Defining what is God.

[Sarkus]

It is not reasonable to conclude that such a God can exist, as an infinite space, for instance, requires an infinity of finite spaces - hence the infinite depends on the finite, and vice-versa (in as much as there can be no finite without the infintie as such is the ground of existence).

It might not be reasonable - but it is the logical conclusion if one is in search of the "superior" god - as this thread is out to do.
So I say again - the "superior" god did not create us.
If anyone is looking for a definition of their god that they think did create us - there IS a more "superior" god - and that "superior" god did not create us.

Presuming eternity, there cannot be a beginning or end to the causal chain.

I thought this part was about creation outside of the eternal attributes?
But if not - then the more superior god does not require change (cause/effect) within the eternal attributes - as he already has them all - eternally.

If there is cause then there is an absence beforehand of a certain position (i.e. a lack).
After the effect the certain position has been reached, but there is now an absence of the previous position (i.e. a lack).
The superior god has no lack.
It thus does not act.
It did not create.
It is thus a meaningless concept - but IS the logical conclusion of LG's search for the "superior" god.

Only I think he might be too stubborn to admit the flaw in his search as defined in the opening post.

 

[SnakeLord]

It is the "snake lords" literally that kill humans and destroy the universe.
They are destroyers...spiritual chargers that think of humans as no more than cattle.

I resent the comment. While talking to you is like banging my head against a wall I have nothing better to do right now so let's go through it briefly..

We might as well look at the universes very first "snake", (and one and only talking snake ever to have existed). From a biblical perspective what did he do? Whom did he destroy?

What he did was give mankind the ability to distinguish right from wrong. He gave you morals Visitor. He gave you the ability to know that killing is wrong, that stealing is wrong etc.

Your god did not want you to have this ability. Your god wanted you to stay an animal, (unaware you're even naked).

That is a biblical fact. First few pages of the bible will tell you that. If you could be honest for just one second which would you rather be? Your god's version of a human, (no morals, no intelligence), or the snakes version, (able to distinguish right from wrong etc)?

He didn't 'destroy' man, the snake made man. By his actions alone we are now men instead of animals - and for that, a no-good god decides to punish us all. For what, being able to tell right from wrong? Please..

You theists with your heads up your rectums call it "the fall of man", when it should be called "the rise of man". Before that event we weren't humans, we weren't men. That's how your god wanted you to remain. Pfft.

And you dare to say people like me think of humans as no more than cattle.. do me a lemon.

Your only other option is to state that god wanted the snake there. I would ask you if perhaps by any chance the snake happened to sneak into the garden unawares, (perhaps during god's 1000 year snooze). Would you concur with that? Would you say that the snake managed to sneak in to the garden unawares? If not the only viable conclusion is that god wanted the snake to be in the garden. To this I would question why. It's highly unlikely that the snake was there to water the strawberries. The only viable conclusion is that god wanted the snake there to get mankind to eat the apple to gain knowledge of good and evil. It's truly an idiotic way of doing things but what can ya do. In saying all of this the only viable conclusion is that god wanted man to have morals, decided to teach them morals via the snake and then for some bizarre reason decides to punish both the snake and us for doing exactly what he bloody well wanted us to do in the first place.

Either way you cut it, your god's an ass.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Hey, Snakey, you admit God exists, you admit Satan exists, and you choose Satan to serve, way to go.

 

[Godless]

Hey, Snakey, you admit God exists, you admit Satan exists, and you choose Satan to serve, way to go.

The forum joker, acts like a fool, thinks like a fool, and lacks reading comprehesion...Philocrazy is that you???!!

 

[SnakeLord]

you admit God exists

Wrong. I have exactly the same amount of belief in gods that you have in invisible banjo playing leprechauns.

you admit Satan exists

Wrong. I have exactly the same amount of belief in satan/demons that you have in the flying psychotic Banana Sunday of mount Hooglepoogle.

and you choose Satan to serve

Once you're done with idiocy kindly try and refute my statements. Debate the post, not the person.

We'll start off simple:

Would you say that god was unaware that the snake was in the garden of eden?

(It requires a yes or no only).

 

[Sarkus]

Wrong. I have exactly the same amount of belief in satan/demons that you have in the flying psychotic Banana Sunday of mount Hooglepoogle.

I had originally thought the flying psychotic Banana Sundae of mount Hooglepoogle was but a myth - until mine eyes were opened by His Toffee Ripple of Humbleness. Now I bow down in reverence before His Flavoursome.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

No.

 

[SnakeLord]

Unbelievable, we're getting somewhere. Thank you.

Right, so you conclude that god knew all about the snake and his presence in the garden of eden.

Did this god invent that snake, (and give it the ability to talk and the ability to deceive)? Again it's a simple yes or no answer.

I had originally thought the flying psychotic Banana Sundae of mount Hooglepoogle was but a myth - until mine eyes were opened by His Toffee Ripple of Humbleness.

Can you provide any evidence or am I forced to have faith in this as well? I wonder how silly theists would claim it to be if you told them they needed faith.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Yes (this is fun).

 

[SnakeLord]

Ok..

Do you think the snake actually "deceived" anyone from a biblical perspective?

Take into account the following biblical statement:

"god knows in fact that the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good from evil".

We can conclude that this is not a deception for several different reasons:

1) He says that when they eat of it they will get knowledge of good and evil. This stands to reason given that the tree itself is called the tree of knowledge of good and evil - and thus implies that it does give knowledge of good and evil to those that eat from it.

2) Their eyes were "opened" upon eating the fruit, (both realised at this point that they were naked whereas they did not before)

3) god himself attests to the accuracy of the snakes statement:

"Man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil"

These 3 things show beyond reasonable doubt that the snake was being entirely honest with Adam and Eve.

There is of course one issue that tends to crop up that might reflect upon the snake in a negative manner. This comes in the form of:

"No, you will not die.."

There are of course a couple of problems with this argument:

1) Due to differing biblical translations there is concern about whether god says they will die the day they eat it, or that they will be destined to die the day they eat it.

2) The garden contains a tree of life that was not eaten from by Adam or Eve. Unless we are to suggest that the tree had absolutely no purpose in the garden, we should conclude that neither Adam nor Eve were actually immortal and thus would have been destined to die eventually regardless to whether they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil or not.

3) Upon finding out they had eaten the fruit, god starts getting concerned about the tree of life - and so puts up guards to prevent Adam and Eve from eating the fruit. If they were already immortal this action would have been pointless, (indeed it's pointless for an omnipotent being anyway that doesn't need to put up a guard for the tree but just *bling* it out of existence altogether - as it now serves no purpose whatsoever). The bible would undoubtedly reflect that this god booted them out of the garden and removes their immortality as punishment.

However, I will accept your answer for either side as long as it's an honest and well thought out one.

Thanks in advance.

 

[nds1]

"The first chapter of B'reshit, or Genesis, written on an egg, in the Jerusalem museum."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Genesis_on_egg_cropped.jpg


Is the above egg real? Was genesis really written on en egg?

 

[Hapsburg]

God(s)- a supernatural being(s) who has a great capacity for the alternation of the physical world through metaphysical means, and whose physical and mental capabilities far exceed that of any known biological entity.

 

[TheVisitor]

I resent the comment.
I don't believe you really understood the comment the way it was intended.

While I did intend on pointing out that someone who chose a name like snakelord is definitely looking at the dark side of the issues and should not be used as a source for "biblical perspectives"......

Geeser seems to think your putting on some act as a theist......therefor I'm missing some "point".

When I said the "snakelords" were destroyers, ect....that was not referring to you.
I thought that would be clear enough.
Spiritual wickedness in high places.....was what I was more referring to, sorry.
We both know it wasn't a real snake.....at least I think you're probably starting to suspect that by now, that in the scriptures the word "serpent" meant something else.

While talking to you is like banging my head against a wall I have nothing better to do right now so let's go through it briefly..

We might as well look at the universes very first "snake", (and one and only talking snake ever to have existed).

"The one and only talking snake", that's not even what It was saying....but even if it was a talking snake, God used a donkey to talk to Baalam remember?
Take my word for it, there's more to the story than that.
Read on.

Some of your Sumerian held beliefs do have some merit.....way down, way back in man's history or prehistory rather.
Much of what they said, from their perspective could have been true.....other cultures of ancient man also.

But you're failing to recognize two different groups both being called man....
The Bible concerns Itself with the creation of Adam.....and the Word of God, as God.
What was here on this Earth before, and what species of man before Adam, Satan may have used as hosts, is not reiterated to much degree.
See, the Bible is God in Word form.....and Jesus Christ is the beginning of the creation of God.
God in flesh, the fullness of the Godhead bodily....
These others are not.

They are referred to only as they affect the training of His children.......the body of Christ which is the Word of God.
That is why the Bible is the Book of Life.
It was never intended to be what the religions try to make it in their ignorance....a complete history of the Earth as a whole.....no.

It is a history of the creation of God.......which started with Adam, who fell and was redeemed with all the Sons of God, by the Saviour.......the only One found worthy, to be found with Life.
He chose to share It with us.....and It was His to share and do with as He sees fit.
He had to come and die, fulfilling His own law to grant us this mercy.
Why should He not....as a wise man does in the choosing of a bride, wish to seperate those that do truly love Him, from them that do not?

Only through Him, do any of us have life.
And the Bible is Him.
It is the Book of Life, not a history of the Earth.

Adam was a Son of God.......made in God's image as an amateur god.
Which potentially was a new creation of God's own spiritual "genes", or attributes if you will.
Potentially a race with more authority and power than the angels.....once they matured and passed their "childhood" to manifest God in flesh.

Satan, the original serpent didn't want this to happen.
That is one way of looking at it, no doubt there is deeper meaning yet in the mind of God, to bring about His purpose that is manifesting here.

Michael did not bring "railing" accusation against him, so neither will I....for in some way it may be found he is doing the Lord's will, even while exercising his own....like performing the work of a "double agent", or a "prosecuting attorney".

This creation of man called Adam, was not an "ignorant" animal in need of enlightenment by the serpent, or eating of the tree of knowledge to be as God.

He already was like God, just with a little "spiritual amnesia".....bypassing previous existence in theophonic form where he would have known "all things".

This condition set the stage for the testing.

From a biblical perspective what did he do? Whom did he destroy?

What did the devil and his followers destroy?
Well, they're not called "destroyers" for nothing, but they end up just destroying themselves and those they are involved with.....I believe.

This world today is his Satan's Eden, not God's....
That's why God has appointed it's destruction.
But I believe they bring it upon themselves.

Like there are two seeds in man.....there are also the "twins" in every move of God.
Satan is impersonating God.
He is a god of this Earth, He wanted to be worshiped as God......and he is, he has had marvelous success.

Again you need to see the "two seeds" in the field.
The God of Heaven, and the god of the Earth.
They are not the same God.
But they both have children here on this Earth being tested.

What he did was give mankind the ability to distinguish right from wrong. He gave you morals Visitor. He gave you the ability to know that killing is wrong, that stealing is wrong etc.

Wrong.
That is not what is written.
He has made it nearly impossible for man to distinguish right from wrong, by impersonating God in every way.
We are to have oue senses exercised in the discernment of good from evil, and study.....the Words of Life....to show thyself approved.

Your god did not want you to have this ability. Your god wanted you to stay an animal, (unaware you're even naked).

There is a spiritual equivalent to being naked.

That is a biblical fact. First few pages of the bible will tell you that.

It says no such thing. Not God wanted us to be animals or ingnorant......that is carnal.
Religion is a covering, until they had sinned they were innocent and had no need to cover their spiritual "nakedness".
They were placed here with a spiritual amnesia....as children.
Isn't there something to be said for seeing through the wonder of the eyes of a child.
Omniscience would spoil the excitment of some things.......like peaking at your christmas presents.

If you could be honest for just one second which would you rather be? Your god's version of a human, (no morals, no intelligence), or the snakes version, (able to distinguish right from wrong etc)?
He didn't 'destroy' man, the snake made man.

Now we get to the heart of what you're really saying.
"The snake made man."

In a way, your correct....but just not in the manner you're implying.
The snake didn't make man, he took what God created and changed or perverted it from it's original condition for his own purposes.....to make a better "host" for himself perhaps.

By his actions alone we are now men instead of animals - and for that, a no-good god decides to punish us all. For what, being able to tell right from wrong? Please..

The more evolved the more dangerous the animal, that's all.
A "no-good god"....?
He is punishing them that are found to be without.....
Without a love of the truth, believing the devils lie.

The lack of being able to tell right from wrong, is what's being judged.

Should a powerful host, possessed of spirits that have not a love of the truth, whether you call it a man, or an animal, or a god.....be allowed to terrorize the entire Galaxy, or Universe, like some tyrants on the loose......without restraint, without mercy.
Just a wild beast.....living by survival of the fittest?

That's what man is without God.

You theists with your heads up your rectums call it "the fall of man", when it should be called "the rise of man". Before that event we weren't humans, we weren't men. That's how your god wanted you to remain. Pfft.

And you dare to say people like me think of humans as no more than cattle.. do me a lemon.

For a moment there I actually thought you knew what you where talking about, then you totally lost it.
But I see where you would think "rise of man"....sure, in a way.
But they promote an image....of this great "beast" which is what the devil would have man believe he can be.....but without a love of the truth, and the character of God.....it is just another lie.
Satan, the bible says......is glorifying the world of the flesh, carnality instead of spirituality.

You've got to take into account what has been "quarantined" here, or will be and why....and the fact they are using man.

Your only other option is to state that god wanted the snake there. I would ask you if perhaps by any chance the snake happened to sneak into the garden unawares, (perhaps during god's 1000 year snooze). Would you concur with that? Would you say that the snake managed to sneak in to the garden unawares? If not the only viable conclusion is that god wanted the snake to be in the garden. To this I would question why. It's highly unlikely that the snake was there to water the strawberries. The only viable conclusion is that god wanted the snake there to get mankind to eat the apple to gain knowledge of good and evil. It's truly an idiotic way of doing things but what can ya do. In saying all of this the only viable conclusion is that god wanted man to have morals, decided to teach them morals via the snake and then for some bizarre reason decides to punish both the snake and us for doing exactly what he bloody well wanted us to do in the first place.

Either way you cut it, your god's an ass.

Then you start making sense again.....except for that last sentence of course.

Yes, He wanted it there.....it wasn't a literal snake, it was the devil speaking through another species called man, which makes it a host vessel for the devil and it becomes referred to then as a serpent.
But that is not the main issue here.

It was allowed for a purpose, sure it was.
That in itself should be no mystery to someone that has studied the scriptures and other religious texts as you have.

Did he sneak in during God's 1000 year rest.....good question.
But he also is allowed to "sneak" back in again after the next 1000 year "God's rest".

God tempts no man.
The devil is quite an expert at that you've got to admit, but God brings all things together for a greater purpose.

This new race, the Sons of God.....must be tested many times at various stages along the way, before being placed in such a position of authority.

But in the end....eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered the heart of man, the joys that God has waiting for them that love God.
And......He is the truth.

That's what it all comes down to.
Those that have a love of the truth, and those that don't have a love of the truth.
The battle just takes an "intermission" once and awhile......and then it resumes.

 

[SnakeLord]

While I did intend on pointing out that someone who chose a name like snakelord is definitely looking at the dark side of the issues and should not be used as a source for "biblical perspectives".....

That's extremely naive. My forum nickname has no bearing on 'dark sides' or any other sides I might look at - it stems from the fact that I have always had pet snakes.

When I said the "snakelords" were destroyers, ect....that was not referring to you.
I thought that would be clear enough.

Clear enough heh? Well, SnakeLord is my internet nick and aside from that "snakelord" I know of no others - be they destroyers or otherwise. So, what destroyer snakelords were you talking about?

We both know it wasn't a real snake.....at least I think you're probably starting to suspect that by now, that in the scriptures the word "serpent" meant something else.

What inane gibberish is this?

A) Of course the snake isn't "real". Neither are gods, demons, fairies etc. I've known that for a long time.

B) You are right, "serpent" does not mean serpent in the bible, it actually means banana. You see, there was a giant talking banana.... *yawn*.

You theists can be so idiotic. You think you're in the position to just randomely change words so they mean whatever you want them to mean without any just cause to do so. On some other thread there's a theist trying to claim that 'mountain' actually means city. One would have to question the competence of those that wrote the bible... "This guy went to a city, so let's write that he went up a mountain.. that'll work".

It's ludicrous.

From a biblical perspective the snake is a talking snake. It is not a banana, a humanoid woman bonking being or anything else. It can become those things when you susbantiate those claims with something of a little more worth than your say so.

Take my word for it

That's not how the world works visitor. Tell me, why must I take your word for it? You can't susbtantiate anything you say.

What was here on this Earth before, and what species of man before Adam, Satan may have used as hosts, is not reiterated to much degree.

Reiterated? It's not even implied. From where do you get the belief that there was something before man that satan used as a host? Please, highlight it.

Adam was a Son of God.......made in God's image as an amateur god.
Which potentially was a new creation of God's own spiritual "genes", or attributes if you will.
Potentially a race with more authority and power than the angels.....once they matured and passed their "childhood" to manifest God in flesh.

Satan, the original serpent didn't want this to happen.
That is one way of looking at it, no doubt there is deeper meaning yet in the mind of God, to bring about His purpose that is manifesting here.

Support this with biblical text.

This creation of man called Adam, was not an "ignorant" animal in need of enlightenment by the serpent, or eating of the tree of knowledge to be as God

Support that claim. The bible shows otherwise. He wasn't even aware he was naked and upon eating the fruit became like one of the gods.

He already was like God, just with a little "spiritual amnesia".....bypassing previous existence in theophonic form where he would have known "all things".

Support the claim.

What did the devil and his followers destroy?
Well, they're not called "destroyers" for nothing, but they end up just destroying themselves and those they are involved with.....I believe.

I'll try again:

From a biblical perspective what did he do? Whom did he destroy?

This world today is his Satan's Eden, not God's....
That's why God has appointed it's destruction.

It's quite astounding. I'm just a human but even I can figure out that the best plan is just to *blip* satan out of existence and done with it. Why destroy the universe? It seems... pointless.

Like there are two seeds in man.....there are also the "twins" in every move of God.
Satan is impersonating God.
He is a god of this Earth, He wanted to be worshiped as God......and he is, he has had marvelous success.

Support this.

Again you need to see the "two seeds" in the field.
The God of Heaven, and the god of the Earth.
They are not the same God.
But they both have children here on this Earth being tested.

Support this.

Wrong.
That is not what is written.

Wrong. That is what's written, it's not what's in your head.

He has made it nearly impossible for man to distinguish right from wrong, by impersonating God in every way.

Before eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference who he impersonated. A being with no knowledge of good and evil wouldn't give a shit one way or the other. god/satan.. it's meaningless.

Isn't there something to be said for seeing through the wonder of the eyes of a child.

Certainly. But then if you tell that child not to drink bleach while leaving a bottle of open bleach next to it, the only person at fault when it does drink that bleach is the idiot that put the bleach there and told the child not to drink it.

The snake didn't make man, he took what God created and changed or perverted it from it's original condition for his own purposes.....

Oh dear me, poor old god got done over by a snake. Anyway, support your claim.

The lack of being able to tell right from wrong, is what's being judged.

And.. thanks to the snake we all now have that ability.

Satan, the bible says......is glorifying the world of the flesh, carnality instead of spirituality.

Passage please.

It was allowed for a purpose, sure it was.

What purpose?

God tempts no man.

I beg to differ. The amount of people that have been tempted into belief/worship purely because this god said they'd burn otherwise.

As always Visitor, you like to mumble a lot of nonsense that you don't bother to support or substantiate with anything. Unlike some I have no qualms with people using the bible as reference, (I do it myself and indeed consider it fundamental to this conversation). I would ask that you take those lengths next time. Anything is better than nothing, and right now you're giving nothing but hot air.

 

[TheVisitor]

You may say this is nothing but "hot air".....and it may be just that to you.
That is understandable given the statement of what you believe to be true.

But others recognize something else in the Scriptures.....
"The Voice" in the Word.

I won't argue with you SnakeLord....go ahead and have the last word.
I have other things to do.

 

[Sarkus]

TheVisitor, having read your post, I have to admit that you do come up with a vast number of scripturally unsupported ideas, such as things only being metaphor.

While it is of course entirely your choice in what to cherry-pick from the Bible as literal truth or merely as metaphor / analogy, you must also appreciate that if YOU are happy to cherry-pick and claim some passages as merely analogy / metaphor then this is just as valid a claim as someone who claims the entire Bible is analogy / metaphor - i.e. fiction.

 

[qwerty mob]

God(s)- a supernatural being(s) who has a great capacity for the alternation of the physical world through metaphysical means, and whose physical and mental capabilities far exceed that of any known biological entity.

Nice one, however one should avoid ascribing "supernaturality" to any God, since it is a negatively-defined attribute. Also, one can shorten it in order to solve the "Problem of other God(s)" (since a working definition has to apply to any God)...

"All Gods are imaginary, mythological beings."

 

[lightgigantic]

Nice one, however one should avoid ascribing "supernaturality" to any God, since it is a negatively-defined attribute. Also, one can shorten it in order to solve the "Problem of other God(s)" (since a working definition has to apply to any God)...

"All Gods are imaginary, mythological beings."

Actually supernatural just means that it is beyond current levels of 'natural' understanding, just like to a jungle tribesman, a telephone could be rated supernatural - for a phone technician it would be rather mundane

 

[SkinWalker]

And, by that, didn't you just affirm that there is no reason to accept gods and other supernatural nonsense? If it's "beyond current levels of 'natural' understanding," why should anyone accept the claims of the superstitious with their regard?

Perhaps you could outline the general principles involved in such superstitious thought?

 

[lightgigantic]

And, by that, didn't you just affirm that there is no reason to accept gods and other supernatural nonsense? If it's "beyond current levels of 'natural' understanding," why should anyone accept the claims of the superstitious with their regard?

Perhaps you could outline the general principles involved in such superstitious thought?

which brings us to the issue of how can a physicist explain something about the nature of the electron to an inimical high school drop out, or, as in this case, how can a phone technician explain about the nature of telephone to a jungle tribesman?