The Free Joy State wrote:where the existence/nonexistence of God is uncertain
It's only uncertain to those who don't believe.
Advertisement
by El-Amin Caliphate » Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:55 pm
The Free Joy State wrote:where the existence/nonexistence of God is uncertain
https://americanvision.org/948/theonomy-vs-theocracy/ wrote:God’s law cannot govern a nation where God’s law does not rule in the hearts of the people
Plaetopia wrote:Partly Free / Hybrid regime (score 4-6) El-Amin Caliphate (5.33)
by El-Amin Caliphate » Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:57 pm
Des-Bal wrote:El-Amin Caliphate wrote:That doesn't fit the definition of lying. Are you looking for "ignorant"?
In this case it's a small difference. I think that people establish a meaning of "belief" for gravity that's separate from the one they specifically tailor to their religion. I think if they looked seriously they'd see it and if they were humble enough admit it.
https://americanvision.org/948/theonomy-vs-theocracy/ wrote:God’s law cannot govern a nation where God’s law does not rule in the hearts of the people
Plaetopia wrote:Partly Free / Hybrid regime (score 4-6) El-Amin Caliphate (5.33)
by Reverend Norv » Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:59 pm
For really, I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he. And therefore truly, Sir, I think it's clear that every man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that Government. And I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under.
Col. Thomas Rainsborough, Putney Debates, 1647
A God who let us prove His existence would be an idol.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
by Australian rePublic » Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:00 pm
Des-Bal wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:Yea, and? Are you trying to argue that God doesn't exist simply because He has a fondness for emptiness?
Yes. If you're arguing the universe was intelligently designed by a being who was principally concerned with earth and one species on it the fact that EVERYTHING ELSE exists is fucking ridiculous.
by Australian rePublic » Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:04 pm
Dogmeat wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:Calling a "bet" is a very poor understanding of the situation of Job
I don't trust your understanding of the Bible to any degree whatsoever. So far you have demonstrated nothing which leads me to believe you are more qualified to interpret the Bible then I am, and several thing which lead me to believe you are not.
And yeah, a "bet" is functionally what that was. Go back and read it if you don't believe me.
by Australian rePublic » Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:10 pm
Des-Bal wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:How exactly am I doing the same
Same reason why he doesn't stop a human rapist. Free will
And yet when they're good it's God's fault. You can't have it both ways. You can't blame humanity for their evil then attribute their good bits to God.
No, and I never claimed that He was. However, God is repsonaible for establishing a moral standard that humans are free to choose to obey
And this all-powerful God was incapable of unhardening their hearts.
And He does, you complain about it
You're talking about the supposed architect of mankind. A being of omniscience, or frankly even reasonable competence would understand how people are going to handle certain situations. If I don't fence in my pool I'm responsible for kids falling in because I should have fucking known they'd do that. If I know your schedule and put a bear trap in your path that's not the product of your free will it's me being an asshole. God set all this up and God knows how we'll handle it- he's basically the jigsaw killer but also eternity.
by Australian rePublic » Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:12 pm
Dogmeat wrote:Reverend Norv wrote:
This isn't exactly accurate. And this clarification comes without any desire to make the Job story less problematic than it is; its power is rooted in its painful refusal to conform to our moral expectations, and I have no wish to detract from that power. But a little context is useful.
When the Book of Job was written in post-exilic Israel, nobody believed in Satan in the modern or medieval Christian sense. The figure in the book of Job who's traditionally rendered as Satan is better translated as the Adversary. This figure is not a locus of evil; rather, he's a kind of special prosecutor at large, whose distinctive feature - as his introduction suggests - is that he goes "to and fro in the earth," testing how righteous and faithful folks actually are. He does this, in fact, on God's behalf, in order to reveal His servants' true character. This explains the dialogue between the two figures, which is deferential on the Adversary's part rather than hostile as one would expect of "Satan." And it justifies the extensive legal language later in the book of Job, in which Job repeatedly longs for an Advocate: a heavenly defense attorney, essentially, to balance the Adversary's prosecution.
It also suggests another reading of the story: the Adversary, essentially, keeps going back to God to ask for authority to apply more and more extreme tests of Job's character. God, confident in Job's innocence, agrees to allow this. But this isn't necessarily a callous bet, any more than agreeing to allow a man's pretrial detention, or the subpoena of his private papers, is a bet. It's cooperating with a process that is intended to establish guilt or innocence. The metaphor of the law, not the metaphor of gambling, is most consistent both with the text and with the cultural context in which it was written.
Now, it still seems patently unjust to torture an innocent man just to prove he's innocent, and most of the Book of Job is involved with demonstrating this point. Its power as a story for grown-ups flows precisely from the fact that it's not a cozy parable of a just God and a faithful man. But calling the precipitating incident a bet misunderstands the book's structure in a subtle but important way.
To be honest, this presents me with something of a challenge. Because I agree with you 100%. There are even parts of the story I really like and find interesting. Like the subtle turn of phrase "did not sin with his lips," and all that that might imply.
But you're not the type of Christian I'm arguing with, and I don't think the type of Christian I'm arguing with appreciates the nuance of the evolution of Satan between these two periods. I could be wrong about that, and if so I am willing to accept fault here, but I'm led to believe he's only using the Medieval interpretation. And by that interpretation of Satan, this can really only be interpreted as a bet.
by Australian rePublic » Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:13 pm
The Free Joy State wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:Yes, which was the point that I was trying to make
Not very sporting to cut off the rest, and most relevant, part of my post:The Free Joy State wrote:And no... not all -- not many/most, delete as appropriate -- Christians would step over the homeless man and not all atheists are seeking cures for cancer but of all the arguments in all the world, this one is one of the worst for God: the idea that man has no self-control without fear of the hereafter.
Because it carries with it conceit -- the in-born, and usually unintentional, idea -- that those who believe are somehow more moral, more compassionate, kinder than those who do not. And, in truth, there are good and compassionate people of all religious stripes and none and arseholes of all religious stripes and none.
You do not need a conception of God to behave compassionately. In fact, I would actually fear any person who fears they may be uncompassionate or cruel without a fear of hell.
I know you've seen this part, so why not answer it.
If there are good people and arseholes of all religious stripes and none -- where the existence/nonexistence of God is uncertain -- why would atheists receiving confirmation of their theory or Christians a denial make one blind bit of difference?
Should we not fear anyone who is only compassionate due to some taught fear of hell?
by Reverend Norv » Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:14 pm
The Free Joy State wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:Yes, which was the point that I was trying to make
Not very sporting to cut off the rest, and most relevant, part of my post:The Free Joy State wrote:And no... not all -- not many/most, delete as appropriate -- Christians would step over the homeless man and not all atheists are seeking cures for cancer but of all the arguments in all the world, this one is one of the worst for God: the idea that man has no self-control without fear of the hereafter.
Because it carries with it conceit -- the in-born, and usually unintentional, idea -- that those who believe are somehow more moral, more compassionate, kinder than those who do not. And, in truth, there are good and compassionate people of all religious stripes and none and arseholes of all religious stripes and none.
You do not need a conception of God to behave compassionately. In fact, I would actually fear any person who fears they may be uncompassionate or cruel without a fear of hell.
I know you've seen this part, so why not answer it.
If there are good people and arseholes of all religious stripes and none -- where the existence/nonexistence of God is uncertain -- why would atheists receiving confirmation of their theory or Christians a denial make one blind bit of difference?
Should we not fear anyone who is only compassionate due to some taught fear of hell?
For really, I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he. And therefore truly, Sir, I think it's clear that every man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that Government. And I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under.
Col. Thomas Rainsborough, Putney Debates, 1647
A God who let us prove His existence would be an idol.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
by Australian rePublic » Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:19 pm
by Upper Pacifica » Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:20 pm
by Kowani » Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:14 pm
Australian rePublic wrote:Dogmeat wrote:I don't trust your understanding of the Bible to any degree whatsoever. So far you have demonstrated nothing which leads me to believe you are more qualified to interpret the Bible then I am, and several thing which lead me to believe you are not.
And yeah, a "bet" is functionally what that was. Go back and read it if you don't believe me.
I never claimed to be qualified to interpret the Bible. However, I source my work from people who are. Also, no it wasn't. God was testing Job's loyalty. He wasn't using Job as a pawn in an idiotic bet
by Metamen » Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:24 pm
by Godular » Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:28 pm
The Diamond Trio wrote:Sapientia Et Bellum wrote:Honestly though, if we live in a truly infinite universe then nothing is truly falsifiable.... everything is based on faith.... for example, we can say here on earth that physics work in a certain way but it takes faith for us to say that physics truly works that way everywhere.... Really we have to have faith that the universe is finite just for science to hold any meaning on a universal scale
Good thing we live in a finite universe.
by Kowani » Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:31 pm
Metamen wrote:I have come to the decision that the only true Higher Power is the Sun. We understand how the Sun was formed and how it affects us every day. The Sun does not indiscriminately tax anyone for anything that can't be attributed to factors that are beyond its power. We can see the Sun every day so we know it exists. If the Sun did not exist we could not have existed.
The Sun does not demand we sacrifice anything for it, neither does it make promises that it can't keep... unless you're a weirdo that made up your own canon a few hundreds of years ago.
Scientists and Atheists can't tell me that worshipping the Sun can be any worse than worshipping any other Religion.
So why not?
by Godular » Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:32 pm
Kowani wrote:Metamen wrote:I have come to the decision that the only true Higher Power is the Sun. We understand how the Sun was formed and how it affects us every day. The Sun does not indiscriminately tax anyone for anything that can't be attributed to factors that are beyond its power. We can see the Sun every day so we know it exists. If the Sun did not exist we could not have existed.
The Sun does not demand we sacrifice anything for it, neither does it make promises that it can't keep... unless you're a weirdo that made up your own canon a few hundreds of years ago.
Scientists and Atheists can't tell me that worshipping the Sun can be any worse than worshipping any other Religion.
So why not?
Well, considering the Sun also gives us things like skin cancer, it’s not exactly an all-loving deity...plus it doesn’t have a code of ethics, being non-living...
Oh, but the biggest problem is that it was formed after the universe, so it can’t exactly exist independently of another, even higher power.
by Metamen » Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:37 pm
Kowani wrote:Well, considering the Sun also gives us things like skin cancer, it’s not exactly an all-loving deity...plus it doesn’t have a code of ethics, being non-living...
Oh, but the biggest problem is that it was formed after the universe, so it can’t exactly exist independently of another, even higher power.
by Korhal IVV » Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:40 pm
Australian rePublic wrote:Des-Bal wrote:Yes. If you're arguing the universe was intelligently designed by a being who was principally concerned with earth and one species on it the fact that EVERYTHING ELSE exists is fucking ridiculous.
I never said that there were no aliens. Maybe other planets (e.g. Mars) exist for decoration. Maybe God doesn't place lively planets near eachother in order to avoid life from one planet hindering life from a different planet. I don't know
"Whatever a person may be like, we must still love them because we love God." ~ John Calvin
by The National Salvation Front for Russia » Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:54 pm
by Dogmeat » Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:15 am
Australian rePublic wrote:Dogmeat wrote:I don't trust your understanding of the Bible to any degree whatsoever. So far you have demonstrated nothing which leads me to believe you are more qualified to interpret the Bible then I am, and several thing which lead me to believe you are not.
And yeah, a "bet" is functionally what that was. Go back and read it if you don't believe me.
I never claimed to be qualified to interpret the Bible. However, I source my work from people who are. Also, no it wasn't. God was testing Job's loyalty. He wasn't using Job as a pawn in an idiotic bet
by Page » Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:24 am
Australian rePublic wrote:Dogmeat wrote:I don't trust your understanding of the Bible to any degree whatsoever. So far you have demonstrated nothing which leads me to believe you are more qualified to interpret the Bible then I am, and several thing which lead me to believe you are not.
And yeah, a "bet" is functionally what that was. Go back and read it if you don't believe me.
I never claimed to be qualified to interpret the Bible. However, I source my work from people who are. Also, no it wasn't. God was testing Job's loyalty. He wasn't using Job as a pawn in an idiotic bet
by Dazchan » Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:31 am
Australian rePublic wrote:Dogmeat wrote:I don't trust your understanding of the Bible to any degree whatsoever. So far you have demonstrated nothing which leads me to believe you are more qualified to interpret the Bible then I am, and several thing which lead me to believe you are not.
And yeah, a "bet" is functionally what that was. Go back and read it if you don't believe me.
I never claimed to be qualified to interpret the Bible. However, I source my work from people who are. Also, no it wasn't. God was testing Job's loyalty. He wasn't using Job as a pawn in an idiotic bet
by Frievolk » Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:48 am
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Des-Bal wrote:
In this case it's a small difference. I think that people establish a meaning of "belief" for gravity that's separate from the one they specifically tailor to their religion. I think if they looked seriously they'd see it and if they were humble enough admit it.
Yeah no that still doesn't make sense. I believe in Allah SWT just like I believe in gravity.
♔ The Frievolker Empire || Frievolker Kaiserreik ♔
♔ The Realm in the Sun || De Reik in de Sonne ♔
♔ Led by Kaiser Johann, Part of the Erstwelt ♔
Never forget that the Muslims literally made up a new meaningless name for him when they forgot the name of Adam's Firstborn.
by Ruskland-Preuben » Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:14 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Big Eyed Animation, CtarlCtarl, Duvniask, Hidrandia, Jerzylvania, Ors Might, Port Carverton, Senkaku, Shearoa, Small Venezia, The Lone Alliance, Tungstan, Umeria, Valrifall, Vassenor, Washington Resistance Army, Xind
Advertisement