Two atheist arguments that cancel each other out

[tonyrey]

What we love and cherish is not ‘‘destroyed’’ by death, when we understand death is part of the natural cycles of life.

My children know I will die one day, so will their father, so will they. We see death as part of the process of life, so nothing is being ‘‘destroyed’’, rather, everything is simply following the wonderful natural order of things. All things must die to allow others the chance at life.

They also know I and their father are not ‘‘destroyed’’ - rather, their very makeup contains us and we live on in them, and through them.

Nothing is ‘‘destroyed’’.

In the materialist’s scheme of things everything is destroyed because nothing remains but the dust under our feet… All is vanity…

 

[atheistgirl]

Rather I should think they love your person and what you mean to them, your unique mind, consciousness, personality, history, etc.

Yes, and they will always remember that.

Outside of mere memory, where is that to be found past death?

In the people we’ve brought into the world, the work we’ve done, in the writings paintings crafts and pictures we’ve left behind, in the businesses we’ve build up, in the things that are in the community now, and will be for years to come, from which people benefit, that wouldn’t be, had we not lived and did what we did.

Life and death to us is a beautiful, natural, cycle.

Believing their Dad might get to heaven, to be with them, assuming they too will, for all eternity, while their mother they strongly suspect is going straight to hell is not something to even contemplate or makes for a decent way of living.

It could be called inflicting some kind of mental torture on the children, and making them sick with worry for the rest of their lives.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

In the materialist’s scheme of things everything is destroyed because nothing remains but the dust under our feet.

Buildings may be destroyed.

But all living things die.

And it’s natural and beautiful in it’s own way.

Sarah x

 

[Gaber]

In the materialist’s scheme of things everything is destroyed because nothing remains but the dust under our feet… All is vanity…

As is materialist adherence to unexamined dogma.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Outside of mere memory, where is that to be found past death?

Look around, we are here because those before us struggled, and fought, and persevered. From “Turkana Boy” to “Tank Man”. There is a nobility and honor in the lives of those who went before us. In the words of Galileo, “If I have seen further, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” Lives, and loves, are all the more precious, because they are fleeting. Our legacy is our last and greatest gift. Death does not diminish it, it sanctifies it

 

[ivebeenshown]

1. It is not an infallible doctrine that ** natural **l death did not occur before the advent of man on this planet.

I’ll hear the Catechism before I hear you, and it says that man would have been immune from bodily death had he not sinned.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Funnily enough, I feel the same way. I am not interested in your logic and reason when they’re trying to justify an injustice. I’m much more interested in fairness and justice.

Fairness and justice are not based on your feelings and emotions, they are based on logic and rationality. If you say that God did an injustice to mankind by punishing Adam and Eve in the way he did, you should be able to support your claim with valid reasoning.

If I fire B for stealing from me, and one of the punishments I impose is he can not enter any of my properties or face being arrested for trespass, but not only that, his wife C can not enter any of my properties because of what B did, and neither can any of his children, or grandchidren, or great grandchildren, or great great grandchildren, ad finitum, then that is unfair, and unjust.

I am imposing the same punishment on totally innocent people who did not steal from me as I am on the person who did steal from me. Because of him, none of them can enter any of my properties, even though they did absolutely nothing wrong.

That is unjust, and unfair, whether it is logical and rational, or not!

In your scenario, authority A directly imposes punishment P onto parties B and C because of what party B did, where A = you, B = employee, C = employee’s family and descendants, and P = banishment from your properties. In your scenario, punishment P explicitly involves parties B and C.

That is different than party C experiencing suffering D as an indirect result of authority A directly imposing punishment P onto party B. In this case, the punishment only explicitly involves party B.

 

[atheistgirl]

Fairness and justice are not based on your feelings and emotions, they are based on logic and rationality.

In what sense then, was it logical and rational, for God to make His Son, Jesus, die for the sins of every man woman and child of the world, past, present and future?

Where is the fairness and justice of making one man die for the crimes/sins of others?

If God is fair and just, there must be a logic and rational behind that, but I can’t see it.

Sarah x

 

[ivebeenshown]

In what sense then, was it logical and rational, for God to make His Son, Jesus, die for the sins of every man woman and child of the world, past, present and future? Where is the fairness and justice of making one man die for the crimes/sins of others?

We do profess that Christ died for our sins, as do virtually all Christians, but the meaning of that phrase must be assessed – does it mean that Christ received punishment for sins he did not commit? Does it mean that Christ died to aid us in our sin? Or something else?

The Catholic Church teaches that “Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned”, contrary to your apparent perception – I have no need to answer your question, seeing that it contains a false premise.

If God is fair and just, there must be a logic and rational behind that, but I can’t see it.

We Catholics profess mysteries kept only by faith, but we also profess that none of the mysteries of our faith are illogical. One could, through honest study and reasoning, understand that the mysteries we profess are not in the least illogical while still not accepting the mysteries (as you have hinted at previously, logical statements are not necessarily true.)

A big part of gaining such an understanding is the willingness to learn what the Church teaches. The Catechism is the best source of that information.

 

[tonyrey]

In what sense then, was it logical and rational, for God to make His Son, Jesus, die for the sins of every man woman and child of the world, past, present and future?

Where is the fairness and justice of making one man die for the crimes/sins of others?

If God is fair and just, there must be a logic and rational behind that, but I can’t see it.

Jesus wasn’t made to die. He chose to die. He and the Father are not at odds with each other like human beings. They happen to love each other and are truly united.

He chose to die for us so that we can understand that love isn’t an illusion but the most powerful force that exists - without which life is valueless, purposeless and meaningless - and follow in His footsteps rather than blunder along in the dark as if we can find our own way all by ourselves…

 

[atheistgirl]

it mean that Christ received punishment for sins he did not commit?

No my understanding is Jesus was sinless and remained sinless.

Does it mean that Christ died to aid us in our sin?

I don’t see how that could be the case.

contrary to your apparent perception –

My apparent perception is in line with what the Catholic Church teaches - that Jesus died for the sins of the world, to give man the opportunity of salvation, and that Jesus was born sinless, pertaining to his human nature, and remained sinless throughout His life, and died, sinless.

I have no need to answer your question, seeing that it contains a false premise.

No problem.

Bye.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Jesus wasn’t made to die. He chose to die. …

Yes I expressed that badly.

I know He voulunteered to die.

But it was what God demanded to make up for the sins of man, no?

Obviously the sacrifice of His son was what God wanted, or Jesus wouldn’t have done it, as He wouldnt do something not acceptable to the Father.

So in a way did Jesus really have a choice?

Sarah x

 

[empther]

Interesting how the A-team bends over backwards to confuse things.

Obviously the sacrifice of His son was what God wanted, or Jesus wouldn’t have done it, as He wouldnt do something not acceptable to the Father.

So in a way did Jesus really have a choice?

It wasn’t about choice. All three persons are in full agreement about everything, being perfectly aware of what is the right thing to do.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes I expressed that badly.

I know He voulunteered to die.

But it was what God demanded to make up for the sins of man, no?

Obviously the sacrifice of His son was what God wanted, or Jesus wouldn’t have done it, as He wouldnt do something not acceptable to the Father.

So in a way did Jesus really have a choice?

Sarah x

I’ve pointed out that Jesus wasn’t made to die. He chose to die. He and the Father are not at odds with each other like human beings. They love each other perfectly and are perfectly united. As He said, “The Father and I are one.” We can see a faint reflection of this in human love…

I know you don’t believe Him but it explains why Jesus wasn’t compelled to die. He wouldn’t have chosen to become incarnate if He thought it was unnecessary. He didn’t have a choice in the sense that He was compelled by His love but that is the highest form of freedom! If we are slaves of love what more can we ask?

The truth makes us free and so does love which takes us to heaven. Freedom from the slavery to ourselves which takes us to hell…

 

[Equites_Christi]

I understand there is more than one train of thought here, but I would really like to continue my dialogue with the atheists which seems to have been lost.

So, would the “A-team” agree that love does not tolerate living beings to experience severe pain and suffering?

 

[ivebeenshown]

No my understanding is Jesus was sinless and remained sinless.

Alright, though I was not discussing whether or not you understood that we believe Jesus to be eternally sinless.

I don’t see how that could be the case.

Of course, though I was demonstrating a possible interpretation of a phrase isolated from context.

My apparent perception is in line with what the Catholic Church teaches - that Jesus died for the sins of the world, to give man the opportunity of salvation, and that Jesus was born sinless, pertaining to his human nature, and remained sinless throughout His life, and died, sinless.

While you still use the simple and easily misinterpreted “died for our sins” phrase, I must put that aside for a moment to say that judging from the discourse in which we were discussing justice and punishment, it was not apparent to me that you understood our belief that Jesus was not punished for the sins mankind has committed.

If that is correct, and you do understand that we believe Jesus was not punished for the sins mankind has committed, might I ask wherein the injustice lies? Jesus chose to die for our sins.

I know He voulunteered to die.

Ah, you know that.

But it was what God demanded to make up for the sins of man, no? Obviously the sacrifice of His son was what God wanted, or Jesus wouldn’t have done it, as He wouldnt do something not acceptable to the Father. So in a way did Jesus really have a choice?

God, by his nature, chooses only good – it is choice nonetheless.

 

[tonyrey]

Interesting how the A-team bends over backwards to confuse things.
It wasn’t about choice. All three persons are in full agreement about everything, being perfectly aware of what is the right thing to do.

A fact they refuse to accept - demonstrating how materialists construe Christianity to suit their own destructive purpose…

 

[tonyrey]

God, by his nature, chooses only good – it is choice nonetheless.

Unless of course freedom of choice and goodness are myths confirmed by materialism!

 

[cc42]

Thinkingsapien:

Through reason we can know that God exists in that there is a transcendent creator of the universe who has the attributes of being all powerful, all knowing, and all loving. We can know that because it is metaphysically proven.

We only know that God is three persons in one being through revelation from God. Reason could not arrive at that conclusion just by observing the universe.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Through reason we can know that God exists in that there is a transcendent creator of the universe who has the attributes of being all powerful, all knowing, and all loving. We can know that because it is metaphysically proven.

I’m inferring from the additional adjectives that have been added to this proposition that you have what is known as the “Transcendent Argument for the Existence of God” in mind. Am I correct? If not then would you mind sharing the metaphysical proof that you do have in mind?

We only know that God is three persons in one being through revelation from God. Reason could not arrive at that conclusion just by observing the universe.

If you don’t mind for now I’d rather not discuss this part unless it is part of the requested metaphysical proof.