Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Where's your head at?

Marcus has felt it necessary to get some help from his buddies here. His gem of a reply:

"Well, I can pretend I didn't see them, or waste precious time telling them why they are retarded. None of them actually addressed my points without going on rabbit trails. This is annoying."

Rimshot! To be fair, the replies he has garnerned are hardly better. Example:

"So there goes any notion of God being "good"."

Here again we see a plain attempt to smuggle in non-Christian assumptions into a Christian context. If the Christian God does not harmonize with the atheist's arbitrary and subjective moral perception, why is that supposed to be a problem? Also, has this atheist ever read the dialouge between Euphythro and Socrates? His response would indicate he has not. He continues:

"Who cares if he has a purpose known only to himself?"

No one said God's purpose for ordaining evil is known only to Himself. Obviously, this atheist did not read Romans 9:22-23. Finally, in response to my query as to whom God is responsible, he replied:

"To himself. To keep his word and his promises, which he does not."

Of course, no substantiation is offered, and as the rest of the response was so poor, I'm not inclined to give any credence to it.

More of the same is found in the rest of the replies: one cites Job (yes, Job) as an example of unfair suffering... perhaps he would care to read chapters 38-42 in the same book. Another assumes moral responsibility is grounded in free will, which is nonsense - moral responsibility presupposes divine sovereignty (cf. Vincent Cheung's answer to the Problem of Evil). Still another wonders why God still allows evil to occur even after Christ died, an argument from silence (also, see 2 Peter 3:9). Another denies original sin as a Christian concept. And one final hero asks why an omnipotent God cannot perform the logically impossible... yeah, I don't know how that's relevant to the subject at hand either, but a simple reference to virtually any definition of omnipotence will leave one confused as to the point of the question.

FYI, Marcus: when you can't reply with anything more than ad hominem - behind the backs of those replying to you, no less - you haven't "hit the big time," you're "getting hit big time."

No comments: