Joined: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 5480
Location: Washington state
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:44 pm Post subject:
Quote:
You spend a great deal of time telling me what faith is not, but refuse to explain properly what it is, besides "trust in God", a God we can't know exists.
Its not that difficult Humphreys. And even though I have explained it hundreds of times before, I will do so once again. Having faith in something is to have the knowledge that you can depend on it to not fail you when you need it. I own three cars, I know I have them and I believe they are parked in my yard but, that is not faith. Two of those cars I have faith in. I trust that they will not fail me when I get in them to drive some place. One of them I do not have faith in. I can't be sure that old truck of mine will start every time I need it. Still, lacking faith in its performance in no way changes my belief that it is there, or my knowledge that I still own it.
Another way to describe faith is in using a parachute. You can have perfect knowledge in the mechanical functions of a parachute's ability to lower you safely to the ground when you jump out of a plane and pull the ripcord. You can even believe with all of your heart that the parachute will work when you jump with it. But, it is not faith until you actually step out of the plain and pull the ripcord. Until you are willing to act on your beliefs and knowledge, you do not have faith that the parachute will work.
_________________ Aisv nv wa do hiya do/ walk in peace
Ah, TT. Don't wimp out on me now! If the conversation appears negative to you, then consider it may be because the "scientist God" you've espoused is an inherently negative conception, forcing the believer to make up justications for their Deity's actions, and to avoid or make light of the evil.
Again, I appreciate your responses.
tarsustom wrote:
I think every emotion we can imagine is a facet of God.
Why would God have human emotion, do you suppose? Or would it be correct to assume that Man, being created in His image, has all of His emotions? That sounds like a very primitive conception of a God, on par with a deity like Zeus, perhaps, who displayed human attributes such as lust. Does your God lust after maidens, too?
Quote:
Yes. Write a program sometime. Then delete and see how guilty you feel. In any scientific or mathematical forum, all undesirables and flaws are eliminated, as the truth is sought above all things.
What truth is God seeking, Tom?
What could a perfect Being need or desire? Honestly, I might have understood, if the entity in question were an advanced alien or whatnot, but as it is, it seems more like a sadly limited & anthropomorphized conception.
Tom wrote:
PNG wrote:
Hell is an "elimination" of undesirable specimens?
In my opinion, yes.
And that is just? Hmm.
And could you please explain to me why an all-powerful God that can create ex nihilo would be a ruthless social engineer, ever, at all?
Are we talking about God here, Tom, or just an amoral, self-centered god-like entity?
Are you aware that the being you've described may just as well be called the Devil, Satan, Beelzebub, Lucifer, for all the difference it makes?
Quote:
It is my view that Hell is a place of pain and torment but the inevitable result is complete annihilation. The end result, annihilation, is in fact, eternal in punishment.
I see. Could you please refer me to the relevant scripture, or at least explain how you came to that conclusion?
TT wrote:
Quote:
So, it is a matter of "Might makes Right", essentially?
You're doing a real good job of the glass half-empty thing, but I'm too tired to argue. Sure, I'll concede that, but with no mention of love, mercy, justness, it really doesn't cut it.
I'm sure Hitler had his good points as well.
Rest up, Tom, and while you do, contemplate what your having to use a "half-full/half-empty" relativism to justify your craving for absolutes implies....
Tom wrote:
Quote:
We are expected to live up to a moral/ethical standard which God Himself does not follow?
First of all who said God doesn't follow His commandments (though they are for His people not Him)?
You haven't been paying attention, TT. It's been made quite clear that you think God doesn't follow His commandments, and possibly thinks less of them than Bush does of the constitution.
TT wrote:
Quote:
Sounds hypocritical. We are created imperfect, and then condemned for our imperfection. Hmm, catch-22?
Not condemned. Hey take a step back and remember something. To the humanist, atheist, nihilist, or whatever... life began as a cosmic accident, and, we are all doomed to eventually disappear back into nothingness. And it's not an uncomfortable thought to those kinds of people. So, why then is it any LESS tolerable for God to create us, give some of us eternal life, and pitch the rest in the hopper? Afterall, the "undesirable specimens" as you put it, never had any existence to begin with, so it's not like something was taken from them in the long run. Existence was lended to them and the debt was called in. What's the big deal?
Sounds like you've got a firm pro-abortion stance there, Tom!
Tom, does life have any value of its own? I consider life sacred myself, but hey, that's just me.
So, it's a matter of choosing the "lesser evil"?
...and the lesser evil, in your opinion, is a capricious, wicked entity that cares nothing for the life it creates, and only respects His own power?
Wow, Tom, your religion is sounding better by the minute!
Tom wrote:
Quote:
"Ours"? Isn't that code His, which He gave to Moses?
The Law was handed down to Moses, giving guidelines on how God (the sovereign party) wanted His people (the subordinates) to behave. I still go back to the parent/child thing. The parent is capable of safely accomplishing things that the child is warned not to even attempt.
So, basically, it's a matter of "do as I say, not as I do"?
TT wrote:
Quote:
You have said that no one can be saved unless God chooses for them to be saved, correct? It is like a kind of clique, yes?
Oozing of smug, there. Anyway it WILL be a clique in Heaven but in the mean time many who think they are "in" ain't gonna be. So says Jesus anyway. So today's "clique" is kind of a facade I guess.
No, Tom. Not smug. Amused. Angry. Saddened. I've felt a variety of emotions reading you, here.
But smug?
Smug would be my believing that I'm specially chosen by God to be "saved", at least until He grows tired of my love, while 99% of the other souls He made are destroyed.
Tom wrote:
Would you look on while someone put dozens of others' lives at risk, or would you stop it. If it meant saving their lives (otherwise they would perish by his hand) would you go as far as to kill him? If you did I would absolve you in my heart. In that way, I absolve God in my heart for anyone He has directly or indirectly killed. I see a means to an end, and I see few dying so that many could survive.
If I had that kind of powet, I wouldn't allow the situation to reach that point.
Again I ask, a means to what end?
Quote:
It's just my limited view and I already freely admit that I am prepared to be incorrect, in fact I expect to be very much surprised at how wrong I am about some things.
That's good to hear.
I try to stay open-minded as well.
TT wrote:
Quote:
Can you show me proof of this "Original Sin" in our DNA?
No. In fact, I through "DNA" in there, just to sex the point up a little bit.
I see. You were using scientific terminology to "dress up" religiosity without any factual data to back up your claim.
Sounds like "creationism" to me!
Quote:
Anyone who has died in a state where God has not yet decided their fate, will be judged in the spirit realm, in my opinion. I don't know what it is about one person or another that God sees, which might (for argument's sake) 'lead' Him to gift them grace and salvation. But whatever that thing is that God is looking for, I think He can just as easily make that decision whether we are in our physical bodies or not.
Which children will burn until they are annihilated, if any?
You're tip-toeing & skirting the answers.
TT wrote:
I only believe one thing about that. It isn't anything we do on our own.
So, just to be perfectly clear, you believe that God somehow "calls" His select, specially '
"chosen" members to Him, and the rest are doomed to burn until "annihilation"?
...and you, of course, are certain you are one of these rare & privileged "saved"?
TT wrote:
Quote:
I see. So God is like an insane child-scientist in your conception?
Now you're taking the bleeding sarcasm a little too far.
Tom, that wasn't sarcasm.
Tom wrote:
Quote:
And He has fun killing us, as well, does He?
I know you just love the brutal honesty but yes in my opinion I think God does get some satisfaction dispensing justice. Justice at any level. Both the positive (reward) and negative (punishment) would have to be sought with equal fervor for God to be truly just. In my opinion.
Don't you like truth, Tom, even if it may be unpleasant?
Still, i can't say I'm overly concerned with your conception.
It is yours, after all!
To me, it is like observing a person having a bad dream. I know they will wake up, eventually.
As for your remarks regarding justice... would you consider yourself a moral relativist?
Would you consider your God to be a moral relavist, seeing that He creates the situations, for Himself to "flex His muscle", so to speak?
Tom, if I set a house on fire, so that I might rush in to the rescue, does that make me a hero?
TT wrote:
PNG wrote:
That is not a being worthy of worship, in my estimation. In fact, that being is worthy of nothing. The "colony of ants", to use your analogy, could not have been in any position that God did not place them into. They had no say in the matter. God created the "ants" and placed them there.
Ayep. The ants didn't exist until God put them there. And then poof they went back to non-existence. Problem?
Yes. If God creates ex nihilo, why would He need to be a eugenicist? He could simply make the desired end product poof into existence.
Quote:
God bears responsibility for everything. And while you're busting His chops for being responsible for all the negative stuff while not giving Him a shred of praise for the good stuff.... remind Him that I am also holding Him responsible for the fact that I'm burning the midnight oil on a work night, talking a great length with someone who can't stand Him.
Oh, Tom, I can stand God just fine. I enjoy the company, even. Are you having trouble sleeping? Sounds like it.
Tom wrote:
PNG wrote:
You believe God is incapable of creating an equal to Itself?
Logic tells me that anything created is inferior to its creator.
That doesn't leave much hope for A.I. R&D, then... how disappointing!
Actually, evolution seems to be an overall progression from utter simplicity into an exponential complexity. The humblest organisms have done what you say your God cannot, through mitosis, and have gone far beyond that, even; adapting, becoming an intricate & diverse web of life that continues ever upward into unimaginable heights of being.
If anything is worthy of worship, it would be the magnificent struggle of being itself.
That is life-affirming, to me.
Please explain to me why an omnipotent Deity is incapable of creating anything at least equal to Itself?
Quote:
I think there are infinite possibilities of what God could have created.
I suppose... but how narrow His focus must be, peering through His microscope at us.
I wonder, why does your Creator create? Out of boredom? Because it feels good? Maybe creating is for Him, what recreational sex is for us?
Perhaps a more precise parent analogy might be that He, the "parent", enjoys having inferiors, us, His "children", around so He can feel "important" & "get off" on the fantastic power-trip, as well? You said as much, right?
Actually, it sounds like ego run amok!
Ego can be a very isolating thing. He must feel quite empty, dissatisfied.... so He projects that outward from Himself. Of course, ultimately His power means nothing. It would be a hollow distraction, this creation full of playthings, but of course He should know this...
Is He just endlessly sadistic, this being? Doesn't he ever tire of creating toys? Is that the only way He can make eternity bearable? Is it essentially useless, this ultimate power?
I pity something so small & alone. I really do.
Quote:
He's not a monster to me. He is everything to me. I don't see a negative in anything has done or still does.
Sounds like Stockholme's syndrome to me, TT!
Tom wrote:
PNG wrote:
So, you would only be concerned with obtaining immortality?
Oh I don't know really... but it seems to me that the only thing stopping unbelievers like you, is death. So conquer it, already. While you're at it, have a read in Genesis and look at the number of years the early humans lived. Seems as the human race continues to distance itself from the original creation, our life expectancy has reduced greatly. I just thought of a trivia question. What is the longest period of time where God said He would do something, then finally did it? The clue is, the number of years Methuselah lived.
"Unbeliever", Tom? Are you still under the impression that I'm an atheist? If so, why, exactly? Or perhaps you only meant I do not share your belief in an amoral "scientist God"?
You didn't answer my previous hypothetical, so here is another that may be more to your liking:
If a pill were invented tomorrow that made you physically immortal, i.e. so that you would never die, would you take it, if it meant you could never go to heaven? Why, or why not?
Quote:
Only a miracle can transform us from your mindset to the Christian mindset. I could take your words, add some insults and expletives, then paste it into a thread with my name, and no one would have known the difference. It seems like a distant memory, but I do remember your mindset. I was deeply entrenched.
What mindset do you suppose I have, Tom?
Still, I congratulate you for having surpassed me! :O
Tom wrote:
Gladly. Damnation enters my mind the least of all I think of when it comes to this. And it only enters my mind because folks like yourself insist on talking about it.
Hell is a real bummer, huh?
Quote:
The difference is existence or non-existence. How can someone, who was once nothing, complain about their existence, no matter what it is? The Bible makes that point in the Old and the New Testament.
Oh, I dunno, Tom... Some people are just ungrateful, I suppose.
Like, for instance, this young woman I once knew. Her father came to the new home she, her mother, and sister occupied. He proceeded to murder (or only kill, perhaps) her mother & little sister. He shot them both, and her in the leg as she ran, but she survived by playing dead when she fell.
It is unfortunate, but I suppose we can always find comfort in believing it was only part of a grand experiment by the Divine Watcher, and I'm sure we can find gratitude in knowing the rejected specimens have probably been annihilated.
Quote:
I don't know if those questions are snares or what, but I would hope by now that you understand I am humble enough not to insist I know such things. I believe God is both pleasured and displeasured by things we do.
Like a parent, yes?
Why would he feel pleasure or displeasure, since (being omniscient) He would be full aware of what choices are made and the outcome?
Quote:
All I can do is encourage you, you are at least talking about this stuff and seem genuinely interested. It's ultimately not up to me whether or not you decide to pursue God but I hope you do, eventually.
"Pursue God"... What an odd notion.
....but what good would it do me if I caught Him? Didn't you firmly assert your belief that salvation is for a select minority, and the qualifications for entrance into this elite club called "Heaven" are entirely dependent upon God's whims?
...not very encouraging, TT. Not very encouraging at all!
Tom wrote:
PNG wrote:
I'm sorry to say that, were such a being as we've discussed to actually exist, I would have to condemn Him and willingly be damned to Hell, as a matter of principle.
Just make sure and ask for the 'smoking section' when the Host comes to seat you.
Joined: Sep 22, 2002
Posts: 7715
Location: The moon, stupid.
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject:
tarsustom wrote:
humphreys wrote:
That's where your analogy broke down, in my opinion, because humans are so different to programs. The destruction of a program no one has a problem with, but the destruction of a human being is hard to justify because humans suffer.
That word, "suffer." You use it a lot, almost like a card up your sleeve when you need it.
This overwhelming concern you have over someone suffering, is so powerful that you believe if a Creator allowed it, the Creator must therefore be evil.
That's a ridiculous notion and besides... tell me this... how do you know people suffer when they die? How is "deletion" or "destruction" we call physical death... something that causes someone to feel pain? You assume death is painful?
Jesus asked His disciples, "How much longer must I endure you?" as He evidently contemplated the relief of death and departure from this place. Death could very well be the most pleasant experience one could have in their entire lives...
Now that's loaded with irony, is it not.
Have you actually read the Bible, and what it says about Hell?
Joined: Sep 22, 2002
Posts: 7715
Location: The moon, stupid.
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject:
Halfabo wrote:
humphreys wrote:
Halfabo, this post of yours, to me, is a big wad of "non-answers". You think you are answering questions and addressing points, but you are not. You are using words and phrases that religious people have invented in order to avoid addressing direct questions.
For example, the statement:
"Belief in God begins with the knowledge that He IS."
Is essentially meaningless. It's religious gobbledygook. It begs the question how you know He is, and how you can start to believe something whilst already knowing it is true, and it also begs for a definition of "IS" all caps.
You did not once explain how we know God exists.
You spend a great deal of time telling me what faith is not, but refuse to explain properly what it is, besides "trust in God", a God we can't know exists.
Is that it?
Far from being "non-answers", they are just not answers that are to your liking. The capitalization of the word is, merely places emphasis on the subject. In this case the subject is His being, His existence.
"How can you start to believe something whilst already knowing it is true?"
Have you never considered the possibility of the belief and knowledge coming at the same moment in time? Its called an epiphany.
If they come at the same time then you do not know before you believe.
Halfabo wrote:
"You did not once explain how we know God exists."
We do not know God exists. Some of us do, some do not. We, as a whole, can all know He exists but, that is up to the individual. I could tell you what it was that convinced me of His existence but, I won't do that because it would be meaningless to you. You could also hear the personal convincing evidence from a million other Christians, that would also not convince you. God works with each individual on a personal level. A level of understanding that is designed to reach each individual soul. If you want something that will convince you, ask Him to prove His existence to you. But then, you have to be willing to listen to the answer. It is not my place, nor the place of any other to convince you of His existence.
humphreys wrote:
Here is the strangest answer of all:
"There is no requirement that God be good to be God. If He were totally evil, and still had the power and authority and majesty to create and destroy the universe at will, He would still be God. However, God is good because He IS."
God could be pure evil, but he isn't because "He IS"?
God is good because Hs Is? Only a believer could make a statement like that and think it meaningful.
I'm sure this post of yours makes sense to other believers, because they reason in the same strange manner where God is concerned.
I sometimes assume you will understand the meaning of a simple sentence. But, unlike speaking to someone in person, where inflection in voice and body language fills in the gaps of the spoken word, it doesn't always work out that way when writing. In this case the capitalized is, is referring to the subject of His goodness, not His existence. So let me state it a little more clearly.
God is good just because He is good. It is His nature to be good.
See, this is what I mean about a non-answer. How do you know God is good? Because it's in his Nature. How do you know it is in his Nature? Because he tells us it is.
That is circular reasonning.
Basically, if God was evil and powerful he could quite easily fake goodness like any skilled conman. You still cannot be sure he is good, and "God is good because he is good" most certainly does not cut it.
Joined: Sep 22, 2002
Posts: 7715
Location: The moon, stupid.
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject:
Halfabo wrote:
Quote:
You spend a great deal of time telling me what faith is not, but refuse to explain properly what it is, besides "trust in God", a God we can't know exists.
Its not that difficult Humphreys. And even though I have explained it hundreds of times before, I will do so once again. Having faith in something is to have the knowledge that you can depend on it to not fail you when you need it. I own three cars, I know I have them and I believe they are parked in my yard but, that is not faith. Two of those cars I have faith in. I trust that they will not fail me when I get in them to drive some place. One of them I do not have faith in. I can't be sure that old truck of mine will start every time I need it. Still, lacking faith in its performance in no way changes my belief that it is there, or my knowledge that I still own it.
Another way to describe faith is in using a parachute. You can have perfect knowledge in the mechanical functions of a parachute's ability to lower you safely to the ground when you jump out of a plane and pull the ripcord. You can even believe with all of your heart that the parachute will work when you jump with it. But, it is not faith until you actually step out of the plain and pull the ripcord. Until you are willing to act on your beliefs and knowledge, you do not have faith that the parachute will work.
If this is correct then faith is nothing more than belief based on evidence. That would be fine, if Christians wouldn't ping he word around like it was something more, something that was evidence in itself of God's existence.
That being the case, how does it make sense when the believer says "You need to have faith"? Are they simply saying you need to have belief based on evidence? Because every good believer knows atheists struggle with the evidence part, not the belief!
Faith is a confidence in the truth or value of a person, idea, or thing in which there is no logical proof or material evidence. It is the persuasion of the mind that a certain thing is true, without having the facts to back it up. What many here are questioning is how can you logically have faith without an example that presents one with a surety that such an investment in an unknown be productive. Some choose to take this risk just because the thought of perfection could very well be true. You could argue that perfection is random and may not even exist. You could argue that it isn't random and still does not exist, that it's only a concept and impractical in the real world. What good is faith here. You could argue that perfection does not exist; so perfection being a random or not being a random proposition does not even apply.
What we need is proof of perfection; if that could be had, then the idea of perfection (where faith may be applied) and all that perfection implies can be more easily accepted as true; the application of faith under certain circumstance would not be non sequitur....even in the presence of imperfection, evil, etc., because perfection, can, theoretically, do or be anything. Even intelligent. What virtue does the concept of perfection lack? None. Why even have the concept at all? My argument is that perfection lacks no virtue. Now, is there anything perfect?
Crushed cockroaches can be applied to a stinging wound to help relieve the pain.... true or false? If this were true, I suppose someone would argue that this fact in particular might be an itty bitty bit of perfection; I feel that there will be another to counter that, even if that statement were true, and it is.
Can we be in some sort of general consensus that one true statement indicates a stable point in reality? Let's say..."steel is hard"; of course we know that is a lie in the field physics - swirling mass of atoms and all, but I perceive it as hard as do many others, dose that make the statement "steele is hard" false? Of course it does, we now know better thanks to science, that in this third dimensional reality nothing is stable, it is ever changing. We can use that as a true statement...a balanced and rationale justification...everything changes; and if that is the case, is not that one point perfect? We can, by logical extension , conclude that the only "thing" that never changes in our known universe is that "everything" changes. Now I have the "faith" by logical conclusion that not only is the steel ever changing, however slowly, so is the universe always changing. It's expanding as fast as the speed of light actually. I am sure of this because I have learned of one "stable" truth. Everything changes.
Disregard all the 'ya but's and 'if's'; just the one singular point of a true conclusion, any truth, presents a balanced rationale and justification of the pertinent subject, what ever it may be. If a particular truth, that everything changes, can hold up to the test of time (as we understand time conventionally), then that truth is unalterable. Yes or no.
Joined: Sep 22, 2002
Posts: 7715
Location: The moon, stupid.
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:56 am Post subject:
screamzero wrote:
4 hours, yet no answer.
Jeez dude, we went out for dinner. I have no obligation to answer your posts.
The existence of perfection does not prove the existence of God, and your definition of faith is just belief based on evidence, it seems, which is nothing special. The evidence part is obviously the problem...there isn't really any.
On top of that, I did not really get your point, or where you were going with 90% of your post, seriously.
Last edited by humphreys on Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:59 am; edited 1 time in total
If the conversation appears negative to you, then consider it may be because the "scientist God" you've espoused is an inherently negative conception, forcing the believer to make up justications for their Deity's actions, and to avoid or make light of the evil.
