Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Steve H on July 12, 2018, 01:48:52 PM
-
It occurred to me today that the reason that the argument from suffering against belief in God didn't seem to bother believers in earlier ages was probably that they had a thorough-going belief in an eternal afterlife, in comparison with the bliss of which the sufferings of this life would fade into insignificance. This world's sufferings only seem significant if you assume that this life is all there is, which is what the anti-theists are trying to prove. This says nothing one way or the other about whether there is an afterlife, but possibly rules out of court one atheistical argument.
(LR: spare us your usual line about there being no evidence for the existence of God - it would be even less relevant than usual, which is saying something.)
-
It occurred to me today that the reason that the argument from suffering against belief in God didn't seem to bother believers in earlier ages was probably that they had a thorough-going belief in an eternal afterlife, in comparison with the bliss of which the sufferings of this life would fade into insignificance. This world's sufferings only seem significant if you assume that this life is all there is, which is what the anti-theists are trying to prove. This says nothing one way or the other about whether there is an afterlife, but possibly rules out of court one atheistical argument.
Leaving aside the howlingly wrong point about anti-theists trying to prove that this life is all there is, this is nonsense on stilts. Suffering remains suffering whether there is an afterlife or not - the existence of suffering is not somehow negated by existence continuing for ever in some shadowy, amorphous, insubstantial form. To posit that the millions who were tortured and murdered in the Holocaust have that made all right by being 'rewarded' with an afterlife is a suggestion that many (most?) people would find perfectly monstrous. It's a favourite line of some of the more repulsive theologians such as Richard Swinburne.
I can't call to mind the name of who created the analogy, but someone once said that deliberately stubbing out a cigarette on your child's arm isn't made better for buying said child an ice cream afterwards. The pain caused remains the same with or without the ice cream. It isn't undone or somehow made to un-happen by the 'reward'.
In addition, the thoroughgoing believer is over a theological barrel since he or she, in contemplating that suffering, has to contend with a God who is ignorant of suffering, unable to do anything about (in other words, useless) or actively sadistic. In brief, we're back to Epicurus' unanswerable riddle.
-
Leaving aside the howlingly wrong point about anti-theists trying to prove that this life is all there is, this is nonsense on stilts. Suffering remains suffering whether there is an afterlife or not - the existence of suffering is not somehow negated by existence continuing for ever in some shadowy, amorphous, insubstantial form. To posit that the millions who were tortured and murdered in the Holocaust have that made all right by being 'rewarded' with an afterlife is a suggestion that many (most?) people would find perfectly monstrous. It's a favourite line of some of the more repulsive theologians such as Richard Swinburne.
I think Sartre summed this up succinctly by saying that "evil is irredeemable". I agree entirely that no amount of pie in the sky when you die jollies can negate the very real horrors of this life. However, Steve has a point when he says that firm believers of former ages perhaps did not have the same extent of horror of mortal suffering simply because they believed what they did - that is to say, there was a strong psychological component which mitigated the realities of their worldly conditions. I suspect that Mozart, Bach and Beethoven might not have been able to withstand their less than pleasant worldly circumstances and compose what they did without the spiritual beliefs they held. But I'm open to be persuaded otherwise.
-
Surely the problem of suffering is not new? Augustine, Irenaeus and indeed the Book of Job are all concerned with it.
-
I think Sartre summed this up succinctly by saying that "evil is irredeemable". I agree entirely that no amount of pie in the sky when you die jollies can negate the very real horrors of this life. However, Steve has a point when he says that firm believers of former ages perhaps did not have the same extent of horror of mortal suffering simply because they believed what they did - that is to say, there was a strong psychological component which mitigated the realities of their worldly conditions. I suspect that Mozart, Bach and Beethoven might not have been able to withstand their less than pleasant worldly circumstances and compose what they did without the spiritual beliefs they held. But I'm open to be persuaded otherwise.
And I think suffering was much more immediate in times past, in a way that we here in the West don't always take on board. Life in Medieval times was brutal and short, many women died in childbirth, infant mortality was the norm, there was plague and your village could be attacked and plundered at any time depending on the whim of those in power.
And that's not even touching on the suffering that religion itself caused - the persecution of Jews and homosexuals, the torture of heretics, the witch hunts...suffering was, well, normal.
eta and I'm well aware we are talking different ages here, just before Shaker pulls me up on it. ;)
-
I think Sartre summed this up succinctly by saying that "evil is irredeemable". I agree entirely that no amount of pie in the sky when you die jollies can negate the very real horrors of this life. However, Steve has a point when he says that firm believers of former ages perhaps did not have the same extent of horror of mortal suffering simply because they believed what they did - that is to say, there was a strong psychological component which mitigated the realities of their worldly conditions. I suspect that Mozart, Bach and Beethoven might not have been able to withstand their less than pleasant worldly circumstances and compose what they did without the spiritual beliefs they held. But I'm open to be persuaded otherwise.
Lovely post - saddled with all sorts of wrong, as I hope to demonstrate, but the sort of intelligent and thoughtful, obviously thought-through response I cherish.
True about Sartre. Mozart as far as we can tell was a believer; Bach certainly a staunch one. Less clear cut in the case of Beethoven - definitely raised Catholic; in adult life ... well, take your pick; more than one commentator has called him a pantheist (Ninth Symphony etc.). I have a suspicion that there's something of an appeal to antiquity quietly hidden in here, though; who is to say that the works of (to pick a few random examples off the top of my hat) Tippett, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams and so forth - all avowed non-believers - have less of the awe-full and "transcendent" (loaded term, with which I have problems) than those? I can only speak for myself here given that art is so subjective a thing, but I can only say that the end of RVW's Pilgrim's Progress, or "Deep River" at the end of A Child of Our Time reduce me to a snotty, blubbering ugly mess in a way that Bach never has.
What this says ... I don't know. I could draw grand conclusions, but they would be subjective and unsupportable so I shall refrain.
-
It occurred to me today that the reason that the argument from suffering against belief in God didn't seem to bother believers in earlier ages was probably that they had a thorough-going belief in an eternal afterlife, in comparison with the bliss of which the sufferings of this life would fade into insignificance. This world's sufferings only seem significant if you assume that this life is all there is, which is what the anti-theists are trying to prove. This says nothing one way or the other about whether there is an afterlife, but possibly rules out of court one atheistical argument.
(LR: spare us your usual line about there being no evidence for the existence of God - it would be even less relevant than usual, which is saying something.)
I am unaware on non believers trying to prove the non existence of an afterlife. I am aware of non believers challenging those who try to present proof that there is one (eg challenging psychics). But really the onus is on believers to present the proof that the afterlife exists.
I think that without a belief in an afterlife where some kind of wholeness is achievable, belief in a loving and merciful god is highly problematic.
-
Surely the problem of suffering is not new? Augustine, Irenaeus and indeed the Book of Job are all concerned with it.
Of course not - the ghastly Lewis wrote (unfortunately) an entire book called The Problem of Pain about it.
Thing is, though, that pain is a problem for supernaturalists, not naturalists. Insofar as I have one, my "worldview" includes and explains pain; that of the classical theist (where God is not merely good but supremely good beyond all goodness(es) - does not, and therefore the theist is permanently trying to square the circle and crowbar perfect goodness and the desire not to have suffering into a world of suffering. Hence Epicurus.
-
I am still a bit confused by the OP title? SteveH , in what way do you think the argument, whoever makes it, is 'circularish'?
-
I am unaware on non believers trying to prove the non existence of an afterlife. I am aware of non believers challenging those who try to present proof that there is one (eg challenging psychics). But really the onus is on believers to present the proof that the afterlife exists.
I think that without a belief in an afterlife where some kind of wholeness is achievable, belief in a loving and merciful god is highly problematic.
Add to that the habit of some religions to your eternal torture for some in the afterlife, and the whole idea of wholeness seems specious. In addition if a deity is capable of creating this kind of wholeness, then it could do so an initio instead of creating a multitude of illnesses for it to use to satisfy its psychopathy.
-
Add to that the habit of some religions to your eternal torture for some in the afterlife, and the whole idea of wholeness seems specious. In addition if a deity is capable of creating this kind of wholeness, then it could do so an initio instead of creating a multitude of illnesses for it to use to satisfy its psychopathy.
Well, quite. And that kind of belief (eternal torment as well as eternal salvation) means that God created humanity to torture with suffering, except for those who will satisfy his ego by worshipping him.
-
Well, quite. And that kind of belief (eternal torment as well as eternal salvation) means that God created humanity to torture with suffering, except for those who will satisfy his ego by worshipping him.
All of which is not, despite the OP, an argument against the existence of some deity, just an argument about what type of deity can exist.
-
I think Sartre summed this up succinctly by saying that "evil is irredeemable". I agree entirely that no amount of pie in the sky when you die jollies can negate the very real horrors of this life.
Maybe an experience of God's love, glory of majesty will alter this opinion
-
And that's not even touching on the suffering that religion itself caused - the persecution of Jews and homosexuals, the torture of heretics, the witch hunts...suffering was, well, normal.
Stalin, Pol Pot ?
-
Maybe an experience of God's love, glory of majesty will alter this opinion
It might, if there was an experience to be had.
As far as I can recollect, you haven't shown your working in this regard.
-
I am still a bit confused by the OP title? SteveH , in what way do you think the argument, whoever makes it, is 'circularish'?
I wondered that too.
-
It might, if there was an experience to be had.
As far as I can recollect,
Microseconds?
-
Cauliflower?
I can throw around random and unrelated words in English too, but I don't see a lot of point to it.
-
Stalin, Pol Pot ?
So you think your god is the equivalent of Stalin and Pol Pot.
-
So you think your god is the equivalent of Stalin and Pol Pot.
Some do. Explicitly (rare) or implicitly (surprisingly common).
-
So you think your god is the equivalent of Stalin and Pol Pot.
God sets the rules and laws of nature which nature must obey other ''undeserved suffering'' comes at the hands of humans....and big time in the hands of the atheists Pol Pot and Stalin.
-
Microseconds?
Frumious bandersnatch
-
God sets the rules and laws of nature which nature must obey other ''undeserved suffering'' comes at the hands of humans....and big time in the hands of the atheists Pol Pot and Stalin.
Except your god choose the 'rules' on childhood leukaemia. You worship something that chooses pain and suffering. You worship a thug and bathe in its evil, orgasming as it kills.
-
Except your god choose the 'rules' on childhood leukaemia. You worship something that chooses pain and suffering. You worship a thug and bathe in its evil, orgasming as it kills.
Easy tiger!
But not wrong, once you think it through.
-
Except your god choose the 'rules' on childhood leukaemia. You worship something that chooses pain and suffering. You worship a thug and bathe in its evil, orgasming as it kills.
orgasming as it kills ?
;D
I'm laughing at you not with you.
-
orgasming as it kills ?
;D
I'm laughing at you not with you.
Not really an issue when you worship killing children with leukaemia.
-
Not really an issue when you worship killing children with leukaemia.
May you get to reach the state of repentance my friend.
-
May you get to reach the state of repentance my friend.
Repentance for?
-
May you get to reach the state of repentance my friend.
For what? You are the one worshipping children dying in pain and calling it love.
-
May you get to reach the state of repentance my friend.
Ewwww.
-
Repentance for?
The dark and violent sanctimony emanating from him.
-
The dark and violent sanctimony emanating from him.
All in your head.
Just like God.
-
For what? You are the one worshipping children dying in pain and calling it love.
No I worship God who made nature.
I take it you find nature an unerring horrid thing.
Death and suffering are our lot but the real monstrousness is equating suffering from nature with the suffering inflicted at the hands of humans.
I am beginning to think that the reason you cannot contemplate a moment where as Julian of Norwich states ''all shall be well'' is that you just cannot see it or believe it because perhaps you have had no taste of it.
-
All in your head.
Just like God.
Nope, all in HIS head until he splurged it out.
-
However, Steve has a point when he says that firm believers of former ages perhaps did not have the same extent of horror of mortal suffering simply because they believed what they did -
I disagree. There's no reason to believe that today's religious people are any less fervent in their beliefs than they were in times gone past.
I think that people in times gone past were simply more inured to suffering than we are today. As Rhiannon has said, suffering was much more prevalent. One in four women died in child birth. Infant mortality was much higher. You likely died of some nasty and painful disease. Human induced suffering was also worse than it is now. There were public executions that were considered to be entertainment and they were often extremely gruesome by our standards.
-
Human induced suffering was also worse than it is now.
Does that apply to the suffering implied by the worlds nuclear arsenal or global warming?
What about London knife crime that's on the way up? or Brexit where it seems we could face starvation and existential panic for the sake of the bank balances of a few people?
If you mean the suffering of white Europeans you might have a point.
-
No I worship God who made nature.
Including leukaemia
I take it you find nature an unerring horrid thing.
Well large parts of it are.
Death and suffering are our lot but the real monstrousness is equating suffering from nature with the suffering inflicted at the hands of humans.
Humans are part of nature. Do you think victims of ebola take any solace from the knowledge that at least it's not a human causing the suffering?
-
Does that apply to the suffering implied by the worlds nuclear arsenal or global warming?
How much suffering have those things caused so far?
What about London knife crime that's on the way up? or Brexit where it seems we could face starvation and existential panic for the sake of the bank balances of a few people?
How do those things rate compared to being broken on a wheel? How do they rate for the spectators?
-
Including leukaemiaWell large parts of it are.
Humans are part of nature. Do you think victims of ebola take any solace from the knowledge that at least it's not a human causing the suffering?
You minimise human evil IMV.
With Ebola being natural there are no humans involved who face confirming themselves in the flames of deep perdition by their evil deed.
I
-
You minimise human evil IMV.
No.
With Ebola being natural there are no humans involved who face confirming themselves in the flames of deep perdition by their evil deed.
Do you think that the victims of ebola take any comfort from the fact that it wasn't caused by humans?
-
The dark and violent sanctimony emanating from him.
Do you have any idea how scary you sound?
-
No.
Do you think that the victims of ebola take any comfort from the fact that it wasn't caused by humans?
I don't know.
I suppose you are going to claim they don't.
-
I don't know.
I suppose you are going to claim they don't.
I'd bet substantial sums of money that they don't. After all, we know how to stop suffering inflicted by humans.
-
After all, we know how to stop suffering inflicted by humans.
That'll be why it never happens :o
-
I am unaware on non believers trying to prove the non existence of an afterlife. I am aware of non believers challenging those who try to present proof that there is one (eg challenging psychics). But really the onus is on believers to present the proof that the afterlife exists.
I think that without a belief in an afterlife where some kind of wholeness is achievable, belief in a loving and merciful god is highly problematic.
You got in before me Riannon, that's exactly it, I 'couldn't agree more.
Regards ippy
-
You got in before me Riannon, that's exactly it, I 'couldn't agree more.
I do that a lot.
-
I am still a bit confused by the OP title? SteveH , in what way do you think the argument, whoever makes it, is 'circularish'?
I was asking, not asserting, and i also added "ish" as a further indication of doubt, but I was suggesting that non-believers assume the non-existence of an eternity of bliss, which might redeem the suffering of this life, which is part of what they're trying to prove.
-
Except your god choose the 'rules' on childhood leukaemia. You worship something that chooses pain and suffering. You worship a thug and bathe in its evil, orgasming as it kills.
You might get taken more seriously if you toned down the purple prose a bit.
-
You might get taken more seriously if you toned down the purple prose a bit.
I use it occasionally. I might take you more seriously if you were to avoid lazy generalizations as frequently as you do.
-
No I worship God who made nature.
I take it you find nature an unerring horrid thing.
Death and suffering are our lot but the real monstrousness is equating suffering from nature with the suffering inflicted at the hands of humans.
I am beginning to think that the reason you cannot contemplate a moment where as Julian of Norwich states ''all shall be well'' is that you just cannot see it or believe it because perhaps you have had no taste of it.
Your God created suffering. You worship your god. You love your god and the suffering it created. You take joy in childhood leukaemia.
-
Your God created suffering. You worship your god. You love your god and the suffering it created. You take joy in childhood leukaemia.
That is insulting and profoundly stupid.
-
That is insulting and profoundly stupid.
It's what the problem of suffering is all about. I find it sickening that there are some who praise their god for finding their contact lens but ignore that their logic necessitates that their god chooses to create suffering.
-
It's what the problem of suffering is all about. I find it sickening that there are some who praise their god for finding their contact lens but ignore that their logic necessitates that their god chooses to create suffering.
You and me both, but to be fair I don't think Steve falls into that category.
-
You and me both, but to be fair I don't think Steve falls into that category.
I didn't say he did.
-
I didn't say he did.
No but you are picking a fight with the wrong person. Difficult for Steve to defend a position he doesn't hold.
-
No but you are picking a fight with the wrong person. Difficult for Steve to defend a position he doesn't hold.
I posted the comment to Vlad, Steve replied. I simply explained why I don't think my post was insulting or profoundly stupid.
-
Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Jewish, Christian or Islamic theology knows that God does not create suffering. I suggested in another thread a while ago that maybe God couldn't prevent it, despite his claimed omnipotence; it all depended what you meant by "omnipotent". That thread, though, was derailed by the non-stop, laboured sarcasm of another poster. It is difficult to have a proper debate on this forum, in the face of the sarcasm, wilful ignorance and general unpleasantness of some of the non-believers on here.
-
Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Jewish, Christian or Islamic theology knows that God does not create suffering. I suggested in another thread a while ago that maybe God couldn't prevent it, despite his claimed omnipotence; it all depended what you meant by "omnipotent". That thread, though, was derailed by the non-stop, laboured sarcasm of another poster. It is difficult to have a proper debate on this forum, in the face of the sarcasm, wilful ignorance and general unpleasantness of some of the non-believers on here.
But God could choose to heal suffering, or prevent further suffering. And the fact that humanity is 'fallen'...really? Trying to think of the French theologian's name who said that God does what he can in cases of suffering, but that doesn't really square with what the Bible says and smacks of making things up to suit.
All that aside though, however sarcastic, irritating, repetitive and rude non believers can be, they don't lie, distort and misrepresent. And they certainly don't label others as 'dark', with the implications that has when coming from a Christian. And there are posters on here who assert that beliefs such as my pantheism are because I've been 'led astray' by the 'deceiver'. Those statements aren't rude, they are bloody scary.
-
Rhiannon:- "..there are posters on here who assert that beliefs such as my pantheism are because I've been 'led astray' by the 'deceiver'. Those statements aren't rude, they are bloody scary."
That is appalling. I don't read all posts because I too find some scary! From what I see you're a well respected poster on here - & I aint't grovelling.
Nevertheless I agree with what StevenH says; there are posters here who are downright arrogant and insulting to anyone who doesn't go along with their own ideas, a lot of it is unnecessary & stifles debate.
-
Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Jewish, Christian or Islamic theology knows that God does not create suffering.
Since theologians are people, and 100% of thoughts, ideas and words emanate from human minds, then anyone who knows anything about theologians must agree that they do not actually know any facts at all about any God/god/s ever.
I suggested in another thread a while ago that maybe God couldn't prevent it, despite his claimed omnipotence; it all depended what you meant by "omnipotent". That thread, though, was derailed by the non-stop, laboured sarcasm of another poster. It is difficult to have a proper debate on this forum, in the face of the sarcasm, wilful ignorance and general unpleasantness of some of the non-believers on here.
It seems to me that the word 'unpleasant' etc is used because whoever it is to whom you refer does not accept, and challenges, assertions about any God?
-
Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Jewish, Christian or Islamic theology knows that God does not create suffering.
... even though, rather inconveniently, the Bible says otherwise. Whoops!
-
Your God created suffering. You worship your god. You love your god and the suffering it created. You take joy in childhood leukaemia.
I don't think so....but then what do I know?
-
Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Jewish, Christian or Islamic theology knows that God does not create suffering. I suggested in another thread a while ago that maybe God couldn't prevent it, despite his claimed omnipotence; it all depended what you meant by "omnipotent".
Redefining 'omnipotence' to avoid the problem of evil ? That would be an exercise in word play calculated to preserve a belief rather than an honest exercise in understanding. John's Gospel tells us that all things are created by God. So it is not just all things bright and beautiful, it is also all things wriggly, smelly and verminous; all the things that cause us suffering.
-
Redefining 'omnipotence' to avoid the problem of evil ? That would be an exercise in word play calculated to preserve a belief rather than an honest exercise in understanding. John's Gospel tells us that all things are created by God. So it is not just all things bright and beautiful, it is also all things wriggly, smelly and verminous; all the things that cause us suffering.
I think you are trying to confine and permit God to the ideas of the classic philosophers but given the modern spin.
The picture of God which Christians have is reflected more in the total biblical account.
Humans find themselves with a sense that things are not perfect and this defines their suffering....but should also leave us with the riddle that there is nothing in matter or nature that defines perfection.
-
Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Jewish, Christian or Islamic theology knows that God does not create suffering. I suggested in another thread a while ago that maybe God couldn't prevent it, despite his claimed omnipotence; it all depended what you meant by "omnipotent". That thread, though, was derailed by the non-stop, laboured sarcasm of another poster. It is difficult to have a proper debate on this forum, in the face of the sarcasm, wilful ignorance and general unpleasantness of some of the non-believers on here.
I wonder why then Augustine struggled with dealing with it so much. Theodicy has a long history which indicates that you are incorrect about your claim on theology. Further once people start claiming miracles as evidence for their god they go down the route of saying that it chooses between sufferings, so according to you a number of the believers in here have no acquaintance with theology.
Oh and Isaiah 45:7
-
I wonder why then Augustine struggled with dealing with it so much. Theodicy has a long history which indicates that you are incorrect about your claim on theology. Further once people start claiming miracles as evidence for their god they go down the route of saying that it chooses between sufferings,
I don't see anyone round here claiming miracles as evidence for God.
I think hard arsed antitheists would have as much problem explaining human suffering or indeed suffering as any theologian.They can't escape the task though due to the small matter of medical ethics.
-
I think you are trying to confine and permit God to the ideas of the classic philosophers but given the modern spin.
The picture of God which Christians have is reflected more in the total biblical account.
Humans find themselves with a sense that things are not perfect and this defines their suffering....but should also leave us with the riddle that there is nothing in matter or nature that defines perfection.
The total biblical account makes your god out to be be a total cunt. Murdering everyone but 8 people, asking for children to be murdered, sending a bear to kill children, approving of slavery, indulging in callous thuggery for a bet, wanting to kill Moses because he didn't do stuff quickly enough, indulging in blood sacrifice to suit some twisted set of rules for both Jesus and Jepthah, killing everything first born, approving of rape.
-
I don't see anyone round here claiming miracles as evidence for God.
I think hard arsed antitheists would have as much problem explaining human suffering or indeed suffering as any theologian.They can't escape the task though due to the small matter of medical ethics.
Alan Burns claims it numerous times, so has Sassy. So you are just wrong on your first point.
On your second,you seem to have missed Epicurus 's point and ignored the fact that humans are not claimed to be the creators of all, and omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. By the way, I'm not antitheist whatever the state of my arse is.
-
Alan Burns claims it numerous times, so has Sassy. So you are just wrong on your first point.
On your second,you seem to have missed Epicurus 's point and ignored the fact that humans are not claimed to be the creators of all, and omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. By the way, I'm not antitheist whatever the state of my arse is.
You missed my point with Torridon that he is confusing classical philosophical definitions with the picture of God in the bible which reflect the Christian experience and world view.
Epicurus has made a category blunder in including omnibenevolence in his big three....can you spot what it is?
-
You missed my point with Torridon that he is confusing classical philosophical definitions with the picture of God in the bible which reflect the Christian experience and world view.
Epicurus has made a category blunder in including omnibenevolence in his big three....can you spot what it is?
Since you seem to disagree with Alan Burns, what is this 'Christian worldview'? Leaving aside my doubt about individual"s having anything as fancy as aworkdview, there seems as many strains of Christianity as Christians.
As ever you appear not to know what a category error is. If you are suggesting that your god isn't omnibenevelent, you are just back to worshipping a thug.
-
Since you seem to disagree with Alan Burns, what is this 'Christian worldview'? Leaving aside my doubt about individual"s having anything as fancy as aworkdview, there seems as many strains of Christianity as Christians.
As ever you appear not to know what a category error is. If you are suggesting that your god isn't omnibenevelent, you are just back to worshipping a thug.
There are two points here and I think we can dismiss the first one by saying that all Alan has to do is to establish whether he is committed to the modern atheist appeal to classical philosophical positions on God or the biblical position on God. I would bet good money on the latter.
The trouble with benevolency is unlike omniscient no universally agreed definition of benevolence is available or can be. Unlike omnipotence it can never be anything near as defined.
God's benevolence is yet to be realised and omnibenevolence is relegated to whatever we want it to mean individually.
Now that you know that I don't expect you or the others to use it in conjunction with the words Omniscience and omnipotence.
-
There are two points here and I think we can dismiss the first one by saying that all Alan has to do is to establish whether he is committed to the modern atheist appeal to classical philosophical positions on God or the biblical position on God. I would bet good money on the latter.
The trouble with benevolency is unlike omniscient no universally agreed definition of benevolence is available or can be. Unlike omnipotence it can never be anything near as defined.
God's benevolence is yet to be realised and omnibenevolence is relegated to whatever we want it to mean individually.
Now that you know that I don't expect you or the others to use it in conjunction with the words Omniscience and omnipotence.
Your first point is a non sequitur to you and Alan disagreeing about miracles, and then to snowboarding the 'Christian worldview' in relation to 'modern atheism', whatever that is, is bizarre.
There has been lots of discussion from Christians on here about the meaning of omniscient and omnipotent to show that neither is anymore clearly defined than luminescent so your second point is simply wrong. Leaving that wrongness aside, we have your god choosing to create leukemia for children and you worship that.
-
Your first point is a non sequitur to you and Alan disagreeing about miracles, and then to snowboarding the 'Christian worldview' in relation to 'modern atheism', whatever that is, is bizarre.
There has been lots of discussion from Christians on here about the meaning of omniscient and omnipotent to show that neither is anymore clearly defined than luminescent so your second point is simply wrong. Leaving that wrongness aside, we have your god choosing to create leukemia for children and you worship that.
We can discuss what Alan believes and how you seem to have cack handled that in the context of our debate elsewhere.
The point is that our overwhelming feeling that childhood suffering is a wrong to be righted even though it is a material process is not drawn from any natural evidence but from God who it seems has provided us with the means of eradication.
Also you are ignoring Human prioritisation
The other problem you have is, in making God the villain the universe must be unutteringly and intermibally bad.
-
We can discuss what Alan believes and how you seem to have cack handled that in the context of our debate elsewhere.
The point is that our overwhelming feeling that childhood suffering is a wrong to be righted even though it is a material process is not drawn from any natural evidence but from God who it seems has provided us with the means of eradication.
Also you are ignoring Human prioritisation
The other problem you have is, in making God the villain the universe must be unutteringly and intermibally bad.
No idea what you are on about in the first sentence. And it's downhill from there. To be fair your last sentence isn't complete gibberish but simply wrong.
-
No idea what you are on about in the first sentence. And it's downhill from there. To be fair your last sentence isn't complete gibberish but simply wrong.
May I just remind you that you will be hard pressed to find universal agreement of what omnibenevolence is.
If one finds childhood leukemia to be bad argue how that fits in with restoration to fullness of life by God in the next life.
-
May I just remind you that you will be hard pressed to find universal agreement of what omnibenevolence is.
If one finds childhood leukemia to be bad argue how that fits in with restoration to fullness of life by God in the next life.
And since there isn't agreement about omnipotence and omniscient, it's in the same category.
Because as already covered by Shaker earlier in the thread,buying a child an ice cream after burning its arm with a cigarette doesn't mean that the choice to make someone suffer goes away.
-
And since there isn't agreement about omnipotence and omniscient, it's in the same category.
Omniscient means knowing everything. How is that debateable? You either know everything or you are not omniscient.
Omnipotent means the ability to do anything. Again how is that definition debateable.
Omnibenevolent on the other hand is eminently debateable.
-
Omniscient means knowing everything. How is that debateable? You either know everything or you are not omniscient.
Omnipotent means the ability to do anything. Again how is that definition debateable.
At least one member of this forum (and many others outside it) quibbles about the definition of omnipotence - the straightforward, on-its-face, literal meaning of the word is of course the ability to do literally anything. However, since this leads to self-evident logical absurdities (a truly omnipotent entity could create square circles and what have you), some theists subject the term to the death by a thousand cuts and say that it doesn't mean literally anything but everything logically possible.
So it looks as though it's debatable after all. Bad luck, Vlad.
-
Buying a child an ice cream after burning its arm with a cigarette doesn't mean that the choice to make someone suffer goes away.
But this selective but shit analogy from ''the Leicester Dillahunty'' ignores better analogies
vis Building a house buying a child an ice cream after it falls down the stairs.....or gets ill etc, etc.
You are just loading your argument. Just like pushing a turd in the pan and hoping the emotional shock value gives it the momentum to reach the other side.
-
Omniscient means knowing everything. How is that debateable? You either know everything or you are not omniscient.
Omnipotent means the ability to do anything. Again how is that definition debateable.
Omnibenevolent on the other hand is eminently debateable.
Except believers do debate precisely what omnipotent and omniscient means. SteveH has just recently done that for omnipitent, Alien and indeed Alan Burns seem to think their God doesn't know what people will do. So sorrt, you are simply wrong.
-
But this selective but shit analogy from ''the Leicester Dillahunty'' ignores better analogies
vis Building a house buying a child an ice cream after it falls down the stairs.....or gets ill etc, etc.
You are just loading your argument. Just like pushing a turd in the pan and hoping the emotional shock value gives it the momentum to reach the other side.
Your analogy ignores that if God is omnipotent than it pushed the child down the stairs and made it ill, and you worship it for doing so.
-
At least one member of this forum (and many others outside it) quibbles about the definition of omnipotence - the straightforward, on-its-face, literal meaning of the word is of course the ability to do literally anything. However, since this leads to self-evident logical absurdities (a truly omnipotent entity could create square circles and what have you), some theists subject the term to the death by a thousand cuts and say that it doesn't mean literally anything but everything logically possible.
So it looks as though it's debatable after all. Bad luck, Vlad.
These are problems for certain classical approaches of philosophy.
The pure joy of philosophy is if there are five different definitions of omnipotence say....that's great but the possible definitions of omnibenevolence must far exceed that.
If there are contradictions then that is a problem for classical philosophy.
The bible is the expression of what is believed rather than classical philosophy and the exploitation of it by antitheists which is an exercise in straw manning.
-
At least one member of this forum (and many others outside it) quibbles about the definition of omnipotence - the straightforward, on-its-face, literal meaning of the word is of course the ability to do literally anything. However, since this leads to self-evident logical absurdities (a truly omnipotent entity could create square circles and what have you), some theists subject the term to the death by a thousand cuts and say that it doesn't mean literally anything but everything logically possible.
So it looks as though it's debatable after all. Bad luck, Vlad.
I've never viewed the doing anything logically possible as a redefinition of omnipotence. It's the more dubious question of its nature that I think causes the problem which is used to get round the Euthyphro. Even with that we would still have the Panglossian issue that this has to be the best of all osdouble worlds and that the deity has acted in a purely deterministic way.
-
These are problems for certain classical approaches of philosophy.
The pure joy of philosophy is if there are five different definitions of omnipotence say....that's great but the possible definitions of omnibenevolence must far exceed that.
If there are contradictions then that is a problem for classical philosophy.
The bible is the expression of what is believed rather than classical philosophy and the exploitation of it by antitheists which is an exercise in straw manning.
Ah so although there is disagreement, something you said there wasn't, it's now the wrong type of disagreement.
And as covered earlier, since the Bible supports slavery,murder and rape, you worship the being that carries out such actions.
-
Except believers do debate precisely what omnipotent and omniscient means. SteveH has just recently done that for omnipitent, Alien and indeed Alan Burns seem to think their God doesn't know what people will do. So sorrt, you are simply wrong.
They debate what it means in terms of Christianity though not classic philosophy.
You though give the impression that you absolutely know the definitions otherwise how could you possibly reach a conclusion on God's status as logically coherent?
What you are avoiding is the fact that both the definitions and the conclusion are in the context of classical philosophy which cannot be equated with what christians have expressed.
You are therefore strawmanning i'm afraid.
Aside from that any definition of omnipotence which has God ''having'' to do something is self negating isn't it?
-
Ah so although there is disagreement, something you said there wasn't, it's now the wrong type of disagreement.
And as covered earlier, since the Bible supports slavery,murder and rape, you worship the being that carries out such actions.
Yes Christians have disagreements. It is you who suggest there are none in classical philosophy IMV, hence claims that God is a logical impossibility
You are of course cherrypicking the Bible.
God's intended relationship with humanity is Edenic it is humanity which falls.
-
God's intended relationship with humanity is Edenic it is humanity which falls.
Could God have prevented this "fall", or not? Did God know about it beforehand, or not? Having occurred, could God have done something about it, or not?
-
Could God have prevented this "fall", or not? Did God know about it beforehand, or not? Having occurred, could God have done something about it, or not?
1) Yes, By not creating humanity. But since he did, man could also have prevented it by not falling
2) Don't know
3) He provided Jesus to allow the relationship to be restored.
-
1) Yes, By not creating humanity.
So you seem to be saying God's alleged power is limited - he couldn't have created a non-falling humanity. Why not? A workman who can only work in a shoddy and defective manner isn't much of a workman, is he?
Don't know
Yet you do claim to know that God could only have prevented a "fall" by not creating humanity in the first place. Strange.
But since he did, man could also have prevented it by not falling
Except that this so-called "fall" was, in the tale, the awareness of good and evil via sampling some stray fruit. However, since eating said fruit conferred the knowledge of good and evil, there can have been no such knowledge prior to actually eating the fruit. There was no prior awareness of any "fall". It's a simple point of logic, Vlad.
3) He provided Jesus to allow the relationship to be restored.
Why not simply restore said relationships without the torture and temporary death thing?
-
They debate what it means in terms of Christianity though not classic philosophy.
You though give the impression that you absolutely know the definitions otherwise how could you possibly reach a conclusion on God's status as logically coherent?
What you are avoiding is the fact that both the definitions and the conclusion are in the context of classical philosophy which cannot be equated with what christians have expressed.
You are therefore strawmanning i'm afraid.
Aside from that any definition of omnipotence which has God ''having'' to do something is self negating isn't it?
I have no idea what you think you mean by Christianity and classical philosophy. I am sure you think you are making some points but I'm at a loss as to what they are as you seem to use your own private language.
-
Yes Christians have disagreements. It is you who suggest there are none in classical philosophy IMV, hence claims that God is a logical impossibility
You are of course cherrypicking the Bible.
God's intended relationship with humanity is Edenic it is humanity which falls.
I note your inability to justify why you worship something that you think approves of slavery, rape, and murder
-
I have put in several replies but the forum has acquired some ability to prematurely time me and wipe my posts as well as monkeying with spacings out so I may return later.
-
I have put in several replies but the forum has acquired some ability to prematurely time me and wipe my posts as well as monkeying with spacings out so I may return later.
No, it hasn't.
-
No, it hasn't.
Then it must be at my end.
Thanks for doing an in depth analysis of your IT on my behalf.
-
Then it must be at my end.
Thanks for doing an in depth analysis of your IT on my behalf.
Not my IT. But it isn't intelligent, and there have been no changes.
-
So you seem to be saying God's alleged power is limited - he couldn't have created a non-falling humanity. Why not? A workman who can only work in a shoddy and defective manner isn't much of a workman, is he?
God does not make man in the fallen state. Mankind is the master/author of it's own fallenness.
The key to how come man chooses to fall is to be found in the choice not to be restored.
-
God does not make man in the fallen state. Mankind is the master/author of it's own fallenness.
The key to how come man chooses to fall is to be found in the choice not to be restored.
If god exists and made humankind in its own image then it is a wonder there are any good and decent people in this world. The Biblical god is a very fallen entity.
-
I have no idea what you think you mean by Christianity and classical philosophy. I am sure you think you are making some points but I'm at a loss as to what they are as you seem to use your own private language.
OK there is a view of God known as the God of the philosophers
Based on a range of things which have a fixed definition ''The omnis''
We know they have a fixed definition because people doing the philosophy find The God they have posited to be illogical.
That exercise though is not Christianity and , in incompetent hands, ends up as straw manning.
Non theists seem to be stymied by there insistence on throwing in omnibenevolence to mistakenly try to gussy up a philosophical exercise into an argument against christianity.
Which is a dead loss and completely useless IMV.
-
God does not make man in the fallen state. Mankind is the master/author of it's own fallenness.
The key to how come man chooses to fall is to be found in the choice not to be restored.
What you are saying here is essentially non believers (including good people) choosing not to believe in the restorative justice of the cross causes childhood leukaemia.
-
God does not make man in the fallen state. Mankind is the master/author of it's own fallenness.
The key to how come man chooses to fall is to be found in the choice not to be restored.
Unless you want to say omnipotent and omniscient are just the same arguable as omnibenevolent, then the above is wrong. Since you don't, the above is wrong.
-
If god exists and made humankind in its own image then it is a wonder there are any good and decent people in this world. The Biblical god is a very fallen entity.
Sentimental antitheist bollocks
-
OK there is a view of God known as the God of the philosophers
Based on a range of things which have a fixed definition ''The omnis''
We know they have a fixed definition because people doing the philosophy find The God they have posited to be illogical.
That exercise though is not Christianity and , in incompetent hands, ends up as straw manning.
Non theists seem to be stymied by there insistence on throwing in omnibenevolence to mistakenly try to gussy up a philosophical exercise into an argument against christianity.
Which is a dead loss and completely useless IMV.
Lies and gibberish. You worship leukemia.
-
Sentimental antitheist bollocks
Pish and drivel
-
God does not make man in the fallen state. Mankind is the master/author of it's own fallenness.
But when I asked (#86): "Could God have prevented this "fall", or not?", you replied (#87): "Yes. By not creating humanity." Unless I am missing something - in which case, as always, please supply me with contrary evidence - God created a humanity bound (some might say pre-ordained, or for the dramatic amongst us, doomed) to "fall". Therefore you are saying, explicitly, that God created a thing (humanity) inescapably, inevitably, ineluctably bound to fail straight from the production line. Mankind supposedly being the master/author of its own fallenness was summarily dispatched in paragraph 3 of #88, by the way.
I've heard of planned obsolescence, but this is taking the piss, surely?
-
But when I asked (#86): "Could God have prevented this "fall", or not?", you replied (#87): "Yes. By not creating humanity." Unless I am missing something - in which case, as always, please supply me with contrary evidence - God created a humanity bound (some might say pre-ordained, or for the dramatic amongst us, doomed) to "fall". Therefore you are saying, explicitly, that God created a thing (humanity) inescapably, inevitably, ineluctably bound to fail straight from the production line.
I've heard of planned obsolescence, but this is taking the piss, surely?
Also fucking with the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience but lying about it.
-
Also fucking with the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience but lying about it.
Ça va sans dire.
-
What you are saying here is essentially non believers (including good people) choosing not to believe in the restorative justice of the cross causes childhood leukaemia.
As God has given man the freedom to fall if man wishes it. So he gives some freedom to the universe to organise itself without his intervention thus people fall of cliffs taking selfies, killed in tornadoes, or succumbing to disease.
If there is an afterlife then such things are merely a chapter in a never ending story.
People here seem to be arguing from the immovable reference that there is one life and that is inexorably ordered into believers and non believers and are trying to paint a picture of God from that.
-
Unless I am missing something - in which case, as always, please supply me with contrary evidence - God created a humanity bound (some might say pre-ordained, or for the dramatic amongst us, doomed) to "fall". Therefore you are saying, explicitly, that God created a thing (humanity) inescapably, inevitably, ineluctably bound to fail straight from the production line.
No, that's a poor analogy since Man is not a machine but has an extra.
We see man tootling happily along with god and then deciding to crash a perfectly sound thing or if you like travelling along a different path...ending in a crash.
-
No, that's a poor analogy since Man is not a machine but has an extra.
An extra? An extra what? Tooth (I used to have one, until June last year)? Leg? What?
We see man tootling happily along with god and then deciding to crash a perfectly sound thing or if you like travelling along a different path...ending in a crash.
Where do we "see" this?
-
An extra? An extra what? Tooth (I used to have one, until June last year)? Leg? What? Where do we "see" this?
The ability to reject God.
You state that we were made to fail vis a vis God...I say we were given the choice and made that choice.
God though has opened himself up to us through Jesus. Are you going to choose that path?
-
As God has given man the freedom to fall if man wishes it. So he gives some freedom to the universe to organise itself without his intervention thus people fall of cliffs taking selfies, killed in tornadoes, or succumbing to disease.
If there is an afterlife then such things are merely a chapter in a never ending story.
People here seem to be arguing from the immovable reference that there is one life and that is inexorably ordered into believers and non believers and are trying to paint a picture of God from that.
what in the name of fuck is the freedom to die from disease? Are you saying my friend, who died at 28 of skin cancer, chose to die? As opposed to your god who as omnipotent and omniscient chose that. And you worship the god that choses that. You love the death of my friend and you love that.
-
The ability to reject God.
Based entirely on the theistic (by definition) assumption (read: opinion) that there is a God in the first place to be rejected. As someone a long time ago once said, I have no need of that hypothesis.
You state that we were made to fail vis a vis God...I say we were given the choice and made that choice.
No I didn't. Your habitual lying (or is it incomprehension? Who knows) aside, in paragraph 3 of #88 I dispensed with this nonsense.
God though has opened himself up to us through Jesus. Are you going to choose that path?
Why on earth would I do so silly a thing?
-
what in the name of fuck is the freedom to die from disease?
Who used those words?
-
Based entirely in a theistic assumption (read: opinion) that there is a God in the first place to be rejected.
You have to assume a God in any argument to show he is a bad dude...so you must be making that assumption anyway.
Are you trying the double by trying to show that God is both evil and non existent?
-
Who used those words?
The exact words, no one. But the idea, you, see below quote. You love a god you think killed my friend of skin cancer. You think that is love. You abase yourself before what you think is a murdering thug. You love and worship pain
'As God has given man the freedom to fall if man wishes it. So he gives some freedom to the universe to organise itself without his intervention thus people fall of cliffs taking selfies, killed in tornadoes, or succumbing to disease.'
-
You have to assume a God in any argument to show he is a bad dude...so you must be making that assumption anyway.
Are you trying the double by trying to show that God is both evil and non existent?
No more so - on the same basis as - Iago and Sauron are evil and non-existent.
It's called fiction, Vladdychops. Not real. Madey-uppy.
-
The exact words, no one. But the idea, you, see below quote. You love a god you think killed my friend of skin cancer. You think that is love. You abase yourself before what you think is a murdering thug. You love and worship pain
'As God has given man the freedom to fall if man wishes it. So he gives some freedom to the universe to organise itself without his intervention thus people fall of cliffs taking selfies, killed in tornadoes, or succumbing to disease.'
I worship a God who has created the universe, who has redeemed me, who offers that to all and who will make all things well.
-
No more so - on the same basis as - Iago and Sauron are evil and non-existent.
It's called fiction, Vladdychops. Not real. Madey-uppy.
Positive assertion therefore provide the proof that it is fiction.
-
I worship a God who has created the universe, who has redeemed me, who offers that to all and who will make all things well.
Who created the skin cancer that killed my friend. You love that death. It is what you worship.
-
Who created the skin cancer that killed my friend. You love that death. It is what you worship.
If you do not love that death. If you hate that death...To what do you owe that righteous hatred...nature...God...yourself?
And what about believers who attempt to cure Leukemia do they worship or hate God?
Like the worst of non believers, religion, religious people and God for you have become equated with everything bad.
-
If you do not love that death. If you hate that death...To what do you owe that righteous hatred...nature...God...yourself?
And what about believers who attempt to cure Leukemia do they worship or hate God?
Like the worst of non believers, religion, religious people and God for you have become equated with everything bad.
Yep, I don't love my friend dying of skin cancer. You do. You think that's love.
Oh and I don't religious people are everything bad, but off you go with your lying again.
-
Yep, I don't love my friend dying of skin cancer. You do. You think that's love.
Too weird for me. I'm out of here.
-
Too weird for me. I'm out of here.
I note that you run away from your worship of skin cancer.
-
Positive assertion therefore provide the proof that it is fiction.
Your positive assertion is that God is a real thing.
My positive assertion is that you have provided no evidence that such a thing exists objectively (as in "true for everybody else and not just me") anywhere outside of your own head.
Let's see how that stacks up, Vladdychops. If you want me to point you to literary sources that Iago and Sauron are fictional evil characters, I can very easily do so. If you want me to point you to literary sources that God is an evil character, I can do so with equal ease.
You think that 2 out of these 3 are fictional while one of them is objectively real. I say you haven't even come within the same continent let alone postcode of demonstrating why I have to take your fairy tales seriously.
Burden of proof, burden of proof ...
-
Your positive assertion is that God is a real thing.
My positive assertion is that
God IS fiction
Let's have your proof then.
-
God IS fiction.
Squirrelled away for future punishment ;)
-
God IS fiction
Let's have your proof then.
Where is your proof it exists in reality, not just in the mind of believers?.
-
Too weird for me. I'm out of here.
Surely you jest, Vlad!
Weird is thinking you're redeemed because some Jewish guy was killed back in antiquity, and that this allegedly omni-thing that creates 'all things bright and beautiful', for which it gets praised by you guys, is presumably also responsible for bone cancer in children - but we don't want to mention that.
I think, my friend, that you need to look closer to home for weirdness.
-
But God could choose to heal suffering, or prevent further suffering. And the fact that humanity is 'fallen'...really? Trying to think of the French theologian's name who said that God does what he can in cases of suffering, but that doesn't really square with what the Bible says and smacks of making things up to suit.
All that aside though, however sarcastic, irritating, repetitive and rude non believers can be, they don't lie, distort and misrepresent. And they certainly don't label others as 'dark', with the implications that has when coming from a Christian. And there are posters on here who assert that beliefs such as my pantheism are because I've been 'led astray' by the 'deceiver'. Those statements aren't rude, they are bloody scary.
Who says God could choose to heal suffering? If God could, presumably God would. Anyway, you may think that theology is a oad of illogical cobblers, but saying that God creates suffering, as NS did more than once, is just wilfully ignorant.
I'm sorry you've had a load of bollocks from some Christians - sadly, too many are like that. You won't get anything like that from me re. your pantheism, as I'm close to that position myself. Some people talk of "panentheism", i.e. God being ineverything, rather than being everything. I'd go along with that.
-
Who says God could choose to heal suffering? If God could, presumably God would. Anyway, you may think that theology is a oad of illogical cobblers, but saying that God creates suffering, as NS did more than once, is just wilfully ignorant.
I'm sorry you've had a load of bollocks from some Christians - sadly, too many are like that. You won't get anything like that from me re. your pantheism, as I'm close to that position myself. Some people talk of "panentheism", i.e. God being ineverything, rather than being everything. I'd go along with that.
Nope, sorry, you seem to be confused. Just saying something is 'willfully ignorant ' isn't an argument. Have you got past Isaiah 45:7 yet?
-
Who says God could choose to heal suffering? If God could, presumably God would.
Classical, bog-standard, common-or-garden theism. If you want to step outside that, great. We'll have a different kind of conversation. No problem.
Anyway, you may think that theology is a oad of illogical cobblers, but saying that God creates suffering, as NS did more than once, is just wilfully ignorant.
Except that the book - yours, not mine - says otherwise. Isaiah 45:7 - just as NS has already pointed out.
It isn't "wilfully ignorant"; it's in your manual.
-
Here (http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/45-7.htm) are some commentaries on that verse. I do not necessarily agree with any of them; I'm posting the link for information and interest.
-
Here (http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/45-7.htm) are some commentaries on that verse. I do not necessarily agree with any of them; I'm posting the link for information and interest.
I would like to hear your thoughts! Leaving those aside, can we at least get some recognition that your suggestion that there is nothing in theology about the problem till recently is wrong?
-
Where is your proof it exists in reality, not just in the mind of believers?.
Where is your proof that you exist in reality, not just in my nightmares?
-
Where is your proof that you exist in reality, not just in my nightmares?
Wow I am honoured that I am the stuff of your nightmares, I feel very important indeed. ;D
You don't offer any proof for your utterances.
-
Here (http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/45-7.htm) are some commentaries on that verse. I do not necessarily agree with any of them; I'm posting the link for information and interest.
That's great and all but the idea of commentary on the supposed word of the creator of the universe itself - to me, somebody's subjective opinion on what is in its own right a subjective opinion - has always struck me as deeply peculiar. Why would the creator's message to humanity require so many conflicting and contradictory interpretations, instead of simply and plainly stating what that message is in such clear terms that it can be understood by one and all? I have no pretensions of being a great or even particularly good writer but I flatter myself that I can say something in a simple and direct manner sufficiently to be understood without commentary or entirely subjective interpretation; an ability seemingly lost on the Author of All That Is.
-
The exact words, no one. But the idea, you, see below quote. You love a god you think killed my friend of skin cancer. You think that is love. You abase yourself before what you think is a murdering thug. You love and worship pain
'As God has given man the freedom to fall if man wishes it. So he gives some freedom to the universe to organise itself without his intervention thus people fall of cliffs taking selfies, killed in tornadoes, or succumbing to disease.'
There is no stopping your amazing outbursts like 'You worship Leukemia' although I would question any one who has no trouble with God incarnated as Leukemia, then having trouble with God incarnated as Jesus.
All I am saying is that we are allowed freedom to do the wrong thing and the universe is given freedom to develop and arrange itself and that we have it available in ourselves to develop mastery over nature.
-
All I am saying is that we are allowed freedom to do the wrong thing and the universe is given freedom to develop and arrange itself and that we have it available in ourselves to develop mastery over nature.
I am inclined not to place any trust in or give any credence to someone (or something) who allows the freedom to do "the wrong thing" as in Treblinka or the rape of children or a death (premature or not) from cancer. I wouldn't allow such "freedom". Would you? This calls to mind Dan Barker's quote about most people in most places most of the time being nicer than Jesus and better than God.
Freedom is a very good thing indeed, but the idea that we have mastery over nature is a delusion of the Sriram-ish variety. There is no such mastery and the desire for it - or the pursuit of it - is an arrant delusion.
-
I am inclined not to place any trust in or give any credence to someone (or something) who allows the freedom to do "the wrong thing" as in Treblinka or the rape of children or a death (premature or not) from cancer. I wouldn't allow such "freedom". Would you? This calls to mind Dan Barker's quote about most people in most places most of the time being nicer than Jesus and better than God.
.
Letting the Nazi's off the hook are we?
Barker missing the obvious that it was people who did it.
Revise the Milgram experiment if you think people remain invariably nice in all circumstances.
-
Barker missing the obvious that it was people who did it.
A statement of the bleeding obvious if ever there was one.
Of course people did it.
I think nothing but people did it.
The point is - you think God allowed it. I may think he over-eggs the pudding rhetorically at times (something of which I am myself undoubtedly guilty in the heat of the moment), but the death at 28 by skin cancer of NS's friend was also allowed by your God, if that God is of the tolerably classical sort. If it isn't, well, fine - as I said to Steve H yesterday, that's a different conversation.
Revise the Milgram experiment if you think people remain invariably nice in all circumstances.
I don't.
-
A statement of the bleeding obvious if ever there was one.
Of course people did it.
I think nothing but people did it.
The point is - you think God allowed it. I don't.
You can probably then handle the contradiction between humanity being nice and yet capable of producing the Nazis and the atheists Stalin and Pol Pot.
Also I guess you put down your hatred of Nazis and God to your own self righteousness.
Yes I think God allowed man and man allowed the nazis. So much for Humanism.
-
You can probably then handle the contradiction between humanity being nice
Who has said that? Not me. Who are you talking to?
Also I guess you put down your hatred of Nazis and God to your own self righteousness.
I put down my hatred of Nazis to being a tolerably decent bloke, not greatly enamoured of humankind it's true but willing to rub along with those who are different to me. And incidentally, you can't hate what doesn't exist.
Yes I think God allowed man and man allowed the nazis.
Then NS was right all along. You worship a sadistic monster. You can make the chain as long as you like, with as many intermediate links as you like, but if you believe that God is ultimately in charge of events on this planet (do you or don't you?), God allowed Treblinka.
So much for Humanism.
I wouldn't know. I'm not a humanist (or at any rate, not in most standard definitions of the term - other options are available), so I'm not sure who you're talking to.
-
I put down my hatred of Nazis to being a tolerably decent bloke,
Hatred of Nazis OK
Tolerably decent bloke? I hear there is a party for people who agree with that....The Old phone Box, Oadby Wednesday night...Bring a friend.
-
Hatred of Nazis OK
Tolerably decent bloke? I hear there is a party for people who agree with that....The Old phone Box, Oadby Wednesday night...Bring a friend.
We're going to need a bigger boat.
-
Then NS was right all along. You worship a sadistic monster. You can make the chain as long as you like, with as many intermediate links as you like, but if you believe that God is ultimately in charge of events on this planet (do you or don't you?)
I thought I said to you that God had given Mankind and the universe freedom. That shows you don't read the replies.
If God is responsible for mans evil then he is responsible for men's Good. That means you can no more be a decent bloke than you say the Nazis are responsible if God exists.
And yet you are trying to say that most people are good. Why would God do that? So if most people are good then that would be down to God.
But why would most people be nicer than God why would God do that....obviously to oppose his own bastardy and to ultimately raise a population of atheists......It all makes sense........ not.
I'm sorry Shaker I've taken your logic further than you dare to...and demonstrate it's short comings!!!!!
God creates man gives him the freedom to love or hate God or ignore him, provides a way back and restoration of a marvelous relationship with him forever. I see no Bastardy in that.
-
I thought I said to you that God had given Mankind and the universe freedom.
Well, you asserted as much.
If God is responsible for mans evil then he is responsible for men's Good. That means you can no more be a decent bloke than you say the Nazis are responsible if God exists.
When the OED wants to refresh its definition of non sequitur, I'm sure they'll be a-calling.
And yet you are trying to say that most people are good.
No; the quote (from Dan Barker, though I agree with him) is that when compared to the alleged/supposed/so-called actions of God in the Bible, most people in most places at most times are better. Which is straightforwardly true. They are. You don't have to be E. M. Cioran or Pollyanna - to illustrate the opposing and extreme poles - here; a simple awareness of the world around you will do the job. (Though I do love Cioran, and on balance think he was right).
There have been some spectacularly evil, cruel and brutal people in history. They're the exception. None of them have attempted (or, as far as I know, even wanted) to wipe out all of humanity with the exception of one family on a DIY boat.
Of course, I fully concede that you are so literal that you are tone-deaf to the concept of evil fictional characters such as God, Iago and Sauron and so forth, but that's very much your problem, isn't it?
But why would most people be nicer than God why would God do that
Why does the God you purport to believe in do anything? So far it's either assertion or "dunno, guv". Not exactly edifying.
God creates man gives him the freedom to love or hate God or ignore him, provides a way back and restoration of a marvelous relationship with him forever. I see no Bastardy in that.
I see nothing nothing but bald assertion. Who'd have thought?
-
That'll be why it never happens :o
Abolition of slavery
-
Here (http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/45-7.htm) are some commentaries on that verse. I do not necessarily agree with any of them; I'm posting the link for information and interest.
Whatever the commentaries say, it's obvious that the theology of this part of Isaiah is completely different from that part of the Bible concerned with 'original sin' (with which Vlad is so preoccupied)
-
Whatever the commentaries say, it's obvious that the theology of this part of Isaiah is completely different from that part of the Bible concerned with 'original sin' (with which Vlad is so preoccuped)
Since I have nothing to do with this I don't know why I've been raised.
Original sin as a single un contextualised idea?
I can see how that could preoccupy someone who fails to contemplate God's plan of restoration through Jesus Christ.
-
Nope, sorry, you seem to be confused. Just saying something is 'willfully ignorant ' isn't an argument. Have you got past Isaiah 45:7 yet?
I'm not criticising anything in your post, it's just that from my point of view it's a case of referring to anything expounded from within the bible before establishing it's veracity as a whole, it's just not worth spending any time or effort discussing any of its content such as the part you have referred to.
Regards ippy.
-
I'm not criticising anything in your post, it's just that from my point of view it's a case of referring to anything expounded from within the bible before establishing it's veracity as a whole, it's just not worth spending any time or effort discussing any of its content such as the part you have referred to.
Regards ippy.
First of all the bible isn't just a book it is a collection of books so your initial premise is flawed.
What you are saying in effect is that you won't read it because it's rubbish.
-
First of all the bible isn't just a book it is a collection of books so your initial premise is flawed.
What you are saying in effect is that you won't read it because it's rubbish.
Do you mean that if this book of yours was by chance, a remote chance, was found to be a collection of facts strung together by whoever, the people that at present live in some sort of religious fairyland wouldn't be stuffing it down our necks from every media direction possible?
Since the above hasn't happened nor is it very likely, what's the point of taking the bible any more seriously than, say a Harry Potter novel?
In as much perhaps as a bit of a guide to our western cultural background when we were in more ignorant times where a certain amount of the fear of the unknown would have figured it might be worth a short read, other than that well you can see for yourself the diminishing figures of the religious minded to hang on.
By the way you brought rubbish into this I only referred to the bible lacking any veracity.
Regards ippy
-
Do you mean that if this book of yours was by chance, a remote chance, was found to be a collection of facts strung together by whoever, the people that at present live in some sort of religious fairyland wouldn't be stuffing it down our necks from every media direction possible?
Sounds like hyperbole to me Ippy.
Sounds like you have the sky religious channels package Ippy. If you don't like it stop subscribing.
-
Since the above hasn't happened nor is it very likely, what's the point of taking the bible any more seriously than, say a Harry Potter novel?
Have you read more Harry Potter than the Bible, Ipsworth?
-
I only referred to the bible lacking any veracity.
How do you know if you haven't read it?
-
Have you read more Harry Potter than the Bible, Ipsworth?
Why? What difference would it make?
ippy
-
How do you know if you haven't read it?
Can't think of any worthwhile reason to sit reading a bible, I would think it'd be more fruitful to join the magic circle, at least they don't try to suggest their works are other worldly.
ippy
-
Sounds like hyperbole to me Ippy.
Sounds like you have the sky religious channels package Ippy. If you don't like it stop subscribing.
I've only gone bowling a few times but not for a long time now?
ippy
-
Have you read more Harry Potter than the Bible, Ipsworth?
Less H P.
ippy
-
Less H P.
ippy
And which parts of the bible have you read Ippington?
-
And which parts of the bible have you read Ippington?
Out of interest how often do you read the Bible, and which bits have you read the most?
-
Since I have nothing to do with this I don't know why I've been raised.
Original sin as a single un contextualised idea?
I can see how that could preoccupy someone who fails to contemplate God's plan of restoration through Jesus Christ.
You raised the matter in your recent post #144:
God creates man gives him the freedom to love or hate God or ignore him, provides a way back and restoration of a marvelous relationship with him forever. I see no Bastardy in that
"Restoration of a marvellous relationship with him".
I'm more interested in how the idea of God evolves in the Old Testament. Here at this point in Isaiah we see the unequivocal departure from the idea of God as tribal and henotheistic, to status as the lord of life, the creator of good and ill. It is useful to read what requirements this god of Isaiah demands and compare them with other ideas distributed through the scriptures, particularly with the ones that you've opted for and seem to think are universally applicable. True for you is certainly not true for everyone.
-
First of all the bible isn't just a book it is a collection of books so your initial premise is flawed.
That's very good, Vlad. Sometimes you do say things which people need to be reminded of.
-
Can't think of any worthwhile reason to sit reading a bible, I would think it'd be more fruitful to join the magic circle, at least they don't try to suggest their works are other worldly.
ippy
Who'd have thought I'd be taking Vlad's part here? The Bible is not one book, as previously pointed out, and much of it is not at all otherworldly. You could safely ignore those bits (as you would if you read Homer). There's some good poetry there, plenty of blood and guts (from the most appalling descriptions of God and his chosen ones' doing). And the Book of Esther doesn't mention God at all. Bits of the Bible also ask some deep questions (many which receive no decent answer, but are profoundly expressed).
Your posts on these matters would carry more conviction if you adopted the old adage "Know your enemy".
-
Who'd have thought I'd be taking Vlad's part here? The Bible is not one book, as previously pointed out, and much of it is not at all otherworldly. You could safely ignore those bits (as you would if you read Homer). There's some good poetry there, plenty of blood and guts (from the most appalling descriptions of God and his chosen ones' doing). And the Book of Esther doesn't mention God at all. Bits of the Bible also ask some deep questions (many which receive no decent answer, but are profoundly expressed).
Your posts on these matters would carry more conviction if you adopted the old adage "Know your enemy".
The amount of times I have written here that I have no time for any of the magical mystical or superstition based parts of the bible, do I have to tag this statement I make on to every post I make?
As for the rest of the book it's not my idea of a comfy bedtime read, so no thanks and those that enjoy it good luck.
Mind D U, I was addressing Vlad, and he does like to promote his stuff on the back of misquotes and jumping on to the slightest possible ambiguity or taking anything loosly written that would be understood more or less correctly by anyone else but he stil likes to take things in his own devious/characteristic way.
Vlad's not my enemy D U, but yes I should have known better.
Regards ippy
-
Can't think of any worthwhile reason to sit reading a bible,
If you want to criticise it or what is in it, it might be useful to have a working knowledge of what it says. For example, Vlad is right: it is a collection of documents. The veracity of one book in the Bible (or lack thereof) is not a good argument against the veracity of other books in the Bible. For example, Genesis is entirely fiction but 1 & 2 Kings are both loosely based on historical events.
-
It occurred to me today that the reason that the argument from suffering against belief in God didn't seem to bother believers in earlier ages was probably that they had a thorough-going belief in an eternal afterlife, in comparison with the bliss of which the sufferings of this life would fade into insignificance. This world's sufferings only seem significant if you assume that this life is all there is, which is what the anti-theists are trying to prove. This says nothing one way or the other about whether there is an afterlife, but possibly rules out of court one atheistical argument.
Some points in response
1. How do you know that they weren't bothered?
2. The world's sufferings could (I would even say would) seem more significant because of their belief in an Almighty God who is sovereign, something you don't hear a lot about today. Prayer isn't just about getting answers. It's about aligning our will with His; something the Lord's Prayer illustrates at the start. How are people who won't even acknowledge Almighty God in a position to comment on anything He does or doesn't do? It's breathtaking arrogance!!
At the risk of incurring your wrath again, I'm going to repeat some points I've made in the past.
Believers in earlier ages (as well as now) are in a relationship with God. One can read the Psalms of David, to the lyrics of hymns such as Amazing Grace and And Can It Be That I Should Gain. They are the created being. God is the Creator. Nothing stops them asking questions of God Almighty, but in the absence of answers, they trust.
The problem today is that individuals want all the answers. They are in effect creating a god of their own intellect. This is why many appear to have conversion experiences, whereas in reality they have an intellectual framework that appears to work. When the latest anti-theist argument comes along that they cannot answer, the framework falls away and they give up their faith. All that is shown is that their faith was never in God, it was in arguments about Him.
If you are going to respond, do spare me your usual post-modern nonsense where you make pejorative comments about the post and fail to address from a perspective of right/wrong its detail.
-
If you want to criticise it or what is in it, it might be useful to have a working knowledge of what it says. For example, Vlad is right: it is a collection of documents. The veracity of one book in the Bible (or lack thereof) is not a good argument against the veracity of other books in the Bible. For example, Genesis is entirely fiction but 1 & 2 Kings are both loosely based on historical events.
I suppose if that's the sort of thing you enjoy, why not.
I still can't see any necessity for me to get involved with any of the magical mystical or superstition based parts of the bible, I wouldn't have thought I would need to feature those parts and any way it doesn't appeal to me as a book I need to read.
Just because I disregard the bible's magical, mystery superstition base, and look on it as a a load of old unsupportable nonsense doesn't mean that there's some reason I should be reading any of the rest of it.
Regards ippy
-
The amount of times I have written here that I have no time for any of the magical mystical or superstition based parts of the bible, do I have to tag this statement I make on to every post I make?
For fuck's sake man, get a grip. Did you actually read my post at all? That was part of the matter I was addressing. As for your having no interest in the magical superstition bits of the Bible - we know - we know - we know. Do I have to tag every post to you on this matter to let you know that I know that is your opinion?
And as you ought to know also, I have no belief in the supernatural either.
As for the rest of the book it's not my idea of a comfy bedtime read, so no thanks and those that enjoy it good luck.
Well, as I said, and as Jeremy has reiterated, if you are going to make a critique of something, it is best to know something about it. Imagine going on at length about why you or anyone disagreed with communism without having read the Communist Manifesto (let alone Das Kapital). And those are closely argued texts with a consistent theme. The Bible has a thousand themes, often contradictory (okay, the fundamentalists will tell you there is just one theme, but bully for them). Yes, it may not be enjoyable reading material for you, but if you haven't read any of the texts, how would you know? (Please don't start wittering on about 'magical, mystical etc.) Maybe people like Jeremy, who as non-believers take an objective interest in ancient scriptural texts, are a very small minority, but I'm happy that such people are around. NearlySane, another atheist, has in fact read the whole of the Bible, and that is more than I can say for myself.*
Mind D U, I was addressing Vlad, and he does like to promote his stuff on the back of misquotes and jumping on to the slightest possible ambiguity or taking anything loosly written that would be understood more or less correctly by anyone else but he stil likes to take things in his own devious/characteristic way.
Vlad's not my enemy D U, but yes I should have known better.
Oh, I'm well aware of Vlad's shortcomings, and I certainly wouldn't want him as an apologist for any club of which I was a member (fortunately, I'm not a member of any clubs, let alone the Christian one). And he definitely misquotes and tells outright lies. But just occasionally he does say something worth saying.
"Know your enemy" need not be taken literally, but the phrase helps illustrate the point I was making - if you disagree with somebody, your arguments will carry greater weight if you are well informed about their source material.
*As a matter of interest, even Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" urges people to get to know the Bible.
-
Some points in response
1. How do you know that they weren't bothered?
2. The world's sufferings could (I would even say would) seem more significant because of their belief in an Almighty God who is sovereign, something you don't hear a lot about today. Prayer isn't just about getting answers. It's about aligning our will with His; something the Lord's Prayer illustrates at the start. How are people who won't even acknowledge Almighty God in a position to comment on anything He does or doesn't do? It's breathtaking arrogance!!
Steve has in fact gone through quite a lot of stages in his beliefs, so he knows the drill.
Believers in earlier ages (as well as now) are in a relationship with God. One can read the Psalms of David, to the lyrics of hymns such as Amazing Grace and And Can It Be That I Should Gain. They are the created being. God is the Creator. Nothing stops them asking questions of God Almighty, but in the absence of answers, they trust.
"Relationship with God" - this sentimental dreck really began with German Pietism a few centuries ago. There's nothing super-virtuous in maintaining a belief when from the bottom of your soul you do not believe.
[The problem today is that individuals want all the answers. They are in effect creating a god of their own intellect. This is why many appear to have conversion experiences, whereas in reality they have an intellectual framework that appears to work. When the latest anti-theist argument comes along that they cannot answer, the framework falls away and they give up their faith. All that is shown is that their faith was never in God, it was in arguments about Him.
Simplistic garbage. People lose their faith for many reasons, and often after the most tragic soul-searching. Please spare us the trite nonsense about "Oh they were never true Christians in the first place"
-
For fuck's sake man, get a grip. Did you actually read my post at all? That was part of the matter I was addressing. As for your having no interest in the magical superstition bits of the Bible - we know - we know - we know. Do I have to tag every post to you on this matter to let you know that I know that is your opinion?
And as you ought to know also, I have no belief in the supernatural either.
Well, as I said, and as Jeremy has reiterated, if you are going to make a critique of something, it is best to know something about it. Imagine going on at length about why you or anyone disagreed with communism without having read the Communist Manifesto (let alone Das Kapital). And those are closely argued texts with a consistent theme. The Bible has a thousand themes, often contradictory (okay, the fundamentalists will tell you there is just one theme, but bully for them). Yes, it may not be enjoyable reading material for you, but if you haven't read any of the texts, how would you know? (Please don't start wittering on about 'magical, mystical etc.) Maybe people like Jeremy, who as non-believers take an objective interest in ancient scriptural texts, are a very small minority, but I'm happy that such people are around. NearlySane, another atheist, has in fact read the whole of the Bible, and that is more than I can say for myself.*
Oh, I'm well aware of Vlad's shortcomings, and I certainly wouldn't want him as an apologist for any club of which I was a member (fortunately, I'm not a member of any clubs, let alone the Christian one). And he definitely misquotes and tells outright lies. But just occasionally he does say something worth saying.
"Know your enemy" need not be taken literally, but the phrase helps illustrate the point I was making - if you disagree with somebody, your arguments will carry greater weight if you are well informed about their source material.
*As a matter of interest, even Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" urges people to get to know the Bible.
Bit of a fluff about very little D U, I can't see the problem, help yourself to any knowledge you wish to acquire about anything that floats your boat like I do.
Good on anyone that wishes learn all they can from the bible, I'm reading a book titled 'A thousand Years of Annoying the French', love it and would equally enjoy reading the reverse of the same, it's making me laugh as would the other version, I read for enjoyment.
If the usual stuff in the bible manages to prove god I have to admit I would feel obliged to read it and as you must know, other than that you can keep it no matter what Our Lord Dawkins says.
Kind regards and lighten up a bit D U, ippy.
-
"Relationship with God" - this sentimental dreck really began with German Pietism a few centuries ago.
Have you ever read the Bible?
Simplistic garbage. People lose their faith for many reasons, and often after the most tragic soul-searching. Please spare us the trite nonsense about "Oh they were never true Christians in the first place"
Then try responding to what I wrote. You can find where I said, they were never true Christians in the first place in my post, can't you?
-
Have you ever read the Bible?
Then try responding to what I wrote. You can find where I said, they were never true Christians in the first place in my post, can't you?
If you can say that a person was 'not a true Christian in the first place', one presumes you can define what a 'true Christian' is. Please do so.
-
Have you ever read the Bible?
If you have a personal relationship with God, why would you need the Bible?
-
If you have a personal relationship with God, why would you need the Bible?
Nice one. I have to turn off computer now, but I shall be looking out with interest tomorrow morning for a reply.
-
Nice one. I have to turn off computer now, but I shall be looking out with interest tomorrow morning for a reply.
Yes, it's an often overlooked point, but reading a biography is not the same as a personal relationship. If it was, I'd have personal relationships with a great many famous people. If you need the Bible to have a personal relationship with God, you do not have a personal relationship with God.
-
Yes, it's an often overlooked point, but reading a biography is not the same as a personal relationship. If it was, I'd have personal relationships with a great many famous people. If you need the Bible to have a personal relationship with God, you do not have a personal relationship with God.
Good one j p.
Regards ippy
-
Some points in response
1. How do you know that they weren't bothered?
2. The world's sufferings could (I would even say would) seem more significant because of their belief in an Almighty God who is sovereign, something you don't hear a lot about today. Prayer isn't just about getting answers. It's about aligning our will with His; something the Lord's Prayer illustrates at the start. How are people who won't even acknowledge Almighty God in a position to comment on anything He does or doesn't do? It's breathtaking arrogance!!
At the risk of incurring your wrath again, I'm going to repeat some points I've made in the past.
Believers in earlier ages (as well as now) are in a relationship with God. One can read the Psalms of David, to the lyrics of hymns such as Amazing Grace and And Can It Be That I Should Gain. They are the created being. God is the Creator. Nothing stops them asking questions of God Almighty, but in the absence of answers, they trust.
The problem today is that individuals want all the answers. They are in effect creating a god of their own intellect. This is why many appear to have conversion experiences, whereas in reality they have an intellectual framework that appears to work. When the latest anti-theist argument comes along that they cannot answer, the framework falls away and they give up their faith. All that is shown is that their faith was never in God, it was in arguments about Him.
If you are going to respond, do spare me your usual post-modern nonsense where you make pejorative comments about the post and fail to address from a perspective of right/wrong its detail.
I AM NOT A POST-MODERNIST! FFS - how many times do I have to say it? I DEPLORE post-modernism - it is dangerous and leaves us unable to say anything meaningful about anything.
Secondly, why are you picking arguments with someone who is arguing on your side of the debate?
-
Small thorny flower asked you a question on previous page Harry.
-
Small thorny flower asked you a question on previous page Harry.
She asked Vlad, not me.
-
Or did you think I was Vlad's latest incarnation? I am in fact the poster formerly known as SteveH.
-
Oh yeah sorry. 'Poster formerly known as' not 'Tarquin flim bin' or whatever you were :-).
I'm confused by names (your posts are not alike) but like your new one even if the original Genial Harry was scary.
-
Or did you think I was Vlad's latest incarnation? I am in fact the poster formerly known as SteveH.
Anyone could be forgiven for getting you and Vlad confused, as you both keep coming up with crazy names. ::)
-
I AM NOT A POST-MODERNIST! FFS - how many times do I have to say it? I DEPLORE post-modernism - it is dangerous and leaves us unable to say anything meaningful about anything.
Secondly, why are you picking arguments with someone who is arguing on your side of the debate?
As usual, SOTS turns up. posts bollocks, and then buggers off again, ignoring replies to his bollocks.
-
As usual, SOTS turns up. posts bollocks, and then buggers off again, ignoring replies to his bollocks.
Quite a few of your posts Steve, they're not that genial, maybe it's time for a changed handle,
Perhaps it'd be a good idea to file Sots a bit further up on the list of really gone godheads, you'd have to file him below Alan B though.
Regards ippy
P S I changed my handle from Iplova to ippy, because it's shorter no capital and it was also an amalgam of the various nicknames I received on responses to my posts.
-
Perhaps it'd be a good idea to file Sots a bit further up on the list of really gone godheads, you'd have to file him below Alan B though.
Regards ippy
Oh, I don't know... They are pretty much on a level I think; one is, as far as I can see, supercilious/arrogant and the other very-humble/arrogant!! I find that when SotS's name comes up, it makes me laugh and I think, I wonder what fun we'll have this time. :) AsAB is there most of the time, I either read only one in, say four, or glance at a quoted-in-reply post.
ETA I sometimes wonder how either of them would fit in and post on SofF - not well, probably.
-
Oh, I don't know... They are pretty much on a level I think; one is, as far as I can see, supercilious/arrogant and the other very-humble/arrogant!! I find that when SotS's name comes up, it makes me laugh and I think, I wonder what fun we'll have this time. :) AsAB is there most of the time, I either read only one in, say four, or glance at a quoted-in-reply post.
ETA I sometimes wonder how either of them would fit in and post on SofF - not well, probably.
Dunno about that - I think AB is a thoroughly nice, humble, bloke. Wrong, but nice. I won't say what I think of SOTS.
-
Dunno about that - I think AB is a thoroughly nice, humble, bloke. Wrong, but nice. I won't say what I think of SOTS.
I agree AB is a decent guy, even if I don't see it his way. As for Sword, well that is another story.
-
Sword is surely not trying to avoid answering questions Genial Harry, he probably has other things to do. He's not someone who posts here all that often. You're nothing like Vlad even though i did get your name changes confused.
Ippy Genial Harry Grout was not a genial character, he was a scary villain!
-
Sword is surely not trying to avoid answering questions Genial Harry, he probably has other things to do. He's not someone who posts here all that often. You're nothing like Vlad even though i did get your name changes confused.
Ippy Genial Harry Grout was not a genial character, he was a scary villain!
Sorry never heard of him as a character, by the way my handle is all lower case, this isn't good enough Rob.
Regards ippy
-
Sorry never heard of him as a character, by the way my handle is all lower case, this isn't good enough Rob.
Regards ippy
Never seen Porridge?
-
Oh sorry ippy! I won't do it again.
Genial Harry Grout was a character from Porridge so he was in prison. Everyone was scared of him including the screws. I googled the name and that's how I found out, I did see some episodes of Porridge when I was a teenager but don't remember all the names (except Fletch).
-
Sorry never heard of him as a character, by the way my handle is all lower case, this isn't good enough Rob.
Regards ippy
Genial Harry Grout, HMP Slade's Mr Big, played brilliantly by Peter Vaughan, was based on Noel Coward's Mr Bridger in 'The Itaian Job'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Porridge_(TV_series)#Harry_Grout
-
Genial Harry Grout, HMP Slade's Mr Big, played brilliantly by Peter Vaughan, was based on Noel Coward's Mr Bridger in 'The Itaian Job'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Porridge_(TV_series)#Harry_Grout
Ar yes knew the face and the charecter but for some reason I hadn't picked up on the name, no idea why?
Regards toall ippy
-
Dunno about that - I think AB is a thoroughly nice, humble, bloke. Wrong, but nice. I won't say what I think of SOTS.
Perhaps as you say Sots is a bit of a Mr Nasty he is also some kind of scientist? And deeply religious too?
Then I look on A B as a victim, then again scientist, theist, theist, scientist, Sots?
How sad the pair of them, good question, which one goes to the top of the class?
Regards to all ippy
-
Then try responding to what I wrote. You can find where I said, they were never true Christians in the first place in my post, can't you?
You wrote this:
The problem today is that individuals want all the answers. They are in effect creating a god of their own intellect. This is why many appear to have conversion experiences, whereas in reality they have an intellectual framework that appears to work. When the latest anti-theist argument comes along that they cannot answer, the framework falls away and they give up their faith. All that is shown is that their faith was never in God, it was in arguments about Him.
To me, that is tantamount to saying "they were never true Christians in the first place". That is, you have determined that certain individuals' conversion experiences were not the genuine article, or they would not have lost their faith. It may just be that there was no god, no Christ there in the first place to put their faith in. All internal - as is yours. And you have no way of demonstrating anything different, other than your assertions.
-
Have you ever read the Bible?
:)
This may take some time; more than I'm inclined to take at the moment. Anyway, here goes for a start:
There are many images of God in the Bible, and no doubt you've made your own selection. If we begin with the god of Isaiah 40: v 15 to the end of the chapter, the god for whom the "nations of the earth are as grasshoppers" - is this the god with whom you claim some sort of 'personal relationship'? There are words of comfort and encouragement at the beginning and ending of that chapter, but they are directed to his 'chosen people', and do not suggest the cosy arrangement that you appear to profess. The god of Isaiah 45 goes even further in emphasising this impersonal 'otherness'. There are throughout the scriptures images of God as a shepherd to his sheep, but maybe any suggestions of 'relationship' here might be lowering the tone.
The first chapter of the Bible itself establishes the transcendental picture of God, and if the Documentary Hypothesis is at all correct, then the author who wrote this is the same as the one who wrote most of Leviticus. This would appear to be a god who wishes to bore the arse of all his worshippers with a ludicrous bucketful of finickety laws.
The situation gets worse when we get a little further into the Bible - do you really want to boast of a 'relationship' with the murderous thug of a deity represented in the Book of Joshua? Or the vile psychopath of Numbers 31, who gave orders to Moses to slay all the Midianites, men women and boys, but to rape the young virgin girls?
On a cooler level, how would you have a 'relationship' with the nebulous, distant god of Ecclesiastes?
"AH! (I hear you say) - "but I'm talking about Jesus"
Well, there are many Jesuses in the New Testament.
I suppose you could get some sense of God wanting a relationship with each individual from Revelation 3:10 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock". I think I said enough for most people when I mentioned the Book of Revelation. You have the problem of reconciling the fire-breathing monster of most of the book with gentler images. I suggest the author was confused, if not drugged.
The synoptic gospels offer no consistency either. I'm not sure I'd want a personal relationship with a deluded apocalyptic prophet who was convinced the end of the world would occur in the lifetime of some of his listeners, and who was forever casting people into outer darkness, telling the ones who disagreed with him to 'depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and all his angels'
There is of course, the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount - but does that speak of 'relationship'? It speaks of comfort for the afflicted, certainly (as did deutero-Isaiah), but that is surely not quite the same thing.
Then there is the Jesus of John and in part St Paul, with his 'elect' (you perhaps are one of this select band?) Perhaps we have to be part of the elect to get on personal terms with God, but the original texts do not convince that there is any specific way of going about this.
Enough already.
-
Well, with the above post I really seem to have pretty well derailed the thread. So, anyone with further thoughts on the thread title?
Meantime, maybe such comments as I made above might be the subject of a new thread, such as "A Personal Relationship With God?"
There is a big question mark there.
-
Well, with the above post I really seem to have pretty well derailed the thread. So, anyone with further thoughts on the thread title?
Meantime, maybe such comments as I made above might be the subject of a new thread, such as "A Personal Relationship With God?"
There is a big question mark there.
Maybe people are just letting you riff.
-
John 15:15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.
-
John 15:15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.
Yes, there are some quotes in John. You make the selections that appeal to you, and make your image of God (or Jesus as God Incarnate) accordingly. You also have to believe that the substance of John's gospel is true historical reportage (I don't, and a fair number of modern scholars think there is more of the historical Jesus in the synoptics). But even if John were historical, it still wouldn't answer the points about the other images of God. You have to do a lot of double-think.
-
Yes, there are some quotes in John. You make the selections that appeal to you, and make your image of God (or Jesus as God Incarnate) accordingly. You also have to believe that the substance of John's gospel is true historical reportage (I don't, and a fair number of modern scholars think there is more of the historical Jesus in the synoptics). But even if John were historical, it still wouldn't answer the points about the other images of God. You have to do a lot of double-think.
What images of God do you think are contradictory and need double think?
-
Any image of god is a figment of the human imagination, as it has never put in an appearance, should it exist.
-
Any image of god is a figment of the human imagination, as it has never put in an appearance, should it exist.
Mucho posivo assertio. Justificatio necessario.
-
Mucho posivo assertio. Justificatio necessario.
You have no evidence to prove otherwise.
-
Any image of god is a figment of the human imagination, as it has never put in an appearance, should it exist.
Yawny MacYawnface. Change the bloody record!
-
Yawny MacYawnface. Change the bloody record!
My dear, your daft comments are so samey they are BORING!
-
Yawny MacYawnface. Change the bloody record!
No man has ever seen Almighty God...but the Son of Man has made him known to us...and we are encouraged to follow Jesus accurately and thereby turn our attitude back to righteousness which is a way of telling all evil, beware, the righteous will inherit this world because you, the evil, and unrepentant, have rejected what is on offer.
Then we will really see suffering disappear because suffering is built upon distress and Satan works upon inflicting distress on all those who have no righteous protection.
-
No man has ever seen Almighty God...
Genesis 32:30 and Exodus 33:11 say otherwise.
-
No man has ever seen Almighty God...but the Son of Man has made him known to us...and we are encouraged to follow Jesus accurately and thereby turn our attitude back to righteousness which is a way of telling all evil, beware, the righteous will inherit this world because you, the evil, and unrepentant, have rejected what is on offer.
Then we will really see suffering disappear because suffering is built upon distress and Satan works upon inflicting distress on all those who have no righteous protection.
Well Nick, you seem to be very distressed about "chemtrails", earthquakes, pollution, made up planets etc!
Very distressed indeed.
Looks like you need to get your "rightiousness" on track?
-
Well Nick, you seem to be very distressed about "chemtrails", earthquakes, pollution, made up planets etc!
Very distressed indeed.
Looks like you need to get your "rightiousness" on track?
It is surprising NM hasn't mentioned the blood moon! ;D
-
Genesis 32:30 and Exodus 33:11 say otherwise.
I have no solid answer for you Shaker...I wasn't there on either occasion...but Almighty God is the living spiritual life-form of a superabundant, dynamic energy, which has certainly, never been seen, by man, or science...which suggests that the reason God uses prophets and angels is because his very presence would be, er, well...electrifying...and in both of your instances a person from the Heavenly domain represented God and was interpreted as being God by those who received their Holy Orders from God, through Angels. An angel working on Almighty God's instructions then could be likened to being face to face with God. That would meet the righteous requirement making these statements valid and true.
-
Littleroses/Maeght...
If either of you had read my posts with a righteous attitude you would know that the Holy Bible gives us all an escape route from all calamity...including this...the worst of them all...God's Final Judgement.
If we make ourselves righteous spirits then these are times when Almighty God will strip all evil of their devious gains...evict them spiritually, according to the teaching of Revelation 21:8...and redistribute the resources of the planet in a fair, honest, judicial way...so that repair, resurrection and everlasting life become our tools for guidance instead of greed and spite....It is something joyous and well worth waiting for but it will also be a time of much weeping and gnashing of teeth. Helping you, is helping me, because I want to be part of that new heavens and new Earth.
-
Littleroses/Maeght...
If either of you had read my posts with a righteous attitude you would know that the Holy Bible gives us all an escape route from all calamity...including this...the worst of them all...God's Final Judgement.
If we make ourselves righteous spirits then these are times when Almighty God will strip all evil of their devious gains...evict them spiritually, according to the teaching of Revelation 21:8...and redistribute the resources of the planet in a fair, honest, judicial way...so that repair, resurrection and everlasting life become our tools for guidance instead of greed and spite....It is something joyous and well worth waiting for but it will also be a time of much weeping and gnashing of teeth. Helping you, is helping me, because I want to be part of that new heavens and new Earth.
That should say
If either of you had read my posts with a an over active imagination you would imagine that the Holy Bible gives us all an escape route from all calamity...including this...the worst of them all...God's Final Judgement.
-
That should say
If either of you had read my posts with a an over active imagination you would imagine that the Holy Bible gives us all an escape route from all calamity...including this...the worst of them all...God's Final Judgement.
Spot on. ;D
-
It is surprising NM hasn't mentioned the blood moon! ;D
We can see that this evening
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/time-lunar-eclipse-july-2018-075527284.html?guccounter=1
-
Littleroses/Maeght...
If either of you looked for any kind of evidence which is presented truthfully and honestly and with scientific collaboration you might stumble upon some YouTube videos about children who have accidentally been resurrected...They may have inadvertently managed to reach some electrical criteria that made it possible. Of course you don't have to accept this as Gospel but evidence often requires us to sift out the fact from the fiction. Now...I'm not suggesting we leave our resurrection to accidental methods, which, incidentally, has been the birth-force behind many well received sciences (remember penicillin)...but Jesus Christ tells us that resurrection need be no accident...It just requires faith in him, and his scientific righteous code, and then resurrection is guaranteed, and well deserved.
-
You have no evidence to prove otherwise.
Those who eagerly leap on NPFs are nowhere to be seen. Humbugerry on their part.
-
Littleroses/Maeght...
If either of you looked for any kind of evidence which is presented truthfully and honestly and with scientific collaboration you might stumble upon some YouTube videos about children who have accidentally been resurrected...They may have inadvertently managed to reach some electrical criteria that made it possible. Of course you don't have to accept this as Gospel but evidence often requires us to sift out the fact from the fiction. Now...I'm not suggesting we leave our resurrection to accidental methods, which, incidentally, has been the birth-force behind many well received sciences (remember penicillin)...but Jesus Christ tells us that resurrection need be no accident...It just requires faith in him, and his scientific righteous code, and then resurrection is guaranteed, and well deserved.
That's really quite funny (and sad) that you think YouTube is a source of truthful, honest and scientifically corroborated (not collaberation I presume) evidence.
-
Those who eagerly leap on NPFs are nowhere to be seen.
That is true.
-
What images of God do you think are contradictory and need double think?
Gordon Bennett! Give me strength! Since I just listed a large number of these anomalies (from all parts of the Bible) about how the Bible depicts God in my post above, if you can't see the problems, then there's no point in talking to you. Have a nice day.
-
I felt a bit guilty about having derailed Steve's thread in my long post a little while back. I don't now - especially since NM has waded in and turned the thread into black mud.