Original sin.

[Brownie]

So you are a student of Tsvetaeva, oh Dicolas (I'm just showing off)?

I always understood the story of Job to have come from an old story, folklore, and that there was more than one ending but when the scriptures were put together, it was decided that the one we know - in which everything was restored to him - was included.

[Dicky Underpants]

So you are a student of Tsvetaeva, oh Dicolas (I'm just showing off)?

I always understood the story of Job to have come from an old story, folklore, and that there was more than one ending but when the scriptures were put together, it was decided that the one we know - in which everything was restored to him - was included.

Brownie

My knowledge of Russian literature is restricted to Messrs. T, D, P and S (and it's a while since I've dipped into any of those). I've Googled the lady in question - she seems to have had a sad but remarkable life. But I still don't get your reference.

As for the Job story - no doubt there were a number of possible endings (John Fowles was no real innovator!) However, the real point of the Job story is what the biblical author or authors made of it, in terms of the arguments put into the mouths of the 'comforters' and God himself. A nice try, but no cigar for those worthies in question.

[Sassy]

Can some Christian please tell me what "original sin" is currently taken to mean?

You already know, Leonard.

[Sassy]

The Christ was created to save us from the likes of NN and the Sass.

Jesus thought he was saving the Jews...

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

No! Jesus knew he came first to the Jew and then to the Gentile.
He accomplished all he was supposed to do and then we see Paul is sent to the Gentirles, Kings and the children of Israel.

You appear to deliberately elude yourself.

What is it, you realise we tell the truth and that you, even you cannot turn away and believe differently.
What do you think would have happened if Christ had no made Paul blind to his old ways and opened his eyes to the new paths?

You know you want to believe but you also know that your heart is hardened.
If God can change Paul/Saul then you are even easier to change the heart.
Do you think yourself less important to Christ than Paul?  Imagine all you could be if you allowed Christ to cast off the scales from your eyes.

[Sassy]

Dear Dickie,

The story of, the myth of Job is older than the Adam and Eve story/myth, both are there to make you think, from the story of Job I get, shit happens, from the Adam and Eve story, turning your back on God, thinking that we know better than God, maybe that is original sin, but the purpose of myth is to make us think, what happened to Adam and Eve happens today, what happened to poor old Job happens today.

And before old Horsethorn jumps on my neck ( again ) all Myths from all religions are there to make us think.

Gonnagle.

No myths but accounts of that which God revealed through Moses and the Prophets.
God does not deal with lies.
Abraham, like Noah are real.  We see that God entrusts something to us... Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God....When God sends his words are they truth or stories?


Never deny the truth of Gods words... You are in no position to call God a liar.

[floo]

As there is no evidence to support the existence of the Biblical god, one can call it what one likes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As there is no evidence to support the existence of the Biblical god, one can call it what one likes.

The universe is evidence since there is cause and effect.
The only economically logical solution is therefore the creator and creation model.

[Stranger]

The universe is evidence since there is cause and effect.
The only economically logical solution is therefore the creator and creation model.

Unadulterated drivel.

Where did this creator come from? Why should we accept its existence without cause, rather than the universe's?

[Shaker]

The universe is evidence since there is cause and effect.
The only economically logical solution is therefore the creator and creation model.

Cause and effect until we get to God (what was God's cause?) at which point cause and effect is promptly shat on.

0/10. Must do better.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cause and effect until we get to God (what was God's cause?) at which point cause and effect is promptly shat on.

0/10. Must do better.

What else is there beyond cause and effect though.
There is one ultimate cause and one ultimate effect namely the universe. For cause and effect to be true, consistently true there is one ultimate effect and one ultimate cause.

Any deviation from this renders effect alone.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cause and effect until we get to God (what was God's cause?) at which point cause and effect is promptly shat on.

0/10. Must do better.

I'm afraid God not having a cause is no longer essential to this universe having a creator. God could have a cause and still have created this universe and so cause and effect is back on the table.

[Stranger]

What else is there beyond cause and effect though.
There is one ultimate cause and one ultimate effect namely the universe. For cause and effect to be true, consistently true there is one ultimate effect and one ultimate cause.

Any deviation from this renders effect alone.

Did this mean something to you before you translated it into gibberish?

In there somewhere seems to be the idea that one of each is important, why? Maybe that's what you missed out?

[Shaker]

What else is there beyond cause and effect though.

You posit an uncaused God - you tell me.

[Stranger]

I'm afraid God not having a cause is no longer essential to this universe having a creator. God could have a cause and still have created this universe and so cause and effect is back on the table.

Along with an infinite regress....

You still haven't justified the idea that a god of any sort is required. Why anthropomorphize the unknown?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Along with an infinite regress....

You still haven't justified the idea that a god of any sort is required. Why anthropomorphize the unknown?

An infinite regress of Gods, yes.

[Stranger]

Along with an infinite regress....

You still haven't justified the idea that a god of any sort is required. Why anthropomorphize the unknown?

An infinite regress of Gods, yes.

You now want us to believe there are an infinite number of gods?

As I said: you still haven't justified the idea that a god of any sort is required. Why anthropomorphize the unknown?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An infinite regress of Gods, yes.


You now want us to believe there are an infinite number of gods?

As I said: you still haven't justified the idea that a god of any sort is required. Why anthropomorphize the unknown?

I do not anthropomorphise the Unknown. You on the other hand wish to render it arbitrarily unconscious.

[Stranger]

I do not anthropomorphise the Unknown.

So, why do you think there are any gods, let alone an infinite number? BTW, this is a fascinating new Christian cult you're inventing: an infinite number of gods, rather than just the one (or three).

You on the other hand wish to render it arbitrarily unconscious.

I guess it might be conscious but since the only evidence we have of consciousness is associated with complex physical structures (brains) it seems a rather large leap to think that the reason for the universe's existence was conscious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I guess it might be conscious but since the only evidence we have of consciousness is associated with complex physical structures (brains) it seems a rather large leap to think that the reason for the universe's existence was conscious.

Since you have chosen to discuss an infinite regression of universes and the unknown you have forgone a right to any recourse to what is observed here. Any extension is i'm afraid proposing arbitrary unconsciousness.
Further, you using what we observe or don't observe it opens things up for me to talk about one ultimate effect....the universe having an ultimate cause...God.

You are of course philosophically trying to rob Peter to pay Paul.

[Stranger]

Since you have chosen to discuss an infinite regression of universes and the unknown...

You suggested an infinite regress - I just pointed it out.

...you have forgone a right to any recourse to what is observed here.

Non sequitur.

Any extension is i'm afraid proposing arbitrary unconsciousness.

Which I didn't do. You are, as usual, being dishonest.

Further, you using what we observe or don't observe it opens things up for me to talk about one ultimate effect....the universe having an ultimate cause...God.

You can talk about anything you want but you have yet to provide the slightest hint of a justification for the notion of any god, let alone this New Christianity of infinite gods that you seem to be proposing.

You are of course philosophically trying to rob Peter to pay Paul.

You wouldn't know philosophy or logic if they smacked you in the face - which they certainly would, if they had fists...

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You suggested an infinite regress - I just pointed it out.

Non sequitur.

Which I didn't do. You are, as usual, being dishonest.

You can talk about anything you want but you have yet to provide the slightest hint of a justification for the notion of any god, let alone the this New Christianity of infinite gods that you seem to be proposing.

You wouldn't know philosophy or logic if they smacked you in the face - which they certainly would, if they had fists...

 

A response which seems to want to shut every argument against Dawkin's Best argument down.

You brought up infinite regression. My line was ''one ultimate cause and one ultimate effect''.

Your problem is of course trying to justify and describe the providence of a thing from what is inside it....and worse, from an arbitrary point of view of what can be found inside it.

We can argue against the universe being so described.

But there are things in the universe which point away from your narrow substrate viewpoint. Namely shared properties which seem to be universal. By your line of argument everything should be based on it's substrate matter and yet these properties are found in billions of places throughout the universe. That leads us onto laws. Laws are therefore not dependent on matter in the same way as matter is dependent on laws. Therefore we observe lawgiving and governance.

You acknowledged in the word you used 'The unknown' a cause for this universe. All these points made one after the other make a necessary unconscious universal providence look less secure and more an arbitrary commitment by those who for reasons of their own refuse to entertain possible links.

[Stranger]

A response which seems to want to shut every argument against Dawkin's Best argument down.

If you want to try that in English...

You brought up infinite regression. My line was ''one ultimate cause and one ultimate effect''.

Nope. You did here:-

I'm afraid God not having a cause is no longer essential to this universe having a creator. God could have a cause and still have created this universe and so cause and effect is back on the table.

Your problem is of course trying to justify and describe the providence of a thing from what is inside it....and worse, from an arbitrary point of view of what can be found inside it.

Well, no actually. You are the one who is trying to make assertions about what may or may not be outside it. I don't know. I just pointed out that consciousness is very much associated with structures inside - it is you who wants to extrapolate.

We can argue against the universe being so described.

But there are things in the universe which point away from your narrow substrate viewpoint. Namely shared properties which seem to be universal. By your line of argument everything should be based on it's substrate matter and yet these properties are found in billions of places throughout the universe. That leads us onto laws. Laws are therefore not dependent on matter in the same way as matter is dependent on laws. Therefore we observe lawgiving and governance.

There are indeed regularities or 'laws' but here you massively guilty of what you just accused me of:-

Your problem is of course trying to justify and describe the providence of a thing from what is inside it....and worse, from an arbitrary point of view of what can be found inside it.

...even worse: inside human societies ("lawgiving and governance"): a tiny subset of a tiny subset of what is inside it!

You acknowledged in the word you used 'The unknown' a cause for this universe. All these points made one after the other make a necessary unconscious universal providence look less secure and more an arbitrary commitment by those who for reasons of their own refuse to entertain possible links.

Yet again: I haven't made any claim to know what, if anything, caused the universe. It is your task, as the one making the claim for (an infinite number of) gods, to back it up somehow. Further, you need to make the connection with your favourite religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you want to try that in English...

Nope. You did here:-

Well, no actually. You are the one who is trying to make assertions about what may or may not be outside it. I don't know. I just pointed out that consciousness is very much associated with structures inside - it is you who wants to extrapolate.

There are indeed regularities or 'laws' but here you massively guilty of what you just accused me of:-...even worse: inside human societies ("lawgiving and governance"): a tiny subset of a tiny subset of what is inside it!


Yet again: I haven't made any claim to know what, if anything, caused the universe. It is your task, as the one making the claim for (an infinite number of) gods, to back it up somehow. Further, you need to make the connection with your favourite religion.

Nothing to see here folks......keep moving.

[Stranger]

Nothing to see here folks......keep moving.

Running away, again. Ho hum.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Running away, again. Ho hum.

 

Do you want some more?