|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:God makes certain people nonbelievers on purpose, the "garbage" if you will, to make salvation taste all the sweeter for those to whom he gives it. Nice guy. This seems like a good time to ask: do you still believe in any of this poo poo?
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What does it mean "to let them blunder into oblivion"? If you assume that God is the origin and cause of all things, and that His principles are imprinted into all things (since according to Aquinas all things are made up of a more general thing and a difference, therefore God as the most general thing is passed to all the more concrete identities), and that through observation one may deduce the appropriate . Not to mention that despite the imperfections of human reason, one can still understand God's principles and the Holy Doctrine 1) through literal meaning in the Bible 2) through allegorical meaning in the Bible and in the nature 3) through the illumination of God's Grace. Thus it would seem that to a faithful Christian the world is literally overflowing with lectures and meaning that should guide them through every step of their journey. In that case free will is crucial as it allows the knowledge of Christian life to be developed in each individual according to their specific sensibilities and prevents nobody from acquiring true knowledge. Which goes back to my likening god to someone who's incredibly passive aggressive. If it's really that important that everyone obey and love him, and the only tool he really has of ensuring that that happens is persuading people (though, I'm not sure how that can be if he's really capable of knowing everything, being everywhere, and doing everything but whatevs) then shouldn't he, y'know, do that? Like, in person? And not rely on random other dudes to interpret his wishes for him? Like, when I'm trying to help someone understand a math problem or something, I don't just give them the basic concept at the start, leave the room, come back later to see if they've understood, and then tell someone else in the room to drop a pencil as part of a metaphor I'm hoping the person I'm tutoring picks up on (and then get really annoyed when they don't even notice the pencil drop). I actually work through the problem with them, and communicate with them so that both of us can eventually understand eachother's perspectives, and through that, impart my understanding of the problem to them. I would think someone who can be everywhere and know everything would have an easier time doing that than I do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:Which goes back to my likening god to someone who's incredibly passive aggressive. If it's really that important that everyone obey and love him, and the only tool he really has of ensuring that that happens is persuading people (though, I'm not sure how that can be if he's really capable of knowing everything, being everywhere, and doing everything but whatevs) then shouldn't he, y'know, do that? Like, in person? And not rely on random other dudes to interpret his wishes for him? It all makes sense if you picture God as being severely autistic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Reflects more on the men who wrote the poo poo. Paul, for example, was a psychopath.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What does it mean "to let them blunder into oblivion"? If you assume that God is the origin and cause of all things, and that His principles are imprinted into all things (since according to Aquinas all things are made up of a more general thing and a difference, therefore God as the most general thing is passed to all the more concrete identities), and that through observation one may deduce the appropriate . Not to mention that despite the imperfections of human reason, one can still understand God's principles and the Holy Doctrine 1) through literal meaning in the Bible 2) through allegorical meaning in the Bible and in the nature 3) through the illumination of God's Grace. Thus it would seem that to a faithful Christian the world is literally overflowing with lectures and meaning that should guide them through every step of their journey. In that case free will is crucial as it allows the knowledge of Christian life to be developed in each individual according to their specific sensibilities and prevents nobody from acquiring true knowledge. It seems as if "free will" is a sort of magic sparkling phrase here, like "personal responsibility" or "disruption." You posit that this ability to consider matters abstractly and decide on a course of action is uniquely human, which is fair enough, but it seems that the penalty for failing to choose the "correct" course is grotesquely disproportionate to any possible action taken. If God has designed the universe in such a way as to condemn people to literally eternal torment, He may be beyond our power to question, but we certainly don't have to approve-- and, of course, one might just as validly say "no, this theology makes God into the Devil."
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:Which goes back to my likening god to someone who's incredibly passive aggressive. If it's really that important that everyone obey and love him, and the only tool he really has of ensuring that that happens is persuading people (though, I'm not sure how that can be if he's really capable of knowing everything, being everywhere, and doing everything but whatevs) then shouldn't he, y'know, do that? Like, in person? And not rely on random other dudes to interpret his wishes for him? God isn't a person, and being everywhere and knowing everything in his case doesn't have the same significance as for the human body or human reason. Imagine - the cosmos is everywhere, contains everything and all laws according to which all phenomena behave. But the cosmos doesn't interact with each atom on a personal basis like a psychotherapist - and the Big Bang, aka the creating principle, doesn't impose universal laws by preaching, but rather by being the point from which all other things originate, and therefore upon which all other things depend. Similarly as far as theology can tell, the God is everywhere in the sense that He is the cause of all things; He knows everything because His existence is pure essence; and can do everything because without His existence no other existence could follow, and therefore all that happens happens only because of God's role as the original cause of creation. quote:Like, when I'm trying to help someone understand a math problem or something, I don't just give them the basic concept at the start, leave the room, come back later to see if they've understood, and then tell someone else in the room to drop a pencil as part of a metaphor I'm hoping the person I'm tutoring picks up on (and then get really annoyed when they don't even notice the pencil drop). I actually work through the problem with them, and communicate with them so that both of us can eventually understand eachother's perspectives, and through that, impart my understanding of the problem to them. I would think someone who can be everywhere and know everything would have an easier time doing that than I do. I don't agree. Christian ontology and the doctrine of substance and essence suggest that simply being in existence is enough to gain all the knowledge necessary for communicating the desire to receive the gift of Grace. It's part of human nature to see the more general by observing individual facts of nature, and so (because this generalization inevitably hints towards the point of origin of things) even when one can't access the truth of the Bible directly, by exercising basic human faculties of reason they can learn enough to realize that something's up. In Aristotlian terms, such philosophical thought is the entelechy of the human soul, and what distinguishes it from the more primitive souls of animals or plants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well when we talk about objective morality, we don't simply mean taking a morality and simply calling it 'objective', nor can we really say that because one morality is able of being enforced by brute strength over another, the the former is 'objective'. Not without assuming that might makes right, which is itself a moral position. No, you saying that ultimately all acts must be judged by this ultimate morality, and that that is inescapable. It's not adequate enough to say (as I have) that it is simply the subjective morality of the 'god' subject, supposing it exists, and therefore it is valid to reject it. Otherwise, what's the point, right? But the only way that's possible is if the the 'ultimate morality' is descriptive, that certain acts must logically be 'wrong' or 'bad', and that is the domain of objective logic. So I totally say that Hume's law still applies here, and the status of 'creator' grants no ability to disregard that. I cannot 'create' a mathematics that has 2+2 = 5 without violating the previous understandings of '2', addition and '5'. Similarly, creating an subject does not mean that you can call your own subjectivity 'objective', because that would violate what it for something to be 'subjective' or 'objective'. Please explain how you get from "all acts will be judged by the ultimate morality..." to your conclusion that the only way this is possible is if the ultimate morality exists in the form of is-ought statements. It might be semantics leading you astray. To call God's will subjective is to miss the point. That His mind encompasses all of creation and that creation itself is indeed the product of an act of will by God is something we've assumed for the sake of argument. But the same also goes for the Law, which represents the essence of morality rather than just one particular opinion on it. You seem to take the modern secular view, that morality is a strictly a question of indivual conscience, for granted and simply assume that it must remain so even in the presence of the all-knowing, all-powerful Deity. I think it would help if you could rid yourself of the notion that God is "arguing" with you about what is good and what is evil, or that the question must be up for debate (between God and man) just because we're able to come up with our own ideas about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I don't agree. Christian ontology and the doctrine of substance and essence suggest that simply being in existence is enough to gain all the knowledge necessary for communicating the desire to receive the gift of Grace. It's part of human nature to see the more general by observing individual facts of nature, and so (because this generalization inevitably hints towards the point of origin of things) even when one can't access the truth of the Bible directly, by exercising basic human faculties of reason they can learn enough to realize that something's up. In Aristotlian terms, such philosophical thought is the entelechy of the human soul, and what distinguishes it from the more primitive souls of animals or plants. I mean it's funny you mention Aristotle because he could, by definition, had known nothing of Christ, and certainly wasn't a Jew. So, if I understand correctly, he is burning on Satan's toasting fork right now - or at least, has a pretty substantial chance of doing so (and keep in mind, if I understand correctly, this is literally punishment in agony forever, no end possible)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Hey KE I haven't read the whole thread so if you've answered this before please let me know but I was wondering how you view the idea of atonement. Probably the biggest factor driving me away from Christianity when I was young (though not the only one) was how atonement was explained to me. Basically the way I've heard it was that man's sinning was an affront to the demands of justice that God has put in place, but when Jesus died on the cross he was punished in humanity's place, thus satisfying justice. What I don't understand is how someone innocent could be punished in place of someone else and this is supposed to be justice? I know in my heart that it is gravely unjust for someone to be punished for something they didn't do, even if they agree to it. The way I understand justice on an emotional level, the perpetrator must be made to see the error of their ways. So how could it ever be just for someone to be punished in place of someone else?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What if one is not a faithful Christian, but is instead, say, a medieval Jew or a Buddhist in the 3rd century AD? The latter could not (reasonably, anyway) have the Bible as their infallible guidepost, and the former already has his own book (with significant overlap) but may have been soured on his opinion of Christianity due to the actions of Christians, viz. murdering his cousin Moshe for allegedly poisoning the wells. With regards to the first problem, I don't see an issue - all the great thinkers of Christianity had great respect for their pagan predecessors. As for the latter - that's a controversial issue. Certainly growing outside specific religious influence doesn't block one from virtuous life - but if it leads them to become dispassionate, I guess we can assume they collect the same punishment (as in - lack of Grace) as Christians who become similarly corrupt. Besides, it would be presumptuous to claim that we know what their judgment will be like. We can only debate whether the act of the temporal Church towards them have been in accordance with its principles. quote:It seems as if "free will" is a sort of magic sparkling phrase here, like "personal responsibility" or "disruption." You posit that this ability to consider matters abstractly and decide on a course of action is uniquely human, which is fair enough, but it seems that the penalty for failing to choose the "correct" course is grotesquely disproportionate to any possible action taken. If God has designed the universe in such a way as to condemn people to literally eternal torment, He may be beyond our power to question, but we certainly don't have to approve-- and, of course, one might just as validly say "no, this theology makes God into the Devil." Similarly a man is precariously balanced on the edge because of the metaphysics of morals, and can never be sure if his actions have led to a state from which redemption is impossible. Therefore he is given to seek solace in faith and Love of God (in the Platonic sense of love: perception of virtue and perfection in the other, and desire to replicate it and further it in order to do good), because these terms are synonymous with striving to live according to the highest principles uncovered to man (which makes sense regardless of whether or not you ultimately get to be rewarded in the afterlife). And ultimately individuals may fail to live up to the standards set by the Revelation and by reason (or choose to do so consciously), regardless of whether they have faith or not, for reasons that may or may not be apparent - and feeling compassion for their strife and insecurity is a Christian virtue. All things considered, however, we do not know what happens to them beyond the veil, and it would be unchristian (albeit sadly common) to judge them as doomed sinners, or to curse God for what is but a speculation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So does this actually mean you don't go to Hell, if you observe things and start to see a grand design and a desire to be more like it, or does that just mean God and the elect get to laugh at you like a Japanese game show contestant? God doesn't get to laugh at you because that's a just a crude anthropomorphisation, and because according to the basic logic of Christianity God has an unconditional love of His creation (i.e.: he responds with spiritual enlightenment wherever a mind opens to it ) because all creation sprung from His essence. Also the "elect" compose the Church and are defined by their communion, so I don't know why they should laugh at you, which is in itself unchristian. Also, seeing as Aristotle and Plato are the founding stones of Christian theology, I doubt they were deemed as terrible sinners, even though their teachings were recommended with the obvious qualification that their pagan status must be held in mind when studying them. Also St. Augustine originally dismissed doctrinal differences between the pagan neo-Platonic philosophy of his teachers and Christianity. It seems to me you are mistaking God and afterlife for some kids who bullied you in high school. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:God doesn't get to laugh at you because that's a just a crude anthropomorphisation, and because according to the basic logic of Christianity God has an unconditional love of His creation (i.e.: he responds with spiritual enlightenment wherever a mind opens to it ) because all creation sprung from His essence. Also the "elect" compose the Church and are defined by their communion, so I don't know why they should laugh at you, which is in itself unchristian. As for Aristotle and Plato, isn't one of the major disputes between the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholics that the former feel the latter have more or less just baked in a whole bunch of pagan philosophy into their purportedly-Christian theology? I have to say that on the surface of it, they have a point. That said, when I consider what you said in the previous post, it sounds an awful lot like Buddhist conceptions of karma. I find these to be persuasive statements and a better idea for the nature of reality and various other problems than most of the Christian arguments - which seem, like you have here, to get a lot of the way there and then get hung up on small details.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:
I'm sorry, but this makes almost no sense to me. First, just in the sense that I can't tell precisely what is being argued here. Second, there's the idea that sin causes spiritual blindness, and as punishment, God withdraws grace and hardens the heart to make someone stop believing. But I thought the sacrifice of Jesus allowed God to forgive sins? And don't Christians sin all the time as well? Isn't that the point - that we are imperfect, sinful creatures who would perish but for the Grace of God in Christ? Is there some sin threshold that, once we pass, we'll fall into the worst sin of all, unbelief? This seems to suggest that unbelievers earned their hardened hearts by the depth and severity of the sin they committed, which is frankly insulting, and plainly untrue. How many murderers repented in jail and found Jesus? How many members of the Catholic clergy participated in the ring of pedophilia that scarred so many young boys for life? And I'm worse than THAT? How??? Because I drank alcohol before I was 21, or really wanted to have sex with some of my classmates growing up? Got angry and yelled at my mother? Somehow God could forgive rape and murder and allow those people back into the one true faith, but not my piddling teenage sins? If Jesus's sacrifice forgives all sin, then it makes no sense to say sin will be the cause of me losing favor with God. I guess I need to know your views on hell, what it is, and how one earns damnation to it. Is Christianity enough to get into heaven? Can a true believer deserve hell? Can a nonbeliever ever get into heaven? SedanChair posted:This seems like a good time to ask: do you still believe in any of this poo poo? I'm making all of my arguments from the perspective of it being true, but I consider myself religiously unaffiliated. If I can find a good reason to believe, I'll believe. I don't find it likely, however.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
MrWilderheap posted:Hey KE I haven't read the whole thread so if you've answered this before please let me know but I was wondering how you view the idea of atonement. Probably the biggest factor driving me away from Christianity when I was young (though not the only one) was how atonement was explained to me. Basically the way I've heard it was that man's sinning was an affront to the demands of justice that God has put in place, but when Jesus died on the cross he was punished in humanity's place, thus satisfying justice. What I don't understand is how someone innocent could be punished in place of someone else and this is supposed to be justice? I know in my heart that it is gravely unjust for someone to be punished for something they didn't do, even if they agree to it. The way I understand justice on an emotional level, the perpetrator must be made to see the error of their ways. So how could it ever be just for someone to be punished in place of someone else? It is a sacred mystery. But the only way it works is if Jesus was God. God put himself through painful death after living a perfect human life. He was not just some random person that was chosen. The idea of sacrifices which atone for sins is a theme of the Pentateuch. The title Lamb of God associates Jesus with the paschal lamb. It is safe to assume that God did not go through the ordeal of the incarnation in order to punish himself in our stead, as he is without fault. So why did He do it? I believe it was to show us, in the most perfect way, that the holiest of men would end up with the worst possible ending. That earthly justice was not the same as divine justice. "The last will be first, and the first will be last." It was also to teach us that God personally viewed earthly torments and temptations as endurable. The resurrection of Jesus shows that although we will suffer on Earth, we will ultimately arrive into the Kingdom of God, achieving the final victory. In short: we can atone through our sins by following Christ's example and lesson, and preaching the truth in spite of the earthly consequences, and acting with his love and mercy and generosity despite its cost to our earthly comfort. It is not only Christ's sacrifice that cures us of our sin, but our imitation of it, our willingness to "take up our cross" and follow him. In showing us the path to Calvary, God showed us the path of our own penance and salvation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:It is a sacred mystery. But the only way it works is if Jesus was God. God put himself through painful death after living a perfect human life. He was not just some random person that was chosen. Except for the part where he went apeshit and started whipping people with a scourge. That was pretty hosed up. Bad rear end, but also pretty immoral.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Not at all, they were changing money in God's temple.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
And?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Sin doesn't necessarily lie in any individual act. To sin is fundamentally to act in such a way that man's will rejects God's assistance in good living. As Augustine suggests in his arguments against the Pelagians, this obstacle that obscures God's Grace can be overcome by turning away from the trappings of man's physical frailty and desires (since sin is said to originate in lust and lead to death), and asking for God's guidance. Of course, this does have profound consequence for heretics and pagans: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm Therefore the hardening of heart comes not from committing a sin as is commonly understood (i.e. a murder, a theft) and it doesn't imply barbarism on account of the non-believers, as the common understanding of sin would lead us to believe. The shutters parable in my previous quote is indeed a good way to describe sin: It is to close one's heart (i.e. the centre of sensibility, charity, emotion) to the Love of God as described by Christianity. Edit: By the way, sinners who are educated in Christianity are supposed to be far worse offenders than those ignorant of it. So priests committing sexual abuse, murderers paying lip service to Jesus etc. may face a much stronger punishment unless they sincerely choose to abandon the temptations that led them to sin, and accept enlightenment. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And? And so chasing the fucks out was a moral action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:God isn't a person, and being everywhere and knowing everything in his case doesn't have the same significance as for the human body or human reason. Imagine - the cosmos is everywhere, contains everything and all laws according to which all phenomena behave. But the cosmos doesn't interact with each atom on a personal basis like a psychotherapist - and the Big Bang, aka the creating principle, doesn't impose universal laws by preaching, but rather by being the point from which all other things originate, and therefore upon which all other things depend. Similarly as far as theology can tell, the God is everywhere in the sense that He is the cause of all things; He knows everything because His existence is pure essence; and can do everything because without His existence no other existence could follow, and therefore all that happens happens only because of God's role as the original cause of creation. So "god" is just an anthropomorphisation of existence, and is therefore incapable of "knowing" or "doing" things? If that's the case then where does all the proscriptive stuff come from?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Except for the part where he went apeshit and started whipping people with a scourge. That was pretty hosed up. Bad rear end, but also pretty immoral. That's what troubles me more. Someone said, of course, that Jesus drove them out but Buddha would have persuaded them of their erroneous ways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Someone said, of course, that Jesus drove them out but Buddha would have persuaded them of their erroneous ways. Probably could've persuaded the tree too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:Probably could've persuaded the tree too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Miltank posted:And so chasing the fucks out was a moral action. Getting them out would be moral, whipping them with multiple barbed lashes is not, especially because it was more than likely unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I would actually say cursing the fig tree was more troublesome. The moneychangers in the temple were at least symbolically corrupting the divine with their actions, but the fig tree... was a fig tree. But Jesus zapped it because it didn't have a fig for him even though he knew it was out of season. You feel that bad for a fig tree? I'd be more concerned about it symbolizing the impending routing of Judea. As for the whip, more hippie-dippie thinkers like Tolstoy insist he was only shooing animals with it. But maybe Leo has a point: [He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables, and to those who sold doves he said, “Take these out of here, and stop making my Father’s house a marketplace.”] In John, this happens early on, but in Mark it happens near the end, and immediately after his withering of the fig tree. I suspect that this event was the thing that really made the priests turn against him. Nessus posted:Yeah, the Buddha didn't have the ancestry to lean on so he had to hustle harder. Paid off in the end of course. Do you know the story of the Buddha? He was born a wealthy prince. Jesus, by comparison, was born to a poor family.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:You feel that bad for a fig tree? I'd be more concerned about it symbolizing the impending routing of Judea. quote:Do you know the story of the Buddha? He was born a wealthy prince.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:You feel that bad for a fig tree? I'd be more concerned about it symbolizing the impending routing of Judea. I take it that that's a bad thing? Did jesus do that because he was a crazy person who cursed random stuff instead of helping?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:So "god" is just an anthropomorphisation of existence, and is therefore incapable of "knowing" or "doing" things? If that's the case then where does all the proscriptive stuff come from? The problem is that there is no clear answer. If you accept the classical proofs of God, we can know of God's existence as logically proven, but we can't know anything about His existence, except what is passed through the Scripture. So it is held as true that God has operative powers, described symbolically through the use of various bodily appendages, but it is unknown how this operative power is executed. As for the origin of the Christian doctrine - well, besides the Bible, Christianity accepts findings of philosophy, so in that dimension the proscriptive stuff came from the same rational activity as the moral system of any other major civilization.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Getting them out would be moral, whipping them with multiple barbed lashes is not, especially because it was more than likely unnecessary. Whipping greedy bankers is inherently good and moral.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Whipping greedy bankers is inherently good and moral. It would be best to make it so there were no bankers, or at least no greedy bankers, as we conceive them. Of course, I understand the rhetorical point you're making. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I'd be more concerned about God punishing a living being for failing to provide something out of season, when he could have just as easily made the fig tree give forth fruit, what with being God. Look at this moral judgment of God... from someone who claims to uphold a Jewish view of things, no less. God can get away with all sorts of killing in the OT, but he kills a plant to make a point and that's going too far? Repeat after me: God was not literally angry at the fig tree, he was using the fig tree as a symbol for his judgment of Judea. The fig tree symbolized the failure of Judea to produce a loyal generation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:I take it that that's a bad thing? Did jesus do that because he was a crazy person who cursed random stuff instead of helping? It symbolizes the end of the covenant with Israel, the end of Israel as the chosen people (because both the fig tree and Israel failed to produce fruit). What help is there to offer? As has been emphasized many times, in order to receive help from the Christian God, you must open your heart to him, which nobody can do in anybody's stead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Yeah, but if you keep reading he gets past that. It certainly wasn't used as an argument for the validity of his teaching. e: Also, of course, 'a prince' vs. 'the son of God and also literally and completely God' is a bit different, now isn't it Really though... you claimed he had no ancestry to lean on! Just admit you made a mistake for once...
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The problem is that there is no clear answer. If you accept the classical proofs of God, we can know of God's existence as logically proven, but we can't know anything about His existence, except what is passed through the Scripture. So it is held as true that God has operative powers, described symbolically through the use of various bodily appendages, but it is unknown how this operative power is executed. I unno, none of that sounds very uh...authoritative? I mean, yeah, blobviously philosophy happened and the bibble exists, but I'm really not sure why I'm expected to trust the words of one group of guys who have a book over any other. Kyrie eleison posted:Really though... you claimed he had no ancestry to lean on! Just admit you made a mistake for once... Royalty generally aren't known for being persuasive unless they have weapons and money to back up their words.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Miltank posted:And so chasing the fucks out was a moral action. If he was so perfect and cared about their immortal souls then yeah he could have persuaded them without leaving them with contusions and supperating wounds yeah good luck getting those treated with 1st century medicine. And re: hardening hearts quote:Exodus 4:21 Not to mention killing Egyptian children to prove a point. That's some cartel poo poo. Kyrie eleison posted:You feel that bad for a fig tree? It is kind of BPD that God needlessly destroyed part of God's creation for reasons. But I guess he got used to that after drowning to death almost all living things. He should have saved some of that to, I dunno, shoot some lightning at concentration camp guards and Mengele but whatever, I guess all those antediluvian babies were incredibly more wicked than Nazis that tortured children to death. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Whipping greedy bankers is inherently good and moral. Just? Maybe-probably. Good and Moral? No. Kyrie eleison posted:Do you know the story of the Buddha? He was born a wealthy prince. Jesus, by comparison, was born to a poor family. And then he gave up all worldly possessions to transcend the need for them and rose above all other earthly needs as well to achieve enlightenment. Jesus, by comparison, inherits all things within heaven and earth and his churches gold themselves in ill gotten gold and jewels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Look at this moral judgment of God... from someone who claims to uphold a Jewish view of things, no less. God can get away with all sorts of killing in the OT, but he kills a plant to make a point and that's going too far? So did Jesus actually kill an actual fig tree, or is the entire thing a symbolic metaphor? For that matter, how happy should we be if God is entirely inclined to privilege symbolic matters (making a narrative point over Judean righteousness) over concrete ones (killing a living thing that had done no wrong)? This seems to teach that God feels that symbolic acts are more important than genuine ones, and it suggests that Christ set out to stage this entire thing for the benefit of posterity. In turn, if God is the motivator of all things, it suggests that this fig tree's entire purpose in life was to be killed to make a narrative point... which would seem to suggest that, in turn, any, or all, human beings could be killed or tormented purely for the sake of illustrating a metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Nessus posted:... which would seem to suggest that, in turn, any, or all, human beings could be killed or tormented purely for the sake of illustrating a metaphor. Just ask Job's family!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And then he gave up all worldly possessions to transcend the need for them and rose above all other earthly needs as well to achieve enlightenment. Jesus, by comparison, inherits all things within heaven and earth and his churches gold themselves in ill gotten gold and jewels. Again, I don't know if any of you even know the story of the Buddha, but his great Awakening was that he ultimately rejected the ascetic path and pursued a "Middle Way" of moderation, not one of "giving up all worldly possessions and earthly needs."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Again, I don't know if any of you even know the story of the Buddha, but his great Awakening was that he ultimately rejected the ascetic path and pursued a "Middle Way" of moderation, not one of "giving up all worldly possessions and earthly needs."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:26
|
|