A version of theodicy disproves the existence of the Christian God
Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8
Wortfish wrote:Hermit wrote:Wortfish wrote:Moreover, the Christian religion is based on the idea that God sent his Son to suffer and be crucified so that he could show his love for humanity through redemption. That is entirely consistent with a loving God.
Have you never been struck by the absurdity of the omnipotent Christian god's incapability to redeem humanity unless humans kill his son? Ignoring the utter absurdity of this scenario I can only marvel at how much that god must have hated his son.
I see no inconsistency. Someone had to pay the debt for the forgiveness of sins. That meant someone had to suffer.
aban57 wrote:Wortfish wrote:Hermit wrote:Wortfish wrote:Moreover, the Christian religion is based on the idea that God sent his Son to suffer and be crucified so that he could show his love for humanity through redemption. That is entirely consistent with a loving God.
Have you never been struck by the absurdity of the omnipotent Christian god's incapability to redeem humanity unless humans kill his son? Ignoring the utter absurdity of this scenario I can only marvel at how much that god must have hated his son.
I see no inconsistency. Someone had to pay the debt for the forgiveness of sins. That meant someone had to suffer.
So you never forgive anyone, for anything, unless they suffer ? What a despicable mentality.
felltoearth wrote:Why can’t god just suck it up? I mean, omnipotent and all. No skin off his ethereal back.
Wortfish wrote:You can forgive a debt, but someone still has to bear the burden of it. It won't just go away.
Again, you are just expressing your own incredulity. You don't know God or how he thinks.
Wortfish wrote:Hermit wrote:Wortfish wrote:Moreover, the Christian religion is based on the idea that God sent his Son to suffer and be crucified so that he could show his love for humanity through redemption. That is entirely consistent with a loving God.
Have you never been struck by the absurdity of the omnipotent Christian god's incapability to redeem humanity unless humans kill his son? Ignoring the utter absurdity of this scenario I can only marvel at how much that god must have hated his son.
I see no inconsistency. Someone had to pay the debt for the forgiveness of sins. That meant someone had to suffer.
Wortfish wrote:Hermit wrote:Wortfish wrote:Moreover, the Christian religion is based on the idea that God sent his Son to suffer and be crucified so that he could show his love for humanity through redemption. That is entirely consistent with a loving God.
Have you never been struck by the absurdity of the omnipotent Christian god's incapability to redeem humanity unless humans kill his son? Ignoring the utter absurdity of this scenario I can only marvel at how much that god must have hated his son.
I see no inconsistency. Someone had to pay the debt for the forgiveness of sins. That meant someone had to suffer.
Spearthrower wrote:
When someone does you harm, getting someone else to pay for that sin is completely illogical.
Hermit wrote:Wortfish wrote:Moreover, the Christian religion is based on the idea that God sent his Son to suffer and be crucified so that he could show his love for humanity through redemption. That is entirely consistent with a loving God.
Have you never been struck by the absurdity of the omnipotent Christian god's incapability to redeem humanity unless humans kill his son? Ignoring the utter absurdity of this scenario I can only marvel at how much that god must have hated his son.
Wortfish wrote:Hermit wrote:Wortfish wrote:Moreover, the Christian religion is based on the idea that God sent his Son to suffer and be crucified so that he could show his love for humanity through redemption. That is entirely consistent with a loving God.
Have you never been struck by the absurdity of the omnipotent Christian god's incapability to redeem humanity unless humans kill his son? Ignoring the utter absurdity of this scenario I can only marvel at how much that god must have hated his son.
I see no inconsistency. Someone had to pay the debt for the forgiveness of sins. That meant someone had to suffer.
AlanF wrote:Another thought: Suppose a man commits murder and is convicted in court. The judge passes sentence: the murderer must spend the rest of his days in prison. The man's son pipes up and says, "No! Let me do the time in place of my dad!" Does anyone in his right mind think that justice would be served by that? Of course not.
Wortfish wrote:Hermit wrote:Wortfish wrote:Moreover, the Christian religion is based on the idea that God sent his Son to suffer and be crucified so that he could show his love for humanity through redemption. That is entirely consistent with a loving God.
Have you never been struck by the absurdity of the omnipotent Christian god's incapability to redeem humanity unless humans kill his son? Ignoring the utter absurdity of this scenario I can only marvel at how much that god must have hated his son.
I see no inconsistency. Someone had to pay the debt for the forgiveness of sins. That meant someone had to suffer.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest