"God cannot create a square circle"

[Kharakov]

I wouldn't either (put it past God). There are so many reasons not to reveal everything about nature to man before man is ready.

But not a single reason offered about why s/he/it did not set out a new revised second edition once we discovered the telescope and the microscope?

Why? The book served its purpose, and still does. Nature isn't in the book- it's outside.

Do you hear yourself?

Usually. I was just thinking about various funny syllable combinations.

 

[Kharakov]

I don't know about that. I eat apples all the time and I've never raped or murdered anyone. Clearly you little "theory" is baseless.

Therefore, God.

So basically, since I don't eat apples, I'm going to end up raping and murdering a bunch of people? I think I took a bite of one once and swallowed it. Does that mean I'll only partially rape and murder people?

 

[Narapoia]

discussing how an old dude fit millions of animals, insects, fish, birds, bacteria and fungi into a 400 foot long boat

Now now now, he only had to save the creatures that were alive in the Old Testament view of life, those that had spirit.
Those that breathe through their nostrils, in other words.

No insects, no fish, no bacteria, no fungi were required tobe 'saved' by Noah.
Of course, insetivores were...

Ha, yes save the insectivores and not the insects. Save the birds that eat only fish, but not the fish. Maybe Noah lived for 900 years or whatever because of the greatly reduced environmental bacteria load?

There would appear to be some wiggle room on this though (when isn't there?) from the Babble: Genesis 7:8

Then Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him entered the ark because of the water of the flood. 8Of clean animals and animals that are not clean and birds and everything that creeps on the ground, 9there went into the ark to Noah by twos, male and female, as God had commanded Noah.…

Everything that creeps on the ground is a pretty broad category, of course this could be just one interpretation of one translation in one version of the ridiculous book. But then if Noah didn't save the fish (except Salmon, Bull sharks and other fish that can swim in both fresh and salt water), fungi, bacteria and perhaps insects then it must have been more god-magic. Besides, removing the necessity to save these other forms of life does not in any way diminish the magic required to fit the remaining animals on the boat.

 

[Rhea]

Why? The book served its purpose, and still does. Nature isn't in the book- it's outside.

But this discussion includes so much on how it DOES NOT serve its purpose, if its purpose to make a god concept believable or demonstrate that a flood happened, or that slavery is not okay.

 

[Kharakov]

Just like Syed, though, the goal is not to understand God or justify God, per se. It's to present a reasonable (to them) reason that God has for all his works to be indistinguishable from the actions of a godless universe.

Umm- this universe is perfectly suited for a majority of the beings within it. You don't see protons and electrons dying, do you?

And really, stuff in my life is coordinated. So either there is a vast conspiracy of beings conspiring to make me happy, or God. Interestingly enough, we're on the subject of apples, and my roommate brought home a Red's apple ale, which I will try (like I said, cider I can deal with). Does drinking cider count for the whole morality thing? I'm slightly worried about my lack of morality due to not eating enough apples. Or does eating apples make you immoral? Not sure...

No knowledge revealed that we didn't or couldn't have figured out ourselves, no stopping gross injustice, no teaching of real morality, no commandments to deal with anything the Prophets had yet to encounter, being it invention, discovery, social advances or whole new nations....

Strange, isn't it? It's almost like you don't need a book to be taught these things, but real life experience.

 

[Kharakov]

Why? The book served its purpose, and still does. Nature isn't in the book- it's outside.

But this discussion includes so much on how it DOES NOT serve its purpose, if its purpose to make a god concept believable or demonstrate that a flood happened, or that slavery is not okay.

Really? I thought the book taught about 2 possible types of leadership, with the type that sacrificed itself for the good of others being given preferential treatment? Maybe I got the gist of it wrong?

 

[Keith&Co.]

After all, it makes sense that an underqualified deity would inform people the full rules of keeping slaves and that infidelity can be proven by inducing an abortion, but not the fact that they live on a sphere that he made?

Yeah. It's so easy to convince people of things when they have the intellectual foundation to understand them. It's not like you could claim God decreed something and write a book about it.

Did you ever read Job?
There's no special intellectual foundation laid out there.
God's right because of God's might.
He lists his qualifications to say things and that's sufficient for mere mortals to kneel down, lips a-quiver, nod their heads and just accept the reality God has imposed upon them. Nothing about 'i'm in the process of getting you ready to know morals.'

When the tools you have have their own ideas about the nature of reality, you do the best you can with them.

If that were true, then God would not have condemned Adam and Woman for screwing up before they even knew the difference between good and evil.
And look at how every time Jesus said something radical, the disciples were 'No WAY!' He was clearly stunning them or terrifying them or impressing them and completely oblivious to any limitations based on their ideas of what was and wasn't possible.

A guy that can put morality in fruit is afraid that explaining gravity, the shape of the Earth and the nature of the solar system will give them the atomic bomb before they can eat enough apples?

Fuck, I hate apples.

Aw, i can't believe you made a caricature of my point, there.
Okay, well, yes, i easily believe it. It seems in accord with your standards.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't know about that. I eat apples all the time and I've never raped or murdered anyone. Clearly you little "theory" is baseless.

Therefore, God.

So basically, since I don't eat apples, I'm going to end up raping and murdering a bunch of people? I think I took a bite of one once and swallowed it. Does that mean I'll only partially rape and murder people?

Maybe you'll just cop a feel and smack someone. Mangoes are also good for stopping those, though, if you don't like the taste of apples.

 

[Kharakov]

Did you ever read Job?
There's no special intellectual foundation laid out there.
God's right because of God's might.
He lists his qualifications to say things and that's sufficient for mere mortals to kneel down, lips a-quiver, nod their heads and just accept the reality God has imposed upon them. Nothing about 'i'm in the process of getting you ready to know morals.'

Obviously everything written about God is absolutely true, especially when someone tells you it is true.

When the tools you have have their own ideas about the nature of reality, you do the best you can with them.

If that were true, then God would not have condemned Adam and Woman for screwing up before they even knew the difference between good and evil.

Interesting idea you have about how God would have behaved if those God had to work with had their own ideas about reality.

And look at how every time Jesus said something radical, the disciples were 'No WAY!' He was clearly stunning them or terrifying them or impressing them and completely oblivious to any limitations based on their ideas of what was and wasn't possible.

Really? Was he shocking them out of their mode of thinking, into a mode of thinking that was perhaps better?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know about that. I eat apples all the time and I've never raped or murdered anyone. Clearly you little "theory" is baseless.

Therefore, God.

So basically, since I don't eat apples, I'm going to end up raping and murdering a bunch of people? I think I took a bite of one once and swallowed it. Does that mean I'll only partially rape and murder people?

Maybe you'll just cop a feel and smack someone. Mangoes are also good for stopping those, though, if you don't like the taste of apples.

Thanks. At least someone around here is providing me with useful advice. Mangoes are on sale for a buck a piece now, so finally I can achieve a modicum of morality.

 

[Rhea]

Why? The book served its purpose, and still does. Nature isn't in the book- it's outside.

But this discussion includes so much on how it DOES NOT serve its purpose, if its purpose to make a god concept believable or demonstrate that a flood happened, or that slavery is not okay.

Really? I thought the book taught about 2 possible types of leadership, with the type that sacrificed itself for the good of others being given preferential treatment? Maybe I got the gist of it wrong?

I think you got the gist of it wrong. It's a book about how human sacrifice is needed to appease a god figure over infractions like eating shellfish or calling someone a fool. It includes v1.0 where the man is supposed to be ready to slit the throat of his own son to prove he's on board. It also includes sacrifice v2.0 where you get to be happy with someone else getting their kid killed.

And this is all very lovely interspersed with stories bout the dad in v2.0 killing ALL of the babies of everyone else because the toy he made didn't work right.

I think a lot of believers get the gist of that wrong.

Question - who was it that decided human sacrifice was necessary for anything? Was that the God or the Humans who decided on that rule?

 

[Bronzeage]

Why? The book served its purpose, and still does. Nature isn't in the book- it's outside.

But this discussion includes so much on how it DOES NOT serve its purpose, if its purpose to make a god concept believable or demonstrate that a flood happened, or that slavery is not okay.

Really? I thought the book taught about 2 possible types of leadership, with the type that sacrificed itself for the good of others being given preferential treatment? Maybe I got the gist of it wrong?

I think you got the gist of it wrong. It's a book about how human sacrifice is needed to appease a god figure over infractions like eating shellfish or calling someone a fool. It includes v1.0 where the man is supposed to be ready to slit the throat of his own son to prove he's on board. It also includes sacrifice v2.0 where you get to be happy with someone else getting their kid killed.

And this is all very lovely interspersed with stories bout the dad in v2.0 killing ALL of the babies of everyone else because the toy he made didn't work right.

I think a lot of believers get the gist of that wrong.

Question - who was it that decided human sacrifice was necessary for anything? Was that the God or the Humans who decided on that rule?

Not to be too silly about it, but one of the points of the Abraham and Isaac story is that it marks the end of human sacrifice for those of the Abrahamic tradition.

 

[Rhea]

Not to be too silly about it, but one of the points of the Abraham and Isaac story is that it marks the end of human sacrifice for those of the Abrahamic tradition.

But marks it by the power of a many READY and WILLING to do it.
And the NT replaces that with a God who does it (well, half-does it, the kid's reunited with dad in 3 days 1-1/2 days)
But all the christian still chant, "he gave his own son to save us!!!" as if 1) that's a good thing and 2) it's somehow not a thing that their own god made up himself in teh first place.

 

[Kharakov]

Really? I thought the book taught about 2 possible types of leadership, with the type that sacrificed itself for the good of others being given preferential treatment? Maybe I got the gist of it wrong?

I think you got the gist of it wrong.

Shocking.

It's a book about how human sacrifice is needed to appease a god figure over infractions like eating shellfish or calling someone a fool.

So, wait a second here. Why does the book reflect my experiences? I'm allergic to shellfish (or was in the past, a lot of my allergies have faded away, but I still don't eat shellfish), don't like apples (in fact, they are the first thing I recall not liking), don't think calling someone a fool is a pragmatic solution to their foolishness (because it incites negative emotional reactions in fools), engage in a bit of cellular sacrifice (or my cells do for me, and I do for the whole) to keep me happy, I've grown from immature (Job like) fantasies about dominating others to caring about the consequences of my actions upon others while still really wanting to enjoy life and have meaningful relationships with others, etc.

Question - who was it that decided human sacrifice was necessary for anything?

Not me.

Was that the God or the Humans who decided on that rule?

I don't know. I haven't seen a human sacrifice in at least a minute.

 

[jonJ]

Umm, that certain things are difficult, even for God?

God of the Christians, meet bus.

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't either (put it past God). There are so many reasons not to reveal everything about nature to man before man is ready. It's not like mankind has a great track record of never harming someone they had power over. I'd wonder about a parent who handed the keyring to the kingdom to someone who wasn't ready.

Zing! Oooh -- except -- couldn't an omnipotent God have made them ready?

 

[Rhea]

Umm- this universe is perfectly suited for a majority of the beings within it. You don't see protons and electrons dying, do you?

Well, actually...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/qevid.html

you do.

 

[Kharakov]

I didn't look at the link you provided, assume it's about antiparticles. Proton and electrons are relatively stable, compared to, for example, an atheist. The universe appears remarkably supportive of them... as long as they don't....

Funny- what if the whole homosexuality thing in the bible arose out of the idea that interacting with antiparticles caused annihilation?

 

[Kharakov]

Zing! Oooh -- except -- couldn't an omnipotent God have made them ready?

Well, yeah. You talking about the atheist's strawman tri-omni God or something?

 

[Mageth]

Zing! Oooh -- except -- couldn't an omnipotent God have made them ready?

Well, yeah. You talking about the atheist's strawman tri-omni God or something?

The tri-omni god is not an "atheist's strawman" God. Tri-omni God was invented by theists, many theists believe in such a God, and some will adamandly defend such a notion of God, generally making up all sorts of excuses for God's actions or inactions, and at the end of the day all sacrificing at least one of the three omnis.

If your God is an admitted dickwad to begin with, the problem of suffering/evil does not apply to it.

Next !

 

[Kharakov]

Zing! Oooh -- except -- couldn't an omnipotent God have made them ready?

Well, yeah. You talking about the atheist's strawman tri-omni God or something?

The tri-omni god is not an "atheist's strawman" God.

Yes it is. It's precisely the strawman of God that atheists attack.

Tri-omni God was invented by theists

By children, playing something similar to the "I double dare you" to "I infinity times infinity dare you" game. So the fuck what? Are you going to hold onto the "infinity times infinity God" that arose out of childish reasoning as the only notion of God that you will accept as existing? Seriously?

many theists believe in such a God, and some will adamandly defend such a notion of God, generally making up all sorts of excuses for God's actions or inactions, and at the end of the day all sacrificing at least one of the three omnis.

So all the sudden immature theistic statements about God are a reason to throw God under the omnibus? That's well thought out.

If your God is an admitted dickwad to begin with, the problem of suffering/evil does not apply to it.

Umm, you're an admitted dickwad, little squirt. Unless, of course, you postulate virgin birth. <-- see the little trick that got pulled

Show

Do not replace all of the italicized letters with the letter d at once. Well... unless you are kinky...

 

[Mageth]

The PoE/PoS does not "throw God under the omnibus". It does, however, rule out a tri-omni God. If you admit the notion of a tri-omni God is nonsense, then we have nothing to talk about in regards to it or the PoE/PoS. (Note: I've thought these topics out quite well...)

Non-tri-omni gods suffer from other flaws, of course. One is that, in some embodiments, they come across as dickwads or, if you'd rather, jerks. Is your God a jerk?

As to the rest of your post, it's just more of the same pointless nonsense, attempts to be clever, and strained, contrived attempts at humor that I'm used to seeing from you. Do you have a point somewhere in all the nonsense you post?