But seriously . . . atheism?

[Michael Fisher]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

Epicureanism, that 2,300-year-old hypocritical deist nonsense, strikes again. So Karl Marx was right after all. 

Good questions!  Also if god created man in his image then he has to be both good and evil since we have both attributes, wouldn't you think so?

Freedom is the ability to make any possible decision, whether good or evil. God must truly love freedom to allow evil to exist.

Humans, on the other hand, are not as able to comprehend allowing everyone to have such liberty.

[Dreepa]

God created free will.

Or did free will create God?

[Michael Fisher]

Bingo.  To steal Michael Savage's line, "Christianity is a mental disorder."

And you expect anyone to take you seriously with such a super-judgemental, oversimplifying, immature, and insulting tongue? What else in your life are you pre-judging without any reasonable exploration?

The only reason I ask is because you sound exactly like me before 2006.

Heh, the bit about suffering helping us grow, Mike, is a great argument for supporting slavery, like Paul does.

That is a lie. God's Word discusses and promotes how to love others and keep a pure heart within a system of slavery. We are still enslaved today (or do you deny this?), but we must always focus on love, even toward our masters, despite any suffering we may endure.

That is the point of Christianity: We are to be different, and to be shining examples of love, given any context in which we live.

[eques]

Bingo.  To steal Michael Savage's line, "Christianity is a mental disorder."

And you expect anyone to take you seriously with such a super-judgemental, oversimplifying, immature, and insulting tongue? What else in your life are you pre-judging without any reasonable exploration?

The only reason I ask is because you sound exactly like me before 2006.

Michael, I don't know you from Adam.  Honest.  But are you really sure that you've changed all that much?  I mean, seriously?  I'm not reading anything like compassion from you at all... instead, I'm picking up an "I'm right, you're wrong, shut up" vibe in your latest postings.

[Rocketman]

Recent converts are always the most passionate.  As Michael and Braddogg illustrate, this works both ways... they seem frustrated with one another for thinking what the other thought his entire life until recently.

Michael, I hope you haven't given up your practice of citing evidence and using logic for your arguments.  What did you mean by the bit about Epicurus being hyopcritical deist nonsense, and Gandhi's principles being hated by the world?  I'm terribly confused... perhaps all that nonsensical deism has softened my intellect.

[Caleb]

perhaps all that nonsensical deism has softened my intellect.

or maybe it's the weed. 

[eques]

Recent converts are always the most passionate.  As Michael and Braddogg illustrate, this works both ways... they seem frustrated with one another for thinking what the other thought his entire life until recently.

I guess that must be it, Rocketman...

I haven't been an atheist for the entire time I've been non-Christian... I have, for the most part, let my beliefs die more from a lack of outright encouragement rather than an active fight against them.

[Rocketman]

perhaps all that nonsensical deism has softened my intellect.

or maybe it's the weed. 

Recent converts are always the most passionate.  As Michael and Braddogg illustrate, this works both ways... they seem frustrated with one another for thinking what the other thought his entire life until recently.

I guess that must be it, Rocketman...

I haven't been an atheist for the entire time I've been non-Christian... I have, for the most part, let my beliefs die more from a lack of outright encouragement rather than an active fight against them.

I went Christian, atheist, agnostic, agnostic deist... the first comma represents a conversion (rejection of revealed religion), whereas the next two show what I think are positive developments.

I'm trying to show that it's okay to turn on religion without turning on God.

[erich]

Are you not sure that the "goodness" of God is that God offers the opportunity to understand and learn, and that God has been "good" to you if you have even made it this far in existence.  Your sperm was competing with millions, remember, so you were luckier than a lottery winner just to have developed from the one embryo out of the hundreds of millions that could have developed.

I'm not sure that it even makes sense to refer to the sperm that conjoined with the egg in my mother's womb as "my sperm."  That is to say, I don't think there was a "me" before my particular genetic code was spliced, and that "me" wasn't really "me" until the years of experience and environment came up to today to where I would recognize myself as "me."

You will note that I was very careful not to refer to the embryo or the sperm as you.  "Your sperm" is like "your city" or "your skin color".  But to argue an actual point here: You would not be you if it had not been that particular sperm and that particular egg.  (Sorry, ladies, I didn't say the egg only because the odds there, are much lower, though still astronomical.)

I think that compassion for your fellow human being is far better backed up by caring for their physical needs before you care for their "spiritual" needs, if you're going to go that route.  Words are cheap.  Sandwiches force you to dig into your pocket.

That must be why so many churches and other religious institutions run food pantries and soup kitchens. 

But, then also, I think it is pretty important to be prepared for your own death.  Everybody has to die, unless you are one of the lucky rapturees.  I think it would be more important than going hungry, to a point, for most people. Though, of course, everybody's point would be different, and, in general, probably shorter than we would like to think.

Edit: Change "girls" to "ladies".  Racha-fracka PC talk.

[KurtDaBear]

I'm trying to show that it's okay to turn on religion without turning on God.

What's the point of religion without a supreme being?  There are a lot of better reasons for meetings and social gatherings than a godless religion.

[Braddogg]

Bingo.  To steal Michael Savage's line, "Christianity is a mental disorder."

And you expect anyone to take you seriously with such a super-judgemental, oversimplifying, immature, and insulting tongue? What else in your life are you pre-judging without any reasonable exploration?

The only reason I ask is because you sound exactly like me before 2006.

Mike, I was a Christian for 20 years.  I've had countless discussions with fellow Christians.  I've read the New Testament several times.  A few months ago I wrote a 10-page exegesis on Romans 13 for a world-renowned Pauline scholar.  Another research topic I've worked on is how Leo Tolstoy uses Scripture in his works (especially <i>The Gospels in Brief</i>).  I'm not just some dude firing grapeshot.  Christianity might be better understood as a social or psychological disorder, mental disorder is pretty broad.  It's just a shame that people who make so much sense and have so much clarity loose it when it comes to religion.  I used to be the same way, so I understand the appeal of Christianity.

You sound a bit like me before 2006, too . . . .

Heh, the bit about suffering helping us grow, Mike, is a great argument for supporting slavery, like Paul does.

That is a lie. God's Word discusses and promotes how to love others and keep a pure heart within a system of slavery. We are still enslaved today (or do you deny this?), but we must always focus on love, even toward our masters, despite any suffering we may endure.

That is the point of Christianity: We are to be different, and to be shining examples of love, given any context in which we live.

Slaves, obey your masters, is what Peter says.  Not "Slaves, love your masters."  It's "slaves, obey your masters."  And if we are enslaved today in the same sense Peter uses the word (as you put forth, but I find doubtful), then we are to obey our political rulers -- which means the outlaw manicurist stunt was sin.  Then again, that's using the logic and principles of this world, which Paul wouldn't approve of anyway (Col 2:.

Don't associate with non-Christians (Rom 16:17).  All Scripture (Old Testament) is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16).  Kill those who disobey priests (Deut 17:12-13).  Anyone who curses their mother or father must be put to death (Exodus 21:17).

[Braddogg]

Epicureanism, that 2,300-year-old hypocritical deist nonsense, strikes again. So Karl Marx was right after all. 

[. . .]

And you expect anyone to take you seriously with such a super-judgemental, oversimplifying, immature, and insulting tongue?

[Michael Fisher]

Michael, I don't know you from Adam.  Honest.  But are you really sure that you've changed all that much?  I mean, seriously?  I'm not reading anything like compassion from you at all... instead, I'm picking up an "I'm right, you're wrong, shut up" vibe in your latest postings.

Your worldview is based mostly on feelings. Mine is not. I was born very different from you, and that may be what you're picking up on. Regardless of what I have to say, the "vibes" of my posts will most likely always annoy you.

[Michael Fisher]

Epicureanism, that 2,300-year-old hypocritical deist nonsense, strikes again. So Karl Marx was right after all. 

[. . .]

And you expect anyone to take you seriously with such a super-judgemental, oversimplifying, immature, and insulting tongue?

That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Epicureanism is hypocritical deist nonsense exploited by Karl Marx. Period.

[Michael Fisher]

Mike, I was a Christian for 20 years.

...

All Scripture (Old Testament) is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16).  Kill those who disobey priests (Deut 17:12-13).  Anyone who curses their mother or father must be put to death (Exodus 21:17).

Apparently, you never learned the meaning of the New Testament relative to the Old Testament in your entire 20-year Christian walk. If you did, you would know by now that the law does not apply any longer, only the commandments. Citing old statutes makes you look like an atheist pulling Bible quotes out of context, which is a pretty accurate description of the truth.

I've had countless discussions with fellow Christians.  I've read the New Testament several times.  A few months ago I wrote a 10-page exegesis on Romans 13 for a world-renowned Pauline scholar.  Another research topic I've worked on is how Leo Tolstoy uses Scripture in his works (especially <i>The Gospels in Brief</i>).

I've read the New Testament several times in two languages in only my past one year as a Christian. If you've only read the New Testament several times in 20 years, that says volumes about your complete lack of knowledge of the book.

Your one 10-page book report on one chapter of the New Testament to a nameless person does not make you wise in the Word, nor does your knowledge of Leo Tolstoy's Christian perspective. None of this gives you the credibility necessary to completely lie about the meaning of the Bible and be believed by anyone.