I challenge Petr. [Archive]

Anarch

11-20-2005, 07:09 AM

albion

11-20-2005, 10:59 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hail Petr, full of space
The Word is with thee;
Blessed art thou amongst posters
And blessed is the fruit of thy loom, exegesis.
Holy D-FENS, Pius and Stan,
Pray for us Phorans and
Bless us Nihilists in the hour of our postings.

In the name of the Fader, the Petr,
and the Holy Geist.

Librium, Valium, ad hominem

____________________ albion
"basking in delusional Pharisaical pride"

Jimbo Gomez

11-20-2005, 11:02 AM

Petr

11-20-2005, 12:40 PM

Petr, my position is thus: Your God, creator of the universe, does not exist. Your moral standards, which you claim are universally valid and rational, are derived from metaphysically false first principles. The universe was not created, God does not exist, and supposing he did, he could not issue moral commands to his own creations. He does not exist, and even if he did, he would be necessarily insane. Your claim that he is rationally incomprensible puts him beyond human knowledge and so it is improper for you to even speak, let alone plea for mercy or whatever else, to such a 'being'.
On what basis can you say something like this:

"He does not exist, and even if he did, he would be necessarily insane."

Insane just how? Details, not emotional soundbites please. God could have created you for no other purpose than to dwell eternity in the lake of fire for his own pleasure, and that could be quite "rational". On what basis could you say that he is "insane" in that case?

And if there's one thing that I dislike it is when people put words in my mouth. Just where have I said something like this:

"Your claim that he is rationally incomprensible puts him beyond human knowledge and so it is improper for you to even speak"

I have claimed exactly the opposite. I firmly oppose the foolish, neo-Platonism-inspired negative theology that pretends that we cannot say or know anything concrete about God. One of the main purposes of incarnation of Jesus Christ was to give us an up-close-and-personal experience of divine.

The belief in God is, on the contrary, extremely logical and consistent with human experience, but since men are in a fallen state, they are in active denial about it. Man's problem is not the lack of knowledge, like pagans throughout times have claimed, but the lack of obedience.

The famous Romans 1 chapter puts it this way; the structure of universe provides us self-evident evidence about the existence of an allmighty designer, but since men are wicked, they'd rather worship small gods that they can "manage" or no god at all, thus willfully misrepresenting the available evidence, or "holding the truth in unrighteousness":

1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
1:19
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
1:21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1:23
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
1:24
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
1:25
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

As James White puts it in here:

"Shout down debate and discussion and dissent--without evolution we can't have our naturalistic materialism, so, kick the rebels out!

...

what happened in Dover, and in many other places (look at California!) on election day was a continued manifestation of the hatred of the natural man for the God he knows is there, but is intent upon denying and suppressing."

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1544&highlight=robertson

More on this subject:

"Jones: The Futility of Non Christian Thought"

http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/martin-jones/jones_martin1.html

Petr

Petr

11-20-2005, 12:53 PM

Here is a concrete example of man's presuppositional hostility to God's truth at work. It is widely known that ancient Egyptian chronologies are mighty unreliable, but most scholars still stubbornly cling to them. Why?

The Babylonian priest Berossus presents us a dynasty of 86 kings who reigned for no less than 33,091 years. His contemporary, Manetho, produced a similar claim regarding the earliest, divine rulers of Egypt. Manetho expert W. G. Waddell suggests that "the works of Manetho and Berossus may be interpreted as an expression of the rivalry of the two kings, Ptolemy and Antiochus, each seeking to proclaim the great antiquity of his land."

Everyone admits that these are fictional exaggerations, but when it comes to Manetho's dynasties, the admission is not so forthcoming.

The reason for this blindness is not hard to discern. It lies in the presuppositional hostility of secular scholarship for the Bible. If Manetho cannot be trusted, scholarship must rely much more heavily on the Bible, and that is not regarded as acceptable.

http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bc/bc.98.09.htm

The very thought that the Bible might be true (even partially) is deeply unsettling to fallen men. They simply refuse to believe that such a horrendous possibility might be correct.

Petr

Anarch

11-22-2005, 10:34 AM

On what basis can you say something like this:

"He does not exist, and even if he did, he would be necessarily insane."

Insane just how? Details, not emotional soundbites please. God could have created you for no other purpose than to dwell eternity in the lake of fire for his own pleasure, and that could be quite "rational". On what basis could you say that he is "insane" in that case?

On the case that God, being all benevolent, has no reason to allow pain, destruction and what is commonly known as 'evil' into the world.

And if there's one thing that I dislike it is when people put words in my mouth. Just where have I said something like this:

"Your claim that he is rationally incomprensible puts him beyond human knowledge and so it is improper for you to even speak"

I have claimed exactly the opposite. I firmly oppose the foolish, neo-Platonism-inspired negative theology that pretends that we cannot say or know anything concrete about God. One of the main purposes of incarnation of Jesus Christ was to give us an up-close-and-personal experience of divine.

The belief in God is, on the contrary, extremely logical and consistent with human experience, but since men are in a fallen state, they are in active denial about it. Man's problem is not the lack of knowledge, like pagans throughout times have claimed, but the lack of obedience.

That God created Satan (do you wish to deny this?), and being omniscient, would have necessarily been aware of Satan's malicious intent for God's other creations - a nature which God himself crafted for Satan - and so necessarily condoned it. Perhaps one could suggest God likes to torment his creations so that they might turn to him for mercy, though God as a sadist is a rather interesting way of looking at it. Perhaps this is a way for God to gain the attention of his creations (rather strange, considering God's hand necessarily propells his own creations - God masturbates?) but then this ignores the fact that your concept of God involves God being perfect, and perfection implies not lacking anything (especially considering God is considered to be both omniscient and omnipotent) - and so it necessarily follows that a perfect God such as that you believe in would not and did not create either man nor the universe he resides in.

The famous Romans 1 chapter puts it this way; the structure of universe provides us self-evident evidence about the existence of an allmighty designer, but since men are wicked, they'd rather worship small gods that they can "manage" or no god at all, thus willfully misrepresenting the available evidence, or "holding the truth in unrighteousness":

Wickedness which God necessarily (indirectly through his crafting of Satan as an angel destined to fall and bring destruction with his falling) destined man to fall prey to. One may wonder why an omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent God would have crafted Adam with a capacity to even listen to a serpent in the garden of Eden, let alone become ensnared by and with such a wicked being.

Felix the Cat

11-22-2005, 06:05 PM

One may wonder why an omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent God would have crafted Adam with a capacity to even listen to a serpent in the garden of Eden, let alone become ensnared by and with such a wicked being.
Revilo P. Oliver:
It is often said that Christianity as a viable religion was doomed by the De revolutionibus orbium caelestium of Copernicus and the ensuing discovery that the universe is so vast that the earth and all its inhabitants and history is far less that a drop of water and the animalcules in it. But the religion was equally and earlier doomed by the short and concise little work of Laurentius Valla, De libero arbitrio, which demonstrated, with irrefragable logic, that no god can be at once benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. An imagined god may have two of those qualites, but he cannot have all three, any more than he can be both round and square. And no matter which two of the possible attributes you select, no Christian will be content with such a deity.

Petr

11-22-2005, 07:13 PM

Perhaps one could suggest God likes to torment his creations so that they might turn to him for mercy, though God as a sadist is a rather interesting way of looking at it. Perhaps this is a way for God to gain the attention of his creations (rather strange, considering God's hand necessarily propells his own creations - God masturbates?) but then this ignores the fact that your concept of God involves God being perfect, and perfection implies not lacking anything (especially considering God is considered to be both omniscient and omnipotent) - and so it necessarily follows that a perfect God such as that you believe in would not and did not create either man nor the universe he resides in.
The questions of the existence of God and the problem of evil are two entirely different subjects. On the former issue, this rhetoric has very little impact.

It is put well in here:

2. If you don't believe in God, and the argument from design doesn't keep you up at night, then you don't understand the argument from design.

3. If you believe in God, and the problem of evil doesn't keep you up at night, then you don't understand the problem of evil.

http://www.a180.net/randomtruths.html

Problem of evil is simply something we have to deal with and put our trust in God (trust is the essence of faith), just like unbeliever should be deeply concerned with the obviously designed form of this universe.

And why should God (any god, for the sake of argument) follow some arbitrary Platonic rules on "perfectness"? Ugliness and misery could very well interpreted as certain peculiar forms of perfection. Don't you nihilists like saying that "all that is, is right"?

One may wonder why an omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent God would have crafted Adam with a capacity to even listen to a serpent in the garden of Eden, let alone become ensnared by and with such a wicked being.
Modern men rarely have the humility to accept the fact some things in this universe are simply not their business. The Holy Bible was not meant to be an exhaustive encyclopedia on all matters earthly and celestial:

Deuteronomy 29:29

The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. (KJV)

We are supposed to do what we are supposed to do, and not feverishly seek "knowledge" on things beyond our capabilities in a vain hope that we might be able, God-like, autonomously tell the difference between good and evil.

Peddling this delusion was precisely serpent's original temptation:

"for God knows that in the day you eat it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:4)

In our present fallen status, we probably even incapable of understanding and appreciating God's justice and purposes properly. Apostle Paul said that in the world to come, our mental vision will be on a categorically higher level:

1 Corianthians 13:10-12:

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

One thing we do know now - Hell was not originally meant for men, for whereas Jesus Christ tells the saved this,

"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: " (Matthew 25:34)

he tells the damned this:

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" (Matthew 25:41)

One of the most horrendous aspects of Hell is the fact it is not the natural habitat of humans. If the idea of lonely White guy sharing a cellblock with Black gangbangers terrifies you, think about spending the eternity with fallen angels.

Petr

Petr

11-22-2005, 07:32 PM

It is often said that Christianity as a viable religion was doomed by the De revolutionibus orbium caelestium of Copernicus and the ensuing discovery that the universe is so vast that the earth and all its inhabitants and history is far less that a drop of water and the animalcules in it. But the religion was equally and earlier doomed by the short and concise little work of Laurentius Valla, De libero arbitrio, which demonstrated, with irrefragable logic, that no god can be at once benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. An imagined god may have two of those qualites, but he cannot have all three, any more than he can be both round and square. And no matter which two of the possible attributes you select, no Christian will be content with such a deity.
I do not think it is resorting to mysticism to say that the logic of people who think they can refute God or religion like this is one-dimensional. They are not seeing the whole picture.

And Revilo Oliver is one of the most infuriatingly shallow thinkers I have had a displeasure of encountering. His writings ooze total lack of humility and philistine, smarmy over-confidence in his own mediocre reasoning skills. Here he thinks he can dissect God of the Bible with some cheap verbal tricks. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" "Can God make a stone so heavy He won't able to lift it?"

Only a person who already denies the doctrine of Original Sin (an essential part of orthodox Christian faith) could be impressed by such sophistries. Our mental capabilities are polluted, our sense of logic included. People throw dust in the air and then complain that they cannot see.

(I also consider the idea that the enormity of universe somehow, in itself, militates the idea of allmighty God as utterly childish)

Petr

Petr

11-22-2005, 08:11 PM

And why should God (any god, for the sake of argument) follow some arbitrary Platonic rules on "perfectness"? Ugliness and misery could very well interpreted as certain peculiar forms of perfection. Don't you nihilists like saying that "all that is, is right"?

More on this subject:

Sixty Second Theodicy by Gregory Koukl

...

"If they reply that there is no good or evil, that it is all relative, then their objection vanishes. You see, their objection depends for its force on the fact that objective evil exists, not merely subjective evil. If evil is subjective, that means it is merely a way of us assessing external things, but the assessment is subjective and internal to me. It is in here, it is not out there. The only way you can construct a problem of evil for the existence of God is if evil is out there objectively. If it is just subjective and evil is just a matter of tastes, that's like saying, I can't believe God exists. Why not? Because of brussels sprouts. Why would brussels sprouts cause you not to believe in God? Because I hate those things, they are disgusting. And my response is, I happen to agree with you but there are a lot of people who like them. Why do you think God can't exist just because there are things that don't appeal to your tastes? You see. This becomes a non-issue at that point. That is why I believe that only the theists can even raise the question and be intelligible."

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=3423

Petr

Vindex

11-23-2005, 08:32 AM

How many angels can dance of the head of a pin.lol