplification as well. Human behavior can be a common occurrence, but it doesn't invalidate the objective truth of an Infinite Creator and His relationship to Abraham and his descendents.<br /><br />UNTIL you address Abraham and "why" God chose Israel as His model here on earth to the individual believer being set free from the bondage of Egypt (this world system)and the believers wondering (battling the world the flesh and the devil - his enemies)in the desert - waiting for the promise land (heaven) when God and God alone will finally be Rightful King over Israel...<br /><br />you have no legitimate objection.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6355376388651325122010-10-16T12:34:55.887-04:002010-10-16T12:34:55.887-04:00Personally, I don't see any problem with the l...Personally, I don't see any problem with the logic. If the original version of something thought to have been real (by some) is shown to be mythical, it follows that the upgraded/elaborated versions thought to be real (by some) are mythical, too. It destroys the basis in reality for all versions of God in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.Aratina Cagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05191120796865740975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77573628059222566462010-10-13T13:39:17.903-04:002010-10-13T13:39:17.903-04:00Rob R,
There do not exist,
good reasons, biblical...Rob R,<br />There do not exist,<br /><b><br />good reasons, biblical, theological and philosophical.<br /></b><br />Unless by "good" you mean that it's good for you and other Christians since you can use the bibles, theologies and philosophies to say whatever your predetermining heart desires. If bibles offered "good" reasons, there would be far fewer mutually damning Christianities. If theology was of any real importance, you would give the same esteem to other theologies, including other Christian ones, that you reserve for yours. You fully recognize the dereliction of bibles, theologies and philosophies as tools for knowledge, understanding or usefulness, so you make special pleadings for your versions of them and reject how others see them. If you really think that somehow you ended up with the correct versions of these things you are wrong. You mistake social group acceptance for truth, and you justify your mistake by all the effort you have put in over the years. Your social group has no more truth about your god, Yahweh, than Hindu has about Vishnu, Bramah, or Shiva. Your study and worship and social support do not undo your mistake any more than the same efforts and influences by Hindu theologists can undo their's.<br /><br />You said,<br /><b><br />I wanted you to see that I wasn't just coming up with these answers ad hoq to answer you<br /></b><br />If the answers you propose are not <i>your</i> ad hoc answers, all we need do is swim upstream from you a bit to your source and we will find the answers to be ad hoc for them or, with a bit more swimming, for their sources. The bible is ad hoc from cover to cover. The authors of your bible were applying ad hoc reasoning with whatever catch-as-catch-can fables they had available to them. Those who created the biblical canon applied ad hoc reasoning to whatever catch-as-catch-can books they had available to them. And, you, Rob R, apply the pieces of the bible that you like in a hand-picked ad hoc way.<br /><br />You've told us ad hoc lies before, Rob R, with your story about a child being resurrected in central america. In fact, you further lied when you said you would provide us with details so we could research it. You failed to follow up since using your ad hoc lie backed you into a corner. If you let us look around the real world where you claim the miracle occurred, you know it would be found to be a lie, then you and the liars who told you the lie for their personal ad hoc gratification might be embarrassed. So, you, as is the way of all religious liars, make up more lies to save face for yourself and your friends. And, still you don't see it as dishonest. That you do not cite the miracle claims of your fellow Christians as proof positive of the intervention by your god on behalf of its "followers," tells me that you know you don't believe your fellow Christians any more than we atheists do. Yet, you made the same sort of dumbassed miracle claim yourself that you weren't willing to stand behind. You don't believe it yourself. You are intellectually dishonest and an outright liar who will pull out of his ass whatever ad hoc tool you think is necessary to score a point.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91236957888515813752010-10-13T12:53:08.828-04:002010-10-13T12:53:08.828-04:00It never fails:
The more conservative a Christi...<b>It never fails: <br /><br />The more conservative a Christian sect is; the more its dogma teaches God has been active in the past as God is active today (via some “Plan of Salvation”), the more closed off and self protected these sects are from freedom of ideas.</b><br /><br />Facts (based on the above) show that Fundamentalist Bible Believing Bob Jones University will only hire their own graduates (who were taught by their own earlier graduates) to teach Bibles courses with tightly controlled and limit Biblical subjects. Not only that, but every year all professors must sign a contract stating they adhere to verbal plenary Biblical inspiration or lose their jobs! <br /> <br /><b>Yes, the truths of the Bible and God are so self-evident they can stand on their own.</b><br /><br />The Southern Baptist Convention –the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. - is so factually sure about the truth of God and the Bible that they fired all women professors of religion (as demanded by the Bible) as well as all university and seminary professors who did not teach an inerrant Bible.<br /><br />Furman University (a former Southern Baptist Convention) pulled out, just in time, from SBC over the issue of freedom of intellectual honesty and religion.<br /><br /><b>Yes, the truths of the Bible and God are so self-evident they can stand on their own.</b><br /><br />The Mormon Mission Elders who stopped by my house last week are so sure the LDS Church has ALL the absolute truth about God that they cannot read any book nor view any documentary that is not officially approved by Salt Lake City. <br /><br /><b>Yes, the truths of the Bible and God are so self-evident they can stand on their own.</b><br /><br />Truly amazing! Truly amazing!Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44460119583986552122010-10-13T12:26:52.639-04:002010-10-13T12:26:52.639-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53253263004604397732010-10-13T12:22:29.666-04:002010-10-13T12:22:29.666-04:00Y'all are trying to put a shiny new facade on ...Y'all are trying to put a shiny new facade on a crumbling building.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2499401495643921412010-10-13T12:00:03.598-04:002010-10-13T12:00:03.598-04:00"A major event in my junior year was a course..."A major event in my junior year was a course in the thought of Augustine, also with Arthur Holmes. As a result of this course I read the Confessions, several of the minor works, and the entirety of The City of God-and the latter work, especially, precipitated a severe intellectual struggle. I was torn between my love and admiration for Augustine (which still persist today) and the deeply troubling aspects of his doctrines of election and reprobation."<br /><br />-William Hasker, quoted from <a href="http://www.opentheism.info/pages/information/hasker/openness_god.php" rel="nofollow">here</a>.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71413853134352264552010-10-13T11:56:14.350-04:002010-10-13T11:56:14.350-04:00Everytning I've read about "open theism&q...Everytning I've read about "open theism" so far has been from a bunch of Christian 'scholars' whose line of argument goes:<br /><br />"God exists.<br /><br />This is how we make it a workable belief system."<br /><br />Just a quick skim through the webpage shows that those guys already threw Anselm, Aquinas and Augustine under the bus.<br /><br />Who's next?GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51247394246988781162010-10-13T11:41:17.551-04:002010-10-13T11:41:17.551-04:00God chose to create a universe in which the future...<i>God chose to create a universe in which the future is not entirely knowable, even for God.</i><br /><br />God didn't want to know ahead of time what he was going to get for his birthday every year...<br /><br />Actually, I think it's a good sign that modern theologians propose God to be only inherently omniscient; at this rate, I'm hoping that Christianity will evolve to the point where everybody follows the beliefs of Spong or Armstrong, at which point it will be as non-threatening and as innocuous as astrological belief is now.ildihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03133447070056548686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20936802035294567352010-10-13T11:26:39.916-04:002010-10-13T11:26:39.916-04:001.
My posts of October 10th between 1:30 and 2:00...1.<br /><br />My posts of October 10th between 1:30 and 2:00 PM were not addressed to anyone. You chose to respond.<br /><br />Everything you have said since then has been a case of, as Russ put it, you attempting to drag me into a philosophical swampland where you hope to enmesh me in esoteric arguments for which you have rehearsed the answers and think you've answered sufficiently because, well, if you didn't think that, then why defend the position?<br /><br />Everything I have done since then is respond to YOUR posts, because you haven't provided answers. Much of what you said falls under the categories of bare assertions lacking arguments (there may BE arguments, but you didn't give them), appeals to authority, and more questions as answers.<br /><br />Look at it yourself, I'm not going back and reposting all your comments.<br /><br />Russ is right. I can't discuss things with you if you insist on being dishonest with yourself. That whole "open theism" manifesto is nothing more than believing what you want to believe, because you want to believe it.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67738591243984060242010-10-13T10:39:43.003-04:002010-10-13T10:39:43.003-04:00Rob R,
You talk of "tangent after tangent&quo...Rob R,<br />You talk of "tangent after tangent" when not one word of the theologically and philosophically <i>sophisticated</i> making up you do is worth a damn if you can't demonstrate that some god is real. Your internal feelings carry no more weight than the internal feelings of worshippers of Kitchen God, and the resources you call for your defense - bibles, theologies and philosophies - can't be entered as evidence since you disallow them for others. If we're going to deal with a "real" god phenomena, we must be consistent. Your imaginings are worthy of no more respect than the imaginings you reject from others. Applying your rules to you, your imaginings, too, can be tossed aside. Everything you say about gods and ghosts and demons and religions, yours or someone else's, is tangential unless your deity is more than your wishful thinking. For your words to be worthy of respect, we must be able to observe that you are not experimenting on people in your god laboratory using protocols dictated by your preferred god-hypothesis. <br /><br />You said,<br /><b><br />I don't care to discuss the rest of it here <br /></b><br />That's the way it is with people like you who want to defend the indefensible. To avoid getting hit you want to invoke your chosen subset of <i>Marquess of Queensberry rules</i>. DebunkingChristianity is more than a sanitized classroom where the philosophically inept get to claim a special exemption for the dumb they like the best while they apply brutal intellectual honesty to the dumb they see in others. If what you don't care to discuss is based on the same premise as the carefully circumscribed bit that you want to discuss, then your base premise that your god exists must be more justifiable and more warranted and more likely to be true than the premise that it isn't or the premise that Thor is real. To have a discussion you must have an agreed-upon premise. Like any sad and silly religionist you can duck and bob and weave away from your responsibility to show your premise to be more than your tradition, your authority, your revelation, or your mother's threat to hate you for not thinking the way she commands, but then we can simply dismiss it. None of those makes your premises viable, believable, justifiable, warranted or true.<br /><br />Your contention is that the contents of all human's minds concerning gods must match yours to avoid having that god do really bad things to them, in the same way that Odin and Loki and Jupiter demanded specific mental constructs to avert their abuses. But, none today accept the premises that they are or ever were real and thus capable of carrying out the threats made in their names. You don't want to discuss it, but your god premise holds exactly the same intellectual worth as the premise of Odin, that is, none.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32591458551017530392010-10-13T10:38:59.209-04:002010-10-13T10:38:59.209-04:00Rob R,
There do not exist,
good reasons, biblical...Rob R,<br />There do not exist,<br /><b><br />good reasons, biblical, theological and philosophical.<br /></b><br />Unless by "good" you mean that it's good for you and other Christians since you can use the bibles, theologies and philosophies to say whatever your predetermining heart desires. If bibles offered "good" reasons, there would be far fewer mutually damning Christianities. If theology was of any real importance, you would give the same esteem to other theologies, including other Christian ones, that you reserve for yours. You fully recognize the dereliction of bibles, theologies and philosophies as tools for knowledge, understanding or usefulness, so you make special pleadings for your versions of them and reject how others see them. If you really think that somehow you ended up with the correct versions of these things you are wrong. You mistake social group acceptance for truth, and you justify your mistake by all the effort you have put in over the years. Your social group has no more truth about your god, Yahweh, than Hindu has about Vishnu, Bramah, or Shiva. Your study and worship and social support do not undo your mistake any more than the same efforts and influences by Hindu theologists can undo their's.<br /><br />You said,<br /><b><br />I wanted you to see that I wasn't just coming up with these answers ad hoq to answer you<br /></b><br />If the answers you propose are not <i>your</i> ad hoc answers, all we need do is swim upstream from you a bit to your source and we will find the answers to be ad hoc for them or, with a bit more swimming, for their sources. The bible is ad hoc from cover to cover. The authors of your bible were applying ad hoc reasoning with whatever catch-as-catch-can fables they had available to them. Those who created the biblical canon applied ad hoc reasoning to whatever catch-as-catch-can books they had available to them. And, you, Rob R, apply the pieces of the bible that you like in a hand-picked ad hoc way.<br /><br />You've told us ad hoc lies before, Rob R, with your story about a child being resurrected in central america. In fact, you further lied when you said you would provide us with details so we could research it. You failed to follow up since using your ad hoc lie backed you into a corner. If you let us look around the real world where you claim the miracle occurred, you know it would be found to be a lie, then you and the liars who told you the lie for their personal ad hoc gratification might be embarrassed. So, you, as is the way of all religious liars, make up more lies to save face for yourself and your friends. And, still you don't see it as dishonest. That you do not cite the miracle claims of your fellow Christians as proof positive of the intervention by your god on behalf of its "followers," tells me that you know you don't believe your fellow Christians any more than we atheists do. Yet, you made the same sort of dumbassed miracle claim yourself that you weren't willing to stand behind. You don't believe it yourself. You are intellectually dishonest and an outright liar who will pull out of his ass whatever ad hoc tool you think is necessary to score a point.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22994971004196197472010-10-13T03:10:35.881-04:002010-10-13T03:10:35.881-04:00Where you are discussing things that we have alrea...Where you are discussing things that we have already discussed, you are backtracking, with the issue of omniscience. You cannot advance an argument if you repeat what was already answered.<br /><br />Sanders articulates it differently than I do. What I describe is closer to another theologian of a similar view, Greg Boyd.<br /><br />I've spelled it out clearly. You can speak of the contradiction between omniscience and free will to your hearts content, but you're just talking to hear yourself speak if you don't take into account what I've said about it and I can't tell that you have.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5650129554294866602010-10-13T02:49:34.883-04:002010-10-13T02:49:34.883-04:00Ed, when you switch topics, you are bailing out of...Ed, when you switch topics, you are bailing out of the discussion.<br /><br />I never agreed to discuss the open view accept on knowledge. I never agreed to discuss that web site. It was an FYI.<br /><br />I'm actually happy to discuss these things, but not as a distraction to what we have discussed.<br /><br /><br />You have nothing to say after the questions have been answered so you switch topics. It's a cheep strategy that is a dime a dozen around here for folks who's egos are too fragile to handle conceding a point.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76007579335499848192010-10-13T02:04:19.287-04:002010-10-13T02:04:19.287-04:00I get it.
You don't have any answers. That...I get it.<br /><br />You don't have any answers. That's why you accuse me of not knowing anything, and bailing out of the discussion.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85209943766715390742010-10-13T00:31:53.538-04:002010-10-13T00:31:53.538-04:00Ed, you really have no clue what you are talking a...Ed, you really have no clue what you are talking about and I'm not going to follow you on another tangent to explain it. I've already indulged you quite liberally.<br /><br />Again, you just have to reach and scrounge and dig to find some negative comment. You can't honestly face that what you have brought up has been dealt with.<br /><br />I provided you more background not for more endless tangents for one who cannot honestly deal with one thing at a time but just so you could see that there was much more going on with this. I see that was a mistake.<br /><br />and in the words of gearheded who fails the basic ability (like many skeptics) to grasp that not everyone thinks like he does, let me say "AND YOU KNOW THIS!"Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49421335181901580942010-10-12T22:31:33.024-04:002010-10-12T22:31:33.024-04:00...and, of course, there's the parsimonious an......and, of course, there's the parsimonious answer:<br /><br />There is no God, and that resolves the issue nicely.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23959558697543259372010-10-12T22:29:12.045-04:002010-10-12T22:29:12.045-04:00If there's some 'commonly accepted definit...If there's some 'commonly accepted definition' of the word "accomodationist", I'm not aware of it.<br /><br />What I meant, and if you have half the intelligence you proclaim, then listen:<br /><br />The web page you linked is a mianifesto, claiming that the words of the Bible need to be interpreted in such a liberal fashion as to render the scriptures just another piece of writing:<br /><br />"It was solely God's decision not to control every detail that happens in our lives. Moreover, God has flexible strategies. Though the divine nature does not change, God reacts to contingencies, even adjusting his plans, if necessary, to take into account the decisions of his free creatures. God is endlessly resourceful and wise in working towards the fulfillment of his ultimate goals. Sometimes God alone decides how to accomplish these goals. Usually, however, God elicits human cooperation such that it is both God and humanity who decide what the future shall be."<br /><br />Nonsense!<br /><br />"God reacts to contingencies, even adjusting his plans, if necessary, to take into account the decisions of his free creatures."<br /><br />What? He changes His mind???<br /><br />"Finally, the omniscient God knows all that can be known given the sort of world he created."<br /><br />Your hero, Dr. Sanders has just decreed limits on God's actions and knowledge:<br /><br />"However, in our view God decided to create beings with indeterministic freedom which implies that God chose to create a universe in which the future is not entirely knowable, even for God."<br /><br />Accomodation!<br /><br />the author MUST say this to accomodate the contradiction between omniscience ("I am the alpha and the omega" = the entire history including the future is KNOWN) and free will.<br /><br />You object to semantics, and haven't even touched on the real issue: omniscience and free will are incompatible.<br /><br />The web page is an accomodation between free will and omniscience, and to get where he wants, the author resorts to limiting God's knowledge so we can retain libertarian free will, because the only viable (theistic) alternative is that God IS fully omniscient without limits, and thus we are puppets playing out our parts with only the ILLUSION of free will.<br /><br />And you KNOW this.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57522965398107694742010-10-12T21:12:13.479-04:002010-10-12T21:12:13.479-04:00Accomodationist BS, nothing more.
REAAAALYYY! Ho...<em>Accomodationist BS, nothing more.</em><br /><br />REAAAALYYY! How does what you read there have anything to do with acomodationism?<br /><br />Makes me wonder if you have any idea what the term means.<br /><br />Ironically, people who criticize the open view accuse us of failing to understand that God is accomodating our human way of thinking.<br /><br />it's tangential. As russ failed to intuit, I don't care to discuss the rest of it here (I was happy to take on your original tangents, but again, I'm not up for tangent after tangent), rather I wanted you to see that I wasn't just coming up with these answers ad hoq to answer you but it was part of a well researched larger picture with many implications that was developed for many good reasons, biblical, theological and philosophical.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34454950116737911182010-10-12T19:14:41.602-04:002010-10-12T19:14:41.602-04:00Iread the link last night.
Accomodationist BS, no...Iread the link last night.<br /><br />Accomodationist BS, nothing more.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27796624068542787562010-10-12T15:09:40.866-04:002010-10-12T15:09:40.866-04:00Rob R,
If I wanted to be a comedian, I'd join...Rob R,<br /><br />If I wanted to be a comedian, I'd join the Christian clergy where every assertion of "truth" is a joke and every claim of the "power of god" is a punchline.<br /><br />Then, too, if I wanted to be a mind reader, I could also join the Christian clergy. Then, like you, I could make up all kinds of crap, and claim it to be from the mind of god. I could pretend to read your god's mind when I tell Christian Scientists to permit their children die from afflictions that the children of Muslims would have easily remedied with medical care. I could pretend to read your god's mind when I tell African Pentacostals to kill their children. That would also be part comedy noir since many of them would be Christianly stupid enough and Christianly immoral enough to actually do it.<br /><br />If I wanted to specialize as a a mind reading comedian, I could imitate you. You have no idea what all but a miniscule fraction of Christians believe, yet you assert there to be little distinction among them. You hear the numerous multiple entendres from the Christian lexicon and you project what you want to hear onto a couple billion people who are no where close to what you think or believe theologically. You are a joke and a punchline. You reverse the mind reading bit though by saying you can read their minds by claiming to know what you yourself believe. That there's just the kind of surprise element needed for good humor.<br /><br />The funny never stops with you though. If you had one philosophically honest neuron in that head of yours you'd wouldn't be a Christian due to lack of evidence alone, and you would think through your position and recognize that making up shit is not honest and it's not intellectually responsible. If you were philosophically and intellectually honest, you'd recognize that your religious position bears no more relation to truth than does Hinduism or any other religious superstition, and your honesty would move you to abandon your inane attempts at defending it. The funniest thing about you, Rob R, really is that for all the philosophy you've gorged yourself on during your several decades of life, you equate the mere sanction an idea by your social group with the truth of the idea, yet when others use the same criterion, you reject it as truth. You are funny, very funny indeed.<br /><br />Question: What did the Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?<br />Answer: Make me one with everything.<br /><br />Question: Why is the solipsist unhappy?<br />Answer: Because no one will accept his arguments as valid.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.com