God sins a lot but is there no end to God’s greed?

[Greatest I am]

God sins a lot but is there no end to God’s greed?

"Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" - Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins has listed a few of the --qualities-- that he has gleaned from reading scriptures.

He seems to have forgotten God’s main sin though, that of greed and coveting.

God, in his greed, wants or more rightly said, demands, that we love, honor, and obey him and repent for sinning against him when in reality, man can only sins against man.
Any that dare not give all that he greedily covets is punished quite severely. This shows the depth of his greed. Scripture is surely on the mark when it says that he is a jealous God and God live up to this label quite well. Scripture also says that we are to try to be as perfect as God and that would mean having all the immoral attributes shown here.

Most, including the pope and other main line religions hierarchies believe in evolution. Evolution tells us that God, if he exists at all and that is not really a proven fact, would have lived may years before creating mankind. Most think that God is and always has been perfect and never changing.

In the beginning there would only have been God. No one or anything to be jealous of.
Nothing to covet, no one to control etc.

If Dawkins list has some accuracy in it and I am told by theists that it does, where did these attributes come from. They all seem so human that one would think that a God would be above such petty and immoral attributes.

One would think that a good God would only have good attributes but as we know, he cannot or will not follow his own commandments.
A human law maker is expected to follow the law and we see this as good morals yet theist follow a God who is acting less moral than men.

Strange.

How then did he suddenly become so jealous and greedy?
Even to the point of coveting another man’s woman, Mary.

Are there no commandments worthy of him following?

Are we to follow a law maker who does not follow his own laws?

Regards
DL

 

[gmilam]

God does not exist, therefore it can't sin or be greedy.

 

[786]

You can not covet something that is yours to begin with. Everything belongs to Him, its your stupidity to believe that your body, wealth, health, life, etc is actually yours.

Peace be unto you

 

[lightgigantic]

You can not covet something that is yours to begin with. Everything belongs to Him, its your stupidity to believe that your body, wealth, health, life, etc is actually yours.

Peace be unto you

concise and accurate

 

[spidergoat]

God is a soul vampire.

 

[jpappl]

You can not covet something that is yours to begin with. Everything belongs to Him, its your stupidity to believe that your body, wealth, health, life, etc is actually yours.

Peace be unto you

Way to ignore everything in the post.

Ever hear of suicide ?

Doesn't matter what your belief is about the afterlife, unless you want to claim that god told them all to commit the act, but then isn't it also a sin, so god wouldn't do that would he, it or whatever it is.

Maybe you can actually address the points made in the OP.

Ditto for you LG

 

[786]

Way to ignore everything in the post.

The main argument was about 'greed' and I think that last response was good enough to answer that.

Ever hear of suicide ?

Yes.. so what are you trying to say, I don't quite get the logic of this question- please explain your reasoning, then I'll try to address it.

Peace be unto you

 

[Randwolf]

You can not covet something that is yours to begin with. Everything belongs to Him, its your stupidity to believe that your body, wealth, health, life, etc is actually yours.

Peace be unto you

Everything? What about "will", as in "free will"? Does such a concept exist? If so, who/what owns it?

 

[lightgigantic]

God is a soul vampire.

the conditioned soul has an inflated sense of proprietorship empowered by a poor fund of knowledge

 

[lightgigantic]

Way to ignore everything in the post.

actually its a way to summarize the general failings of all Greatest's posts - namely to place god in the category of a mundane personality and proceed in fifth gear with the faulty logic

Ever hear of suicide ?

ever heard of free will?
(but as long as we are on the topic, suicide tends to be a consequence of despondency in the pursuit of one's desires, so being saturated with greed, covetousness etc can potentially fast track one to such an ultimate act)

Doesn't matter what your belief is about the afterlife, unless you want to claim that god told them all to commit the act, but then isn't it also a sin, so god wouldn't do that would he, it or whatever it is.

not sure how this relates to the OP since it was mainly about possessions and the like (as opposed to contextualizing greater issues of free will)

Maybe you can actually address the points made in the OP.

already done

Ditto for you LG

you sort of made an attempt to flesh out a few more points but didn't really get far. Maybe you can take a second shot.

 

[lightgigantic]

Everything? What about "will", as in "free will"? Does such a concept exist? If so, who/what owns it?

free will is owned by the individual, but the environment it is expressed in is controlled by god (since, either in its conditioned or liberated state, the living entity is 100% dependent on god)

Kind of like the jail and civilian life - both environments contain individuals with free will and both environments are maintained by powers way above and beyond the run-of- the-mill person - yet a marked qualitative difference establishes one as having a greater aperture for the expression and fulfillment of will

 

[jpappl]

The main argument was about 'greed' and I think that last response was good enough to answer that.



Yes.. so what are you trying to say, I don't quite get the logic of this question- please explain your reasoning, then I'll try to address it.

Peace be unto you

Everything claimed about god or written in the texts just prove that man created god in his image not the other way around. That is why we have such a idea about god. Because we looked around and applied those/our behaviors to the god.

Nobody can actually define god. Period. So nobody knows what god does, or will do or what it wants etc etc.

Regarding suicide. Where is your logic to say that we don't own our bodies ?

Other than your belief in god, which I don't, so show me your logic as to why in fact we don't own our bodies. Without bringing magic into it.

I say, I could commit suicide right now and god couldn't and thus wouldn't do crap about it.

It's contradictory or pure speculation, either way to say that suicide is a sin, yet god owns our bodies, yet god can't stop us from commiting the act or he encouraged or allowed it to occur.

Pick and choose much 786 ?

 

[jpappl]

LG,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Way to ignore everything in the post. ”

actually its a way to summarize the general failings of all Greatest's posts - namely to place god in the category of a mundane personality and proceed in fifth gear with the faulty logic

There is nothing logical about claims of god. There is no logic whatsoever in any claim.

“ Ever hear of suicide ? ”

ever heard of free will?
(but as long as we are on the topic, suicide tends to be a consequence of despondency in the pursuit of one's desires, so being saturated with greed, covetousness etc can potentially fast track one to such an ultimate act)

Yep, so you and I agree.

 

[lightgigantic]

Everything claimed about god or written in the texts just prove that man created god in his image not the other way around.

well yeah, if you work out of the premise that god doesn't exist in the first place .....

Nobody can actually define god. Period. So nobody knows what god does, or will do or what it wants etc etc.

Certainly these questions are beyond you, but then, who are you?
I mean if a person said that there is no way to resolve the wave/particle duality, we might first examine their credentials in the field of physics.

Actually the problem of religion is not the question of god or whatever. Its the lack of comprehension on what renders a statement or source its degree of authority.

Regarding suicide. Where is your logic to say that we don't own our bodies ?

The creation , most of the maintenance and destruction of them works well above and beyond our powers so its difficult to understand wht logic you are using to suggest that we do own them

I say, I could commit suicide right now and god couldn't and thus wouldn't do crap about it.

First of all, he could.
I mean I sincerely doubt you would demonstrate this, even for the sake of an argument on a forum.

The reason you can't is because god indirectly directs all conditioned life through remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness (all of which compliment the pursuit of ephemeral desire with an ephemeral identity in an ephemeral world - three highly alien experiences for the eternal living entity)

Secondly, even if we are sufficiently in ignorance to proceed with (wanton) destruction of hired goods, the crap usually follows in the aftermath. I mean you could wreck a hire car, but the crap that the company will give you will take the form of legal writs, fines, legal persecution etc. There's no requirement for your free will to be bandaged at the point of application (in fact if it was, you wouldn't have free will) when the subsequent direction and consequences of it can be meted out effectively.

It's contradictory or pure speculation, either way to say that suicide is a sin, yet god owns our bodies, yet god can't stop us from commiting the act or he encouraged or allowed it to occur.

If you crash a hire car is it absurd for the company to fine you because they own the car (and are therefore ultimately responsible for whatever accident it is involved in)?

Pick and choose much 786 ?

Its absurd to try and understand spiritual topics for as long as one cannot understand, even if only theoretically, the distinction between the self and the body.

If you wouldn't apply the same reasoning to the hire car scenarios there is no grounding to bringing it in here

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,



There is nothing logical about claims of god. There is no logic whatsoever in any claim.

that's my point

if you corrupt the terms of the argument (by replacing major for minor characteristics) the logic doesn't follow.

People do it all the time

Its called fallacious argument

Yep, so you and I agree.

then its not clear why you place "what one wants to do" with "what happens to one's body" in a chain of cause and effect that prohibits the existence of god

 

[jpappl]

LG,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Everything claimed about god or written in the texts just prove that man created god in his image not the other way around. ”

well yeah, if you work out of the premise that god doesn't exist in the first place .....

Yes. The believer has to make crap up.

Unless you claim to be having a conversation with god, so that you can truly know his intentions, desires, wants etc etc.

Then yes, it's all nothing but speculation. The problem is that there is nothing to steer us to even speculate BETTER.

Even with a subject like aliens or ET, we can say, well this is life as we know it so let's go from there and think about the possibilites, we may even find another basis of life which will further expand the possibilities.

With god you have nothing to go on, no clues that can have any meaning whatsoever, it's all speculation and while it may be fun to do so, taking ones speculation SERIOUSLY about something they CAN NOT POSSIBLY HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE of is ridiculous. Yet people go crazy if someone dares mention that fact to them.

You can believe all you want but you will never have knowledge until the end. At that point, there is either something or there isn't, or something that you couldn't envision.

 

[jpappl]

Lg,

“ I say, I could commit suicide right now and god couldn't and thus wouldn't do crap about it. ”

First of all, he could.
I mean I sincerely doubt you would demonstrate this, even for the sake of an argument on a forum.

Ok I challenge you. Chop off your arm and have god grow you a new one. We can have video set up so the whole of humanity can watch.

 

[jpappl]

LG,

“ Yep, so you and I agree. ”

then its not clear why you place "what one wants to do" with "what happens to one's body" in a chain of cause and effect that prohibits the existence of god

It doesn't prohibit the existence of god.

My point is that a god could exist but doesn't seem to be interested in the least in our bodies. They are ours apparently to do with what we want.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,



Yes. The believer has to make crap up.

or alternatively, the non-believer has to place incredible reserves of pride in their powers of perception and deem that simply because right here, right now, they have no perception of god, this is sufficient to extrapolate to the claim that no where no one has had perception of god.

Needless to say, its a childish manner to investigate the problem.

Unless you claim to be having a conversation with god, so that you can truly know his intentions, desires, wants etc etc.

Strange that we live in a world completely saturated with a wide array of literacy forms and communication and you deem that unless one has had a direct conversation with another one cannot know their intentions, desires or even existence.

I mean do you go to the political forum and poke the sore points in anther's argument because they have never had a conversation with Obama?

Then yes, it's all nothing but speculation. The problem is that there is nothing to steer us to even speculate BETTER.

the problem is that you exclusively demand that the problem be solved with your powers of speculation (while simultaneously sitting on your laurels)

Even with a subject like aliens or ET, we can say, well this is life as we know it so let's go from there and think about the possibilites, we may even find another basis of life which will further expand the possibilities.

well actually one can't even do that if one insists, like you do on the subject of religion, that all authorities in the field must answer first and foremost to your perception (After all, when was the last time you had a conversation with an alien, huh?)

With god you have nothing to go on, no clues that can have any meaning whatsoever,

The reason that there is no meaning is because you begin any sort of investigation only for the sake of supporting your (mis)conceptions.

IOW you are not looking for clues how to understand, know or comprehend god. You are looking for clues how to disprove and question his existence.

it's all speculation and while it may be fun to do so, taking ones speculation SERIOUSLY about something they CAN NOT POSSIBLY HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE of is ridiculous.

yet you oh so seriously abide by the speculation that no one cannot have any knowledge on the subject (never mind that there are literally miles of books, places and personalities on the subject)
:shrug:

Yet people go crazy if someone dares mention that fact to them.

lol
If you think you can render an absolute negative factual ("No one can know anything about X regardless of time place and circumstance") you are wasting your time.

Actually when you make such crazy assertions it tends to highlight the time, places and circumstances behind your own position

You can believe all you want but you will never have knowledge until the end.

well, yeah that's the general problem with empirical investigation when one calls upon it to answer universals or absolutes

Thats why the general consensus is that it a poor tool for the task of philosophy (although its just the thing for crossing the street or whatever)

At that point, there is either something or there isn't, or something that you couldn't envision.

or alternatively, persons with a higher grade of professional interest in the subject who not only have greater powers of investigation but also interpretation on what the evidence suggests.

That's why forensics scientists are commonly called in to court rooms as opposed to janitors despite the five-fold salary difference .... even if the janitor doesn't require glasses

 

[lightgigantic]

Lg,



Ok I challenge you. Chop off your arm and have god grow you a new one. We can have video set up so the whole of humanity can watch.

You first
Go hire a car and rear end a police van and see who wears it - you or the car company