Religions > Bible > Re: Religion doesn't have to be irrelevant, ineffectual, repressive...
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Frank" |
| Date: |
17 May 2005 06:47:16 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Religion doesn't have to be irrelevant, ineffectual, repressive... |
"Barry OGrady" <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e5e815cgor94l0ar3ab42tk0dlh87gn5d@4ax.com...
You are guilty of the same thing but I didn't try to hold you to
explanations for your
claims because I don't believe you have any. "The Bible says' or 'some
theologian
says' is not an explanation.
It is in our pristine Christian NGs, much like "there ain't no god(s)"
requires no explanation nor proof, nor evidence etc. in atheist NGs.
As an example, you say God is good or even perfect, while I say there is
no good God.
Our God is the principle of "good", and as such our God exists. The
fact, that no one exemplifies or exprfesses goodness where you are is
irrelevant to the point.
You give no reason for your claims other than that you have been told,
while I only need
point out that the state of the world screams out that there is no good
God.
There is that "no good god" you keep complaining about, but we call him
Satan. That word denotes the principle of evil.
If that sort of explanation is not good enough please let me know how
verbose I should
be, or is it the case that I must not say anything derogatory about God?
Whether you say anything derogatory about the "principle of goodness" is
also irrelevant. It just shows, that you are full of contrarian beliefs and
disbeliefs without any rhyme nor reason, and years of trolling our hallowed
Christian NGs have taught you nothing.
I believe having seen you express those same sentiments of yours above a
decade ago and that I and other Christians explained our proprietary
Christian terms and expressions then, but all to no effect, for you still
repeat your atheist mantras verbatim et ad nauseam.
Why not at least try to get on board with us, so you too will praise and
worship in the Kingdom of God, instead of "wail" complaints interminably in
the "outer darkness" of hell?
Pastor Frank
"GOD" The Christian meaning of the word according to scripture:
Jesus in Jn:4:24: "GOD IS A SPIRIT, and they that worship him must
worship him in spirit and in truth."
Jesus in John 14:6-10: Jesus saith unto him: "I am the way, the truth,
and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me,
ye should have known my Father also, and from henceforth YE KNOW HIM AND
HAVE SEEN HIM."
Philip saith unto him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us."
Jesus saith unto him: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER;
and how sayest thou then: Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am
in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak
not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
Jesus in John 12:44-46`Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes
in me, believes not in me but in Him who sent me. And he who sees me sees
Him who sent Me. I have come as a light into the world, that whoever
believes in me should not abide in darkness."
Jesus in Lk 17:20-21: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when
the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said: "The kingdom of
God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo
there! For, behold, the kingdom of GOD IS WITHIN YOU."
1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE.
1Jn:4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.
GOD IS LOVE; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Acts:17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
.
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion doesn't have to be irrelevant, ineffectual, repressive... |
21 May 2005 05:54:24 AM |
|
|
Pastor Frank wrote:
"Barry OGrady" <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e5e815cgor94l0ar3ab42tk0dlh87gn5d@4ax.com...
You are guilty of the same thing but I didn't try to hold you to
explanations for your
claims because I don't believe you have any. "The Bible says' or 'some
theologian
says' is not an explanation.
It is in our pristine Christian NGs, much like "there ain't no god(s)"
requires no explanation nor proof, nor evidence etc. in atheist NGs.
It doesn't. Its your burden of proof to prove it.
But anyway, I do disprove god, and you just ignore it.
**************************************************
God disproven #1 Short Version
W.C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most
powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of
all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having
conciousness, and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
2. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
5. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
6. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.
9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
10. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
11. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.
12. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
13. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is false also.
14. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe tht contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
15. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the problem of evil
in 250 BCE. If the gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.
16. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
17. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
18. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
19. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.
20. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
21. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.
23. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.
(END)
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion doesn't have to be irrelevant, ineffectual, repressive... |
03 Jun 2005 02:37:26 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:118u4chgrh5u876@corp.supernews.com...
Pastor Frank wrote:
"Barry OGrady" <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e5e815cgor94l0ar3ab42tk0dlh87gn5d@4ax.com...
You are guilty of the same thing but I didn't try to hold you to
explanations for your
claims because I don't believe you have any. "The Bible says' or 'some
theologian
says' is not an explanation.
It is in our pristine Christian NGs, much like "there ain't no
god(s)"
requires no explanation nor proof, nor evidence etc. in atheist NGs.
It doesn't. Its your burden of proof to prove it.
Learn to read
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
