(November 14, 2017 at 11:41 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(November 14, 2017 at 8:48 am)bennyboy Wrote: So God didn't know that man would disobey him?  

No, and certainly did not know we would disobey him to this extent and all odds were that we would not.  The worst has happened it seems, and we are dealing with a perfect system with the worse results in a perfect system.

Okay, so you do not believe that God is omni-present and omni-powerful, spanning all times despite being Himself timeless?

You think he is a limited entity, and that at least some things in the Universe are unknowable to Him?

(November 15, 2017 at 5:12 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(November 14, 2017 at 11:41 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: No, and certainly did not know we would disobey him to this extent and all odds were that we would not.  The worst has happened it seems, and we are dealing with a perfect system with the worse results in a perfect system.

A God like that is quite weak, if he doesn't know the future; then how dare he claims superiority over the creations?
That behavior indicates ignorance in the nature of what he himself created; and ignorance is enough to erase the justification of righteousness in the crusade he waged against his creations.

Actually; that's a pretty unstable tyrant, that creates things he isn't sure about their behavior; or future moves. Getting angry if they went against his expectations. That looks more of a pile of emotional confusion that needs education and anger management.

Doesn't it, though?  OFC, what about a god that -did- know what his creations would do..created them..and went jihad on their asses for it? Six of one, a half dozen of the other.

(November 15, 2017 at 8:13 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(November 15, 2017 at 5:12 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: A God like that is quite weak, if he doesn't know the future; then how dare he claims superiority over the creations?
That behavior indicates ignorance in the nature of what he himself created; and ignorance is enough to erase the justification of righteousness in the crusade he waged against his creations.

Actually; that's a pretty unstable tyrant, that creates things he isn't sure about their behavior; or future moves. Getting angry if they went against his expectations. That looks more of a pile of emotional confusion that needs education and anger management.

Doesn't it, though?  OFC, what about a god that -did- know what his creations would do..created them..and went jihad on their asses for it?  Six of one, a half dozen of the other.

No; your opinion is called "Anthropomorphism":

Quote:Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities.[1] It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology.[2]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism#cite_note-:0-2][/url]
God according to my opinion is more of a system. Our minds tends to simplify things by attributing our own personal traits -that we understand- to beings either of Godly nature; or foreign, strange nature.

The simpler you are in terms of mind; the more you will commit Anthropomorphism. Because simply: you cannot make your mind move to think in an abstract way.

So Venus and Mars are born as piles of rock thought to be living Gods.

Quite an old concept if you ask history.

(November 15, 2017 at 5:12 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: A God like that is quite weak, if he doesn't know the future; then how dare he claims superiority over the creations?
That behavior indicates ignorance in the nature of what he himself created; and ignorance is enough to erase the justification of righteousness in the crusade he waged against his creations.

Actually; that's a pretty unstable tyrant, that creates things he isn't sure about their behavior; or future moves. Getting angry if they went against his expectations. That looks more of a pile of emotional confusion that needs education and anger management.

(November 15, 2017 at 10:30 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: No; your opinion is called "Anthropomorphism":

 Tell it to that guy.....

Personally, I think you had it right the first time...and anthropomorphism is your problem, not mine. I consider the entire category of the divine to be anthropomorphism in the first place.

(November 15, 2017 at 7:22 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(November 14, 2017 at 11:41 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: No, and certainly did not know we would disobey him to this extent and all odds were that we would not.  The worst has happened it seems, and we are dealing with a perfect system with the worse results in a perfect system.

Okay, so you do not believe that God is omni-present and omni-powerful, spanning all times despite being Himself timeless?

You think he is a limited entity, and that at least some things in the Universe are unknowable to Him?

Spamming all time assumes all time exists at that same time.  If such was the case neither would Creator or creation be free in their actions.

(November 15, 2017 at 10:35 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(November 15, 2017 at 5:12 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: A God like that is quite weak, if he doesn't know the future; then how dare he claims superiority over the creations?
That behavior indicates ignorance in the nature of what he himself created; and ignorance is enough to erase the justification of righteousness in the crusade he waged against his creations.

Actually; that's a pretty unstable tyrant, that creates things he isn't sure about their behavior; or future moves. Getting angry if they went against his expectations. That looks more of a pile of emotional confusion that needs education and anger management.

(November 15, 2017 at 10:30 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: No; your opinion is called "Anthropomorphism":

 Tell it to that guy.....

Personally, I think you had it right the first time...and anthropomorphism is your problem, not mine.  I consider the entire category of the divine to be anthropomorphism in the first place.

You don't have to be religious to find out one way or another that human (and pretty much all biological lifeforms) have weak traits that make them lesser to each other in comparison. I think it's pretty wrong to picture anything accurately if human beings were the only model we compare to.

A God will have a very different model.

Even if you were an atheist; and you commit anthropomorphism in your analysis of the world: your logic has an error.

You could only be arguing with yourself, with your own magic book..... Atlas.

If you think there's a problem with anthropomorphism as it relates to the divine..as I do..then you should shitcan your previous objections, and the tome you worship.

These are -your- problems. Not mine.

(November 15, 2017 at 11:37 am)Khemikal Wrote: You could only be arguing with yourself, with your own magic book..... Atlas.

If you think there's a problem with anthropomorphism as it relates to the divine..as I do..then you should shitcan your previous objections, and the tome you worship.

These are -your- problems.  Not mine.

No no; I don't do this self-argue stuff; I'm speaking by the book.
The definition of anthropomorphism doesn't need holy entities to apply:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

Please revise its definition to see what I mean; here I quoted it from wikipedia's link:

Quote:Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities.[1]

According to this definition; calling the American Hellfire missiles with the name "Hellfire" -for example- is an act of Anthropomorphism.

---

Quote:Personification is the related attribution of human form and characteristics to abstract concepts such as nations, emotions and natural forces like seasons and the weather.

Yes yes yes; this is more accurate; the concept of God is being Personalized; producing the "personal God" fever.

(November 15, 2017 at 12:31 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: No no; I don't do this self-argue stuff; I'm speaking by the book.
The definition of anthropomorphism doesn't need holy entities to apply:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

Please revise its definition to see what I mean; here I quoted it from wikipedia's link:

Quote:Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities.[1]

According to this definition; calling the American Hellfire missiles with the name "Hellfire" -for example- is an act of Anthropomorphism.

---

Quote:Personification is the related attribution of human form and characteristics to abstract concepts such as nations, emotions and natural forces like seasons and the weather.

Yes yes yes; this is more accurate; the concept of God is being Personalized; producing the "personal God" fever.

I think I understand now.  You have a problem with english.  "Hellfire" isn't anthropomorphism.  A better example would be "Patriot"...but it's still a poor example.  Personfication is a necessary component -of- anthropomorphism.  For example, describing your god as "righteous" or "just" or "merciful"...these are qualities of human persons.  

Magic book..and all god belief, is nothing but a running example of personification and anthropomorphism.  Your objection to MK's god with a list of traits that describe human beings is a running example of anthropomorphism as objection.  You don;t think that a god would be a tyrant, or so short sighted...you think he's those other human qualities......the ones that satisfy you in a god, the ones magic book goes to great lengths describing.

You...are arguing...with yourself...with magic book, and now.... with words. You don't really need me or my participation to do that.

(November 15, 2017 at 1:09 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(November 15, 2017 at 12:31 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: No no; I don't do this self-argue stuff; I'm speaking by the book.
The definition of anthropomorphism doesn't need holy entities to apply:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

Please revise its definition to see what I mean; here I quoted it from wikipedia's link:


According to this definition; calling the American Hellfire missiles with the name "Hellfire" -for example- is an act of Anthropomorphism.

---

Yes yes yes; this is more accurate; the concept of God is being Personalized; producing the "personal God" fever.

I think I understand now.  You have a problem with english.  "Hellfire" isn't anthropomorphism.  A better example would be "Patriot"...but it's still a poor example.  Personfication is a necessary component -of- anthropomorphism.  For example, describing your god as "righteous" or "just" or "merciful"...these are qualities of human persons.  

Magic book..and all god belief, is nothing but a running example of personification and anthropomorphism.  Your objection to MK's god with a list of traits that describe human beings is a running example of anthropomorphism as objection.  You don;t think that a god would be a tyrant, or so short sighted...you think he's those other human qualities......the ones that satisfy you in a god, the ones magic book goes to great lengths describing.  

You...are arguing...with yourself...with magic book, and now.... with words.  You don't really need me or my participation to do that.

It's not my native language; so you gotta understand.

The traits claimed by God are supposed to represent perfection. It's him that began the fashion; and we followed. Let's take mercy: we can feed temporarily, but God can feed people permanently. Perfection is the main rule; humans don't have that. It's the breaking point between what is God's; or ours.

So the "human traits" meant by the definition of anthropomorphism is the imperfect human versions. God loves; but it's not a love like ours. God hates; but it's not a hate like ours. God has mercy; but not like our mercy.
Once you begin to "Jesus sy" God; or "Buddh sy" God; you are doing personification