Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Major fail.
I would rather use the word Divinity instead of God as GOD carries a lot of baggage and denotes a Christian creator God. Divinity is the expression of what sustains the entire world, Brhman, unborn, uncreated, transcendental, pure existence, pure knowledge, and that which exists in every being.
That is your use of the word divinity as it is in your religion. The Abrahamic religions use divinity for the Abrahamic creator god, with some believing humans can attain divinity. We have explained the different divinities before.
That has been shown to be incorrect a number of times. You know this. We all agree that exterminating Jews was evil and wrong. But the Nazis in 1943 didn't think so.
Of course the Nazis did not think so, precisely because it is a human concept. But they practiced morality to the members in their own in-group.
But if your god commanded you to kill Jews, would you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
We all agree that human sacrifice is wrong, but there have been numerous civilizations over the years that have practiced it.
Of course other civilizations practiced human sacrifice, precisely because morality is a human concept. But they also practiced morality to the members in their own in-group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
That's an interesting theory. Now please demonstrate it's anything more than your opinion.
It is as if the Greek philosophers from over 2000 years ago did not exist.
I'm talking about the obsessive compulsive posts that we see almost nonstop from people attacking religion of any kind. For people that supposedly don't believe in God, or are defined as one who "lacks belief", they sure do act like they do believe, and hate God.
You have bad arguments.
You too attack other religions.
Some of the religious are attacking us (and you).
Yes, but in my experience the original claim (believers can't accept an uncreated universe) is far from valid, logical, reasonable or well justified. I've scarcely ever even heard it suggested.
They have no need to suggest it, because it is implicit in them arguing for the opposite, a creator god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
I don't think most theists became theists because they were persuaded we live in a created universe, but a large body of philosophical arguments and scientific evidence does point in that direction.
There is no large body of scientific evidence pointing to a creator, the conclusion of science is naturalism as a better alternative to any of the some god did it arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
Hence, metaphysical arguments like string theory, inflationary theory and multiverse theory attempt to avoid the obvious theistic implications.
No, they exist because they explain things better than the obvious theistic implications. 'Let there be light, and there was light' explains nothing.
I'm talking about the obsessive compulsive posts that we see almost nonstop from people attacking religion of any kind. For people that supposedly don't believe in God, or are defined as one who "lacks belief", they sure do act like they do believe, and hate God.
So you can do as you wish of course...
I'm just offering "one man's opinion" about how some of your comments come across, and perhaps more importantly, considering the topic or question posed by the title of this thread, to better focus on the topic at hand. You may appreciate some comments and not others. What's new about that or different for any of us?
What is god and what is emotionally driven is a question worthy of consideration in my opinion, and though there have been lots of comments posted about this that don't seem too worthy of attention in my opinion, it doesn't do this thread or topic any good to belly ache about them too much.
People act in all sorts of ways. Be they atheist or religious. Allow ourselves to get too distracted by those who can't stay focused on the subject at hand in a mature intelligent manner, and we only make matters worse rather than better. As such, these threads go right down the toilet of emotionally driven mud fights to nowhere.
I think I'll sign off now before this thread heads too much further in that direction as well...
I'm just offering "one man's opinion" about how some of your comments come across, and perhaps more importantly, considering the topic or question posed by the title of this thread, to better focus on the topic at hand. You may appreciate some comments and not others. What's new about that or different for any of us?
What is god and what is emotionally driven is a question worthy of consideration in my opinion, and though there have been lots of comments posted about this that don't seem too worthy of attention in my opinion, it doesn't do this thread or topic any good to belly ache about them too much.
People act in all sorts of ways. Be they atheist or religious. Allow ourselves to get too distracted by those who can't stay focused on the subject at hand in a mature intelligent manner, and we only make matters worse rather than better. As such, these threads go right down the toilet of emotionally driven mud fights to nowhere.
I think I'll sign off now before this thread heads too much further in that direction as well...
No offense taken. You may not like my opinion, and that's ok. But I stand by it. There are some people that act according to their hatred for something that supposedly doesn't exist.
You remind me of my in-laws who I recently spent some time with in Utah...
They are not very religious but they are believers and out of respect for their belief in God, they always say "my gad" instead of "my God." I always get a kick out of that, as if somehow it's the word we use that's important rather than the meaning, but that aside, you make another comment that reminds me of that visit.
I picked up a book they had sitting around titled "The Case for Christ," and I read just the first few pages. I was struck by the emphasis on accepting "God into your heart." You write that God received you into His heart. Interesting the many ways people describe this sort of thing, but the book went on to explain the importance of "humbling" one's self. Lots of language like that, which to me seemed mentally manipulative. All basically working toward getting people to abandon all critical thinking and questioning, as if we can't be humble if we ask questions. As if we should not objectively think about what we're being asked to believe. As if to do so is somehow not humble but some sort of arrogance.
Among the many reasons I struggle with religion more generally speaking, another is this kind of attempt to get people to unconditionally accept these notions about the religion being promoted. Beginning with "accepting God into one's heart." Acceptance that is what? Other than emotionally driven? What? Other than emotional driven persuasion to abandon our typical manner of consideration? Don't think. Just do as I say sort of thing.
Why?
Seems obvious to me that if you want someone to believe something that is not well justified by the facts, sound reason or logic, you've got to get that someone to suspend their normal manner of consideration. This is why so many rulers back in time created the illusion they were all powerful. Backed by the God's they got their followers to believe were there but really weren't. In fact to project themselves as gods themselves. Getting followers to believe these sorts of things isn't really that hard if the right language and "influence" is properly supplied in just the right way. A good dose of fear works wonders too.
A story and truth proven again and again over the course of human history going back to the beginning. A story and truth still working it's magic on many people right up to present day...
Concerning the bolded, and I'm glad you caught that. That is what I experienced, knowing the beginning of love in a same shared moment. If it had been the other way around, the role of beginning love or first love would have been reversed, as if it begins with me. You can see this in the story of Solomon, as he was given the name by God "Jedidiah" at birth, which means "beloved of God". He was given the commission to build God's House and a request to be granted. Seeking God first according to the name God gave him, he would have asked to live in God's House fulfilling the name with the granted request. Rather than marrying a thousand women as if love begins with him.
What people don't seem to get is that I grew up to adulthood doing whatever I wanted. And when God got my attention I attended what I now call commercialized religion, I found those religious leaders assumed a position of standing between God and me, and setting themselves up to be worshipped as god. And I walked away from that while continuing to walk with God and seek God's Heart. Which is why I tell people to seek God first as that is what guided me to see past them and what they were doing, because I knew God before I ever stepped foot in one of those places.
Please define morality and explain why you believe you can accurately assess God's morality. The sad thing is, you have to borrow from the Christian worldview to even make the argument. The natural world is amoral.
And christians are part of the natural world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
