Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cyan Prime]

 

Argue about gods

On the internet

[Cannon]

Are we cattle in heaven?

Considering that the wise and blessed of this life supposedly go through torments and trials to achieve greater glory in the new creation? I don't think so. Becoming something akin to a fat and docile bovine appears to tarnish the continuing human miracle. Jesus laughed, loved, and cried alongside his contemporaries, but he also marched to Golgotha.

God wouldn't have to make us all mindless happydrones to make the world A LOT better. For the smallest, tiniest example, what the fuck does it help society to have schizophrenia exist?

I simply do not know. It is a mystery. "Society" can get on the ball and cure it, though. Surely, we, as caring, sane human beings, can do good for the insane and disabled? Why are we yelling at dad to bring the groceries in when we have legs and arms that work?

And even claiming that there needs to be suffering in the world to make things interesting as it were, what about hell? Eternal (as in it goes on forever and there's nothing you can ever to do to change it or learn from it) damnation serves no purpose but vindictiveness. And it's a vindictiveness agains no one but himself. GOD allows entire nations of people to be born without knowledge of his word or belief in it, and then sends them to hell for it.

Now here is where we're at a crossroads. I don't actually believe hell is a place of physical torment. Yeah, it's Bad, and one does not want to go there. I think a case can be made that it's a state of shame and disgrace, where any "torment" is mental and spiritual. The damned flee God because of their sinfulness made manifest, but can never truly escape Him. As for being warned... Check out Romans 1:18-23. I don't think Paul is talking about a given people there.

Okay, the replies just keep piling up. I'm going to have to take a break, duders.

[Kashan]

You say you got my point, but I have to assume you didn't based on your post. The point is that in the context of the "the law" as, Judaism has classically approached it, the 10 commandments aren't elevated and observed separately from the rest of the law. They're 10 rules among hundreds. The practice of taking the 10 commandenments separately and especially revering them doesn't make particular sense for either Christians or Jews.

Regardless of any possible miscommunication, thank you for elaborating. My little dig at people who quote verses out of context didn't add anything, I'll admit.

I view the Ten Commandments as a good place to start, but a bad place to stop when it comes to understanding biblical morality. So, naturally, you want to have an eye for the whole covenant, but I'm not sure what you're getting at when you point out Jesus's compression of the Law. Is that preferable, somehow? Does it have the same problem as choosing Exodus 20 to emphasize? Please explain further.

Whether it has the same problem as Exodus 20 really depends on how you view Jesus and what he was doing and what you think the purpose of the law was, but for almost all Christians I'd say it isn't really the same. First of the message Jesus was sending often demanded actions for beyond what the law would demand in terms of helping people and being giving. He also did a lot of things that were against the Jewish law in terms of spending time with women, beggars, tax collectors, and other unclean peoples. Then there's the whole "new covenant" thing From Hebrews 8. Basically though I think it comes down to this, for a Jewish person the authority they follow is the covenant between god and his people in the form of the law, and it's dangerous to focus on the 10 commandments at the risk of ignoring the rest of the law. For a Christian the authority they follow are the teaching of Jesus, and placing focus on the 10 commandments is just odd, since the only time Jesus is ever asked about the law he says all you need to know is love god and love your neighbor.

Also I just don't think the 10 commandments are very impressive. 4 of the commandments (don't steal, don't cheat, don't lie, and don't kill) are just basic requirements of any functional society. Another 2 commandments (honor thy mother and father and don't envy/lust) are just generally good ideas. Only the commandments about keeping the sabbath and respecting god are really in anyway impressive.

[Brentai]

I suppose I'll get trolled if I make the obvious comparison between 20:5 and 20:17 too.

[Transportation]

I simply do not know. It is a mystery. "Society" can get on the ball and cure it, though. Surely, we, as caring, sane human beings, can do good for the insane and disabled? Why are we yelling at dad to bring the groceries in when we have legs and arms that work?

Your arguments are starting to to get prosey and you seem to be busy, but that analogy is a distortion of horrific proportion. You're ignoring that the God caused the problem in the first place. Or if Dad broke his kids' legs, in your example, that would be a better illustration of reality.

Also it being a "mystery" is a massive cop-out. I mean honestly. You seem to be talking about the completeness or superiority of a Christian outlook and then you just leave giant hole in it as far as mental diseases are concerned.

[Kashan]

I suppose it could be argued that mental disorders are a necessary byproduct of higher brain functions, biological diversity, and evolution, which are things that god values above human suffering, or at least above individual cases of human suffering derived from mental disorders.

[Burrito Al Pastor]

Hey, I'll take some of that action. If happiness is "good," then why are other states "bad?" Sometimes angry people get things done. Sad people can make us think about what's wrong around us. And so on. Sure, happy people can be productive (they can also be shiftless), but it's a transitory, subjective, and fragile state; same with other emotional states. What if your happiness is built on another's misery, for that matter?

You're reading too much into my statement. Independant of all other things, such as why a person is happy, it's good for people to be happy. If God is omnipotent, He is capable of making all people all happy all the time. This would be a good thing. If He was omnibenevolent, He would anything He could do that was a good thing. Therefore, if He is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, the only reason why everybody isn't happy all the time would be because He has done some other, more good thing.

The fact that there are people who are unhappy, therefore, disproves an omnipotent omibenevolent God, because any such being would eliminate all unhappiness in the world, because that would be a benevolent thing to do.

A popular response, of course, is that there must be unhappiness so that there can be happiness - there must be bad in order for there to be good. This is selling omnipotence short. Omnipotence means that, for any question of the form "Can an omnipotent being do such-and-such?", the answer is "Yes", no matter what "such-and-such" is.

God could create an object that He could not move, and then He could move it anyways. Because he's all-powerful. He can create good without evil, light without darkness, hot without cold, and anything else he damn well pleases, because he's omnipotent. Things like "reality" and "logic" are no limitations to an omnipotent being, because an omnipotent being defines reality and logic.

An omnipotent god could eliminate the existance of evil and badness. An omnibenevolent god would. Evil and badness exist. Therefore, there are no beings who are both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

necessary byproduct

This denies omnipotence.

[Mongrel]

Argue about gods

On the internet

Guys. Cyan is making more relevant posts than y'alls.

Just sayin' is all.

[Kashan]

necessary byproduct

This denies omnipotence.

I guess it depends on how you define omnipotence. I'm in the school that defines it as being able to do anything that is logically possible.

[Brentai]

So basically, the answer to "Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?" is basically "No, shut up."?

[Kashan]

So basically, the answer to "Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?" is basically "No, shut up."?

Eh, it's more just "shut up."

Or "We're all praying that [you'll] enter a more silent mode." in Episcopalian.

But yeah, I don't think god can make 2+2=5, I don't think he can make impossible objects and then interact with them in ways that don't suit his being, and I don't think he can purple.

[Cthulhu-chan]

So basically, the answer to "Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?" is basically "No, shut up."?

Ooh, ooh, I know this one!  You make the rock so big, it fills the universe.  Even if you could still move it, there'd be no point of reference, because the whole universe is the rock!

[Brentai]

God could then just expand the universe though.

[Kashan]

God could then just expand the universe though.

But then it wouldn't be a rock so big he couldn't lift it.

[Rico]

Things like "reality" and "logic" are no limitations
...
If A, then B.  Not A, therefore Not B.
See guys God can't exist.

[Misha]

re: that bible passage you mentioned, it's pretty damn clear god did NOT make it clear to all peoples that he existed etc. people born in china did not CHOOSE to deny abrahamic god's existence, they had no conception of it.


re:hell the bible SPECIFICALLY mentions a LAKE OF FIRE. if that's not physical torment I don't know what is.

[Cyan Prime]

You can't argue about a "God" because everyone's view on what a "God" is or should be is different. Even what everyone thinks of the Christian "God" is different. It's like arguing what fruit tastes like without specifying which fruit you're talking about.

[Burrito Al Pastor]

You can't argue about a "God" because everyone's view on what a "God" is or should be is different. Even what everyone thinks of the Christian "God" is different. It's like arguing what fruit tastes like without specifying which fruit you're talking about.

Which is why I very specifically only have issues with the idea of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god.

So basically, the answer to "Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?" is basically "No, shut up."?

For years I've actually advocated that the appropriate answer to that question in the context of any legitimate theological discussion is something in the neighborhood of "Yes. Shut up."

I guess it depends on how you define omnipotence. I'm in the school that defines it as being able to do anything that is logically possible.

And what defines what is logically possible, then? If God is incapable of altering the rules of logic to suit His whims, then where did the rules of logic come from? If He cannot alter this element of reality, what else might he be powerless to change?

The only reason He would not be able to, for example, purple platypus a flkjklsdtkg is because that's a meaningless phrase - it doesn't represent any actions, states, or adjectives. And to be quite honest, I'm not sure how much of a barrier that would be to Him - he could alter reality in a way that "purple platypus a flkjklsdtkg" is a meaningful phrase, or for that matter, he could do it without making it a meaningful phrase.

Things like "reality" and "logic" are no limitations
...
If A, then B.  Not A, therefore Not B.
See guys God can't exist.

Okay, you got me there. An omnipotent being can both exist and not exist.

Incidentally, this could mean that everybody's right.

[Kashan]

I guess it depends on how you define omnipotence. I'm in the school that defines it as being able to do anything that is logically possible.

And what defines what is logically possible, then? If God is incapable of altering the rules of logic to suit His whims, then where did the rules of logic come from? If He cannot alter this element of reality, what else might he be powerless to change?

Well as I said, it's a semantic question largely, but if it suits you I guess you can just say I don't believe in an omnipotent god. I mean you state later that an omnipotent being could choose to exist and not exist at the same time, so clearly defying his own created rules of logic wouldn't bother you. I just don't buy that even an all powerful creator god could make A!=A, as there is not logical system to act in under which that true.

[JDigital]

Basically though I think it comes down to this, for a Jewish person the authority they follow is the covenant between god and his people in the form of the law, and it's dangerous to focus on the 10 commandments at the risk of ignoring the rest of the law. For a Christian the authority they follow are the teaching of Jesus, and placing focus on the 10 commandments is just odd, since the only time Jesus is ever asked about the law he says all you need to know is love god and love your neighbor.

Jesus was asked which commandment was most important, and replied that if you have to pick one, it can't be any individual commandment, but it must be the single principle behind the commandments: respect for God and other people.

Arguably, Jesus held that the old law should remain ("Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets"), but it's not clear what that means for peoples who follow Jesus' teachings but didn't originally follow Hebrew law. Should we interpret Jesus' teachings to say that his philosophy should not clash with a foreign nation's existing traditions?