A very long and complicated thought about God

[Sporkster]

I just took a look at evilbible.com, and I'd like to warn you that everything on that website is taken entirely out of context. Also, they take things from some book called "Wisdom" that's found in a Catholic version of the Bible. Just thought you might like me to point that out to you.

[one_fine_day23]

Have you studied the Dark Ages of world history? Basically, the Dark Ages were "dark" because of the lack of the Bible. The Holy Roman Empire took away the Bible and told its people they would be excommunicated from the Church if they did not obey authority, which meant eternal damnation (the Catholics then believed that without church attendance, one would not be allowed into heaven).

Actually the Dark Ages were caused by a giant meteor that struck the earth and shrouded the earth in darkness. If you want to get all technical and whatnot.

http://www.morien-institute.org/darkages.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/756422/posts

People, i'm just trying to lighten the mood a little, so please don't get all mad at me.

[Sporkster]

Thanks, one fine day. This topic definitely needs a bit of lightening up...

[skeptic320]

Don't really want to start a war on here...

It's not a war. It's a discussion between mature individuals reasonably arguing their respective points of view. Right? Right.

Catholicism came about with Roman emperor Constantine, way after the time of Christ and the early Church.

According to most sources, Paul was the first Pope - long before Constantine.

So we deserve to suffer just for being born?

Well, thanks to Adam, Eve, and Satan, yes.

Again - that's fucked up. It's like making someone go to jail for a crime his parents comitted.

His divine intervention will save us from destroying ourselves entirely here on earth.

God's in charge of nuclear disarmament? He's not doing a very good job, is he?

Baptists have this weird belief of predestination, which I think you're hitting on a bit, maybe? They believe that God knows who's going to hell and who's going the heaven, etc., and you have no way to change that.

No, no. I'm not talking about predestination, I'm talking about how according to the Bible, anyone who isn't a Christian is going to Hell. I don't think this meshes well with the idea of God saying he wants us to come to him freely and willingly, out of love. Faced with the threat of eternal torment, it sounds more like he wants us to come to him out of fear - which is coercion.

what's the difference between a prayer that hasn't been answered and a prayer that's been answered in such a way it seems not to have been?

You don't know. That's where your personal faith comes in.

Once again, please explain why it's okay to have faith that God is accurately depicted in the Bible, but not that the author of the words you're reading right now is God.

You could argue about creation vs. evolution forever and arrive back where you started. There's no way either side can prove anything in this case. You can only rely on faith.

Faith is a notoriously weak means of determining the truth of a statement. Fortunately, it's not the only means. I prefer to rely on evidence - which is abundant in the case of evolution/abiogenesis (I don't really know that much about the Big Bang, sorry), and sorely lacking in the case of special creation.

Further reading, for those interested:
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com (please note that I am in no way affiliated with the SAB )
www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_mer ... tions.html

[femiwhat?]

It's not a war. It's a discussion between mature individuals reasonably arguing their respective points of view. Right? Right.

Hardly. It's about several people who already have their minds made up making it clear to the rest of the world that they can't understand how anyone could disagree with them. Some of these people have a barely rudimentary comprehension of the opposing argument. Straw men abound.

Threads like this never get anywhere. You're not going to convince anyone to abandon their faith in a message board thread. You're not going to help anyone find Jesus, either.

[Blackclaw]

It's not a war. It's a discussion between mature individuals reasonably arguing their respective points of view. Right? Right.

Hardly. It's about several people who already have their minds made up making it clear to the rest of the world that they can't understand how anyone could disagree with them. Some of these people have a barely rudimentary comprehension of the opposing argument. Straw men abound.

Threads like this never get anywhere. You're not going to convince anyone to abandon their faith in a message board thread. You're not going to help anyone find Jesus, either.

Sometimes one must engage in futility to fully understand it.

But this thread may yet serve to help us understand one another even if fails to give any side new converts.

Have I told you all about my faith, Catholic Cthulhuism?

[inept]

It's not a war. It's a discussion between mature individuals reasonably arguing their respective points of view. Right? Right.

Hardly. It's about several people who already have their minds made up making it clear to the rest of the world that they can't understand how anyone could disagree with them. Some of these people have a barely rudimentary comprehension of the opposing argument. Straw men abound.

But.

Threads like this never get anywhere. You're not going to convince anyone to abandon their faith in a message board thread. You're not going to help anyone find Jesus, either.

Oh ye of little faith, have you no hope for the prowess of humanity's intellect? Might as well say, "You're not going to convince anyone to abandon their faith by reading them the Koran." They're all just words in the end, aren't they? Reading each and taking it in, by oneself, they're just words. What's need to change someone's mind? The apocolypse? Words, words! Subject verb adjective noun!

You want to know the real secret? The secret to everything? The secret to religion, politics, and life? The secret to everything you could ever think of, the one key that solves everything is this: marketing.

If you're a Christian now, you're a Christian because that's what got to you first. Can't deny that. If it were Islam, or Judaism that dug their claws into you while still young, you might yet be Muslim or Jewish. If your parents were Jewish or Muslim, and raised you Jewish or Muslim, you would be Jewish or Muslim, not Christian, and not because of faith.

But because of marketing.

Christianity got you first.

[femiwhat?]

If you're a Christian now, you're a Christian because that's what got to you first. Can't deny that. If it were Islam, or Judaism that dug their claws into you while still young, you might yet be Muslim or Jewish. If your parents were Jewish or Muslim, and raised you Jewish or Muslim, you would be Jewish or Muslim, not Christian, and not because of faith.

But because of marketing.

Christianity got you first.

This is one of the most ridiculous cases of wishful thinking cum trivializing others' faith I've ever seen. Yes, a good number of people follow the religion in which they were raised. A large number also come to their faith or lack thereof on their own. I know atheists who were raised to be Christians, Christians who converted to Judaism, Muslims who converted to Christianity, Christians who were raised by atheists--it goes on. I can't imagine how anyone could deny this--a huge part of history is based on the undeniable truth that conversion is possible.

[inept]

So you were debating the existance of God from the craddle, eh? Comparing the Koran and the Bible to one another, cross referencing, researching the meaning behind each, through millions of publications, versions, and volumes? Visiting local religious leaders? Asking and praying, and hunting for answers?

All by two?

Did I ever say conversion wasn't possible? No. Of course I didn't. What I'm saying is that a two year old will be Christian or Jewish because that's marketing, and because they wouldn't know the difference between either.

[Eravial]

First and foremost, Skeptic, I love you.... for reasons completely unaffiliated with this thread.....

I am just now finding this thread, so bear with me if some of my ideas regard things from christmas past, or the first page.

Referring to "God," I am quite in the habit of referring to he/she/it as "Zom," after a thread posted a looong time ago by Artful Dodger. Zom is an ambiguous pronoun for gender, species, or existence. I am between atheist and agnostic because I have beliefs that correspond with both. I believe that there is no higher diety in any form that humans have created thus far. But, I must aquiesce to the fact that there may be some form of supreme being that humans have not attempted to comprehend or identify. If (very big "if") there happens to be a supreme being, zom did not create humans, life, or anything in the universe. This being would only exist outside our universe, and would not give a flying fuck about our insignificant planet, lives, or beliefs. I wholely believe that life is an accident and has no purpose, and that after we die, we basically just cease to exist. Simply, the electronic pulses between the dendrites in our brains just stop. No soul, nothing lives on that was once part of our "abstract" personality and behavior. Likewise, before we are born, we have no soul and such. Thus my complete pro-choicedness. (Note: The abortion debate has been beaten to death. To whomever it concerns: do not bring up this dead debate in this thread. You have been warned.)

As a little kid, I was Christian, for the reasons that Inept explained. Then I realized that it just didn't make sense whatsoever, and I became an atheist.

I did a large, long, yet exceptionally interesting project on the Big Bang this year. We don't know why the Big Bang was initiated, or what is outside the universe. This is what made me slightly Agnostic instead of completely Atheist, because I have to admit that we don't know, and really, anything is possible outside the universe, because no human has any real clue. Sure we have theories, but unfortunately, a theory about killer rabbits occupying the outside of our universe has about as much acceptibility as the sane theory of the existance of billions of universes beyond our own. My personal theory? Billions, trillions, infinite, pick-a-number universes kind of...existing... in chaos. It sounds plausible to me, but eh.

I'll close now, as my brain hurts. It always does when I try to contemplate infinity.

This isn't intended as a persuasion for people to change their religion or whatever. What we're doing here is presenting our own beliefs, and expanding our knowledge of other people's lifestyles and beliefs. Not a fight. Not a conversion fest. Just presenting information.

[Blackclaw]

My personal theory? Billions, trillions, infinite, pick-a-number universes kind of...existing... in chaos. It sounds plausible to me, but eh.

I'll close now, as my brain hurts. It always does when I try to contemplate infinity.

Think about this. In a case of an infinite number of universes the chances of a Biblical like God existing in one or more of those universes would, by the very nature of infinity, be a certainty.

[MFS]

My personal theory? Billions, trillions, infinite, pick-a-number universes kind of...existing... in chaos. It sounds plausible to me, but eh.

I'll close now, as my brain hurts. It always does when I try to contemplate infinity.

Think about this. In a case of an infinite number of universes the chances of a Biblical like God existing in one or more of those universes would, by the very nature of infinity, be a certainty.

we better not tell her about the concept of an infinite sets of infinity, which is technically more than infinity....

[The Lion Rampant]

Think about this. In a case of an infinite number of universes the chances of a Biblical like God existing in one or more of those universes would, by the very nature of infinity, be a certainty.

Very true. However, none of those "gods" would be God in the ultimate sense. Such a being would me more akin to the demiurge of Gnosticism. Here is a particularly interesting quote about the "demiurge" from the Apocryphon of John that can also be found at that URL:

"And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come."

It is interesting you bring up an infinite number of universes. I also believe this to be the case, but think about it this way: a cell makes an organ, organs make a body, bodies form a society, societies form a planet... and a planet is a cell. Expand this concept to infinity in all "directions" (large/small/"dimensions" of thought/etc), and you have a mind so vast the thought of it is staggering.

Now, imagine a "being" whose "body/mind" is essentially "the universe as we know it" (not the greater unity). If this being was not aware of its connectivity to something "higher and greater," it might think it was God, when in actuality, it is just another node in the infinite mind of God.

I do not, however, believe that a being such as the one presented in the above scenario actually exists in quite that way. I think the "demiurge" to which the Gnostics refer is instead relating to a break in human awareness from the true nature of what God is.

In that case, the demiurge lives in the dimension of human thought. It functions somewhat like a "lens" for our minds, a filtering agent that is interested only in its own preservation. Its character manifests itself in the behavior of its "hosts," causing us to create things like broken religions, war, dominance over others at the expense of the whole, breaking our connection to the unity-that-is-God.

Here is an absolutely fascinating take on the first three chapters of Genesis. It's the electronic version of Ain Soph by F. J. Mayers. After reading this, those of you who look at the Bible as a simplistic work at best will think twice about keeping that view.

[lizpoona]

Referring to "God," I am quite in the habit of referring to he/she/it as "Zom," after a thread posted a looong time ago by Artful Dodger. Zom is an ambiguous pronoun for gender, species, or existence.

God is a guy. Deal with it. According to the Bible(Yea, yea, I know), Adam was created in the image of God. Therefore, God must be a male because Adam was a male. If I remember correctly, there are places in the bible when God is reffered to as a "he."

I am between atheist and agnostic because I have beliefs that correspond with both. I believe that there is no higher diety in any form that humans have created thus far. But, I must aquiesce to the fact that there may be some form of supreme being that humans have not attempted to comprehend or identify. If (very big "if") there happens to be a supreme being, zom did not create humans, life, or anything in the universe. This being would only exist outside our universe, and would not give a flying fuck about our insignificant planet, lives, or beliefs. I wholely believe that life is an accident and has no purpose, and that after we die, we basically just cease to exist. Simply, the electronic pulses between the dendrites in our brains just stop. No soul, nothing lives on that was once part of our "abstract" personality and behavior. Likewise, before we are born, we have no soul and such.

Personally, I don't see the point in thinking like that. I mean, what fun is there in the idea that you're just a chemical thing experiencing chemical reactions? I don't understand how a bunch of cells and pulses could produce the things they do without some sort of supernatural backup.

A computer doesn't create it's own programs and documents without something putting it there.

Edit:
I just caught Captain's post. Whoa. I just had this mind-boggling thought. Like, implosion.
That's some pretty deep stuff.

And right before bed, too.

[metawidget]

Of course, how can you explain all the tiny miracles that apparently happen in various parts of the world? How can you explain why some things just work out perfectly? How can you explain how some people's prayers are eventually answered? How can you explain that we, humans, with free-wills and emotions are just chemical reactions evolved from primordial soup? How did we get here? Why can't there be another theory besides the 'Big-Bang?'

Statistics, psychology and the Weak Anthropic Principle. Pray or hope for something possible, and sometimes it will happen -- just as it would've happened if you didn't. Sometimes it doesn't. But, we're more inclined to remember when prayer precedes goodness. Things sometimes work out perfectly and we notice that more than when they're just satisfactory. On the cosmic scale, sure, it might be unlikely that we're here, but if we weren't here, we wouldn't be asking that question. That and it's a Big Universe, and we haven't found any signs of company despite lots of looking. That's consistent with life being kind of unlikely to spontaneously pop up.

There have been other scientific theories than the Big Bang -- steady state theory, for instance, and the Big Bang has enough loose bits left to narrow down or draw conclusions from that it's not some dogmatic monopoly. It's just that non-Big-Bang theories have had the stuffing beat out of them in scientific debate.

Now, enough with the mini-rant. I have no idea how my initial confusion turned into this, but my point is: There might be a God, there might not be. Either way, we shouldn't bust our butts over it.
On the other hand, maybe God IS real. Then again, maybe UFOs are real. Will we ever know for sure? Probably not. When I die, I'll be sure to ask.

Why we should bust our butts over it is because we like truth and reason, because we can take responsibility for ourselves in the areas we are responsible, or we can cook up a cosmology that absolves us in areas we shouldn't be and makes demands in areas that should be up to us. It falls upon us to be open-minded but not afraid to prune down the possible explanations when the evidence mounts. For sure is a very high standard for positive statements, but for sure not is achievable for universal ones.

*But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
--Galatians 5:22-23

These attributes and their value isn't limited to Christians -- just the New Testament chalks them up to an invisible personal being left behind to make up for Jesus going back to Heaven while others might say they're something a person can aspire to and experience through their own situation and efforts.

Personally, I don't see the point in thinking like that. I mean, what fun is there in the idea that you're just a chemical thing experiencing chemical reactions? I don't understand how a bunch of cells and pulses could produce the things they do without some sort of supernatural backup.

Hey, what fun is there in being an immensely complicated self-aware pile of chemical reactions? Plenty! Even the vastly simpler two-state cellular automaton can create mesmerizing patterns and even a Turing machine... and the stuff we're made of blows it out of the water -- 3D, many states, many ingredients...

[skeptic320]

God is a guy. Deal with it. According to the Bible(Yea, yea, I know), Adam was created in the image of God. Therefore, God must be a male because Adam was a male.

Well, now, this is tricky because there are two contradictory accounts of how human beings came to be created. This is the first one.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created them; male and female created he them.
So God must be both male and female at once, if he can make both men and women "in his image".

[Dragonrider]

God is a guy. Deal with it. According to the Bible(Yea, yea, I know), Adam was created in the image of God. Therefore, God must be a male because Adam was a male.

Well, now, this is tricky because there are two contradictory accounts of how human beings came to be created. This is the first one.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created them; male and female created he them.
So God must be both male and female at once, if he can make both men and women "in his image".

So you're saying God's a hermaphrodite?

[metawidget]

So you're saying God's a hermaphrodite?

I think she's saying if you want to be literal, you have to believe in a hermaphrodite god. Oh, and an exclusively male one. And three. But only one. etc.

[The Lion Rampant]

So you're saying God's a hermaphrodite?

I think she's saying if you want to be literal, you have to believe in a hermaphrodite god. Oh, and an exclusively male one. And three. But only one. etc.

I think that God exists at a scale where the ideas of male and female are absurd. Consider what Jesus says: "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

[inept]

G-d is Oprah Winfrey.

Bow before my perfect logic.

[Eravial]

Referring to "God," I am quite in the habit of referring to he/she/it as "Zom," after a thread posted a looong time ago by Artful Dodger. Zom is an ambiguous pronoun for gender, species, or existence.

God is a guy. Deal with it. According to the Bible(Yea, yea, I know), Adam was created in the image of God. Therefore, God must be a male because Adam was a male. If I remember correctly, there are places in the bible when God is reffered to as a "he."

I am not just referring to the Christian god. I refer to all supreme dieties in all religions when I say god. My arguments apply to all gods, goddesses, and objects that humans have deified. Thus, what the bible says has little say in my naming of "Zom."

I am between atheist and agnostic because I have beliefs that correspond with both. I believe that there is no higher diety in any form that humans have created thus far. But, I must aquiesce to the fact that there may be some form of supreme being that humans have not attempted to comprehend or identify. If (very big "if") there happens to be a supreme being, zom did not create humans, life, or anything in the universe. This being would only exist outside our universe, and would not give a flying fuck about our insignificant planet, lives, or beliefs. I wholely believe that life is an accident and has no purpose, and that after we die, we basically just cease to exist. Simply, the electronic pulses between the dendrites in our brains just stop. No soul, nothing lives on that was once part of our "abstract" personality and behavior. Likewise, before we are born, we have no soul and such.

Personally, I don't see the point in thinking like that. I mean, what fun is there in the idea that you're just a chemical thing experiencing chemical reactions? I don't understand how a bunch of cells and pulses could produce the things they do without some sort of supernatural backup.

The brain is an incredible organ. You'd be suprised how much dendrites can do. And I find the fact that chemical and electronic pulses can become aware to the extent that they are to be extremely fascinating, and "fun."

A computer doesn't create it's own programs and documents without something putting it there.

Because a computer is restricted by very tight rules made by humans. The anarchy in the universe (and above that, the theoretic chaos outside) has many many many less restrictions, allowing "programs and documents" to build from basic elements.

[Mariano]

lizpoona,

EvilBible.com is Dead

Large portions of evilbible.com have been considered, dissected and declared
fallacious on very many levels.
Two examples of this fact are as follows:

Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding rape evilbible.com,
for some odd reason, neglects to mention the most relevant biblical text
related to the biblical view of and law about rape. Why this omission? Who
knows, but it would certainly have gotten in the way of a good session of
emotive expression of prejudice-it would have discredited evilbible.com to
reference this most important text. Indeed, those annoying little facts have
an annoying way of getting in the way of good fallacious assertions.

Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding human sacrifice
evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that the Bible does
not command but condemns human sacrifice. Evilbible.com, for some odd
reason, neglects to mention that when the Bible reports that human
sacrifices did take place they were carried out by Gentile Pagans who were
not worshiping the God of the Bible but various false gods. When "Jews" were
performing human sacrifices it was only when they turned away from the God
of the Bible and joined Gentile Pagans in worshiping various false gods.
Yet, in typical militant activist atheist fashion, evilbible.com does not
condemn Gentile Pagans but only condemns the Jews.

Further evidence of this is found at this URL:

http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -dead.html

[lizpoona]

O.o


This THREAD is dead. It's four years old.


troll much?

And, for the record, I've read the Old Testament and sacrifice is indeed a legitimate statute of worship. Infact, it's very very important in order to please God. The bible mentions burnt flesh as a sweet smell to the Lord. It's not just pagan.