NationStates

The Parkus Empire wrote: God's capacity to become man and get killed and come back to life, lend credibility to his account.

If we believe that account to be truthful and trustworthy to begin with. So we're stuck again at #1: accepting things - especially absurd, paradoxical ones - by faith.

Alvecia wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote: God's capacity to become man and get killed and come back to life, lend credibility to his account.

That the story as he tells it.

It also doesn't settle the case. I'm pretty sure Superman has probably done that too, but that doesn't make Clark Kent infallible. Again, power does not equal total perfection.

Ethel mermania wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Because he's not. In any of the Abrahamic faiths. Except Mormonism.

And Judaism. We argue with God and influence his acts in the old testiments.

If you mean praying for mercy, yes, God shows mercy often to the petitioning party (Mark of Cain, for instance), and as intercession (frequently on behalf of Moses, but after God inflicted leprosy on Miriam for putting down Moses having an Ethiopian wife, God refused to shorten her affliction under a week despite Moses pleading for his sister). Otherwise no, God doesn't put up with arguing or challenging his judgement, he actually rebukes Job for this, and Job apologizes quite intensely.

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:

Alvecia wrote:That the story as he tells it.

It also doesn't settle the case. I'm pretty sure Superman has probably done that too, but that doesn't make Clark Kent infallible. Again, power does not equal total perfection.

And he travelled back in time. But if any being were capable of that irl, we'd really have to accept that he's all powerful and beyond the horizons that cause error.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:It also doesn't settle the case. I'm pretty sure Superman has probably done that too, but that doesn't make Clark Kent infallible. Again, power does not equal total perfection.

And he travelled back in time. But if any being were capable of that irl, we'd really have to accept that he's all powerful and beyond the horizons that cause error.

Would we? There was a guy in that TV show Heroes that could manipulate time. Didn't make him all powerful nor infallible

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:It also doesn't settle the case. I'm pretty sure Superman has probably done that too, but that doesn't make Clark Kent infallible. Again, power does not equal total perfection.

And he travelled back in time. But if any being were capable of that irl, we'd really have to accept that he's all powerful and beyond the horizons that cause error.

Not at all. Again, you can't seem to separate power from personality; it's all Lord of the Flies with you, isn't it? Power does not preclude character flaws. A time-travelling superman could still be an awful racist, or a moderate sexist, or cling tightly to the belief that moustaches make people evil.

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:And he travelled back in time. But if any being were capable of that irl, we'd really have to accept that he's all powerful and beyond the horizons that cause error.

Not at all. Again, you can't seem to separate power from personality; it's all Lord of the Flies with you, isn't it? Power does not preclude character flaws. A time-travelling superman could still be an awful racist, or a moderate sexist, or cling tightly to the belief that moustaches make people evil.

How exactly are you going to measure "character flaws" in something that has no brain or human psychology? You say it's lord of the flies with me, but you're the one who refuses to make a distinction between God and humans except for power. You are the one conceiving of Yahweh as a Lord of Flies (Beelzebub).

And no, while in the comics a humanoid could time travel, in reality anything uncumbered by spacetime would be something of a wholly different order than n humans, we'd be eggplants by comparison.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
And Judaism. We argue with God and influence his acts in the old testiments.

If you mean praying for mercy, yes, God shows mercy often to the petitioning party (Mark of Cain, for instance), and as intercession (frequently on behalf of Moses, but after God inflicted leprosy on Miriam for putting down Moses having an Ethiopian wife, God refused to shorten her affliction under a week despite Moses pleading for his sister). Otherwise no, God doesn't put up with arguing or challenging his judgement, he actually rebukes Job for this, and Job apologizes quite intensely.

I suggest you reread genesis and exodus

Ethel mermania wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:If you mean praying for mercy, yes, God shows mercy often to the petitioning party (Mark of Cain, for instance), and as intercession (frequently on behalf of Moses, but after God inflicted leprosy on Miriam for putting down Moses having an Ethiopian wife, God refused to shorten her affliction under a week despite Moses pleading for his sister). Otherwise no, God doesn't put up with arguing or challenging his judgement, he actually rebukes Job for this, and Job apologizes quite intensely.

I suggest you reread genesis and exodus

I've read them both multiple times and I will no doubt read them again. All disputation with God is about convincing him to spare someone. Every other sort of argument God doesn't tolerate.

A friend of mine at seminary pointed out that God goes by many names in the Hebrew scriptures, and two contrasting ones are used in this passage. One is Elohim. which literally means "the gods". Interpreters try to explain this by calling it the "plural of majesty",as when Queen Victoria says "We are not amused", but there are passages which hint at more than one deity, as in the psalm which says that "He is a great king above all gods". and when Adam eats the forbidden apple God wants to expel him "lest he eat of the tree of life and become as one of US."
The other name used here is Yahweh, rendered into the form of a tetragram. This is "God Almighty", the one Moses met in the desert, the one that handed down the Commandments.

If we go into the text and simply show the different names as they appear, a different impression emerges.

Starting at Genesis 22:1
Some time later the gods tested Abraham and they called to him "Abraham!: He replied "Here I am". "Take your son", the gods said, "Your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There on a mountain that we will show you, offer him up as a sacrifice to us." Early the next morning Abraham cut some wood for the sacrifice, loaded his donkey, and took Isaac and two servants with him. They started out for the place that the gods had told him about....
9. When they came to the place which the gods had told him about, Abraham built an altar and arranged the wood on it. He tied up his son and placed him on the altar, ontop of the wood. Then he picked up a knife to kill him. But the angel of Yahweh called to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" He answered, "Yes, here I am." "Don't hurt the boy or do anything to him", the angel said, "for now I know that you fear the gods." ....Abraham named that place "Yahweh provides", and even today people say "On Yahweh's mountain, he provides." The angel of Yahweh called to Abraham a second time: "I make a vow by my own name- this is Yahweh speaking- that I will richly bless you."

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:I suggest you reread genesis and exodus

I've read them both multiple times and I will no doubt read them again. All disputation with God is about convincing him to spare someone. Every other sort of argument God doesn't tolerate.

Try again, Jacobs wrestling with god? Abraham and god negotiating over Sodom and gomorra (which is about saving), moses not wanting to speak to Pharoah, God and moses both bitching about the Israelites, etc.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:Not at all. Again, you can't seem to separate power from personality; it's all Lord of the Flies with you, isn't it? Power does not preclude character flaws. A time-travelling superman could still be an awful racist, or a moderate sexist, or cling tightly to the belief that moustaches make people evil.

How exactly are you going to measure "character flaws" in something that has no brain or human psychology? You say it's lord of the flies with me, but you're the one who refuses to make a distinction between God and humans except for power. You are the one conceiving of Yahweh as a Lord of Flies (Beelzebub).

And no, while in the comics a humanoid could time travel, in reality anything uncumbered by spacetime would be something of a wholly different order than n humans, we'd be eggplants by comparison.

Again, you're taking it as read that god has no brain. You haven't actually proven it. For a being without human psychology, he sure is very firm on the "no putting anything up your bum" rule. You'd think he wouldn't care so much about that. In fact, that's a character flaw there: God's fixation with other people's sex lives.

I say Lord of the Flies (referencing the book, not the devil/demon, just so we're clear), because your attitude seems to be that because god is mighty, he is right. That is, he's so powerul he can bring himself back to life and such, so nothing he does can be wrong. It's a lawless, brutal vision, and not one I subscribe to.

An aubergine I may be, but I see no reason why a time-travelling being couldn't be flawed.

Ethel mermania wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:
I've read them both multiple times and I will no doubt read them again. All disputation with God is about convincing him to spare someone. Every other sort of argument God doesn't tolerate.

Try again, Jacobs wrestling with god? Abraham and god negotiating over Sodom and gomorra (which is about saving), moses not wanting to speak to Pharoah, God and moses both bitching about the Israelites, etc.

Jacob wrestling with God has to do with them arguing? I don't think so, unless you're saying they're arguing over him getting blessed. It's a depiction of spiritual struggle to grasp God.

Abraham is trying to save innocent people, that is exactly what he is trying to sway God in relation to.

God didn't give any heed to Moses not wanting to speak to Pharaoh.

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:
How exactly are you going to measure "character flaws" in something that has no brain or human psychology? You say it's lord of the flies with me, but you're the one who refuses to make a distinction between God and humans except for power. You are the one conceiving of Yahweh as a Lord of Flies (Beelzebub).

And no, while in the comics a humanoid could time travel, in reality anything uncumbered by spacetime would be something of a wholly different order than n humans, we'd be eggplants by comparison.

Again, you're taking it as read that god has no brain. You haven't actually proven it. For a being without human psychology, he sure is very firm on the "no putting anything up your bum" rule. You'd think he wouldn't care so much about that. In fact, that's a character flaw there: God's fixation with other people's sex lives.

I say Lord of the Flies (referencing the book, not the devil/demon, just so we're clear), because your attitude seems to be that because god is mighty, he is right. That is, he's so powerul he can bring himself back to life and such, so nothing he does can be wrong. It's a lawless, brutal vision, and not one I subscribe to.

An aubergine I may be, but I see no reason why a time-travelling being couldn't be flawed.

How can you prove a negative? Isn't this like saying atheists have to prove there is no God?


My point is that regardless of whether or not God is "right, " the measuring stick of a "good human being" (which fluctuates and you might even consider subjective) isn't the determination of that anymore than a paper being right based on how good of a cup of coffee it is. The book Lord of the Flies is about humans, and you continue to present and conceptualize God as such. "Well what if God is an ear of corn? Well prove he's not!" really, is there any point in participating in this thread if you can't even accept the premise?


What criteria would you use to assess the flaws of such a being? A being who is neither spatial nor temporal and is therefore unlimited by such.

Abraham was suggestible to voices from the sky. He was not selective enough about the messages conveyed through those voices.

Pope Joan wrote:Abraham was suggestible to voices from the sky. He was not selective enough about the messages conveyed through those voices.

If Abraham was schizophrenic Christianity is a fraud.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:Abraham was suggestible to voices from the sky. He was not selective enough about the messages conveyed through those voices.

If Abraham was schizophrenic Christianity is a fraud.

Don't forget Judaism and Islam.

Pope Joan wrote:Abraham was suggestible to voices from the sky. He was not selective enough about the messages conveyed through those voices.

You're sacrilegious.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:Again, you're taking it as read that god has no brain. You haven't actually proven it. For a being without human psychology, he sure is very firm on the "no putting anything up your bum" rule. You'd think he wouldn't care so much about that. In fact, that's a character flaw there: God's fixation with other people's sex lives.

I say Lord of the Flies (referencing the book, not the devil/demon, just so we're clear), because your attitude seems to be that because god is mighty, he is right. That is, he's so powerul he can bring himself back to life and such, so nothing he does can be wrong. It's a lawless, brutal vision, and not one I subscribe to.

An aubergine I may be, but I see no reason why a time-travelling being couldn't be flawed.

How can you prove a negative? Isn't this like saying atheists have to prove there is no God?


My point is that regardless of whether or not God is "right, " the measuring stick of a "good human being" (which fluctuates and you might even consider subjective) isn't the determination of that anymore than a paper being right based on how good of a cup of coffee it is. The book Lord of the Flies is about humans, and you continue to present and conceptualize God as such. "Well what if God is an ear of corn? Well prove he's not!" really, is there any point in participating in this thread if you can't even accept the premise?


What criteria would you use to assess the flaws of such a being? A being who is neither spatial nor temporal and is therefore unlimited by such.

Maybe don't make claims you can't back up, then? Personally, looking at your own scripture,I reckon your god is doing a very good impression of a human-like intelligence. Don't claim my approach to the question is flawed if you can't demonstrate why.

I can accept the premise of the thread as god wanting me to kill my child without accepting a very specific idea of what god is and how I'm allowed to think about him. The thread is a dilemma; if you demand that I accept your entire theology before participating, it ceases to be a dilemma.

I'm not presenting god as human so much as I am saying that what an intelligent being (and you must agree that he is that) demands can be considered using the same ethics we would use to judge a human's demands. The being itself can be judged in the same way. Someone telling me to kill all the Jews can be judged as a bad person. Likewise, some "sentient thing" telling the Jews to kill all the Canaanites can be judged as a bad "sentient thing".

If it can think, it can have flaws. If it can think, it can think something nasty or stupid. My criteria are the same I'm judging you (and every other person I interact with) by.

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:How can you prove a negative? Isn't this like saying atheists have to prove there is no God?


My point is that regardless of whether or not God is "right, " the measuring stick of a "good human being" (which fluctuates and you might even consider subjective) isn't the determination of that anymore than a paper being right based on how good of a cup of coffee it is. The book Lord of the Flies is about humans, and you continue to present and conceptualize God as such. "Well what if God is an ear of corn? Well prove he's not!" really, is there any point in participating in this thread if you can't even accept the premise?


What criteria would you use to assess the flaws of such a being? A being who is neither spatial nor temporal and is therefore unlimited by such.

Maybe don't make claims you can't back up, then? Personally, looking at your own scripture,I reckon your god is doing a very good impression of a human-like intelligence. Don't claim my approach to the question is flawed if you can't demonstrate why.

I can accept the premise of the thread as god wanting me to kill my child without accepting a very specific idea of what god is and how I'm allowed to think about him. The thread is a dilemma; if you demand that I accept your entire theology before participating, it ceases to be a dilemma.

I'm not presenting god as human so much as I am saying that what an intelligent being (and you must agree that he is that) demands can be considered using the same ethics we would use to judge a human's demands. The being itself can be judged in the same way. Someone telling me to kill all the Jews can be judged as a bad person. Likewise, some "sentient thing" telling the Jews to kill all the Canaanites can be judged as a bad "sentient thing".

If it can think, it can have flaws. If it can think, it can think something nasty or stupid. My criteria are the same I'm judging you (and every other person I interact with) by.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue scriptural intreptation when it's something that people have gone to war over and haven't resolved after hundreds of years of argument. If you are forcing me to prove the very basics of a text the culture that wrote it understood it to mean for thousands of years, there is no more point in this discussion.

God is intelligent in a manner of speaking. But the idea of his intelligence simply being the superlative intelligence humans have, instead of being something utterly alien andonly likened for convenience, is an idea that didn't appear until the Late Middle Ages.

God doesn't think if by "think" you mean cogitate. Because God has no interior mechanism, he is completely static and changeless.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:Maybe don't make claims you can't back up, then? Personally, looking at your own scripture,I reckon your god is doing a very good impression of a human-like intelligence. Don't claim my approach to the question is flawed if you can't demonstrate why.

I can accept the premise of the thread as god wanting me to kill my child without accepting a very specific idea of what god is and how I'm allowed to think about him. The thread is a dilemma; if you demand that I accept your entire theology before participating, it ceases to be a dilemma.

I'm not presenting god as human so much as I am saying that what an intelligent being (and you must agree that he is that) demands can be considered using the same ethics we would use to judge a human's demands. The being itself can be judged in the same way. Someone telling me to kill all the Jews can be judged as a bad person. Likewise, some "sentient thing" telling the Jews to kill all the Canaanites can be judged as a bad "sentient thing".

If it can think, it can have flaws. If it can think, it can think something nasty or stupid. My criteria are the same I'm judging you (and every other person I interact with) by.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue scriptural intreptation when it's something that people have gone to war over and haven't resolved after hundreds of years of argument. If you are forcing me to prove the very basics of a text the culture that wrote it understood it to mean for thousands of years, there is no more point in this discussion.

God is intelligent in a manner of speaking. But the idea of his intelligence simply being the superlative intelligence humans have, instead of being something utterly alien andonly likened for convenience, is an idea that didn't appear until the Late Middle Ages.

God doesn't think if by "think" you mean cogitate. Because God has no interior mechanism, he is completely static and changeless.

God can clearly hold opinions, though. He has a lot of opinions about human orifices.

Dylar wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:If Abraham was schizophrenic Christianity is a fraud.

Don't forget Judaism and Islam.

Pope Joan is a christian minister

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:
Yeah, I'm not going to argue scriptural intreptation when it's something that people have gone to war over and haven't resolved after hundreds of years of argument. If you are forcing me to prove the very basics of a text the culture that wrote it understood it to mean for thousands of years, there is no more point in this discussion.

God is intelligent in a manner of speaking. But the idea of his intelligence simply being the superlative intelligence humans have, instead of being something utterly alien andonly likened for convenience, is an idea that didn't appear until the Late Middle Ages.

God doesn't think if by "think" you mean cogitate. Because God has no interior mechanism, he is completely static and changeless.

God can clearly hold opinions, though. He has a lot of opinions about human orifices.

God gave many injunctions for the Jews to set them apart in behavior from everyone around them. It prevented them from being able to mingle or be influenced by heathens. Once God declared all peoples to be welcomed (this is predicted over and over in the OT), the rules intended to ethnically compartmentalize Jews from everyone else were no longer needed and even obstructive. But if you are asking why homosexuality is a no-no in the NT, it's because sex is forbidden outside of wedlock.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:God can clearly hold opinions, though. He has a lot of opinions about human orifices.

God gave many injunctions for the Jews to set them apart in behavior from everyone around them. It prevented them from being able to mingle or be influenced by heathens. Once God declared all peoples to be welcomed (this is predicted over and over in the OT), the rules intended to ethnically compartmentalize Jews from everyone else were no longer needed and even obstructive. But if you are asking why homosexuality is a no-no in the NT, it's because sex is forbidden outside of wedlock.

I wasn't asking why. I was stating that god has a lot of opinions about orifices.

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:God gave many injunctions for the Jews to set them apart in behavior from everyone around them. It prevented them from being able to mingle or be influenced by heathens. Once God declared all peoples to be welcomed (this is predicted over and over in the OT), the rules intended to ethnically compartmentalize Jews from everyone else were no longer needed and even obstructive. But if you are asking why homosexuality is a no-no in the NT, it's because sex is forbidden outside of wedlock.

I wasn't asking why. I was stating that god has a lot of opinions about orifices.

He has injunctions. God doesn't have opinions as such, he's the Absolute