If God/Jesus does not know sex and reproduction, he is not fit to dictate it’s laws.

[Balerion]

This is where my scientist/experiment analogy breaks down.

While true, the fish in the tank cannot judge the scientist for his ministrations (what do the fish know of global warming and eco-erosion?), his peers can judge him. But God has no peer. The buck stops with him.

Oh, your analogy breaks down long before that.

 

[Greatest I am]

GIA's seemingly requisite copy and paste "free will"/"Gnostic Christian naturalist" post at any mention of free will. IOW, no intention to engage any argument.

I am about.

Do you not select where to go?

If you have a need to direct, I suggest getting your own board. Otherwise, who is listening to your complaints?
Not I.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Yeah but it's fresh to me.



I don't accept your premise. I am not convinced that anyone, including Christians, is trying to "absolve" God of responsibility. (But I am open to being convinced.)

I think their point is that, while he is ultimately responsible for creating us such that we can do bad things, that does not mean he is to "blame". Simply put, God is beyond judgement. That's kind of the big perk of being a god. He's not just a rilly rilly Big Cheese; he's God.

This is where my scientist/experiment analogy breaks down.

While true, the fish in the tank cannot judge the scientist for his ministrations (what do the fish know of global warming and eco-erosion?), his peers can judge him. But God has no peer. The buck stops with him.

If Mr. Cheese is creating animals like us, who only cooperate or compete daily, then he cannot judge us poorly if we sometimes compete or do evil. He built that into us.

I give that creative power to nature though.

Where you see the one God, you will know that the originators of the O T, the Jews, saw God as more of an entourage. Note in Genesis, we made man in our image. Men and women. There was at least a male and female God.

Regards
DL

 

[DaveC426913]

If Mr. Cheese is creating animals like us, who only cooperate or compete daily, then he cannot judge us poorly if we sometimes compete or do evil. He built that into us.

He built into us the free will to do good or bad, then told us what was good and what was bad, then let us go. If we choose unwisely, perhaps he'll wipe us out and rebuild, concluding that free will is not a desirable trait.

The point remains though, as God, he is above mere human judgement of what is logical.

I'd be pretty ticked if my tiger barbs all decided to eat each other instead of the tasty worms I provided. True, I put them all in the same tank, but that doesn't mean I don't get to call the shots. And I do, after all, have their species' best interests at heart, even if they don't see that.

 

[Greatest I am]

He built into us the free will to do good or bad, then told us what was good and what was bad, then let us go. If we choose unwisely, perhaps he'll wipe us out and rebuild, concluding that free will is not a desirable trait.

The point remains though, as God, he is above mere human judgement of what is logical.

I'd be pretty ticked if my tiger barbs all decided to eat each other instead of the tasty worms I provided. True, I put them all in the same tank, but that doesn't mean I don't get to call the shots. And I do, after all, have their species' best interests at heart, even if they don't see that.

Are we supposed to go by what is written to know what God wants or are we to use him as our best example the way scriptures urge us to do?

What God says is not what he does as he often breaks his own written commandments.

Do we do as he does or do we do as he says?

Regards
DL

 

[DaveC426913]

What God says is not what he does as he often breaks his own written commandments.

The commandments are for the created, not the creator. A God, by definition is not subject to commandments.

The sign on the lab door says "No Animals Are to Be Fed After Midnight". Do you think that applies to the scientist? The fact that the animals think the scientist is breaking his own rules does not mean he is not fit to care for the animals.

BTW, you could even substitute 'human test subjects' in place of 'animals', and it still applies. The scientist - and God - are in a privileged position.

Again, not claiming God to be so, or whether he's fair. Just reiterating that his commands and actions are not paradoxical.

Do we do as he does or do we do as he says?

Which is the rationale for the rise of Jesus. A man. Subject to human laws and commandments. It addresses the question "How does a mortal human follow the example of a God?" For many, God provided the answer "Follow my mortal counterpart, Jesus".

 

[aymanbinmoshi]

I didn't know that man is so aggressive at present that they tease God before coming forums. I know the reason. Not to share now.

 

[Balerion]

I didn't know that man is so aggressive at present that they tease God before coming forums. I know the reason. Not to share now.

I'd call teasing far less aggressive than the killing of women for marrying outside her tribe, or for the crime of letting herself be raped. But I'm not a Muslim cleric, so what do I know?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'd call teasing far less aggressive than the killing of women for marrying outside her tribe, or for the crime of letting herself be raped. But I'm not a Muslim cleric, so what do I know?

I'm betting you've got this in the wrong context, and are not prepared to look at the bigger picture, because this interpretation suits your worldview.
But aside from that, it appears to us that God has killed, but he has merely removed the person (soul) from the suit/vehicle it inhabits.

jan.

 

[GeoffP]

If God/Jesus does not know sex and reproduction, he is not fit to dictate it’s laws.

If God/Jesus, does not know of man’s sexuality, then he has no right or just claim to dictate our sexual conduct. He does not have the skill set or knowledge required to judge. No carnal desires, no wife, no pure born children, no chemical reaction in his brain, or sexual desire for a wife without reproduction being the reason.

God/Jesus’ only opportunity to learn of man’s sexuality is through Mary, his mother. If God does know of our sexuality then it can only be through incest. There is also the issue of bestiality. Jesus and God are not of our species.

God cannot know of the desires that men and women have in terms of sex. He cannot know the forces at work. These forces are mostly all chemical and physical. That means that God cannot know what penalties to assign to the various desires that are acted upon by man’s instincts. God would not know if those instincts can be denied or not or when a normal healthy desire crosses the line to insanity.

Should man’s sexual laws be dictated by a Jesus/God who cannot know what sex for humans is all about?

Regards
DL

I'm sure that this has been said by someone already, but the mere concept of a divine being able to alter the laws of the universe sort of trumps any issue about the... fairness?... of a god dictating sexuality within any one species within that universe. Might as well get annoyed about the lot as about any one instance.

 

[Balerion]

I'm betting you've got this in the wrong context, and are not prepared to look at the bigger picture, because this interpretation suits your worldview.

And I'm betting this is a standard-form response to any criticism of religion, without actually reading what it is you're responding to. For example, Poster 1 says that people are so aggressive that they taunt God; Poster 2 says teasing is not nearly so aggressive as murdering rape victims for bringing dishonor to their families, or for marrying outside of the tribe; Poster 3 says Poster 2 is taking Poster 1 out of context, and needs to look at the bigger picture, though fails to provide the context Poster 3 claims Poster 2 is lacking, or explain what exactly the bigger picture is.

Unless you have something of substance to add, I can't really help you?

But aside from that, it appears to us that God has killed, but he has merely removed the person (soul) from the suit/vehicle it inhabits.

jan.

I never said God killed anyone. I said people killed in the name of their god.

 

[Greatest I am]

The commandments are for the created, not the creator. A God, by definition is not subject to commandments.

The sign on the lab door says "No Animals Are to Be Fed After Midnight". Do you think that applies to the scientist? The fact that the animals think the scientist is breaking his own rules does not mean he is not fit to care for the animals.

BTW, you could even substitute 'human test subjects' in place of 'animals', and it still applies. The scientist - and God - are in a privileged position.

Again, not claiming God to be so, or whether he's fair. Just reiterating that his commands and actions are not paradoxical.


Which is the rationale for the rise of Jesus. A man. Subject to human laws and commandments. It addresses the question "How does a mortal human follow the example of a God?" For many, God provided the answer "Follow my mortal counterpart, Jesus".

I see.

Then we are to follow a religion that is based on human sacrifice.

That would be immoral and I will not.

God having his son murdered when there was no need to is also to follow an insane God.

Quite a poor example of justice as well when his justice says that it is good to punish the innocent and let the guilty walk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYaQpRZJl18&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-91mSkxaXs

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I'm betting you've got this in the wrong context, and are not prepared to look at the bigger picture, because this interpretation suits your worldview.
But aside from that, it appears to us that God has killed, but he has merely removed the person (soul) from the suit/vehicle it inhabits.

jan.

So you are happy with God being an-------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78H-tRFShiY

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I'm sure that this has been said by someone already, but the mere concept of a divine being able to alter the laws of the universe sort of trumps any issue about the... fairness?... of a god dictating sexuality within any one species within that universe. Might as well get annoyed about the lot as about any one instance.

I am there for that but one issue at a time.

I have not fallen to belief in fantasy, miracles and magic so there is much to chew on.

Regards
DL

 

[DaveC426913]

Your post is based on incorrect facts*. (Facts, in this case being the teachings. You are misrepresenting and misunderstanding the teachings.)

God having his son murdered when there was no need to is also to follow an insane God.

God did not have his son murdered. Man did.

The reason Christians follow Jesus is because they realized God sent them a savior - and men, in their stupidity, killed him.

Quite a poor example of justice as well when his justice says that it is good to punish the innocent and let the guilty walk.

Man killed man. That is not God's example. However, God giving man free will means sometimes he doesn't punish them for their stupidity.

 

[Balerion]

Your post is based on incorrect facts*. (Facts, in this case being the teachings. You are misrepresenting and misunderstanding the teachings.)

God did not have his son murdered. Man did.

The reason Christians follow Jesus is because they realized God sent them a savior - and men, in their stupidity, killed him.


Man killed man. That is not God's example. However, God giving man free will means sometimes he doesn't punish them for their stupidity.

God sent him having full knowledge that he would be killed. And killing him was exactly what cleansed people of their sins. In this knowledge, God is culpable in his son's death, because he could have taken action to prevent it and did not.

Rather than accusing others of misunderstanding the teachings, I suggest revisiting your own understanding of the scripture.

And I'm sincerely starting to doubt your alleged unbelief. Your apologetics are of the typical inane Christian variety.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

Your post is based on incorrect facts*. (Facts, in this case being the teachings. You are misrepresenting and misunderstanding the teachings.)

God did not have his son murdered. Man did.

The reason Christians follow Jesus is because they realized God sent them a savior - and men, in their stupidity, killed him.


Man killed man. That is not God's example. However, God giving man free will means sometimes he doesn't punish them for their stupidity.

 

[DaveC426913]

God sent him having full knowledge that he would be killed.

What makes you claim this?

And killing him was exactly what cleansed people of their sins. In this knowledge, God is culpable in his son's death, because he could have taken action to prevent it and did not.

Having created everything would put him beyond culpability.

Why would he prevent the death? Is he obliged to interfere? We're talking about free will here.

Rather than accusing others of misunderstanding the teachings, I suggest revisiting your own understanding of the scripture.

He did misrepresent the teachings. It's not an accusation.

What makes you think I don't understand them?

And I'm sincerely starting to doubt your alleged unbelief. Your apologetics are of the typical inane Christian variety.

Address the argument, not the arguer.

 

[Balerion]

What makes you claim this?

God is omniscient. There is no way he would not know what would happen. And Jesus seems to know full not only that his death is imminent, but that it must happen.

Having created everything would put him beyond culpability.

It does not follow that the maker of the rules is therefore above the rules. And if this were true, then it would destroy the Christian faith, because in it we are to believe that God sacrificed his son because of how much he loved Man. If his actions cannot be immoral, then neither can they be moral, or loving, or anything else that he created.

Why would he prevent the death? Is he obliged to interfere? We're talking about free will here.

He interfered by sending him in the first place, so there goes that. And if he knew that his son would die, then yes, he would be obliged to prevent it, just as any other parent would be. And I don't want to hear that he did it so we could be absolved of our sins, because God was the one who invented that gambit. He could have just as easily snapped his celestial fingers and made it all better.

This also raises the question of whether or not we actually have free will, insofar as the Bible is concerned. If God is omniscient, and knew what we would do if he sent Jesus to earth, does him then sending Jesus not constitute predestination?

He did misrepresent the teachings. It's not an accusation.

He did not. You did. As I have demonstrated.

What makes you think I don't understand them?

Your explanation of them.

Address the argument, not the arguer.

I did. And your argument speaks to a general dishonesty about your professed lack of faith.

 

[Hertz]

I think some people have mis-understood 'free will.' If something WILL, then it is already determined! There is no such thing as 'free-will.' It is determined by definition.

Bestiality is an ab-use of sex because they cannot create children together. God made inter-course the way it is: it takes two; natural selection (one must be able to attract a mate in order to continue the genesis.) The ugly species' will eventually become extinct, and attractive species' become more attractive.