Is Jesus the Antichrist?

/Yes, it's a logically valid statement.

You're wrong. Your assumptions are contradictory and I illustrate below.

/For instance, if I <i>could</i> stop a moving bus from hitting someone but I don't, then I have <i>allowed</i> the bus to hit that person.

Sure. Via choice or constraint.

/Now a omnipotent God is capable of doing every possible logical action.

You need to find a better word. Omnipotence is "can do anything". The is no restriction to logic on the word, nor is it implictly limited to such.

But don't bother because a self-causal or eternal being is logically contradictory simply based on either fact. As such your "god" is necessarily unrestrained by logic. Further than that, since god created everything, didn't god created logic? Do you think god created logic and chose to adhere to it? If so, "who the fuck do you think you are?" comes to mind in regards to the fact that you continue to presume to even remotely comprehend the mind of god.

I'll just stop there.
 
How about another approach to this Jesus thing.

Let us asume for a moment that Jesus was a real person living 2000 off years ago. His time was a time of strong religious ideology. Superstitions were rampant.

In his life Jesus stumbled on to the psychic ability to use the third eye which gave him the ability to perform all those miracles.
But because he was not able to control his ability and because of the hostility of the Jewish community to Jesus etc they executed him.

When What's his name wanted Jesus to defend himself and Jesus kept silent this was because he could prove nothing and wanted to die. His suffering being so intense because of his inability to contain his enormous psychic abiliies that he sort suicide on the cross as a way to die. He couldn't do it to himself but let the Jews do it for him.

The only context Jesus could put his abilities was in a religious context as this was all he knew.

The religious environment generated the Christian belief and not Jesus himself.
 
You need to find a better word. Omnipotence is "can do anything". The is no restriction to logic on the word, nor is it implictly limited to such.
Click to expand...
well I do bother. I investigated this before on another thread with Tiassa.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm

Further than that, since god created everything, didn't god created logic? Do you think god created logic and chose to adhere to it?
Click to expand...
It is possible that logic is an attribute of God. This is what most theologians believe I think.

If so, "who the fuck do you think you are?" comes to mind in regards to the fact that you continue to presume to even remotely comprehend the mind of god.
Click to expand...
And you continuely try to insult people. If I write something, then surely it expresses my opinion. Is it obvious that I write what I believe on a message board? But as it pertains to this topic, were arguing about God portrayed in the bible, which limits the attributes of God. In fact, the God in the bible has to be rational because he admits to rational several times.
 
Well, I understand that you can reshape language to fit your needs, but you can't use it to justify assumptions. Please look at the root of the word please "omni" means all and "potence" is obviosly powerful. The logical ramifications are not implicit.

3 entries found for omnipotence.
om·nip·o·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-np-tnt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful

Well and you conveniently ignored the rest of my logical objections, ASS. You are wrong and you refuse to face it because your entire mental well-being relies on your correctness and your faith in your BULLSHIT.

Now I could accept it if you could admit that the belief is irrational, illogical and unreasonable, but if so, you should shut the fuck up about it and keep your insanity to yourself. But you can't can you? You have to continue to attempt to make it rational, though it has been illustrated to you NUMEROUS times as to why it isn't. YOU ARE IN DENIAL AND YOU MAKE ME SICK, from that consideration of your personality. That doesn't mean I dislike you. Hell you may be a great guy for that matter. I have no ill-will toward you, but if you're gonna post bullshit, don't be a pussy if I call you on it.

/And you continuely try to insult people.

You insult ME with your stupid fucking arrogance. Seems that our opinions fundamentally clash eh? Go figure. And BTW, it's not really my intent to insult you, so much as to let you know how poor your reasoning is. I want you to see where your thinking is flawed. See that's not intended harm, it's an intended transference of information. If you are offended by my language, then ignore me.

You make claims that "god is this and god is that". I say you're a fucking human and as such you cannot possibly fathom what "god is and what god isn't" and that your silly book is nothing but some historical exagerations coupled with some philosophical meanderings and elements of psychological control. You claim your book to be some sort of divine whatever. I claim your book a book, as meaningful or meaningless as any other book.

/If I write something, then surely it expresses my opinion. Is it obvious that I write what I believe on a message board?

You are entitled to your opinion. If you post it on a message board I am entitled to illustrate to you what I consider to be your unbridled arrogance and stupidity. You are entitled to do the same. Fun huh?

/But as it pertains to this topic, were arguing about God portrayed in the bible, which limits the attributes of God.

I'm not. I'm arguing that for you to make a goddamn claim as to what god does or does not is hypocritical by your own standards, and fundamentally assenine by mine. I have ignored the broader context. Pardon.

/In fact, the God in the bible has to be rational because he admits to rational several times.

Man you may be a great guy, but regardles you are also a meme infected sheep.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Quantum Quack
In his life Jesus stumbled on to the psychic ability to use the third eye which gave him the ability to perform all those miracles.
But because he was not able to control his ability and because of the hostility of the Jewish community to Jesus etc they executed him.

When What's his name wanted Jesus to defend himself and Jesus kept silent this was because he could prove nothing and wanted to die. His suffering being so intense because of his inability to contain his enormous psychic abiliies that he sort suicide on the cross as a way to die. He couldn't do it to himself but let the Jews do it for him.
----------
M*W: I understand portions of what you are saying. It is quite understandable (if Jesus were a real person), that he realized the power of God within him (i.e. the power of positive thinking; soul-centered thinking) and utilized it when he felt the need. I don't think he "stumbled upon it," because one doesn't accidently "stumble" upon the higher mind. It can be realized, but it must be developed. I agree that he was unique in his abilities using his higher mind, so his immediate community probably felt that his philosophy was probably too "new age" to fit into the conservative role of Rabbi.
----------
The religious environment generated the Christian belief and not Jesus himself.
----------
M*W: I agree with you that Jesus did not generate Christian thought, if anything, he would be adamantly opposed to it! He didn't preach Christianity! That culprit was Paul and HIS followers. Paul knew the Jews were waiting for a coming messiah, so he created one. If Jesus really lived, and if Jesus really died on the cross, (which I don't believe), it was because of his being "different" for the time in which he lived. Perhaps Jesus was a victim of a preverbial "witch-hunt." In any event, much research has been done on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, so it doesn't appear to be plausible. Why did it take 2000 years to expose the truth? The preverbial "witch-hunt!" The only ones left to conceal the truth now are those that don't want to know the truth.
Click to expand...
 
Well and you conveniently ignored the rest of my logical objections, ASS. You are wrong and you refuse to face it because your entire mental well-being relies on your correctness and your faith in your BULLSHIT.
Click to expand...
Anyone can find logical contradictions if they define omnipotence to be able to create logical contradictions? I explained what the vast majority of christian theologians mean when they use omnipotence. If logic is an attribute of God, then God by definition is logical. Similarly, if goodness is an attribute of God then God cannot do evil. Your unable to differentiate between logical statements and plausible statements. While what I said was entirely logical, definining omnipotence to be the ability to do all non-contradicting actions, it may not be plausible to you.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
Anyone can find logical contradictions if they define omnipotence to be able to create logical contradictions?
Click to expand...

You can't help it can you?

"a self-causal or eternal being is logically contradictory simply based on either fact. As such your "god" is necessarily unrestrained by logic."

Can you refute this?
 
"a self-causal or eternal being is logically contradictory simply based on either fact. As such your "god" is necessarily unrestrained by logic."
Click to expand...
No, I'm sorry. As soon as you say there exists something that as always existed, you have admitted that logic has always existed because existance is a logical primative only defined in logical systems. Furthermore, there's no reason to assume that logic isn't an attribute of God. Jesus said, "I AM the Truth, the Way and the Life". Now Jesus wasn't the Truth at sometime but has always been the Truth. So Truth has existed eternally thus logic has always existed. Similarly, God must create "creation", which cannot be done unless if there existed the firstborn of God's creation his Son who has always existed with the Father. So God's attribute of creation, his Life through which all has been created, has always existed eternally begotten from the Father.
 
/No, I'm sorry.

Don't be.

/As soon as you say there exists something that as always existed, you have admitted that logic has always existed because existance is a logical primative only defined in logical systems.

It might be worthy to ask if logic actually exists. If not, then how is it subject to time? It exists only as an abstract.

/Furthermore, there's no reason to assume that logic isn't an attribute of God.

You mean there's no reason to assume that it is? Do you see the logical fallacy in your premise? There is no reason to assume god, yet you throw it into the mix because of your meme.

/Jesus said, "I AM the Truth, the Way and the Life".

Why do I care what a character in some stupid book said?

/Now Jesus wasn't the Truth at sometime but has always been the Truth.

I asked that you refrain from jibberish. I don't care what you think "jesus" said. Argue something rational or admit you are not rational.

/So Truth has existed eternally thus logic has always existed.

I already covered this. I must add though, that drawing a conclusion like that based on what some character in a book said is the weakest possible logic/reasoning. Your argument completely blows.

/Similarly, God must create "creation", which cannot be done unless if there existed the firstborn of God's creation his Son who has always existed with the Father.

GIBBERISH. ACK you are freakin hopeless.

/So God's attribute of creation, his Life through which all has been created, has always existed eternally begotten from the Father.

:rolleyes:

blah blah blah.

*hurl*

what a load of authoritative crap.
 
<i><b>
It might be worthy to ask if logic actually exists. If not, then how is it subject to time? It exists only as an abstract.</b></i>
If logic does not exist, then you will have to redefine existance. As of yet, I've never seen atheist say God does not exist because existance does not exist. If you go that route, all I'm going to say is "Have a happy illogical non-existance". We have no way of determining whether logic exists or not because the only way we can proof something is by using logic.

<i><b>
You mean there's no reason to assume that it is? Do you see the logical fallacy in your premise? There is no reason to assume god, yet you throw it into the mix because of your meme.</b></i>
Truth must always exist because it is contained in the definition of existance. In order to find if something is true, we see if it matches up with existance inside the world. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to assume that Truth is part of the nature of God because a God who has always existed must also have a true existance.

<i><b>Why do I care what a character in some stupid book said?</b></i>
Your forgetting that the topic of this thread is "Is Jesus the Antichrist".
 
/If logic does not exist, then you will have to redefine existance.

There are two fundamental modes of existance that I am aware of: 'the physical' and 'the abstract'. Abstracts exist, but not physically. This conversation is reasonable evidence of its existence, as all meaning inferred from this exchange of words has no physical existence.

/As of yet, I've never seen atheist say God does not exist because existance does not exist.

Good for you and the atheirst you've seen say stuff. I don't know what that has to do with what I said.

/If you go that route, all I'm going to say is "Have a happy illogical non-existance".

LOL. As if you are qualified? You spew gibberish and claim it logical. Of course it might be valid within your humongously ridiculous set of assumptions, but I don't care for them as I've illustrated, as they themselves are fundamentally flawed. This is true JUST from epistemological arguments alone, but of course no good christian could agree.

/We have no way of determining whether logic exists or not because the only way we can proof something is by using logic.

True enough, but I have faith that it exists and I can demonstrate it for you directly.

/Truth must always exist because it is contained in the definition of existance. In order to find if something is true, we see if it matches up with existance inside the world. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to assume that Truth is part of the nature of God because a God who has always existed must also have a true existance.

Gibberish crap. You present this as reasonable? Horrifically muddled. You just went in a circle. Read it close. You define existence circularly and inclusive of a whole shitload of bogus crap and you can spew interally validated gibberish all day long. Wow, seems that most of the planet is capable of gibberish. Can you provide evidence that you can think more clearly than gibberish?

/Your forgetting that the topic of this thread is "Is Jesus the Antichrist".

You're forgetting that I already apologized for my emotional reaction and forgoing the larger context to nitpick this issue, as I believe it directly shows your flawed thinking but you just heap it back into your massive circular BS definitions and claim yourself justified. Maybe I should play the same game with you?

Shall I write a book, claim it the word of god, claim my god is purple, horny and has five tits. Then you can feel how retarded it is to claim stupid books as assumptions of existence.

Sorry MW. I'll stop polluting your thread with my garbage.
 
<i><b>Gibberish crap. You present this as reasonable? Horrifically muddled. You just went in a circle. Read it close. You define existence circularly and inclusive of a whole shitload of bogus crap and you can spew interally validated gibberish all day long. Wow, seems that most of the planet is capable of gibberish. Can you provide evidence that you can think more clearly than gibberish?</b></i>
Truth is defined by webster as <i>3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality</i> Therefore, something that exists in the universe, our reality, must also be accord with fact, namely that it exists. On the otherhand, if something is accord with fact in our universe, then that fact must exist. Thus, claiming that existance exists in the universe is equivalent to claiming that truth exists.
 
Hey Wes, I have just been reading your diatribe on the art of verbal self defense and offense.

You truelly have a gift in that your reactions to arguement border of being truelly poetic.

You have taken the art to the highest form enjoying with relish the way insult and self esteem destruction roll out of your head and through your keyboard.

If this wasn't the internet and face to face I think you would quickly create a fan club of similar minded persons.

Definition and semantics are really what it's about, verbal bun fighting and oportunism. Find a weakness a go in for the kill sort of thing....

It makes for interesting reading I must admit but in the end it is just a way of having fun in an otherwise boring existance ( life)

None of any of this stuff means much to the real world, the internet being an imaginary construct with it's own self justification and self perpetuating industries.

Keeping it all in perspective is not easy as we all tend to get carried away with our ability to strike with anonimity.

But I ask what is the value in what we do here, are we here to learn or here to fight or just play games?
 
Originally posted by okinrus
Infalliable is used by the Church in a theological sense. We accept that what is taught in the bible under the proper guidance of the Church is infalliable.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, under the proper guidance of the Church, of course. We can't have people running around thinking for themselves, can we? It would be utter pandemonium! Unthinkable!


We believe that the faith and doctrin contained in our faith are infalliable with respect to faith and morals. If Luke copied a record of Mary that was partially wrong then it's no concern to us. Similarly, when Peter first heard the news of Judah's death, it was different than the one taken down by Mathew. The key thing here is that how Judah's died has no bearing on the teachings of faith and morals.
Click to expand...

I don't recall having said anything about the death of Judah - or Judas either, for that matter. We were discussing the genealogy of Jesus, which you refuse to accept as valid because it doesn't fit in with your preconceived notions about who or what Jesus was. In a way, what you're saying is that it doesn't matter one whit to you or your Church if, according to the scriptures, there's no way that Jesus could be the Jewish Messiah. If that's the case, then what is the foundation for the rest of your beliefs? There are a lot of people who have good ideas about how you should live your life - why not go out and worship one of them as God and go around spreading the "good news" to all your friends, relatives, neighbors and Internet acquaintances?
 
Wes accuses me of pride and then goes on a "intellectual" tirade of snobbery and pomp. :confused: In the same articles he accuses me of circular reasoning, he defines abstract existance circular.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
Wes accuses me of pride and then goes on a "intellectual" tirade of snobbery and pomp. :confused: In the same articles he accuses me of circular reasoning, he defines abstract existance circular.
Click to expand...

YOU are the jerky who prescribes to a stupid book that tells you pride is bad. I don't live to your ridiculous fucking standard. I can forgive myself, I don't need an imaginary skyward sadist and his hypothetical dead son to do it for me.

You see IMO, you have the ethical responsibilty in an argument to minimize or clearly dilineate your assumptions. Technically I'd say you really should minimize it, such that the game of semantics involved is somewhat on the same playign field for all the parties involved. I suppose that "fair" isn't really a christian value though. "obediance" seems to be the name of the game eh? *hurl*
 
Wes, I'm not trying to argue to win any contests with you. Before I said God allows evil, people were assuming the Christian God and then deriving from this that God was evil. Naturally, I made the same assumption that I accept by faith.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
Wes, I'm not trying to argue to win any contests with you. Before I said God allows evil, people were assuming the Christian God and then deriving from this that God was evil. Naturally, I made the same assumption that I accept by faith.
Click to expand...

Well, I SWEAR dude, it's only your words that bother me. You seem like a geniunely kind young man and I have no animosity toward you. It's the arguments you present that drive me nutz. I generally try to avoid criticism as I see it is pointless. This time I just happened across that phrase that just tripped my trigger.

I'm sure jesus will forgive me. :p

Hehe. Okay sorry cheap shot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top