8
   

Is the Bible's god good?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2015 09:39 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
When I said "a God that makes sense" I meant *to us*.


I doubt anyone thought you meant to aliens, Leadfoot.

Of course you meant "to us"...and I directed my suggestions "to us."



Quote:
The arbitrary God that did what Frank suggested fails that test...


The god is not "arbitrary"...it is hypothetical.

That is what you asked for...and what was delivered.

I'm not sure why the god I hypothesized does not make sense to you...but it sure does to me.

It may be that ANY hypothesized god that makes sense...will not make sense to you because you want no such god to be possible.

What do you see as so nonsensical about a god that could create an environment (the universe)...inhabit it with beings that can think and be creative...and see what they make of it?

To me...that sounds like exactly what a god would do.


Quote:
...but also fails in terms of what an intelligent God would be expected to do as well.


Perhaps to you (maybe in response to an agenda you have)...but as I said, it would be EXACTLY what I would expect of an intelligent god.

I think you ought take a careful look at what is motivating you in this area (you are the only one who truly can do it)...and see if the scenarios are actually missing the mark....or if you are simply declaring them as missing the mark no matter what.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2015 09:54 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
@Leadfoot,
Making sense isn't some universal quantifier that measures things, it's subjective. If those who believe didn't think it made sense they wouldn't believe.

Just because something makes sense to you doesn't mean it makes sense to anyone else.


I think any honest reader of this thread knows what I mean by 'makes sense'. If you think strapping on explosives and blowing up people you know nothing about 'makes sense' just because of their belief, you are as crazy as they are. I'm (hopefully) talking to sane people.

I think ideologies that require you to believe contradictions are a major cause of insanity.

izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2015 10:27 am
@Leadfoot,
You're being dishonest. And because you have no answer you come up with the lame excuse that everyone else knows what you mean. (Only the honest ones of course.)

Substitute honest for "chosen " and you've got yourself the beginning of a cult.

And no, another religion does not make sense, honestly.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2015 10:31 am
@Frank Apisa,
You didn't address any of my reasoning why I thought God would make us capable of comprehending him, which I thought was InfraBlue's point but I won't make you defend his POV.

But to you: I haven't said anything contrary your core statement of God putting us here to see what we make of it all. Of course that makes sense. I'm just including 'Him' in that 'all'. And I think we all do that as evidenced by the innumerable conversations like this one.

If you eliminate God from the things we are capable of interacting with (which is the God you are hypothesizing) I guess you are saying that he put us here as passive entertainment. That just seems kind of bland without the eventual possibility of interaction with your creation. It would be like me spending 10 years building an airplane and never flying it. I can't imagine that.

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2015 10:37 am
@izzythepush,
For the purposes of this discussion I more or less defined 'makes sense' as being free of contradictions. I think anyone can get that. If you don't, sorry about that.

Now if you want to show me my contradictions, fire away. That's what I'm here for.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2015 10:56 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

You didn't address any of my reasoning why I thought God would make us capable of comprehending him, which I thought was InfraBlue's point but I won't make you defend his POV.

But to you: I haven't said anything contrary your core statement of God putting us here to see what we make of it all. Of course that makes sense. I'm just including 'Him' in that 'all'. And I think we all do that as evidenced by the innumerable conversations like this one.

If you eliminate God from the things we are capable of interacting with (which is the God you are hypothesizing) I guess you are saying that he put us here as passive entertainment. That just seems kind of bland without the eventual possibility of interaction with your creation.


Whatever. Bottom line is that a god such as I suggest COULD exist...MAY exist.

That, it seems to me, is what you were asking for.


Quote:
It would be like me spending 10 years building an airplane and never flying it. I can't imagine that.




Look up "Spruce Goose."
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2015 11:14 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Look up "Spruce Goose."


It's creator did fly it. It was a short flight, but he also could not imagine not firewalling the throttle to see if it flew.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2015 11:26 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Whatever. Bottom line is that a god such as I suggest COULD exist...MAY exist.

That, it seems to me, is what you were asking for.


Not really.
One of the requirements in the OP (other thread) was that it satisfied human nature. The God you propose falls a little short of that. At least for me. My nature requires a God that does more than watch us like a soap opera.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2015 11:31 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Whatever. Bottom line is that a god such as I suggest COULD exist...MAY exist.

That, it seems to me, is what you were asking for.


Not really.
One of the requirements in the OP (other thread) was that it satisfied human nature. The God you propose falls a little short of that. At least for me. My nature requires a God that does more than watch us like a soap opera.


Thank you for your replies...and for discussing this matter civilly. Things get out of hand quickly around here.

"Satisfy human nature."

A non-starter in my book...and it should be a non-starter in your book...and in the book of anyone considering this question.

IF there is a god...we humans no more determine what it is or has to be...than a butterfly determines it.

Unless we actually do...

...in which case, the god is exactly what is going on here and now in what might be the illusion.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2015 11:41 am
@Frank Apisa,
It could be all for the butterflies, or the porpoises as Douglas Adams joked, but if it was, then for our purposes there really is no God.

I think a lot of atheists approach it from that angle.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2015 11:57 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

It could be all for the butterflies, or the porpoises as Douglas Adams joked, but if it was, then for our purposes there really is no God.

I think a lot of atheists approach it from that angle.


Not sure what atheists use as an approach...but if the only god a person is willing to recognize is one that wants interaction with humans...(and apparently, devotion and worship from humans)...you are eliminating an awful lot of possible gods.

My take is that you cannot come to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are" using logic, reason, or science. You only get there the way theists get to "there is a GOD" or "it is more likely that there is a GOD than that there are none"...which essentially is guess it to be and assert it as a belief.

To suppose a "meaningful god" is one that demands obedience, worship and such...and "being without a meaningful god" is the same as being without a god...

...makes no sense to me.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2015 12:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:

To suppose a "meaningful god" is one that demands obedience, worship and such...and "being without a meaningful god" is the same as being without a god...

...makes no sense to me.

Depends on what you mean by 'obedience, worship, etc'. If you are talking about rituals, vain repetition of prayers, etc, that would not be meaningful to me. The only thing that is demanded of you once you decide there is a God that makes sense is to contemplate the ramifications. Big job that.

But exactly right, being without a meaningful God is absolutely the same as no God. That was kind of the genesis of the other thread. I admit to having a concept of a meaningful God and wondered what would be a meaningful God to others. Most people just don't want to go there, as you can see.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2015 01:35 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

For the purposes of this discussion I more or less defined 'makes sense' as being free of contradictions. I think anyone can get that. If you don't, sorry about that.

Now if you want to show me my contradictions, fire away. That's what I'm here for.


You need to define it first. Your religion is really just something for you, once you introduce someone else there will be a disagreement, a contradiction.

You've got to define a religion without contradictions, and once you start doing that people will see them.

What you've done is say wouldn't it be wonderful if there was some super religion that reconciled everything in one lovely package. Yes it would, but it's not going to happen.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2015 02:56 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
You need to define it first. Your religion is really just something for you, once you introduce someone else there will be a disagreement, a contradiction.

You've got to define a religion without contradictions, and once you start doing that people will see them.

What you've done is say wouldn't it be wonderful if there was some super religion that reconciled everything in one lovely package. Yes it would, but it's not going to happen.


That's what I was starting to do in "A God That Makes Sense" thread. I doubt anyone would read an opening post long enough to lay something like that out so I started with the most basic points to see if others could see contradictions that I had not considered and found answers for. So far - Nada.

It is possible that no one else would agree and it would be a 'religion' just for me. I think that would be fine with a God that makes sense if I were in fact the only one.

I don't really think I am the only one to follow this path but the bible does say that the ones to follow him are a small minority. I hate that that makes me sound like an elitist asshole but what can I do about it? That's not my motivation, I wish there were more.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2015 04:10 pm
@Leadfoot,
You're using the Bible as a guide to define your non contradictory religion. That really does seemed doomed to failure from the off.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2015 04:54 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
@Leadfoot,
You're using the Bible as a guide to define your non contradictory religion. That really does seemed doomed to failure from the off.

Nope, Where did you get that idea?

But I do check with the book occasionally to see if it agrees . The book itself tells you not to use it as the ultimate reference. I don't bother memorizing chapter and verse but the relevant passage says " The spirit will lead you into all truth".
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2015 01:54 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
Nope, Where did you get that idea?


It's full of contradictions, and very much towing the party line. There's a lot left out, and what's in is 3rd, 4th, 5th, hand information at best.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2015 06:55 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:

It's full of contradictions, and very much towing the party line. There's a lot left out, and what's in is 3rd, 4th, 5th, hand information at best.

In that case it should be easy to give examples.
I asked for it, sock it to me.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2015 07:38 am
@Leadfoot,
It is.

Quote:
The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.


http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
anthony1312002
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2015 09:36 am
@HesDeltanCaptain,
Well, when considering these accounts at first glance one might get the impression the God of the Bible is a cruel vindictive person. But upon doing a deeper investigation, one would get a clearer understanding of the actions the Creator took. For example, at Isaiah 54:5 the creator reveals that he is holy or clean, undefiled. As such he sets the standard of what proper conduct and worship should be. And being the life giver has the right to exercise complete authority on how the life he has given us should be used. The creator only takes such actions when it becomes clear that those engaged in such acts refuse to submit to what he requires. Only after repeated warnings and pleading does he then have to act to remove those who could corrupt and induce others to follow in them in their wrong doing.

It is best to do a proper investigation to understand the reason behind the action taken.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/01/2022 at 01:20:27