God's choice: quick question for Christians

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Could you please repeat your reasons why Leprechauns are ridiculous again.

1. Absence of logic.

2. Absence of evidence.

3. Absence of a means to distinguish the claim "leprechauns" from just guessing.

Sound familiar?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

1. Absence of logic.

2. Absence of evidence.

3. Absence of a means to distinguish the claim "leprechauns" from just guessing.

Sound familiar?

Physicalism? materialism? naturalism? Any philosophical position?

[Stranger]

Physicalism? materialism? naturalism? Any philosophical position?

Is it really necessary to go through all this yet again? Do you have memory problems?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Physicalism? materialism? naturalism? Any philosophical position?

Nope, unless you think reason to be a "philosophical position". It's simple enough - for "God" and leprechauns alike the problems with the claim are the same: no cogent logic, no evidence and no means of distinguishing the claim from just guessing. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

Is it really necessary to go through all this yet again? Do you have memory problems?

I actually think it's an honesty problem, or - If I'm feeling charitable - a comprehension problem. There are though as you suggest only so many times you can explain something only for it to fall on deaf ears.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nope, unless you think reason to be a "philosophical position". It's simple enough - for "God" and leprechauns alike the problems with the claim are the same: no cogent logic, no evidence and no means of distinguishing the claim from just guessing.

Well, then We will then have to disagree since what you mention applies to almost any philosophical position too.

Leprechauns ARE USUALLY considered ridiculous because they are proposed as unfeasibly diminutive irish men who are found at the end of rainbows with pots of Gold...an unfeasible proposition given the mobility of rainbows according to angles of perception and the density of Gold.

Still, your proposal stands as testament to your efforts at polishing even the most unlustrous dropping.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well, then We will then have to disagree since what you mention applies to almost any philosophical position too.

So I see that you fundamentally fail yet again to grasp the point of the leprechauns analogy. Perhaps if you write it down 100 times or so that could help? Here is it again: "If an argument for "God" woks equally for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument".

Let me know won't you if it ever sinks in.

Leprechauns ARE USUALLY considered ridiculous because they are proposed as unfeasibly diminutive irish men who found at the end of rainbows with pots of Gold...an unfeasible proposition given the mobility of rainbows according to angles of perception and the density of Gold.

Ah, so they're ridiculous because they don't accord with the way the material world appears to work then?

Fair enough. Now, about this God of yours...

Still, your proposal stands as testament to your efforts at polishing even the most unlustrous dropping.

Abject collapse noted. I'll leave you to your personal grief here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 
Ah, so they're ridiculous because they don't accord with the way the material world appears to work then?

Well yes...and deservedly so because they are proposed as unfeasibly DIMINUTIVE IRISHMEN at the end of RAINBOWS.....with POTS OF GOLD....gold which,when I last looked was still on the periodic table.

To quote that great philosopher MADONNA ''For we are leprechauns in a material world...and I am a material girl''.

[Stranger]

Well yes...and deservedly so because they are proposed as unfeasibly DIMINUTIVE IRISHMEN at the end of RAINBOWS.....with POTS OF GOLD....gold which,when I last looked was still on the periodic table.

Much as I enjoy your obsession with the little Irish folk, it does appear to be little more than a distraction tactic to avoid you facing up to the fact that there is no way to assess your claims about god that would distinguish them from mistake, guessing and so on.

In fact, you seem far more interested in assessing the claims about leprechauns than you are in providing any reasons for others to take your god seriously...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well yes...and deservedly so because they are proposed as unfeasibly DIMINUTIVE IRISHMEN at the end of RAINBOWS.....with POTS OF GOLD....gold which,when I last looked was still on the periodic table.

To quote that great philosopher MADONNA ''For we are leprechauns in a material world...and I am a material girl''.

Yeah, none of which makes sense by reference to the world as it appears to be.

Now, about this God of yours (again)...

Keep trying - you'll get there eventually.

Won't you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

Much as I enjoy your obsession with the little Irish folk, it does appear to be little more than a distraction tactic to avoid you facing up to the fact that there is no way to assess your claims about god that would distinguish them from mistake, guessing and so on.

In fact, you seem far more interested in assessing the claims about leprechauns than you are in providing any reasons for others to take your god seriously...

Oddly, the point about leprechauns though is that - as with his god – those who would assert them offer no means of distinguishing their claims from just guessing. That Vlad shoots himself in the foot by saying that only one of those is ridiculous because its characteristics don't accord with the material world doesn't do him any favours, but it's a distraction in any case.

[Dicky Underpants]

I would suggest you go and read the same FF Bruce on the Canon of Scripture.  You might learn a thing or two.

FF Bruce? I have his "The Hard Sayings of Jesus". He is no doubt a worthy fellow, but the latter book seems to have emerged from a severe bout of constipated confirmation bias. That is, he starts with the absolute conviction that the biblical text as we have it has been recorded perfectly correctly, without possibility of serious error, and that the sayings and events are all divine truth. I would suggest that some of the 'hard sayings of Jesus' were 'hard' because the words are corrupt, mistranslated, words have been missed out - and possibly, even if well recorded, were meaningless in the first place.
No, I would not expect to learn very much from FF Bruce. I prefer to refer to the many more objective scholars out there (I can give you a list if you like).

[Robbie]

FF Bruce has been dead a long time, we need words from people who are still around.
I'm tired, nighty nighty.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Robinson,

FF Bruce has been dead a long time, we need words from people who are still around.

I'm tired, nighty nighty.

Not a problem for Christians is it? Maybe one of them thinks he's "in a relationship" with this chap too?

Mind the bugs.

[Sassy]

Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?

Your post shows you have no idea of righteousness or a Christian by Gods definition and being right with God by faith like Abraham.

The answer is there is no hateful Christians. The truth is kindness does not take away sin.

Why not seek and find what it means to be a Christian.

Why not look up why atheists are not saved whether kind or not.

Is there a chance?  The books on judgment day will be opened and everyone judged according to their works.

If you have to ask such questions it shows you lack the truth.

[torridon]

Your post shows you have no idea of righteousness or a Christian by Gods definition and being right with God by faith like Abraham.

The answer is there is no hateful Christians. The truth is kindness does not take away sin.

Why not seek and find what it means to be a Christian.

Why not look up why atheists are not saved whether kind or not.

Is there a chance?  The books on judgment day will be opened and everyone judged according to their works.

If you have to ask such questions it shows you lack the truth.

and the above post demonstrates a lack of coherence.  On the one hand you say atheists are not saved, and in the very next sentence apparently people are judged according to their works (rather than their beliefs).  Make your mind up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

Your post shows you have no idea of righteousness or a Christian by Gods definition and being right with God by faith like Abraham.

The answer is there is no hateful Christians. The truth is kindness does not take away sin.

Why not seek and find what it means to be a Christian.

That's called the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Why not look up why atheists are not saved whether kind or not.

Is there a chance?  The books on judgment day will be opened and everyone judged according to their works.

If you have to ask such questions it shows you lack the truth.

Which of these contradictory statements do you think to be true: are atheists " not saved" because they are atheists, or are they "judged according to their works"?

You can have either one, but not both.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#316

Which of these contradictory statements do you think to be true: are atheists " not saved" because they are atheists, or are they "judged according to their works"?

You can have either one, but not both.

They are not contradictory.

You have assumed that they are mutually exclusive. They are not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

They are not contradictory.

You have assumed that they are mutually exclusive. They are not.

Yes they are contradictory. Once says that the entrance criterion is what you believe, the other says that it's what you do.

Seems plaln enough to me.

[floo]

Your post shows you have no idea of righteousness or a Christian by Gods definition and being right with God by faith like Abraham.

The answer is there is no hateful Christians. The truth is kindness does not take away sin.

Why not seek and find what it means to be a Christian.

Why not look up why atheists are not saved whether kind or not.

Is there a chance?  The books on judgment day will be opened and everyone judged according to their works.

If you have to ask such questions it shows you lack the truth.

Abraham was not a good person, he was prepared to sacrifice Isaac, if that nasty tale has any truth to it!

There are plenty of very unpleasant Christians, especially those who are extreme in their views like the ones who tell others they will burn in hell if they don't get 'saved'.

'Truth', where faith is concerned, is in the human mind, without any evidence to substantiate it.

[Sassy]

and the above post demonstrates a lack of coherence.  On the one hand you say atheists are not saved, and in the very next sentence apparently people are judged according to their works (rather than their beliefs).  Make your mind up.

Christians not judged. It a clear   need to read the bible and concentrate on learning what being a Christian means as far as the judgement of the dead when raised.

[Sassy]

]Sassy,

Bluehillside
That's called the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

No! that means stop making stupid remarks as an excuse for your lack of edcuation on the subject being
discussed.

Which of these contradictory statements do you think to be true: are atheists " not saved" because
 they are atheists, or are they "judged according to their works"?

You can have either one, but not both.

The statement is not contradictory to those who have studied OT law and teachings of the Prophets
and understand the covenant with Christ being like that of Abraham but sins removed.How do you hope to learn
anything if even the basic christian beliefs are not understood by you.

Does works save a christian or Jesus Christ?
You see the answer to that question would show the way to the answer to the questions already answered which
you cannot understand.

To be honest as you never learn from the many posts by Christians why should we believe you will learn
anything by us once again giving you answers you will just ignore?

[floo]

Good works are far preferable to people continually making claims about their faith, for which they have no supportive evidence.

[torridon]

Christians not judged. It a clear   need to read the bible and concentrate on learning what being a Christian means as far as the judgement of the dead when raised.

How is that consistent with a benign god ?  Surely a benign god would not discriminate, giving christians only a free pass into salvation no matter what their contributions, but all others have to be assessed.  It's a two track system,  the haves and the have-nots. 

And notwithstanding all that, what a person believes is only valid at a point in time; nobody believes the same things all through life without change. That's why it is called a spiritual journey. So someone might well be a christian at one stage, a muslim at another, and an atheist at another.  How does this salvation paradigm operate in such circumstances ?

[floo]

How is that consistent with a benign god ?  Surely a benign god would not discriminate, giving christians only a free pass into salvation no matter what their contributions, but all others have to be assessed.  It's a two track system,  the haves and the have-nots. 

And notwithstanding all that, what a person believes is only valid at a point in time; nobody believes the same things all through life without change. That's why it is called a spiritual journey. So someone might well be a christian at one stage, a muslim at another, and an atheist at another.  How does this salvation paradigm operate in such circumstances ?

Those who conveniently believe in the, 'once 'saved', always saved', dogma, seem to think they are bound for heaven whatever they do thereafter.