GOD

prinz

thebigbiffo wrote: »

come on man! god created us in his likeness - he must have developed these traits himself then!

Humans =/= God, God =/= humans. Made in a likeness, is not a clone. It is our human nature which leads to greed, selfishness etc not our spiritual nature.

thebigbiffo

prinz wrote: »

All possible futures are preknown to such a god. Still doesn't affect free will, we are the masters of our own future. I could swear we've been through this before.

yes we have. and it still makes no sense to anybody.

he created us with free will knowing that in the future innocent people would suffer in their millions. ok then, why did god create this little project? only one explanation: he's a f'uckin sadist.

Snakeblood

prinz wrote: »

Humans =/= God, God =/= humans. Made in a likeness, is not a clone.

But like. What does that mean then? What likeness do we have in common?

Shenshen

prinz wrote: »

Humans =/= God, God =/= humans. Made in a likeness, is not a clone.

Mind you, he's got a point there.

Reading the bible, god displays rage, hatred, jealousy, injustice, violence, cruelty, indifference to suffering... all those nasty human aspects.

Des Carter

Snakeblood wrote: »

So are the ten commandments to be taken literally or are they more like guidelines or notions. If we don't know what god put in there for the buzz, what he put in there as a serious do this or else message, and what he put in as a sort of parable, how much *faith* should people put in it?

no they are just guidelines - take for example thou shalt not kill - this may not be the case if its in self defence. As for the do this or else notion I dont know as I dont believe a God (if one exists) would be a giant man in the sky making people burn for not following his rules.

Snakeblood wrote: »

My point is that when you say 'Actually, what this divinely inspired document *really* meant to say' is that you come off as telling people what god thinks. It seems presumptuous.

Im not telling people what God thinks I clearly said that the OT was "devinely inspired" and not "Literal" now it may be literal I dont know but the phrase "devinely inspired" is a vague term and is open to interpretation.

prinz

thebigbiffo wrote: »

yes we have. and it still makes no sense to anybody..

On that note it's probably best to let it drop then.

Snakeblood

Des Carter wrote: »

no they are just guidelines - take for example thou shalt not kill - this may not be the case if its in self defence. As for the do this or else notion I dont know as I dont believe a God (if one exists) would be a giant man in the sky making people burn for not following his rules.



Im not telling people what God thinks I clearly said that the OT was "devinely inspired" and not "Literal" now it may be literal I dont know but the phrase "devinely inspired" is a vague term and is open to interpretation.

Well, yeah, and my point is that if it's all vague and open to interpretation, maybe the only thing people should actually pay attention to is the bit about shellfish. I think picking and choosing what to take from a holy book is a bit presumptuous, again. How do you know the bits that priests talk about is right (as in divinely inspired) and not the stuff they don't mention, like killing gays? We don't.

thebigbiffo

Snakeblood wrote: »

I think prinz is saying that after being turfed out of the garden of eden (when we were without sin) we got those habits ourselves, which would be the traditional teaching. God created man, man was tempted by snake, Man gets kicked out of Eden.

I don't agree in the least mind.

yes but if we were created in his likeness and he's omniscient then he would have known how we were going to turn out (holocaust etc)...he did it anyway, he's obviously a sadist and christian teaching being that he's all loving and all powerful is just b'ollox

Shenshen

prinz wrote: »

On that note it's probably best to let it drop then.

It's kind of funny how you always drop out at this very point... I suppose you can't explain how an omniscient god could not know which of all possible futures will actually happen.

prinz

Shenshen wrote: »

It's kind of funny how you always drop out at this very point....

Yeah, I'm not stupid enough to go around the same circle again. Funny. About as useful as pissing against the wind.

Snakeblood

thebigbiffo wrote: »

yes but if we were created in his likeness and he's omniscient then he would have known how we were going to turn out (holocaust etc)...he did it anyway, he's obviously a sadist and christian teaching being that he's all loving and all powerful is just b'ollox

Yeah, I agree, largely, assuming God exists. I'm just not as exercised about it. I had this conversation in the thread yesterday. I was just trying to explain what I thought prinz's viewpoint on this bit was.

Edit:

It's also to do with the understanding of omniscience. To me, and to you, omniscience involves knowing not only what might happen, but also what definitely will happen. Knowing EVERYTHING would reveal what will happen with certainty, I'd have thought. I don't think prinz agrees with that interpretation, from elsewhere.

thebigbiffo

prinz wrote: »

On that note it's probably best to let it drop then.

well yeah - as long as you admit you cant make head nor tail of this subject yourself. the reason nobody understands your points is that they make no sense.

Shenshen

prinz wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not stupid enough to go around the same circle again. Funny. About as useful as pissing against the wind.

That'll do me as explanation. Thanks.

prinz

thebigbiffo wrote: »

well yeah - as long as you admit you cant make head nor tail of this subject yourself. the reason nobody understands your points is that they make no sense.

Before you start telling people what Christian teaching is, perhaps you should go back and start from the very beginning. Obviously you don't understand a discussion of Christian theory seems you seem ill informed of the basics. If I went into a discussion on particle colliders I'd probably not understand the points people were making either.

Des Carter

Snakeblood wrote: »

Well, yeah, and my point is that if it's all vague and open to interpretation, maybe the only thing people should actually pay attention to is the bit about shellfish. I think picking and choosing what to take from a holy book is a bit presumptuous, again. How do you know the bits that priests talk about is right (as in divinely inspired) and not the stuff they don't mention, like killing gays? We don't.

Well Im still talking about the OT as I said the NT is a record of Jesus' life and teachings and we should live the way Jesus taught not what some old peados in rome say or what the OT says. Jesus never said kill gays or anything homophobic etc.

Shenshen

Snakeblood wrote: »

Yeah, I agree, largely, assuming God exists. I'm just not as exercised about it. I had this conversation in the thread yesterday. I was just trying to explain what I thought prinz's viewpoint on this bit was.

Edit:

It's also to do with the understanding of omniscience. To me, and to you, omniscience involves knowing not only what might happen, but also what definitely will happen. Knowing EVERYTHING would reveal what will happen with certainty, I'd have thought. I don't think prinz agrees with that interpretation, from elsewhere.

Knowing what might happen doesn't seem so special to be honest. Most people have a fairly good idea about that, most of the time.

Snakeblood

Des Carter wrote: »

Well Im still talking about the OT as I said the NT is a record of Jesus' life and teachings and we should live the way Jesus taught not what some old peados in rome say or what the OT says. Jesus never said kill gays or anything homophobic etc.

My own personal belief on Jesus is that he was a nice man ahead of his time in many ways and he got co-opted into the older cult, probably against his wishes. We'll never know until we get a time machine sorted.

To play atheists advocate, I don't think you should separate the chunks of the bible into 'true' and 'parable'.

Shenshen

Des Carter wrote: »

Well Im still talking about the OT as I said the NT is a record of Jesus' life and teachings and we should live the way Jesus taught not what some old peados in rome say or what the OT says. Jesus never said kill gays or anything homophobic etc.

Jesus never said sex before marriage or abortions are wrong, yet a lot of Christians still seem to believe that.

thebigbiffo

Snakeblood wrote: »

Yeah, I agree, largely, assuming God exists. I'm just not as exercised about it. I had this conversation in the thread yesterday. I was just trying to explain what I thought prinz's viewpoint on this bit was.

Edit:

It's also to do with the understanding of omniscience. To me, and to you, omniscience involves knowing not only what might happen, but also what definitely will happen. Knowing EVERYTHING would reveal what will happen with certainty, I'd have thought. I don't think prinz agrees with that interpretation, from elsewhere.

yeah i knew where you were coming from...i just wish relious people could stand up and say 'look, i believe in a god, i'm not going to try rationalise that because its impossible and logic will beat me every time'. instead, it's mumbo jumbo really - just loads of religous 'teachings' that have no basis in reality at all.

Shenshen

thebigbiffo wrote: »

yeah i knew where you were coming from...i just wish relious people could stand up and say 'look, i believe in a god, i'm not going to try rationalise that because its impossible and logic will beat me every time'. instead, it's mumbo jumbo really - just loads of religous 'teachings' that have no basis in reality at all.

Or even the simplest of logic.

Des Carter

Snakeblood wrote: »

My own personal belief on Jesus is that he was a nice man ahead of his time in many ways and he got co-opted into the older cult, probably against his wishes. We'll never know until we get a time machine sorted.

Ya this is very possible for instance Jesus never asked/told people to worship him. He didnt even say he WAS God. The Church heavily edited the NT and changed facts to help push their own agendas. However as you said he was great in many ways and his teachings are all positive and do not promote hate and so we should try to live by his teachings.

Snakeblood wrote: »

To play atheists advocate, I don't think you should separate the chunks of the bible into 'true' and 'parable'.

Im not seperating chuncks I seperating the NT from the OT which are already seperated.

Snakeblood

thebigbiffo wrote: »

yeah i knew where you were coming from...i just wish relious people could stand up and say 'look, i believe in a god, i'm not going to try rationalise that because its impossible and logic will beat me every time'. instead, it's mumbo jumbo really - just loads of religous 'teachings' that have no basis in reality at all.

Well, yeah. IF there was a 'look, I just believe it' argument that would stop angry atheists (and I've been one occasionally and will be again) from shouting 'BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE WHY DO YOU BELIEVE SOMETHING SO STUPID?' at them, they might use it more. Some might, at least.

I remember when I was a kid I was in a Catholic school, where I was the only atheist. Then a Jewish school. I got 'Do you believe in god?' 'Why not?' from kids every single ****ing day. Drove me mental. Eventually you just go 'Let these ***** **** off, I'm sick of it.' and you stop engaging angrily with them.

Or you just stab them. I wouldn't advise that though.

Snakeblood

Des Carter wrote: »

Im not seperating chuncks I seperating the NT from the OT which are already seperated.

Well, yeah. But if you buy a bible, it comes in one chunk. You don't generally get the new testament in a separate edition from the old testament. 'The Bible' is them together.

Des Carter

Shenshen wrote: »

Jesus never said sex before marriage or abortions are wrong, yet a lot of Christians still seem to believe that.

True but thats their choice to not question anything and to follow blindly.

However Id have to disagree with the abortion as Jesus said do unto others as you would like done to you are whatever and I dont think you would like it if you were aborted but thats for a different thread.

Des Carter

Snakeblood wrote: »

Well, yeah. But if you buy a bible, it comes in one chunk. You don't generally get the new testament in a separate edition from the old testament. 'The Bible' is them together.

I think you can buy the NT on its own but I dont really know and thats beside the point. Even if they are in the same book they are still kept seperate and were written by completely different people in completely different time periods.explaining different things.

nozzferrahhtoo

Des Carter wrote: »

Even if they are in the same book they are still kept seperate and were written by completely different people in completely different time periods.explaining different things.

What always makes me giggle are the people who think that the prophecies of the first book coming to pass in the second book are some kind of „miracle“. It rarely seems to occur to them that the people who wrote the second may actually have read the first themselves too and wrote the second to fit.

Get this, the prophecies made in parts of the first Lord of the Rings book came to pass in the last one too. Why no one finds that miraculous is beyond even me.

InTheTrees

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Get this, the prophecies made in parts of the first Lord of the Rings book came to pass in the last one too.

:eek:

No way??!?!!

philologos

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i'm sorry but the argument 'he had to let us make our own mistakes' holds no water with me. innocent children were tortured to death so an omnipotent god could allow the UN to be set up stinks of clutching at straws. he allows evil to win in many many cases and it has made no difference. since the dawn of mankind humans have been hacking each other to death and still do with no clear end to this 'lesson being learned' - god did not create humans in his own image unless god is a murdering, self obsessed, power hungry arsehole.

If it doesn't it doesn't, I'm merely saying that God knows past, present and future, a faculty which humans do not possess.

To save time I had a very good conversation on AH, (far better than than the usual if you believe in God you're pretty much stupid argument) a week or two ago when one user asked me how do I see Genesis 1:26-27 when God says that He made us in His image. I replied here.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

god intervenes in absolutely no cases. do you know how i know this? there has not been one, not one documented case of god doing anything which would be classed as an intervention. he was so determined to show us he's real he sent his only son to tell us all about him teach us his ways, yet he wont do one simple act lately just to proves he's still there like move a mountain or part a sea or even send another incarnation of himself from heaven to be killed and re-born so we can videotape it this time to make sure its real - faith is a cop out. it means you can have your god the way you want him.

No documented cases? Yes, I assume if one doesn't believe that the Bible documents God's relationship and action with mankind.

If I choose to dismiss any documentation I don't like, then yes, there is none that I haven't rejected already that say this. This is awful logic.

What would be a better and more intellectually satisfying argument is:
Is the Bible an old dusty irrelevant relic, or does it speak a truth that is just as relevant to the 21st century as in the 1st century?
I believe the latter as a Christian, you believe in the former.

As for why God doesn't provide another reincarnation, another isn't necessary, the world is being restored from the moment Christ conquered the grave till the end of all time when He returns. It's a continuous process.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i'm not one of those people who jumps on the god fearers every time i see them, i'm just in the humour today. i dont understand how you can rationalise stuff like the holocaust as a good thing, something that god wanted and i take issue with that view. i do not want to believe in a god or would never be happy if there actually was a god who could watch over such vile behaviour. by that rationale then - someone who mass muders an entire school could concieveably say god told him to do it and you would have to accept that - because your god does engage in that type of behaviour.

I know you "jump on the god fearers", what I don't think is that your reasons for doing so are very good.

N.B - I never said the Holocaust was a good thing. What I did say was that the Holocaust may have served as a warning call, or as a lesson to mankind.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

the church and the humans who make it up profess to act on behalf of god - they never seem to get it right, by your accounts because its because they are humans they cant help it. so presumably your religious views were aided by other humans - the simple fact you describe yourself a christian attests to this.

Church = fallible humans trying to serve God's purposes.
Moses = fallible man serving God's purposes.
Abraham = fallible man serving God's purposes.
King David = fallible man serving God's purposes.
King Solomon = fallible man serving God's purposes.
Peter = fallible man serving God's purposes.
Jakkass = fallible man serving God's purposes.
PDN = fallible man serving God's purposes.
JimiTime = fallible man serving God's purposes
Jesus Christ = infallible man serving and fulfilling God's purposes for mankind past, present and future.

God uses fallible man to show His glory through them. I hope that through my life that people might see that it is a life lived for God.

N.B - For this discussion I feel church refers to the entire Christian family which are God's people on earth. It does not refer to any one church.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

so by your own logic - because you are human you havent a clue what you're talking about - its all makey uppy. you dont know the slightest thing about your god if he exists. as critical thinking humans though we can test the world and measure it meaning we've elevated ourselves above your fallible religion with infallible science. wow.

Science is not infallible! - I'm studying the Philosophy of Science at university, and science has changed. Indeed, yesterdays science is often todays pseudoscience. What was science and what is science has and will be challenged in the future.

Why is this? - Well, personally, as a philosopher I would attribute it to the distrust of the senses and the fallibility of human consciousness. People can see and observe things and be greatly mistaken, and when such observation is the basis for forming science, it can be mistaken and in the past it has been mistaken. However, science more often than not provides a reliable structure for mankind.

By science I am referring to natural science, not things such as astrology which are now pseudoscience but which would have been seen as science in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

It is disturbing that incorrect understandings of science as "infallible" will have a severe impact on our understanding. I'm fairly sure that the vast majority of scientists would reject your understanding. Indeed, scientists that I have spoken to before would reject such a viewpoint.

Science in particular has been making key progress due to the reliability of instruments and better mechanisms for accumulating evidence, but it is clearly wrong to say that science is infallible.

K-9

Shenshen wrote: »

Ok, just what exactly are you talking about here?

Was it the first world's fault that Haiti's government did not have an emergency response in place, and that the buildings in its capital weren't as earthquake-proof as some buildings elsewhere?

I'm not blaming the people of Haiti for living on top of a fault line, lots of people do. But just you can't expect your neighbours to regularly pop round and make sure your fire alarms are operational, and your house is structurally sound, you can't really expect any other country to have made such preparations for Haiti?

Snakeblood wrote: »

Many modern disasters are absolutely soluble by man, or preventable.

The second quote is your answer.

Guill

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Malaria-One-Of-The-Most-Deadly-Strains-Is-Evolving-Making-It-Potentially-More-Difficult-To-Control/Article/201010415766144?lpos=World_News_News_Your_Way_Region_6&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15766144_Malaria%3A_One_Of_The_Most_Deadly_Strains_Is_Evolving%2C_Making_It_Potentially_More_Difficult_To_Control


Evolution at work.