View Single Post
Old 04-15-2008, 12:21 PM   #46
Jvstice
Junior Member
 
Jvstice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
But no one enough to replace their missing limb? Even though certain species of reptile do it all the time. He loves the lizards more than us
Well we were given minds, and the capacity to learn how to develop cures for our own betterment over the long run. It sounds callous to put it like that though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
So rather than kill them off with a flood or brimstone, he starves them to death (this included children)? Quite the conundrum for the "omnibenevolent" myth.
I've never claimed omnibenevolence, and the Deuteronomy quote actually shows God showing that he plays favorites, loving some intensely and despising others with no regard to any merit and no person being intrinsically worse than others. We're told by Jesus not to play favorites that way though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
See above.
ditto.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Huh? God's words or men's words. Which is it?
When someone attempts to quote another individual, the biases of the person doing the quoting sometimes creep in, even though the basic substance of the message is that of the originator of the message. Little things, like different emphases might end up having a bigger role. So it's actually something of a hybrid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Is this an argument for god needing a better editor for his next publication?
It's an arguement for not using a tool for more than it's purpose. The purpose of the Bible is to illustrate what relationships between human beings and God look like, and to serve as a call to faith. When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I wouldn't have thought that you and the fundamentalists would have that much in common.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Well, some of them anyway. Odd that he would speak out on behalf of livestock but not people. Hmmm...
Well, that wouldn't be my priorities, but I wouldn't presume to speak for someone else without hearing the why from them first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Well, if nothing else, you've at least posed a pretty strong argument for why apologists are hypocrites.
Of course, having an axe to grind and only opening a debate because you have an emotional investment in how the opposing side answers, and how you can paint them, often leads a person being dishonest with themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Not exactly true. If scientists can reproduce conditions that satisfactorily explain a phenomenon, then that is considered science. However since "miracles" cannot be ruled out via this method (or any other for that matter) I suppose your argument and my response are really moot points.
Even the bible makes pretty clear that there's no methodology to dividing a loaf of bread in such a way to feed hundreds or thousands of people. Elisha prays and feeds a 200 man army, where Jesus feeds 4000 people following to hear him preach one time, and 5000 another. I don't see how this is supposed to leave behind some evidence of a universal law that you could then put into effect and feed the world's hungry.

By their own admission, these were special cases, and not some undiscovered application of E = mc2 energy to mass conversion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Not a question of expectation: If he exists, why hasn't he physically appeared to you? Whether you feel it would be "owed" to you or not is really quite beside the point.
I'm on an entirely different wavelength then you and don't see what you're getting at. We're told have faith, or don't bother at all, because it's impossible to please God otherwise. Why act in a way that makes the one thing you're calling on people to do irrelevant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
That's fine, however people that are catholic disagree with you.
I can live with that. And they're probably relieved at not having to answer for me as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Or it would help endear pagan converts that were used to consuming animal sacrifices. *shrugs*
Considering that to be Christian under the declining roman empire was a death sentence if you were caught, and secrecy was a major part, I'd think that disuasion and pushing casually interested people away was probably a bigger factor initially. What you're talking about might well have entered into it later once there was a centralized church body focused on missionaryism at any cost. Much the same as the sainting of pagan gods was done during this time too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
^^^^ non-answer
If Christian couples are subject to the same divorce rates, martial problems, etc as non-christians, then what the heck's the point of the religious institution of marriage. Might as well just default to the legal status of civil unions and keep it real, if you ask me.
In the eyes of the law, that would probably be the best way to see that no one's liberties are crushed by the government whose job is to stay a neutral party other than to enforce that everyone does get their liberties.

But just because someone gives you the ideal makings of a garden, wouldn't mean that the person who puts theirs together from scratch can't have a worthwhile one. It also doesn't relieve the person given the garden the responsibility of upkeeping it themselves, to reap the benefits regardless of their actual competence to do so.


"If force is the game, the murderer wins over the pickpocket." Ayn Rand

"Justice is the midpoint between being treated unjustly, and treating others unjustly." Aristotle
Jvstice is offline   you may: quote & reply,