(November 29, 2016 at 6:37 am)Ignorant Wrote:

(November 29, 2016 at 6:22 am)Alex K Wrote: That's a very important point because it renders God an unnecessary additional assumption on that level of the discussion.

I agree that it is a very important point, but it only seems to render a particular set of god conceptions as unnecessary additional assumptions. There is at least one concept of 'god' that would still be a "necessary additional assumption", i.e. god as metaphysically necessary "being". According to that metaphysic, nothing could "be" at all, even a universe understood as an infinite series of change ("beyond" the big bang even), unless "being, itself" is. Of course, you might find this metaphysic inadequate, just throwing it out there as a possible view of reality that can not only account for both an eternal universe and god, but logically concludes the relationship as necessary rather than presuming it is so.

True, but when people talk about capital-G God, that's a very specific character from a specific mythology. For Catholics, multiply by a factor of at least a thousand.

(November 28, 2016 at 10:41 pm)Balaco Wrote: Good to see a few pages' worth of posts since my last. I don't have too much time on my hands and only got to skim so I'm planning on responding to some tomorrow. On a quick note, though,

(November 28, 2016 at 8:59 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Balaco, why is your god referred to as a "HE/HIS/FATHER"? Why does your god have a sex?

I remember questioning this myself, finding the answer to be that God is sexless, but "Father" and masculine terms are apparently associated with giving, while feminine terms are associated with receiving. Don't know much about the origins of this though.

How did you find the answer that god was sexless?

I'd think that the writings and references to god as HE/HIS/FATHER would indicate that god is man made. 

If god is a creator why is it not SHE/HERS/MOTHER?

(November 29, 2016 at 8:28 am)Jesster Wrote:

(November 29, 2016 at 7:54 am)pocaracas Wrote: I like my theory better.

Some time before the people in there thought of the god Yahweh, the god An (or Anu) was already around in Mesopotamic people's minds. An, the father god, King of the gods, supreme ruler.

The passage of this king-leader-father-god to a monotheist mindset unwittingly maintained the maleness of the character.
Believers also maintained the deference with which you feel you should address this king-leader-god.
To me, it makes no sense to kneel before an omniscient being. It also makes no sense that one would need to appease an all-loving entity with prayer and worship. It's as if believers are treating the ultimate good, loving, powerful entity as a petty human king.

But it does make sense, if you look at where the concept of this god comes from - An.

Huh, thanks for the wiki link. I've heard bits and pieces of ideas like this before, but I haven't researched too deeply into it. I'm going to read into this more now.

Do note the similarities with El: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity), the same El that features in Isra-El (Israel).
"For the Canaanites and the ancient Levantine region as a whole, Ēl or Il was the supreme god, the father of mankind and all creatures.[15] He also fathered many gods, most importantly Hadad, Yam, and Mot, each sharing similar attributes to the Greco-Roman gods: Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades respectively.

As recorded on the clay tablets of Ugarit, El is the husband of the goddess Asherah."
[...]
"The theological position of the Tanakh is that the names Ēl and ’Ĕlōhîm, when used in the singular to mean the supreme god, refer to Yahweh, beside whom other gods are supposed to be either nonexistent or insignificant. "

Fascinating, huh?...

Oh El.

(November 28, 2016 at 12:25 am)johan Wrote:

(November 27, 2016 at 10:11 pm)Balaco Wrote: (Sorry if this comes up as a double post)

In response to the posts about tests of our faith, from my understanding their moreso for our benefit so that we can determine our strengths/weaknesses, growing closer to God as we ask for His help.

As you ask for help that you can never really be sure you actually received. You have to admit, if you were going to create a scheme of BS to get a group of people to follow your teachings/give you money, you'd be hard pressed to come up with a more effective line of bullshit.

Step 1. Scare the shit out of them - "You're going to burn in hell for all of eternity"
Step 2. Offer them a solution - "If you follow my religion, you won't burn in hell, instead you'll receive endless reward."
Step 3. Make sure they're afraid to doubt you - "You will never have any evidence that god exists so you MUST just believe without evidence AND god will know if you doubt and if you doubt, he'll make sure you burn in hell for all of eternity."

You gotta admit its a well designed scheme.

Sounds an awful lot like what this guy was talking about:

(November 28, 2016 at 4:12 pm)Ambiguous Atheist Wrote:  Monroe's motivational sequence. 

• Step One: Get Attention. Get the attention of your audience. ...
  
  
• Step Two: Establish the Need. Convince your audience there's a problem. ...
  
  
• Step Three: Satisfy the Need. Introduce your solution. ...
  
  
• Step Four: Visualize the Future. Describe what the situation will look like if the audience does nothing.
  

(November 29, 2016 at 9:22 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(November 28, 2016 at 10:41 pm)Balaco Wrote: Good to see a few pages' worth of posts since my last. I don't have too much time on my hands and only got to skim so I'm planning on responding to some tomorrow. On a quick note, though,


I remember questioning this myself, finding the answer to be that God is sexless, but "Father" and masculine terms are apparently associated with giving, while feminine terms are associated with receiving. Don't know much about the origins of this though.

How did you find the answer that god was sexless?

I'd think that the writings and references to god as HE/HIS/FATHER would indicate that god is man made. 

If god is a creator why is it not SHE/HERS/MOTHER?

Oh, that is an interesting subject.  This appears to be one of those things that everyone just "knows" and doesn't question, but absolutely is not backed in the Bible.  Just the opposite, actually.  The Bible not only refers to God always as male, even the story of creation all but outright says God is male.  He made man "in his own image".  People often take that to mean "mankind", and it does say that in Genesis 1, but if you recall the story of creation from Genesis 2, God only actually "created" Adam, the man.  So when the Bible says that God made man in his own image, it is not talking about mankind, it is talking about a literal man.  Eve was an afterthought, not "created" at all, but formed from a piece of man.

The Bible itself doesn't say anything about God's junk, of course.  But it all but says God is male.  Christians often claim that God is actually genderless, but try using the word "she" when referring to God and see how genderless they think he is then.  Try referring to him as the "goddess", arguing that it's equally as accurate given that God is genderless and see if they aren't insulted by that.  The truth is the Bible is written with God as male.  That is plain as day.  The whole "genderless" claim is just an example of Christians making up answers for things that aren't specifically stated to match what they would like to believe, but deep down they really think of him as male because that is how he is portrayed.  Throughout the entirety of the Bible a woman's worth is measured in goats, as in, how many you can sell her for.  When a woman gives birth she is "unclean" and must leave the camp until she is clean, 7 days if she had a boy, 14 days if she had a girl.  The entire Bible depicts women as being lesser, subservient, property.  I think the subconscious thought, at least among the "women can't be preachers" fundamentalist groups, is that man serves God and his reward is that woman serves man.  There is definitely a pecking order there in the more extreme religions that is highly suggestive that God has no female traits or he'd be man's bitch.

Ah, I see now. So it's not about God's junk. It's about how he identifies.

Huh. That sounds a lot like the transgender position that the same church dislikes so much.

(November 29, 2016 at 6:37 am)Ignorant Wrote:

(November 29, 2016 at 6:22 am)Alex K Wrote: That's a very important point because it renders God an unnecessary additional assumption on that level of the discussion.

I agree that it is a very important point, but it only seems to render a particular set of god conceptions as unnecessary additional assumptions. There is at least one concept of 'god' that would still be a "necessary additional assumption", i.e. god as metaphysically necessary "being". According to that metaphysic, nothing could "be" at all, even a universe understood as an infinite series of change ("beyond" the big bang even), unless "being, itself" is. Of course, you might find this metaphysic inadequate, just throwing it out there as a possible view of reality that can not only account for both an eternal universe and god, but logically concludes the relationship as necessary rather than presuming it is so.

In order to be able to know that god is a "metaphysically neccessary" being, it is neccessary for you to provide evidence of its neccessity.

We both know that there is currently no evidence to support your assertion. Therefore under current conditions we have to assume it's a false assertion.

(November 29, 2016 at 8:43 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: Remember in christianity, as in judaism women are considered to be things to be possessed, not people in their own right.

Hasn't been my experience at all.

Quote:Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.

-CCC 1935

(November 29, 2016 at 11:30 am)Asmodee Wrote: People often take that to mean "mankind", and it does say that in Genesis 1, but if you recall the story of creation from Genesis 2, God only actually "created" Adam, the man.  So when the Bible says that God made man in his own image, it is not talking about mankind, it is talking about a literal man.  Eve was an afterthought, not "created" at all, but formed from a piece of man.

Remember that there are two creation accounts. In Genesis 1:27 it states "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." God then goes on to address both of them when he offers his blessing and grants them dominion over the whole planet. It is the second account that separates them and places the man above the woman by making her a companion who was created to fulfill a need (Genesis 2:18-- The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”).

It seems as if --depending on the writer and the needs of the particular story-- women are treated as ornaments most of the time in those early stories, until the law given to Moses turns them into property (Exodus 20:17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”). And of course, in spite of the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman and that any exception to this is fornication or adultery, later stories have the men marrying multiple women and keeping concubines because LOL CULTURE.