If you were the deity?

[floo]

deleted

[Hope]

I found this topic on another forum and thought it might be of interest on this one.

If you were God, would you be more accessible to humanity. Would you let the world know 100% of your existence? Would you show yourself to everyone. Would you take a more "active" role?


Well naturally as I am a woman I would make a much better job of being a deity than any male, LOL!!!!!!!!!!

For a start I would make sure my existence was clear to ALL humanity in an irrefutable way. I wouldn't expect to be worshipped. I would hope I could offer sensible advice to people, and do a bit of conscience tweaking if necessary.

How would you 'make sure my existence was clear to ALL humanity in an irrefutable way'?  Would you be arranging for your offspring to be killed every generation, perhaps even in every culture?

As for your comment about "I am a woman I would make a much better job of being a deity than any male", wouldn't that be rather exclusive?  Surely a deity who is beyond gender is more inclusive? 

By the way, is there any reason why we get this kind of thread from you, albeit slightly reworded from the previous threads, every 3 or 4 months?  Is it because you don't like the responses you've had on those previous threads, and think that reintroducing the idea will get people to change their opinions?

[jjohnjil]

I found this topic on another forum and thought it might be of interest on this one.

If you were God, would you be more accessible to humanity. Would you let the world know 100% of your existence? Would you show yourself to everyone. Would you take a more "active" role?


Well naturally as I am a woman I would make a much better job of being a deity than any male, LOL!!!!!!!!!!

For a start I would make sure my existence was clear to ALL humanity in an irrefutable way. I wouldn't expect to be worshipped. I would hope I could offer sensible advice to people, and do a bit of conscience tweaking if necessary.

How would you 'make sure my existence was clear to ALL humanity in an irrefutable way'?  Would you be arranging for your offspring to be killed every generation, perhaps even in every culture?

As for your comment about "I am a woman I would make a much better job of being a deity than any male", wouldn't that be rather exclusive?  Surely a deity who is beyond gender is more inclusive? 

By the way, is there any reason why we get this kind of thread from you, albeit slightly reworded from the previous threads, every 3 or 4 months?  Is it because you don't like the responses you've had on those previous threads, and think that reintroducing the idea will get people to change their opinions?

Hope

Are you really so prehistoric that you think a god could only show it existed by murdering someone!

You'd have been thought as having a great strength of wisdom back in the Inca civilisation!   

[ippy]

I found this topic on another forum and thought it might be of interest on this one.

If you were God, would you be more accessible to humanity. Would you let the world know 100% of your existence? Would you show yourself to everyone. Would you take a more "active" role?


Well naturally as I am a woman I would make a much better job of being a deity than any male, LOL!!!!!!!!!!

For a start I would make sure my existence was clear to ALL humanity in an irrefutable way. I wouldn't expect to be worshipped. I would hope I could offer sensible advice to people, and do a bit of conscience tweaking if necessary.

I wouldn't want to be worshiped either but once they had seen me, well.

ippy

[ekim]

If you were God, would you be more accessible to humanity.

No, I can't be more accessible than omnipresence.

Would you let the world know 100% of your existence?

No, because I am being, not existing, formless not formed.

Would you show yourself to everyone.

I am already available to all who are not distracted by other considerations.

Would you take a more "active" role?

No, because I am  activly passive in nature and any activity more than the present creation would be chaotic.

[Shaker]

If you were God ...

... the universe would be a vastly better place.

[Sriram]

I found this topic on another forum and thought it might be of interest on this one.

If you were God, would you be more accessible to humanity. Would you let the world know 100% of your existence? Would you show yourself to everyone. Would you take a more "active" role?


Well naturally as I am a woman I would make a much better job of being a deity than any male, LOL!!!!!!!!!!

For a start I would make sure my existence was clear to ALL humanity in an irrefutable way. I wouldn't expect to be worshipped. I would hope I could offer sensible advice to people, and do a bit of conscience tweaking if necessary.

This first of all assumes that God is some external being who creates everyone equal and merely wants all people to worship him.

God cannot show himself to everyone because this is a false understanding. God can only be realized.... and obviously this happens only to some people and not to all.

We know that life evolves. Awareness also evolves.  Awareness of God and  understanding of God also evolves.  Everyone cannot therefore be the same and at the same level of development.   

Some people will be evil and stupid and selfish...while some others will be wise and selfless and good.  This is what we observe and this is what our ideas of God should incorporate.

[Hope]

Are you really so prehistoric that you think a god could only show it existed by murdering someone!

No, but if the culture concerned is accustomed to using animal sacrifice as a means of indicating salvation, how else would you show that that method had been fulfilled? 

OK, a question for you.  How would you 'make sure (your) existence was clear to ALL humanity in an irrefutable way' in the 21st century?

[Hope]

I would be visible and accessible to everyone.

How?  Remember that there are 7+billion people on earth at present.

I would not lay down the law, but want to discuss options with humanity so we could work together for the common good.

So, you wouldn't be interested in repairing the damage that exists in the relationship between yourself and humanity?

Without that how could you and humanity discuss anything? 

[jjohnjil]

Are you really so prehistoric that you think a god could only show it existed by murdering someone!

No, but if the culture concerned is accustomed to using animal sacrifice as a means of indicating salvation, how else would you show that that method had been fulfilled? 

OK, a question for you.  How would you 'make sure (your) existence was clear to ALL humanity in an irrefutable way' in the 21st century?

On Facebook - they even use it in the Amazon rain forests!

[Hope]

Ah but as the deity I wouldn't have messed up in the first place!

Who said that the Judeo-Christian deity did?  The Judeo=Chritian understanding is that it was humanity who messed up - so I repeat the question. 

How would you repair the damage in the relationship between yourself and humanity?

[Shaker]

I would be visible and accessible to everyone.

How?  Remember that there are 7+billion people on earth at present.

Hardly a problem for an omnipotent and omniscient entity, surely. By definition it would (a) know how to achieve this and (b) be able to do it, because of its omniscience and omnipotence.

Humans, being fallible and working with limited information, can't be expected to know this stuff but alleged all-knowing and all-powerful entities can - ex hypothesi, as I said.

[Rhiannon]

If you were God ...

... the universe would be a vastly better place.

You'd make chocolate calorie free, wouldn't you?

[Rhiannon]

I would be visible and accessible to everyone.

How?  Remember that there are 7+billion people on earth at present.

I would not lay down the law, but want to discuss options with humanity so we could work together for the common good.

So, you wouldn't be interested in repairing the damage that exists in the relationship between yourself and humanity?

Without that how could you and humanity discuss anything?

That makes no sense. We are all supposed to be able to have a relationship with God and call on him at any time, yet there are too many of us for him to be accessible to each of us? That's not an omnipotent God.

Truthfully, if I wanted to repair the relationship between myself and humanity I'd have to start with a pretty good explanation as to why I've allowed so much suffering.

[Shaker]

Hope is the first one to play the "If God, then magic" card when it suits him, but when anybody raises a perfectly pertinent point taking this into account (as Floo did), all notion of omnipotence and omniscience disappears like a fart in a force 9 gale. Curious.

Either he believes in an omnipotent and omniscient god and understands what these terms mean (or rather would mean in practice) or he doesn't, but you can't flip-flop back and forth between one and t'other when it suits.

[jeremyp]

How would you repair the damage in the relationship between yourself and humanity?

I'd say "Hi guys, just be nice to each other".  I certainly wouldn't arrange for my son to be murdered

[Shaker]

How would you repair the damage in the relationship between yourself and humanity?

I'd say "Hi guys, just be nice to each other".  I certainly wouldn't arrange for my son to be murdered

... even temporarily, because that would make you somewhat of an arse.

[Hope]

I'd say "Hi guys, just be nice to each other".

How would that repair the damage in the the rerlationship between you and humanity which you created - or aren't you interested in them any longer?

[Hope]

Hope is the first one to play the "If God, then magic" card when it suits him, ...

Perhaps that's because I've never played it.  It tends to be the atheists who like to play with it.

... but when anybody raises a perfectly pertinent point taking this into account (as Floo did), all notion of omnipotence and omniscience disappears like a fart in a force 9 gale. Curious.

When did Floo raise 'a perfectly pertinent point taking this into account'?

[Hope]

No, but I'd let nice people who showed compassion and empathy towards other people  into heaven, and boot out all those individuals that deliberately hurt others especially those who did it in the name of religion that thought they had it made.

So, you'd do what Jesus said will happen, in Matthew 25:31ff?

[Andy]

Hope is the first one to play the "If God, then magic" card when it suits him, ...

Perhaps that's because I've never played it.  It tends to be the atheists who like to play with it.

And let me emphasise again, Alan's own explanation - Jesus coming back to life - is itself totally implausible.  Why do we have to provide a plausible explanation when he doesn't?

The plausible explanation we need you to give is why, if Jesus was God in human form, he couldn't have come back to life?  Simply saying that you don't believe that there is a God, or some such reason, isn't a plausible explanation.

Prime example No.1.

[Shaker]

Perhaps that's because I've never played it.

Certainly you have, and I'm far from the only one to have pointed it out.

When did Floo raise 'a perfectly pertinent point taking this into account'?

In the OP and in #3.

[Hope]

Perhaps that's because I've never played it.

Certainly you have, and I'm far from the only one to have pointed it out.

I think you'll find tyhat it is soimething that pops up now and again when I and others like me say something that folk can't answer so, rather than saying nothing, this rather meaningless comment gets threown into the ring to make people sound erudite.

When did Floo raise 'a perfectly pertinent point taking this into account'?

In the OP and in #3.

Both of which I responded to in perfectly pertinent ways.  Next attempt to misrepresent me?

[Hope]

And let me emphasise again, Alan's own explanation - Jesus coming back to life - is itself totally implausible.  Why do we have to provide a plausible explanation when he doesn't?

The plausible explanation we need you to give is why, if Jesus was God in human form, he couldn't have come back to life?  Simply saying that you don't believe that there is a God, or some such reason, isn't a plausible explanation.

Prime example No.1.

Prime example No 1 of what.  jeremy and your inability to produce a plausible explanation based on the condition that is the underlying basis of all Christian understanding?  Oh, sorry, I forgot, you don't like to posit ideas based on anything that you haven't experienced yourselves - unless its third-hand reportage of scientific ideas.

[Andy]

And let me emphasise again, Alan's own explanation - Jesus coming back to life - is itself totally implausible.  Why do we have to provide a plausible explanation when he doesn't?

The plausible explanation we need you to give is why, if Jesus was God in human form, he couldn't have come back to life?  Simply saying that you don't believe that there is a God, or some such reason, isn't a plausible explanation.

Prime example No.1.

Prime example No 1 of what.

Of what Shaker alluded to, the "if God, then magic" card. You can follow a thread, can't you?

 

jeremy and your inability to produce a plausible explanation based on the condition that is the underlying basis of all Christian understanding?

Are you talking plausible as in "this is more likely in a naturalistic sense", or "this is more likely because I can distinguish between when god does and doesn't do something due to a method that I refuse to reveal"?

Oh, sorry, I forgot, you don't like to posit ideas based on anything that you haven't experienced yourselves - unless its third-hand reportage of scientific ideas.

What? Now you really are just talking bollocks. By all means, over play your scientism card to cover your arse in a general sense, but I'm too aware of the ineptitude of science as a means to falsify your god stuff, so don't waste your time aiming it at me.