Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
No, he's not. In the OT, he's even described as a jealous god. He clearly has human drives and motives, as well as emotions.
When people make claims about your god, it's only because he's been described that way.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why faith is evil
- Thread starter Autodidact
- Start date
No, he's not. In the OT, he's even described as a jealous god. He clearly has human drives and motives, as well as emotions.
When people make claims about your god, it's only because he's been described that way.
Wombat
Active Member
And your certain, across time, translation and the capacity of language to convey symbolism and metaphor that this reference imbues God with the human attribute jealousy?
If so I would not argue with your personal interpretation other than to say that from my perspective (considering the context of four Abrahamaic scriptures) such an interpretation is as likley as "The dead burying the dead" being a description of a literal event.
You have (the English) word "jealous"...I believe you will also find "angry", "wrathfull" and "love" (if that provides sufficient 'clarity' for you, ok)...my question would be- What happens when you move out and on from the OT?
Does the language and depiction of characteristics/attributes remain the same through NT, Quran and on?...and what characteristics/attributes predominate through these scriptures?
waitasec
Veteran Member
correct me if i'm wrong, but i think he was referring to extremists.
if someone believes blindly, wouldn't you call that faith?
here's another interview
[youtube]DMqTEfeqvmM[/youtube]
YouTube - Richard Dawkins -- The God Delusion
And about your commit, I didn't take it personally. I was just trying to figure out what you trying to say by it.
good i'm glad
Last edited:
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Deny it all you like, but when you said that "God has relinquished power", you described a volitional act by God that was situated in time (whether God's time or ours is irrelevant). Merely denying that the consequences of your words does not get you off the hook. You are engaging in argumentum ad nauseam at this point, unless you can specifically refute what I've just said about your use of "has relinquished".
Let's just focus on your phrase "God has relinquished". That describes a volitional act in the past whose scope of relevance extends to the present--our present, in fact. Declaring that God is "timeless" clashes with your use of language.
You really have not thought through the implications of your own language. Look, let me give you an analogy to help you along. Think of God as an author, whose time frame is orthogonal to the events in his story. The author can change the sequence of events, but he can only do so within his own temporal framework. You describe God as outside of ours. I have no problem with that. When you begin to describe him as somehow not subject to his own time frame--your own language betrays you.
I would go further and point out that you need to consider the nature of the mental states that we call "belief" and "knowledge". They are chains of association with experiences. That is how "knowledge" works--through associative memory. By ascribing any knowledge to God, you are imputing to him mental activity that associates novel experiences with past experiences. Once again, your linguistic description of God bounds your imagination inside of a temporal framework.
Hey, it was your language, not mine. You appear to want to be held not accountable for what you say, which is why you are kicking up such a huge fuss with me.
Not many. I grow impatient with argumentum ad nauseam. I've made my case. You present no alternative linguistic analysis--just a bald denial that the wording applies to humans and not God.
Nonsense. It was an accurate inference from your admission that God "knows" our future. From his perspective, we can appear no different from automatons, since we are not free to change our behavior.
You see the "First Cause" as a passive observer? Well, not when you forget that he is also the creator of all that he sees. The "freely choose" part only applies to the human perspective, not God's. You can deny it, but that is just contradicting your admission that our choices are all Hobson's Choices from God's perspective. You seem to be ignoring by differentiation between God's perspective and human perspective. Is that deliberate on your part?
You aren't addressing my argument, just denying its conclusion. My argument is based on the observation that you use language that is contradictory. To refute my argument, you need to show how "has relinquished control" can be construed as anything but a past decision made by God.
Oh, come on! Are you a native speaker of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, or other Semitic language? What are your credentials as a translator? That is really weak. Surely many mistakes have been made in translation, but I do not see the kind of massive misinterpretation that you imply to be anything but delusional.
Well, I believe that you have precluded it when you claim that God does not actually decide things or take actions in a conventional sense. This is called by the technical term "having one's cake and eating it".
Interesting. A "First Cause" and an "interventionist" who takes no causal actions. Sounds contradictory to me, but you'll just deny its a contradiction. Clearly, you are trying to have it both ways--and succeeding in your own mind. All calculations and volitional actions entail changes of mental state. Causation itself entails separate antecedent and consequent events.
That isn't the point. You accept that there could be interventions that occur sequentially in time. That is enough to establish that you are--briefly, at least--thinking of God as a being that decides to intervene directly in our time reference to alter the causal chain. That's what intervention means--a volitional act that changes the expected causal sequence of events.
Which God particpates in.
Yet you ascribe mental activity to God, which by its very nature is sequential. It does not matter if the temporal frame of reference is not the same as ours. Otherwise, everything you say about God is meaningless.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
Now we needs to clarify where these traits are declared.Treating (for the time being) 'God' as a 'character' in fiction... the character is depicted (In at least three Abrahamaic traditions) as beyond the restraints of time decision making and human drives and motives.
I am not "removing the restraints" from the character description...they were never there.
To impose such restraints is to create a new character with new attributes and characteristics.
People are welcome to do so...devise a character only effected by Bentonite...or Vegimite....but please don't pretend this new character reflects Superman
Are you meaning the traits assumed by followers, assumed by followers based on the scriptures, or are you meaning the actual traits that the scriptures are clear about?
Seems to me that you are doing the exact same thing that you complain about others doing.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
i'd be more concerned with the various gods who promote sex acts as part of their worship then a God who is Jealous.
That's curious to me; what's inherently wicked about sex other than you've been conditioned to be wary of it by your god? Assuming the Abrahamic God doesn't exist or that the Bible didn't explicitely denounce sex outside of marriage (just for the sake of argument), what's wrong with sex inherently?
gnostic
The Lost One
When does sex act have to do with jealousy?pegg said:
In the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20, I think), it say that God is a jealous god ("I am a jealous god"), because it doesn't like people to worship other gods, not because of any sex act. I don't know where you this sex part, Pegg. Are you reading the same bible as everyone else, Pegg?
The stupid thing about this law, and God's own statement, when you think about the verse, is that if other gods "don't exist", then what do this Almighty One God have to be jealous with?
To me, it is completely illogical.
Wombat
Active Member
Ok. I like to deny it continuously and vigorously.
Your game is not one of drawing conclusion or even impression from what was said but rather the complete falsification of what was said.
Invited and challenged (#672, #678) to substantiate that I describe God as making decisions and having wants, needs, motives, and goals, you can find/offer no such description.
Provided with clear evidence that these are attributes you attributed and described and I argued against....you cut and ignore all.
Failing completely to provide any such substantiating description from me and you flee back several posts to (entirely irrelevant), already covered equivocation about the definition/meaning of the word relinquish-
.........................
#651
Methinks you have taken relinquish to mean or imply the abandonment or loss of power. While the word relinquish can indeed mean- retire from; give up or abandon there is no >permanence< inherent or suggested. What is "retired" from can be re engaged in, what is "abandoned" can be picked up again what is "given up" can be taken up again- especially in all instances by an 'omnipotent' being...
Thus the definition and common usage of to relinquish is- set aside/put aside or desist from. It does not mean or imply permanent loss of power or capacity.
And on that hinge your argument thus far falters and fails.
To set aside a power, to relinquish it, does not in any way shape or form necessitate loss or cancelation of power and/or omnipotence. Omnipotence does not mean being obliged to use a power/capacity nor that power/capacity cannot be set aside.
.....................................
To this you conceded partial agreement but no refutation of the definition/usage as presented.
Now you wish to hide your falsification of my pov behind the (dozen times covered) notion that if God relinquishes anything this happens in time
Dozen +1 (and clearly pointless continuing)- That the relinquishing has a past tense is only and exclusively from human time bound perspective.
Your >entire argument< devolves down to the conceptual inability to separate our time bound existence in which events occur sequentially to that of an eternal, timeless being for whom there is no sequence...only existence.
Proof positive of conceptual inability?.....= "whether God's time or ours is irrelevant"Copernicus.
:no: It is the entire issue that you cannot wrap your head arround...there is no "God's time".
My word was relinquished...that word has no time bound hook for God but remains the only suitable descriptor for the granting of free will to time bound humanity >from the human perspective<.
Your word was describe.... your honesty and integrity swung on the hook of your ability to show me describing God as making decisions and having wants, needs, motives, and goals,.
Given several opportunities to substantiate you have provided nothing whatsoever... other than further disingenuous extrapolation, falsification and pointless cyclic semantic equivocation.
Bye.
Wombat
Active Member
Throughout (and with emphasis) the scriptures of the Jewish, Christian, Islamic and Baha'i faiths.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
there is absolutely nothing wrong with sex
but in regard to the post i was responding to, i'd be very concerned if a religions 'rites' included sex... most cult leaders use sex in worship, think of Jim Jones for instance. Sex is always used by false religions and false teachers. Its a sure way to tell if the religion is 'man-made' if you know what i mean.
waitasec
Veteran Member
sex in and of itself isn't wrong if it used as religions 'rites'
it's how it is approached. if you have consenting adults it's one thing but if it used against their will it's another thin entirely...it's rape.
imo
newhope101
Active Member
One makes a God out of anything they worship. God thinks people are silly when they pray to and worship saints or statues of stone or money or anything we worship. Whatever keeps you away from God is what you have made a God for yourself of. These items and pracices do not bring about salvation and God is jealous that we worship these things and not him. The sad fact is if there is a God he gets to make the rules. We do not have to like them. It is up to each individual if you want to join in or not and suffer any consequence.
Much of the law reflects simple health initiatives. The Jews were given laws like washing hands after defecating and burying faeces and the dead, bleeding animals before eating, no fornication (sex before marriage) etc. These were not general practices in those days when germs were unknown. Simple hygiene may have been the most important factor in the growth of the Jewish nation. Likewise sexual immorality has its price. We now know that multiple partners increases the incidence of cervical cancer, and venereal diseases; poor hygiene spreads disease, and we all bleed out our meat in most countries. Those that follow bible teaching, blindly or not, have a health advantage right here.
Just like any club or forum the creator gets to make the rules. What's fair or reasonable is different for everyone and really is irrelevant. America, Australia and England have no probs with bombing other lands for their own agenda it's just not an agenda of faith. It is an agenda of greed, world domination and saying the way we do it is the right way and we have the power to enforce it....why shouldn't God,for no other reason than that's how he wants it and He has the power to enforce it?
waitasec
Veteran Member
if god thinks it's silly, then why would he be jealous of things that clearly do not exist? since god is the only true god...
insecurity perhaps....another indication of god being created in the image of man
Sex isn't wrong, but you can't deny the fact that STDs and unwanted pregnancies can be a result of not being careful. I mean, does someone want sex so much that he or she throws all caution to the wind and risks getting AIDS or whatever?
Midnight Pete
Well-Known Member
Too often, people throw caution to the wind in just the manner you described, which is why there is an AIDS epidemic going on. Unwanted pregnancies about for the same reason, also. Secular values.
waitasec
Veteran Member
Too often, people throw caution to the wind in just the manner you described, which is why there is an AIDS epidemic going on. Unwanted pregnancies about for the same reason, also. Secular values.
Cross-national comparisons of teenage sexual and reproductive behavior in five Western industrialized countries show vast differences in teenage pregnancy rates and birthrates. The lowest rates are found in Sweden and France, moderate rates in Canada and Great Britain, and the highest in the USA. Since age and frequency of sexual activity are similar across countries, the variations in pregnancy rate reflect young people's motivation and ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Sweden and France offer the most positive attitudes to sexuality combined with a clear expectation that teenagers can make responsible decision about sexuality and delay childbearing. Societal acceptance of teenage sexuality is reflected in open-minded sexuality education and easy access to contraceptive services. In contrast the official message in USA is to delay childbearing until marriage by abstinence only, and use of contraceptives is not supported. Differences in societal support for employment and education also played a major role.
[Few teenage pregnancies in Sweden--a comparison b... [Lakartidningen. 2003] - PubMed result
guess which of these countries is the most religious?
here's another link
Differences in Teenage Pregnancy Rates Among Five Developed Countries: The Role of Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use - The Body
A comparison study in the recent issue of Family Planning Perspectives examines teenage pregnancy rates in five developed countries and the roles of sexual activity and contraceptive use.
In-depth case studies were completed in each of the five countries. To maximize comparitability, the researchers worked with a team in each of the five study countries. A report from each country included a comparable set of tables on adolescent sexual behavior, contraceptive use, and birth, abortion, and pregnancy rates broken down by available socioeconomic measures.
Results
Pregnancy and Childbearing
Teenage birth rate per 1,000 births
Sweden -- 7
France -- 9
Canada -- 20
Great Britain -- 31
United States -- 49
Are you sure it isn't because in the USA that sex is thrown into our face at every turn?
McBell
Unbound
Too often, people throw caution to the wind in just the manner you described, which is why there is an AIDS epidemic going on. Unwanted pregnancies about for the same reason, also. Secular values.
One wonders which, if any, of your reasons the "Pregnancy Pact" falls under...
waitasec
Veteran Member
i'm guessing you've never traveled to another country...
or know of any foreigners...
Last edited: