close

Discovered in

Jinx313

Jinx313
1,114 Favs

Find other sites about

Related Sites

  • http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm

    Interesting and entertaining, though not very deep in the philisophical sense. Surely Jesus would have more depth to his argument, thus the bias comes through. But, bias is inevitable, so still a fun read. LOVE to read one written by a believer to see the contrast (snippet to follow on a good... more

    Reviewed by tmh711 Jun 23 2007, 03:21pm ( 328 reviews ) • unm.edu

    136K views
  • Showing 276 of 328
  • Reviews of the site
  • Join StumbleUpon or login to add a review! default avatar

  • Rated by tonnet on Oct 06 2007, 12:10pm

    I don't think this conversation it's only for the atheists.

  • Reviewed by mysticalspork on Sep 29 2007, 2:57pm

    Is this trying to be funny? Is it some liberal freak's idea of propaganda? I wish that people who were trying to make a point would have the confidence to just come out and say it, instead of twisting both their own words and the images of dead people in an effort to get people to listen. In all fairness, though, that wouldn't really work with this article, as there are no original ideas to be confident in.

  • Reviewed by patchshorts on Sep 29 2007, 1:08pm

    From the page: "o. These things and all other evils and tragedies come from the Devil, the prince of darkness; or from man's weakness and evil nature. God is all goodness and free of evil; only good can come from God" This is bullshit, Isaiah 45:7 says that god created Calamity. Atheists argue that the passage dictates that god created evil. Christians argue that god created the potential for evil. Why, because god would need to know that humans stood up in the face of it. That's crap because the bible says god knows all things. So if you invest in it, you believe god creates calamity for other purposes.

  • Rated by spacehap on Sep 29 2007, 11:50am

    Very nicly writen and I love the conflicting personalities of both.

  • Rated by FrankNittyThe2nd on Sep 27 2007, 4:45pm

    From the page: "Socrates: If God is just or merciful, how can he do this to an enemy who fought him in battle. Why did God not simply pardon Satan after defeat as men often do to a captured nation after they defeat it? Mankind would seem in victory to be more merciful than God; for they do not treat the vanquished to such terrible torments for even a lifetime, let alone for all eternity. Why did God not show the qualities that you described as his justice, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness to Satan? Certainly God's warlike nature is in marked contrast with your definition of the term God as being peaceful, merciful and all forgiving."

  • Rated by fronteer on Sep 27 2007, 4:11am

    You're better off believing in yourself than in a god.

  • Rated by imythyou on Sep 21 2007, 3:52am

    Basically what it all boils down to for me is that if god is omniscient, then he knows all that has or will occur. Therefore he's responsible for it.

  • Rated by tree-lights on Sep 20 2007, 7:44pm

    I've had this argument before, with the majority of it centering around two things: 1.) The multitudes of religions around the world. Will people who have knowledge of only one religion, and it not being Christianity, go to hell? It is not their fault that they live in ignorance of it. and... 2.) I never understood why G-d would create the Tree of Knowledge, and then place it in the garden. If you don't want people to consume something, don't place it there for them to consume. Also, I have always had a problem with the idea of "original" sin. If it is such a sin, why do we continue to repeat it over and over again for the sake of children, why do all animals do so? Don't you think G-d would have just allowed Adam and Eve to die than to continue their vile behaviors toward G-d?