I neither believe it or disbelieve it as it doesn't really matter to me. But now that you've brought it to my attention, I believe that Jan Ardena exists in a particular format.
jan.
Bill Maher comedian & religion
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
I neither believe it or disbelieve it as it doesn't really matter to me. But now that you've brought it to my attention, I believe that Jan Ardena exists in a particular format.
jan.
More accurately, they believe in themselves. It's like putting on a uniform and feeling you are the type of person the uniform suggests. It doesn't mean you believe in the uniform, or the occupation, only in how it makes you feel. Of course you can also believe in the uniform, and/or the occupation, but it is a matter of individual choice.
jan.
From your perspective I can see how one can understand that to be true. Good point.
jan.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Most theists are familiar with the idea of divine judgement. What's less widely recognized is the converse, the necessity and the inevitability of man judging God.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that God both exists and must be worshipped, the problem remains that here on earth many different images of what is believed to be the one true God exist. Many different paths and modes of worship exist, all claiming to be the right one, the best one. (Biblically, this is the problem of idolatry. We need to be worshipping God, not golden calves.)
So human beings are faced with the problem of separating the wheat (assuming there is any) from all of the chaff. They have to judge which depiction of divinity truly possesses reference to the highest and best. They are faced with choosing a path.
Human beings have no choice but to make judgements from our human perspective. That's the only kind of perspective that beings like us can have.
We have concepts of 'right' and 'wrong'. Certain kinds of behaviors, such as murder and genocide are among the worst of wrongs. That's why we class Adolph Hitler among the worst of criminals.
Yet we are being asked in this thread to accept certain images, certain scriptural depictions, as true depictions of what's claimed to be the one true God. And these scriptural depictions have this God not only committing abominations, but commanding his human devotees to commit similar crimes.
Then we are told that since this God supposedly created us (that's just asserted as faith) that this God can do whatever he wants to do with us. Not only that, we are told that this God is in fact the very essence of good (again, that's simply being asserted) when he's doing it... despite his actions and commands violating our most basic intuitions of what's right and wrong should a human do the same things.
That's playing fast and loose with ethics in my opinion. If people insist that God in his divinity is free to violate any human definition of what right and wrong behavior is, and is believed to always smell like a rose when he's doing it (he's God after all)... then what point is left in our calling him 'good'? If it can mean anything at all, the word 'good' no longer seems to have any meaning left when it's applied to God.
It's kind of a bait-and-switch. Most human beings already have this intuition of what 'good' means, of what kind of behavior the word applies to. When God is called 'good', we think we understand what the proposition means. Then we are told (down in the legalistic fine print) that 'good' needn't mean what we think it means when it's applied to God, and in fact it might mean precisely the opposite. Nevertheless, this God concept still retains the sweet flowery smell, the aura of goodness in many people's minds. And for some people, that's all that really counts I guess...
This is one (out of several) reasons why my own decision is that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic family of religions, those derived ultimately from Hebrew scripture, aren't the path for me. They just don't feel right. They fail the smell-test.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that God both exists and must be worshipped, the problem remains that here on earth many different images of what is believed to be the one true God exist. Many different paths and modes of worship exist, all claiming to be the right one, the best one. (Biblically, this is the problem of idolatry. We need to be worshipping God, not golden calves.)
So human beings are faced with the problem of separating the wheat (assuming there is any) from all of the chaff. They have to judge which depiction of divinity truly possesses reference to the highest and best. They are faced with choosing a path.
Human beings have no choice but to make judgements from our human perspective. That's the only kind of perspective that beings like us can have.
We have concepts of 'right' and 'wrong'. Certain kinds of behaviors, such as murder and genocide are among the worst of wrongs. That's why we class Adolph Hitler among the worst of criminals.
Yet we are being asked in this thread to accept certain images, certain scriptural depictions, as true depictions of what's claimed to be the one true God. And these scriptural depictions have this God not only committing abominations, but commanding his human devotees to commit similar crimes.
Then we are told that since this God supposedly created us (that's just asserted as faith) that this God can do whatever he wants to do with us. Not only that, we are told that this God is in fact the very essence of good (again, that's simply being asserted) when he's doing it... despite his actions and commands violating our most basic intuitions of what's right and wrong should a human do the same things.
That's playing fast and loose with ethics in my opinion. If people insist that God in his divinity is free to violate any human definition of what right and wrong behavior is, and is believed to always smell like a rose when he's doing it (he's God after all)... then what point is left in our calling him 'good'? If it can mean anything at all, the word 'good' no longer seems to have any meaning left when it's applied to God.
It's kind of a bait-and-switch. Most human beings already have this intuition of what 'good' means, of what kind of behavior the word applies to. When God is called 'good', we think we understand what the proposition means. Then we are told (down in the legalistic fine print) that 'good' needn't mean what we think it means when it's applied to God, and in fact it might mean precisely the opposite. Nevertheless, this God concept still retains the sweet flowery smell, the aura of goodness in many people's minds. And for some people, that's all that really counts I guess...
This is one (out of several) reasons why my own decision is that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic family of religions, those derived ultimately from Hebrew scripture, aren't the path for me. They just don't feel right. They fail the smell-test.
The hypocrisy and double-standards in much of mainstream religion is one of the reasons my wife and I consider ourselves modified Christians. The idea that God somehow "takes attendance" and other such notions is hilarious at best. The way we look at it, God cares about your life as a whole... did you make the attempt to do good in the world, did you try and help those less fortunate, did you put forth the effort to "be Jesus to the least of us". It isn't the results, it isn't the outcome... it's the attempt to be an all around good person. He understands we WILL make mistakes, and that's okay. We aren't perfect.
Those are also my beliefs (NACA)... an i dont care if people thank im just makin up my own religion as i go wit childish happy thouts to satisfy my need to feel Christan-like... ther-by keepin my deep seeded fear of hell at bay... while at the same time... acknowledgin that much of the mainstream religion is hypocritical an that the God of the Holey Bible behaves in monstrous ways.!!!
It's not difficult, Jam. You're attempting to defend atrocities comitted by God in the OT by substituting Christian mythology with something else, probably of your own invention.
That's not what i asked you. Your assertion that God cannot murder because he knows the soul does not die naturally leads to the premise that anyone who shares this belief is morally absolved of any wrongdoing if they kill someone.
Try again.
...you can't be serious. How do you explain the countlesa murders comitted by religious people?
Oh, is this where we pretend only believers are capable of understanding the concept of your deity?
Drop the red herring and address the point.
:facepalm:
Really, Jam? Who are we talking about? What book of the bible is Genesis in?
You're not good at playing these games.
Why do I have to hold your hand through this? What wasn't clear about this? I make a point about how we know Noah's story is taken from an earlier myth, and askhow you reconcile this knowledge with your faith, and you act like I'm speaking Greek. You can read, yes?
Is "thou shalt not kill" God saying killing is wrong? Is that the game we're playing now?
Even in your disbelief, you are unable to accept God' characterisations. And the reason you don't is to give yourself a reason to be an atheist. You know that the moment you start to look into it properly, you're going to believe it.
Please explain.
Yours is certainly a more benign interpretation, buf it's no less hilarious. You assume a celestial father-figure exists to watch over us and judge us, but you prefer that he accepts--surprise!--just about exactly the kind of person you are. By allowing that he doesn't sweat the mistakes you make, you've given yourself a free pass to use whenevr you like.
I csn better tolerate your brand of relious belief because you're not likely to hurt anyone, but I have to laugh when it's presented as a rational alternative to more traditional belief. It isn't that at all . It's just less dangerous. Then again, you did attempt to justify the Deluge as righteous...
Thing is, it isn't just my belief... that is, at least according to our pastors, the understanding of the United Methodist Church as a whole.
Even if that's true, it wouldn't change my opinion of it.
Yazata,
...
Please enlighten me as to how this act is an abominable one.
jan.
...
Please enlighten me as to how this act is an abominable one.
jan.
Balerion,
What is atrocious about eradicating pure evil from the face of the Earth?
No it doesn't. You probably mean it would be for you.
What does that have to do with what I said?
What are you talking about?
What ''red herring''?
I take it you're going to avoid answering the questions?
Another avoidance?
Obviously not. It doesn't help when I don't even know the game I'm supposed to be playing.
Nevertheless, I need some clarification, so either give it, or give up.
Er, no it's not. It's God saying ''thou shalt not kill''.
Already have.
jan.
What is atrocious about eradicating pure evil from the face of the Earth?
No it doesn't. You probably mean it would be for you.
What does that have to do with what I said?
What are you talking about?
What ''red herring''?
I take it you're going to avoid answering the questions?
Another avoidance?
Obviously not. It doesn't help when I don't even know the game I'm supposed to be playing.
Nevertheless, I need some clarification, so either give it, or give up.
Er, no it's not. It's God saying ''thou shalt not kill''.
Already have.
jan.
Yes, Yazata, please explain to Jam why genocide is an atrocity.
It's not genocide if they are wicked. You know, prostitutes, people who hang out in bars, people with no respect for authority, people who don't fear God. City folk.
Maher's take on people who tell us about "God's point of view" remains materially accurate.
Well that embarrassed the commenting - unintentionally, of course (no aim of self humiliation involved, and the point lost). Typo, and bad eyes - sorry.
He can't murder the soul. He can still murder the body. The body dies, and He knows that.
Calling the genocide of the Noachian Flood "pointless" does not make it disappear. God intended to kill all those people's bodies, same as any genocide perpetrator.
Depends. Often, they just want to do away with their body - the entity against which they have grievance.
Quite a few theistic murderers seem to have no difficulty seeing advantage in killing mere bodies, without regard to the eternity of life granted the released souls.
The motivations of the various witchkillings so prevalent among Theists, for example, seem solidly grounded in their Theism and fervent belief in eternal souls.
And this point remains:
The Kurds of 1990s Asia Minor, the Tutsis of 1980s Rwanda, the Reds of 1960s Central America, the Jews of 1930s Europe, the Blacks of 1920s USA, found true believers in Allah the Merciful, Keeper of one's Eternal Soul, make dangerous neighbors.
Once again we are faced with the "No True Theist" fallacy. The correlation between self-identified theists, especially very deeply committed or "sincere" ones, and people claiming to act on behalf of God's will, is quite strongly positive. It is one of the threats brought by the promulgators of Gods - that your neighbors can be persuaded to act on behalf of Their will, and it's much safer to join them than get in their way.
It's a material fact.
And no one who has separated the world into "material" and "spiritual" realms has any complaint about anyone else "leading people into the arms of materialism". You dig the pit, and blame others for falling in?
Bill Maher's political views appeal to me, as I've already said, but his whole criticism of religion is nothing but cheap shots on a subject he doesn't really understand. Anyone who knows anything about the Bible or the reason behind the thought and tradition of the Church/churches can see that he is very ignorant, and therefore not funny on this subject. He is just showing his ignorance, and his audience are for the most part fools who laugh because they are also ignorant. I don't mean to be provocative in saying this. I am stating a fact.
We know that God's idea of "pure evil" is spurrious. Not believing in him is enough to earn one a trip to eternal damnationland, so it makes you wonder just what was so evil about them anyway. And not everyone was evil, obvously, or else he wouldn't have spared Noah. Was he the only one? And what about the animals? What did they ever do to anybody?
[Quote[No it doesn't.[/quote]
Uh, yes it does. It's this thing called "logic." Pesky for someone of your ilk, I know, but them's the breaks.
LOL! Jesus, man, have you been huffing glue or something? What's so hard to follow about that? I can't type it slower, so...
How do you explain the countless murders comitted by believers? You said people who believe would never kill anyone, but we know for a fact this isn't true. How do you explain that?
:facepalm:
LOL! You are a joke.
Only if you're an idiot. I mean, I can't make it any more plain than that, Jam. If you're not intelligent enough to understand...
Then find a new hobby.
:shrug:
I just did! Holy shit, are you sleepwalking through this?]E
Well, that's just stupid. It's a false dichotomy. God defines good and ill by his commandments, so pretending his commandments don't define good and ill is wrong, and flat-out stupid.
No you haven't. You need to explain to me how I would instantly become a believer if I accpted "all of God's characterizations."
All I'm seeing is shit-slinging from you, and zero substance. Go ahead and refute his claims, or shut up.
Balerion,
Do we?
Where does state this?
Go read the Bible, boy.
I was right, it's your logic, because that's how you envision yourself acting, which is probably why you stay as far away from God and religion as much you can. You don't trust yourself to comprehend what is written.. But don't worry you're not alone. I don't trust you either.
Perhaps if I huffed glue I'd be able access your wavelength.
Believer of what?
Really?
I would be concerned if I wasn't classed as an ''idiot'' in Balerions world.
The clarity which is required to help your confusion is in the commandments. If you want to speculate fine, but provide some kind explanation to back up your claim. Otherwise you're just wasting my time. So I'll make this the last reply post, to you, unless you start acting like a grown up.
Because you're weak-minded. Which is why you to protect yourself by making false claims to justify your world view.
jan.
Do we?
Where does state this?
Go read the Bible, boy.
I was right, it's your logic, because that's how you envision yourself acting, which is probably why you stay as far away from God and religion as much you can. You don't trust yourself to comprehend what is written.. But don't worry you're not alone. I don't trust you either.
Perhaps if I huffed glue I'd be able access your wavelength.
Believer of what?
Really?
I would be concerned if I wasn't classed as an ''idiot'' in Balerions world.
The clarity which is required to help your confusion is in the commandments. If you want to speculate fine, but provide some kind explanation to back up your claim. Otherwise you're just wasting my time. So I'll make this the last reply post, to you, unless you start acting like a grown up.
Because you're weak-minded. Which is why you to protect yourself by making false claims to justify your world view.
jan.
Last edited:
A good example of an answer to your query, lies in the A+E story.
When Adam was created, he was perfect, because he was sinless, as time went by, he disobeyed God's request by appeasing his wife's request. From that point on, it became a slippery slope. The disobedient spirit of his original transgression was passed on, through his off-spring (not Abel or Seth), intensifying with each generation.
To summerise, the soul, the essential aspect of life, is non different to God, although finite, compared to infinite. Due to it's freewill, it has the capacity of choice to be true to it's nature, or to adopt the temporary nature of it's existence.
jan.