If you can't believe.....

[Darkstorn]

Um... Ok?

 

[Smart_Guy]

What are you doing here in a religious forum?

I'm here to make friends and fool around... really!

I just happened to find myself getting involved in some religious discussions unwillingly.

Why are you here? Other than discussing coffee I mean?

 

[Thief]

Um... Ok?

We all die.
I simply believe life is not terminal.....just because the chemistry failed.

 

[Thief]

I'm here to make friends and fool around... really!

I just happened to find myself getting involved in some religious discussions unwillingly.

Why are you here? Other than discussing coffee I mean?

Life without coffee?.....omg!

 

[Smart_Guy]

We all die.
I simply believe life is not terminal.....just because the chemistry failed.

Terminal? Like those huge buildings at airports?

 

[Thief]

Terminal? Like those huge buildings at airports?

You're up too early....go have some coffee!

 

[Smart_Guy]

You're up too early....go have some coffee!

Yeah, gonna need a stong (with no R) one!

 

[Darkstorn]

We all die.
I simply believe life is not terminal.....just because the chemistry failed.

You'd be surprised: I share this view. Completely. Except for one thing: I don't believe it, i have enough information to decide it in a logical manner: To me it is essentially a scientific theory.

I find it impossible to even consider non-existance after death: It is not a state of mind that can be actually experienced by a human. The only way you'll see what truly happens after death is for you to experience it: But you won't be able to come back and tell anyone about it.

To me it's exactly like traveling into a black hole: To the outside world the information available indicates that the person is truly "ended": For the dead person, i don't really know.

I like to think that if i don't know everything, then i know nothing: But i prefer not to guess either way.

 

[McBell]

We are exceeded in every manner except.....mind and heart.

Bold empty claim.

 

[Thief]

You'd be surprised: I share this view. Completely. Except for one thing: I don't believe it, i have enough information to decide it in a logical manner: To me it is essentially a scientific theory.

I find it impossible to even consider non-existance after death: It is not a state of mind that can be actually experienced by a human. The only way you'll see what truly happens after death is for you to experience it: But you won't be able to come back and tell anyone about it.

To me it's exactly like traveling into a black hole: To the outside world the information available indicates that the person is truly "ended": For the dead person, i don't really know.

I like to think that if i don't know everything, then i know nothing: But i prefer not to guess either way.

I do believe in God and do so because of science.

I also believe this manner of communication fails when the flesh fails.
We type or talk...we read or listen.
Dead men do none of this.

If there is communication it will be directly to mind and heart....in spirit.

Therefore we stand before heaven naked.
The will be able to see the person you really are.
They will ask you to follow or leave you where you fell.

 

[InChrist]

I have read the article and it does a good job of attempting to spin the Jealousy attributed to the God of the Old Testament as something different than a human jealousy, equating it with zeal. This, does, of course, requires some very selective reading and ignoring some of the more uncomfortable passages.



Anger and jealousy are typically 2 sides of the same (human defined) jealousy. Now, unless you also want to redefine 'anger', then you must agree that (at least in this case), the Hebrew God's version of 'Jealousy' seems very similar to human jealousy. There are many examples within the Old Testament that would cause an outsider to view the Hebrew Gods* (Not a typo, the link discusses the Jewish Pantheon) as a short tempered deity that destroys his toys when he gets angry. One note of interest is that God (Jehovah) gets really jealous at the time of the prophet Elijah and Baal worship. It has been proposed that this was documenting the transition from Baal (Elohim) to Jehovah in Judaism. The Jehovah worshippers came out victorious, thus all of the other parts of the Jewish Pantheon were discarded and their followers dealt with.

Now, lest you think or suggest that I am merely attacking the character of the Hebrew/Christian God. This is not the case. It is my opinion, as well as many others much more learned than I, that the Jewish scriptures are written/influenced/edited by different theological points of view over an extended period of time. There would appear to be quite a bit of redaction (in fact, one of the editors has been called "The Redactor") of those documents to fit the point of view of the clergy at that time.

So, with that bit of information, I am not attacking the character of God (as it would not make sense to attack an attribute of an entity that I consider mythical), but merely making the case that the Bible is a book written by fallible humans that transposed their biases and opinions into a collection of documents. In doing so, they describe a deity that possesses strikingly human attributes, especially emotions and motivations.

Speaking of motivations, I would imagine that the Jewish clergy of that time might not like competition. After all, they were dependent on the offerings of the people to their particular product, I mean, God. So, it would be in their best interest to discourage the worship of other gods. Since they were the keepers of the holy scriptures, what better place was there to call for the prohibition of spiritual competition?

I have read the article and it does a good job of attempting to spin the Jealousy attributed to the God of the Old Testament as something different than a human jealousy, equating it with zeal. This, does, of course, requires some very selective reading and ignoring some of the more uncomfortable passages.



Anger and jealousy are typically 2 sides of the same (human defined) jealousy. Now, unless you also want to redefine 'anger', then you must agree that (at least in this case), the Hebrew God's version of 'Jealousy' seems very similar to human jealousy. There are many examples within the Old Testament that would cause an outsider to view the Hebrew Gods* (Not a typo, the link discusses the Jewish Pantheon) as a short tempered deity that destroys his toys when he gets angry. One note of interest is that God (Jehovah) gets really jealous at the time of the prophet Elijah and Baal worship. It has been proposed that this was documenting the transition from Baal (Elohim) to Jehovah in Judaism. The Jehovah worshippers came out victorious, thus all of the other parts of the Jewish Pantheon were discarded and their followers dealt with.

Now, lest you think or suggest that I am merely attacking the character of the Hebrew/Christian God. This is not the case. It is my opinion, as well as many others much more learned than I, that the Jewish scriptures are written/influenced/edited by different theological points of view over an extended period of time. There would appear to be quite a bit of redaction (in fact, one of the editors has been called "The Redactor") of those documents to fit the point of view of the clergy at that time.

So, with that bit of information, I am not attacking the character of God (as it would not make sense to attack an attribute of an entity that I consider mythical), but merely making the case that the Bible is a book written by fallible humans that transposed their biases and opinions into a collection of documents. In doing so, they describe a deity that possesses strikingly human attributes, especially emotions and motivations.

Speaking of motivations, I would imagine that the Jewish clergy of that time might not like competition. After all, they were dependent on the offerings of the people to their particular product, I mean, God. So, it would be in their best interest to discourage the worship of other gods. Since they were the keepers of the holy scriptures, what better place was there to call for the prohibition of spiritual competition?

Thank you for actually reading the article. I don't necessarily believe you are attacking the Hebrew/Christian God. I think you are simply expressing your perspective and I respect that. I just think that you don't understand the vast gulf between human jealousy and that of the God who created heaven and earth. If God is the Creator and sustainer of life, along with being the source of all that is needed it makes perfect sense that He should be jealous when His creation(humans) foolishly start idolizing, following, and looking to anything less than Himself to supply their needs.

I don't give credence to the redaction theory and believe the biblical scriptures prove themselves to be above human fallibility as they also provide ample reasons to believe for anyone sincerely seeking to know the Creator God revealed within their pages.

 

[SkepticX]

If God is the Creator and sustainer of life, along with being the source of all that is needed it makes perfect sense that He should be jealous when His creation(humans) foolishly start idolizing, following, and looking to anything less than Himself to supply their needs.

Except that since he created us he's responsible, entirely, for the way we are. How can we be but what our creator created us to be, and how can that creator then put the blame for any shortcomings on us?

 

[Thief]

Except that since he created us he's responsible, entirely, for the way we are. How can we be but what our creator created us to be, and how can that creator then put the blame for any shortcomings on us?

maybe there has been sufficient instructions and therefore no excuses.

And the angel said to him...Nay, they have the scribes and prophets as you did.
(to a fallen soul begging an angel to care for his sons, still living)

 

[InChrist]

Except that since he created us he's responsible, entirely, for the way we are. How can we be but what our creator created us to be, and how can that creator then put the blame for any shortcomings on us?

I see that we are to blame for our shortcomings because God has created us with the freedom and ability to obey or reject His perfect will and wisdom. Logically, I don't think what you are saying makes sense. I am not entirely responsible or really responsible at all for the shortcomings of my adult daughter who makes her own free choices...she is. Throughout the scriptures it is shown over and over that God has given humans the freedom to choose and so very often those choices are contrary to the best desire and will of God for His creation. So the blame for wrong choices/ behavior and resulting consequences clearly rests upon the individual from my perspective.

 

[SkepticX]

I see that we are to blame for our shortcomings because God has created us with the freedom and ability to obey or reject His perfect will and wisdom.

That doesn't actually change anything. The creator designed those attributes as part of our nature--his call, his responsibility. The traditional apologetics just don't really address this problem. The free will argument basically says God's not responsible for creating us with free will because we have free will as a result. That doesn't somehow make us responsible for having the attribute (it's arguable as to whether we really do anyway, but I'd rather not veer off on that one).

Logically, I don't think what you are saying makes sense. I am not entirely responsible or really responsible at all for the shortcomings of my adult daughter who makes her own free choices...she is.

Are you saying you created your daughter in the same sense as you believe God created humans? Is the initial creation the same as the reproduction of the creation (also part of our design according to the creator model)?

Throughout the scriptures it is shown over and over that God has given humans the freedom to choose and so very often those choices are contrary to the best desire and will of God for His creation. So the blame for wrong choices/ behavior and resulting consequences clearly rests upon the individual from my perspective.

I don't think that reasoning really works. The fact it's in the Bible is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the reasoning is valid, and unless your creator model says that God in fact didn't have full control over how he chose to create us, the creator in that model is entirely responsible for the parameters by which he created us. Again, we can't be but how we were created according to the creator model. I don't think there's any way around it. Freedom of choice is the creator's choice. If the creator didn't want us to behave in ways that those who exercise the degree of free will we have behave then he should have limited that free will more than he did.

 

[InChrist]

That doesn't actually change anything. The creator designed those attributes as part of our nature--his call, his responsibility. The traditional apologetics just don't really address this problem. The free will argument basically says God's not responsible for creating us with free will because we have free will as a result. That doesn't somehow make us responsible for having the attribute (it's arguable as to whether we really do anyway, but I'd rather not veer off on that one).


Are you saying you created your daughter in the same sense as you believe God created humans? Is the initial creation the same as the reproduction of the creation (also part of our design according to the creator model)?


I don't think that reasoning really works. The fact it's in the Bible is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the reasoning is valid, and unless your creator model says that God in fact didn't have full control over how he chose to create us, the creator in that model is entirely responsible for the parameters by which he created us. Again, we can't be but how we were created according to the creator model. I don't think there's any way around it. Freedom of choice is the creator's choice. If the creator didn't want us to behave in ways that those who exercise the degree of free will we have behave then he should have limited that free will more than he did.

Yes, I believe freedom of choice was given by the Creator. So what are you saying, a Creator should not have given the option for choice or maybe not even created human beings in the first place if there was any possibly of negative behavior or consequences? Suppose such freedom was of utmost importance, from the Creator's perspective, to design into His creation. Or suppose that love was the greatest priority and without true freedom true love.is impossible.

 

[SkepticX]

Yes, I believe freedom of choice was given by the Creator. So what are you saying, a Creator should not have given the option for choice or maybe not even created human beings in the first place if there was any possibly of negative behavior or consequences?

Nope. I'm saying that the creator is responsible for his creation. The creation is not responsible for how the creator created it.

Suppose such freedom was of utmost importance, from the Creator's perspective, to design into His creation. Or suppose that love was the greatest priority and without true freedom true love.is impossible.

Does it was important relieve anyone of responsibility for whatever they did (or created) because it was important?

Do you recognize the notion the God necessarily has limited omnipotence? Because those last two sentences require that to be the case. It's not a problem--it's good if you do--but whether or not it's recognized and accepted is important regarding the openness to equitably applying sound reasoning.

 

[Thief]

Nope. I'm saying that the creator is responsible for his creation. The creation is not responsible for how the creator created it.


Does it was important relieve anyone of responsibility for whatever they did (or created) because it was important?

Do you recognize the notion the God necessarily has limited omnipotence? Because those last two sentences require that to be the case. It's not a problem--it's good if you do--but whether or not it's recognized and accepted is important regarding the openness to equitably applying sound reasoning.

As to your first line......
You might not be responsible that your eyes are blue.....
but how you choose to see things ....is quite something else.

 

[SkepticX]

As to your first line......
You might not be responsible that your eyes are blue.....
but how you choose to see things ....is quite something else.

Sure.

How we're created (according to the creator model) and how we act and think are also different things ... which says precisely nothing about the issue at hand.

 

[Thief]

Sure.

How we're created (according to the creator model) and how we act and think are also different things ... which says precisely nothing about the issue at hand.

and the issue at hand is.....if you can't believe.....what are you doing here?