God is limited? [Archive] - Martial Arts Planet

Yama Tombo

29-Jun-2006, 06:33 AM

Lily

29-Jun-2006, 07:09 AM

Hi Yama Tombo,

Depends on what you define as 'God' and what you mean by 'explained'. Throw in different religious perspectives and you're probably going to get a multitude of answers.

IMHO, I personally believe in a divine force that is neither good nor evil. God is being lived out here and now, in the blink of an eye and in our every breath. God is also beyond us and bigger than we can ever imagine. God/goddess/divine force will eternally be a contradiction as well as a soul-deep understanding within me.

Your examples of god using angels to send messages or carry out his will - again, I would say that the angels, the message, the intent is god itself in a form that humans can perceive/understand.

I'm tired so I probably don't make sense either. Interesting question.

leon_x

29-Jun-2006, 07:58 AM

well firstly and formost as a christian i do believe in God however i do not fully believe in the modern bible. the orignial old testiment were written in hebrew manuscripts which was then translated into greek some few hundred yrs later. the new testiment however was originally in greek manuscripts and both the old and new testiment was translated into hundreds of different languages. but during the middle ages most of the christian world only spoke latin therefore the bible was translated into this. the bible was translated into early english (anglo saxon) about 500 yrs later. when the first bible was translated into english the Pope had the guy executed due to the fact that latin was the modern language and his teaching was against the church which he believed to be against the bible. the Pope had anyone with a bible which was not latin to be executed and he sent people to burn all translation of the bible. it was not until the invention of the printing press that bibles of the different languages was mass produced. there was a scholar (not sure of his name) that published a greek/latin parallel translation and he stated that the latin bible was extremly inaccurate to the original hebrew/greek bible. since then was numerous different versions of the english bible before the bible you see today.

the bible we see today has been translated and "changed" many times and even now there are still controversy of the correct version of the bible. the finding of book of judus contradicts the new testiment. im not sayin that the bible is a complete nonsense, i have read it myself, im jus sayin that what you are readin are not the original scripts of the bible.

In a deistic fashion, I've been thinking every once in a while, what if God is not omnipotent and omnipresent? I'm starting to believe God is limited. When, I read the bible God sending angels to do his bidding.

For example, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, God sent two angels to scout the cities and report back to him, I thought God was everywhere?

Now is God really omnipotent? In the "end of the world" Jesus will lead angels down to earth to destory all sinners, why doesn't God do it himself/herself?

but if God send down his angels isnt God indirectly still controlling the situation? for example the general of an army might not physically fight a battle but by sending in his troops he is still doing the same task. i think ive read or heard somewhere that God is not ready to show his form on earth, and if this is the case it makes perfect sense for God to send down his angels. Jesus is ment to represent God on earth as the son of God. just because Jesus is leading the angels, does that still not mean its the act of God?

aikiMac

29-Jun-2006, 04:31 PM

however i do not fully believe in the modern bible.
[snip]
the bible we see today has been translated and "changed" many times and even now there are still controversy of the correct version of the bible. the finding of book of judus contradicts the new testiment.
Take the last sentence first: whether the book/gospel of Judas contradicts the NT is not relevant if the book of Judas is not the word of God. Walk into any bookstore today and you'll find a hundred books written just last year that contradict the Bible. That's a big "so what."

As for the rest, have you any idea what the controversies are about? Have you any idea how the Bible was put together? :confused:

leon_x

29-Jun-2006, 04:58 PM

Take the last sentence first: whether the book/gospel of Judas contradicts the NT is not relevant if the book of Judas is not the word of God. Walk into any bookstore today and you'll find a hundred books written just last year that contradict the Bible. That's a big "so what."

As for the rest, have you any idea what the controversies are about? Have you any idea how the Bible was put together? :confused:

the controversies i am talking about does not refer to what has actually been written in the scripts but merely the translations which are thought to be inaccurate.

who decided what is the word of God? the books that are in the bible which we see today were determined by the jewish scholars, rabbis and the early christians. they decided what is the word of God and they left out anything which they thought did not give God his divine power. fair enough if you believe that God convinced them which book to include, i have no disrespect for your belief. the Bible was put together and judged by men.

aikiMac

29-Jun-2006, 05:17 PM

the controversies i am talking about does not refer to what has actually been written in the scripts but merely the translations which are thought to be inaccurate.
Oh. And I suppose you can read Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin? Or is it that you're well-read on the issues that scholars face in this field? Dude!! Either way, I'm impressed!!

they decided what is the word of God and they left out anything which they thought did not give God his divine power.
Are you sure that's the way it happened? That doesn't quite sound right. :confused:

----
We drifted to far into religion to stay in the Philosophy. Even the original post itself was skirting close the border. Therefore, moved to Religion.

aikiMac

29-Jun-2006, 05:21 PM

In a deistic fashion, I've been thinking every once in a while, what if God is not omnipotent and omnipresent?
Then there will be no final justice.
And if that be so, then screw morality -- we should all "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

leon_x

29-Jun-2006, 05:26 PM

Oh. And I suppose you can read Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin? Or is it that you're well-read on the issues that scholars face in this field? Dude!! Either way, I'm impressed!!

Are you sure that's the way it happened? That doesn't quite sound right. :confused:

well no i cant read those languages.. but for example i am chinese and i listen to manderin music which was originally english, even then the manderin version does not say the same thing as the english version. its the same with subtitled films, the subtitles are not always the same as the words spoken. any languages which are translated get changed and it is a bit far fetch to presume that the Bible which has been translated in many other languages before it was translated into english is accurate to the word.

and yes that how the bible was put together. search on the net for "canonicity" if you really want to know ;)

elektro

29-Jun-2006, 05:28 PM

Then there will be no final justice.
And if that be so, then screw morality -- we should all "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

I don't see that as immoral as such? Is that not what humans are here for - to "eat, drink and be merry"? It is possible to do this in a moral way, surely?

aikiMac

29-Jun-2006, 05:35 PM

any languages which are translated get changed and it is a bit far fetch to presume that the Bible which has been translated in many other languages before it was translated into english is accurate to the word.
What if we have the original texts? What if the English Bible (and any other language, for that matter) was translated from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts?

and yes that how the bible was put together
Then you know that the canon was established by practice. People here, there, and elsewhere were independently treating the same "books" as the word of God. A council vote eventually put the stamp of approval on that which was already being done in practice.

aikiMac

29-Jun-2006, 05:38 PM

I don't see that as immoral as such? Is that not what humans are here for - to "eat, drink and be merry"? It is possible to do this in a moral way, surely?
Take two: If God is not all-powerful, then he won't be able to lay down punishment on lawbreakers so as to achieve justice for the oppressed. There will be no ultimate justice. In that scenario, "you'll get away with it" -- whatever bad behavior "it" is.

So, you might as well be bad. Long live your favorite villian. The Joker had the right idea after all, you know?

leon_x

29-Jun-2006, 05:54 PM

What if we have the original texts? What if the English Bible (and any other language, for that matter) was translated from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts?

Then you know that the canon was established by practice. People here, there, and elsewhere were independently treating the same "books" as the word of God. A council vote eventually put the stamp of approval on that which was already being done in practice.

nonetheless who decided what was the word of God? the council voted on what was more favourable to them.

just out of interest, do you think the bible is accurate?

and also during the time of the first printing press (1500ad i think) when the bible was mass produced, its was not unusual for words or characters to be missin from the books. its not like today where each book are identical. it was very common back then to have missin words or phrases taken out.

leon_x

29-Jun-2006, 05:59 PM

What if we have the original texts? What if the English Bible (and any other language, for that matter) was translated from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts?

its me again :D

even translation from the original will be inaccurate. the hebrew symbol for 10 is exactly the same for 1000. there are a lot of double meanings in the hebrew language therefore the translator will be guess the correct term.

aikiMac

29-Jun-2006, 06:17 PM

even translation from the original will be inaccurate. the hebrew symbol for 10 is exactly the same for 1000. there are a lot of double meanings in the hebrew language therefore the translator will be guess the correct term.
I thought you couldn't read Hebrew? :confused:

"Guessing" is too harsh a word. You're not being fair to people who get PhD's studying languages and cultures. For someone who speaks a foreign language I would have expected a larger appreciation for how much a person really can learn and know. :confused:

aikiMac

29-Jun-2006, 06:22 PM

nonetheless who decided what was the word of God? the council voted on what was more favourable to them.
That's not what the council voted on. They voted on what was the word of God. I thought you read about this?

and also during the time of the first printing press (1500ad i think) when the bible was mass produced, its was not unusual for words or characters to be missin from the books. its not like today where each book are identical. it was very common back then to have missin words or phrases taken out.
Come on, the Bibles today were not translated or copied from European printings. They were translated and copied from original-language manuscripts, from which the original texts can be reconstructed. :rolleyes:

leon_x

29-Jun-2006, 06:27 PM

I thought you couldn't read Hebrew? :confused:

"Guessing" is too harsh a word. You're not being fair to people who get PhD's studying languages and cultures. For someone who speaks a foreign language I would have expected a larger appreciation for how much a person really can learn and know. :confused:

i cant read hebrew but it doesnt take a genius to see that the two symbols are the same.

guessin is a harsh word but its true. imagine you was translatin a sentence and it read " i saw 'x' amount of men". if 'x' was both the symbol for 10 and 1000, which one would you choose?

yes, they may know the language fluently but they was not there at the time to determine the true facts. it is not just the symbol for 10/1000, there are many other words with double meaning (cant think off the top of my head) in hebrew. i remember watching a program few months ago about the translation of the bible and how important words were often mis-interpretated.

aikiMac

29-Jun-2006, 06:33 PM

i remember watching a program few months ago about the translation of the bible and how important words were often mis-interpretated.
Well, now that those bright people on TV have corrected all of the mistranslations, what's the problem?

leon_x

29-Jun-2006, 06:33 PM

That's not what the council voted on. They voted on what was the word of God. I thought you read about this?

the council voted on which scripts to include in the NT. the scripts being the word of God.

leon_x

29-Jun-2006, 06:35 PM

Well, now that those bright people on TV have corrected all of the mistranslations, what's the problem?

i can see this lasting a long time :rolleyes:

like i said they wasnt there at the time to know the true facts therefore the "tv" people also does not know the true answer. they emphasised on the mistranslation not corrected it.

tetsu ryu

29-Jun-2006, 06:46 PM

In a deistic fashion, I've been thinking every once in a while, what if God is not omnipotent and omnipresent? I'm starting to believe God is limited. When, I read the bible God sending angels to do his bidding.

For example, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, God sent two angels to scout the cities and report back to him, I thought God was everywhere?

Now is God really omnipotent? In the "end of the world" Jesus will lead angels down to earth to destory all sinners, why doesn't God do it himself/herself?

Throwing this in for the hell of it. The novelty question,"Did god create evil?" I would say yes. There was a reason why God told Adam to not eat from the tree of "knowledge of good and bad." What was God's remark after Adam ate from the tree? "They have become like us knowing good and bad."

Most people would like to believe God is inexplainable, but I believe God can be explained. Agree or disagree?

I'm tired and what I type may not totally make sense.

Good point but the reason is because God cannot look at sin. He couldnt even look at his own son Jesus who died on the cross and bore our sins. I do belive God is omnipresent. And omnipotent. but i also belive that there are some things God cannot do. God cant sin.. or if he did he would not be God. And if God can do anything could he make a more powerfull being than himself? could he make a stone soo big he couldn't lift it. Could he make a blade so sharp that it can cut him? I say no, that He cannot. Oh and if you belive God can be explained then please enlighten us because that is what schoolars have been trying to do for 1000's of years sooo good luck with that one. :Angel:

aikiMac

29-Jun-2006, 06:54 PM

the "tv" people also does not know the true answer. they emphasised on the mistranslation not corrected it.
Huh? If they don't know the correct translation, then how can they say there was a mistranslation? :eek: Dude! That's arrogant!

leon_x

29-Jun-2006, 07:03 PM

Huh? If they don't know the correct translation, then how can they say there was a mistranslation? :eek: Dude! That's arrogant!

because where there are numerous meaning for a single word, there are bound to be mistakes. sorry if you misunderstood me, in the tv program they were emphasising the various meaning for a single word and portraying that during the translation of hundred of thousand of words, words were bound to be misinterpreted especially since they did not know the true event.

btw off topic, what type of lawyer are you?

elektro

29-Jun-2006, 07:12 PM

So, you might as well be bad. Long live your favorite villian. The Joker had the right idea after all, you know?
This assumes that people , without guidance, have a propensity towards "bad" not "good"??? And that the (potential) villains are only well behaved (at the moment) out of fear of punishment, not their own morallity?

It's a bit like saying some people put on a seat belt because it's the law. Whereas others put it on for safety, the law never comes into it.

aikiMac

29-Jun-2006, 07:18 PM

because where there are numerous meaning for a single word, there are bound to be mistakes.
As judged by what standard? :eek:

btw off topic, what type of lawyer are you?
Tax law (audits, collection, trials, appeals) and miscellaneous criminal defense. In particular I do court-appointed criminal appeals.

CanuckMA

29-Jun-2006, 07:19 PM

i cant read hebrew but it doesnt take a genius to see that the two symbols are the same.

guessin is a harsh word but its true. imagine you was translatin a sentence and it read " i saw 'x' amount of men". if 'x' was both the symbol for 10 and 1000, which one would you choose?

yes, they may know the language fluently but they was not there at the time to determine the true facts. it is not just the symbol for 10/1000, there are many other words with double meaning (cant think off the top of my head) in hebrew. i remember watching a program few months ago about the translation of the bible and how important words were often mis-interpretated.

That's where you make your first mistake. 'Seeing' written Hebrew is not good enough. The root for 10 and 1000 is similar, but the words are different. Written Hebrew has no vowels. The correct word is taken from context and knowledge of grammar.

Words were often mistranslated with an agenda. The popular mistranslated quote is from Isaiah supposudly regarding the virgin birth. Forgeting that the context is wrong, the Hebrew word in the text translates as maiden or yong woman, not virgin. There is a perfectly good Hebrew word for virgin.

aikiMac

29-Jun-2006, 07:20 PM

This assumes that people , without guidance, have a propensity towards "bad" not "good"?
That's why we have systems of ethics and laws in the first place.

tetsu ryu

29-Jun-2006, 07:23 PM

This assumes that people , without guidance, have a propensity towards "bad" not "good"??? And that the (potential) villains are only well behaved (at the moment) out of fear of punishment, not their own morallity?

It's a bit like saying some people put on a seat belt because it's the law. Whereas others put it on for safety, the law never comes into it.

God doesnt just want obedience he also wants our willingness to obey, not simply because I say so, but because you love Me and trust Me.

Strafio

29-Jun-2006, 07:34 PM

Take two: If God is not all-powerful, then he won't be able to lay down punishment on lawbreakers so as to achieve justice for the oppressed. There will be no ultimate justice. In that scenario, "you'll get away with it" -- whatever bad behavior "it" is.

So, you might as well be bad. Long live your favorite villian. The Joker had the right idea after all, you know?
Lol! If that was true then how come atheists and deists have morals?
Take Buddhists for example: they have a morality that doesn't depend on an almighty God spanking the bad people!
And they're just one example.

elektro

29-Jun-2006, 07:47 PM

God doesnt just want obedience he also wants our willingness to obey, not simply because I say so, but because you love Me and trust Me.

Exactly. Personally I try to live a good life, but because I get reward out of it, not because it is expected of me. In other words, it's something I choose for myself. If there is a God, then I couldn't give a monkey's what he thinks of me, and I think that may be the whole point.
Be good without caring what God thinks. Then perhaps you are truly good, and not just putting that act on for the sake of pleasing a higher being.

aikimak - I'm trying to argue that just as many people have a leaning towards good without guidance as do bad, surely?

aikiMac

29-Jun-2006, 07:47 PM

Lol! If that was true then how come atheists and deists have morals?
The Q assumed that there is a God. (Deists believe in a God.) Presumably that's where their morals come from. I was pointing out a weakness in the set of assumptions being considered.

If there is no God handing down final judgment, then I suppose we could choose Egoism. But why?

As for Buddhism, could we not say that the purpose of reincarnation is to bring about ultimate justice? That was how I understood it.

Edit:
aikimak - I'm trying to argue that just as many people have a leaning towards good without guidance as do bad, surely?
I've never experienced that. And how many good acts today does it take to make up for yesterday's bad acts? :confused:

Topher

29-Jun-2006, 08:06 PM

I'm starting to believe God is limited.
If god is limited, we must ask, who created these limits? Whoever did would be omnipotent and therefore god, and the god we speak of wouldn’t be omnipotent, or a god.

The bible defines god as ‘omnimax,’ i.e. omnipotent, omniscient..etc. The authors of the bible then clearly contradict this (which is another sign that is was authored by man)

Throwing this in for the hell of it. The novelty question,"Did god create evil?" I would say yes.
Correct. God must necessarily be responsible for everything, otherwise, he isn’t god.

Theists say god cannot do evil. That would mean god is bound to the concept of 'good' (which is actually a human concept!*) but if god is bound to anything he is limited, which brings us to the above question: who created them? Whoever did would be more powerful than the so-called 'god' we speak of as this greater power would be above 'him,' for 'it' was able to control/limit 'god.'

(*A sign that god was created in the image of man, not the other way around)

Most people would like to believe God is inexplainable, but I believe God can be explained. Agree or disagree?
God is incomprehensible and incoherent by definition. Once you declare god to be supernatural (which ‘he’ must be) you declare ‘him’ to be unknowable. It’s tautological.

To have a nature, a character (i.e. to be natural) is to have limits. Something beyond nature will therefore be beyond limits. That’s tautological too.

We can only understand the natural, so to speak positively of god is to provide ‘him’ a nature, which therefore limits god.

Referring to god in a positive manner is to merely beg the question and argue from ignorance.

God also violates all ontological categories, so ‘he’ cannot even be referred to as an ‘existent’

Topher

29-Jun-2006, 08:13 PM

As for Buddhism, could we not say that the purpose of reincarnation is to bring about ultimate justice? That was how I understood it.
The aim of Buddhism is to escape reincarnation.

if the book of Judas is not the word of God
How do you know that?

Then there will be no final justice.
And if that be so, then screw morality

Take two: If God is not all-powerful, then he won't be able to lay down punishment on lawbreakers so as to achieve justice for the oppressed. There will be no ultimate justice. In that scenario, "you'll get away with it" -- whatever bad behavior "it" is.

So, you might as well be bad. Long live your favorite villian. The Joker had the right idea after all, you know?
So you just admit your only moral because you believe there to be a ‘final justice’ :rolleyes:

Question… If you discovered categorically that god, nor ‘final judgment’ does not exist, would you steal, rape and murder?

tetsu ryu

29-Jun-2006, 08:18 PM

Correct. God must necessarily be responsible for everything, otherwise, he isn’t god. --homer J simpson

Is God in control Homer?? Was it not God who gave us free will so that we would be in control.. If we were forced to love God then there would be no reason for our existence. So if God is not in control then one cannot assume that he is responsible for everthing. And God didnt just create satan.. God created Lucifer who was a the highest angel.. But Lucifer CHOSE to rebel against God. God can only do so much.. Satan can only do to us what God allows. God cant force us love him and God wont allow for satan to force us to hate Him.. So there for if we are in control then we must be responsible for actions and reactions that happen in this world not God. But God is still God.

Topher

29-Jun-2006, 08:31 PM

Regarding the ever changing Bible, read - "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", by Bart D. Ehrman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXxM24B1CPo

Strafio

29-Jun-2006, 08:34 PM

Homer, even if the concept of God is logically incoherent, it's only meaningless in the context of a strict representational use of language. I don't think people are this kind of language for this topic so your analysis is out of place. :)

Topher

29-Jun-2006, 08:38 PM

Out of place? :confused:

LOL!

I answered the question's Yama Tombo asked. Nothing more.

:cool:

Strafio

29-Jun-2006, 08:51 PM

The Q assumed that there is a God. (Deists believe in a God.) Presumably that's where their morals come from. I was pointing out a weakness in the set of assumptions being considered.
Nah. Even theists don't necessarily believe God is where morals come from.
Some believe in 'right' and 'wrong' in an naturalistic way and believe that God has mastered knowledge and teaches it, rather than decides it in the first place.
(although technically the believe God created nature so he would've technically determined 'right' and 'wrong' but I didn't think that's what you meant.)

If there is no God handing down final judgment, then I suppose we could choose Egoism. But why?
There's lots of reasons why people reject egoism.
Egoism fails from an evolutionary perspective, for example.
Social interactions have been modelled using "games" where they give players the choice between screwing the opponent over or co-operating.
The scores work like this:

Both coop = +5 points each.
A coops, B screws = A -10 points, B +10 points
A screws, B coops = A +10 points, B -10 points
Both screw = both -5 points.

Originally it was assumed that rational people would go to "screw" the opponent over as no matter what the opponent does, the "screw" option gives a better pay-off than "coop". However, both "coop" gives a better score than both "screw". How can you trust your opponent not to screw you over?

They held a competition.
Competitors would program a player to play a strategy depending on how the opponent played. The most successful one was the most simple one:
Tit for Tat.

Tit for Tat played as follows:
Play "coop" on the first turn.
For the rest of the turns, play the same move the opponent did the turn before.

So if they "coop" with you then you "coop" back and you both prosper.
However, if they start trying to screw you over then you screw them back, not letting them get away with it. (they'll always have the chance to start cooperating with you again) It's believed that in nature that animals that had the Tit for Tat strategy in their instincts would be the most successful and survive.

So consequently it's in our nature to try and be nice to people where we can, provided we can trust them not to screw us over for it... :)

elektro

29-Jun-2006, 08:52 PM

The aim of Buddhism is to escape reincarnation.
Yes.

So you just admit your only moral because you believe there to be a ‘final justice’ :rolleyes:
Exactly the point I was trying to make earlier.

Question… If you discovered categorically that god, nor ‘final judgment’ does not exist, would you steal, rape and murder?

Again - exactly my point.Personally (I know you addressed this to aikimac) I would not rape , steal, or murder if I found out there was no God and no final justice.

Edit : Nice post, man. Like the avatar too. Revolver is my favourite in a way BTW.

bcullen

29-Jun-2006, 08:53 PM

God is limited?

Can't be, nothing that size and with that much money can be an LLC. God is most definitely Incorporated. :D :Angel:

elektro

29-Jun-2006, 08:55 PM

Unless maybe it's the case that people are bad until they are affected by God, which I find very hard to believe.

Strafio

29-Jun-2006, 09:00 PM

Hmmm...
I might've prejudged what you were saying, and you might not've been doing what I suspected. I might have just been subconsciously looking for an excuse to bring up this topic to chat with you about. Either way, here's what I was talking about: :)

Out of place? :confused:
Your arguments/methods of analysis are designed for a different use of language. A representational language.

e.g. "A red chair" represents a chair that is red. No ambiguity, strict correspondance between the sentence and the picture/reality is represents. It is the language that science uses. Because it has strict rules for use we have methods of determining whether these rules are being kept. (e.g. the logical axioms describe some necessary rules for sentences in this 'language game' to have meaning)

However, not all our uses of language has such strict rules, so applying the same sort logical analysis to other uses of language, other 'language games', it just doesn't work in the same way. The same way some foods are best eaten with a fork and others with a spoon?

Strafio

29-Jun-2006, 09:04 PM

If god is limited, we must ask, who created these limits? Whoever did would be omnipotent and therefore god, and the god we speak of wouldn’t be omnipotent, or a god.
This is only if you accept the theists argument that everything is a creation and needs a creator. Perhaps God is defined as the highest being with 'intelligence'.

Referring to god in a positive manner is to merely beg the question and argue from ignorance.

God also violates all ontological categories, so ‘he’ cannot even be referred to as an ‘existent’
(Here we go: :))
What you say in the quotes is true, but only when talking about using a strict representational use of language. (which I don't think he was! :p)
(see post above! :))

aikiMac

29-Jun-2006, 09:05 PM

Nah. Even theists don't necessarily believe God is where morals come from.
Really? That's interesting.

There's lots of reasons why people reject egoism.
Indeed, but it was the first atheistic ethical system that popped in my mind.

I would not rape , steal, or murder if I found out there was no God and no final justice.
Would there be anything wrong with someone else doing these and other "bad" things?
Under the assumption of no God and no final justice which ethical system should we follow?

The aim of Buddhism is to escape reincarnation, yes, but I have long thought that the effect of reincarnation is to bring about ultimate justice. You keep coming back until your karma is cleaned up. Is that not true?

elektro

29-Jun-2006, 09:31 PM

Would there be anything wrong with someone else doing these and other "bad" things?
That's a very deep question. Would it have been wrong for soemone to have killed Hitler before his embarkment on genocide therefroe saving however million lives?
It depends how you define right and wrong. I don't know to be totally honest with you. All I can say is that "right" to me indicates actions which will lead to the survival and happiness of the human race in a way which is the least destructive to man, earth, and animal. In which case I think we are all mildly "wrong" on a daily basis, and none of us are exempt.

Under the assumption of no God and no final justice which ethical system should we follow?
The one I am talking about above, I suppose.

Strafio

29-Jun-2006, 09:41 PM

The aim of Buddhism is to escape reincarnation, yes, but I have long thought that the effect of reincarnation is to bring about ultimate justice. You keep coming back until your karma is cleaned up. Is that not true?
That's probably some interpretation...
Another interpretation is that karma is a force of the world, and once you've found Enlightenment the world can no longer cause 'suffering' in you.

Topher

29-Jun-2006, 09:42 PM

Again - exactly my point.Personally (I know you addressed this to aikimac) I would not rape , steal, or murder if I found out there was no God and no final justice.
Exactly, which shows that if you would still not steal murder and rape in the knowledge that god or a 'final justice' didn't exist, the god/final justice was pretty much irrelevant to begin with.

Edit : Nice post, man. Like the avatar too. Revolver is my favourite in a way BTW.
Rubber Soul, then Revolver ;)

Strafio

29-Jun-2006, 09:49 PM

Your Avatar is Beatles based?
I don't recognise it at all? :confused:

aikiMac

29-Jun-2006, 09:53 PM

All I can say is that "right" to me indicates actions which will lead to the survival and happiness of the human race in a way which is the least destructive to man, earth, and animal. In which case I think we are all mildly "wrong" on a daily basis, and none of us are exempt.
But keeping with the assumption that there is no God and there is no ultimate justice, what does survival and happiness matter?

It seems to me that you are forced into nihilism.

Another interpretation is that karma is a force of the world, and once you've found Enlightenment the world can no longer cause 'suffering' in you.
How is that different from achieving justice? Looks like you got your justice. :confused:

Topher

29-Jun-2006, 09:56 PM

Under the assumption of no God and no final justice which ethical system should we follow?
The one which benifits our socity and species. Indecently its the same one chimps and other social animals use.

Topher

29-Jun-2006, 10:01 PM

Your Avatar is Beatles based?
I don't recognise it at all? :confused:
It's Georgie Harrison :D

Strafio

29-Jun-2006, 10:06 PM

I didn't recognise him! :confused:

Topher

29-Jun-2006, 10:08 PM

The aim of Buddhism is to escape reincarnation, yes, but I have long thought that the effect of reincarnation is to bring about ultimate justice. You keep coming back until your karma is cleaned up. Is that not true?
No, you keep comming back untill you are enlightened i.e. reach Nirvana, which is a non-place that can be described only via Negative theology.

See:

Buddhism is most extensive of its use of Negative theology, and Buddhist thought concerning Nirvana, which is also unconfined to time, space, or even existence and non-existence. In the Nikayas, the Buddhist canon of scriptures, Gautama Buddha is recorded as describing Nirvana in terms of what it is not: "There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated." (Udana VIII.3).

[.....]

Further, in the same section:"There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress." (Udana VIII.1)

That negative description dosn't tell us what Nirvana is at all. It's pretty much 'nothing' as far as that description goes.

elektro

30-Jun-2006, 01:52 AM

Rubber Soul, then Revolver ;)
Now how did I know you were going to say that? :cool:

Tsumetai

30-Jun-2006, 02:08 AM

Any perfect entity is limited by its perfection.

Yama Tombo

30-Jun-2006, 09:39 AM

Then there will be no final justice.
And if that be so, then screw morality-- we should all 'eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.'.....Take two: If God is not all-powerful, then he won't be able to lay down punishment on lawbreakers so as to achieve justice for the oppressed. There will be no ultimate justice. In that scenario, 'you'll get away with it' -- whatever bad behavior 'it' is."

So, you might as well be bad. Long live your favorite villian. The Joker had the right idea after all, you know?" aikiMac

In my prespective God may not be omnipresent and potent, but he/she still has angels to do his/her bidding--like his/her "police" to speak of. Throughout the bible angels were able to interact with humans, when God wanted them, too. So, God is not helpless when he has very loyal followers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yama Tombo
Throwing this in for the hell of it. The novelty question,"Did god create evil?" I would say yes.

Correct. God must necessarily be responsible for everything, otherwise, he isn’t god.

That's almost crude in itself when you think about it. Like one blaming their parents, because they aren't satisfied with their life choices. In the bible God showed responsibility even after the fall of Adam.

Theists say god cannot do evil. That would mean god is bound to the concept of 'good' (which is actually a human concept!*)

As quoted:
"Any perfect entity is limited by its perfection."-Tsumetai

Maybe not quiet in the strictest terms, but in no way is God bound strictly to 'good'. I believe God can do evil, though I believe God really favors to do good.

but if god is bound to anything he is limited, which brings us to the above question: who created them? Whoever did would be more powerful than the so-called 'god' we speak of as this greater power would be above 'him,' for 'it' was able to control/limit 'god.'Homer

Between atheism and theism between a particle and a god, the only thing that can be agreed upon is that something was always there in the beginning. From an unbias stance, both p.o.v's are balderdash'ish.' I mean neither one had a beginning

CKava

30-Jun-2006, 09:52 AM

No, you keep comming back untill you are enlightened i.e. reach Nirvana, which is a non-place that can be described only via Negative theology.
Pedantic Buddhist Point: Being enlightened is not the same thing as reaching Nirvana- the Buddha was enlightened long before he entered parinirvana. Also I think you should be fair... while there are negative descriptions of Nirvana there are also positive descriptions in the canon so if your gonna complain about Christianity being inexact in its use of language in scriptures I think you should hold Buddhism to the same standard.

aikiMac

30-Jun-2006, 04:39 PM

In my prespective God may not be omnipresent and potent, but he/she still has angels to do his/her bidding--like his/her "police" to speak of. Throughout the bible angels were able to interact with humans, when God wanted them, too. So, God is not helpless when he has very loyal followers?
Oh, so God's creations can do that which he can't? God cannot mete out perfect justice but his creations can? Well, that's a neat trick, ain't it!

Between atheism and theism between a particle and a god, the only thing that can be agreed upon is that something was always there in the beginning. From an unbias stance, both p.o.v's are balderdash'ish.' I mean neither one had a beginning
Ya, that. And then we have the problem of getting life from that which never was alive. That's an even better trick than God creating something with a power that he doesn't have.

Pedantic Buddhist Point ...
So, um, Buddha-man, is it not fair to find common ground between (1) the Christian idea of God handing down justice in the afterlife based upon people's behavior in this life, and (2) the Buddhist idea of repeated reincarnations based upon one's behavior in the successive lifetimes?

Is not the end result of Buddhist reincarnation justice?

CKava

30-Jun-2006, 05:39 PM

So, um, Buddha-man, is it not fair to find common ground between (1) the Christian idea of God handing down justice in the afterlife based upon people's behavior in this life, and (2) the Buddhist idea of repeated reincarnations based upon one's behavior in the successive lifetimes?

Is not the end result of Buddhist reincarnation justice?
I'd say there are similarities... and this is supported by the way Buddhism is practiced and understood by most people in Buddhist countries i.e. people do good to make merit, to get a better rebirth. However, if you go deep into Buddhist philosophy (depending on the sect) it does become apparent that karma is not the same thing as divine judgement- this is especially true for schools like the Madhyimakas (Mind only) whose philosophy of the non-reality of the material world had an extreme influence over Buddhist doctrine and practice. Regardless, for me personally I would say looking at karma as analagous to divine justice isn't too far off... as long as you accept that karma in Buddhist doctrine is regarded as an impersonal force of the universe (and beyond) which is not guided by a divine will. Perhaps therein lies the most important difference... punishment is metted out by God in Christianity whereas in Buddhism karma is more like the force of gravity, impersonal but unescapable.

aikiMac

30-Jun-2006, 05:48 PM

Aye, gracias.

Yama Tombo

30-Jun-2006, 06:16 PM

Oh, so God's creations can do that which he can't? God cannot mete out perfect justice but his creations can? Well, that's a neat trick, ain't it!.....

Obviously, God can't be everywhere and can't do everything at once.
1.) I mean if God needs angels to Guard the Tree of Life from Adam and Eve, then god must have limited power in such things.
2.) Especially, he should've known satan was up to something? Then he must not be everywhere.

Ya, that. And then we have the problem of getting life from that which never was alive. That's an even better trick than God creating something with a power that he doesn't have.

"power that he doesn't have"? If I said God didn't have any powers, I would have conclude God doesn't exist. Never, said he didn't have any power, I just don't believe God can speak, 'viola' and whatever is said everything starts magically moving. However, his power is extended through his creations, example:

God made two humans, but did he make everyone of us? No.

aikiMac

30-Jun-2006, 06:53 PM

Obviously, God can't be everywhere and can't do everything at once.
1.) I mean if God needs angels to Guard the Tree of Life from Adam and Eve, then god must have limited power in such things.
2.) Especially, he should've known satan was up to something? Then he must not be everywhere.
Well, yes, but I'm not convinced that your conclusion necessarily follows from these scenarios. The fact of guards, or anything else created, being given a task doesn't necessarily mean that God couldn't do the task himself. Maybe he just likes to have created beings around him. As for Satan, maybe he knew what was up but let it play out in order to make a point later. Or whatever. My point is that I don't think your conclusion necessarily follows from your example scenarios.

God made two humans, but did he make everyone of us? No.
But did my parents conceive and birth me of their own power, or from a power that God created into them? Or, if you like, backtrack through time to the first two humans. Did they conceive and birth of their own power or from the power that God put into them?

WatchfulAbyss

30-Jun-2006, 07:12 PM

But did my parents conceive and birth me of their own power, or from a power that God created into them? Or, if you like, backtrack through time to the first two humans. Did they conceive and birth of their own power or from the power that God put into them?

Evan if it is a power they were given it's still thiers, or god will have to take credit for every single thing that every human has done, even things like murder or rape. The ability to do these things, in hind site would all be do to god, if we look at it that way.

aikiMac

30-Jun-2006, 07:21 PM

Evan if it is a power they were given it's still thiers, or god will have to take credit for every single thing that every human has done, even things like murder or rape.
Hmmm. There's no room for independent thought in that there assertion, and there's no distinction even between intangible thoughts and tangible things. The ability of moms to bear offspring (to go back to Yama's example) is a tangible thing -- it's her physical body. Is that not different in kind to the mere idea of bearing offspring? "I want to have a child" versus actually conceiving a child in the womb. You know?

WatchfulAbyss

30-Jun-2006, 07:39 PM

Why should the distinction between the two even be a consideration, god instilled freewill and the ability to carry out the actions themselves. Every thing in this world, every thought, every misguided action, all of it would be do to his creation and the things that he instilled within it, every ability, every short coming. Thats if I go by your statement. It just seems like every thing that is good is given credit to god, but not the other way around, even though in the case of god, it's all possible good and bad through his vision his creation......

(After reading what I wrote here I realize it looks a bit hatefull, not my intent at all. I just see the idea of a god as being a force, neutral, not good or bad, I don't feel that such a creature would need to be one or the other.)

Strafio

30-Jun-2006, 08:06 PM

aikiMac

30-Jun-2006, 08:37 PM

However, if you try and liken God's justice to karmic justice then Hell becomes an impossibility. Everybody gradually winds up closer to heaven as they become masters of the karmic/justice system (they understand which actions will lead to happiness and which ones to suffering so choose happiness).
Understood. I'm not saying the methods of meting out justice is the same. I'm just saying that justice is served upon everyone, eventually, and you and CKava just agreed on that narrow point. The debate now could either be (1) which of these religions is correct, if either of them is correct, or (2) which method of justice is better. But I never wanted to go there in this thread.

Dude! Take note! I do believe we're all agreeing on something! :D

BTW, yesterday I ordered a subscription to a Buddhist magazine, "Shambala Sun." I'm getting back into the subject. It's been too long.

Strafio

30-Jun-2006, 08:47 PM

I should probably read more into Buddhism.
(you probably know a lot more about general Buddhist practice than I do)
I've read half of one book which has given me a "general" idea of it and basic ideas to get started. I think the furthest I've gotten is just over half way without getting lost in what it is trying to say. I don't see anything wrong with this as it's not about learning all the facts, more about learning enough to apply it to my own life. (If anything I should find more time/patience to get the hang of meditation).

I have also tried a couple of other books but they seemed to get a bit caught up in some mythologies that didn't seem very relevant.

Timmy Boy

02-Jul-2006, 12:28 AM

Under the assumption of no God and no final justice which ethical system should we follow?

Religion provides no better way of deciding which ethical system to follow because how do you know the Bible is correct and the Qur'an or the Torah isn't? Following that, how do you know which particular branch of any given religion has the right interpretation? Without either a) just mindlessly believing what you were brought up to believe or b) making a logical decision based on your own opinion as to who's got it right there's no way you'll know, so surely you might as well just skip religion and use logic to determine morality anyway. I think this is especially true of people who say "I'm a christian but I don't agree with everything the bible says" - surely a rule is a rule and you have to follow it whether or not you personally agree with it?

wrydolphin

02-Jul-2006, 12:39 AM

Religion provides no better way of deciding which ethical system to follow because how do you know the Bible is correct and the Qur'an or the Torah isn't? Following that, how do you know which particular branch of any given religion has the right interpretation? Without either a) just mindlessly believing what you were brought up to believe or b) making a logical decision based on your own opinion as to who's got it right there's no way you'll know, so surely you might as well just skip religion use logic to determine morality anyway. I think this is especially true of people who say "I'm a christian but I don't agree with everything the bible says" - surely a rule is a rule and you have to follow it whether or not you personally agree with it?
I think that is an excellent question and worthy of discussion. Indeed, many Christian communities are finding themselves grappling with that very question- I know the American Episcopal Church is caught up in just such a debate at the moment. I have never been a literal interpreter, so I have a natural prejudice towards more expansive interpretations, looking for the reason why a story was included or what it means in the social and historical context rather then it's blunt and literal meaning. Then of course, you have to factor in changing societies and how that is meant to reflect on religion- after all, the denominations we see today are really far removed from their original forms (for the most part).

So, anyone who takes a more literal interpretation of the Bible want to take a stab? How do you balance social change and literal interpretation?

tekkengod

02-Jul-2006, 12:55 AM

the only thing god is limited by is human imagination and desire for tradition

blessed_samurai

02-Jul-2006, 05:54 AM

So, anyone who takes a more literal interpretation of the Bible want to take a stab? How do you balance social change and literal interpretation?

I guess I would have to ask at what point do you refer to when asking about a literal interpretation? Because some of The Bible is meant to be taken literally and some as to get a point across and some both.

aikiMac

02-Jul-2006, 06:55 AM

Religion provides no better way of deciding which ethical system to follow because how do you know the Bible is correct and the Qur'an or the Torah isn't? Following that, how do you know which particular branch of any given religion has the right interpretation?
In other words: "What is truth?" :D
You speak as one who doesn't believe there is truth to be found. Do you really think that?

... so surely you might as well just skip religion and use logic to determine morality anyway.
Okay. Natural Law ethics. Do you have anything against that?

I can think of five other ethical systems that are also based upon reason. There likely are more. How shall we choose which to follow? Or shall we just go for the overlap and forget about the parts where they disagree? Well, wait, that would probably leave us with no answers to some ethical questions. Hmm. I've confused myself now. :confused:

I think this is especially true of people who say "I'm a christian but I don't agree with everything the bible says" - surely a rule is a rule and you have to follow it whether or not you personally agree with it?
What is a rule? I don't understand the question.

Strafio

02-Jul-2006, 03:32 PM

Timmy Boy

02-Jul-2006, 07:41 PM

In other words: "What is truth?" :D
You speak as one who doesn't believe there is truth to be found. Do you really think that?

Okay. Natural Law ethics. Do you have anything against that?

I can think of five other ethical systems that are also based upon reason. There likely are more. How shall we choose which to follow? Or shall we just go for the overlap and forget about the parts where they disagree? Well, wait, that would probably leave us with no answers to some ethical questions. Hmm. I've confused myself now. :confused:

What is a rule? I don't understand the question.

My post was in response to this quote:

"Under the assumption of no God and no final justice which ethical system should we follow?"

Now, IF I've interpretted you correctly, what you're saying is that without believing in God and the afterlife, you don't have any way of knowing right from wrong. It provides you with a way of knowing which code of ethics to follow.

My point is that religion provides no greater certainty as to which moral code is correct because there are so many different religions and branches thereof and you don't know which one of them is correct because none of them rely on proof. How do you know that the Bible is correct and the Qur'An isn't? You still have to make that choice for yourself about which ethical code to follow and that comes down to your own opinion. So since we're all just using our own personal judgment as to what's right and wrong anyway, how is anyone really following a prescribed code?

Topher

02-Jul-2006, 08:21 PM

Aikimac, you're missing a ] in the post above! ;)

I think I can clarify what Timmy is saying:

You either think that:
a) God is good because what God does is good.
b) What God does is good because God is good.

For most of us it will be (a).
We have a concept of 'good' and what we know of God fits that concept.
This means that the concept of 'good' is independant of a belief in God.

If it is (b) then what reason do you have for believing God is good?
This means blindly following his rules ("if God says it then it must be good") or what you think are his rules. If someone tells you that God wants you to kill babies and you believe (a) then you immediately think 'God would never want such a thing'. If you believe in (b)... well, I think the most obvious examples are brainwashed cult members who believe God told them to do the weirdest things.
Ahhh, the Euthyphro Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma). ;)

The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” In monotheistic terms, this is usually transformed into: “Is what is moral commanded by god because it is moral, or is it moral because it's commanded by god?”.

Topher

02-Jul-2006, 08:32 PM

My post was in response to this quote:

"Under the assumption of no God and no final justice which ethical system should we follow?"

Now, IF I've interpretted you correctly, what you're saying is that without believing in God and the afterlife, you don't have any way of knowing right from wrong. It provides you with a way of knowing which code of ethics to follow.

My point is that religion provides no greater certainty as to which moral code is correct because there are so many different religions and branches thereof and you don't know which one of them is correct because none of them rely on proof. How do you know that the Bible is correct and the Qur'An isn't? You still have to make that choice for yourself about which ethical code to follow and that comes down to your own opinion. So since we're all just using our own personal judgment as to what's right and wrong anyway, how is anyone really following a prescribed code?
Well said.

To answer your question of how the theist ‘knows’… they beg the question. (i.e. they assume what they seek to prove).

This is down to the fact that usually in religion, reason is dictated by desires. i.e. they have desires, then they seek to ‘reason’ them. In doing this the theist necessarily commits the fallacy of begging the question. In short, the theist merely works backward!

aikiMac

03-Jul-2006, 12:56 AM

My post was in response to this quote:

"Under the assumption of no God and no final justice which ethical system should we follow?"
I did that to purposefully pull away from a discussion of God. It actually worked, in another thread.

Now, IF I've interpretted you correctly, what you're saying is that without believing in God and the afterlife, you don't have any way of knowing right from wrong. It provides you with a way of knowing which code of ethics to follow.
Code of ethics, no. Religion X doesn't necessarily provide a way of knowing which code of ethics to follow. But religion does provide a morality, yes. Ethics and morality are related but not identical.

My point is that religion provides no greater certainty as to which moral code is correct because there are so many different religions and branches thereof and you don't know which one of them is correct because none of them rely on proof. How do you know that the Bible is correct and the Qur'An isn't? You still have to make that choice for yourself about which ethical code to follow and that comes down to your own opinion. So since we're all just using our own personal judgment as to what's right and wrong anyway, how is anyone really following a prescribed code?
You make a good point except for one part: It's not true that no religion relies on proof. For an example of this read the New Testament. By its own terms it rests or falls on the truth of the claim that certain historical events actually occurred. But looking beyond that, your answer here is irrelevant to the question above UNLESS you are saying that all ethics is subjective, that anyone and everyone can pick and choose whatever he fancies. Is that really your position?

LJoll

03-Jul-2006, 01:35 AM

But keeping with the assumption that there is no God and there is no ultimate justice, what does survival and happiness matter?

It seems to me that you are forced into nihilism.

Should you not believe something merely because you fnid it unpleasant?

aikiMac

03-Jul-2006, 01:42 AM

Should you not believe something merely because you fnid it unpleasant?
I don't know. With respect to the question of "Why am I here?" is there any truth to find? If not then I don't know how it matters at all what you believe, and to me that is the same as saying, "I'm not here for any purpose." Your thoughts?

Timmy Boy

03-Jul-2006, 03:04 PM

You make a good point except for one part: It's not true that no religion relies on proof. For an example of this read the New Testament. By its own terms it rests or falls on the truth of the claim that certain historical events actually occurred. But looking beyond that, your answer here is irrelevant to the question above UNLESS you are saying that all ethics is subjective, that anyone and everyone can pick and choose whatever he fancies. Is that really your position?

My point is not so much that anyone can but more that everyone does, so if what you want is certainty as to which morality to follow then surely, despite religion, it always inevitably comes down to your personal opinion rather than any prescribed authority?

As for proof, I'll hold my hands up and admit to not being an expert on the contents of the Bible, but while there may be accurate descriptions of some historical events, that in itself does not provide proof for Jesus performing miracles or being resurrected, nor for any of the other supernatural events described in the Bible.

LJoll

03-Jul-2006, 03:52 PM

I don't know. With respect to the question of "Why am I here?" is there any truth to find? If not then I don't know how it matters at all what you believe, and to me that is the same as saying, "I'm not here for any purpose." Your thoughts?

I personally would not have a problem with being here for no purpose. I don't feel any problem with someone believing something if it makes them more happy, gives them a purpose or lets them understand the world better etc. Personally I don't feel a desire to have a purpose or not have a purpose.

aikiMac

03-Jul-2006, 05:24 PM

My point is not so much that anyone can but more that everyone does, so if what you want is certainty as to which morality to follow then surely, despite religion, it always inevitably comes down to your personal opinion rather than any prescribed authority?
It seems to me that this position necessitates the underlying belief that there is no captial-T Truth out there to be found. Is that your position?

I personally would not have a problem with being here for no purpose.
Well, if we assume that there is no God of any sort out there, would you agree that people (speaking collectively) have no purpose? Or can you think of a purpose? I'm still working on that question myself.

LJoll

03-Jul-2006, 05:36 PM

tekkengod

03-Jul-2006, 06:36 PM

Well, if we assume that there is no God of any sort out there, would you agree that people (speaking collectively) have no purpose? Or can you think of a purpose? I'm still working on that question myself.

Wow thats very depressing. You need that idea to be valid to have any purpose in your life? even if you are "speaking collectively" thats not much better. purpose? to survive and have fun along the way sounds like a good one to me.

aikiMac

03-Jul-2006, 06:43 PM

Wow thats very depressing.
Yes, the whole thought is. ;)

purpose? to survive and have fun along the way sounds like a good one to me.
For what end? Some of us were talking about it over here. (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55044&page=2&pp=15) Seems like any purpose in life is all made up in your head. No?

tekkengod

03-Jul-2006, 07:23 PM

thats true, any purpose is made up in your head, religious or not.

aikiMac

03-Jul-2006, 07:39 PM

thats true, any purpose is made up in your head, religious or not.
Your sarcasm is confusing me. The assumption was that there is no God. Unless you're going to say atheism is a religion, that assumption voids out religion. So, what are you saying?

tekkengod

03-Jul-2006, 08:23 PM

no no, i wasn't being sarcastic there, i really agree with you, any purpose you choose to use as your own is in your head.

aikiMac

03-Jul-2006, 08:31 PM

Well, that settles it then. Nihilism it shall be. :)

I like your signature.

I heard RC Sproul, a radio speaker and Presbyterian pastor and teacher of philosophy, argue for this on one of his radio shows. He went into a lot of depth, working through the nuts and bolts of all the alternative paths.

tekkengod

03-Jul-2006, 08:36 PM

well then Nihilism it is!

Topher

03-Jul-2006, 08:48 PM

but while there may be accurate descriptions of some historical events, that in itself does not provide proof for Jesus performing miracles or being resurrected, nor for any of the other supernatural events described in the Bible.
Right.

The New Testament is the CLAIM. Claims are SUPPORTED by evidence. A claim without any supporting evidence is a naked assertion fallacy and can be thrown away.

Sure, we can hold something’s in the bible to be true, such as about life style, culture, geography… etc, because we have evidence to support the claims, such as archaeological finds, contemporary texts and so on. (We could probably know this information even without the bible, since there are many other sources to go to).

However, when it comes to the ‘important’ claims, such as miracles, or the resurrection, we have the claim and nothing more. The theists ‘evidence’ for the claim.... The claim itself! And that is exactly what begging the question is.

Topher

03-Jul-2006, 08:54 PM

Well, if we assume that there is no God of any sort out there, would you agree that people (speaking collectively) have no purpose? Or can you think of a purpose? I'm still working on that question myself.
To survive, repoduce and then die is our purpose.

I've no problem with that.

And also, we give our own lives purpose.

Timmy Boy

03-Jul-2006, 10:13 PM

It seems to me that this position necessitates the underlying belief that there is no captial-T Truth out there to be found. Is that your position?

Either that, or we have no way of knowing for sure what that truth is. At least in terms of morality. We just have to reason among ourselves as to what we think is a workable code to live by. This is what we all do regardless of whether or not we believe in a God and an afterlife.

aikiMac

03-Jul-2006, 10:20 PM

Either that, or we have no way of knowing for sure what that truth is. At least in terms of morality. We just have to reason among ourselves as to what we think is a workable code to live by. This is what we all do regardless of whether or not we believe in a God and an afterlife.
Still keeping with the atheism assumption, shall we agree with Tekken a few posts above: "no no, i wasn't being sarcastic there, i really agree with you, any purpose you choose to use as your own is in your head."

Is that the conclusion? It seems to me that morality (your context) is too closely connected to purpose (a larger but yet even more fundamental issue) for us to reach any other conclusion. See, if I don't objectively know what I'm supposed to do (morality and it's close relative ethics), then how can I objectively say what my purpose in life is? I don't think I can. Agreed? Or did Tekkan and I miss something?

Timmy Boy

03-Jul-2006, 10:55 PM

Still keeping with the atheism assumption, shall we agree with Tekken a few posts above: "no no, i wasn't being sarcastic there, i really agree with you, any purpose you choose to use as your own is in your head."

Is that the conclusion? It seems to me that morality (your context) is too closely connected to purpose (a larger but yet even more fundamental issue) for us to reach any other conclusion. See, if I don't objectively know what I'm supposed to do (morality and it's close relative ethics), then how can I objectively say what my purpose in life is? I don't think I can. Agreed? Or did Tekkan and I miss something?

My point is that morality is ALWAYS subjective. Any notions of objectivity are IMO a pretence. What you feel your purpose in life is comes down to your own beliefs.

aikiMac

03-Jul-2006, 11:04 PM

CKava

03-Jul-2006, 11:18 PM

Well, that settles it then. Nihilism it shall be.
Aiki I think your using a faulty definition here you keep saying that people having a personal/subjective sense of morality means they are nihilists. As I already pointed out in this thread that doesn't really follow at all.

You supplied the following definition by what you meant by Nihilism after I pointed out none of the common definitions seem relevant...

Something that says the world, and in particular human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or value. We die, and that's that. There is nothing after we die.

But Tekkens view does not logically equate to this. Going through one by one:

Objective meaning- this bit is ok because meaning cannot exist objectively except thereotically. Though this hardly means life is meaningless it just means its individuals who decide on the meaning of their life.

Purpose- this bit is definitely not ok. Not believing that it was God who handed down morality has nothing to do with the purpose people give to their life. Tekken believes for instance his purpose is to procreate which is a particularly biological view to take. Personally I disagree and think such a view denies the fact that we have a brain capable of much more than procreating- regardless we both seem to have an idea of a purpose without believing in God.

Comprehensible Truth- again this bit is not ok because not belieiving in divine morality has nothing to do with being able to discover 'truths'.

Value- No-one is arguing life is valueless they are arguing that the value is given to it BY US. This seems to me to be common sense. Also again as I pointed out before not believing in an afterlife can actually be an impetus to value this life MORE.

We die, and that's that- That's true but thats not nihilism. Thats accepting death as a natural process.

Also recognising the subjective nature of human life does not equate to preaching relativism as a political philosopjhy... I for one am not arguing that everyone should be permitted to do whatever they want and that if someone sees no value to human life they should be allowed to act on it. I mention this because it seems to be a point your hinting at in some of your replies.

CKava

03-Jul-2006, 11:25 PM

Well, it seems funny to me that "reason" would be objective and give only correct answers in math and science, but it would be subjective and give no verifiably-correct answers for the two most important questions in life: (1) What am I doing here? And (2) How should we treat each other?
The thing is though reason has to an extent provided the 'reason' why you are here biologically speaking... the discovery of evolution helped us realise every animal on the planet is in a battle of sorts to pass down its genes to the next generation and we as animals are motivated by essentially the same desire. That being said the development of culture lead to incredible societal development resulting in us now probably as heavily influenced by our 'culture' as we are by our biology. The whole nature vs. nurture debate wrestles with which is more important overall. Culture is what has lead us to give alternative meanings to our life beyond procreation but if you wanted a reason to exist... well haven't you already got a biological one? Your personal one is the one you have to work out yourself but the biological answer seems to solve the question from a logical point of view I would have thought?

As for how we should treat each other well couldn't we argue that the reason for the uncertainty is due to the fact that value is a subjective human value and therefore its rather difficult to quantify objectively. Hence why there are so many different views?

aikiMac

03-Jul-2006, 11:40 PM

Something that says the world, and in particular human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or value. We die, and that's that. There is nothing after we die.

But Tekkens view does not logically equate to this.
Isn't it? Quote: "any purpose you choose to use as your own is in your head." I interpret that as denying objective meaning, blah blah blah, in accordance with the definition above. :confused:

Objective meaning- this bit is ok because meaning cannot exist objectively except thereotically. Though this hardly means life is meaningless it just means its individuals who decide on the meaning of their life.
And how is that different from my conclusion? :confused: The statement "it's individuals who decide on the meaning of their life" looks identical to Tekken's statement, and, it looks identical to the definition above. Really, individual decision = subjective, as opposed to objective.

Purpose- this bit is definitely not ok. Not believing that it was God who handed down morality has nothing to do with the purpose people give to their life.
I consider "purpose in life" to be synonomous with "meaning for life."

Tekken believes for instance his purpose is to procreate ... regardless we both seem to have an idea of a purpose without believing in God.
See above: Tekken said this purpose comes from his head, and yours comes from your head.

Comprehensible Truth- again this bit is not ok because not belieiving in divine morality has nothing to do with being able to discover 'truths'.
The question is whether those truths are objective or not, and universal or not.

Value- No-one is arguing life is valueless they are arguing that the value is given to it BY US.
Ya, I know that. That's what makes it entirely subjective and, in the end, things that are only subjective have no inherent value ---> valueless, as claimed in the definition above.

Also again as I pointed out before not believing in an afterlife can actually be an impetus to value this life MORE.
In your mind. :D

We die, and that's that- That's true but thats not nihilism. Thats accepting death as a natural process.
Well, the part about there being nothing afterwards has some uniqueness to it.

Also recognising the subjective nature of human life does not equate to preaching relativism as a political philosophy.
Agreed. There are alternatives. But so far everyone seems to embrace relativism.

CKava

03-Jul-2006, 11:51 PM

Agreed. There are alternatives. But so far everyone seems to embrace relativism.
Who has embraced political relativism? I can't see a single post advocating it? You seem to be confusing A) recognising the subjective nature of human thoughts and feelings with B) advocating a political view that every view is equally as valid as every other one and therefore everything should be permitted and it should be up to the individual to chose what to accept. I really can't see anyone arguing this entirely silly argument...

And how is that different from my conclusion?
To summarise because you are calling people nihilists when they are not- necessarily.

aikiMac

04-Jul-2006, 12:01 AM

Who has embraced political relativism? I can't see a single post advocating it?
Tangential to the topic anyway. I'll concede this if only because it hasn't been discussed.

To summarise because you are calling people nihilists when they are not- necessarily.
Heh heh heh! Okay, but you didn't explain how it is that the responses don't match up. You seem conclusory.

tekkengod

04-Jul-2006, 01:22 AM

hey hey now ckava i don't know where i said my sole purpose is to procreate {i'm sure i've said that somewhere before though!!!!} although at the moment procreating would be bad for me financially!!!!! :D perhaps the ACT of procreation is one of my purposes. but certainly not my only.

Timmy Boy

04-Jul-2006, 02:02 AM

Cool.

The weird thing, to me, is that several ethical systems claim to be based upon "reason" and we usually think of reason as objective. You know, supposedly reason is the foundation for math and for all science and in math and science there's always a correct answer and it's always repeatably verifiable. Well, it seems funny to me that "reason" would be objective and give only correct answers in math and science, but it would be subjective and give no verifiably-correct answers for the two most important questions in life: (1) What am I doing here? And (2) How should we treat each other?

Very weird. :Alien: and :confused:

I know next to nothing about philosophy so maybe I'm looking at this in the wrong way, but the way I see it is that different subjects are at different points in the spectrum from hard facts to subjective opinions. Therefore, while there may be some similarity in your reasoning technique between maths and morality, there's a fundamental difference in that maths is a set of irrefutable laws, whereas there is no way I can prove that my morality is superior to yours. Morality varies so much between cultures, between periods in history and between individuals that there's no way of actually proving what's right and what's wrong, and the nearest you can come to this is to comply with a general consensus on morality in contemporary society.

For example, my moral beliefs centre around the idea that if what you've done hasn't hurt anyone then no-one has the right to punish you for it. However, someone of an uber-fanatic religious persuasion might argue that right and wrong is defined by whatever is written in their holy book, and that the human concept of fairness has nothing to do with it. I might think they're being unreasonable, but at the end of the day, how can I prove that my "fairness" approach is superior to their "literal religious" approach? I can't prove that I'm right and he's wrong. If reason was completely objective, no-one would ever disagree on anything, and to me the idea of ethics based on reason is more to do with the process of distinguishing right from wrong rather than the prescription of a cast iron code.

I'm keen to emphasise, however, that I'm not trying to draw a distinction between religion and reason. I don't believe the terms are mutually exclusive. The stories that Jesus apparently told are fables to show us all the reasoning for why things are right and wrong rather than just "if you do X Y or Z you'll burn in hell", and there have been numerous attempts over the millennia to address the mother of all FAQs, i.e. "if God is all-knowing, all-powerful and also completely good why does he allow innocent people to suffer?" I am in fact trying to argue the opposite - religion is just another set of moral guidelines that require extensive subjective interpretation. If religion was objective, we wouldn't have different branches of religions that use the same source material or any difference in the social consensus on morality between different periods in history.

IMHO, rights and wrongs are just human concepts that people create for themselves based on whatever subjective reasoning makes the most sense to them. There is simply no overarching authority that we can consult. If anyone disagrees with me on this, this is of course their prerogative and I may well be wrong, but I'm going to ask any such person this question: if you do believe there is a higher authority, which authority is it, and how do you know that it's the correct one?

firecoins

04-Jul-2006, 03:33 AM

God is limited to one's imagination. :Angel:

aikiMac

04-Jul-2006, 06:16 AM

Morality varies so much between cultures, between periods in history and between individuals that there's no way of actually proving what's right and what's wrong, and the nearest you can come to this is to comply with a general consensus on morality in contemporary society.
[etc]
I believe that's called "cultural relativism." There is a certain something that I find very " :Alien: " and " :eek: " about cultural relativism, and that is that it's inconsistent at a fundamental level. See, there are two basic premises of cultural relativism: (1) there is no absolute truth (which you expressed very well), and (2) intolerance toward other culture's morals/ethics is wrong (which you also expressed very well). You said you applied it at the level of individuals as well as at the level of a society, but I question whether in practice you would really do that. Certainly you would not tolerate canibalism by your next-door neighbor, or theivery of your property under the rule that "back in my home country we're allowed to steal from people named Tim." Etc. The point is that every individual person within a given culture is expected to obey the rules which that culture has defined as "right." Failure to obey the rules within that culture is "wrong" by definition, because society says so.

The inconsistency is that the two premises above must be absolutely true for cultural relativism to be true. But that breaks the very premises. Hmm. It's a George Orwell thing, "tolerant intolerance" and "absolute relativism."

There's another funny quirk about cultural relativism that's a little more subtle. (Well, it's funny to me anyway.) That quirk is the lack of any reason for change. See, once a culture has adopted [blank] as a cultural norm, identifying it as morally acceptable, there is no reason at all for that culture to change its ways. By definition there is no better way of behavior, because "better" is a comparative term that presupposes a standard, and the only standard we have is that which the culture/society at issue believes at that point in time. And at that point in time the society believes [blank] is morally good.

We cannot allow change to be brought either from outside or inside the for the simple reason that members of the culture at issue are obligated to practice [blank] because it is by definition right behavior inside their culture. They're not allowed to change anymore than a person is supposed to do morally bad things, and a person is not supposed to do morally bad things.

Interesting, no?

If anyone disagrees with me on this, this is of course their prerogative and I may well be wrong, but I'm going to ask any such person this question: if you do believe there is a higher authority, which authority is it, and how do you know that it's the correct one?
It has fewer inconsistencies and explains the world around me. ;)

tekkengod

04-Jul-2006, 06:52 AM

It has fewer inconsistencies and explains the world around me. ;)

oh, surely your talking about my personal code of ethics "The origin of Species" !! :D !!

Timmy Boy

04-Jul-2006, 03:08 PM

[QUOTE=aikiMacYou said you applied it at the level of individuals as well as at the level of a society, but I question whether in practice you would really do that. Certainly you would not tolerate canibalism by your next-door neighbor, or theivery of your property under the rule that "back in my home country we're allowed to steal from people named Tim." Etc. The point is that every individual person within a given culture is expected to obey the rules which that culture has defined as "right." Failure to obey the rules within that culture is "wrong" by definition, because society says so.[/QUOTE]

Expected by who, though? Surely you don't believe that everyone within any one particular society agrees on every moral issue?

wrydolphin

04-Jul-2006, 03:24 PM

tekkengod

04-Jul-2006, 06:29 PM

Just out of curiosity, why would you hold Origins of Species as a code of ethics, Tekken. That seems rather silly. Its a biological theory on the origins of biodiversity, not a tretise on ethics or morality. If you look to science for ethics, you are going to be sadly disappointed. There is a reason that degree programs make you take a seperate ethics class from another department.

You make me wonder sometimes.

ya know dolphin, i'm going to suggest you go out and buy a sarcasim detector! :)

wrydolphin

04-Jul-2006, 07:21 PM

ya know dolphin, i'm going to suggest you go out and buy a sarcasim detector! :)
Funny, I was going to suggest a spell checker and some basic common sense.

tekkengod

04-Jul-2006, 07:36 PM

:rolleyes:

Strafio

04-Jul-2006, 08:31 PM

Just out of curiosity, why would you hold Origins of Species as a code of ethics, Tekken. That seems rather silly. Its a biological theory on the origins of biodiversity, not a tretise on ethics or morality. If you look to science for ethics, you are going to be sadly disappointed. There is a reason that degree programs make you take a seperate ethics class from another department.

You make me wonder sometimes.
As it happens, some philosophers studying ethics have used 'logic games' to see what strategies suit survival and say that our instincts follow these, (e.g. being nice to people until they give you nonsense) and that our ethics are based on those...

wrydolphin

04-Jul-2006, 10:04 PM

Be that as it may, ethical studies based upon biological principals are not the theory of natural selection.

aikiMac

04-Jul-2006, 10:16 PM

Just out of curiosity, why would you hold Origins of Species as a code of ethics, Tekken. That seems rather silly.
I think it was a joke built on him saying somewhere in the past that his purpose in life is to reproduce. :)

Expected by who, though? Surely you don't believe that everyone within any one particular society agrees on every moral issue?
I don't believe in ethical relativism. You do. :)

If individuals are allowed to choose conflicting ethics, there will eventually be a conflict of perceived rights and wrongs. My ethics will say it's okay to do [blank] to you, but yours will say it's not okay. Who will judge me wrong? Not you. Therefore I win, right? Hmm. Maybe not. I think the only practical answer is that our immediate society, as a collective unit, will define rights and wrongs as part of our little culture. It will be part of our cultural norms. All of us individual people within that society will be obligated to behave according to those rules of behavior.

No?

Timmy Boy

06-Jul-2006, 06:28 PM

If individuals are allowed to choose conflicting ethics, there will eventually be a conflict of perceived rights and wrongs. My ethics will say it's okay to do [blank] to you, but yours will say it's not okay. Who will judge me wrong? Not you. Therefore I win, right? Hmm. Maybe not. I think the only practical answer is that our immediate society, as a collective unit, will define rights and wrongs as part of our little culture. It will be part of our cultural norms. All of us individual people within that society will be obligated to behave according to those rules of behavior.

But even within a society people disagree about rights and wrongs. My mum's a vegetarian, I'm not. Some of my friends think porn is evil, I don't. Some people think sex before marriage is wrong, I don't. How do you prove who has the superior morality? You seem to be thinking in terms of how you believe the world *should* be rather than how it *is*.

tekkengod

06-Jul-2006, 06:32 PM

But even within a society people disagree about rights and wrongs. My mum's a vegetarian, I'm not. Some of my friends think porn is evil, I don't. Some people think sex before marriage is wrong, I don't. How do you prove who has the superior morality? You seem to be thinking in terms of how you believe the world *should* be rather than how it *is*.

Good point, what it should be and how it is are 2 very different things.

aikiMac

06-Jul-2006, 06:51 PM

How do you prove who has the superior morality? You seem to be thinking in terms of how you believe the world *should* be rather than how it *is*.
Well, ya, that's the topic at hand.
So you wouldn't object, then, to a law requiring you to be a vegetarian (to pick an issue raised by you)? 'Cause such a law is no better than your current pro-meat view, right? And you wouldn't ever try to undo that law because, hey, your preference for killing a living breathing creature is no better than the pro-life view, right?

tekkengod

06-Jul-2006, 06:57 PM

majority rules on that particular instance.

Timmy Boy

06-Jul-2006, 07:19 PM

Well, ya, that's the topic at hand.
So you wouldn't object, then, to a law requiring you to be a vegetarian (to pick an issue raised by you)? 'Cause such a law is no better than your current pro-meat view, right? And you wouldn't ever try to undo that law because, hey, your preference for killing a living breathing creature is no better than the pro-life view, right?

Of course I would object to it... BASED ON MY BELIEFS. There is no way I can scientifically prove that my beliefs are superior. It's one thing to want a law that governs everybody regardless of whether everyone agrees with it, in fact I support this view, but it's another thing to expect all individiuals to agree on everything. Law and morality may be related but they are not, repeat NOT, the same thing.

aikiMac

06-Jul-2006, 07:24 PM

Okay then, which rules are we supposed to follow? This is not limited just to statutes. Criminal statutes codify a portion of ethical rules, but not all of them; e.g. lying is usually a broad violation of ethics, but statutes forbid lying only in a few narrow, specific contexts.

tekkengod

06-Jul-2006, 07:25 PM

you follow the laws. ethics are an individual matter, every person on the planet will lie or cheat or steal at some point.

Timmy Boy

06-Jul-2006, 07:26 PM

Okay then, which rules are we supposed to follow?

This is the exact point I've been making for pages. We don't know which rules we are supposed to follow, we simply make our own reasoned judgements about right and wrong. You're a Christian, right? How do you know that the Bible is right and the Qur'an is wrong?

aikiMac

06-Jul-2006, 07:35 PM

This is the exact point I've been making for pages. We don't know which rules we are supposed to follow, we simply make our own reasoned judgements about right and wrong.
Why are your reasoned judgments better than those of the society where you live? That seems rather arrogant and insulting to the people who set up the rules for where you live.

You're saying (1) "We don't know who is right," and then (2) "My desires are more important than yours! You should change the rules to accomodate my desires!" (Recall you said you'd object to a law forbidding the killing of living animals for food. That's an ethical statement, dude.)

Huh? I fail to see how you can have it both ways. You're contradicting yourself. Either the rules of your immediate society are good enough to stand as they are, without change, or, you gotta set forth an external measuring rod. To say otherwise is to be hypocritical.

'Course, you could say it's okay to be hypocritical. I hadn't thought of that option until right now as I was typing this. :confused:

Edit:
You're a Christian, right? How do you know that the Bible is right and the Qur'an is wrong?
No, in this discussion I'm an atheist. The Bible and the Quran both have some good stuff in them and you can appeal to them if you want to, but I will deny that either book came from God.

Timmy Boy

06-Jul-2006, 07:45 PM

Why are your reasoned judgments better than those of the society where you live? That seems rather arrogant and insulting to the people who set up the rules for where you live.

It's not arrogant or insulting, it's called having an opinion. As for the people who "set up the rules where I live", who/what do you mean? If you mean the law, the law is not the same as morality as it has different objectives and is different across different societies. If you mean the general commonly held views of society then 1) I can name plenty that I disagree with and 2) you're forgetting that no-one agrees with everyone else on EVERYTHING so there are no "rules" per se.

You're saying (1) "We don't know who is right," and then (2) "My desires are more important than yours! You should change the rules to accomodate my desires!" (Recall you said you'd object to a law forbidding the killing of living animals for food. That's an ethical statement, dude.)

Yes, that is an ethical statement. Based on my BELIEFS. It is perfectly possible to believe/not believe in something yet respect other people's rights to freedom of conscience. This is why it's not arrogance - while I have my views on things, I accept that they are just my views and that I'm not always right.

uh? I fail to see how you can have it both ways. You're contradicting yourself. Either the rules of your immediate society are good enough to stand as they are, without change, or, you gotta set forth an external measuring rod. To say otherwise is it be hypocritical.

The problem with all of this is that there isn't a book called "The Rules of Society" which everyone buys, learns off by heart, agrees with completely and adheres to in their everyday life. You might want people to do that, but people don't. If you don't accept that, in real life, people disagree on things even within a society then there's no point having this discussion.

No, in this discussion I'm an atheist. The Bible and the Quran both have some good stuff in them and you can appeal to them if you want to, but I will deny that either book came from God.

That's not what I asked. The Bible and the Qur'an differ on many moral issues. How do you know which to believe?

aikiMac

06-Jul-2006, 08:05 PM

As for the people who "set up the rules where I live", who/what do you mean? If you mean the law, the law is not the same as morality as it has different objectives and is different across different societies. If you mean the general commonly held views of society then 1) I can name plenty that I disagree with and 2) you're forgetting that no-one agrees with everyone else on EVERYTHING so there are no "rules" per se.
I disagree on the basis of my knowledge of sociology and anthropology, and on my life experiences. I'm by no means an expert on cultural studies but it is my informed opinion that in actual practice, there are rules (or "norms" or "mores") that everybody in a given culture knows they are supposed to follow.

This is why it's not arrogance - while I have my views on things, I accept that they are just my views and that I'm not always right.
I didn't say having an opinion is arrogance. I said trying to get your way is arrogant when (1) your way violates a particular rule that your particular culture has set down, and (2) you yourself stated that your opinion is not better than anyone elses opinion. The combination of the two looks very problematic to me.

Come on now, if your opinion is not better than one person's opinion, then your opinion is not better than the collective opinions of everyone else in that there culture that has that there rule. Right? Then you are in no position to buck their collective desires. That's the problem I see.

The problem with all of this is that there isn't a book called "The Rules of Society" which everyone buys, learns off by heart, agrees with completely and adheres to in their everyday life.
As I said above, I really do believe that each culture has it's own "Rules of Society" that everybody in that culture knows.

That's not what I asked. The Bible and the Qur'an differ on many moral issues. How do you know which to believe?
I already said that in this discussion I'm an atheist. Therefore I reject the opening premise that there is a God. Therefore I don't believe either book.

Timmy Boy

06-Jul-2006, 08:49 PM

I disagree on the basis of my knowledge of sociology and anthropology, and on my life experiences. I'm by no means an expert on cultural studies but it is my informed opinion that in actual practice, there are rules (or "norms" or "mores") that everybody in a given culture knows they are supposed to follow.

I know what the cultural norms are in my society, whether or not I agree with them is a different matter.

I didn't say having an opinion is arrogance. I said trying to get your way is arrogant when (1) your way violates a particular rule that your particular culture has set down, and (2) you yourself stated that your opinion is not better than anyone elses opinion.

There's nothing wrong with presenting your argument. There were people back in history who opposed social expectations at the time but are today regarded as martyrs, e.g. Emmeline Pankhurst.

Well, come on now, if your opinion is not better than one person's opinion, then your opinion is not better than the collective opinions of everyone else in that there culture that has that there rule. You are in no position to buck their collective desires.

I don't think I'm a better judge than they are, but I am still allowed to disagree with them. No-one agrees on EVERYTHING.

As I said above, I really do believe that each culture has it's own "Rules of Society" that everybody in that culture knows.

But do you agree with them or not?

I already said that in this discussion I'm an atheist. Therefore I reject the opening premise that there is a God. Therefore I don't believe either book.

OK then, I'll rephrase: how do you know which set of rules to follow?

aikiMac

06-Jul-2006, 09:03 PM

There's nothing wrong with presenting your argument.
Maybe yes, maybe no. There's the issue of how you can legitimately argue that a way that is NOT better than the current way should be followed. I really don't know how to make that argument. You're certainly not convincing me. This problem is even worse when the new proposal is to do the opposite of what presently is being done. Wow. :eek:

But do you agree with them or not?
Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. But recall that I don't believe in cultural relativism so I'm not constrained like you are.

OK then, I'll rephrase: how do you know which set of rules to follow?
That's the question. :) Okay, in real life my preference is Natural Law ethics because "reason" is a good indicator of how things should be, and because NL explains the real world in a way that makes sense to me, and because it doesn't suffer from weaknesses that other ethical systems suffer from.

Strafio

06-Jul-2006, 09:14 PM

I think that Aikimac's neglecting a difference between dynamics of ethics.
E.g. You might think that meat-eating is bad, but not as bad a scamming someone which itself isn't as bad as murder.

So some morals you hold, (like vegetarianism) you might not hold strongly enough to feel that everyone should have to follow, wheras murder is intollerable. Murder would be in those 'social norms' as it's more obvious. More nitpicky morals, like vegetarianism, aren't quite so obvious. So in these cases we allow for difference of opinion.

Timmy Boy

06-Jul-2006, 10:01 PM

Maybe yes, maybe no. There's the issue of how you can legitimately argue that a way that is NOT better than the current way should be followed. I really don't know how to make that argument. You're certainly not convincing me. This problem is even worse when the new proposal is to do the opposite of what presently is being done. Wow. :eek:

What it comes down to is this. I'm not a walking authority on rights and wrongs, I just have opinions like everyone else. But that doesn't mean I can't think that someone else is mistaken, even if I'm in the minority. It's part of my belief system that the best solutions are reached via open discussion and I like to do my bit.

For example, I once disagreed with something in my contract law textbook. I disagreed with an analysis that Professor Ewan McKendrick made of a certain case called The Santanita. However, while I don't agree with him, and this is my right, it would certainly be arrogant for me, a 2nd year student at the University of Essex, to start proclaiming my intellectual superiority over the head of contract law at Oxford University, would it not?

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. But recall that I don't believe in cultural relativism so I'm not constrained like you are.

I think that the culture in which you grow up is just one of many factors that can influence your views, but it isn't the only factor by a long way.

That's the question. :) Okay, in real life my preference is Natural Law ethics because "reason" is a good indicator of how things should be, and because NL explains the real world in a way that makes sense to me, and because it doesn't suffer from weaknesses that other ethical systems suffer from.

So you believe in natural law ethics because it makes the most sense TO YOU?

Topher

06-Jul-2006, 10:22 PM

If god didn’t want you to do certain things, why would 'he' give you the ability to do it?

aikiMac

06-Jul-2006, 10:34 PM

However, while I don't agree with him, and this is my right, it would certainly be arrogant for me, a 2nd year student at the University of Essex, to start proclaiming my intellectual superiority over the head of contract law at Oxford University, would it not?
Heh heh heh! Probably so. There are few who could say otherwise.

So you believe in natural law ethics because it makes the most sense TO YOU?
Don't forget the part about being based on reason. ;) You never claimed that your ethics was based on reason. That's an important distinction.

Timmy Boy

06-Jul-2006, 10:39 PM

Don't forget the part about being based on reason. ;) You never claimed that your ethics was based on reason. That's an important distinction.

My ethics are based on reason. But reason is a process, it's not the end product, so that end product can differ between two different people. Do you believe that someone is right just because they're better at presenting arguments?

aikiMac

06-Jul-2006, 10:58 PM

My ethics are based on reason. But reason is a process, it's not the end product, so that end product can differ between two different people.
Dude, I see no way at all to compare the "reason" behind your version of ethical relativism, to the "reason" behind Natural Law -- or the "reason" behind Kant's ethics, or egoism, or a few more. I cannot see a comparison.

Do you believe that someone is right just because they're better at presenting arguments?
No.

Timmy Boy

06-Jul-2006, 11:48 PM

Dude, I see no way at all to compare the "reason" behind your version of ethical relativism, to the "reason" behind Natural Law -- or the "reason" behind Kant's ethics, or egoism, or a few more. I cannot see a comparison.

Mate, I haven't studied philosophy, so I'll hold my hand up again to not being the most knowledgable person here, but by reason I'm assuming you mean making logical conclusions rather than just believing what you're told to believe or making knee-jerk reactions, right?

I'm not overly familiar with natural law and I don't know anything about Kant's ethics, but if I was to pick schools of thought that influenced my morality I'd say socialism and liberalism, both of which are based on reason and not dogma.

No.

Then surely you recognise that two people can base their beliefs on reason and still come to different conclusions?

Timmy Boy

07-Jul-2006, 12:03 PM

If god didn’t want you to do certain things, why would 'he' give you the ability to do it?

I'm not religious, but one explanation I've heard is that he deliberately lets you do bad things to other people because life is a test, hence he allows bad things to happen to innocent people. Apparently he's also a loving father. I don't see how these two ideas can be reconciled, if I had children and I tortured them just to see if they still loved me I doubt I'd win the father of the year award.

CKava

07-Jul-2006, 02:12 PM

wrydolphin

07-Jul-2006, 03:17 PM

Personally, I have always thought that God is rather like a parent trying to teach us responibility. As a parent, you do have to let kids learn consequences. How much of the bad stuff that happens to us is really our fault? Sure, one can point to some things that are blantently not any one's fault, but if you looked more clearly, you will find that the majority is our own fault.

So maybe we are just trying to learn the lesson of responsibility and self control.

Timmy Boy

07-Jul-2006, 03:56 PM

Heres one potential analogy that seems to show how you can be a good father and still allow your child to suffer... imagine a kids father was a world famous boxing coach and wanted the kid to become a champion and so trained him very hard from a young age. The young kid may indeed suffer greatly through the training and his father may watch him get pummeled in the ring later in his career but that doesn't necessarily make him a bad father. In this case he may even test his childs dedication to see if he really 'has what it takes' to make it, of course the father wouldnt stop loving his son (In theory) if he didnt make the cut but isnt that what people who believe in God argue anyway... God has these big hopes for us but even if we never live up to them then hes cool with that? This analogy of course assumes that the kid wants to box by the way and I know its not perfect its just to offer one possible example of how a father could allow suffering to his child and still be a good father- feel free to critique away.

Here are the problems I have with this analogy.

1) If God is all-powerful he doesn't need to make you suffer to make you a champion, he can just make you one anyway.

2) There's a huge difference between wanting someone to train hard and toughen up and subjecting people to disease and war, or killing off their children e.g. the story of Job. That's called being a psychopath.

Personally, I have always thought that God is rather like a parent trying to teach us responibility. As a parent, you do have to let kids learn consequences. How much of the bad stuff that happens to us is really our fault? Sure, one can point to some things that are blantently not any one's fault, but if you looked more clearly, you will find that the majority is our own fault.

So maybe we are just trying to learn the lesson of responsibility and self control.

I disagree. Are you saying that disease, racism, homophobia, war, genocide, famine, paedophilia and rape are all just things we bring on ourselves through not taking responsibility? The point is that bad things happen to innocent people all the time, while people who do bad things profit from their crimes. That's why it doesn't make sense. Letting children suffer in agony for no reason is not something loving fathers do.

CanuckMA

07-Jul-2006, 04:14 PM

CKava

07-Jul-2006, 04:20 PM

Here are the problems I have with this analogy.

1) If God is all-powerful he doesn't need to make you suffer to make you a champion, he can just make you one anyway.

2) There's a huge difference between wanting someone to train hard and toughen up and subjecting people to disease and war, or killing off their children e.g. the story of Job. That's called being a psychopath.
Here are my responses and Im gonna stick with the analogy as well...

1) Say the child's father had the option to give him drugs to succeed do you think he should or say he had the influence to swing matches in the childs favour again would you think that he should? I imagine not because well thats cheating and then the act of training the child is superfluos as the matches are being won not due to his own efforts. Point being just because someone has the power to do something doesn't mean they should even if it would achieve their goals.

2) Yes thats why its analogy. Im not attempting to say its perfect in fact I quite enjoy the criticism you have already provided. Given I dont believe in God Im not arguing this out of piety, Im arguing it because I think you can be loving and still permit suffering if you think it is necessary. Now Ive got that disclaimer out of the way I really cant see how your point refutes the analogy... you were arguing you can't permit suffering and be loving I offered an example of how you could be and you in turn responded yes but thats a less extreme case. Your right it is a less extreme form of suffering but my point wasn't to argue it was the exact same... my point was that it seems you can allow suffering and still be loving.

Timmy Boy

07-Jul-2006, 04:24 PM

It's called free will. G-d endowed us with it. It's up to us to use it.

Mate, you can't say that on the one hand we have the freedom to do whatever we want and that on the other hand God is a loving father watching over us and protecting us from evil.

Timmy Boy

07-Jul-2006, 04:26 PM

1) Say the child's father had the option to give him drugs to succeed do you think he should or say he had the influence to swing matches in the childs favour again would you think that he should? I imagine not because well thats cheating and then the act of training the child is superfluos as the matches are being won not due to his own efforts. Point being just because someone has the power to do something doesn't mean they should even if it would achieve their goals.

Yes, but God is supposed to be able to do ANYTHING. He could quite easily make it possible to become a champion via a quick and easy route. Sure, it defies logic, but if God is all-powerful, he can make it logical.

2) Yes thats why its analogy. Im not attempting to say its perfect in fact I quite enjoy the criticism you have already provided. Given I dont believe in God Im not arguing this out of piety, Im arguing it because I think you can be loving and still permit suffering if you think it is necessary. Now Ive got that disclaimer out of the way I really cant see how your point refutes the analogy... you were arguing you can't permit suffering and be loving I offered an example of how you could be and you in turn responded yes but thats a less extreme case. Your right it is a less extreme form of suffering but my point wasn't to argue it was the exact same... my point was that it seems you can allow suffering and still be loving.

To some extent I agree, but there comes a point where you think "what the hell, this is too much". I also respect that you're able to argue for a view you don't actually support personally.

wrydolphin

07-Jul-2006, 04:51 PM

Timmy Boy

07-Jul-2006, 04:53 PM

How many diseases are easily preventable? And I am not just talking heart disease brought about by poor diet and lack of exercise, malaria is preventable by taking proper precautions as is cholera. The diseases evolved through natural processes and thus are not devine plagues but something that we can control to a very large extent.

Tell that to an AIDs victim in Africa.

Racism, war, pedophila, rape are all human caused, no? And I am talking on a species level, not on an individual level.

Exactly. It's not the victims' fault so how is allowing them to suffer for someone else's sin teaching them about responsibilty? Even if they're human caused, God is perfectly capable of stopping it because he's omnipotent.

CanuckMA

07-Jul-2006, 05:00 PM

Mate, you can't say that on the one hand we have the freedom to do whatever we want and that on the other hand God is a loving father watching over us and protecting us from evil.

I never said He was.

Timmy Boy

07-Jul-2006, 05:03 PM

I never said He was.

But that's the whole point of my argument. I've been saying that God, if he exists, does not behave in a manner consistent with that of a loving father despite claims to the contrary.

wrydolphin

07-Jul-2006, 05:07 PM

Timmy Boy

07-Jul-2006, 05:20 PM

Part of the problem is that you are just working off the claims of people. People can claim anything. And people make claims, usually, more for themselves then for others. So people stating that God is the benevolant father-type that never lets us down may not be the true nature of God at all.

Actually I'm pretty sure the Bible made this claim. And if the claim is false - he's not a loving father but a willfully negligent bastard, what moral right does he have to expect me to worship him?

Even further, we often blame God for things we do to ourselves. Going back to AIDS in Africa, can you honestly tell me you don't know how to prevent the spread of HIV? That it is a big mystery out of our control? No, of course not.

So when women get raped and have HIV forced on them because of a mistaken belief that by doing this the rapist will cure himself of HIV, this is the rape victims' fault?

So you are effectively blaming God for a problem that people are refusing to address. Is that fair? Would you blame a teacher whose student has failed because the student has chosen to not go to class and do work?

What's unfair is that the people who are suffering are not the people who are able to control the problem. A 6 year old girl can't stop a 40 year old man from molesting her, yet God allows it to happen. How the hell is that teaching responsibility for HER actions? Are you saying that God is prepared to sacrifice innocent individuals in order to teach humanity as a whole?

wrydolphin

07-Jul-2006, 05:24 PM

The Bible also makes claims of God being pretty mean. So, which to believe?

The fault is with the people. No, it is not her fault that it happened, it is the fault of 1.) the man who raped her and 2.) the culture and government that has not done enough to prevent the spread of HIV or to educate the people about HIV. So where is it God's fault? I still see the fault resting solely in human hands.

So it's God's fault that people choose to do wrong? People make choices and inflict those choices upon others. The fault is still with humans, or would you argue that the man who molesting the 6 year old is blameless?

Timmy Boy

07-Jul-2006, 05:26 PM

The fault is with the people. No, it is not her fault that it happened, it is the fault of 1.) the man who raped her and 2.) the culture and government that has not done enough to prevent the spread of HIV or to educate the people about HIV. So where is it God's fault? I still see the fault resting solely in human hands.

God's fault rests in having the power to stop it and not doing so.

So it's God's fault that people choose to do wrong? People make choices and inflict those choices upon others. The fault is still with humans, or would you argue that the man who molesting the 6 year old is blameless?

Yes, the fault is still with humans, but God could stop it and he doesn't. The point is that the 6 year old girl is powerless to stop it from happening and it's not her fault at all, so how is God teaching her responsibility by allowing a 40 year old man to molest her?

Suppose I beat someone up with a knife, and then afterwards a doctor in hospital just decided not to treat his wounds, then he died of gangrene. Obviously, I am at fault for setting the chain of events in motion, but the doctor is also at fault for not treating the patient. He could and should have treated the wounds and he chose not to. Just because one person is at fault doesn't mean that no-one else contributed.

wrydolphin

07-Jul-2006, 05:30 PM

Once again, it is a societal level which I am talking about. If, indeed, God is infinate, then it could well be argued that He/She/It is looking at much larger perspective then we do. But then I am also in line with more of a hands-off diest belief. Others who believe in a more immediate contact with God have different answers.

Timmy Boy

07-Jul-2006, 05:35 PM

wrydolphin

07-Jul-2006, 05:41 PM

Timmy Boy

07-Jul-2006, 05:43 PM

I find it more of a gop out to constantly point to God as the source of all things horrid that happen to us. We have created most of our own problems as a species and as individual cultures. And by saying "Goddidit" everytime something bad happens gives us an out for responsibility. So rather then having to take a hard look at the reason why things are the way they are, we just have to blame God.

Its like building your house in a flood zone and then having it washed away and having your kids drown. Is it Gods fault that the river flooded or is it your fault for building in a flood zone without taking into account local geology?

The point you're missing is that there is such a thing as shared blame. Just because a paedophile is to blame when he molests a young girl doesn't mean that God isn't to blame for failing to stop it. If someone just jumped in my house and started beating up my sisters, sure he's in the wrong, but I would also be in the wrong if I just sat there and allowed him to do it.

aikiMac

07-Jul-2006, 06:20 PM

Then surely you recognise that two people can base their beliefs on reason and still come to different conclusions?
:D That's the thing that confuses. I have a book somewhere around here that goes through 9 different ethical systems: 3 assume atheism, 3 don't assume a God but are compatible with belief in a God, and 3 assume that some God exists. The author said in the intro that there are more than nine ethical systems out there, but he had to cut it off somewhere. Of these 9, fully six of them claim to be built on "reason."

Aside: Cultural relativism, which seems to be your favorite, is in the book but it is not one of the six built on reason. Maybe you can formulate a special strain of cultural relativism built on reason. That'd be cool if you do.

Meanwhile, I sit back and read these and go " :Alien: " and " :eek: " at the same time, wondering how six out of nine of the ethical systems in this book can be based on reason and yet NOT be the same. And then I go " :confused: " because I have not figured it out yet myself. One of these days maybe I'll figure that out.

Oh, if you really want to learn something about reconciling an all-powerful and all-knowing Christian or Jewish God with bad things in the world, read Job (in the Old Testament, just before the Psalms). And if you don't want to learn about it, then, you know, you've got nothing to talk about and nothing to complain about. :rolleyes: Pretty simple really.

Timmy Boy

07-Jul-2006, 06:31 PM

:D That's the thing that confuses. I have a book somewhere around here that goes through 9 different ethical systems: 3 assume atheism, 3 don't assume a God but are compatible with belief in a God, and 3 assume that some God exists. The author said in the intro that there are more than nine ethical systems out there, but he had to cut it off somewhere. Of these 9, fully six of them claim to be built on "reason."

Aside: Cultural relativism, which seems to be your favorite, is in the book but it is not one of the six built on reason. Maybe you can formulate a special strain of cultural relativism built on reason. That'd be cool if you do.

Meanwhile, I sit back and read these and go " :Alien: " and " :eek: " at the same time, wondering how six out of nine of the ethical systems in this book can be based on reason and yet NOT be the same. And then I go " :confused: " because I have not figured it out yet myself. One of these days maybe I'll figure that out.

Of course they can be based on reason and not be the same. Reasoning is a subjective process.

Oh, if you really want to learn something about reconciling an all-powerful and all-knowing Christian or Jewish God with bad things in the world, read Job (in the Old Testament, just before the Psalms). And if you don't want to learn about it, then, you know, you've got nothing to talk about and nothing to complain about. :rolleyes: Pretty simple really.

I know the story of Job and it still makes no sense. God allowed the devil to kill all of Job's family in order to test Job's faith. That's not fair.

aikiMac

07-Jul-2006, 06:34 PM

I know the story of Job and it still makes no sense. God allowed the devil to kill all of Job's family in order to test Job's faith. That's not fair.
There's a little more than that. It's a rather long story, and fairness was one of the topics in the story.

Of course they can be based on reason and not be the same. Reasoning is a subjective process.
Is it really? Hmm. Interesting idea. :confused:
I suppose you'd have to distinguish types of reasoning to make that claim hold true. For example, I don't believe math and logic are subjective. But other stuff, maybe.

Or, alternatively, maybe the explanation is that reason alone is insufficient to answer all the questions that we can create. Right now I lean toward that as an answer.

Yama Tombo

07-Jul-2006, 06:41 PM

God's fault rests in having the power to stop it and not doing so.

If God intervened there would be no free will at all and God would be controlling, too.

Yes, the fault is still with humans, but God could stop it and he doesn't. The point is that the 6 year old girl is powerless to stop it from happening and it's not her fault at all, so how is God teaching her responsibility by allowing a 40 year old man to molest her?

Why would god solely be responsible? Where is the parent of the child?

Topher

07-Jul-2006, 09:33 PM

So it's God's fault that people choose to do wrong?
‘God’ gave us the ability to do such things in the first place!

I find it more of a gop out to constantly point to God as the source of all things horrid that happen to us. We have created most of our own problems as a species and as individual cultures. And by saying "Goddidit" everytime something bad happens gives us an out for responsibility.
To argue that the problem of is that of man is to make the error in thinking that 'god' isn't responsible for the limits he places in his own creation in the first place.

All our ‘problems’ are carried out within the parameters of ‘gods’ creation, by the very beings ‘he’ created. If such things are really problems why would ‘god’ give us the ability to do them? If x is so bad why does ‘god’ not remove x from our brain structure?

Free will?

Wrong!

God shaped all the parameters of existence that shape and control decisions, rendering free will moot. This is the problem with ‘free will.’

God is responsible for every parameter and every limit in existence. He is therefore responsible for what actions are possible and what actions are impossible. So he already necessarily limits what actions we can take. Given this, it is unavoidable that our 'free will' is not unlimited. Given this, why didn't this 'god' make some 'evil' actions impossible?

Every option is created by this god, and every aspect of our character is created by god, so responsibility for what ever decisions made must always go back to the omnipotent creator.

WatchfulAbyss

07-Jul-2006, 11:13 PM

Why would god solely be responsible? Where is the parent of the child?

I think the point is, that regardless of where the parent was, why didn't god step in and stop it. How about, we say it is the childs parent that is doing it. Why wouldn't he feel the need to share in the responsibility where people fail......

(sorry, I am just curious, I don't personally have a problem with religion)

Yama Tombo

08-Jul-2006, 04:06 AM

I think the point is, that regardless of where the parent was, why didn't god step in and stop it. How about, we say it is the childs parent that is doing it. Why wouldn't he feel the need to share in the responsibility where people fail......

(sorry, I am just curious, I don't personally have a problem with religion)

Parents are given responsibility for raising their children, and if the parent is committing such a vile it would be a sin.

God is not responsible for how people act. God is not responsible for acts committed against the victims, also. In the christain view there will be a final judgement, after armageddon. Everyone will have to answer for their actions during judgement. In no way, am I stating God is ominpotent and omnipresent, because in the bible says that [guardian] angels are watching people closely.

WatchfulAbyss

08-Jul-2006, 04:48 AM

Parents are given responsibility for raising their children, and if the parent is committing such a vile it would be a sin.

God is not responsible for how people act. God is not responsible for acts committed against the victims, also.

I don't understand, isn't god kind of a father to all of us, why is he clear of parental responsibilities ?

(I mean come on, wouldn't it be cool if god opened a needy children's center right down the street from your house)

In the christain view there will be a final judgement, after armageddon. Everyone will have to answer for their actions during judgement. In no way, am I stating God is ominpotent and omnipresent, because in the bible says that [guardian] angels are watching people closely.

Hmmm, I thought the bible stated that he is indeed both?
I can give some scripture support if needed, I don't want to, its been done to death, but I can.....

tekkengod

08-Jul-2006, 05:44 AM

God is not responsible for how people act.

WHAT!?!?!?! his influence on thought process is more than enough to convict him of multiple instances of homicide/genocide.

Yama Tombo

08-Jul-2006, 02:01 PM

I don't understand, isn't god kind of a father to all of us, why is he clear of parental responsibilities ?

(I mean come on, wouldn't it be cool if god opened a needy children's center right down the street from your house)

If you want to look at in literal sense, grandfather.

Hmmm, I thought the bible stated that he is indeed both?
I can give some scripture support if needed, I don't want to, its been done to death, but I can.....

Tell me the passage. If it's been done to death, I'm not aware of it on this forum or forgotten.

WatchfulAbyss

08-Jul-2006, 02:09 PM

Tell me the passage. If it's been done to death, I'm not aware of it on this forum or forgotten.

Ok......

Omnipotent:

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Genesis 17:1
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Job 42:2
I know that thou canst do everything, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

Jeremiah 32:17,27
Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:
Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

Luke 1:37
For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Revelation 19:6
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

-----------------------------

Omnipresent:

Psalm 139:8
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

Jeremiah 23:23,24
Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.

Ephesians 2:22
In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Psalm 113:5
Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high.

Psalm 123:1
Unto thee lift I up mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens.

I Kings 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Matthew 6:9
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Hebrews 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

I Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.

Matthew 18:20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Romans 10:6,7
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? Or, Who shall descend into the deep?

Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Conclusion:

There is no place to go where God is not already there.

WatchfulAbyss

08-Jul-2006, 02:18 PM

Yama Tombo

08-Jul-2006, 02:41 PM

WHAT!?!?!?! his influence on thought process is more than enough to convict him of multiple instances of homicide/genocide.

Specific example of homicide or genocide? The Catholic Crusades and Holocaust, 'Blood Mary', Salem Witch Trials, and etc?

Anyway, I'm sure if influence has anything to do with responsibility. Police could arrest a boss for the suicide of an employee that was fired or arrest the bully because a kid--thats been pushed around--went on a shooting rampage.

WatchfulAbyss

08-Jul-2006, 03:08 PM

Anyway, I'm sure if influence has anything to do with responsibility. Police could arrest a boss for the suicide of an employee that was fired or arrest the bully because a kid--thats been pushed around--went on a shooting rampage.

Actually, they have. "Charles Milles Manson" comes to mind. Fact is, if I influece people to do bad things, I can get into trouble. Atleast on some levels; that is if I am doing it to get that result. Conspiracy.....

Topher

08-Jul-2006, 08:14 PM

Fact is, if I influece people to do bad things, I can get into trouble. Atleast on some levels; that is if I am doing it to get that result.
Just like our new terrorism laws - incitement to cause terrorism.

Timmy Boy

09-Jul-2006, 01:45 AM

If God intervened there would be no free will at all and God would be controlling, too.

God cannot allow complete reign of free will, even when it inflicts undeserved suffering, and still claim to be a loving father watching over us. The two propositions are not compatible. A parent does not sacrifice his innocent children on the altar of free will. Either he's a father or he isn't.

Why would god solely be responsible? Where is the parent of the child?

Yama, I thought you were above strawman arguments. You know I didn't say God was SOLELY to blame, stop putting words in my mouth.

aikiMac

09-Jul-2006, 08:52 AM

God cannot allow complete reign of free will, even when it inflicts undeserved suffering, and still claim to be a loving father watching over us. The two propositions are not compatible.
Why not? Human reason has a limitation. Didn't you know that? There's a famous theorem in logic that says that every axiomatic system is either incomplete or is somewhere inconsistent. Well, maybe you've reached that limitation with your human reasoning. There's a thought. I suspect that you're bothered by this apparent contradiction because you don't believe God is real in the first place, and would therefore expect that when a group of people make up God that they would make up a logically consistent God. In contrast to that, the people who believe in God maybe are not bothered by the alleged contradiction (note that I changed a word there) because their belief in the historical fact of an Easter resurrection puts things in a rather different light.

Surely you can flip a switch in your head and imagine for a moment, just for a moment mind you, how things would look a bit different if you believed that Easter really happened.

Yama Tombo

09-Jul-2006, 02:28 PM

Why would god solely be responsible? Where is the parent of the child?

Yama, I thought you were above strawman arguments. You know I didn't say God was SOLELY to blame, stop putting words in my mouth.

There is no strawman, maybe lack of understanding and confining my thinking to the scenerio you set forth:

Yes, the fault is still with humans, but God could stop it and he doesn't. The point is that the 6 year old girl is powerless to stop it from happening and it's not her fault at all, so how is God teaching her responsibility by allowing a 40 year old man to molest her?

Yes, you acknowledged humans are at fault and I see that. Since we're speaking hypothetically, God assumes all responsibilities considering he could have stopped all events leading up to it.

Topher

09-Jul-2006, 02:56 PM

In contrast to that, the people who believe in God maybe are not bothered by the alleged contradiction
Of course their not bothered. Their reason is dicted by their desires!

because their belief in the historical fact of an Easter resurrection puts things in a rather different light.
Historical fact??! On what evidence do say that?

And before you say the bible. The bible is the source of the CLAIM, not the EVIDENCE of it. Claims need to be SUPPORTED by evidence. To present the bible as evidence is to beg the question! All you would be doing is presenting a claim, and to not support the claim with evidence would be a naked assertion fallacy.

Yama Tombo

09-Jul-2006, 03:14 PM

Of course their not bothered. Their reason is dicted by their desires!

Historical fact??! On what evidence do say that?

And before you say the bible. The bible is the source of the CLAIM, not the EVIDENCE of it. Claims need to be SUPPORTED by evidence. To present the bible as evidence is to beg the question! All you would be doing is presenting a claim, and to not support the claim with evidence would be a naked assertion fallacy.

Do you means the parts of power --like Jesus walking on water and angels preforming miracles-- are claims? or places like Sodom and Gomorrah and Roman occupation of Israeli are claims? or the whole bible is a claim?

Yama Tombo

09-Jul-2006, 03:18 PM

when I said "its been done to death" I just meant scripture being quoted in general. It can get so tedious, especially when everybody wants to interpret it their own way......

But there it is anyway. (other page)

Thats alot to reply to I'll print that out and type up my responses on the quotes you gave me. After, I look at all of them.

Topher

09-Jul-2006, 03:55 PM

Do you means the parts of power --like Jesus walking on water and angels preforming miracles-- are claims? or places like Sodom and Gomorrah and Roman occupation of Israeli are claims? or the whole bible is a claim?
Anything.

A claim is a statement that asserts that a certain premise is true. Claims must be supported by evidence, otherwise you commit a naked assertion fallacy.

Things like walking on water, Jesus exists, resurrection, angels, miracles, global flood, talking snake and so on are all claims. As is the Roman occupation of Israeli etc.

We can look at some of the claims in the bible and cross reference them with additional material and get information such as historical, geographical and cultural etc. For example we can hold truth in the statement of a Roman occupation by looking at the evidence which supports the claim, or that there once was a Jewish temple by supporting the claims with numerous sources, information and evidence. We can hold for example some truth in the statement "people were crucified" because we know, based on various sources that people were in fact crucified. However asserting that Jesus walked on water for example, asserts numerous claims: that a person called Jesus existed, that walking on water is possible and that this 'Jesus' character did such a thing. Neither of these CLAIMS has any evidence SUPPORTING them. Given that, there is no reason or justification to declare the statement “Jesus waked on water” as historical fact, save for faith – believing the statement despite no evidence to do so.

The problem with most of the claims of theists is the evidence for the claims is the claims themselves! It's begging the question.

Timmy Boy

11-Jul-2006, 01:48 AM

Why not? Human reason has a limitation. Didn't you know that? There's a famous theorem in logic that says that every axiomatic system is either incomplete or is somewhere inconsistent. Well, maybe you've reached that limitation with your human reasoning. There's a thought. I suspect that you're bothered by this apparent contradiction because you don't believe God is real in the first place, and would therefore expect that when a group of people make up God that they would make up a logically consistent God. In contrast to that, the people who believe in God maybe are not bothered by the alleged contradiction (note that I changed a word there) because their belief in the historical fact of an Easter resurrection puts things in a rather different light.

Surely you can flip a switch in your head and imagine for a moment, just for a moment mind you, how things would look a bit different if you believed that Easter really happened.

I was a Christian because I went to school and that was what I was taught. However, after a while it started to bother me that God was supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful, yet he allowed innocent people to suffer. Blaming the devil or humanity didn't cut it because God is all-powerful and has the power to stop it, even if someone else is also to blame. The idea of life being a test didn't cut it because no sane father abuses his children just to test their loyalty. And the idea of God punishing you didn't cut it because the whole point is that innocent people suffer.

I also don't believe in catch-all excuses like "God is just beyond our understanding" because you could use it to justify absolutely anything that anyone ever did. If I beat my children up or killed them, do you think a jury would believe that I was a loving father? No? Then why is God any different?

If you believe in God, and the contradiction doesn't bother you, then great. However, as a matter of logic, it makes no sense at all. You only think the Easter resurrection is a "fact" because you already believe in God, if it was a really irrefutable fact with actual proof to back it up then everyone would be Christian. Again, it comes down to whether you're prepared to put your unquestioning faith in the Bible or not, and I didn't.

Topher

11-Jul-2006, 02:13 AM

I also don't believe in catch-all excuses like "God is just beyond our understanding" because you could use it to justify absolutely anything that anyone ever did.

If you believe in God, and the contradiction doesn't bother you, then great. However, as a matter of logic, it makes no sense at all.
Well if something logically makes to sense, it follows what we cannot understand it. So logically, god is (should 'he' 'exist') beyond our understanding/comprehension. However i agree that that it is no reason to justify anything, other that saying, "we cannot say anything further on the idea."

You only think the Easter resurrection is a "fact" because you already believe in God
Right. His reason is dictated by his desires. He basically starts with his desire(s), then works backwards.

PopeCoyote

11-Jul-2006, 02:14 AM

However, as the main character in Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code" says,
Even if we had proof that all of Christianity is false, does that mean we should reveal it? Christianity by its nature inspires billions of people worldwide to try and live better lives. I'm not sure that even if I could completely refute it, whether or not I would. Would I truly want to destroy the mental and emotional stability that being Chrisitian gives so many people?

tekkengod

11-Jul-2006, 03:34 AM

If I beat my children up or killed them, do you think a jury would believe that I was a loving father? No? Then why is God any different?

Sig worthy my friend.

However, as the main character in Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code" says,
Even if we had proof that all of Christianity is false, does that mean we should reveal it? Christianity by its nature inspires billions of people worldwide to try and live better lives. I'm not sure that even if I could completely refute it, whether or not I would. Would I truly want to destroy the mental and emotional stability that being Chrisitian gives so many people?

ABSOLUTELY! if you had 100% irrefutable proof that all of the pillars of anyone major religion, all of them for that matter, you'd keep it hidden!?!? that makes me sick. after all the problems its cause, the death. and the constant aura of superiority floating around those people, i'd do it with a smile on my face and i'd be looking for a reward too. The ONLY thing that would make me think twice is the repricution, would i single handedly kill terroristic motivation, or would i rejuvinate them and triple it?

aikiMac

11-Jul-2006, 05:32 AM

You only think the Easter resurrection is a "fact" because you already believe in God
Actually, that's not what I think. Thanks for getting it wrong.

tekkengod

11-Jul-2006, 05:56 AM

Actually, that's not what I think. Thanks for getting it wrong.

so then you don't believe the ressurection happened?

aikiMac

11-Jul-2006, 06:32 AM

so then you don't believe the ressurection happened?
Har har, you're a comedian.
Note the placement of the words "only" and "because" in Timmy's sentence. That's what was wrong.

tekkengod

11-Jul-2006, 06:36 AM

oh i see.....so then why do you? if it has no correlation to your preexisting belief?

aikiMac

11-Jul-2006, 06:39 AM

I think the Easter resurrection happened because "it happened" is by far the best explanation of all the facts. Alternative explanations (like "he swooned" -- puh leeze) aren't even in the running.

Topher

11-Jul-2006, 11:21 PM

I think the Easter resurrection happened because "it happened" is by far the best explanation of all the facts. Alternative explanations (like "he swooned" -- puh leeze) aren't even in the running.
Before you even tackle whether the ‘resurrection’ ‘happened’, tackle the existence of Jesus, and for that matter the accuracy of the bible itself. Only then can you move on to the 'resurrection.'

As for the other explanations. Any explanation than 'he rose from the dead' is far more parsimonious. The body being moved, him not being dead, him not even being crucified, him not even existing are all more parsimonious and plausible. Of course, these are against your desires, hence their rejected.

Personally, I don’t think Jesus in the bible even existed, so the resurrection is moot.

[Capoeira] Mudo

12-Jul-2006, 11:52 PM

The first part of the thread says something like: "If God is limitless, why would it send things to do its work."

If someone punches you in the face...you block it with your hand.

God sends angels to do tasks in the same way we send our hands to pick up objects.

WatchfulAbyss

13-Jul-2006, 05:19 AM

God sends angels to do tasks in the same way we send our hands to pick up objects.

Seems, unnecessary, we have to use our hands, god don't need to use angels, so why complicate the process?

AZeitung

13-Jul-2006, 12:45 PM

Before you even tackle whether the ‘resurrection’ ‘happened’, tackle the existence of Jesus
I don't think there are many scholars and historians that doubt the existence of Jesus. There was one prominent guy that got quoted a lot by atheists, but he actually changed his position. But I've heard that in reality, there's about as much evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for Alexander the Great. The ressurrection of Jesus is one thing, but lets not waste time "tackling" issues that don't need "tackling".

[Capoeira] Mudo

13-Jul-2006, 08:23 PM

Seems, unnecessary, we have to use our hands, god don't need to use angels, so why complicate the process?

I dont fully understand your point.. but maybe angels dont act on gods behalf: they are god acting.

So if God is limitless why does it send things to do its work on its behalf??...the limitlessness of God means he doesn't.

The whole issue solves itself...god is everything...therefore angels are part of it...inseperable.

And you say God doesnt need to use angels...perhaps they are just metaphors for its actions...perhaps thats how its percieved.

WatchfulAbyss

13-Jul-2006, 09:05 PM

I dont fully understand your point.. but maybe angels dont act on gods behalf: they are god acting.
So if God is limitless why does it send things to do its work on its behalf??...the limitlessness of God means he doesn't.

The whole issue solves itself...god is everything...therefore angels are part of it...inseperable.

And you say God doesnt need to use angels...perhaps they are just metaphors for its actions...perhaps thats how its percieved.

No point really, it just don't make sense to me is all, using a angel would be more like me using your hands to block. The way you put it, just don't make sense to me. The way I understand it, they are separate entities, maybe of him, but not him. If this was infact the way it is, then you do realize he would be every thing satan is......

(he would be his own enemy, that would be quite the contradiction, for a being such as himself)

Topher

13-Jul-2006, 09:33 PM

I don't think there are many scholars and historians that doubt the existence of Jesus. There was one prominent guy that got quoted a lot by atheists, but he actually changed his position. But I've heard that in reality, there's about as much evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for Alexander the Great. The ressurrection of Jesus is one thing, but lets not waste time "tackling" issues that don't need "tackling".
Read this: http://www.candleinthedark.com/religious.html (Select Jesus of Nazareth on the left)

I don't think the Jesus of the Bible existed, but like all myths it was probably based on something real. Talking of a historical Jesus is like talking of a historical Santa Claus. Yes, there was a St. Nicholas but you'd be hard pressed to connect any of the attributes we associate with one to the other. They are pretty far removed from each other. I feel this is no diffrent with 'Jesus' and whoever 'he' was based on.

AZeitung

13-Jul-2006, 10:25 PM

At least some of that information is inaccurate.

First of all, on Josephus - the website dismisses everything he wrote about Jesus as a forgery. I read a study somewhere a study done to determine what of his was forgery and what was not. Parts of the Josephus passage appear to be copied from a "what is Christianity" type manual that no one had a hold of at the time the forgery took place. There are also certain aspects of the translation of the document, IIRC that don't make sense in the context of a forgery. A few paragraphs were added and a few words inserted (like he was the son of God, or something), but a good portion of it appears to be authentic. Also, there were actually two different passages by Josephus, one of them may have been a complete forgery, I don't remember.

As for none of the Gospels being contemporary, at least some were authored around 60-70 AD. So, if Jesus died around 30 AD, and one of the Gospels was written in 70 Ad, that's 40 years. Would you dismiss a book written today about someone from the 60s - like say Jimmy Hendrix, because so much time has passed that no one could really know anything about him?

Philo didn't write about Jesus? That means he didn't write about Christians, either. And there were definitely Christians in 50 AD - Paul had written some of his letters by then. We could just as easily argue that Philo didn't write about the "unusual Pauline sect" as if it were somehow a valid point.

Speaking of which, 50 AD is only 20 years after the death of Christ. Why does Paul not count?

I think what the website means to say, rather than "No one alive when Jesus lived ever mentions[wrote about, I assume] him at all" is "No one ever wrote about Jesus while he was alive". Paul was definitely more than 20 years old by 50 AD, which means, if no one else, he was alive when Jesus was and wrote about him. And is it so improbable that by 70 AD, someone who was alive in 30 AD might still be living?

I just looked at the Paul link. It says "Through Paul, Christ became the savior and the way of atonement for original sin, although Jesus himself never spoke on such matters". So I guess when Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the light. He whosoever believes in me, though he may die, he shall live" doesn't count, then?

On the subject of Chrestus - I have no idea who that's referring to or if it was referring to Jesus, BUT - one of the arguments on that website is "why would the Jews be lead by Jesus to begin with?" Did the Romans make a distinction between Jews who followed Christ and other Jews? I doubt it. People didn't suddenly stop being Jewish when they followed Christ (as is obvious from many of Pauls letters - where he makes a distinction between Jewish Christians and Gentiles). He then goes on to argue that these Jews might have been members of the cult of Serapis and Isis. Now is *THAT* plausable? And if so, why is it plausible that Jews might be members of an egyptian cult and not followers of Jesus.

That point wasn't really all that important in the context of the issue of "Chrestus", or whether or not Jesus existed, but it does go to show you that some of his arguments aren't all that well thought out. And he does spend an awful lot of time trying to invalidate such a small passage.

How about the apostles who were martyred? I could see where someone might make up a fake religion with a made up person as the head of it to gain power or money or something, but why would you die in the name of a person you KNEW didn't exist?

The point is, there's very little information about anyone from 2000 years ago, even a lot of the well known historical figures.

The website says "For these reasons, I feel it is appropriate to question the existence of this man" - I don't really care what he feels is appropriate. I'll take the word of scholars who say there's plenty of evidence for his existence over crazy website guy who says not.

edit: This attitude is kind of silly, that "well, atheists are trying to prove that Jesus didn't exist -- and they're athiests, so they must be right", as if atheism were somehow proof of competance.

Topher

13-Jul-2006, 10:43 PM

Thanks for your comments. I’m certainly not interesting in debating this topic full on…again, but I will comment on these quickly.

Would you dismiss a book written today about someone from the 60s - like say Jimmy Hendrix, because so much time has passed that no one could really know anything about him?
I would certainly be sceptical if a book regarding someone called Jimi Hendrix came out, purporting to be historical, yet that book was the only source of his persons ‘existence’

How about the apostles who were martyred? I could see where someone might make up a fake religion with a made up person as the head of it to gain power or money or something, but why would you die in the name of a person you KNEW didn't exist?
Well these people may have believed the person they worshiped, who we call Jesus, was a real man-god, hence sacrificing their life. As I said, Jesus as per the Bible was probably rooted in something real. That’s not to say the people of the time intentionally wanted to deceive people. I feel a natural progression into myth is likely rather than a deliberately created falsehood.

Strafio

13-Jul-2006, 10:57 PM

Although if it was 1000 years from now and then I'd find it plausable that only one book on this person survived. I think Bible/Josephus is enough to convince me there was likely a man called Jesus. If there were exadurations in the Bible, they had to start somewhere! It's tricky enough to exadurate the stories of someone who did live. It would've been another thing altogether to make someone up from scratch!

Being honest, if the claims in the Bible weren't so outrageously crazy then I'd have no reason to disbelieve. Thing is, if they're claiming something that extra-ordinary then they require more of a backup.

It's like:
If I told you I walked past an old lady today then you'd believe me without thinking anything of it. If I told you a walked past a Shark hopping on its tail like Tigger does then you wouldn't believe me unless I had some real proof, and even I'd taken photo's/video footage then you'd be certain that they'd been staged/edited...

Heck, I'd probably be seeing the doctor and asking my friends if they'd spiked my drink lately! :confused:

AZeitung

13-Jul-2006, 11:04 PM

Thanks for your comments. I’m certainly not interesting in debating this topic full on…again, but I will comment on these quickly.

I would certainly be sceptical if a book regarding someone called Jimi Hendrix came out, purporting to be historical, yet that book was the only source of his persons ‘existence’

You do realize in the time period we're talking about - 40 years after Jesus' death - there wasn't just one "bible" - there were several different gospels, a lot of letters, and a few other books that were later either compiled into the bible, rejected, lost, or just ignored.

Well these people may have believed the person they worshiped, who we call Jesus, was a real man-god, hence sacrificing their life. As I said, Jesus as per the Bible was probably rooted in something real. That’s not to say the people of the time intentionally wanted to deceive people. I feel a natural progression into myth is likely rather than a deliberately created falsehood.

Ok, so you admit that someone who bore at least some semblance to the Jesus in the bible, if the people who knew him worshiped him as God and died in his name.

Yama Tombo

14-Jul-2006, 03:56 AM

Ok......

Omnipotent:

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Jesus says that God can do what man can't do. I don't see how this makes God omnipotent?

Genesis 17:1
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Job 42:2
I know that thou canst do everything, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

Jeremiah 32:17,27
Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:
Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

Jesus helped create the earth?

Luke 1:37
For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Revelation 19:6
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

The problem is I believe his powers are limited. As there are a number of events that contradict God's power.

Thats it for now, I'll answer the second half later.

WatchfulAbyss

14-Jul-2006, 04:12 AM

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Jesus says that God can do what man can't do. I don't see how this makes God omnipotent?

I wonder when he said " but with God all things are possible" what did that mean???....

Jesus helped create the earth?

What? Where do you see that????

The problem is I believe his powers are limited. As there are a number of events that contradict God's power.

Thats it for now, I'll answer the second half later.

Not my bible, not my faith, I don't really care what you choose to believe, but this alone "Revelation 19:6
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
pretty much says it all.......... The bible does proclaim that he is, omnipotent, that was all I said...........

Topher

14-Jul-2006, 06:00 PM

Yama, for more on god omni traits read This. (http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-4953-0-days0-orderasc-.html)

The problem is I believe his powers are limited.
Then we must ask: who created these limits? Whoever did would be god.

As there are a number of events that contradict God's power.
All this tells us is the writers of the bible bungled the ‘job’ – they contradicted themselves.

Strafio

14-Jul-2006, 06:13 PM

I disagree with Todangst on that one.
It could just as easily be argued that phrases like:
"There is no limit to his power" are hyperbole and not absolutely literal.
Especially if the believer doesn't take the Bible literally.

Timmy Boy

30-Jul-2006, 02:15 PM

I think the Easter resurrection happened because "it happened" is by far the best explanation of all the facts. Alternative explanations (like "he swooned" -- puh leeze) aren't even in the running.

Oh, well I guess I must apologise for getting it so wrong, thinking you only believed it as a matter of faith when clearly you have so much proof here that Jesus was resurrected. :rolleyes: You can't logically prove that something happened by saying "it happened because it happened", it's a completely ciurcular argument. The point is, how do you know that it happened? Do you have logical proof, or do you just put your unquestioning faith in the idea? If you do, then that's fine - I have no problem with that at all and I'm not criticising it - but you can't say to a non-Christian like me that it's an irrefutable fact that's actually been proven.

Timmy Boy

30-Jul-2006, 07:50 PM

tekkengod

30-Jul-2006, 08:24 PM

kickgirl

30-Jul-2006, 08:39 PM

Throwing this in for the hell of it. The novelty question,"Did god create evil?" I would say yes. There was a reason why God told Adam to not eat from the tree of "knowledge of good and bad." What was God's remark after Adam ate from the tree? "They have become like us knowing good and bad."
About God and Evil. One cannot say that God created either Good or Evil since good & evil are not tangible things to be created. God created the heavens, earth, and all living things there-in. What God did do was allow for "free will" in the thinking of beings of higher intelligence. Good and evil are the perceptions created by us to personify either going with, or against God. Whate we percieve as "good" are those things that are harmonious with the teachings and expectations of God, those things we percieve as evil are all other thoughts and actions contradictory to the laws of God. Men named these perceptions so thus could we then say that men created evil??

kickgirl

30-Jul-2006, 08:52 PM

The point you're missing is that there is such a thing as shared blame. Just because a paedophile is to blame when he molests a young girl doesn't mean that God isn't to blame for failing to stop it. If someone just jumped in my house and started beating up my sisters, sure he's in the wrong, but I would also be in the wrong if I just sat there and allowed him to do it.
Would you want to live in a world where you have no sense of self control and every little thing is done for you?? I don't know what world it is that you are searching for but I live in reality and bad things happen and it isn't God's fault everytime someone gets shot, or everytime one country declares war on another. Nor do I believe that God should have to jump in for me and resolve all my problems I can make choices and solve problems on my own. You seem to be using God as a scape goat for every negative thing that happens to you rather than taking responsibility for your own mistakes and actions.

tekkengod

30-Jul-2006, 09:04 PM

I don't know what world it is that you are searching for but I live in reality and bad things happen and it isn't God's fault everytime someone gets shot, or everytime one country declares war on another one.

you live in reality, but in the same sentence.....never mind.

aikiMac

30-Jul-2006, 09:27 PM

but you can't say to a non-Christian like me that it's an irrefutable fact that's actually been proven.
Why not? Maybe I'm one of those rare people gets a bit of education before stepping onto my soapbox to wax eloquent on a particular topic. You're giving me the impression that you've never investigated the reasons why a person would think that Easter happened. If I'm right about you, then I don't think you're in a position to tell me what to say about it. Fair? :o

tekkengod

30-Jul-2006, 10:02 PM

You're giving me the impression that you've never investigated the reasons why a person would think that Easter happened. If I'm right about you, then I don't think you're in a position to tell me what to say about it. Fair? :o
then perhaps you're in a position to present us with those reasons? :confused: i've always been captivated by the thought of zombies, so i'm all ears on this one, really i am. i seriously want to hear these.

WatchfulAbyss

30-Jul-2006, 11:41 PM

About God and Evil. One cannot say that God created either Good or Evil since good & evil are not tangible things to be created. God created the heavens, earth, and all living things there-in. What God did do was allow for "free will" in the thinking of beings of higher intelligence. Good and evil are the perceptions created by us to personify either going with, or against God. Whate we percieve as "good" are those things that are harmonious with the teachings and expectations of God, those things we percieve as evil are all other thoughts and actions contradictory to the laws of God. Men named these perceptions so thus could we then say that men created evil??

If god gave us guide lines to being good, he in turn defined evil. In a way, the momment he created free will, he created evil in the same breath. I would also have to say; if there is a god, and he is all knowing, god will have had a concept of both these things, long before we were here. The question then would be; does he have any claim to us taking part in these things????

I am not saying this in a bad way, I just don't see a way around it is all...(imho)

Timmy Boy

31-Jul-2006, 01:14 AM

Why not? Maybe I'm one of those rare people gets a bit of education before stepping onto my soapbox to wax eloquent on a particular topic. You're giving me the impression that you've never investigated the reasons why a person would think that Easter happened. If I'm right about you, then I don't think you're in a position to tell me what to say about it. Fair? :o

Never investigated the reasons? I'm investigating the reasons now! I keep asking you why but you never give me a straight answer. You haven't shown any evidence or supporting arguments other than "it happened because it happened" yet you expect me to just accept that it's a fact. Like I said, I respect your religious views and if you believe as a matter of faith that it happened then fair play to you, but you can't convince me that it happened as a matter of irrefutable fact without any proof to support it.

Timmy Boy

31-Jul-2006, 01:17 AM

Would you want to live in a world where you have no sense of self control and every little thing is done for you?? I don't know what world it is that you are searching for but I live in reality and bad things happen and it isn't God's fault everytime someone gets shot, or everytime one country declares war on another. Nor do I believe that God should have to jump in for me and resolve all my problems I can make choices and solve problems on my own. You seem to be using God as a scape goat for every negative thing that happens to you rather than taking responsibility for your own mistakes and actions.

How the hell do you work that one out? How many times do I need to say this to people, jesus.

I'M NOT SAYING GOD IS THE ONLY PERSON TO BLAME FOR EVERYTHING THAT GOES WRONG. I'M SAYING HE'S PARTLY TO BLAME BY FAILING TO PROTECT INNOCENT PEOPLE WHEN IT'S IN HIS POWER TO DO SO AND WHEN HE CLAIMS TO BE A LOVING FATHER.

So you want to lecture me on MY mistakes? I'm not even talking about things that happen to me, the example I used was of a child getting molested by an adult. Is that the child's fault?

kickgirl

31-Jul-2006, 01:25 AM

If god gave us guide lines to being good, he in turn defined evil. In a way, the momment he created free will, he created evil in the same breath. I would also have to say; if there is a god, and he is all knowing, god will have had a concept of both these things, long before we were here. The question then would be; does he have any claim to us taking part in these things????

I am not saying this in a bad way, I just don't see a way around it is all...(imho)
I like your logic and I don't disagree :)

Wali

31-Jul-2006, 01:29 AM

How the hell do you work that one out? How many times do I need to say this to people, jesus.

I'M NOT SAYING GOD IS THE ONLY PERSON TO BLAME FOR EVERYTHING THAT GOES WRONG. I'M SAYING HE'S PARTLY TO BLAME BY FAILING TO PROTECT INNOCENT PEOPLE WHEN IT'S IN HIS POWER TO DO SO AND WHEN HE CLAIMS TO BE A LOVING FATHER.

So you want to lecture me on MY mistakes? I'm not even talking about things that happen to me, the example I used was of a child getting molested by an adult. Is that the child's fault?

We, as humanity, have been given the gift of FREE WILL. As such, we cannot hold God accountable for the actions we take. We have been given stewardship of this Earth, and the way in which we run it is our own fault, and with it all the bad things that we do as a society.

Unfortunately this includes all the bad things you have mentioned.

There are Universal laws that take place, for example, we place our hand over an open fire, and we're going to get burnt. Is this God's fault, or is it our own stupidity? Likewise, this happens on a greater scale, and again, we cannot blame God for this. As humans, we KNOW what we have to do in order to live peacefully.

Timmy Boy

31-Jul-2006, 01:34 AM

We, as humanity, have been given the gift of FREE WILL. As such, we cannot hold God accountable for the actions we take. We have been given stewardship of this Earth, and the way in which we run it is our own fault, and with it all the bad things that we do as a society.

If we have "free will" in this way then God cannot be a loving father. Loving fathers do not allow their children to suffer starvation, disease, disability, war and paedophilia just for the sake of free will. Fathers who do that get their kids taken away from them by the social services.

Unfortunately this includes all the bad things you have mentioned.

There are Universal laws that take place, for example, we place our hand over an open fire, and we're going to get burnt. Is this God's fault, or is it our own stupidity? Likewise, this happens on a greater scale, and again, we cannot blame God for this. As humans, we KNOW what we have to do in order to live peacefully.

So when a child gets molested that's due to their own stupidity? If you believe that God gave us free will then fine, but you can't them claim that he's being a loving father watching over us. The two notions contradict each other.

wrydolphin

31-Jul-2006, 01:46 AM

Wali

31-Jul-2006, 01:49 AM

If we have "free will" in this way then God cannot be a loving father. Loving fathers do not allow their children to suffer starvation, disease, disability, war and paedophilia just for the sake of free will. Fathers who do that get their kids taken away from them by the social services.

Really? So what would you expect from a loving Father? He has given us free will, which if properly administered, as laid out by the 10 commandments and the teachings of Christ, works 100%. Unfortunately, this isn't the case.

Would you rather have a despotic God, who forces us into acting and performing by force? This would make us all slaves.

So when a child gets molested that's due to their own stupidity?

Now your just being an idiot. Where did I even imply that? I said "We have been given stewardship of this Earth, and the way in which we run it is our own fault"

A child cannot be held responsible for the vile actions of sick individuals, but neither can God. The punishment for such actions is made quite clear in The Book of Matthew "Woe to anyone who harms a child, it would be better for that person to have a heavy millstone hung around their neck and drowned in the sea". Here we see that these actions will be severely punished by God, yet God won't interfere in what we do. If he has delegated stewardship of the Earth to us, He stays back and watches. This is what delegation is all about. Why do you not blame the governemnt who keep releasing these sick individuals back into our community? Why don't you blame the social services who fail to spot the signs from early on in the offenders? Why don't you blame yourself for not doing more to stop this from happening? Oh no, it is much easier to blame God on the internet, as it means you don't have to get out of your backside and do anything.

Timmy Boy

31-Jul-2006, 01:52 AM

Timmy, you are making the assumption that God is the father of young children who are not responsible for their actions. God is the father (if you want to use this analogy) of grown children who have, for the most part, completely moved out on their own. If they make bad choices who is he to 1.) interfer and 2.) control?

Responsibility isn't the point though. Situations like those I mentioned are where the victim can do nothing to protect him or herself; instead of paedophilia, you could substitute my example with a woman getting raped or someone in Africa dying of starvation. The "God gave you free will so it's your fault if you get hurt" argument can only apply to those situations where your suffering is actually your fault. If I started hitting my sister one day (not that I'd ever do it obviously) and my mum was there, the fact that I'm 20 and I've moved out on my own now wouldn't stop her from protecting my sister, would it?

While I would agree that it is a flawed analogy, but that is all it is- an analogy. An attempt to make something difficult to understand easier, though it does not really fit the entirety of the relationship between God and people.

Surely it doesn't make it easier to understand though, because it just creates confusion by contradicting?

Timmy Boy

31-Jul-2006, 01:59 AM

Really? So what would you expect from a loving Father? He has given us free will, which if properly administered, as laid out by the 10 commandments and the teachings of Christ, works 100%. Unfortunately, this isn't the case.

Would you rather have a despotic God, who forces us into acting and performing by force? This would make us all slaves.

In case you're forgetting, God is omnipotent, so he could make it so that we'd be protected and yet not be slaves. Sounds far fetched I know, but either he's omnipotent or he isn't.

Now your just being an idiot. Where did I even imply that? I said "We have been given stewardship of this Earth, and the way in which we run it is our own fault"

1) This is a personal attack - mods, please take the appropriate action.

2) I'm talking about individuals, not humanity as a whole. Therefore you can't say it's "our" collective fault that these happens when the individual victims have no control over what happens to them.

A child cannot be held responsible for the vile actions of sick individuals, but neither can God. The punishment for such actions is made quite clear in The Book of Matthew "Woe to anyone who harms a child, it would be better for that person to have a heavy millstone hung around their neck and drowned in the sea". Here we see that these actions will be severely punished by God, yet God won't interfere in what we do. If he has delegated stewardship of the Earth to us, He stays back and watches. This is what delegation is all about. Why do you not blame the governemnt who keep releasing these sick individuals back into our community? Why don't you blame the social services who fail to spot the signs from early on in the offenders? Why don't you blame yourself for not doing more to stop this from happening? Oh no, it is much easier to blame God on the internet, as it means you don't have to get out of your backside and do anything.

1) People do blame the government, in case you haven't noticed.

2) I'm doing a law degree, after which I'm going to become a barrister, so actually yes, I am doing something, save your preaching for someone else. What do you do to stop it?

3) The fact that it's someone else's fault doesn't alleviate him of blame. If I have to repeat this one more time because people don't bother reading what I've said then I'm just going to ignore it because as yet no-one has addressed the point that blame can be shared. If I shot someone, and then my mate stabbed him, is he any less blameworthy simply because his injury was my fault too?

4) Unlike the government or social services, God is not an organisation of humans with finite resources who can't see everything that goes on at any given time or see into the future. He's an omnipotent super-being who is perfectly capable of preventing these things from happening, yet he chooses not to. This is, of course, assuming that he exists at all.

Wali

31-Jul-2006, 02:09 AM

In case you're forgetting, God is omnipotent, so he could make it so that we'd be protected and yet not be slaves. Sounds far fetched I know, but either he's omnipotent or he isn't.

Seems to me you don't believe in God, so your theories hold no weight. And you don't seem to grasp the concept of free will.

1) This is a personal attack - mods, please take the appropriate action.

2) I'm talking about individuals, not humanity as a whole.

1) *SIGH* My my, what a sensitive fellow you are. Your quick of the mark to blame God for everything, and then get all upset at an off the cuff remark.

2) We are responsible for our actions as humanity as a whole. If we stood up to the ills of the world, this would be a much better place.

1) People do blame the government, in case you haven't noticed.

So why blame God? Why not rally, and complain about stronger laws against paedophiles to them? Do you think that God will storm down from heaven for every indecent event man does?

2) I'm doing a law degree, after which I'm going to become a barrister, so actually yes, I am doing something, save your preaching for someone else. What do you do to stop it?

Doing a law degree doesn't mean you will do anything. It just means your doing a law degree. Like anything, a law degree can be used to defend the innocent, or protect the crooked. Time will tell which one you will be doing, so save your self-righteousness until such time.

4) Unlike the government or social services, God is not an organisation of humans with finite resources who can't see everything that goes on at any given time or see into the future. He's an omnipotent super-being who is perfectly capable of preventing these things from happening, yet he chooses not to. This is, of course, assuming that he exists at all.

Goes to backup my 1st comment. Off to bed now. I hope I don't have nightmares from the punishment the mods will give me for my remark.

You have a good night!

Timmy Boy

31-Jul-2006, 02:15 AM

Seems to me you don't believe in God, so your theories hold no weight. And you don't seem to grasp the concept of free will.

So my opinions mean nothing because I don't believe in God and I don't understand free will? Care to explain how?

1) *SIGH* My my, what a sensitive fellow you are. Your quick of the mark to blame God for everything, and then get all upset at an off the cuff remark.

I'm not upset, I'm merely pointing out that you're incapable of arguing like an adult, i.e. without name-calling.

2) We are responsible for our actions as humanity as a whole. If we stood up to the ills of the world, this would be a much better place.

But victims are individuals who often can't do anything to protect themselves. You cannot blame those victims for what happens to them.

So why blame God? Why not rally, and complain about stronger laws against paedophiles to them? Do you think that God will storm down from heaven for every indecent event man does?

You can make the laws as strong as you want but if you can't detect everything that goes on at any given time then there's a limit to what you'll be able to do. God has no such constraints. And again, you're ignoring my point about shared blame.

Doing a law degree doesn't mean you will do anything. It just means your doing a law degree. Like anything, a law degree can be used to defend the innocent, or protect the crooked. Time will tell which one you will be doing, so save your self-righteousness until such time.

I'm not being self righteous, I'm merely pointing out that despite your assertion I actually am getting involved in a profession where I will be able to assist victims of injustice or crime. I only mentioned my chosen career at all because you accused me of doing nothing. If you're telling me I'm doing nothing to help even though I'm doing this, I think it stands to reason that you would want to tell me what exactly you do to help the community? I mean, you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would you?

Goes to backup my 1st comment.

You're saying my opinion cannot be valid because I don't believe in God. So let me get this straight - you can only question the truth of the Bible if you already believe in it? Wow, that sounds like a formula for a really heated controversial debate, I can just see all the Christians lining up to say how God doesn't exist! Seriously, you need to stop telling me my opinions don't matter simply because I'm not a christian and stick to addressing the points I made.

Yama Tombo

31-Jul-2006, 04:13 AM

Yama Tombo, you've kind of brought things back round to my original point. You believe that God can't be omnipotent despite what the Bible says because of world events, yet you still believe that God exists, right? If this is the case, you obviously don't accept what the Bible says verbatim, so how do you know which bits of the Bible to believe and which to dismiss?

I'm not dismissing the bible, I'm dismissing what is accepted to be true about God.

For example:

Blind quoted:

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

I replied:

Jesus says that God can do what man can't do. I don't see how this makes God omnipotent?

God is more powerful than man. Sure, thats true when you compare God to man.

On the other hand, the bible contradicts God as being omnipotent and omnipresent. Especially in the account of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Genesis 18: 20, 21:

20And the LORD said, "The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.

21"I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."

Two things I pull from that one passage:

I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry

God has to 'go down' to the cities to 'see if they have done entirely according to its outcry'

That doesn't scream omnipresent to me. If God has to go and see in person, God is not omnipresent as everyone claims.

Genesis 19: 13:

13 {An Angel speaking} for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it."

Again that doesn't give God any credit for being omnipotent.

WatchfulAbyss

31-Jul-2006, 04:45 AM

Blind
Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible

reply
Yama Tombo
Jesus says that God can do what man can't do. I don't see how this makes God omnipotent?

And again; it doesn't say he can do what man can't do, it says " with God all things are possible".......

God is more powerful than man. Sure, thats true when you compare God to man.

On the other hand, the bible contradicts God as being omnipotent and omnipresent. Especially in the account of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Maybe it's this part that is wrong, how do you decide?

Genesis 19: 13:

13 {An Angel speaking} for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it."

Again that doesn't give God any credit for being omnipotent.

I would like to add some fun scripture:

omnipotent=

Revelation 19:6
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

For more scripture
http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog13.htm
-------------------------------

omnipresent=

Psalm 139:8
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

Jeremiah 23:23,24
Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.

Fore more scripture
http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog11.htm

(I think "god" would be the biggest cheat, at the fairest game of twister you ever played, that's right, I know what I just said... :bang: )

Yama Tombo

31-Jul-2006, 05:59 AM

Blind:

How do you know God's omnipotent and omnipresent isn't credited to God? Like people give credit to God for their wealth, or some athlete winning a medal and so on?

If you look at Genesis 19: 13 and 14. God is given credit for destroying the cities. Even though, the angels said they were sent to destory the city.

Genesis 19:
13 for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it.

14 Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, and said, "Up, get out of this place, for the LORD will destroy the city " But he appeared to his sons-in-law to be jesting.

WatchfulAbyss

31-Jul-2006, 06:07 AM

How do you know God's omnipotent and omnipresent isn't credited to God? Like people give credit to God for their wealth, or some athlete winning a medal and so on?

I don't, but then again, neither do you... Believe the bible or don't, or, believe a little but not all, how do you choose?

If you look at Genesis 19: 13 and 14. God is given credit for destroying the cities. Even though, the angels said they were sent to destory the city.

They went on his order right?

Genesis 19:
13 for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it.

and

14Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, and said, "Up, get out of this place, for the LORD will destroy the city " But he appeared to his sons-in-law to be jesting.

blind
They went on his order right? If I shoot someone, the bullet kills them, am I not still responsible ?????

Timmy Boy

31-Jul-2006, 08:49 AM

On the other hand, the bible contradicts God as being omnipotent and omnipresent. Especially in the account of Sodom and Gomorrah.

It seems to me that it's simply a contradiction in the Bible. Blind's quote said that God is omnipotent, yours suggested that he isn't. How do you know which to believe?

tekkengod

31-Jul-2006, 12:43 PM

i still want to hear aiki's reasons for belief in the ressurection. he made it sound like these could be physical so i gotta hear this.

Timmy Boy

31-Jul-2006, 01:13 PM

i still want to hear aiki's reasons for belief in the ressurection. he made it sound like these could be physical so i gotta hear this.

He told me via pm about some book which apparently proves that the resurrection happened. For the sake of fairness I'm going to see if they have it in my local library, though I'm sure we'd all be interested in hearing a summary of the proof.

Yama Tombo

31-Jul-2006, 01:58 PM

It seems to me that it's simply a contradiction in the Bible. Blind's quote said that God is omnipotent, yours suggested that he isn't. How do you know which to believe?

How do I know which one to believe? I just follow the "contradictions" and I use the term loosely.

Timmy Boy

31-Jul-2006, 03:02 PM

How do I know which one to believe? I just follow the "contradictions" and I use the term loosely.

You follow the contradictions? So you believe both things even at the same time even though they don't make sense together?

Yama Tombo

31-Jul-2006, 03:28 PM

You follow the contradictions? So you believe both things even at the same time even though they don't make sense together?

No, I mean I follow what results from the "contradictions" by study or reasoning. Stuff like the Trinity, Global flood, and Hell.

For example:

Hell is commoningly believed to be a place only the wicked or bad souls go.

When history shows us, even in the bible, Hell (Gehenna) was nothing more than a dumping ground for trash and people who violated law. (Valley of Hinnom)

Below you'll see two pictures. The first picture labeled hell.gif is what people think of when someone says," You'll end up in Hell!" The second picture labeled hinnom.jpg is Valley of Hinnom.

tekkengod

31-Jul-2006, 03:44 PM

No, I mean I follow what results from the "contradictions" by study or reasoning. Stuff like the Trinity, Global flood, and Hell.

For example:

Hell is commoningly believed to be a place only the wicked or bad souls go.

When history shows us, even in the bible, Hell (Gehenna) was nothing more than a dumping ground for trash and people who violated law. (Valley of Hinnom)

Below you'll see two pictures. The first picture labeled hell.gif is what people think of when someone says," You'll end up in Hell!" The second picture labeled hinnom.jpg is Valley of Hinnom.

thats an interesting bit of info.

The global flood has been disproven as well, i'll see if i can find you a link.

He told me via pm about some book which apparently proves that the resurrection happened. For the sake of fairness I'm going to see if they have it in my local library, though I'm sure we'd all be interested in hearing a summary of the proof.

a book?!?! ok. great, that works. :rolleyes: damn for a minute there i thought we where actually going to have to argue the point that zombies don't exist.

Timmy Boy

31-Jul-2006, 03:56 PM

CKava

31-Jul-2006, 04:03 PM

aikiMac

31-Jul-2006, 04:28 PM

How do I know which one to believe?
First learn what it is that you're reading. Poetry is different than historical reports is different than dialogue is different than story. Then, begin at the beginning so as to the get the characters and events all lined up.

aikiMac

31-Jul-2006, 04:32 PM

Aiki I have to say I've seen a program which claimed to weigh up the evidence for various stories about Jesus' life and about the resurrection it did come to the conclusion that it was a very unusual claim to be made and especially to be believed by so many people. However, I don't think this conclusively proves the resurrection occured... or are you basing it on other evidence?
On this forum that's a fine enough beginning point. If you can recall the name of the program you saw, and if it'd be available in the USA, I'd like to know it. I'd be interested in watching it myself.

tekkengod

31-Jul-2006, 04:56 PM

i still wanna hear this reason/proof of the ressurection.

CKava

31-Jul-2006, 05:01 PM

Aiki believe it was the series 'Son of God' by the BBC. I remember because it had an attempted likely reconstuction of Jesus' face...

Yama Tombo

31-Jul-2006, 05:03 PM

So what was your reasoning in deciding that God was not omnipotent? You have the contradictory passages from the Bible there, how did you arrive at your conclusion?
The bible contradicts God as being omnipotent and omnipresent. Especially in the account of Sodom and Gomorrah.

First learn what it is that you're reading. Poetry is different than historical reports is different than dialogue is different than story. Then, begin at the beginning so as to the get the characters and events all lined up.

Genesis 18: 20, 21:

20And the LORD said, "The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.

21"I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."

Two things I pull from that one passage:

I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry

God has to 'go down' to the cities to 'see if they have done entirely according to its outcry'

That doesn't scream omnipresent to me. If God has to go and see in person, God is not omnipresent as everyone claims.

Quote:
Genesis 19: 13:

13 {An Angel speaking} for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it."

Again that doesn't give God any credit for being omnipotent.

Am I failing to clearly point the contradictions? We are on the same definition that omnipotent is?

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

The one I underline is the one I'm focusing on.

13 {An Angel speaking} for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it."

Again that doesn't give God any credit for being omnipotent.

Unless, you are talking about authority, that demostrates authority, but not god himself destorying the city.

Timmy Boy

31-Jul-2006, 05:30 PM

Am I failing to clearly point the contradictions? We are on the same definition that omnipotent is?

Yes, you correctly pointed out that the two notions contradicted each other. But what I'm asking is: how do you know which 'side' of the contradiction has got it right?

aikiMac

31-Jul-2006, 05:54 PM

Yes, you correctly pointed out that the two notions contradicted each other. But what I'm asking is: how do you know which 'side' of the contradiction has got it right?
The side that doesn't follow #234 cannot be trusted to get it right.
There's a good start.

karate princess

31-Jul-2006, 06:24 PM

In the "end of the world" Jesus will lead angels down to earth to destory all sinners, why doesn't God do it himself/herself?

What happened to "Thou shall not kill"? :confused:

aikiMac

31-Jul-2006, 06:39 PM

Aiki believe it was the series 'Son of God' by the BBC.
Not on the list at netflix.com so I probably won't be able to find it. That's a bummer.
Off topic: Speaking of religious figures, a few days ago I rented a Biography Channel program on the current Dalai Lama. That was fascinating. They mentioned a movie about him besides the one with Brad Pitt. Never heard of it before. I'll try to rent it sometime.

What happened to "Thou shall not kill"? :confused:
Or "thou shalt not murder." I prefer that translation. Ya, what happened to it? I wish people would obey it. It really sucks that people break that rule all the time. Jesus offered some suggestions for how to keep that commandment, at Matthew 5:23-25, but people pretty much ignore his advice.

tekkengod

31-Jul-2006, 06:55 PM

Or "thou shalt not murder." I prefer that translation. Ya, what happened to it? I wish people would obey it. It really sucks that people break that rule all the time. Jesus offered some suggestions for how to keep that commandment, at Matthew 5:23-25, but people pretty much ignore his advice.

theres been a few shows similar to the one ckava mentioned on the discovery channel, i'd look there.

so he kills them huh? what a great father figure that is. :rolleyes:

still waiting on that ressurection proof though. i really will look at that for the sake of argument.

aikiMac

31-Jul-2006, 06:59 PM

still waiting on that ressurection proof though. i really will look at that for the sake of argument.
First, we had an agreement. I'm waiting for you to uphold your end. First things first. Second, I answered this in a PM a few weeks ago, and you acknowledged the answer at that time.

tekkengod

31-Jul-2006, 07:32 PM

First, we had an agreement. I'm waiting for you to uphold your end. First things first. Second, I answered this in a PM a few weeks ago, and you acknowledged the answer at that time.

the books? yeah i'm powering through them, almost finished the first one.

and no, i have all my messages, we haven't ever agreed on a valid ressurection claim or explination.

elektro

31-Jul-2006, 07:39 PM

Anyone got any thoughts on the "Jesus didn't die but went to India and lived out the rest of his days in peace and quiet until he was an old man" theory?

elektro

31-Jul-2006, 07:41 PM

lol in that reconstructed photo of him he actually looks like quite the bruiser compared to the West's portrayal of him as thin, palm and waif like - a kind of John Lennon looking person.....
I wouldn't mess with him - he looks like he knows groundfighting to me :p

tekkengod

31-Jul-2006, 08:18 PM

that theory? no, but there are a few very feasible theories that he never died.

WatchfulAbyss

31-Jul-2006, 08:30 PM

Yama Tombo:

Am I failing to clearly point the contradictions? We are on the same definition that omnipotent is?

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

The one I underline is the one I'm focusing on.

Am I.....

13 {An Angel speaking} for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it."

Again that doesn't give God any credit for being omnipotent.

Unless, you are talking about authority, that demostrates authority, but not god himself destorying the city.

Here is a little more of the story.

19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

19:25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

19:27 And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD:

19:28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

19:29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

For more:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html