That doesn't disprove Christianity. I'm not even Christian but it still pisses me off. You can go die in a fire.

The god of the old testament is pretty much a dick. Does that "disprove" Christianity? No, but it certainly refutes the characterization that God is a purely benevolent being.

If you want evidence against the core of Christianity you need only look at the sacrifice of Jesus. Why would God send a son down to sacrifice to himself? It does not make sense and that is pretty much the core belief of Christianity.

This is the stupidity of christianity....

When I was in school my really, really religious head teacher told the class, that thunder and lighting happened because God was angry.

[This message has been edited by Source (edited 10-01-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

The god of the old testament is pretty much a dick. Does that "disprove" Christianity? No, but it certainly refutes the characterization that God is a purely benevolent being.

Yes. This is what I'm saying, my man.

quote:Originally posted by Source:

This is the stupidity of christianity....

When I was in school my really, really religious head teacher told the class, that thunder and lighting happened because God was angry.

LOL, and it rains when God's sad.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

If you want evidence against the core of Christianity you need only look at the sacrifice of Jesus. Why would God send a son down to sacrifice to himself? It does not make sense and that is pretty much the core belief of Christianity.

If I were religious I would say It's because God loves every single one of us like his sons and daughters. If I were religious..

quote:Originally posted by niggersexual:

Yes. This is what I'm saying, my man.

Then it does refute Christianity since it believes that god is omnibenevolent! You proved yourself wrong. Congratulations.

The christian god is fucked up. "I love you, but I flooded teh earth, destroyed TWO cities and need you to worship me in order to join my club. I've slain countless men, all in the name of ME!!! Now pray, bitch!"

Yeah.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Then it does refute Christianity since it believes that god is omnibenevolent! You proved yourself wrong. Congratulations.

No. Just because some say God is omnibenovolent does not mean he is supposed to be so. You lose some meaning in words in double/triple translations and you can't totally be sure you're reading what you think you're reading. Also, God is benevolent. If you are pious and unsinning, you can go to heaven. That is benevolence enough for god.

quote:Originally posted by niggersexual:

No. Just because some say God is omnibenovolent does not mean he is supposed to be so. You lose some meaning in words in double/triple translations and you can't totally be sure you're reading what you think you're reading. Also, God is benevolent. If you are pious and unsinning, you can go to heaven. That is benevolence enough for god.

You're grasping at straws. If what the bible itself says is not credible because of translations, then they can't be sure that god exists in the first place! Your atrocious logic would make it so that if we somehow refute the existence of a god, Christianity would not be disproved... Wonderful!

That's now how it works. If Christians make the claim that god is omnibenevolent, and it then he is not so, then that does in fact refute their beliefs.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-01-2006).]

Yes, that is true. However, I'm not arguing about what most "Christinas" (plz edit that btw, lolz) believe. I'm arguing about Christian doctrine. Christians do not always believe what is taught by they're religion as church isn't bible study. It's singing class. A lot of supposed Christians don't even go to church and the extent of their knowledge of Christianity is, "there's a he'an and hell and like a god and stuff." Your remarks are off topic. It is you who are grasping at straws, Rust.

[This message has been edited by niggersexual (edited 10-01-2006).]

What I've said is not off-topic, and I'm not grasping at straws. I'm pointing out how it would be a refutation of Christianity contrary to your claim.

1. Your argument, that this would not refute Christianity because the bible could be wrong (based on mistranslations) is not an argument at all because we could dismiss anything in the Christian faith by citing "translation problems"! If we were to follow your "logic" then, if we were to refute any and all aspects of the Christian faith, they wouldn't have "disproven" Christianity because the bible could have been wrong... That's ridiculous, and apparently you agree.

There is also the problem if Christian doctrine being based on the authenticity of the bible itself. If the bible is not a credible document, Christian doctrine is refuted as well.

2. Christian doctrine is that god is purely good, that's the point. Not only do the vast (and that's an understatement) majority of Christians believe that the Christian god is purely good, but the bible itself indicates such.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't assume that "Christian doctrine" is what the vast majority of Christians believe now and have believed since the beginning, and what is stated in the bible? No, we should.

So, if Christianity claims that god is purely good and it is shown that he is not so, then Christianity has been refuted. Citing "OMG!! GOD HURTS PPL AND HE IS ANGRY " is (or could be lets say) a refutation of Christianity.

P.S. "hean"... plz edit that btw, lolz

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-01-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

What I've said is not off-topic, and I'm not grasping at straws. I'm pointing out how it would be a refutation of Christianity contrary to your claim.

Are too! http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)

quote:Your argument, that this would not refute Christianity because the bible could be wrong (based on mistranslations) is not an argument at all because we could dismiss anything in the Christian faith by citing "translation problems"! If we were to follow your "logic" then, if we were to refute any and all aspects of the Christian faith, they wouldn't have "disproven" Christianity because the bible could have been wrong... That's ridiculous, and apparently you agree.

There is also the problem if Christian doctrine being based on the authenticity of the bible itself. If the bible is not a credible document, Christian doctrine is refuted as well.

This is not the main point of what I say. You are grasping at straws here.

quote:2. Christian doctrine is that god is purely good, that's the point. Not only do the vast (and that's an understatement) majority of Christians believe that the Christian god is purely good, but the bible itself indicates such.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't assume that "Christian doctrine" is what the vast majority of Christians believe now and have believed since the beginning, and what is stated in the bible? No, we should.

So, if Christianity claims that god is purely good and it is shown that he is not so, then Christianity has been refuted. Citing "OMG!! GOD HURTS PPL AND HE IS ANGRY " is (or could be lets say) a refutation of Christianity.

The bible speaks about God in different places differently as different people thought different things about God. Some people see an omnibenevolent god and wrote that. That does not make it fact. For everytime you could find something about God's omnibenevolence in the Bible, I could find something contradicting that. Besides that, God is benevolent in the sense that he grants all good men paradise. If you let the holy spirit run through your body then you are blessed and will be included in God's magnificent golden city.

quote:P.S. "hean"... plz edit that btw, lolz

You're right. I forgot the apostrophe.

quote:



Check yoself! Yes, I had to say that tbh.