Export thread
Thought experiment
#1
Silent Bob
Silent Bob
I've been thinking about the nature and existence of God recently (ie arguing with my uber Christian friend), and came up with a cool little thought experiment.
God is essentially bigger than the universe. I think no religious person could argue against that statement. He created it. He's got to be bigger. Period.
http://htwins.net/scale2/
Check out the scale of the universe. To God we are essentially at the Plank length level. I asked my friend if he thinks about the particles at the quantum scale. Pretend they have personalities. Pretend a string has a string family. Are you overly concerned about the fate of that string? Or the entire population of strings that exists in a square millimeter of your pinky nail (hundreds of billions of strings)?
My question to him was whether or not God gave two craps about humanity on a remote planet the size of a neutrino relative to God? Moreover, would he really care enough to damn people who didn't believe in him to an eternity of suffering for finite sins? I don't think so. I think we're so insignificant to the grand scheme of things that our individual deaths have no consequence to worry about.
Of course my friend had circle logic, canned answers to come back with, but the epiphany I had with my analogy made my own stance the more clearer to myself. Why would God give a crap about his insignificant creation?
I thought I'd share that.
God is essentially bigger than the universe. I think no religious person could argue against that statement. He created it. He's got to be bigger. Period.
http://htwins.net/scale2/
Check out the scale of the universe. To God we are essentially at the Plank length level. I asked my friend if he thinks about the particles at the quantum scale. Pretend they have personalities. Pretend a string has a string family. Are you overly concerned about the fate of that string? Or the entire population of strings that exists in a square millimeter of your pinky nail (hundreds of billions of strings)?
My question to him was whether or not God gave two craps about humanity on a remote planet the size of a neutrino relative to God? Moreover, would he really care enough to damn people who didn't believe in him to an eternity of suffering for finite sins? I don't think so. I think we're so insignificant to the grand scheme of things that our individual deaths have no consequence to worry about.
Of course my friend had circle logic, canned answers to come back with, but the epiphany I had with my analogy made my own stance the more clearer to myself. Why would God give a crap about his insignificant creation?
I thought I'd share that.
#2
bhamv3
Also, if God really is omniscent and omnipotent, then it doesn't matter how relatively small we are, he can still detect and interact with us. We can't see neutrinos, but that's because our senses are limited. God's aren't meant to be.
bhamv3
I'm not religious, but I the most convenient answer to this would be "because he can." "Because it's interesting" and "for the lulz" are also possible.Why would God give a crap about his insignificant creation?
Also, if God really is omniscent and omnipotent, then it doesn't matter how relatively small we are, he can still detect and interact with us. We can't see neutrinos, but that's because our senses are limited. God's aren't meant to be.
#3
Ravenpoe
Of course, I'm an atheist, so what the hell do I know.
Ravenpoe
It's an interesting thought experiment, but fundamentally flawed. A creator doesn't have to be larger than their creation. That aside, one could say it's flawed to humanize the concept of God by assuming such a being or force would think, feel, or perceive in the same way that we do.I've been thinking about the nature and existence of God recently (ie arguing with my uber Christian friend), and came up with a cool little thought experiment.
God is essentially bigger than the universe. I think no religious person could argue against that statement. He created it. He's got to be bigger. Period.
http://htwins.net/scale2/
Check out the scale of the universe. To God we are essentially at the Plank length level. I asked my friend if he thinks about the particles at the quantum scale. Pretend they have personalities. Pretend a string has a string family. Are you overly concerned about the fate of that string? Or the entire population of strings that exists in a square millimeter of your pinky nail (hundreds of billions of strings)?
My question to him was whether or not God gave two craps about humanity on a remote planet the size of a neutrino relative to God? Moreover, would he really care enough to damn people who didn't believe in him to an eternity of suffering for finite sins? I don't think so. I think we're so insignificant to the grand scheme of things that our individual deaths have no consequence to worry about.
Of course my friend had circle logic, canned answers to come back with, but the epiphany I had with my analogy made my own stance the more clearer to myself. Why would God give a crap about his insignificant creation?
I thought I'd share that.
Of course, I'm an atheist, so what the hell do I know.
#4
Timmus
Timmus
Yeah I think if there's a god it's perfectly capable of existing at whatever scale it wants. And there's nothing stopping it from being mean and petty cause it's all powerful. Nothing to stop it from being super nice either. My $.02 on the existence of god: probably not.
#5
Espy
Espy
I'm not sure assigning size to a spiritual/supernatural being is the swiftest way to get to Deism but if thats what get you there rock on I guess?
#6
drifter
drifter
Size matters not. Judge me by my size, do you?
Anyway, given the amount of time, energy, and money people spend on particle physics, not sure this is the best analogy to use. I mean, if you went up to a physicist and asked them "hey, if it were possible to study matter at the Planck level, would you be interested?" what do you think s/he would say?
Anyway, given the amount of time, energy, and money people spend on particle physics, not sure this is the best analogy to use. I mean, if you went up to a physicist and asked them "hey, if it were possible to study matter at the Planck level, would you be interested?" what do you think s/he would say?
#8
Covar
Covar
I assumed he was watching Malcom in the Middle
#9
Terrik
Terrik
As has been said, the thought experiment is flawed because the premise itself is flawed.
If we're going to suppose the God was the creator of the universe, why do we have to give him the same properties of His creation?
Concepts and questions like, "When did God come into being?" and "Can God create a rock even he can't lift?" are meaningless because they all rely on the fact that God would be constrained to the same laws of physics as the rest of us---a silly thought if you consider such things wouldn't have existed if He hadn't created them in the first place.
If we're going to suppose the God was the creator of the universe, why do we have to give him the same properties of His creation?
Concepts and questions like, "When did God come into being?" and "Can God create a rock even he can't lift?" are meaningless because they all rely on the fact that God would be constrained to the same laws of physics as the rest of us---a silly thought if you consider such things wouldn't have existed if He hadn't created them in the first place.
#10
Timmus
Timmus
But he's like really big and stuff man!As has been said, the thought experiment is flawed because the premise itself is flawed.
If we're going to suppose the God was the creator of the universe, why do we have to give him the same properties of His creation?
Concepts and questions like, "When did God come into being?" and "Can God create a rock even he can't lift?" are meaningless because they all rely on the fact that God would be constrained to the same laws of physics as the rest of us---a silly thought if you consider such things wouldn't have existed if He hadn't created them in the first place.
#11
Bowielee
Bowielee
A better thought experiment is this.
If god is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow free will? Doing so denies him being all powerful be cause he can't influence wills because if he does it means free will doesn't exist. If free will doesn't exist, god is directly responsible for all evil actions done by humans.
If god is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow free will? Doing so denies him being all powerful be cause he can't influence wills because if he does it means free will doesn't exist. If free will doesn't exist, god is directly responsible for all evil actions done by humans.
#12
Covar
Covar
To allow for philosophical paradox questions like this one.A better thought experiment is this.
If god is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow free will? Doing so denies him being all powerful be cause he can't influence wills because if he does it means free will doesn't exist. If free will doesn't exist, god is directly responsible for all evil actions done by humans.
#13
Reverent-one
Reverent-one
"Can't" and "doesn't" are two very different things, you shouldn't get them confused.A better thought experiment is this.
If god is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow free will? Doing so denies him being all powerful be cause he can't influence wills because if he does it means free will doesn't exist. If free will doesn't exist, god is directly responsible for all evil actions done by humans.
#14
Terrik
Terrik
On the flip side, he'd also be responsible for all the good actions done by humans as well.A better thought experiment is this.
If god is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow free will? Doing so denies him being all powerful be cause he can't influence wills because if he does it means free will doesn't exist. If free will doesn't exist, god is directly responsible for all evil actions done by humans.
#15
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
I personally prefer the classic questions, like Epicurus's question on the problem of evil. Of course, this deals more with the idea of a Christian God, and supposes that things like evil are both identifiable forces and against a divine plan.
Epicurus said:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
#16
Bowielee
Bowielee
If free will can be overridden, it's not free will."Can't" and "doesn't" are two very different things, you shouldn't get them confused.
#17
David
David
One more geared toward the evolution/creationist debate: "If life is too complex to have come about on it's own, where did the creator of said life come from? Wouldn't the creator have to be at least as if not more complex than what it created? Who created the creator? Why is it our complex form of life can't come into existence naturally if the creator can?"
#18
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
This will pretty much go back to...
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
#19
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
But how much wood would a woodchuck, chuck?This will pretty much go back to...
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
#21
Shakey
Shakey
It is until it is actually overridden. The idea is that God steers us in a path, but ultimately we make the decision as to what we will do. Just because He can force us to do something, doesn't mean He will or wants to.If free will can be overridden, it's not free will.
#22
tegid
tegid
Are you saying that, for instance, when one is not in prison they don't have even some measure of freedom because the possibility of having it removed is there?[DOUBLEPOST=1346999675][/DOUBLEPOST]ninja'dIf free will can be overridden, it's not free will.
#23
Bowielee
Bowielee
That literally makes no sense to me. Determinism is kind of an all or nothing thing.[DOUBLEPOST=1347002092][/DOUBLEPOST]It is until it is actually overridden. The idea is that God steers us in a path, but ultimately we make the decision as to what we will do. Just because He can force us to do something, doesn't mean He will or wants to.
this is a horrible analogy, however, yes you are NOT free if that freedom can be arbitrarily taken from you.Are you saying that, for instance, when one is not in prison they don't have even some measure of freedom because the possibility of having it removed is there?[DOUBLEPOST=1346999675][/DOUBLEPOST]ninja'd
#24
Silent Bob
Now, my friend would come back and say, hell is a choice people make because of free will. Again it's circular logic.
Silent Bob
I've debated that one before as well. Also, if adam and eve were completely innocent and naive, why punish them for eating from the tree of knowledge. How can they have free will and yet be unknowing? Same with the concept of hell. If God is omnipresent; omnipotent, etc... then he knows you're going to hell. He created you knowing you'd go to hell.A better thought experiment is this.
If god is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow free will? Doing so denies him being all powerful be cause he can't influence wills because if he does it means free will doesn't exist. If free will doesn't exist, god is directly responsible for all evil actions done by humans.
Now, my friend would come back and say, hell is a choice people make because of free will. Again it's circular logic.
#25
Reverent-one
Reverent-one
The point is that the potential for God to take away our agency doesn't actually take it away until the point at which he uses that potential. Until that point, we're acting under our own control just as much as if the potential wasn't there.That literally makes no sense to me. Determinism is kind of an all or nothing thing.
#26
LordRendar
LordRendar
If I remember my bible correctly,God did say,not to eat from the tree.But they did,so they got punished.I've debated that one before as well. Also, if adam and eve were completely innocent and naive, why punish them for eating from the tree of knowledge. How can they have free will and yet be unknowing? Same with the concept of hell. If God is omnipresent; omnipotent, etc... then he knows you're going to hell. He created you knowing you'd go to hell.
Now, my friend would come back and say, hell is a choice people make because of free will. Again it's circular logic.
#27
Silent Bob
Silent Bob
If I remember my bible correctly,God did say,not to eat from the tree.But they did,so they got punished.
#28
jwhouk
jwhouk
Nice.
So, Bob. If, of course, I may call you Bob.
Do you have a family? Father? Mother? Statistically, it's quite probable, I mean.
If you do, I ask you two questions:
1. Do you love them?
and
2. Prove it.
Until such time as you can provide the answers to those questions adequately - not just to me, but to the entire populace - you're not changing anyone's mind.
Least of all mine.
So, Bob. If, of course, I may call you Bob.
Do you have a family? Father? Mother? Statistically, it's quite probable, I mean.
If you do, I ask you two questions:
1. Do you love them?
and
2. Prove it.
Until such time as you can provide the answers to those questions adequately - not just to me, but to the entire populace - you're not changing anyone's mind.
Least of all mine.
#29
Norris
Additionally, something about the "free will" bit always bugged me. In my Lutheran Catechism classes, we learned that God is omniscient. He knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. It is the last bit that bugs me. If that is so, then free will is bullshit. God knew, from the minute he began creation and possibly even before then, exactly what Adam and Eve would. Exactly what Cain would do. Exactly what I would do. Exactly what you would do. There would be no free will, because everything is playing out exactly as God already knows it would. Even if you go with inherent omniscience over total, in which God could know everything but chooses not to in order to preserve free will, it doesn't make sense. Its like saying that choosing not to read spoilers on Wikipedia means Darth Vader might win the first time you watch Star Wars. If you can find out how something ends, that means that the ending is already set in stone.
Norris
Yes, but the tree was the tree of knowledge. If I'm remembering right, it is at best debatable that Adam and Eve had any kind of concept of right versus wrong before that (as evidenced that the first thing they did after eating the fruit of knowledge was to realize "oh shit, we're just totally flapping in the breeze here, let's make some clothes"). If they have no concept of "right" or "wrong", how would they know that disobeying God was wrong?If I remember my bible correctly,God did say,not to eat from the tree.But they did,so they got punished.
Additionally, something about the "free will" bit always bugged me. In my Lutheran Catechism classes, we learned that God is omniscient. He knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. It is the last bit that bugs me. If that is so, then free will is bullshit. God knew, from the minute he began creation and possibly even before then, exactly what Adam and Eve would. Exactly what Cain would do. Exactly what I would do. Exactly what you would do. There would be no free will, because everything is playing out exactly as God already knows it would. Even if you go with inherent omniscience over total, in which God could know everything but chooses not to in order to preserve free will, it doesn't make sense. Its like saying that choosing not to read spoilers on Wikipedia means Darth Vader might win the first time you watch Star Wars. If you can find out how something ends, that means that the ending is already set in stone.
And you're not going to convince me until you make a pair of pants that have the strength of denim and airy quality of nudity. If we're arguing using non sequiturs.If you do, I ask you two questions:
1. Do you love them?
and
2. Prove it.
Until such time as you can provide the answers to those questions adequately - not just to me, but to the entire populace - you're not changing anyone's mind.
Least of all mine.
#30
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, I think. Not just "Knowledge."Yes, but the tree was the tree of knowledge.
--Patrick
#31
Norris
Norris
That's what I thought as well, but Wikipedia just said knowledge.The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, I think. Not just "Knowledge."
--Patrick
#32
Bowielee
Bowielee
It can be argued that feelings of love are just biological and societal constructs that are there to ensure the continuation of the species.Nice.
So, Bob. If, of course, I may call you Bob.
Do you have a family? Father? Mother? Statistically, it's quite probable, I mean.
If you do, I ask you two questions:
1. Do you love them?
and
2. Prove it.
Until such time as you can provide the answers to those questions adequately - not just to me, but to the entire populace - you're not changing anyone's mind.
Least of all mine.
#33
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
One might also avoid answering a question by constructing a non-sequitur crafted to sound like an answer.It can be argued that feelings of love are just biological and societal constructs that are there to ensure the continuation of the species.
--Patrick
#34
Espy
Espy
*reads whole thread*
#35
Bowielee
Bowielee
How is that exactly a non-sequitor?[DOUBLEPOST=1347147067][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, this has clearly moved from a thought experiment (if it actually ever was one) to an atheism vs theism pissing match, so I'm out.One might also avoid answering a question by constructing a non-sequitur crafted to sound like an answer.
--Patrick
#36
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Yeah, I was getting that feeling as well.this has clearly moved from a thought experiment
--Patrick
#37
Ravenpoe
But if we knew what it was going to do all along, did it ever have free will?
Ravenpoe
Well, let's be fair. We knew this thread would do that in the beginning, because all threads of this kind follow that same pattern.How is that exactly a non-sequitor?[DOUBLEPOST=1347147067][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, this has clearly moved from a thought experiment (if it actually ever was one) to an atheism vs theism pissing match, so I'm out.
But if we knew what it was going to do all along, did it ever have free will?
#38
Bowielee
Bowielee
I see what you did thereWell, let's be fair. We knew this thread would do that in the beginning, because all threads of this kind follow that same pattern.
But if we knew what it was going to do all along, did it ever have free will?
#39
Silent Bob
My answer is that love involves two "real" beings that reciprocate that feeling towards each other. Love is a human emotion with no definition, you might as well ask me to define consciousness. What I do know is I get a response back from the people I do love. There's an interaction. If someone says they love God, how do they know they're getting loved back. You see the key element missing?
Silent Bob
I've had the love proof question posed to me before.Nice.
So, Bob. If, of course, I may call you Bob.
Do you have a family? Father? Mother? Statistically, it's quite probable, I mean.
If you do, I ask you two questions:
1. Do you love them?
and
2. Prove it.
Until such time as you can provide the answers to those questions adequately - not just to me, but to the entire populace - you're not changing anyone's mind.
Least of all mine.
My answer is that love involves two "real" beings that reciprocate that feeling towards each other. Love is a human emotion with no definition, you might as well ask me to define consciousness. What I do know is I get a response back from the people I do love. There's an interaction. If someone says they love God, how do they know they're getting loved back. You see the key element missing?
#40
jwhouk
jwhouk
You know what? I'm going to bow out of this due to the Yarborough Maxim:
"Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get covered with mud, but the pig will enjoy it."
"Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get covered with mud, but the pig will enjoy it."
#41
Silent Bob
Silent Bob
Why are you so angry?You know what? I'm going to bow out of this due to the Yarborough Maxim:
"Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get covered with mud, but the pig will enjoy it."
#42
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
It seems he really wishes he could wrestle pigs, but was told not to? I dunno, maybe it's a jewish thing.Why are you so angry?
#43
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
If I've learned anything its that if God made the universe and does exist, you just need to be possessed by a magic half demon/angel comet baby and become best friends with a vampire in order to get him to notice you. That's what I believe about god anyway. ALL HAIL ST. ENNIS!
And yeah if he did make the universe no way he'd give a shit. We would basically be just a game of Sims to him.
And yeah if he did make the universe no way he'd give a shit. We would basically be just a game of Sims to him.
#44
Eriol
Eriol
Have you ever made anything? Like model airplanes, paintings, or whatever? You care about what you've made. At least anybody I've met who likes doing such does.And yeah if he did make the universe no way he'd give a shit. We would basically be just a game of Sims to him.
#45
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Yes, but keep in mind that not all artists DO like their work. Some artists grow to resent there creations or resent them from the start. And if this guy existed, I say he just doesn't care. Least how I see it.Have you ever made anything? Like model airplanes, paintings, or whatever? You care about what you've made. At least anybody I've met who likes doing such does.
#46
Silent Bob
That's assuming God's not an asshole. Given his track record of creating people just so they can go to hell, killing off mass amounts of people, testing people in various inhumane ways, and not doing anything to help protect the most innocent of his creations, I'd say he's a douche.
Silent Bob
Have you ever made anything? Like model airplanes, paintings, or whatever? You care about what you've made. At least anybody I've met who likes doing such does.
That's assuming God's not an asshole. Given his track record of creating people just so they can go to hell, killing off mass amounts of people, testing people in various inhumane ways, and not doing anything to help protect the most innocent of his creations, I'd say he's a douche.
#47
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Silent Bob
Or allowing hell to exist in the first place! Isn't eternity a little long for a punishment?
Or allowing hell to exist in the first place! Isn't eternity a little long for a punishment?
#48
Silent Bob
The problem of hell: infinite punishment for finite sin.
Silent Bob
Silent Bob
Or allowing hell to exist in the first place! Isn't eternity a little long for a punishment?
The problem of hell: infinite punishment for finite sin.
#49
blotsfan
blotsfan
Become Jewish. Hell lasts for a year at most.
#50
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
It depends, I suppose, on the amount of talent and effort invested. I make thousands of skin cells daily, but care little for any of them. They are all intricate pieces of work, but I would call none of them my chrostith.Have you ever made anything? Like model airplanes, paintings, or whatever? You care about what you've made. At least anybody I've met who likes doing such does.
--Patrick
#51
Espy
Espy
Or at least read some decent theological writers and try to understand the biblical concept beyond what pop-culture and maybe a random church visit or street preacher screaming at the top of his lungs seems to have given people.Become Jewish. Hell lasts for a year at most.
#52
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
I am not sure if there is a god, but I sure as hell no he has no effect on my life. There's no mystical force that controls my destiny.
#53
Bowielee
I'm a staunch determinist in the scientific sense. Basically it means that I don't really think free will is a real thing, but rather a social concept that is a mechanism by which we can psychologically justify our actions.
But that's just me.
Bowielee
No, just physical forces.I am not sure if there is a god, but I sure as hell no he has no effect on my life. There's no mystical force that controls my destiny.
I'm a staunch determinist in the scientific sense. Basically it means that I don't really think free will is a real thing, but rather a social concept that is a mechanism by which we can psychologically justify our actions.
But that's just me.
#54
Necronic
Necronic
Unless force is by definition mystical.I am not sure if there is a god, but I sure as hell no he has no effect on my life. There's no mystical force that controls my destiny.
#55
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Many forces do remain unexplained, though Clarke's 3rd law may apply.Unless force is by definition mystical.
--Patrick
#56
Necronic
Necronic
My point is that I've never understood why the existence of physical laws precludes the potential for their divinity, in fact I think there's a case for the opposite. When you are making a program you design it to follow a system of rules, the goal being ultimately to have a system that is self-sufficiently capable of withstanding any input within it's parameters. Why would God design the universe any differently? What is logical to me is that, if God created the universe, he would create it with a system of physical laws that were complex enough to allow for the diversity and expansion that the universe has, but also simple enough to be reduced down to singular fundamental theorems.
The search for universal field theory could simply be another name for the search for god.
To say that physical laws allow us to explain the existence of a universe without god misunderstands the potential for those laws themselves to be our perception of god's work. And honestly, anyone who has studied much science can see the incredible complexity and yet beautiful simplicity that lies behind the working of the universe. I'm not saying that it's proof of god, but it doesn't disprove him.
The search for universal field theory could simply be another name for the search for god.
To say that physical laws allow us to explain the existence of a universe without god misunderstands the potential for those laws themselves to be our perception of god's work. And honestly, anyone who has studied much science can see the incredible complexity and yet beautiful simplicity that lies behind the working of the universe. I'm not saying that it's proof of god, but it doesn't disprove him.
#57
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
By the same token, I'm not saying there is no God, just that proof of God's existence has not been scientifically verified. The fact that He has not yet been scientifically verified neither proves nor disproves His existence, and the very act of trying to do either will meet with certain fundamental challenges that may make it impossible to reach a definitive conclusion in either direction.I'm not saying that it's proof of god, but it doesn't disprove him.
--Patrick
#58
Necronic
Necronic
Oh yeah, I mean, that I agree with. You can't prove or disprove religion.
#59
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Why hasn't anyone pointed out I made a Star Wars reference? Was it too subtle?
Any way while I could(and that's a big could) believe someone would make the universe maintaining it is another thing all together. And even if the angels are made to help maintain it, something as complicated as atomic energy clinging together to create atoms, those atoms clinging together to make molecules, those molecules clinging together to make constructs and so and so on is far too big to control in my opinion. Every single instance, every single planet, every single molecule under one maybe a few beings control? Its just unfathomable to me.
Any way while I could(and that's a big could) believe someone would make the universe maintaining it is another thing all together. And even if the angels are made to help maintain it, something as complicated as atomic energy clinging together to create atoms, those atoms clinging together to make molecules, those molecules clinging together to make constructs and so and so on is far too big to control in my opinion. Every single instance, every single planet, every single molecule under one maybe a few beings control? Its just unfathomable to me.
#60
Necronic
Necronic
The workings of an infinite and inifinitely powerful being are unfathomable to you?
#61
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Hahah. But even so the idea of anything to me having unlimited power just can't exist to me. If god does exist he would most likely have actual limits, and would most likely be able to die. I cannot believe that a single being would be able to be every where at once without going insane. Its the idea of utmost perfection that bothers me the most.
#62
Necronic
Necronic
I can understand that. At my core I'm a Taoist. I believe that there is a fundamental truth/god in the universe, but it's being is so vast, infinite, and perfect, that it is impossible for me to actually concieve. I don't believe that an infinite being can actually be concieved/understood by a finite being. It's like the head of the Ouroboros trying to concieve of it's whole body. It's a paradox, as we are part of the infinite, but only an infinitessimal part of it.
So, you know, that's why Taoists say that the Tao that can be spoken of is not the True Tao.
So, you know, that's why Taoists say that the Tao that can be spoken of is not the True Tao.
#63
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
I've been meaning to research Tao. I'm a big fan of Journey to the West and love the mythology from it.
Going old Testament god, one concept I've always found funny is how he said "Worship no gods before me, for I am a Jealous god." He said that there were gods "before" him. Saying that he isn't the original god. Also I read from the 50 things your not supposed to know books, that apparently "Jealous" is god's actual name. Like how he said he is a "Jealous god". That is a trip. So the god in Old and New Testaments probably didn't create the universe and is just some magic guy in the sky. That is how I would believe god to be, not the all knowing creator of the universe who controls everything, but a magical being who protects those that worship him. This is more believable to me, especially how there could be more than one god akin to the Greek Olympian deities or the Japanese kami, or the mish-mash of native American spirits that I forget.
Going old Testament god, one concept I've always found funny is how he said "Worship no gods before me, for I am a Jealous god." He said that there were gods "before" him. Saying that he isn't the original god. Also I read from the 50 things your not supposed to know books, that apparently "Jealous" is god's actual name. Like how he said he is a "Jealous god". That is a trip. So the god in Old and New Testaments probably didn't create the universe and is just some magic guy in the sky. That is how I would believe god to be, not the all knowing creator of the universe who controls everything, but a magical being who protects those that worship him. This is more believable to me, especially how there could be more than one god akin to the Greek Olympian deities or the Japanese kami, or the mish-mash of native American spirits that I forget.
#64
Necronic
Necronic
Well, you have to understand that the Bible was not just a religious text, it was also a sales pitch. The world was heavily polytheistic at the time, and monotheism was effectively unheard of. In many places in the Old Testament there are hints at the defeat and death of the polytheistic deities from before.
In Genesis it talks about God creating the heaven and the earth and the seas etc. In the original Hebrew the word used for the sea is (I believe) the same as for a contemporary oceanic god. By co-opting this god as a non-divine creation of God you are selling monotheism.
In fact, when you really go back, the Abrahamic god was actually a deity with polytheistic roots (Summerian I believe), and could be thought of back in the early days of Christianity/Judaism as more of a Henotheistic deity (one God with many faces/minor deities below him). So, from their perspective, there was this kind of Deity Royal Rumble and the Christian God came out on top (or had actually always been on top but was presenting himself differently before).
I'm telling you, learning Christian history is fascinating and I think everyone should do it.
As for Taoism, it's hard to learn/teach, but if I may give you one bit of advice it's this: Ignore the mythology. The mythology is meaningless and is generally local folklore that was tacked on over time. I mean, the mythology is cool, no doubt (they have a monkey god ffs), but it really has nothing to do with the religion.
In Genesis it talks about God creating the heaven and the earth and the seas etc. In the original Hebrew the word used for the sea is (I believe) the same as for a contemporary oceanic god. By co-opting this god as a non-divine creation of God you are selling monotheism.
In fact, when you really go back, the Abrahamic god was actually a deity with polytheistic roots (Summerian I believe), and could be thought of back in the early days of Christianity/Judaism as more of a Henotheistic deity (one God with many faces/minor deities below him). So, from their perspective, there was this kind of Deity Royal Rumble and the Christian God came out on top (or had actually always been on top but was presenting himself differently before).
I'm telling you, learning Christian history is fascinating and I think everyone should do it.
As for Taoism, it's hard to learn/teach, but if I may give you one bit of advice it's this: Ignore the mythology. The mythology is meaningless and is generally local folklore that was tacked on over time. I mean, the mythology is cool, no doubt (they have a monkey god ffs), but it really has nothing to do with the religion.
#65
Reverent-one
Reverent-one
No, he's saying not to worship any gods other than him. The commandment is "You shall have no other gods before me", or alternatively "You must not have any other god but me" or any other translation that says to not worship any god other than him.Going old Testament god, one concept I've always found funny is how he said "Worship no gods before me, for I am a Jealous god." He said that there were gods "before" him. Saying that he isn't the original god.
#66
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
I'm pretty sure the translation is "Thous shalt not worship any gods before me" implying there were gods made before him, but that is just one interpretation. It is incredibly debatable.
Necronic Ignore the mythology, hmmmmmmmmm. I could use that my story. And a deity rumble? That sounds freakin sweet! I am also using that thank you.
Necronic Ignore the mythology, hmmmmmmmmm. I could use that my story. And a deity rumble? That sounds freakin sweet! I am also using that thank you.
#67
Reverent-one
Reverent-one
No, it's not. The translation is "You shall have no other gods before me" and the meaning is clear. I'll let wiki cover the details.I'm pretty sure the translation is "Thous shalt not worship any gods before me" implying there were gods made before him, but that is just one interpretation. It is incredibly debatable.
#68
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
I read it in a book, "50 things your not supposed to know". I'm pretty sure its true but if not chocolate kudos to you.No, it's not. The translation is "You shall have no other gods before me" and the meaning is clear. I'll let wiki cover the details.
#69
Reverent-one
Reverent-one
So basically: "Dude, this one book says it, it must be true!"
#70
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Isn't that how all this got started to begin with?So basically: "Dude, this one book says it, it must be true!"
#71
Reverent-one
Reverent-one
Some would claim that. Others would disagree. Little can be proven one way or the other.Isn't that how all this got started to begin with?
#72
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
GAH, ya beat to it Poe. And I looked it up and I read its from the King James version Exodus 34: 14 "Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." There ya go.
#73
Reverent-one
Reverent-one
Notice the lack of "before me" (not that it would change the meaning in this context, but still, that was your claim about the translation). So how does that verse prove (or even imply) that God is admitting to other gods existing before him?GAH, ya beat to it Poe. And I looked it up and I read its from the King James version Exodus 34: 14 "Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." There ya go.
#74
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Okay I will admit the "before" part was my bad memory, but he also doesn't say that there AREN'T other gods. He says not to worship other gods than him. So...gray area there.
#75
Reverent-one
Reverent-one
And at other points he clearly says that he is the only one (like Deuteronomy 4:35 and Isaiah 45:5-6), does that help clarify the gray area?Okay I will admit the "before" part was my bad memory, but he also doesn't say that there AREN'T other gods. He says not to worship other gods than him. So...gray area there.
#76
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
The idea of 'before' should likely be understood as; above/other than/at all.
#77
Bowielee
It's a really good history of the fall of polytheism and the rise of monotheism in the Roman Empire.
Bowielee
Relevent text: God Against the GodsWell, you have to understand that the Bible was not just a religious text, it was also a sales pitch. The world was heavily polytheistic at the time, and monotheism was effectively unheard of. In many places in the Old Testament there are hints at the defeat and death of the polytheistic deities from before.
In Genesis it talks about God creating the heaven and the earth and the seas etc. In the original Hebrew the word used for the sea is (I believe) the same as for a contemporary oceanic god. By co-opting this god as a non-divine creation of God you are selling monotheism.
In fact, when you really go back, the Abrahamic god was actually a deity with polytheistic roots (Summerian I believe), and could be thought of back in the early days of Christianity/Judaism as more of a Henotheistic deity (one God with many faces/minor deities below him). So, from their perspective, there was this kind of Deity Royal Rumble and the Christian God came out on top (or had actually always been on top but was presenting himself differently before).
I'm telling you, learning Christian history is fascinating and I think everyone should do it.
As for Taoism, it's hard to learn/teach, but if I may give you one bit of advice it's this: Ignore the mythology. The mythology is meaningless and is generally local folklore that was tacked on over time. I mean, the mythology is cool, no doubt (they have a monkey god ffs), but it really has nothing to do with the religion.
It's a really good history of the fall of polytheism and the rise of monotheism in the Roman Empire.
#78
Reverent-one
Reverent-one
This is also true. I just figured he was referencing the wrong verse anyway, as he was, and decided not to bring up unneccessary points.The idea of 'before' should likely be understood as; above/other than/at all.
#79
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Issaiah yes...if the Exodus line didn't make it confusing. If there were no other gods, than what the hell is there to be jealous of Jealous? The Exodus line implies that there MIGHT have been other gods, but the original Isaaiah line states with definite certainty that there were no other gods. And the fact that the Dueteronomy line is eerily similar to the Issaiah line feels kind-of like he's forcing it, like people forgot from the first book.I might be looking to much into it, but it is a big continuity error for me.And at other points he clearly says that he is the only one (like Deuteronomy 4:35 and Isaiah 45:5-6), does that help clarify the gray area?
#80
Necronic
Necronic
There's also Snowcrash, which, while not exactly a scholarly book, has some pretty cool stuff about Asherah, Yahweh's "consort"/bff god buddy, in it. It also has techno-ninjas.Relevent text: God Against the Gods
It's a really good history of the fall of polytheism and the rise of monotheism in the Roman Empire.
#81
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
The Exodus line is that there are other gods that other people are worshiping, like the dozens back in Egypt. They no longer exist, and if you make him angry by worshiping Baahl he'll start smiting things...
#82
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Aaaaaaaaah, that actually does make a bit of sense. So he gets angry at people basically worshiping dead people. Because he is the fancy pants new god that will always be in style and will never be replaced. Though logic dictates that if those gods could die and be replaced, his reign would come to an end as well. So logically Jealous can die him/her/itself and is just playing him/her/itself up. Meh, whatever works for him/it/her.The Exodus line is that there are other gods that other people are worshiping, like the dozens back in Egypt. They no longer exist, and if you make him angry by worshiping Baahl he'll start smiting things...
#83
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
How is it logical for the one true god to die?
Nietzsche aside...
Nietzsche aside...
#84
Necronic
Necronic
I think a more appropriate way to look at it is that history is written by the winners. It's not that he beat those other Gods, but that they never existed. But really he beat them and made them not exist.
Or something like that.
Or something like that.
#85
Eriol
Eriol
Logically, there's only a few possibilities:
- There is no God or Gods. Never was. Complete fabrication of culture over time.
- There is or was many Gods, and some have been beaten by, and/or destroyed, and/or killed by ones that still exist, and/or some are just not prominent anymore. This overlaps with the case of that the Monothestic Gods are lying to their followers and that more than "just them" exist.
- There has only ever been one God or one Pantheon and/or one Religion is "right" and the rest are fabrications by those that didn't believe in that said God. This overlaps with the idea that one exists and no religion has it right either (agnostic, kinda) and/or they haven't made themselves known.
- There are multiple "faces" on actually only one divine source. So Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, Thor, and whomever else you want to throw in there (I did pick the first 4 that I could put a "name" to) are all actually the same dude/dudette, with some mangling of message over time. This kind of overlaps with #3 depending on how you look at things.
#86
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
I'll believe the polytheistic belief, mostly out of if there is an etheric world that would be the most logical outcome in my opinion. And yes, I am using logic to explain how spiritual/mythological/magical beings could exist. Over-analyzing is my true purpose and I'm all-right with that.
#87
Bowielee
Bowielee
You're missing one. The belief that God IS the set of rules that govern the universe, rather than some sort of mystical being therefore making god and science indivisible.Logically, there's only a few possibilities:
Another labeling might be: #1 = Atheism, #2 = Polytheism, and #3 = Monotheism, with #4 being a sub-set of #3.
- There is no God or Gods. Never was. Complete fabrication of culture over time.
- There is or was many Gods, and some have been beaten by, and/or destroyed, and/or killed by ones that still exist, and/or some are just not prominent anymore. This overlaps with the case of that the Monothestic Gods are lying to their followers and that more than "just them" exist.
- There has only ever been one God or one Pantheon and/or one Religion is "right" and the rest are fabrications by those that didn't believe in that said God. This overlaps with the idea that one exists and no religion has it right either (agnostic, kinda) and/or they haven't made themselves known.
- There are multiple "faces" on actually only one divine source. So Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, Thor, and whomever else you want to throw in there (I did pick the first 4 that I could put a "name" to) are all actually the same dude/dudette, with some mangling of message over time. This kind of overlaps with #3 depending on how you look at things.
#88
Silent Bob
Silent Bob
hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kidI am not sure if there is a god, but I sure as hell no he has no effect on my life. There's no mystical force that controls my destiny.
#89
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Heh, we did that quote backwards.
If god is the natural force of science I would buy that, but said force being sentient is another matter itself. If god is the forces of science, that basically makes him the entire universe. Meaning the universe itself is one living breathing organism that has full control of all its organs, limbs, and microorganisms inside it. So...could the universe theoretically get sick? And if so, what medicine does the universe take or what food does a universe eat? This...is making me rethink everything in all honesty. What if the multiverse is just a couple of organisms and alternate universes are made by other universes procreating. What if we as microorganisms inside said macro organism can be turned into waste? Maybe thats what black holes REALLY are! The entry way to the universe's small intestines where we become corroded into nothing but waste. If so, than the meaning of life literally shit happens. And I can believe that.
If god is the natural force of science I would buy that, but said force being sentient is another matter itself. If god is the forces of science, that basically makes him the entire universe. Meaning the universe itself is one living breathing organism that has full control of all its organs, limbs, and microorganisms inside it. So...could the universe theoretically get sick? And if so, what medicine does the universe take or what food does a universe eat? This...is making me rethink everything in all honesty. What if the multiverse is just a couple of organisms and alternate universes are made by other universes procreating. What if we as microorganisms inside said macro organism can be turned into waste? Maybe thats what black holes REALLY are! The entry way to the universe's small intestines where we become corroded into nothing but waste. If so, than the meaning of life literally shit happens. And I can believe that.
#90
Necronic
Necronic
Sentience itself may be a concept that doesn't apply to the infinite. Can a perfect being even make a choice?
#91
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Ah, like Doctor Manhattan. Could a sentient all powerful being truly be considered all powerful if it is merely the manifestation of the forces of the universe and could only act based on what would and will logically happen? Would be able to choose, or would it only be able to act out what was pre-destined to happen? These are things to think of when thinking of higher beings.Sentience itself may be a concept that doesn't apply to the infinite. Can a perfect being even make a choice?
#92
Terrik
Also, KJV is a horrible translation.
Terrik
With all due respect, for matters of translation, one would have to look back to the original languages, namely Aramaic and Koine Greek if one really wanted to make this kind of argument.GAH, ya beat to it Poe. And I looked it up and I read its from the King James version Exodus 34: 14 "Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." There ya go.
Also, KJV is a horrible translation.
#93
bhamv3
bhamv3
If God is the physical forces that make up the fundamental rules of our universe, wouldn't that make prayer rather superfluous?
#94
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
This is true, but I've looked on a lot of bible sites and this is said to be the literal translation. I've also read the arabic word for jealous can mean different things so it could mean something else entirely. Preeeeeeeeeety confusing.With all due respect, for matters of translation, one would have to look back to the original languages, namely Aramaic and Koine Greek if one really wanted to make this kind of argument.
Also, KJV is a horrible translation.
#95
Bowielee
Bowielee
Yes, and it would also take questions of intent or culpability for the existence of evil out of the equation. Because good and evil would be an entirely man made construct.If God is the physical forces that make up the fundamental rules of our universe, wouldn't that make prayer rather superfluous?
#97
Espy
Basically you were getting stuck on a word, "before" and assigning your own idea of what that meant, in this case a chronological meaning, when, as has been pointed out, the concept is about putting Yahweh first in one's life/worship.
Translations and textual criticism get really, really tricky. KVJ is actually a terrible translation. New American Standard is probably the most "literal" which does not mean "best". Currently the ESV is probably the best modern translation if one wants to read it.
Remember that textual criticism is a very, very in depth field. People spend years and years learning how to translate and deal with ancient texts and it's still hard for them with their fancy Doctorates and such, let alone us random schlubs on the inter webs.
Espy
I didn't notice your later posts. I was responding to your original post about the "before" thing. You actually took it somewhere good though so I retract my "no".Jus....no....what?
Basically you were getting stuck on a word, "before" and assigning your own idea of what that meant, in this case a chronological meaning, when, as has been pointed out, the concept is about putting Yahweh first in one's life/worship.
Translations and textual criticism get really, really tricky. KVJ is actually a terrible translation. New American Standard is probably the most "literal" which does not mean "best". Currently the ESV is probably the best modern translation if one wants to read it.
Remember that textual criticism is a very, very in depth field. People spend years and years learning how to translate and deal with ancient texts and it's still hard for them with their fancy Doctorates and such, let alone us random schlubs on the inter webs.
#98
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Hooray! Before, any other, its all good in the hood! Really though I thought it was "before" cos that was the version that was drilled into me as a kid from relatives and TV specials.
#99
Espy
Espy
There are versions that say "before". However the way you are defining "before" in this case would not be correct. It is not about there being other gods existing "before" God it would be about not worshiping any other God but Yahweh. Make sense? Kind of like how I can say, "I LOVE cheeseburgers" and "I LOVE my wife" but mean two very different things.
#100
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Yup, got it now. The original line has some ambiguity, but the before text is straight up.
#101
PatrThom
PatrThom
(first of all, let me say that I'm being completely serious in this post)
Now see, all this time I took "before" to mean "presented" as in, "the prisoner was brought before the judge." Thus I saw it not as "You will not value any other gods higher than you value me (priority)," nor "You will not place me later in the sequence of worship (order)," but instead "You will not let me see/catch you worshipping other gods (perception)" where "before" just essentially meant "within my field of view" (which, being the God of Abraham and Isaac, and omnipresent and all, would make it pretty much impossible to sneak in any kind of service to another deity, anywhere, anytime).
--Patrick
Now see, all this time I took "before" to mean "presented" as in, "the prisoner was brought before the judge." Thus I saw it not as "You will not value any other gods higher than you value me (priority)," nor "You will not place me later in the sequence of worship (order)," but instead "You will not let me see/catch you worshipping other gods (perception)" where "before" just essentially meant "within my field of view" (which, being the God of Abraham and Isaac, and omnipresent and all, would make it pretty much impossible to sneak in any kind of service to another deity, anywhere, anytime).
--Patrick
#102
tegid
tegid
# 5 Pantheism?You're missing one. The belief that God IS the set of rules that govern the universe, rather than some sort of mystical being therefore making god and science indivisible.
#103
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Man there sure are a lot of definitions for before. Cray-cray.
So does god have a physical form at least according to the old and new testaments? Is that specified?
So does god have a physical form at least according to the old and new testaments? Is that specified?
#104
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
No actual physical manifestations. But he was present to Moses in the form of a fire that did not consume the bush. Also he manifested himself in the form of messengers (angels) and his son.
#105
Eriol
Eriol
Burning bush and Jesus are the only ones I can think of off-hand, but I'm not exactly a scholar for this type of thing. And the first is basically a manifestation, and the second is really, really, really complicated as to the "was Jesus God, some of God, half-God, etc?" There are people that have built their entire philosophical and/or theological careers on that one question alone.So does god have a physical form at least according to the old and new testaments? Is that specified?
#106
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Oh yeah...the Jesus thing. Sweet suffering seventh circle of hell that is confusing. Do they have independent sapience, were they the same being since Jesus was born, ITS ALL CONFUSING!
#107
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
If you're mormon, then God has a physical form, and his own planet.
#108
jwhouk
jwhouk
#109
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Doesn't everybody in Mormonism get a planet? Not that special than really. Also what a guy do with a whole planet to himself? It just seems boring.
Or am I thinking of something else?
Or am I thinking of something else?
#110
Eriol
Eriol
Really? Enlighten us if you please.If you're mormon, then God has a physical form, and his own planet.
#111
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
All I know about Mormonism is that they have a musical that I really want to see. That and their founder is an ex-con.
#112
Bowielee
It's kind of like a combination of christianity and scientology.
Bowielee
All I know about Mormonism is that they have a musical that I really want to see. That and their founder is an ex-con.
It's kind of like a combination of christianity and scientology.
#113
Ravenpoe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob
excerpt, spoilered for length
As for God having a physical form,
Ravenpoe
Really? Enlighten us if you please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob
excerpt, spoilered for length
Kolob is a star or planet described in Mormon scripture. Reference to Kolob is found in the Book of Abraham, a work published by Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. According to this work, Kolob is the heavenly body nearest to the throne of God. While the Book of Abraham refers to Kolob as a "star",[Abraham 3:2-3] it also refers to planets as stars,[Gee, Hamblin & Peterson (2006) (noting "Confusion between the uses of the terms stars and planets").] and therefore, some LDS commentators consider Kolob to be a planet.[See, e.g., Alvin R. Dyer, "BYU Speeches", April 7, 1964, pp. 14–15.]
Kolob has never been identified with any modern astronomical object and is not recognized by scholars as a concept associated with any ancient civilization. Kolob is rarely discussed in modern LDS religious contexts, but it is periodically a topic of discussion in criticism of Mormonism. The idea appears within LDS culture, including an LDS hymn about it.[4] Kolob is also the inspiration for the fictional planet Kobol within the Battlestar Galactica universe, created by Glen A. Larson, a Mormon.[5][6]
Description in the Book of Abraham
Facsimile No. 2 from the Book of Abraham, which Smith said discusses Kolob. The part Smith said refers to Kolob is numbered by a "1" in the center.
The first published reference to Kolob is found in the Book of Abraham, first published in the 1842 newspaper Times and Seasons and now included within the Pearl of Great Price as part of the canon of Mormonism. The Book of Abraham was dictated in 1836 by Latter Day Saint movement founder Joseph Smith, Jr. after he purchased a set of Egyptian scrolls that accompanied a mummy exhibition. According to Smith, the scrolls described a vision of Abraham, in which Abraham:
"saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God;....and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest."[7]
In an explanation of an Egyptian hypocephalus that was part of the Book of Abraham scrolls, Joseph Smith interpreted one set of hieroglyphics as representing:
"Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh."[8]
The Book of Abraham describes a hierarchy of heavenly bodies,[9] including the earth, its moon, and the sun, each with different movements and measurements of time, where at the pinnacle, the slowest-rotating body is Kolob, where one Kolob-day corresponds to 1000 earth-years,[10] with similarities to 2 Peter 3:8 which says "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years". Additional, similar information about Kolob is found in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, constituting manuscripts in the handwriting of Smith and his scribes.
As for God having a physical form,
source: http://www.irr.org/mit/finessing-god-once-a-man.htmlJoseph Smith said:I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us.... (“King Follett Discourse,” Journal of Discourses 6:3-4, also in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-346, and History of the Church, vol. 6, 305-307, emphasis added)
#114
jwhouk
jwhouk
"I so strongly believe that the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults. They have withstood offense for centuries." - H.R. Clinton
#115
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Why do I get the feeling this is just Joseph Smith's bad sci-fi novel, and in the final edit put Jesus stuff in? Also I know the budget was probably small, but they could've AT LEAST gave the demons cooler designs.
#116
Eriol
Eriol
Can't tell if you're intentionally mocking Scientology here or not. If so, great deadpan. If not... ouch.Why do I get the feeling this is just Joseph Smith's bad sci-fi novel, and in the final edit put Jesus stuff in? Also I know the budget was probably small, but they could've AT LEAST gave the demons cooler designs.
#117
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
I've experiment with deadpan every now and again.
On Scientology, the alien souls thing I've always thought was pretty cool science FICTION. No need to be making religions based on sci-fi. Taking science fiction too seriously is what made that guy go crazy in "Breakfast of Champions." Damn that book is good.
On Scientology, the alien souls thing I've always thought was pretty cool science FICTION. No need to be making religions based on sci-fi. Taking science fiction too seriously is what made that guy go crazy in "Breakfast of Champions." Damn that book is good.
#118
tegid
tegid
I have no idea about this, but I think this sentence
might be relevant.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob
Kolob is rarely discussed in modern LDS religious contexts, but it is periodically a topic of discussion in criticism of Mormonism.
#119
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
It's basically the same as bringing up Leviticus and his prohibitions against shellfish and tattoos: It's a legitimate point mainly because the Church hasn't bothered to say anything about it. If they did, no one would bring it up or at least they'd be shut the fuck up when they are pointed to the church's current stance on it.
#120
Espy
Seriously, most of these "gotcha" things you guys come up with that you think are so clever are things that even a basic Christian theology class would go over.
Espy
What are you talking about? What "stance" would you like the "church" to take? Leviticus is one of the 5 books of the Jewish Torah. It is the primary source of Jewish Law. It deals with major theological issues of holiness and atoning for sin but it is also, especially when viewed in it's context, ancient cultural law for an ancient people. In Christianity it's part of what we consider the "historical" books and while it doesn't form the basis for any "law" that Christians are under, since Christ came to fulfill the law. It's still revered as something important to the Jewish people who form Christianity's spiritual heritage but not relevant to Christians today in the sense that it should be followed. It's history.It's basically the same as bringing up Leviticus and his prohibitions against shellfish and tattoos: It's a legitimate point mainly because the Church hasn't bothered to say anything about it. If they did, no one would bring it up or at least they'd be shut the fuck up when they are pointed to the church's current stance on it.
Seriously, most of these "gotcha" things you guys come up with that you think are so clever are things that even a basic Christian theology class would go over.
#121
Frank
Frank
The only part of Leviticus some Christians like to quote today is the part where it says it's important to kill gay people. Ignoring that it's also important to kill people with tattoos and men and women who cheat on their spouses (amongst a variety of other subjects it's important to kill people over).
#122
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
... So why aren't they saying that instead of just ignoring it? Simply coming out and saying "That doesn't apply to Christians, because the law has been fulfilled by Christ's arrival" would basically be enough for me to ignore it. It's a silly answer, but at least it's one that makes sense in the context of the story. Needs of the plot and all.
Then again, I'm already sick of explaining to people what existentialism and agnosticism are and how they are different than atheism, so it's probably like that. My family STILL doesn't get it and treat me like a godless heathen at times.
Then again, I'm already sick of explaining to people what existentialism and agnosticism are and how they are different than atheism, so it's probably like that. My family STILL doesn't get it and treat me like a godless heathen at times.
#123
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
If there is a holy being in the sky, I am pretty sure he doesn't give 3 shits about being gay or having tattoos. I'd think he'd be too busy appearing in tacos or whatever.
Remember that? When random people in the news would just see Jesus in stuff? What happened to that? I miss the craziness of it.
Remember that? When random people in the news would just see Jesus in stuff? What happened to that? I miss the craziness of it.
#124
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
It got lost in the noise, now that everyone can easily do it.What happened to that? I miss the craziness of it.
--Patrick
#125
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
..............wow. I am not sure if that is stupid or awesome. So I'll just say its stupid awesome.
#126
Espy
Most churches/denominations have the same basic tenants but you will find a wide variety of views on about 95% of everything else.
Now, the part that you and I really do agree on in general here is that most Christians DO ignore the Old Testament. They are terrified of it. They have no idea how to make sense of everything because far to many churches and pastors are terrified of it so the shitty teaching they have gets handed down to their congregations and even that isn't very much. The root of the problem is that the "church" in general doesn't do a good job of dealing with the OT for a very wide variety of reasons. There is a revival of sorts right now, of people trying to bring a reasonable and scholarly view of the OT back into the church. Thats how I taught it when I was an adjunct at a Christian College.
I wasn't invited back the next semester and the other professors associate with me were fired. We were to "liberal" apparently for the financial backers.
What they meant by "liberal" of course was, scholarly.
Espy
Who is "they"? You do realize there are over 2.2 BILLION people, thats a third of the population of the planet. Keeping in mind there are so many denominations and varieties of churches that trying to lump "christians" in as one big groups who all have come to the same consensus on theology is like trying to herd cats.... So why aren't they saying that instead of just ignoring it?
Most churches/denominations have the same basic tenants but you will find a wide variety of views on about 95% of everything else.
Now, the part that you and I really do agree on in general here is that most Christians DO ignore the Old Testament. They are terrified of it. They have no idea how to make sense of everything because far to many churches and pastors are terrified of it so the shitty teaching they have gets handed down to their congregations and even that isn't very much. The root of the problem is that the "church" in general doesn't do a good job of dealing with the OT for a very wide variety of reasons. There is a revival of sorts right now, of people trying to bring a reasonable and scholarly view of the OT back into the church. Thats how I taught it when I was an adjunct at a Christian College.
I wasn't invited back the next semester and the other professors associate with me were fired. We were to "liberal" apparently for the financial backers.
What they meant by "liberal" of course was, scholarly.
Well, you might think it's silly, but to anyone who studies it it's fascinating to watch cultures change and grow, get destroyed, get reformed, deal with the issues they face, etc. The sacrifice of Christ served to cover ALL the law, so no more sacrifices were necessary. No longer were people having to live under condemnation of their sins, Christ was literally dying in their place and paying the price for them. Hardly silly.Simply coming out and saying "That doesn't apply to Christians, because the law has been fulfilled by Christ's arrival" would basically be enough for me to ignore it. It's a silly answer, but at least it's one that makes sense in the context of the story. Needs of the plot and all.
Probably. People love to talk/debate about religion, particularly Christianity, few really know much about it just like most major religions or faiths.Then again, I'm already sick of explaining to people what existentialism and agnosticism are and how they are different than atheism, so it's probably like that. My family STILL doesn't get it and treat me like a godless heathen at times.
#127
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
See, the thing is that I DID have a few years of catholic theology classes. The problem is that they really don't bother to teach you much about the old testament outside of a few approved stories, mostly because they have no way to reconcile half of what is happening with modern sensibilities. Your approach to teach it from a historical perspective probably was the right idea, but that would mean exposing people to it... and offended people rarely step into churches.Probably. People love to talk/debate about religion, particularly Christianity, few really know much about it just like most major religions or faiths.
#128
Espy
Espy
I'm with you, like I said above, that is where we 100% agree. Far to much of the church, including catholic and protestant branches don't know how to teach on the OT so they ignore most of it.
My approach wasn't necessarily historical, although that was one part of it, it was mainly focused on using current scholarly thought. Which means really looking at genre, history and culture rather than cherry picking out what fits safely on a flannel graph
My approach wasn't necessarily historical, although that was one part of it, it was mainly focused on using current scholarly thought. Which means really looking at genre, history and culture rather than cherry picking out what fits safely on a flannel graph
#129
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
I remember reading a weird old testament rule about sacrificing goats. What is the deal and old religions and sacrificing goats? I don't know why they'd kill a goat for no reason, goat meat is gooooooooooood. Did god really only forgive sin if you waster perfectly good live-stock? If so than god has very wasteful tastes and I do not care for him.
#130
blotsfan
blotsfan
Actually when animal sacrifices were made in the temple, only the fat had to be sacrificed. People could eat the rest. Really the sacrifice was that the meat ha to be boiled instead of cooked in a tastier way (yes there is a case in the bible of priests getting in trouble for bbqing the meat instead of boiling it).
#131
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Getting rid of the delicious animal fat....not as bad as just throwing away the goat but still something I find questionable. Did they have to get rid of the fat all the time, or was this just for specific occasions?
#132
Covar
Covar
Getting rid of something of no value to you is not a sacrifice.
#133
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Didn't it have value to them? Or was all animal fat and barbecue just a sin to them then? I am confused now.Getting rid of something of no value to you is not a sacrifice.
#134
Chad Sexington
Chad Sexington
He's saying it wouldn't have been a sacrifice if it didn't have value. I.e: it was not a waste, it was a sacrifice. You don't seem to appreciate that these people didn't see it as 'not using delicious fat', they believed in God, and saw it as giving up this good thing so that they could show they're appreciation and faith to that God.Didn't it have value to them? Or was all animal fat and barbecue just a sin to them then? I am confused now.
#135
Bowielee
Bowielee
So, what IS the offical church stance on the fact that rulers over the years have culled books from the bible to shape it into what they wanted?
#136
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
You mean when the emperor sat down the different churches and had them produce one set of scriptures and cull the books that where considered blasphemous?
#137
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Keep in mind I originally thought this animal sacrifice meant getting rid of the whole animal and THAT was what I one hundred percent disagreed with. Getting rid of the fat I don't necessarily abhor I just personally find it questionable because I was raised not to waste anything as long as it is edible. That's just me mind you. I do admit to respecting them for not doing something even though they liked it.You don't seem to appreciate that these people didn't see it as 'not using delicious fat', they believed in God, and saw it as giving up this good thing so that they could show they're appreciation and faith to that God.
#138
Bowielee
Bowielee
For Starters.
If the Bible is supposed to be an enduring record of the covenant with God, how is it that man has been able to cherry pick what is meaningful and what is not?
Also, is God such an asshole that all the people who believed other religions before his came into prominence (christianity is a relatively modern religion) are all going to hell simply because he couldn't be bothered to make his presence known?
If the Bible is supposed to be an enduring record of the covenant with God, how is it that man has been able to cherry pick what is meaningful and what is not?
Also, is God such an asshole that all the people who believed other religions before his came into prominence (christianity is a relatively modern religion) are all going to hell simply because he couldn't be bothered to make his presence known?
#139
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
The bible was not formed until the Council of Hippo in N.Africa. Until then each individual church wrote its own Gospel of the Founding Apostle/Disciple (at least 100 years after the events listed.) Some of those gospels became wildly different than what the larger churches had in their gospels.
#140
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
On the topic of hell, what's up with the whole dying for the sins of man-kind blurb? Does that mean that everybody is forgiven and nobody has to worry about being good as long as they're Christian? Or do we still have to follow the rules? If so, than Jesus didn't really die for anyone's sins since numerous people feel the need to live virtuous lives which doesn't make sense since Jesus all-ready died for our sins. Or was it just a metaphorical dying for our sins and we still have to be virtuous? I really REALLY find this confusing.
#141
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
You'll need to direct those questions to individual pastors/scholars of different backgrounds/faiths...
Wars have been fought over those questions.
Wars have been fought over those questions.
#142
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
This is true. What's your personal take on it?You'll need to direct those questions to individual pastors/scholars of different backgrounds/faiths...
Wars have been fought over those questions.
#143
Bowielee
Any sin you do during your life is all on you. It can only be washed away through whatever mechanism your particular flavor of christianity favors, be it through invocation, plenary indulgence, or confession and pennance.[DOUBLEPOST=1347852413][/DOUBLEPOST]For the record, I was a DEVOUT christian once upon a time and was one sexuality issue away from going to seminary school.
Bowielee
Actually, the catechism states that what Jesus washed away was ORIGINAL sin. That innate badness that we're all born with because Eve decided to eat an apple (actually, it's never stated what type of fruit it is, but apple seems to have stuck in the public concious) and give it to her husband. Because we're all descended from their wickedness, we are all born chock full of sin.On the topic of hell, what's up with the whole dying for the sins of man-kind blurb? Does that mean that everybody is forgiven and nobody has to worry about being good as long as they're Christian? Or do we still have to follow the rules? If so, than Jesus didn't really die for anyone's sins since numerous people feel the need to live virtuous lives which doesn't make sense since Jesus all-ready died for our sins. Or was it just a metaphorical dying for our sins and we still have to be virtuous? I really REALLY find this confusing.
Any sin you do during your life is all on you. It can only be washed away through whatever mechanism your particular flavor of christianity favors, be it through invocation, plenary indulgence, or confession and pennance.[DOUBLEPOST=1347852413][/DOUBLEPOST]For the record, I was a DEVOUT christian once upon a time and was one sexuality issue away from going to seminary school.
#144
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Oh I get it now! But wait... didn't the original sin from the fruit of knowledge give Adam and Eve...knowledge? So does this imply that every descendant they had before Jesus was super smart from the day they were born? So Jesus taking this away could arguably be seen as him punishing man for squandering such knowledge and taking said knowledge away. That is a really interesting concept if that is the implication. Very debatable though.
#145
Bowielee
The sin wasn't what the knowledge they gained, the sin was that they directly disobeyed god by eating it at all.
Also, the knowledge gained wasn't "intelligence" it was awareness of good and evil. Prior to that they were basically as innocent as every common animal.
Bowielee
Not at all...Oh I get it now! But wait... didn't the original sin from the fruit of knowledge give Adam and Eve...knowledge? So does this imply that every descendant they had before Jesus was super smart from the day they were born? So Jesus taking this away could arguably be seen as him punishing man for squandering such knowledge and taking said knowledge away. That is a really interesting concept if that is the implication. Very debatable though.
The sin wasn't what the knowledge they gained, the sin was that they directly disobeyed god by eating it at all.
Also, the knowledge gained wasn't "intelligence" it was awareness of good and evil. Prior to that they were basically as innocent as every common animal.
#146
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Now wait, does this washing of the original sin mean that Adam and Eve's descendants(being all of man-kind) ALSO had awareness of the difference between good and evil? Or was it just Adam and Eve who had said awareness and this was just a gesture forgiving them and all of man-kind for their original folly?Not at all...
The sin wasn't what the knowledge they gained, the sin was that they directly disobeyed god by eating it at all.
Also, the knowledge gained wasn't "intelligence" it was awareness of good and evil. Prior to that they were basically as innocent as every common animal.
#147
Bowielee
Bowielee
Yes, original sin is basically the capacity to do evil.
#148
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Prior to Jesus's crucifixion, anyone who wasn't one of God's chosen people (aka jewish) had no chance of getting into heaven, barring some loopholes involving blood sacrifice and ritual. This is because mankind was infected with original sin, and previously only the descendants of Abraham (again, the jews) had formed a covenant to obey God's rules and overcome it. Jesus was a 'perfect' sacrifice in that he was both man and god, and so the power of this sacrifice was able to extend that covenant to all mankind and free them of original sin. You still had to follow the rules, though.
Disclaimer: again, atheist, and it's been awhile since I've actively studied religion, so my memory could be a bit off.
Disclaimer: again, atheist, and it's been awhile since I've actively studied religion, so my memory could be a bit off.
#149
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Aaaaaaaaaaaaah I get it now. So basically Christianity was meant to be the new fun club that anyone could into I assume?
On the topic of Bhudism, what I've always found funny is how the main dude the Tathagata Bhuda in some stories could be basically a tyrant. Hell, in Journey to the West he arrested a scorpion...for stinging it. This caused it to turn into a monster and almost forced the monk Sanzang to do the deed with her(seriously). Also in a Japanese story, he used his armies(because a being of enlightenment and peace needs armies) to force Fuujinn and Raijinn to be Bhudists. Whether what they did was evil or not, that is some straight hardcore world conqueror style stuff right there.
On the topic of Bhudism, what I've always found funny is how the main dude the Tathagata Bhuda in some stories could be basically a tyrant. Hell, in Journey to the West he arrested a scorpion...for stinging it. This caused it to turn into a monster and almost forced the monk Sanzang to do the deed with her(seriously). Also in a Japanese story, he used his armies(because a being of enlightenment and peace needs armies) to force Fuujinn and Raijinn to be Bhudists. Whether what they did was evil or not, that is some straight hardcore world conqueror style stuff right there.
#150
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Those are works of fiction (I'm not going to go the snarky route and call all religious works fiction... but I want to.) The founder of Buddhism and the first Buddha was Siddhartha Gautama, a man from India. Born into a wealthy family, he found the lifestyle unsavory, and left to join various religious sects at the time that practiced asceticism (extreme fasting, denial of all worldly pleasures, etc) but also found that unsavory. He founded Buddhism as a 'middle way' to find balance between the two extremes.Aaaaaaaaaaaaah I get it now. So basically Christianity was meant to be the new fun club that anyone could into I assume?
On the topic of Bhudism, what I've always found funny is how the main dude the Tathagata Bhuda in some stories could be basically a tyrant. Hell, in Journey to the West he arrested a scorpion...for stinging it. This caused it to turn into a monster and almost forced the monk Sanzang to do the deed with her(seriously). Also in a Japanese story, he used his armies(because a being of enlightenment and peace needs armies) to force Fuujinn and Raijinn to be Bhudists. Whether what they did was evil or not, that is some straight hardcore world conqueror style stuff right there.
#151
Bowielee
Bowielee
Many people don't know that Buddha is a title, not a proper name.
#152
jwhouk
jwhouk
....
#153
Yoshimickster
I've always found Sidhartha's back-story...questionable. Does anyone else wonder if was REALLY a monarch/rich-dude before Bhudaing up? I question this since his actual place of origin is still debated and since until about 400 years after Bhudism's creation it was all told through spoken word and logically the original spoken word was told from ol Sid. In one story I read he traded his royal rich clothes for beggars clothes. Well...what if he was always a beggar? What if the origins of Bhudism are that some poor homeless schmuck found a way of enlightenment and made up a really cool back-story to go with it? Because if there is anyone who could create a crazy story about themselves and believe it, it would be the homeless.
But if the rich guy story is true, what happened to old Mrs. Gautama? I'd be pretty annoyed if my spouse left me to look for enlightenment and never even left a note.
Yoshimickster
I did too until a few years ago. Like how I was confused how in Journey to the West there were to Bhodisatvas. I was like "Wait...isn't she somewhere else?Many people don't know that Buddha is a title, not a proper name.
I've always found Sidhartha's back-story...questionable. Does anyone else wonder if was REALLY a monarch/rich-dude before Bhudaing up? I question this since his actual place of origin is still debated and since until about 400 years after Bhudism's creation it was all told through spoken word and logically the original spoken word was told from ol Sid. In one story I read he traded his royal rich clothes for beggars clothes. Well...what if he was always a beggar? What if the origins of Bhudism are that some poor homeless schmuck found a way of enlightenment and made up a really cool back-story to go with it? Because if there is anyone who could create a crazy story about themselves and believe it, it would be the homeless.
But if the rich guy story is true, what happened to old Mrs. Gautama? I'd be pretty annoyed if my spouse left me to look for enlightenment and never even left a note.