God is responsible for all the bad stuff that happens

[top gun]

That's close, Top, but while saving the good parts I would also like to remove the bad ones. The nasty stuff in the Bible has been used for centuries to justify all kinds of violence against certain people. "Suffer not a witch to live" was the basis for burning a million women at the stake, gay bashing is based on scripture as well. We don't need more justification for doing bad things.

I don't see why Christians would be upset about the things I'm suggesting. How many Christians advocate slavery, selling children, burning witches, or killing gay people? How many Christians agree that women should be spoils of war? Why are Christians soooooo focused on all the nonsense in the Bible and so silent about the really good things that Jesus said? Aren't they Christ-ians?

To answer your overall highlighted question.

It's the ancient times the Bible was written in & the human influence. People didn't know hardly anything about the world compared to modern times & human beings go off in various directions.

It's like I said there were tons of other "Christian" views, interpretations and stories of the exact same period that were simply cast aside by the Catholic Church when they were constructing the Bible the way they wanted it.

Your point is well taken. If everybody so wrapped in the Christianity banner would simply focus on helping the sick and the poor and having respect for all people without judgment I think almost everyone would be on board.

But then we have the... GOD CAME TO ME LAST NIGHT AND SAID BROTHER PRAY THAT 200 PEOPLE IN THE NEXT 24 HOURS MAY SOW A SEED OF JUST $200 AND I WILL ENRICH THEIR LIVES 10 FOLD IN 10 DAYS... or... GOD TOLD ME HE SENT HURRICANE KATRINA TO PUNISH THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS FOR THE GAY PRIDE PARADE THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR THE FOLLOWING WEEK... evangalists, and you see where the train came off the tracks.

You're a good person Mare. I don't know if you're having any problems in your life but here... let me sell you some religious soap...

 

[top gun]

I thought we have been through this.

Finite and contingent beings cannot cause infinite and incontingent beings. Nor can they cause themselves.

Therefore there is something in human existence that is independent of its material existence.

OR... in your invisible world of the super natural your position could be summed up in this song...

Yeah fairies wear boots and ya got to believe me! Yeah I saw what I saw and I tell you no lies...

 

[samsara15]

Which God are we speaking of? The world has more than one definition of God. Even, apparently, more than one Christian definition of God. I concede, Dr Who, that your version is benign, but you are only one person, and there are those who view God much differently than you do who also call themselves Christians.

 

[dahermit]

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 (NKJV)

Question for believer. What is the big deal? If he gave his "...only begotten Son..." He could he not just create another one? And, another one, another one,? What exactly was the big sacrifice?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You like that, do you? Its positively medieval.

No, no, evil was very popular in medieval times.

Isn't the divine commedy required reading in your highschool? It criticizes the hell out of catholicism and yet, it is required reading in the catholic school I attended.

Did you have a point to make?

If I can only weep blood....

You could arrange that, take your wife's nail file or any sharp, pointed object and insert it... You know, if you could weep blood we could have you bronzed and put on a pedestal at the church.

I thought we have been through this. Finite and contingent beings cannot cause infinite and incontingent beings. Nor can they cause themselves. Therefore there is something in human existence that is independent of its material existence.

No, but God could have made us finite and contingent so that when we die we are simply gone.

Ontology.

Etymology: New Latin ontologia, from ont- + -logia -logy
1 a (1) : a science or study of being; specifically : a branch of metaphysics relating to the nature and relations of being (2) : a particular system according to which problems of the nature of being are investigated b : FIRST PHILOSOPHY
2 : a theory concerning the kinds of entities and specifically the kinds of abstract entities that are to be admitted to a language system.

You tend to abstract your way into the ozone a lot, Nums.

Wasn't the lack of empirical proof your basis for rejecting ontology? You tell me.

Ontological metaphysics is mostly mental masturbation in relation to our discussion here. You can make a huge, complex semantic confection but at the end of the day you are just as much in the dark about what's true as any of us. Nice try though.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

[/B]
To answer your overall highlighted question.

It's the ancient times the Bible was written in & the human influence. People didn't know hardly anything about the world compared to modern times & human beings go off in various directions.

It's like I said there were tons of other "Christian" views, interpretations and stories of the exact same period that were simply cast aside by the Catholic Church when they were constructing the Bible the way they wanted it.

Your point is well taken. If everybody so wrapped in the Christianity banner would simply focus on helping the sick and the poor and having respect for all people without judgment I think almost everyone would be on board.

But then we have the... GOD CAME TO ME LAST NIGHT AND SAID BROTHER PRAY THAT 200 PEOPLE IN THE NEXT 24 HOURS MAY SOW A SEED OF JUST $200 AND I WILL ENRICH THEIR LIVES 10 FOLD IN 10 DAYS... or... GOD TOLD ME HE SENT HURRICANE KATRINA TO PUNISH THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS FOR THE GAY PRIDE PARADE THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR THE FOLLOWING WEEK... evangalists, and you see where the train came off the tracks.

You're a good person Mare. I don't know if you're having any problems in your life but here... let me sell you some religious soap...

Only if it's Pope Soap on a Rope. Thanks for the vote of confidence, Top, I don't have any more problems than anyone else and I have many blessings.

 

[numinus]

Question for believer. What is the big deal? If he gave his "...only begotten Son..." He could he not just create another one? And, another one, another one,? What exactly was the big sacrifice?

Except that his only begotten son is one third of the trinity. By transitivity, he gave himself.

 

[numinus]

No, no, evil was very popular in medieval times.

So, you are ignorant about your own beliefs also?

Did you have a point to make?

Uhm, that you are ignorant of the divine commedy, hence incapable of saying anything remotely sensible about it.

You could arrange that, take your wife's nail file or any sharp, pointed object and insert it... You know, if you could weep blood we could have you bronzed and put on a pedestal at the church.

Will you promise to stop your nonsense then, and perhaps grow a brain?

No, but God could have made us finite and contingent so that when we die we are simply gone.

But he didn't, did he?

In fact, that is the only thing similar between human beings and a nameless, faceless god. Now you know what 'created in his likeness' means.

Etymology: New Latin ontologia, from ont- + -logia -logy
1 a (1) : a science or study of being; specifically : a branch of metaphysics relating to the nature and relations of being (2) : a particular system according to which problems of the nature of being are investigated b : FIRST PHILOSOPHY
2 : a theory concerning the kinds of entities and specifically the kinds of abstract entities that are to be admitted to a language system.

You tend to abstract your way into the ozone a lot, Nums.

All that googling and you still don't understand?

There is another part of human nature that is independent of its material constitution.

Ontology.

Duh?

Ontological metaphysics is mostly mental masturbation in relation to our discussion here. You can make a huge, complex semantic confection but at the end of the day you are just as much in the dark about what's true as any of us. Nice try though.

It is mostly mental masturbation because.....?

And while you're at it, what philosophical field of inquiry do you suggest is pertinent to a discussion of soul, hmmm?

What unbelieveable nonsense!

 

[numinus]

OR... in your invisible world of the super natural your position could be summed up in this song...

Yeah fairies wear boots and ya got to believe me! Yeah I saw what I saw and I tell you no lies...

You really are a sucker for humiliating yourself, eh?

If you can't even properly understand agnosticism, something that you claim yourself to be, what makes you think you are in any position to comprehend my ideas, much less summarize it, hmmm?

The prudent thing for you to do in this case is to shut up and leave the sensible discussion to your betters.

Duh?

 

[top gun]

You really are a sucker for humiliating yourself, eh?

If you can't even properly understand agnosticism, something that you claim yourself to be, what makes you think you are in any position to comprehend my ideas, much less summarize it, hmmm?

The prudent thing for you to do in this case is to shut up and leave the sensible discussion to your betters.

Duh?

Hey if God can be real without proof then so can fairies wearing boots! And as usual the "Duh" was the most rational part of your little temper tantrum.

Or maybe Xenu is the mysterious & invisible truth...

I know exactly what I believe from both being brought up as a Christian in a Lutheran Church and studying & observing that teaching and from the study of religions of the world and from comparing that to the vast knowledge and testable provability of the sciences.

One can from that only establish that "faith" is the belief of the totally unproven and the documentation surround that faith is over & over again contradicted by science.

So one can leave the door open to the "possibility" of a God or a Supreme Alien or any other super natural hocas pocas but in the debate of PROOF argue that at this time there is absolutely none for super natural intervention.

 

[PLC1]

Hey if God can be real without proof then so can fairies wearing boots! And as usual the "Duh" was the most rational part of your little temper tantrum.

Or maybe Xenu is the mysterious & invisible truth...

I know exactly what I believe from both being brought up as a Christian in a Lutheran Church and studying & observing that teaching and from the study of religions of the world and from comparing that to the vast knowledge and testable provability of the sciences.

One can from that only establish that "faith" is the belief of the totally unproven and the documentation surround that faith is over & over again contradicted by science.

So one can leave the door open to the "possibility" of a God or a Supreme Alien or any other super natural hocas pocas but in the debate of PROOF argue that at this time there is absolutely none for super natural intervention.

First of all, your "proof" is not really a proof.

Of course, god is infinite, in the sense that god has always existed and always will exist. You and I are also infinite in the same sense, as we existed as spirits before coming to Earth, and will once again exist as spirits after we leave it.

You can accept or reject that assertion, of course. If you reject it, and you are right, you will never know it. If, on the other hand, I'm right, then I'll be able to text you in the afterlife to say I told you so.

Secondly, if you think you can prove that god does not exist, then you are not an agnostic, but an atheist. An agnostic does not know whether or not god exists, but an atheist positively states that god does not exist.

Of course, neither a theist nor an atheist can prove their case, which is the natural argument for being an agnostic.

 

[Dr.Who]

Do that, it's a statement I have made over and over again.

Then we are in agreement that your opinions are just that.

If you took all the evidence and boiled it down to hard facts you couldn't make dot big enough to see. It's all conjecture, the fact that you accept some of that conjecture in no way makes it more valid.

Everything does indeed boil down to opinions. But some are just nuts.

Everybody likes their own interpretation of scripture.

Yep that is true too. But again the ones you post here are just nuts. and somehow I have the feeling that is not he first time you have heard that from Christians - it is probably the source of your hatred of all things mainstream Christian. The truth can hurt; is it possible that telling you the things you say are nuts can help you?

Well, maybe, but internal consistency can also be in the eye of the beholder. If you want real consistency, then you should consider reincarnation.

Even in the realm of opinion there are clearly some that make more sense than others.

The fallacy in your position is that you fail to admit that my opinion has EXACTLY as much validity as anyone else's, one can study a subject all their life and still be totally wrong about it. No one has anything but their own relationship with their Creator, all the rest is supposition. The fact that it's all supposition is what keeps me from trying to pass laws like the Christians and others have done to force everyone to obey their beliefs. I don't take for myself anything that I would deny to others. Christians can't say that truthfully.

But your opinion does not have as much validity as anyone else's because it, based on what has been posted here, sadly, is nuts. You may be a fine person but what you post here is lunacy.

I wouldn't get too high and mighty. You too would pass certain laws if you could - and inevitably that leads to stepping on some toes. You can't please all of the people all of time (but if you focus on pleasing most of the people with sane expressions you are off to a good start)

 

[samsara15]

Except that his only begotten son is one third of the trinity. By transitivity, he gave himself.

So why couldn't he make it a quartet, if he is all powerful? One or none, or it's all just sophistry. Or calling the parts of his being, such as his hand and his foot, part of some 'trinity'.

 

[PLC1]

So why couldn't he make it a quartet, if he is all powerful? One or none, or it's all just sophistry. Or calling the parts of his being, such as his hand and his foot, part of some 'trinity'.

I have to confess to a total lack of understanding of the concept of the trinity.

Is it three different manifestations of the same being?
Is it three different beings united in purpose?

Or is it something else?

 

[dahermit]

Except that his only begotten son is one third of the trinity. By transitivity, he gave himself.

How much of a sacrifice was it then, if it was only a "temporary" death? Upon resurrection, there was no sacrifice of "his only begotten son", or of "himself". To a mortal human, death is forever, for a God...just a temporary situation. Back to the original question: What was the big sacrifice?