Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Plastic Bubble Theology

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Plastic Bubble Theology

    Two or three times a month, we get an OP in which the poster either states or implies that if he or she were God, he or she would be a far superior god to the one which he or she doesn't believe exists. This disbelieved god created a bum world since all is not always hunky-dory and bad things happen. These posts always suggest that a really good god would fix it so that bad things would never occur, but they never define the limits of "badness" that they would allow if they were the creator and sustainer of the universe. Child rape, avalanche deaths and cancer are out. Shoplifting, skinned knees. paper cuts, and insults that might hurt someone's feelings? Not so sure. They will NEVER establish thresholds. But we hear all kinds of cockamamie suggestions for divine methods of thwarting less than ideal events, from teleporting to zapping temporary paralysis into folks, creating visions of a surrealistic alternative and laughable universe. But all of these posts have two common implicit premises that the Christian does not accept:

    (1). There is no afterlife, and

    (2). The optimal blessings with which any postulated god should grant us in this our only life are SAFETY and COMPLACENCY.

    No risks, no adventure, no joyful victories. No ups and downs. Sounds like a universal Prozac overdose.

    Oh, and I guess Calvary is out of the question. After all, a really good god would redeem the world by snapping his fingers, right?
    Signature? You want a signature? I'll show you a signature!
    John Hancock

  • #2
    Originally posted by stiggywiggy View Post
    Two or three times a month, we get an OP in which the poster either states or implies that if he or she were God, he or she would be a far superior god to the one which he or she doesn't believe exists. This disbelieved god created a bum world since all is not always hunky-dory and bad things happen. These posts always suggest that a really good god would fix it so that bad things would never occur, but they never define the limits of "badness" that they would allow if they were the creator and sustainer of the universe. Child rape, avalanche deaths and cancer are out. Shoplifting, skinned knees. paper cuts, and insults that might hurt someone's feelings? Not so sure. They will NEVER establish thresholds. But we hear all kinds of cockamamie suggestions for divine methods of thwarting less than ideal events, from teleporting to zapping temporary paralysis into folks, creating visions of a surrealistic alternative and laughable universe. But all of these posts have two common implicit premises that the Christian does not accept:

    (1). There is no afterlife, and

    (2). The optimal blessings with which any postulated god should grant us in this our only life are SAFETY and COMPLACENCY.

    No risks, no adventure, no joyful victories. No ups and downs. Sounds like a universal Prozac overdose.

    Oh, and I guess Calvary is out of the question. After all, a really good god would redeem the world by snapping his fingers, right?
    Does the White House clown believe that he is a better god?

    ... always look on the bright side of life - Idle Cleese

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by juglans1 View Post
      Does the White House clown believe that he is a better god?
      No, but is Victor mature? Does Tuesday weld?
      Signature? You want a signature? I'll show you a signature!
      John Hancock

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by stiggywiggy View Post

        No, but is Victor mature? Does Tuesday weld?
        So why does the White House clown worship himself unless he believes that he is a better god?
        ... always look on the bright side of life - Idle Cleese

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by juglans1 View Post
          So why does the White House clown worship himself unless he believes that he is a better god?
          Because David Hasselhoff is worshiped in Germany only, not in MAGA country.
          Signature? You want a signature? I'll show you a signature!
          John Hancock

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by stiggywiggy View Post
            Two or three times a month, we get an OP in which the poster either states or implies that if he or she were God, he or she would be a far superior god to the one which he or she doesn't believe exists. This disbelieved god created a bum world since all is not always hunky-dory and bad things happen. These posts always suggest that a really good god would fix it so that bad things would never occur, but they never define the limits of "badness" that they would allow if they were the creator and sustainer of the universe. Child rape, avalanche deaths and cancer are out. Shoplifting, skinned knees. paper cuts, and insults that might hurt someone's feelings? Not so sure. They will NEVER establish thresholds. But we hear all kinds of cockamamie suggestions for divine methods of thwarting less than ideal events, from teleporting to zapping temporary paralysis into folks, creating visions of a surrealistic alternative and laughable universe. But all of these posts have two common implicit premises that the Christian does not accept:

            (1). There is no afterlife, and

            (2). The optimal blessings with which any postulated god should grant us in this our only life are SAFETY and COMPLACENCY.

            No risks, no adventure, no joyful victories. No ups and downs. Sounds like a universal Prozac overdose.

            Oh, and I guess Calvary is out of the question. After all, a really good god would redeem the world by snapping his fingers, right?
            I would like to thank everyone who responded. Your sincere and relevant input is much appreciated. I learned a lot.
            Signature? You want a signature? I'll show you a signature!
            John Hancock

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by stiggywiggy View Post
              Two or three times a month, we get an OP in which the poster either states or implies that if he or she were God, he or she would be a far superior god to the one which he or she doesn't believe exists. This disbelieved god created a bum world since all is not always hunky-dory and bad things happen. These posts always suggest that a really good god would fix it so that bad things would never occur,
              Are you sure? Iíve nevwr seen anyone suggest a good god would create a world where NO bad things happen. Do you have a link to verify this claim?


              but they never define the limits of "badness" that they would allow if they were the creator and sustainer of the universe. Child rape, avalanche deaths and cancer are out. Shoplifting, skinned knees. paper cuts, and insults that might hurt someone's feelings? Not so sure. They will NEVER establish thresholds.
              This is flatly false because in a thread discussing god not allowing baby rape I told you exactly what limit I would place. Try to make your point without obvious and blatant falsehoods.

              But we hear all kinds of cockamamie suggestions for divine methods of thwarting less than ideal events, from teleporting to zapping temporary paralysis into folks, creating visions of a surrealistic alternative and laughable universe.
              They may be laughable to YOU, but many view those methods as a possible way to maintain free will AND prevent all baby rapes. Rational people would make that trade. A solution that is laughable to some people but maintains free will and prevents all baby rapes from occurring. Regardless, your kind can never supply a reasonable counterpoint to why such a thing should not be done by a good god who sees all actions.


              But all of these posts have two common implicit premises that the Christian does not accept:

              (1). There is no afterlife, and

              (2). The optimal blessings with which any postulated god should grant us in this our only life are SAFETY and COMPLACENCY.

              No risks, no adventure, no joyful victories. No ups and downs. Sounds like a universal Prozac overdose.

              Oh, and I guess Calvary is out of the question. After all, a really good god would redeem the world by snapping his fingers, right?
              A really good god would be able to get the same result as a fallen world without any pain or suffering at all. Thatís what omnipotence means. You are left to deal with the truth that your god wants what there is since he could reach the same goal a different way. Any idiot can poo poo any alternative offered. It takes intelligence and courage to actually grapple with the hypotheses raised. Obviously, no one expects you have the ability to decide on the latter.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Zaphod View Post

                Are you sure? I’ve nevwr seen anyone suggest a good god would create a world where NO bad things happen.
                I have. In fact, you want an example. Look what YOU typed below that I boded. Hilarious.

                This is flatly false because in a thread discussing god not allowing baby rape I told you exactly what limit I would place.
                I don't recall that, so refresh my memory. Which of the following would you allow:

                Shoplifting
                Cheating at cards
                Broken arms
                Skinned knees
                Deaths
                Paper cuts
                Hurt feelings
                Arson
                Burglary


                And for the ones you wouldn't allow, describe how you, as God, would prevent them.


                They may be laughable to YOU, but many view those methods as a possible way to maintain free will AND prevent all baby rapes. Rational people would make that trade. A solution that is laughable to some people but maintains free will and prevents all baby rapes from occurring. Regardless, your kind can never supply a reasonable counterpoint to why such a thing should not be done by a good god who sees all actions.

                A really good god would be able to get the same result as a fallen world without any pain or suffering at all.

                That’s what omnipotence means. You are left to deal with the truth that your god wants what there is since he could reach the same goal a different way. Any idiot can poo poo any alternative offered. It takes intelligence and courage to actually grapple with the hypotheses raised. Obviously, no one expects you have the ability to decide on the latter.
                Quit blathering and get busy with that list.
                Signature? You want a signature? I'll show you a signature!
                John Hancock

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by stiggywiggy View Post

                  I have. In fact, you want an example. Look what YOU typed below that I boded. Hilarious.
                  Which is NOT me saying that NO bad things should happen. I think that’s a false statement you made. I don’t think anyone has ever suggested a god scenario where no bad things happen and I think you know it. I believe you lied.


                  I don't recall that, so refresh my memory. Which of the following would you allow:

                  Shoplifting
                  Cheating at cards
                  Broken arms
                  Skinned knees
                  Deaths
                  Paper cuts
                  Hurt feelings
                  Arson
                  Burglary
                  All of those are fine with me.


                  And for the ones you wouldn't allow, describe how you, as God, would prevent them.
                  Why? Aren’t you creative enough to come up with a way god could not allow baby rapes and not violate free will. If you can’t, I pity your lack of creative thinking skills.


                  Quit blathering and get busy with that list.
                  Lol!!!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Zaphod View Post
                    All of those are fine with me.
                    Which means you either

                    (1). Take back your comment that:

                    A really good god would be able to get the same result as a fallen world without any pain or suffering at all. Or

                    (2). You stupidly think no pain or suffering is involved with a skinned knee or someone's house being burned down. Or

                    (3). You admit you'd make a lousy god.



                    Signature? You want a signature? I'll show you a signature!
                    John Hancock

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by stiggywiggy View Post

                      Which means you either

                      (1). Take back your comment that:

                      A really good god would be able to get the same result as a fallen world without any pain or suffering at all. Or

                      (2). You stupidly think no pain or suffering is involved with a skinned knee or someone's house being burned down. Or

                      (3). You admit you'd make a lousy god.
                      Perhaps you should reference a dictionary and look up the difference between could and should. My statement was about what an omnipotent god could do, not what he should do.

                      You simply deflect instead of dealing with what is said to you. That sort of behavior turns people AWAY from your message and your perspective, so do keep it up. Deflect away, as usual.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Zaphod View Post

                        Perhaps you should reference a dictionary and look up the difference between could and should.
                        Why? You said would, not could or should. You're very confused, aren't you?
                        Signature? You want a signature? I'll show you a signature!
                        John Hancock

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by stiggywiggy View Post

                          Why? You said would, not could or should. You're very confused, aren't you?
                          Exactly. WOULD be able to, not SHOULD do that. Try to focus.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Zaphod View Post

                            Exactly. WOULD be able to, not SHOULD do that. Try to focus.
                            Your words:

                            "Perhaps you should reference a dictionary and look up the difference between COULD and SHOULD."

                            After having said:

                            "A really good god WOULD be able to get the same result as a fallen world without any pain or suffering at all."

                            Now what were you saying about focusing? Your confusion deepens.
                            Signature? You want a signature? I'll show you a signature!
                            John Hancock

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by stiggywiggy View Post

                              Your words:

                              "Perhaps you should reference a dictionary and look up the difference between COULD and SHOULD."

                              After having said:

                              "A really good god WOULD be able to get the same result as a fallen world without any pain or suffering at all."

                              Now what were you saying about focusing? Your confusion deepens.
                              Is all this whining about you lying twice in your op and me pointing them out?

                              It’s always interesting to watch you evade the reality of your own errors. Did I say god should do that or was my point that god could do that if he’s omnipotent? God COULD get the exact result without pain and suffering as he gets with pain and suffering. That your god allows babies to be raped when he could get the same result with zero baby rapes is what you can’t face.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X