In God's Name

[seireikhaan]

Anyone watching it? I'm finding it rather interesting myself. 12 religious leaders, including the Pope, the Dalai Lama, the Patriarch of Russia, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Ayatollah giving commentary on their lives and religious philosophy. Its starting to wind down right now, but its on CBS for any interested.

[Vladimir]

Anyone watching it? I'm finding it rather interesting myself. 12 religious leaders, including the Pope, the Dalai Lama, the Patriarch of Russia, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Ayatollah giving commentary on their lives and religious philosophy. Its starting to wind down right now, but its on CBS for any interested.

Great. CBS? I wonder what was edited out. Interesting theme though, in less it takes the oft' traveled road of the atrocities committed "in God's name."

[seireikhaan]

Great. CBS? I wonder what was edited out. Interesting theme though, in less it takes the oft' traveled road of the atrocities committed "in God's name."
Alright, can we please not travel down the "Biased Source!" road, please, and just take it for what its worth, perhaps?

Anyways, for those who didn't watch it, there was generally a common theme, amongst the details. That it that religion is supposed to be peaceful, not a tool of prejudice, hatred, or fear. Even the Ayatollah agreed with the claim, saying that force should only be used in self defence. I'd say that of all the people there, though, I probably have the most admiration for the Dalai Lama. Mostly, it was because of the outright way he taught of tolerance to other religions, and how one specific religion is not neccessarily the way for every person. For him, Buddhism, but for others, it is a different religion. Also, for the fact that he deals with so many of the oppressed Tibetan people who attempt to cross the Himalayas to escape China. Anyways, I thought it was an interesting watch, and certainly better than most of what's on TV for sure.

[Navaros]

I didn't watch this but I can tell from the panel listed in the OP that its a biased panel in the first place.

If they want to have a legitimate panel discussing such things, they would have to include people who actually believe the content of the Holy Books they claim to represent. Most or all of the panel members listed in the OP do not.

[Tribesman]

I didn't watch this but I can tell from the panel listed in the OP that its a biased panel in the first place.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

If they want to have a legitimate panel discussing such things, they would have to include people who actually believe the content of the Holy Books they claim to represent. Most or all of the panel members listed in the OP do not.
Bollox , what you mean is to have a legitimate panel it must include someone who pretends to have an absolutely insane fundamentalist approach to scripture:2thumbsup:

[seireikhaan]

Umm, ok, here's the panel in total:

Alexei II, Patriarch of Moscow and head of the Russian Orthodox Church

Amma (Mata Amritanandamayi), a Hindu spiritual leader

Pope Benedict XVI, head of the Roman Catholic Church

The Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso), spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists

Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a prominent Shi'ite Muslim leader

Bishop Mark Hanson, Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and President of the Lutheran World Federation

Michihisa Kitashirakawa, Jingu Daiguji (High Priest) of the Shinto Grand Shrine of Ise

Yona Metzger, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel

Dr. Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention

Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, Sheikh of Al-Azhar and a prominent Sunni Muslim leader

Joginder Singh Vedanti, Jathedar of the Akal Takht, the Sikhs' highest authority

Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Church of England

[Odin]

Bollox , what you mean is to have a legitimate panel it must include someone who pretends to have an absolutely insane fundamentalist approach to scripture:2thumbsup:

Your point is taken in context to the reply Tribes. However having someone who pretends to have an absolutely insane fundamentalist approach to scripture would have merit given that the current world climate affords these types a place at the table.

If were going to have a panel of so called experts and then offer it up as some baramoter of gods will, were going to have to include everyone. Exclusion limits the credability of the outcome. Im not saying your advocating exclusion, Im just pushing this discussion a bit further along. :wiseguy:

[seireikhaan]

Your point is taken in context to the reply Tribes. However having someone who pretends to have an absolutely insane fundamentalist approach to scripture would have merit given that the current world climate affords these types a place at the table.

If were going to have a panel of so called experts and then offer it up as some baramoter of gods will, were going to have to include everyone. Exclusion limits the credability of the outcome. Im not saying your advocating exclusion, Im just pushing this discussion a bit further along. :wiseguy:
Well, I imagine that the creators would might have had a wee bit of difficulty in getting an interview with Osama Bin Laden. I hear he's really quite busy these days.~;p

[Odin]

Well, I imagine that the creators would might have had a wee bit of difficulty in getting an interview with Osama Bin Laden. I hear he's really quite busy these days.~;p

isnt there another thread here about an web chat with one of the head nuts in al queda? Point is the list of names given so far while impressive to some its really not representative of how the religions have progressed.

Somewhere along the line someone in each religion got the crazy notion that Gods will was subject to debate and interpretation. Some even argue that was the original intent of the organizations at the start to have free will debate.

If thats the case then the representative spectrum must be broadened. You have 1 person who represents sunni's on the list(as an example) thats hardly representative of the entire branch of the faith.

However to put it in perspective you never claim its about faiths, you state that its really a discussion about thier lives. So in that sense I've been headed off at the path and I cant bring it too an overall discussion (which is highly defenseable). Ah well, religion is such a sexy topic you never know what fish you might catch once you cast your line. :drama2:

[Adrian II]

Umm, ok, here's the panel in total:

Alexei II, Patriarch of Moscow and head of the Russian Orthodox Church

Amma (Mata Amritanandamayi), a Hindu spiritual leader

Pope Benedict XVI, head of the Roman Catholic Church

The Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso), spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists

Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a prominent Shi'ite Muslim leader

Bishop Mark Hanson, Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and President of the Lutheran World Federation

Michihisa Kitashirakawa, Jingu Daiguji (High Priest) of the Shinto Grand Shrine of Ise

Yona Metzger, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel

Dr. Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention

Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, Sheikh of Al-Azhar and a prominent Sunni Muslim leader

Joginder Singh Vedanti, Jathedar of the Akal Takht, the Sikhs' highest authority

Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Church of EnglandAll wearing their favourite skirts, hats and propaganda cliches, no doubt. God, what a zoo. Imagine having to interview that whole bunch without laughing out loud.

[master of the puppets]

https://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o292/IPKBAAL/05_fsm.jpg
obviously there is a very important religion missing.

so it is in his noodley name that i advocate we add the speaker for the great pasta diety to the list.

here is our holiness now...
https://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o292/IPKBAAL/23294262.jpg

[Boyar Son]

is this gonna be another God bashing thread?

[Tribesman]

is this gonna be another God bashing thread?
It depends on what god writes . If the posts are nonsense they will probably get bashed , if not then no .
I eagerly await a post to see if it deserves bashing , but as of yet I havn't seen god getting bashed on this forum since I havn't read any of the posts .

[Adrian II]

is this gonna be another God bashing thread?Firstly: we could bash God only if he existed, which he does not.
Secondly, no one has bashed the name of 'God' in this forum since I first came here years ago.
Thirdly, believers are bashed all the time, and by the dozen. They ask for it because they pretend to speak, vote, kill and die on behalf of a higher authority that isn't.
:juggle2:

[Vladimir]

Firstly: we could bash God only if he existed, which he does not.
Secondly, no one has bashed the name of 'God' in this forum since I first came here years ago.
Thirdly, believers are bashed all the time, and by the dozen. They ask for it because they pretend to speak, vote, kill and die on behalf of a higher authority that isn't.
:juggle2:

:rolleyes:

(yes, that's all it deserves)

[Boyar Son]

:rolleyes:

(yes, that's all it deserves)

to be a God bashing thread


Firstly: we could bash God only if he existed, which he does not.
Secondly, no one has bashed the name of 'God' in this forum since I first came here years ago.
Thirdly, believers are bashed all the time, and by the dozen. They ask for it because they pretend to speak, vote, kill and die on behalf of a higher authority that isn't.
:juggle2:

1st- you say he doesnt exist, but provide no proof. Something atheist require ALL the time....well where is it now? or do you just like to bash like the many atheists serving mankind?

2nd- well where have you been? certainly took a vacation the 2nd up until now 'all those years ago'

3rd-aw bashed all the time?, oh ya by the atheists who get protected by the masses because they are the small minority....

mmm hmm atheist like to say your wrong but cant PROVE it otherwise.

oh and religion requires FAITH (try and disprove that) not science which is INCOMPATIBLE with religion, but since you know so much enlighten us poor faithful.

[Odin]

This thread really has potential now, adrian please take up the cross on this one (pun intended) :thumbsup:

[Boyar Son]

This thread really has potential now, adrian please take up the cross on this one (pun intended) :thumbsup:

I thought atheists argued in packs...

[Odin]

I thought atheists argued in packs...

I wouldnt know, Im not an atheist.

[Vladimir]

to be a God bashing thread



1st- you say he doesnt exist, but provide no proof. Something atheist require ALL the time....well where is it now? or do you just like to bash like the many atheists serving mankind?

2nd- well where have you been? certainly took a vacation the 2nd up until now 'all those years ago'

3rd-aw bashed all the time?, oh ya by the atheists who get protected by the masses because they are the small minority....

mmm hmm atheist like to say your wrong but cant PROVE it otherwise.

oh and religion requires FAITH (try and disprove that) not science which is INCOMPATIBLE with religion, but since you know so much enlighten us poor faithful.

I meant no disrespect to Adrian. His anti-religion rant sounded more like a sermon. Quite the irony.

Edit: Maybe that was the point. He is almost on par with Louis in his verbal judo, just not quite as witty, more like a pretentious literary critic (in a non-native language, which still makes it impressive), but I digress .

[Tribesman]

mmm hmm atheist like to say your wrong but cant PROVE it otherwise.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Boyar Son]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

:quiet:

[Tribesman]

Errrrrrrr.....


mmm hmm atheist like to say your wrong but cant PROVE it otherwise.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Boyar Son]

hmm was it the otherwise part?

[Husar]

I just want to say I support what Odin said, please respond Adrian so we can get this locked solved really quick and dirty decisive. :juggle2:

[Adrian II]

1st- you say he doesnt exist, but provide no proof.God can not exist if and when you define God as a real (hence meaningful) entity in any way. As soon as you attribute concrete characteristics to God, he/she becomes absurd, hence non-existent.

Of course you can define God as 'love' or 'unfathomable' or 'everything' or something vague like that. In which case talking of God becomes mere wordplay and meaningless. And in which case neither you nor I can talk about him (cf. Wittgenstein).

Believers are free and in any way entitled to their beliefs, but they are absurd. The world's Gods have been given a real dressing down by science. All concrete characterics that were once attributed to them, have been rejected. No God created man and the earth. No God wrote holy books. No God ever unleashes lightning and thunder. And no God channels his deepest throughts through Shirley MacLaine.

[Productivity]

I thought atheists argued in packs...

That's why atheists have organised gatherings every Sunday where they listen to preachers, go around knocking on doors in groups trying to convert people etc.

Oh hold on. All this pack behaviour is actually demonstrated by the religious. You'll find most atheists are actually relatively individualistic about their views.

[seireikhaan]

God can not exist if and when you define God as a real (hence meaningful) entity in any way. As soon as you attribute concrete characteristics to God, he/she becomes absurd, hence non-existent.

Of course you can define God as 'love' or 'unfathomable' or 'everything' or something vague like that. In which case talking of God becomes mere wordplay and meaningless. And in which case neither you nor I can talk about him (cf. Wittgenstein).

Believers are free and in any way entitled to their beliefs, but they are absurd. The world's Gods have been given a real dressing down by science. All concrete characterics that were once attributed to them, have been rejected. No God created man and the earth. No God wrote holy books. No God ever unleashes lightning and thunder. And no God channels his deepest throughts through Shirley MacLaine.
So believing in a force greater than ourselves automatically makes us non-existent? At least be consistent in your defintions when making points. And please, don't be a hypocrite, I'm not buying your "acceptance" of believer's faith, that was barely even disguised disgust.

You fail to prove why God as a 'real' entity is absurd. Please, tell me how an omnipotent force has been proven false.

Additionally, you seem to be under the impression that all religions are about bowing down and worshipping an omnipotent force. That is wrong.

Another issue is that the whole idea of religion is generally that it is based in faith, which is not neccessarily based on proveable things.

Furthermore, you seem to be quite disdainful of any kind of religions concepts. However, then by what concept do we define moral and ethical treatment of others? Do we go purely on law of the jungle? Or do we act well to other people because its the RIGHT THING TO DO? Nearly all religions have issued some kind of moral conduct for people, and more often than not, said conduct is generally for the benefit of society. Judaism/Christianity have the 10 commandments, Islam has the 5 pillars, Buddhism has the eightfold path, etc...I think your unfairly attributing all things negative in the world to religion when, in fact, many of the problems in the world instead rise from human weakness instead.

Also, please tell me this: what created the universe? And don't tell me the big bang, because, according to the Big Bang theory, the universe initially was the size of one somethingth the size of an atom, and expanded from there. It fails to explain how the one somethingth the size of an atom came to existence, at least from every time I've heard it explained to me.

[Boyar Son]

God can not exist if and when you define God as a real (hence meaningful) entity in any way. As soon as you attribute concrete characteristics to God, he/she becomes absurd, hence non-existent.

Of course you can define God as 'love' or 'unfathomable' or 'everything' or something vague like that. In which case talking of God becomes mere wordplay and meaningless. And in which case neither you nor I can talk about him (cf. Wittgenstein).

Believers are free and in any way entitled to their beliefs, but they are absurd. The world's Gods have been given a real dressing down by science. All concrete characterics that were once attributed to them, have been rejected. No God created man and the earth. No God wrote holy books. No God ever unleashes lightning and thunder. And no God channels his deepest throughts through Shirley MacLaine.

The most common attack atheists use is 'scientific' proof, BUT, as God is is purely faith based there is NO scientific argument that can disprove him. Attributing concrete proof,well, ah but the same can be said for evolution or big bang, but because it is associated with science it becomes real, yes?

Religion exists beyond the realm of science, totaly different complete type of thought for both which really if anyone thought about it they will never co-exist, bringing certain people not open to other possible truths so they question with-->

-where is He?... I like to think in Heaven, simple but not enough for those that must see. oh well...-->

-<t--then where is Heaven?...I'd like to think it is another plain of existence only reachable thru death. But now I'm getting too preachy arent I?

And atheists dont like preachy so they come up with-->

-If I cant see him, or talk to him, touch it, then He cant be real... well if they knew there is no possible way to scientificaly prove God then how could they disprove Him in the first place?

And how do you know God doesnt channel his thoughts thru shirly? But hey its not every day God speaks to someone (or its that they dont say anything for the fear of being an outcast)

nice arguments tho

@productivity- sigh.. didnt you see atheists coming in packs to disprove God in the last God debate and NOW?!?!!?

[Productivity]

@productivity- sigh.. didnt you see atheists coming in packs to disprove God in the last God debate and NOW?!?!!?

Amazingly there can be more than one atheist on a forum. Even more amazingly, on questions of god, they seem to agree. ~:shock:

*note heavy sarcasm present in this post. Seriously, if you don't like more than one person attacking your arguments and ideas, don't come to a relatively secular discussion forum for discussions of religion. If you don't want to be challenged, stick to faith based message boards.

[Navaros]

Bollox , what you mean is to have a legitimate panel it must include someone who pretends to have an absolutely insane fundamentalist approach to scripture:2thumbsup:


No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was as I've stated it, and that is all.

To give further context to my previous post; one simple way to know if a message is truly Christian or not is if it is telling the secular humanist world (which is the world at large) what it wants to hear. If it is telling the secular humanist world what it wants to hear, then it is not a Christian message. Jesus said that the world would hate his followers just as it hated him. Because he told the world that what it does is evil, and they were not interested in hearing that. Jesus' message was extremely offensive to the secular humanists of his day. Those of his followers who are not telling a message that is equally offensive to the secular humanists of today - aka the world in general - are definitely not following the teachings of Jesus, nor are they qualified to represent him.

Since making my previous post in this thread, I had come across an article of how the people on the panel of the program were chosen, and one of the largest factors was "popularity". That right there is a major red flag to know right off the bat that the panel was illegitimate.

Clearly, the panel in the program discussed in this thread was cherrypicked to comprise of people who were, for the most part, going to promote a secular humanist agenda despite their self-appointed religious misnomer titles, and tell the world exactly what it wants to hear (and those people are popular precisely for that reason). This was done in the stead of a legitimate qualification to represent religious views, which would be because they are knowledgable of and believe in the content that dictates what their religion is.

In regards to the comments such as "Bin Laden is busy so he couldn't be included": there are plenty of non-terrorist people who would give a qualified, accurate representation of their religion which would offend the audience, but were obviously excluded for the sake of telling the audience what it wants to hear even if it does not truly represent the religions at all. The program makers could easily have found and included such panelists if they had the least bit of interest in the truth.

[Tribesman]

To give further context to my previous post.........some nonsense
Ah bollox once again , we have been through that interpretation of yours before nav and it is unfortunately utter crap .:yes:


Clearly, the panel in the program discussed in this thread was cherrypicked to comprise of people who were, for the most part, going to promote a secular humanist agenda despite their self-appointed religious misnomer titles, and tell the world exactly what it wants to hear (and those people are popular precisely for that reason). This was done in the stead of a legitimate qualification to represent religious views, which would be because they are knowledgable of and believe in the content that dictates what their religion is.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: well I would say unbloodybelievable tripe , but then I remembered who it was who wrote it :dizzy2:

[Adrian II]

And atheists dont like preachy so they come up with-->

-If I cant see him, or talk to him, touch it, then He cant be real... You didn't even read what I wrote, did you? Or maybe what I wrote eludes you because my reasoning is from semantics, not experimental science, and you are used to the standard atheist claim that demands scientific proof. I do not demand scientific proof. All I demand is a proper definition of God. Alas, all I get from you is that 'He' (undefined) is somewhere in 'Heaven' (undefined) or so you 'like to think'. As soon as you come up with a concrete person in a concrete location, I will prove you wrong.

Since you must have felt that one coming, you flee into vagueness. You claim that God's existence is outside the realm of perception, yet simultaneously you claim that you perceive Him. That, too, is nonsensical.

Basically, you seem to adhere to one of the many nonsense definitions I mentioned above: God is 'love' or 'something out there' or 'everything we don't know'. How can 'everything we don't know' have written a book? And how come 'something out there' doesn't smite Osma bin Laden?

[MiniMe]

...And how come 'something out there' doesn't smite Osma bin Laden?
'something out there' likes him.

[Adrian II]

'something out there' likes him.Or maybe God is Osama, since Osama is somehow beyond our perception, too. :sneaky:

[seireikhaan]

You didn't even read what I wrote, did you? Or maybe what I wrote eludes you because my reasoning is from semantics, not experimental science, and you are used to the standard atheist claim that demands scientific proof. I do not demand scientific proof. All I demand is a proper definition of God. Alas, all I get from you is that 'He' (undefined) is somewhere in 'Heaven' (undefined) or so you 'like to think'. As soon as you come up with a concrete person in a concrete location, I will prove you wrong.

Since you must have felt that one coming, you flee into vagueness. You claim that God's existence is outside the realm of perception, yet simultaneously you claim that you perceive Him. That, too, is nonsensical.

Basically, you seem to adhere to one of the many nonsense definitions I mentioned above: God is 'love' or 'something out there' or 'everything we don't know'. How can 'everything we don't know' have written a book? And how come 'something out there' doesn't smite Osma bin Laden?
Hmm, perhaps you didn't read what I wrote, and hence why you fail to respond to it?

Anyways, a couple of things. First of all, I think you're being a tad hostile about this whole issue, considering you seem to believe that people are free to believe what they want.:juggle2: Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself in your points. Coming up with a concrete person in a concrete place would be the only way to scientifically prove any existence of god. Furthermore, I feel you're really missing the ball in terms of what the whole point of religion is all about. It isn't about proving everything to non-believers. Generally speaking, religion is a way in which humans seek to overcome suffering and achieve lasting peace. It isn't about scientific formulae or historical events, persay. Its about the message which the religion contains.

Now, as to "where" God exists? Well, obviously, I can't give you any place which we can physically touch. It is, as Boyar stated, a sort of different plane of existence, which is beyond our reach so long as our souls are bound to earth. Now, I'm sure you're going to go on another rant about how non-sensical I'm being, but once again, you'll once again be missing the point that religion is based on faith, not science, so I fear that this thread will quickly go nowhere.

[Adrian II]

Generally speaking, religion is a way in which humans seek to overcome suffering and achieve lasting peace. [..] Its about the message which the religion contains.Such ways and messages are not confined to religion. They don't require a God. If you are disinclined to talk about your God, please just say so, instead of conjuring up ever new definitions of what the real issue is.
It is, as Boyar stated, a sort of different plane of existence, which is beyond our reach so long as our souls are bound to earth.This is what religion has come to in the year
2007: we are treated to views of an undefined 'something', a sort of existential blob, located in a 'sort of different plane of existence'. And we haven't even touched on the presumed miracles, the holy books, avatars, smitings, or revelations in burning bushes.

Like I said, as soon as believers are forced to become concrete and show their cards, as it were, what you get is gobbledygook. Faith-based gobbledygook, but gobbledygook all the same.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Such ways and messages are not confined to religion. They don't require a God. If you are disinclined to talk about your God, please just say so, instead of conjuring up ever new definitions of what the real issue is.This is what religion has come to in the year
2007: we are treated to views of an undefined 'something', a sort of existential blob, located in a 'sort of different plane of existence'. And we haven't even touched on the presumed miracles, the holy books, avatars, smitings, or revelations in burning bushes.

Like I said, as soon as believers are forced to become concrete and show their cards, as it were, what you get is gobbledygook. Faith-based gobbledygook, but gobbledygook all the same.

I Enjoy debating with you Adrian, so here we go. You want a definition of God? Well I've been reading Boethius today so I'll take a crack at it.

God is the First Cause, the Prime Good, from which everything has its genesis. By this definition to say "God created man" is not non-sensical because you are not saying he actually sculpted a little man out of clay and sneezed on him.

I think it's fair to say that God is too great to be comprehended by man, rather like man is too big to be comprehended by an ant, or the curve of the Earth is too big to actually comprehend whilst it is under foot.

It seems to me you reject God because you cannot explain or understand him, but by that token evolution, electricity, the forging of iron and bronze, should all have been rejected in their time also as nonsensical.

[Boyar Son]

You didn't even read what I wrote, did you? Or maybe what I wrote eludes you because my reasoning is from semantics, not experimental science, and you are used to the standard atheist claim that demands scientific proof. I do not demand scientific proof. All I demand is a proper definition of God. Alas, all I get from you is that 'He' (undefined) is somewhere in 'Heaven' (undefined) or so you 'like to think'. As soon as you come up with a concrete person in a concrete location, I will prove you wrong.

Since you must have felt that one coming, you flee into vagueness. You claim that God's existence is outside the realm of perception, yet simultaneously you claim that you perceive Him. That, too, is nonsensical.

Basically, you seem to adhere to one of the many nonsense definitions I mentioned above: God is 'love' or 'something out there' or 'everything we don't know'. How can 'everything we don't know' have written a book? And how come 'something out there' doesn't smite Osma bin Laden?


I read what you wrote. You want concrete proof of something that can be found thru piety and spirituality, obviously you have none of these, so you will always use the same argument to find the connection of (scientific) proof, and God, which I've stated before has no connection.

And dont claim what I've said when I never wrote it, and please re-read what I wrote if not, here's as summary.

God and your (logic, thus in common with science) proof cannot co-exist nor even come close to finding your answers because everyone fails to see that God cannot be found thru formula, the completely different science (which once again canNOT be used to find God), but thru faith, piety, and spirituality, in fact just go to church. Oh and did you know the book was basicaly, divine rules, some history, bibliography, and divine intervention? there ya go I just summed it up for ya .

And how do YOU know that Osama isnt already dead and someone took his place? heres your chance to find concrete proof.

[AntiochusIII]

I read what you wrote. You want concrete proof of something that can be found thru piety and spirituality, obviously you have none of these, so you will always use the same argument to find the connection of (scientific) proof, and God, which I've stated before has no connection.Do note that Adrian II is not demanding scientific proof here. Instead, he's sending out a challenge for the believers to prove God philosophically. Semantics, ideas, concepts, logics, debates and discussions on theoretical and perhaps theological grounds; all those tools of the mind not necessarily existing in the physical universe.

To think of what he's demanding, think of the works of Thomas Aquinas and the like, where men try to "prove" God by referring to the necessity of God existing. Adrian is saying that he will, using the same tools, prove you (and these people?) wrong.

And before you chime in, note also that he made clear that he thinks hiding behind "faith" to "explain" everything about the Divine is intellectually dishonest. It's particularly suspicious if the "incomprehensible" somehow also have recognizable (and thus comprehensible) physical manifestations: Holy Texts, sites of worship, rites and traditions, morals and ethics, etc.

Me, I'll keep my opinion to myself, though I do like reading a God debate or two when people actually say something new.

[Boyar Son]

Ah philosiphy, you could've just said that you know (Adrian)...

Why dont you just go to church or read the Bible? much better than arguing where no one will accept the others point.

[AntiochusIII]

Why dont you just go to church or read the Bible? much better than arguing where no one will accept the others point.The Bible doesn't prove God philosophically...

It doesn't even make an attempt. :book:

I wonder if Pindar's old thread is still around? That'd be an example of what Adrian wants. And what I want to read I guess, if I can understand what they're saying (lol). ~:)

[Boyar Son]

The Bible doesn't prove God philosophically...

It doesn't even make an attempt. :book:


Oh God is love, He is this, He is that, reason for the season...

is that it (is that what ur askin' for?) cuz its gotta be there somewhere, how much have you read?

[Tribesman]

Why dont you just go to church or read the Bible?
Cossack why didn't you go up and work on the big dig ?
You could've made big money up ther digging someone else a big hole , here you done dig yourself into a pit for free .
So \now then Cossack what do you want to tel me about the bible and which bible is it you want to tell me about .
It is after all the absolute truth so there must onlybe one version:idea2:

[Boyar Son]

Cossack why didn't you go up and work on the big dig ?
You could've made big money up ther digging someone else a big hole , here you done dig yourself into a pit for free .
So \now then Cossack what do you want to tel me about the bible and which bible is it you want to tell me about .
It is after all the absolute truth so there must onlybe one version:idea2:

are you drunk?:laugh4:

maybe you'll make more sense then usual. I didnt say "read the bible because it is all powerful and people should follow it to the extreme"

I just said if you want to --know-- more about God why not go to church or read the bible instead of askin' me? I was jus' here arguin' with Adrian over the -existence- of God.

But if you must know its title is "The New American Bible"(I'm Catholic). And I would like to talk to you about, Proverbs18, chp18, line 2

"the fool takes no delight in understanding,
but rather displaying what he thinks"

[Bijo]

are you drunk?:laugh4:

maybe you'll make more sense then usual. I didnt say "read the bible because it is all powerful and people should follow it to the extreme"

I just said if you want to --know-- more about God why not go to church or read the bible instead of askin' me? I was jus' here arguin' with Adrian over the -existence- of God.

But if you must know its title is "The New American Bible"(I'm Catholic). And I would like to talk to you about, Proverbs18, chp18, line 2

"the fool takes no delight in understanding,
but rather displaying what he thinks"
Because it is unknown whether what the bible states is true or false nor can church-going provide us with the truth. It is mostly still merely based on belief which does not equal or lead to truth.

For the second bolding: I do not mean to offend; that bolded phrase seems to apply to you. And it seems to be applicable to many who believe in God and/or take the bible seriously.

So far, I have no choice but to favour Adrian's words. And by the way, since it occurred to me once again -- the mention of Pindar's post(s) -- I am curious what he had to say. I might have seen it already though... I think I have but it is mostly forgotten.

Thing is we can be more or less CERTAIN about the physical reality. Logic, science, and so on, are true and/or logically consistent and fair. What is faith, what is belief, what is religion? We just believe in "something" and be done with it? Try to use illogical reasoning to prove points? Pfff, not me, and any other rational person should not either. There are good reasons why logic exists and one of them is that it can provide clear unbiased correct thought, premises and conclusions, and so on, all done within the logical "objective" realm.

If you stand before a gunman who wields a submachine gun at close range and he shoots to hit you but he misses wasting the whole magazine, would you call this a miracle of God? Would you call this d'vine intervention? If yes, then why? You would base it on your belief? Belief # Truth.

[Boyar Son]

Well obviously Bijo, you did not have to point out which side you're taking as we all already know~D

So its untrue whether the bible states is true or false... Bijo a seriously doubt a man of your 'belief' actually read the bible. Is it untrue that the Assyrians attacked Israel? or the Babylonians? Or the life of Solomon he never existed? all these the bible mentions (so solomon talked to God, meaning he's is false? well our last pope John Paul II claimed to have spoke with God, does that mean he never existed?).

And I understand why atheists dont believe in God, I thought about it long and hard and everything in this universe has at least 1 identifiable thing that makes it real and true, thats why I found out God exists thru religion not science and those will never co-exist. And I dont believe God is any faker then, nor now.

And if all bullets missed in your last question? I would think its a miracle, anybody would.

Yes amazed that you found that peice of wisdom in the bible?

confucius say "~D "

[CountArach]

So its untrue whether the bible states is true or false... Bijo a seriously doubt a man of your 'belief' actually read the bible. Is it untrue that the Assyrians attacked Israel? or the Babylonians? Or the life of Solomon he never existed? all these the bible mentions (so solomon talked to God, meaning he's is false? well our last pope John Paul II claimed to have spoke with God, does that mean he never existed?).
What? no, what is claimed is that - though these people did exist - the "fact" that they talked to God is a lie. Further - I can't think of any reason why the Pope would lie about talking to God... :rolleyes:

And I understand why atheists dont believe in God, I thought about it long and hard and everything in this universe has at least 1 identifiable thing that makes it real and true, thats why I found out God exists thru religion not science and those will never co-exist. And I dont believe God is any faker then, nor now.
You clearly don't understand why Atheists don't believe in God. It is because they don't believe in God. Each Atheist has their own individual reasons as to why this is. Can you clarify your statement "everything... has at least 1 identifiably thing that makes it real and true". That doesn't seem to prove anything at all.

Also, I would think that science could give us far more than Religion ever could. It certainly has in the past.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Whether you believe in God or not seems almost hardwired, actually. Atheists tend to be people without faith. I.e. they need some form of proof, they are inherently intellectual and logical. Some are also control freaks, they can't let go of the illusion that they control their own destiny.

At the end of the day belief in God ignores proof and in fact Augustine, Boethius and Aquinus all base their arguements on the precondition that God exists, they even have the grace to admit it sometimes.

Any arguement used to prove the existence of God can be turned around and used to disprove His existence, but you can then turn the arguement around again.

So the scales are balanced. Further, much of Christian catholic orthodoxy post-dates the apostles, let alone Jesus. The Bible itself comes from what the far-right call the "Early post-Apostolic".

So what are you looking for Adrian, Bijo, et al? A crutch to support faith?

There isn't one unfortunately.

[Bijo]

And I understand why atheists dont believe in God, I thought about it long and hard and everything in this universe has at least 1 identifiable thing that makes it real and true, thats why I found out God exists thru religion not science and those will never co-exist. And I dont believe God is any faker then, nor now.
It is illogical. You are making statements as if they are true. You thought about it long and hard and everything in this universe has at least one identifiable thing making it true? That is how you discovered God exists? Through religion? It does not compute.

Also, let me remind you that religion and science have been coexisting for quite some time: they exist(ed) simultaneously.


And if all bullets missed in your last question? I would think its a miracle, anybody would.
The question is "IS it a miracle from God?" The only choices are "Yes" and "No", and then the most reasonable answer would be "No". It doesn't matter what you think -- or anyone thinks -- of it. IS it a miracle from God whose existence is uncertain?

And while I'm at it, let me kindly ask you a question. Would you like to believe in this God who allows evil? A God who allows pain, suffering, torment, hunger, starvation, conflict, and so on? Well, you could. Let me tell you that IF you believe in Him, it would make much sense to HATE Him as well.

And to Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla: I am not necessarily looking for that (a crutch to support faith). I merely wish to point out it is irrational to believe in God and it is foolish (or insert another fitting word) to praise Him and/or even LOVE Him.

There were many times people told me they loved God and that they can sense His presence. How can they love God for allowing evil to exist and for probably being evil Himself? And how are they so certain that what they "feel" or "sense" is actually God the allpowerful divine entity they believe in whose existence is still uncertain?

I say believe what you want, but be aware that -- again -- BELIEF # TRUTH.

[Boyar Son]

It is illogical. You are making statements as if they are true. You thought about it long and hard and everything in this universe has at least one identifiable thing making it true? That is how you discovered God exists? Through religion? It does not compute.

Also, let me remind you that religion and science have been coexisting for quite some time: they exist(ed) simultaneously.


The question is "IS it a miracle from God?" The only choices are "Yes" and "No", and then the most reasonable answer would be "No". It doesn't matter what you think -- or anyone thinks -- of it. IS it a miracle from God whose existence is uncertain?

And while I'm at it, let me kindly ask you a question. Would you like to believe in this God who allows evil? A God who allows pain, suffering, torment, hunger, starvation, conflict, and so on? Well, you could. Let me tell you that IF you believe in Him, it would make much sense to HATE Him as well.

And to Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla: I am not necessarily looking for that (a crutch to support faith). I merely wish to point out it is irrational to believe in God and it is foolish (or insert another fitting word) to praise Him and/or even LOVE Him.

There were many times people told me they loved God and that they can sense His presence. How can they love God for allowing evil to exist and for probably being evil Himself? And how are they so certain that what they "feel" or "sense" is actually God the allpowerful divine entity they believe in whose existence is still uncertain?

I say believe what you want, but be aware that -- again -- BELIEF # TRUTH.

Thays not how I discovered God, I said that everything in the universe can be identified etc. God cannot be scientificaly indentified etc. maybe thats why athiests are atheists... 'cause they want scientific proof.

Yes it is a miracle from God IMO.

Yes I would still believe, as God still alows good too doesnt he? but its always the evil that counts?:inquisitive:

see that is what I mean about that little piece of wisdom I showed you. You dont want to UNDERSTAND why people believe in God, but just show why YOU (and other athiest) dont. I'm tellin' you just go to church and find some understanding about why we believe and be open to other possible truths instead of staying with one forever.

Wheres Adrain? oh well.... and am I the only one of the few here that defends religion?



Can you clarify your statement "everything... has at least 1 identifiably thing that makes it real and true". That doesn't seem to prove anything at all.

Also etc. etc.

Yes it does. How do you identify grass? touch. How do you identify light? sight. etc even proven thru cause and effect.

[Sigurd]

I distinctly remember something about a debate on "Does God exist?" coming our way...
What is status on this one?

There are some pointers in this thread for whoever takes up the atheist argument...

[CountArach]

Yes it does. How do you identify grass? touch. How do you identify light? sight. etc even proven thru cause and effect.
Alright, I'm with you so far, but how did this help you to find God? Surely it would persuade you otherwise because there is nothing tangible about any God.

[Bijo]

Thays not how I discovered God, I said that everything in the universe can be identified etc. God cannot be scientificaly indentified etc. maybe thats why athiests are atheists... 'cause they want scientific proof.
That's not how you discovered God? Then why did you state it in that post I replied to before? Could it be a lack of formulation skill? Are you now quickly trying to correct it?



Yes it is a miracle from God IMO.
Illogical. When a person says 'something IS....' he is making a claim as if he would be objective, factual, and logical. If it is your OPINION/BELIEF then don't use the construction 'X = ....' but rather make it like... "I believe the case to be..." or "I opine that...." or "I believe that..."

It is as if you state your opinion or b'lief and simultaneously state it is FACT. Your phrase could've been less misleading if you put the 'IMO' first but even then....

In any case, again, the question remains: "IS it a miracle from God whose existence is uncertain while disregarding beliefs and/or opinions?" Just provide an objective answer. You would find that the most likely answer would be "I don't know." or something like that. And why would it be that? Because you simply don't know.



Yes I would still believe, as God still alows good too doesnt he? but its always the evil that counts?:inquisitive:
First of all His goodness or evil are not necessarily requirements to believe in Him.

He is believed to be allpowerful, almighty, to have ultimate power and control. If this is true, why did He not create the perfect world? For Christ's sake, He's God! GOD! If He has/had ultimate power, He could've made everything perfect, peaceful, and so on, but noooooo.... apparantly He chose evil. THAT is a damn good reason to HATE Him if one believes in Him.


see that is what I mean about that little piece of wisdom I showed you. You dont want to UNDERSTAND why people believe in God, but just show why YOU (and other athiest) dont. I'm tellin' you just go to church and find some understanding about why we believe and be open to other possible truths instead of staying with one forever.
You are stating I am an atheist? You are stating I don't understand why they believe in God? You don't know much of me. I have seen **** from different sides. Don't put words into my mouth. Looks like sensational talk to me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is illogical. You are making statements as if they are true. You thought about it long and hard and everything in this universe has at least one identifiable thing making it true? That is how you discovered God exists? Through religion? It does not compute.

Also, let me remind you that religion and science have been coexisting for quite some time: they exist(ed) simultaneously.


The question is "IS it a miracle from God?" The only choices are "Yes" and "No", and then the most reasonable answer would be "No". It doesn't matter what you think -- or anyone thinks -- of it. IS it a miracle from God whose existence is uncertain?

And while I'm at it, let me kindly ask you a question. Would you like to believe in this God who allows evil? A God who allows pain, suffering, torment, hunger, starvation, conflict, and so on? Well, you could. Let me tell you that IF you believe in Him, it would make much sense to HATE Him as well.

And to Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla: I am not necessarily looking for that (a crutch to support faith). I merely wish to point out it is irrational to believe in God and it is foolish (or insert another fitting word) to praise Him and/or even LOVE Him.

There were many times people told me they loved God and that they can sense His presence. How can they love God for allowing evil to exist and for probably being evil Himself? And how are they so certain that what they "feel" or "sense" is actually God the allpowerful divine entity they believe in whose existence is still uncertain?

I say believe what you want, but be aware that -- again -- BELIEF # TRUTH.

Rather than respond directly I'd like to draw your attention back to your own conclusions. You say it is irrational to believe in God, fine, I would agree with that, but rationallity and logic are human constructs. It's not rational or logical to fall in love either but I'd rather be in love with someone before I married her.

All your examples are dependant on your perception of good and evil, you also make concrete claims that are no more supportable than those make by Christians or Muslims.

Here's a big hole in your arguement: you say the existence of God is uncertain, I say it isn't.

The whole thing grinds to a halt at that point, anyway.

You're working from an atheist perspective and your thinking is as biased as mine.

[seireikhaan]

The whole thing grinds to a halt at that point, anyway.

You're working from an atheist perspective and your thinking is as biased as mine.
Exactly why these sort of debates have a very, very high tendency to go absolutely NOWHERE. Faith is faith, and its all based on each person's perspective. Whether that faith is in science or logic or rhetoric or religion or whatever, its usually very difficult to sway it in an online forum.

[Bijo]

Why did you not reply to my previous post? Why direct my attention to an old post?


Rather than respond directly I'd like to draw your attention back to your own conclusions. You say it is irrational to believe in God, fine, I would agree with that, but rationallity and logic are human constructs. It's not rational or logical to fall in love either but I'd rather be in love with someone before I married her.
You concur, therefore there is no or little reason to use 'but' and so forth.



Here's a big hole in your arguement: you say the existence of God is uncertain, I say it isn't.


Then explain and elaborate why it is certain. Use logic. You are aware your claim looks very ugly next to your previous one regarding your AGREEMENT?


You're working from an atheist perspective and your thinking is as biased as mine.
Logic, science, physics, mathematics, etc., are there for a good reason. They explain reality. Based on reality. Based on objective thought. They observe and then conclude when possible with valid premises: they don't conclude first and be done with it like religion does. Biased? I don't think so :laugh4:

[Kagemusha]

Why did you not reply to my previous post? Why direct my attention to an old post?


You concur, therefore there is no or little reason to use 'but' and so forth.


Then explain and elaborate why it is certain. Use logic. You are aware your claim looks very ugly next to your previous one regarding your AGREEMENT?


Logic, science, physics, mathematics, etc., are there for a good reason. They explain one&#180;s perception of reality. Based on this perception of reality. Based on objective thought. They observe and then conclude when possible with valid premises: they don't conclude first and be done with it like religion does. Biased? I don't think so :laugh4:

Fixed that for you.:yes: The role of science is to help us understand the surrounding universe, not to make absolute statements, like religious writings tend to do sometimes, which takes away their scientific value. Why is it so hard to part realm of science and parts of universe that science cant proof or disapprove from each other?
Science should be science and religion be religion. Unfortunately to some religion can become science and science become an religion, which in my humble view should be avoided at all cost.

[Boyar Son]

That's not how you discovered God? Then why did you state it in that post I replied to before? Could it be a lack of formulation skill? Are you now quickly trying to correct it?


Illogical. When a person says 'something IS....' he is making a claim as if he would be objective, factual, and logical. If it is your OPINION/BELIEF then don't use the construction 'X = ....' but rather make it like... "I believe the case to be..." or "I opine that...." or "I believe that..."

It is as if you state your opinion or b'lief and simultaneously state it is FACT. Your phrase could've been less misleading if you put the 'IMO' first but even then....

In any case, again, the question remains: "IS it a miracle from God whose existence is uncertain while disregarding beliefs and/or opinions?" Just provide an objective answer. You would find that the most likely answer would be "I don't know." or something like that. And why would it be that? Because you simply don't know.



First of all His goodness or evil are not necessarily requirements to believe in Him.

He is believed to be allpowerful, almighty, to have ultimate power and control. If this is true, why did He not create the perfect world? For Christ's sake, He's God! GOD! If He has/had ultimate power, He could've made everything perfect, peaceful, and so on, but noooooo.... apparantly He chose evil. THAT is a damn good reason to HATE Him if one believes in Him.


You are stating I am an atheist? You are stating I don't understand why they believe in God? You don't know much of me. I have seen **** from different sides. Don't put words into my mouth. Looks like sensational talk to me.

1st yes lack of re'reading what I wrote, thus many grammar errors.

2nd yes I 'believe' it to be factual (miracle from God, cant a christian do that?). Just like I 'believe' 1+1=2.

3rd "First of all His goodness or evil are not necessarily requirements to believe in Him."~:rolleyes: did I say that? Yeah why not creat the perfect world? maybe it was perfect before adam and eve ate the apple and caused us to have original sin....(if you get to talk from a religious point of view to explain your argument ie. "He could've made everything perfect" so can I, with the adam and eve thing ~D )

4th um YES I'm stating your an atheist, hmm if you find it illogical to believe in God then I guess you DONT!!! this is pretty much all I have to know of you to type this:yes:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Then explain and elaborate why it is certain. Use logic.

Our esteemed colleague Pindar put forward a very interesting logical proof of God (or at least, a necessary being) which confounded most of us who challenged him. Sadly, neither can I find the thread nor have we heard from him for some while - but I have found a version of the proof.


A contingent being exists (a contingent being is such that if it exists, it can not-exist).

This contingent being has a cause or explanation of its existence.

The cause or explanation of its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.

What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

Contingent beings alone cannot cause or explain the existence of a contingent being.

Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

Therefore, a necessary being (a being which, if it exists, cannot not exist) exists.

Now, I'm not a logician like Pindar, but I found it very elegant and tough to dismiss. On further reading, I discovered Kant (among others) framed a rebuttal, but it's still elegant.

[Boyar Son]

scratch my last argument as it lost the meaning of my ealier arguments

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Exactly why these sort of debates have a very, very high tendency to go absolutely NOWHERE. Faith is faith, and its all based on each person's perspective. Whether that faith is in science or logic or rhetoric or religion or whatever, its usually very difficult to sway it in an online forum.

It's no easier when your interlocuter is a pretty girl in a coffe bar, she won.:laugh4:


Why did you not reply to my previous post? Why direct my attention to an old post?

I thought that you might appreciate that your own conclusions can be turned on their heads.


You concur, therefore there is no or little reason to use 'but' and so forth.

Congratulations on completely and utterly missing the point. I agree that belief in God is not rational but given that rationality is inherently a human concept and really nothing more than a concept it is as flawed as faith. I'm not too keen on rationality as a yardstick for that reason, just because it's rational doesn't mean it's right.


Then explain and elaborate why it is certain. Use logic. You are aware your claim looks very ugly next to your previous one regarding your AGREEMENT?

I can't and I don't need to. I'm okay with not being able to prove it because I know it's true, no I can't why explain to you either.

As I said, logic is a bit crap. Try to prove God you get a paradox, try to disprove Him and you get a paradox.

Live with it, you'll be happier and you might live longer.



Logic, science, physics, mathematics, etc., are there for a good reason. They explain reality. Based on reality. Based on objective thought. They observe and then conclude when possible with valid premises: they don't conclude first and be done with it like religion does. Biased? I don't think so :laugh4:

Newton's "Laws" of Physics seem mathematically sound, don't they? Oh, wait, they just look right, they're actually wrong when you get down to the atomic level. Your faith in science is the same as my faith in religion, you're just as biased as I am.

You should learn to live with that as well, just like Dawkins should.

[Bijo]

1st yes lack of re'reading what I wrote, thus many grammar errors.

2nd yes I 'believe' it to be factual (miracle from God, cant a christian do that?). Just like I 'believe' 1+1=2.
Belief, schmelief.


3rd "First of all His goodness or evil are not necessarily requirements to believe in Him."~:rolleyes: did I say that? Yeah why not creat the perfect world? maybe it was perfect before adam and eve ate the apple and caused us to have original sin....(if you get to talk from a religious point of view to explain your argument ie. "He could've made everything perfect" so can I, with the adam and eve thing ~D )
No, I stated it in response to your phrase "Yes I would still believe, as God still alows good too doesnt he?"

You mean... GOD created imperfect humans in the first place who then messed things up? Great going, God. Even with all Your ultimate powers you manage(d) to **** up.



Congratulations on completely and utterly missing the point. I agree that belief in God is not rational but given that rationality is inherently a human concept and really nothing more than a concept it is as flawed as faith. I'm not too keen on rationality as a yardstick for that reason, just because it's rational doesn't mean it's right.
That first phrase looks too sensational to me. Please refrain from that in the future.

You are saying rationality is as flawed as faith? You are forgetting some important things, though, which seem necessary to repeat: faith is blind and not critical as it does not observe fairly; rationality does observe fairly and is minimally not as blind as faith. Regard simple everyday examples you encounter and you have your proof. Rationality more or less does not go around making claims like a bunch of madmen. At least it can admit it does not know or know, while belief is just.... belief.


I can't and I don't need to. I'm okay with not being able to prove it because I know it's true, no I can't why explain to you either.

No, you DO NOT know if it's true. You just believe it to be true.


To Kage:
What matters is that it is logically consistent. It works. Water starts boiling at some point due to certain rules of physics/nature. It has been discovered, it has been recorded, etc. And so there are many examples available. You observe and make proper conclusions and systems that are TRUE. These true correct findings are later redone consistently. The argument that it is ALL subjective is useless. Try believing you won't fall and get seriously injured when you jump off a high cliff and there's no safety at all, then jump. You will get injured or even die because the rules of nature/physics are like that. I welcome anyone to try and believe in something that doesn't make sense and then perform the action and observe the outcome. Let yourself get hit by a bus driving at highspeed... what do you think the result would be?

To BG:
Yes, I thought it was something in that direction.

[Boyar Son]

Belief, schmelief.


No, I stated it in response to your phrase "Yes I would still believe, as God still alows good too doesnt he?"

You mean... GOD created imperfect humans in the first place who then messed things up? Great going, God. Even with all Your ultimate powers you manage(d) to **** up.

To BG:
Yes, I thought it was something in that direction.

Dont blame God for your misfortunes. Your fellow man AND yourself has caused misfortune. God gave you and you still have the power to do good, but with you God has to do everything, right?

And I can tell you're getting angry, because your points arent getting the better? ...and blame evil inthe world on God, remember God isnt evil, its humans, every misfortune that has happened, WE did it (to better answer your last thread doubting God).


Besides these arguments are bringing dowm my credibilty and making me sound like a preacher than a debater. :crowngrin:

[Bijo]

Dont blame God for your misfortunes. Your fellow man AND yourself has caused misfortune. God gave you and you still have the power to do good, but with you God has to do everything, right?
The topic is God, not man alone. The argument stays. And you are making quick assumptions that I am blaming God for my SUPPOSED misfortunes. Refrain from it.


And I can tell you're getting angry, because your points arent getting the better? ...and blame evil inthe world on God, remember God isnt evil, its humans, every misfortune that has happened, WE did it (to better answer your last thread doubting God).
That is just.... your perception.

You are forgetting an important thing once more: God is supposedly the almighty allpowerful one; if man is evil it is because God -- who has ultimate supreme power, 'cause, like... it's GOD, you know -- made man like that in the first place. What is so difficult to understand about it? Don't you WANT to understand?



Besides these arguments are bringing dowm my credibilty and making me sound like a preacher than a debater. :crowngrin:
You already looked like a preacher, illogical one :laugh4:

Since it seems you cannot overthrow my arguments, and since you use emotionally loaded sensational language, and irrelevant false observations about my person, and using illogic, our discussion ceases at once. -3 for you on my list.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The topic is God, not man alone. The argument stays. And you are making quick assumptions that I am blaming God for my SUPPOSED misfortunes. Refrain from it.

That is just.... your perception.

You are forgetting an important thing once more: God is supposedly the almighty allpowerful one; if man is evil it is because God -- who has ultimate supreme power, 'cause, like... it's GOD, you know -- made man like that in the first place. What is so difficult to understand about it? Don't you WANT to understand?

You are making the mistake of ascribing percieved evil to God. You are judging some actions as evil, and therefore others as good presumabely. So you are making a judgement. Being human your judgement is obviously flawed because humans are far from perfect. So since you are making the judgement the question arises, "Are you right about what is good and what is evil?"

You may be wrong, there may be no evil save what you percieve to be evil. Humans are responsible for their own actions, at that point the question becomes why does God allow evil.

The usual answer is that God allows us to make our own mistakes just like any parent. That's just another flawed human arguement though, you can choose to take it or leave it.


You already looked like a preacher, illogical one :laugh4:

Since it seems you cannot overthrow my arguments, and since you use emotionally loaded sensational language, and irrelevant false observations about my person, and using illogic, our discussion ceases at once. -3 for you on my list.

Personal attacks don't help your own case nor does laughing at people.

[Kagemusha]

To Kage:
What matters is that it is logically consistent. It works. Water starts boiling at some point due to certain rules of physics/nature. It has been discovered, it has been recorded, etc. And so there are many examples available. You observe and make proper conclusions and systems that are TRUE. These true correct findings are later redone consistently. The argument that it is ALL subjective is useless. Try believing you won't fall and get seriously injured when you jump off a high cliff and there's no safety at all, then jump. You will get injured or even die because the rules of nature/physics are like that. I welcome anyone to try and believe in something that doesn't make sense and then perform the action and observe the outcome. Let yourself get hit by a bus driving at highspeed... what do you think the result would be?

Lets not over simplify matters. So are you saying that what you cant observe is irrelevant and thus does not exist? Human perception is very limited. For example there are lot of very low and high frequencies that human ear cant register, still while you cant register those frequencies, the sounds can have effect on you.
You cant witness the dance of atoms with your eyes, but still whole universe is built of them.
Science has helped us understand these phenomenas and in the future there is little doubt it will reveal more and more about the universe to us. Science is not ready, its not complete like you seem to argue. What you are saying is that because right now science cant prove or disprove your perception of God, there fore God cant exist. Why so? What do we know about God as humans?
We only have the word God and our perception what this word is supposed to mean. I think what lead to many scientist to make breakthroughs was that they believed on phenomenas before they could prove them to be accurate. By dismissing fate as irrelevant we will only stagnate ourselves and thus became irrelevant ourselves. I believe that there is not and will not be one moment when we know everything and its futile to think that there ever will be, thus belief and fate on things that we cant perceive is very important for us to develop.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That first phrase looks too sensational to me. Please refrain from that in the future.

Only if you desist in calling me a fool, or my beliefs foolish. This:
Belief, schmelief. didn't help your case either. You should also stop using the laughing smiley if you want to avoid offending people.


You are saying rationality is as flawed as faith? You are forgetting some important things, though, which seem necessary to repeat: faith is blind and not critical as it does not observe fairly; rationality does observe fairly and is minimally not as blind as faith. Regard simple everyday examples you encounter and you have your proof. Rationality more or less does not go around making claims like a bunch of madmen. At least it can admit it does not know or know, while belief is just.... belief.

Rationallity is flawed in a different way I'll grant you. It's still flawed, you place the burdan of proof on the theists, yet atheism is the new belief. You challenge ancient established belief and then say the burdan of proof lies on my side, not yours. Is that rational? Rationality is a human concept, not an inherrent truth. You make claims based on rationality as though that inherrently made them correct.

Was it rational for Newton to claim that gravity existed before he had proved it? Was it rational for Pastur to claim that boiling milk would preserve it?

Based on the evidence they began with, prevailing scientific opinion etc. arguably it wasn't. Rational does not equal right.

You've also called me a madman here, not only is that another attack by proxy it is also merely another perception, even today if you walk into a room in parts of the world you will be deemed "mad" or even possessed for espousing atheism.


No, you DO NOT know if it's true. You just believe it to be true.

You do not know my beliefs are foolish, you just believe they are foolish. You are increasingly resorting to persoanl attacks and complaints obout your adversaies' posts.

Your arguement is as weak and unsupportable as mine, nor does the burdan of proof necessarily lie with me. In fact, if the Bible were any other historical text, or the existence of God were any other theory the burdan of proof would lie on you.

While you can disprove certain elements of the Bible, and prove that others do not exactly fit the available facts there is, for example, no way for you to prove Jesus did not walk on water.

You can prove no one living now can do it but Jesus claimed to be unique and unlike anyone living now, so that doesn't constitute any form of proof.

[Louis VI the Fat]

All I demand is a proper definition of God. Alas, all I get from you is that 'He' (undefined) is somewhere in 'Heaven' (undefined) or so you 'like to think'. As soon as you come up with a concrete person in a concrete location, I will prove you wrong.I'll give you a definition and prove you wrong in one go: I declare you God.

There is, of course, no way that you can prove to me that you are not God. Hence, believe in God is not illogical and the atheist pack in this thread has failed. And unless the Christians can prove that Adrian isn't God they have failed too, and their worship of the Biblical God must be considered idolatry.

I worship Thee, Adrian, divine Master of Heaven and Earth. Blessed be Thy name. Bow, sinners, to your new God. http://matousmileys.free.fr/anbet2.gif

[Sigurd]

If we can get the "Does God exist?" debate going, I shall prove that God exists and that God is a personal creator.

[Sigurd]

I guess this thread had a sudden death...

:thumbsdown:

[Vladimir]

I guess this thread had a sudden death...

:thumbsdown:

Just like God! MUHAHAHA :devil:


sorry

[Adrian II]

I'll give you a definition and prove you wrong in one go: I declare you God.You would just as soon declare me a pompous, arrogant piss, you Gallic whippersnapper, you. :laugh4:

The issue here is that God can only be defined in one of two ways. Either as an entity beyond the grasp of human reason, in which case it can be subject to no proposition and is therefore heuristically empty. Or as an entity that is within the grasp of human reason, in which case it is subject to propositions that can be tested and will be refuted because, largely speaking, 'the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference' (Richard Dawkins).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You would just as soon declare me a pompous, arrogant piss, you Gallic whippersnapper, you. :laugh4:

The issue here is that God can only be defined in one of two ways. Either as an entity beyond the grasp of human reason, in which case it can be subject to no proposition and is therefore heuristically empty. Or as an entity that is within the grasp of human reason, in which case it is subject to propositions that can be tested and will be refuted because, largely speaking, 'the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference' (Richard Dawkins).

Dawkins has not produced a concrete arguement against God, he is also and atheist and anti-deist who is opposed to existence of God because he sees God as a negative influence. This in itself is interesting because that suggests he see God as evil, a concept he proffesses not to recognise.

He has become as entrenched as a Southern-Baptist fruitcake preacher.

Now, two things:

1. God is ultimately responsible for the Big Bang. Can you refute this?

2. I think you are incorrect because "God" falls into the same catagory as love. Love is not within human comprehension (I can't believe I'm using the clichè), we feel it, but we can't actually explain it. Dawkins might try to break it down into evolution and endorphins but that's just, lust euthoria etc. He has no way to explain why two people will choose to spend their lives together, in defiance of the biological imperative.

God is imherently outside the physical world, like love, and therefore beyond scientific testing.

As a final point, I have yet to see a proposition about God actually refuted.

[Vladimir]

Can we drop all the references to "love"? There is no magic or mystery to the emotion. Science (which describes but does NOT explain) continues to improve our understanding of that emotion. Comparing "love" to the singularity or the dimensions which supposedly sparked it makes me :rolleyes2:.

If you want proof of God's existence learn his laws, the ones revealed by science.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Can we drop all the references to "love"? There is no magic or mystery to the emotion. Science (which describes but does NOT explain) continues to improve our understanding of that emotion. Comparing "love" to the singularity or the dimensions which supposedly sparked it makes me :rolleyes2:.

If you want proof of God's existence learn his laws, the ones revealed by science.

I agree it's a tired arguement but I don't recall science expalining love, passion, lust, attraction yes.

I don't believe they amount to love.

[Adrian II]

Dawkins has not produced a concrete arguement against God [..]Correct. I disagree with both tone and content of his latest book, which is counterproductive. But he is right about the issue I quoted him on.
1. God is ultimately responsible for the Big Bang. Can you refute this?Is that meant to be a definition? Cause I don't think it is. Like I said, I can only discuss propositions concerning God if you define God for me.
2. I think you are incorrect because "God" falls into the same catagory as love. Love is not within human comprehension (I can't believe I'm using the clich&#232;), we feel it, but we can't actually explain it.The definition 'God is love' is just obscure language. It defines one vague entity by equating it to another vague entity. I mean, is 'love' ultimately responsible for the Big Bang?..

The word 'love' does not refer to a clearly defined entity. It is shorthand for a collection of human experiences. Religious experiences may constitute another such collection, referred to with the semantic shorthand 'God'. But that does not mean that it refers to a reality outside the experiences.

Elsewhere in your post, you define God as something 'inherently outside the physical world', which means that it does not exist. Otherwise, the words that you use no longer mean anything. I don't have to prove the non-existence of a thing that, by definition, does not exist.

By the way, a God that has created the physical world can not be 'inherently outside the physical world'. That, too, is gobbledigook, if I may be so bold.

And definitions must not be obscure or circular.

[Vladimir]

Elsewhere in your post, you define God as something 'outside the physical world', which means that it does not exist. Otherwise, the words that you use no longer mean anything. I don't have to prove the non-existence of a thing that, by definition, does not exist.

Definitions must not be obscure or circular.

I suppose you have a problem with quantum physics then. :book: Did you know that 'strange' is a scientific term?

[Adrian II]

I suppose you have a problem with quantum physics then. :book: Did you know that 'strange' is a scientific term?Yes, and it is strictly defined. Scientists work that way. They observe a phenomenon and give it a label. The label could be 'X', but since scientistst are mostly repressed romantics they prefer funnier names, sometimes even the names of their spouses. Calling a meteorite 'Maria', for instance, does not really imply that it is female...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Correct. I disagree with both tone and content of his latest book, which is counterproductive. But he is right about the issue I quoted him on.

Thankyou, you know, he would have written almost the same book if he was a theist. I have to be honest, I don't believe the universe, or hummanity for that matter, is without an inherrrent justice but that's really another topic.


Is that meant to be a definition? Cause I don't think it is. Like I said, I can only discuss propositions concerning God if you define God for me.The definition 'God is love' is just obscure language. It defines one vague entity by equating it to another vague entity. I mean, is 'love' ultimately responsible for the Big Bang?..

Well "creator of the universe" would be a definition. "God is love" though is more a description. Boethius wrote on this, God is "love" or "justice" because he is these things in the very essence of his being, he embodies them, rather than having the charactaristic of them.

So, my definition would be ancient, "God is the First Cause."


The word 'love' does not refer to a clearly defined entity. It is shorthand for a collection of human experiences. Religious experiences may constitute another such collection, referred to with the semantic shorthand 'God'. But that does not mean that it refers to a reality outside the experiences.

That does not mean that it does not refer to something outside the experiences. Do I exist beyond my words written here? Do you?


Elsewhere in your post, you define God as something 'inherently outside the physical world', which means that it does not exist. Otherwise, the words that you use no longer mean anything. I don't have to prove the non-existence of a thing that, by definition, does not exist.

Ok, well in that sense God does not exist, He is nowhere, but everywhere because He is in all things, while being in no one thing. He does not exist as a concrete being within our physical reality but his influence is manifest everywhere.


By the way, a God that has created the physical world can not be 'inherently outside the physical world'. That, too, is gobbledigook, if I may be so bold.

Stepped into a pretty obvious trap there. If he's God he doesn't follow your rules, because he's all powerful. See, if he exists then he can do whatever he likes, he can halve the speed of light should he so choose. Only if you except that he does not exist does he become subject to rules and criticism.


And definitions must not be obscure or circular.

See above, you cannot place requirements on the existence of your creator.

Yes, I realise everything I have just written is dependant on the existence of God, but everything you write is dependant on Him not existing.

[Boyar Son]

The topic is God, not man alone. The argument stays. And you are making quick assumptions that I am blaming God for my SUPPOSED misfortunes. Refrain from it.


That is just.... your perception.

You are forgetting an important thing once more: God is supposedly the almighty allpowerful one; if man is evil it is because God -- who has ultimate supreme power, 'cause, like... it's GOD, you know -- made man like that in the first place. What is so difficult to understand about it? Don't you WANT to understand?



You already looked like a preacher, illogical one :laugh4:

Since it seems you cannot overthrow my arguments, and since you use emotionally loaded sensational language, and irrelevant false observations about my person, and using illogic, our discussion ceases at once. -3 for you on my list.

Back!

(warning, I had to answer bijo's question biblicaly-please disregard as this is not part of my original arguments)

Not being able to overthrow your arguments? how arrogant....I will tell you ONE last time (for the sake of my credibility as a debater, and not as a preacher). Man was not evil when God created them, adam and eve is to blame for their disobediance (thats evil too?) then after them, the children of man had the power to do evil, hence the answer to "If God is this and that, why arent I those and these?"
(/warning)


Thank you, now I'm a preist. You must be happy that I got of the subject to answer this question of yours, care to move on?

[Incongruous]

meh original post was stupid and crass, hope no one saw it.

This is why we used to have good old fashioned wars, none of this sissy debating. Wars always seem to have finality to them.

If Boyar defeated Adrian in battle then cut his head off, I feel Adrian's argument would be badly hindered.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That depends, Adrian might have God on his side.

If we all died then that would end the arguement, and give us a definite answer.

Oh well, I suppose we'll just have to wait and do something else in the meantime.

[Tribesman]

I will tell you ONE last time (for the sake of my credibility as a debater, and not as a preacher).
Well lets test your credibility as either .

Man was not evil when God created them
God created man right , like he created everything apart from him/her/itself , so where did this evil come from ?
It cannot have come from anywhere but god since he made everything , it cannot have come from nowhere since there is nowhere as all is gods work .
Now if it came from god then that means that evil was part of him/her/itself since it cannot have come from anywhere else as there isn't anywhere else, and since man is created in the image of god then that image must contain the evil that is present in god .
So Cossack where do you seek to establish your credibility on the subject ?

[Boyar Son]

Image tribes IMAGE! not personality!

The tree with the apples God said not* to eat which contains the knowledge of how we act now as a people,your evil could be there.

2nd- really I dont want to debate the bible

BOPA-meh original post was stupid and crass, hope no one saw it

Who's?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well lets test your credibility as either .

God created man right , like he created everything apart from him/her/itself , so where did this evil come from ?
It cannot have come from anywhere but god since he made everything , it cannot have come from nowhere since there is nowhere as all is gods work .
Now if it came from god then that means that evil was part of him/her/itself since it cannot have come from anywhere else as there isn't anywhere else, and since man is created in the image of god then that image must contain the evil that is present in god .
So Cossack where do you seek to establish your credibility on the subject ?

Well, the arguement is that if I create a sword then I am not by extension a killer, nor am I steel. However, a better answer might be that the human conception of evil is in error.

I don't know though, and I'm ok with that.

Weird, isn't it?

[GoreBag]

"the fool takes no delight in understanding,
but rather displaying what he thinks"

Hahaha, the thread in summary.

[Duke John]

"the fool takes no delight in understanding,
but rather displaying what he thinks"

Hahaha, the thread in summary.
The backroom in summary. :beam:

And I dismiss Adrian II as my God. All hail Gregoshi in his temple of shrimps (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=29556)!

[Tribesman]

Well Cossack to start at the second .

2nd- really I dont want to debate the bible
Since the basis for your belief is held within those books don't you think that is a little closed minded ?

But hey lets get on to the real stuff .


Image tribes IMAGE! not personality!

Image hmmmm...whats the other word generally translated as ? Likeness isn't it :yes:
Image and Likeness , now you can go with the hebrew or you can go with the vulgate it makes no difference , what attributes do theologans include in the second word ?what are the essences of gods nature that are built in (in a serious christian understanding) to the nature of man taken (or given) from the creator ?

[Boyar Son]

certainly not inherited from God, because adam and eve werent evil to start off with.

yes I believe but no one will respect someone that uses the bible for all arguments. i just argued it because bijo kept bringing it up.

besides, argueing against God is easier than argueing for him. I'm gaining much skill.

[Tribesman]

certainly not inherited from God, because adam and eve werent evil to start off with.

Then from where ? everything came from god didn't it .


I'm gaining much skill.
Not really yet , as I said earlier Well lets test your credibility as either .
and you stumbled at he first fence .
So cossack where does this evil come from ?
If it exists in creation and everything that is in creation came from god and adam is in the likeness (theological interpretation )of god then how can adam have not had part of that attribute incuded in his make up from the start ?

[Sigurd]

[speaking of evil]Then from where ? everything came from god didn't it .

He has a point...

[Boyar Son]

as a side note: still want me to talk to you about the bible?


no. adam had to eat the apple ok:yes: now he knows the difference ok:yes: likeness, as in image, as in how they would look like ok:yes: never said about qualities but if you want to interperet that way to suite your arguments.

very simple. Have you read anywhere, "adam/eve sinned" before the eating of the apples?

[Tribesman]

as a side note: still want me to talk to you about the bible?

Yeah that would be funny , I love reading stuff from people with little understanding of scripture .

Like this....


likeness, as in image, as in how they would look like ok never said about qualities but if you want to interperet that way to suite your arguments.

Oh poor Boyar those two words (image and likeness) have been an issue in Christianity (though you could explore the judaic angle too) since long before Augustine , there is lots of stuff on it and for a long long time now it has been in general consensus .
If you want to talk about the bible then please study it first .

Here go back to this line ....
Image and Likeness , now you can go with the hebrew or you can go with the vulgate it makes no difference , what attributes do theologans include in the second word ?what are the essences of gods nature that are built in (in a serious christian understanding) to the nature of man taken (or given) from the creator ?...and try again .

[Sigurd]

I don’t like the latest development of this thread.

Tribesman has a point. If all there is comes from God, then it follows that evil, if there is such a notion in the universe, must also have its fountain at the hands of Him who created all.
To diverge from this, you must allow other eternal forces besides God. This will punch a great hole in the first cause argument.
Say that Satan or the embodiment of evil is such an eternal force, always in opposition with good; a necessity for balance between chaos and cosmos. One works towards no order, the other works towards order. Our universe is fine tuned and in a state of cosmos. Therefore you could say that the force of order and good is the strongest.

To the discussion of scripture: God created man in Gods own likeness.
This should mean that God looks like man. Usually we turn this around and say that man looks like God and it might well mean that He attributed many of His qualities to man, like speech, creative power etc.

It is interesting that Gods speaks when there is no one to speak to, and He does say: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. The following statement is the creation of man after his own image both male and female.
Yeah the word is Elohim as different from Yahweh and it is plural: Gods. Go figure.

And there is no mention of apples… it only states fruit. I am not an apple fan and if a fruit is more exquisite than any other fruit, I am thinking of a fruit more like peach or nectarine. However, it doesn’t state the type.

[Tribesman]

If all there is comes from God, then it follows that evil, if there is such a notion in the universe, must also have its fountain at the hands of Him who created all.

Yep .


Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.
Yep and the point is what is the long standing theological interpretation of that last word . it does have a meaning and interpretation doesn't it , that is why I asked.....Image and Likeness , now you can go with the hebrew or you can go with the vulgate it makes no difference , what attributes do theologans include in the second word ?what are the essences of gods nature that are built in (in a serious christian understanding) to the nature of man taken (or given) from the creator ? ....now you could always go for the cop out and claim that it is a superflous word added just to fill the page , but that doesn't sit very well does it .:eyebrows:
So a simple question isn't it , two words , both appear many times in scripture , are they both the same word with the same meaning or are they different words with different meanings (from a Christian or Jewish pespective) ?:book:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm no theologian, but I can't see any problem with the idea that God created evil. As the perfect, original being, He must have created all things. However, evil is surely a choice - it can exist as a concept but remain unexercised. If God's plan was to allow his creations to enjoy free will, they must have choices.

The Tree of Knowledge represented that choice. It was created, as was Lucifer - Lucifer being one of God's foremost angels (as I recall). Interestingly, he is the Light-Bringer - which might be argued to mean he also brought the "light" of choice, since he was the first to exercise his knowledge of his options (one assumes therefore that angels were created with this knowledge at the start).

He then took that choice to tempt the newly created humans, who bought it - as they were very clearly meant to do.

Just because God created evil, does not make Him evil - He simply never resorted to that choice. Jesus, born into a world of evil, also chose not to take that path. I imagine everyone born in His image also has the choice.

I would argue that if you deny that God created evil, one is actually denying the majesty of a perfect being who created that most precious of things, free will. Without evil and choice, surely we are all drones of dust?

[Sigurd]

We could continue to discuss this in a shroud of fog, but I am interested in hearing what Tribesman has come across on the subject of image and likeness.

I have discussed this before with believers and they disregard any notion that man is like God.
How can they be? God is an immaterial being without body, parts or material. How can man be like God, who is very much material with body and parts?

Well, if we are to take Genesis seriously, then God must be physical or have a physical appearance (likeness). I don’t know.. When it comes to the word image, to me it means exactly like something. If I were to make something in the image of an object, the new object becomes indistinguishable from the first. You cant’ tell the two apart. Of course it depends on the skill of the maker, but God is perfect in all ways and hence will make a perfect copy. I say Adam was the splitting image of God and I hope Eve was not.

If I apply what I know of this subject I recognise the distinct difference of the creation of man as compared with the creation of beasts, fowl and fish. When speaking of beasts He says: Let the earth bring forth… a physical origin.
Man’s origin is in the image and likeness of God, and Tribesman did hint at the Hebrew tradition. I am not sure what he is hinting at, I know that it is common in Hebrew to use these two words together to enforce the meaning that we are unlike animals. And this means that man does not only look like God, but have spiritually ability to understand His nature and learn to conform to it. In other words, God gave man abilities like unto God’s. Man can think, reason, make decisions and plan. He can originate and evaluate ideas and bring them to completion. Mankind can communicate and express complex concepts and be understood by other men. Mankind have an understanding of time and can mark its passage. This is not the end of it. Mankind can imagine and desire life after death. Man want to live forever but have no idea of how to attain it.

God created man in his own image and likeness and man inherits this creating power and makes further replicas of God like beings.

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:(Gen 5:3)

It is funny that every explanation of this event is based on the assumption that God did not really mean what is stated in Gen 1:26-27.

[Duke John]

"adam/eve sinned" before the eating of the apples?
So God started with a little experiment of creating a good and pure man and woman and giving it free will. Then He created a tree with an apple that would poison the mind of man and woman (they become 'evil'). Of course they ate it and the rest is history.

So just this one apple at the very start of mankind made the difference between 4000 years of pure love and goodness and 4000 years of war, suffering and other evil sinful deeds? That is just evil!

[Sigurd]

Enough with the apples already :beam:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Banquo has described my view here very eloquently. I would like to add some additional thoughts though.

Who wrote Genesis, the text as we have it has either been pasted together or pasted back together from at least two versions as far as I know. Is the Bible a perfect representation of God's message? I would argue it was not.

If Adam was meant to eat of the fruit (I'm thinking pomigranites or peaches because of the association with female genitalia) then was Lucifer actually defying God? It seems that all proceeded exactly as He had forseen, so maybe Lucifer did not defy God, perhaps he is not evil but is meerly the avatar of evil used to tempt man away from God?

[Tribesman]

Hey Wigferth , take your Lucifer thing and apply it to Iscariot :idea2:


We could continue to discuss this in a shroud of fog, but I am interested in hearing what Tribesman has come across on the subject of image and likeness.

I hope you are not expecting a link ~;) (well at least not until Boyar attempts to approach the subject so I can see his efforts at theology)

[Boyar Son]

Tribes comon now dont come with the 'invincible' talk


Now, you want a serious Christian understanding? we are created in Gods image. Primarily, man resembles God because of the dominion they have over the creatures of the earth (just as God does us).

Now, if you have read the bible you come across "the man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame". Obviously, they are oblivious(I stress that tribes, I really do) to knowledge (showing they have not eaten the apple of the tree of knowledge, which comes good and evil.

And what happens next, the serpent tricks eve to eat the apple and tells adam too. now, recognizing they are both naked they now have knowledge from the tree, knowledge of good and evil.

You keep saying that if man is like God and man is evil then God is evil. But you keep ignoring the point that man received that knowledge after Adam and Eve ate the apples, and if they already knew good and evil, they would've gotten some clothes before they ate the apples wouldnt they?

But I'm glad you came back from that period of absence before:crowngrin:

[Tribesman]

Now, you want a serious Christian understanding?
Well I was hoping you might be able to put forward an attempt ....
we are created in Gods image. Primarily, man resembles God because of the dominion they have over the creatures of the earth (just as God does us).
...but obviously the hope was wasted .

Is it worth repeating the question again ....Image and Likeness , now you can go with the hebrew or you can go with the vulgate it makes no difference , what attributes do theologans include in the second word ?what are the essences of gods nature that are built in (in a serious christian understanding) to the nature of man taken (or given) from the creator ?
or shall I just take it as read that you are clueless on the subject ?

[Boyar Son]

Ah well, you obviously saw my point which proved the 'God must be part evil' wrong. But I'll answer anyway.

"what attributes do theologans include in the second word? ":

I'll tell you this word most certainly mean 'likeness' as image, thus how he would appear.

"what are the essences of gods nature that are built in (in a serious christian understanding) to the nature of man taken (or given) from the creator?":

Actually I answered this(but you didnt read it?): "Now, you want a serious Christian understanding? we are created in Gods image. Primarily, man resembles God because of the dominion they have over the creatures of the earth (just as God does us). "

[Tribesman]

Ah well, you obviously saw my point which proved the 'God must be part evil' wrong.
No you didn't prove any such thing .


I'll tell you this word most certainly mean 'likeness' as image, thus how he would appear.

Nope , not in the slightest , if that were the case it would read image image .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hey Wigferth , take your Lucifer thing and apply it to Iscariot :idea2:

Gospel of Judas? Why should I bother, it's been done.

Briefly however, I'm willing to buy into the version which says the whole thing with the olives was Jesus choosing the man appointed to deliberately betray him.

[LittleGrizzly]

Just a thought, I would say God created choice and that led to the evil rather than directly creating the evil.

As in Lucifer chose then Eve chose then Adam chose.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nowhere are Lucifer's motives elucidated, nor does it actually say whether Angels have free will or not.

Additionally, God cannot create something with an unforseen consequence, because he is all knowing.

[Tribesman]

Ah well Sigurd , since Boyars attempt was as expected back to your question .

You pretty much have it back in post #98 , what I wrote is (as is to be expected) slightly misleading , there is a general consensus amonst Christian theologians concerning image and likeness .
Over image it is an almost universal consensus .
Over likeness the consensus is that it isn't the same as image , the differences over likeness are about which attributes and to what scale for each attribute .

[Boyar Son]

Well if you know what I'm going to say then dont bother reading

If you want to say 'likeness' of God you can say we have dominion over all the creatures of the earth just as God does us. We can make decisions, create etc.

But these are just things in common with God. You might as well say we are in likeness with every other being in the world (which we are), but these shouldnt determine whether we are the complete copy of another and mean we all act exactly the same.

Your view of man being 'just' like God is farfetched(SP?), a son can look like the father, talk like him, walk like him, but will never be him. No one can have an exact essance (look at you and your parents, theres always a difference). God said in my 'image' not another exact me.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I just thought that I might point out, even though I'm sure everyone's thought of it, that we can neither prove that God exists or that He doesn't - we can simply believe either way. That is all it boils down to. I believe in God, somebody else may not. I won't try to prove them wrong, because I can't. I can only believe. Likewise, they cannot prove me wrong.

[Tribesman]

Your view of man being 'just' like God is farfetched(SP?),
Errrrrrr....the question was .....Image and Likeness , now you can go with the hebrew or you can go with the vulgate it makes no difference , what attributes do theologans include in the second word ?what are the essences of gods nature that are built in (in a serious christian understanding) to the nature of man taken (or given) from the creator ?
.....so you are not calling my view farfetched you are calling Christian theologians views farfetched ....thats a bit of a bugger for you since you claim to be a Christian and would as such belong to a church that follows these views .

[Bijo]

Hah hah hah! I haven't checked this thread for a while, but what a great one it is! :laugh4: It seems it is unnecessary for me to point out the obvious to BS since Tribesman has been busy with that part.

And now, since there is then reason to HATE or generally dislike God (due to His evil nature) why do most believers LOVE Him instead? Or praise Him? Or think that He is of good nature, that He might give them strength, and so on? HAH!!!! Is it fear? Is it a hardwired belief? Weakness? Yeah, something like that probably.

In any case, believers: check the facts already! ...or should I say logic? Your God -- IF He exists -- is an evil, possibly sadistic, being. I mean... how long has He been there already? Like what... forever? Don't you think that due to His ultimate superior and SUPREME power/ability He does not know what He is doing and what he HAS BEEN doing? He is God, for Christ's sake!

If God exists and has created all, then He is evil: end of this story.

Now, I shall take my leave and leave you all to discuss other.... "godly" matters :laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you don't stop this hate mongering I'm going to complain.

Look, you don't get religion. Fine. You don't like it. Fine.

Why do you need to attack it.

Why do you hate a God you say does not exist?

[Boyar Son]

Hah hah hah! I haven't checked this thread for a while, but what a great one it is! :laugh4: It seems it is unnecessary for me to point out the obvious to BS since Tribesman has been busy with that part.

And now, since there is then reason to HATE or generally dislike God (due to His evil nature) why do most believers LOVE Him instead? Or praise Him? Or think that He is of good nature, that He might give them strength, and so on? HAH!!!! Is it fear? Is it a hardwired belief? Weakness? Yeah, something like that probably.

In any case, believers: check the facts already! ...or should I say logic? Your God -- IF He exists -- is an evil, possibly sadistic, being. I mean... how long has He been there already? Like what... forever? Don't you think that due to His ultimate superior and SUPREME power/ability He does not know what He is doing and what he HAS BEEN doing? He is God, for Christ's sake!

If God exists and has created all, then He is evil: end of this story.

Now, I shall take my leave and leave you all to discuss other.... "godly" matters :laugh4:

Calm down, you lost. You say tribes is winning only because is arguing against me.

I told you my opinion on this, and just because you bring it up over and over means you didnt read my statements at all and are a pompous hateful man who will never understand anything but your own veiws.

I read what you said, and maybe God just doest give a damn about house cleaning. Who leaves it up to us, the main source of hate, to do something about it.

In a way we can change this, but instead we'll leave it up to God who 'just' because he can, will do it? How 'bout you do something instead of sitting on your sofa? will the world change? even for a little?

Bijo you know nothing of our religion, you and every other guy who insults it. Everyone here tried to prove he doesnt exist, but have they? or did they just leave? after the way you acted you dont dont have my respect at all.

[KukriKhan]

He is God, for Christ's sake!


Irony so deep, one needs an oar - nay, a thousand-foot till to plumb its depths. Thank you Bijo. :bow:

May both the image and likeness of civility prevail here, henceforth.