tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post2419296737391079658..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: The Calvinist God is Evil!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80553740821834665552010-09-05T23:02:08.415-04:002010-09-05T23:02:08.415-04:00Loftus,
Yes, almost all Calvinists believe Adam c...Loftus,<br /><br />Yes, almost all Calvinists believe Adam could have done differently. (See the Westminster Confession.) Further not everyone who believes in predestination to salvation is also a determinist (eg. many Lutherans, a minority of Presbyterians, and the Janensists of the Old Catholic Church.) <br />Also, I don't think that you can legitimately call God "evil" since you don't believe he exists. Plus, in an atheistic world, belief in good and evil only evolved due to its usefulness for survival and manipulating others. So why don’t you go criticizing “evil” for being “evil” . . . and an imaginary, delusional idea that has no basis in reality. You should write a book and call it “The Evil Delusion.” <br />It would be much more logical and consistent for you to refer to actions as “altruistic” or “not altruistic” instead of “good” or “evil.” But even then, criticizing God for not being altruistic is just a non sequitur.<br />Why would God be evil for not preventing the damnation of people who reject the evidence for his existence, mock him, insult him, hate him, have contempt for his teaching, live as though they are gods unto themselves, and enjoy doing such things?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4127766378542400642009-08-15T11:34:45.639-04:002009-08-15T11:34:45.639-04:00The Wonder of God, in His Sovereignty is that He h...The Wonder of God, in His Sovereignty is that He has allowed us to have a free will to decide to receive His Grace or not, in order to be saved. We don't think twice of the Grace He has given us for life here. Consciousness, DNA code, heart beating, liver working, Free Air, Water, Plants and Animals grow into food, the Sun, the order of our world etc. But to be saved, to surrender your heart into His, that must be a call from your heart. And that is Love. Love is surrendering yourself into another. We rarely see this done today by human beings. Most of our surrender (maybe all) has a self centered motive behind it, yes I will love that person but then I will get this back... God gains Nothing by having us surrender into Him!!! But His Loving nature compels Him to reach out to save us. To have already paid the price of the forgiven for all people sins!! Wow. Calvinism definitely is distortion of God. There is no love in this system concocted by man, and it was created by Satan to deceive People from knowing the true and Living God who does love all people, has died for the sins of all people and wants to save you and have you come into His Family and live forever in Him. Wow. So check out Jesus in the bible and what He did for you, and discard what men / theologians say, yadi yadi. God's Word the Bible is His love letter to YOU and if you open your heart to Him, try reading the Book of John with a seeking heart, His Heart of Love will overwhelm you and you will want to then admit you are a sinner and cast your dying life into His to be Born from Above by His Spirit. (And thus inherit His Eternal life into your heart) I must say, it is AWESOME to know God intimately, to know where I am going when I die from my body. This is an experience of the life of God in my soul. If you say you were a Christian, then left, I am sorry, that indeed you never surrendered your heart into His. If you did, you cannot leave Him because the Love you will experience, His Heart 2 yours, is amazing, intoxicating, wonderful, and you just never cannot have enough and even look forward to eternity after death!! How many Christians do you know that long to go to Him in death? Not many. Too many phonies who claim to know Him, but then truthfully cling to this world because the really have not been saved, but are only living a religion. I would prefer to go to God in the rapture, His calling up to the clouds of His church, but if by death in His calling, so be it. I have a CERTAIN HOPE of future wonders coming before me that will blow away ANYTHING I have seen or experienced here!! To Have the God of the Universe, who created all matter by a speaking out of His will and who died for my sins and now has given me eternal Life in Jesus, to have this God now living in my soul, I just can't tell you in words what it is like!! So if you left "christianity", aka a system you tried to enter through your mind, I would encourage you to open up your Heart to Jesus to be truly born again. You will not regret it!! May His Extreme Grace touch your heart today. <br /><br />Dave Parrish<br />Hisheart2yours@aol.comDave Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14725296056066820095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88516534821128798942009-05-16T13:23:00.000-04:002009-05-16T13:23:00.000-04:00Calvinism is certainly pure evil, and so is anyone...Calvinism is certainly pure evil, and so is anyone who excuses it. I would have the Calvinists (even though their minds are closed) read that passage that says all Scripture is inspired. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is <B>profitable</B> for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: <B>That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.</B>" (2nd Timothy 3:16-17) Calvinists are against good works and the notion that men can repent or do good works, but even their second god, Paul, says that the very purpose of Scripture and inspiration is to make men perfectly equipped for good works! And he also says that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is <B>profitable</B>" NOT "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is <I>inerrant</I>." You can rest assured that whatever Scripture goes against equipping a man for good works is in <I>error</I> and that the only <B>profit</B> to be derived from it is its refutation by another Scripture. In other words, much of Romans 9 is garbage and lies which certainly are <I>not inerrant</I> and which can only <B>profit</B> you in the sense that you can see what NOT to believe once you see them refuted by virtually every other Scripture in the New Testament. The overriding rule in interpreting Scripture is that its purpose is to profit a man by equipping him for good works. The second rule is that Jesus trumps Paul. <br /><br />(Despite the gratuitous use of the f-word, the video is correct about Calvinism. Actually, the gratuitous use of the f-word may help Calvinists get the point because they use it more than anyone since they don't think their actions matter cuz their irresistibly saved and all they think. They're also the most drunken and debaucherous of liars who call themselves "Christians" when they are not, and most of them smoke, not to mention they cheat on their wives and have gay orgies. Their evil god, Satan, binds their will to do so, they say.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14089592786837258072009-04-13T21:52:00.000-04:002009-04-13T21:52:00.000-04:00Rom. 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also di...Rom. 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.<br /><br />divine predestination is not based upon God's foreknowledge. Predestination is not God's foreknowledge of what would come to pass, but his purpose and determination of what must come to pass. It is not the result of what God knew man would do. Rather, predestination is what he determined he would do. The fact is, nothing could be absolutely foreknown that was not absolutely predetermined. That which is foreknown must have been foreordained. God knew the end of all things from the beginning, because he had predestinated the end from the beginning (Isa. 14:24, 26, 27; 46:9-11).<br /><br />It's sad that people over think what John Calvin meant.asonofyahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11969550587575764484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28692501836987541692009-01-28T10:55:00.000-05:002009-01-28T10:55:00.000-05:00I would like to apologize for the hypocrisy and ig...I would like to apologize for the hypocrisy and ignorance of my fellow-Christians. We have, for the most part, utterly failed to live a life and preach a gospel that is true.<BR/>But would you judge a father for the sins of his children?<BR/>What if God doesn't fit into the bottle of Calvinism or Arminianism or any other "brand" of Christianity. <BR/>What if he's just God and you have to face him one day? <BR/>Again, forgive us for failing to show the truth of God's love to the world.Donahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04779056093092006627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33760391101272152482008-11-16T17:39:00.000-05:002008-11-16T17:39:00.000-05:00The calvinist God then sends the message that what...The calvinist God then sends the message that whats created by the creator is his property and is fair game to do with as it pleases .<BR/><BR/>If we are supposed to try to get near this god then it must mean we would try to be like him.<BR/><BR/>Then this must mean that with anything that is our property we dont need to take into account the feeling of anyone else.I might as a father be the creator of children ,should (i) make mistakes in their upbringing and be a part of their make up and personality that they now have.It just doesnt matter one bit! because i as the creator am the boss and can show them wrath and balame them for all they have done wrong as much as i jolly well wish !.<BR/><BR/>I might give money to build something for the public ,should they not be perfect and piss me off .I might then decide to make them pay for it and take this gift back smashing it, and then send them to live in some fiery volcano .<BR/><BR/>Yes the suggestions of God/s suggest something that is allowed to be and do as it pleases without being accountable to anyone.<BR/>Yet expects sinless perfect folk and will pour wrath on them all if they are not.<BR/><BR/>What a load of rubbish .What a fad seeded and born of of dark age superstitious ignorance.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44807937947930769222008-11-16T15:02:00.000-05:002008-11-16T15:02:00.000-05:00Logosfera>>I can agree to call God GOOD but ...<B>Logosfera>></B><I>I can agree to call God GOOD but I cannot use that word for anything else after that. AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM.</I><BR/><BR/><B>james >></B><I> You cannot say God is "Just" because there is no context for you to do so. It is just a meaningless word. You may as well say He is "verzqivocal".</I><BR/><BR/><B>a helmet >></B><I> However, a goodness that does not need to comprise anything of the meaning we would normally presume, is an empty word.</I><BR/><BR/>Regarding the use of words like "good" and "holy" to describe the Calvinist's God, I am often reminded of the following quote:<BR/><BR/><B>"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."</B><BR/>- Inigo Montoya, <I>The Princess Bride</I>Jim Turnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08382752988191965423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27398473947436203812008-11-16T12:45:00.000-05:002008-11-16T12:45:00.000-05:00robert,yes, in calvinism the problem of evil doesn...robert,<BR/><BR/>yes, in calvinism the problem of evil doesn't really exist. <BR/><BR/>It is like this:<BR/><BR/>1) There is one God.<BR/>2) God is omnipotent.<BR/>3) There is evil.<BR/><BR/>And finally:<BR/>4) Let us define: God is good.<BR/><BR/>This is calvinism's statement of the problem of evil and its easy solution.a helmethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159557031242847451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44656349531839773772008-11-16T12:39:00.000-05:002008-11-16T12:39:00.000-05:00Calvinists never answer the question how man's acc...Calvinists never answer the question how man's accountability came about. Why is man responsible to begin with?<BR/><BR/>Concerning God's being perfectly good: According to Calvinism God is good by definition. Your or my opinion about <I>good</I> might be totally different to God's understanding of the word <I>good</I>. However, a goodness that does not need to comprise anything of the meaning we would normally presume, is an empty word.<BR/>Then it doesn't make sense to rack one's head about the subject of goodness and the meaning of <I>good</I> at all. It is just a matter of definition.a helmethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159557031242847451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45016516922984439822008-11-14T11:43:00.000-05:002008-11-14T11:43:00.000-05:00@Reverend Phillip BrownHave you ever seen a comput...@Reverend Phillip Brown<BR/><BR/>Have you ever seen a computer game? The programmer of the game has all the rights towards the characters of the game. But that doesn't automagically makes him GOOD in the eyes of the characters. <BR/><BR/>"The justice is the creation". You avoid assigning a context so you little reasoning has any weight. <BR/><BR/>My response,<BR/>"The justice for the WW2 is the creation of the WW2". Hitler is great. Now, get down on your knees an pray to Hitler. Ooh... I forgot, Hitler doesn't have anything to bribe you to let his atrocities slide. But since your God has the biggest gun your spine becomes as bendy as a rubber string.Logosferahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18231542536398128476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60842314823659133562008-11-14T10:05:00.000-05:002008-11-14T10:05:00.000-05:00@ lee You said,Simply because a creator god is alm...@ lee <BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>Simply because a creator god is almighty, does not mean that he is necessarily worthy of my worship<BR/><BR/>My Response,<BR/><BR/>Logical fallacy. If not a creator God who is almighty then who? Not good enough.<BR/><BR/>@ logosfera <BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>The guy you responded to said that IF GOOD is beating people fore eternity than WE cannot use GOOD to describe compassion, charity etc. The calvinists may presupose whatever they like about their ghosts but every presuposition has concequences. I can agree to call God GOOD but I cannot use that word for anything else after that. AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM.<BR/><BR/>My response,<BR/><BR/>Thanks that sounds reasonable to a degree. Here is the problem. If a creator God owns something, {humans] then His rights to do what he likes is complete. So to say compassion and charity is somethings we cannot label the Christina God is simply philosophical prostitution. You need to answer the question. <BR/><BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>You can use BEAUTIFULL to describe a woman that has 400 pounds, 3 legs and is covered with pimples but you CANNOT use after that the same word to describe Angelina Jolie.<BR/><BR/><BR/>My response, <BR/><BR/>Hmmmm,? What is your point? <BR/><BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>Jesus, it's unbelievable the length some people are willing to go to kiss god's [sic] ass for a place in heaven. Your understanding of christianity may be consistent because you are inconsistent in using words. Think about it.<BR/><BR/>My response,<BR/><BR/>I have thought about it!<BR/><BR/>@ james<BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>Define "Merciful". Define "Just". What the Calvinist wants to do is give these terms relative definitions, dependent on whom they are applying to. People are expected to uphold constant, unchanging definitions of these, while whatever God does is supposedly "Just" by virtue of the fact that He is God. <BR/><BR/>My response,<BR/><BR/>Ok then define absolute justice and mercy? I think Socrates failed at this. Perhaps you are more enlightened. <BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>You cannot say God is "Just" because there is no context for you to do so. It is just a meaningless word. You may as well say He is "verzqivocal". <BR/><BR/><BR/>My response,<BR/><BR/>The justice is the creation. <BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>What Calvinism really states is that humans are expected to keep certain standards of pre-defined morality while God can do whatever the hell he wants and just label it as moral because He's got the bigger stick.<BR/><BR/>My response,<BR/><BR/>No, that's not the position. The Calvinist tries to put God where God should be no matter how hard it feels.... <BR/><BR/>Regards, Rev. Phil.Reverend Phillip Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066146652758132098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23599158625343082052008-11-14T06:42:00.000-05:002008-11-14T06:42:00.000-05:00Rev. Brown writes: "But the Calvinist presupposes ...Rev. Brown writes: "But the Calvinist presupposes that he is Merciful and Just. So there is not a problem."<BR/><BR/>Define "Merciful". Define "Just". What the Calvinist wants to do is give these terms relative definitions, dependent on whom they are applying to. People are expected to uphold constant, unchanging definitions of these, while whatever God does is supposedly "Just" by virtue of the fact that He is God. <BR/><BR/>You cannot say God is "Just" because there is no context for you to do so. It is just a meaningless word. You may as well say He is "verzqivocal". <BR/><BR/>What Calvinism really states is that humans are expected to keep certain standards of pre-defined morality while God can do whatever the hell he wants and just label it as moral because He's got the bigger stick.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01694207997231305470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38087424244140758972008-11-14T03:02:00.000-05:002008-11-14T03:02:00.000-05:00@Reverend Phillip Brown"But the Calvinist presuppo...@Reverend Phillip Brown<BR/>"But the Calvinist presupposes that he is Merciful and Just. So there is not a problem."<BR/><BR/>The guy you responded to said that IF GOOD is beating people fore eternity than WE cannot use GOOD to describe compassion, charity etc. The calvinists may presupose whatever they like about their ghosts but every presuposition has concequences. I can agree to call God GOOD but I cannot use that word for anything else after that. AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM.<BR/><BR/>You can use BEAUTIFULL to describe a woman that has 400 pounds, 3 legs and is covered with pimples but you CANNOT use after that the same word to describe Angelina Jolie.<BR/><BR/>Jesus, it's unbelievable the length some people are willing to go to kiss god's ass for a place in heaven. Your understanding of christianity may be consistent because you are inconsistent in using words. Think about it.Logosferahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18231542536398128476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3076207686923249932008-11-14T01:43:00.000-05:002008-11-14T01:43:00.000-05:00i am in no way a calvanist (nor was i ever one), i...i am in no way a calvanist (nor was i ever one), in fact i am an atheist, but i do know that the last part of your post, where you said if you went around torturing calvanists it wouldn't matter because you may be one of the chosen anyway, is actually not what the calvanists say. they do believe in the whole predestination BS, but that only people who do good and follow gods will are the ones who were chosen from the beginning - so if you were not chosen being good doesn't matter but if you were chosen you wouldn't be doing bad things to begin with.<BR/>other than that i completely agree with you; predestination + free will make even less sense to me than religion as a whole.Daniellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05988701843151291049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42860224217104824532008-11-13T23:21:00.000-05:002008-11-13T23:21:00.000-05:00"Reverend Brown asks: "I am trying to ascertain wh..."Reverend Brown asks: "I am trying to ascertain why you think a creator does not have rights over his creation? This is at the heart of the question."<BR/><BR/>Simply because a creator god is almighty, does not mean that he is necessarily worthy of my worship.leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16371409643400358786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81900036891054938922008-11-13T21:03:00.000-05:002008-11-13T21:03:00.000-05:00@ James,You said,A right as determined by whom? Hi...@ James,<BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>A right as determined by whom? Himself? If He is the highest power, than He can grant Himself that right. If there is another claim to which He must answer (call it "goodness"), then He is not God.<BR/><BR/>Sure, He has the right fro he is the creator. <BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>So yes, He does have a right to "do whatever He likes" with His creation in one sense. However, if He does not conform to the noblest definitions of Good and Just and Merciful by AT LEAST human standards, we cannot call Him "good". He's supposed to be infinitely better, but the Calvinist version has very few standards, if any. Even tyrants tire of their cruelty after a season. Not so, the Calvinist God.<BR/><BR/>But the Calvinist presupposes that he is Merciful and Just. So there is not a problem.<BR/><BR/><BR/>@ philip<BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>Dont be silly. Houses don't have feelings and sensation. People do. Major ethical difference: humans can be hurt, houses can't.<BR/><BR/>And if God has the authority to torture us forever, then it doesn't make it right, because God has no standards of right and wrong.<BR/><BR/>Here is the problem philip,<BR/><BR/>If it is moral only to do what one can/cannot feel then you run into a major problem. For example, should we take drugs so we cannot fell and behave as we wish?<BR/><BR/>Regards, Rev. Phil.Reverend Phillip Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066146652758132098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30687108529417724892008-11-13T19:47:00.000-05:002008-11-13T19:47:00.000-05:00rev,Dont be silly. Houses don't have feelings and ...rev,<BR/><BR/>Dont be silly. Houses don't have feelings and sensation. People do. Major ethical difference: humans can be hurt, houses can't.<BR/><BR/>And if God has the authority to torture us forever, then it doesn't make it right, because God has no standards of right and wrong.Philip R Kreychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13079037983351521346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34488104590248270232008-11-13T17:33:00.000-05:002008-11-13T17:33:00.000-05:00Reverend Brown asks: "I am trying to ascertain why...Reverend Brown asks: "I am trying to ascertain why you think a creator does not have rights over his creation? This is at the heart of the question."<BR/><BR/>Assuming you believe in God, technically He DOES have the ability to do whatever He likes with His creation. Does He have the "right"? I guess that's a nonsense question. A right as determined by whom? Himself? If He is the highest power, than He can grant Himself that right. If there is another claim to which He must answer (call it "goodness"), then He is not God.<BR/><BR/>So yes, He does have a right to "do whatever He likes" with His creation in one sense. However, if He does not conform to the noblest definitions of Good and Just and Merciful by AT LEAST human standards, we cannot call Him "good". He's supposed to be infinitely better, but the Calvinist version has very few standards, if any. Even tyrants tire of their cruelty after a season. Not so, the Calvinist God.<BR/><BR/>In this universe, we can only say He's "we know not what" and we worship Him because He has all the power. If His good is NOTHING like what we understand good to be, it does no use to call Him "good", does it?Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01694207997231305470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38650338978767368542008-11-13T16:11:00.000-05:002008-11-13T16:11:00.000-05:00Jim T: "I have trouble believing that God would cr...Jim T: "I have trouble believing that God would create such incoherent systems, but I am fully aware of just how capable humans are in creating very elaborate and imaginative systems. And when human-made systems get pressed, the incoherence becomes evident to some."<BR/><BR/>And when you look at these religious books of any faith ,its so easy to see the parallels.Well easy for some of us anyway.<BR/><BR/>These books are so full of complications contradictions and pure gibberish ,its almost degrading that man would think it word of God.<BR/><BR/>I`d feel quite safe and be happy to hazard a guess that if there were any god that might actually be.He`d quite likely be much more happy with those who didnt profess to know what they didnt, than those that guessed and blindly followed written religious word of man.<BR/><BR/>It is with my higher opinion of if i were to believe in a god what his word and directions and with such divine clarity the likely lack of contradictions that there then would be.<BR/><BR/>That im not at all afraid to discredit these faithful writings all so full of mumbo jumbo and contradictions,of which there is so much real factual evidence available in this world for those with open eyes. To suggest parallels within these books are no more than common confused thoughts and actions of man.<BR/><BR/>I pity these folk who believe such nastiness.For not only might they have free will but should they choose to use it they have common sense as well.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1859520787045148072008-11-13T14:24:00.000-05:002008-11-13T14:24:00.000-05:00"Strange a God who mouths Golden Rules and forgive..."Strange a God who mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness, then invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none Himself; who frowns upon crimes yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon Himself; and finally with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship Him!"<BR/>— Mark Twainleehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16371409643400358786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72275051724633182492008-11-13T12:02:00.000-05:002008-11-13T12:02:00.000-05:00Jaceppe >> If we rephrase our argument above...<I>Jaceppe >> If we rephrase our argument above it really boils down to something like this: “I am ignorant of how an eternity in Hell can be an appropriate punishment for sins against God.” </I><BR/><BR/>Within the Christian belief system, then yes, I can see your point here. Christians must often profess ignorance about the workings and purposes of God. That's how faith is often maintained, and this is currently what I am personally struggling with.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Jaceppe >> Well, ignorance is a rather flimsy foundation to build upon...</I><BR/><BR/>True enough, but that's not the point here. I think the point is to show the entire Calvinist system (or Hell in general for your post) is incoherent, and perhaps it is not of divine origin, but human origin.<BR/><BR/>I have trouble believing that God would create such incoherent systems, but I am fully aware of just how capable humans are in creating very elaborate and imaginative systems. And when human-made systems get pressed, the incoherence becomes evident to some.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Jaceppe >> and doesn’t make for a very compelling argument against God on this matter.</I><BR/><BR/>But the argument isn't against God, it's against certain systems of beliefs about God.<BR/><BR/><BR/>- JimJim Turnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08382752988191965423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40716742749392626622008-11-13T11:50:00.000-05:002008-11-13T11:50:00.000-05:00@JaceppeFirst, if you can't think of ANY activity ...@Jaceppe<BR/>First, if you can't think of ANY activity that can satisfy you if you do it FOR EVER, than all activities that could possibly offer us eternal pleasure (eg: worshiping an asshole) is just TALKING NONSENSE. You are talking about something that is not even imaginable so talking about its probability or possibility is a waste of time.<BR/>Second, if you believe in the Bible and the offendee will feel so defastated by something I would do in my lifetime that he is compelled to send me to hell for eternity than all I can say is that you sold your soul for a chimera. Your offendee is supposedly a self-sufficient being so the level of devastation I may induce but my actions is completely at his control. God omnipotence gives him the ability to make himself indifferent to my actions for example. The fact is that he chooses to be Infintely Evil. <BR/>Thirdly, regarding the alleged argument from ignorance (btw, just because you know the name of the fallacy doesn't mean you are always right about spoting them), well, I haven't met a single person that can explain clearly HOW an infinite punishment is a JUST punishment for a finite evil. You tell me now, that actually SIN is AN INFINITE OFFENSE one can bring toward God, because God CHOOSES to feel INFINITELY OFFENDED. Given that God is infinetely more wiser that a muslim retard that chosses to feel offended when a woman reported that he raped her, can you please explain what would be a better explanation for god's choice to feel offended beside the fact that he is Infinetely Evil?<BR/><BR/>Actually, those are questions to answer yourself. I don't have an authoritarive and supernatural epistemology so I really don't need those answers.Logosferahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18231542536398128476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27084184207138978342008-11-13T10:51:00.000-05:002008-11-13T10:51:00.000-05:00Well, this comment is not so much on the lines of ...Well, this comment is not so much on the lines of the Calvinist et.al. aspect of this thread here, but just on Hell in general.<BR/><BR/>Logosfera stated:<BR/><BR/><I>I have to disagree though. All christian flavours of God are infinitely evil.<BR/>If hell is eternal for those that get there there is a point in time…<BR/>...as long as an infinite hell exists its creator is the Infinite Evil. The rest are details.<BR/></I><BR/>In every sin there are at least 2-3 beings that are offended: The person who sins, possibly a person(s) being sinned against, and God. When we sin, I believe we always defile ourselves and God; and if the sin affects another(s) then they are impacted as well. I believe scripture teaches that God is the primary offendee in every sin because it is His nature being offended, His creation (including us) and His created moral order which is being trashed. If one commits some sin (pick your poison of any variety) it is easy for us to want to measure an appropriate justice (or punishment) purely on the human plane of existence. And, we do this in our legal systems. But, how significant are these offenses to God is an area of extreme speculation for us. Scripture describes these offenses as worthy of punishment and eternal at that. This may be confusing or difficult for us to grasp but we must also remember that Scripture describes God as a Being supreme in majesty, glory, etc. Revelation even has beings lying before the throne speaking “Holy, Holy, Holy,” and seeming to be content in doing nothing but that. How many of you can think of even a single natural activity which would satisfy you for all eternity if that was the only thing you could do? I can think of nothing in this natural life… (and “yes” the one you are thinking of may get boring too ) yet, these creatures in Revelation do only this so there appears to be activities associated with Worshiping our Creator that have this potential satisfaction… I think why Hell seems offensive to us is because we do not grasp the exaltedness of God in Scripture and we still see through a glass darkly. Most of our arguments against Hell’s eternity come down to something along these lines: “I don’t see how an eternity in Hell is an appropriate punishment for sins against God”. Well, God has paid a great price in Christ to deliver us from such a fate, but it is not just to deliver us from Hell but to deliver us unto Him… He is the true reward... it is rejection of God for which people will receive their appropriate recompense. Christians probably have lots of different ideas of what Hell is actually like and I won’t belabor you with mine. But, Scripture implies that Hell is an appropriate reward for those whose offenses against God must eventually receive just recompense outside of Christ. If we rephrase our argument above it really boils down to something like this: “<I>I am ignorant</I> of how an eternity in Hell can be an appropriate punishment for sins against God.” Well, ignorance is a rather flimsy foundation to build upon and doesn’t make for a very compelling argument against God on this matter.Jaceppehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569840643487354373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72029770831406311222008-11-13T08:45:00.000-05:002008-11-13T08:45:00.000-05:00I have to disagree though. All christian flavours ...I have to disagree though. All christian flavours of God are infinitely evil.<BR/>If hell is eternal for those that get there there is a point in time at which there would be no difference between the Calvinist Christian god and other flavours.<BR/>Even if one person is in hell, after enough time there would be no difference between the Calvinist God and the rest.<BR/>Justice is about proportion. If proportion is fucked up by an pretty knowledgeable god that would be due exclusevely to his evil nature. Since after enough time the disproportionality would become almost equal, the evil nature that is the cause for that disproportion should be similar. <BR/><BR/>The question that needs to be asked is: Does it really matter if you spend 2 eternities in hell instead of one? Does it really matter if there is one more person besides you suffering in hell? No, as long as an infinite hell exists its creator is the Infinite Evil. The rest are details.Logosferahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18231542536398128476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66249465882077831682008-11-13T07:38:00.000-05:002008-11-13T07:38:00.000-05:00This is probably not a place for an ex-Calvinist C...This is probably not a place for an ex-Calvinist Christian to argue its merits with another Christian. But I think the <I>Fountainhead</I> example is pretty close to the mark. Maybe you just don't know the story.<BR/><BR/>An architect of immense talent and integrity has a solution to the problem of public housing, but he's a pariah among the politicians who pay for the building. HE gets another, politically connected, architect, an old classmate, to present the building as his, under one condition -- No change in the design. But the other fellow lacks Roark's integrity and gives in to superfluous ornament, which deeply offends Roark.<BR/><BR/>So he blows up the buildings.<BR/><BR/>Now one might argue who the creator is in this scenario, but Roark is not the owner. He, not the building contractor (the demiurge of gnosticism), or the commissioning agency (quite a pantheon here), is the creator, he believes. And he believes that give him a right to destroy. And he argues in his trial the basis upon which he claims that right.<BR/><BR/>Since the Serpent suggested to Eve that God was unjust in denying her the fruit, God has been on trial. We don't have the right, I agree. But we have the inclination. In the course of God's "defense," what propositions does he make that evoke our anger. The question is, is our anger just? Or just futile?<BR/><BR/>One thing I would assert -- we are our own owner. God relinquished ownership of us. In fact, if he owned up, he'd remove that superfluous ornament and make us conform to His design. He only wants to destroy us when we are not His. And, personally, I think it is more just to throw Christians into the eternal pit of fire and brimstone (what is eternal, the pit, or our sojourn there?) because he owns us, as well as created us.<BR/><BR/>The other guys, well.... when they die, I guess they're abandoned property.BobCMU76https://www.blogger.com/profile/09124766832330905279noreply@blogger.com