Zone1 Why do you need gods?

[Blues Man]

And then you go on to talk about "gods".

This thread is about the need to believe in gods so why is it remarkable to you that I mention gods?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yes, all have sinned, so what must we do?

So now you suddenly remember Christian soteriology?

So now you are arguing there can be no Creator because man isn't perfect?

No.

Please do try to keep up.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I haven't been able to respond as the discussion has developed and taken place. Originally a 'flaw' was applied to something as small as a snowflake (has the same root) or a small splinter. This small minutia prevented an object from being perfect.

Someone also noted that humans are far from the glory of God. Candlelight is far from the glory of the sun, but that does not make it flawed.

True, we do not have God's glory or His perfection.

But the reason I wanted to know more precisely what the poster meant by 'flawed' was to determine whether he was speaking of something the size of a snowflake or splinter, or whether the intent was humanity is horribly damaged goods.

Blues Man noted, "War, genocide, slavery, destruction we're really good at that stuff and we can't seem to stop."

Blaise Pascal (who lived in the 1600s) noted, "Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical."

No one wants war, but all want justice. How many wars were in pursuit of justice; how many were simply tyrannical? If all of humanity got together and truly studied all our wars, would we be able to come to a unanimous agreement on which wars were for justice, and which were simply tyrannical? I doubt we could reach such an agreement.

The question then becomes, are wars of justice evidence of a human flaw or a human strength? Do we stand for justice?

If humans are not flawed then surely they would be able to achieve salvation without God's grace. Correct?

Grace only has power because we DO NOT DESERVE IT.


I'm also quite interested in this Pharasaic approach of parsing individual words to the point of absurdity. Fallen is flawed. Sorry, it just is. We "fell" because we were flawed and able to be tempted. God cannot be tempted so why would WE fail if we were not flawed.

If it is important to you to play word games with the Bible and redefine plain language to the point that the BIble can no longer read by the regular person then I'm afraid you have a standard issue human religion on your hands.

Secret knowledge by a god who wishes to hide behind subtleties of language. A trickster god who plays with eternal damnation.

I reject that theology as it makes no sense. Even if I were a believer anymore I would reject that kind of God.

If God wishes only to surround himself with Hebrew scholars and ancient society anthropologists then why must he create so many of us to be consigned to the flames of hell?

 

[ding]

No.

Please do try to keep up.

Reasons you don't believe a Creator exists:

1. The Creator is a meanie.
2. The Creator didn't create perfect people.

I wonder what will be next. Maybe a cruel world?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Reasons you don't believe a Creator exists:

1. The Creator is a meanie.
2. The Creator didn't create perfect people.

I wonder what will be next. Maybe a cruel world?

I will explain it to you one more time, so you don't have to bear false witness:

1. I fail to see evidence of God's existence (so I am an atheist). I tried for years and years and decades and decades to "feel God's presence" and simply failed to find evidence of it.

2. The "Problem of Evil" (what you call "God is a meanie") is NOT necessarily a problem for me since I have a background in some philosophy and I understand that Leibniz's assessment that "This is the best of all possible worlds" means that this is how things must go. And I understand God can work in mysterious ways. The IMPORTANT bit about the "problem of evil" is how it manifests as a God concept. This is why I brought up the Euthyphro Dilemma to you. It works very much along these lines.

3. God has EXACTLY ONE REQUIREMENT: he must be logical and internally consistent. Unfortunately the "god concept" is often logically inconsistent (all merciful/all just, those are two mutually exclusive concepts, as just one example). The God of Christianity is a god of "love"...NOW, but not always that per the Bible. God has evolved. Just as human thought has evolved. So it sounds to me like the god concept is simply just another human invention. It carries logical inconsistencies, lacks any actual evidence (for me) and is so difficult to describe that it beggars the imagination as to what His believers are actually worshipping.



Hopefully that makes it all clear.

Now please stop bearing false witness against me.

 

[ding]

I will explain it to you one more time, so you don't have to bear false witness:

1. I fail to see evidence of God's existence (so I am an atheist). I tried for years and years and decades and decades to "feel God's presence" and simply failed to find evidence of it.

2. The "Problem of Evil" (what you call "God is a meanie") is NOT necessarily a problem for me since I have a background in some philosophy and I understand that Leibniz's assessment that "This is the best of all possible worlds" means that this is how things must go. And I understand God can work in mysterious ways. The IMPORTANT bit about the "problem of evil" is how it manifests as a God concept. This is why I brought up the Euthyphro Dilemma to you. It works very much along these lines.

3. God has EXACTLY ONE REQUIREMENT: he must be logical and internally consistent. Unfortunately the "god concept" is often logically inconsistent (all merciful/all just, those are two mutually exclusive concepts, as just one example). The God of Christianity is a god of "love"...NOW, but not always that per the Bible. God has evolved. Just as human thought has evolved. So it sounds to me like the god concept is simply just another human invention. It carries logical inconsistencies, lacks any actual evidence (for me) and is so difficult to describe that it beggars the imagination as to what His believers are actually worshipping.



Hopefully that makes it all clear.

Now please stop bearing false witness against me.

And yet you just argued about violence in the Bible and flawed people. It's not what you say that tells us what you believe it's what you do that tells us what you believe.

 

[ding]

2. The "Problem of Evil" (what you call "God is a meanie") is NOT necessarily a problem for me since I have a background in some philosophy and I understand that Leibniz's assessment that "This is the best of all possible worlds" means that this is how things must go. And I understand God can work in mysterious ways. The IMPORTANT bit about the "problem of evil" is how it manifests as a God concept. This is why I brought up the Euthyphro Dilemma to you. It works very much along these lines.

Actually your argument that God is a meanie is based upon your perception of God's violence in the Old Testament.

 

[ding]

3. God has EXACTLY ONE REQUIREMENT: he must be logical and internally consistent. Unfortunately the "god concept" is often logically inconsistent (all merciful/all just, those are two mutually exclusive concepts, as just one example). The God of Christianity is a god of "love"...NOW, but not always that per the Bible. God has evolved. Just as human thought has evolved. So it sounds to me like the god concept is simply just another human invention. It carries logical inconsistencies, lacks any actual evidence (for me) and is so difficult to describe that it beggars the imagination as to what His believers are actually worshipping.

It's not surprising that you can't reconcile the God of the OT with the God of the NT. It's not a new problem. It's an old problem. You would have made an excellent Cathar.

 

[toobfreak]

Just so you know the Buddha never claimed divine inspiration and Buddhism in a nontheistic philosophy.

Buddhism is based on the impersonal aspect of God or the divine aspect of nature though they may not realize it themselves.

And the only thing these other people did was CLAIM they were inspired by a god. There is no proof of that whatsoever.

Yes, THEIR word. The proof is in their word. Atheists always deny God just as China was denied to exist until they finally found the Far East by boat and land. That's the way it always works. I grew up a scientist not believing in God too until one day, he advented to reveal himself to me, so now I know he is real.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

And yet you just argued about violence in the Bible and flawed people. It's not what you say that tells us what you believe it's what you do that tells us what you believe.

I raise those precisely because they are the THEOLOGICALLY MOST PROBLEMATIC issues.

The God of the OT commands genocide. When Saul fails to commit genocide God kindles his anger toward him. That's a problem theologically.

As for the "flawed people" that actually is an inspiration to me. I love the concept of "Grace". I know I don't deserve to be "saved"...I'm a sinner. I'm OK with recognizing my flaws. My failures. I can try to be a better person but I'm not perfect and I will fail again. That's why I like the Christian concept of "Grace".

So you are wrong yet again.

Would you mind at some point actually READING what I write before you misrepresent it?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It's not surprising that you can't reconcile the God of the OT with the God of the NT. It's not a new problem. It's an old problem. You would have made an excellent Cathar.

Actually you probably mean Marcionite. That is more my "heresy".

The Cathars were a slightly different dualistic group.

But it's a GREAT example of the pious and deeply religious murdering people in the name of God. The Albigensian Crusade, as I'm sure you know, is where we get the phrase "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out." The actual latin was "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." (Kill them all, surely God will know his own) supposedly uttered by the papal legate at the battle.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Actually your argument that God is a meanie is based upon your perception of God's violence in the Old Testament.

Is the God of the OT the same as the God you worship?

How many genocides do you allow YOUR god?

 

[ding]

I raise those precisely because they are the THEOLOGICALLY MOST PROBLEMATIC issues.

The God of the OT commands genocide. When Saul fails to commit genocide God kindles his anger toward him. That's a problem theologically.

As for the "flawed people" that actually is an inspiration to me. I love the concept of "Grace". I know I don't deserve to be "saved"...I'm a sinner. I'm OK with recognizing my flaws. My failures. I can try to be a better person but I'm not perfect and I will fail again. That's why I like the Christian concept of "Grace".

So you are wrong yet again.

Would you mind at some point actually READING what I write before you misrepresent it?

How am I wrong? You just admitted you don't believe there can be a Creator because the God of the Bible is a meanie.

As for you liking flawed people, so what? You argued there can be no creator because flawed people exist.

 

[ding]

Actually you probably mean Marcionite. That is more my "heresy".

The Cathars were a slightly different dualistic group.

But it's a GREAT example of the pious and deeply religious murdering people in the name of God. The Albigensian Crusade, as I'm sure you know, is where we get the phrase "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out." The actual latin was "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." (Kill them all, surely God will know his own) supposedly uttered by the papal legate at the battle.

No. I meant Cathars. They couldn't reconcile the God of the NT with the God of the OT so they said there must be two Gods.

You must not know much about history. The Cathars were reprehensible and were the aggressors. They got exactly what they asked for.

 

[ding]

Is the God of the OT the same as the God you worship?

How many genocides do you allow YOUR god?

How many do you actually believe he did?

 

[themirrorthief]

Why do people have a need to believe in gods?

why do some fools believe in Hillary Clinton and senile JOe

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

How am I wrong? You just admitted you don't believe there can be a Creator because the God of the Bible is a meanie.

In a sense that's partially true in that a God who commands genocide is not a robust theological concept. But worship him many Christians do. I wish I could understand that.

Can you tell me why you worship such a god?

As for you liking flawed people, so what? You argued there can be no creator because flawed people exist.

No, I didn't make that argument. I never once made that argument.

Christians who bear false witness let me know that many who say "Lord, Lord" expect to get into heaven for it.

Matthew 7:21


*You should read the Bible some time.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

How many do you actually believe he did?

1Sam 15:3 is a good example.

But the book of Joshua is filled with many other cases where God turned over entire cities to His Chosen People to be put to the sword and killed.

May I ask if you've actually read the Bible?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No. I meant Cathars. They couldn't reconcile the God of the NT with the God of the OT so they said there must be two Gods.

That is standard dualism. The Marcionites were actually the folks who PROPOSED eliminating the Old Testament so that they wouldn't have to reconcile the old and new testament God.

Marcionite heresy is a more appropriate one for what you are looking for. No doubt the Cathars were dualists who assigned the OT God and the NT God different essences, but I still think Marcionism is the heresy you wish to throw at me.

Either one will work, I suppose, as most dualist heresies do.

You must not know much about history. The Cathars were reprehensible and were the aggressors. They got exactly what they asked for.

So the Cathars deserved to be killed by the Church? Even the women and children? They must have been REALLY evil. Yet in all my reading I don't see anything as evil as say KILLING AN ENTIRE SECT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VERSION OF MAGICAL INVISIBLE BEINGS.

May I ask where in the Bible (especially in the NT) it says God would approve of the murder of heretics?

And if God approves of the murder of heretics can you tell me what other murders God approves of?

Apart from the children of Amalek and the Cathars are there other children God wants murdered?

Thanks!

 

[Meriweather]

This thread is about the need to believe in gods so why is it remarkable to you that I mention gods?

It's our nature to do what we do it has nothing to do with gods.

If you hold a belief of (as you state) "It's our nature to do what we do it has nothing to do with gods" why not expound what it's our nature to do without even mentioning God? Shrug.