The Definition and Existence of God

[Adrian II]

Jehovah or Yahweh?

I think Richard Dawkins gives a far better description of him:

[..] a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And he is mincing his words there.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is not my impression at all. I have found Philipvs to be a good prize-fighter who gave me a run for my money every time. I enjoy this sort of thing and so does he.

It's just that once in a while I have to draw a line in the sand.

One can not, I repeat can not, profess in one thread to know nothing about God's substance, yet in another thread discuss Gods triple substance and even pretend to know where he sits, i.e. on God's right hand side.

Or was that Christ's left hand side? And where's the Holy Ghost in all this - is it doing the driving? For crying out loud. And to think that millions believe this blatant nonsense.

Enough for today. I need a drink.

Two Billion, nearly, more than are atheists.

Anyway, you're misrepresenting my position. You surely know I consider myself fallable, and that I believe in free will. Maybe you should ask why I support the Trinity in the other thread.

God is a name given to the unexplainable, both inward and outward.

"God" represents nothing more than our conscience and power of will. That there is an omniscient creature watching/controlling all our moves is incorrect.

All above statements are my opinion and might very well not be the truth. After all, there is no such thing as "The" truth. Truth is a relative concept which differs between people.

Unless we are talking about Truth, as in the ideal form. This is a given in Christian philosophy and theology, and the consequence is that "real" Truth is approachable but not attainable.

Jehovah or Yahweh?

Well, neither are actual names, nor is "God" or "god".

I think Richard Dawkins gives a far better description of him:

[..] a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And he is mincing his words there.

That's a biased description based on accounts written down by men. It conflicts with the other half of the Bible as well, which, of course, you know.

[Adrian II]

Two Billion, nearly, more than are atheists.

Lol, look at the trend. Religion is retreating everywere. In some western countries the critical mass is reached and half the population does not believe in a god, let alone in yours.

That's a biased description based on accounts written down by men. It conflicts with the other half of the Bible as well, which, of course, you know.

There we go again. It's religion a la carte, eh? The bible is said to be god's word, but hey, not all of it. Half of it (which you pick) is god's word and the other half of it is, well, a big mistake really.

Oh, but you make it even better by saying the bible is 'biased's it was written down by men. Oh noes! Was Matthew a Democrat? Did John have an 'agenda?

[Strike For The South]

There we go again. It's religion a la carte, eh? The bible is said to be god's word, but hey, not all of it. Half of it (which you pick) is god's word and the other half of it is, well, a big mistake really.

Oh, but you make it even better by saying the bible is 'biased's it was written down by men. Oh noes! Was Matthew a Democrat? Did John have an 'agenda?

This is probably the biggest problem I have. I was raised to beilive that the bible was the word of God. Which means I can't wear cotton and polyester mix and I have to look up what cloven means.

Alas I'm not smug or self-serving enough to be an atheist and all the cute girls belive in Jesus. I make up for it by not tything and sleeping in.

I remembered when I gave 1$ of my 10$ allowance to the church. Such simpler times.

[Adrian II]

Alas I'm not smug or self-serving enough to be an atheist and all the cute girls belive in Jesus.

Just regard the bible and other religious text as literature, just like Homer or Herodotus. As such they can be a great source of inspiration to anyone, without the hocus pocus about a guy in the sky. Many of these old texts dating from roughly 500 BC tot 500 AD are a sort of exploration of the human condition. They try to establish what it all means that we live, die, love, hate, possess, lose or covet, what power is and how it works, what war, family or the natural seasons are all about, in short: what makes man tick. The Gilgamesj Epic, Homer, Confucius, Buddha, the Old Testament, the Gospel writers all talk about those basic issues. That's why they are still hot today.

[Strike For The South]

Just regard the bible and other religious text as literature, just like Homer or Herodotus. As such they can be a great source of inspiration to anyone, without the hocus pocus about a guy in the sky. Many of these old texts dating from roughly 500 BC tot 500 AD are a sort of exploration of the human condition. They try to establish what it all means that we live, die, love, hate, possess, lose or covet, what power is and how it works, what war, family or the natural seasons are all about, in short: what makes man tick. The Gilgamesj Epic, Homer, Confucius, Buddha, the Old Testament, the Gospel writers all talk about those basic issues. That's why they are still hot today.

So does the backroom

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Lol, look at the trend. Religion is retreating everywere. In some western countries the critical mass is reached and half the population does not believe in a god, let alone in yours.There we go again. It's religion a la carte, eh? The bible is said to be god's word, but hey, not all of it. Half of it (which you pick) is god's word and the other half of it is, well, a big mistake really.

Nope, you know I don't regard the Bible as the Word of God, merely that written down by men, devout Men, but still men.

Straw Man.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I think Richard Dawkins gives a far better description of him:

[..] a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And he is mincing his words there.

Eh? A fellow atheist? Good to see that, very few people here seem to be pure atheists.

[Adrian II]

Eh? A fellow atheist? Good to see that, very few people here seem to be pure atheists.

Most atheists don't care for this sort of discussion, unless things become political and believers want to impose their nonsense on others in the name of Jesus or Mohammed or whatever. In my country where only a minority goes to church anymore, there is practically no debate on the principal issue, only on the question of how to deal with the excesses such as rabid imams who want to kill gays or some isolated Christian parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated against poliomyelitis or something.

Don't worry, we're mopping them up as I speak.

[Azathoth]

"All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world, or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligible moonshine."

[Louis VI the Fat]

Eh? A fellow atheist? Good to see that, very few people here seem to be pure atheists.

I don't even not believe in god enough to consider myself an atheist.


I am just not in a war mode right now - it's been ages since I read Richard Dawkins.

Unlike Adrian, who (re-?)read him recently.

[LittleGrizzly]

I get easily scared away by words such as 'metaphysical'...

My position is on the matter is fairly basic, I see an all powerful creature that is all knowing and exsists in both the past and the present and can do anything with just a thought as completely unrealistic...

I see anything less as an extremely advanced creature...

So by my own logic there is no God, this argument isn't very convincing though so I don't go around boring people with it...

[Rhyfelwyr]

[..] a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And he is mincing his words there.

A part from the first and last bits, that's all quite true.

But who says we deserve better? Strangely you mention all these temporal sufferings and not hell, yet these are only a shadow of what we deserve. Throughout the OT, such things are generally given as a display of God's attributes for the good of Israel, or the sad but necessary means of bringing a people to the promised land in a fallen world.

Dawkins obviously regards himself as a good, moral guy. Well, I disagree - for Dakwins, myself, and the rest of humanity. I think he will find his own standards lacking when put to more thorough observation.

[LittleGrizzly]

But who says we deserve better?

We don't cause pain to 'lower' beings than ourselves*, we use them practically to our benefit but we do not cause them unnessecary pain. Even if a dog has killed a little girl or something horrific if we are able to do so we will take down the dog in a non lethal manner.

So collectively we think animals deserve better, and we are much more moral than the animals**

So humans are more merciful and forgiving than God, by the sounds of it yes we deserve better...

*Im thinking collectively and legally...

** In that we will fight our natural instincts if its the wrong thing to do (steal food from a baby) whereas an animal would mostly (if not... other stuff )

[Azathoth]

We don't "deserve" anything. It's simply a matter of preference.

[Adrian II]

But who says we deserve better?

I do. Maybe I don't deserve better, maybe Dawkins is not a good man (I dont know him personally like you apparently do).

But my children deserve to live in a world without your petty, vindictive, pestilential paper god.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do. Maybe I don't deserve better, maybe Dawkins is not a good man (I dont know him personally like you apparently do).

But my children deserve to live in a world without your petty, vindictive, pestilential paper god.

To be honest, I don't think even Rhy actually likes his God, Adrian.

What about my infinitely merciful, benevolant, loving and compassionate God. Are your children better off without His as well?

[Adrian II]

What about my infinitely merciful, benevolant, loving and compassionate God. Are your children better off without His as well?

As long as he keeps his hands to himself.

But it is not the god of the bible you are talking about here. It is a god of your own choice and your own making. You make him up as you go really. In one post you state that a person can not know another person's substance, let alone god's substance. Yet in another post you discuss god's 'threefold substance' as if he had been your bowling partner for the last 25 years.

Arghh, millions of Napoleons

[Rhyfelwyr]

To be honest, I don't think even Rhy actually likes his God, Adrian.

What about my infinitely merciful, benevolant, loving and compassionate God. Are your children better off without His as well?

Nah he's a great guy. All I am saying is that temporal sufferings should not be used as an argument for God being nasty, when in fact all the harsh things throughout the OT are in some respect done for the good of the church. I'm not just talking about the slaying of the reprobate either. Even for those in covenant with God, look at their lives. Abraham, David, Moses, and most obviously Job; none of these guys had it easy, and yet their wordly sufferings were all in some way for their spiritual good.

As for your God being merficul, you don't even believe he died on the cross for our sins! You believe he only let Christ's human nature suffer in that respect.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As long as he keeps his hands to himself.

But it is not the god of the bible you are talking about here. It is a god of your own choice and your own making. You make him up as you go really. In one post you state that a person can not know another person's substance, let alone god's substance. Yet in another post you discuss god's 'threefold substance' as if he had been your bowling partner for the last 25 years.

Arghh, millions of Napoleons

You still haven't asked why I support Trinitarian doctrine.

The "God of the Bible" is a complete non-entity, you have to sift the books to see the shape God leaves begind. I sift the Gospels, Rhy sifts the Prophets etc.

As for your God being merficul, you don't even believe he died on the cross for our sins! You believe he only let Christ's human nature suffer in that respect.

What I believe is that we are saved through His infinite mercy, as exemplified by His sacrifice, and that the message of forgiveness and repentance can only be conveyed through the suffering of a God and King for His people.

As I said, I don't seperate Christ's natures, but I make the distinction between how the should be percieved, and how He can be percieved in different contexts. Such as whether he speaks primarily as a Man or a God. This is exactly the same distinction as I make about myself, depending on whether I am speaking as a Clerk or a Christian.

[Rhyfelwyr]

In one post you state that a person can not know another person's substance, let alone god's substance. Yet in another post you discuss god's 'threefold substance' as if he had been your bowling partner for the last 25 years.

Knowledge of the particular manifestations of God are a different matter entirely from knowledge of what God actually is. For example, we can claim that the Godhead is present in Christ, without comprehending the substance of the Godhead any more than if it was not.

What I believe is that we are saved through His infinite mercy, as exemplified by His sacrifice, and that the message of forgiveness and repentance can only be conveyed through the suffering of a God and King for His people.

Ah, the substitutionary atonement debate. Well, most of Christendom is with me on this one at least.