Blaspheming The Holy Spirit!

[Father Heathen]

Let's put it this way.

Think of it as a loyalty thing.

Imagine a Wise old white-haired Chinese emperor.

Suddenly some rascally rebel comes in and calls him a $h!t-head.

Or say the King of Siam finds out one of his wives has cheated on him with another man.

The protocol requires that these people are put to death for the sake of the stability of the kingdom and the recognizing of the status of the leader.

Again, you're comparing humans in human situations to an all-pervasive all-encompassing, incorporeal force. What I've been trying to say that it makes absolutely no sense to me that such a thing would share an identical psychology to us mammalian lifeforms. You're trying to shoehorn the concept god into this preconceived cartoon caricature mold. It's like if monkeys (if they were capable of comprehending theological concepts) presumed that god was also a monkey (albeit an invisible, cloud dwelling one) who also liked to eat bananas and fling his **** when angered.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Let's put it this way.

Think of it as a loyalty thing.

Imagine a Wise old white-haired Chinese emperor presiding over the Kingdom.

Suddenly some rascally rebel comes in and calls him a $h!t-head out of nowhere.

Wonderful - so I assume that for starters the 'rebel' has very good reason to believe that emperor exists. I assume also that the rebel has good objective reason to believe there is a law against insulting the emperor and what the penalty would be. Also note there is very good reason that a rebel in a place the size of china might potentially have cause to be disgruntled at the emperor despite the emperor's best intentions; because that is how empires work, they involve large organisations and numerous layers of hierarchy, the often inequitable flow of goods and service, the fallible formulation and implementation of justice systems etc. I would also note that there is nothing objective which would imply that it is more wrong to insulting the emperor as opposed to any other person - only that the emperor decided it was more wrong and that this is backed up by force.

The protocol requires that these people are put to death for the sake of the stability of the kingdom and the recognizing of the status of the leader. Regardless of any feelings involved, whether they matter or not, it is for the sake of preventing dishonor and discord upon the status quo, and rightfully so.

And here is where your analaogy fails even further - see in a kingdom, the 'protocol' is the result of the king's own (and previous king's and religions) rulings and traditions - contrast that with the case for some divine kingdom, does 'god' inheret protocol from another series of prior gods or some other unalterable source? For what reason would god not have control over this 'protocol' moreover how could god's 'kingdom' become unstable (and what would that even mean in a divine context)?

It is claim that relies on innumerable layers of assumption without basis and directly contradicts with associated claims about that very same god usually by those same believers (such as love, mercy etc). It is not an internally consistent proposal.

 

[Thana]

Actually the bible does instruct you to kill people, and for rather nonsensical reasons at that.

You're referring to the Old testament, Which, If you used common sense, You would understand that in that culture killing was socially acceptable. An eye for an eye was pretty much their law. So of course, The bible will reflect that.
Expecting the bible concerning people thousands of years ago to adhere to modern rules and civility is quite, well silly.

 

[Father Heathen]

You're referring to the Old testament, Which, If you used common sense, You would understand that in that culture killing was socially acceptable. An eye for an eye was pretty much their law. So of course, The bible will reflect that.
Expecting the bible concerning people thousands of years ago to adhere to modern rules and civility is quite, well silly.

Common sense tells me that cultural norms wouldn't supersede the will of god, especially not in a book that's presented as god's word. Why would it be included if it wasn't believed to be sanctioned by god?

 

[Thana]

Common sense tells me that cultural norms wouldn't supersede the will of god, especially not in a book that's presented as god's word. Why would it be included if it wasn't believed to be sanctioned by god?

If cultural norms did not supersede the will of God, How would he communicate with his people? How would he get them to understand what he wants of them.

How does one get a savage or a barbarian to accept and instill love, forgiveness, mercy and peace into their lives when all they know is death, revenge, vengenance and hate?

 

[Shermana]

Again, you're comparing humans in human situations to an all-pervasive all-encompassing, incorporeal force. What I've been trying to say that it makes absolutely no sense to me that such a thing would share an identical psychology to us mammalian lifeforms. You're trying to shoehorn the concept god into this preconceived cartoon caricature mold. It's like if monkeys (if they were capable of comprehending theological concepts) presumed that god was also a monkey (albeit an invisible, cloud dwelling one) who also liked to eat bananas and fling his **** when angered.

Well if it makes no sense to you that a Supreme Being might have the same emotive and interpersonal concepts that His creation has, I can't help you with that. It makes perfect sense to me, and I've been asking you to explain why this being wouldn't, but each time this question has been left unanswered. It says that man was made in his "image" (physical likeness, which could possibly include the emotional and intelligence related aspects in the wiring), monkeys were not.

And furthermore, pretty much every single concept of a "god" worldwide is quite similar in that regard. Even among Animists.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

So granting free will and the ability to break away is ineptitude?

Absolutely not. Granting free will and then getting "righteously indignant" (please read, petulant) when things don't go as desired is idiotic.

So your dichotomy is to either have total deterministic control without testing humans and making them robots, or to be infantile.

Infantile only if your god gets angry at something under their control they chose not to control.

 

[Father Heathen]

If cultural norms did not supersede the will of God, How would he communicate with his people?

Um, he's GOD. He could simply will it so, or teach by example rather than sanctioning and perpetuating oppressive and unjust ways of life.

How would he get them to understand what he wants of them.

So the only way god can communicate is by not only allowing but also incouraging people to do the exact opposite of what he wants of them? Yeah, that makes sense.

How does one get a savage or a barbarian to accept and instill love, forgiveness, mercy and peace into their lives when all they know is death, revenge, vengenance and hate?

Though education and example, and by deterring or punishing oppressive, unjust actions.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What's wrong with human traits?

Why is it necessarily bad to feel jealousy if you're jilted? Why is a "Supreme Being" supposed to be above that? Why can't he have feelings? What if being made in the "Physical image" means also being endowed with the same kinds of emotional chemicals and circuitry?

I'd think if the Supreme Being wasn't affected from such, he'd be a bit of a loser. Perhaps none of you are familiar with the concept of righteous indignation. Sometimes dignity demands an angry reaction.

Nothings wrong with them, it's why it's fine for humans.

I think what people are pointing out that the supreme being could easily have created a world where Free will was intact but people could not harm each other.

 

[Father Heathen]

Well if it makes no sense to you that a Supreme Being might have the same emotive and interpersonal concepts that His creation has, I can't help you with that. It makes perfect sense to me, and I've been asking you to explain why this being wouldn't, but each time this question has been left unanswered.

But I did answer it. I've explained in detail why it's nonsensical to anthropomorphize an infinite, all-encompassing, all-pervasive, omnimax, incorporeal being and I'm sorry that you're struggling with it.

It says that man was made in his "image" (physical likeness, which could possibly include the emotional and intelligence related aspects in the wiring), monkeys were not.

But if monkeys wrote a bible, it would say that monkeys were made in god's image, so what's your point?

And furthermore, pretty much every single concept of a "god" worldwide is quite similar in that regard. Even among Animists.

Well of course a lot of deities reflect the cultures from which they were devised, but more evolved concepts, such as deism and pantheism, don't anthropomorphize god.

 

[Thana]

Um, he's GOD. He could simply will it so, or teach by example rather than sanctioning and perpetuating oppressive and unjust ways of life.

So the only way god can communicate is by not only allowing but also incouraging people to do the exact opposite of what he wants of them? Yeah, that makes sense.

Though education and example, and by deterring or punishing oppressive, unjust actions.

Pretty words, And you might be right if it was a perfect world.
But it's not.

And yes, God could will anything into being. However, He gave us free will.
He could make us all love and adore him, But he does not. He gave us choice.

 

[Cardboard]

And yes, God could will anything into being. However, He gave us free will.
He could make us all love and adore him, But he does not. He gave us choice.

I was just wondering, what is your take on how choice can be present with an omniscient creator, just wondering how you justify the paradox?

 

[Shermana]

Absolutely not. Granting free will and then getting "righteously indignant" (please read, petulant) when things don't go as desired is idiotic.


Infantile only if your god gets angry at something under their control they chose not to control.

Well I say its not idiotic or infantile, since it's really not much different than a King or a Father being betrayed or a Husband being betrayed, so we'll just have to leave it as a matter of personal value judgment.

 

[Thana]

I was just wondering, what is your take on how choice can be present with an omniscient creator, just wondering how you justify the paradox?

God can be omniscient, How does that take away my will. He may know what I'm going to do, But how does knowing change the outcome?

If one plus one is two, I can know that all I like, But it wont make one plus one equal three.

 

[Cardboard]

God can be omniscient, How does that take away my will. He may know what I'm going to do, But how does knowing change the outcome?

If one plus one is two, I can know that all I like, But it wont make one plus one equal three.

I am sorry, I must not be following your line of thinking, but doesnt knowing at the point of creation the outcome of all things that you created, negate the very idea of Free will?

 

[Thana]

I am sorry, I must not be following your line of thinking, but doesnt knowing at the point of creation the outcome of all things that you created, negate the very idea of Free will?

How? Like I said, How does knowing the outcome cause the outcome?

I know the sun is going to rise tomorrow, Does that mean I cause the sun to rise?

I don't understand your logic. Please explain.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Well I say its not idiotic or infantile, since it's really not much different than a King or a Father being betrayed or a Husband being betrayed, so we'll just have to leave it as a matter of personal value judgment.

A king is not all-knowing or all-powerful. A father is not all-knowing or all-powerful. Neither are husbands

Why you choose to define your god in relation to those and shoot yourself in the foot is still bewildering.

 

[Father Heathen]

Well I say its not idiotic or infantile, since it's really not much different than a King or a Father being betrayed or a Husband being betrayed, so we'll just have to leave it as a matter of personal value judgment.

You do realize that kings, fathers, and husbands are mere homosapiens, right? Attempting to anthropomorphize god is trying to fit something perfect and infinite in an imperfect and finite box.

 

[Father Heathen]

Pretty words, And you might be right if it was a perfect world.
But it's not.

But god is supposed to be, right? And it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect something purported to be his word to be as well, right?

And yes, God could will anything into being. However, He gave us free will.
He could make us all love and adore him, But he does not. He gave us choice.

This includes the bible's authors' choice to use god as a sock puppt and attribute their own hate, fear, bigotry, ignorance, and savagery to him, right?

 

[Shermana]

You do realize that kings, fathers, and husbands are mere homosapiens, right? Attempting to anthropomorphize god is trying to fit something perfect and infinite in an imperfect and finite box.

What I realize is that our belief says we are made in His image, which I believe includes everything that goes with it including the emotional wiring and circuits and chemicals (I believe he has a body unlike post 15th century Rabbinicism, as the text seems to implicitly state), and what I realize is that the entire religion of Judaism is based on such anthropomorphicized interpretations, and that there's nothing in the concept of "Infinity" that places limits on emotional expression. And the c oncept of "perfect" is totally relative. I can argue that one who simply lets such indignation pass is imperfect. A weakling.

I could just as easily argue that saying he's beyond such things as honor and emotion and justified indigination is just another attempt to put him in a box.