Does the clay say to the potter, 'You're doing it wrong'?
Bill Maher comedian & religion
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
Does the clay say to the potter, 'You're doing it wrong'?
Can clay speak?
Yes, when it is made into a man. Isn't it ironic that you, the (ahem) non-religious person is taking a Bible verse literally, while I the (doing my best to be) Christian understands the metaphor instantly.
Answer: no, not ironic at all.
But returning to the wider question posed by Bells and others: saying that God is wrong, as Jan Ardena points out, is absurd. It is God that not only is the Law, but as such defines logic as well as good and evil. Please do not misunderstand. Good is not good because merely God says. Nor is logic logical, or two plus two four just because He decrees it. These things simply are, and any one over three years old knows so.
I know that many of you don't accept that there is a supreme being that created the universe, but, well, there is actually, whether you can prove it scientifically or no. He is the very definition and origin of goodness, and for you or I, an animate clay vessel, a monkey with the gift of speech, to come along and say He is wrong is just laughable.
At the risk of being tedious and breaking the forum rules, I will not quote it here, but refer you (if you please) to Job 38 - wherein God responds to poor old Job out of the whirlwind.
Many of the rhetorical questions God asks Job we now know the answer to, such as where does rain come from, how are embryos formed, but you can see that many of His questions we will never know the answer to.
If you will allow me one line: Who gives intuition and instinct? (Job 38:36)
n.b. Notice that even then, in the Bible's historically oldest tale, The Lord employs the typically Jewish, and also typical of His avatar (human incarnation) Jesus' habit of answering a question with a question. This is what I mean in an earlier post of mine on reading the Bible all the way through several times, of seeing things one doesn't always notice by just dipping in now and then, here and there. The Bible's main character is The Lord and He is there from beginning to end, though never named (but implied) in The Book of Esther.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I don't believe that God exists, but theists do. And theists typically imagine God as being a person, as being the kind of being to which moral responsibility and blame can be appropriately be attributed.
Because words like 'good' and 'evil' are human words and their meaning is established here in this world.
If God needn't conform to the definition of 'good' that we humans apply here on earth, then what meaning remains in our continuing to call God 'good'?
Simply proclaiming that the figures of religious myth aren't subject to human moral judgement and that whatever God is portrayed as doing in the myth must be thought of as good, because God is defined by the myth as being the essence of good, is ethically problematic. It robs our moral vocabulary of its meaning.
It's reminiscent of Adolph Hitler's Fuhrer prinzep. When the Leader starts ordering acts that would be considered abominations when lesser humans like ourselves do them, our insisting 'Well, he was the Fuhrer (God) and I was only following his orders! It wasn't my role to judge him!' isn't a satisfactory defense. We saw that at the war crimes trials.
Nobody can simply abandon their responsibility to make moral judgements. And we can only make moral judgements from our human perspective.
Excuse, I thought this warranted a separate post: I love Bill Maher and George Carlin. I am totally with Maher politically, even though he is just a stand-up comedian, but he's dead wrong in his religious views, which just shows again that none of us is perfect.
George Carlin morphed from stand-up shtick to social commentator on the level of Mark Twain. And if Twain had lived in a later age, no doubt he would have worked to the camera rather than with a pen too. I agree with Carlin's paring down of the Ten Commandments, and while he would never admit it or even see it himself, I can see that he was a very devout, caring and ethical man in his own way. He lived what Twain suggested is the way to destroy what is evil in the world:
(Twain was referring to racism, but you get my point, right?)
George Carlin morphed from stand-up shtick to social commentator on the level of Mark Twain. And if Twain had lived in a later age, no doubt he would have worked to the camera rather than with a pen too. I agree with Carlin's paring down of the Ten Commandments, and while he would never admit it or even see it himself, I can see that he was a very devout, caring and ethical man in his own way. He lived what Twain suggested is the way to destroy what is evil in the world:
(Twain was referring to racism, but you get my point, right?)
Admittedly the whole Vengeance of The Lord thing in the Old Testament is problematic. Hebrew, Moslem and Christian scholars have been discussing The God Who Punishes through the ages, yet that doesn't mean we cannot try to understand it here.
I think what you(the non-believers) are missing is that punishment is often the karmic consequence of our own actions, the Immutable Law that God is. Not that He decreed, but actually IS. So when we say, please Lord don't punish us, well, here's a thing that even the All Powerful simply cannot do. So no, I am not one to wonder if God can make a burrito so hot that even he can't touch it. (He couldn't)
However, He has found a loophole: See John 3:16. He has taken human form and stood in our stead for the natural, inevitable and logical consequence of sin. And all the is required. (Not that HE requires, but IS required) is that you recognize that He has done so. I know that many of you are put off by the word, 'repent', :soapbox:
but crazy and shrill street preachers aside, what I am talking about here is the actual meaning of repentance.
So, you see Yazata, I, and any follower of any monotheistic or even polytheistic religion, would disagree that words like 'good' and 'evil' are human words and their meaning is established here in this world. They are the Law (the Dharma).
Perhaps now, you can see more clearly the meaning of the opening lines of the Gospel of John:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind."
And from Matthew 5:18, when Jesus, who IS God, who is the Logos, who is the Dharma in human form says: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
So Jesus was not the Martin Luther of a Jewish reformation. No, He was its promise fulfilled.
Last edited:
I also wanted to say that many people who haven't read the Bible thoroughly and often, miss that Divine punishment is always ALWAYS tempered with Divine mercy. Recall the time when Abraham bargains with God about nor destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. They go from fifty to if just ten righteous men are found there, God won't destroy the two cities. And then, there aren't ten, and the destruction is performed!
Virtually every instance of Divine Wrath has allusions to Divine Mercy. Such as when Jonah informs the great city of Nineveh that it takes a day and a night to walk through that they are damned, and doomed. The inhabitants from the king on down to the stable hands puts on sackcloth and ashes, fasts and repents, and when God spares them Jonah is pissed!
You all know the belly of the great fish bit of the story, but do you know the conclusion:
To conclude, I have tried and failed to read The 'Holy" Koran five times because there is only a hint of God's mercy. No, it is not absent all together, but by and large the Koran is guilty of what non-believers imagine the Bible is filled with - God is portrayed as merciless and vengeful, and fire and brimstone literally await those who don't accept the word of the prophet. So you see, you've been confusing one book with the other.
I don't have time just now, but I will re-read the Koranic version of the Jonah story, and get back to you on that.
Cheers!
Virtually every instance of Divine Wrath has allusions to Divine Mercy. Such as when Jonah informs the great city of Nineveh that it takes a day and a night to walk through that they are damned, and doomed. The inhabitants from the king on down to the stable hands puts on sackcloth and ashes, fasts and repents, and when God spares them Jonah is pissed!
You all know the belly of the great fish bit of the story, but do you know the conclusion:
To conclude, I have tried and failed to read The 'Holy" Koran five times because there is only a hint of God's mercy. No, it is not absent all together, but by and large the Koran is guilty of what non-believers imagine the Bible is filled with - God is portrayed as merciless and vengeful, and fire and brimstone literally await those who don't accept the word of the prophet. So you see, you've been confusing one book with the other.
I don't have time just now, but I will re-read the Koranic version of the Jonah story, and get back to you on that.
Cheers!
Yazata,
It's quite possible that Maher doesn't believe God exists, yet he will use his influence to talk complete bullshit knowing that millions of people can be swayed by it. But if he, like you, doesn't believe in the existence of God, then he should simply get his Bible fact straight, or shut up instead of talking trash, influencing millions of people into not looking at the situation for themselves.
''Typically imagine''? Anyone can ''imagine'' anything they are capable of. So to reduce theism to mere ''imagination'' is quite insulting. But the reality is, theists don't imagine God, they understand that God is greater than His creation (us), so it stands to reason that if He created us, and we are persons, then He must also have that capacity.
I think you misunderstand. He took out of the Bible, (presumably) sections where he could apply his spin (cherry pick), but omitted other bits which explain why death takes place in this world. He also overlooked the awesome power, ability, and nature of God which would undoubtedly shed light on the decisions God made. Why would he do that if not to spread disinformation?
What do you mean by ''good''?
Firstly I don't know what you mean by ''figures of religious myth'', in this context. Maher spoke about God as if He was a real person who happened to be a ''mass murderer'', so I'm responding to that and therefore referring to God.
Secondly, it doesn't matter what we think. Our position is one of complete ignorance in relation to the moment to moment history of the whole of the material world (which could include innumerable universes of various sizes and natures). We are here for less than a moment, relatively speaking.
Firstly, God (Bible) was talking, through Moses, for a particular section of people in that time, place, and circumstance. He didn't tell everybody to kill. In fact His instruction for that particular mass of people (human beings) was ''Thou shalt NOT kill''.
The laws were to be carried out by qualified people (ie, His devotees) who were in the correct position to administer punishment so as to liberate the transgressional souls.
The point of this human existence, is not to just remain here like cattle (eat, sleep, shag,then die). The human body is the gateway to elevation of consciousness to the point of self/God-realisation. I'm quite sure I don't have to explain that to you as you seem to have some understanding of that process.
The idea of man thinking he is God, has nothing to do with God. It is the last snare of complete madness. Ego overload. It is entirely atheistic.
I don't get this.
jan.
It's quite possible that Maher doesn't believe God exists, yet he will use his influence to talk complete bullshit knowing that millions of people can be swayed by it. But if he, like you, doesn't believe in the existence of God, then he should simply get his Bible fact straight, or shut up instead of talking trash, influencing millions of people into not looking at the situation for themselves.
''Typically imagine''? Anyone can ''imagine'' anything they are capable of. So to reduce theism to mere ''imagination'' is quite insulting. But the reality is, theists don't imagine God, they understand that God is greater than His creation (us), so it stands to reason that if He created us, and we are persons, then He must also have that capacity.
I think you misunderstand. He took out of the Bible, (presumably) sections where he could apply his spin (cherry pick), but omitted other bits which explain why death takes place in this world. He also overlooked
the awesome power, ability, and nature of God which would undoubtedly shed light on the decisions God made. Why would he do that if not to spread disinformation?What do you mean by ''good''?
Firstly I don't know what you mean by ''figures of religious myth'', in this context. Maher spoke about God as if He was a real person who happened to be a ''mass murderer'', so I'm responding to that and therefore referring to God.
Secondly, it doesn't matter what we think. Our position is one of complete ignorance in relation to the moment to moment history of the whole of the material world (which could include innumerable universes of various sizes and natures). We are here for less than a moment, relatively speaking.
Firstly, God (Bible) was talking, through Moses, for a particular section of people in that time, place, and circumstance. He didn't tell everybody to kill. In fact His instruction for that particular mass of people (human beings) was ''Thou shalt NOT kill''.
The laws were to be carried out by qualified people (ie, His devotees) who were in the correct position to administer punishment so as to liberate the transgressional souls.
The point of this human existence, is not to just remain here like cattle (eat, sleep, shag,then die). The human body is the gateway to elevation of consciousness to the point of self/God-realisation. I'm quite sure I don't have to explain that to you as you seem to have some understanding of that process.
The idea of man thinking he is God, has nothing to do with God. It is the last snare of complete madness. Ego overload. It is entirely atheistic.
I don't get this.
jan.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Perhaps too quickly.
Human beings aren't just clay pots, we are cognitive and moral agents. Not only do we form judgements, it's difficult to see how we can ever escape both the need and the responsibility to make them.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I just feel the need to comment on this:
Are you implying that using the media such as radio and TV to influence millions of people that can be swayed, is wrong?
Talk about opening a can of worms. (rolls eyes)
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
...and this too...
The thing is, before man there were no thoughts of God, or even a concept of God. But along comes man and after that God is spoken into existence. Strange how that works, huh?
The thing is, before man there were no thoughts of God, or even a concept of God. But along comes man and after that God is spoken into existence. Strange how that works, huh?
So you were speaking metaphorically? Why?
You're contradicting yourself. God can't be wrong because he is the law, but he isn't wrong simply because he makes the law is a contradiction.
According to sciforums rules, you will need to support this extraoridnary claim with extraordinary evidence, or face a ban.
Anyway, you can't seem to keep your story straight. You claim God is inherently good, yet freely admit that we are not capable of understanding his motives. You say he is not wrong because he makes the rules, then say the fact that he makes the rules does not mean he is automatically right.
You seem confused.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I misunderstood what you meant, then. What did you mean by that comment?
Bells
Staff member
Oh I have.
And if I had taken the stories and examples literally, then I'd have gone on many rampages.
Generally, when you slaughter a large group of people for not believing in what you demand they believe in, it's usually mass murder and can be tantamount to genocide if you are trying to wipe out a large portion of that group (such as killing all the first born sons).. Not to mention the absolute genocide of the great flood...
No, but a potter can usually tell when he's doing it wrong - ie when the pot turns into a blob on the wheel because he squeezed too hard while it was spinning because he was trying to attain perfection while ignoring that most of the time, it is the imperfections that make something worthy of consideration..Arne Saknussemm said:
Sceince, what's that?
Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realise that the story of Moses and the slaughter of all first born sons of non Jews was really just God ordering a cappuccino.
Then God is failing. With a big, fat "F".
Yeah.. Free will.. What a bitch of an idea that was..
Isn't that the passage that he tells Job to gird his loins like a man or something?
Sounds like the Old Testament. Numbers and Leviticus are particularly nasty in that respect.
Lol! Apparently, you don't know, either!
Mod Hat
While we moderators appreciate the efforts of the community to self-police and report offending posts... there comes a time where such tools are used in an almost vendetta-like way... as though serving an ulterior purpose.
While the report that Arne Saknussemm is in violation of the rules with the reason "Refuses to support the extraordinary claim that god exists." was quite entertaining, it was also unwarranted and basically a waste of moderator time.
Please, allow me to reiterate some of the basic rules of the forum, from the Posting Guidelines:
Yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... especially new or untested claims. That said: This sub forum is a place of religious and theological discussion, be you for or against such beliefs. If you don't like such beliefs, you don't have to partake in such discussions. However, demanding iron-clad evidence of that which is, by its very nature, incapable of being proven, and then reporting a member for not providing said irrefutable evidence, falls under another category of "Da Rules"
Now, obviously some of the rules are relaxed in some of the "Philosophy" and "On the Fringe" sub forums... namely, that evidence is going to often be circumstantial or partial at best. However, other rules still apply as they would anywhere else as they are not constrained by the subject material; this includes requiring an inordinate or intemperate amount of moderator time.
Now, there are two ways we can play this little game... to the first, many members called to let the religion sub-forum alone and only step in where absolutely necessary. To that end, that is what I have been attempting to do... yet now, some of those same members are attempting to coerce the moderation into acting inappropriately by deliberately twisting the rules we abide by...
In the spirit of the rules we have, however, such devious and knowingly incorrigible actions will not be tolerated.
To the second, we can knuckle-down and enforce the rules much more tightly... if that is what is wanted, that is what will happen.
To the members attempting to twist and lie to get what they want - you know who you are, and I am fairly certain the rest of the membership has an idea who you are as well... there is no need for us to call you out on it. Just know that such flagrant displays of villainous behavior will be treated for what they are... and punishment will be met out accordingly.
While we moderators appreciate the efforts of the community to self-police and report offending posts... there comes a time where such tools are used in an almost vendetta-like way... as though serving an ulterior purpose.
While the report that Arne Saknussemm is in violation of the rules with the reason "Refuses to support the extraordinary claim that god exists." was quite entertaining, it was also unwarranted and basically a waste of moderator time.
Please, allow me to reiterate some of the basic rules of the forum, from the Posting Guidelines:
James said:
Yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... especially new or untested claims. That said: This sub forum is a place of religious and theological discussion, be you for or against such beliefs. If you don't like such beliefs, you don't have to partake in such discussions. However, demanding iron-clad evidence of that which is, by its very nature, incapable of being proven, and then reporting a member for not providing said irrefutable evidence, falls under another category of "Da Rules"
James said:
Now, obviously some of the rules are relaxed in some of the "Philosophy" and "On the Fringe" sub forums... namely, that evidence is going to often be circumstantial or partial at best. However, other rules still apply as they would anywhere else as they are not constrained by the subject material; this includes requiring an inordinate or intemperate amount of moderator time.
Now, there are two ways we can play this little game... to the first, many members called to let the religion sub-forum alone and only step in where absolutely necessary. To that end, that is what I have been attempting to do... yet now, some of those same members are attempting to coerce the moderation into acting inappropriately by deliberately twisting the rules we abide by...
In the spirit of the rules we have, however, such devious and knowingly incorrigible actions will not be tolerated.
To the second, we can knuckle-down and enforce the rules much more tightly... if that is what is wanted, that is what will happen.
To the members attempting to twist and lie to get what they want - you know who you are, and I am fairly certain the rest of the membership has an idea who you are as well... there is no need for us to call you out on it. Just know that such flagrant displays of villainous behavior will be treated for what they are... and punishment will be met out accordingly.