Why I Am Not a Christian

Has anyone managed to rebut Betrand Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian?"

>There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

> If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary.

>Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?

>I come to certain points in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels; and here I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one.


more in next post

Other urls found in this thread:

answering-islam.org/Responses/Al-Kadhi/r01.2.2.06.html
answering-islam.org/Responses/Al-Kadhi/toc.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching

>There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs.

> That is only an example. There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy."

>The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings.

Things made had a beginning. That which evinces design began and was made by an intelligence.

If you don't like this universe, you can always leave it.

God gives free will to all his intelligent creation. They can then do what they will with that freedom. They will be judged. You can't criticize God for not preventing people to be bad, and then criticize him for being judgemental. This is profoundly hypocritical and absurd.

Christ doesn't once speak about eternal judgement. He speaks about life and death.

Russell is all about Pigs Lives Matter

Eliminating the church has given rise to Social Justice Warfare, Feminazism, Cultural Marxism, and all the other related ills.

Guilt is an essential part of what separates the self-controlled, noble man from the savage.

Look at that bitter old fool, Russell. Nothing he ever wrote brought joy into anyone's life.

At least he wasn't a dribbling lunatic like Nietzsche

>(Psalm 14:1) The senseless one has said in his heart: “There is no Jehovah.”

>(Psalm 10:4) The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search; All his ideas are: “There is no God.”

>1 Corinthians 1:27,28 - but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame 28 and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, 29 in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God.

>Luke 10:21 - In that very hour he became overjoyed in the holy spirit and said: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones, and have revealed them to babes. Yes, O Father, because to do thus came to be the way approved by you.

>(1 Corinthians 1:19) For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside.”

>(1 Corinthians 2:6) Now we speak wisdom among those who are mature, but not the wisdom of this system of things nor that of the rulers of this system of things, who are to come to nothing.

NWT? :)

Actually so an I. However, I hope you aren't being too political

>create the KKKand Facists
Men created those. Generation after generation of though and differing philosophy's colliding, fusing and debuting, leading to the hatred fueling the KKK, and the radicalism of facism. Their existence is the culmination of actions of free will undertaken by those before, not created by God.

Don't see any actual arguments against him here

Of course and this is what I was implying.

Easily rebutted 3rd rate arguments from a mind more at home with mathematics than dialectics, a field he had no expertise in or talent for, probably like yourself

Why not?

Only incorrect ;)

are you counting the time ;)

i've read it OP, and there is no rebuttal.

Only if you think that theology=simple mindedness and 3rd rate homespun dialectics of a rather sophomoric character

>cucked people out of resentment
>is a cuck himself
>his dad is a cuck
>doesn't understand a single German philosopher about from Leibniz
>an emotional and irational manchild who decided to divorce on a whim

>>Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?
I guess free will is not included among your presuppositions.

Which would mean "you" are not really making an argument, but the chance arrangement of particles resulted in some illuminated dots across a few objects around the globe.

Cool story.

>All men are by nature equal, made all of the same earth by one Workman; and however we deceive ourselves, as dear unto God is the poor peasant as the mighty prince. (Plato)

> The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination
This is false. Not everything has a cause. Saying that there is not a first cause results in an infinite chain that has no end, and thus the present state can't be reached. It's like saying someone has counted from minus infinity to zero. You can't traverse an infinite set, you can't go through inifnite causes. It looks like this person didn't really know what he was saying.

> if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law

God is only subject to God. There is nothing above him by definition. It looks like this person is used to accepting "laws" without knowing what they are.

> you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists
Not only this shows a complete lack of theologcal maturity, but also tht the author is an emotional child, who wants to earn progressiveness and social action points. Anyway, from a theological point of view, the author expects the lack of sin, which is absurd the moment we have free will. The author also forgets that without God, there is no reason to consider anything to be bad. In order to criticise God trying to prove he doesn't exist, you need universal morality, but in order to have universal morality you need God.

>Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all
The author shows his completely lack of knowledge about history.

>and if He did we do not know anything about him
The author conveniently forgets about the written testimony by several writers.

>I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one.
It is for the author, since the obvious answer contradicts his childish rants.

What if I am?

I hope you get your hours in this month :)
maybe you're posting from bethel

>I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment
Again, the author is shown to be an emotional child who rejects just punishment of those who willingly reject God and are unrepentant.

>and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching
somehow the author expects God to love the fact that people reject the Truth in favor of being a wild animal.

>was not very kind to the pigs
How much is very kind? How much is it not? Where is this threshold the author talks about? Why worry about pigs that are soulless animals? It looks like the author considers himself to be at the same level as a pig, something that, even is partially correct, is false, since other animals have no soul.

> inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering
For the author, anything that means authority and limits to hedonism is undeserved suffering, so these claims are empty

> it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement
The author definitions of improvement are an insult to real improvement

>it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules
Morality does is a set of rules, in a certain way

> nothing to do with human happiness
What is good and bad isn't what makes people happy or not. Someone may be really happy brutally murdering another person. That doesn't make it good.

>The object of morals is not to make people happy
It is not. Morals aren't a tool of hedonism. Morals are what is itself right and good.

>The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms
The author just states his crazy theories he probably has read somewhere.

>It is a conception quite unworthy of free men
It looks like the goal of the author is to live without any authority, good or evil, a life of complete hedonism and lack of guilt

>it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings.

the author, however, tries to limit the KKK and fascists. Isn't that exactly the same thing he complains about? He is limiting their freedom after all, labelling them as miserable sinners.

I can say with complete confidence, that Betrand Russell was a complete retard who tried to play in the big leagues by talking about theology, but just spat a childish rambling that anyone with minimum knowledge will laugh at. Ayone who considers it anything beyong garbage are probably the same kind of children who want a fuel a hedonist life.

Russell basically rejects free will, so he is thinking and statements are nondeterministic and essentially programmed. This replaces a belief in God for Fate. Why Fate is more believable than God I cannot fathom.

God's willingness to grant some of his creatures a large measure of free will allows the possibility of suffering. Sometimes the bad choices of humans (and angels) lead to suffering of others, even innocents. This is a necessary unfortunate consequence of the potential bad exercise of free will. If will is not free, then we are no better than robots.

Russell wanted a morality that allowed him to do whatever he wanted, so that he could be 'sexually free' and be a serial marrier and adulterer

>posting from Bethel

KEK. Man, everybody who goes to Bethel become self-righteous, insufferable faggots. I can't believe I was stupid enough to get baptized at 15.

Whilst he rejects the doctrine of free will, he wants to be a 'free man'. So like many atheist agitators, he is riddled with hypocrisies and and contradictions

I'm not anti at all, but there is some truth in what you say. In some ways it is good that a lot of Bethelites will have to go out and get real jobs in the real world. For some of them. Some I feel a bit of empathy for, those who haven't got any skills and who thought that Bethel would look after them for life

Reminder that Jesus never said he was god, the son of god, or even divine, ever. Inb4 bible quote, l2biblicalhistory

Hi Muhammed

Thanx for the reminder. Got to go turn in my time. Nope, not at Bethel, not that good. Where are you from?

No, it seems JWs out in force

If he's merely massaging her breasts in a non-sexual & therapeutic manner, then whats the issue?

it doesnt matter what you believe
God is there, hell is there, salvation is there
try your luck

Breddy sure it's in like the first paragraph of John lad.

Check flag :)
You should wait till the circuit overseer shows up, its easier to pioneer that way...
Is that pic you?

>i was there

all religions created in the past are dumb, we need a new one that works for the modern age and encourages technology and human unity and development

Literally says, in the beginning the word was, the word was with the god, and the word was god.
Note the lack of definite article before the 2nd use of God. This implies that Jesus isn't 'the' God, but rather of divine nature. John 1;18 enlarges on this (NASB)
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Jesus can't be with himself; no-one has seen God (that is, the God), but the divine being who was with the God has explained Him.

it will rise don't you worry, it's all written

...

Hola muchachos, buenos noches

It's perfect tense, a more accurate translation would require ebonics. "And the the word be with God, and the word be God."

This is probably exactly what all the prophets of the past thought at the time

I think you mean to say, they don't think it be like it is, but it do
I believe that the passage is in the aorist tense, anyway just read literally we can see a distinction in the described 'Godness' of the Word and the one whom the Word was with, namely 'The God'. Also, John really should have said 'with the Father' if he was making them one and the same entity. He cannot be himself and with himself, although he can be with the Father.

Literally a fantasy created by muslims using an incorrect translation

answering-islam.org/Responses/Al-Kadhi/r01.2.2.06.html

Just to clarify, the distinction in 'Godness' is that the one whom the Word was with from the beginning (that is likely, the beginning of Creation just as in Genesis 1:1, not from infinite time. In any case, infinite eternity never had a beginning) was The God, not just of God nature or as can be reasonably translated (since Greek has no imperfect article) 'a God'

No, original and undefiled Christianity, that was usurped by Constantine and promoted by a corrupt priesthood, with its inquisitions, persecutions, political harlotry and pedophilia has shown itself to be an apostasy from truth just as Jesus foretold

what if God has given to Jesus the God status?

Corrupt are those who try to force their fantasies about tradition and scripture. the same claims you make are made by muslims, JWs, mormons etc. and none of them have anything that shows any "Corruption".

It's funny how you are unable to address what I say, how you talk about "corrupt priesthood", when corruption is defined as rejecting the Truth of the church, about persecutions when it is protetants who are mindless drones, about "political harlotry" when it was protestants who attacked empires using religious propaganda", about pedophilia when you don't give numbers, I can say the same about any denomination and you can just find a correlation with homosexuals.

You don't know what Jesus said. You have created your own fanfic, and claim that anyone who doesn't gfollow your terrible fanfic is "corrupted".

By the way, the things that according to you are a result of corruption, are common with the orthodox, so anything you say mut also apply to them.

Please, don't take that retard seriously, as this link and many others explain, he just tries to use a known to be false translation to fuel his fanfic

>Ku Klux Klan
>bad
No rebuttal necessary, he made himself come across as retarded already.

Not exactly, but the Father did exalt Jesus to a higher status than what he had before his descent, to a loftier position than any other creature has had or will ever have- Philippians 2;5-11

Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a [c]servant, [d]being made in the likeness of men; 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; 10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and [e]things under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

>New Atheism
>worthy of being taken seriously

And by the way, you should take a look at this before you continue writing your fanfic:

answering-islam.org/Responses/Al-Kadhi/toc.html

>im smarter than bertrand russell

LMAO

Jesus was always special
through him, God made everything

now is just specialer

The scripture is clear, and it is uncorrupted. It makes a distinction between 'The God' and 'The Word'. Both existed apart from each other, they were 'with' each other. Only a person lost in a sea of confusion could conflate the 2 as being somehow the same being. These notions are stolen from paganism, via Platonism, as the Constantine rule church (Constantine himself being half pagan) tried to appeal to the educated masses.

It's a fact that wicked trinitarian clergy have persecuted the Arians, the Waldenses, the Socinians and the Hussites, Michael Servetus, anyone who didn't share inexplicable, irrational and unscriptural trinitarian theology. In this and in many other things, the clergy class have much blood on their hands. Also in leading the masses away from accurate knowledge, they call judgement on themselves.

The Catholic Church has been in bed with most of the murderous dictators over the last 1700 years, from the Borgias to the Spanish Hapsburgs to Hitler and Mussolini. It is a deviation from truth.

Albigensian Crusade, best day of my life

Yeah I noticed your flag from Upside-Down Land. Yes, that's me. Typical American white man in America.

This is irrelevant, what is at stake is not what Muslim apologists or their critics believe, it is what the Greek actually says. The point is not 'ton theon', but rather the non-occurence of 'ho'. Greek doesn't have a definite article, therefore it has to be inserted according to context. As the Word was with the God, he cannot have been the God, therefore as the text itself implies, he was a God or a divine being, just as verse 18 shows, he was explaining the God whom no man ever has seen.

Just as Jesus said at John 14:28, 'The Father is greater than I am"

Actually, you've summed it up well, although not particularly grammatically correctly :)
But at the same time these and other verses, whilst showing Jesus' uniqueness, never imply equality between the Father and the Son. In any case, father and son is the wrong familial relationship to denote equality. If equality was implied, then brothers would have been used.

Jesus never does his own will even in his exalted post-Earthly state; he always as an obedient Son does his Father's will, even if on Earth that will was different from his own. As Christ said, 'Not my will, but your will be done"

I don't believe in a totalitarian new world order, so yes, by default, I'm smarter than he is.

>(Hebrews 5:8, 9) Although he was a Son, HE LEARNED OBEDIENCE from the things he suffered; 9and after HE HAD BEEN MADE PERFECT, he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him,

HE LEARNED OBEDIENCE
HAD BEEN MADE PERFECT

This is AFTER Jesus went to heaven. After going to heaven he learned obedience from the things he suffered.

questions:
What could God ever learn? Doesn't he know EVERYTHING already and always knew everything?

How could God learn OBEDIENCE? Who would God ever have to OBEY!?

How can God be perfected? How can God be perfected THROUGH obedience if he has to obey NOBODY!!

The person above in that verse is someone who had to:learn, obey, and be perfected. That's impossible for God.

ITT: Theists speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them.

This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

And no, 'atheists wear funny hats xD' is not an argument.

The Albigenses were not Christian, but that was no reason to kill 'em. That is the nature of totalitarianism though, however it's not a viewpoint I share. The Waldenses though were practising a more pure form of Christianity than their corrupted Catholic neighbours

The ramblings of retarded heretics never fail to make me laugh. Please, study something and learn a bout the Trinity. For every single heretic, the scripture is "clear". I will remind you that what you consider to be scripture is the canon, a canon that was created by the Church.

I don't really care about heretics being crushed, since they are heretics who spread spiritual death. People like you have something much, much worse than blood in their hands. In your hands is the damnation of other people.

Again, you talk about "The Catholic Church", but all your petty heresies are also rejected by the orthodox. I couldn't care less about what you consider to be a murderous dictator. I don't see why I should care.

It looks like you are like Russell, an emotional child with no understanding of theology. The difference is while he talks about "muh KKK", you talk about "muh dictators".

Also, the fact that you include Hitler among the "murderous dictators" says a lot.

what if it exist and you cant prove it yet?
are you taking your chances anyway?

>muh "God is an object hiding somewhere in the universe"

New Atheists, not even once

Why do they even write a whole books about this shit? I'm materialsit because it's all mumbo-jumbo, the end.

This nigga right here with the dubs.
I happen to disagree with his larger schema but he argues magnificently.

You seem to be very certain of yourself

Just because you dont believe in it doesnt mean its not real

The world is moving towards a new world order whether you like it or not

But go ahead and feel smart

At the beginning of creation, the laws of physics break down from our perspective. At that moment, things that are wondrous, or miraculous, can occur. Just because things are miraculous doesn't mean they cannot happen. One must choose which kind of miraculous events are most likely, that is the creation of a universe redolent with order, majesty and beauty from pure chance or as an ordered, divinely designed work of creative genius. I plump for the latter everyday.

If God was the same as a teapot or the flying spaghetti monster, then atheist apologists wouldn't need to disingenuously keep referring to these things since they would be self-evidently comparable. But this is only strawman ridicule, and shows the bankruptness of these kinds of simplistic arguments.

What we need is an honest examination of what is true, not 'who needs to prove what'. Actually, falsifiability is used as some sort of dogma. Once one rejects the pure doctrines of God, one seems to need to replace such with the impure dogmas of philosophy and these have reached their nadir in the present with cultural marxist pansexual triggering safe spacery. This is the natural development of rejecting truth; the rejector of truth is always receptive to the lie

How is there free will if you don't choose your genes and upbringing? Fate does not exist (only people who believe God is omniscient do, because God knows what will happen in advance). The natural order is chaos and what will happen next is dependent on a lot of things. Though we think and make our own decisions, we have a limited selection of decisions based on our innate characteristics and we are naturally more likely to choose certain decisions based on our character and situation. Much of this is influenced by our genes and upbringing. We are not individuals with a universally uniform moral code. What I mean is that if you were born into a rich, loving, Muslim family in Saudi Arabia, you will most likely view and do things differently if you had a poor, abusive, Christian single mom in Russia.

There might be some degree of free will, but it's definitely limited and it's foolish to believe that all humans are as capable as others to become Christian or do moral things.

Hell is a stupid concept because it punishes people for things that were mostly out of their control. If Allah sent a charitable and noble pastor to Hell, you would object and be outraged and rightfully so, but when the Christian God punishes a 19 year old Hindu who dies in a flood it's somehow okay.

Christian morality is messed up. There's a reason why we don't use this kind of punishment in the West. Eternal punishment on Earth is called torture and is often used by dictators to keep people from criticizing the leader and it's immoral to torture the masturbator for the same amount of time as a serial rapist (forever).

So it's an unfalsifiable concept? Why bother with it then?

Time certainly does have a beginning. So everything else that's set in time also does. Everything that's finite has a beginning.Russell was a proto-fedora.

The Catholic Church created nothing good, only misery and corruption and bloodshed.
The scriptures were created by God and written down by his servants, prophets and apostles. The Church has only obfuscated and sought to muddy these pure truths. Indeed, for centuries merely owning the scriptures in the vernacular was a capital offense. The clergy didn't want the people to know the truth of the Bible, otherwise their immorality, bloodshed and selling of indulgences would be seen for what they were

No, because we have characteristics beyond the material universe, and God can reveal Truth

No, atheists just never bother to actually read what Christians claim about God and resort to strawman arguments like the idea that God is like a teapot, just sitting in the universe somewhere waiting to be physically found.

Whenever someone mentions or defends Russell's teapot, you know they don't know their shit.

Free will is limited, and can be quite limited. But one can exercise free will more than others. One can choose to be more or less free acting.

And I don't believe in eternal hellfire, and the Bible doesn't teach such a thing. To punish someone eternally for acts during a finite lifetime is immoral and evil.

The Catholic Church offers the Truth, and heretics like you offer a fanfic.

Please, tell me how you know what books are part of the Bible canon.

You seem to be a muslim rather than a christian, considering you deny Jesus being God and talk about books written by God.

You definitely are not a Christian, that's for sure.

Just accept you create a fanfic as you go from whatever new stupidity crosses your mind.

Again, more or less all denominations reject your stupid heresies, you are a joke for everyone, emotional retard.

EXACTLY, and it worked

look at the roman empire and the Arabian Empire after christianity and islam

but its slowly getting fucked up, Cucks in chirstianity and radicals in islam are fucking both relgions up.

relgion is needed to create somthing that bands people together and a sort of dos and donts for not so obvious things

a relgion that promotes Unity in humanity and techonoogical progress makes me fucking hard as a rock.

i will sign up to that shit pronto or make it if i have enough money to do so.

there is so much to learn, so much to do for us, we can achieve so much but we squabble and fight to follow rules made 1400 years ago, it makes me fucking sick to my stomach.

we need this NOW

>determinism

I'm mocking this out of free will

>And I don't believe in eternal hellfire, and the Bible doesn't teach such a thing. To punish someone eternally for acts during a finite lifetime is immoral and evil.

that's bullshit tho, Jesus is pretty clear about hell

If God was a teapot, then he doesn't need to be likened to a teapot since this fact is self-evident. This also implies God's reality but I'll leave that for a moment.
Really they only get tetchy like this because Darwin looked like an ape

Don't you understand? Heretics don't care about that. They just create a fantasy in seconds, and then hijack Christianity to try to add legitimacy to their terrible stories

Then please explain what would falsify the concept of God, because that's what Russell's teapot is all about.

It's not abput the teapot itself, it's about the fact that having a discussion about something that is supposed be beyond reality is a complete waste of time, as such a concept cannot be tested. It cannot be properly verified or refuted and is therefore completely meaningless

Every probing of my faith is new atheism: the post

>No, because we have characteristics beyond the material universe

And what would those be?

The canon was accepted by the body of the Christian congregation long before the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, which saw the rise of Christendom, a political movement more than a religious one, used by the Roman Emperors as an instrument of state and something which Christ had not intended. Writers like Justin, Irenaeus, and Polycarp (all non-trinitarians) show that the canon was well established before the 4th century. Inspiration is revealed not by Popes, who have been traditionally corrupt immoral and worldly, but by inherent inspiration and those with God's spirit were able to recognize this fact with or without councils

The Bible is written by God, as 2 Timothy 3;16,17 shows clearly. Your adhoms are pathetic also, I hope you feel ashamed.

Yes, as much a chance as you take with all the other deities you cannot prove yet.

the problem is your eternal soul, that's not save if you dont accept Jesus Christ

you can say you are the best men alive, but that don't save you

Consciousness and morals, to begin with

The canon was accepted by the same Church you like to go against. The canon was given by the apostolic line, but you reject the apostolic line. All non trinitarians are heretics, have always been heretics and what they say is irrelevant.

the Pope is the head and authority. You are not a special snowflake that gets special revelations while you sleep.

wordly? I only see you try to go against the Church using wordly arguments. No mention of dogma, theology etc.

The heretic's favorite excuse: "G-god has revealed this knowledge to me!", he says, while a million more heretics say the same. Really sad

Wittgenstein did when he called all of Russell's non mathematical writings utter garbage which no one should ever read.

>you just cant take the chance
>brb molesting your children who trust me while you donate significant sums to the church which I turn around and use to cripple sex education, birth control, and inject muh religion into everything from medical care to international politics
Rerigion

Jesus uses several words or terms that are generically translated 'hell' in most Bibles. The word 'hades' doesn't imply any sort of punishment at all. Jesus even went there. David knew he was going there, but didn't want to be 'left' there. Gehenna is the term that Jesus uses for the final place of unrepentant sinners; this was a rubbish dump outside Jerusalem where rubbish, including the corpses of criminals, was placed. Most of the time stuff was burning here. The bodies that were placed here were not burning in pain, they were dead and were burnt to dispose of them. This is what the lake of fire is, a place to dispose of the wicked.

Those that promote hellfire are really doing the Devil's work

It truly is embarrassing.


>The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.

Except for the tons of proofs down the ages to assert it as true. Instead of looking at the academic discourse, he just classifies them all as not bright enough without addressing their arguments at all.


>If you say, as more orthodox theologians...

That's not necessarily the case whatsoever.

And could I not then say that this result only stems from a poverty of imagination?

>Do you think that, if you were...

This addresses zero arguments for Philosophical Optimism.

And could I not then say that this result only stems from a poverty of imagination?

>There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching


Because he understands the punishment in a penal sense would be my issue, but still this is just a throwaway comment by him.


>Gadarene pigs

And has he looked into any of the church's explanation of the situation there?

>church as destructive

Bullshit. Even pic related would show this to be bullshit, or at least not as clear cut as he describes.

>happiness


The church isn't wrong. He's just criticizing the church for not being utilitarian like he is without going into a discourse on either case. It's a sign of being intellectually juvenile to ridicule someone simply based on the fact they disagree with you. While the church promotes an inner joy that comes from seeking the good, the good doesn't always bring happiness immediately and is sometimes the harder thing to do.

>The whole conception of God is

Random assertions.

Jesus said
> You will know them by their fruit.
what other gods do you know?
all the world knows about Jesus Christ, we even celebrate his birthday the 24 of dic

The idea of eternal punishment through fire and torment is the most immoral proposition you can make and your great deity has that in store for anyone who doesn't fulfill his vain ego by acknowledging him as the one true god among thousands of others vying for the same position.

>what would falsify the concept of God
What do you expect, some kind of an MRI scan that will detect God? God is simply necessary, logic demands it. The unmoved mover is simply necessary since finite things can't have brought themselves into existence, eternal chain of causation of finite things is not possible, the unmoved mover is necessary.