Transubstantiation

[Nearly Sane]

Those who describe god as loving and merciful, very human characteristics, as some on this forum do, don't appear to have read the Bible, the god featured there is exact opposite.

There is a spread of opinion on here amongst Christians about what they say about their god and many of them will call out the problems they have offering any real explanation even if they sometimes use human terms. Now I think that the very idea of something so beyond description takes the concept into the realms of the nonsensical but I am interested in what it is that they feel.

[Enki]

Bringing in Satan and his hordes to explain evil and suffering creates more logical problems than it solves.
How could angels, created sinless and capable of remaining so, and in direct, unmediated communion with God, ever come to sin? If we accept for the moment that they did, why didn't God forgive and restore them? Given that God didn't, why didn't God annihilate them, rather than allowing them to continue in an existence of suffering for them and danger for others? Given that God didn't do that, why did God allow Satan and his chums to have any influence over humanity? Given that God did, why did the sin of Adam and Eve infect the rest of us?
These are the logical knots you tie yourself in if you believe in an objectively-existing Satan - or God, for that matter. The early chapters of Genesis, as well as much else in the OT, are so obviously myth and allegory that you've got to be literarily cloth-eared, as well as a scientific troglodyte, to think it's literally true.

Well said!

[Nearly Sane]

It is fine if they wish to believe it to be true, I get irritated when they state it as a fact instead of a belief.

Not sure what that has to do with what I posted, but if someone thinks something to be a fact then they may be wrong in stating it to be so, but it's about what they feel to be true.

[SteveH]

The god idea though doesn't need to have Satan as part of it. SteveH believes in an idea of a god that has none of the baroque He Man and Skeletor stuff of the more literal Christians.

Indeed - and I'm glad my little peroration earlier was well-received.

[Robbie]

I like the way you express things Mr H, and agree.

[ippy]

A B has to be one of the sadist cases of deep religionosis I've ever seen, his responses to Gordon's posts etc.

As for the devil, I can understand early human kind up until the time of say a bit of Darwin and the enlightenment and perhaps a little bit of an over run after both of those occasions?

We now live in the 21st century, it's not as though there's any, in fact there's, no, zero viable evidence that has the slightest likelihood of supporting any of Alan's delusions; it's going to be absolutely years and years before we reach a point where christianity and the rest of these types of believers reach the status of present day Zeus worshipping knuckle heads, where they should be, filed as just another harmless fringe group.   

ippy

[Alan Burns]

Bringing in Satan and his hordes to explain evil and suffering creates more logical problems than it solves.
How could angels, created sinless and capable of remaining so, and in direct, unmediated communion with God, ever come to sin? If we accept for the moment that they did, why didn't God forgive and restore them? Given that God didn't, why didn't God annihilate them, rather than allowing them to continue in an existence of suffering for them and danger for others? Given that God didn't do that, why did God allow Satan and his chums to have any influence over humanity? Given that God did, why did the sin of Adam and Eve infect the rest of us?
These are the logical knots you tie yourself in if you believe in an objectively-existing Satan - or God, for that matter. The early chapters of Genesis, as well as much else in the OT, are so obviously myth and allegory that you've got to be literarily cloth-eared, as well as a scientific troglodyte, to think it's literally true.

But after creating beings with their own freedom, if God obliterates or manipulates everything that turns out not to be in accordance with His will then there is no freedom - just midless puppets.

If there was no capacity for hatred, would we recognise love?
If there was no sorrow, would we know joy?
If there was no war, would we appreciate peace?
If a child was born with everything they need, what would happen to the parental bond?

[Alan Burns]

You are making excuses for your god's obvious enjoyment of human suffering!

I believe a world created entirely by humans would be a living hell

[Enki]

I believe a world created entirely by humans would be a living hell

I think that would depend on the quality of those humans who created it. As it is though, if one considers that your God created it, then it seems to show much evidence of Him as a very inferior designer who, at the very least, wasn't able to either understand or place any importance on suffering. To be honest, He didn't really seem to have much of a clue what on earth(excuse the pun) He was creating in the first place.

[SusanDoris]

I believe a world created entirely by humans would be a living hell

Well, aren't we just lucky that it wasn't created by anything at all, it just happened. Your latest words make as little sense as they usually do.

[ippy]

But after creating beings with their own freedom, if God obliterates or manipulates everything that turns out not to be in accordance with His will then there is no freedom - just midless puppets.

If there was no capacity for hatred, would we recognise love?
If there was no sorrow, would we know joy?
If there was no war, would we appreciate peace?
If a child was born with everything they need, what would happen to the parental bond?

If it wasn't for the fact people like you Alan, teach this mythical, magical, superstitious nonsense to innocent very young children as though it were true, you and the larger amount of the things you and your's come out with could be taken as laughable, Elvis/Transubstantiation? Sam Harris.

Enjoy, your crackers Alan, ippy

[Stranger]

But after creating beings with their own freedom, if God obliterates or manipulates everything that turns out not to be in accordance with His will then there is no freedom - just midless puppets.

There is also no freedom to choose if god hides away from us (or allows itself to be hidden) and does not make its message clear to everybody. There is no freedom if we are born with a sinful nature such that none of us can please god with our own efforts and we all need "saving"...

If there was no capacity for hatred, would we recognise love?
If there was no sorrow, would we know joy?
If there was no war, would we appreciate peace?
If a child was born with everything they need, what would happen to the parental bond?

So how's all this going to work out in heaven, then?

[SteveH]

Even the very worst human is a saint compared to the Biblical deptiction of god. 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Alan Burns]

There is also no freedom to choose if god hides away from us (or allows itself to be hidden) and does not make its message clear to everybody. There is no freedom if we are born with a sinful nature such that none of us can please god with our own efforts and we all need "saving"...

Whatever nature we were born with, we all have freedom, given to us through the power of the human soul, to invite God into our lives.  But it may take strength and courage to do it.

So how's all this going to work out in heaven, then?

Having freely chosen good over evil, we will be well prepared for the everlasting joy of our spiritual home.

[torridon]

Whatever nature we were born with, we all have freedom, given to us through the power of the human soul, to invite God into our lives.  But it may take strength and courage to do it.

It's not so much about strength and courage, it is more about evidence and reason.  Do you really think the reason science has found no evidence for god is because scientists, as a class, lack courage ?

Really ?

[Sebastian Toe]

Having freely chosen good over evil, we will be well prepared for the everlasting joy of our spiritual home.

To have everlasting joy though, you will need an everlasting memory of sorrow won't you?

[SusanDoris]

To have everlasting joy though, you will need an everlasting memory of sorrow won't you?

Good point! There will just be some bland, irrelevant response from AB, I suppose.

[Stranger]

Whatever nature we were born with, we all have freedom, given to us through the power of the human soul, to invite God into our lives.

Obviously not (from any god's point of view) - for the reasons discussed elsewhere - but leaving that aside, it is cannot be genuine choice if we are not aware that there is a god or that a choice is being offered.

There is no evidence and no reasoning (that I'm aware of) that can lead to that conclusion and every reason to think that all religions and all their contradictory messages are nothing but old superstitions.

So why would a just and fair god, with an important message for us, hide itself and its message from us (or allow itself and its message to be hidden)?

But it may take strength and courage to do it.

It appears to have nothing to do with strength and courage. If you are anything to go by, it takes incredible gullibility and a complete disregard for logic, evidence, and reasoning.

[Alan Burns]

It's not so much about strength and courage, it is more about evidence and reason.  Do you really think the reason science has found no evidence for god is because scientists, as a class, lack courage ?

Really ?

No - It is just a matter of scope.  You will not discover spiritual attributes by investigating material entities.  There are many scientists who have embraced the Christian faith.  And it does take strength and courage, and perhaps a bit of humility, to invite God into your life - which may require you to leave behind some of the things which make up your comfort zone and embrace the challenges of the Christian faith.

[Stranger]

You will not discover spiritual attributes by investigating material entities.

So how do we discover these 'spiritual attributes' then?

And again, the question you keep ignoring: if your god exists, is just and fair, and has an important message, why is it hidden - why is it not plain to everybody?

[ippy]

No - It is just a matter of scope.  You will not discover spiritual attributes by investigating material entities.  There are many scientists who have embraced the Christian faith.  And it does take strength and courage, and perhaps a bit of humility, to invite God into your life - which may require you to leave behind some of the things which make up your comfort zone and embrace the challenges of the Christian faith.

This post of yours Alan, is just a series of words that don't say anything, they only amount to another load of your usual unsubstanciated unstanciatable drivel.

I often wonder why you, it seems you really do think you actually know the things that you insist on asserting really are facts, when the only facts you have about your superstition based ideas only exist in your imagination, certainly
nowhere else; unless of course?

Hope you manage to free yourself of this delusional behaviour in time Alan, regards ippy

[torridon]

No - It is just a matter of scope.  You will not discover spiritual attributes by investigating material entities.  There are many scientists who have embraced the Christian faith.  And it does take strength and courage, and perhaps a bit of humility, to invite God into your life - which may require you to leave behind some of the things which make up your comfort zone and embrace the challenges of the Christian faith.

That does nothing to substantiate your insinuation that science has not discovered god because of some lack of strength and courage.

It is also circular, one of your favourite fallacy dependencies, assuming the conclusion as a premise.  To invite a something, there has to be reason to suppose that the something is there to invite in the first place.

it is also a sentiment whose general thrust is more truthful when expressed contrarily. By which I mean, it takes strength and courage to follow the evidence, which typically leads us out of our comfort zone of simple beliefs.

[Anchorman]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hang on;
LR said "saint", SteveH.....
And she's going to produce evidence t validate her claim, just as soon as she defines "saint".......

[Anchorman]

A very good person! Not that I believe in the definition of 'saint' upheld by the Catholic Church. They want to make that woman Mother T a saint, from what I gather from someone who worked with her, she was very far from being a good person.

"a very good persin"?
That's not even the definition of "Saint used by the RC, far less other churchws.
So you're using the erroneous definition of something you don't believe in to ascribe virtue?
Er..........

[Anchorman]

A very good person is my definition of a saint. The catholic church reckons all who make it to heaven are saints, apparently. Then they single out people like that Teresa woman for special recognition. I was pointing out she wasn't a particularly good person by all accounts.

   



Ah; so, you're ignoring the definitions of 'saint' from all denominations, differing though are, and dicrionary definitions as well?
Because I've never come accross 'a veey good person' as a qualification for sanctity, either in this life or the next.