Does God love everyone? Westboro says NO

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



You didn't address mine. You invented your own version of mine and then proceeded to criticise the version you invented and attributed to me.


No, I corrected your version because it left several crucial variables out. I'm not as willing to overlook such inconvenient factors as you are. I didn't add a single detail that wasn't relevant or necessary. If you want, I can break it down piece by piece so you don't have any reason to avoid confronting the validity of my version.

Or, you can just accept that I gave your little judge all of "God"'s powers - considering the judge was an allegory for "God" to begin with, or have you forgotten? - and answer the last question I posed. Please go back and review my post if you are still unclear. And by all means, if you insist on it, I will break down the allegory and show all the details and how they match up to the almighty preschooler they represent.

I'd rather not, but I'm not afraid to take that challenge.




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



No, I corrected your version because it left several crucial variables out.


And you marvel why I point out straw man arguments so often....



The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.


This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.



Straw man fallacy.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


No. Stop right there. Any and all observers of this discussion, I implore you to go back and examine the progress of this discussion in which I questioned the morality of judging sinners, to which NOTurTypical replied with an example featuring a judge and a criminal. He conveniently failed to acknowledge a number of variables which set this judge apart from being an effective analogy of "God", which I corrected in my response to his allegory. He then objected to these adjustments, using his strawman defense while ignoring the fact that every change I made to his allegory reflected the nature of the being whom he created the allegory to represent.

He treated the judge like the average human man. Considering the judge represented "God" in his allegory, I gave that judge omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence, just like "God" is described in the Bible. Typical, don't attempt to make me look like a fool. I will take your allegory and logically beat it black and blue for everyone to see using every shred of rationality I possess in my being.

You chose to misrepresent "God" using that allegory. I kindly corrected it for you in the interest of accuracy. If you're not interested in accuracy, then tell me now so I can stop playing this silly game with you. If you're not taking this seriously, again, tell me now. Otherwise, address the question posed at the end of my response to your analogy.

The judge engineered the crime...and the criminal, being ignorant and weak by the judge's very design, fell into his trap. Who is more guilty?

I'm beginning to think you don't have a good answer. It wouldn't surprise me, really.
edit on 13-2-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Are you addressing me in the third person?

And now you're trying to rationalize your fallacy. Simply address what people actually say.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




Are you addressing me in the third person?

And now you're trying to rationalize your fallacy. Simply address what people actually say.


Alright then, let's play ball. All observing members and guests of ATS, here is the original analogy:


Simple analogy. A state has a mandatory sentence of 5 years for armed robbery and the judge sentences a man to jail for 5 years. Is the judge to blame or the person who committed armed robbery?


This was posted by NOTurTypical, on page 5 of this thread, in response to this post by me -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Below is my version of his analogy, modified to reflect "God", who is playing the judge in his analogy. Are we all following along so far? I hope so. It's not that complicated.


Simple response. In order for that analogy to be accurate, I'll take the liberty of adding a few details: That judge is no ordinary judge. He knew the man intimately from birth to death long before he was born, and in fact designed every second of his life ahead of time[1]. Meaning he knew exactly when, why, and how that man would appear in his courtroom. Furthermore, at any time during the process, he had the full capability of changing any and all variables he chose, giving him the power to prevent or allow that man's crime even before he had the opportunity to commit it[2]. But it doesn't end there! He had a hand in designing this man's character, so even the man's desire to commit the crime has its roots in the judge's own being. If the judge had decided to make the man a righteous person, or even just a decent human being, the man would never have broken the law[3]. So if he has all of these options available to him, but in fact chose to give him all the temptations, weaknesses, and resources necessary to commit the crime, then what about the judge?[4]

The man committed the crime. But the judge engineered it. Who, in the minds of the ATS jury, is more guilty?


According to the Bible, [1] falls in line with "God" having designed every person who ever existed and ever will exist. This is why he is said to be our father. He knows everything about us, because he is omniscient. [2] falls in line with his omnipotence. Because no conditions have ever been laid on his omniscience and omnipotence, we will assume there are no limits.

At this point, the usual free will argument is thrown in. My response can be found in this post -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please read it and take it into consideration.

[3] is a conclusion drawn from the Biblical assertion that "God" is the source of all things, both physical and nonphysical, and therefore is the judge, jury, and executioner for all things both physical and nonphysical that have ever existed and will ever exist. Otherwise, he is not the highest of high. Would a CEO allow another man to walk in and make changes to his business? No. So why would "God"?

And [4] is the logical conclusion of all preceding details.

Now that I've broken down and explained every element of this completely obvious analogy, what is your response, NOTurTypical? Again, the judge engineered the crime because he is the almighty. He planned every second of every space of existence. He is the king of kings. Nothing happens without his approval. He planned the crime before the criminal even thought of it, and the criminal fell for it because the judge (aka "God") wanted him to.

So who is more guilty? The puppet or the mastermind? Maybe now you'll stop dodging, but I won't hold my breath.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
That's why I said "simple" analogy. It was just that, a simple one. We could go back and forth correcting each other's analogies to infinity and get nowhere.

So back to square one, will you address my actual statements or continue to fabricate or misrepresent them then attack the misrepresentations you yourself concocted? If the latter you are just burning straw men.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




So back to square one, will you address my actual statements or continue to fabricate or misrepresent them then attack the misrepresentations you yourself concocted? If the latter you are just burning straw men.


You didn't answer my question. Which is more guilty, the puppet or the mastermind?

But while you continue to ponder that question (or avoid it), which statements did you want me to address? I'll address them, but I am quite keen to get an answer from you on this. It seems you are willing to exonerate the mastermind on the simple grounds that the puppet wasn't smart enough to escape its strings.

And one last thing: I have made it clear that I did not misrepresent your statements, I simply rounded them out in a manner that would more effectively address the issue you had presented me with. If you have a problem with that, then perhaps you shouldn't simplify your analogies to the point of almost entirely misrepresenting the abilities of the almighty lord himself. Surely it isn't a mistake that you conveniently forgot the judge is far more than just a judge? You wouldn't make such an elementary mistake.

But in any case, specify your statements and get back to me with an answer to my question. Otherwise, I will take it that you have no answer. Which will, I think, tell us everything.
edit on 13-2-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


It's a false dichotomy that's why. We aren't puppets, and God is the sovereign Almighty, Creator of existence.

I'm not addressing a silly analogy, even mine was laughable in it's simplest form because nothing can be compared to God in any meaningful way.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



It's a false dichotomy that's why. We aren't puppets, and God is the sovereign Almighty, Creator of existence.

I'm not addressing a silly analogy, even mine was laughable in it's simplest form because nothing can be compared to God in any meaningful way.


Smooth dodge...not really, but it was a nice attempt. The mastermind is exonerated because the puppet prefers strings to being a real boy.

What a shame. You don't have to be afraid, you know. You don't have to be afraid of being imperfect. Those imperfections are your wings. When you learn to get along with your demons, you can learn a lot from them. Everything has a purpose.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



No, I corrected your version because it left several crucial variables out.


And you marvel why I point out straw man arguments so often....



The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.


This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.



Straw man fallacy.


AfterInfinity; I agree
I must say I do not understand the 'Straw Man' (without a brain) MGM reference Wizard Of OZ? either or is it the Hollow MAN? mistaken? TS Elliot? doubtful. Big concept. There is a stand in replacement perhaps; Mein Kampt, author vaguely ombniquous and forgotten; dead no marked grave. Jim Morrison coauthored-"THIS IS THE END THE END MY FRIEND THE END....."
edit on 14-2-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Who said anything about being afraid?

The only thing I fear is hospitals, nasty little phobia.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


"God" is always about being afraid. That's what makes him not a true god. No omnipotent omniscient deity would give two shakes of a lamb's tail about anyone being afraid of them. All it takes is a thought and you could make anyone pee their pants in fear. Throw benevolence into that mix and he shouldn't want anyone to be afraid of him. Benevolence doesn't desire fear. Benevolence desires success for its children, even if it must sacrifice itself to help them.

Remember the proverbs about the son who went away to do his own thing? He failed. He came back. The father, during all that time only hoped for the best for his child. He didn't punish him. He praised his return. Why then, does "God" punish those who turn away from him?

That's not a true god.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



Benevolence doesn't desire fear. Benevolence desires success for its children, even if it must sacrifice itself to help them.


That's precisely what happened at the cross.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Then at the precise moment that Jesus died, Hell should have collapsed and been lost forever.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Then at the precise moment that Jesus died, Hell should have collapsed and been lost forever.


According to whom? God doesn't force people to want to be with Him.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



According to whom? God doesn't force people to want to be with Him.


That doesn't necessitate sending them to hell.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



According to whom? God doesn't force people to want to be with Him.


That doesn't necessitate sending them to hell.


Hell is the absence of God. If people want to be without God there is no other place to go.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join