Who, other than a man, ever put voice to the will of God?

Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Valued Senior Member
Who, other than a man, ever put voice to the will of God?

We are told that we will be judged at the end of our lives. Judged by a God who will torture us forever in hell if we happen to not believe properly and follow his rules. This judgement will come even as we never get full disclosure by a God who hides from us. We are as some say, to choose heaven or hell, God or Satan, without having full knowledge of the conditions.

We are to believe that bible God is our real God yet that God is arguably a genocidal son murdering God. He is more akin to Satan than what any moral God would be.

All that we have in the way of information has been written by men.

Who other than a man ever put voice to the will of God?

For peace and stability, within religions, and possibly the world, a new man must be found to represent God within the various religions. Let us thank God that man has forsaken the Christian God as a lawmaker and ignore his barbaric laws.

That being the case as all believers have ignored or scrapped the Abrahamic bible God’s laws, since they do not live by them, should believers not elect a new God as scriptures indicate is supposed to happen at end times?

God was a human invention to begin with.

Should we not seek a new modern God who does not have the evil baggage that the current God has?

Our laws are certainly better than any God’s so it seems to me that we should elect a new God based on current law and not the draconian immoral laws of the old Gods. God has always been represented by a man. We should return to that system while recognizing that God has always been a myth.

Regards
DL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M114bK4qaiM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/user/TurpisHaereticus#p/u/4/0ny-CDU4EFs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9FKn4rKXEY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKg4HLsu5gE&feature=related
 
If human freewill is granted by a god or an attribute of a non-centralized divine spark then, by extension, the collective will of man is the will of the divine. For good or bad, the notion of a god has always been a variation on an idealization of man.

In light of that, yes, all are judged throughout life with heaven or hell being realized here. No, we never do get full disclosure on our fellow man, and some never even come to understand their own motives. Yes, all we can know of the will of a god is by way of the will of men.

But none of this necessitates a god as myth.
 
I have never received a good answer to this. Some religious people will tell you they communicate with God, that there is a "living" Jesus. And yet somehow they don't go and write another Bible, maybe one updated for the times. Apparently Moses, Mohammed, and Joseph Smith were special.
 
Syne: "But none of this necessitates a god as myth."

No . . . none of this NECESSITATES God . . . but perhaps it 'beats' the alternative!
 
wlminex said:
Syne: "But none of this necessitates a god as myth."

No . . . none of this NECESSITATES God . . . but perhaps it 'beats' the alternative!
Click to expand...

It actually necessitates neither, but I was responding to the specific claim made.
 
Syne said:
If human freewill is granted by a god or an attribute of a non-centralized divine spark then, by extension, the collective will of man is the will of the divine. For good or bad, the notion of a god has always been a variation on an idealization of man.

In light of that, yes, all are judged throughout life with heaven or hell being realized here. No, we never do get full disclosure on our fellow man, and some never even come to understand their own motives. Yes, all we can know of the will of a god is by way of the will of men.

But none of this necessitates a god as myth.
Click to expand...

Free will is something that can only be taken. It cannot be given unless it was forcibly withheld in the first.

For instance, you could use your free will right now and kill someone.
It is a freedom that you were never given, but could take if you wanted to.

See what I mean?

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.




Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that it is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should see that what Christians see as something to blame, we should see that what we have, deserves a huge thanks where it belongs. God or nature.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be.

Regards
DL
 
spidergoat said:
I have never received a good answer to this. Some religious people will tell you they communicate with God, that there is a "living" Jesus. And yet somehow they don't go and write another Bible, maybe one updated for the times. Apparently Moses, Mohammed, and Joseph Smith were special.
Click to expand...

I use this as an analogy.

Watch this and know that all religions basically started this way.

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/59507/detail/

Regards
DL
 
Free will is different from natural instinct. An animal has no choice but to be true to their instincts associated with their species based animal nature. Free will developed in humans, when humans could challenge their natural human animal instincts, for better or worse, based on willful choices. You could avoid eating, diversify eating choices, or you could eat until you puke instead of just be natural.

If we did nothing, the dog will be true to his nature. To make him change from his nature, we will need to use outside influence such as food, pain, repetition and commands, to make him alter his natural choice. He may want to follow us, but we can train him to stay. But he will not do this on his own, based on his free will, but requires someone outside him to condition him into a new habit.

Free will allows humans to be our own censor and conditioner. Unlike the dog, human free will allows us to generate the new requirements of behavior internally. This requires a secondary point of view (objectivity) which is different from instinct or habit, or else one could not observe, isolate and alter the choice. If you are not conscious of the impulse you don't have free will to alter.

Relative to the bible, the old testament was based on an external God. He was analogous to the master for the dog humans, to help direct them where they needed to go. They lacked free will but were compulsive with bad habits and like herd animals under the control of law to teach them the commands.

In the New Testament, there is the inner voice of the holy spirit, where free will appears without the requirement of an external pressure, via law, this was needed so the human dog will be able to obey. Not many people actually have free will if you still require an external master to train you. If I follow the herd even for good this is not free will since it is just a big master leading a lot of dogs.

The Saints of the church were people who were driven internally and had the free will to alter the reality around them without the need of an external master. Often the church is taken back when they are alive due to this. The church has to make sure they were not just a human dog who know tricks.
 
That's false, many, many animals learn most of their behavior, especially mammals, especially primates. We also have instincts just like animals, just throw a baby in the pool and see how they already know to hold their breath.
 
wellwisher

Yet when A & E used their free will for the first time, to do their will and not God's, he beat the hell out of his new slaves.

Oh well.

Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am said:
Free will is something that can only be taken. It cannot be given unless it was forcibly withheld in the first.

For instance, you could use your free will right now and kill someone.
It is a freedom that you were never given, but could take if you wanted to.

See what I mean?
Click to expand...

Freewill is, at a bare minimum, an evolutionary endowment, so it was indeed "given" (caused to have) by the progressive development of organisms.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.
Click to expand...

Like the possible difference in freewill between animals and humans, freewill is only as useful as it can be exercised. Animals are obviously limited in this regard, whether by form, brain size, or something else. Humans value things like love because of the latitude choice. The love of another human is more significant than that of a pet because a human has much more latitude in their choices. Likewise, a god would find the greatest freedom of choice to offer the highest value in "fellowship", just plain relief of divine boredom, or as a co-opt if its own will, a fuller possible expression of itself.


Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that it is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should see that what Christians see as something to blame, we should see that what we have, deserves a huge thanks where it belongs. God or nature.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

Sounds like a decent outlook, even if there are no logical inconsistencies between evil and a benevolent, omnipotent, god co-existing.
 
Syne said:
Sounds like a decent outlook, even if there are no logical inconsistencies between evil and a benevolent, omnipotent, god co-existing.
Click to expand...

A benevolent God would not create an nimmoral construct like hell and an omnipotent God, who has infinite powers of persuasion, would not need it.
He could persuade any to his side.

Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am said:
A benevolent God would not create an nimmoral construct like hell and an omnipotent God, who has infinite powers of persuasion, would not need it.
He could persuade any to his side.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

So you claim to know what a god would do with these capabilities? Logically, a benevolent god would allow some harm for the purpose of a greater good, just like there must be the destruction of an old structure to make way for a new and better one. If an omnipotent god exercised absolute "persuasion" that would negate freewill, as no sane person is really free to choose that which is obviously wrong.
 
Syne said:
So you claim to know what a god would do with these capabilities? Logically, a benevolent god would allow some harm for the purpose of a greater good, just like there must be the destruction of an old structure to make way for a new and better one.
Click to expand...

Typical.
My claim is wrong because I cannot know his capabilities but of course your claim is more valid because you somehow can.

Thanks for the level playiong field.

If an omnipotent god exercised absolute "persuasion" that would negate freewill, as no sane person is really free to choose that which is obviously wrong.
Click to expand...

Persuasion is just the giving of facts and allowing the recipient to freely convince himself that those facts are truth and can be believed.

If your God gives a damn about our free will, he would not negate it all the times we see him murder in the bible. Our free will is to live, not to die.
Ask all the innocent children and babies that he murdered or had murdered.

Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am said:
Typical.
My claim is wrong because I cannot know his capabilities but of course your claim is more valid because you somehow can.

Thanks for the level playiong field.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have said "could" rather than "would", as I only meant to state what was logically consistent.

Persuasion is just the giving of facts and allowing the recipient to freely convince himself that those facts are truth and can be believed.

If your God gives a damn about our free will, he would not negate it all the times we see him murder in the bible. Our free will is to live, not to die.
Ask all the innocent children and babies that he murdered or had murdered.
Click to expand...

Any "infinite powers of persuasion" you mentioned would include incontrovertible proof which cannot sanely be denied.
 
Syne said:
Sorry, I should have said "could" rather than "would", as I only meant to state what was logically consistent.



Any "infinite powers of persuasion" you mentioned would include incontrovertible proof which cannot sanely be denied.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Thus no one would deny God or chose hell and thus the need for a hell is gone. No need says that God would not create it.

Regards
DL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top