God.

[Gaiso]

Well I would tell you to ask God but since you never really knew him I do not have time to explain it to narrowminded people who are determined not to understand something to complex for them to comprehend.

How convenient.

Now is that "knew" in the biblical sense?

[Unified America-Canada]

Well I would tell you to ask God but since you never really knew him I do not have time to explain it to narrowminded people who are determined not to understand something to complex for them to comprehend.

How convenient.

Oh yeh I know

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Then by all means, enlighten us as to the difference between composing of God and being God.

Well I would tell you to ask God but since you never really knew him I do not have time to explain it to narrowminded people who are determined not to understand something to complex for them to comprehend.

I never said I do or do not possibly believe there may or may not be a God. Indeed, my only position is that you don't know what you're talking about. Either there is no God, or if there is your understanding of what it is is absurdly childish and naive.

[Unhealthy2]

I believe I have, several times (not that I've necessarily been clear). "Tied to God" is not the same as "arbitrated by God". God is what He is and can be no other. If God is goodness itself, He is All-Good and couldn't be anything other if He tried. It also means no good exists apart from Him. So take away God, you take away good. You take away good, you take away God.

And I explained (and you never responded) that goodness itself is not a tangible entity that can take actions. It is an abstraction. It's like saying that god is the number 15. If you're just redefining the word "god," then fine, but if you're going to define "god" to be "goodness itself," then don't turn around and talk about things done by god. Don't talk about god making the universe or having a mind or anything like that. Goodness is an abstraction, and it therefore cannot DO anything.

[Jasonovia]

Except I've changed my moral conclusions to match God's before. Why would I have to ever do that if God agrees with everything I think is right? And if you are correct, a person whose experiences, values, and culture are that are wanton murder and rape are acceptable, his morality is just as acceptable.

No, his morality is not as acceptable. He's simply incorrect about what is right.

Why is he incorrect?

[Unhealthy2]

Oh yeh I know

It's good that you realize that you're just engaging in psychological defense mechanisms. Now that you admit it, how about you stop doing it?

[Big Jim P]

It was ordained by God

You know this how?

A question I would like answered as well.

[Unified America-Canada]

Well I would tell you to ask God but since you never really knew him I do not have time to explain it to narrowminded people who are determined not to understand something to complex for them to comprehend.

I never said I do or do not possibly believe there may or may not be a God. Indeed, my only position is that you don't know what you're talking about. Either there is no God, or if there is your understanding of what it is is absurdly childish and naive.

Believe me I know what I am talking about. It is just your lack to listen. You hear but your not listening always finding a smart-aleck answer.

[Unhealthy2]

Why is he incorrect?

Because the people he kills and rapes have intrinsic value, and therefore his actions destroy something of inherent value for no real creation of any inherent value to replace that which was lost.

[Farnhamia]

And who's fault is it that human nature is that way?

Adam and Eve.

And a case could be made that they were framed.

The whole issue of "sin" (sorry about the quotes) is a major problem for me with Christianity, on top of the basic premise that God exists. You say it is human nature to sin. But what is sin? It's going against the wishes or commands of God, right? God sets up certain rules that humans are supposed to abide by, and if we do, we achieve the greatest blessing of all, God's approval. All well and good.

However, God has also created humans as flawed beings. We are flawed, because our ultimate ancestors, Adam and Eve, were capable of being deceived by Satan. If they were not flawed, they'd have told Satan, "Yeah, right, God said not to eat that, so bite me" (perhaps not the best thing said to a serpent, but you get the idea). That's alright, though, because even though we're flawed and will always sin despite our best efforts to avoid it, God loves us. Of course, sin requires punishment, obviously, because how else would we learn? So God loves us, but he has to punish us when we sin, but as long as we praise him and thank him in the midst of our punishment, we're assured of rewards after we die.

To recap, God set up rules that we cannot hope to follow completely, he punishes us when we break them, but as long as we tell him, "Thank you, Lord, may I have another?" he'll shower blessings on us until the next time we screw up, or die. A human being who treated his children this way would lose them to Child Protective Services faster than you can say, "Hallelujah!"

Sin is a no-win situation, and, frankly, it messes with people's minds to the extent, in some cases, that they lose those minds. Taking God out of the equation takes away sin, too. Not in the sense that people can now do no wrong, as with sin they can do no right. Taking God and sin away makes us deal with ourselves and each other on a truthful basis. People do bad things to each other. There is no disputing this. It is because we are human, not because we are failures in living up to an imaged deity's rules. We know now that sometimes the chemistry of our brains skews the perception of the world, and we may act in anti-social ways because of that. Sometimes we become obsessed with possessions, with power.

There are human ways of dealing with these things that do not require the approval or action of a being whose frequent answer to our questions is usually, "It's a God thing, you wouldn't understand." Don't we make a joke of people who say, "I'm from the government, trust me"?

Anyway ... Wall O' Text^TM, I know. I don't usually, but "sin" bugs the hell out of me. It's past time that we humans learned to deal with ourselves without assuming that we are wrong from the start. We're human from the start and we can live our lives without "Daddy's" approval.

[Unhealthy2]

A question I would like answered as well.

I'd like a new, creative answer, but sadly it's probably just going to be some variant of this:

[Farnhamia]

Well I would tell you to ask God but since you never really knew him I do not have time to explain it to narrowminded people who are determined not to understand something to complex for them to comprehend.

How convenient.

Indeed, the standard cop-out. "You wouldn't understand." "God moves in mysterious ways." Yadda. No.

[Big Jim P]

A question I would like answered as well.

I'd like a new, creative answer, but sadly it's probably just going to be some variant of this:

I know. I just want him/her to admit it.

[Jasonovia]

I believe I have, several times (not that I've necessarily been clear). "Tied to God" is not the same as "arbitrated by God". God is what He is and can be no other. If God is goodness itself, He is All-Good and couldn't be anything other if He tried. It also means no good exists apart from Him. So take away God, you take away good. You take away good, you take away God.

And I explained (and you never responded) that goodness itself is not a tangible entity that can take actions. It is an abstraction. It's like saying that god is the number 15. If you're just redefining the word "god," then fine, but if you're going to define "god" to be "goodness itself," then don't turn around and talk about things done by god. Don't talk about god making the universe or having a mind or anything like that. Goodness is an abstraction, and it therefore cannot DO anything.

I was wondering that earlier in the thread and actually was leaning towards God not "doing " anything. As far as i'm concerned, much of religion discusses God in terms of personification to help grasp something that is incomprehensible. So maybe it is technically incorrect that God "does" anything, and yet everything that does act depends on it for existence.

[Jasonovia]

Why is he incorrect?

Because the people he kills and rapes have intrinsic value, and therefore his actions destroy something of inherent value for no real creation of any inherent value to replace that which was lost.

But if he denies they have intrinsic value, can you prove to him that they do? What makes it wrong to destroy things of inherent value, exactly?

[Unhealthy2]

I was wondering that earlier in the thread and actually was leaning towards God not "doing " anything. As far as i'm concerned, much of religion discusses God in terms of personification to help grasp something that is incomprehensible. So maybe it is technically incorrect that God "does" anything, and yet everything that does act depends on it for existence.

I see this position as indistinguishable from atheism, which is, obviously, fine by me.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

How can you claim something that you hardly know enough about.

I never said I do or do not possibly believe there may or may not be a God. Indeed, my only position is that you don't know what you're talking about. Either there is no God, or if there is your understanding of what it is is absurdly childish and naive.

Believe me I know what I am talking about. It is just your lack to listen. You hear but your not listening always finding a smart-aleck answer.

Belive me I'm listening very closely. And these aren't just some smartassed answers I keep thinking of just to ruin your day. I'm being dead serious. How can claim to know what you're talking about when what you're talking about is, by definition, so far beyond comprehension you couldn't even begin to imagine it?

[Unhealthy2]

But if he denies they have intrinsic value, can you prove to him that they do?

Only to the same extent that I could prove the truth of a mathematical theorem to someone that childishly refuses to be educated on mathematics.

What makes it wrong to destroy things of inherent value, exactly?

That's like asking "What makes it wrong to commit immoral actions?" It's ultimately a meaningless question resulting from what I and Wittgenstein would describe as a misuse of language.

[Our Lady Skye Sweetnam]

With all the suffering in the world, and people dying, and such, how can there be a god? I don't care if this world is supposed to be bad because eventually "you'll go to heaven if you put your faith in god". That just makes you lazy, you think "I'm done, I don't need to do anything more for this planet", and don't care about living your life, also particularly because your "god" says you can't do certain things cause it's a sin. Screw that. I live everyday like it's my last, and if I go to hell, at least I'll know all the cool people will be waiting for me.

Wow.
God already knows that your going to sin because it is human nature to sin.

I don't need to ask god for forgiveness either. Forgiveness is accepting that that person will not change what they're doing.

[Farnhamia]

How can you claim something that you hardly know enough about.

Believe me I know what I am talking about. It is just your lack to listen. You hear but your not listening always finding a smart-aleck answer.

Belive me I'm listening very closely. And these aren't just some smartassed answers I keep thinking of just to ruin your day. I'm being dead serious. How can claim to know what you're talking about when what you're talking about is, by definition, so far beyond comprehension you couldn't even begin to imagine it?

That, and yet the incomprehensibility is used as a reason for others to believe it, too. It's the "trust me" argument. "I can't explain this, it's too complicated and beyond human comprehension, but trust me, it's true and you should believe it, too." Some people will throw in an "or else," depending on their persuasion.

[Ameiliaic]

i think that God has to exist otherwise it is silly that we are here all of a suden. everyone i know like my family know there is a God and all my best firends do and i dont see why theyd be wrong.

People are wrong all the time.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Belive me I'm listening very closely. And these aren't just some smartassed answers I keep thinking of just to ruin your day. I'm being dead serious. How can claim to know what you're talking about when what you're talking about is, by definition, so far beyond comprehension you couldn't even begin to imagine it?

That, and yet the incomprehensibility is used as a reason for others to believe it, too. It's the "trust me" argument. "I can't explain this, it's too complicated and beyond human comprehension, but trust me, it's true and you should believe it, too." Some people will throw in an "or else," depending on their persuasion.

I think I might have upset him. He hasn't responded in a like 15 minutes.

[Gearria]

This just seems to be the problem with humanity. We want to figure everything out and refuse to accept that there is a higher power because that would mean accepting that we actually have to answer to someone. I just cant see how people can look at this world and the stars in the sky and not believe in something. But if people want to reason that they are related to apes be my guest. But we can go around with this all day long and not agree. But if humans evolved from apes why are there still apes? But the theory of evolution is just that. A theory and it will never be proven as a fact. But the good book provides all the facts we need. People just dont want to see it. But to state it simply I do believe in God.

[Unhealthy2]

That, and yet the incomprehensibility is used as a reason for others to believe it, too. It's the "trust me" argument. "I can't explain this, it's too complicated and beyond human comprehension, but trust me, it's true and you should believe it, too." Some people will throw in an "or else," depending on their persuasion.

Ironically, by admitting that it's not possible for humans to actually understand, they're also admitting that it's not possible for humans to believe. You can't actually believe a proposition that you don't understand. Very few people believe the claims of quantum theory, for example. What they actually believe is that the claims of quantum theory mean something, and whatever it is that they mean, they're true. That's quite distinct from believing the claims directly.

[Unhealthy2]

This just seems to be the problem with humanity. We want to figure everything out and refuse to accept that there is a higher power because that would mean accepting that we actually have to answer to someone. I just cant see how people can look at this world and the stars in the sky and not believe in something. But if people want to reason that they are related to apes be my guest. But we can go around with this all day long and not agree. But if humans evolved from apes why are there still apes? But the theory of evolution is just that. A theory and it will never be proven as a fact. But the good book provides all the facts we need. People just dont want to see it. But to state it simply I do believe in God.

Somebody else want to correct this one? I'm getting sick of answering the same questions over and over again.