Is God Altruistic? Is God Happy?

[brewer]

head/ass

Please give me some names of thinkers you approve of.

Your dodge attempt?

[Rogue]

Thanks for your responses. I am new to this format. Please forgive my lack of quotes. I was shocked to see 4 pages after only 1 day.

Is there really someone here trying to argue that Yahweh is emotionless? Wow, just wow. So when the buy-bull says god so loved the world, that was a lie? The important thing to remember about the text is that it says we were made in God's image. Please explain where emotions come from if not from God. Thanks. 

I think it is more plausible that God just does not exist. and man created gods in his image.

If you ignore the OT the NT is null and void because the OT prophecies a Messiah. Is there a Messiah or no?

[Belacqua]

Please give me some names of thinkers you approve of.

Your dodge attempt?

Sorry, I forgot that strict rules apply to me and no one else. 

Some non-believing thinkers I admire, in no particular order.

Shelley
Nietzsche
Freud
John Gray
Michel Onfray 
Thomas Nagel
Anthony Kenny (defines as agnostic)
Adam Phillips
Slavoj Zizek
Pierre Badiou
Sartre
Georges Bataille
Elias Canetti
Iris Murdoch
Martha Nussbaum
Robert Pippin

These are people I've read fairly recently. There are others I'm forgetting I'm sure. 

Will this be enough for you to find a new way to insult me?

Anyway, your turn now.

[fredd bear]

Thanks for your responses. I am new to this format. Please forgive my lack of quotes. I was shocked to see 4 pages after only 1 day.

Is there really someone here trying to argue that Yahweh is emotionless? Wow, just wow. So when the buy-bull says god so loved the world, that was a lie? The important thing to remember about the text is that it says we were made in God's image. Please explain where emotions come from if not from God. Thanks. 

I think it is more plausible that God just does not exist. and man created gods in his image.

If you ignore the OT the NT is null and void because the OT prophecies a Messiah. Is there a Messiah or no?

 Mashiach (Messiah)

Xians claim yes. The Jews, whose prophecy it is, say absolutely not. 

Major disagreement: Jewish prophecy makes it clear that: The Mashiach will be a warrior king, like King David. He is most definitely NOT divine, nor  will he die young. The prophecy is clear and unambiguous.

With  typical arrogance, Xians claim the Jews were unaware of their own prophecy and simply did not recognise the Mashiach. 


My opinion: I don't believe in fortune telling, so think it's all  bullshit. This is of academic interest only to me. I have no agenda. Well, apart from discrediting intellectually dishonest Xian scholars

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((0)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 "The term "mashiach" literally means "the anointed one," and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The mashiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days.

The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept. The word "mashiach" will be used throughout this page.  "

http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

[Belacqua]

Is there really someone here trying to argue that Yahweh is emotionless? Wow, just wow. So when the buy-bull says god so loved the world, that was a lie? The important thing to remember about the text is that it says we were made in God's image. Please explain where emotions come from if not from God. Thanks. 

I think it is more plausible that God just does not exist. and man created gods in his image.

If you ignore the OT the NT is null and void because the OT prophecies a Messiah. Is there a Messiah or no?

Most theologians of whom I'm aware say that God has no emotions. This is standard in classical theology. The OT is to be read as parables, fables, puzzling stories.

When they say that God loves the world, it's different from saying a person loves another person. They say that God is goodness itself. God emanates the world as an act of goodness. In this way God is behaving like a person who loves you, because he is giving goodness. 

The way people love is different. People love by desiring. We desire to be with another person, or we desire her happiness, or we desire her health, etc. This is what we do when we love. God lacks nothing, so he desires nothing. Still, by being only good, he is sending goodness to all. 

The main difference is that people are contingent and God is only essence. Contingency means that people are changing, they could be different, they are affected by other things. God, being only essence, is only what he is and has no contingency. Emotions are motions. They are the change of the changeable heart -- but God doesn't move or change. 

When Christians say something like "He so loved the world that he gave his only son," the love here just means that God is so good by his essence. Not that he wants something for the world. 

This is what theologians say. 

I've had trouble getting people to think about God in some way other than the simple Sky-Daddy Tyrant that so many people use, but what I've described here is the theology of Dante and many others.

[brewer]

Your dodge attempt?

Sorry, I forgot that strict rules apply to me and no one else. 

Some non-believing thinkers I admire, in no particular order.

Shelley
Nietzsche
Freud
John Gray
Michel Onfray 
Thomas Nagel
Anthony Kenny (defines as agnostic)
Adam Phillips
Slavoj Zizek
Pierre Badiou
Sartre
Georges Bataille
Elias Canetti
Iris Murdoch
Martha Nussbaum
Robert Pippin

These are people I've read fairly recently. There are others I'm forgetting I'm sure. 

Will this be enough for you to find a new way to insult me?

Anyway, your turn now.

Have you quoted/referenced them in any other post here at AF?

I've read about a few and not necessarily in reference to religion/god(s). But then why would I. I don't read atheist authors at all. I feel no need for someone to tell me that god is a man made fantasy. 

And a quick google scan indicates to me that a lot of these folks are religious/areligious lite. 

I read more about doers than thinkers.

[Belacqua]

Have you quoted/referenced them in any other post here at AF?

Some yes, some no. Some are more relevant to the topics around here.

I've read about a few and not necessarily in reference to religion/god(s). But then why would I. I don't read atheist authors at all. I feel no need for someone to tell me that god is a man made fantasy. 

This doesn't surprise me. 

You are absolutely sure, need no further thought about it, and aren't interested in what being an atheist entails philosophically. 

And a quick google scan indicates to me that a lot of these folks are religious/areligious lite. 

None of them is religious. What do you mean by religious lite? Some of them, like Badiou, refer to religious thinkers in analyzing traditions in Western thought. You pretty much have to, since so much philosophy has come through religion. 

What means do you find to insult Zizek or Nussbaum or the others? 

I read more about doers than thinkers.

This fact is evident from the way you think.

[brewer]

Have you quoted/referenced them in any other post here at AF?

Some yes, some no. Some are more relevant to the topics around here.

I've read about a few and not necessarily in reference to religion/god(s). But then why would I. I don't read atheist authors at all. I feel no need for someone to tell me that god is a man made fantasy. 

This doesn't surprise me. 

You are absolutely sure, need no further thought about it, and aren't interested in what being an atheist entails philosophically. 

And a quick google scan indicates to me that a lot of these folks are religious/areligious lite. 

None of them is religious. What do you mean by religious lite? Some of them, like Badiou, refer to religious thinkers in analyzing traditions in Western thought. You pretty much have to, since so much philosophy has come through religion. 

What means do you find to insult Zizek or Nussbaum or the others? 

I read more about doers than thinkers.

This fact is evident from the way you think.

Yes, I'm sure, at least at this time.

I don't insult them, I discount their importance. I'm positive that you will not understand.

[Belacqua]

I don't insult them, I discount their importance.

Always good to pass judgment on books you haven't read.

[brewer]

I don't insult them, I discount their importance.

Always good to pass judgment on books you haven't read.

It's the subject matter. I also discount the importance of comic books, cook books, romance, mystery, westerns, ..........