They shoot horses don't they?
eyegore
calling me stoopid?" this morning was just too painful to watch. it's
not a fair fight. May be the school retard *wants* to wear a "kick me"
sign on his back, that doesn't make it right to kick him. Or her.
Let her have her delusions in peace. Please let's change the
subject.
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Andres64
<e5wu4.47631$Mg.7...@c01read03-admin.service.talkway.com>,
"eyegore" <so...@no.spam.please> wrote:
>I have had enough of Georgann's squirming, haven't you? Her
>"Are you calling me stoopid?" this morning was just too painful
>to watch. it's not a fair fight. May be the school retard
>*wants* to wear a "kick me" sign on his back, that doesn't make
>it right to kick him. Or her.
>
>Let her have her delusions in peace. Please let's change the
>subject.
Don't be a party-pooper. It's really a lot of fun. Sort of like
shooting fish in a barrel.
Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them, the rest of us
could not succeed.
-- Mark Twain
--
Sincerely,
Andres (#1624)
You always have a choice.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Lawrence Garvin
Andres64 <andres64...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote in message news:0590b546...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com...
> In article
> <e5wu4.47631$Mg.7...@c01read03-admin.service.talkway.com>,
> "eyegore" <so...@no.spam.please> wrote:
>
> >I have had enough of Georgann's squirming, haven't you? Her
> >"Are you calling me stoopid?" this morning was just too painful
> >to watch. it's not a fair fight. May be the school retard
> >*wants* to wear a "kick me" sign on his back, that doesn't make
> >it right to kick him. Or her.
> >
> >Let her have her delusions in peace. Please let's change the
> >subject.
>
> Don't be a party-pooper. It's really a lot of fun. Sort of like
> shooting fish in a barrel.
Most people get bored with shooting into the same barrel at
the same dead fish after three or four shots... what are you guys
at now? Must be 70,000 rounds fired into that same barrel
and the whole thing has started to stink little last month's fish soup.
Lawrence
Lawrence Garvin
<Do not go genital into that good night.> wrote in message news:38ba8fd8...@news.mindspring.com...
> Eyegore wrote
> > I have had enough of Georgann's squirming, haven't you? Her "Are you
> > calling me stoopid?" this morning was just too painful to watch. it's
> > not a fair fight. May be the school retard *wants* to wear a "kick me"
> > sign on his back, that doesn't make it right to kick him. Or her.
> >
> > Let her have her delusions in peace. Please let's change the
> > subject.
>
> leave others in peace. When someone's "God" demands the power of government,
> however, that's something any decent person should stand against.
That's rich... Voting is a waste of time but pounding your head against the
Rock of Georgann is an important defence of good government.
Lawrence
thinks Andres is honest at least...
do_not_go_genital_into_that_good_night.
> I have had enough of Georgann's squirming, haven't you? Her "Are you
> calling me stoopid?" this morning was just too painful to watch. it's
> not a fair fight. May be the school retard *wants* to wear a "kick me"
> sign on his back, that doesn't make it right to kick him. Or her.
>
> Let her have her delusions in peace. Please let's change the
> subject.
Religious believers should be left in peace, provided they're willing to
leave others in peace. When someone's "God" demands the power of government,
however, that's something any decent person should stand against.
___ ____ _ _ ____ ____ __ __ ___ ___ __ __ _ _
/ __)( ___)( \( )(_ _)(_ _) /__\ ( ) / __) / __)( )( )( \/ )
( (_-. )__) | \\ | _)(_ )( /(__)\ )(__ \__ \ ( (_-. )(__)( \ /
\___/(____)(_)\_)(____) (__)(__)(__)(____)(___/ \___/(______) (__)
Andres64
"Lawrence Garvin" <lga...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
Andres64 <andres64...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0590b546...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com...
>> In article
>> <e5wu4.47631$Mg.7...@c01read03-admin.service.talkway.com>,
>>
>> >I have had enough of Georgann's squirming, haven't you? Her
>> >"Are you calling me stoopid?" this morning was just too
>> >painful to watch. it's not a fair fight. May be the school
>> >retard *wants* to wear a "kick me" sign on his back, that
>> >doesn't make it right to kick him. Or her.
>> >
>> >Let her have her delusions in peace. Please let's change the
>> >subject.
>>
>> like shooting fish in a barrel.
>
>Most people get bored with shooting into the same barrel at
>the same dead fish after three or four shots... what are you
>guys at now? Must be 70,000 rounds fired into that same barrel
>and the whole thing has started to stink little last month's
>fish soup.
>
>Lawrence
I know. It's childish of me. What can I say? She just makes it so
easy, it's impossible to resist.
Life is a tale told by an idiot -- full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.
-- William Shakespeare
georgann
> Eyegore wrote
> > I have had enough of Georgann's squirming, haven't you? Her "Are you
> > calling me stoopid?" this morning was just too painful to watch. it's
> > not a fair fight. May be the school retard *wants* to wear a "kick me"
> > sign on his back, that doesn't make it right to kick him. Or her.
> > Let her have her delusions in peace. Please let's change the
> > subject.
Do, not, go, genital, into, that, good, night. wrote:
> Religious believers should be left in peace, provided they're willing to
> leave others in peace. When someone's "God" demands the power of government,
> however, that's something any decent person should stand against.
Georgann wrote:
My God does not demand the power of government!
--
regards
georgann
......................................
----<---<--<({@
--<----<--<({@
----<---<--<({@
The reverence for the LORD is
the beginning of wisdom,
And the knowledge of
the Holy One is understanding
..... Proverbs 9:10
---<----<--<({@
----<---<--<({@
----<--<--<({@
----<---<--<({@
......................................
georgann
eyegore wrote:
> I have had enough of Georgann's squirming, haven't you? Her "Are you
> calling me stoopid?" this morning was just too painful to watch. it's
> not a fair fight. May be the school retard *wants* to wear a "kick me"
> sign on his back, that doesn't make it right to kick him. Or her.
> Let her have her delusions in peace. Please let's change the
> subject.
Evidently you're the one squirming!
Don't read 'em if you don't like em.
georgann
> >I have had enough of Georgann's squirming, haven't you? Her
> >"Are you calling me stoopid?" this morning was just too painful
> >to watch. it's not a fair fight. May be the school retard
> >*wants* to wear a "kick me" sign on his back, that doesn't make
> >it right to kick him. Or her.
> >Let her have her delusions in peace. Please let's change the
> >subject.
Andres64 wrote:
> Don't be a party-pooper. It's really a lot of fun. Sort of like
> shooting fish in a barrel.
> --
> Sincerely,
> Andres (#1624)
> You always have a choice.
Georgann:
Andrés, dahling ........ you haven't even nicked me!
do_not_go_genital_into_that_good_night.
> > > I have had enough of Georgann's squirming, haven't you? Her "Are you
> > > calling me stoopid?" this morning was just too painful to watch. it's
> > > not a fair fight. May be the school retard *wants* to wear a "kick me"
> > > sign on his back, that doesn't make it right to kick him. Or her.
> > >
> > > Let her have her delusions in peace. Please let's change the
> > > subject.
genitalia typed
> > Religious believers should be left in peace, provided they're willing to
> > leave others in peace. When someone's "God" demands the power of government,
> > however, that's something any decent person should stand against.
Lawrence Garvin responded
> That's rich... Voting is a waste of time but pounding your head against the
> Rock of Georgann is an important defence of good government.
Exactly. There are people who believe voting is important, and others who
don't, but in the end either opinion is as meaningless as any one vote.
Religious followers whose gods are so weak they must be propped up with the
power of government present an actual danger to people who cherish freedom.
So, yes, unchecked religious nonsense is something I'm worried about, more
than whether or not someone votes.
Lawrence Garvin
<Do not go genital into that good night.> wrote in message news:38ba9d70...@news.mindspring.com...
> Eyegore wrote
> > > > I have had enough of Georgann's squirming, haven't you? Her "Are you
> > > > calling me stoopid?" this morning was just too painful to watch. it's
> > > > not a fair fight. May be the school retard *wants* to wear a "kick me"
> > > > sign on his back, that doesn't make it right to kick him. Or her.
> > > >
> > > > Let her have her delusions in peace. Please let's change the
> > > > subject.
>
> genitalia typed
> > > Religious believers should be left in peace, provided they're willing to
> > > leave others in peace. When someone's "God" demands the power of government,
> > > however, that's something any decent person should stand against.
>
> Lawrence Garvin responded
> > That's rich... Voting is a waste of time but pounding your head against the
> > Rock of Georgann is an important defence of good government.
>
> Exactly. There are people who believe voting is important, and others who
> don't, but in the end either opinion is as meaningless as any one vote.
>
> Religious followers whose gods are so weak they must be propped up with the
> power of government present an actual danger to people who cherish freedom.
> So, yes, unchecked religious nonsense is something I'm worried about, more
> than whether or not someone votes.
But Georgann's vote is meaningless too, isn't it? Why does Georgann's blather
present such a danger?
Lawrence
Andres64
<chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
eyegore" <so...@no.spam.please> wrote:
>>>I have had enough of Georgann's squirming, haven't you? Her
>>>"Are you calling me stoopid?" this morning was just too
>>>painful to watch. it's not a fair fight. May be the school
>>>retard *wants* to wear a "kick me" sign on his back, that
>>>doesn't make it right to kick him. Or her.
>>>Let her have her delusions in peace. Please let's change the
>>>subject.
Andres64 wrote:
>>Don't be a party-pooper. It's really a lot of fun. Sort of like
>>shooting fish in a barrel.
Georgann:
>Andrés, dahling ........ you haven't even nicked me!
Oh really? Maybe you can explain these then:
How can "God" be both omniscient AND omnipotent?
How can "God" be "in charge" yet we still have "free will?"
How can "God" be omniscient, yet we still have "free will?"
How can "God" be "all good", yet there exists evil which was made
by "His" doing?
If 'God" is omnipotent, why doesn't "He" just get rid of the
devil?
Why was it necessary for "God" to murder nearly every living
thing?
Can you provide proof that "God" communicates?
Can you provide proof that "God" is not just a myth?
How can "God" be explained using logic?
>>>>>I think that's why some ocean species are so goofey looking.
I
>>>>>think He was experimenting big time. (JMO)
>>>>Are you serious?
>>>Only partly.
>>Please elaborate.
>I mean I personally believe that God did some major
>experimentation before He settled in on what He liked.
Uhhhhh Ohhhhh. Experimentation, by definition, requires
uncertainty. Therefore, God CAN'T be omniscient. As a noted
scientist once said:
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research,
would it?
-- Albert Einstein
Do you agree?
>>>>>God wouldn't be omnipotent if He couldn't at least change
>>>>>His mind on somethings would He?
>>>>EXACTLY!!! Therefore, omnipotence and omniscience are
>>>>mutually exclusive! Wooooohooooo! Ta Da! I do believe that's
>>>>check-mate, match-point! We are the champions! We are the
>>>>champions! Ahem,...excuse me.
>>>Wrong.
>>Now that's a convincing argument. Is that the best you can do?
Still waiting for a rebuttal...
>>If God were omniscient; He would KNOW BOTH, when AND
>>how.
>He knows but only acts on that which is RELEVANT. Not every
>damn thing is relevant to the big plan.
So you're saying that this "perfect", omnipotent, omniscient God
included "filler" in His plan? Why? Was there a certain length
requirement; like with a term paper?
The above are but a few examples. I'll be glad to provide more as
soon as you answer these.
When you go to the mind reader, do you get half price?
-- David Letterman
--
Sincerely,
Andres (#1624)
You always have a choice.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Cyn
Genital Guy sez:
So, yes, unchecked religious nonsense is something I'm worried
about, more
>> than whether or not someone votes.
>
So then Lawrence sez:
>But Georgann's vote is meaningless too, isn't it? Why does
Georgann's blather
>present such a danger?
>
So then I sez:
It's not like there's any danger of her converting anyone, now
is there?
Cyn
do_not_go_genital_into_that_good_night.
> > Religious believers should be left in peace, provided they're willing to
> > leave others in peace. When someone's "God" demands the power of government,
> > however, that's something any decent person should stand against.
Georgann wrote
> My God does not demand the power of government!
Ah, then you enthusiastically endorse the separation of church and state?
do_not_go_genital_into_that_good_night.
> > > Unchecked religious nonsense is something I'm worried about, more
> > > than whether or not someone votes.
Lawrence Garvin inquired
> > But Georgann's vote is meaningless too, isn't it? Why does Georgann's blather
> > present such a danger?
Cyn responded
> It's not like there's any danger of her converting anyone, now
> is there?
When the preposterous is unquestioned, people believe preposterous things.
eyegore
>
> Evidently you're the one squirming!
> Don't read 'em if you don't like em.
>
I'm trying to put you out of your misery, lady. May be you're too
"stoopid" to notice what everyone else, Christians Jews and atheists
has noticed: that's your problem. If you had arguments that made sense
or positions you didn't immediately contradict thenreading dfiscussions
of religion might be fun, but you're such a blundering mess of
vagueness it's worse than watching someone kick a retard twenty times
cuz after fifteen kicks even a retard would know better but you never
do!
DC
>From: "eyegore" so...@no.spam.please
>Date: 2/28/00 10:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>eyegore wrote:<
>'m trying to put you out of your misery, lady. May be you're too
>"stoopid" to notice what everyone else, Christians Jews and atheists
>has noticed: that's your problem. If you had arguments that made sense
>or positions you didn't immediately contradict thenreading dfiscussions
>of religion might be fun, but you're such a blundering mess of
>vagueness it's worse than watching someone kick a retard twenty times
>cuz after fifteen kicks even a retard would know better but you never
>do!
Georgeann, the purpose of ng's is to enable everybody to express whatever ideas
they may have. You are one of the most expressive on this ng. Don't stop.
It's your right.
Dinky Cat
People who hate cats were rats in a former life and probably still are rats
Dr. Charlie
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> writes:
>Do, not, go, genital, into, that, good, night. wrote:
>> Religious believers should be left in peace, provided they're willing to
>> leave others in peace. When someone's "God" demands the power of government,
>> however, that's something any decent person should stand against.
>Georgann wrote:
>My God does not demand the power of government!
I think mine wants me to run for President.
Pope St. Dr. Charlie
Wonders if GG would vote for someone who makes a mockery of the election
Jitpring
>
> I have had enough of Georgann's squirming, haven't you? Her "Are you
> calling me stoopid?" this morning was just too painful to watch. it's
> not a fair fight. May be the school retard *wants* to wear a "kick me"
> sign on his back, that doesn't make it right to kick him. Or her.
>
> Let her have her delusions in peace. Please let's change the
> subject.
I couldn't agree more. I came to this conclusion long ago.
Jitpring
Jitpring
>
> >
> > Evidently you're the one squirming!
> > Don't read 'em if you don't like em.
> >
>
> "stoopid" to notice what everyone else, Christians Jews and atheists
> has noticed: that's your problem. If you had arguments that made sense
> or positions you didn't immediately contradict thenreading dfiscussions
> of religion might be fun, but you're such a blundering mess of
> vagueness it's worse than watching someone kick a retard twenty times
> cuz after fifteen kicks even a retard would know better but you never
> do!
I understand your frustration, Eyegore, but you're wasting your time.
Dr Decaf
<38BA5289...@mindspring.com>:
>Georgann:
>Andrés, dahling ........ you haven't even nicked me!
>
anybody else thinking monty python about now?
--dr d
Andres64
LOL. You gotta love Monty Python.
His (Her) ignorance covers the world like a blanket, and there's
scarcely a hole in it anywhere.
-- Mark Twain
--
Sincerely,
Andres (#1624)
You always have a choice.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Xiphias Gladius
> Do, not, go, genital, into, that, good, night. wrote:
>> Religious believers should be left in peace, provided they're willing to
>> leave others in peace. When someone's "God" demands the power of government,
>> however, that's something any decent person should stand against.
> Georgann wrote:
> My God does not demand the power of government!
Mine does: part of our liturgy is "Blessed is His Name and his Dominion
over the World forever and ever." However, so as not to scare the secular
governments, we just mumble that part.
(No, seriously -- that's more or less the truth, although oversimplified.)
- Ian
--
Marriage, n: The state or condition of a community consisting of a master,
a mistress, and two slaves, making, in all, two. -- Ambrose Bierce
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ian
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
georgann
Hey guys. ....
Looks like another one of the Christophobes is telling us to shut up
about religion again!
Oooooor maybe you're not smackin enough other people around.
So... We gonna do it?
We gonna give it up?
Up to you ........
--
regards
georgann
(((( don't look at me
I'm just here for the ride )))
Emery Christian
Throwing insults around is never a very good way of making points.
I understand the frustration, but rudeness only makes you part of the
problem, not part of the solution.
---
Emery Christian
born again, since 1979
Xiphias Gladius
> Oh really? Maybe you can explain these then:
Can I? THese are cool ones.
Now, please remember, REAL theologians have tackled these questions for
millenia, and they've got some great answers for all of these -- maybe not
answers you'd buy, maybe not answers I'd like, or Georgann would like, but
neat answers nonetheless, well worth reading, for the sheer intelectual
pleasure of it. But these will all be my own, generally inferior answers.
I'm not gonna answer all of them, just the ones that I feel like
answering, 'kay?
> How can "God" be omniscient, yet we still have "free will?"
Let's say you've reading a really good book about, um, some historical
event -- maybe Custer's Last Stand.
You now know everything there is to know aobut the battle. Does Custer
therefore no longer have free will?
Incidentally, this is what Georgann was talking about when she said that
G-d was outside the bounds of time.
> How can "God" be "in charge" yet we still have "free will?"
Just because G-d *could* control everybody, more or less doesn't mean G-d
*does*. G-d may be omnipotent, but doesn't *use* Its omnipotence.
> How can "God" be "all good", yet there exists evil which was made
> by "His" doing?
What do you mean by "good"?
If you mean, "the opposite of evil", that show a very naive understanding
of G-d. G-d is neither good nor evil: those are things which only apply
to humans.
> If 'God" is omnipotent, why doesn't "He" just get rid of the
> devil?
Because the devil works for G-d doing vital work for the universe.
> Can you provide proof that "God" communicates?
Nope.
> Can you provide proof that "God" is not just a myth?
Nope.
(Cool! Two easy ones!)
> How can "God" be explained using logic?
Lots of ways. What do you mean by the question?
georgann
DC wrote:
> Georgeann, the purpose of ng's is to enable everybody to express whatever ideas
> they may have. You are one of the most expressive on this ng. Don't stop.
> It's your right.
> Dinky Cat
Georgann wrote:
Thank you Dinky. I smell a Christophobe on the other side of the anon
moniker. So as I usually do when I'm told not to do something........ I
go right out and do it.
Anyone for a rousing chorus of "Onward Christian Soldiers"?
Cyn
drd...@hotmail.com (Dr Decaf) wrote:
>""@chen...@mindspring.com (georgann) wrote in
><38BA5289...@mindspring.com>:
>
>>Georgann:
>>Andrés, dahling ........ you haven't even nicked me!
>>
>
>anybody else thinking monty python about now?
>
>--dr d
>
Cyn~
"We are the Knights of Nih..."
georgann
> >Do, not, go, genital, into, that, good, night. wrote:
> >> Religious believers should be left in peace, provided they're willing to
> >> leave others in peace. When someone's "God" demands the power of government,
> >> however, that's something any decent person should stand against.
> >Georgann wrote:
> >My God does not demand the power of government!
"Dr. Charlie" wrote:
> I think mine wants me to run for President.
> Pope St. Dr. Charlie
> Wonders if GG would vote for someone who makes a mockery of the election
Georgann wrote:
Charlie your church would make a great plank addition for the
multi-faceted McCain!
Why don't you add your name to his list of supporters?
Who knows, maybe you'd get an appointment to Ambassador to the Vatican
City ..... on the (very) outside chance he could win.
georgann
> > Do, not, go, genital, into, that, good, night. wrote:
> >> Religious believers should be left in peace, provided they're willing to
> >> leave others in peace. When someone's "God" demands the power of government,
> >> however, that's something any decent person should stand against.
> > Georgann wrote:
> > My God does not demand the power of government!
Xiphias Gladius wrote:
> Mine does: part of our liturgy is "Blessed is His Name and his Dominion
> over the World forever and ever." However, so as not to scare the secular
> governments, we just mumble that part.
> (No, seriously -- that's more or less the truth, although oversimplified.)
> - Ian
Georgann wrote:
I believe you. I think the Genitals is concerned about Christians in
power. But I think Christians are supposed to regard God's dominion from
the position of people being good stewards of God's possessions. Not
that we have to convert, rule, dominate or otherwise make everybody else
miserable. However, whenever I attempt to make that point, I am pounded
with the supposed "atrocities" of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
(I'm running out of explanations?)
georgann
> Andres64 <andres64...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Oh really? Maybe you can explain these then:
>
Georgann wrote:
Thanks Ian!!!!
I was losing track of this one because of the founding fathers madness
and mayhem.
georgann
> genitalia typed
> > > Religious believers should be left in peace, provided they're willing to
> > > leave others in peace. When someone's "God" demands the power of government,
> > > however, that's something any decent person should stand against.
> Georgann wrote
> > My God does not demand the power of government!
Do, not, go, genital, into, that, good, night. wrote:
> Ah, then you enthusiastically endorse the separation of church and state?
Georgann wrote:
Not the way you mean.
DC
>Date: 2/28/00 9:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>DC wrote:
>> Georgeann, the purpose of ng's is to enable everybody to express whatever
>ideas
>> they may have. You are one of the most expressive on this ng. Don't stop.
>> It's your right.
>Georgann wrote:
>Thank you Dinky. I smell a Christophobe on the other side of the anon
>moniker. So as I usually do when I'm told not to do something........ I
>go right out and do it.
>
>Anyone for a rousing chorus of "Onward Christian Soldiers"?
>
You are indominitable, Georgeann. Fun, tho.
Andres64
<i...@io.com> wrote:
Andres64 <andres64...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
>>Oh really? Maybe you can explain these then:
>Can I? THese are cool ones.
Please do. But I'm going to rather miss georgann's squirming,
twisting, rationalizing and slight-of-hand. Also, please don't
take my style, which is rather to-the-point, as being anything
other than style. I like to get to the point and just list
things.
>Now, please remember, REAL theologians have tackled these
>questions for millenia, and they've got some great answers for
>all of these -- maybe not answers you'd buy, maybe not answers
>I'd like, or Georgann would like, but neat answers nonetheless,
>well worth reading, for the sheer intellectual pleasure of it.
>But these will all be my own, generally inferior answers.
>I'm not gonna answer all of them, just the ones that I feel like
>answering, 'kay?
Just curious; is there some reason you picked these specific
questions?
>>How can "God" be omniscient, yet we still have "free will?"
>Let's say you've reading a really good book about, um, some
>historical event -- maybe Custer's Last Stand.
>You now know everything there is to know aobut the battle. Does
>Custer therefore no longer have free will?
1) Actually, I would say that he doesn't, because in your
analogy, there is only one outcome; the one that's written in the
book. 2) I don't think that's it's possible for God to KNOW how
it is going to end, yet we still have "free will."
>Incidentally, this is what Georgann was talking about when she
>said that G-d was outside the bounds of time.
But what does "outside the bounds of time" mean?
>>How can "God" be "in charge" yet we still have "free will?"
>Just because G-d *could* control everybody, more or less doesn't
>mean G-d *does*. G-d may be omnipotent, but doesn't *use* Its
>omnipotence.
But I think that's like saying that I'm in charge of an army. Ok,
technically, I may be, but in reality, I'm not. Either I make
ALL the decisions, or I don't. The way I see it, control is an
"all or nothing" proposition. It's sort of like being "a little
bit pregnant."
>>How can "God" be "all good", yet there exists evil which was
>made by "His" doing?
>What do you mean by "good"?
Good question. Personally, I don't think that there's a
definitive answer; it's all relative.
>If you mean, "the opposite of evil", that show a very naive
>understanding of G-d. G-d is neither good nor evil: those are
>things which only apply to humans.
1) You may be right, but I have to say that my knowledge of
"God", or lack thereof, comes from the Catholic church. 2) So are
you saying that God is BOTH "good" and "evil", or neither.
>>If 'God" is omnipotent, why doesn't "He" just get rid of the
>>devil?
>Because the devil works for G-d doing vital work for the
>universe.
Could you elaborate?
>>Can you provide proof that "God" communicates?
>Nope.
>>Can you provide proof that "God" is not just a myth?
>Nope.
>(Cool! Two easy ones!)
>>How can "God" be explained using logic?
>Lots of ways. What do you mean by the question?
Well, actually the question was meant for georgann, since she
claims that God can be explained logically. For example, I
contend that omnipotence and omniscience are logically
incompatible attributes.
Thanks. I have another question if I might: I'm assuming that you
believe in "God" (i.e. the Christian god). Given that, how do you
explain/rationalize/deal with the fact that 2/3 of the world does
not believe in the same God? I'm not making an ad numerum
argument. I would just think that an omnipotent God could do a
better job of "getting the word out." Also, as a follow-up: Do
you think that Martha (a Satanist) or Cyn (a Wicca?), or anyone
else for that matter, is any less sure of their religion/god? How
do you explain this?
Thanks
Andres64
<chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Andres64 <andres64...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > Oh really? Maybe you can explain these then:
Georgann wrote:
>Thanks Ian!!!!
>I was losing track of this one because of the founding fathers
>madness and mayhem.
Of course you were, georgann. I have complete faith that you
could have answered these just as well. I wouldn't want Ian to
steal all your thunder, so maybe you could answer the questions
he didn't?
Xiphias Gladius
> In article <89ert7$pdq$1...@hiram.io.com>, Xiphias Gladius
> <i...@io.com> wrote:
>>I'm not gonna answer all of them, just the ones that I feel like
>>answering, 'kay?
> Just curious; is there some reason you picked these specific
> questions?
Yeah, these were the ones that I felt like I *had* answers for. I was
stumped on the other ones.
>>>How can "God" be omniscient, yet we still have "free will?"
>>Let's say you've reading a really good book about, um, some
>>historical event -- maybe Custer's Last Stand.
>>You now know everything there is to know aobut the battle. Does
>>Custer therefore no longer have free will?
> 1) Actually, I would say that he doesn't, because in your
> analogy, there is only one outcome; the one that's written in the
> book.
But Custer *did* have free will when he took the actions originally,
didn't he?
> 2) I don't think that's it's possible for God to KNOW how
> it is going to end, yet we still have "free will."
G-d doesn't know how it's *going to end*. G-d knows how it *ended*.
>>Incidentally, this is what Georgann was talking about when she
>>said that G-d was outside the bounds of time.
> But what does "outside the bounds of time" mean?
That G-d can know how it ended, rather than knowing how it's going to end.
How much science fiction do you read, how familiar are you with time
travel paradoxes?
>>>How can "God" be "in charge" yet we still have "free will?"
>>Just because G-d *could* control everybody, more or less doesn't
>>mean G-d *does*. G-d may be omnipotent, but doesn't *use* Its
>>omnipotence.
> But I think that's like saying that I'm in charge of an army. Ok,
> technically, I may be, but in reality, I'm not. Either I make
> ALL the decisions, or I don't. The way I see it, control is an
> "all or nothing" proposition. It's sort of like being "a little
> bit pregnant."
But control *isn't* an all or nothing proposition.
So, I'm driving a car. Am I in control of the car? But I can't drive
stick, so it's an automatic transmission. So am I in control of the
transmission? And I slam on the breaks, and the ABS kicks in. Am I in
control of the brake pulses?
I'm M from the James Bond movies, and I call 007 in and tell him to go
destroy a terrorist base. Bond leaves, and I don't hear from him again
for another two weeks, at which point he comes in and tells me the base is
destroyed. Am I in control of Bond? He does what I tell him to.
>>>How can "God" be "all good", yet there exists evil which was
>>made by "His" doing?
>>What do you mean by "good"?
> Good question. Personally, I don't think that there's a
> definitive answer; it's all relative.
>>If you mean, "the opposite of evil", that show a very naive
>>understanding of G-d. G-d is neither good nor evil: those are
>>things which only apply to humans.
> 1) You may be right, but I have to say that my knowledge of
> "God", or lack thereof, comes from the Catholic church. 2) So are
> you saying that God is BOTH "good" and "evil", or neither.
1. I'm not Catholic; I only know vaguely the Catholic ideas of good and
evil.
2. Both, neither, yes, no, and mu.
Yes: G-d is both good and evil: G-d takes actions which, if applied to
humans, would be good and evil.
But the concepts of good and evil are really concepts which only *do*
apply to humans, so G-d is neither good nor evil.
And G-d takes actions which just *are* and good and evil just plain don't
apply.
>>>If 'God" is omnipotent, why doesn't "He" just get rid of the
>>>devil?
>>Because the devil works for G-d doing vital work for the
>>universe.
> Could you elaborate?
Sure.
The idea that the universe is a great conflict between the forces of Good
and Evil is a Zorastrain concept, not a Jewish one. Zorastrianism
influenced Judaism in Persia, and some cultural-bleed-through occured, so
some surface notions of two diametrically opposed deities did show up
briefly, but they really aren't important concepts in Judaism.
Let's talk about who Samael, the Satan is. The angel Samael is "the
Satan" -- the accuser. Samael is its name, Satan is its title. When
souls are judged, in the heavenly court, the Satan gives the case against
the soul while Michael, I beleive (although I'm not sure) presents the
defense. And G-d is the judge.
In other words, Samael is the district attorney of the heavenly court, and
Michael is the public defender. Neither is any less loyal to G-d than the
other. Samael has more hostility towards humans, which is why it was
chosen as the Satan, but is completely devoted to G-d.
So, let's talk about the Zorastrian influence upon Christianity. The
Christians started with this idea, but then also, more or less, accepted
the Zorastrian notion of two opposed deities. The only heavenly being
they had that was hostile to humanity was the Satan, so the used *that* as
the evil deity. Much, much later, this led to the idea of the War in
Heaven and the Fall of Satan.
> Thanks. I have another question if I might: I'm assuming that you
> believe in "God" (i.e. the Christian god).
Nope. I believe in the Jewish G-d. Not the same thing by a long shot,
although there are significant similarities.
> Given that, how do you
> explain/rationalize/deal with the fact that 2/3 of the world does
> not believe in the same God?
Actully, 98%+ of the world doesn't believe in the same G-d that I do --
although I might argue that 99.999999983% of the world doesn't believe in
the same G-d I do -- that *nobody* believes in the same G-d, or
disbelieves in the same G-d. (A quote from one of my friends. "I don't
believe in G-d, and the G-d I don't believe in is the G-d of Abrahm,
Issac, and Jacob! I don't disbelieve in any other gods, because they
don't matter! The only G-d which I'm not worshiping is the G-d of my
ancestors! I'm monoatheistic!" Not sure if that's relevenat, but I think
it was amusing.)
A quote from the Talmud: "All things are under the control of G-d except
for the fear of G-d." In other words: G-d can't, or won't compel belief
-- that goes against what humans were created for.
> I'm not making an ad numerum
> argument. I would just think that an omnipotent God could do a
> better job of "getting the word out."
I don't think G-d cares about getting the word out. I don't think G-d
cares if, or how He's worshipped.
> Also, as a follow-up: Do
> you think that Martha (a Satanist) or Cyn (a Wicca?), or anyone
> else for that matter, is any less sure of their religion/god?
Nope, I don't. I have friends who are Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems,
Wiccans, Voudonistas, Greek Pagans, Norse Pagans, non-Wiccan Celtic
Pagans, Catholics, Unitarians, Quakers, Mormons, modern Orthodox Jews,
Chassids, Reform Jews, Chavurah movement Jews, Reconstructionist Jews,
athiests, militant prosleytising agnostics ("I don't know, and neither do
you!"), post-denominational Jews . . . and all of their religions seem to
work pretty well (even the atheists, when they do this correctly, seem to
draw strength from their non-belief.)
(I was one of the founding members of the Brandeis University Pagan
Society, so I have a *lot* of pagan friends.)
> How
> do you explain this?
I don't. It's not important to explain. They don't have to be wrong for
me to be right.
I'm supposed to be Jewish. That doesn't mean that anyone else is supposed
to.
georgann
Andres64 wrote:
> > 2) I don't think that's it's possible for God to KNOW how
> > it is going to end, yet we still have "free will."
Xiphias Gladius wrote:
> G-d doesn't know how it's *going to end*. G-d knows how it *ended*.
Georgann gasped:
Ian! That has got to be the single most perfect and straightforward
answer to the most difficult question I have ever seen! Bar none....
genitals_in_a_sling
> You are indominitable, Georgeann. Fun, tho.
If you mean indomitable ... indeed.
genitals_in_a_sling
> > Religious believers should be left in peace, provided they're willing to
> > leave others in peace. When someone's "God" demands the power of government,
> > however, that's something any decent person should stand against.
Georgann wrote
> My God does not demand the power of government!
I don't believe your God exists, but in his name you call for the commingling
of church and state. Just yesterday you endorsed the distribution of Bibles
at government expense; using The Bible to teach children public schools to
read; the establishment of an Official State Churches for each state; and
laws prohibiting anyone but Christians from holding public office.
Or perhaps your point is that God doesn't *demand* the power of government;
your God should simply be *given* these powers?
genitals_in_a_sling
> Hey guys. ....
>
> Looks like another one of the Christophobes is telling us to shut up
> about religion again!
>
> Oooooor maybe you're not smackin enough other people around.
>
> So... We gonna do it?
>
> We gonna give it up?
>
> Up to you ........
In my opinion, the subject of this thread -- especially in a group where
Christianity is usually discussed quite respectfully -- constitutes a rather
glaring violation of The Third Commandment, taking your Lord's name in vain.
Twenty lashes with a wet poodle.
genitals_in_a_sling
> Anyone for a rousing chorus of "Onward Christian Soldiers"?
Ah, the official theme song of the Crusades. How utterly appropriate for you.
genitals_in_a_sling
> > > 2) I don't think that's it's possible for God to KNOW how
> > > it is going to end, yet we still have "free will."
Xiphias Gladius replied
> > G-d doesn't know how it's *going to end*. G-d knows how it *ended*.
Georgann gasped
> Ian! That has got to be the single most perfect and straightforward
> answer to the most difficult question I have ever seen! Bar none....
Why couldn't God explain it so plainly in his Bible?
georgann
> Nope, I don't. I have friends who are Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems,
> Wiccans, Voudonistas, Greek Pagans, Norse Pagans, non-Wiccan Celtic
> Pagans, Catholics, Unitarians, Quakers, Mormons, modern Orthodox Jews,
> Chassids, Reform Jews, Chavurah movement Jews, Reconstructionist Jews,
> athiests, militant prosleytising agnostics ("I don't know, and neither do
> you!"), post-denominational Jews . . . and all of their religions seem to
> work pretty well (even the atheists, when they do this correctly, seem to
> draw strength from their non-belief.)
> - Ian
Georgann wrote:
I'm really hoping it was just an oversight that your list of friends
doesn't include Protestants (non Catholic Christians) ...
--
regards
georgann
-- thinks "militant proselytizing agnostics"
is a title pregnant with irony --
Edgar Boyle
> I don't believe your God exists, but in his name you call for the
commingling
> of church and state. Just yesterday you endorsed the distribution of
Bibles
> at government expense; using The Bible to teach children public
schools to
> read; the establishment of an Official State Churches for each state;
and
> laws prohibiting anyone but Christians from holding public office.
>
I'm usually in the entertained-by-Georgann camp. she says a lot of silly
things, makes sense once in a while. I didn't see her say any of THIS
though. Are you exaggerating for satiric effect?
Something else I've been wondering about: what the hell is this thing
that follows all your posts?
> ___ ____ _ _ ____ ____ __ __ ___ ___ __ __ _ _
> / __)( ___)( \( )(_ _)(_ _) /__\ ( ) / __) / __)( )( )( \/
)
> ( (_-. )__) | \\ | _)(_ )( /(__)\ )(__ \__ \ ( (_-. )(__)( \ /
> \___/(____)(_)\_)(____) (__)(__)(__)(____)(___/ \___/(______) (__)
>
--
Edgar Boyle
mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper
--
Edgar Boyle
mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Xiphias Gladius
> Xiphias Gladius replied
>> > G-d doesn't know how it's *going to end*. G-d knows how it *ended*.
> Georgann gasped
>> Ian! That has got to be the single most perfect and straightforward
>> answer to the most difficult question I have ever seen! Bar none....
> Why couldn't God explain it so plainly in his Bible?
Because only the most simple concepts -- like "thou shall not kill" or
"if you leave a pit uncovered and your neighbor's animal falls into the
pit and dies, you have to pay damages, but get to keep the dead animal" --
are expressed plainly, that is, on the "peshat" level of interpretation.
Xiphias Gladius
> Xiphias Gladius wrote:
>> Nope, I don't. I have friends who are Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems,
>> Wiccans, Voudonistas, Greek Pagans, Norse Pagans, non-Wiccan Celtic
>> Pagans, Catholics, Unitarians, Quakers, Mormons, modern Orthodox Jews,
>> Chassids, Reform Jews, Chavurah movement Jews, Reconstructionist Jews,
>> athiests, militant prosleytising agnostics ("I don't know, and neither do
>> you!"), post-denominational Jews . . . and all of their religions seem to
>> work pretty well (even the atheists, when they do this correctly, seem to
>> draw strength from their non-belief.)
> Georgann wrote:
> I'm really hoping it was just an oversight that your list of friends
> doesn't include Protestants (non Catholic Christians) ...
Protestant is an entire class of religions. I know Lutherans, Baptists,
Aventists, among others. Not all non-Catholic Christians are Protestants,
though. The Orthodox Churches -- Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and
Eastern Orthodox -- are not descended from the Protestant Reformation, nor
are they Catholic.
I made a chart once of the Christian churches: by the reckoning I came up
with (and I was ten at the time), it seemed that Quakers, Unitarians, and
Mormons *did* spring from the Protestant tradition.
Andres64
*ended*.
>
>>> Ian! That has got to be the single most perfect and
>>> straightforward answer to the most difficult question I have
>>> ever seen! Bar none....
>
>> Why couldn't God explain it so plainly in his Bible?
>
>Because only the most simple concepts -- like "thou shall not
>kill" or "if you leave a pit uncovered and your neighbor's
>animal falls into the pit and dies, you have to pay damages, but
>get to keep the dead animal" -- are expressed plainly, that is,
>on the "peshat" level of interpretation.
>
> - Ian
But why is that?
Andres64
<i...@io.com> wrote:
Andres64 <andres64...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <89ert7$pdq$1...@hiram.io.com>, Xiphias Gladius
> <i...@io.com> wrote:
>>>I'm not gonna answer all of them, just the ones that I feel
>>>like answering, 'kay?
>>Just curious; is there some reason you picked these specific
>>questions?
>Yeah, these were the ones that I felt like I *had* answers for.
>I was stumped on the other ones.
Thanks. I appreciate the honesty.
>>>>How can "God" be omniscient, yet we still have "free will?"
>>>Let's say you've reading a really good book about, um, some
>>>historical event -- maybe Custer's Last Stand.
>>>You now know everything there is to know aobut the battle.
>>>Does Custer therefore no longer have free will?
>>1) Actually, I would say that he doesn't, because in your
>>analogy, there is only one outcome; the one that's written in
>>the book.
>But Custer *did* have free will when he took the actions
>originally, didn't he?
I don't know. It depends on whether or not God's "book" was
already written. If it was, then no, Custer didn't have "free
will." If it wasn't written, then yes, Custer did have "free
will."
>>2) I don't think that's it's possible for God to KNOW how
>>it is going to end, yet we still have "free will."
>G-d doesn't know how it's *going to end*. G-d knows how it
>*ended*.
But if he knows how it "ended," then there can only be one
possible end - the one He KNOWS will be.
>>>Incidentally, this is what Georgann was talking about when she
>>>said that G-d was outside the bounds of time.
>>But what does "outside the bounds of time" mean?
>That G-d can know how it ended, rather than knowing how it's
>going to end.
>How much science fiction do you read, how familiar are you with
>time travel paradoxes?
Some. But that raises the impossibility of matter (me) existing
in two places at the same time.
>>>>How can "God" be "in charge" yet we still have "free will?"
>>>Just because G-d *could* control everybody, more or less
>>>doesn't mean G-d *does*. G-d may be omnipotent, but doesn't
>>>*use* Its omnipotence.
>>But I think that's like saying that I'm in charge of an army.
>>Ok, technically, I may be, but in reality, I'm not. Either I
>>make ALL the decisions, or I don't. The way I see it, control
>>is an "all or nothing" proposition. It's sort of like being "a
>>little bit pregnant."
>But control *isn't* an all or nothing proposition.
Maybe "all or nothing" is the wrong way to put it. What I mean is
that to be "in control" requires COMPLETE control.
>So, I'm driving a car. Am I in control of the car?
To a certain extent.
>But I can't drive stick, so it's an automatic transmission. So
>am I in control of the transmission?
Slightly
>And I slam on the breaks, and the ABS kicks in. Am I in
>control of the brake pulses?
Slightly
>I'm M from the James Bond movies, and I call 007 in and tell him
>to go destroy a terrorist base. Bond leaves, and I don't hear
>from him again for another two weeks, at which point he comes in
>and tells me the base is destroyed. Am I in control of Bond?
No.
>He does what I tell him to.
But he still has the actual control. You have the responsibility.
>>>>How can "God" be "all good", yet there exists evil which was
>>>made by "His" doing?
>>>What do you mean by "good"?
>>Good question. Personally, I don't think that there's a
>>definitive answer; it's all relative.
>>>If you mean, "the opposite of evil", that show a very naive
>>>understanding of G-d. G-d is neither good nor evil: those are
>>>things which only apply to humans.
>>1) You may be right, but I have to say that my knowledge of
>>"God", or lack thereof, comes from the Catholic church. 2) So
>>are you saying that God is BOTH "good" and "evil", or neither.
>1. I'm not Catholic; I only know vaguely the Catholic ideas of
>good and evil.
Me too.
>>Could you elaborate?
Sure.
Huh. Interesting. So, you're saying that Satan isn't the "bad
guy" in Judaism?
>>Thanks. I have another question if I might: I'm assuming that
>>you believe in "God" (i.e. the Christian god).
>Nope. I believe in the Jewish G-d. Not the same thing by a
>long shot, although there are significant similarities.
My mistake.
>>Given that, how do you explain/rationalize/deal with the fact
>that 2/3 of the world does not believe in the same God?
>Actully, 98%+ of the world doesn't believe in the same G-d that
>I do --although I might argue that 99.999999983% of the world
>doesn't believe in the same G-d I do -- that *nobody* believes
>in the same G-d, or disbelieves in the same G-d. (A quote from
>one of my friends. "I don't believe in G-d, and the G-d I don't
>believe in is the G-d of Abrahm, Issac, and Jacob! I don't
>disbelieve in any other gods, because they don't matter! The
>only G-d which I'm not worshiping is the G-d of my ancestors!
>I'm monoatheistic!" Not sure if that's relevenat, but I think
>it was amusing.)
>A quote from the Talmud: "All things are under the control of
>G-d except for the fear of G-d." In other words: G-d can't, or
>won't compel belief -- that goes against what humans were
>created for.
Maybe I'm off-track here, but I'm getting the impression that God
is a "hands-off" god? I'm getting the sense of a "non-caring"
God?
>>I'm not making an ad numerum
>>argument. I would just think that an omnipotent God could do a
>>better job of "getting the word out."
>I don't think G-d cares about getting the word out. I don't
>think G-d cares if, or how He's worshipped.
But what about "salvation?" Don't we need to "know" God to be
"saved?"
>>Also, as a follow-up: Do you think that Martha (a Satanist) or
>>Cyn (a Wicca?), or anyone else for that matter, is any less
>>sure of their religion/god?
>Nope, I don't. I have friends who are Buddhists, Hindus,
>Moslems, Wiccans, Voudonistas, Greek Pagans, Norse Pagans,
>non-Wiccan
>Celtic Pagans, Catholics, Unitarians, Quakers, Mormons, modern
>Orthodox Jews, Chassids, Reform Jews, Chavurah movement Jews,
>Reconstructionist Jews, athiests, militant prosleytising
>agnostics ("I don't know, and neither do you!"),
>post-denominational Jews . . . and
>all of their religions seem to work pretty well (even the
>atheists, when they do this correctly, seem to draw strength
>from their non-belief.)
>(I was one of the founding members of the Brandeis University
>Pagan Society, so I have a *lot* of pagan friends.)
>>How do you explain this?
>I don't. It's not important to explain. They don't have to be
>wrong for me to be right.
You lost me. From my view, they DO have to be wrong for you to be
right. For example, in case you hadn't guessed; I'm an atheist,
therefor we can't both be right.
>I'm supposed to be Jewish. That doesn't mean that anyone else
>is supposed to.
Also, just out of curiosity, how do you know so much about
religion?
Thanks
Xiphias Gladius
> In article <89grku$5np$1...@hiram.io.com>, Xiphias Gladius
>>
>>> Why couldn't God explain it so plainly in his Bible?
>>
>>Because only the most simple concepts -- like "thou shall not
>>kill" or "if you leave a pit uncovered and your neighbor's
>>animal falls into the pit and dies, you have to pay damages, but
>>get to keep the dead animal" -- are expressed plainly, that is,
>>on the "peshat" level of interpretation.
> But why is that?
Because the *real* purpose of the Bible isn't to teach us *what* to think,
it's to teach us *how* to think. Therefore, most of it requires brainwork
to figure out. G-d doesn't want mindless automatons following Its will --
G-d's got angels for that. Humans were designed with free will, and with
the ability to figure things out for ourselves.
- ian
georgann
> genitalia typed
> > > Religious believers should be left in peace, provided they're willing to
> > > leave others in peace. When someone's "God" demands the power of government,
> > > however, that's something any decent person should stand against.
> Georgann wrote
> > My God does not demand the power of government!
Genitals, in, a, Sling wrote:
> I don't believe your God exists, but in his name you call for the commingling
> of church and state. Just yesterday you endorsed the distribution of Bibles
> at government expense; using The Bible to teach children public schools to
> read; the establishment of an Official State Churches for each state; and
> laws prohibiting anyone but Christians from holding public office.
> Or perhaps your point is that God doesn't *demand* the power of government;
> your God should simply be *given* these powers?
Georgann wrote:
You take my words too far when you say I wish to commingle church and
state. I do not wish that. I merely wish to enjoy the supposedly
guaranteed freedoms of religion and the expression thereof.
I think you goofed about my wanting to establish an Official State
Church for each state. I thought I said not to that. And I thought I
sand anyone not just Christians could hold public office.
Please reread my response on the numbered items.
Andres64
>>>
>>>> Why couldn't God explain it so plainly in his Bible?
>>>
>>>Because only the most simple concepts -- like "thou shall not
>>>kill" or "if you leave a pit uncovered and your neighbor's
>>>animal falls into the pit and dies, you have to pay damages,
>>>but get to keep the dead animal" -- are expressed plainly,
>>>that is, on the "peshat" level of interpretation.
>
>> But why is that?
>
>Because the *real* purpose of the Bible isn't to teach us *what*
>to think, it's to teach us *how* to think. Therefore, most of
>it requires brainwork to figure out. G-d doesn't want mindless
>Humans were designed with free will, and withthe ability to
>figure things out for ourselves.
>
> - ian
But providing clear, concise information does not create
"automatons." Telling you that eating toadstools is bad, and that
being nice is good, doesn't make you an "automaton."
Charles Basner
"Xiphias Gladius" <i...@io.com> wrote in message
news:89gm7p$2j3$1...@hiram.io.com...
> Andres64 <andres64...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <89ert7$pdq$1...@hiram.io.com>, Xiphias Gladius
> > <i...@io.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>>How can "God" be omniscient, yet we still have "free will?"
>
> >>Let's say you've reading a really good book about, um, some
> >>historical event -- maybe Custer's Last Stand.
>
> >>You now know everything there is to know aobut the battle. Does
> >>Custer therefore no longer have free will?
>
> > 1) Actually, I would say that he doesn't, because in your
> > analogy, there is only one outcome; the one that's written in the
> > book.
>
> But Custer *did* have free will when he took the actions originally,
> didn't he?
>
> > 2) I don't think that's it's possible for God to KNOW how
> > it is going to end, yet we still have "free will."
>
> G-d doesn't know how it's *going to end*. G-d knows how it *ended*.
>
> >>Incidentally, this is what Georgann was talking about when she
> >>said that G-d was outside the bounds of time.
>
> > But what does "outside the bounds of time" mean?
>
> That G-d can know how it ended, rather than knowing how it's going to end.
>
> How much science fiction do you read, how familiar are you with time
> travel paradoxes?
I have read tons of science fiction and time travel stuff, so I think I
understand what you're getting at here. If I am right you are saying god is
not subject to time restrictions (he can act equally in our past and future)
and sees the beginning, middle and end of everything simultaneously.
But since god is not subject to time, we cannot speak of him "doing"
anything, because verbs imply time (if I "do" something, there is a
"before" I did it and an "after" I did it). This leaves us with another
mystery - how can he have created the world when "creation" is an act that
takes place in time? Let's just put that down to "humans can't understand
that kind of thing."
Since the entire world is laid out before god from creation to destruction,
it is unchangable (change would imply a "before god changed it" and an
"after god changed it"). For example, if the world existed with me in it
and then god changed the world and took me out of it, we would have created
a new kind of god-time in which god-before I existed and god-after I didn't;
since god is outside time, we can't do this. Thus the entire world was
completely defined from the moment of its creation to be exactly as it is,
with no possible variation.
Therefore, god is incapable of changing anything in our world. If god is as
you describe, not only is he not omnipotent, but he is impotent (in our
world). Essentially he had one shot, at the beginning, and from there
everything is done. We're still living it out, but from his point of view
it's already done and can't be changed
Therefore we can't make a mistake; anything we do is exactly what god
already knows we did and planned for us to do during his act of creation,
and nothing he or we can do can change that. If I murder someone I can say
"god intended for me to murder that person," because if he didn't I would
not have done it.
While we may have free will within our time frame according to this theory,
we also are immune to judgement. Far from defining a morality for us to
live by, it actually gives us a reason to deny the existence and meaning of
morality and live without rules. After all, whatever I do is god's will.
[snip]
chas
Emery Christian
> I don't believe your God exists, but in his name you call for the commingling
> of church and state. Just yesterday you endorsed the distribution of Bibles
> at government expense; using The Bible to teach children public schools to
> read; the establishment of an Official State Churches for each state; and
> laws prohibiting anyone but Christians from holding public office.
>
> Or perhaps your point is that God doesn't *demand* the power of government;
> your God should simply be *given* these powers?
>
Georgann speaks only for herself, not for God. God does not need the
power of government.
---
Emery Christian
born again, since 1979
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Emery Christian
>
> Because the *real* purpose of the Bible isn't to teach us *what* to think,
> it's to teach us *how* to think. Therefore, most of it requires brainwork
> to figure out. G-d doesn't want mindless automatons following Its will --
> G-d's got angels for that. Humans were designed with free will, and with
> the ability to figure things out for ourselves.
>
> - ian
Well said, Ian.
Faith doesn't provide an iron-clad answer to every question asked.
There are after all an infinite number of questions. Faith is knowing
who has the answers.
Xiphias Gladius
> In article <89gm7p$2j3$1...@hiram.io.com>, Xiphias Gladius
> <i...@io.com> wrote:
>>>>Let's say you've reading a really good book about, um, some
>>>>historical event -- maybe Custer's Last Stand.
>>>>You now know everything there is to know aobut the battle.
>>>>Does Custer therefore no longer have free will?
>>>1) Actually, I would say that he doesn't, because in your
>>>analogy, there is only one outcome; the one that's written in
>>>the book.
>>But Custer *did* have free will when he took the actions
>>originally, didn't he?
> I don't know. It depends on whether or not God's "book" was
> already written. If it was, then no, Custer didn't have "free
> will." If it wasn't written, then yes, Custer did have "free
> will."
Only if you're dealing purely with linear time.
Here's Custer. Here's you, reading
----*------------------------------------------------*----------
18something or other 2000
Your knowledge of what Custer did has no effect on what Custer did.
Here's you, acting Here's G-d
---*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
2000 End of time
G-d knowlege of what you did has no effect on what you did.
Difference is, G-d *could* go back and make changes. But G-d knows if G-d
already did go back and make changes.
>>>2) I don't think that's it's possible for God to KNOW how
>>>it is going to end, yet we still have "free will."
>>G-d doesn't know how it's *going to end*. G-d knows how it
>>*ended*.
> But if he knows how it "ended," then there can only be one
> possible end - the one He KNOWS will be.
Sure, but it hasn't happened yet, for us, so we can influence it.
>>>>Incidentally, this is what Georgann was talking about when she
>>>>said that G-d was outside the bounds of time.
>>>But what does "outside the bounds of time" mean?
>>That G-d can know how it ended, rather than knowing how it's
>>going to end.
>>How much science fiction do you read, how familiar are you with
>>time travel paradoxes?
> Some. But that raises the impossibility of matter (me) existing
> in two places at the same time.
It's not the same time. It's time travel.
> To a certain extent.
> Slightly
> Slightly
> No.
Controling every little detail is called "micromanaging." That's not what
G-d does, on a human level. G-d *could*, but doesn't.
>>Let's talk about who Samael, the Satan is. The angel Samael is
>>"the Satan" -- the accuser. Samael is its name, Satan is its
>>title. When souls are judged, in the heavenly court, the Satan
>>gives the case against the soul while Michael, I beleive
>>(although I'm not sure) presents the defense. And G-d is the
>>judge.
>>In other words, Samael is the district attorney of the heavenly
>>court, and Michael is the public defender. Neither is any less
>>loyal to G-d than the other. Samael has more hostility towards
>>humans, which is why it was chosen as the Satan, but is
>>completely devoted to G-d.
[ . . . ]
> Huh. Interesting. So, you're saying that Satan isn't the "bad
> guy" in Judaism?
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Satan *is* the one who prosecutes us in the
Heavenly Court. And Satan *does* have animosity towards humanity.
So, from a *human* perspective, sure, the Satan *is* our enemy. But
Samael is not *G-d's* enemy.
I, personally, don't consider Satan to be the bad guy -- but once it's
standing there reciting everything bad I ever did in my life to G-d, I
might change my mind. . .
>>>Thanks. I have another question if I might: I'm assuming that
>>>you believe in "God" (i.e. the Christian god).
>>Nope. I believe in the Jewish G-d. Not the same thing by a
>>long shot, although there are significant similarities.
> My mistake.
>>>Given that, how do you explain/rationalize/deal with the fact
>>that 2/3 of the world does not believe in the same God?
>>Actully, 98%+ of the world doesn't believe in the same G-d that
>>I do --although I might argue that 99.999999983% of the world
>>doesn't believe in the same G-d I do -- that *nobody* believes
>>in the same G-d, or disbelieves in the same G-d. (A quote from
>>one of my friends. "I don't believe in G-d, and the G-d I don't
>>believe in is the G-d of Abrahm, Issac, and Jacob! I don't
>>disbelieve in any other gods, because they don't matter! The
>>only G-d which I'm not worshiping is the G-d of my ancestors!
>>I'm monoatheistic!" Not sure if that's relevenat, but I think
>>it was amusing.)
>>A quote from the Talmud: "All things are under the control of
>>G-d except for the fear of G-d." In other words: G-d can't, or
>>won't compel belief -- that goes against what humans were
>>created for.
> Maybe I'm off-track here, but I'm getting the impression that God
> is a "hands-off" god? I'm getting the sense of a "non-caring"
> God?
No, not really. That's more like Deism (the religion of most of our
Founding Fathers: the belief that G-d created the universe, and since
then, has been pretty content to let it run itself.)
Rather, I believe in a G-d that's content to let humans make the first
move.
G-d *is* a "hands-off god" if that's what you want. You don't want G-d
meddling in your life, G-d won't. Not a problem. But you ask for help,
G-d will help. In a number of subtle, but still pretty useful, ways.
>>>I'm not making an ad numerum
>>>argument. I would just think that an omnipotent God could do a
>>>better job of "getting the word out."
>>I don't think G-d cares about getting the word out. I don't
>>think G-d cares if, or how He's worshipped.
> But what about "salvation?" Don't we need to "know" God to be
> "saved?"
No, of course not. Actions count, not beliefs.
>>>How do you explain this?
>>I don't. It's not important to explain. They don't have to be
>>wrong for me to be right.
> You lost me. From my view, they DO have to be wrong for you to be
> right.
Why? G-d insists that Jews only worship the G-d of the Jews. But G-d
makes no such demand for any other religion.
> For example, in case you hadn't guessed; I'm an atheist,
> therefor we can't both be right.
*Shrug*. It sounds like you feel that *I* have to be wrong for *you* to
be right. But *you* don't have to be wrong for *me* to be right.
What I mean by that is that your beliefs and non-beliefs had no injurious
effect on me. I don't believe that you have to believe in G-d. I don't
particularly think that your non-belief will have any negative effect on
you, in this life, or, if there is an afterlife, in that.
You're an atheist because you have no reason to believe in G-d. And
that's fine. You don't have to.
I do have reason to believe, so I do. If you had reason to believe in
G-d, you would.
You won't believe without evidence, and you don't have evidence. Plus,
you've noticed logical contradictions in how other people believe, and
therefore won't believe in the manners in which those other people
believe.
Now, you don't have proof of the *non-existence* of G-d, because the term
"G-d" is so slippery that you'll never get people to agree on what would
constitute proof of non-existence -- a fact which frustrates people on
both sides of these debates. (For what it's worth, I *can* prove that
there is no Invisible Mystical Unicorn in my back yard. I don't have a
back yard.)
So: as far as I can tell, you won't believe in something without logical
evidence of its existence, and nobody's giving you logical evidence of the
existence of G-d. So, you're not wrong to be an atheist.
And my believing in G-d isn't impacted by that.
So, you don't have to be wrong for me to be right.
You're trying to use the laws of physics to deal with metaphysics. It
doesn't work. That's why they call it "metaphysics."
>>I'm supposed to be Jewish. That doesn't mean that anyone else
>>is supposed to.
> Also, just out of curiosity, how do you know so much about
> religion?
Do I?
I know a little about Judaism because I'm Jewish and was raised Jewish and
went to Hebrew School on Sundays.
I know a little about Christianity because most of the people I deal with
on a daily basis are Christian, and because Jews have been so hurt by
Christians over the centuries that I thought it would be a good idea to
get to know what Christianity is about: it's partially a self-defense
thing. In addition, my father is a convert, so I have one Catholic
grandmother, and a Protestant grandfather.
I know a little about Wicca because a few of my parents' friends were
Wiccan when I was growing up, and I know a fair number of Wiccans.
I know a little about Voudon because I had a friend in college who was a
voudonista, and because I read.
Same thing for Buddhism, several other forms of modern Paganism, and a
bunch of other religions. I have an uncle who was a Buddhist monk in
Japan for a while. My parents' friends include Buddhists, Wiccans,
Shamans, and many, many varieties of Jews. And not a few Christians of
various stripes.
I read a bit about religion, I know people from various religions, I talk
to people about their religions.
But I don't think I know a lot about religion. I'm not an expert by any
means. The one thing I think I *can* say for myself is that I make fewer
assumptions about religion than most people.
Xiphias Gladius
>>>>> Why couldn't God explain it so plainly in his Bible?
>>>>
>>>>Because only the most simple concepts -- like "thou shall not
>>>>kill" or "if you leave a pit uncovered and your neighbor's
>>>>animal falls into the pit and dies, you have to pay damages,
>>>>but get to keep the dead animal" -- are expressed plainly,
>>>>that is, on the "peshat" level of interpretation.
>>
>>> But why is that?
>>
>>Because the *real* purpose of the Bible isn't to teach us *what*
>>to think, it's to teach us *how* to think. Therefore, most of
>>it requires brainwork to figure out. G-d doesn't want mindless
>>automatons following Its will --G-d's got angels for that.
>>Humans were designed with free will, and withthe ability to
>>figure things out for ourselves.
> But providing clear, concise information does not create
> "automatons." Telling you that eating toadstools is bad, and that
> being nice is good, doesn't make you an "automaton."
And providing clear, concise information also doesn't make you smarter,
nor does it give a feeling of accomplishment when soemthing is understood,
nor is the work of understanding it a challenge.
My education -- the bits of it I really appriciate, anyway -- consisted
largely of being presented with problems to solve. I wasn't just
presented with the answers -- that's not really education, is it?
Xiphias Gladius
> I have read tons of science fiction and time travel stuff, so I think I
> understand what you're getting at here. If I am right you are saying god is
> not subject to time restrictions (he can act equally in our past and future)
> and sees the beginning, middle and end of everything simultaneously.
Yep.
> But since god is not subject to time, we cannot speak of him "doing"
> anything, because verbs imply time (if I "do" something, there is a
> "before" I did it and an "after" I did it).
I could agree with that.
> This leaves us with another
> mystery - how can he have created the world when "creation" is an act that
> takes place in time? Let's just put that down to "humans can't understand
> that kind of thing."
No: the entire universe was simultaneously created, from beginning to end.
> Since the entire world is laid out before god from creation to destruction,
> it is unchangable (change would imply a "before god changed it" and an
> "after god changed it"). For example, if the world existed with me in it
> and then god changed the world and took me out of it, we would have created
> a new kind of god-time in which god-before I existed and god-after I didn't;
> since god is outside time, we can't do this.
Not at all: G-d could have created a universe in which you existed on even
Tuesdays from the year 2020 - 2100.
The entire universe could have been created with that taken into account.
> Thus the entire world was
> completely defined from the moment of its creation to be exactly as it is,
> with no possible variation.
> Therefore, god is incapable of changing anything in our world. If god is as
> you describe, not only is he not omnipotent, but he is impotent (in our
> world). Essentially he had one shot, at the beginning, and from there
> everything is done. We're still living it out, but from his point of view
> it's already done and can't be changed
Now you're getting into Calvinism.
> Therefore we can't make a mistake; anything we do is exactly what god
> already knows we did and planned for us to do during his act of creation,
> and nothing he or we can do can change that.
No, because what we are doing is our free will.
> If I murder someone I can say
> "god intended for me to murder that person," because if he didn't I would
> not have done it.
> While we may have free will within our time frame according to this theory,
> we also are immune to judgement.
Perhaps.
> Far from defining a morality for us to
> live by, it actually gives us a reason to deny the existence and meaning of
> morality and live without rules. After all, whatever I do is god's will.
This argument, by the way, works just as well without G-d -- you can state
that everybody is a product of their genes and environment, and therefore
has no free will.
I, in fact, once tried to get out of being punished by my parents by
citing this. Didn't work.
Because, within our own frame of reference, we have free will. Just
because G-d is outside our frame of reference doesn't make our own frame
of reference irrelevant.
Charles Basner
Agreed. What I'm saying is that if it had been created that way that's the
way it would be - it can't be changed because that implies that god exists
in a time frame where it was one way before he changed it and another after
he changed it.
>
> > Thus the entire world was
> > completely defined from the moment of its creation to be exactly as it
is,
> > with no possible variation.
>
> > Therefore, god is incapable of changing anything in our world. If god
is as
> > you describe, not only is he not omnipotent, but he is impotent (in our
> > world). Essentially he had one shot, at the beginning, and from there
> > everything is done. We're still living it out, but from his point of
view
> > it's already done and can't be changed
>
> Now you're getting into Calvinism.
>
> > Therefore we can't make a mistake; anything we do is exactly what god
> > already knows we did and planned for us to do during his act of
creation,
> > and nothing he or we can do can change that.
>
> No, because what we are doing is our free will.
It's our free will to act, but whatever our choice is, it is god's will.
>
> > If I murder someone I can say
> > "god intended for me to murder that person," because if he didn't I
would
> > not have done it.
>
> > While we may have free will within our time frame according to this
theory,
> > we also are immune to judgement.
>
> Perhaps.
>
> > Far from defining a morality for us to
> > live by, it actually gives us a reason to deny the existence and meaning
of
> > morality and live without rules. After all, whatever I do is god's
will.
>
> This argument, by the way, works just as well without G-d -- you can state
> that everybody is a product of their genes and environment, and therefore
> has no free will.
I'm sorry I implied that I was claiming there is no free will. I'm not.
Given your theory, within our time frame I accept that there is free will.
My point is that free will gives us the opportunity to choose a path, but
whichever path we choose it is always god's will.
>
> I, in fact, once tried to get out of being punished by my parents by
> citing this. Didn't work.
Sometimes parents can be stricter than god.
>
> Because, within our own frame of reference, we have free will. Just
> because G-d is outside our frame of reference doesn't make our own frame
> of reference irrelevant.
Agreed. Not irrelevant at all. But do you agree that we can not be judged
by our choices? Do you agree that whatever choice we make is a choice god
already knows and accepts? And if so, do you agree that those conclusion
allow people to act without considering morality, since all their actions
and choices are already known, forgiven and accepted?
chas
Andres64
<chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
..snip...
Just curious; were you planning to answer any of my questions?
I'll post them again in case you feel so inclined.
How can "God" be both omniscient AND omnipotent?
How can "God" be "in charge" yet we still have "free will?"
How can "God" be omniscient, yet we still have "free will?"
How can "God" be "all good", yet there exists evil which was made
by "His" doing?
If 'God" is omnipotent, why doesn't "He" just get rid of the
devil?
Why was it necessary for "God" to murder nearly every living
thing?
Can you provide proof that "God" communicates?
Can you provide proof that "God" is not just a myth?
How can "God" be explained using logic?
>>>>>I think that's why some ocean species are so goofey looking.
>>>>>I think He was experimenting big time. (JMO)
>>>>Are you serious?
>>>Only partly.
>>Please elaborate.
>I mean I personally believe that God did some major
>experimentation before He settled in on what He liked.
Uhhhhh Ohhhhh. Experimentation, by definition, requires
uncertainty. Therefore, God CAN'T be omniscient. As a noted
scientist once said:
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research,
would it?
-- Albert Einstein
Do you agree?
>>>>>God wouldn't be omnipotent if He couldn't at least change
>>>>>His mind on somethings would He?
>>>>EXACTLY!!! Therefore, omnipotence and omniscience are
>>>>mutually exclusive! Wooooohooooo! Ta Da! I do believe that's
>>>>check-mate, match-point! We are the champions! We are the
>>>>champions! Ahem,...excuse me.
>>>Wrong.
>>Now that's a convincing argument. Is that the best you can do?
Still waiting for a rebuttal...
>>If God were omniscient; He would KNOW BOTH, when AND
>>how.
>He knows but only acts on that which is RELEVANT. Not every
>damn thing is relevant to the big plan.
So you're saying that this "perfect", omnipotent, omniscient God
included "filler" in His plan? Why? Was there a certain length
requirement; like with a term paper?
--
Sincerely,
Andres (#1624)
You always have a choice.
georgann
Andres64 wrote:
> ..snip...
> Just curious; were you planning to answer any of my questions?
> I'll post them again in case you feel so inclined.
> How can "God" be both omniscient AND omnipotent?
Ian's answer to this was too perfect for me to attempt it any other way.
> How can "God" be "in charge" yet we still have "free will?"
Ian's answer to this was too perfect for me to attempt it any other way.
> How can "God" be omniscient, yet we still have "free will?"
Ian's answer to this was too perfect for me to attempt it any other way.
> How can "God" be "all good", yet there exists evil which was made
> by "His" doing?
Ian's answer to this was too perfect for me to attempt it any other way.
> If 'God" is omnipotent, why doesn't "He" just get rid of the
> devil?
Ian's answer to this was too perfect for me to attempt it any other way.
> Why was it necessary for "God" to murder nearly every living
> thing?
I think so. Cause He decided it was necessary. If it matters to you
though, He "was grieved in His heart" when He decided to do it.
> Can you provide proof that "God" communicates?
Well, I could if God would cooperate. But generally He's not big on
being put to the test like that. Ends up making people not believe
rather than believe. Besides He's done some pretty remarkable things and
some will still say it was something else. Like when someone is
miraculously healed of something like a terminal cancer and the doctors
all swear it couldn't just disappear.
> Can you provide proof that "God" is not just a myth?
I think this is really the same question as the one just above. But if
you mean do all myths have the same credence with as many people as
those who believe in God, I would have to say they are vastly different.
> How can "God" be explained using logic?
Do you really want me to "explain" or don't you mean prove like the two
questions above? I can logically explain all kinds of things (to the
best of my ability) but if you mean prove via logical arguments, then
we're not gonna get anywhere.
> >>>>>I think that's why some ocean species are so goofey looking.
> >>>>>I think He was experimenting big time. (JMO)
> >>>>Are you serious?
> >>>Only partly.
> > >>Please elaborate.
> >I mean I personally believe that God did some major
> >experimentation before He settled in on what He liked.
> Uhhhhh Ohhhhh. Experimentation, by definition, requires
> uncertainty. Therefore, God CAN'T be omniscient. As a noted
> scientist once said:
> If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research,
> would it?
> -- Albert Einstein
> Do you agree?
I don't agree that God is not entitled or capable of experimentation or
that to allow for it would somehow suggest that He didn't know what He
was doing. I think of it more like designing a whole range of car models
to see which ones suit His tastes best. In the process He decided to
throw in some three wheeled and unicycle variations just for the heck of
it. I think God can and likely did do that with the Creation. JMO.
> >>>>>God wouldn't be omnipotent if He couldn't at least change
> >>>>>His mind on somethings would He?
> >>>>EXACTLY!!! Therefore, omnipotence and omniscience are
> >>>>mutually exclusive! Wooooohooooo! Ta Da! I do believe that's
> >>>>check-mate, match-point! We are the champions! We are the
> >>>>champions! Ahem,...excuse me.
> >>>Wrong.
> >>Now that's a convincing argument. Is that the best you can do?
> Still waiting for a rebuttal...
The rebuttal is the same thing Ian said about how God doesn't know "how
it will turn out" but He does know "how it did turn out". He knows
everything. But He can do everything too. And He chose for us to have
free will and He made it possible for that to work without interfering
with His omnipotence. I don't know how He did it. Just that He did.
> >>If God were omniscient; He would KNOW BOTH, when AND
> >>how.
> >He knows but only acts on that which is RELEVANT. Not every
> >damn thing is relevant to the big plan.
> So you're saying that this "perfect", omnipotent, omniscient God
> included "filler" in His plan? Why? Was there a certain length
> requirement; like with a term paper?
No deadlines for God. That's why (IMO) the dating of the universe and
the earth and life are so enormous to us. If God is "outside of the
bounds" of time then by His standards 1 Zillion years to us is just a
blink of an eye. I don't think that time began to "register" the way it
does from our perspective until the fall of man - - or after the flood
of Noah - - - haven't got a handle on that yet. But I think it was
slowing after the fall and then leveled off at the flood and has been
(relatively) constant ever since.
OTOH I also think the 20th century is showing that "time" is speeding
again in that the time curvature that was before the flood is emerging
in an opposite direction.
Cleo
going to throw a few thoughts in. You can throw 'em right out if you
want.
I hope I can get all these attributions right.
Andres:
>How can "God" be omniscient, yet we still have "free will?"
Ian:
>Let's say you've reading a really good book about, um, some
>historical event -- maybe Custer's Last Stand.
>You now know everything there is to know aobut the battle. Does
>Custer therefore no longer have free will?
>
Andres:
> 1) Actually, I would say that he doesn't, because in your
> analogy, there is only one outcome; the one that's written in the
> book.
Ian:
>But Custer *did* have free will when he took the actions originally,
>didn't he?
In a later paragraph, you (Ian) mentioned time travel. Let's suppose
you actually went back to Custer's tent the night before the battle,
and stood around watching. You know how it's going to turn out,
because you read about it before you left. Does Custer still have
free will?
Let's suppose I go back to Custer's tent, and I haven't read the
history. Does that change anything?
(Wasn't there a ST:TNG episode like this? Only the time traveller
turned out to be an imposter. Now I gotta go dig around for a Star
Trek site.) (Another Usless Pop Culture Reference (tm) by Cleo)
As I understand him, God is not limited to experiencing time in a
linear fashion, as we are. We don't understand how God "makes" free
will and omniscience go together, any more than Custer could
understand how a couple of people in wierd clothes got into his tent.
I have a daughter. When she was 3, I was omniscient. I said, "If you
keep playing Little Mermaid in the bathtub, you're going to get water
all over the floor," and it happened. I said, "If you try to watch TV
and drink your milk at the same time, you're going to make a mess,"
and it happened. From her point of view, I knew the future.
That analogy only goes so far. I don't want to be accused of
comparing us all to toddlers. But I do consider the possibility that
God is omniscient in relation to this universe in the same way that my
daughter saw me as omniscient. Whether he is omniscient in relation
to other universes unknown to us is a different question.
>Yes: G-d is both good and evil: G-d takes actions which, if applied to
>humans, would be good and evil.
>
>But the concepts of good and evil are really concepts which only *do*
>apply to humans, so G-d is neither good nor evil.
>
>And G-d takes actions which just *are* and good and evil just plain don't
>apply.
I would go beyond that, and say that the vast majority of actions and
events in this world are just that: neither good or evil. The
effects they have on us may be positive or negative, but there is no
good or evil in the event itself.
Andres:
>If 'God" is omnipotent, why doesn't "He" just get rid of the
>devil?
Because then we couldn't have all those cute cartoons with the little
angel on one shoulder and the little devil on the other. The idea
that an anthropomorphic devil exists is not universal, even among
Christians. IMHO, we use the concept of the devil to personify that
which we cannot understand, as well as the less desirable traits we
see inourselves. "The devil made me buy this dress" is a lot easier
to say than, "I guess I made a pretty stupid decision, didn't I?"
>The idea that the universe is a great conflict between the forces of Good
>and Evil is a Zorastrain concept, not a Jewish one. Zorastrianism
>influenced Judaism in Persia, and some cultural-bleed-through occured, so
>some surface notions of two diametrically opposed deities did show up
>briefly, but they really aren't important concepts in Judaism.
>
>Let's talk about who Samael, the Satan is. The angel Samael is "the
>Satan" -- the accuser. Samael is its name, Satan is its title. When
>souls are judged, in the heavenly court, the Satan gives the case against
>the soul while Michael, I beleive (although I'm not sure) presents the
>defense. And G-d is the judge.
>
>In other words, Samael is the district attorney of the heavenly court, and
>Michael is the public defender. Neither is any less loyal to G-d than the
>other. Samael has more hostility towards humans, which is why it was
>chosen as the Satan, but is completely devoted to G-d.
This was interesting. Is this a Jewish concept, or one you came to
another way?
Andres:
> Also, as a follow-up: Do
> you think that Martha (a Satanist) or Cyn (a Wicca?), or anyone
> else for that matter, is any less sure of their religion/god?
Ian:
>Nope, I don't. I have friends who are Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems,
>Wiccans, Voudonistas, Greek Pagans, Norse Pagans, non-Wiccan Celtic
>Pagans, Catholics, Unitarians, Quakers, Mormons, modern Orthodox Jews,
>Chassids, Reform Jews, Chavurah movement Jews, Reconstructionist Jews,
>athiests, militant prosleytising agnostics ("I don't know, and neither do
>you!"), post-denominational Jews . . . and all of their religions seem to
>work pretty well (even the atheists, when they do this correctly, seem to
>draw strength from their non-belief.)
Hey! What do you have against Methodists??? Hmmm????
>I'm supposed to be Jewish. That doesn't mean that anyone else is supposed
>to.
I struggle daily to understand what God wants from me. One of his
greatest acts of mercy has been to exclude me from responsibility over
his expectations of anyone else.
Cleo
Gary DeWaay
Xiphias Gladius wrote...
<snip all 287 lines except:>
> >>I don't think G-d cares about getting the word out. I don't
> >>think G-d cares if, or how He's worshipped.
>
> > But what about "salvation?" Don't we need to "know" God to be
> > "saved?"
>
> No, of course not. Actions count, not beliefs.
This goes against everything I've ever been taught about X-ianity. Or
are you just talking strictly from the Jewish perspective?
BTW, most X-ians wouldn't be nearly as annoying if this were true.
Gary
(Dr. DeWaay)
To respond remove "not"
Purveyor of degenerates... Check out my web site:
www.netbinders.net (mostly under construction)
Required ARTD-L reading:
FAQ: http://extra.newsguy.com/~satire/faq.html
(thanx to Hell Toupee)
CAL: http://extra.newsguy.com/~satire/Corpus.htm
(thanx to Dr. Charlie)
Gary DeWaay
Xiphias Gladius wrote...
> Andres64 <andres64...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Why couldn't God explain it so plainly in his Bible?
> >>>>
> >>>>Because only the most simple concepts -- like "thou shall not
> >>>>kill" or "if you leave a pit uncovered and your neighbor's
> >>>>animal falls into the pit and dies, you have to pay damages,
> >>>>but get to keep the dead animal" -- are expressed plainly,
> >>>>that is, on the "peshat" level of interpretation.
> >>
> >>> But why is that?
> >>
> >>Because the *real* purpose of the Bible isn't to teach us *what*
> >>to think, it's to teach us *how* to think. Therefore, most of
> >>it requires brainwork to figure out. G-d doesn't want mindless
> >>automatons following Its will --G-d's got angels for that.
> >>Humans were designed with free will, and withthe ability to
> >>figure things out for ourselves.
>
> > But providing clear, concise information does not create
> > "automatons." Telling you that eating toadstools is bad, and that
> > being nice is good, doesn't make you an "automaton."
>
> And providing clear, concise information also doesn't make you smarter,
> nor does it give a feeling of accomplishment when soemthing is understood,
> nor is the work of understanding it a challenge.
>
> My education -- the bits of it I really appriciate, anyway -- consisted
> largely of being presented with problems to solve. I wasn't just
> presented with the answers -- that's not really education, is it?
But do you really learn anything if you can never find out if your
answers are right or wrong?
Gary DeWaay
Xiphias Gladius wrote...
> Gary DeWaay <dewaay...@hotmail.comnot> wrote:
>
> > Xiphias Gladius wrote...
>
> >> My education -- the bits of it I really appriciate, anyway -- consisted
> >> largely of being presented with problems to solve. I wasn't just
> >> presented with the answers -- that's not really education, is it?
>
> > But do you really learn anything if you can never find out if your
> > answers are right or wrong?
>
> I certainly hope so. After all, most problems in the Real World don't
> come with an answer key in the back of the book.
I agree totally. How come I keep hearing that all the answers come from
a book?
DC
>From: Genitals in a Sling
>Date: 2/29/00 7:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:
>Dinky Cat wrote
>> You are indominitable, Georgeann. Fun, tho.
>Genitals wrote:<
>If you mean indomitable ... indeed.
Ya know, I actually spelled it that way at first, but it didn't look right.
Thanks for the correction.
Dinky Cat
People who hate cats were rats in a former life and probably still are rats
Elisabeth Anne Riba
:> No, of course not. Actions count, not beliefs.
Gary DeWaay <dewaay...@hotmail.comnot> wrote:
: This goes against everything I've ever been taught about X-ianity. Or
: are you just talking strictly from the Jewish perspective?
Congratulations. You've just learned one of the fundamental differences
between Judaism and Christianity.
I don't have time to explain it all here (we've got to pack for a
tomorrow morning flight) but Ian described it perfectly earlier this
month in this very newsgroup. Go to DejaNews and look up
the message with ID <884or1$9ni$1...@hiram.io.com>
Trust me, it's worth it.
--
---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
Marriage, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a
master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Lake3000
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Because only the most simple concepts -- like "thou shall not
>> >>>>kill" or "if you leave a pit uncovered and your neighbor's
>> >>>>animal falls into the pit and dies, you have to pay damages,
>> >>>>but get to keep the dead animal" -- are expressed plainly,
>> >>>>that is, on the "peshat" level of interpretation.
>> >>
>> >>> But why is that?
>> >>
>> >>Because the *real* purpose of the Bible isn't to teach us *what*
>> >>to think, it's to teach us *how* to think. Therefore, most of
>> >>it requires brainwork to figure out. G-d doesn't want mindless
>> >>automatons following Its will --G-d's got angels for that.
>> >>Humans were designed with free will, and withthe ability to
>> >>figure things out for ourselves.
>>
>> > But providing clear, concise information does not create
>> > "automatons." Telling you that eating toadstools is bad, and that
>> > being nice is good, doesn't make you an "automaton."
>>
>> And providing clear, concise information also doesn't make you smarter,
>> nor does it give a feeling of accomplishment when soemthing is understood,
>> nor is the work of understanding it a challenge.
>>
>> largely of being presented with problems to solve. I wasn't just
>> presented with the answers -- that's not really education, is it?
>
>
>But do you really learn anything if you can never find out if your
>answers are right or wrong?
>
divine participation or inspiration.
Xiphias Gladius
> Xiphias Gladius wrote...
>> My education -- the bits of it I really appriciate, anyway -- consisted
>> largely of being presented with problems to solve. I wasn't just
>> presented with the answers -- that's not really education, is it?
> But do you really learn anything if you can never find out if your
> answers are right or wrong?
I certainly hope so. After all, most problems in the Real World don't
come with an answer key in the back of the book.
- Ian
Xiphias Gladius
> The answer is simple, The Bible was written by plain old people. There is no
> divine participation or inspiration.
Whether or not that's true, that would take all the fun out of it.
Xiphias Gladius
>> The entire universe could have been created with that taken into account.
> Agreed. What I'm saying is that if it had been created that way that's the
> way it would be - it can't be changed because that implies that god exists
> in a time frame where it was one way before he changed it and another after
> he changed it.
But G-d could have changed it to *start* with. Or, to put it another way,
G-d wouldn't *need* to change it.
>> No, because what we are doing is our free will.
> It's our free will to act, but whatever our choice is, it is god's will.
Possibly -- I could see that.
> I'm sorry I implied that I was claiming there is no free will. I'm not.
> Given your theory, within our time frame I accept that there is free will.
> My point is that free will gives us the opportunity to choose a path, but
> whichever path we choose it is always god's will.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that it would be right, necessarily.
>> Because, within our own frame of reference, we have free will. Just
>> because G-d is outside our frame of reference doesn't make our own frame
>> of reference irrelevant.
> Agreed. Not irrelevant at all. But do you agree that we can not be judged
> by our choices?
No, I don't -- they're still our choices, made free by us, and therefore
judgeable.
> Do you agree that whatever choice we make is a choice god
> already knows and accepts?
Knows: yes. Accepts: I'm not sure what you mean by that. Since we have
free will, our actions are our own: G-d's acceptance doesn't enter into
it.
> And if so, do you agree that those conclusion
> allow people to act without considering morality, since all their actions
> and choices are already known, forgiven and accepted?
I'm not seeing where you're getting "forgiven" and "accepted" from.
Xiphias Gladius
> I have a daughter. When she was 3, I was omniscient. I said, "If you
> keep playing Little Mermaid in the bathtub, you're going to get water
> all over the floor," and it happened. I said, "If you try to watch TV
> and drink your milk at the same time, you're going to make a mess,"
> and it happened. From her point of view, I knew the future.
> That analogy only goes so far. I don't want to be accused of
> comparing us all to toddlers. But I do consider the possibility that
> God is omniscient in relation to this universe in the same way that my
> daughter saw me as omniscient.
You ever read E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman series? The Arisians, one race
in those books, had a hobby: Visualization Of The Cosmic All, in which
they did their best to project current trends to tell the future. In a
simple demonstration of this skill, one Arisian tells the main character
of the first book that he will, in three years, on a particular date at a
particular time in a particular town, get slightly nicked by a barber
while shaving, when a kitten jumps on his lap. Which happens.
Clearly, *your* Visualization of the Cosmic All is better than your
two-year-old's was. . .
>>If 'God" is omnipotent, why doesn't "He" just get rid of the
>>devil?
> Because then we couldn't have all those cute cartoons with the little
> angel on one shoulder and the little devil on the other. The idea
> that an anthropomorphic devil exists is not universal, even among
> Christians. IMHO, we use the concept of the devil to personify that
> which we cannot understand, as well as the less desirable traits we
> see inourselves. "The devil made me buy this dress" is a lot easier
> to say than, "I guess I made a pretty stupid decision, didn't I?"
*Nod*. Neil Gaman had a comic book series called "Sandman", in which, in
one issue, Lucifer mentions that he's sick and tired of being blamed for
all the stupid things that people do on their own.
>>In other words, Samael is the district attorney of the heavenly court, and
>>Michael is the public defender. Neither is any less loyal to G-d than the
>>other. Samael has more hostility towards humans, which is why it was
>>chosen as the Satan, but is completely devoted to G-d.
> This was interesting. Is this a Jewish concept, or one you came to
> another way?
Traditional Jewish concept. You can see it pretty clearly in Job, for
instance: Satan's job is to test Job, not to punish him (although,
admitedly, in Job, the distinction is subtle at best. . . )
> Andres:
>> Also, as a follow-up: Do
>> you think that Martha (a Satanist) or Cyn (a Wicca?), or anyone
>> else for that matter, is any less sure of their religion/god?
> Ian:
>>Nope, I don't. I have friends who are Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems,
>>Wiccans, Voudonistas, Greek Pagans, Norse Pagans, non-Wiccan Celtic
>>Pagans, Catholics, Unitarians, Quakers, Mormons, modern Orthodox Jews,
>>Chassids, Reform Jews, Chavurah movement Jews, Reconstructionist Jews,
>>athiests, militant prosleytising agnostics ("I don't know, and neither do
>>you!"), post-denominational Jews . . . and all of their religions seem to
>>work pretty well (even the atheists, when they do this correctly, seem to
>>draw strength from their non-belief.)
> Hey! What do you have against Methodists??? Hmmm????
Actually, that's one of the religions that I remembered about thirteen
seconds after I hit "send." . . .
>>I'm supposed to be Jewish. That doesn't mean that anyone else is supposed
>>to.
> I struggle daily to understand what God wants from me. One of his
> greatest acts of mercy has been to exclude me from responsibility over
> his expectations of anyone else.
Amen to that.
georgann
> > > Xiphias Gladius wrote...
> > >> My education -- the bits of it I really appriciate, anyway -- consisted
> > >> largely of being presented with problems to solve. I wasn't just
> > >> presented with the answers -- that's not really education, is it?
Gary DeWaay wrote:
> > > But do you really learn anything if you can never find out if your
> > > answers are right or wrong?
Xiphias Gladius wrote...
> > I certainly hope so. After all, most problems in the Real World don't
> > come with an answer key in the back of the book.
Gary DeWaay wrote:
> I agree totally. How come I keep hearing that all the answers come from
> a book?
Georgann wrote:
Its a matter of comprehension. Not just some test of your ability to
read.
Charles Basner
> Charles Basner <cha...@tipsinc.com> wrote:
>
> >> The entire universe could have been created with that taken into
account.
>
> > Agreed. What I'm saying is that if it had been created that way that's
the
> > way it would be - it can't be changed because that implies that god
exists
> > in a time frame where it was one way before he changed it and another
after
> > he changed it.
>
> But G-d could have changed it to *start* with. Or, to put it another way,
> G-d wouldn't *need* to change it.
Right. So it only ever occurred one way. No changes.
Since god created everything from the beginning knowing exactly how it
turned out, it stands to reason that anything he *didn't* want to have
happen he would have changed. Therefore he "accepts" everything exactly the
way it is (otherwise he would have created the world differently). If I do
something, he *knew* that I would do/did it and he created the world such
that that was the only possibility. Therefore, even if he thinks what I did
was "wrong," he has to have already forgiven me for it because he created
everything and didn't see fit to change it.
chas
Dr. Charlie
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> writes:
>Georgann wrote:
>Charlie your church would make a great plank addition for the
>multi-faceted McCain!
I don't understand why the Republican establishment hates McCain so, except
maybe they're in love with G.W. (for reasons I also don't understand), and
they think McCain is some kind of a traitor for making things tough for the
Shrub.
Can anyone explain this to me?
>Why don't you add your name to his list of supporters?
I can't. I want to see the Shrub get the Republican nomination for the same
reasons Eric does.
Dr. Charlie
Torn between researching the candidates' positions or just voting for the
guy from my state.
bigdlaura1
Do not go genital into that good night. wrote:
> genitalia typed
> When the preposterous is unquestioned, people believe preposterous
things.
Further confirmation of my belief that GG is beldin's evil twin.
GISP
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Andres64
<chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Andres64 wrote:
.snip...
>>Just curious; were you planning to answer any of my questions?
>>I'll post them again in case you feel so inclined.
>>How can "God" be both omniscient AND
>>omnipotent?
>Ian's answer to this was too perfect for me to attempt it any
>other way.
I don't believe that Ian answered this question; can you?
..snip...
>>If 'God" is omnipotent, why doesn't "He" just get rid of the
>>devil?
>Ian's answer to this was too perfect for me to attempt it any
>other way.
Oh really? So you agree with him when he says "...the devil works
for G-d doing vital work for the universe." and "Samael is the
district attorney of the heavenly court, and Michael is the
public defender. Neither is any less loyal to G-d than the
other?"
>>Why was it necessary for "God" to murder nearly every living
>>thing?
>I think so.
What? I asked "Why", not "If."
>Cause He decided it was necessary.
Obviously, but the question remains: Why?
>If it matters to you though, He "was grieved in His heart" when
>He decided to do it.
Awwww. Isn't that special. "He" "was grieved in His heart" when
"He" murdered hundreds of thousands (millions?) of his creations,
including children, infants, unborn, animals.
>> Can you provide proof that "God" communicates?
>Well, I could if God would cooperate.
1) I'm not asking anything of "God"; I'm asking you. 2) Why
wouldn't he cooperate?
>But generally He's not big on being put to the test like that.
Not test. I'm simply asking for evidence that "He's" done what
you claim.
>Ends up making people not believe rather than believe.
Illogical conclusion.
>Besides He's done some pretty remarkable things and
>some will still say it was something else. Like when someone is
>miraculously healed of something like a terminal cancer and the
>doctors all swear it couldn't just disappear.
Let me see if I have this straight: This omnipotent, omniscient
"God" can't do ANYTHING that would convince me?
>>Can you provide proof that "God" is not just a myth?
>I think this is really the same question as the one just above.
>But if you mean do all myths have the same credence with as many
>people as those who believe in God, I would have to say they are
>vastly different.
Ad numerum argument.
>>How can "God" be explained using logic?
>Do you really want me to "explain" or don't you mean prove like
>the two questions above?
I want you to explain the following comment you made:
I asked: "Are you still trying to claim that logic DOES work to
explain God?"
You said: "It *does* explain ....just doesn't prove yet
.....still workin on it"
..snip...
>>>>>>>I think that's why some ocean species are so goofey
>>>>>>>looking.
>>>>>>>I think He was experimenting big time. (JMO)
>>>>>>Are you serious?
>>>>>Only partly.
>>>>Please elaborate.
>>>I mean I personally believe that God did some major
>>>experimentation before He settled in on what He liked.
>>Uhhhhh Ohhhhh. Experimentation, by definition, requires
>>uncertainty. Therefore, God CAN'T be omniscient. As a noted
>>scientist once said:
>>If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research,
>>would it?
>>-- Albert Einstein
>>Do you agree?
>I don't agree that God is not entitled or capable of
>experimentation or that to allow for it would somehow suggest
>that He didn't know what He was doing.
What?! Experimentation, by definition, requires uncertainty.
Otherwise it wouldn't be an experiment would it?
>I think of it more like designing a whole range of car models
>to see which ones suit His tastes best.
So you're saying that this omnipotent, omniscient "God" didn't
know if "He" would like a certain "model?"
>In the process He decided to throw in some three wheeled and
>unicycle variations just for the heck of it. I think God can and
>likely did do that with the Creation. JMO.
Then this "God" CAN'T be omniscient.
..snip...
>>>>If God were omniscient; He would KNOW BOTH, when AND
>>>>how.
>>>He knows but only acts on that which is RELEVANT. Not every
>>>damn thing is relevant to the big plan.
>>So you're saying that this "perfect", omnipotent, omniscient
>>God included "filler" in His plan? Why? Was there a certain
>>length requirement; like with a term paper?
>No deadlines for God.
Uhhhhh...what? I wasn't asking about "deadlines." I was asking
about this "extra", non-relevant "filler" in "His" plan.
>That's why (IMO) the dating of the universe and the earth and
>life are so enormous to us.
So you think the earth in only a few thousand years old?
>If God is "outside of the bounds" of time then by His standards
>1 Zillion years to us is just a blink of an eye. I don't
>think that time began to "register" the way it does from our
>perspective until the fall of man - - or after the flood of
>Noah - - - haven't got a handle on that yet.
Obviously. BTW, apparently you actually believe the story of Noah
and the flood?
..snip...
>OTOH I also think the 20th century is showing that "time" is
>speeding again in that the time curvature that was before the
>flood is emerging in an opposite direction.
Uhhhhh...what?
Stephen Bergsen
>>>How can "God" be both omniscient AND
>>>omnipotent?
Georgann wrote:
>>Ian's answer to this was too perfect for me to attempt it any
>>other way.
I must say, Georgann, that I owe you a debt of gratitude for rekindling fond
memories of my dear departed grandmother, who often used the same irrefutable
logic you do:
When we were very young, my grandmother used to say:
"It never rains on the Jewish High Holy Days because God loves the Jewish
people best."
The next year, when it did rain on Rosh Ha Shonah, we were horrified. What
could this mean?!?! She quelled our fears:
"Don't worry tahtelehs. It never rains on the Jewish High Holy Days because God
loves the Jewish people best but, sometimes, he makes it rain on Rosh Ha Shonah
just to let you know that he can if he wants to."
stephen b
DC
>Date: 3/1/00 10:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Georgann wrote:
>
>>>Ian's answer to this was too perfect for me to attempt it any
>>>other way.
>
>Steven wrote nostalgically<
>I must say, Georgann, that I owe you a debt of gratitude for rekindling fond
>memories of my dear departed grandmother, who often used the same irrefutable
>logic you do:
>
>When we were very young, my grandmother used to say:
>
>"It never rains on the Jewish High Holy Days because God loves the Jewish
>people best."
>
>The next year, when it did rain on Rosh Ha Shonah, we were horrified. What
>could this mean?!?! She quelled our fears:
>
>"Don't worry tahtelehs. It never rains on the Jewish High Holy Days because
>God
>loves the Jewish people best but, sometimes, he makes it rain on Rosh Ha
>Shonah
>just to let you know that he can if he wants to."
>
Another one is "Put your sweater on, you're making me cold."
Andres64
runner's_frozen_genitals
> > > > Religious believers should be left in peace, provided they're willing to
> > > > leave others in peace. When someone's "God" demands the power of government,
> > > > however, that's something any decent person should stand against.
Georgann wrote
> > > My God does not demand the power of government!
genitalia typed
> > I don't believe your God exists, but in his name you call for the commingling
> > of church and state. Just yesterday you endorsed the distribution of Bibles
> > at government expense; using The Bible to teach children public schools to
> > read; the establishment of an Official State Churches for each state; and
> > laws prohibiting anyone but Christians from holding public office.
> >
> > Or perhaps your point is that God doesn't *demand* the power of government;
> > your God should simply be *given* these powers?
Georgann wrote
> You take my words too far when you say I wish to commingle church and
> state. I do not wish that. I merely wish to enjoy the supposedly
> guaranteed freedoms of religion and the expression thereof.
>
> I think you goofed about my wanting to establish an Official State
> Church for each state. I thought I said not to that. And I thought I
> sand anyone not just Christians could hold public office.
>
> Please reread my response on the numbered items.
Yup, I screwed up. It would be much easier to debate you if you'd say what I
expect you to say instead of what you say. And I say that with a smiley face.
Re-reading Georgann's earlier response in another thread, this time while
saying no to drugs, it is clear that she claims she "would *not* be pleased"
(emphasis added) to see each state adopt an official state church; to see
Bibles and hymnals used to teach public school children how to read; or to
see all public office-holders be required to take public oaths affirming that
they're Christians. Please accept my apologies for these mis-statements of
your positions, Georgann.
For purposes of clarification, Georgann's stated positions are apparently
*only* in favor of: public school students and teachers being allowed to meet
together for prayer; government sponsorship of wide distribution of Bibles,
"so that the people would be well-supplied with the political textbook of
this nation"; reconsideration of the separation of church and state; and a
Constitutional ammendment stipulating that "...it is the duty of all men
frequently to assemble together for public worship of the 'Author of the
universe.'"
As atonement for my error, I pledge not to challenge Georgann's next
five-hundred (500) preposterous statements, evasive non-answers, irrelevant
cites, nonsensical scriptural embroideries, etc.
This policy takes effect immediately.
___ ____ _ _ ____ ____ __ __ ___ ___ __ __ _ _
/ __)( ___)( \( )(_ _)(_ _) /__\ ( ) / __) / __)( )( )( \/ )
( (_-. )__) | \\ | _)(_ )( /(__)\ )(__ \__ \ ( (_-. )(__)( \ /
\___/(____)(_)\_)(____) (__)(__)(__)(____)(___/ \___/(______) (__)
Fred Rosenblatt
> > > >> My education -- the bits of it I really appriciate, anyway -- consisted
> > > >> largely of being presented with problems to solve. I wasn't just
> > > >> presented with the answers -- that's not really education, is it?
>
> Gary DeWaay wrote:
> > > > But do you really learn anything if you can never find out if your
> > > > answers are right or wrong?
>
> Xiphias Gladius wrote...
> > > I certainly hope so. After all, most problems in the Real World don't
> > > come with an answer key in the back of the book.
>
> Gary DeWaay wrote:
> > I agree totally. How come I keep hearing that all the answers come from
> > a book?
>
There are some math problems that are centuries old. Mathemeticians work
on them for the pure intellectual pleasure, not even knowing if there is
a possible solution.
georgann
> genitalia typed
> > > > > Religious believers should be left in peace, provided they're willing to
> > > > > leave others in peace. When someone's "God" demands the power of government,
> > > > > however, that's something any decent person should stand against.
> Georgann wrote
> > > > My God does not demand the power of government!
> genitalia typed
> > > I don't believe your God exists, but in his name you call for the commingling
> > > of church and state. Just yesterday you endorsed the distribution of Bibles
> > > at government expense; using The Bible to teach children public schools to
> > > read; the establishment of an Official State Churches for each state; and
> > > laws prohibiting anyone but Christians from holding public office.
> > > Or perhaps your point is that God doesn't *demand* the power of government;
> > > your God should simply be *given* these powers?
> Georgann wrote
> > You take my words too far when you say I wish to commingle church and
> > state. I do not wish that. I merely wish to enjoy the supposedly
> > guaranteed freedoms of religion and the expression thereof.
> > I think you goofed about my wanting to establish an Official State
> > Church for each state. I thought I said not to that. And I thought I
> > sand anyone not just Christians could hold public office.
> > Please reread my response on the numbered items.
Runner's, Frozen, Genitals wrote:
> Yup, I screwed up. It would be much easier to debate you if you'd say what I
> expect you to say instead of what you say. And I say that with a smiley face.
> Re-reading Georgann's earlier response in another thread, this time while
> saying no to drugs, it is clear that she claims she "would *not* be pleased"
> (emphasis added) to see each state adopt an official state church; to see
> Bibles and hymnals used to teach public school children how to read; or to
> see all public office-holders be required to take public oaths affirming that
> they're Christians. Please accept my apologies for these mis-statements of
> your positions, Georgann.
> For purposes of clarification, Georgann's stated positions are apparently
> *only* in favor of: public school students and teachers being allowed to meet
> together for prayer; government sponsorship of wide distribution of Bibles,
> "so that the people would be well-supplied with the political textbook of
> this nation"; reconsideration of the separation of church and state; and a
> Constitutional ammendment stipulating that "...it is the duty of all men
> frequently to assemble together for public worship of the 'Author of the
> universe.'"
> As atonement for my error, I pledge not to challenge Georgann's next
> five-hundred (500) preposterous statements, evasive non-answers, irrelevant
> cites, nonsensical scriptural embroideries, etc.
> This policy takes effect immediately.
Georgann wrote:
I bet you're gonna whine about not giving yourself a bigger allowance
round about next week arn'cha?
georgann
Runner's, Frozen, Genitals wrote:
Georgann wrote:
That's cheating..........
runner's_frozen_genitals
runner's_frozen_genitals
> > > > > My education -- the bits of it I really appriciate, anyway -- consisted
> > > > > largely of being presented with problems to solve. I wasn't just
> > > > > presented with the answers -- that's not really education, is it?
Gary DeWaay asked
> > > > But do you really learn anything if you can never find out if your
> > > > answers are right or wrong?
Xiphias Gladius replied
> > > I certainly hope so. After all, most problems in the Real World don't
> > > come with an answer key in the back of the book.
Gary DeWaay replied
> > I agree totally. How come I keep hearing that all the answers come from
> > a book?
Georgann explained
> Its a matter of comprehension. Not just some test of your ability to
> read.
That's 22.
Xiphias Gladius
>> Xiphias Gladius wrote...
>> > > I certainly hope so. After all, most problems in the Real World don't
>> > > come with an answer key in the back of the book.
>>
>> Gary DeWaay wrote:
>> > I agree totally. How come I keep hearing that all the answers come from
>> > a book?
> There are some math problems that are centuries old. Mathemeticians work
> on them for the pure intellectual pleasure, not even knowing if there is
> a possible solution.
Fermat's Last Theorem was proved true, by the way. It's clear, however,
that the proof that Fermat *thought* he had woudln't have worked. . .
AS it turns out, I believe that the proof was based on finding that the
Theorem was isomorphic to some hyperdimensional geometry-node problem, but
I don't remember the details. There was a Nova special on it.
Xiphias Gladius
> "Xiphias Gladius" <i...@io.com> wrote in message
>> I'm not seeing where you're getting "forgiven" and "accepted" from.
> Since god created everything from the beginning knowing exactly how it
> turned out, it stands to reason that anything he *didn't* want to have
> happen he would have changed. Therefore he "accepts" everything exactly the
> way it is (otherwise he would have created the world differently). If I do
> something, he *knew* that I would do/did it and he created the world such
> that that was the only possibility. Therefore, even if he thinks what I did
> was "wrong," he has to have already forgiven me for it because he created
> everything and didn't see fit to change it.
I think you're making a logical falacy here: we are still responsible for
our own actions, even though G-d created us.
I understand what you're saying: G-d made us, and made us the way that we
are, and therefore bears the ultimate responsibility for our actions. But
that's not the way it works. We bear responsibility for ourselves, no
matter what.
chasbas
> Charles Basner <cha...@tipsinc.com> wrote:
>
> > "Xiphias Gladius" <i...@io.com> wrote in message
>
> >> I'm not seeing where you're getting "forgiven" and "accepted" from.
>
> > Since god created everything from the beginning knowing exactly how it
> > turned out, it stands to reason that anything he *didn't* want to have
> > happen he would have changed. Therefore he "accepts" everything exactly
the
> > way it is (otherwise he would have created the world differently). If I
do
> > something, he *knew* that I would do/did it and he created the world
such
> > that that was the only possibility. Therefore, even if he thinks what I
did
> > was "wrong," he has to have already forgiven me for it because he
created
> > everything and didn't see fit to change it.
>
> I think you're making a logical falacy here: we are still responsible for
> our own actions, even though G-d created us.
You've simply stated your point, without describing the fallacy in my
argument.
>
> I understand what you're saying: G-d made us, and made us the way that we
> are, and therefore bears the ultimate responsibility for our actions. But
> that's not the way it works. We bear responsibility for ourselves, no
> matter what.
I was just trying to logically analyze your description of god and his
relationship to time. I accept your right to believe that we bear
responsibility for ourselves, but I submit that logically what I wrote makes
sense (there is no fallacy).
chas
georgann
> >Georgann wrote:
> >Charlie your church would make a great plank addition for the
> >multi-faceted McCain!
"Dr. Charlie" wrote:
> I don't understand why the Republican establishment hates McCain so, except
> maybe they're in love with G.W. (for reasons I also don't understand), and
> they think McCain is some kind of a traitor for making things tough for the
> Shrub.
> Can anyone explain this to me?
Georgann wrote:
Its because McCain is so Clintonesque in his triple-speak. Plus he's a
liberal in Republican's clothing. Not the same as a Reagan Democrat
(which would be a moderate in Democrats clothing). Believe it or not
Bush is the moderate candidate for all three parties this year.
Georgann wrote:
> >Why don't you add your name to his list of supporters?
"Dr. Charlie" wrote:
> I can't. I want to see the Shrub get the Republican nomination for the same
> reasons Eric does.
> Dr. Charlie
> Torn between researching the candidates' positions or just voting for the
> guy from my state.
Why does Eric want to see Bush get the nomination. I missed that. (And
what state?)
--
regards
georgann
georgann
> Andres64 wrote:
> .snip...
> >>Just curious; were you planning to answer any of my questions?
> >>I'll post them again in case you feel so inclined.
> >>How can "God" be both omniscient AND
> >>omnipotent?
Georgann wrote:
> >Ian's answer to this was too perfect for me to attempt it any
> >other way.
Andres64 wrote:
> I don't believe that Ian answered this question; can you?
Georgann wrote in her own words some hypothetical stuff:
RE: ""How can "God" be both omniscient AND omnipotent?""
When Ian was saying that God doesn't know how it *will turn out* but
*how it did turn out* that's conditional on His being outside of the
bounds of time as WE know it. In our / my hypothetical (for argument's
sake) God literally preexists everything, including time and stuff that
we know of as our
universe. Don't ask me where God and the Angels were cause I don't know
exactly where Heaven is. I just think its on the other side of the
"speed of light" - - my concept of it.
That being the case, if God is outside of time then He can not only view
anything in any time period and inject Himself at any time He chooses
but He also knows the END. That means what He set up in Creation is not
totally fixed. He set up the parameters for the natural world and the
universe -- like the laws of physics and math and all the wonderful
stuff of science as well as art and language and other things. But I
think He had unlimited variables to choose from in all of that so that's
why I think He did some "creative thinking" like I mentioned about the
sea creatures (below).
This all means He's not ONLY omniscient but also omnipotent. But He has
personal preferences too. Having preferences doesn't contradict His
omnipotence or His omniscience.
> ..snip...
> >>If 'God" is omnipotent, why doesn't "He" just get rid of the
> >>devil?
Georgann wrote:
> >Ian's answer to this was too perfect for me to attempt it any
> >other way.
> Oh really? So you agree with him when he says "...the devil works
> for G-d doing vital work for the universe." and "Samael is the
> district attorney of the heavenly court, and Michael is the
> public defender. Neither is any less loyal to G-d than the
> other?"
Georgann wrote:
Well I only agree with what I understand. I'n not sure I see Satan's
role as vital because according to the NT Satan eventually is separated
from God, the unfallen angels and all the saved people. That separation
is permanent. But saying that doesn't necessarily mean Ian's "district
attorney" description is not accurate. Because from my understanding
that is accurate.
I think Satan is so jealous of God that he was willing to take a
temporary "dominion" over the earth even though He had to know it would
end badly for him. God doesn't lose even if He did refuse to be totally
recognizable to all people. That was God's choice and I think it was
because it was to protect our free will.
> >>Why was it necessary for "God" to murder nearly every living
> >>thing?
Georgann wrote:
> >I think so.
Andres64 wrote:
> What? I asked "Why", not "If."
> >Cause He decided it was necessary.
Andres64 wrote:
> Obviously, but the question remains: Why?
Georgann wrote:
RE:""Why was it necessary for "God" to murder nearly every living thing?""
In my view it was to protect the PERFECT plan. There are some things God
had to control in order for anyone to be granted salvation and eternal
life with Him in heaven at the end of time. The explanation isn't easy
but it had to do (from this Christian's perspective) with the line of
Christ. Jesus had to be descended from Adam but He could NOT have the
blood of the Nephilim into the line or He would not have been a perfect
sacrifice. This part's probably impossible to understand or accept
unless you know what a great thing God did through Jesus.
Georgann wrote:
> >If it matters to you though, He "was grieved in His heart" when
> >He decided to do it.
Andres64 wrote:
> Awwww. Isn't that special. "He" "was grieved in His heart" when
> "He" murdered hundreds of thousands (millions?) of his creations,
> including children, infants, unborn, animals.
> >> Can you provide proof that "God" communicates?
Georgann wrote:
> >Well, I could if God would cooperate.
Andres64 wrote:
> 1) I'm not asking anything of "God"; I'm asking you. 2) Why
> wouldn't he cooperate?
Georgann wrote:
If I put God to the test and He has reasons not to make a demonstration
then people disbelieve. But even if God does perform miracles people
most often think of some other reason or rationalzation for why it was
not really God's doing. Sort of a no win situation. So God pretty much
limits His "demonstrations" to what He really wants to see happen
........ not always what we want to see happen.
Georgann wrote:
> >But generally He's not big on being put to the test like that.
> Not test. I'm simply asking for evidence that "He's" done what
> you claim.
Georgann wrote:
Well if you wouldnt' accept the miracle and or would explain it away
even if He did one for me and you, then what good was it. He really
doesn't go in for that kind of test.
----------------------------------
Georgann wrote:
> >Ends up making people not believe rather than believe.
Andres64 wrote:
> Illogical conclusion.
Georgann wrote:
Very logical for same reason as above.
> >Besides He's done some pretty remarkable things and
> >some will still say it was something else. Like when someone is
> >miraculously healed of something like a terminal cancer and the
> >doctors all swear it couldn't just disappear.
Andres64 wrote:
> Let me see if I have this straight: This omnipotent, omniscient
> "God" can't do ANYTHING that would convince me?
Georgann wrote:
Can. Just probably chooses not to.
----------------------------------
> >>Can you provide proof that "God" is not just a myth?
Georgann wrote:
> >I think this is really the same question as the one just above.
> >But if you mean do all myths have the same credence with as many
> >people as those who believe in God, I would have to say they are
> >vastly different.
Andres64 wrote:
> Ad numerum argument.
> >>How can "God" be explained using logic?
Georgann wrote:
> >Do you really want me to "explain" or don't you mean prove like
> >the two questions above?
Andres64 wrote:
> I want you to explain the following comment you made:
> I asked: "Are you still trying to claim that logic DOES work to
> explain God?"
> You said: "It *does* explain ....just doesn't prove yet
> .....still workin on it"
Georgann wrote:
OK. I see what you meant.
Well I can explain (to the best of my limited ability) many of the
things He has done, does and will do from the Bible's and my own
perspective. But that isn't going to seem like a logical explaination OF
God. He really can't be explained. Only partly described by what we know
of Him. I certainly don't know HOW He did the creation thing, but I know
He did.
----------------------------------
> ..snip...
> >>>>>>>I think that's why some ocean species are so goofey
> >>>>>>>looking.
> >>>>>>>I think He was experimenting big time. (JMO)
> >>>>>>Are you serious?
> >>>>>Only partly.
> >>>>Please elaborate.
Georgann wrote:
> >>>I mean I personally believe that God did some major
> >>>experimentation before He settled in on what He liked.
> >>Uhhhhh Ohhhhh. Experimentation, by definition, requires
> >>uncertainty. Therefore, God CAN'T be omniscient. As a noted
> >>scientist once said:
> >>If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research,
> >>would it?
> >>-- Albert Einstein
> >>Do you agree?
Georgann wrote:
> >I don't agree that God is not entitled or capable of
> >experimentation or that to allow for it would somehow suggest
> >that He didn't know what He was doing.
> What?! Experimentation, by definition, requires uncertainty.
> Otherwise it wouldn't be an experiment would it?
Georgann wrote:
> >I think of it more like designing a whole range of car models
> >to see which ones suit His tastes best.
Andres64 wrote:
> So you're saying that this omnipotent, omniscient "God" didn't
> know if "He" would like a certain "model?"
Georgann wrote:
Maybe. If you were God wouldn't you like to try some things out before
you settled on what you liked best?
----------------------------------
Georgann wrote:
> >In the process He decided to throw in some three wheeled and
> >unicycle variations just for the heck of it. I think God can and
> >likely did do that with the Creation. JMO.
Andres64 wrote:
> Then this "God" CAN'T be omniscient.
Georgann wrote:
Of course He can be omniscient and still have choices. He wouldn't also
be omnipotent if He couldn't have choices would He? But He's both.
----------------------------------
> ..snip...
> >>>>If God were omniscient; He would KNOW BOTH, when AND
> >>>>how.
> >>>He knows but only acts on that which is RELEVANT. Not every
> >>>damn thing is relevant to the big plan.
> >>So you're saying that this "perfect", omnipotent, omniscient
> >>God included "filler" in His plan? Why? Was there a certain
> >>length requirement; like with a term paper?
> >No deadlines for God.
> Uhhhhh...what? I wasn't asking about "deadlines." I was asking
> about this "extra", non-relevant "filler" in "His" plan.
Georgann wrote:
> >That's why (IMO) the dating of the universe and the earth and
> >life are so enormous to us.
Andres64 wrote:
> So you think the earth in only a few thousand years old?
Georgann wrote:
No. And not because the science points to it. Because by my accounting
of TIME only coming into being after the Fall of the Creation then the
period of creation would logically have been all of Eternity Past. I
haven't a clue how long that is if there would even be a time equation
for it... since TIME was a later thing too.
----------------------------------
Georgann wrote:
> >If God is "outside of the bounds" of time then by His standards
> >1 Zillion years to us is just a blink of an eye. I don't
> >think that time began to "register" the way it does from our
> >perspective until the fall of man - - or after the flood of
> >Noah - - - haven't got a handle on that yet.
Andres64 wrote:
> Obviously. BTW, apparently you actually believe the story of Noah
> and the flood?
Georgann wrote:
I believe that Noah's flood in the Bible means something very important
but I don't know if it has to do with the water as much as something
else. That has me stumpted big time. Been looking at this thing for 15
years and no go yet.
----------------------------------
> ..snip...
Georgann wrote:
> >OTOH I also think the 20th century is showing that "time" is
> >speeding again in that the time curvature that was before the
> >flood is emerging in an opposite direction.
Andres64 wrote:
> Uhhhhh...what?
Georgann wrote:
I did a huge time chart based on the age of everyone from Adam to Moses
and it shows a distinct change in peoples ages. You know the long
"begats" sections that are interspersed in the events in the book of
Genesis.
If you are very careful in counting and keeping track of the individuals
in the genealogical line from Adam to Abraham (up through time of
slavery in Egypt and Moses).
The chart shows that everyone who was born before the flood of Noah
lived closer to 1000 years than they did 100. Noah who lived through the
flood was 600. And Shem who was born before the flood lived 600 yrs. But
the ages of everyone born after the flood began to shorten and then
stabilizes to ages more like 100. (438, 433, 464, 239, 239, 230, 148,
205, and Abraham 175. Isaac 180. Jacob 147. Joseph 110. Moses (not in
the same line) was 120. Then it stops counting ages in the OT altogether.
The most abrupt change was at the time of the flood and then after the
flood the ages of people "slowed" till it stabilized around 100 to 120
yrs. of age.
I don't think time as we know it is the same as time then. I think it is
a created thing that can be mapped like a parabolic curve with began
with the fall in the garden from totally vertical, taking a sharp curve
right at the fall and again at the time of the flood. Then after the
flood the curve slows until it approaches horizontal. Where our lives
are more like Joseph and Moses at 100 to 120 (if perfectly healthy).
I think the description of peoples ages in Genesis are more figurative
than literal so that we could see the affect on time rather than the age
of people. Could be both thought.
--
regards
georgann
......................................
----<---<--<({@
--<----<--<({@
The light shines in the darkness, but the
darkness has not understood it.
--John 1:5 (NIV)
The Light shines in the darkness, and
the darkness did not overpower it.
--John 1:5 (NASB)
cactus_league_genitals
> This all means He's not ONLY omniscient but also omnipotent. But He has
> personal preferences too. Having preferences doesn't contradict His
> omnipotence or His omniscience.
Gentlemen prefer blondes. What are God's preferences?
___ ____ _ _ ____ ____ __ __ ___ ___ __ __ _ _
/ __)( ___)( \( )(_ _)(_ _) /__\ ( ) / __) / __)( )( )( \/ )
( (_-. )__) | \\ | _)(_ )( /(__)\ )(__ \__ \ ( (_-. )(__)( \ /
\___/(____)(_)\_)(____) (__)(__)(__)(____)(___/ \___/(______) (__)
Spring training games begin tomorrow!
cactus_league_genitals
> I think Satan is so jealous of God that he was willing to take a
> temporary "dominion" over the earth even though He had to know it would
> end badly for him. God doesn't lose even if He did refuse to be totally
> recognizable to all people. That was God's choice and I think it was
> because it was to protect our free will.
What's your Biblical reference for this?
"At least I want to understand [The Bible] and not just make up stuff
about what I would like it to say." --Georgann 2:16
cactus_league_genitals
> RE:""Why was it necessary for "God" to murder nearly every living thing?""
> In my view it was to protect the PERFECT plan. There are some things God
> had to control in order for anyone to be granted salvation and eternal
> life with Him in heaven at the end of time. The explanation isn't easy
> but it had to do (from this Christian's perspective) with the line of
> Christ. Jesus had to be descended from Adam but He could NOT have the
> blood of the Nephilim into the line or He would not have been a perfect
> sacrifice. This part's probably impossible to understand or accept
> unless you know what a great thing God did through Jesus.
Cite please?
"When writing about God it is best not to assume anything."
--Georgann 2:20
Andres64
""\"\"\"@chen...@mindspring.com"269326 wrote:
..snip...
>>>>If 'God" is omnipotent, why doesn't "He" just get rid of the
>>>>devil?
Georgann wrote:
>>>Ian's answer to this was too perfect for me to attempt it any
>>>other way.
>>Oh really? So you agree with him when he says "...the devil works
>>for G-d doing vital work for the universe." and "Samael is the
>>district attorney of the heavenly court, and Michael is the
>>public defender. Neither is any less loyal to G-d than the
>>other?"
Georgann wrote:
>Well I only agree with what I understand. I'n not sure I see Satan's
>role as vital because according to the NT Satan eventually is
>separated from God, the unfallen angels and all the saved people.
>That separation is permanent. But saying that doesn't necessarily
>mean Ian's "district attorney" description is not accurate. Because
>from my understanding that is accurate.
But what about: "Neither is any less loyal to G-d than the other?"
...snip...
>>>>Why was it necessary for "God" to murder nearly every living
>>>>thing?
Georgann wrote:
>>>I think so.
Andres64 wrote:
>>What? I asked "Why", not "If."
>>>Cause He decided it was necessary.
Andres64 wrote:
>>Obviously, but the question remains: Why?
Georgann wrote:
>RE:""Why was it necessary for "God" to murder nearly every living
>thing?""
>In my view it was to protect the PERFECT plan.
But wait a minute. You're saying that this omnipotent, omniscient "God"
had a plan "B?" That "His" "perfect" plan wasn't going as "He" wanted?
>There are some things God had to control in order for anyone to be
>granted salvation and eternal life with Him in heaven at the end of
>time.
Why? If "God" is "in control" and omnipotent, "He" could do it any way
"He" wanted. There would be NOTHING that "He" "had to do."
>The explanation isn't easy but it had to do (from this Christian's
>perspective) with the line of Christ. Jesus had to be descended from
>Adam
Why? Couldn't this omnipotent "God" do it any other way?
>but He could NOT have the blood of the Nephilim into the line or He
>would not have been a perfect sacrifice.
If "God" is omnipotent, a) it wouldn't matter from what line Jesus
descended. b) "He" would have KNOWN, IN ADVANCE, that this was going to
happen c) "He" could have changed it d) A sacrifice, let alone a
"perfect" sacrifice, wouldn't have been necessary.
>This part's probably impossible to understand or accept unless you
>know what a great thing God did through Jesus.
Begging the question.
Georgann wrote:
>>>If it matters to you though, He "was grieved in His heart" when
>>>He decided to do it.
Andres64 wrote:
>>Awwww. Isn't that special. "He" "was grieved in His heart" when
>>"He" murdered hundreds of thousands (millions?) of his creations,
>>including children, infants, unborn, animals.
>>>> Can you provide proof that "God" communicates?
Georgann wrote:
>>>Well, I could if God would cooperate.
Andres64 wrote:
>>1) I'm not asking anything of "God"; I'm asking you. 2) Why
>>wouldn't he cooperate?
Georgann wrote:
>If I put God to the test and He has reasons not to make a
>demonstration then people disbelieve.
Then why not "Just do it?"
>But even if God does perform miracles people most often think of
>some other reason or rationalzation for why it was not really God's
>doing.
Then why not provide proof?
>Sort of a no win situation.
A "no win situation" for an omnipotent "God?"
>So God pretty much limits His "demonstrations" to what He really
>wants to see happen not always what we want to see happen.
So it's "His" ball, and "He's" going home?
Georgann wrote:
>>>But generally He's not big on being put to the test like that.
>>Not test. I'm simply asking for evidence that "He's" done what
>>you claim.
Georgann wrote:
>Well if you wouldnt' accept the miracle
What miracle?
>and or would explain it away even if He did one for me and you, then
>what good was it. He really doesn't go in for that kind of test.
I can think of numerous things that I would take as undeniable proof:
writing "I'm God" with the stars, stopping all war/conflict, stopping
world hunger, stopping all disease, etc. These would not only convince
me (everyone?), it would be a good thing too.
Georgann wrote:
>>>Ends up making people not believe rather than believe.
Andres64 wrote:
>>Illogical conclusion.
Georgann wrote:
>Very logical for same reason as above.
Still illogical. An omniscient, omnipotent "God" could make us believe.
And even if "He" didn't want to "make" us believe, for whatever
half-assed reason, "He" would still KNOW what to do so that we would
believe.
>>>Besides He's done some pretty remarkable things and
>>>some will still say it was something else. Like when someone is
>>>miraculously healed of something like a terminal cancer and the
>>>doctors all swear it couldn't just disappear.
Andres64 wrote:
>>Let me see if I have this straight: This omnipotent, omniscient
>>"God" can't do ANYTHING that would convince me?
Georgann wrote:
>Can. Just probably chooses not to.
Because...? "He" wants me to go to hell? "He" doesn't love me?
>>>>Can you provide proof that "God" is not just a myth?
Georgann wrote:
>>>I think this is really the same question as the one just above.
>>>But if you mean do all myths have the same credence with as
>>>many people as those who believe in God, I would have to say
>>>they are vastly different.
Andres64 wrote:
>>Ad numerum argument.
1) Ad numerum. 2) How do you figure that it's different?
...snip...
>>>>>>>>Are you serious?
>>>>>>>Only partly.
>>>>>>Please elaborate.
>>>>Do you agree?
Georgann wrote:
>Maybe.
"Maybe?" There is not "maybe" when omniscience and omnipotence are
involved. Do you agree?
>If you were God wouldn't you like to try some things out before
>you settled on what you liked best?
If I were an omnipotent, omniscient god, I wouldn't need to "try some
things out", I would KNOW. Do you agree?
Georgann wrote:
>>>In the process He decided to throw in some three wheeled and
>>>unicycle variations just for the heck of it. I think God can and
>>>likely did do that with the Creation. JMO.
Andres64 wrote:
>>Then this "God" CAN'T be omniscient.
Georgann wrote:
>Of course He can be omniscient and still have choices. He wouldn't
>also be omnipotent if He couldn't have choices would He? But He's
>both.
Can't be. Omniscience means that "He" KNOWS what happened/is
happening/is going to happen. To have choice would require uncertainty.
Do you agree?
...snip...
>>>>>>If God were omniscient; He would KNOW BOTH, when
>>>>>>AND how.
>>>>>He knows but only acts on that which is RELEVANT. Not
>>>>>every damn thing is relevant to the big plan.
>>>>So you're saying that this "perfect", omnipotent, omniscient
>>>>God included "filler" in His plan? Why? Was there a certain
>>>>length requirement; like with a term paper?
>>>No deadlines for God.
>>Uhhhhh...what? I wasn't asking about "deadlines." I was asking
>>about this "extra", non-relevant "filler" in "His" plan.
Are you going to answer this?
Georgann wrote:
>>>That's why (IMO) the dating of the universe and the earth and
>>>life are so enormous to us.
Andres64 wrote:
>>So you think the earth in only a few thousand years old?
Georgann wrote:
>No. And not because the science points to it.
Well of course not. I mean, why would you listen to thousands of the
brightest and most educated people on the face of the earth, when you
have your calculations?
...snip...
Georgann wrote:
>>>If God is "outside of the bounds" of time then by His standards
>>>1 Zillion years to us is just a blink of an eye. I don't
>>>think that time began to "register" the way it does from our
>>>perspective until the fall of man - - or after the flood of
>>>Noah - - - haven't got a handle on that yet.
BTW, what was "God" doing before "He" created us?
Andres64 wrote:
>>Obviously. BTW, apparently you actually believe the story of Noah
>>and the flood?
Georgann wrote:
>I believe that Noah's flood in the Bible means something very
>important but I don't know if it has to do with the water as much as
>something else.
Are you telling me that you have your own interpretation of the Bible?
Didn't you once say something to the effect of "We shouldn't make
things-up, we should just read what's there. Otherwise we get into
trouble?" - Help me out here Genitals. I know you have the quote.
..snip...
Georgann wrote:
>>>OTOH I also think the 20th century is showing that "time" is
>>>speeding again in that the time curvature that was before the
>>>flood is emerging in an opposite direction.
Andres64 wrote:
>>Uhhhhh...what?
Georgann wrote:
>I did a huge time chart based on the age of everyone from Adam to
>Moses and it shows a distinct change in peoples ages. You know the
>long "begats" sections that are interspersed in the events in the book
>of Genesis.
I'd love to see it. Can you post it or email it to me?
>If you are very careful in counting and keeping track of the
>individuals in the genealogical line from Adam to Abraham (up
>through time of slavery in Egypt and Moses).
Impossible. The Bible is full of contradictions.
...snip babble...
>regards
>georgann
>The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood
>it. --John 1:5 (NIV)
A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing.
- Proverbs 9:13
--
Sincerely,
Andrés (#1624)
You always have a choice.
georgann
> Georgann wrote
> > This all means He's not ONLY omniscient but also omnipotent. But He has
> > personal preferences too. Having preferences doesn't contradict His
> > omnipotence or His omniscience.
Cactus, League, Genitals wrote:
> Gentlemen prefer blondes. What are God's preferences?
Georgann wrote:
God prefers ladies and gentlemen.
georgann
> Georgann wrote
> > I think Satan is so jealous of God that he was willing to take a
> > temporary "dominion" over the earth even though He had to know it would
> > end badly for him. God doesn't lose even if He did refuse to be totally
> > recognizable to all people. That was God's choice and I think it was
> > because it was to protect our free will.
Cactus, League, Genitals wrote:
> What's your Biblical reference for this?
> "At least I want to understand [The Bible] and not just make up stuff
> about what I would like it to say." --Georgann 2:16
Georgann cited:
Isaiah 14:12-15, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I
will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the
mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend
above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou
shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."
..... Satan's sins were pride and covetousness. He desired God's throne
and set his will against God's will. Five times he said, "I will" in
this portion of Scripture ......
Revelation 20:3 ... He [an angel] threw him [Satan] into the Abyss, and
locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations
anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set
free for a short time.
..... Satan is a full time deceiver ......
Revelation 20:10 ... And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into
the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had
been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
..... Hell was not designed for men but for Satan and his followers .......
georgann
> Georgann wrote
> > RE:""Why was it necessary for "God" to murder nearly every living thing?""
> > In my view it was to protect the PERFECT plan. There are some things God
> > had to control in order for anyone to be granted salvation and eternal
> > life with Him in heaven at the end of time. The explanation isn't easy
> > but it had to do (from this Christian's perspective) with the line of
> > Christ. Jesus had to be descended from Adam but He could NOT have the
> > blood of the Nephilim into the line or He would not have been a perfect
> > sacrifice. This part's probably impossible to understand or accept
> > unless you know what a great thing God did through Jesus.
Cactus, League, Genitals wrote:
> Cite please?
> "When writing about God it is best not to assume anything."
> --Georgann 2:20
Georgann cited:
Genesis 6:1-8 ......1 NOW it came about, when men began to multiply on
the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2.that the sons
of God [angels] saw that the daughters of men were [1]beautiful; and
they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3. Then the LORD
said, «*My Spirit shall not [2]strive with man forever, [3]*because he
also is flesh; [4]nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty
years.» 4. The *Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also
afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and
they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old,
men of renown. 5. Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great
on the earth, and that *every intent of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually. 6.*The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the
earth, and He was *grieved [5]in His heart. 7. The LORD said, «*I will
blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to
animals to creeping things and to birds of the [6]sky; for *I am sorry
that I have made them.» 8. But *Noah *found favor in the eyes of the
LORD.
DC
>Date: 3/2/00 2:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
>
>Andres asked the question<
>> >>How can "God" be both omniscient AND
>> >>omnipotent?
>Georgann wrote in her own words some hypothetical stuff:
I really don't see why this has to be so complicated. Christians have been
taught that "God is the Father" and like any loving father wants what is best
for his children. So he gives the children commandments to follow for their
own good. He also gives them free will. Those of you that are parents can
relate to this. As simply put as I can "Father says "don't do that". Father
knows his child and knows that child will probably do it anyway. Kid does it.
Father knew what the outcome would be. Kid is repentant. Father accepts
appology. Father loves kid all the time anyway. Sorry, but I said my faith
was simple.
As far as Satan goes, why does God keep him around? What good is free will if
an individual never gets to choose between two avenues? Satan in this respect
works for God. What's in it for Satan? Who knows. He probably gets to count
all the souls he has lured away from God, sort of like Jak crowing over the
number of responses he has gotten in Usenet.
Andres64
dinkycat...@aol.comnojunk (DC) wrote:
Andres asked the question<
>>>>>How can "God" be both omniscient AND
>>>>>omnipotent?
..snip...
>I really don't see why this has to be so complicated.
>Christians have been taught that "God is the Father" and like
>any loving father wants what is best for his children. So he
>gives the children commandments to follow for their own good.
But what would you say about a father that NEVER lets ANY his
children see him, has 2/3 children that don't even know/believe
he exists, INTENTIONALLY creates conflict and danger, KNOWINGLY
lets his children rape/torture/murder each other, INTENTIONALLY
murdered millions of his children, INTENTIONALLY lets millions of
his children die of disease, KNOWINGLY watches as his children
take drugs/lie/cheat/steal, KNOWINGLY watches as thousands of his
children commit suicide, etc, etc, etc?
>He also gives them free will. Those of you that are parents can
>relate to this. As simply put as I can "Father says "don't do
>that". Father knows his child and knows that child will
>probably do it anyway.
If you have, or are going to have children, do/would you stand
back and watch and let them murder each other? Walk in front of a
car? Take drugs? Die of disease? Drown? Die in a fire? Die of
starvation? Torture each other? Etc, etc, etc?
>Kid does it. Father knew what the outcome would be. Kid is
>repentant.
What if kid isn't repentant? What if the kid doesn't even know
that you (father) exist?
>Father accepts appology. Father loves kid all the time anyway.
Does a loving father allow the things I mentioned above to happen
to his children?
>As far as Satan goes, why does God keep him around? What good
>is free will if an individual never gets to choose between two
avenues?
Why does one have to be evil? Why not just have two different
good choices? Do/would you INTENTIONALLY and KNOWINGLY put a bowl
of rat poison next to a bowl of cereal?
>Satan in this respect works for God. What's in it for Satan?
>Who knows. He probably gets to count all the souls he has lured
>away from God,
Would/do you allow your children to off with anyone they meet on
the street?
..snip...
Religion easily has the greatest bull shit story ever told. Think
about it, religion has actually convinced people...that there's
an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing
you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a
list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And
if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of
fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will
send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for
ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you.
-- George Carlin
--
Sincerely,
Andres (#1624)
You always have a choice.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Stephen Bergsen
>Georgann wrote:
>God prefers ladies and gentlemen.
While keeping things clean and contextual,
Georgann, if that's true then, what's next? You'll
Just have to admit
Though it might make you spit
That the biblical God is bisexual.
stephen b