Does God make mistakes?

[wynn]

We're in a discussion, and I don't see any of the folk I'm discussing with holding back, or being subjective in their arguments.

I presume myself to be subjective, and often, I make this clear by prefacing my statements with "I think", "In my opinion", and such.
When I make an objective-sounding statement, to me, this is an act of presumptuousness and egotism.

Now, I don't mean to project and assume that when others make objective-sounding statements, they too are acting out of presumptuousness and egotism.
I presume they could simply be enlightened, or just somehow know better.

I consider myself in an absolutely subordinate position to anyone who identifies themselves as a theist. I don't always show this, but I do believe it.

Why should I?

You don't have to. But the issue of an individual's certainty about their statements is directly connected to the topic of discussion.

Don't you think the statement "God ALLOWS babies to get raped" sounds "authoritative and objective"? Why don't you ask the same question to the authors of that statements?

That statement somehow doesn't resonate with me. I generally take the extent of the threat as an orientation point: the worse the threat, the more seriously the person making or implying the threat should be taken.
Atheists don't have much to threaten with, in my opinion.
But fire and brimstone theists do.

What do you mean by choosy?
And why is choosing to argue from a scriptoral perspective, an act of confidence?

Ask any (militantly?) devout Christian and they'll tell you you are being choosy if you prefer other scriptures above the Bible. And this choosiness will land you in hell, for all eternity. So yes, to me, it is an act of absolute confidence in one's own abilities to choose some Vedic scripture over some mainstream version of the Bible.

I know this probably seems awkward or idle to you, but I assure you that to people like Doreen and myself, it is anything but that.
I still get panic and anxiety attacks (although they are milder lately) if I study Vedic scriptures, fearing I am making a mistake and will burn in hell for all eternity if I turn away from Christianity.

To me, it seems like an act of rebellion against the one and only true God (just ask someone like Adstar or Photizo), an act of relying on my fickle mind (which, according to Vedic wisdom, isn't to be relied on!) to choose some Vedic scripture over some version of the Bible.

By "eventually" do you mean the next few month, years, decades?

By the time of your death, or by the time when you can't do anything anymore, and what counts is what you have done up to that point, whether it be enough to save you from eternal damnation or not.

Does God love me? I believe God loves every soul, as we are (by all scriptoral injunctions) connected to Him.
It simply doesn't make sense for Him not to.

Why do you think it matters what religous scripture, and tradition you choose, for God to determine whether He loves you or not?

According to Christianity, God loves every soul too - but He sends the majority of them to hell for all eternity.

I feel obligated to believe that "love" and "torture in hell for all eternity" go together perfectly.


Other than that, you seem to be making your argument from the perspective of some kind of natural theism - a kind of theism that is not restricted to any particular theistic tradition.

 

[wynn]

Why are people like Adstar or Photizo not taking part in this discussion??????

 

[wynn]

incorrect

Either you are Dywyddyr, or this is most uncanny!

 

[Dywyddyr]

Either you are Dywyddyr, or this is most uncanny!

No, he's not me. I'd have at least tried to avoid the error implicit in that statement.

 

[lightgigantic]

Either you are Dywyddyr, or this is most uncanny!

funnily enough I was imitating in my mind the parochial rationalism of Dywie when I put together the response

 

[Dywyddyr]

Aw, then better luck next time. You might achieve it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

I presume myself to be subjective, and often, I make this clear by prefacing my statements with "I think", "In my opinion", and such.

So do I, but it becomes tedious to keep using prefaces when you are engaged in a long discussion with a person, or a history of discussions with the same people. I expect them to know where I'm coming from.

You don't have to. But the issue of an individual's certainty about their statements is directly connected to the topic of discussion.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

That statement somehow doesn't resonate with me. I generally take the extent of the threat as an orientation point: the worse the threat, the more seriously the person making or implying the threat should be taken.
Atheists don't have much to threaten with, in my opinion.
But fire and brimstone theists do.

Fire and brimstone theists are people who want power over others, by scaring gullable people into taking shelter of them and their organisation.

You should feel just as threatened by the regime/machinary that pushes to axe God from the human pysche, if not more so.
Because once that occurrs, the soul of humans will become hell-bound.
At least with fire and brimstone preachers, we still have a chance to use our mind, and free will, to look things up for ourselves.

Ask any (militantly?) devout Christian and they'll tell you you are being choosy if you prefer other scriptures above the Bible. And this choosiness will land you in hell, for all eternity.

I do constantly, and they have no answer for my arguments, much like the atheists. Their reasoning (like the atheists) is based on doctrines thought out by humans, taken from scripture, then modified to fit that particular time.
When the doctrine is put against the scripture, it becomes very obvious. And the adherent is then faced with a dilema. Do they get back to the original meaning, or do they carry on with their doctrine, meaning they have some serious dot-joining to do.

So yes, to me, it is an act of absolute confidence in one's own abilities to choose some Vedic scripture over some mainstream version of the Bible.

That makes no sense to me at all, unless you are refering to some kind of national law which prohibits the reading of other scriptures.

I know this probably seems awkward or idle to you, but I assure you that to people like Doreen and myself, it is anything but that.
I still get panic and anxiety attacks (although they are milder lately) if I study Vedic scriptures, fearing I am making a mistake and will burn in hell for all eternity if I turn away from Christianity.

The thing is, I don't, and I see no reason to, unless a gun is being held to my head, and even then, i don't know for sure how i would react.
What would it take to get you out of that place?
And what are you prepared to do for your own sake?

To me, it seems like an act of rebellion against the one and only true God (just ask someone like Adstar or Photizo), an act of relying on my fickle mind (which, according to Vedic wisdom, isn't to be relied on!) to choose some Vedic scripture over some version of the Bible.

And to me, it doesn't.
To me it seems like common sense to make somee enquiry as to the nature of the soul. And to read all authoritative literature which gives explanation, then decide for myself.

By the time of your death, or by the time when you can't do anything anymore, and what counts is what you have done up to that point, whether it be enough to save you from eternal damnation or not.

I think everything will be, as it should be. I am not aware of every single thought I produce, every living being I kill, every emotion i feel, or make others feel. I would go mad trying to account for that.

According to Christianity, God loves every soul too - but He sends the majority of them to hell for all eternity.

That's Christianity, not the scripture.

I feel obligated to believe that "love" and "torture in hell for all eternity" go together perfectly.

I'm not.

Other than that, you seem to be making your argument from the perspective of some kind of natural theism - a kind of theism that is not restricted to any particular theistic tradition.

There are no boundaries other than those we set for ourselves. My perspective is "theism". The "particular theistic tradition" you speak of, is related to the term i use "according to time, place, and circumstance.
The way we prepare food always changes, but food will always be food, no matter how it's prepared.

jan.

 

[wynn]

No, he's not me. I'd have at least tried to avoid the error implicit in that statement.

What are you talking about?
You said "Snails don't paint at all" without checking whether this is in fact the case.

There, again:

 

[Dywyddyr]

What are you talking about?
You said "Snails don't paint at all" without checking whether this is in fact the case.

I see, so like LG you're contending that what those snails are doing is intentional? That they decided to put paint trails down, as opposed to being used by a human to create a painting?
The snails are no more "painting" than is a brush when used, or than a pen writes a novel, they're just moving as snails do and only incidentally leaving a trail of paint (because a human has deliberately placed paint in their way) instead of "slime".

 

[lightgigantic]

I see, so like LG you're contending that what those snails are doing is intentional? That they decided to put paint trails down, as opposed to being used by a human to create a painting?
The snails are no more "painting" than is a brush when used, or than a pen writes a novel, they're just moving as snails do and only incidentally leaving a trail of paint (because a human has deliberately placed paint in their way) instead of "slime".

hence ... Along similar lines, if one categorizes the act of painting as including an assessment in the eye of the beholder and not necessarily the artist, one could say there is an argument for snails being good at painting .... note however that if one categorizes the act of painting as requiring some sort of self critique of the artist, one could say there isn't an argument.



(and hence "parochial" is quite an accurate description .....)

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yes one more "explanation" that tends to remove any meaning from virtually anything...
Well done.

 

[Doreen]

I see, so like LG you're contending that what those snails are doing is intentional? That they decided to put paint trails down, as opposed to being used by a human to create a painting?
The snails are no more "painting" than is a brush when used, or than a pen writes a novel, they're just moving as snails do and only incidentally leaving a trail of paint (because a human has deliberately placed paint in their way) instead of "slime".

Are you saying that we are intending, in contrast to the snails, when it can be shown that our bodies have already decided to do things fractions of a second before our conscious minds 'decide.'

What is intending or choice in a determinist or quantum mechanical world?

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes one more "explanation" that tends to remove any meaning from virtually anything...
Well done.

and hence furthermore ... IOW in both cases, the assessment of what constitutes the boundaries a "mistake" or "painting" is what the argument pivots on.


(and hence "parochial" becomes an even more perfectly accurate description of your use of so-called logic)

 

[Dywyddyr]

(and hence "parochial" becomes an even more perfectly accurate description of your use of so-called logic)

Of course it is
IOW you're claiming that because I have come down on one side of the argument (i.e. the opposite one to you apparently) I'm parochial whereas you aren't?

note however that if one categorizes the act of painting as requiring some sort of self critique of the artist, one could say there isn't an argument
(and hence "parochial" is quite an accurate description .....)

 

[Dywyddyr]

Are you saying that we are intending, in contrast to the snails, when it can be shown that our bodies have already decided to do things fractions of a second before our conscious minds 'decide.'

And now you're removing the argument even further from everyday experience.
Are the snails any more of a medium than a brush? Or gravity and wind would be if one used a different method?

 

[(Q)]

i use the bible when god tells me to pick it up and read it. when the agenda is to gain an understanding, the spirit relates scripture to my personal experience.

Bullshit. You use the bible when it suits your purposes and ignore it when it doesn't. Lying for Jeebus again?

what do you use it for? to judge people? to attack people? pick it up and hurl it at their heads.

I use it to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Christians who use it to tell us how to live, to judge us, to attack us and to hurl it at OUR heads, while they go off and do whatever they want despite themselves.

you can meet god anytime you want.

Yeah, we've already been down that road where you failed miserably to have your god meet with me. You offer only a pack of lies, Lori. No morals. None.

 

[lightgigantic]

Of course it is
IOW you're claiming that because I have come down on one side of the argument (i.e. the opposite one to you apparently) I'm parochial whereas you aren't?

you miss the point
you are parochial because you insist on a singular (narrow)definition of painting, much like you insist on a singular (narrow) definition of a mistake ... and hence your whole tirade of the logic that follows these narrow definitions is similarly narrow

 

[(Q)]

do you see how both sides are guilty of that?

Bullshit. There would be no need for the "other side" to do anything at all if it wasn't for the good Christians of the world shoving their beliefs down our throats.

when others try to tell you what it is about, and try to indoctrinate you to their view, instead of understanding your experiances..

In other words:


"LALALALALA ...my worldview trumps reality... LALALALALALA ...my personal perceptions override hard evidence... LALALALALALA"

 

[lightgigantic]

"LALALALALA ...my worldview trumps reality... LALALALALALA ...my personal perceptions override hard evidence... LALALALALALA"

will the irony never end?

 

[(Q)]

will the irony never end?

Not unless we see the end of religions.