What does God want?

[DaveC426913]

Well if you are not prepared to discuss God according to scriptural definitions, its probably best if you just listen to looped triumphant kazoo music rather than make the pretense of engaging in discussion on these topics.

If you are not prepared to discuss God, even as a theoretical subject for the sake of argument, it's not clear why one would bother to even put in a token appearance in a thread like this.

Foul. Musika is attempting to move the goalposts.

It was not a premise of this thread that the God of the Scriptures is what is being discussed here.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, but the scriptures are outdated. Even the Pope acknowledges that the world is not as the scriptures would have it. Religions acknowledge the Big Bang, and acknowledge that Genesis is a parable, not a history lesson.

There is no reason to assume anyone here is talking about the Scriptural God. You can bring it here as a part of your argument, but the rest of us are not constrained by that. And it sure doesn't give you any right to tell others how they get to contribute.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It was not a premise of this thread that the God of the Scriptures is what is being discussed here.

So, what "God" are we discussing then?

And, not to put too fine a point on it, but the scriptures are outdated. Even the Pope acknowledges that the world is not as the scriptures would have it. Religions acknowledge the Big Bang, and acknowledge that Genesis is a parable, not a history lesson.

What's up with you people?
Don't you realise the Bible isn't the only scripture?

Why is the scripture outdated?

There is no reason to assume anyone here is talking about the Scriptural God. You can bring it here as a part of your argument, but the rest of us are not constrained by that. And it sure doesn't give you any right to tell othe

So what God is" the rest of us" discussing?

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

So, what "God" are we discussing then?

So what God is" the rest of us" discussing?

That is an excellent question.

So far, we might as well be discussing the Cosmic Unicorn, since no one has provided anything other than their personal subjective opinion on any matter that could rule one entity out and another entity in.

So, I put it to you: show us something that demonstrates the Cosmic Unicorn or a leprechaun is not the entity in charge of the universe.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That is an excellent question.

So far, we might as well be discussing the Cosmic Unicorn, since no one has provided anything other than their personal subjective opinion on any matter that could rule one entity out and another entity in.

So, I put it to you: show us something that demonstrates the Cosmic Unicorn or a leprechaun is not the entity in charge of the universe.

Boring!
Try again.
You're afraid to discuss God. Why?

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

Boring!
Try again.

As expected, you just ignore any questions you don't have answers to.

You're afraid to discuss God. Why?

We just finished agreeing that we can't even figure out which god we're discussing.

Okay, I'll pick. Let's discuss the Cosmic Unicorn, which is the one of the possible results of Bowser's and your logic.

You have only to look around you and see the works of the CU. Why do you deny it?

Are you anti-Cosmic-Unicornist? That will certainly taint all your answers.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Okay, I'll pick. Let's discuss the Cosmic Unicorn, which is the one of the possible results of Bowser's and your logic.

Boring.
Come back when you're ready to discuss.

Jan.

 

[Seattle]

Why is God even being discussed? Some don't acknowledge that there is a God and some (most religious posters) are sure there is a God so what is there to talk about?

Jan, why do you want to talk about God (and apparently nothing else on this particular forum)?

 

[Musika]

Foul. Musika is attempting to move the goalposts.

You are talking rubbish.

The op is "what does God want?".

If you want to introduce bertrandesque celestial teapots and play around with discussions of God's existence you are just asking questions the OP disregards for the sake of launching a more advanced line of inquiry.

If you don't want to go (even theoretically) further than accepting that God doesn't exist, clearly you have no business in a discussion about what God wants.

The OP takes for granted premises that you are not even theoretically prepared to accept, so why bother with this thread?

 

[Musika]

Why is God even being discussed? Some don't acknowledge that there is a God and some (most religious posters) are sure there is a God so what is there to talk about?

What do you suggest we discuss in a thread titled "What does God want?" ... a thread penned by one of the admins of the site.

Usually if we are not impressed by the subject of a thread, we express our lack of appeasement by not participating in it.

 

[Seattle]

What do you suggest we discuss in a thread titled "What does God want?" ... a thread penned by one of the admins of the site.

Usually if we are not impressed by the subject of a thread, we express our lack of appeasement by not participating in it.

World Cup Soccer...doesn't God want that?

 

[DaveC426913]

The op is "what does God want?".

If you want to introduce...

And if you want to introduce the God of scripture, go ahead.
But that's your argument to make. No one is bound by your premises but you.

You're almost giving the impression that you won't - or can't - entertain a God outside of scripture. And that you don't think anyone else can either.

 

[Musika]

And if you want to introduce the God of scripture, go ahead.
But that's your argument to make. No one is bound by your premises but you.

You're almost giving the impression that you won't - or can't - entertain a God outside of scripture. And that you don't think anyone else can either.

Discussing God outside of scripture is like discussing American politics from 500 AD. I'm pretty sure if you researched hard enough and speculated to your fullest limits you could trace the lineage of the founding fathers and whatnot, but given the current state of affairs, one would have to wonder what the point is.

 

[DaveC426913]

Discussing God outside of scripture is like discussing American politics from 500 AD. I'm pretty sure if you researched hard enough and speculated to your fullest limits you could trace the lineage of the founding fathers and whatnot, but given the current state of affairs, one would have to wonder what the point is.

So, for the record, it is your assertion that understandings of God that are not the God in scripture are meaningless.
i.e. Either people are talking about the God as written in scripture, or they are talking nonsense (like American politics in 500AD).

 

[Musika]

So, for the record, it is your assertion that understandings of God that are not the God in scripture are meaningless.
i.e. Either people are talking about the God as written in scripture, or they are talking nonsense (like American politics in 500AD).

If someone is referencing God, they are either posing as a self realized soul or referencing some body of scripture.

If its the former, then that can also be analyzed in terms of scripture. If its the latter, then obviously it involves scripture.

For the purposes of discussion, given the current discussion forum, it is probably more efficient just to discuss things in terms of the latter (it seems the only advocates for being self realized souls here are atheists trying to launch their views via the FSM or CU).

 

[DaveC426913]

For the purposes of discussion, given the current discussion forum, it is probably more efficient just to discuss things in terms of the latter (it seems the only advocates for being self realized souls here are atheists trying to launch their views via the FSM or CU).

Bowser's experience of God is different from yours. And it seems he is also not an atheist.

If yours is the one of scripture, does that mean Bowser's is not? And will you then - for the sake of efficiency - ask him to stop contributing?


And is

For the purposes of discussion, given the current discussion forum, it is probably more efficient just to discuss things in terms of...

just a euphamism for your increasingly common habit of telling other people on what terms they get to contribute? Or whether they have any business contributing at all?

 

[Musika]

Bowser's experience of God is different from yours. And it seems he is also not an atheist..

Different in what way?

If yours is the one of scripture, does that mean Bowser's is not?

I'm not sure. Sounds like a q you should discuss with Bowser.

And will you then - for the sake of efficiency - ask him to stop contributing?

I guess all these requests of yours presume that I first be involved in actually having a discussion with Bowser ...

 

[Musika]

And is

just a euphamism for your increasingly common habit of telling other people on what terms they get to contribute? Or whether they have any business contributing at all?

Feel free to contribute anyway you want. If you expect others to meaningfully reciprocate, it may be worthwhile toning down facetious dialogues, such an atheist palming themselves off as a God realized soul.

 

[DaveC426913]

Different in what way?

Does it matter?
You are telling this discussion your constraints about God that it should be operating within.

I'm not sure. Sounds like a q you should discuss with Bowser.

No, it's to you. His is different from yours. And if you claim to be talking about the scriptural God, then Bowser can't be.

Maybe the God were talking about here isn't wholly constrained by your beliefs.

I guess all these requests of yours presume that I first be involved in actually having a discussion with Bowser ...

No, they question your need to tell others in what format they get to contribute.

You should stop doing that.

 

[DaveC426913]

Feel free to contribute anyway you want.

That flies in the face at least three comments you have made to various members in the last two pages alone.

If you expect others to meaningfully reciprocate, it may be worthwhile toning down facetious dialogues, such an atheist palming themselves off as a God realized soul.

I don't think anyone else is misled by me positing a hypothetical scenario to make a point of equivalence. (I literally said I was being deliberately facetious.) It's a perfectly valid debate technique.

But I'll tell you what. Let's both end this sidebar and let the discussion proceed without further attempts to control how others contribute.

 

[iceaura]

Well if you are not prepared to discuss God according to scriptural definitions,

There is no scriptural definition of "God" in general.
There are a couple of specific deities described in various ways in various scriptures - the ones with pictures are especially detailed.

You mean like, aside from scriptural references explaining how the building blocks and laws of nature exist in a relationship of contingency with God, I assume?

No such references exist.
There are some bald claims of an unspecified relationship to "made" or "created" entities someone might misrepresent as a continuing "contingency", but nothing in the way of explanation - and nothing at all about "building blocks" or "laws".

If someone is referencing God, they are either posing as a self realized soul or referencing some body of scripture.

Or accepting for the sake of argument what some theist is insisting on for the moment in a science forum.