What I love about the bible is that it has a justification for all of gods tyrannical ways. For example this wonderful verse claiming to be from the horses mouth himself.

Deuteronomy 32:39
See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

Roughly translated: I am God and I can do what the fuck I want!!

Doesn't that give you that warm loving feeling and desire to worship him?

(December 11, 2009 at 8:29 am)theVOID Wrote:

(December 11, 2009 at 8:17 am)tackattack Wrote: If both scenarios amount to the same thing then why would you assume I think the Bible is an accurate description of God? It's similar to the picture of bigfoot. It still doesn't capture the whole of the experience that is God. I've tested the bible and I believe I see enough reason through the dogma to find truth. Do I think the bible should be taken litterally of one line at a time without context? No, now that's crazy talk

I never said it was your image of god, you asked what i thought of biblical atrocities and to that i can only respond with the biblical god. I still don't know enough about what you think god is to make any statements about how your idea relates to atrocities.

Let me ask you, how can you reconcile the suffering of innocent people in the world with your image of god?

As for the bible and literal translations, how do you decide what passages you accept as literal and what ones you write off as metaphor or forgery? Do you have a method that anyone could use and come to the same distinctions as you? And have you applied your method of testing the bible to other texts from other religions to see if they also meet the standard you used?

---

(December 11, 2009 at 8:29 am)theVOID Wrote:

(December 11, 2009 at 8:17 am)tackattack Wrote: If both scenarios amount to the same thing then why would you assume I think the Bible is an accurate description of God? It's similar to the picture of bigfoot. It still doesn't capture the whole of the experience that is God. I've tested the bible and I believe I see enough reason through the dogma to find truth. Do I think the bible should be taken litterally of one line at a time without context? No, now that's crazy talk

I never said it was your image of god, you asked what i thought of biblical atrocities and to that i can only respond with the biblical god. I still don't know enough about what you think god is to make any statements about how your idea relates to atrocities.

Let me ask you, how can you reconcile the suffering of innocent people in the world with your image of god?

I've already wrote this once and then the browser got jacked-up. anyways, let me start by defining what is my perception of the World and God. Your world consists of cause and effects compunded over time into incalculable possibilities of effects. If God is sentient then he created the big bang and has a perspective from outside time and space and is satisfied with the end results of the initial cause so why would he change anything. If he is non-sentient then he caused the big-bang simply by existing and a random or compouned sum of his radiation. If he doesn't exists then something caused the Big Bang and the world view doesn't change.

(December 11, 2009 at 8:29 am)theVOID Wrote: As for the bible and literal translations, how do you decide what passages you accept as literal and what ones you write off as metaphor or forgery? Do you have a method that anyone could use and come to the same distinctions as you? And have you applied your method of testing the bible to other texts from other religions to see if they also meet the standard you used?

Let me give you an example. I've stated elswhere what I feel is the difference between God's Love and human loving. The Bible isn't contradictory of what's God's Love. The Torah reflects this view. The view is counter to the logical progression of emotions developed through communal evolution. The Quran has some similar points but mostly (with the perspective of the other 2) seems self-serving and humanistic.
I can percieve God's love from strangers and children. I percieve the same feeling when not being "selfish, self-righteous, rude, distrusting, delighting in evil, etc." So basically I use several reeference to come up with an idea, strip the humanity and self-serving aspects, test it in my world and see what surfaces. It was better when I wrote it the first time but I'm in need of a nap.

(December 12, 2009 at 10:54 am)tackattack Wrote: Your world consists of cause and effects compunded over time into incalculable possibilities of effects.

Surely your world does so too.

(December 12, 2009 at 10:54 am)tackattack Wrote: If God is sentient then he created the big bang and has a perspective from outside time and space...

Causation has no meaning outside time since the concept of causation hinges on being able to identify what event is earlier in time. We can only conclude that your remark about creation outside space and time is sheer nonsense.

(December 12, 2009 at 10:54 am)tackattack Wrote: ...and is satisfied with the end results of the initial cause so why would he change anything.

For a perfect being there is indeed no reason to change anything. So why should a perfect being create a universe?

(December 12, 2009 at 10:54 am)tackattack Wrote: If he is non-sentient then he caused the big-bang simply by existing and a random or compouned sum of his radiation.

What bible are you reading? There is not a thing that comes near to the big bang in the all too common hotel bedside versions of it. And in what bible is the radiation of god described? Is it electromagnetic radiation or particle based?

(December 12, 2009 at 10:54 am)tackattack Wrote: If he doesn't exists then something caused the Big Bang and the world view doesn't change.

Your world view or mine?

(December 12, 2009 at 12:08 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 12, 2009 at 10:54 am)tackattack Wrote: Your world consists of cause and effects compunded over time into incalculable possibilities of effects.

Surely your world does so too.

Yes your world is the same as my world in the cause and effect realm with differences in perspective. By calling it your world I am trying to give the impression that it is the world you percieve around you individually.

(December 12, 2009 at 12:08 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 12, 2009 at 10:54 am)tackattack Wrote: If God is sentient then he created the big bang and has a perspective from outside time and space...

Causation has no meaning outside time since the concept of causation hinges on being able to identify what event is earlier in time. We can only conclude that your remark about creation outside space and time is sheer nonsense.

You conclude that based off of evidence that would exist outside the laws of the known universe. I state God is outside time because several references refer to Goad as Light, love, eternal. Yaweh itself means eternal. Defines as without beginning or end of existence; always existing or existing at all times without change; immutable.. [1913 Webster]Cause and effect is a law which resides solely within our known universe. I think we agree on that.

(December 12, 2009 at 12:08 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 12, 2009 at 10:54 am)tackattack Wrote: ...and is satisfied with the end results of the initial cause so why would he change anything.

For a perfect being there is indeed no reason to change anything. So why should a perfect being create a universe?

I have teh same question, I'll ask him.

(December 12, 2009 at 12:08 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 12, 2009 at 10:54 am)tackattack Wrote: If he is non-sentient then he caused the big-bang simply by existing and a random or compouned sum of his radiation.

What bible are you reading? There is not a thing that comes near to the big bang in the all too common hotel bedside versions of it. And in what bible is the radiation of god described? Is it electromagnetic radiation or particle based?

If I had the answer to that I wouldn't be here.

(December 12, 2009 at 12:08 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 12, 2009 at 10:54 am)tackattack Wrote: If he doesn't exists then something caused the Big Bang and the world view doesn't change.

Your world view or mine?

stated above "your world" are the laws of cause and effect as they apply, from your perspective, to the matter you can measure or have an affect on.

(December 12, 2009 at 10:54 am)tackattack Wrote: Let me give you an example. I've stated elswhere what I feel is the difference between God's Love and human loving. The Bible isn't contradictory of what's God's Love. The Torah reflects this view. The view is counter to the logical progression of emotions developed through communal evolution. The Quran has some similar points but mostly (with the perspective of the other 2) seems self-serving and humanistic.
I can percieve God's love from strangers and children. I percieve the same feeling when not being "selfish, self-righteous, rude, distrusting, delighting in evil, etc." So basically I use several reeference to come up with an idea, strip the humanity and self-serving aspects, test it in my world and see what surfaces. It was better when I wrote it the first time but I'm in need of a nap.

You didn't answer the question so i'll rephrase: why does god let babies be eaten live by parasites?

I'm not sure exactly what you're referencing about babies getting eaten by parasites. I will assume what you stated is fact, babies get eaten live by parasites. From my perspective God doesn't let anything happen. He has already done the work and is letting us "sink or swim" as the ebb of time rolls on. Trying to suppose what God sees as the outcome is imponderable and outside of my frame of reference. Why does science let babies get eaten alive by parasites?

(December 13, 2009 at 1:49 am)tackattack Wrote: I'm not sure exactly what you're referencing about babies getting eaten by parasites. I will assume what you stated is fact, babies get eaten live by parasites. From my perspective God doesn't let anything happen. He has already done the work and is letting us "sink or swim" as the ebb of time rolls on. Trying to suppose what God sees as the outcome is imponderable and outside of my frame of reference. Why does science let babies get eaten alive by parasites?

Science is not an omnipotent deity who could ensure immediately that not a single baby was ever born into suffering and poverty, eaten by bacteria and parasites from the inside, unable to eat because their is not food in the barren desert in which they are born.

You claim God is loving and compassionate, but what compassionate being could ever idly stand by and ignore it when they have the power to stop it right now and forever?

Science doesn't "let" it happen. Science tries to prevent it. Same with the spread of disease, deaths through natural disasters, etc, etc.

The point is, your God (i.e. the God of Christianity) is believed by many to be very powerful and to answer prayers, interfere with this universe in order to do miracles. Either you are sensible and accept that this simply cannot happen without causing other problems (such as the famous "why won't god heal amputees?" remark), or you believe in a God that can interfere and end up with such problems of the amputees and the baby getting eaten alive.

It seems very clear to me that if God is "loving", he is incapable of showing it through actions in our universe. A God that doesn't have power over something he created (and which is less than him) isn't a being that makes much sense to me. It is easier for me to come to terms with a God who hates his creation (or simply doesn't care / doesn't see humanity as anything special) or one that simply does not exist at all.

(December 13, 2009 at 2:29 am)Tiberius Wrote: Science doesn't "let" it happen. Science tries to prevent it. Same with the spread of disease, deaths through natural disasters, etc, etc.

The point is, your God (i.e. the God of Christianity) is believed by many to be very powerful and to answer prayers, interfere with this universe in order to do miracles. Either you are sensible and accept that this simply cannot happen without causing other problems (such as the famous "why won't god heal amputees?" remark), or you believe in a God that can interfere and end up with such problems of the amputees and the baby getting eaten alive.

It seems very clear to me that if God is "loving", he is incapable of showing it through actions in our universe. A God that doesn't have power over something he created (and which is less than him) isn't a being that makes much sense to me. It is easier for me to come to terms with a God who hates his creation (or simply doesn't care / doesn't see humanity as anything special) or one that simply does not exist at all.

I would like to think I'm sensible, but that's another debate I'm sure. I don't think God is loving I think God is Love and there is a distinction I'll try to reitterate further down. I don't think God is incapable of anything. If God is omnipotent maybe he doesn't see the need to change current events becaus they will end in his favor? I'm not a believer in this, but it's a valid question. So you feel because you can not percieve God's actions that he doesn't have control over this known universe?

I'll add this unrelated tid bit. The proof I have in my Life are a series or random occurences outside of my control which lead to defining moments in my life. Being in the wrong place with a fix-a-flat at teh right time, finding a $20 and not 1 hour later taking 3 homeless to dinner. Theese are simple examples and theres a lot more and some are much more complex.

(December 13, 2009 at 2:26 am)theVOID Wrote:

(December 13, 2009 at 1:49 am)tackattack Wrote: I'm not sure exactly what you're referencing about babies getting eaten by parasites. I will assume what you stated is fact, babies get eaten live by parasites. From my perspective God doesn't let anything happen. He has already done the work and is letting us "sink or swim" as the ebb of time rolls on. Trying to suppose what God sees as the outcome is imponderable and outside of my frame of reference. Why does science let babies get eaten alive by parasites?

Science is not an omnipotent deity who could ensure immediately that not a single baby was ever born into suffering and poverty, eaten by bacteria and parasites from the inside, unable to eat because their is not food in the barren desert in which they are born.

You claim God is loving and compassionate, but what compassionate being could ever idly stand by and ignore it when they have the power to stop it right now and forever?

I never claimed that in fact I'm pretty sure just the opposite. Loving and compassionate are human concepts of interpretting morals that can be derived from social evolution of an weaker upwardly mobile species. Baby animals suffer all the time in the wild. It is the parent's job to teach them survival. Some are born lame and have more to overcome or fail. Why are we any different? Reason does not preclude us from survival of the fittest.

More to the point on to God's Love. A love that teaches to "turn the other cheek", love thy neighbor, not be selfish or boastful, to be always kind and always patient, bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things and to forgive. That is our reasoning placed on God's perfect Love. That is different from the attainable Love I share with my wife and children and the homeless men down the street. I can aspire through the example of Jesus.

Heaven has been made reference to by some Christians as an exclusive club for God's chosen. Why shouldn't there be suffering in a world created by God and run by humans. It's like God bought this grand hotel and hired some shitty managers to run it. Sorry I must be getting tired.

Tiberius Wrote:It is easier for me to come to terms with a God who hates his creation (or simply doesn't care / doesn't see humanity as anything special)...

Like a Purple Rabbit? Kneel you fool...

---

(December 13, 2009 at 3:51 am)tackattack Wrote: I'll add this unrelated tid bit. The proof I have in my Life are a series or random occurences outside of my control which lead to defining moments in my life. Being in the wrong place with a fix-a-flat at teh right time, finding a $20 and not 1 hour later taking 3 homeless to dinner. Theese are simple examples and theres a lot more and some are much more complex.

What about the most simple explanation around: shit happens!

If these little incidents add up in your head to a god, then why don't you do some summation on things like diseases, natural disaster, famine or even the event of missing toilet paper when you're taking a dump?