Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John


 Religions > Atheism > Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 2

1
 

2
 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "footybet.net"
Date: 25 Jan 2006 08:11:06 AM
Object: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John
Jesus said something like
"I do not seek Glory, but one will come who does seek Glory, and he
will be the judge"
would you like to comment on this
will the judge be a human or an incarnate God?
.

User: "Jim07D6"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 10:38:43 AM
"footybet.net" <damian@bleachboys.com> said:

Jesus said something like
"I do not seek Glory, but one will come who does seek Glory, and he
will be the judge"

would you like to comment on this
will the judge be a human or an incarnate God?

It's all fiction.
--- Jim07D6
.

User: "Woden"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 04:35:01 PM
"footybet.net" <damian@bleachboys.com> wrote in
news:1138198266.663116.293300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Jesus said something like
"I do not seek Glory, but one will come who does seek Glory, and he
will be the judge"

would you like to comment on this
will the judge be a human or an incarnate God?

Comment? Yeah!
It's ***** from a book of myths and is meaningless outside the context
of that particular work of fiction.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.

User: "Robibnikoff"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 09:52:13 AM
"footybet.net" <damian@bleachboys.com> wrote in message
news:1138198266.663116.293300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Jesus said something like

OT for alt.atheism and you know it.
Knock it off.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
User: "footybet.net"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 09:58:22 AM
Scared of the Truth, Robyn?
.
User: "Robibnikoff"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 10:32:58 AM
"footybet.net" <damian@bleachboys.com> wrote in message
news:1138204702.101381.32450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Scared of the Truth, Robyn?

Post some truth and I'll let you know, loony toons
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.

User: "Michael Gray"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 26 Jan 2006 01:02:30 AM
On 25 Jan 2006 07:58:22 -0800, "footybet.net" <damian@bleachboys.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1138204702.101381.32450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Scared of the Truth, Robyn?

What "truth"?
Your fairy tales?
We love the truth.
It's about time you started to get familiar with it, as well.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 10:05:31 AM
On 25 Jan 2006 07:58:22 -0800, "footybet.net" <damian@bleachboys.com>
wrote:

Scared of the Truth, Robyn?

Why do you liars call it "truth" when it's merely what you believe?
And why the ***** should we be scared of something that is meaningless
in the real world outside your religion?
Do you morons ever think before saying anything?
.
User: "footybet.net"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 10:14:52 AM
I have not said anything
I have merely typed it on the keyboard of a computer
I wouldn't waste my precious breath if I were to meet you in person
I'd just shovel you toward the Lake of Fire ;-))
.
User: "Lörd Phÿltêr"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 01:35:36 PM
"footybet.net" <damian@bleachboys.com> had me ROTFL with:
news:1138205692.710071.248850@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

I have not said anything
I have merely typed it on the keyboard of a computer
I wouldn't waste my precious breath if I were to meet you in person
I'd just shovel you toward the Lake of Fire ;-))

"Lake of Fire"... LOLOLOL...
--
Lörd Phÿltêr
Alt.Atheism #1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
.

User: "Robibnikoff"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 10:33:24 AM
"footybet.net" <damian@bleachboys.com> wrote in message
news:1138205692.710071.248850@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I have not said anything
I have merely typed it on the keyboard of a computer
I wouldn't waste my precious breath if I were to meet you in person
I'd just shovel you toward the Lake of Fire ;-))

FOAD, dingleberry.
Your dead father talked to you lately?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.

User: "Michael Gray"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 26 Jan 2006 01:05:26 AM
On 25 Jan 2006 08:14:52 -0800, "footybet.net" <damian@bleachboys.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1138205692.710071.248850@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

I have not said anything
I have merely typed it on the keyboard of a computer
I wouldn't waste my precious breath if I were to meet you in person
I'd just shovel you toward the Lake of Fire ;-))

A yes!
Christian compassion, love and forgiveness just shine through now.
Keep it up.
You'll turn more believers into atheists than I ever could, with that
display of how the Christian mind-virus eats away at your brain.
You are a walking, talking example of the horrors that await those
sucked in by your noxious cult.
.

User: "wbarwell"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 08:06:31 PM
footybet.net wrote:

I have not said anything
I have merely typed it on the keyboard of a computer
I wouldn't waste my precious breath if I were to meet you in person
I'd just shovel you toward the Lake of Fire ;-))

"Scared of the Truth, Robyn?"
Now, there is no evidence for god.
All you have is assertions.
I can take a few theological basic assertions and
show you god as asserted by more religions is
utterly impossible.
Therefore the truth is, god cannot exist.
The entire class of creator, omni-everything gods
is nonsense, and provably so.
Therefore secondary claims, Jesus was son of god,
or Mohammed was his prophet are also debunked.
And the opinions of John or other gospels liars
who put contradictory words in Jesus's mouth don't
matter either.
The entire class of creator of everything,
omni-everything gods is gone for good.
And so is everything that hangs on these
disprovable claims.
You might as well smear yourself with chicken
blood and prance around the voodoo priest's campfire
for all the good any of this will do you.
You say you come into AA to try to change the minds
of atheists here? You won't as long as my argument
stands.
------------------------
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.

These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.

A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.

Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.

A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.

The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.

THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.

Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.

God is thus disprove and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE

A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of
all god's alledged attributes the most
important, because from that attribute you
can derive others attributes, including
omniscience. If one says for purposes of
argument god is omnipotent, one is also
implying god is also omniscient.
B. If god is omnipotent, god must also
specifically have omniscience because if
he does not have omniscience, one
cannot claim omnipotence as an attribute.
C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all,
free will is impossible because creation
and omniscience rule out free will as was
shown. In this world god supposedly created,
evil exists. So god must not be
omnibenevolent as claimed as all evil is
created by god if man cannot have free will.
D. So omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus
mutually exclusive in a world that does in
fact have evil in it. Because omniscience
must exist as part of omnipotence and
omniscience and creatorhood cannot coexist
with free will, omnipotence is also not
compatible with creatorhood and
omnibenevolence. One cannot finesse this
all by ignoringomniscience or abandoning
omniscience.

E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also
explicitly abandoning omnipotence. If god is
defined as being omnibenevolent then a god
that is also allegedly also creator of all
must be evil.
CREATORHOOD OF GOD
F. One may be tempted to abandon the idea god
created all. But that creates some very strong
logical problems also.

G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all. Or
modify any other creation he does not himself
create. No other being or process may create
something god could not modify, because of the
power of his omniscience.
H. So if for purposes of argument, we claim the
Universe was not created by god, he could,
being omnipotent, change that creation for
his own purposes, that of creating good due
to his attribute of omnibenevolence.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he
could change creation such that no evil John
Smiths can exist.
If not he then is sole and only cause for
existence of all evil.
If god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent he
still must modify any creations he did not
himself create to destroy evil, if he can
do so. So claiming god did not create all
does not save the concept of an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god. It cannot avoid the
problem of evil.

I. Omniscience means we cannot dodge the problem
of evil by stating god did not create the
Universe even if one wished to, nor by limiting
his creatorhood, for example saying god did not
create the original material of the Universe,
but used it as a building material.

J. Thus to get rid of the creator problem, we must
explicitly abandon it all and totally. Only by
doing so could one get around the problem of
creatorhood and omniscience. But if we say god
cannot either create the Universe or modify it
as he finds it, we drop omniscience also,
explicitly. God then turns out not to be
creator of all nor omnipotent as a priori
defined, a contradiction disproving that
a priori defined god.

K. If evil exists because god could change the
Universe he did not create, and he fails to do
so, then all evil exists solely because
of knowing and personal choices god makes.

L. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by
any other process or other entities. He may
modify any works or creations made by them.

M. If god cannot change creations of others, or
the pre-existing materials of the Universe,
omnipotence in not an attribute of god as
claimed a priori.

M. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled
in a manner that makes it hard to abandon the
doctrine god created all and if one does, one
must likewise abandon claims of omnipotence.
PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE.

The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts
with a Universe that is a chaotic void. This
void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the first generation of gods,
the Titans, who in their turn created the
Olympians gods who eventually displace the
Titans as rulers of the world.
Likewise, some theologians see Genesis as
representing god creating the world out of a
similar void, a primordial sea god did not
himself create, but used as raw material for
his creations.
God's existence is not explained.
This idea god did not create all still would not
absolve an omnipotent god from responsibility
for evil. The biblical god if he did not create
the Universe and its component materials used them
as he pleased. If that god is omnipotent, then he
bears all responsibility for the world he did
create out of pre-existing material. Whether
this god is said to be eternal or like Hesiod's
Titans was somehow emanated from the chaos of
the void does not materially change any arguments
involving omnipotence, omniscience or
omnibenevolence, if god is said to have these
attributes.

************************************************
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD PART THREE
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god
set as part of the nature of the Universe or is
that outside and beyond god?
Can god change 2 + 2 to 5?
A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and
logic of the Universe, god could also change
them as needed.

B. A god that creates the rules.laws and logic
of the world he creates could simply make a
world where man has free will yet freely
chooses only to do moral good. Since god
creates the rules of the Universe, he could
change them in name of omnibenevolence, free
will is perserved and evil is banished. Evil
no longer needs to exist to allow for free
will.

C. If god could do this and fails to, evil
exists solely and only because of god's
failure to use his omnipotence to change
the rules and laws and logic of the Universe
to give man free will and a nature incapable
of doing evil.

D. If god can do this and fails to, god is not
omnibenevolent as claimed, a contradiction
in definitions of god as omnibenevolent and
omnipotent.
E. God in fact since he is essentially the
creator and sustaining cause of all evil
that was, is, and shall be is omni-malevolent.

F. If god does not make the rules, the laws, the
very logic of the Universe, then we have the
problem of what these things are and where
they come from.

G. If these laws and rules and logic limit god,
then god is obviously not omnipotent as
claimed.

H. And thus god is not as claimed, the greatest
thing that can be imagined. Obviously laws
and rules and logic that limit the most
powerful in the Universe are greater
still because they do in fact limit such
a being.

I. If such laws and rules and logic outside and
beyond god do exist, and are thus greater
than god, god is not the greatest thing
imaginable and all ontological 'proofs' that
are based on that basic claim fail.

J. Such rules and laws and logic must exist
outside of god's control and must have always
bee outside his control. If there were ever
in god's control, god cannot have reduced his
power to abandon omnipotence voluntarily.
Omnipotence is an inherent ability. It would
be like abandoning a sense of taste or touch.

This observation forstalls attempts at
apologisms claiming god abandoned any
abilities.

K. And if god could indeed abandon omnipotence,
he must avoid that. After all, he is also
omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence dictates he
must at all times do the good thing, never an
evil thing. Abandoning omnipotence such that
he could no longer create a world where man
has free will, and a nature incapable of evil
is to allow evil to exist. To abandon
omnipotence is to embrace the proposition
evil is to be allowed to flourish. So any
claims god might have for some greater good
abandoned omnipotence freely are not possible.
L. If god is said to be omnipotent, if he at
anytime gave up any abilities he can no
longer said to be omnipotent, if he actually
gave up any abilities.

M. Since god must have had maximum power and
abilities and cannot have at any time
voluntarilyy relinquished any powers or
abilities, at least in the name of banishing
evil the fact that there are laws and rules
and logic of a universe outside and beyond
god, they aretrulyy beyond and outside god,
and always were.

N. Since such laws and rules and laws are outside
god, and always were so,and are properties of
the Universe, the Universe is likewise outside
and beyond god, with its laws and rules and
logic.

O. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and
logic are outside and beyond god, god is not
as, creator of all.

P. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for
its purportedexistencee, nor on god for the
existencee of its laws and rules and logic,
god is no longer a necessary being. If there
are things that have necessaryexistencee, it
would have to be the Universe as whole, or
possibly its laws, its rules or its logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the
underlying causes of these things, if any.
None were created by god or can be modified
by god.

Q. If these laws and rules and logic could be
modified by god, then the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe would have been
modified to enexistencece of evil, and must
be modified this if god is actually
omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

R. God then is not omnipotent, or not
omnibenevolent, or is neither, or
does not exist.

THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE
ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD

Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
and creator of all, clash again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of
evil'existencece. This raises
serious questions on the nature of the Universe
that cannot be as Grand Theology
claims it is.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.
B. We have shown god does not create the laws,
rules and laws of that Universe.
C. That god is thus not omnipotent as these laws
limit him.
D. That god is not the greatest imaginable thing.
E. That ontological proofs of god'existencece
based on claims god is the greatest thing
imaginable are failed arguments.
F. That god cannot be a necessary being, as
claimed.
G. That any possible claims god might for some
reason abandon or limit any abilities cannot
be true in any attempt to avoid this line of
inquiry. Nor can that approach derail logical
examination of consequences of Grand
Theology's overarching claims to god's
attributes or nature.

The fact that god iallegedlyly omnibenevolent and
evil exists, demonstrates god cannot make the
rules of the world. 2 + 2 = 4 because that is
the nature of the Universe, not something god
created.Because if god did create the rules and
laws and logic of the Universe, and was
omnibenevolent, we should have no signs of evil,
especially moral evil of man, Satan, demons and
devils.
But if one admits to that, Many other important
claims collapse, many other arguments about god
and his attributes and nature no longer are
viable. Some of these claims, god's creation
of the Universe are among the oldest and most
basic of theology.
Ontological proofs started with Anselm in the
10th century, all of these now must be abandoned.
The necessary being argument, long a rhetorical
argument is now finally dead.
Free will defenses against the problem of evil
opened up a line of attack here that is powerful
and very final.
**************************************************
--
It's all coming down! It's all coming down!
IT'S ALL COMING DOWN!
- Texas Chainsaw Massacre II

Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "Panama Floyd"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 26 Jan 2006 01:54:55 AM
footybet.net wrote:

I have not said anything
I have merely typed it on the keyboard of a computer
I wouldn't waste my precious breath if I were to meet you in person
I'd just shovel you toward the Lake of Fire ;-))

Oh, and there it is. It's the christian's answer to everything.
Lakeofire, lakeofire, lakeofire. Every time your arguments are refuted,
your beliefs are challenged, and your ideas are refused, you morons
always start with the (empty) threats. The godsoaked are truly the
dumbest fucking people on earth.
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.



User: "Olrik"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 11:08:21 PM
footybet.net wrote:

Scared of the Truth, Robyn?

*****, man, you're turning into "Duke". It's *NOT* a good sign. Seek help.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
User: "Michael Gray"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 26 Jan 2006 04:10:10 AM
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:08:21 -0500, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <DNYBf.47568$mh5.1246292@weber.videotron.net>

footybet.net wrote:

Scared of the Truth, Robyn?


*****, man, you're turning into "Duke". It's *NOT* a good sign. Seek help.

The time to worry is when he starts raving about "arrows" and
"hearts".
At that stage he'll be beyond any help, save a .303 cartridge.
.
User: "olrik666"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 26 Jan 2006 12:13:13 PM
Michael Gray wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:08:21 -0500, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <DNYBf.47568$mh5.1246292@weber.videotron.net>

footybet.net wrote:

Scared of the Truth, Robyn?


*****, man, you're turning into "Duke". It's *NOT* a good sign. Seek help.


The time to worry is when he starts raving about "arrows" and
"hearts".

If you're talking about "Chung", well that guy is insane and
potentially dangerous. As for "Duke", he's only a harmless, trollish
simpleton.

At that stage he'll be beyond any help, save a .303 cartridge.

Yup.
Olrik
.



User: "wbarwell"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 07:57:57 PM
footybet.net wrote:

Scared of the Truth, Robyn?


Here's all the truth I need.
IS THERE A GOD? NO.
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.

These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.

A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.

Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.

A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.

The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.

THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.

Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.

God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
It's all coming down! It's all coming down!
IT'S ALL COMING DOWN!
- Texas Chainsaw Massacre II

Cheerful Charlie
.



User: "footybet.net"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 08:22:22 AM
49"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father
and you dishonor me. 50I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is
one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51I tell you the truth, if
anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."
.
User: "Carlos Trevino"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 08:38:02 AM
"footybet.net" <damian@bleachboys.com> wrote in message
news:1138198942.151507.153220@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

49"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father
and you dishonor me. 50I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is
one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51I tell you the truth, if
anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

You don't know what that means if you are not one of God's chosen.
.
User: "footybet.net"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 08:50:01 AM
and your point?
it is plain English, transliterated from Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek
there is nothing mysterious about Jesus' Word when He is talking
straight
and not in Parables
God's chosen will only become apparent when He judges in whatever form
He wishes to represent Himself
Carlos, you may think I am an atheist as I posted in this NG
but I am a Practising Catholic, trying to pose the atheists some
foundation to change their view
.
User: "Robibnikoff"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 09:53:16 AM
"footybet.net" <damian@bleachboys.com> wrote in message
news:1138200601.626359.90370@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Off topic ***** snipped
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 08:56:44 AM
On 25 Jan 2006 06:50:01 -0800, "footybet.net" <damian@bleachboys.com>
wrote:

and your point?
it is plain English, transliterated from Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek

there is nothing mysterious about Jesus' Word when He is talking
straight
and not in Parables

God's chosen will only become apparent when He judges in whatever form
He wishes to represent Himself

Carlos, you may think I am an atheist as I posted in this NG
but I am a Practising Catholic, trying to pose the atheists some
foundation to change their view

Idiot. Can you change your view to believe in the Easter Bunny?
.
User: "footybet.net"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 08:58:27 AM
I could dress up in a Bunny Costume and hand out free Easter Eggs
would that do?
.
User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 09:03:35 AM
On 25 Jan 2006 06:58:27 -0800, "footybet.net" <damian@bleachboys.com>
wrote:

I could dress up in a Bunny Costume and hand out free Easter Eggs
would that do?

You have no idea what an atheit is,if you imagine you can "pose the
atheists some foundation to change their view".
You think the world revolves around the belief objects of your
religion. It doesn't. You think that we start off from some equivalent
opposite position to you. We don't. We're simply people who aren't
theist.
.
User: "footybet.net"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 09:09:07 AM
simply, being the operative word, as opposed to complex or duplex
simplex, communicating in one direction only ;-)
.
User: "Michael Gray"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 26 Jan 2006 01:01:18 AM
On 25 Jan 2006 07:09:07 -0800, "footybet.net" <damian@bleachboys.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1138201747.514199.179860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

simply, being the operative word, as opposed to complex or duplex
simplex, communicating in one direction only ;-)

You really are a true moron, aren't you?
.





User: "Olrik"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 11:11:12 PM
footybet.net wrote:

and your point?
it is plain English, transliterated from Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek

there is nothing mysterious about Jesus' Word when He is talking
straight
and not in Parables

God's chosen will only become apparent when He judges in whatever form
He wishes to represent Himself

Carlos, you may think I am an atheist as I posted in this NG
but I am a Practising Catholic, trying to pose the atheists some
foundation to change their view

And doing a *****-poor job of it, like all the other fundies.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.



User: "Robibnikoff"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 09:52:33 AM
"footybet.net" <damian@bleachboys.com> wrote in message
news:1138198942.151507.153220@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Off topic
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.


User: "Sasha"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 10:57:42 AM

would you like to comment on this
will the judge be a human or an incarnate God?

Very simple, actually - you just have to approach the query with common
sense. The answer, of course, is that this "judge" must be human.
Why, you ask?
Because the other option is a figment of your fucking imagination.
.
User: "zion-lion"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 25 Jan 2006 11:41:42 AM
so who is the human "judge"?
the Messiah, the Moshiach, Christ?
.


User: "BDK"

Title: Re: Jesus' Prophecy in Gospel of John 29 Jan 2006 08:41:40 AM
In article <1138198266.663116.293300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
damian@bleachboys.com says...

Jesus said something like
"I do not seek Glory, but one will come who does seek Glory, and he
will be the judge"

would you like to comment on this
will the judge be a human or an incarnate God?


There won't be any "judging" at all. It's just another sentence in the
bible, an old book of myths, legends, and fables.
BDK
.


  Page 1 of 2

1
 

2
 


Related Articles
 

NEWER
pg.3585     pg.2749     pg.2106     pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER