Conquer Club

So there's been a lot of gasbaggin' about various godly issues recently, and the debate seems to have somehow become distorted into a God v. Darwin (lol) debate that threatens to engulf everything in its path.

SO...!

Y'all can cast a vote for or against god's existence, and whichever side gathers the most votes wins and we'll call an end to the matter.

Happy democratizing!

I'm not sure how to vote on this one.

I understand enough of what 'real' means, but can someone please define "Christian god" for me?

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not sure how to vote on this one.

I understand enough of what 'real' means, but can someone please define "Christian god" for me?

This guy:


No Protestant fakery allowed. No clean-shaven gods, no female or hermaphroditic gods, no turtles, crocodiles, or elephants. Just the real thing, with a flowing grey beard and a pink bathrobe.

Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent.

Impotent?

Initial results suggest that God exists.

Omnonexistent

mrswdk wrote:Initial results suggest that God exists.

Yes. All universal constants can be proven by polling the opinion of a small group of internet junkies.

Dukasaur wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not sure how to vote on this one.

I understand enough of what 'real' means, but can someone please define "Christian god" for me?

This guy:

Click image to enlarge.

No Protestant fakery allowed. No clean-shaven gods, no female or hermaphroditic gods, no turtles, crocodiles, or elephants. Just the real thing, with a flowing grey beard and a pink bathrobe.

Let's see... if I interpreted this physical description of God, then... he's a pedophile; he enjoys the company of naked men and women; and he enjoys women's clothing. Therefore, "Christian God" = bisexual, cross-dressing pedophile.

Okay, we've got a definition!

Is this bisexual, cross-dressing pedophile real or not? Well, anyone can paint a picture of anything, so I'm leaning toward "not real!" at the moment.

_sabotage_ wrote:Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent.

I'm sorry, sir, but this definition of Christian God has too many problems, so we can't accept it if we abide by logic and what not.

If we don't abide by logic and what not, then we can conclude all sorts of crazy, contradictory things. No thank, you, sir; not for me.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Let's see... if I interpreted this physical description of God, then... he's a pedophile; he enjoys the company of naked men and women; and he enjoys women's clothing. Therefore, "Christian God" = bisexual, cross-dressing pedophile.

Okay, we've got a definition!

Is this bisexual, cross-dressing pedophile real or not? Well, anyone can paint a picture of anything, so I'm leaning toward "not real!" at the moment.

I think you're treading dangerously close to heresy there. Cherubs are timeless; they are neither men nor women nor children, so I don't believe there's any evidence to support a charge of paedophilia.

Dukasaur wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Let's see... if I interpreted this physical description of God, then... he's a pedophile; he enjoys the company of naked men and women; and he enjoys women's clothing. Therefore, "Christian God" = bisexual, cross-dressing pedophile.

Okay, we've got a definition!

Is this bisexual, cross-dressing pedophile real or not? Well, anyone can paint a picture of anything, so I'm leaning toward "not real!" at the moment.

I think you're treading dangerously close to heresy there. Cherubs are timeless; they are neither men nor women nor children, so I don't believe there's any evidence to support a charge of paedophilia.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that child has a penis. Obviously, it's a male.

If we call them 'cherubs', then the christian god still remains a pervert. Surrounding oneself with the small sexual organs of child-like cherubs is borderline pedophilia, correct? Now, I might concede that the Christian God is a bisexual, crossdressing borderline pedophile; however, please consider this thought experiment:

Eventually, we'll possess the technology to maintain eternal youth, so one could immortalize an 8 year old, take off its clothes, and put it next to god. You'd call it a cherub, but I'd still call that pedophilia.

Alas, have we not arrived in full circle to the conclusion that the Christian God is a bisexual, crossdressing pedophile (BCP)?

For those who replied, Yes, I presume you have the correct definition of "Christian God."

For the sake of our souls, can you please tell us what the Christian God really is?

Dukasaur wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not sure how to vote on this one.

I understand enough of what 'real' means, but can someone please define "Christian god" for me?

This guy:

Click image to enlarge.

No Protestant fakery allowed. No clean-shaven gods, no female or hermaphroditic gods, no turtles, crocodiles, or elephants. Just the real thing, with a flowing grey beard and a pink bathrobe.

I Think someone is telling Lies.......That's not god, this is

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not sure how to vote on this one.

I understand enough of what 'real' means, but can someone please define "Christian god" for me?

+1.

also, god as paedophile? troll away if you must but leave that shit at home. overly/needlessly offensive

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not sure how to vote on this one.

I understand enough of what 'real' means, but can someone please define "Christian god" for me?

Does it matter? If the question is "Does X god exist," the answer is "no," independent of X.

Science proclaims a Big Bang, Christianity supports a creator. The flaw with both of these is that it does not attempt to explain where the Big Bang derived from, nor where the creator came from. Essentially, since God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, he could be described as the universe, just as the results of the Big Bang can be.

In attributing the Big Bang to God, we are left without an answer of either of their beginnings, and this is the leap of faith. Fortunately it is an easy one when compared to the possibility that the Big Bang was not directed and yet brought forth our existence.

We are also mandated by God to create equality, which the Big Bang interpretation specifically prohibits. You may enjoy the special treatment you receive from your worldview,that is, you began with more than most (like me) and will continue with more than most. But in an unequal world we create devastating inequality. One of the worst creators of inequality has been the Church. They have abused their self proclaimed authority to their own ends. But Jesus specifically requires us to gain our own understanding of the world and of God; we are not permitted to ride the trail of the clergy in order to receive understanding of him. The law above all laws is to treat others as we wish to be treated and such a world would be equal.

In an unequal world, there will always be strife. While equality cannot be mandated, tools may be made equally available so that an individual may accomplish their own equality.

We exist in God's image. He brought about an ordered universe to creating an environment for abundant life. We may do likewise, on a smaller scale. But first we must recognize that we have this choice, and fulfill the possibility. Taking the Big Bang as random robs us of this choice, and those who wish to maintain that there is no God by eliciting the Big Bang theory as random should provide their listeners with a true reference point of its impracticality at the risk of their souls. Because those he convinces with deceit are forfeiting the image of God in themselves to follow the inferior masters which they present.

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not sure how to vote on this one.

I understand enough of what 'real' means, but can someone please define "Christian god" for me?

Does it matter? If the question is "Does X god exist," the answer is "no," independent of X.

Oh, that's an interesting argument. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

khazalid wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not sure how to vote on this one.

I understand enough of what 'real' means, but can someone please define "Christian god" for me?

+1.

also, god as paedophile? troll away if you must but leave that shit at home. overly/needlessly offensive

If you see a man wearing a pink night gown surrounded by naked men, women, and children, how would you describe him?

I would describe Him as being maligned by the Church for their own purposes.

_sabotage_ wrote:I would describe Him as being maligned by the Church for their own purposes.

That's a bit vague. Under this category, we've narrowed "Christian God" to "anyone who have been maligned by the Church."



Therefore, this guy could be the Christian God:




Jesus couldn't be the Christian God since the Church wasn't around during his time to malign him.

I'm sorry, I will try to write slowly...

The guy depicted in the pink dress is the Church's attempt to malign God.

i need a definition of real please.

_sabotage_ wrote:I'm sorry, I will try to write slowly...

The guy depicted in the pink dress is the Church's attempt to malign God.

On the contrary, that depiction is the pinnacle of the Church's homage to god. What you are calling a "dress" is patterned after a desert robe, which is what people assumed Jews of the Biblical period wore, and if you check Assyrian and Babylonian depictions of the Jews of the time, it's pretty much accurate.

The cherubim are naked because Europe during the Renaissance was rediscovering the freedoms of Classical times. After a millennium of being an armed camp under seige, finally the Vikings and Arabs and Mongols had all gone away, and Europe was finally going to enjoy some long-awaited peace and prosperity. Naturally, art of the time became very nostalgic about the other period of peace and prosperity, the Greco-Roman time.

betiko wrote:i need a definition of real please.

"Real" is "the opposite of fake."

Next question!