Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christianity

Hurstman
Posts: 739
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 7:35:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hey, I have a question for any Christian on this site. This isn't meant to be offensive, only educational.

If God is perfect, that makes him incapable of being imperfect. Humans are imperfect, having human emotions. If God were proven to have human emotions, that would make him imperfect. Human emotions consist of Anger, Love, and Jealousy. If God were proven to have any of these, he's proven false. Christianity would be false as well. God is "Slow to anger". But still capable of it. God is a "jealous god", when it comes to worshipping other idols. Lastly, God loves us. I rest my case.
Cody_Franklin- "You aren't the sharpest bulb in the box, are you?"

Strikeeagle84015- "Why would you want a sharp bulb?"

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people" --Eleanor Roosevelt
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 8:09:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wow you discovered a Abrahamic God, logical inconsistency WOW. My answer is all the above are true simultaneously, God is make it possible because he's sik like dat.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 8:17:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 7:35:27 AM, Hurstman wrote:
Hey, I have a question for any Christian on this site. This isn't meant to be offensive, only educational.

If God is perfect, that makes him incapable of being imperfect.
He isnt imperfect; but still it does not logicaly follow that just cause you are perfect at a given moment that you are incapable of ceasing to be.
Humans are imperfect, having human emotions.
Uhh, No our emotions are not factors that define us as imperfect. If your thinking they are because they can play a role in reasons for sinfull or imperfect actions that is just a coincidental mediem, not an actual source cause of the imperfection.
If God were proven to have human emotions, that would make him imperfect. Human emotions consist of Anger, Love, and Jealousy. If God were proven to have any of these, he's proven false.
It would prove him not a robot/android
Christianity would be false as well.
No cause thats not what we christians teach.
God is "Slow to anger". But still capable of it.
thats because anger can be good and a rightous thing. If ones 'drive' is low it can be fuled by it. tis possible that anger as a drive can be used incorrectly but that does not make it inherantly an imperfect quality. Just like the fact that arguing can be done inappropriatly does not inhearently make debate a bad practice.
God is a "jealous god", when it comes to worshipping other idols.
he should be, it is right and just that we worship one as awsome as him considering all he's done for us, and all he's not doing to us. And yet an occurance as stupid as worshipping stones and the moon, ect.... has occured. I bet if you were god and saw that happen you would go 'WTF' too.
Lastly, God loves us.
Love is good. He cammands us to love. if God wants us to be perfect he would not tell us to do an imperfect thing.
I rest my case.

Do please explain the premise of musing that 'emotions make humans imperfect' please.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 8:23:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 8:17:28 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 5/6/2010 7:35:27 AM, Hurstman wrote:
Hey, I have a question for any Christian on this site. This isn't meant to be offensive, only educational.

If God is perfect, that makes him incapable of being imperfect.
He isnt imperfect; but still it does not logicaly follow that just cause you are perfect at a given moment that you are incapable of ceasing to be.
Humans are imperfect, having human emotions.
Uhh, No our emotions are not factors that define us as imperfect. If your thinking they are because they can play a role in reasons for sinfull or imperfect actions that is just a coincidental mediem, not an actual source cause of the imperfection.
If God were proven to have human emotions, that would make him imperfect. Human emotions consist of Anger, Love, and Jealousy. If God were proven to have any of these, he's proven false.
It would prove him not a robot/android
Christianity would be false as well.
No cause thats not what we christians teach.
God is "Slow to anger". But still capable of it.
thats because anger can be good and a rightous thing. If ones 'drive' is low it can be fuled by it. tis possible that anger as a drive can be used incorrectly but that does not make it inherantly an imperfect quality. Just like the fact that arguing can be done inappropriatly does not inhearently make debate a bad practice.
God is a "jealous god", when it comes to worshipping other idols.
he should be, it is right and just that we worship one as awsome as him considering all he's done for us, and all he's not doing to us. And yet an occurance as stupid as worshipping stones and the moon, ect.... has occured. I bet if you were god and saw that happen you would go 'WTF' too.
Lastly, God loves us.
Love is good. He cammands us to love. if God wants us to be perfect he would not tell us to do an imperfect thing.
I rest my case.

Do please explain the premise of musing that 'emotions make humans imperfect' please.

Why bother?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 8:26:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 8:23:12 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

Why bother?

cause its what this website is for.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Hurstman
Posts: 739
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 8:28:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 8:17:28 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 5/6/2010 7:35:27 AM, Hurstman wrote:
Hey, I have a question for any Christian on this site. This isn't meant to be offensive, only educational.

If God is perfect, that makes him incapable of being imperfect.
He isnt imperfect; but still it does not logicaly follow that just cause you are perfect at a given moment that you are incapable of ceasing to be.

So God is only perfect at given moments? I still think being perfect is a full-time job.

Humans are imperfect, having human emotions.
Uhh, No our emotions are not factors that define us as imperfect. If your thinking they are because they can play a role in reasons for sinfull or imperfect actions that is just a coincidental mediem, not an actual source cause of the imperfection.

Even if you don't buy that human emotions are imperfect because they can lead to sin, thus possibly leading God to sin, remember that God is supreme. We as human's can try to fit him into the context of human reality, but really he has nothing in common with us. That would make him imperfect. So if he shares common emotions with us, he's imperfect. Kleptin: "If God shares our image, I want to worship a different God.".

If God were proven to have human emotions, that would make him imperfect. Human emotions consist of Anger, Love, and Jealousy. If God were proven to have any of these, he's proven false.
It would prove him not a robot/android

This makes no sense. Your saying that God would be a robot without emotions. Well, what's wrong with being a robot? Because they don't have free will? Who says God has free will. How do we know he can CHOOSE to be evil?

Christianity would be false as well.
No cause thats not what we christians teach.

Then do you Christians teach?

God is "Slow to anger". But still capable of it.
thats because anger can be good and a rightous thing. If ones 'drive' is low it can be fuled by it. tis possible that anger as a drive can be used incorrectly but that does not make it inherantly an imperfect quality. Just like the fact that arguing can be done inappropriatly does not inhearently make debate a bad practice.

Still, if God has anger that connects him to humans, making him imperfect.

God is a "jealous god", when it comes to worshipping other idols.
he should be, it is right and just that we worship one as awsome as him considering all he's done for us, and all he's not doing to us. And yet an occurance as stupid as worshipping stones and the moon, ect.... has occured. I bet if you were god and saw that happen you would go 'WTF' too.

Still, if God has anger that connects him to humans, making him imperfect.

Lastly, God loves us.
Love is good. He cammands us to love. if God wants us to be perfect he would not tell us to do an imperfect thing.

Still, if God has anger that connects him to humans, making him imperfect.

I rest my case.

Do please explain the premise of musing that 'emotions make humans imperfect' please.
Cody_Franklin- "You aren't the sharpest bulb in the box, are you?"

Strikeeagle84015- "Why would you want a sharp bulb?"

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people" --Eleanor Roosevelt
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 8:38:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 8:17:28 AM, Marauder wrote:
He isnt imperfect; but still it does not logicaly follow that just cause you are perfect at a given moment that you are incapable of ceasing to be.

Something that is perfect is unchanging. Therefore, something that is perfect cannot cease being perfect.

Uhh, No our emotions are not factors that define us as imperfect. If your thinking they are because they can play a role in reasons for sinfull or imperfect actions that is just a coincidental mediem, not an actual source cause of the imperfection.

Our emotions serve no particular use except to define the human experience. Why would God have need for a human experience?

It would prove him not a robot/android

Are you forgetting the millions of other living species on this planet that don't have our particular emotions? You don't find it peculiar that God has the exact emotions of our particular species?

No cause thats not what we christians teach.

It's exactly what you Christians teach.

thats because anger can be good and a rightous thing. If ones 'drive' is low it can be fuled by it. tis possible that anger as a drive can be used incorrectly but that does not make it inherantly an imperfect quality. Just like the fact that arguing can be done inappropriatly does not inhearently make debate a bad practice.

You totally miss the point. It has nothing to do with whether or not it can be good and righteous. Is it logically applicable to the nature of God? No.

he should be, it is right and just that we worship one as awsome as him considering all he's done for us, and all he's not doing to us. And yet an occurance as stupid as worshipping stones and the moon, ect.... has occured. I bet if you were god and saw that happen you would go 'WTF' too.

This bullsh*t is exactly why a perpetual chain of idiocy stems from anthropocentrism. Will you stop assuming that God is human?

Love is good. He cammands us to love. if God wants us to be perfect he would not tell us to do an imperfect thing.

God has never commanded any man to do anything. Men have. Love is not good, love is neutral. Love is the result of a very particular series of biochemical reactions in the brain. Humans find that love is very important, and to humans, it is. Just like how swimming is important to fish and how flying is important to birds. But human love is not very important to either birds or fish. Why would the creator of everything be so obsessed with a random human trait?

Because we made God, not vice versa.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 8:43:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I told you Marauder.

On the question of Perfection, as in omnipotence. The very ability of being perfect allows you to be perfect and imperfect. Omnipotence is the ultimate oxymoron.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 9:04:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 8:28:23 AM, Hurstman wrote:

So God is only perfect at given moments? I still think being perfect is a full-time job.
He is perfect all the time, but I see know reason for the presence of the disciplen requiered to be pefect to enslave the self deciplened one to perfection.


Even if you don't buy that human emotions are imperfect because they can lead to sin, thus possibly leading God to sin, remember that God is supreme. We as human's can try to fit him into the context of human reality, but really he has nothing in common with us. That would make him imperfect. So if he shares common emotions with us, he's imperfect. Kleptin: "If God shares our image, I want to worship a different God.".

If a doorknob have Liqued Crystle Diodes in it, does that make it imperfect becaue it ultimately fails to be a TV? No, for a doorknob to be Perfect, it needs to hold the door shut when closed even if a draft trys to pull it open, it needs to turn so door can open, and to really sup it up to full potential the doorknob should have a lock to it can keep people from one side of the doorknob from turning it undesirably. a TV does not need to do any of those things and cant, but that does not make it imperfect. is it imperfect because it is hard, like a doorknob or that it has a 'lock' setting in common with the doorknob? No the TV is everything its suposed to be and how that compairs to what a doorknob, similaraities existing or not, are irrelevant.


This makes no sense. Your saying that God would be a robot without emotions. Well, what's wrong with being a robot? Because they don't have free will?
no cause emotionlessness is lame.
Who says God has free will. How do we know he can CHOOSE to be evil?
theres no reason to think he cannot.

Then do you Christians teach?
That emotional are good in proper application. that anything that is evil is a perversion of something that is good because only good was created, evil comes from taking existing good and twisting it.


Still, if God has anger that connects him to humans, making him imperfect.
continued in above analogy with doorknobs


Still, if God has anger that connects him to humans, making him imperfect.
again, above.


Still, if God has anger that connects him to humans, making him imperfect.
whoa, deja vu...
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 9:08:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 8:43:48 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I told you Marauder.
On the question of Perfection, as in omnipotence. The very ability of being perfect allows you to be perfect and imperfect. Omnipotence is the ultimate oxymoron.

In other words, the very nature of God is to be incomprehensible.

I agree.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 9:18:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 8:38:16 AM, Kleptin wrote:

Something that is perfect is unchanging. Therefore, something that is perfect cannot cease being perfect.
Is the weather imperfect because it changes from spring to summer to fall to winter? No
Changing or capable of flux =/= flawed


Our emotions serve no particular use except to define the human experience. Why would God have need for a human experience?
why do I need to eat cake? why do you need a computer to type on? It ultimately is a pointless question, need or dont it dosnt matter.

It would prove him not a robot/android

Are you forgetting the millions of other living species on this planet that don't have our particular emotions? You don't find it peculiar that God has the exact emotions of our particular species?
who say's dogs cannot love? and describing the emotions of another as exactly the same is very assuming. if I feel something you never have I had to describe it to you I would be forced to tell you its something compairable but not exactly the same that you have experinced.

It's exactly what you Christians teach.

My actions right now contradict that statement.

You totally miss the point. It has nothing to do with whether or not it can be good and righteous. Is it logically applicable to the nature of God? No.
If anger can be good its not contradictory that an all good being could have it. it dosnt explicitly demand that he does have it but the possibility of him having it is not a contradiction

This bullsh*t is exactly why a perpetual chain of idiocy stems from anthropocentrism. Will you stop assuming that God is human?

I am not assuming he is human. humans are BIOs while God is a ZOE (reference to C.S. Lewis book 'mere christianity') point is a carving of wood is not what he is.


God has never commanded any man to do anything. Men have. Love is not good, love is neutral. Love is the result of a very particular series of biochemical reactions in the brain. Humans find that love is very important, and to humans, it is. Just like how swimming is important to fish and how flying is important to birds. But human love is not very important to either birds or fish. Why would the creator of everything be so obsessed with a random human trait?

false assumtion hear: trait is random
Ignorante statement hear: God cammanded nothing of the sort. (love thy neighbor as thyself, kind of a command dude)

Because we made God, not vice versa.
Tell yourself that when you go to bed each night.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 9:38:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 9:18:32 AM, Marauder wrote:
Is the weather imperfect because it changes from spring to summer to fall to winter? No
Changing or capable of flux =/= flawed

This attempt at using an analogy makes absolutely no sense. Is the weather perfect to begin with? Any change from perfection is imperfection. There's only one way for a thing to be perfect.

why do I need to eat cake? why do you need a computer to type on? It ultimately is a pointless question, need or dont it dosnt matter.

This is a pseudo-intellectual and irrelevant response to a completely different question. I'm asking you to explain why you think God has a particular characteristic, and you're shrugging your shoulders and giving me the economic report of France.

who say's dogs cannot love? and describing the emotions of another as exactly the same is very assuming. if I feel something you never have I had to describe it to you I would be forced to tell you its something compairable but not exactly the same that you have experinced.

No one says dogs can't love. I said there are millions of other species on this planet who don't share our emotions. Would you like a hat to put on your straw man? You are describing God as being all-loving. Does God love the same way humans love, yes or no?

My actions right now contradict that statement.

No, they don't. You're responding to my points the same way that a normal Christian does.

If anger can be good its not contradictory that an all good being could have it. it dosnt explicitly demand that he does have it but the possibility of him having it is not a contradiction

I'm not talking about anger contradicting the nature of god as good. I'm talking about anger contradicting the nature of god as IMMORTAL. Humans get angry because chemicals tell them to prepare for a threat or to deal with danger. Why would God get angry?

I am not assuming he is human. humans are BIOs while God is a ZOE (reference to C.S. Lewis book 'mere christianity') point is a carving of wood is not what he is.

I don't care what you call it. If you call a dog's tail a leg, it doesn't have five legs. A rose by any other name. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. Even if you don't understand logic, I'm sure you understand common sense. Your imaginary God inexplicably has all of these side-effects of being human that he has absolutely no need for. Humans experience these emotions as a result of chemical reactions telling them to STAY ALIVE and BE ALERT and HAVE SEX WITH OTHERS, etc.

Why would God have these random emotions that as far as we know, have purpose only in the human experience?

false assumtion hear: trait is random

Not an assumption. If you can prove to me that God has these traits for a reason, I'm converting to Christianity.

Ignorante statement hear: God cammanded nothing of the sort. (love thy neighbor as thyself, kind of a command dude)

Commandments were kind of made up by men dude. The Bible was kind of written my men dude. Jesus was basically a man dude. Kind of said by Pitticus, Thales, Sextus, Isocrates, Epictetus, a few hundred years before Christ dude. Kind of said by Confucius a few hundred years before Christ dude. Kind of written in the Tao Te Ching a few hundred years before Christ dude.

All of the above are dudes, dude. Not a God. Not a deity.

The golden rule shows up in the Bible several times, but if you can ever prove to me that they came directly from the mouth of God and not from a man writing stuff, then I'm converting to Christianity.

Tell yourself that when you go to bed each night.

I'm not Christian. I don't need to confirm my beliefs before I go to sleep :)
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 10:09:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 9:08:20 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/6/2010 8:43:48 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I told you Marauder.
On the question of Perfection, as in omnipotence. The very ability of being perfect allows you to be perfect and imperfect. Omnipotence is the ultimate oxymoron.

In other words, the very nature of God is to be incomprehensible.

I agree.
...
Remember
Incomprehensible =/= Untrue
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Hurstman
Posts: 739
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 10:19:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 9:04:00 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 5/6/2010 8:28:23 AM, Hurstman wrote:

So God is only perfect at given moments? I still think being perfect is a full-time job.
He is perfect all the time, but I see know reason for the presence of the disciplen requiered to be pefect to enslave the self deciplened one to perfection.

Kleptin : "Something that is perfect is unchanging. Therefore, something that is perfect cannot cease being perfect."



Even if you don't buy that human emotions are imperfect because they can lead to sin, thus possibly leading God to sin, remember that God is supreme. We as human's can try to fit him into the context of human reality, but really he has nothing in common with us. That would make him imperfect. So if he shares common emotions with us, he's imperfect. Kleptin: "If God shares our image, I want to worship a different God.".

If a doorknob have Liqued Crystle Diodes in it, does that make it imperfect becaue it ultimately fails to be a TV? No, for a doorknob to be Perfect, it needs to hold the door shut when closed even if a draft trys to pull it open, it needs to turn so door can open, and to really sup it up to full potential the doorknob should have a lock to it can keep people from one side of the doorknob from turning it undesirably. a TV does not need to do any of those things and cant, but that does not make it imperfect. is it imperfect because it is hard, like a doorknob or that it has a 'lock' setting in common with the doorknob? No the TV is everything its suposed to be and how that compairs to what a doorknob, similaraities existing or not, are irrelevant.

We can't apply this analogy because God is unlike any human made object. God is the doorknob, but as God he can be the TV. We can manipulate this analogy over and over, but it can't be applied to God.


This makes no sense. Your saying that God would be a robot without emotions. Well, what's wrong with being a robot? Because they don't have free will?
no cause emotionlessness is lame.

Even stating this makes me doubt whether you know what your defending. Your advocating that God cannot be "lame". Above all other things, lame is just a human word to describe a human.

Who says God has free will. How do we know he can CHOOSE to be evil?
theres no reason to think he cannot.

That goes against what you Christians teach. That would be like two Satans. That would make God a hypocrite.

Then do you Christians teach?
That emotional are good in proper application. that anything that is evil is a perversion of something that is good because only good was created, evil comes from taking existing good and twisting it.

Then how can God turn evil if he was never created, thus not being able to be twisted??????? =)


Still, if God has anger that connects him to humans, making him imperfect.
continued in above analogy with doorknobs


Still, if God has anger that connects him to humans, making him imperfect.
again, above.


Still, if God has anger that connects him to humans, making him imperfect.
whoa, deja vu...
Cody_Franklin- "You aren't the sharpest bulb in the box, are you?"

Strikeeagle84015- "Why would you want a sharp bulb?"

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people" --Eleanor Roosevelt
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 10:23:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 10:09:21 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Remember
Incomprehensible =/= Untrue

I never said it was. It basically goes like this:

If the nature of God is incomprehensible, then the basis by which Christianity founds its beliefs is shaken down to the core.

A tree grows from its roots and forms a trunk. Further up, the trunk branches, and those branches form other branches, and those branches form other branches, which form leaves and fruit.

Christians only concern themselves with the fruit and the leaves, and take everything else for granted.

Atheists intend to destroy the tree and all its parts, from the fruit to the roots.

I don't intend to destroy the tree. I'm just chopping off all the branches and the trunk and leaving only the roots.

God is loving. God is just. God is jealous. God has a voice. God can be angered. God can be forgiving.

These are all things that are ASSUMED to be true. We've just covered that the nature of God is incomprehensible. These things, which are assumed to be true, HAVE NO LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT.

As such, I can accept it when Christians say that God exists. Alright, sure. If it pleases you. It's when they start coming up with traits that make no sense that they dig themselves in a hole.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Hurstman
Posts: 739
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 10:24:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 9:18:32 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 5/6/2010 8:38:16 AM, Kleptin wrote:

Something that is perfect is unchanging. Therefore, something that is perfect cannot cease being perfect.
Is the weather imperfect because it changes from spring to summer to fall to winter? No
Changing or capable of flux =/= flawed

Only God is perfect, thus the Christian God is false.


Our emotions serve no particular use except to define the human experience. Why would God have need for a human experience?
why do I need to eat cake? why do you need a computer to type on? It ultimately is a pointless question, need or dont it dosnt matter.

By God "eating that cake" or giving himself those emotions, he makes himself imperfect.

It would prove him not a robot/android

Are you forgetting the millions of other living species on this planet that don't have our particular emotions? You don't find it peculiar that God has the exact emotions of our particular species?
who say's dogs cannot love? and describing the emotions of another as exactly the same is very assuming. if I feel something you never have I had to describe it to you I would be forced to tell you its something compairable but not exactly the same that you have experinced.

It's exactly what you Christians teach.

My actions right now contradict that statement.

You totally miss the point. It has nothing to do with whether or not it can be good and righteous. Is it logically applicable to the nature of God? No.
If anger can be good its not contradictory that an all good being could have it. it dosnt explicitly demand that he does have it but the possibility of him having it is not a contradiction

This bullsh*t is exactly why a perpetual chain of idiocy stems from anthropocentrism. Will you stop assuming that God is human?

I am not assuming he is human. humans are BIOs while God is a ZOE (reference to C.S. Lewis book 'mere christianity') point is a carving of wood is not what he is.

Your putting him in human context, thus assuming he is human/has human qualities


God has never commanded any man to do anything. Men have. Love is not good, love is neutral. Love is the result of a very particular series of biochemical reactions in the brain. Humans find that love is very important, and to humans, it is. Just like how swimming is important to fish and how flying is important to birds. But human love is not very important to either birds or fish. Why would the creator of everything be so obsessed with a random human trait?

false assumtion hear: trait is random
Ignorante statement hear: God cammanded nothing of the sort. (love thy neighbor as thyself, kind of a command dude)

Because we made God, not vice versa.
Tell yourself that when you go to bed each night.

Christian like comment? I think not...
Cody_Franklin- "You aren't the sharpest bulb in the box, are you?"

Strikeeagle84015- "Why would you want a sharp bulb?"

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people" --Eleanor Roosevelt
Hurstman
Posts: 739
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 10:25:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 10:23:47 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/6/2010 10:09:21 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Remember
Incomprehensible =/= Untrue

I never said it was. It basically goes like this:

If the nature of God is incomprehensible, then the basis by which Christianity founds its beliefs is shaken down to the core.

A tree grows from its roots and forms a trunk. Further up, the trunk branches, and those branches form other branches, and those branches form other branches, which form leaves and fruit.

Christians only concern themselves with the fruit and the leaves, and take everything else for granted.

Atheists intend to destroy the tree and all its parts, from the fruit to the roots.

I don't intend to destroy the tree. I'm just chopping off all the branches and the trunk and leaving only the roots.

God is loving. God is just. God is jealous. God has a voice. God can be angered. God can be forgiving.

These are all things that are ASSUMED to be true. We've just covered that the nature of God is incomprehensible. These things, which are assumed to be true, HAVE NO LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT.

As such, I can accept it when Christians say that God exists. Alright, sure. If it pleases you. It's when they start coming up with traits that make no sense that they dig themselves in a hole.

Well put. =)
Cody_Franklin- "You aren't the sharpest bulb in the box, are you?"

Strikeeagle84015- "Why would you want a sharp bulb?"

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people" --Eleanor Roosevelt
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 12:31:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 9:38:21 AM, Kleptin wrote:

This attempt at using an analogy makes absolutely no sense. Is the weather perfect to begin with? Any change from perfection is imperfection. There's only one way for a thing to be perfect.
the weather is perfect for what it is as far as it changing season to season goes. There is not only one way for a thing to perfect. I contend that for you, or for I, or for god, that to perfect thing to do/be is different and different times and cercumstances. At one time the perfect thing for me to be is a talkitive person because I'm in class with students afraid to participate first. at another time the perfect thing for me to be is quite the opposite, I should be quite as my grandmother needs someone to listen to her story and does not need you to join in conversation with things like 'oh yeah thats kind of like this one time where I...' she needs to talk about her past right now not yours. It depends, but is certainly not always the same.

This is a pseudo-intellectual and irrelevant response to a completely different question. I'm asking you to explain why you think God has a particular characteristic, and you're shrugging your shoulders and giving me the economic report of France.
France, whut? No my point is your asking a stupid question. why does God need something. but this is a begging question, like 'do you see 2 elephants or 5?' it assumes I see any elephants. and your question assumes anyone claims god needs emotions just becuase we claim he does have them. So I ask again why do you need your computer? its a rather assuming question you never claimed you need it so what should provoke you to defend a why you need it.

who say's dogs cannot love? and describing the emotions of another as exactly the same is very assuming. if I feel something you never have I had to describe it to you I would be forced to tell you its something compairable but not exactly the same that you have experinced.

No one says dogs can't love. I said there are millions of other species on this planet who don't share our emotions. Would you like a hat to put on your straw man? You are describing God as being all-loving. Does God love the same way humans love, yes or no?

I will underline the correct answer of describing gods love in the following multiple choice:
a) erose
b) philos
c) agope

My actions right now contradict that statement.

No, they don't. You're responding to my points the same way that a normal Christian does.

I am christian and dont teach christianity like hurstman presentes it. Your claim is that what he presented is what we teach. yet hear I am teaching against that. and now you admit my response is normal for a christian, therefore ideed my actions are contridicting the claim that hurstmans presentation on emotions making humans/god imperfect is what christians teach.

I'm not talking about anger contradicting the nature of god as good. I'm talking about anger contradicting the nature of god as IMMORTAL. Humans get angry because chemicals tell them to prepare for a threat or to deal with danger. Why would God get angry?
I understand what your contention is now. what do want from me, a description of whatever counts as God 'biology'? I am not a doctor for the divine nor the supernatural. I would like to point out you leaving out some reasons people get angry. Go call Narccasist a pedofile and see if it ticks him off. theres no danger or threat from the name calling yet it gets him mad. people can get mad over issues like abortion or gay marrage. and people who can get mad by any of those reasons including threat and danger can also chose to not get mad, I am a living example of that. You are not some victom of the chemicals in your body.

I am not assuming he is human. humans are BIOs while God is a ZOE (reference to C.S. Lewis book 'mere christianity') point is a carving of wood is not what he is.

I don't care what you call it. If you call a dog's tail a leg, it doesn't have five legs.
I'm calling a tail a tail and leg a leg dipstick. your the one assuming god is the same as human.
A rose by any other name. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. Even if you don't understand logic, I'm sure you understand common sense. Your imaginary God inexplicably has all of these side-effects of being human that he has absolutely no need for. Humans experience these emotions as a result of chemical reactions telling them to STAY ALIVE and BE ALERT and HAVE SEX WITH OTHERS, etc.

they experince them for other reason. again I state your not a victom of your chemical reactions. you can even will some of them to being if desired.

Why would God have these random emotions that as far as we know, have purpose only in the human experience?

false assumtion hear: trait is random

Not an assumption. If you can prove to me that God has these traits for a reason, I'm converting to Christianity.
you mean like, tell you what gods job is? the purpose of the creator that gives all purposes?

Ignorante statement hear: God cammanded nothing of the sort. (love thy neighbor as thyself, kind of a command dude)

Commandments were kind of made up by men dude. The Bible was kind of written my men dude. Jesus was basically a man dude. Kind of said by Pitticus, Thales, Sextus, Isocrates, Epictetus, a few hundred years before Christ dude. Kind of said by Confucius a few hundred years before Christ dude. Kind of written in the Tao Te Ching a few hundred years before Christ dude.

part of the reason for the existing teaching before christ is those people were in touch with the law being written on there hearts, witch the epistals in the bible does teach of. Christ needed to say it to though so that no christian would go 'well I dont follow pitticus i follow christ' if they do say that one can go 'christ said it man' I find reason for divine authority in christ so natually I quoted him. your accusation is if my god did not cammand us to love. what he cammanded is in the bible and to love one another is indeed there.

All of the above are dudes, dude. Not a God. Not a deity.
I like the word dude. say it with me like the turtle 'Duuuude'

The golden rule shows up in the Bible several times, but if you can ever prove to me that they came directly from the mouth of God and not from a man writing stuff, then I'm converting to Christianity.
How should I go about such a task friend? Scripture is what christians consider to be the revelation of God but I understand not being willing to accapt that. for the most part it seems the prophets have indeed vanished and even if they had not you could still say it was a man. God is some puppy I can train to go become a buring bush for you personally, he's my boss not the otherway around. I only have two options I can think of for providing you anything substantial.
1) pray god becomes burning bush and talks to you anyway though I know it wont necessaraly make him.
2) advises you to look upon 'the law written on your heart' while understanding the perspective that the source for that law is a spiritual one.

I'm not Christian. I don't need to confirm my beliefs before I go to sleep :)
neitor do I, but should I choose to when I'm alone assurance of the faith comes with ease. is it the same ease with you when you are all alone to do your 'solitary thinkin'?
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 1:06:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 10:19:50 AM, Hurstman wrote:
At 5/6/2010 9:04:00 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 5/6/2010 8:28:23 AM, Hurstman wrote:

Kleptin : "Something that is perfect is unchanging. Therefore, something that is perfect cannot cease being perfect."

You could have just put 'input Kleptins arguments from his post hear' and then just read me debating his post from now on.


If a doorknob have Liqued Crystle Diodes in it, does that make it imperfect becaue it ultimately fails to be a TV? No, for a doorknob to be Perfect, it needs to hold the door shut when closed even if a draft trys to pull it open, it needs to turn so door can open, and to really sup it up to full potential the doorknob should have a lock to it can keep people from one side of the doorknob from turning it undesirably. a TV does not need to do any of those things and cant, but that does not make it imperfect. is it imperfect because it is hard, like a doorknob or that it has a 'lock' setting in common with the doorknob? No the TV is everything its suposed to be and how that compairs to what a doorknob, similaraities existing or not, are irrelevant.

We can't apply this analogy because God is unlike any human made object. God is the doorknob, but as God he can be the TV. We can manipulate this analogy over and over, but it can't be applied to God.
Thats the point of the analogy, TV is not doorknob, God is not man.

This makes no sense. Your saying that God would be a robot without emotions. Well, what's wrong with being a robot? Because they don't have free will?
no cause emotionlessness is lame.

Even stating this makes me doubt whether you know what your defending. Your advocating that God cannot be "lame". Above all other things, lame is just a human word to describe a human.
my origianel point was not god is or isnt a robot, just that emotions dont indicate he is 'false'. I personaly am glad he is not a robot. robot meaning emotionless.

Who says God has free will. How do we know he can CHOOSE to be evil?
theres no reason to think he cannot.

That goes against what you Christians teach. That would be like two Satans. That would make God a hypocrite.
it would be like that and it would suck if things were that way. there not though so rejoice! but we were talking about possible ability of action. if you have to know the only thing we theologicaly teach limits gods choices is that 'gods love limits god' witch is self imposed, if it were imposed by something else presents the idea of losing ability to choose. for it is choice that puts the limits of love on himself in the firstplace.

Then do you Christians teach?
That emotions are good in proper application. that anything that is evil is a perversion of something that is good because only good was created, evil comes from taking existing good and twisting it.

Then how can God turn evil if he was never created, thus not being able to be twisted??????? =)

Hmmmmm. I had not considered this. I guess there is no 'evil' inhearntly in him. though we do teach while in the wilderness for 40 days in the flesh he allowed himself to be tempted. So before christ came, there really is no power capable of twisting his character, but once limited by things of the flesh Satan does have the range of power to attempt to 'twist' his goodness. Thankfully the attempt failed.

consider the message I preach modifed. good contention.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 1:13:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 12:31:49 PM, Marauder wrote:

the weather is perfect for what it is as far as it changing season to season goes. There is not only one way for a thing to perfect. I contend that for you, or for I, or for god, that to perfect thing to do/be is different and different times and cercumstances. At one time the perfect thing for me to be is a talkitive person because I'm in class with students afraid to participate first. at another time the perfect thing for me to be is quite the opposite, I should be quite as my grandmother needs someone to listen to her story and does not need you to join in conversation with things like 'oh yeah thats kind of like this one time where I...' she needs to talk about her past right now not yours. It depends, but is certainly not always the same.

Basically, you're saying that a thing of perfection would adapt to all circumstances as they come. God exists outside of time and therefore, experiences no circumstances. Since God experiences no circumstances, God would have no need to adapt, and perfection would be defined by having a complete and unchanging nature. Besides, don't Christians teach that God is unchanging?

France, whut? No my point is your asking a stupid question. why does God need something. but this is a begging question, like 'do you see 2 elephants or 5?' it assumes I see any elephants. and your question assumes anyone claims god needs emotions just becuase we claim he does have them. So I ask again why do you need your computer? its a rather assuming question you never claimed you need it so what should provoke you to defend a why you need it.

Okay, I think I see what you mean here. Let me rephrase: We do not inherently know that God is *anything*. We started off not knowing what characteristics God has. How do you know that God is loving, or that God is intelligent, for example?

I will underline the correct answer of describing gods love in the following multiple choice:
a) erose
b) philos
c) agope

Also irrelevant. I don't care what the terminology is. If you believe that God "loves" in a particular way, explain to me what led you to that belief. "Agape" as per Professor Internet basically defines it as unconditional, divine love. You've done nothing here except tell me that God loves the way God loves.

I am christian and dont teach christianity like hurstman presentes it. Your claim is that what he presented is what we teach. yet hear I am teaching against that. and now you admit my response is normal for a christian, therefore ideed my actions are contridicting the claim that hurstmans presentation on emotions making humans/god imperfect is what christians teach.

He said that Christians teach that God have certain emotional characteristics. That is exactly what Christians teach.

I understand what your contention is now. what do want from me, a description of whatever counts as God 'biology'? I am not a doctor for the divine nor the supernatural. I would like to point out you leaving out some reasons people get angry. Go call Narccasist a pedofile and see if it ticks him off. theres no danger or threat from the name calling yet it gets him mad. people can get mad over issues like abortion or gay marrage. and people who can get mad by any of those reasons including threat and danger can also chose to not get mad, I am a living example of that. You are not some victom of the chemicals in your body.

An anchor is not victimized when it is used to hold ships in the water. Our bodies and our emotions and our thoughts work in a particular way.

I'm calling a tail a tail and leg a leg dipstick. your the one assuming god is the same as human.

It doesn't matter whether you say it's godly anger vs human anger, or godly love vs human love. The origin is still making assumptions about God based on what is seen in human society.

they experince them for other reason. again I state your not a victom of your chemical reactions. you can even will some of them to being if desired.

Why would God experience these things? It makes no sense. Does God get hungry? Does he need to go to the bathroom sometimes? Does he have sex organs? Does God have hair? If you find these questions absurd, you should find those other things (Like Love, anger, jealousy) absurd as well.

you mean like, tell you what gods job is? the purpose of the creator that gives all purposes?

No, I want you to tell me why the "Creator that gives all purposes" seems to have parts of him that are specifically for other purposes. The purpose of happiness is for a living organism to continue doing an act that leads to survival. Why would God have the mechanism to be happy?

part of the reason for the existing teaching before christ is those people were in touch with the law being written on there hearts, witch the epistals in the bible does teach of. Christ needed to say it to though so that no christian would go 'well I dont follow pitticus i follow christ' if they do say that one can go 'christ said it man' I find reason for divine authority in christ so natually I quoted him. your accusation is if my god did not cammand us to love. what he cammanded is in the bible and to love one another is indeed there.

Did Snape *really* kill Dumbledore? Did Bilbo *really* destroy the One Ring? Just because a book says that it does, it doesn't necessarily mean that it occurred. The Bible proves to us that sometime in the past, someone wrote stuff. It doesn't prove that God actually made those commandments in a deep booming voice.

I like the word dude. say it with me like the turtle 'Duuuude'

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuude :P

How should I go about such a task friend? Scripture is what christians consider to be the revelation of God but I understand not being willing to accapt that. for the most part it seems the prophets have indeed vanished and even if they had not you could still say it was a man. God is some puppy I can train to go become a buring bush for you personally, he's my boss not the otherway around. I only have two options I can think of for providing you anything substantial.
1) pray god becomes burning bush and talks to you anyway though I know it wont necessaraly make him.
2) advises you to look upon 'the law written on your heart' while understanding the perspective that the source for that law is a spiritual one.

In other words, you have no evidence. Basically, you have to admit that most if not everything that you think you know about God, doesn't have its origins in God himself. Confirming my previous statement that nothing you say about God is any more credible than anything *I* say about God. I could say that God is actually a large pink bunny made out of marshmallows and it would have about the same truth value.

neitor do I, but should I choose to when I'm alone assurance of the faith comes with ease. is it the same ease with you when you are all alone to do your 'solitary thinkin'?

I'm very malleable. I like to know that if something happens tomorrow to change my beliefs, I let that happen. If Jesus appears to me tomorrow to tell me that he truly exists, I will devote the rest of my life to serving Him. Christians don't have that sort of malleability, because they assume that they are right, regardless of anything.

Some people consider that piousness. Others consider it obnoxiousness.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 1:22:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Marauder, Confucious and Lao Tzu have NOTHING whatsoever to do with Christianity. The law was not "written on their hearts." You are degrading the achievements of the great philosophers of Asia. And if saw what else was taught by the Eastern philosophers, you would probably cringe and never again say "the law was written on their hearts." their teachings were entirely contradictory to Christianity with the exception of the Golden Rule.

Also, I find it amusing that you know God, you know who his son is, you know what emotions he has, and you know the nature of his existence.

The truth is, he is just a projection of your own mind, it's all man made. Anyone can come up with a hypothetical being, like Flying Spaghetti Monster, assign him all these attributes, and then argue about whether this hypothetical being exists.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 2:41:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 1:22:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Marauder, Confucious and Lao Tzu have NOTHING whatsoever to do with Christianity. The law was not "written on their hearts." You are degrading the achievements of the great philosophers of Asia. And if saw what else was taught by the Eastern philosophers, you would probably cringe and never again say "the law was written on their hearts." their teachings were entirely contradictory to Christianity with the exception of the Golden Rule.

Also, I find it amusing that you know God, you know who his son is, you know what emotions he has, and you know the nature of his existence.

The truth is, he is just a projection of your own mind, it's all man made. Anyone can come up with a hypothetical being, like Flying Spaghetti Monster, assign him all these attributes, and then argue about whether this hypothetical being exists.

It's the Christian way to be arrogant without knowing that they are arrogant, and to be patronizing without knowing they are patronizing. Of course, all of human accomplishment, philosophy, and tradition basically boils down to Christianity. Mathematics, Science, Technology, all boil down to Christianity. Morality, Values, Art, Music, all the result of Christianity. All beauty in the world is by the grace of the Christian God. All the good in the world is by the grace of the Christian God. The flowers bloom and the birds sing, by the grace of the Christian God.

To be Christian used to be the hardest thing 2000 or so years ago. To be Christian is the easiest thing to do today.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 4:23:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 2:41:58 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Of course, all of human accomplishment, philosophy, and tradition basically boils down to Christianity. Mathematics, Science, Technology, all boil down to Christianity. Morality, Values, Art, Music, all the result of Christianity. All beauty in the world is by the grace of the Christian God. All the good in the world is by the grace of the Christian God. The flowers bloom and the birds sing, by the grace of the Christian God.

At least you know now. :D
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 7:24:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 1:22:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Marauder, Confucious and Lao Tzu have NOTHING whatsoever to do with Christianity. The law was not "written on their hearts." You are degrading the achievements of the great philosophers of Asia. And if saw what else was taught by the Eastern philosophers, you would probably cringe and never again say "the law was written on their hearts."

Mencius....

rules (li) are derived from compassion (ren); which is comprised of the "four hearts" I think...

plus... this is probably VERY much in line with Confucius' thought on the matter... If I must I can find some quotes from the analects to support this.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 7:28:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 7:24:29 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 5/6/2010 1:22:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Marauder, Confucious and Lao Tzu have NOTHING whatsoever to do with Christianity. The law was not "written on their hearts." You are degrading the achievements of the great philosophers of Asia. And if saw what else was taught by the Eastern philosophers, you would probably cringe and never again say "the law was written on their hearts."

Mencius....

rules (li) are derived from compassion (ren); which is comprised of the "four hearts" I think...

plus... this is probably VERY much in line with Confucius' thought on the matter... If I must I can find some quotes from the analects to support this.

the li being ultimately derived from Ren that is... the "four hearts" thing is pure mencius.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 7:26:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 1:13:45 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Basically, you're saying that a thing of perfection would adapt to all circumstances as they come. God exists outside of time and therefore, experiences no circumstances.
In respect to his own welfare, I agree and say there are no changing circumstances for him there in eternity, he's safe, and healthy regardless. But in respect to interest in us the circumstance changes from instant of our time to instant. He's not confined to the flow of time but that does not mean he ignores it. After all were hear.
Since God experiences no circumstances, God would have no need to adapt, and perfection would be defined by having a complete and unchanging nature. Besides, don't Christians teach that God is unchanging?
Yesss. Thanks for reminding me to not step on the toes of that. We teach he is unchanging and constant, but in the sense that he is constantly good. Not in the sense that his emotions are the same for every circumstance. Different events would call for a different response from the Father. God unchangingly hates evil. Unchangingly loves righteousness. He unchangingly desires justice. That is the meat of what we teach. Some evangelist may have striped it down to a bare bones saying ‘god dosnt change' for you and this may be the source of your confusion.
Okay, I think I see what you mean here. Let me rephrase: We do not inherently know that God is *anything*. We started off not knowing what characteristics God has. How do you know that God is loving,
Cause I have Experience it, ultimately.
or that God is intelligent, for example?
Cause his workmanship shows it.

Also irrelevant. I don't care what the terminology is. If you believe that God "loves" in a particular way, explain to me what led you to that belief. "Agape" as per Professor Internet basically defines it as unconditional, divine love. You've done nothing here except tell me that God loves the way God loves.
As a methodist, again I draw back to the 4th source and point of the Weasly Quadrilateral; Experience.
He said that Christians teach that God have certain emotional characteristics. That is exactly what Christians teach.
Yes, and he also said we teach that emotions make humans imperfect. Or anything imperfect. So what he said as a whole, no it is not what we teach. But the one part you pointed out is the one part he got right. God is jelouse of idol trash, he has shown anger at the wicked, and love for the good. And love for all.

An anchor is not victimized when it is used to hold ships in the water. Our bodies and our emotions and our thoughts work in a particular way.
Method to that madness or not; you are not helpless to the outcome of its chain of cause's and effects.

It doesn't matter whether you say it's godly anger vs human anger, or godly love vs human love. The origin is still making assumptions about God based on what is seen in human society.
If you were a from birth blindman, to describe a rainbow to you I would have to resort to telling you something like ‘it's a collage of various smells that you cant smell.' Or ‘sounds that you cant hear' you understand those sensations so all that can be done is communicate with you about the variety of one kind of sense with the variety of another. You and I feel human love, human anger. God has that to work with to communicate to our understanding what it is he experiences.

Why would God experience these things? It makes no sense. Does God get hungry? Does he need to go to the bathroom sometimes? Does he have sex organs? Does God have hair? If you find these questions absurd, you should find those other things (Like Love, anger, jealousy) absurd as well.
Your so cold. Not all actions worth doing need logistic justification. I am going ot watch Iron Man 2 the day it comes to theaters. Why would I want to? It serves no purpose towards reproduction, excreation, consumption, ect… in fact all it will logisticly do for me is empty my wallet. I choose to none the less. God loves, feels anger, feals jelosey because its worth it. Love espically amoung all those. not for cold legestical reasons. And God has been choosing ot loves since when he first created.

No, I want you to tell me why the "Creator that gives all purposes" seems to have parts of him that are specifically for other purposes. The purpose of happiness is for a living organism to continue doing an act that leads to survival. Why would God have the mechanism to be happy?
Because happiness is an end in itself. Not that it matters but Aristotle said that too. One would have the function to be happy so they can be happy. One eats so they can be full, one is full so they can be happy.

Did Snape *really* kill Dumbledore? Did Bilbo *really* destroy the One Ring? Just because a book says that it does, it doesn't necessarily mean that it occurred. The Bible proves to us that sometime in the past, someone wrote stuff. It doesn't prove that God actually made those commandments in a deep booming voice.
By that logic you cannot prove there was a war of 1812, only that people wrote in a book that there was. you cant prove gorge washington existed, you cant prove Peter the Great went to Europe low profile and learned of weastern advances.

In other words, you have no evidence. Basically, you have to admit that most if not everything that you think you know about God, doesn't have its origins in God himself. Confirming my previous statement that nothing you say about God is any more credible than anything *I* say about God. I could say that God is actually a large pink bunny made out of marshmallows and it would have about the same truth value.
Well know no; what I say has a few variables in its favor that what you say doesn't. Mine is relatively consistent with millions of other people on earth today saying something about God quite similar and with conviction too, and wasn't made from scratch just now. Years of scholarly input put into it, I did not have to ‘reinvent the wheel' for what I say about God. I will tell you the same thing about my Lord in heaven tomorrow and the day after that. You may change from telling me he is made of marshmallows to he is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, as is so popular now. What I say about god has driven Americans to set up solar panels and wind towers in North Korea, in Africa. It has put people like Clint Raab and Sam Dixon in Haiti helping disaster victims, spawned things like the Holsten Homes for Children, and even convinced some ‘cutters' to put down there knives before they do that awful act, and all in all affects the world, and has been doing so for some time now. What you just said about God probably amused this websites panarchist conspiracy theorist who believes in aliens and reptile alliances quite seriously.

I'm very malleable. I like to know that if something happens tomorrow to change my beliefs, I let that happen. If Jesus appears to me tomorrow to tell me that he truly exists, I will devote the rest of my life to serving Him. Christians don't have that sort of malleability, because they assume that they are right, regardless of anything.

Some people consider that piousness. Others consider it obnoxiousness.

Not pious, just faithfully consistant.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2010 10:42:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/7/2010 7:26:26 AM, Marauder wrote:
In respect to his own welfare, I agree and say there are no changing circumstances for him there in eternity, he's safe, and healthy regardless. But in respect to interest in us the circumstance changes from instant of our time to instant. He's not confined to the flow of time but that does not mean he ignores it. After all were hear.

He doesn't ignore the flow of time. We exist in time and he is there with us, just not going through time. Did you forget that God is omnipresent? God exists in all times, with us, at once. Thus, he is permanent, unchanging in his perfection. If he deviates from any bit of that, he is imperfect.

Yesss. Thanks for reminding me to not step on the toes of that. We teach he is unchanging and constant, but in the sense that he is constantly good. Not in the sense that his emotions are the same for every circumstance. Different events would call for a different response from the Father. God unchangingly hates evil. Unchangingly loves righteousness. He unchangingly desires justice. That is the meat of what we teach. Some evangelist may have striped it down to a bare bones saying ‘god dosnt change' for you and this may be the source of your confusion.

Blasphemy. God does not exist within time, so he does not "react to circumstances". We show emotion because we get affected by changes in our environment over time. God is outside time, omnipresent, and omniscient. To say that he reacts with emotions to different circumstances is blasphemy.

Cause I have Experience it, ultimately.

Doesn't help me because it is non-transferable or verifiable.

Cause his workmanship shows it.

His workmanship shows a ridiculous amount of imperfection. This argument is terrible.

As a methodist, again I draw back to the 4th source and point of the Weasly Quadrilateral; Experience.

Experience doesn't provide definitions. I'm looking for a definition of God's love.

Yes, and he also said we teach that emotions make humans imperfect. Or anything imperfect. So what he said as a whole, no it is not what we teach. But the one part you pointed out is the one part he got right. God is jelouse of idol trash, he has shown anger at the wicked, and love for the good. And love for all.

He never said that. He made that argument himself. And why would God be jealous of what he knows to be false? Why would God be jealous at all? Jealousy is a human trait used to push us to be at least average in society. It is a biological trait. God is not biological.

Method to that madness or not; you are not helpless to the outcome of its chain of cause's and effects.

You make a bold assumption. The illusion of our intervention is, in and of itself, part of the machinery.

If you were a from birth blindman, to describe a rainbow to you I would have to resort to telling you something like ‘it's a collage of various smells that you cant smell.' Or ‘sounds that you cant hear' you understand those sensations so all that can be done is communicate with you about the variety of one kind of sense with the variety of another. You and I feel human love, human anger. God has that to work with to communicate to our understanding what it is he experiences.

The gap between God and man is not the same as blind vs not blind. It's probably more like rock vs Nuclear physicist. Your analogy fails.

Your so cold. Not all actions worth doing need logistic justification. I am going ot watch Iron Man 2 the day it comes to theaters. Why would I want to? It serves no purpose towards reproduction, excreation, consumption, ect… in fact all it will logisticly do for me is empty my wallet. I choose to none the less. God loves, feels anger, feals jelosey because its worth it. Love espically amoung all those. not for cold legestical reasons. And God has been choosing ot loves since when he first created.

Would a donkey watch Iron Man 2? What about a mousetrap? And a lamp? Iron Man 2 provides enjoyment to you as a human. It is worth it to you as a human. Love, anger, jealousy, these are all things that HUMANS find worth it. Give me one reason why these things would be "worth it" to God. Each one of these things has a specific purpose for humans only. Tell me, does God have a penis just because it is worth it? Does he eat food because it is worth it?

Because happiness is an end in itself. Not that it matters but Aristotle said that too. One would have the function to be happy so they can be happy. One eats so they can be full, one is full so they can be happy.

Aristotle was full of sh*t. Happiness is not an end in and of itself. Happiness can be duplicated exactly by drugs on a shelf. Not illegal drugs that mimic happiness. Purified drugs that ARE happiness. One eats to live, and our bodies reward us with happiness for living as an evolutionary adaptation.

By that logic you cannot prove there was a war of 1812, only that people wrote in a book that there was. you cant prove gorge washington existed, you cant prove Peter the Great went to Europe low profile and learned of weastern advances.

On the contrary, the accounts were written by a multitude of people during the time it occurred, with the practicality and rationale confirmed by other sources. History is realistic. The Bible? None of these things.

Well know no; what I say has a few variables in its favor that what you say doesn't. Mine is relatively consistent with millions of other people on earth today saying something about God quite similar and with conviction too, and wasn't made from scratch just now. Years of scholarly input put into it, I did not have to ‘reinvent the wheel' for what I say about God. I will tell you the same thing about my Lord in heaven tomorrow and the day after that. You may change from telling me he is made of marshmallows to he is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, as is so popular now. What I say about god has driven Americans to set up solar panels and wind towers in North Korea, in Africa. It has put people like Clint Raab and Sam Dixon in Haiti helping disaster victims, spawned things like the Holsten Homes for Children, and even convinced some ‘cutters' to put down there knives before they do that awful act, and all in all affects the world, and has been doing so for some time now. What you just said about God probably amused this websites panarchist conspiracy theorist who believes in aliens and reptile alliances quite seriously.

In the name of God, more lives have been lost in history than have been saved. This argument is also BS.

Not pious, just faithfully consistant.

Being consistent to faith is the same as being inconsistent to reality.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
lastrequest691
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2010 6:08:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
That did not offend me.

Please bring up something that is REALLY offensive.
"That song was absolutely waste of talent; you sounded like a wounded animal and who told you to play the guitar by yourself." Simon Cowell
theGreatone
Posts: 156
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2010 12:37:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I agree with hurtsman. This is why I find these religions so hypocritical. If god is such an unconditional loving entity, why would he cast or extol anyone from him? Christianity teaches forgivness no matter what (as taught with christ's crucifixion).
Yet most christian believe that those who deny god will be cast into eternal darkness, or some call it hell. I don't understand what unconditional loving god would cast away his own children rather than give them the oppertunity to learn what is right instead. Furthermore, why have I not met one non-hypocritical christian? Christians are hard at proving their points, but rarely to they themselves follow there own beliefs. Christians treat those who refuse the gospel as less than them and often talk behind there backs. Now to be fair I know this doesn't apply to ALL christians. I am going by personal experience here.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2010 12:47:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/8/2010 12:37:08 PM, theGreatone wrote:
I agree with hurtsman. This is why I find these religions so hypocritical. If god is such an unconditional loving entity, why would he cast or extol anyone from him? Christianity teaches forgivness no matter what (as taught with christ's crucifixion).
Yet most christian believe that those who deny god will be cast into eternal darkness, or some call it hell. I don't understand what unconditional loving god would cast away his own children rather than give them the oppertunity to learn what is right instead. Furthermore, why have I not met one non-hypocritical christian? Christians are hard at proving their points, but rarely to they themselves follow there own beliefs. Christians treat those who refuse the gospel as less than them and often talk behind there backs. Now to be fair I know this doesn't apply to ALL christians. I am going by personal experience here.
Actually, the Bible does not say that Jesus (peace be upon him) died for the sins of humanity, so it is less hypocritical in its message than Christianity as it is formed by Christians nowadays.

The thing the Bible teaches is to adhere to God's will and go to Paradise, otherwise you will go to Hell. We are servants of God, and if we disobey/disbelieve (in) Him, He will punish us.