This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule.

[DaveC426913]

Look, this is not new. The argument has been around since before "Can God create a boulder so large even he can't lift it?"

The simple answer is that paradoxes will inevitably arise when when tries to define things in terms of cosmic absolutes.

It is simplistic to think that, because we define a word "omnipotent" and then we apply it to our notion of God, that somehow God is the one being paradoxical.

The map is not the territory. The thing is not its description.

 

[Michael 345]

Look, this is not new. The argument has been around since before "Can God create a boulder so large even he can't lift it?"

The simple answer is that paradoxes will inevitably arise when when tries to define things in terms of cosmic absolutes.

It is simplistic to think that, because we define a word "omnipotent" and then we apply it to our notion of God, that somehow God is the one being paradoxical.

The map is not the territory. The thing is not its description.

Thought I mentioned the thought bubble was not original (certainly not from me).

I'm not sure which came first god or the word omnipotent.

Bullshit I'm not. God obviously came first then the word omnipotent.

We? didn't define omnipotent first and then shoehorned god into the meaning.

Pretty sure the notion of god being omnipotent came from church not we.

This single portion of we heard church telling this part of we god is everywhere, sees everything you do, knows what's in your heart and even knows when a sparrow kicks the bucket.

God is not being paradoxical, the situation is.

So the question can be rephrased from:-

"Does he (the agnostic) get his meeting place?" <<<<< paradox

or

Does the paradox disappear by adjusting one (may be both) of the conditions

1. god not being omnipotent
2. agnostic ceases to impose conditions?

I think it would.

Problem alert.
Church will not sanction a god who is less than omnipotent.
Agnostics want the meeting place.

The map is not the territory. True. It merely illustrates the territory in a small usable format.

A/ The thing is not its description

Incorrect. If I am looking at the territory and describe it as territory that's a one to one relationship.

B/ The thing is not its description

Correct. If I am looking at the territory and describe it as ocean.

 

[Michael 345]

Look, this is not new. The argument has been around since before "Can God create a boulder so large even he can't lift it?"

The simple answer is that paradoxes will inevitably arise when when tries to define things in terms of cosmic absolutes.

It is simplistic to think that, because we define a word "omnipotent" and then we apply it to our notion of God, that somehow God is the one being paradoxical.

The map is not the territory. The thing is not its description.

Thought I mentioned the thought bubble was not original (certainly not from me).

I'm not sure which came first god or the word omnipotent.

Bullshit I'm not. God obviously came first then the word omnipotent.

We? didn't define omnipotent first and then shoehorned god into the meaning.

Pretty sure the notion of god being omnipotent came from church not we.

This single portion of we heard church telling this part of we god is everywhere, sees everything you do, knows what's in your heart and even knows when a sparrow kicks the bucket.

God is not being paradoxical, the situation is.

So the question can be rephrased from:-

 

[Greatest I am]

We do? Defend please.


Again, being a supreme creator exempts one from laws and rules.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If God is then so am I as I seek to be as perfect as God.

If I need to defend that we expect judges to live under the same laws we do, then you are not worth my time.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

So you'd be OK if someone cut you down for a chair, or intentionally burned you because they figured that was good for your ecosystem?

.

You are not good at analogies are you.

How about noticing that I am not wood but do have orgamns to give to society when the time is right.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Take it with a grain of salt. You can be Islamic, Jesus doesn't die in the Quran.

I take both religions as homophobic and misogynous and in need of being put down by all good people.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

God is us. That explains most everything related to this subject.

That is a truth that few idols worshiping Christians will agree with.

Gnostic Christians and many Jews do see as you do though.

Regards
DL

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

You do realise this is an opinion of a human and nothing more.
I do not see how quoting the words of another human gives authority to the person quoting those words.
Why not express your view? For my part I will treat what you say with greater respect than any words quoted from someone outside the conversation.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

That is a truth that few idols worshiping Christians will agree with.

Why is the use of idols wrong when the bible uses symbolism as its predominate style?Surely idols are symbols of God for those who use them.
Alex

 

[Syne]

This is incontrovertible proof that Man is evil. Man does not live by his own golden rule.

Man kills when he could just as easily cure. This is irrefutable.
This is a clear violation of the golden rule. The golden rule as articulated by Jesus.
Man then is clearly evil.
Do you agree with Jesus that anyone who breaks the golden rule is evil?

Or do you really think god acts directly in the physical world?

 

[DaveC426913]

If I need to defend that we expect judges to live under the same laws we do, then you are not worth my time.

In other words, you can't defend it.

You really think God is subject to the same laws we are? You sure that's what you want to go with?

Well, that notion at least has the virtue of never having been suggested before...

 

[billvon]

You are not good at analogies are you. How about noticing that I am not wood but do have orgamns to give to society when the time is right.

That is an excellent example of why comparing human morality to God's "morality" is meaningless. You define your humanity - including your concept of charity - in part by your physiology (i.e. you have organs you can donate.) That doesn't apply to any concept of God.

Again, trying to apply the same morality to man as to God is like trying to apply your morality as it applies to organ donation to a forest, or to a rock. Are forests moral?

 

[Michael 345]

That is an excellent example of why comparing human morality to God's "morality" is meaningless. You define your humanity - including your concept of charity - in part by your physiology (i.e. you have organs you can donate.) That doesn't apply to any concept of God.

Again, trying to apply the same morality to man as to God is like trying to apply your morality as it applies to organ donation to a forest, or to a rock. Are forests moral?

I don't see any problem with the comparison of morals between mortals and god.

Not a problem with any comparison.

Forest rocks and like have no consciousness hence no ability to form morals to have.

As to organ donation this as well as every other value decision can sit anywhere on the sliding scale between good and bad.

 

[billvon]

I don't see any problem with the comparison of morals between mortals and god.
Not a problem with any comparison.
Forest rocks and like have no consciousness hence no ability to form morals to have.

That's odd. We are far closer to forests and rocks than we are to any conventional image of God. And compared to the distance between man and God, man and canines are almost identical - yet we selectively breed them, perform painful cosmetic surgery without their consent, sterilize them and euthanize them without many moral qualms at all. Why do you think that our morality would apply to God when we don't even apply our own morality to dogs?

 

[Greatest I am]

You do realise this is an opinion of a human and nothing more.
I do not see how quoting the words of another human gives authority to the person quoting those words.
Why not express your view? For my part I will treat what you say with greater respect than any words quoted from someone outside the conversation.
Alex

Understood and I do not disagree, but if it is a Christian reading a quote from his "WORD", it has more authority.

Since we are talking of Yahweh, quoting the bible is allowable as it speaks of that imaginary God.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Why is the use of idols wrong when the bible uses symbolism as its predominate style?Surely idols are symbols of God for those who use them.
Alex

They are indeed but if one is an idol worshiper, the idols words and views are supreme in the mind of the idol worshiper. Idol worshiping closes the theists mind to other better views.

That is why Christians end in adoring a genocidal son murderer.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Or do you really think god acts directly in the physical world?

Certainly not a supernatural God. In Gnostic Christianity and Jewish circles, man is God and in that sense we definitely act directly in our physical world.

It all depends on who God is to the one believing in God.

Most theists place themselves as subservient to God while the more enlightened will make God subservient to us humans. That is basically natural law where the strong serve the weak and the strong do not expect to be served by the weak.

That is the case in your family. Right?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

In other words, you can't defend it.

You really think God is subject to the same laws we are? You sure that's what you want to go with?

Well, that notion at least has the virtue of never having been suggested before...

Your historical knowledge is lacking.

Gnostic Christians and many Jews have always put man above God. Even the more enlightened Christians will if they read their bible correctly.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

That is an excellent example of why comparing human morality to God's "morality" is meaningless. You define your humanity - including your concept of charity - in part by your physiology (i.e. you have organs you can donate.) That doesn't apply to any concept of God.

Again, trying to apply the same morality to man as to God is like trying to apply your morality as it applies to organ donation to a forest, or to a rock. Are forests moral?

Strange that you do not think we can compare our moral sense to God when in Genesis, God himself says we have his thinking down pat.

They have become as Gods in the knowing of good and evil.

Regards
DL

 

[billvon]

Strange that you do not think we can compare our moral sense to God when in Genesis, God himself says we have his thinking down pat.

You actually believe Genesis literally? Not only does it make no sense, it is only one of the hundreds of creation stories out there. No wonder you are often confused about this stuff.