God is responsible for all the bad stuff that happens

[PLC1]

How much of a sacrifice was it then, if it was only a "temporary" death? Upon resurrection, there was no sacrifice of "his only begotten son", or of "himself". To a mortal human, death is forever, for a God...just a temporary situation. Back to the original question: What was the big sacrifice?

How about the pain of crucifixion?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So, you are ignorant about your own beliefs also?

Golly Nums, you're really fumbling aren't you? If you think that evil was out of style in ANY time in human history you're sadly mistaken.

Uhm, that you are ignorant of the divine commedy, hence incapable of saying anything remotely sensible about it.

I'm living the Divine Comedy (and I can spell it too). You are using literature to avoid having to address the commandments of Jesus.

Will you promise to stop your nonsense then, and perhaps grow a brain?

Another cheap personal attack because I assume that you can't think of any thing pertinent to say.

But he didn't, did he? In fact, that is the only thing similar between human beings and a nameless, faceless god. Now you know what 'created in his likeness' means.

Again we have a baseless claim. You have a lot of wishful thinking going on there, Nums. I actually agree with you except I know it can't be proved.

All that googling and you still don't understand?
There is another part of human nature that is independent of its material constitution. Ontology.

Wishful thinking as long as you have no proof.

Duh?

Family motto again?

It is mostly mental masturbation because.....?
And while you're at it, what philosophical field of inquiry do you suggest is pertinent to a discussion of soul, hmmm?What unbelieveable nonsense!

I seriously doubt that any field of philosophy will yield proof of the soul. And what you do is mental masturbation because you have fun using lots of learned lumber to please your self while ignoring the 6 words that Jesus said were the most important in the Bible. Like all masturbation, it probably feels good, but it doesn't produce much in the long run. If you have to use philosophy and ontology and the Pope's windbaggery to understand the 6 simple words that Jesus said, then I feel sorry for you.

 

[numinus]

Hey if God can be real without proof then so can fairies wearing boots! And as usual the "Duh" was the most rational part of your little temper tantrum.

Or maybe Xenu is the mysterious & invisible truth...

If there is proof that the square root of 2 is irrational, might that mean that there is also proof that the square root of 4 is irrational????

Duh?

I know exactly what I believe from both being brought up as a Christian in a Lutheran Church and studying & observing that teaching and from the study of religions of the world and from comparing that to the vast knowledge and testable provability of the sciences.

Nonsense.

By your admission, you are an agnostic. By your admission, agnosticism means being open to the knowledge of something that is unknowable.

You don't know jack $hit what you believe.

Duh?

One can from that only establish that "faith" is the belief of the totally unproven and the documentation surround that faith is over & over again contradicted by science.

So one can leave the door open to the "possibility" of a God or a Supreme Alien or any other super natural hocas pocas but in the debate of PROOF argue that at this time there is absolutely none for super natural intervention.

Get this through your pretend-agnostic head:

Proof is some logical support for an assertion. It is not necessarily empirical, otherwise there would be no proof for any of the assertions of mathematics.

And if you are stupid enough to criticize the above statement, you might want to say exactly how you saw, tasted, heard, smelled or felt the proof of the existence of a logarithmic function or binomial expansion.

Duh?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Then we are in agreement that your opinions are just that.
Everything does indeed boil down to opinions. But some are just nuts.
Yep that is true too. But again the ones you post here are just nuts. and somehow I have the feeling that is not he first time you have heard that from Christians - it is probably the source of your hatred of all things mainstream Christian. The truth can hurt; is it possible that telling you the things you say are nuts can help you?
Even in the realm of opinion there are clearly some that make more sense than others.
But your opinion does not have as much validity as anyone else's because it, based on what has been posted here, sadly, is nuts. You may be a fine person but what you post here is lunacy.
I wouldn't get too high and mighty. You too would pass certain laws if you could - and inevitably that leads to stepping on some toes. You can't please all of the people all of time (but if you focus on pleasing most of the people with sane expressions you are off to a good start)

So you have had to retreat to Nums line and simply attack me by calling me "nuts" and when I ask you to go word by word and prove that what I'm posting is NOT what's in the Bible you run and hide.

Then you go one step further and call me a liar without any proof whatsoever. I said that I would not pass laws that take rights from others that I claim for my own as Christians have done in direct contravention to the commandment of Jesus--and the best you can do is call me a liar.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have to confess to a total lack of understanding of the concept of the trinity.

Is it three different manifestations of the same being?
Is it three different beings united in purpose?

Or is it something else?

They don't like the comparison, but it's just like in Hinduism where the god-figure has many aspects--the Christian god is just aspect challenged when compared to the Hindu god.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

How about the pain of crucifixion?

Why would you think that God would have to feel pain? He might not want to and so He could decide not to.

 

[numinus]

So why couldn't he make it a quartet, if he is all powerful? One or none, or it's all just sophistry. Or calling the parts of his being, such as his hand and his foot, part of some 'trinity'.

Why not a quartet, indeed!

If he is everywhere, he manifests infinitely, no? Or, if the boundary between one place to the next is blurred, he has a single manifestation.

It is a mystery.

 

[numinus]

I have to confess to a total lack of understanding of the concept of the trinity.

Is it three different manifestations of the same being?
Is it three different beings united in purpose?

Or is it something else?

The first one.

 

[numinus]

How much of a sacrifice was it then, if it was only a "temporary" death? Upon resurrection, there was no sacrifice of "his only begotten son", or of "himself". To a mortal human, death is forever, for a God...just a temporary situation. Back to the original question: What was the big sacrifice?

You are correct. Death becomes irrelevant.

God was bridging the gap between the divine and the mortal. How much of a sacrifice do you reckon that requires, hmmm?

 

[numinus]

Golly Nums, you're really fumbling aren't you? If you think that evil was out of style in ANY time in human history you're sadly mistaken.

Nonsense.

The idea that evil has no fundamental existence (that it is a corrupted god -- free will, remember?) was known as early as the middle ages.

I'm living the Divine Comedy (and I can spell it too). You are using literature to avoid having to address the commandments of Jesus.

And the same idea above, is all over dante's work. Or did you imagine the comedy of your life to be education enough?

Another cheap personal attack because I assume that you can't think of any thing pertinent to say.

Oh and I suppose your remedy for constipation is?

Again we have a baseless claim. You have a lot of wishful thinking going on there, Nums. I actually agree with you except I know it can't be proved.

That's because you googled the dictionary meaning of ontology rather than googling what it actually says.

Duh?

Wishful thinking as long as you have no proof.

But there is proof. Ontology.

Family motto again?

Natural reaction to reading something with the intellectual content comparable to a fungus'.

I seriously doubt that any field of philosophy will yield proof of the soul.

You're a bit late. Proof was provided ages ago.

And what you do is mental masturbation because you have fun using lots of learned lumber to please your self while ignoring the 6 words that Jesus said were the most important in the Bible. Like all masturbation, it probably feels good, but it doesn't produce much in the long run. If you have to use philosophy and ontology and the Pope's windbaggery to understand the 6 simple words that Jesus said, then I feel sorry for you.

Nonsense.

I don't use it to understand the commandment of love. I use it to know that the commandment of love can't be found up someone else's a$$. The alternative requires exposing myself to excrement. I simply can't have that.

 

[numinus]

Why would you think that God would have to feel pain? He might not want to and so He could decide not to.

The point of the exercise was for god to feel pain -- along with all that the human condition offers. If god did not descend to the human condition, he would have been as impersonal as gravity, the big bang and the law of conservation.

That would defeat his true purpose (love), wouldn't it?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nonsense.The idea that evil has no fundamental existence (that it is a corrupted god -- free will, remember?) was known as early as the middle ages.And the same idea above, is all over dante's work. Or did you imagine the comedy of your life to be education enough?
Oh and I suppose your remedy for constipation is?

You mentioned being constipated, I just tried to help you out of the goodness of my heart. If you look up constipation you'll discover that what I wrote is really good advice.

That's because you googled the dictionary meaning of ontology rather than googling what it actually says.Duh?
But there is proof. Ontology.

Faith isn't proof, sematics isn't proof, there is no proof of the existence of a soul.

Natural reaction to reading something with the intellectual content comparable to a fungus'.

I can always tell when I'm getting to you because you revert to personal attacks. Tee hee!

You're a bit late. Proof was provided ages ago.

Nonsense. Show us the proof then.

I don't use it to understand the commandment of love. I use it to know that the commandment of love can't be found up someone else's a$$. The alternative requires exposing myself to excrement. I simply can't have that.

You can't seem to get past the sex/love barrier somehow, Nums. You continually talk about one kind of sex over and over again. I guess that this is part of your problem understanding the 4 words in Jesus' second commandment. Such a strong fixation on anal sex suggests that you have unresolved issues around sex, feces, and toilet training, and all of these things somehow mixed up in your religious fervor. Only the most unctuous hypocrite would ignore Jesus' commandments while using Old Testament scripture to promolgate hatred and still call themselves a Christian.

 

[numinus]

You mentioned being constipated, I just tried to help you out of the goodness of my heart. If you look up constipation you'll discover that what I wrote is really good advice.

Haven't you heard of simile before?

Faith isn't proof, sematics isn't proof, there is no proof of the existence of a soul.

So true.

I didn't present faith nor semantics as proof.

Duh?

I can always tell when I'm getting to you because you revert to personal attacks. Tee hee!

Get to me? You wish.

Nonsense. Show us the proof then.

Ontology.

Over and over and over....

You can't seem to get past the sex/love barrier somehow, Nums. You continually talk about one kind of sex over and over again. I guess that this is part of your problem understanding the 4 words in Jesus' second commandment. Such a strong fixation on anal sex suggests that you have unresolved issues around sex, feces, and toilet training, and all of these things somehow mixed up in your religious fervor. Only the most unctuous hypocrite would ignore Jesus' commandments while using Old Testament scripture to promolgate hatred and still call themselves a Christian.

Sexual inclination => love => marriage.

Didn't you argue that nonsense? And I'm the one who can't get past it, eh?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Haven't you heard of simile before?

Yeah, it's just like a metaphor, or just as a metaphor, only different.

So true. I didn't present faith nor semantics as proof.

No, you didn't provide any proof at all. Duh?

Get to me? You wish.

Yes, I think so, when you can't come up with some kind of intellectual obfuscation you resort to personal attacks.

Ontology.

A science or study of being is not proof. Over and over and over....

Sexual inclination => love => marriage.
Didn't you argue that nonsense? And I'm the one who can't get past it, eh?

Wait, wait, you're using my arguments now? Because you can't think of any yourself? I have never posted that sexual inclination is equal to love, nor that love is equal to marriage. There are many sexless and even more loveless marriages.

You are the unctuous hypocrite who lays claim to being a Christian while ignoring Jesus' commandments so that you can keep hating and persecuting gay and trans people, while at the same time being to lazy to even find out what you are hating. So many self-identified Christians like you, unwilling to do the truly difficult things that your Savior told you to do, but anxious to use the Bible as a weapon against people you don't like.

I note that in your other two latest posts you again resort to intellectual pettifogging rather than addressing the issues I bring up and your obvious disdain for the profoundly simple truths of Jesus' words. Your response seems to be somewhat repetitive: "...love can't be found up someone else's a$$."

 

[numinus]

Yeah, it's just like a metaphor, or just as a metaphor, only different.

Except it makes use of the word 'like' -- hence 'responding to your posts feels like having a severe case of constipation'.

No, you didn't provide any proof at all. Duh?

Its right there in most ontological arguments.

Yes, I think so, when you can't come up with some kind of intellectual obfuscation you resort to personal attacks.

But I have provided an argument -- ontology.

A science or study of being is not proof. Over and over and over....

Now I see why you can't understand. ONTOLOGY IS NOT A SCIENCE.

Duh?

Wait, wait, you're using my arguments now? Because you can't think of any yourself? I have never posted that sexual inclination is equal to love, nor that love is equal to marriage. There are many sexless and even more loveless marriages.

Nonesense.

I'm only presenting your absurd argument to you so that you can step back a little and objectively judge it.

You are the unctuous hypocrite who lays claim to being a Christian while ignoring Jesus' commandments so that you can keep hating and persecuting gay and trans people, while at the same time being to lazy to even find out what you are hating. So many self-identified Christians like you, unwilling to do the truly difficult things that your Savior told you to do, but anxious to use the Bible as a weapon against people you don't like.

I'm a NOMINAL catholic. I don't claim anything beyond that.

I note that in your other two latest posts you again resort to intellectual pettifogging rather than addressing the issues I bring up and your obvious disdain for the profoundly simple truths of Jesus' words. Your response seems to be somewhat repetitive: "...love can't be found up someone else's a$$."

That is the consequence of YOUR interpretation of the commandment of love without facts, logic and context -- that you love someone simply by being infatuated with his a$$.

Duh?