|
Miltank posted:Any god but God is false by definition because God is the truth. That means God can not become god, as that would falsify himself, therefore God can not be God.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:42 |
|
Rodatose posted:Like I said, it's not ideal because it doesn't get rid of class structures, but if the domination of one class were to be so complete that no chance of reordering were to be available, at least they leave some accommodation for the underclasses so that they aren't constantly suffering. I know that in that case, I'd rather not be conscious of my own death and suffering. Is someone on a carefully-moderated heroin drip suffering?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Why has God never healed an amputee in the whole existance of human history? Oh hey look it's time for the best byline ever. E: VVV Yeah Miltank dude that certainly does sound like a very specific form of logic HaitianDivorce fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Any god but God is false by definition because God is the truth. My god is the words "Zionism is racism"
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Just think about it logically. If God wasn't God, then he would just be a god and some other god would be God who would be truth. But since God is truth we know that God, (not a god) is God.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
I define myself to be right, ergo i am right 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:My god is the words "Zionism is racism" those words, being true, are an aspect of God.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I define myself to be right, ergo i am right I define myself to be Deceit, ergo I am the Truth, because if I wasn't the Truth then I would be Deceit, which would make my statement that I am Deceit untrue, causing me to be the Truth, not Deceit. It's quite clear if you can just separate yourself from your emotions on the matter and look at it logically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Just think about it logically. If God wasn't God, then he would just be a god and some other god would be God who would be truth. But since God is truth we know that God, (not a god) is God. How much god could a god-God god if a god-God could god God?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Here you make assumptions, though. I would not accuse Plato of being an ascetic. He was a man of prestige and aristocracy, and never once preached asceticism in his works. Instead, he taught the importance of fitness and excellence in life. He did teach that the "golden souls" should not be too wealthy, and receive a public stipend, so as to avoid corrupting them with greed, but this is simplicity and humility, not asceticism, which is rather extreme. Er, I did not once refer to Plato or Jesus as ascetic or of Christianity being a religion of asceticism qua asceticism. I'm pointing out that Christianity was a drastic shift from Judaism when it spread across the Greco-Roman world and adopted the metaphysical elements of Platonic Idealism which led to a "stark metaphysical dualism between body and soul, the material and divine, as well as the denigration and disdain for material life. Whereas Judaism was more concerned with daily life and ways of living, Christianity was about purifying oneself of base material needs to merge with the divine." I elaborated on this in my next post. My point is that definitive elements of Christianity or Catholicism did not arise from within itself. Instead, those elements were coopted from other cultures that they spread out to. We already know that plenty of other traditionally Christian elements are just elements borrowed from Pagan cultures and religions: Christmas itself is likely taken from any number of winter holidays such as solstice festivals, Saturnalia, or more likely Natalis Invicti ("The Birth of the Unconquerable Sun") celebrated on December 25. Easter too is likely based on fertility festivals held in spring. So basically, if you're pushing for the idea that Catholicism is the One True Religion, you need to account for the fact that its original message and values were heavily diluted in the following centuries, particularly when it was incorporated into a drastically alien and polytheistic Imperial culture. This should come as no surprise: even in the modern day Christianity undergoes a lot of revisions and additions when it spread to the Asia and the Americas. Why would it be so surprising that the same would happen when it is adopted by Roman culture and the following Byzantine Imperial institutions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Why has God never healed an amputee in the whole existance of human history? On the other hand, octopi and starfish can regrow lost limbs, and I think flatworms can regrow their entire heads. Clearly God has an inordinate fondness for invertebrates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
God has divinely elected that newts can grow back their tails, yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Miltank posted:God has divinely elected that newts can grow back their tails, yes. And he divinely elected to have the Loa Loa feed upon the eyes of starving African children. I think it's pretty clear that God is the greatest force of evil and the devil a champion of goodness who was punished for trying to help and protect mankind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
I prefer Taoism, because "the Tao exists and does not exist by its very nature" is at least honest about being tautological. Oh and you can't actually adequately express it, and any statement you make about it will always be wrong; although words can help you understand it metaphorically. Also you know a Master by their actions rather than words or prestige; they arise naturally, and any teachings they have recieved merely pointed them towards the Tao regardless of the truth or falsehood of those teachings. The best possible teaching is by example, rather than words, however, since the Tao can only be grasped by intuition and through practice in everyday life. This also means, in principle, there is no inherent authority which comes from being a Master. And thanks to Chinese and its gender-neutral pronouns, it is clear that a woman is just as able to live according to the Tao as a man. I'm sure that actual Taoists can be as rigid and doctinaire as anyone else. I mean gently caress, there are whole fields of psuedio-science based on a metaphor (ying and yang) that is explicitly not supposed to be literally true! I just like seeing the idea that "God" is beyond knowing taken somewhat seriously. edit: My only probglem with it really is that evil is supposed to arrive from disharmony with the Tao, whereas I prefer the idea that God is both good and evil. Hail discordia! Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:40
|
|
Who What Now posted:And he divinely elected to have the Loa Loa feed upon the eyes of starving African children. None of that is biblical. ha-Satan is even more of an enemy of humanity than YHVH in Biblical terms, and the beasts in the Apocalypse of John are hardly friendly to mankind. Even in conventional Christian theology, Satan is hardly capable of being interpreted as benevolent. Giving him a Promethean role requires inventing your own religion.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:None of that is biblical. ha-Satan is even more of an enemy of humanity than YHVH in Biblical terms, and the beasts in the Apocalypse of John are hardly friendly to mankind. Even in conventional Christian theology, Satan is hardly capable of being interpreted as benevolent. Giving him a Promethean role requires inventing your own religion. Isn't the idea, in the wider context in which the Old Testament was written, that Satan is a title that is closer to "devil's advocate" than what we think of as the literal devil? Hence Satan asking God for permission to torment Job (apart from the faithful normally being protected from his power)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Innana is the one true Goddess. She's way older than God, for one. It's pretty stupid to worship fanfiction that some weirdos made up not even four thousand years ago because they wanted to have their own personal deity. I mean, Yahweh is descended from the cult of Yw, a sea god who sought to usurp Baal, who was once worshiped as the true God. Basically, all Christians are descended from usurpers who put their own false god on the top throne of a made-up pantheon. No honor at all. They've just done a good job of convincing each other over the years that they're right. It's pretty funny.
Kit Walker fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:None of that is biblical. ha-Satan is even more of an enemy of humanity than YHVH in Biblical terms, and the beasts in the Apocalypse of John are hardly friendly to mankind. Even in conventional Christian theology, Satan is hardly capable of being interpreted as benevolent. Giving him a Promethean role requires inventing your own religion. What about Genesis
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And he divinely elected to have the Loa Loa feed upon the eyes of starving African children. False dichotomy. There is no devil, or at least not as traditionally understood.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:False dichotomy. There is no devil, or at least not as traditionally understood. Same, except God.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Rastafarian discovers One Weird Trick to dismiss history of Christianity!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:None of that is biblical. ha-Satan is even more of an enemy of humanity than YHVH in Biblical terms, and the beasts in the Apocalypse of John are hardly friendly to mankind. Even in conventional Christian theology, Satan is hardly capable of being interpreted as benevolent. Giving him a Promethean role requires inventing your own religion. God created and controls all evil acts, thus all injustices are directly his fault and responsibility. Satan in not culpable for his actions, only God can be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:I'm pretty sure Innana is the one true Goddess. Oh, you mean the one that was fathered by God, descended through seven levels of the afterlife, shedding garments and glory at each stage, before being crucified only to rise again three days later and get worshiped by Palestinian Jews over a thousand years before Christ? The one that inspired a text so similar to the Ascension of Isaiah that it would get flunked for plagiarism in any lit-class on the planet? The one whose resurrection was secured by a ritual of consuming divine food and water? Syncretism? What's that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Imagine that there are two people, let's call them Steve and Jeff. And let's say that Steve starts a train rolling on tracks down a hill which have a fork at the bottom of the hill, and Jeff can control whether the train will take the left or right path on the tracks. On the left side of the tracks is 100 innocent newborn babies that will be killed by the train, and on the right side is absolutely nothing and if the train goes down that path then not only are all the babies saved but also world hunger will be solved and we will enter into a post-scarcity utopia. If Jeff chooses to allow the train to go down the left path is he not equally to blame for the deaths of the babies as Steve or at the very least partially responsible? Well it doesn't matter whether or not you believe Jeff is guilty because God isn't anything like that scenario. God both starts the train and ensures that there is only one track filled with infinite babies and also he set the train on fire and filled it with infinite puppies he wanted to see burn to death while on a train that was running over babies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Have a Yale lecture series on reading Torah: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mo-YL-lv3RY Hint: Torah is not for children
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Well it doesn't matter whether or not you believe Jeff is guilty because God isn't anything like that scenario. God both starts the train and ensures that there is only one track filled with infinite babies and also he set the train on fire and filled it with infinite puppies he wanted to see burn to death while on a train that was running over babies. Luckily, the world has already been redeemed by the death of Christ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Have a Yale lecture series on reading Torah: You should probably read the Old Testament again. Its pretty much Rated R.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Luckily, the world has already been redeemed by the death of Christ. Redemption cannot come from a source of pure evil. The world has no need to be redeemed, only to be freed from the machinations of a tyrant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:God created and controls all evil acts, thus all injustices are directly his fault and responsibility. Satan in not culpable for his actions, only God can be. You're on the right path. But if God created and controls all, and God is good, then does that mean all acts which are evil are ultimately not in fact evil?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You should probably read the Old Testament again. Its pretty much Rated R. R? Naw, its NC-17. Then the crazy idolators had to go and unite behind some tribal figure, and before you know it, you've got a sanitization of the stories.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:You're on the right path. But if God created and controls all, and God is good, then does that mean all acts which are evil are ultimately not in fact evil? God isn't good, God is unarguably evil. I thought I made that abundantly clear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:God isn't good, God is unarguably evil. I thought I made that abundantly clear. God is neither 'good' nor 'evil.' God is god; you're doing a disservice to god to assign morality to divine action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:God is neither 'good' nor 'evil.' God is god; you're doing a disservice to god to assign morality to divine action. You're doing a disservice to me by saying I can't judge God or ascribe morality to his actions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You're doing a disservice to me by saying I can't judge God or ascribe morality to his actions. You're an idolator, so you have fewer laws that apply to you. Also lol, who the gently caress are you to judge god?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You're doing a disservice to me by saying I can't judge God or ascribe morality to his actions. Don't judge me for imposing my worldview on things I don't believe exist!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You're doing a disservice to me by saying I can't judge God or ascribe morality to his actions. But that's the point. How and by what moral standard could you possibly judge God?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You're an idolator, so you have fewer laws that apply to you. Also lol, who the gently caress are you to judge god? I'm someone who is infinitely more moral than God. Who the gently caress are you to tell me I can't? -EDIT- Sakarja posted:But that's the point. How and by what moral standard could you possibly judge God? With my own standard. And as for how I pretty clearly typed it out with my hands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm someone who is infinitely more moral than God. Who the gently caress are you to tell me I can't? I'm the boot of your imagination, forever stomping upon your face. You do a disservice to athiests by showing the need to oppress their judgments. Religion isn't about god, its about the community that organizes to worship god, and you judge that community when you judge god. So, who the gently caress are you to judge others' community without presenting a viable alternative?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:You're on the right path. But if God created and controls all, and God is good, then does that mean all acts which are evil are ultimately not in fact evil? Yes, and it isn't, so I guess God is either not real or not good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
Anything that acts with a purpose can be judged, morally. The demand to not judge a fictional God on the basis of morality is essentially admitting that you can't defend their actions, so you have to retreat to absurdities. "Well, you see, it's above morality/logic/whatever. What does 'above' mean here? Oh, don't worry about that, all you have to know is that your objections aren't valid, because I said they aren't."
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:57
|
|