Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

JESUS CHRIST!! what a wall o'text!!Follow

#77 May 12 2011 at 2:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,373 posts
While I really don't want to get into this Troll-turned-whatever thread, I would like to put my two cents in on one particular point(mostly since a lot of people I knew in high school used it as a reason that there could be no other intelligent life in the universe):
Omegavegeta wrote:
We know there are other planets out there & odds are there is life on some of them. But if we were created in His image & should some of that life on other worlds be intelligent; then how does God fit in?
That's only difficult to reconcile if you take the "in His image" to mean literally "our bodies look like He does". I've always looked at it as our souls being crafted as a reflection(not sure that's the word I want to use) of His being. Which means to me that there could be millions of intelligent species in the galaxy who look nothing alike, but all their souls shine with His glory as well.

At least, that's what I believe.
#78 May 12 2011 at 2:51 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
That's only difficult to reconcile if you take the "in His image" to mean literally "our bodies look like He does". I've always looked at it as our souls being crafted as a reflection(not sure that's the word I want to use) of His being. Which means to me that there could be millions of intelligent species in the galaxy who look nothing alike, but all their souls shine with His glory as well.

At least, that's what I believe.


I don't want this to come across as douchey, so I'll do my best to be kind. Keep in mind I don't really care what anyone else believes, nor do I think my agnostic views are the be all end all: I don't know if He exists (existed), but despite your Faith I doubt you could say that you DO know he exists. If you can, that's awesome as I have the utmost respect for anyone who can have that much blind faith in anything.

Anyhoo, I think different folks get different things out of reading the bible. ****, look at Fred Phelps if you need a clear example of what the bible was certainly never intended for. But, that being said, there have been a lot of "revisions" to Christianity as time passes & technology/knowledge increased to a point where what the bible says, literally, CANNOT be true.

The story of creation is just one example. For most Christians, it cannot be taken literally nowadays with the overwhelming evidence against it. Those who do take the story of creation literally are denying science for no other reason than what they were taught that what the bible says is, literally, true.

So, if ET beams down tomorrow & says, "What's up?", I know I can count on the church to say the same thing you said: it's only our souls that were created in his image (even if that isn't what it actually says).

Funny enough, that's the same argument progressive Christians used when slavery was an acceptable practice.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#79 May 12 2011 at 3:13 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
So Kachi, what is your cosmology?


I'm borrowing terms as best I can, but I'm an agnostic atheist, a causal determinist, and a utilitarian humanist. Those are the more concise approximations of my perspectives on religion, metaphysics, and philosophy. As for creation itself, I expect that the universe has always existed, time and space are essentially infinite, and that what we commonly refer to as the Big Bang describes an incident that explains the orientation of only a small section of the actual universe. e.g., two of a trillion universes gravitate and collide, and the result is a big bang.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#80 May 12 2011 at 3:33 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Kachi wrote:
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
So Kachi, what is your cosmology?


I'm borrowing terms as best I can, but I'm an agnostic atheist, a causal determinist, and a utilitarian humanist. Those are the more concise approximations of my perspectives on religion, metaphysics, and philosophy. As for creation itself, I expect that the universe has always existed, time and space are essentially infinite, and that what we commonly refer to as the Big Bang describes an incident that explains the orientation of only a small section of the actual universe. e.g., two of a trillion universes gravitate and collide, and the result is a big bang.
Interesting take on the multiverse hypothesis. It's one that is certainly gaining more weight, too. I'm sure someone will step in and present infinite regression to you, though.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#81 May 12 2011 at 3:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,373 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
I don't want this to come across as douchey, so I'll do my best to be kind.
Don't worry about it too much. You can't come across any worse than the fundamentalists I mentioned going to high school with. They called me a Devil Worshipper for suggesting that the Bible wasn't 100% literal. Smiley: laugh

Omegavegeta wrote:
But, that being said, there have been a lot of "revisions" to Christianity as time passes & technology/knowledge increased to a point where what the bible says, literally, CANNOT be true.

I like to think of it this way: First if we assume that everything in the Bible is 100% the word of God(ignoring the probability that humans have made edits to it since He gave us the original), then I like to think that humanity when we were given His word was like a child asking about where babies come from - intelligent, but without enough experience or frame of reference to make sense of everything he wished to tell us. And just like a parent might, He told us what we generally needed to know, some parts as allegory, others as a simplification of what was actually going on. And just like the child, we're learning and applying our increased knowledge in a way that allows us to fathom more of what he told us.

Generally though, I'm a believer that the Bible has in fact seen edits where humans felt the need. As such, I try to avoid focusing on its specifics and take from it only the most general message, which I like to hope has been left more or less intact.

Omegavegeta wrote:
Those who do take the story of creation literally are denying science for no other reason than what they were taught that what the bible says is, literally, true.
Those, to me, are simply the ones who have not grown enough to see the world we have been given, so they must rely on the simplified and allegorical form. One day they'll grow and learn to accept the amazing wonder of this universe in which we live. Until then, we can only wait for them and gently try to help them along so that they'll one day see the glory right before them.

Omegavegeta wrote:
So, if ET beams down tomorrow & says, "What's up?", I know I can count on the church to say the same thing you said: it's only our souls that were created in his image (even if that isn't what it actually says).
Some will. The Vatican has already suggested that intelligent life out in the universe is not in contradiction with the faith.

Others will say that the aliens are demons sent by Satan to fool us and steal our souls. It'll run the whole gamut. Personally, I think that just because I believe that we could necessarily trust that they have our best interests at heart. I mean, I believe other humans have souls and I really don't trust most of them either.


Omegavegeta wrote:
Funny enough, that's the same argument progressive Christians used when slavery was an acceptable practice.
I'm not entirely certain what you mean by that.
#82 May 12 2011 at 4:05 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
I'm not entirely certain what you mean by that.


That when Christian Abolitionists were arguing with Christian slavers, they said our souls were all made in His image. While the slavers believed in a "white" God, so since Africans weren't white they weren't made in His image & it was A-OK to have them as slaves.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#83 May 12 2011 at 4:19 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,373 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
I'm not entirely certain what you mean by that.


That when Christian Abolitionists were arguing with Christian slavers, they said our souls were all made in His image. While the slavers believed in a "white" God, so since Africans weren't white they weren't made in His image & it was A-OK to have them as slaves.
Ah, okay. I see what ya mean.
#84 May 12 2011 at 7:03 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
You need to be more precise. You should say logically possible, else it can be parsed as a circular argument.

In any case, omnipotence is usually defined as unlimited power. If there are limits of any sort, power cannot be unlimited. if you want to pick some Aquinas definition, fine, but why do you choose to do so? What basis does this have in scripture?


Most philosophers consider "possible" and "logically possible" to be the exact thing in most situations. The simplest way to state it is that the world cannot be such that it entails a paradox. God falls within the scope of the "world," but not necessarily the scope of the universe.

Logic is generally seen as a fundamental fact about the world--a higher law that determines what may or may not occur. But it isn't prohibitive, either, because the nature of what it forbids.

Even religions generally agree on this. It's important because, if god existed outside of logic, the free will argument for why moral evil exists wouldn't work. That is to say, God would be able to eliminate moral evil without devaluing choice. Doesn't matter if it's logically impossible--God isn't bound by logic.

And if MORAL evil on top of natural evil exists, and god could prevent it without sacrificing free will, his benevolence is seriously questionable at that point.

Quote:
Just for the record, I ******* love me some idiggory.


It's rare for me to be able to flex my metaphysician's muscles.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#85 May 12 2011 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
We're all Gods in our own special ways.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#86 May 12 2011 at 8:05 AM Rating: Good
****
9,526 posts
idiggory wrote:

Most philosophers consider "possible" and "logically possible" to be the exact thing in most situations. The simplest way to state it is that the world cannot be such that it entails a paradox. God falls within the scope of the "world," but not necessarily the scope of the universe.


So, St.Anselm's ontological proof for god?

Quote:
Thus even the fool is convinced that something than which nothing greater can be conceived is in the understanding, since when he hears this, he understands it; and whatever is understood is in the understanding. And certainly that than which a greater cannot be conceived cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is even in the understanding alone, it can be conceived to exist in reality also, which is greater. Thus if that than which a greater cannot be conceived is in the understanding alone, then that than which a greater cannot be conceived is itself that than which a greater can be conceived. But surely this cannot be. Thus without doubt something than which a greater cannot be conceived exists, both in the understanding and in reality.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#87 May 12 2011 at 8:08 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,069 posts
They also left out some of the books from the bible. Thomas and Judas both wrote books that they left out.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#88 May 12 2011 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Reasoning God is cute. I've always been somewhat mystified by believers who felt the need to justify their faith, or who tried to rationally explain that which, by definition, is irrational. Faith, required by the Christian tradition, is a belief absent commonly defined "proof".
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#89 May 12 2011 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Reasoning God is cute.
It's vain. It only thinks it's cute. At least that's what I gathered from skimming the thread.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#90 May 12 2011 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,057 posts
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Reasoning God is cute.
It's vain. It only thinks it's cute. At least that's what I gathered from skimming the thread.



I'm quite aware that there is a stark limit to how far anyone can present such a concept and that no one can ever be "talked into" or persuaded to believe.

One of the prime points, however, to all of this is that once people reach the edge of that limit do they just shrug and turn around or do they choose to look over the edge (that is when the "abyss" looks back and it is not the abyss at all but your salvation unto eternity).
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#91 May 12 2011 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,057 posts
kiworrior wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:

Quote:
Yes, but even your understanding of scripture is tainted. So your conclusions that come from your tainted understanding are also tainted. EVERYTHING you think, say, or do is tainted by evil. You can't say that you are inline with God's will because you are always tainted. The best you can hope to do is not make things worse, by not exercising your own will at all. The most good one can ever hope to do is to make no choices at all, because every choice is tainted. Being a slave is the best earthly life you could hope to live, and even better would be to die as soon as possible, because then you would only exercise your tainted will a minimum amount.


HAHA, now who's trolling.
When you have a relationship with God your life changes, my friend; so that no, everything that I touch isn't tainted.


Yeah, I was kind of trolling there :)

But St. Augustine wasn't when he pretty much said the same thing.

He even went so far as to say that it was impossible to earn salvation. And only through God's grace could a human be granted salvation, and that all humans deserved eternal **** just for existing.

I'm paraphrasing, of course.





This is true of Augustine. We cannot "earn" anything in order to make God owe us anything. God created us. God will never OWE us anything. This is a big hang up for many people.. as they feel that God could ever be unfair when they cannot realize that there may be aspects of reality that they are unaware of and that they may be wrong about a great many things.
We do not earn God's grace. It we earned it it wouldn't be "grace" it would just be a payment for work. That doesn't work. Just ask the Hebrews.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#92 May 12 2011 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
I'm quite aware that there is a stark limit to how far anyone can present such a concept and that no one can ever be "talked into" or persuaded to believe.

One of the prime points, however, to all of this is that once people reach the edge of that limit do they just shrug and turn around or do they choose to look over the edge (that is when the "abyss" looks back and it is not the abyss at all but your salvation unto eternity).
]
Nobody gets God from a book, Kelvy.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#93 May 12 2011 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Reasoning God is cute.
It's vain. It only thinks it's cute. At least that's what I gathered from skimming the thread.



I'm quite aware that there is a stark limit to how far anyone can present such a concept and that no one can ever be "talked into" or persuaded to believe.

One of the prime points, however, to all of this is that once people reach the edge of that limit do they just shrug and turn around or do they choose to look over the edge (that is when the "abyss" looks back and it is not the abyss at all but your salvation unto eternity).
They build a plexiglass platform out over the abyss knowing full well they'll not see everything, but that maybe they'll see a bit more.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#94 May 12 2011 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
****
7,819 posts
First Man: I think, I think I am, I think.

Establishment: Of course you are my bright little star.
I've miles
And miles
Of files
Pretty files of your forefather's fruit
And now to suit our
Great computer
You're magnetic ink.

First Man: I'm more than that, I know I am, at least, I think I must be.

Inner Man: There you go, man, keep as cool as you can.
Face piles
And piles
Of trials
With smiles
It riles them to believe
That you perceive
The web they weave
And keep on thinking free.


The Moody Blues, The Threshold of A Dream
____________________________
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/ImGatomon/Request.jpg

. “Power even if it is raw uncontrolled potential is just as dangerous as a trained assassin. It is unpredictable and deadly if your are not prepared." ~Gatomon From the story A Fox Among Wolves.
#95 May 12 2011 at 8:54 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,057 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Stephen Hawking wrote:
"Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."


God may exist, or may have existed in the past, but God wasn't necessary for the big bang to happen nor is He necessary for the universe to continue existing. I can't say for sure there isn't (or wasn't) a God, but you can't prove to me there was (is) one either. Even if there is one, though, He would be governed by the same laws that all of the Universe is governed by (Physics, gravity, etc.)


Good to see you, Omega.

The crux of Hawkins' work is trying to prove that there was no Big Bang and hence no beginning of everything. The problem with the Big Bang was that all of the "intellectuals" of the scientific community were forced to deal the the impossible illogical notion that Something came from Nothing and it left too much room for God theories.. this of course is a threat to the mind of any person claiming to have any scholarly scruples in those time, was it not? It still is. They started desperately digging for a way to have a complete unified theory which did not require a beginning.. Hawkins' is all about that *****.

and indeed God cannot be proved like you say. Being that the reason for our being here is to come to know God, it is a unique and profound journey for everyone.
YOu are talking about laws and physics; but it seems that a definition of a sentient creator of everything I admit is beyond my understanding of what He is capable of or if it could be governed by that which it created.

Omegavegeta wrote:
I'd like to believe in God, as an eternal afterlife is a much more attractive option than my consciousness simply ceasing to exist. But logically, I just can't accept the Christian version of one. That isn't God's fault, should He exist, it's the people spreading His word that @#%^ up the message.


I totally agree that Christians can be as flawed as everyone else. This is what the Bible is essentially full of.. How flawed people actually are. I once thought that no one needed to be really saved.. Then I realized that God did very clearly set a standard that no one can meet without asking God for help.

Omegavegeta wrote:
I do believe that Jesus existed & he sure seems like he was a cool dude. But again, generations of Christians have @#%^ed up His message too. I also don't believe Jesus was the literal son of God (immaculate conception, God impregnated Mary), but he could have been in the sense that we're all son's and daughter's of the creator (if he exists).


Yes: any for of religion, I think, is the result of people having trouble developing a personal relationship with God.. But I cannot say that Jesus was like any other Human because he was the Specific Symbol of God's Reaching Out to Human-kind in order to let them be saved from the fate of the flesh. A person that is ordained by God for this purpose is indeed not like any other man. It was part of God's plan from the beginning.

Omegavegeta wrote:
We know there are other planets out there & odds are there is life on some of them. But if we were created in His image & should some of that life on other worlds be intelligent; then how does God fit in?


I don't know. I kind of think that God has done a great many things and created a great many things that we are unaware of for purposes far above our understanding.
My own notion is that God will use aliens to wipe us out in the end times just like he used the Babylonians to wipe out the Kingdom of Judah.. but that's my opinion.








____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#96 May 12 2011 at 8:56 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,057 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
I'm quite aware that there is a stark limit to how far anyone can present such a concept and that no one can ever be "talked into" or persuaded to believe.

One of the prime points, however, to all of this is that once people reach the edge of that limit do they just shrug and turn around or do they choose to look over the edge (that is when the "abyss" looks back and it is not the abyss at all but your salvation unto eternity).
]
Nobody gets God from a book, Kelvy.


You can't deny that if the particular message in those Words were desired by God to be God's message to the world; the it would be possible and plausible.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#97 May 12 2011 at 9:07 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,057 posts
Elinda wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Reasoning God is cute.
It's vain. It only thinks it's cute. At least that's what I gathered from skimming the thread.



I'm quite aware that there is a stark limit to how far anyone can present such a concept and that no one can ever be "talked into" or persuaded to believe.

One of the prime points, however, to all of this is that once people reach the edge of that limit do they just shrug and turn around or do they choose to look over the edge (that is when the "abyss" looks back and it is not the abyss at all but your salvation unto eternity).
They build a plexiglass platform out over the abyss knowing full well they'll not see everything, but that maybe they'll see a bit more.



more like; they build a rickety decrepit half rotting bridge to try to get across and can never ever make it..
OR if they ask That which put them there for wings they just fly across.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#98 May 12 2011 at 9:19 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Reasoning God is cute.
It's vain. It only thinks it's cute. At least that's what I gathered from skimming the thread.



I'm quite aware that there is a stark limit to how far anyone can present such a concept and that no one can ever be "talked into" or persuaded to believe.

One of the prime points, however, to all of this is that once people reach the edge of that limit do they just shrug and turn around or do they choose to look over the edge (that is when the "abyss" looks back and it is not the abyss at all but your salvation unto eternity).
They build a plexiglass platform out over the abyss knowing full well they'll not see everything, but that maybe they'll see a bit more.



more like; they build a rickety decrepit half rotting bridge to try to get across and can never ever make it..
OR if they ask That which put them there for wings they just fly across.
Salvation without sentience is useless or doesn't even really exist I guess.

Welcome back Kelvy. Besides God, what's new?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#99 May 12 2011 at 9:24 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,057 posts
idiggory wrote:
God falls within the scope of the "world," but not necessarily the scope of the universe.


This is ridiculous. If, by definition "God" is omnipotent and omniscient and is the source of all time/space and in fact every thing that Is.. then God could not possible be outside of the scope of the universe.
idiggory wrote:

Logic is generally seen as a fundamental fact about the world--a higher law that determines what may or may not occur. But it isn't prohibitive, either, because the nature of what it forbids.


How do you account for the notion that concepts such as logic and paradox as a so-called "higher law" is still merely labeled that from a lesser force then that law that it is trying to define and thus flawed to its core. Greek logic works for little mind games.. but will naturally fail when wielded by that which is lesser than it to try to account for notions wholly above it's scope.

idiggory wrote:
Even religions generally agree on this. It's important because, if god existed outside of logic, the free will argument for why moral evil exists wouldn't work. That is to say, God would be able to eliminate moral evil without devaluing choice. Doesn't matter if it's logically impossible--God isn't bound by logic.And if MORAL evil on top of natural evil exists, and god could prevent it without sacrificing free will, his benevolence is seriously questionable at that point.


How does this work if there are only 2 logical choices? In order for there to BE a choice there must the an antithesis of elements.. people call them "good and evil". I also call them toward God or Away from God.
All of your talk of denying it's existence because it doesn't live up to a lesser and impossibly flawed standard of morality is pure folly.

You know if you are so stuck on Greek philosophy why are you ignoring the concept of Logos; the notion that things LOGICALLY exist that cannot ever be understood through Logic?



____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#100 May 12 2011 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
This thread is just one continuous Smiley: rolleyes
#101 May 12 2011 at 9:29 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,057 posts
Elinda wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Reasoning God is cute.
It's vain. It only thinks it's cute. At least that's what I gathered from skimming the thread.



I'm quite aware that there is a stark limit to how far anyone can present such a concept and that no one can ever be "talked into" or persuaded to believe.

One of the prime points, however, to all of this is that once people reach the edge of that limit do they just shrug and turn around or do they choose to look over the edge (that is when the "abyss" looks back and it is not the abyss at all but your salvation unto eternity).
They build a plexiglass platform out over the abyss knowing full well they'll not see everything, but that maybe they'll see a bit more.



more like; they build a rickety decrepit half rotting bridge to try to get across and can never ever make it..
OR if they ask That which put them there for wings they just fly across.
Salvation without sentience is useless or doesn't even really exist I guess.

Welcome back Kelvy. Besides God, what's new?


Thanks!

Why would you think saved means lack of sentience? We are who we are; but we all have hang ups for many different reasons that cause us to do and think many different things.. but we still will always be whom we be :)

Besides God.. I'm engaged.. got a great chill job that pays well.. recently got my car totaled 2 weeks ago but am getting my new one tomorrow! WOOOO
No kids yet.. a few more guns.. playing LOTRO..got the woman to play it too (ELENDILMIR)

Blessed!
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 72 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (72)