Real Life, haven't you seen the images of prisoners with their head in what looked like plastic bags?
echi wrote:neologist wrote:Everything I might add are related to his qualities, the qualities by which he created man in his image, namely: love, justice, wisdom, and power (free will). We can learn about these from a careful reading of the bible.
There is only one person in the universe who can truly have the title 'he who causes to become'.
If "God" created humans in his own image, then isn't our will really
his will?
If so, then our will could never go against his will. And it would not be right to say that we exercise free will, independent of God, but that we share the will of God... that God's will is part of our nature.
That is the purpose of our having been created.
What went wrong?
Adam and Eve were given the choice of whether to accept or reject this arrangement.
neologist wrote:echi wrote:neologist wrote:Everything I might add are related to his qualities, the qualities by which he created man in his image, namely: love, justice, wisdom, and power (free will). We can learn about these from a careful reading of the bible.
There is only one person in the universe who can truly have the title 'he who causes to become'.
If "God" created humans in his own image, then isn't our will really
his will?
If so, then our will could never go against his will. And it would not be right to say that we exercise free will, independent of God, but that we share the will of God... that God's will is part of our nature.
That is the purpose of our having been created.
What went wrong?
Adam and Eve were given the choice of whether to accept or reject this arrangement.
And, having been created in the image of God, they chose to reject it.
Chumly wrote:neologist wrote:Chumly wrote: . . . Outside of my above quoted text but inclusive in my same post the only delineated purpose of God I referred to was he is obligated to do the most good. Are you arguing against this? . . .
He also is the one who gets to define what is good and set the timetable for its accomplishment.
You are fond of the word hubris.
It applies also to those who would apply their standards to those of God.
1) Whelp you have not answered my question naughty Neo. Are you arguing against God being obligated to do the most good or not?
2) In what way did I define how god defines what is good and what his timetable is? I did not define how god defines what is good and what his timetable is.
3) Where is the hubris? I only said God is obligated to do the most good, I made no reference to timetables or god's definition of good.
4) Hubris is a fun word, but even you must find it quite a stretch to consider that the net result of all horrors of the Nazi's and/or the net result of the centuries of all the other Jewish pogroms, must represent a net good.
5) We are now rather off the track of my original argument which was that there is no free will with god or man under the Christian idealization of god. My prior on point questions and views remain.
This is so much fun, I think I need to exfoliate.
.
.
.
.
There, that's a relief.
OK, God has taken upon himself to do the most good.
You mentioned the Nazis.
Are you saying that God has taken too long to accomplish good?
You would have done it sooner
or better?
echi wrote:neologist wrote:echi wrote:neologist wrote:Everything I might add are related to his qualities, the qualities by which he created man in his image, namely: love, justice, wisdom, and power (free will). We can learn about these from a careful reading of the bible.
There is only one person in the universe who can truly have the title 'he who causes to become'.
If "God" created humans in his own image, then isn't our will really
his will?
If so, then our will could never go against his will. And it would not be right to say that we exercise free will, independent of God, but that we share the will of God... that God's will is part of our nature.
That is the purpose of our having been created.
What went wrong?
Adam and Eve were given the choice of whether to accept or reject this arrangement.
And, having been created in the image of God, they chose to reject it.
There was one thing they were denied, the power to judge what was good and what was bad, the power that would override their built in conscience.
I'll be on the road for a few days, so participation will be intermittent. Catch ya'll when there's time.
So, they were not created in God's image?
neologist wrote:Doktor S wrote:Hum.
Ok Neo.
Would you say it was within gods power to know the things he selectively decided not to know?
I would say so.
I smell a trap.
If he was and is capable of knowing everything, would that not make him at least partially responsible for the 'evils' of the world?
neologist wrote:Chumly wrote:neologist wrote:Chumly wrote: . . . Outside of my above quoted text but inclusive in my same post the only delineated purpose of God I referred to was he is obligated to do the most good. Are you arguing against this? . . .
He also is the one who gets to define what is good and set the timetable for its accomplishment.
You are fond of the word hubris.
It applies also to those who would apply their standards to those of God.
1) Whelp you have not answered my question naughty Neo. Are you arguing against God being obligated to do the most good or not?
2) In what way did I define how god defines what is good and what his timetable is? I did not define how god defines what is good and what his timetable is.
3) Where is the hubris? I only said God is obligated to do the most good, I made no reference to timetables or god's definition of good.
4) Hubris is a fun word, but even you must find it quite a stretch to consider that the net result of all horrors of the Nazi's and/or the net result of the centuries of all the other Jewish pogroms, must represent a net good.
5) We are now rather off the track of my original argument which was that there is no free will with god or man under the Christian idealization of god. My prior on point questions and views remain.
This is so much fun, I think I need to exfoliate.
.
.
.
.
There, that's a relief.
OK, God has taken upon himself to do the most good.
You mentioned the Nazis.
Are you saying that God has taken too long to accomplish good?
You would have done it sooner
or better?
Some things are better than chatting with you and some things are worse, but there is nothing exactly like it
Chumly, you say in response to my statement that a perfect omnipotent God must transcend all categories that
"By that argument you can rationalize any activity you wish in the name of god." I don't understand. I am not referring to a "real" transcendental God; I'm an atheist. I'm just commenting on the logic of some A2Kers notions of God as I understand them. And this logic merely suggests that such a GOD can get away with anything, not that WE can do so because of the nature of God.
It seems obvious to me that we have created God in OUR image, not the reverse. Take note of the fact that in Northern European countries, Jesus (and the white bearded God) are blond blue eyed caucasions, while in darker skinned populations Jesus is often dark complected.
But this idea of "image" must be deconstructed. What did the term mean in terms of the meaning of its author? Could it be that we and God are consciousness (even self-conscious)? Or something like that, something more subtle than physical appearance. I can't imagine a God with a mouth. Does he have it to speak (to whom?)? to eat with? Does he need nostrils with which to breathe, etc. etc.
cicerone imposter wrote:See! real life still doesn't get it. There is nothing inconsistent in your list - except your conclusion.
You still can't see that Bush is "inconsistent." Not only inconsistent, but outright lies to everybody.
You don't see it, but the heading of the article is Bush: we don't torture.
You don't know my opinion of Bush.
My point is that you claim that you apply your morality, your sense of right and wrong, to no one but yourself and it obviously is not true.
But you use it as an excuse to avoid labelling 'wrong' all kinds of bizarre behaviour such as cannibalism and the man who killed children.
You have every right to disagree with the President or to think he's right or wrong about whatever you wish.
Just don't claim later on that you don't make moral judgements when you obviously do.
JLNobody wrote:
It seems obvious to me that we have created God in OUR image, not the reverse.
Unless you are ONLY referring to physical resemblance in works of art, this idea seems so ridiculous that I can't believe any would take it seriously.
The God of the Bible is so radically different from the God that man would create, it is not even funny.
If you were going to create a God, would you have him prohibiting all kinds of (otherwise) pleasurable behavior? Of course not. You'd have Him approving of all of your favorite things.
This conclusion is so self evident that it hardly needs to be stated (or so it would seem). But then there you are, claiming that man created God.
The idea that this God was man's idea is ludicrous.
Ray wrote:Real Life, haven't you seen the images of prisoners with their head in what looked like plastic bags?
I may not have seen the specific pictures that you are referring to, but I have seen plenty that I am not happy about.
Many have been reprimanded, disciplined and some even court martialed. And more in the pipeline.
So since they are punishing this behavior, are you saying that they approve of it? Or not?
Real Life, I repeat: many societies have either gods (polytheism) or a God (monotheism), and those dieties resemble (more often than not) their worshippers-creators.
Religion is a cultural institution, an artifact of human invention. But societies generally hold that their institutions, religion, the family structure, political authority, post-marital resident patterns, economic traditions, legal principles, etc. etc. are GIVEN (either by natural law or by spiritual beings of some sort). This helps to buttress tradition, to render their institutions sacrosanct and of absolute rather than relative value.
Could that possibly be news to you?
JLN, Attempting to tell rl anything about the realities of religion is a waste of time and effort. Most things logical are foreign to him.
JLNobody wrote:Chumly, you say in response to my statement that a perfect omnipotent God must transcend all categories that
"By that argument you can rationalize any activity you wish in the name of god." I don't understand. I am not referring to a "real" transcendental God; I'm an atheist. I'm just commenting on the logic of some A2Kers notions of God as I understand them. And this logic merely suggests that such a GOD can get away with anything, not that WE can do so because of the nature of God.
It seems obvious to me that we have created God in OUR image, not the reverse. Take note of the fact that in Northern European countries, Jesus (and the white bearded God) are blond blue eyed caucasions, while in darker skinned populations Jesus is often dark complected.
But this idea of "image" must be deconstructed. What did the term mean in terms of the meaning of its author? Could it be that we and God are consciousness (even self-conscious)? Or something like that, something more subtle than physical appearance. I can't imagine a God with a mouth. Does he have it to speak (to whom?)? to eat with? Does he need nostrils with which to breathe, etc. etc.
What you say makes sense. I realized after I had written my below blurb that there were altogether too many loopholes and I had not qualified my blurb anywhere near well enough.
Chumly wrote:JLNobody wrote:......a God, must also transcend logical contradiction.
By that argument you can rationalize any activity you wish in the name of god.
Here's a post by timber for rl's consumption on another thread. Unfortunately, it's also a waste of effort on timber's part:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The absurdity of your entropy objection, rl, lies in thorough misunderstanding both of the 2cnd Law of Thermodynamics and of chemistry. You see, entropy, in the sense you attribute, applies only to a closed system. Given that the earth receives enormous energy fron the sun, it by defintion is not a closed system. Then, of course, there is the energy of gravity, and of orbital momentum, and of extra-solar radiation - all of it energy being input to the Earth.There is in fact no reason to conclude the universe iitself is a closed system; there are indications it may be, but we just don't know for sure.
The 2cnd Law pertains to the properties, attributes, and tendencies of energy, not to objects, molecules, or organisms. However, a basic understanding of chemistry makes plain that the 2cnd Law is no predictor of disorder, but rather, in a dynamic system, mandates that energy be not restricted to one plane, location, or set of parameters, but to disperse throughout the environment, much a a gas seeks to expand to fill the available space. As energy constantly is being input into the system of which Earth is a component, energy acts continually on everything within the system.
Chemically, the individual components of many sorts of molecules are at once more energetic and less ordered than are the molecules themselves. Take water, for instance - a compound which has inherently less energy either than oxygen or hydrogen, its elemental constituents, and is far more complex than any single atom of hydrogen or oxygen. Within a dynamic system, the 2cnd Law orders the formation of increasingly complex entities, as the action of energy upon atoms and molecules brings about combinations and compounds, and synthesis, catalysis, and other chemical reactions, driven both by the energy inherent to the individual componets of compounds and by the energy constantly being input into the system progresses inexorably to more and more complex systems being formed from the basic, elemental, atomic-level building blocks.
Hi JLNobody,
I was going to add this to my post but I had postus interuptus as cicerone imposter is a busy boy!
What I should have said is something to the effect the stereotypical Christian god, if it does indeed transcend logical contradiction, must then transcend logical fallacy.
If so, and if one believes that the stereotypical Christian god is the example by which one should live, then there are many logical fallacies where the net outcome at least appears to be harmful.
Chum, It's more than "appears to be harmful." From my vantage point, most religions practicied by humans have been harmful.
Even some of the most famous leading buddhists of Japan killed themselves before reaching a certain age, because they thought it not proper to live long.
