Is God a tyrant?

[Loddfafner]

If God is as many Christians claim a power that would cast otherwise decent individuals into the eternal damnation of hell for such trivial reasons as masturbation, doesn't that make him a tyrant? If so, doesn't that imply that the only moral course of action is to defy Him and organize resistance here on earth to this horrific tyranny?

[Loki]

If God is as many Christians claim a power that would cast otherwise decent individuals into the eternal damnation of hell for such trivial reasons as masturbation, doesn't that make him a tyrant? If so, doesn't that imply that the only moral course of action is to defy Him and organize resistance here on earth to this horrific tyranny?

He most certainly is imo. A tyrant and a bully. And a coward, for picking on insignificant little beings like us, as if he enjoys doing it.

If there were such a resistance, I would join it. Lucifer seems to have caught onto the idea and apparently organised a revolt in heaven. He was justified in doing so, he seems to be the good guy in the story. :)

[Nodens]

All irrelevant if one accepts a Divine Command theory of morality.

[Lutiferre]

Organize resistance against a supposedly omnipotent deity which you don't believe exists?

You must be kidding. If it did exist, such resistance would be pointless since no one can resist an omnipotence. If it doesn't exist, such resistance would so much the more be pointless.

And people cast themselves down into hell. Hell consists of not wanting to enter into heaven, since entering into heaven is something you do right now by living in Gods grace, not something God can force you to do. Insofar you reject Gods grace (by being an unrepentant sinner), you have already denied entering heaven yourself. Heaven or hell depends on your free will.

[Freomæg]

Yes, he is. I'm with the Gnostics on this one. Furthermore, a clear distinction can be made between the Old and New Testament Gods.

[Lutiferre]

Yes, he is. I'm with the Gnostics on this one. Furthermore, a clear distinction can be made between the Old and New Testament Gods.
On a superficial reading, yes. On a deeper reading, Jesus was a faithful Israelite who constantly quoted the Torah and specifically stated his view of the Torah here:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

[Loddfafner]

If it did exist, such resistance would be pointless since no one can resist an omnipotence.

Soldiers die heroically in battles they know are lost. Some men are willing to throw down and fight even when they know they will probably lose and have their asses handed to them.

[Cato]

Zeus, whoever he may be,
if so it please him to be named,
so I do address him.
I find no other image,
though I ponder all,
than Zeus, if from my mind this senseless burden
truly must be thrown.

Nor will whoever once was great,
bursting in his battle pride,
be counted as having been.
And he who next arose
was thrice thrown and is gone.
But who with lusty song cries Zeus the victor
hits the soul of wisdom.

He steered the mortal mind to thought,
making one law: suffer and learn.
Drop by drop on hearts in sleep
falls pain, remembering woes;
and so to the unwilling
comes wisdom when it comes.
Violent is the grace of powers
at the terrible helm.


http://www.prosoidia.com/ag160.html

[Lutiferre]

Soldiers die heroically in battles they know are lost. Some men are willing to throw down and fight even when they know they will probably lose and have their asses handed to them.
I don't see how God is a tyrant when he gives you a whole life to decide for yourself in free will if you want to follow him and enter heaven, and lets you live in his world even when you reject him.

And I find it an even more laughable idea that God is a tyrant for wanting you to freely follow his law, when he is the one who gave you being to begin with. As someone on here said, a free man is governed by the law, whereas a slave is governed by another man. And that is the case with Gods law.

And even the more so, when he then respects your free rejection of him (rejection of God = hell), when he could force you to accept him if he wanted to, but does not.

[Puddle of Mudd]

God is actually, a really stand up guy. It just happens that he has been going through a bitter divorce (which also resulted in the bitch getting their child).

He truly loves us, really..

[Cato]

We're talking about the Abrahamic deity right?

[Lutiferre]

We're talking about the Abrahamic deity right?
Guess two times.

[Lutiferre]

It's funny how "atheists" complain about the injustice of God and accuse him of being a tyrant, when they don't consider him even existing.

If he doesn't exist, he is surely not guilty of a crime, nor is he a tyrant. He is not anything.

Thats basic metaphysics 101 on "existence" which atheist specifically deny in the case of God.

And if some God does exist but Christian beliefs about him are wrong, then the accusation remains meaningless at least in a Christian context.

[Cato]

Do I get a cookie if I guess right? Anyways, that's what I knew, but just to keep the matter from getting to corn-fused.

I can discuss the Abrahamic deity easily, but my conception of God has little to do with human notions of tyranny and God's "anger" and such (and the scholars say that the Bible speaks in the language of man, thus using anthropomorphic qualties). How does one call God a tyrant, in any definition of the term, when cause and effect and natural law, rather than direct miracles, rule the order of the universe?

[Loddfafner]

I highly doubt God exists, but if he were to exist as many Christians present him, he would be a tyrant. As it stands, he is most likely an imaginary tyrant. Perhaps Freud was right that God is nothing but a substitute father figure.

[Puddle of Mudd]

It's funny how "atheists" complain about the injustice of God and accuse him of being a tyrant, when they don't consider him even existing.

If he doesn't exist, he is surely not guilty of a crime, nor is he a tyrant. He is not anything.


I think they're just rebuking Christian arguments of a loving god, is all...

[Lutiferre]

Do I get a cookie if I guess right? Anyways, that's what I knew, but just to keep the matter from getting to corn-fused.

I can discuss the Abrahamic deity easily, but my conception of God has little to do with human notions of tyranny and God's "anger" and such (and the scholars say that the Bible speaks in the language of man, thus using anthropomorphic qualties).
Well, of course the bible speaks in the language of man, and hence, is anthropomorphic (in the form -morph- of man).


How does one call God, in any definition of the term, when cause and effect and natural law, rather than direct miracles, rule the order of the universe?
I don't exactly understand your question. How does one call God? What do you mean? Do you mean how one characterizes God ontologically? Or do you mean how God works? If God exists, he is the author of everything that exists, and hence, all contingent causes depend on him, so he works through natural (secondary) causes.

[Lutiferre]

I think they're just rebuking Christian arguments of a loving god, is all...
Because they have a mistaken and sentimental definition of love. Gods love is hell for someone who rejects God. This is their hell: to be loved eternally by God.

God would be a tyrant if he forced us to enter heaven or accept his love. He has given us our freedom.

[Cato]

Well, of course the bible speaks in the language of man, and hence, is anthropomorphic (in the form -morph- of man).

I don't exactly understand your question. How does one call God? What do you mean? Do you mean how one characterizes God ontologically? Or do you mean how God works? If God exists, he is the author of everything that exists, and hence, all contingent causes depend on him, so he works through natural (secondary) causes.

I didn't complete that sentence. It should read:

How does one call God a tyrant...

If God acts via secondary causes, then it's purely a matter of cause and effect, natural law and such being a by-product of his creative activities. Can God really be held responsible for what, to me, aren't his direct activities?

[Cato]

I highly doubt God exists, but if he were to exist as many Christians present him, he would be a tyrant. As it stands, he is most likely an imaginary tyrant. Perhaps Freud was right that God is nothing but a substitute father figure.

God to me doesn't mean Jehovah, so I'm not really a strong believer in God being a loving, fatherly figure. It's a nice thought, but the horrors and stresses of the world seem to indicate that God intends for suffering to be the crucible out of which greater human specimens are formed.

Considering God to be a celestial paterfamilias, in the Roman sense, is appropriate. As God's offspring, we have the duty to follow him, to respect him, etc. This isn't to say that one can't love the paterfamilias, but that such a figure is, first and primarily, a law-giving provider who can, at times, flog and execute (so to speak). This is the supposedly darker aspect of God that horrifies humanists, and which they like to point out Jehovah typifies, but it seems to be far more sensible than it appears to be. God is harsh when he needs to be, a hard thing to accept, but it's true.

[Lutiferre]

God to me doesn't mean Jehovah, so I'm not really a strong believer in God being a loving, fatherly figure. It's a nice thought, but the horrors and stresses of the world seem to indicate that God intends for suffering to be the crucible out of which greater human specimens are formed.
And who says that is incompatible with a loving and fatherly figure? Reminds me of my own father.. a father is exactly characterised by his focus on discipline, as opposed to a mother.

[Cato]

An all-loving father will not be respected; an all-harsh father will be feared. So, the ideal father is neither to loving nor too harsh.

But, this is if you assume that God's masculine qualities are all that matters, and that God means patriarchal sky deity who gives cuddles and spanks in equal amounts.

[Puddle of Mudd]

Because they have a mistaken and sentimental definition of love. Gods love is hell for someone who rejects God. This is their hell: to be loved eternally by God.


This still doesn't apply to atheists...satanists maybe, but not atheists.

[Lutiferre]

This still doesn't apply to atheists, satanists maybe..but not atheists.

It does. It applies to anyone who doesn't accept Gods grace.

[Baron Samedi]

He most certainly is imo. A tyrant and a bully. And a coward, for picking on insignificant little beings like us, as if he enjoys doing it.

If there were such a resistance, I would join it. Lucifer seems to have caught onto the idea and apparently organised a revolt in heaven. He was justified in doing so, he seems to be the good guy in the story. :)

Lucifer is indeed the "light-bringer".

I have interacted with him before via ritual gnosis. Really a laid-back, worldly chap.

[Puddle of Mudd]

It does. It applies to anyone who doesn't accept Gods grace.

Check up on the definition of atheism some time: a⋅the⋅ism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

[Lutiferre]

An all-loving father will not be respected; an all-harsh father will be feared. So, the ideal father is neither to loving nor too harsh.
I disagree. There is no dichotomy between love and discipline. It is precisely a fathers love which makes him want to discipline his children. Love is by no means sentimental and cuddly.


But, this is if you assume that God's masculine qualities are all that matters, and that God means patriarchal sky deity who gives cuddles and spanks in equal amounts.
Any image of God is of course, a human analogy of him, not an exhausting formula of him. But Gods masculine qualities are a good image of God, as you said, given creation itself. In your own words: "the horrors and stresses of the world seem to indicate that God intends for suffering to be the crucible out of which greater human specimens are formed."

[Lutiferre]

Check up on the definition of atheism some time: a⋅the⋅ism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Obviously. They reject the grace of God by disbelieving in his existence.

[Psychonaut]

All irrelevant if one accepts a Divine Command theory of morality.

...a theory which was first refuted on logical grounds nearly 2,400 years ago. I'd love to hear what proponents of Divine Command ethics think of Plato's critique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro).

[Puddle of Mudd]

Obviously. They reject the grace of God by disbelieving in his existence.

You've still not presented any evidence backing up the below statement and how it pertains to atheists.


"This is their hell: to be loved eternally by God."

[Cato]

I disagree. There is no dichotomy between love and discipline. It is precisely a fathers love which makes him want to discipline his children. Love is by no means sentimental and cuddly.

Any image of God is of course, a human analogy of him, not an exhausting formula of him. But Gods masculine qualities are a good image of God, as you said, given creation itself. In your own words: "the horrors and stresses of the world seem to indicate that God intends for suffering to be the crucible out of which greater human specimens are formed."

Touche, but my image of the divine also more than just the stern father-figure and lord of men. It also includes a Goddess that personifies traits that I personally value: civic life, industry, wisdom and so forth. It is also supreme in my mind and far worthier of regard than the father-figure.

[Lutiferre]

...a theory which was first refuted on logical grounds nearly 2,400 years ago. I'd love to hear what proponents of Divine Command ethics think of Plato's critique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro).
A Thomistic and a Palamistic view of the nature of the divine foundation of ethics are both capable of answering the Euthyphro dilemma. It is in fact, a false dilemma, since both things are the case. God loves good because the good is part of his divine character (nature and energies); and so, what God commands is good because it reflects the goodness of his divine nature and energies.

[Lutiferre]

You've still not presented any evidence backing up the below statement and how it pertains to atheists.
Because Gods eternal loving energies is hell for one who rejects them, who does not love God and who therefore does not love his eternal love; it is eternal torments for them. “For our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29),

[Psychonaut]

It is in fact, a false dilemma, since both things are the case. God loves good because the good is part of his divine character (nature and energies); and so, what God commands is good because it reflects the goodness of his divine nature and energies.

This response requires that I ask: what determines God's nature? If he is omnipotent, then is his nature not self-determined? Would that not, in essence, lead us back to the original dilemma of "good" being either arbitrarily determined by God or pre-determined by a higher power?

[Lutiferre]

Touche, but my image of the divine also more than just the stern father-figure and lord of men. It also includes a Goddess that personifies traits that I personally value: civic life, industry, wisdom and so forth. It is also supreme in my mind and far worthier of regard than the father-figure.
Yes, though I find it notable that creation itself mandates more of a father figure than a maternal one, which is why I believe the Christian intuition to use the paternal symbol is on the right track.

[Lutiferre]

This response requires that I ask: what determines God's nature? If he is omnipotent, then is his nature not self-determined? Would that not, in essence, lead us back to the original dilemma of "good" being either arbitrarily determined by God or pre-determined by a higher power?
Gods essence is identical to God himself. Gods freedom is identical to his essence (divine simplicity), and in the Thomistic view, his eternal essence is purely an eternal act.

[Psychonaut]

Gods essence is identical to God himself. Gods freedom is identical to his essence (divine simplicity), and in the Thomistic view, his eternal essence is purely an eternal act.

However, since God is omnipotent, is his essence not determined (or at least willfully maintained) by himself?

[Lutiferre]

However, since God is omnipotent, is his essence not determined (or at least willfully maintained) by himself?
No. There is no distinction between himself and his essence. His essence is himself, and his will (freedom/autonomy) is identical to his essence. This means that his character and will are one.

[Nodens]

However, since God is omnipotent, is his essence not determined (or at least willfully maintained) by himself?

More fundamentally, would an entity possessing omnipotence preclude said being from possessing an essential nature (that said entity is bound by)? Do we encounter a paradox?

[Lutiferre]

More fundamentally, would an entity possessing omnipotence preclude said being from possessing an essential nature (that said entity is bound by)? Do we encounter a paradox?
First of all, God does not possess an essence. God is identical to his essence. So he is not "bound by" his essence or nature. He is his essence.

Second, omnipotence means the ability to actualize any potentiality, not the ability to do the logically impossible which is not a potentiality.

[Psychonaut]

No. There is no distinction between himself and his essence. His essence is himself, and his will (freedom/autonomy) is identical to his essence. This means that his character and will are one.

Let me rephrase my question then. Would God not be capable, as an omnipotent being, of altering himself as will?


More fundamentally, would an entity possessing omnipotence preclude said being from possessing an essential nature (that said entity is bound by)? Do we encounter a paradox?

:thumb001:

[Cato]

Yes, though I find it notable that creation itself mandates more of a father figure than a maternal one, which is why I believe the Christian intuition to use the paternal symbol is on the right track.

The figure of Athena is quite asexual, which is why I consider her to be superior to a purely male or purely female figure. Athena combines both male and female characteristics and is neither overbearing nor nurturing.

[Lutiferre]

Let me rephrase my question then. Would God not be capable, as an omnipotent being, of altering himself as will?

No. That does not fall under the definition of omnipotence, which is "the capability to actualize any potentiality". To actualize any potentiality in pure actuality which has no unrealized potential is a logical self-contradiction. There is no potentiality to be actualized because it is already actual from eternity.

[Psychonaut]

No. That does not fall under the definition of omnipotence, which is "the capability to actualize any potentiality". To actualize any potentiality in pure actuality which has no unrealized potential is a logical self-contradiction. There is no potentiality to be actualized because it is already actual from eternity.

So, what you're saying is that the potential for "good" to be something other than what it is cannot exist because it's current definition has always been in place?

[Lutiferre]

So, what you're saying is that the potential for "good" to be something other than what it is cannot exist because it's current definition has always been in place?
Well, there are several contingent relativities of the same absolute goodness, contingent on different situations and creations that is.

But since Gods goodness in his transcendent energies is not contingent, and since he knows all potential contingent situations independently of their actuality, it is indeed settled from eternity. To say anything else is to understand God from a temporally limited/confined perspective.

[Psychonaut]

To say anything else is to understand God from a temporally limited/confined perspective.

So, since God has no origin (being, ultimately atemporal), "the good" is, along with his nature, undefined by him?

[Lutiferre]

So, since God has no origin (being, ultimately atemporal),
Gods origin is from eternity, that is, not with beginning or end, but from an eternal act(uality) which is identical both to his will and essence.


"the good" is, along with his nature, undefined by him?
No. The good, along with his nature, is his (free) eternal act(uality).

[Psychonaut]

No. The good, along with his nature, is his (free) eternal act(uality).

Right...so, it's not actively defined by him, right?

[Freomæg]

Lutiferre, when I mentioned the Gnostics, I was referring to this belief: That far from creating this world for the children he loves, He fabricated this material world and these material vessels to entrap our once-liberated souls - for His own pleasure perhaps. According to this belief, we have nothing to be thankful for.

I'm not sure whether this sits with my own spiritual beliefs, but it seems more likely than the Biblical depiction.

[Lutiferre]

Right...so, it's not actively defined by him, right?
His eternal act is completely free.

Lutiferre, when I mentioned the Gnostics, I was referring to this belief: That far from creating this world for the children he loves, He fabricated this material world and these material vessels to entrap our once-liberated souls - for His own pleasure perhaps. According to this belief, we have nothing to be thankful for.

I'm not sure whether this sits with my own spiritual beliefs, but it seems more likely than the Biblical depiction.
I know of this idea. But it betrays the first principle which we know: being, which is what even allows them to hold that view, just because they cannot see beyond the seeming darkness of this world which is to elevate them to the light. From a phenomenological perspective even, being as goodness is still an indispensable ethic.

[Freomæg]

^ It doesn't betray the first principle. You're making the mistake of thinking that consciousness only exists because of our blood-and-flesh presence. The cornerstone of Gnosticism is that through spiritual work we can access our immaterial manifestation of consciousness which God was not responsible for.

[Lutiferre]

^ It doesn't betray the first principle.
It does betray it.

You're making the mistake of thinking that consciousness only exists because of our blood-and-flesh presence.
Body and soul are one substance. Without our blood and flesh, consciousness cannot operate. This kind of dualism is perhaps the biggest flaw of gnosticism.

The cornerstone of Gnosticism is that through spiritual work we can access our immaterial manifestation of consciousness which God was not responsible for.
The cornerstone of gnosticism is fundamentally flawed then. There is nothing that God is not responsible for, for the word God literally means "he who created everything".

[Freomæg]

Well there you have it - we've hit that inevitable brick wall, where you use your own faith to make that faith infallible - a circular argument. Gnosticism is only flawed according to the literal interpretation of the Bible, but to someone like myself, who sees the Bible as at least partially-flawed itself, Gnosticism is not invalid.

[Lutiferre]

Well there you have it - we've hit that inevitable brick wall, where you use your own faith to make that faith infallible - a circular argument.
It wasn't a circular argument, or an argument at all, but simply an example of how gnosticism doesn't begin to be a worthy opponent of or alternative to Christianity.


Gnosticism is only flawed according to the literal interpretation of the Bible, but to someone like myself, who sees the Bible as at least partially-flawed itself, Gnosticism is not invalid.
I did not even mention the bible. It is not only flawed according to the literal interpretation of the bible, but according to common sense outside of the bible, which I spoke exclusively from.

[Freomæg]

So, your assertion that consciousness requires a material vessel to exist is fact? Face it my friend, neither belief in the Christian God or Gnosticism are 'common sense'. They require a leap of faith in the existence of something beyond 'sense'. I'm actually a little surprised that you don't think consciousness can exist outside of our material bodies - what then is the afterlife according to your belief?

[Lutiferre]

So, your assertion that consciousness requires a material vessel to exist is fact?
No. My assertion is that human consciousness or soul is one substance with the human body. Consciousness, given that it can exist in humans, can certainly exist in other beings as well, but I'm making an assertion about human nature, not anything else.

I'm actually a little surprised that you don't think consciousness can exist outside of our material bodies - what then is the afterlife according to your belief?
First, (again) that's not what I said. But second, I'm surprised how little you know about Christian beliefs about the afterlife then. We believe we will have bodies in the afterlife, in an event known as the resurrection of the dead which, oh by the way, the entire Christian faith is centered around in it's symbology and doctrines. With Christ we die, with Christ we rise.

[Freomæg]

From my understanding, you've just described the belief of Jehova's Witnesses most specifically. Surely the general Christian belief is in a spiritual afterlife. Where and when does your afterlife happen? Are you not resurrected until after the Rapture?

[Lutiferre]

From my understanding, you've just described the belief of Jehova's Witnesses most specifically. Surely the general Christian belief is in a spiritual afterlife. Where and when does your afterlife happen? Are you not resurrected until after the Rapture?
No. It amazes me how little you know of Christian eschatology; this is basic New Testament and patristic stuff. The ressurrection of the dead is the essence of Christianity.

I dont know anything about Jehovas witnesses. I know that what they and some American protestants believe about something they call the "rapture" is heresy and not any traditional Christian doctrine, so you will have to ask them about that.

[Liffrea]

Superficial but fun:

http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/prometheus/socvsjes.htm

[Lutiferre]

There are many Christians who may be ignorantly under the influence of this gnostic dualism. But Gnostic soul/body-dualism is heresy and was never accepted by Christianity.

[SuuT]

Organize resistance against a supposedly omnipotent deity which you don't believe exists?

Whether the biblical god be an idea or a reality, a massive revolt and/or rejection of him would force either compromise; or, and what is more likely if the bible is the evidence, an epic act of tyranny on his behalf - like wiping us all from the earth in a great flood. Or fire.


So yes: the biblical god is not only a tyrant - he is also an archetype of what tyranny is.

[Lutiferre]

Superficial but fun:

http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/prometheus/socvsjes.htm
The bible itself refers to angels and men as "gods". Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High (Psalm 82:6). And Jesus said: Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?" (John 10:34). The word for "god" in Hebrew is simply "El" meaning powerful.

An angel, like a man, can be a god (powerful) without being the all-powerful (God).

[Poltergeist]

Whether the biblical god be an idea or a reality, a massive revolt and/or rejection of him would force either compromise; or, and what is more likely if the bible is the evidence, an epic act of tyranny on his behalf - like wiping us all from the earth in a great flood. Or fire.


So yes: the biblical god is not only a tyrant - he is also an archetype of what tyranny is.

There is no such thing as "Biblical" God, as opposed to some other god.

[Freomæg]

No. It amazes me how little you know of Christian eschatology; this is basic New Testament and patristic stuff. The ressurrection of the dead is the essence of Christianity.
Firstly, it would be a little more dignified of you to stop repeating how little I know about Christianity. I've never pretended to be an expert on Biblical theology, and where I'm from it has always been taught and accepted that Christians do believe in a spiritual afterlife, not a physical resurrection. Do you, like the Jehova's Witnesses, then also believe that there is no such thing as an infinite soul beyond the physical body? Sorry if this seems like a covered point, I just want clarification on the differences between what you believe and what Jehova's Witnesses believe.

Secondly, what is heaven to you? Does heaven merely describe Post-Resurrection Earth?

[SuuT]

There is no such thing as "Biblical" God, as opposed to some other god.

The god portrayed in the bible is commonly refered to as the biblical god. They're not talking about Nefertem, near as I can tell.

[Lutiferre]

or, and what is more likely if the bible is the evidence, an epic act of tyranny on his behalf - like wiping us all from the earth in a great flood. Or fire.
A myth which you can find in just about every mythology and religion (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html), in which a benevolent god warns the last pious family that the world will be flooded for it's impiety, corruption and evil and saves them to start a new beginning

It's not tyranny, but a purging from evil and corruption so goodness in a new beginning can flourish. It is essentially the image of a baptism. It is destroying evil and starting afresh with the last seed of good left.


So yes: the biblical god is not only a tyrant - he is also an archetype of what tyranny is.
No. If he does not exist, he has not done anything at all, and he is not a tyran.

[Lutiferre]

Firstly, it would be a little more dignified of you to stop repeating how little I know about Christianity. I've never pretended to be an expert on Biblical theology, and where I'm from it has always been taught and accepted that Christians do believe in a spiritual afterlife, not a physical resurrection. Do you, like the Jehova's Witnesses, then also believe that there is no such thing as an infinite soul beyond the physical body? Sorry if this seems like a covered point, I just want clarification on the differences between what you believe and what Jehova's Witnesses believe.
Infinite soul? We don't have an infinite soul. Where do you get that idea? We are finite beings.

We have a finite soul. I never said we don't have a soul, I said body and soul are one substance.

You can read about the Christian (as opposed to dualist/Platonic/Gnostic) view of the soul here (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/immortality_soul.htm).


Secondly, what is heaven to you? Does heaven merely describe Post-Resurrection Earth?
That is a whole subject of it's own, which I think we should save for another discussion.

[Poltergeist]

The god portrayed in the bible is commonly refered to as the biblical god. They're not talking about Nefertem, near as I can tell.

There is only one God who exists independently of the Biblical text and who revealed himself in the specific context of certain people and milieu of the Middle East, at certain point of time. People could come into some kind of relatoinship with God in other times and places as well, though never in the fulness.

[SuuT]

A myth which you can find in just about every mythology and religion (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html), in which a benevolent god warns the last pious family that the world will be flooded for it's impiety, corruption and evil and saves them to start a new beginning

Well sure!:) All gods have a tyranical bent - even mine:) (thank goodness). The tyranny of benevolence award goes to JWH, however. Moreover, there seems a correlation between a gods level of empowerment and the extent of his or her tyranny: again, YWH takes that cake.


It's not tyranny, but a purging from evil and corruption so goodness in a new beginning can flourish. It is essentially the image of a baptism. It is destroying evil and starting afresh with the last seed of good left.

A god who can find good in but one seed of the world is a sociopathic tyrant. And a moron to boot.


No. If he does not exist, he has not done anything at all, and he is not a tyrant.

I have no idea what this means.

[Lutiferre]

Well sure!:) All gods have a tyranical bent - even mine:) (thank goodness). The tyranny of benevolence award goes to JWH, however. Moreover, there seems a correlation between a gods level of empowerment and the extent of his or her tyranny: again, YWH takes that cake.
The consensus disagrees that it is tyranny to begin with. None of the stories degree definitionally.


A god who can find good in but one seed of the world is a sociopathic tyrant. And a moron to boot.
Obviously, that's not the point. The point is that the few choose the good, and the many choose evil and lead the world into corruption.


I have no idea what this means.You have no idea what it means? You must be retarded. If God does not exist, he has not done anything at all, and cannot be accused of being a tyrant or be anything at all.

[Lutiferre]

Secondly, what is heaven to you? Does heaven merely describe Post-Resurrection Earth?
But I can say, basically, heaven is in it's core communion with God. And it will not just be "Earth" or the same place and realm as now, but a "New Creation" of Gods grace which we will share in and be part of, since it will be communion with him whose grace, and hence, creative power, is unlimited, and that means sharing in the fruits of his grace in their unlimitedness.

[SuuT]

The consensus disagrees that it is tyranny to begin with. None of the stories degree definitionally.

I always know when you get nervous because your English starts to suck.

Try again, please.


Obviously, that's not the point.

Well, it was my point.


The point is...

And this is where you are going to make your point:


that the few choose the good, and the many choose evil and lead the world into corruption.

Which would be the biblical god's justification of his tyranny.


You have no idea what it means?

It isn't obvious, no.


You must be retarded.

I'm licking my monitor as I type....tastes like jam.


If God does not exist, he has not done anything at all, and cannot be accused of being a tyrant or be anything at all.

In the instance of the non-existence of the biblical God, the tyranny of the God idea , as portrayed biblically, would be attributable directly to itself and its subsequent use by human beings.

[Lutiferre]

Well, it was my point.
I was saying that it was not the point with the myth. Of course it is not your point with the myth.


And this is where you are going to make your point:

Which would be the biblical god's justification of his tyranny.
No. It is the point of the deluge myth in general.


In the instance of the non-existence of the biblical God, the tyranny of the God idea , as portrayed biblically, would be attributable directly to itself and its subsequent use by human beings.
But no such being as God would exist and be a tyrant.

And the God idea refers to a being; so if that being does not exist, the idea is not an actual tyrant in itself, since that implies that it refers to a being.

If it did, then I could invent a new idea which I could then say is a tyrant or the biggest enemy of mankind, but as long as the thing has no actuality, it makes no sense when speaking of the actual reality.

Of course you can say it describes the characteristics of a tyrant who does not exist, but then your initial statement remains false that "God is a tyrant". God would then, be a false idea of a non-existing thing without being, which has characteristics you label tyrannical.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I think they're just rebuking Christian arguments of a loving god, is all...

There is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.
Japanese,Swedes,Buddhists etc
Then there is me???? a gang-banger,the 11th commandment, to bypass all 10 commandments.
Hell is a place "without God" and excellent for Atheists

I was brought up a Catholic and letting my mind wander back, I pissed myself just looking at a girl and have an erection. I was more in the confessional than at hockey training.

[SuuT]

I was saying that it was not the point with the myth. Of course it is not your point with the myth.

No. It is the point of the deluge myth in general.

This point, however, does not deal with the debate or moral dilemma that arises in contemplating the act of God that would do such a thing. Which is what Loddfafner is trying to get at. I cede the point that the deluge mythos is an act of 'cleansing' - across the board.

It is who was 'cleansed' and why they were cleansed - the particulars that Jewify the deluge archetype - that are, at the very least, arguably tyranical:

1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a tyrannical act or proceeding.

I understand that it would creating head popping dissonance for you to apply this definition (above) to JWH (and to his credit, he seemed to have something of a change of heart by the New Testement); however, some would consider his dominion one comprised essentially of fear. Which gets a lot of shit done, don't get me wrong.

But I say that it is better to rule by respect. And to limit acts of epic tyranny to human beings.



But no such being as God would exist and be a tyrant.

And the God idea refers to a being; so if that being does not exist, the idea is not an actual tyrant in itself, since that implies that it refers to a being.

Ideas are at least as tranformative as gods. Including your god. They are the wellspring of human endeavor, and have existence as such. Ergo, whether the tyranny be falsely attributed to a non-existent god or no, the idea that moves the tyranny and the god that commits the tyranny are inextripably self-identical, even if we have mistakenly attributed actual existence/being to God.

[Lutiferre]

tyranical:

1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a tyrannical act or proceeding.

I understand that it would creating head popping dissonance for you to apply this definition (above) to JWH (and to his credit, he seemed to have something of a change of heart by the New Testement); however, some would consider his dominion one comprised essentially of fear. Which gets a lot of shit done, don't get me wrong.
Well, you cannot compare a tiny spec of dust (humanity) with God. There is no similarity between created and uncreated. I, as a human, own a limited set of things, and only in a temporal sense, in which I borrow it. I cannot do anything against the things that others own, and therefore, I cannot murder others unjustifiedly, because God owns their life, and I do not. God, however, can take their life any time he wants, because it is his. It is precisely because it is his that I cannot do it without a decree and justification in natural law.

God has created everything that exists, owns everything, and has the right to do what he wants with it without there being any injustice in it - because it would not exist to begin with if he hadn't created it.

Further, life is a gift, not a right. Life is being given the gift of borrowing the being - existence - of God, in a temporal/contingent sense. We do not merit or deserve it because we did not exist of our own accord, but were given existence without any possible merits of our own. It is complete love and charity, not obligation.

Hence, for God to stop giving a gift at any time, is not an infringement of anyones rights or entitlements, or even of love, since that he gives any gift of existence at all to anyone, is a gift, because he does not need them and nothing merits its own existence if it is contingent.

Hence, God is not a tyrant for things like the flood or other stories of cleansing evil. He would not be a tyrant even if he ended the world right now.

[Psychonaut]

Further, life is a gift, not a right. Life is being given the gift of borrowing the being - existence - of God, in a temporal/contingent sense. We do not merit or deserve it because we did not exist of our own accord, but were given existence without any possible merits of our own. It is complete love and charity, not obligation.

Hence, for God to stop giving a gift at any time, is not an infringement of anyones rights or entitlements, or even of love, since that he gives any gift of existence at all to anyone, is a gift, because he does not need them and nothing merits its own existence if it is contingent.

Hence, God is not a tyrant.

Aaaaaand it's that kind of insanity that led old Abe to almost sacrifice his son to the Tyrant-who-isn't-really-a-tyrant-with-a-fucked-up-sense-of-humor. :rolleyes:

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Let me rephrase my question then. Would God not be capable, as an omnipotent being, of altering himself as will?



:thumb001:

In my house there are many mansions>

1 for Catholics
1 for Gays
1 for Atheists
1 for Protestants
1 for Jehovah Witnesses
1 for jews
1 for tyrants
1 for Buddhists
1 for nudists

All these mansions are mentioned in the Bible,but you must dig deep into the verses.
This one I love

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.................
And god played scrabble with mankind

I would have thought that God in his omnipotence knew that words are symbols not based on facts

I am sure that God is laughing His ass off were we to confess our sins for lack of originality.

He can alter Himself at will and he does,that is why we have about 177 Christian religions. The one more stupid than the other.
This is called transcendence into the folklore :eek::rolleyes2::mad:

[Lutiferre]

Aaaaaand it's that kind of insanity that led old Abe to almost sacrifice his son to the Tyrant-who-isn't-really-a-tyrant-with-a-fucked-up-sense-of-humor. :rolleyes:
He knew that God was capable of reversing it even if he had sacrificed his son, and of resurrecting the dead. But God said; do not lay a hand on the boy. God expressly forbade and condemned the pagan practice of sacrificing children elsewhere, so in this context, it was simply to show that he takes no pleasure in a sacrifice in itself, since God needs nothing and we cannot give him anything (he owns everything already), but it is the willingness to sacrifice and to live without something in us, in fidelity to God, that matters. It is not the action or object which gives God something he didn't already have, but the willingness in us to live without something for greater love of God. The wisdom in that story is supreme.

Deuteronomy 18:9-12: When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire...Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.

[SuuT]

Well, you cannot compare a tiny spec of dust (humanity) with God. There is no similarity between created and uncreated. I, as a human, own a limited set of things, and only in a temporal sense, in which I borrow it. I cannot do anything against the things that others own, and therefore, I cannot murder others unjustifiedly, because God owns their life, and I do not. God, however, can take their life any time he wants, because it is his. It is precisely because it is his that I cannot do it without a decree and justification in natural law.

God has created everything that exists, owns everything, and has the right to do what he wants with it without there being any injustice in it - because it would not exist to begin with if he hadn't created it.

Further, life is a gift, not a right. Life is being given the gift of borrowing the being - existence - of God, in a temporal/contingent sense. We do not merit or deserve it because we did not exist of our own accord, but were given existence without any possible merits of our own. It is complete love and charity, not obligation.

Hence, for God to stop giving a gift at any time, is not an infringement of anyones rights or entitlements, or even of love, since that he gives any gift of existence at all to anyone, is a gift, because he does not need them and nothing merits its own existence if it is contingent.

Hence, God is not a tyrant for things like the flood or other stories of cleansing evil. He would not be a tyrant even if he ended the world right now.

God: The Gift Tyrant.

[Lutiferre]

God: The Gift Tyrant.
He is a tyrant for giving you the gift of existence? Or he is a tyrant for giving you the gift of existence which allows you to call it a curse to have been given existence? If so, I guess he is even more a tyrant for having given you the right to death and to hell, to commit suicide right here and now and throw it all away, if that is what you please.

[SuuT]

He is a tyrant for giving you the gift of existence?

My ancestors provided me existence. I honour them accordingly.


Or he is a tyrant for giving you the gift of existence which allows you to call it a curse to have been given existence?

“What if a demon were to creep after you one night, in your loneliest loneliness, and say, 'This life which you live must be lived by you once again and innumerable times more; and every pain and joy and thought and sigh must come again to you, all in the same sequence. The eternal hourglass will again and again be turned and you with it, dust of the dust!' Would you throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse that demon? Or would you answer, 'Never have I heard anything more divine'?”

I'm 'that guy', Lutiferre.


If so, I guess he is even more a tyrant for having given you the right to death and to hell, to commit suicide right here and now and throw it all away, if that is what you please.

Presumptuous.

[Lutiferre]

My ancestors provided me existence. I honour them accordingly.
They were given existence themselves before until there wasn't even a thing called humanity.

[Freomæg]

I'm really confused. Am I the only one who thought the general consensus among Christians was that there exists a spiritual afterlife in a spiritual place called heaven? Am I the only one who has been led to believe that most Christians believe in an immortal soul rather than zombie-like resurrection of dead bodies?

I knew that Jehova's Witnesses believe this, but had no idea the more prevalent Churches did.

[Psychonaut]

He is a tyrant for giving you the gift of existence? Or he is a tyrant for giving you the gift of existence which allows you to call it a curse to have been given existence? If so, I guess he is even more a tyrant for having given you the right to death and to hell, to commit suicide right here and now and throw it all away, if that is what you please.

It's not a gift if you constantly threaten to take it away. In the US, we call people like that Indian Givers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_giver). ;)

[ironman]

Where does it say in the Bible that i cannot masterbate, because it is a sin?

[Cato]

It's not a gift if you constantly threaten to take it away. In the US, we call people like that Indian Givers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_giver). ;)

An old contention: the supposed creator gives us a free will, yet punishes us, often very severely, when use that free will to reject him and his commandments.

[Sol Invictus]

God exists, and He is pissed.

As for Him being a tyrant, He has not removed us of our freedom to choose whether to follow man's ways or His ways, which transcend man. Let's face it, though, we're probably all going to Hell anyway, whether we profess to be Christians or not. I hope I don't, but that's not for me to decide.

[Psychonaut]

Agent Smith and Saparmurat, please move your personal dispute to either the Big Fight or respond to each other in PMs. This discussion has nothing to do with the thread's topic.

[Sol Invictus]

Agent Smith and Saparmurat, please move your personal dispute to either the Big Fight or respond to each other in PMs. This discussion has nothing to do with the thread's topic.

I agree. I just PM'd him and will take it up with him on a private basis. There is intelligent discussion here. No need to ruin it by throwing around personal insults.

My Apologies. Please continue my friends.

[Poltergeist]

...

[Psychonaut]

How about a thread split?

If you desperately wish to continue your verbal duel with AS, feel free to start up a thread in the Big Fight or to PM him your response to his last statement directed at you.

I hereby dub this thread Officially Back on Track™.

[Cato]

...

Turkembashi deserves a posthumous award for being one of the coolest world leaders ever.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Hey guys,
Oke I was brought up by Jesuits and so was my dad and so was his dad.
and I am glad for that,I reckon that they are the best teachers on God-Men-Hell -Heaven. I am now an Atheist on the advise of Father Fitzpatrick.

Where I can quote a verse I will,but in general I am out of touch with the Bible.
I only use it when one of my friends are backsliding into black hole and in the process "losing" it and need a helping hand to find the road back(Atheist do this too)

No one needs religion,every one needs a belief and that is a personal choice,which can not be debated by outsiders.
Unfortunately they incorporate their personal belief into one of the religions in existence.
We must forget the idea we have a free will, none of us have,we are constrained by the force of nature and by the interaction with our neighbors-our colleagues- our priests and clerics-our man made laws even our intelligence (IQ of 85 as opposed to 125) in short :different strokes for different folks.
But our free will is even more suppressed by religion.

We have been arguing about God being a tyrant.....He is,if something makes Him(Capital letter out of respect). He is a little child,shouting and screaming for His lollipop. If He does not get it, He murders man and animals alike i.s.o. telling the victims or forcing the victims to mend their ways.

His so called tantrum in the Temple,chasing the money lenders and "Fleamarket" stall-holders from the premises,a practise held for years and years, and still in practice by most religions.

Then
Most of the 10 commandments and some of the Proverbs were not of JWH(crzy stff wtht vwls)but from the Sumerians and Codex Hammurabi.

God's utter murdering brutality:
1 Samuel 6:19 murdered 50.070 men of Bethshemesh,because they looked into the Ark

Exodus32:26-28 3000 murdered from the Tribe of Levi ordered by God and executed by Moses

2 Chronicles 13:15-18 500.000 Israelites delivered to the Judeans and murdered

2 Chronicles 28:6-8 120.000 men killed and 200.000 women and children taken as slaves,not to mention theft of property


2Chronicles 14:8-12 1.000.000 Ethiopians

etc etc.
Jeremiah 25:33
By the time God gets through with His killing spree enough were murdered to cover the whole earth

1King25:6-9
120.000 sheep and 22.000 oxen sacrificed to please God,by Solomon

If the above content does not shock you,the years of propaganda have certainty dulled your senses.Could those be the wishes of a God of Love.
It stinks of manipulative human characteristics of monumental proportions

Sin

We seem to take so much care to bring our children up in the proper fashion.
Depending on what culture you may come from,the variations of the word 'proper' can be quite extreme,relative to each other's dogmas.
There are many established cultures throughout the world, each one with its own peculiar customs,rituals and belief systems.
Sin in those cultures differ too.

We behave in a certain way there must be something driving it from within(genes possibly)
Just as we cannot refute the fact that someone has blue eyes,when it is clearly visible(fact???) we cannot refute the fact that we display violent behaviour,when it is clearly visible as well as our benevolent and peaceful traits.
Intolerance is natural,fights are natural,murder is natural,infanticide is natural,theft is natural,bigamy is natural,monogamy is natural,polygamy is natural,deflowering is natural.
For one reason only:The predator/ pray or fight/flight commandment in NATURE created by God. It is the only commandment that exits,the others are man made.
Had we a free will we would use this commandment.
Using this commandment as a point of departure then the "sins' we commit are not punishable by burning in Hell. As a matter of fact even using the 10 commandments and Jesus' famous words(somewhere in the Bible),broadly stated:"All sins are or will be forgiven Except sins against the Holy Spirit.

No body knows what a sin against the Holy Spirit is,throughout the ages they came up with all sorts of Holy Spirit sins,but God was wise enough not to divulge it,meaning we can not willingly sin against the Holy Spirit,but those who do it unwillingly are getting the chop

In short No one will ever see Hell except those who sin against the Holy Spirit

A Head Hunter or a Maya,who does not know better, goes to Heaven by the Grace of God.
All humans murdered by God also go to Heaven,but they sit on His left not on His right:
The right is for the chosen ones:thumbs up

[Cato]

^That's if you accept the strange idea of grace and forgiveness rather than the idea of cause and effect as determining one's reward or punishment in the afterlife.

[Hrafn]

I don't believe in monotheistic religions made by humans. That is all.

[Wölfin]

A Tyrant? Perhaps so, but I think the biggest problem is the fact humans attribute to Divinities, human characteristics.
Personally though, I think s/he/it just has an... interesting sense of humour. I am sure s/he/it probably thinks one of our most hilarious and absurd inventions is religion and the beliefs and laws created in it. Think about it, reality tv on a global scale.

[Cato]

Why does it have to be humans giving God(s) their own characteristics and not the other way around? Who execpt Christians and Jews try to say that the Almighty is perfect? I think it's better to say that there's a certain element of truth in the dualistic conception of the universe, or that God(s) have certain human modes of behavior.

The Bible-believers try to get around it and say that, while the Bible presents Jehovah as getting angry, feeling regret, wanting to get revenge, that this is just the Bible "speaking in the language of man." Hell, don't the myths do the same thing? The Bible holds man to a lower standard than the myths do imo- man is punished by Jehovah for being a man, the free will issue, whereas man's own free will tends to punish him in the myths. Jehovah is above the law whereas the Gods in the myths are subject to the law.

Which form is better? How can you trust a deity who has rules for you (mere mortals) but effectively cheats by saying the rules don't apply to this? Jehovah supposedly has "moral freedom" but I find this to be completely aribitrary since, in the end, no one really knows what an infinite being wants beyond what it chooses to tell us (all Jehovah really tells us is to be nice to each other or we'll get zapped). If there are laws that even Gods have to obey, laws that themselves are eternal and unchanging and ungenerated, call them fate or karma or wyrd or whatever, then the element of arbitrariness might better be explained. The Supreme Being might even be best understood in the workings of irony and fate rather than in its supposed "moral freedom."

[Lutiferre]

It's not a gift if you constantly threaten to take it away. In the US, we call people like that Indian Givers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_giver). ;)
God has given a gift which he does not actually take away, which is: anything at all. Even a microsecond of existence is a gift.

This is of course a gift which has it's limits. Which gift doesn't? He gives us life, but this life is also going to end. When it does and how it does is something that is up to Gods will and how we act and relate to God and existence. But that it is limited in the temporal sense doesn't mean it isn't a gift. We never merited any of this gift, not to mention an unlimited gift, because we did not exist. And then, there is also a sense in which the act of giving us the gift is unlimited, since something is infinitely more than nothing.

But that when it has first come, the gift has its boundaries, is not threatening to take it away. The gift has been given no matter what, even if the gift has it's boundaries and ultimately comes down to a condition on whether or not he will continue pouring out his gift of grace, the gift as such has already been given, and that is irrevocable.

I'm really confused. Am I the only one who thought the general consensus among Christians was that there exists a spiritual afterlife in a spiritual place called heaven? Am I the only one who has been led to believe that most Christians believe in an immortal soul rather than zombie-like resurrection of dead bodies?
Probably not. Many people today, Christians included, are under the influence of Manicheanism, that is, the doctrine that matter is somehow evil. But the material side of existence is believed to be itself spiritual (in a way) in orthodox Christian views - an outpouring of existence flowing from Gods being.

The ressurrection isn't zombie-like, it's a reunion between body and soul, and it won't be simply this plane of existence either, but a new creation (and Gods creative powers are unlimited). So the heaven is certainly "spiritual", in any case.

It is rather the bifurcation between spiritual and material in heaven which is not going to be felt. That illusion partially comes now first because this is a time of trying, of purging, and of suffering, and of growing, which is necessary first.


We have been arguing about God being a tyrant.....He is,if something makes Him(Capital letter out of respect). He is a little child,shouting and screaming for His lollipop. If He does not get it, He murders man and animals alike i.s.o. telling the victims or forcing the victims to mend their ways.

Well, you are completely wrong.

First of all, God cannot and does not "murder" because murder (per the Merriam-Webster online dictionary) is the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. Killing, on the other hand, is terminating the life of someone else, and killing may be lawful. God cannot kill unlawfully, since his law is the highest law in existence, and he is the lawgiver and creator for anything else that exists.



God's utter murdering brutality:
1 Samuel 6:19 murdered 50.070 men of Bethshemesh,because they looked into the Ark

Exodus32:26-28 3000 murdered from the Tribe of Levi ordered by God and executed by Moses

2 Chronicles 13:15-18 500.000 Israelites delivered to the Judeans and murdered

2 Chronicles 28:6-8 120.000 men killed and 200.000 women and children taken as slaves,not to mention theft of property


2Chronicles 14:8-12 1.000.000 Ethiopians

etc etc.
Jeremiah 25:33
By the time God gets through with His killing spree enough were murdered to cover the whole earth

1King25:6-9
120.000 sheep and 22.000 oxen sacrificed to please God,by Solomon

If the above content does not shock you,the years of propaganda have certainty dulled your senses.Could those be the wishes of a God of Love.
It stinks of manipulative human characteristics of monumental proportions

Second, you are wrong about the numbers. God has not terminated a limited number of life. He has terminated the life of perhaps 110 billion (human) people since the beginning of time, and an unthinkable number of cells and other forms of life that have died, and particles that have decayed, and whatever. All these things are finite and temporal. But that does not mean God is evil, it simply means that the gift of being has boundaries.

Because anything that happens had Gods will to allow to happen. Nothing happens at all apart from Gods will, even if God voluntarily submits his own will to the freedom of humanity (for instance, to act contrary to his will). So God allows us to sin and to do everything he despises.

And God has also granted the life of 110 billion human people.

And when he did that, he never promised them that their lifetime would be unlimited, and they certainly did not merit it. So he oferred them a finite lifespan with a finite amount of suffering, purging, growing, joy and pleasure and time. And when this finite time ends or how or what it's content is, is wholly up to God to decide, in synergy with whatever humanity as a collective whole and man as an individual chooses.



Sin

We seem to take so much care to bring our children up in the proper fashion.
Depending on what culture you may come from,the variations of the word 'proper' can be quite extreme,relative to each other's dogmas.
There are many established cultures throughout the world, each one with its own peculiar customs,rituals and belief systems.
Sin in those cultures differ too.
It differs how much they recognise sin, and how much they recognise the way to enlightenment, and to a peaceful and stimulating society, and how much they recognise various truths about the physical world and about God, and so on. But all this proves nothing. Natural law, as it is understood in Christianity, applies to everyone, independently of what their culture says about it. If their culture is contrary to it, it is the culture which is constantly mutable to begin with, which is to be reformed, rather than natural law, which is irreformable.


We behave in a certain way there must be something driving it from within(genes possibly)
It is not simply genetics, but epigenetics, what some call "memetics", and free will (self-determination).


Intolerance is natural,fights are natural,murder is natural,infanticide is natural,theft is natural,bigamy is natural,monogamy is natural,polygamy is natural,deflowering is natural.
It is natural in the sense of occuring in the natural world, yes. It is not natural in the sense that it should be considered as an ethically natural behaviour. What distinguishes man from beast is precisely that we are superelevated above many of the limitations of beast and can transcend what is merely natural in the sense of worldly, and go into what is natural for humanity, which is ethically and otherworldly and above the rest of creation.


For one reason only:The predator/ pray or fight/flight commandment in NATURE created by God. It is the only commandment that exits,the others are man made.
There is no one behaviour in nature. Each creature behaves according to the predispositions and circumstances that apply. No divine commandment derives from it, only divine creativity. God has created nature and humanity itself in a limited, temporal and constantly changing way. What characterizes creation is precisely that it is not one big homogeneous block of stone, but a vast and diverse ocean of existences and demonstrations of divine power and existence.

Man is precisely that rational animal which was formed and created for super-elevation above the rest of creation, to divine likeness, to spiritual, abstract and metaphysical awareness, the head of creation (literally: the head, with all it's thought, consciousness and awareness of existence and God). This divine likeness raises it to Gods divine standard as well, a predicament of super-elevation into transcending of all Gods other creation and to communing with God.


As a matter of fact even using the 10 commandments and Jesus' famous words(somewhere in the Bible),broadly stated:"All sins are or will be forgiven Except sins against the Holy Spirit.
No. All sins can be forgiven. It does not mean all sins are forgiven, if forgiveness is never asked for or accepted by the sinner himself and if that forgiveness would not be a reflection of the genuine mind of the sinner in his will to either be a sinner or to transcend sin and be a god.


No body knows what a sin against the Holy Spirit is,throughout the ages they came up with all sorts of Holy Spirit sins,but God was wise enough not to divulge it,meaning we can not willingly sin against the Holy Spirit,but those who do it unwillingly are getting the chop
A sin against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven because sins are forgiven through the Holy Spirit, because sinners are made saints through the Holy Spirit.

A sin against the Holy Spirit is to reject the grace of God as it has been poured mercifully onto you with awareness of God, and even then rejecting it. It is in the face of the Holy Spirit to spit on grace. That is sin which is unforgivable.


Then
Most of the 10 commandments and some of the Proverbs were not of JWH(crzy stff wtht vwls)but from the Sumerians and Codex Hammurabi.
The ten commandments were a temporal reflection of natural law, which are not confined to Sumerians, Hebrews, or any other people, but universally valid.


The Bible-believers try to get around it and say that, while the Bible presents Jehovah as getting angry, feeling regret, wanting to get revenge, that this is just the Bible "speaking in the language of man."
That is not a work-around, but a fact. Obviously the bible speaks in the language of man.

Jehovah supposedly has "moral freedom" but I find this to be completely aribitrary since, in the end, no one really knows what an infinite being wants beyond what it chooses to tell us (all Jehovah really tells us is to be nice to each other or we'll get zapped).
Please, stop calling God "Jehovah". As I was pointed out, there is no universal acceptance of this verbal rendition, neither among Hebrews or Christians, and anyway, it is completely unnecessary. You can simply call it the Christian God or the Hebrew God, or YHVH or Elohim, all of which are undisputable and clear references.

If there are laws that even Gods have to obey, laws that themselves are eternal and unchanging and ungenerated, call them fate or karma or wyrd or whatever,
The only law God obeys is the law that he does not need to obey to begin with, because that law is itself a reflection of his own divine being and character. So it is that law which obeys God rather than him who obeys it.
then the element of arbitrariness might better be explained. The Supreme Being might even be best understood in the workings of irony and fate rather than in its supposed "moral freedom."
I don't know what you mean with moral freedom here, but God acts according to his nature and character (because he is his nature), and there is no distinction between freedom and necessity in the divine essence.

[Cato]

Please, stop calling God "Jehovah". As I was pointed out, there is no universal acceptance of this verbal rendition, neither among Hebrews or Christians, and anyway, it is completely unnecessary. You can simply call it the Christian God or the Hebrew God, or YHVH or Elohim, all of which are undisputable and clear references.

Of which I am neither, so why should I stop calling him Jehovah? It's religious solipsism to assume that I feel the need to call your deity by your particular religion's titles.

[Lutiferre]

Of which I am neither, so why should I stop calling him Jehovah?
Because it makes no sense to make an incorrect reference when there are clear references that are undisputed.

It's like me calling Thor or Odin by some confused and altered version of their name which isn't actually accepted either as historically accurate or dogmatically correct, in a dialogue or commentary on the religion of Odinists. It just makes no sense.

[Psychonaut]

God has given a gift which he does not actually take away

He doesn't take it away?


Further, life is a gift...Hence, for God to stop giving a gift at any time, is not an infringement of anyones rights or entitlements...

Say what you mean and mean what you say, boy! If you imply that the gift-giver has the right, as the giver, to cease giving the gift (which is life itself), don't balk when the equation is presented in simple terms.


When it does and how it does is something that is up to Gods will and how we act and relate to God and existence.

I see. My perspective must be off a little, because when I read about God burning complainers (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/11.html#1), God commanding that the Amorites be slaughered (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/21.html#34), or the Canaanites (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/21.html#3), or the Midianites (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/31.html#1) it just seems silly that you call those kinds of things the actions of a loving God. Genocide especially seems pretty tyrannical. Commanding your chosen people to slaughter the men, women, children and animals of another tribe is a bit different, IMO, than just stopping giving a gift. But, I guess this is just one of those "God works in mysterious ways" kinds of things.

[Cato]

Because it makes no sense to make an incorrect reference when there are clear references that are undisputed.

It's like me calling Thor or Odin by some confused and altered version of their name which isn't actually accepted either as historically accurate or dogmatically correct, in a dialogue or commentary on the religion of Odinists. It just makes no sense.

Again, solipsism. Only you and not I consider Jehovah to be an incorrect rendering of your deity's identifier. You understand it well enough it seems, but seem to think that I (a non-Christian mind you) am under some sort of divine imperative to use the correct terminology to refer to him.

This is if I were to use Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo to refer to [Red] China. Do you really think I care, not being either Christian or a Chinese communust?

[Lulletje Rozewater]

God has given a gift which he does not actually take away, which is: anything at all. Even a microsecond of existence is a gift.

This is of course a gift which has it's limits. Which gift doesn't? He gives us life, but this life is also going to end. When it does and how it does is something that is up to Gods will and how we act and relate to God and existence. But that it is limited in the temporal sense doesn't mean it isn't a gift. We never merited any of this gift, not to mention an unlimited gift, because we did not exist. And then, there is also a sense in which the act of giving us the gift is unlimited, since something is infinitely more than nothing.

But that when it has first come, the gift has its boundaries, is not threatening to take it away. The gift has been given no matter what, even if the gift has it's boundaries and ultimately comes down to a condition on whether or not he will continue pouring out his gift of grace, the gift as such has already been given, and that is irrevocable.

Probably not. Many people today, Christians included, are under the influence of Manicheanism, that is, the doctrine that matter is somehow evil. But the material side of existence is believed to be itself spiritual (in a way) in orthodox Christian views - an outpouring of existence flowing from Gods being.

The ressurrection isn't zombie-like, it's a reunion between body and soul, and it won't be simply this plane of existence either, but a new creation (and Gods creative powers are unlimited). So the heaven is certainly "spiritual", in any case.

It is rather the bifurcation between spiritual and material in heaven which is not going to be felt. That illusion partially comes now first because this is a time of trying, of purging, and of suffering, and of growing, which is necessary first.


Well, you are completely wrong.

First of all, God cannot and does not "murder" because murder (per the Merriam-Webster online dictionary) is the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. Killing, on the other hand, is terminating the life of someone else, and killing may be lawful. God cannot kill unlawfully, since his law is the highest law in existence, and he is the lawgiver and creator for anything else that exists.



Second, you are wrong about the numbers. God has not terminated a limited number of life. He has terminated the life of perhaps 110 billion (human) people since the beginning of time, and an unthinkable number of cells and other forms of life that have died, and particles that have decayed, and whatever. All these things are finite and temporal. But that does not mean God is evil, it simply means that the gift of being has boundaries.

Because anything that happens had Gods will to allow to happen. Nothing happens at all apart from Gods will, even if God voluntarily submits his own will to the freedom of humanity (for instance, to act contrary to his will). So God allows us to sin and to do everything he despises.

And God has also granted the life of 110 billion human people.

And when he did that, he never promised them that their lifetime would be unlimited, and they certainly did not merit it. So he oferred them a finite lifespan with a finite amount of suffering, purging, growing, joy and pleasure and time. And when this finite time ends or how or what it's content is, is wholly up to God to decide, in synergy with whatever humanity as a collective whole and man as an individual chooses.

It differs how much they recognise sin, and how much they recognise the way to enlightenment, and to a peaceful and stimulating society, and how much they recognise various truths about the physical world and about God, and so on. But all this proves nothing. Natural law, as it is understood in Christianity, applies to everyone, independently of what their culture says about it. If their culture is contrary to it, it is the culture which is constantly mutable to begin with, which is to be reformed, rather than natural law, which is irreformable.

It is not simply genetics, but epigenetics, what some call "memetics", and free will (self-determination).

It is natural in the sense of occuring in the natural world, yes. It is not natural in the sense that it should be considered as an ethically natural behaviour. What distinguishes man from beast is precisely that we are superelevated above many of the limitations of beast and can transcend what is merely natural in the sense of worldly, and go into what is natural for humanity, which is ethically and otherworldly and above the rest of creation.

There is no one behaviour in nature. Each creature behaves according to the predispositions and circumstances that apply. No divine commandment derives from it, only divine creativity. God has created nature and humanity itself in a limited, temporal and constantly changing way. What characterizes creation is precisely that it is not one big homogeneous block of stone, but a vast and diverse ocean of existences and demonstrations of divine power and existence.

Man is precisely that rational animal which was formed and created for super-elevation above the rest of creation, to divine likeness, to spiritual, abstract and metaphysical awareness, the head of creation (literally: the head, with all it's thought, consciousness and awareness of existence and God). This divine likeness raises it to Gods divine standard as well, a predicament of super-elevation into transcending of all Gods other creation and to communing with God.


No. All sins can be forgiven. It does not mean all sins are forgiven, if forgiveness is never asked for or accepted by the sinner himself and if that forgiveness would not be a reflection of the genuine mind of the sinner in his will to either be a sinner or to transcend sin and be a god.

A sin against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven because sins are forgiven through the Holy Spirit, because sinners are made saints through the Holy Spirit.

A sin against the Holy Spirit is to reject the grace of God as it has been poured mercifully onto you with awareness of God, and even then rejecting it. It is in the face of the Holy Spirit to spit on grace. That is sin which is unforgivable.

The ten commandments were a temporal reflection of natural law, which are not confined to Sumerians, Hebrews, or any other people, but universally valid.

That is not a work-around, but a fact. Obviously the bible speaks in the language of man.

Please, stop calling God "Jehovah". As I was pointed out, there is no universal acceptance of this verbal rendition, neither among Hebrews or Christians, and anyway, it is completely unnecessary. You can simply call it the Christian God or the Hebrew God, or YHVH or Elohim, all of which are undisputable and clear references.

The only law God obeys is the law that he does not need to obey to begin with, because that law is itself a reflection of his own divine being and character. So it is that law which obeys God rather than him who obeys it.
I don't know what you mean with moral freedom here, but God acts according to his nature and character (because he is his nature), and there is no distinction between freedom and necessity in the divine essence.

At least you have come down to earth and your pedantry and your pedagogic ramblings have somewhat diminished.
You sounded like the 12/13 year old Jesus showing off his knowledge to a bunch of Scribes and disappearing for 3 days without telling his parents.
If he was my son I would have beaten the crap out of him and then telling his parents: Oh I was doing my fathers work.
Nice God you have?.

If you wish me to reply to your post above say so.
A Good Atheist,like me, loves a peekaboo God of Love,but I hate wasting my time on senseless parables and irrational godly behaviour or silly wordplay,which seem to be your forte.

[Lutiferre]

At least you have come down to earth and your pedantry and your pedagogic ramblings have somewhat diminished.
You sounded like the 12/13 year old Jesus showing off his knowledge to a bunch of Scribes and disappearing for 3 days without telling his parents.
If he was my son I would have beaten the crap out of him and then telling his parents: Oh I was doing my fathers work.
Nice God you have?.

If you wish me to reply to your post above say so.
A Good Atheist,like me, loves a peekaboo God of Love,but I hate wasting my time on senseless parables and irrational godly behaviour or silly wordplay,which seem to be your forte.


You are the one playing with words and wasting my time. Do whatever you want.


Say what you mean and mean what you say, boy! If you imply that the gift-giver has the right, as the giver, to cease giving the gift (which is life itself), don't balk when the equation is presented in simple terms.
He does not just cease giving the gift - he has already given the gift. He ceases giving more of it.

<- God ordered the destruction of Amorites, Canaanites, Midianites -> therefore: it just seems silly that you call those kinds of things the actions of a loving God.
I have already covered that in depth here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=101214&postcount=3) with these links: how could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites? (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html), what about God’s cruelty against the Midianites? (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html), and more (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html) on specifically tribal warfare of this time. Amorites, Canaanites, Midianites were all defeated and killed for a reason, for their plot against Israel, and for their repeated mass crimes and sins to an extreme level which they never ceased or repented and consistently kept repeating in the face of warnings. A few examples of their sins are burning children, ritual human sacrifice of various other forms, ritual sexual prostitution and rape and systematic plots to attempt to defeat, pervert, corrupt and kill off the Israelites. Israel, being the vessel of salvation for mankind, had to be protected against these perpetrators.


Genocide especially seems pretty tyrannical. Commanding your chosen people to slaughter the men, women, children and animals of another tribe is a bit different, IMO, than just stopping giving a gift.
In this case, we are talking of Israel defending itself as a nation, but with divine mandate for self-preservation, which in this case, means tribal warfare, which means either destroying others or being destroyed. There were no social relief organizations back then, and killing was the most humane way to stop the life of a tribe; otherwise they would have been left to starve to death, be taken into slavery by other cruel tribes (Israelites had more humane rules for slavery), or other ill fates.

Again, solipsism. Only you and not I consider Jehovah to be an incorrect rendering of your deity's identifier. You understand it well enough it seems, but seem to think that I (a non-Christian mind you) am under some sort of divine imperative to use the correct terminology to refer to him.

This is if I were to use Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo to refer to [Red] China. Do you really think I care, not being either Christian or a Chinese communust?
Okay, I am sorry. I will just refer to you as Pallamadass from now on then.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Because it makes no sense to make an incorrect reference when there are clear references that are undisputed.

It's like me calling Thor or Odin by some confused and altered version of their name which isn't actually accepted either as historically accurate or dogmatically correct, in a dialogue or commentary on the religion of Odinists. It just makes no sense.


I was going to have a good debate,but going back on some of your statements,I decided against it.
I see you as a theoretical "fundi"(hmm),without practical knowledge
Jehova(JHVH) is perfectly right,Jahweh(Jhwh too or YHWH. Read my lips

Hebrew Bible was written without vowels, Gospel without spaces. They were added at about 1000 A.D. Inserting vowels/spaces in other ways we get tens new Holy Bibles!! of which one is called LUTIFERRE:D:wink

Ask your mentor to give you insight in History of the Christian Bible a product of Paul,the physically and mentally disabled, who translated the Torah(for the Christians) as he saw fit.
Reminds me of the Cock(Rooster:D) and Peter as seen by a bunch of wannabee Hebrew Christians





(Mathew 26:34,74-75) - "Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a cock crows, you shall deny Me three times . . . 74Then he began to curse and swear, "I do not know the man!" And immediately a cock crowed. 75And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, "Before a cock crows, you will deny Me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly."
(Luke 22:34 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Luke%2022.34),60-62 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Luke%2022.60-62)) - "And He said, "I say to you, Peter, the cock will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me . . . .60But Peter said, "Man, I do not know what you are talking about." And immediately, while he was still speaking, a cock crowed. 61And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, "Before a cock crows today, you will deny Me three times." 62And he went out and wept bitterly."
(John 13:38 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/John%2013.38)) - "Jesus *answered, "Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly, I say to you, a cock shall not crow, until you deny Me three times."


Denies before cock crows twice

(Mark 14:30 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Mark%2014.30)) - "And Jesus *said to him, "Truly I say to you, that you yourself this very night, before a cock crows twice, shall three times deny Me..."



Must have been a Celestial Cock

[Lutiferre]

I was going to have a good debate,but going back on some of your statements,I decided against it.
I see you as a theoretical "fundi"(hmm),without practical knowledge
Jehova(JHVH) is perfectly right,Jahweh(Jhwh too or YHWH. Read my lips

Hebrew Bible was written without vowels, Gospel without spaces. They were added at about 1000 A.D. Inserting vowels/spaces in other ways we get tens new Holy Bibles!! of which one is called LUTIFERRE:D:wink

Ask your mentor to give you insight in History of the Christian Bible a product of Paul,the physically and mentally disabled, who translated the Torah(for the Christians) as he saw fit.
Reminds me of the Cock(Rooster:D) and Peter as seen by a bunch of wannabee Hebrew Christians

You are an absolute idiot who makes claims without substantiation that no serious Hebrew or New Testament scholar or scholar on Christian beginnings would consider even superficial.

[Lutiferre]

I was going to have a good debate,but going back on some of your statements,I decided against it.
I see you as a theoretical "fundi"(hmm),without practical knowledge
Jehova(JHVH) is perfectly right,Jahweh(Jhwh too or YHWH. Read my lips

No, it is not perfectly right. Jehova is not the correct verbal rendition; it is a verbal rendition which has no substantiation or historical attestation in Mosaic or Christian tradition. It is a modern invention.

It has as much substantiation as if I rendered PLLMDS (Pallamedes without vowels) into PILLMODES.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

No, it is not perfectly right. Jehova is not the correct verbal rendition; it is a verbal rendition which has no substantiation or historical attestation in Mosaic or Christian tradition. It is a modern invention.

It has as much substantiation as if I rendered PLLMDS (Pallamedes without vowels) into PILLMODES.

And that is precisely what happened,get wise my Son

Mosaic law is as old as the day it was written,without vowels,and you should know that.
The Gospel without spaces.

John said Peter is a fool
Who said what
l

[Lulletje Rozewater]

You are an absolute idiot who makes claims without substantiation that no serious Hebrew or New Testament scholar or scholar on Christian beginnings would consider even superficial.


Tht 's m' prblm I knw t' mch
Pck 'p ' msc wrtng nd y bcme bttr 'n ndrstndng JHVH

[Lutiferre]

And that is precisely what happened,get wise my Son
That is what happened when you chose to do it, yes. But that is not what happened in the case of trained Hebrew historians, scholars, linguists, philologists, who reject various misrenditions that lack historical or scientific mandate.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

No, it is not perfectly right. Jehova is not the correct verbal rendition; it is a verbal rendition which has no substantiation or historical attestation in Mosaic or Christian tradition. It is a modern invention.

It has as much substantiation as if I rendered PLLMDS (Pallamedes without vowels) into PILLMODES.

More
Verbal diarrhea.
Mosaic Law.


You are confused concerning the place of the Mosaic law in the New Testament believer’s life. While I can not even begin to cover all the issues involved, it is my hope that it will shed some light and remove some of your confusion.Moses broke the 2 tablets,while storming down the mountain,to fall on his knees before the Golden Calf.
JHWH/JHVH got hold of some super glue,with which Moses fixed the tablets and later put it into another Golden Calf =The Ark of the Covenant.


One of the profound emphases of the New Testament, especially the epistles of Paul, is that Christians are no longer under the rule of the Mosaic law. This truth is stated in no uncertain terms and in various ways (see Rom. 6:14; 7:1-14 (javascript:{}); Gal. 3:10-13, 24 (javascript:{})-25; 4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Cor. 3:7-18 (javascript:{})), but in spite of this, there have always been those who insist that the Mosaic Law, at least the Ten Commandments, are still in force for the Christian. In regard to the relation of Christian ethics to the Mosaic Law, Luck writes:Orthodox Christians cling faithfully to the notion that Jesus ordered his disciples to adhere to the ten commandmnets.
His words were:Abide my commandments


Jehovah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah


PS: I understand you are 17---- were you born on the 29th of February:thumb001::thumb001::eek:

[Cato]

Okay, I am sorry. I will just refer to you as Pallamadass from now on then.

And I think I'll just ignore your posts from now on for being an obnoxious and patronizing jackass, which is something that I scolded you about a few weeks ago. Being a trollish fucktard n00b, however, you just can't seem to grasp the concept of simple netiquette and to this I say WOOSH!

http://lifesaboutadream.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/toilet-flush.jpg

[Lutiferre]

And I think I'll just ignore your posts from now on for being an obnoxious and patronizing jackass, which is something that I scolded you about a few weeks ago but, being a trollish fucktard n00b, you can't seem to grasp simple netiquette.
You already said you didn't care about calling things accurately, Pillmodes. You were certainly not interested in respecting any kind of sensitivity on the part of others. So why do you expect me to do that service for you?

[Lutiferre]

More
Verbal diarrhea.
Mosaic Law.
Verbal diarrhea? You are the one excreting verbal diarrhea.



You are confused concerning the place of the Mosaic law in the New Testament believer’s life. While I can not even begin to cover all the issues involved, it is my hope that it will shed some light and remove some of your confusion.Moses broke the 2 tablets,while storming down the mountain,to fall on his knees before the Golden Calf.
JHWH/JHVH got hold of some super glue,with which Moses fixed the tablets and later put it into another Golden Calf =The Ark of the Covenant.


One of the profound emphases of the New Testament, especially the epistles of Paul, is that Christians are no longer under the rule of the Mosaic law. This truth is stated in no uncertain terms and in various ways (see Rom. 6:14; 7:1-14 (javascript:{}); Gal. 3:10-13, 24 (javascript:{})-25; 4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Cor. 3:7-18 (javascript:{})), but in spite of this, there have always been those who insist that the Mosaic Law, at least the Ten Commandments, are still in force for the Christian. In regard to the relation of Christian ethics to the Mosaic Law, Luck writes:Orthodox Christians cling faithfully to the notion that Jesus ordered his disciples to adhere to the ten commandmnets.
His words were:Abide my commandments


Jehovah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah


PS: I understand you are 17---- were you born on the 29th of February:thumb001::thumb001::eek:
This is not about Mosaic Law to begin with. I have studied the place of the Mosaic Law in Christianity in depth already, and specifically in relation to the works of Christ and the soteriology that Christ advocated. This is not about that theological issue, but about the lack of historical or scientific mandate for the verbal renditions you choose to use, which are if anything modern innovations that neither reflect a genuine tradition in Christianity nor Judaism.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Verbal diarrhea? You are the one excreting verbal diarrhea.


This is not about Mosaic Law to begin with. I have studied the place of the Mosaic Law in Christianity in depth already, and specifically in relation to the works of Christ and the soteriology that Christ advocated. This is not about that theological issue, but about the lack of historical or scientific mandate for the verbal renditions you choose to use, which are if anything modern innovations that neither reflect a genuine tradition in Christianity nor Judaism.

You really are a fish cake :p Read all you said on this Website.

There is a very good website:"http://www.herpes.com.:confused:
You may be surprised the volume of gall they can absorb.

[Lutiferre]

I'm really confused. Am I the only one who thought the general consensus among Christians was that there exists a spiritual afterlife in a spiritual place called heaven? Am I the only one who has been led to believe that most Christians believe in an immortal soul rather than zombie-like resurrection of dead bodies?

I knew that Jehova's Witnesses believe this, but had no idea the more prevalent Churches did.
I came to think of this subject again, and I think the misunderstanding between us was really that you equated the "body" with necessarily "non-spiritual".

What I meant when I talked of the ressurrection "body" was not at all something non-spiritual; that is precisely a platonic/gnostic pattern of thinking, which thinks the body is always an evil, a necessarily nonspiritual and despised thing.

What I meant was a spiritual body. There is no contradiction between body and spiritualness in the afterlife and in heaven, where everything will be reconciled, and natural and spiritual are one and the same thing. Only in this life, as a necessary evil, in this time of trial and temporality, will there be such a feeling, but that feeling is still not the full reality, because the body itself is a part of our nature and the precursor and template for our ressurrection body, and should be respected and reverenced.

[Dead Eye]

I don't see how God is a tyrant when he gives you a whole life to decide for yourself in free will if you want to follow him and enter heaven, and lets you live in his world even when you reject him.

And I find it an even more laughable idea that God is a tyrant for wanting you to freely follow his law, when he is the one who gave you being to begin with. As someone on here said, a free man is governed by the law, whereas a slave is governed by another man. And that is the case with Gods law.

And even the more so, when he then respects your free rejection of him (rejection of God = hell), when he could force you to accept him if he wanted to, but does not.



God never gave people free will.The reason why Satan and God are fighting it out is because it's SATAN who wants to give us free will.

Why would God lay the law down with us and punish us if he gave us free will?

[rhiannon]

He most certainly is imo. A tyrant and a bully. And a coward, for picking on insignificant little beings like us, as if he enjoys doing it.

If there were such a resistance, I would join it. Lucifer seems to have caught onto the idea and apparently organised a revolt in heaven. He was justified in doing so, he seems to be the good guy in the story. :)

Add to this the fact that any God that allows children to suffer horribly and die at the hands of disease, scumbag adults, etc.....well, he can quite simply fuck off.

[Barrabas]

Add to this the fact that any God that allows children to suffer horribly and die at the hands of disease, scumbag adults, etc.....well, he can quite simply fuck off.

Why are you so convinced that a so-called superior lifeform should be concerned about us? have you ever think that suffering is a way of purifying the soult itself? Maybe it is a way to get closer to another spiritual and mental self-being.

[rhiannon]

Why are you so convinced that a so-called superior lifeform should be concerned about us? have you ever think that suffering is a way of purifying the soult itself? Maybe it is a way to get closer to another spiritual and mental self-being.

Little kids are not gonna have a clue the reason they are suffering and dying is in order for their soul to be purified. They are innocent beings.

I'm Agnostic anyway....so I don't believe in any God per se.....but if He does exist, IMO, he's a douchebag, and mostly for the reason I gave. It tears me up inside every time I see or hear of a small child dying, suffering, etc. They just don't deserve that shit at all!!!!

I don't expect Christians or other religious people to change their views or anything.....but they can't make me change mine either:D