Through the years I’ve learned to keep an eye on people with different viewpoints. For one it exposes me to new ideas and challenges my own ideas and what I base them on. When done right this can create an interesting exchange of ideas.
But sometimes, like with what I saw in my twitter feed this morning, it makes me cock an eyebrow and wonder what really happened (retweeted by Steven Crowder):
The following blog post was written by my friend CSBair on his blog. I’ve reposted it here, with permission, to highlight one of the issues I have with certain claims surrounding the Christian god.
For those who argue that the Christian god is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, then it stands to reason:
This god created everything
Therefore, this god created the tree with the forbidden fruit, and the fruit itself.
This god knew that creating this would allow mankind to fall from its grace
This god could foresee this event.
This god then punished its own creation for doing what it knew would happen based on its own work.
This god would then constantly destroy its creation because they did exactly what it knew they would do.
It stands to reason, then, that arguments of the Christian god being omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent mean that the Christian god is a sadistic, deranged maniac.
However, if this god could not know the events after the choice of whether to eat the fruit, then this god is not omniscient.
If this could not remove the tree, knowing what would transpire, then it is not omnipotent.
And if this god could not prevent the eating of the fruit, then it is not omnipresent.
One cannot make contradictory explanations to justify the act with the attribute, and still argue that such a god is just and loving. It’s illogical.
I don’t know what it is with GOP presidential candidates (he ran in 2008 and finished second after McCain), but Mike Huckabee expressed his support for the Personhood campaign:
But there are huge problems with the idea of giving a zygote the same full protection of the law as granted to a person. Just take for example IVF where multiple eggs are fertilized, and a few are implanted at the 6 to 8 cell stage. The ones that are viable and aren’t used are often destroyed. Before that embryos can already be lost during the selection process.
This can be just because they aren’t viable, which can happen. But what if they aren’t viable anymore because of an accident? As they are a person this would mean you are responsible for its ‘death’ and it needs to be investigated if it wasn’t preventable. Which then could result in jail time for the person, or persons, involved.
Or what about ectopic pregnancies? With an ectopic pregnancy the embryo lodges itself outside the uterus, this situation can be life threatening for the mother. Aborting the pregnancy is the only treatment we have to save the life of the mother. This raises some interesting legal questions if this is, or isn’t, killing a person.
With just a few simple examples you can see that this is an incredibly bad idea to implement. And if it does get adopted it will create one hell of a legal mess.
More than a month later the heat is still on in Texas and there hasn’t been any significant amount of rain that would have brought some relief from the drought. In fact, the drought has actually intensified. And to add insult to injure massive wild fires have raged in texas, leaving thousands of people homeless.
As many know I keep an eye out on views that differ from mine. I use it to keep myself appraised of any contrary evidence and queues me on possible cases where a critical look at evidence might be needed. And it is the reason I stumbled on the following video released by IlluminatiTV
The description attached to the video sums it up quite nicely: