Free Flight, Free Speech

Is there a: oops to late! Situation there, Josh?

IAHM-COL wrote::twisted:
Is there a: oops to late! Situation there, Josh?

Well, Vincent points out something that - again - is "troubling" in terms of the logic and "function" of this Christian god (as proposed). And this actually affects Pascal's Wager as well. Vincent wrote:

"if he would exist, i am sure he is man enough to not need my feeble belief in him for his existence."

Now, I don't think we have to "lean on" the word "existence" too much and rather we should consider whether or not / not to mention why / god would care about our belief in him.

So add that to the claim that he is omnipotent and you end up with a very strange situation:

You go your entire life not believing in him, and then either "fake it" by acting like you do (Pascal's Wager), which god surely would know by being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, or you change your mind last minute when you finally see him.... Would god not "cry foul"? This is the same god that tells people to sacrifice their children to prove their love, tells people to slaughter children to get a slice of land to live on etc. But he'd be ok with either "faking it" or converting last minute?

Of course my sense of "rationality" here goes out the window by virtue of this being faith... but still.... just seems implausible and irrational to me.

Lydiot, this is not about faking or converting, but about meeting someone new, in this case God.

And be sure, i'll discuss your concerns: "This is the same god that tells people to sacrifice their children to prove their love, tells people to slaughter children to get a slice of land to live on etc."

I think you are a bit negative minded to construe my words in that negative light.

kind regards, vincent

KL-666 wrote:Lydiot, this is not about faking or converting, but about meeting someone new, in this case God.

I know. I included that in what I wrote.

KL-666 wrote:And be sure, i'll discuss your concerns: "This is the same god that tells people to sacrifice their children to prove their love, tells people to slaughter children to get a slice of land to live on etc."

I think you are a bit negative minded to construe my words in that negative light.

kind regards, vincent

I didn't perceive your words as negative at all. I think you just misunderstood me.

Hello Lydiot,

I took this for criticism on my willingness to debate with someone i meet new.

Lydiot wrote:or you change your mind last minute when you finally see him.... Would god not "cry foul"?

But if i am wrong, then it is my mistake.

Kind regards, Vincent

KL-666 wrote:Hello Lydiot,

I took this for criticism on my willingness to debate with someone i meet new.

Lydiot wrote:or you change your mind last minute when you finally see him.... Would god not "cry foul"?

But if i am wrong, then it is my mistake.

Kind regards, Vincent

Nope. I wasn't criticizing you at all.

Ok, then i apologise

Kind regards, Vincent

No need for apologies. Just a simple misunderstanding

Yes I am

Well, well, well ... relax

and after you have done this, you maybe want to read up on history. A lot. Not only how the Bible in the form we know today got together, not only what wasn't included and why, but also, especially since some argue on old-testamentary texts about the times, the traditions and the cultures of the time, those texts were written and those, they refer to.
I mean, who has heard of the Slawian Flavius Josephus for example (and that is one of the easier examples). Or who here has heard of two Egyptian guys named Imuthes and Mentuhotep? Well, funny thing, the first figured the recipe, Jesus most likely used for curing a blind, the second one invented the trick how Jesus probably cured a paralyzed. None of them is in the Bible of course, or if, then in the old testament under different names. But we know, both their transcripts were stored in the library of Alexandria when Jesus grew up some years in Egypt. Alexandria where, as archaeological findings show, was at the time the biggest Jewish community in Egypt.
Just some food for thought. Of course, if you follow this suggestion, the Atheists are miffed (because such a research proves some points on a historical level so the story, Jesus was just invented is not to hold anymore) and the Christians will be maybe miffed because well, in some parts, they have to replace belief by knowledge. I mean, you simply don't need to belief in the existence of someone anymore if you can quote the reports of an eye witness, right?
Where you go from there, I suggest, is everybody's own decision.