Random question on God
 

OK, so I'm not really doing this to get an answer from the atheists out there but here goes:

Does God ever do stuff that we would consider to be "evil" but it's "right"? You know?

It's sick to think of, but hard not to.

Well, he's killed lots of people. So there's that.

are you talking about God killing people or people killing people because of God? There's a distinction.

No, god has killed enough himself. Think Old Testament.

Yeah, but OT is just as much people killing people because of God. Plus OT is a lot more stories to me than definite history. But I'm not Jewish.

First you have to define God. God as in a religious God? If that's the case, "God" has been the leading cause of murder for the entire world. More people have killed each other in the name of "God" than anything else ... and why? Because MY "God" is better than YOUR "God".

My god could beat up your god mentality. If you're talking about the christian God, then yes. Think of the story of Noah's ark. He killed many many people with that flood. Essentially, everyone except Noah and his family, and two of each animal. He did it to rid the earth of evil, and let it start fresh. So in a way, it was an evil thing to do, but it was considered neccessary and right.

Even if God "weren't" responsible for millions of people being impaled, burned alive, drowned, slashed, eaten by lions, quartered, stoned, beheaded, kicked in the nuts and humiliated in public, the fact still remains that if he does exist, he has provided no reasoning as to why it is that we must suffer, nor does he find it helpful to provide crucial insight as to how we might evade death and famine the world over. By not providing this information, he is indirectly murdering billions.

So by existing, he fails at being a benevolent God and by not existing he fails as well...though I'll take those odds over a God who finds such pleasure in the suffering of his children. God failed. Man failed.

Capo, for the record, everyone dies, and Allah made it so. It's pointless to blame the universe itself for death, just as it's pointless to personify it. That's why I prefer Tao. God implies masculinity, and I hardly think it's prudent to theorize that the very universe has genitals of any sort.

Besides that, I firmly believe that religious texts are propaganda, and really have no basis in reality whatsoever. Something like Allah may exist, but the Allah of reality and the Allah of myth are hardly related.

Words like God, Allah, Brahman, etc. can only really be used to describe the singularity and movement of the Cosmos. The 'verse doesn't make choices, nor is it capable of action. It just IS. The universe is a matrix of possibility. Every possible moment already exists, and we as humans choose which moments to experience. That's free will in a nutshell. Notice that we don't directly control each individual cell in our body. They are free to go about their business without our conscious interference.

Good and evil are human constructs. Things happen, we compare them to all other previous events, then we place them somewhere on the imaginary good-evil spectrum. That is why personifying the universe is backward and, IMO, downright blasphemous. Believing in a paternal figure in the sky is what sets the stage for all the killing and manipulation in "his" name, or rather in the name of the patriarch who claims to be heaven-sent (Bush much?). It's that personification that maintains the patriarchies that are destroying our world and enslaving our people.

The more you think about unanswerable questions, the more beauty you allow to pass by unnoticed. That's the beauty of organized religion: it keeps people distracted, and takes away their desire to ponder IMPORTANT questions like, y'know, those regarding authorities and freedom.

Really. And Allah is of course widely acknowledged to not be male-gendered which is why gender equality is so commonplace in fundamentalist Islam since WAAAAAIT A MINUTE

"Allah" is a specific deity with a specific (ostensible) history; this history includes the insistence that Now Is The Time For All Good Men To Chop Up Their Dicks, the Sodom Affair, My Prophets Should Definitely Have Children For Wives and of course I Promise Not To Ever Flood The World To Death Again. In every ostensibly historic record of these theoretical events, Allah/Jehovah/Yahweh/Yahu-Wahu (ALL THE SAME GUY) is "HE". Not "it". Not "the nebulous deity". "HE". Allah is a specific entity, and he's completely a dude. "God" is a general term. How is the former MORE generic than the latter.

Did you happen to miss this part of my post? Why would you use writings I've already stated such an opinion on to prove your point?

I looked it up on Wikipedia, and you're right, Allah is actually a masculine word. Thanks for pointing out such an obvious hole, they're not always that easy to see in first-person. I guess Tao is a much better word for it.

However, 'God' is far from a general term. Even 'god' is masculine, as evidenced by the existence of the word "goddess". I guess the term comes from that idiotic notion of the Trinity, the idea that the unity of the cosmos is somehow difficult to understand. Yeah, when you have three gods but claim to be monotheistic, I can see where you'd be confused. Sorry guys, but Jesus was just a really cool dude who figured out some neat tricks you can do with the right understanding of the quantum field, and there's no disconnected man in the clouds to pray to. Holy Spirit almost fits the bill, but I've always been under the impression that it's only supposed to exist in people, while I'm pretty sure that the all-pervading force of the universe would exist in inanimate objects just as much.

OK, I guess I have to start calling it Tao again. But Allah was so much fun to say! OK, I'll edit my original post so that it's less illogical.

Wait what?

My religion believes in the trinity. But its not so much that there is three different gods. There is one god, with three different representations. The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. Another aspect of trinity is that he has three characteristics. All knowing, All seeing, and He is everywhere.

The holy spirit exists in people. Jesus was a man, and he was also God, and God is the holy spirit, and thus Jesus was the holy spirit, but also a man. Hence, the holy spirit is in man.

RR, I think there's a certain understanding of the nature of the universe that any person can reach with enough effort that allows them to do things that were previously unthinkable. There's more going on in the universe than we know right now, and it's possible for human minds to comprehend more than they currently/usually do. Everything is still theory, but it's not like we know anything about Jesus for sure anyway, and I'll be the first to admit that I've got no proof.

Smelnick, you're entitled to your belief. If it makes sense to you, then go for it. Personally, I think it's needlessly confusing to the minds of those who don't already know, and I could never understand why it was ever mentioned. The Tao was present in Jesus, just as it's present in all humans, so I don't see why people give praise to Jesus after God issued a commandment that said "worship me and only me". It's hard for a young mind to grasp, which is why I won't be bringing my future kids up as Christians. Don't get me wrong though, I'll still teach them about it, I just won't say "this one is right, this one is wrong".

Personally, I believe that all humans are equally divine, and that looking at Jesus as anything more than a prophet (which I think is also an ability we all possess in varying degrees) and an example for right behavior really takes away from that.

Its not so much that we 'worship' Christ. According to 'the bible', if you accept jesus into your heart. accept the fact that he died to relieve us of the burden of our sins. If we believe that he is the son of God. If we believe and accept all this just on faith, then we are considered 'saved' and can then go to heaven.

I do have my doubts about the religion I follow. But I figure, why chance it. Maybe it is true, maybe it isn't. At least this way I'm covering my bases in case it is true. And at the same time, I build integrity, good morals, and I have a healthy community of people who support me at my church.

I'm aware of this. I was referring to the numerous instances in the Old Testament where god sees fit to end the life of whomever he chooses.

Again, Old Testament: stories. I mean, for christ's sake, there's "world flood" stories that predate (or came around at about the same time) as Jewish civilization.

If it's not just stories (and/or "world flood" being a small portion while other peoples were spared), then there's a shitload of retarded inbred people in the Bible.

If there is a higher power, it would probably just be whatever started the universe ... and it isn't an actual living thing. God is EVERYTHING if it used itself to create the universe. WE are God. Everything you see is God. So, I guess you could say the universe is God, and we are just a pathetically small portion of it. Religous beliefs are based on some of the most arrogant prospects. In the vast, unfathomably GARGANTUAN universe, people have this weird assumption that we are extremely important in some way - and some invisible being is concentrating all of it's mental energy towards this miniscule speck of sand we call Earth to inflict pain and misery to those who don't worship. That's unrealistic.

You know, I honestly wasn't searching for the atheist/agnostic opinion, what with the actual use of the word God that wasn't in quotation marks in the opening post, but, hey, let's have someone bitch about how "God doesn't exist" in a thread that presupposes his existence.

I don't know exactly how you want me to attack this question; I was born and raised Jewish.

I know, Capo. It's how I, personally, as a homosexual and a Christian, deal with a lot of the Old Law and OT in general.

My springing-off point is that there are two separate accounts of creation within Genesis, as well as my family's acceptance of scientific evidence of Earth's history, that much of the OT is a mix of history and stories, with my personal belief tending toward more of the end of story. Either that or God fucked up when he created the world first, and I don't accept that.

Language is fluid

The word "comedienne" exists but no reasonable person insists that "comedian" only refers to men

I'm talking RELIGION, dumbass. There's a difference between the existance of a God and a made-up fairy tales to control people. Another case in point on how arrogant religious people can be. Have it your way. Continue to live without questioning whatever bullshit has been fed to you. You don't want my opinion, I don't want yours. Fuck you.

The point of this thread isn't RELIGION, dumbass.

If I were religiously inclined, I might bring up that God caused (because, let's be honest, if he's all-powerful he's responsible through action or inaction for everything) the holocaust, which was undeniably evil, but that its occurrence led to the establishment of the Jewish settlement in Israel, which if I remember my whacko-nutjob-christianism properly is necessary for the second coming of Jesus, which is good.

How the hell did god cause the holocaust?

YouTube Video

It's all because Adam and Eve sinned orginally, therefore we kind of brought it on our selves. :eagletear:

Pangalin, you just made your first post completely irrelevant. Try making a valid point next time you post, OK? Thanks.

wvlfpvp, if you're going to post a question to a diverse group of people, you should respect the honest answers. We all exist on the same planet under the same sun in the same universe. We all come from the same source, and we all return to it. We all have equal ability to contact that source and find the answers we seek.

Smelnick, you don't have to explain Christianity to me. I was Catholic until I was 14. I know the dogma, and I think it's Satan incarnate. We were created to be free, to think for ourselves, and to make our own decisions. To follow one patriarch blindly is to follow all of them, and that's not what we're here for. Don't stop believing in God, but seriously reconsider going to church. Any institution that discourages independent thought is downright wrong. You will be shown the true way by your inner voice, not some man on a pulpit.

Sir, if you think that the evolving nature of occupational gender terms makes Allah retroactively into a eunuch, you're even more confused than we already knew you were.

I'm sorry you don't know how English works, but this doesn't give you the right to talk down to anyone. Actually, being ignorant makes you LESS able to be condescending! Funny how that works.

As I said earlier: If he's truly omnipotent, then free will is an illusion and it's directly his fault. If you don't want to deal with THAT little thing, someone powerful enough to flood the planet is certainly powerful enough to shut down a few concentration camps, and thus God is responsible through inaction.

You just say that because you're a hippie liberal.

Actually, psychedelic experimentation and the resulting spiritual experience makes me quite unable to apply conditioned gender roles to the creative force that underlies the cosmos. It feels very wrong to me. I am very sure of this. No confusion.

See, neither is an androgynous term. God is to English what Allah is to Arabic. Same concept, same word. Arabic Bibles and Torahs use the word Allah.
If this is true, then your previous post is irrelevant.

Pot told you to be pointlessly pedantic?

LSD, dude. LSD. Herb doesn't generally induce spiritual experiences. I imagine that the amount you'd have to smoke to get there would ensure you'd never remembered any of it.

I hardly think that my pedantry on certain subjects is unjustified. Maybe I have Asperger's. Maybe you should bite me.

Being pedant isn't going to help you not be pedant.

Maybe you're a perfect advertisement for why people shouldn't use drugs.

Interrobang, I'll pay attention to any details I choose, and write whatever feels right. You are free to skim over the details that fail to interest you, and it's really none of my concern whether you choose to exercise that freedom.

RR, I would not trade the insights into myself or life in general gained from my days with LSD for anything in the world. The use of certain substances, with the right intention and ample research, can really heal and foster growth. On another note, I think it was Gautama Buddha who said that with right concentration, it's possible to gain powers such as levitation, clairvoyance, and walking on water. That's why I personally believe Jesus, if he truly existed (because I can never know for sure, he might have just been an allegory for the right way of being), was a Buddha, who simply tried to speak in terms that the local Jews of that time would understand, the same way Gautama spoke in terms that the local Hindus would understand.

On the topic of blaming God for the holocaust and other evils:
If the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is at all valid, then we have free will to choose from a set of pre-determined actions and outcomes that already exist, frozen in time. If a consciousness were aware of the whole space-time continuum, it would probably have the role of passive observer, since action requires time. Thus, you can hardly blame God for any inaction.

And yeah, that's why I don't think you can accuse God of good or evil. I mean, even if it is possible for God to step in, would you really want a being looking over your shoulder all the time, telling you what to do? As much evil might result from God's inaction, it's really a favor to us that we're free to do as we please. Besides which, for every event that's ever happened, it's impossible to predict what might have happened if things played out differently.

Example: The holocaust caused a fucktonne of pain for the world, and we can all agree that it was a great evil. However, it could very well have taught an entire generation the true value of equality and freedom, which might have led to the birth of the civil rights movement. Had God stepped in and stopped it from happening (which would be pointless from God's perspective, since we eventually did that for ourselves), things would be a whole lot different for us now, and the ripples that action would create in the space-time continuum are incomprehensible. I'm not saying that the holocaust was a good thing, but I am saying that if some omnipotent being hadn't allowed events to run their course, there might have been much worse results. Imagine if fascism had come along at a time when it could take over the whole planet. Imagine if it was still socially acceptable to have slaves. Such speculation is pointless, however, because we'll never know for sure. I'm just trying to illustrate that God would operate on far more data than we have at our disposal, and as such we cannot really understand God's action or inaction enough to apply terms like "Good" and "Evil".

There was a car accident a few years back, a father, mother, and their two young children where all killed, a family gone. That does seem like a evil thing for god to do, and I can't think of any 'right' thing about it, but it has made a lot of the hard-core christians in my area say things like "it makes you wonder if there is even a god up there"

Allow me to summarize, in a few sentences, the important parts that Phoenix X seems to be attempting to communicate but is too inept to successfully accomplish.

It is impossible to assess an act as being good or evil. It simply is, and God allows these acts to occur because we, as extensions of God, choose them. Vicariously, our choices become God's choices because God gave us free will. Our perceptions and reactions are individually unique, but because they differ, nothing is truly evil or good. Even acts of great harm may be catalysts for greater benefit. In this, "good" and "evil" are often opposite sides of the same coin.


All that junk about quantum mechanics is largely unnecessary in answering the original question. Schrodinger's Cat is an exercise in dual objectivity and has very little to do with evaluating the subjective nature of morality.

Sounds like someone has been reading too many texts and is attempting to codify them all into a singular explanation of our world.

They all went to heaven, dude!

That's the secret of religion! Dying means you WIN!

Then why can't all these fucking televangelists and religious lobbyists go ahead and win already?

That's nice. You're still pointlessly inept at basic communication. Your logic is basically that Englishmen retconned "God" into being the name of an entity that some backwoods guys in the desert referred to in male pronouns, therefore you should use obscure terms like "tao" in a retarded fashion. All of this is despite the words you're using having a different connotation than the one you intend them to have, and that "God" already has your desired connotation.

HEART implies LOVE so i shall use PUMP instead

Your quantum theory proves little. It assumes God is bound within the constraints of time in some strange way which prevents him from action. But then, who said action was ever necessary in the first place? We can assume God had a plan from the very beginning and charted the course of our actions and let multiverse quantum physics take over to carry out his actions. Perhaps all those other actions we can perform at any given moment are the actions of free will, but the action we perform in reality is the path God chose for us. Perhaps God just wanted us to have the illusion of free will even within the context of quantum physics. In short, it's easy to work around your theory.

Secondly, God controlling our actions doesn't necessarily mean we're aware of it. You think that His control would be in the form of telling us what to do, somehow one on one a voice speaks to you? Well what if His control is simply what we percieve as freewill?

Taoism is a bleak outlook on the world. An example of it would be the theory that civil rights movements require the death of millions of Jews to get kick-started. And that for every action of good you do, someone is going perform an act of evil just to counter balance you. What good is such a futile, stagnant view which turns the idea of progress into an imaginary concept?

In any case we both agree the Holocaust was "evil." However, I don't buy your theory on God being passive. As far as I'm concerned, so long as we assume there's a "God" we must also assume He allows acts of great evil to occur.

Just curious, but I was wondering what religion you are referring to?

Additional Spam:
In my opinion, man caused the Holocaust....not God.

Wait, you're a theologically liberal Christian and you care about this question? Why? Just pass it off as "invented" story or passable by a certain historical viewpoint and move on with your life.

If you were one who accepted the biblical canon as it is, I'd tell you that it's impossible (practically or in the general sense of the word) for that to happen, as God embodies both Love and Justice. He has a unique position as a bestower of mercy or an agent of punishment.

...That's just me (and Martin Luther...also, Augustine), though.

Okay, you know, if I were religious, I'd totally flip my lid over this one.

I don't get this at all. "I believe in my faith in order to cover my bases." Yea, I'm sure thats would go over well at the pearly gates.

"Do you accept Jesus as your savior?"
"Yea, so long as I don't burn in hell for all eternity - sure, why not!"

That seems so....opposite to the point.

I mean, I can see where you're coming from, though? You're TERRIFIED of this godawful place called "hell." You've been scared shitless into believing in some stupid crap just because you want to play on the safe side.

Doesn't that OFF THE BAT kind of make you suspicious about your god? He resorts to SCARE TACTICS to get you to worship him?

Exactly. Pascal's wager is bullshit, because any deity who would sentence someone to an eternity of pain for simply making the wrong choice among hundreds when he/she won't even give any evidence as to their existence or as to which is the 'true' religion isn't worth believing in, much less worshiping.

I Always thought that Pascal's wager was bullshit because it assumed that:

a) the christian god exists.

or

b) no god exists.

What if god only rewards atheists?

Come to my used car lot baby I have a deal for you! He had better hope his God isn't the omniscient kind that will easily see through his deception. False witness is something He gets quite cranky about too from what I understand.

I'm not very worried at all in coming face to face with God should he exist. Afterall, his fan club keep telling me how loving he is. Surely God can find it in his capacious heart to forgive me for just simply being honest and unable to find it in my capacity to believe something without sufficient evidence.

Meh. I'm human. Obviously I'm gonna have some doubts at times. God is a pretty flimsy concept to believe it. Obviously I'm not a very devout christian if that wasn't already obvious. But I enjoy the religion so I figure, why not. Really I'm kinda just talking out of my ass now. Lacking in sleep. So enough replies for me tonite.

So you just blindly believe in because it's better than the alternative? I mean, you admit it's a flimsy concept! But yet, you still believe in it because you don't like the idea that maybe, someday, upon arriving at the transcendental juncture of the afterlife, you may get sent to this really fun place called hell.

You admit it's flimsy. But yet you're still making decisions based on the most hilarious concept ever: hell.

Do you see how this is kind of silly? I mean, maybe you haven't really thought about how you regard things out there, as far as spirituality - which is cool, man. But how Christian are you really?

What, exactly, do you "enjoy" about the religion? The free communion wafers? The thought-provoking metaphor of drinking Christ's blood? Maybe the weekend retreats into a hell hole of Kumbaya choruses and repetitive preaching?

I mean, if you want an "enjoyable" religion, I am sure there's much more awesome things out there that celebrate the individual in lieu of trying to appease some dude in the sky who will throw you into the throngs of hell if you don't worship him properly.

Responses such as that convince me more and more what people claim to believe is quite a bit different than what people actually believe. They think they believe, they want to believe the metaphysical claims of the bible. But it's just not possible to really, really believe it. I think most of the religious are under the influence of Pascal. How can they not be when it seemingly appears to be such a profitable transaction. Providing they get the sprinkle of water and spend their Sunday afternoon in church an exception will be made when they pass on. Exactly as he said, why take the chance? Of course I don't believe this nonsense! But if I at least feign belief my mind/soul will survive my death. People will fall for that.

Except that's not how it works, slick. Belief, at least in the judeo-christian dogma, requires belief in one's heart. You can't do lip service. It doesn't count.

So the person making the rational decision of "I'll stay in case" has to make the rational decision of "Well, now I'm fucked anyway. Might as well screw before marriage." Also, over the course of my ethnographic research, I've met people who are devout believers. Quite a few of them, actually. So your hypothesis doesn't hold water. You're giving too much weight to the rational decision making process in what is inherently an irrational act. People don't often think this through. They're raised in it, they believe it. Period.

win
 

Those born in a family of faith do tend to believe in their "heart" and really believe they believe the nonsense of the bible. But what good is a belief if it does not correspond with reality? Consider what it means to believe a given proposition. A belief is clearly a linguistic representation concerning a state of the universe. If the brain has conquered anything it is the ability to differentiate a belief from a hope. I can hope I have won the lottery. This represents a possible state of the universe. However, it only becomes a possible representation once I have secured a ticket. But believing I have won the lottery is the only thing which opens the floodgate of emotions appropriate to actually having won the lottery. Yet what could be said of my mental faculties if I have not won the lottery but continue to believe I have? Simply believing I am a lottery winner does not change my financial situation unless it happens to be true. When we believe a given proposition as a truth statement, we are making our best effort to map our thoughts onto reality. This is why we have phrases such as ‘wishful thinking’ for when the validity of our beliefs do not connect with reality.

Either God is the perfect creator of the universe or He is not. If it is the case that it is the latter, then it would seem to place roughly 2 billion Christians in a very awkward situation indeed. In the fullness of time there really will be a winner to this debate since logic demands it. If it turns out there is a God who has a plan for me, then all I have is the simple task of revising my beliefs to gain new knowledge about the universe. If it ever becomes demonstratively shown however that there is no God, am I expected to see 2 billion Christians suddenly become atheists? This is unlikely. What then would it say about the mental faculties of those Christians who continue to believe something which is not true?

Notice that Christianity, with all of its fantastically false claims about the universe, actually goes much further. It says, you as an individual, have the ability to change reality through belief. In other words, if only you are willing to believe Jesus died on the cross you can change the destination of your soul once it separates from the body after death. Since sin is original to our species, something none of us are able to evade, our soul from the moment of conception is destined for Hell. But providing you surrender your self-respect and providing you praise and adore a celestial being that has only done his job in creating you, you are able to avoid a very unpleasant place you rightly belong and instead find yourself welcomed into Heaven.

Now you understand what I mean when I say it is just not possible to believe this. And anyone who claims to is simply not being intellectually honest.

I think you're still having a hard time separating logic and reason from what faith is.

Also, I'm not sure how comparing believing in an afterlife is at all comparable to believing one's won the lottery as one can affect you in the here and now and the other will only be once it doesn't really matter anyway.

If a given proposition is true, it is true by virtue, not because we believe it. If this is merely a debate concerning the reliability of faith and reason then reason wins by default. We would have not got this far in the pages of history without it. If on the other hand you mean to tell me that the concept of the afterlife rests solely inside the realm of faith which reason can never hope to explain, then no I won't have that. Either there is life beyond the grave or there isn't. If there is, then that is a matter of truth not a matter of faith. If you also mean to tell me that among all things we must have faith in God to be granted access to this divine afterlife, then no I won't have that either. You have a great deal of work ahead if you want to convince me that Heaven and the afterlife only reveals its path to those who have jetisoned logic and reason and replaced skepticism with blind faith.

The human brain is no longer confined to shadows in the cave. We need to have more respect for ourselves than this. I hope I am making myself clear.

I'm just having a hard time understanding how you can say that necessitating something outside our universe has to be proven in order to exist.

I mean, if we're going that route, then the entirety of the universe stops existing whenever I blink.

Well, it's easy to think of such a thing if you're a dystheist (where God is evil).


Personally, it is my belief that 9/11 was evil and God-Allowed, thus meaning He, for all practical purposes, did something evil.

Why isn't this listed in the dictionary.

O, WOW. You're a jem.

"9/11 was awful, and God allowed it. Therefore, God must be part EVIL!"

What's wrong with you. Really. Have you thought about this at all? 9/11 is the first thing to spring to mind?

And, I mean, how about every second someone suffers in life? Or every tragedy that occurs - does that all mean god could be part evil, too? Because we don't live in utopia?

Sometimes, I wonder how people make these huge leaps for their faith. Instead of accepting something that is much more probable (ie: god is a figment of your imagination and insecurities), you decide that maybe god isn't as perfect as you thought he was! DESPITE what the Bible has to say about it!

I wonder, is Lucifer perhaps Mother Teresa? 'Cause the duality you're implying with god here must apply equally to the devil, I imagine.

You only have the sense of sight?

When I sleep the world stops existing.

(Or perhaps when I blink light ceases to exist.)

God is too much work. I've yet to encounter a reason to believe in his existence or his supposed words.

Doesn't anyone else feel this way?

I just can't be bothered to give a flying fuck. If a fella wants me to devote my precious 70 years of existence to his cause, he'd better be the one seeking me the fuck out in the desert and praying to me.

I always wondered why the lights wink out every minute or two.

Why would anyone even try to argue with solipsism? You can't very well refute it.

It's on Wikipedia, I know that:

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystheism

And I highly doubt they would lie about something like that, since they're mostly a bunch of heathens.
Plus the dictionary was written by Christian men. Such an entry would be sacrilige. why not now? no one uses it much anymore.

Yes, that's good reasoning. Sure is. Maybe even great reasoning.

But you CAN hear, therefore certifying that there is something outside, or you should guide yourself to a psych ward, lol.

But yes, solipsis is VERY hard to argue with, since it's pretty much a conversation ender.

And, no. When you sleep, the world doesn't start existing, you do. Since your mind is at rest, and sleep is the first death (according to shakespeare), you have ceased to exist for the time being.

Additional Spam:
Touche.
Well, that is assuming you believe there IS a god.
Good for you, you're letting me skip a step! Since you bring up duality, such a questioning could only result in "There is no God."
You see what NOT going the simple route does? It brings to light SO many things!;)

There are too many circumstances in which all logic points to the nonexistence of god, so as far as percentages go, there isn't one.

Yet still some common proles think that they might have hope of lasting forever, so they cling to the hope that they will, and create the ultimate sadist for their inner masochist so they'll feel rightly punished for their foolishness.:p:p HAHA, Christians make me laugh.

Well, getting back to the original topic....


Here's the thing. Presuppose that God exists. To me this means that he is omnipotent... otherwise he'd be 'a' god and not God... and therefore created the notions of good and evil. Good and evil being define by him then....

.... yes, he does wrong in the sense that he breaks the rules he sets for us. If he never meant for those rules to apply to him though, the he isn't breaking them, and they aren't evil.

So we should do as he says, not as he does?

Pretty much, though saying it like that leaves out the 'why's. Picture this, there was a point in your life when you weren't allowed to cross the road by yourself. Your parents could, but told you not to. They also told you not to talk to strangers or do any number of other things simply because you weren't knowledgeable or strong enough to do it right... even though they'd do those things right in front of you.

God can decide when it is right to end a person's life, but we can't see as far as he can so for us... it would be murder.

Again, this is assuming an omnipotent God.

Do you know how flawed this is.

"God" is "perfect," according to you people. You will use anything to explain away the inconsistencies of your argument, won't you. It's a little depressing that you'd go as far as to call your god a murderer and think that's okay because hey! he knows what he's doing.

Your argument pretty much says that it's okay, because we don't know what he's up to, what with him being omnipotent and all that jive.

"Do as I say, not as I do" is fucking right. I just wonder why people want to be babysat by an imaginary dude. Especially one who is bitter and jealous when you stray away.

Actually, Sassafrass, that's a rather common theological approach these days.

The argument goes that the root of sin is the assumption by lesser beings of the role which they have no right to hold; in particular, deciding who lives and who dies. These are decisions only god can make, as its pretty much his world, as well as him having omniscience and supposedly a "good" nature and plan.

Sass, you seem to be of the opinion that someone who is transcendent to this universe, much less humanity, should be subject to the same restrictions applied to it. Fairness and all that, right?

However, that "do as I say, not as I do" statement doesn't entirely hold up in the whole schema of the christian perspective, because I guess Jesus came, in part, to say "ok dumasses, here's how you do it."

Now, I don't entirely buy the whole argument(or many christian arguments these days) on other grounds. But to say that Hydra is just grasping at straws to explain away inconsistencies is kind of unfair.

So what would happen if we were to do the equivalent of cross the road or talk to strangers? Would we get run over or buggered senseless?

And that makes as little sense to me as the big guy wearing a toga in the sky. I'm sorry, that's not meant to be personal or anything. I understand what you're saying, but the idea is laughable.

Uh, well, I don't believe in religion, so I think anything that even assumes there's a omnipotent presence that interacts with us is a silly notion. More than silly - straight out delusional.

So I don't really care if this Great Thing holds itself to the same expectations as it holds us to - I think the entire concept is archaic and honestly, a little dangerous.

A "perfect god" needs to send down some hippie to bang prostitutes and die on a cross to prove that "aw, god ain't that bad" ??

It's not so much Hydra as a person that I take issue with. I am sure Hydra is a smart person.

But I see these people explaining away all the inconsistencies of a LOT of their religion with what I think of as the "magic sponge." Religion is not help to any kind of logic or sense. It just is, 'cause "God said so."

I just see people warp and misinterpret some pretty direct text and I get frustrated.

It would also be aggravating to have to abide by some guy's rules when he doesn't even follow them himself. It seems so patronizing to me, and I wonder if there are some people in the world that just enjoy thinking that they'll be a kid forever in the eye's of god.

YOU are responsible for YOUR life. Not God. Not Satan. Not Buddha. Not Allah. YOU.