Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, rather difficult to reconcile an all loving, perfect god with some entity which allows itself to be baited by its own creation into mistreating a loyal and devoted servant.
For years I was taught that god "made us in his image" before ultimately realizing that it was us who made god in our own images. We had but the singular example of intelligent life, ourselves, so naturally gods were crafted with some of our own flaws infused in their characters.
What would you think if I told you that was a message from the writer of Genesis? People try to make mankind in their own image by first making God in their own image.
You atheists should actually find a partner and comrade in many of the biblical writers. But you don't seem to have any interest in that.
All that a person could disprove is his own negative image of a Bible God.
A positive image of God would be the "God is love" image that Miss Hepburn has. All one has to do to dispel that image is to consider children with birth defects. If life is a natural process than birth defects are a regrettable but understandable result of imperfect biology in action. If life is the result of God at work than one has to question why a loving God would choose to create children with birth defects.
What would you think if I told you that was a message from the writer of Genesis? People try to make mankind in their own image by first making God in their own image.
I would say I'm already aware of that possibility. Viewed allegorically, I admire the Garden of Eden story. They presented the basic dilemma of intelligent existence...to know is to be aware of our impermanent status, euphoria is only possible in a state of ignorance, but that comes with the price of no intellectual development.
Too bad so many folks decided to take it all literally, isn't it?
John 8:44, correctly translated, says "you are of the father of the devil" when Jesus talks to the Jews, whereas Jesus says he is of a different father.
This passage read in context can best be read as saying there are two gods, with the Jews being of the bad god. This was recognized as a problem by the early church, who said the text meant something different to what it says. I have yet to find this translated correctly in either German or English Bibles.
I wanna hear more about this!!...can you start a thread on this....and expound a bit more?
Or name a book or site that can be looked up if you're busy? Thanks, dear.
A positive image of God would be the "God is love" image that Miss Hepburn has. All one has to do to dispel that image is to consider children with birth defects. If life is a natural process than birth defects are a regrettable but understandable result of imperfect biology in action. If life is the result of God at work than one has to question why a loving God would choose to create children with birth defects.
I disagree tired, respectfully.
Its not "if god was love he wouldn't do this."
its more of "we have this, so what does this tell us about the universe." or this god.
The "natural law" tells us that the people back then misunderstood what is going on around them. The bad things don't tell me anything other then they are wrong, not if something is there or not.
Miss help is a different kind of person than me (she is kinder). She sees the universe differently.
A loving god could most definitely allow this to happen for many reasons. It most certainly could be loving and have no choice in allowing this to happen.
Today, with science, we ask what does the data (your picture) tell us about the universe. It tells us that natural consequences are real, that if we try and ignore natural consequences bad things can happen.
weather its god or "anti-god" (socialism sorry man, no disrespect to you) removing natural consequences, by making them "super natural" or "denial" ends up screwing us all.
I would say I'm already aware of that possibility. Viewed allegorically, I admire the Garden of Eden story. They presented the basic dilemma of intelligent existence...to know is to be aware of our impermanent status, euphoria is only possible in a state of ignorance, but that comes with the price of no intellectual development.
Too bad so many folks decided to take it all literally, isn't it?
thats the whole of my point in every post.
for what they knew, from dust to man, was amazing insight.
calling them delusional is flat stupid and wrong.
Focusing on the literal people is the real point. I don't know any rational believer that doesn't back off of the bible god when questioned with understanding. I haven't met one. the numbers leaving religion but believe in something prove my point.
Pointing fingers, jumping around screaming about how everything a rational believer says is "false" is just flat wrong, short sighted, and stupid. Any atheist doing this is a millitant atheist and just as dangerous as any fundy theist.
its more of "we have this, so what does this tell us about the universe." or this god.
The "natural law" tells us that the people back then misunderstood what is going on around them. The bad things don't tell me anything other then they are wrong, not if something is there or not.
Miss help is a different kind of person than me (she is kinder). She sees the universe differently.
A loving god could most definitely allow this to happen for many reasons. It most certainly could be loving and have no choice in allowing this to happen.
Today, with science, we ask what does the data (your picture) tell us about the universe. It tells us that natural consequences are real, that if we try and ignore natural consequences bad things can happen.
weather its god or "anti-god" (socialism sorry man, no disrespect to you) removing natural consequences, by making them "super natural" or "denial" ends up screwing us all.
If the universe operates according to the plans and desires of a loving God who includes birth defects into His plans, then we are going to need a new definition of "loving." On the other hand, if the universe operates according to somewhat arbitrary natural principles with NO intelligent purpose, then birth defects are merely a consequence of random chance and the imperfect nature of biology. This is not to mitigate the tragedy of birth defects, but biology is imperfect by nature. Failure is inconsequential as long as there are viable successes. Nature is NOT intelligent, but biology manages to produce viable organisms the vast majority of the time, so that life continues. Intelligent design should produce viable organisms EVERY TIME!
That's what the data tell us about the universe. Life succeeds and continues so long as viable organisms are produced the majority of the time. Non viable organisms are an inconsequential though statistically probable result which is the natural offshoot of non intelligent random chance.
Socialism is neither pro or anti-god. The communists made a decision to be anti-god, but that was a choice made by individuals who were in a position of instituting an authoritarian form of government. There is no prevailing opinion among atheists on establishing an authoritarian form of government. Atheists are united ONLY by the lack of a belief in God or gods.
Pointing fingers, jumping around screaming about how everything a rational believer says is "false" is just flat wrong, short sighted, and stupid. Any atheist doing this is a millitant atheist and just as dangerous as any fundy theist.
Yes, the above is your most frequent theme, however, I do not know what atheists you are referencing. I have not seen anyone in this forum who fits the description of "militant atheist." You and Ozzy have a lot of enemies, but I think most of them exist in your imaginations.
I would say I'm already aware of that possibility. Viewed allegorically, I admire the Garden of Eden story. They presented the basic dilemma of intelligent existence...to know is to be aware of our impermanent status, euphoria is only possible in a state of ignorance, but that comes with the price of no intellectual development.
Too bad so many folks decided to take it all literally, isn't it?
Nicely stated. I suppose it's like this: anyone who wants to see the Bible as metaphorical or symbolic, can have their fun. Anyone who wants to find lessons for life in it can do so - but when they try sell them to us, they will be subjected to the same consideration as any suggestions about how to live, wherever they come from. That they were taken from the Bible gets them no extra mileage. None. Atheists are not concerned with those who do this metaphorical stuff - until they start telling us that we are wrong for not doing it.
We are not wrong. We are right to do this until they can make a case why we should credit their exhortations. And antiquity, beauty of prose, social influence and being the basis of western culture - all means nothing other that just those things.
The only argument that cuts any ice is that it represents input from divine adviser or oracle. And that they have to prove. That the Bible contains so much that is wrong and false and pretty bad, really debunks the Bible as anything but the beliefs of, first Iron age Jews who thought the world was a few thousand years old and Greeks who hadn't got Eratothenes E- mail that the world was round.
Indeed the only reason they even concern us is because the put their support behind the Real problem. The ones who believe that it is a literally true record and want it to replace the history and science books. That makes them all a serious threat and danger, and makes them all fair game.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sorry man, no disrespect to you) removing natural consequences, by making them "super natural" or "denial" ends up screwing us all.
