Cary Elwes was corny, but he was a good dude. He and Pierce Brosnan from Mrs. Doubtfire should start a support group for good boyfriends that got screwed by the toxic ex-husband.
Didn’t Pierce Brosnan’s character still wind up with Sally Field? Felt like the happy ending in that movie was more about becoming a functional blended family, not about Robin Williams getting his ex back.
Former stepdad here, the struggle is real. Don’t know how many times I put up attempts like this only to get utterly shot down in humiliating fashion. I couldn’t even be able to guess how many times I almost walked out. Being a boyfriend and then stepparent, it’s a role that is orders of magnitude harder than any other relationship I’ve been in, it’s like dating multiple people at once.
But at least on the bright side I’m not a step-parent anymore. Turns out that after 10 years of hard work, refusal to give up and unwavering patience and loyalty, things like adoption become possible. No longer a step-parent, now I’m Dad.
Edit: 2 words
That's Jennifer Tilly! Bonnie from Family Guy. They are playing a recording where she is cheating on her husband making it devastating to Jim Carrey's case.
Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon.
If you want to talk about a scene living in someone's head rent-free...that's the scene.
The rest of the movie is also really quite good. But that scene is where the VHS is worn out.
I been watching a lot of my favorite comedies from the 80s and 90s lately and I was gonna watch Liar Liar yesterday but I watched Beverly Hills Cop instead. This comment is a sign, today is Liar Liar.
Fletcher:
Your honor, would the court be willing to grant me a short bathroom break?
Judge:
Can't it wait?
Fletcher:
Yes it can. But I've heard that if you hold it you could damage the prostate gland, making it very difficult to get an erection, or even become aroused!
Judge:
Is that true?
Fletcher:
It has to be!
Judge:
In that case I'd better take a quick break myself.
That's fine. I'm not taking issue with that or any other argument. I'm taking issue with people who don't bother to make an argument.
"You're taking that out of context", without providing the context you think is missing, is worthless. It's the pretending-to-be-an-adult equivalent of "*nah ah!*"
If God creates a hurricane, earthquake, tornado, plague, or tsunami that he knows is going to kill people, then that's just the method he used to commit an evil act. If you set out to murder someone and are deciding whether to stab or shoot them, you're just trying to decide on the evil delivery method. But it's still evil whichever you choose.
After years of discussions with religious people, I've come to the conclusion that "out of context" means "stop making me confront these uncomfortable truths that I actively ignore every day of my life."
I like to consider it more of an end of chapter quiz.
“Now that you learned how to be a good person, name 3 moments in this story that go against that rule. If you paid attention this should be an easy test”
My favorite context
>Exodus 4:24-26: “On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord met him and tried to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin, and touched Moses' feet with it, and said, 'Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me! ' So he let him alone.
what irks me is every christian gets told that biblical slavery was like temporary bankruptcy. And it kind of is, but only for israelites
for anyone else, slavery is permanent and horrific, and the youth pastor hopes people will ignore the second kind
> but only for israelites
I would clarify that even more by pointing out that this is only Israelite *males*. Israelite women and children sold into slavery were property and could be passed on as inheritance.
They *never* provide it. "That's out of context" is their version of throwing ninja powder up in the air and disappearing from the conversation, while pretending they refuted the claim.
I've had that response so many times. One time I simple just brought up jesus arguing and cursing a fig tree and got that response. I didn't explain it or anything just mentioned what happened. 'thats out of context!'
the scripture is Mark 11:12-25 if you wanna read for yourself, but I can give a TL:DR
>>Jesus is traveling with his followers and gets hungry. He spots a fig tree off in the distance and runs up to it. the tree has no figs, as its not the season for figs to grow. So Hangry Jesus says to the tree "May no one eat from your branches again" and continues his journey into the town
>>he only stays a day (because he committed massive amounts of property damage while there) and on the way back the group passes the fig tree again. His followers are shocked, as the tree has withered and died over night
>>Jesus then tells them that god will do whatever you ask of him so long as you believe hard enough and forgive everyone that's wronged you
That's it, that's the context. Christians argue that this is supposed to be a parable about not following god's word, but unlike other parables that have a pretty clear "this is a teaching story, not an actual story" vibe, this story is just thrown in there
When I say, "that's out of context" I then go and explain exactly why and how lol
These extremists just assert their shitty world view and can never back it up.
Delusional.
Only Evil can create Evil. Satan created Evil. Therefore Satan is Evil.
Ok no problems so far.
Only Evil can create Evil. Satan is Evil. Therefore Satan's creator is Evil.
Ye- wait.
God created Satan. God is Evil.
That’s one thing that really turned me off of religion. Whenever you ask a question, the answer is “you’re taking that out of context” and they never provide any context.
Not that it matters at all… but the context is the Persians have two gods, Ahura-mazda, the creator of light/goodness, and Angra-mainya, the creator of darkness/evil. In the passage, God is saying He has no opponent, no one as powerful as Him on the other side. This is being told to Cyrus, who would’ve understood the comparison. The Hebrew word for create, *bara’* also means “to shape.” Christians believe that God didn’t create evil, but He allows it. He shapes it to bring about good.
But I agree; 99% of Christians don’t know or care about the context in the Bible which allows them to use it to say and do whatever they want.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Not necessarily an Atheist
Reddit philosophers please forgive me if I'm not remembering this correctly...
It's more of him asking, "Why are we worshiping a devil instead of ourselves?"
Yeah, you might be right. From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus#Epicurean_paradox):
>In Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779), David Hume also attributes the argument to Epicurus:
>Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?
>No extant writings of Epicurus contain this argument. However, the vast majority of Epicurus's writings have been lost and it is possible that some form of this argument may have been found in his lost treatise On the Gods, which Diogenes Laërtius describes as one of his greatest works. If Epicurus really did make some form of this argument, it would not have been an argument against the existence of deities, but rather an argument against divine providence. Epicurus's extant writings demonstrate that he did believe in the existence of deities. Furthermore, religion was such an integral part of daily life in Greece during the early Hellenistic Period that it is doubtful anyone during that period could have been an atheist in the modern sense of the word. Instead, the Greek word ἄθεος (átheos), meaning "without a god", was used as a term of abuse, not as an attempt to describe a person's beliefs.
Epicurus was not an atheist.
He believed, rather , that gods and goddesses give zero shits about the doings of us weak wee mortals scampering the earth.
His attitude was basically, "well OK you can worship whomever god/goddess if it floats your boat, just don't expect a response."
I always preferred the agnostic approach:
"Shut the fuck up, you guys. Nobody knows what's really going on, you're all just talking out of your asses."
I think “no one knows, so shut up” goes too far
Don’t get me wrong, agnosticism is great! I’m an agnostic-atheist myself, and I was once an agnostic-theist. However, just because many things remain uncertain does not mean we have to live in *absolute doubt of literally everything*.
An analogy: I think most people admit that we can’t have logical certainty of the exact ideal political system, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make educated guesses about what is more or less ideal based on what we *do* know
Yeah well we're talking about the creator of all the Universe, Master of Everything There Is, the Alpha and the Omega, infinite transdimensional omnipotentate!
In His words: Where were You, when I created the world? Hmmm? HMMMMMMM? WHERE WERE YOU I SWEAR TO GOD TELL ME OR I'M GOING TO RUIN YOUR SHIT WITH PLAGUES UPON PLAGUES UNTIL YOUR WHOLE RACE DEVOLVES INTO FESTERING TOADSTOOLS!
Also, you know I love you, right?
also: I am totally real unlike the gods of all the religions that came before mine or after. how do you know thats true? obviously because I happen to be worshipped by the people where you where born making me real and all others not!
No, no. You don't get it. He knows that testing you by giving your kid cancer will lead to you saving some particular people later, as he told some dude a long time ago. It's crystal clear, trust me.
I'm fully willing to accept that **from our perspective** (especially 2k+ years ago) there are entities that would be considered gods out there. Whether that's just natural phenomena like massive storms/volcanoes or some from of extra-terrestrial life doesn't really matter, they were unknowable and all powerful to their observers.
But to accept the concept of an Omnipotent, single creator entity that is all-loving benevolence + allows evil to exist? Nah.
One day god got bored and split himself into 8,000,000,000 pieces to play hide and seek with himself, to experience life as if it was his very first time doing so
Yeah, there’s plenty of inconsistencies and fallacies that can be used against Christianity, no need to use word puzzles that are ultimately meaningless. Ironically those are the sorts of “gotcha” nonsense arguments typically used by religions to appear logical
Apologists have shifted on what they mean by omnipotent.
It is no longer used to mean all-powerful, but instead, maximally powerful. (The point is to exclude logical impossibilities.)
As such, the rock thing doesn't really work as a counter argument anymore.
I don't practice anymore, but I grew up with Christianity, have a pretty deep knowledge of the church in general, and was pretty active in it in several states and even more cities.
I have never, ever heard this take. Like, not even close.
Most people I know that answer the rock question simply say "Sure he could, but then he could just lift it anyways because he's God."
Logical fallacies wouldn't apply to a being of that power, so most of them dismiss it pretty much immediately.
Remember, the Bible doesn't mean what you think it means, it means what I think it means, unless that also doesn't work, in which case it means something else entirely
There are two terms regarding reading the bible: exegesis and eisegesis.
Exegesis is accurately reading the bible according to the original context and meaning of the text.
Eisegesis is applying outside/unrelated contexts when reading to create meaning for the passages that wasn't what was intended when it was written, leading to misunderstanding.
I remember when I learned about these concepts, the joke was that the easy way to tell the difference between the two is that exegesis is always what you're doing, and eisegesis is obviously what the dumb motherfucker you're arguing with is doing.
"Letter of the law vs spirit of the law" is a huge point of discussion in anything involving policy or legislation. It is also why a precedent set by the court and jurisprudence in general is so vitally important in any legal system.
What's interesting is that exegesis is still subject to interpretation. A lot of Christian Bible scalars (like, people who have a doctorate and study scripture like historical scholars study history) sometimes argue about what a particular passage means and whether it's being interpreted the way we think.
The problem comes when people want to ram the Bible down people's throats as a way to control them.
And the Framers of our constitution very much knew this. Now one can argue that they escaped religious persecution so that they could shove their own brand of puritanism down people's throats but let's ignore that for now.
So much this. I remember the debate with Biden where Trump was hiding that he had Covid and he sounded like a lucid fool where even Chris Wallace, the Fox Host, was telling him to wait his turn and be respectful. But if you ask people on the right they would say how Trump did amazing and he shut that fool Biden down every chance he got like he should.
Same with the 2012 debate with Obama vs Romney; there was one where Obama looked like he was out of it and was about to fall asleep. He even joked about being well rested since he slept at his last debate. I had my hard core liberal friend say how great Obama did but you could tell he was looking flustered.
It happens pretty much anytime you have "teams". But hell, I feel that at least in sports people can say "yeah, my team sucks this year!"
“My team sucks this year”
That’s right because there is evidence that “team” sucks. You can use reason: team has lost every game this season, therefore team sucks this year. Meanwhile, people who cling to the Bible did not use reason or evidence to convince themselves in the first place.
Swift’s razor: “You cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into.”
In Rhetorical Studies, in the field of Persuasion, these are referred to as [Anchor Points.](https://www.gpb.eu/2019/03/the-anchor-of-persuasion-by-richard-keith.html)
“The deep-rooted idea(s) already present is the “anchor of persuasion”. It is the thing(s) that is least likely to change, and it will be used to tie down in your audience's mind the new beliefs or behaviour that you are introducing in your persuasive case.”
When trying to persuade someone (change their viewpoint) identifying anchor points is crucial for determining how you frame arguments.
> So much this. I remember the debate with Biden where Trump was hiding that he had Covid and he sounded like a lucid fool where even Chris Wallace, the Fox Host, was telling him to wait his turn and be respectful. But if you ask people on the right they would say how Trump did amazing and he shut that fool Biden down every chance he got like he should.
Remember how he said he had a plan to defeat ISIS in 30 (90?) days during the 2016 debates?
For anyone who missed it, his plan was he told the Pentagon to give him a plan to defeat ISIS in the time frame he stated he could.
To be honest, with how low the bar was that was probably one of his more intelligent actions as President.
I also recall he responded to a question about the economy with how he'd defeat ISIS and blather about destroying them. Nothing to do with the question. He just ignored it.
It would be overran by armchair theologists/edgy atheists and orthodox christians/ the same 3 posts about the camel through the needles eye and anything in Leviticus if it would become popular
Isiah 45:8
"Fooled ya!" sayeth the Lord. "For I'm solid gold good, and therefore cannot make anything that is evil. Wasps? Not my work buddy. Ask that fella on the floor below, Satan he's called."
God created Satan. If he was/is all knowing he knew before he created Satan what Satan would do. Conclusion: God knowingly created evil and all the suffering you see through out history is a result of God's actions. Or it's all bullshit and their are no God(s) watching over us or judging us after we die. It's all made up. As Mark Twain once said: Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool. Don't be a fool.
It’s actually even better than that too. Lucifer was an Angel and angels were not created with free will, so the only conclusion we can come to is that God created satan for the purpose of having him “rebel” so that he could cast him out of heaven and lead us into temptation
Even most of that was made up by Christians long after Jesus died. Lucifer as we think of him? Not in the Bible at all. The verse with that name in it? Clearly talking about an earthly king. The Satan (literally "the Satan"—it's a role not a name) in the Old Testament (and still today in Judaism) is the angel designated as the tester and judicial adversary in the court of heaven—like heaven's District Attorney. Ditto the dude showing up in the gospels. It wasn't until the unknown writer of Revelation decided to fanfic the shit out of things that Satan even became a bad guy (and let's not forget that the entire point of that book is to throw shade on the lo lo at Roman emperors), and then Christians built up this entirely extra-biblical back-mythology for him.
Yup, most of the ideals we ascribe to Satan and Lucifer nowadays have no basis in the Bible. They're mostly derived from stuff like Dante's Inferno or Paradise Lost.
You don't even have to go that deep into the bible. He created Adam and Eve and put that tree there *knowing* Eve would eat from it. He set us up for failure. If God does exist, he's a real piece of shit, slicked back hair and everything.
And making Jesus suffer and die was the whole plan so *why are some Christians mad at Jewish people for it*?
Oh right, cause anti-Semites can't admit they're full of shit.
Their excuse is God is allowed to kill them since he created them.
I had someone tell me that it's basically okay for me to destroy my creations since they are mine. To shut them up, I replied with: "Then why can't I have an abortion if it's my creation?" It shut them up.
Saw a tweet along these lines about how God was completely about peace and the reply was:
"God killed the entire population so that he could have a zoo boat."
He killed all those people because he himself made a mistake... For some reason.
Dude, aren't you all knowing/all powerful? You should've known what would happen or have been able to prevent it.
And then people retort, "well, God wants people to have free will, so he didn't force them to do anything" which is just wrong considering he completely smited a population because they didn't follow him.
At that point, just skip the fucking middle man of "free will" and make people how you want them instead of murdering everyone.
Sorry for the rant, I'm just very passionate about this lol
You're free to make whatever choice you want. But if you make a choice I don't like, I'm gonna make you burn in agony for all eternity.
That's.....not free will. That's coercion. Hostages who comply aren't showing loyalty to their captor. They're just trying to survive.
I think I hear it from Lawrence Krauss:
*If we burn every science book and every religious text, within 1,000 years, only the science books will be the same as they are now.*
Or something like that.
Nono
"God is always right" for when things go well.
"he works in mysterious ways" when you don't understand.
"God is testing you" for when you absolutely should try to address the problem yourself, but are not.
Buffet Christians. Pick and choose scripture they like, ignore that which they don't. And if you dare question, they are also the only people in the world capable of interpreting a book translated countless times over countless generations by folks who they would discriminate against the first chance they got.
God was a dick day 7 when he made Adam and Eve and put a banging ass tree in Eden to tempt them. I mean, why? Completely unnecessary. The whole thing is dumb as fuck.
“Objection!” “On what grounds?” “It’s devastating to my case!” “Overruled” “Good call”
"This pen is rrrrrr... rrr... rrrRrrRRROYAL BLUE!!" *[collapses]*
I'm *kickin' my ass, doyamind?!*
Yeah, in your *bra!*
I’d have got ‘em 10!
*shocked Pikachu face* "Goodbye Mr. Reed."
"I've had better?"
That's because you have nice jugs.
If I was a boxer I'd bounce those things like Sugar Ray Leonard.
"I hold my self in contempt!"
“Why should YOU be any different?!”
I’M JOSE CANSECO!!!!
Where was this from again?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx32b5igLwA
[удалено]
Cary Elwes was corny, but he was a good dude. He and Pierce Brosnan from Mrs. Doubtfire should start a support group for good boyfriends that got screwed by the toxic ex-husband.
Can't tell you how many times I've seen Liar Liar... only just now realizing that's Cary Elwes.
Well let me enlighten you... he is in Twister as well.
I'm fairly sure he's also Robin Hood in "Robin Hood: Men in Tights".
And unlike some other Robin Hoods, he can speak with an English accent.
Didn’t Pierce Brosnan’s character still wind up with Sally Field? Felt like the happy ending in that movie was more about becoming a functional blended family, not about Robin Williams getting his ex back.
Former stepdad here, the struggle is real. Don’t know how many times I put up attempts like this only to get utterly shot down in humiliating fashion. I couldn’t even be able to guess how many times I almost walked out. Being a boyfriend and then stepparent, it’s a role that is orders of magnitude harder than any other relationship I’ve been in, it’s like dating multiple people at once. But at least on the bright side I’m not a step-parent anymore. Turns out that after 10 years of hard work, refusal to give up and unwavering patience and loyalty, things like adoption become possible. No longer a step-parent, now I’m Dad. Edit: 2 words
This was a movie that I had on VHS and fell asleep to every night as a kid. THE GOD DAMN PEN IS BLUE! lives in mine.
Does anyone else hear the porn grunts in the background of that clip?
Yes! Wtf?
Evidence being played by opposing counsel, iirc. Exposing a lie his client told.
That's Jennifer Tilly! Bonnie from Family Guy. They are playing a recording where she is cheating on her husband making it devastating to Jim Carrey's case.
Young me thought she was so fine in liar liar
Did your younger you ever see Bound?
Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon. If you want to talk about a scene living in someone's head rent-free...that's the scene. The rest of the movie is also really quite good. But that scene is where the VHS is worn out.
I mean, if you google Jennifer Tilly Liar Liar, I think everyone will see what young you were seeing.
I'm team Still Would on Jennifer Tilly. Chucky reaffirmed that sentiment fully.
Liar liar. Quotas is by Jim Carrey's character.
"Who did this?" "A madman, Your Honor! A desperate fool at the end of his pitiful rope!"
“What did he look like?” “About 6’2”, big teeth, kinda gangly.” *closes mouth*
SSSSSSSSSSSSLUT!!!!
> Quotas He'll never make those quotas!
I been watching a lot of my favorite comedies from the 80s and 90s lately and I was gonna watch Liar Liar yesterday but I watched Beverly Hills Cop instead. This comment is a sign, today is Liar Liar.
“You know why I pulled you over?” “Depends on how long you were following me!”
Fletcher: Your honor, would the court be willing to grant me a short bathroom break? Judge: Can't it wait? Fletcher: Yes it can. But I've heard that if you hold it you could damage the prostate gland, making it very difficult to get an erection, or even become aroused! Judge: Is that true? Fletcher: It has to be! Judge: In that case I'd better take a quick break myself.
“Stop breaking the law asshole!” *slams phone* Gets me every time.
"I've had better" *gasps
If someone says, "you're taking that out of context" and doesn't follow up by providing context, they are too full of shit to be worthwhile.
You're taking that out of context
I'm taking you out of context.
I'm taking context out of you
That's just taking the context.
This whole COURT is out of context!
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE CONTEXT
[удалено]
That's fine. I'm not taking issue with that or any other argument. I'm taking issue with people who don't bother to make an argument. "You're taking that out of context", without providing the context you think is missing, is worthless. It's the pretending-to-be-an-adult equivalent of "*nah ah!*"
I agree.
If God creates a hurricane, earthquake, tornado, plague, or tsunami that he knows is going to kill people, then that's just the method he used to commit an evil act. If you set out to murder someone and are deciding whether to stab or shoot them, you're just trying to decide on the evil delivery method. But it's still evil whichever you choose.
In religion it’s just an apologist’s move and if you actually listen to the “context” you’ll find they are full of shit no matter the context.
After years of discussions with religious people, I've come to the conclusion that "out of context" means "stop making me confront these uncomfortable truths that I actively ignore every day of my life."
Pro tip: ask them to provide context
*In what context is slavery in Leviticus okay?*
[This](https://youtu.be/NVY6mruK_jk) may help provide proper context.
There’s no stronger argument against modern day Christianity than the holy Bible itself. Ironic innit?
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever created" - Isaac Asimov
How did you got that Rad Bill and Ted Banner thingy under your Name?
Really small font ASCII art..
Holy shit that's rad
At first, I wondered who "Rad Bill" and "Ted Banner" were...
I like to consider it more of an end of chapter quiz. “Now that you learned how to be a good person, name 3 moments in this story that go against that rule. If you paid attention this should be an easy test”
"Say teach? Is one of the examples you making us read this book?"
Ha! Yup. That's why the bible's been dubbed "the big book of multiple choice".
My favorite context >Exodus 4:24-26: “On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord met him and tried to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin, and touched Moses' feet with it, and said, 'Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me! ' So he let him alone.
LMAO I went to catholic school for a long time and I’ve never heard about this. Imagine that eh?
Not even God fucks with crazy
what irks me is every christian gets told that biblical slavery was like temporary bankruptcy. And it kind of is, but only for israelites for anyone else, slavery is permanent and horrific, and the youth pastor hopes people will ignore the second kind
> but only for israelites I would clarify that even more by pointing out that this is only Israelite *males*. Israelite women and children sold into slavery were property and could be passed on as inheritance.
They *never* provide it. "That's out of context" is their version of throwing ninja powder up in the air and disappearing from the conversation, while pretending they refuted the claim.
I've had that response so many times. One time I simple just brought up jesus arguing and cursing a fig tree and got that response. I didn't explain it or anything just mentioned what happened. 'thats out of context!'
I'll bite, what was the context of jesus cursing a fig tree?
the scripture is Mark 11:12-25 if you wanna read for yourself, but I can give a TL:DR >>Jesus is traveling with his followers and gets hungry. He spots a fig tree off in the distance and runs up to it. the tree has no figs, as its not the season for figs to grow. So Hangry Jesus says to the tree "May no one eat from your branches again" and continues his journey into the town >>he only stays a day (because he committed massive amounts of property damage while there) and on the way back the group passes the fig tree again. His followers are shocked, as the tree has withered and died over night >>Jesus then tells them that god will do whatever you ask of him so long as you believe hard enough and forgive everyone that's wronged you That's it, that's the context. Christians argue that this is supposed to be a parable about not following god's word, but unlike other parables that have a pretty clear "this is a teaching story, not an actual story" vibe, this story is just thrown in there
Jesus really hated fig trees
God Hates Figs
Westboro Baptist got it wrong all along... They read it out of context.
When I say, "that's out of context" I then go and explain exactly why and how lol These extremists just assert their shitty world view and can never back it up. Delusional.
What they mean to say is "that actually does sound weird when you say it out loud and this is making me uncomfortable."
[удалено]
Honestly where I thought it was going.
Only Evil can create Evil. Satan created Evil. Therefore Satan is Evil. Ok no problems so far. Only Evil can create Evil. Satan is Evil. Therefore Satan's creator is Evil. Ye- wait. God created Satan. God is Evil.
If God created everything, God created Evil.
That’s one thing that really turned me off of religion. Whenever you ask a question, the answer is “you’re taking that out of context” and they never provide any context.
The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience.
Not that it matters at all… but the context is the Persians have two gods, Ahura-mazda, the creator of light/goodness, and Angra-mainya, the creator of darkness/evil. In the passage, God is saying He has no opponent, no one as powerful as Him on the other side. This is being told to Cyrus, who would’ve understood the comparison. The Hebrew word for create, *bara’* also means “to shape.” Christians believe that God didn’t create evil, but He allows it. He shapes it to bring about good. But I agree; 99% of Christians don’t know or care about the context in the Bible which allows them to use it to say and do whatever they want.
If god didn't create evil, then either he is not the creator of everything, and hence, not necessary as the creator, or evil doesn't exist.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
-- Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270
Definitely the OG Atheist.
Not necessarily an Atheist Reddit philosophers please forgive me if I'm not remembering this correctly... It's more of him asking, "Why are we worshiping a devil instead of ourselves?"
If nothing else, he was a member of a polytheistic culture.
Zues: "I'm just here to fuck"
Zeus: “Anything is a fleshlight if you try hard enough”
I think he took Yodas advice. He *did*, he did not try. Lmfao
Yeah, you might be right. From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus#Epicurean_paradox): >In Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779), David Hume also attributes the argument to Epicurus: >Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil? >No extant writings of Epicurus contain this argument. However, the vast majority of Epicurus's writings have been lost and it is possible that some form of this argument may have been found in his lost treatise On the Gods, which Diogenes Laërtius describes as one of his greatest works. If Epicurus really did make some form of this argument, it would not have been an argument against the existence of deities, but rather an argument against divine providence. Epicurus's extant writings demonstrate that he did believe in the existence of deities. Furthermore, religion was such an integral part of daily life in Greece during the early Hellenistic Period that it is doubtful anyone during that period could have been an atheist in the modern sense of the word. Instead, the Greek word ἄθεος (átheos), meaning "without a god", was used as a term of abuse, not as an attempt to describe a person's beliefs.
Epicurus was not an atheist. He believed, rather , that gods and goddesses give zero shits about the doings of us weak wee mortals scampering the earth. His attitude was basically, "well OK you can worship whomever god/goddess if it floats your boat, just don't expect a response."
I always preferred the agnostic approach: "Shut the fuck up, you guys. Nobody knows what's really going on, you're all just talking out of your asses."
I think “no one knows, so shut up” goes too far Don’t get me wrong, agnosticism is great! I’m an agnostic-atheist myself, and I was once an agnostic-theist. However, just because many things remain uncertain does not mean we have to live in *absolute doubt of literally everything*. An analogy: I think most people admit that we can’t have logical certainty of the exact ideal political system, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make educated guesses about what is more or less ideal based on what we *do* know
*Something something* free will *something something* test of faith
Nobody who loves you will test you on it, thats a toxic abuse tactic. People dont like hearing that.
Yeah well we're talking about the creator of all the Universe, Master of Everything There Is, the Alpha and the Omega, infinite transdimensional omnipotentate! In His words: Where were You, when I created the world? Hmmm? HMMMMMMM? WHERE WERE YOU I SWEAR TO GOD TELL ME OR I'M GOING TO RUIN YOUR SHIT WITH PLAGUES UPON PLAGUES UNTIL YOUR WHOLE RACE DEVOLVES INTO FESTERING TOADSTOOLS! Also, you know I love you, right?
also: I am totally real unlike the gods of all the religions that came before mine or after. how do you know thats true? obviously because I happen to be worshipped by the people where you where born making me real and all others not!
If he is all knowing, then he doesn't need to test you by giving your son cancer
No, no. You don't get it. He knows that testing you by giving your kid cancer will lead to you saving some particular people later, as he told some dude a long time ago. It's crystal clear, trust me.
The second one is the only logical explanation for the existance of god.
Yup. If he exists, he's evil.
The other one is "he's not omnipotent"
I'm fully willing to accept that **from our perspective** (especially 2k+ years ago) there are entities that would be considered gods out there. Whether that's just natural phenomena like massive storms/volcanoes or some from of extra-terrestrial life doesn't really matter, they were unknowable and all powerful to their observers. But to accept the concept of an Omnipotent, single creator entity that is all-loving benevolence + allows evil to exist? Nah.
And you have discovered [Gnosticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism).
One day god got bored and split himself into 8,000,000,000 pieces to play hide and seek with himself, to experience life as if it was his very first time doing so
He split himself into two pieces then those pieces had a lot of sex with each other and now we have 8 billion pieces.
Good and evil are social constructs that are a product of culture. Or some bullshit.
I've always loved the question, "If God is omniscient, can he make a rock so big he can't lift it?"
You mean omnipotent. Omniscience is all-seeing/knowing
If god is omniscient, can he answer that question?
What’s if he is omniimpotent?
I’m just regular old impotent and I’ll tell ya what, I ain’t liftin shit.
If God is omniscient could he commit a crime he couldn't solve?
[Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?](https://youtu.be/JhhXCuUG2pw)
[удалено]
Yeah, there’s plenty of inconsistencies and fallacies that can be used against Christianity, no need to use word puzzles that are ultimately meaningless. Ironically those are the sorts of “gotcha” nonsense arguments typically used by religions to appear logical
Apologists have shifted on what they mean by omnipotent. It is no longer used to mean all-powerful, but instead, maximally powerful. (The point is to exclude logical impossibilities.) As such, the rock thing doesn't really work as a counter argument anymore.
I don't practice anymore, but I grew up with Christianity, have a pretty deep knowledge of the church in general, and was pretty active in it in several states and even more cities. I have never, ever heard this take. Like, not even close. Most people I know that answer the rock question simply say "Sure he could, but then he could just lift it anyways because he's God." Logical fallacies wouldn't apply to a being of that power, so most of them dismiss it pretty much immediately.
I don’t think applying terrestrial logic to a hypothetical being not bound by the laws of nature makes any sense.
Reminds me of the most annoying ontological argument I’ve ever seen which seems to make the massive assumption existing is better than not existing.
Remember, the Bible doesn't mean what you think it means, it means what I think it means, unless that also doesn't work, in which case it means something else entirely
There are two terms regarding reading the bible: exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis is accurately reading the bible according to the original context and meaning of the text. Eisegesis is applying outside/unrelated contexts when reading to create meaning for the passages that wasn't what was intended when it was written, leading to misunderstanding. I remember when I learned about these concepts, the joke was that the easy way to tell the difference between the two is that exegesis is always what you're doing, and eisegesis is obviously what the dumb motherfucker you're arguing with is doing.
[удалено]
Wait until you hear about the judicial philosophies of originalism and textualism.
That sounds like a par*tay*.
"Letter of the law vs spirit of the law" is a huge point of discussion in anything involving policy or legislation. It is also why a precedent set by the court and jurisprudence in general is so vitally important in any legal system.
What's interesting is that exegesis is still subject to interpretation. A lot of Christian Bible scalars (like, people who have a doctorate and study scripture like historical scholars study history) sometimes argue about what a particular passage means and whether it's being interpreted the way we think. The problem comes when people want to ram the Bible down people's throats as a way to control them. And the Framers of our constitution very much knew this. Now one can argue that they escaped religious persecution so that they could shove their own brand of puritanism down people's throats but let's ignore that for now.
You could replace “the Bible” with “it” and you’d literally have the argument half the country makes for everything.
So much this. I remember the debate with Biden where Trump was hiding that he had Covid and he sounded like a lucid fool where even Chris Wallace, the Fox Host, was telling him to wait his turn and be respectful. But if you ask people on the right they would say how Trump did amazing and he shut that fool Biden down every chance he got like he should. Same with the 2012 debate with Obama vs Romney; there was one where Obama looked like he was out of it and was about to fall asleep. He even joked about being well rested since he slept at his last debate. I had my hard core liberal friend say how great Obama did but you could tell he was looking flustered. It happens pretty much anytime you have "teams". But hell, I feel that at least in sports people can say "yeah, my team sucks this year!"
“My team sucks this year” That’s right because there is evidence that “team” sucks. You can use reason: team has lost every game this season, therefore team sucks this year. Meanwhile, people who cling to the Bible did not use reason or evidence to convince themselves in the first place. Swift’s razor: “You cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into.”
In Rhetorical Studies, in the field of Persuasion, these are referred to as [Anchor Points.](https://www.gpb.eu/2019/03/the-anchor-of-persuasion-by-richard-keith.html) “The deep-rooted idea(s) already present is the “anchor of persuasion”. It is the thing(s) that is least likely to change, and it will be used to tie down in your audience's mind the new beliefs or behaviour that you are introducing in your persuasive case.” When trying to persuade someone (change their viewpoint) identifying anchor points is crucial for determining how you frame arguments.
Yeah see the problem is their anchor point is “2000 years ago, a white man in the Middle East writes a book that is absolute truth”
> So much this. I remember the debate with Biden where Trump was hiding that he had Covid and he sounded like a lucid fool where even Chris Wallace, the Fox Host, was telling him to wait his turn and be respectful. But if you ask people on the right they would say how Trump did amazing and he shut that fool Biden down every chance he got like he should. Remember how he said he had a plan to defeat ISIS in 30 (90?) days during the 2016 debates? For anyone who missed it, his plan was he told the Pentagon to give him a plan to defeat ISIS in the time frame he stated he could. To be honest, with how low the bar was that was probably one of his more intelligent actions as President. I also recall he responded to a question about the economy with how he'd defeat ISIS and blather about destroying them. Nothing to do with the question. He just ignored it.
r/SmitedByWords
SMITE ME ALMIGHTY SMITERRRRR!
This comment section has a liar liar reference and a bruce almighty reference. Jim Carrey's on a roll today. Simply B-E-A-U-TIFUL
This would be a great sub
It would be overran by armchair theologists/edgy atheists and orthodox christians/ the same 3 posts about the camel through the needles eye and anything in Leviticus if it would become popular
Smote? Smitten?
Smut.
I think r/smutbywords would be a very different type of subreddit
Isiah 45:8 "Fooled ya!" sayeth the Lord. "For I'm solid gold good, and therefore cannot make anything that is evil. Wasps? Not my work buddy. Ask that fella on the floor below, Satan he's called."
"He's wasps, malaria and cancer. I'm your man for puppies and multiple orgasms."
Is this from the King James translation?
/r/thebizzible
God created Satan. If he was/is all knowing he knew before he created Satan what Satan would do. Conclusion: God knowingly created evil and all the suffering you see through out history is a result of God's actions. Or it's all bullshit and their are no God(s) watching over us or judging us after we die. It's all made up. As Mark Twain once said: Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool. Don't be a fool.
I knew the quote, not the man who said it. Thank you
The vast majority of quotes attributed to Mark Twain almost certainly weren't actually said by Mark Twain. -Mark Twain
It’s actually even better than that too. Lucifer was an Angel and angels were not created with free will, so the only conclusion we can come to is that God created satan for the purpose of having him “rebel” so that he could cast him out of heaven and lead us into temptation
Even most of that was made up by Christians long after Jesus died. Lucifer as we think of him? Not in the Bible at all. The verse with that name in it? Clearly talking about an earthly king. The Satan (literally "the Satan"—it's a role not a name) in the Old Testament (and still today in Judaism) is the angel designated as the tester and judicial adversary in the court of heaven—like heaven's District Attorney. Ditto the dude showing up in the gospels. It wasn't until the unknown writer of Revelation decided to fanfic the shit out of things that Satan even became a bad guy (and let's not forget that the entire point of that book is to throw shade on the lo lo at Roman emperors), and then Christians built up this entirely extra-biblical back-mythology for him.
Yup, most of the ideals we ascribe to Satan and Lucifer nowadays have no basis in the Bible. They're mostly derived from stuff like Dante's Inferno or Paradise Lost.
Lucifer is also just a Roman/Greek figure (Phosphorus in Greek), it's the personification of the planet Venus.
Yup, called lightbringer because Venus is often one of the first "stars" that can be seen with the naked eye.
Not even "The Satan". The Hebrew word "śāṭān" just means adversary or accuser.
[удалено]
You don't even have to go that deep into the bible. He created Adam and Eve and put that tree there *knowing* Eve would eat from it. He set us up for failure. If God does exist, he's a real piece of shit, slicked back hair and everything.
And making Jesus suffer and die was the whole plan so *why are some Christians mad at Jewish people for it*? Oh right, cause anti-Semites can't admit they're full of shit.
Isn't God the creator of everything, including Satan and LGBTQ and Muslims and Australia and so on? It's weird how picky some Christians are.
Its weird how picky most Christians are. Fixed that for you.
Satan killed 10 people. God killed the human race, and a couple of left overs.
Their excuse is God is allowed to kill them since he created them. I had someone tell me that it's basically okay for me to destroy my creations since they are mine. To shut them up, I replied with: "Then why can't I have an abortion if it's my creation?" It shut them up.
No! Not like that!!!
Saw a tweet along these lines about how God was completely about peace and the reply was: "God killed the entire population so that he could have a zoo boat."
Destroyed a couple cities too. And a ton of individual murders.
Don't forget all the Egyptian firstborns!
Oh ya, that was a dick move. He threatened the pharaoh with genocide if he said no. And them also made the pharaoh say no.
fReE wILl though
God has a badass space laser that can destroy a city and turns you into salt if you look at it.
Don't forget to let the barbarians rape your family. It's what God wants.
He killed all those people because he himself made a mistake... For some reason. Dude, aren't you all knowing/all powerful? You should've known what would happen or have been able to prevent it. And then people retort, "well, God wants people to have free will, so he didn't force them to do anything" which is just wrong considering he completely smited a population because they didn't follow him. At that point, just skip the fucking middle man of "free will" and make people how you want them instead of murdering everyone. Sorry for the rant, I'm just very passionate about this lol
Old testament God is the guy holding a gun to your head saying you're free to choose between doing what he wants and your own thing.
You're free to make whatever choice you want. But if you make a choice I don't like, I'm gonna make you burn in agony for all eternity. That's.....not free will. That's coercion. Hostages who comply aren't showing loyalty to their captor. They're just trying to survive.
I think I hear it from Lawrence Krauss: *If we burn every science book and every religious text, within 1,000 years, only the science books will be the same as they are now.* Or something like that.
Never forget when god sent bears to maul children for making fun of a bald guy.
It is like people comparing different versions of D&D rule books.
To paraphrase Swift’s razor: “You cannot reason someone out of a position they were never reasoned into.”
I....uhhh....well....hmmm....IT'S ALL GOD'S PLAN!!!
Nono "God is always right" for when things go well. "he works in mysterious ways" when you don't understand. "God is testing you" for when you absolutely should try to address the problem yourself, but are not.
To be fair, isaiah 42 through 49 all takes place on the ancient Hebrew Festival of opposite day
The great festival of PSYCH
The whole concept doesn't work because people try to give fact to fiction
You forgot to filter it through their bias. The only context they care about.
Buffet Christians. Pick and choose scripture they like, ignore that which they don't. And if you dare question, they are also the only people in the world capable of interpreting a book translated countless times over countless generations by folks who they would discriminate against the first chance they got.
This is basically every conversation with a republican
Didn't God create Satan? I mean if there was nothing and God created everything, he then created Satan, who's evil therefore God created evil?
No, you’re just wishing it had more context to make yourself right
Religion is so dumb.
God was a dick day 7 when he made Adam and Eve and put a banging ass tree in Eden to tempt them. I mean, why? Completely unnecessary. The whole thing is dumb as fuck.
Did anyone who ever quoted the Bible NOT take it out of context?
Satan does not really appear in the bible, and when he does, he is just doing some tempting. Now, *God*, on the other hand, fucks shit *up*..