One question for Christians

[DeistPaladin]

Even if they wouldn't have understood, why would that be a barrier? Isn't there plenty of things not meant to be understood, things to great to be understood - supposedly contained within said pages.

And outside of said pages but within the confines of conventional Christian faith. See the Trinity as an example of something no one understands to this day and yet so many Christians still believe.

[Cyberman]

Do you take the same approach to gravity? The reason I ask this is because it seems your issue is with authority in general, God is is just incidental.

"Fuck you, you sun! for shining on me."

Difference is, we know the Sun exists. We know gravity exists ("It's not just a theory - it's the law!"). We can demonstrate and measure these things and we can use them in predictable, practical ways.

By contrast, the sum total of evidence and influence of all gods ever created is contained in this box:

---

---

[Bad Writer]

How did you infer that I have an issue with authority? What makes god an authority?

Because of what you wrote.

I can't have an issue with authority if I don't see God as a real authority anyway. So what I wrote doesn't prove you right, bucko. You only saw in it what you wanted to see, and then spouted your bullshit like it was truth. Seems to be a trend with your type.

Since I'm in the military, it looks like your assertion that I'm a rebel becomes null and void.

Good for you.

I'm glad to see you have no retort to this, but I think you still fail to see that this proves that I do give credence to certain authorities. Otherwise I wouldn't have even let you in on the fact that I'm a military man.

And yes, good for me. Bad for you because it proved you wrong, ya mook.

Since gravity and the sun aren't assumed authorities, we can also discount those. Your argument is as vapid as your god.

If there is a God it can be assumed that "it" is an unassumed authority which is why "it" needed people to proclaim "it."

I'm not going to assume anything, and now you have to prove why your god HAS to be an authority as well as why people HAVE to proclaim "it" as such.

Even if god created us, what gives him the right to control us? Even though my parents birthed me, do I need to conform to their world views?

I agree God has no right to do anything but be what it is and I don't believe God or any conception that I am aware of forces anyone to do anything other than live and that is optional.

This is in contradiction to how you assume that if a god exists, then he has authority. You may think your god gives choice, but he clearly does not (since he is the god of the Paradox anyway). Remember when Jonah didn't want to preach to Ninevah? Didn't God swallow him up until he repented? Sounds like Jonah had no choice at that point. I guess he could've chosen to die, but that makes god cruel in that instance.

These things and more have left me very unconvinced that I need to respect this god.

The correct answers to these questions are self-evident, and if you don't see it that way, then I have no choice but to call you a fool.

I see then that you are a person of limited choices.

According to your god, choices are limited anyway, so I'm surprised you aren't considering your conclusion about me as a welcome sign.

[Dionysius]

Do you take the same approach to gravity? The reason I ask this is because it seems your issue is with authority in general, God is is just incidental.

"Fuck you, you sun! for shining on me."

Difference is, we know the Sun exists. We know gravity exists ("It's not just a theory - it's the law!"). We can demonstrate and measure these things and we can use them in predictable, practical ways.

By contrast, the sum total of evidence and influence of all gods ever created is contained in this box:

---

---

Skepticism is certainly warranted but out right denial would seem to be intellectually hasty. A belief in God can be reduced to the question of whether discarnate consciousness is possible. For example a compelling argument can be developed if we view the ostensible perpetuity of the universe as a self-regulating intelligence where it wills a continual existential balance; a symmetry of elemental interactions necessary to sustain life. While no definitive agent known as nature can be isolated we know that such a corporation of influences do indeed exist which comprise nature.

That's all the metaphysical speculation I have for the moment.

---

Because of what you wrote.

I can't have an issue with authority if I don't see God as a real authority anyway. So what I wrote doesn't prove you right, bucko. You only saw in it what you wanted to see, and then spouted your bullshit like it was truth. Seems to be a trend with your type.

Good for you.

I'm glad to see you have no retort to this, but I think you still fail to see that this proves that I do give credence to certain authorities. Otherwise I wouldn't have even let you in on the fact that I'm a military man.

And yes, good for me. Bad for you because it proved you wrong, ya mook.

If there is a God it can be assumed that "it" is an unassumed authority which is why "it" needed people to proclaim "it."

I'm not going to assume anything, and now you have to prove why your god HAS to be an authority as well as why people HAVE to proclaim "it" as such.

I agree God has no right to do anything but be what it is and I don't believe God or any conception that I am aware of forces anyone to do anything other than live and that is optional.

This is in contradiction to how you assume that if a god exists, then he has authority. You may think your god gives choice, but he clearly does not (since he is the god of the Paradox anyway). Remember when Jonah didn't want to preach to Ninevah? Didn't God swallow him up until he repented? Sounds like Jonah had no choice at that point. I guess he could've chosen to die, but that makes god cruel in that instance.

These things and more have left me very unconvinced that I need to respect this god.

I see then that you are a person of limited choices.

According to your god, choices are limited anyway, so I'm surprised you aren't considering your conclusion about me as a welcome sign.

Thanks for your participation.

[Faith No More]

Skepticism is certainly warranted but out right denial would seem to be intellectually hasty. A belief in God can be reduced to the question of whether discarnate consciousness is possible. For example a compelling argument can be developed if we view the ostensible perpetuity of the universe as a self-regulating intelligence where it wills a continual existential balance; a symmetry of elemental interactions necessary to sustain life. While no definitive agent known as nature can be isolated we know that such a corporation of influences do indeed exist which comprise nature.

Even if we accept what you say as true, why label that with a term that carries so much baggage such as "god?"

[Dionysius]

Skepticism is certainly warranted but out right denial would seem to be intellectually hasty. A belief in God can be reduced to the question of whether discarnate consciousness is possible. For example a compelling argument can be developed if we view the ostensible perpetuity of the universe as a self-regulating intelligence where it wills a continual existential balance; a symmetry of elemental interactions necessary to sustain life. While no definitive agent known as nature can be isolated we know that such a corporation of influences do indeed exist which comprise nature.

Even if we accept what you say as true, why label that with a term that carries so much baggage such as "god?"

-I totally agree.

[Cyberman]

Skepticism is certainly warranted but out right denial would seem to be intellectually hasty.

As hasty as outright credence in the face of all the evidence ever presented? Not to mention that I'm not denying anything, for to do so would necessitate something to deny. I'm just sitting here looking at a naked Emperor and being told what a natty dresser he is.

A belief in God can be reduced to the question of whether discarnate consciousness is possible. For example a compelling argument can be developed if we view the ostensible perpetuity of the universe as a self-regulating intelligence where it wills a continual existential balance; a symmetry of elemental interactions necessary to sustain life. While no definitive agent known as nature can be isolated we know that such a corporation of influences do indeed exist which comprise nature.

That's all the metaphysical speculation I have for the moment.

Well, now you're using applied Dolphinetics and switching from the existence of "God" to the belief in it. Metaphysics, like all philosophy, only has as much power in that world that the believer needs at any one time. We can argue back and forth all day about whether Smurfs have blue blood or just blue skin; but unless we can acknowledge that there aren't actually any Smurfs, it's all a huge circlejerk without the fun of the climax.

[ronedee]

Why does blood sacrifice make anything better?

I read the first view pages and found just as I have elsewhere an inability to answer a question that is foundational to the tradition. I often asked why was it necessary for Jesus to be crucified? How were men saved? The answer invariably was, you are saved from God's wrath. To which just opens a string of question begging.

Where does Jesus say that His sacrafice saves us from God's wrath?

Let us give thanks and the proferring of gifts to one another that Jesus did use a metaphor that is entirely absurd, that is devoid of noticeable meaning for if he had made it more rational then it wouldn't be as easy to ridicule re-educate the underdeveloped.

Jesus did say that: "He & the Father were the same".

So, maybe God Himself paid the price for sin?

But alas, that for the "unbeliever" means nothing either.

[Cyberman]

What is sin?

[Esquilax]

Jesus did say that: "He & the Father were the same".

So, maybe God Himself paid the price for sin?

But alas, that for the "unbeliever" means nothing either.

It shouldn't mean anything to you guys either: you're essentially admitting that god sacrificed himself, to himself, to allay the consequences of a set of concepts that are only bad because they are offensive to him that a middle of the road sense of empathy and common sense would allow him to simply forgive without the circuitous spectacle.

What you're describing isn't a sublime sacrifice. It's the contortions of a mind with OCD trying to accomplish a thing in the most indirect, histrionic way possible.

But alas, the believers don't even see this Gordian Knot, let alone the way to cut it.