Theists
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>space.
If you heard a voice that claimed to be God and initially you believed
that it was God but the voice then asked you to do something that
surprised you because it wasn't what you thought God would ask of you
(mass murder of all Muslims in your city for instance), how would you
determine if it really was God?
Or would you take the chance that it wasn't and risk anger by not doing it?
Or would you go ahead regardless of whether you thought it was wrong but
believed/established (how) that it was God's voice?
--
Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
"May your passion be the kernel of corn stuck between your molars,
always reminding you there's something to tend to."
[Jeb Dickerson, www.howtomatter.com]
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>like you should.
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>On Jan 13, 5:40 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This came up in another thread. Might be interesting enough to get more
> space.
>
> If you heard a voice that claimed to be God and initially you believed
> that it was God but the voice then asked you to do something that
> surprised you because it wasn't what you thought God would ask of you
> (mass murder of all Muslims in your city for instance), how would you
> determine if it really was God?
>
> Or would you take the chance that it wasn't and risk anger by not doing it?
>
> Or would you go ahead regardless of whether you thought it was wrong but
> believed/established (how) that it was God's voice?
So, imagine that a voice in my head is talking to me, and asks me to
do something that I would only do if it was really God. However, that
thing is, in and of itself, something that I don't believe God would
or could ask. This should immediately in all rational people cause
some doubt that this is the person asking it, and thus require more
evidence before one proceeds.
Let's look at it this way: Imagine that you have a friend who hates
hockey. You receive a message from them in a way that doesn't
guarantee that it is them -- a letter, an E-mail, etc -- that states
that they want to go to a hockey game with you and are really looking
forward to it. You would at least be justified in asking why -- if
you thought the message credibly enough like them so that you think
they sent it -- and might be justified in wondering if it was really
them. The same thing applies here, regardless of the circumstances.
So, if the voice could NOT provide suffcient evidence to show that it
was really the voice of God, I wouldn't do it and would accept the
consequences. But accepting the consequences means accepting that God
might, in fact, punish me for ignoring Him and accepting that
punishment should it occur ... which is a far cry from what a lot of
people think that means today. After all, many atheists choose to not
believe in God -- as far as they are able; some claim it is a natural
reaction -- and yet gripe that God would be "unfair" if he punished
them for that. They make claims that God shouldn't punish them for
"being rational", even if they are fairly well-aware that there's a
good chance that will happen. That's not accepting the consequences
of your decisions, that's whining about how the universe should
realign to your own desires.
As a more mundane example, take freedom of speech and China. China
does not recognize freedom of speech. So, if I choose to violate the
laws for some moral reason, I should expect to be put in prison -- or
even executed -- and accept that. After all, I knew that that would
happen going in, and made my choice being fully aware of what would
occur. Whining about how unfair those laws are -- since I have a
right to free speech -- is both useless and stupid; the law is the
law, and I knew it going in. It'd be nice if it was different, but I
took the risk knowing the outcomes, and if I can't live with that then
I shouldn't have done it in the first place.
So, if I didn't do this action, and it turned out to be God, and not
doing it meant that I go to Hell ... then I go to Hell. A part of me
will rail about it being unfair to do the right thing and get
punished, but the larger part of me will accept this consequence as
being of my own choosing. Just as part of me always complains about
mowing my lawn or shovelling my driveway, but the larger part of me
recognizes that the exercise gained from doing that outweighs the
annoyance of doing it.
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> why ask? youre a prophet arent you? personally, id go get help, just
> like you should.
This was addressed to those who believe in God; you don't, so why get
your knickers all in a twist?
"Will localizes us; thought universalizes us."
[Henri Frederic Amiel]
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> On Jan 13, 5:40 pm, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This came up in another thread. Might be interesting enough to get more
>> space.
>>
>> If you heard a voice that claimed to be God and initially you believed
>> that it was God but the voice then asked you to do something that
>> surprised you because it wasn't what you thought God would ask of you
>> (mass murder of all Muslims in your city for instance), how would you
>> determine if it really was God?
>>
>> Or would you take the chance that it wasn't and risk anger by not doing it?
>>
>> Or would you go ahead regardless of whether you thought it was wrong but
>> believed/established (how) that it was God's voice?
>
> So, imagine that a voice in my head is talking to me, and asks me to
> do something that I would only do if it was really God. However, that
> thing is, in and of itself, something that I don't believe God would
> or could ask. This should immediately in all rational people cause
> some doubt that this is the person asking it, and thus require more
> evidence before one proceeds.
Was Moses not rational then? He jumped at commands to massacre.
> Let's look at it this way: Imagine that you have a friend who hates
> hockey. You receive a message from them in a way that doesn't
> guarantee that it is them -- a letter, an E-mail, etc -- that states
> that they want to go to a hockey game with you and are really looking
> forward to it. You would at least be justified in asking why -- if
> you thought the message credibly enough like them so that you think
> they sent it -- and might be justified in wondering if it was really
> them. The same thing applies here, regardless of the circumstances.
Sorry, I find it hard to compare letters and e-mail to an internal voice
of revelation purporting to be from God.
> So, if the voice could NOT provide suffcient evidence to show that it
> was really the voice of God, I wouldn't do it and would accept the
> consequences.
Fair enough. What, for you, would be "sufficient evidence"?
> But accepting the consequences means accepting that God
> might, in fact, punish me for ignoring Him and accepting that
> punishment should it occur ... which is a far cry from what a lot of
> people think that means today. After all, many atheists choose to not
> believe in God -- as far as they are able; some claim it is a natural
> reaction -- and yet gripe that God would be "unfair" if he punished
> them for that. They make claims that God shouldn't punish them for
> "being rational", even if they are fairly well-aware that there's a
> good chance that will happen. That's not accepting the consequences
> of your decisions, that's whining about how the universe should
> realign to your own desires.
>
> As a more mundane example, take freedom of speech and China. China
> does not recognize freedom of speech.
Correction: Complete freedom of speech. When I lived there I saw many
demonstrations. The actual government is a taboo subject but lots of
things are open to criticism and are criticized, publicly.
> So, if I choose to violate the
> laws for some moral reason, I should expect to be put in prison -- or
> even executed -- and accept that. After all, I knew that that would
> happen going in, and made my choice being fully aware of what would
> occur. Whining about how unfair those laws are -- since I have a
> right to free speech -- is both useless and stupid; the law is the
> law, and I knew it going in. It'd be nice if it was different, but I
> took the risk knowing the outcomes, and if I can't live with that then
> I shouldn't have done it in the first place.
And this relates to a revelatory voice claiming to be God, how?
> So, if I didn't do this action, and it turned out to be God, and not
> doing it meant that I go to Hell ... then I go to Hell. A part of me
> will rail about it being unfair to do the right thing
But if it was a command from God and God is the source of right and
wrong, you wouldn't be doing the "right thing" since the "right thing"
would be what God commanded since God could not, by his nature, command
you to do the wrong thing.
> and get
> punished, but the larger part of me will accept this consequence as
> being of my own choosing. Just as part of me always complains about
> mowing my lawn or shovelling my driveway, but the larger part of me
> recognizes that the exercise gained from doing that outweighs the
> annoyance of doing it.
So it sounds like, in a nutshell, you consider that you are a judge of
what is morally right or wrong, not God. Regardless of what God says,
you will decide for yourself.
--
Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
"Proverbs often contradict one another, as any reader soon discovers.
The sagacity that advises us to look before we leap promptly warns us
that if we hesitate we are lost; that absence makes the heart grow
fonder, but out of sight, out of mind."
[Leo Rosten]
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>has no personal impact on me. i just think of you as a shallow xtian
basher that has nothing better to do and am simply commenting on your
ignorance ...
maybe you should pay more attention to your spirit. you might feel
better. you know, drink 2 quarts of scotch a day instead of 1? ;^-)
> [Henri Frederic Amiel]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> again, you display that you are far from being a prophet. what you say
> has no personal impact on me. i just think of you as a shallow xtian
> basher that has nothing better to do and am simply commenting on your
> ignorance ...
Appreciate the honesty.
"...like stealing the juice out of tomorrow's fruit."
[Destin Figuier]
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>> [Destin Figuier]- Hide quoted text -
Kippers
<robin@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>
So if you hear a voice in your head claiming to be god and asking you
to do something which the bible testifies is the kind of thing god
asks people to do would you do it?
You know the kind of stuff I mean:
Killing children, perhaps one of your own
Raping a woman
Carrying out acts of genocide
Taking a person and making them your slave
Killing livestock
Setting wild bears on young children
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>On Jan 14, 9:39 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/01/2010 8:12 AM, Treebeard wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 13, 5:40 pm, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> This came up in another thread. Might be interesting enough to get more
> >> space.
>
> >> If you heard a voice that claimed to be God and initially you believed
> >> that it was God but the voice then asked you to do something that
> >> surprised you because it wasn't what you thought God would ask of you
> >> (mass murder of all Muslims in your city for instance), how would you
> >> determine if it really was God?
>
> >> Or would you take the chance that it wasn't and risk anger by not doing it?
>
> >> Or would you go ahead regardless of whether you thought it was wrong but
> >> believed/established (how) that it was God's voice?
>
> > So, imagine that a voice in my head is talking to me, and asks me to
> > do something that I would only do if it was really God. However, that
> > thing is, in and of itself, something that I don't believe God would
> > or could ask. This should immediately in all rational people cause
> > some doubt that this is the person asking it, and thus require more
> > evidence before one proceeds.
>
> Was Moses not rational then? He jumped at commands to massacre.
Did Moses ever express any surprise that God was asking that? Were
commands to kill his enemies something that he didn't expect God to
issue?
Christians, after Christ, have no reason to expect such commands, and
so they cast doubt on whether or not they come from God. That may not
have been true for Moses.
Note here that there is nothing to say that if I didn't do those
actions that I would be "right" and Moses "wrong".
>
> > Let's look at it this way: Imagine that you have a friend who hates
> > hockey. You receive a message from them in a way that doesn't
> > guarantee that it is them -- a letter, an E-mail, etc -- that states
> > that they want to go to a hockey game with you and are really looking
> > forward to it. You would at least be justified in asking why -- if
> > you thought the message credibly enough like them so that you think
> > they sent it -- and might be justified in wondering if it was really
> > them. The same thing applies here, regardless of the circumstances.
>
> Sorry, I find it hard to compare letters and e-mail to an internal voice
> of revelation purporting to be from God.
And this is why you -- and most of the atheists here -- fail at doing
any sort of consistent philosophy or epistemology about any form of
theism. The analogy is showing that if the source is not certain, it
is only reasonable to doubt that the source is the purported source if
the request is out of character. That applies to God as well.
>
> > So, if the voice could NOT provide suffcient evidence to show that it
> > was really the voice of God, I wouldn't do it and would accept the
> > consequences.
>
> Fair enough. What, for you, would be "sufficient evidence"?
I don't know. There's going to always be some interaction between the
request, the reasons given, and other things that are situation
dependent. If I was being really skeptical, there's nothing that can
prove that God eixsts to me. Remember, I'm the agnostic theist: I
don't think it possible to know that proposition one way or another.
That means that if I need knowledge, I don't think it can possibly
occur.
>
> > But accepting the consequences means accepting that God
> > might, in fact, punish me for ignoring Him and accepting that
> > punishment should it occur ... which is a far cry from what a lot of
> > people think that means today. After all, many atheists choose to not
> > believe in God -- as far as they are able; some claim it is a natural
> > reaction -- and yet gripe that God would be "unfair" if he punished
> > them for that. They make claims that God shouldn't punish them for
> > "being rational", even if they are fairly well-aware that there's a
> > good chance that will happen. That's not accepting the consequences
> > of your decisions, that's whining about how the universe should
> > realign to your own desires.
>
> > As a more mundane example, take freedom of speech and China. China
> > does not recognize freedom of speech.
>
> Correction: Complete freedom of speech. When I lived there I saw many
> demonstrations. The actual government is a taboo subject but lots of
> things are open to criticism and are criticized, publicly.
Um, that some speech is allowed does not mean that they recognize a
right to free speech, any more than recognizing the right to free
speech means that all speech is permitted.
China essentially says "You have only the right to say things when we
say you can say things." This does not mean that they never let
anyone demonstrate or criticize, just that if they don't want you to
say something you can't, and have nothing to appeal to if they say
"Nope".
>
> > So, if I choose to violate the
> > laws for some moral reason, I should expect to be put in prison -- or
> > even executed -- and accept that. After all, I knew that that would
> > happen going in, and made my choice being fully aware of what would
> > occur. Whining about how unfair those laws are -- since I have a
> > right to free speech -- is both useless and stupid; the law is the
> > law, and I knew it going in. It'd be nice if it was different, but I
> > took the risk knowing the outcomes, and if I can't live with that then
> > I shouldn't have done it in the first place.
>
> And this relates to a revelatory voice claiming to be God, how?
The next paragraph. This is establishing the idea that taking
responsibility for being wrong means accepting the consequences and
not whining about them being unfair.
>
> > So, if I didn't do this action, and it turned out to be God, and not
> > doing it meant that I go to Hell ... then I go to Hell. A part of me
> > will rail about it being unfair to do the right thing
>
> But if it was a command from God and God is the source of right and
> wrong, you wouldn't be doing the "right thing" since the "right thing"
> would be what God commanded since God could not, by his nature, command
> you to do the wrong thing.
Well, I should have put "right" in quotes, but presumably if there
really is a God and I really do meet Him, He'd be able to explain why
I should have done what He asked. So I would have been wrong.
However, I would still maintain that I did what I should have done
based on the evidence given. And accept that I was wrong and am going
to Hell for it.
On the question of "Does God tell us to do these things because they
are right or are these things right because God says they're right?"
it has been long-established that I'm firmly in the camp of the
former. Vox Day gives a credible -- though I think wrong -- argument
for the latter.
If I ever get known enough, it might be nice to debate that with Vox
Day or someone like him. It's an interesting question that can bring
Biblical quotes into the discussion as long as we leave the atheists
out who just flat-out deny that.
>
> > and get
> > punished, but the larger part of me will accept this consequence as
> > being of my own choosing. Just as part of me always complains about
> > mowing my lawn or shovelling my driveway, but the larger part of me
> > recognizes that the exercise gained from doing that outweighs the
> > annoyance of doing it.
>
> So it sounds like, in a nutshell, you consider that you are a judge of
> what is morally right or wrong, not God. Regardless of what God says,
> you will decide for yourself.
I consider it to be the case that I can judge what is right and what
is wrong, yes.
However, if I was convinced that the voice WAS God and that God was
all He's made out to be -- including perfectly moral -- then I'd have
confidence that it was the right thing to do even if it didn't seem
that way to me. God knows more than I do.
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>I'm Christian; My first reply would be "So, what happened to 'Do unto
others as you would have them to unto you'?"
Kippers
<robin@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>I am god:
My response would be:
“Why are you just cherry picking the parts of the bible you like when
I have clearly ordered people to do things which contradict this
ancient saying? Either dismiss my whole book due to its
contradictions or follow my orders as my other faithful followers,
like Moses and Abraham have done”
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> On Jan 14, 9:39 am, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14/01/2010 8:12 AM, Treebeard wrote:
>
> On the question of "Does God tell us to do these things because they
> are right or are these things right because God says they're right?"
> it has been long-established that I'm firmly in the camp of the
> former. Vox Day gives a credible -- though I think wrong -- argument
> for the latter.
So there is an external force of right and wrong that God must obey?
>> So it sounds like, in a nutshell, you consider that you are a judge of
>> what is morally right or wrong, not God. Regardless of what God says,
>> you will decide for yourself.
>
> I consider it to be the case that I can judge what is right and what
> is wrong, yes.
>
> However, if I was convinced that the voice WAS God and that God was
> all He's made out to be -- including perfectly moral -- then I'd have
> confidence that it was the right thing to do even if it didn't seem
> that way to me. God knows more than I do.
So your whole issue is "sufficient evidence" to convince you that the
voice in your head really was God?
If you decided it wasn't really God, what would be your preferred
alternative explanation for a voice telling you to do things that you
consider to be wrong?
--
Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
"If a man who cannot count finds a four-leaf clover, is he lucky?"
[Stanislaw J. Lec]
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>You are NOT God [grin].
>
> My response would be:
>
> “Why are you just cherry picking the parts of the bible you like when
> I have clearly ordered people to do things which contradict this
> ancient saying? Either dismiss my whole book due to its
> contradictions or follow my orders as my other faithful followers,
> like Moses and Abraham have done"
"Um, so when YOUR SON Jesus said 'This is how you should act', you
didn't actually want us to do that? I can see, logically, changing
conditions requiring different actions, and can even possibly come up
with reasons to do this, but if you're gonna say 'Do this' and put
someone in authority to carry that across, you had certainly better
expect us to be curious when you tell us to do something that violates
that principle."
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>Gonna go on a short rant about this.
First, it isn't cherry picking for Christians to give the NT -- the
words of Jesus -- higher value and priority than things that happened/
were talking about in the OT. Especially since if I'm not mixing
metaphors that describes the NEW COVENANT between God and humanity.
We may be wrong about that, but we certainly SHOULD take the NT over
the OT. That isn't cherry picking, but a hallmark of the belief. And
it is restrictive the other way in the sense that it does mean that we
can't carry the idea of a strongly vengeful God as far as the OT
pushed it; the NT isn't as readily compatible with that.
Second, who says it's what we like? It's what we believe. As long as
we are consistent about it, like matters not. To assert that it's
about like is to completely miss the point.
when
> I have clearly ordered people to do things which contradict this
> ancient saying? Either dismiss my whole book due to its
> contradictions or follow my orders as my other faithful followers,
> like Moses and Abraham have done”- Hide quoted text -
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>On Jan 14, 10:25 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/01/2010 10:15 AM, Treebeard wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 9:39 am, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 14/01/2010 8:12 AM, Treebeard wrote:
>
> > On the question of "Does God tell us to do these things because they
> > are right or are these things right because God says they're right?"
> > it has been long-established that I'm firmly in the camp of the
> > former. Vox Day gives a credible -- though I think wrong -- argument
> > for the latter.
>
> So there is an external force of right and wrong that God must obey?
Right and wrong aren't things, but are classifications. If you know
enough, you know the necessary qualities that lead to those
classifications. If anyone can know enough to get them, God can.
>
> >> So it sounds like, in a nutshell, you consider that you are a judge of
> >> what is morally right or wrong, not God. Regardless of what God says,
> >> you will decide for yourself.
>
> > I consider it to be the case that I can judge what is right and what
> > is wrong, yes.
>
> > However, if I was convinced that the voice WAS God and that God was
> > all He's made out to be -- including perfectly moral -- then I'd have
> > confidence that it was the right thing to do even if it didn't seem
> > that way to me. God knows more than I do.
>
> So your whole issue is "sufficient evidence" to convince you that the
> voice in your head really was God?
>
> If you decided it wasn't really God, what would be your preferred
> alternative explanation for a voice telling you to do things that you
> consider to be wrong?
Any one or number of the standard ones -- hallucination, demon, etc,
etc -- would suffice.
All of which would have to be investigated to settle on one, of course.
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>You are an agnostic demonist are you sure there are demons? You also
believe that they can reveal to man as God can?
--
Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
"The virtues, like the Muses, are always seen in groups. A good
principle was never found solitary in any breast."
[Buddha]
Kippers
<robin@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>For the purposes of this post I am :p
>
>
> > My response would be:
>
> > “Why are you just cherry picking the parts of the bible you like when
> > I have clearly ordered people to do things which contradict this
> > ancient saying? Either dismiss my whole book due to its
> > contradictions or follow my orders as my other faithful followers,
> > like Moses and Abraham have done"
>
> "Um, so when YOUR SON Jesus said 'This is how you should act', you
“Jesus was not my son, he is me but don’t get me started on the whole
trinity thing as your mortal brain cannot comprehend it”
> didn't actually want us to do that?
“You over simplify Jesus’ message, it cannot be accurately surmised as
“do unto others as you would have them do to you”. This actually
originated from a mortal man named Confucius and thus carries less
weight than the true DIVINE message brought by Jesus. This message
can be accurately surmised as “have faith in your lord, do as he tells
you or you will suffer eternal punishment in hell”. Jesus was not
quite as meek and mild as you new theist types like to make out.”
>I can see, logically, changing
> conditions requiring different actions, and can even possibly come up
> with reasons to do this, but if you're gonna say 'Do this' and put
> someone in authority to carry that across, you had certainly better
> expect us to be curious when you tell us to do something that violates
> that principle."
You are the first of my prophets to ever question me. This shows a
lack of faith which I value above everything else and was especially
prevalent in my favourite prophets Abraham and Moses. Your scepticism
is more in keeping with an Heathen Atheist’s like Richard Dawkins than
it is with one of my great prophets. For that reason I smite you (and
all mankind and all animal kind and all future generations of any form
of life). Prepare yourselves for another global flood
hahahahahahaha!!!!!!
Think
<teddybear2@bellsouth.net>can presume there is someone at a location who actually wrote the e-
mail. Much like when we are in the presence of another we know that
there is someone there. So we are able to affix location to some
degree based on the mode of communication. We know it's source is not
within our own mind.
The people who hear voices in their head know no such thing. So my
question to them is the voice they hear substantially different in
form from what they recognize as their own mind chatter or is it
simply a matter of content? Does it "sound" different? Different
tone, pitch or cadence?
If it's only a difference of what is "said" rather than how it is
"said" then it seems to me that you could easily convince yourself
your ideas should be elevated to divine status. That seems a
perfectly suitable role for the ego rather than god.
It's rather interesting that with the advent of phones and the
internet that god seems to shy away from such terrific modes of
communication, don't you think? Just as it's interesting that god is
believed to heal but only those health problems that are suited to
inexplicable remission or the placebo effect. God doesn't heal
amputees for example. What does god have against amputees?
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>Then you are not my God, and I have no reason to accept what you say.
>
> > didn't actually want us to do that?
>
> “You over simplify Jesus’ message, it cannot be accurately surmised as
> “do unto others as you would have them do to you”.
Considering that that is what He said, that seems inaccurate.
> This actually
> originated from a mortal man named Confucius
Which Jesus plagiarized? Please.
> and thus carries less
> weight than the true DIVINE message brought by Jesus. This message
> can be accurately surmised as “have faith in your lord, do as he tells
> you or you will suffer eternal punishment in hell”. Jesus was not
> quite as meek and mild as you new theist types like to make out.”
The NT seems to contradict you, and you should, in fact, know better
than this. You are not God.
>
> >I can see, logically, changing
> > conditions requiring different actions, and can even possibly come up
> > with reasons to do this, but if you're gonna say 'Do this' and put
> > someone in authority to carry that across, you had certainly better
> > expect us to be curious when you tell us to do something that violates
> > that principle."
>
> You are the first of my prophets to ever question me.
I certainly was not the first, even in the OT. We must also remember
Doubting Thomas, the apostle. You are not God.
> This shows a
> lack of faith which I value above everything else and was especially
> prevalent in my favourite prophets Abraham and Moses. Your scepticism
> is more in keeping with an Heathen Atheist’s like Richard Dawkins than
> it is with one of my great prophets. For that reason I smite you (and
> all mankind and all animal kind and all future generations of any form
> of life). Prepare yourselves for another global flood
The rainbow is the sign that you will not do that again, so to
threaten that goes against that promise. You are not God.
Basically, the problem here is that you aren't doing a good job of
being God; you're acting like an atheist which God would not do.
There are more credible conversations that can be had here, but I
guess you just aren't willing to go that extra mile, and would rather
play a more mocking notion than a credible one ...
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>On Jan 14, 10:44 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/01/2010 10:32 AM, Treebeard wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 10:25 am, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If you decided it wasn't really God, what would be your preferred
> >> alternative explanation for a voice telling you to do things that you
> >> consider to be wrong?
>
> > Any one or number of the standard ones -- hallucination, demon, etc,
> > etc -- would suffice.
>
> You are an agnostic demonist
Who says I'm an agnostic demonist? It's far easier to get something
that we'd consider a demon -- even if things like religious placement
don't match the purported origins -- than it is for something like a
God.
> are you sure there are demons?
No. It's a possible answer, and I treat it as such. You are
overextending the reach of my claims.
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> On Jan 14, 10:44 am, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You are an agnostic demonist
>
> Who says I'm an agnostic demonist?
Nobody I am aware of. That was a question, not a statement.
> It's far easier to get something
> that we'd consider a demon -- even if things like religious placement
> don't match the purported origins -- than it is for something like a
> God.
You use the indefinite article with a proper noun. Why?
>> are you sure there are demons?
>
> No. It's a possible answer, and I treat it as such. You are
> overextending the reach of my claims.
Just asking questions. If you are an agnostic theist then I thought that
you might be agnostic as per demons. From the above, it looks like the
answer is yes, perhaps?
The reason I started this thread was because I suspect that no Christian
on the planet would accept a command from God that they thought was
wrong. Thus they all would put their feelings about right and wrong
above their belief in God communicating with them directly. I don't
think that any Christian would accept that God is communicating with
them directly if it didn't communicate things that they wanted it to.
Else they would dismiss it.
--
Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
"The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles,
but even at this day it cannot be believed by any reasonable person
without one."
[David Hume]
Kippers
<robin@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>Why?
Because you reject the idea of the trinity?
>
>
> > > didn't actually want us to do that?
>
> > “You over simplify Jesus’ message, it cannot be accurately surmised as
> > “do unto others as you would have them do to you”.
>
> Considering that that is what He said, that seems inaccurate.
>
> > This actually
> > originated from a mortal man named Confucius
>
> Which Jesus plagiarized? Please.
>
The golden rule was around before Jesus. Confucianism is just one
example but the ancient Greeks also used it. It certainly didn’t come
from Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule_(ethics)
Do you deny this?
> > and thus carries less
> > weight than the true DIVINE message brought by Jesus. This message
> > can be accurately surmised as “have faith in your lord, do as he tells
> > you or you will suffer eternal punishment in hell”. Jesus was not
> > quite as meek and mild as you new theist types like to make out.”
>
> The NT seems to contradict you, and you should, in fact, know better
> than this. You are not God.
>
What specifically have I said here which is in contradiction to the
NT. The Concept of hell is an important message in the NT.
>
>
> > >I can see, logically, changing
> > > conditions requiring different actions, and can even possibly come up
> > > with reasons to do this, but if you're gonna say 'Do this' and put
> > > someone in authority to carry that across, you had certainly better
> > > expect us to be curious when you tell us to do something that violates
> > > that principle."
>
> > You are the first of my prophets to ever question me.
>
> I certainly was not the first, even in the OT. We must also remember
> Doubting Thomas, the apostle. You are not God.
Doubting Thomas betrayed the human form of Jesus. That is totally
different to the subject at hand which is hearing gods voice directly
in your mind which, according to biblical testimony, is what happened
to Moses and Abraham.
>
> > This shows a
> > lack of faith which I value above everything else and was especially
> > prevalent in my favourite prophets Abraham and Moses. Your scepticism
> > is more in keeping with an Heathen Atheist’s like Richard Dawkins than
> > it is with one of my great prophets. For that reason I smite you (and
> > all mankind and all animal kind and all future generations of any form
> > of life). Prepare yourselves for another global flood
>
> The rainbow is the sign that you will not do that again, so to
> threaten that goes against that promise. You are not God.
Ahh yea the rainbow ensures I will not destroy you all again, unless
of course the bible is not literally true. I don’t think you are
biblical literalist so I am surprised you don’t consider this part
about the rainbow to in fact be a metaphor for something. Do you
really believe the rainbow to be a sign from the creator of the
universe that he will not destroy his creation again?
>
> Basically, the problem here is that you aren't doing a good job of
> being God;
No the problem is that you are doing a terrible job of trying to
demonstrate why what I say is inconsistent with a message from god.
> you're acting like an atheist which God would not do.
> There are more credible conversations that can be had here, but I
> guess you just aren't willing to go that extra mile, and would rather
> play a more mocking notion than a credible one ...- Hide quoted text -
>
I admit this discussion was meant to done with a touch of humour yet I
consider everything said here to be valid and you have not pointed out
anything to show why such a Dialogue could not be a genuine one with
the god of the bible.
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>Because the concept of the Trinity as I believe it allows for both
descriptions to be true, and the NT claims that as well. Thus, a God
that said that would not be the God I believe in.
>
>
>
> > > > didn't actually want us to do that?
>
> > > “You over simplify Jesus’ message, it cannot be accurately surmised as
> > > “do unto others as you would have them do to you”.
>
> > Considering that that is what He said, that seems inaccurate.
>
> > > This actually
> > > originated from a mortal man named Confucius
>
> > Which Jesus plagiarized? Please.
>
> The golden rule was around before Jesus. Confucianism is just one
> example but the ancient Greeks also used it. It certainly didn’t come
> from Jesus.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule_(ethics)
>
> Do you deny this?
((Are we still in the actual conversation here? I'm acting as if we
are.))
And so Jesus promoted this without making reference to the fact that
He was getting it from somewhere else, and now you're saying that this
isn't the official stance? So He was saying something wrong? If so,
then what reason do I have to accept anything you say?
>
> > > and thus carries less
> > > weight than the true DIVINE message brought by Jesus. This message
> > > can be accurately surmised as “have faith in your lord, do as he tells
> > > you or you will suffer eternal punishment in hell”. Jesus was not
> > > quite as meek and mild as you new theist types like to make out.”
>
> > The NT seems to contradict you, and you should, in fact, know better
> > than this. You are not God.
>
> What specifically have I said here which is in contradiction to the
> NT. The Concept of hell is an important message in the NT.
The above-mentioned "Golden Rule", for starters, as well as notions
about not simply following the old rules. Additionally, it was about
having faith in God, not in taking specific actions, which is what
you're going on about here. And I'm sure I can come up with others if
I tried.
>
>
>
> > > >I can see, logically, changing
> > > > conditions requiring different actions, and can even possibly come up
> > > > with reasons to do this, but if you're gonna say 'Do this' and put
> > > > someone in authority to carry that across, you had certainly better
> > > > expect us to be curious when you tell us to do something that violates
> > > > that principle."
>
> > > You are the first of my prophets to ever question me.
>
> > I certainly was not the first, even in the OT. We must also remember
> > Doubting Thomas, the apostle. You are not God.
>
> Doubting Thomas betrayed the human form of Jesus.
Which, if you were actually following that "Trinity" line above, is
indeed you. If you cannot keep your claims consistent in one
conversation, what reason do I have to think you God?
> That is totally
> different to the subject at hand which is hearing gods voice directly
> in your mind which, according to biblical testimony, is what happened
> to Moses and Abraham.
Why? Since I know that voices can be heard in my mind for other
causes, why should the voice be overarching?
At any rate, you are now going back on your original claim that no one
doubted you. God would not have to do that, so you are not God.
>
>
>
> > > This shows a
> > > lack of faith which I value above everything else and was especially
> > > prevalent in my favourite prophets Abraham and Moses. Your scepticism
> > > is more in keeping with an Heathen Atheist’s like Richard Dawkins than
> > > it is with one of my great prophets. For that reason I smite you (and
> > > all mankind and all animal kind and all future generations of any form
> > > of life). Prepare yourselves for another global flood
>
> > The rainbow is the sign that you will not do that again, so to
> > threaten that goes against that promise. You are not God.
>
> Ahh yea the rainbow ensures I will not destroy you all again, unless
> of course the bible is not literally true. I don’t think you are
> biblical literalist so I am surprised you don’t consider this part
> about the rainbow to in fact be a metaphor for something. Do you
> really believe the rainbow to be a sign from the creator of the
> universe that he will not destroy his creation again?
No, I consider the metaphor to be an affirmation of the promise not to
do it again. Did you or did you not make that promise?
As an aside, the evil laugh at the end of that threat does not give
one confidence that you are a God that could in any way be described
as loving. No matter how that works itself out -- either you are not
my God or you are not really loving -- the idea that I should do what
you say if I find it ... suspicious is undermined.
>
>
>
> > Basically, the problem here is that you aren't doing a good job of
> > being God;
>
> No the problem is that you are doing a terrible job of trying to
> demonstrate why what I say is inconsistent with a message from god.
Well, for starters, God would keep his arguments consistent. Second,
God would talk as if He was religious, and wouldn't be tossing in
atheist objections to the Bible as an attempt to get me to believe
that He was God.
That's the entire problem; the concerns you raised are atheist
concerns, but not something that anyone would bring up if they were
attempting to prove to me that they were God.
>
> > you're acting like an atheist which God would not do.
> > There are more credible conversations that can be had here, but I
> > guess you just aren't willing to go that extra mile, and would rather
> > play a more mocking notion than a credible one ...- Hide quoted text -
>
> I admit this discussion was meant to done with a touch of humour yet I
> consider everything said here to be valid and you have not pointed out
> anything to show why such a Dialogue could not be a genuine one with
> the god of the bible.
Because the God of the Bible is not an atheist, and you are bringing
up atheist objections to the Bible in an attempt to prove that I'm
talking to God. God would not do that. First, He wouldn't because
God wouldn't accept them, and second because God -- or anyone else --
would be smart enough to know that UNDERMINING MY IMAGE OF GOD is NOT
the way to convince me to do something that I consider morally wrong
because God is telling me to do it.
Khurram Chaudhry
<khurramc73@gmail.com>--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>On Jan 14, 11:21 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/01/2010 11:03 AM, Treebeard wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 10:44 am, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You are an agnostic demonist
>
> > Who says I'm an agnostic demonist?
>
> Nobody I am aware of. That was a question, not a statement.
Then you need to correct your grammar:
> You are an agnostic demonist are you sure there are demons?
Presuming that you meant it this way: "You are an agnostic demonist;
are you sure there are demons?", the first part IS a statement. And
if you had wanted to ask me, you would have used "Are you an agnostic
demonist? Are you sure there are demons?". My interpretation is the
logical one; if that is not what you meant, then at least admitting
your awkward phrasing would be nice.
>
> > It's far easier to get something
> > that we'd consider a demon -- even if things like religious placement
> > don't match the purported origins -- than it is for something like a
> > God.
>
> You use the indefinite article with a proper noun. Why?
Because "God" is a name for a specific set of traits, which is what my
agnosticism is based on.
>
> >> are you sure there are demons?
>
> > No. It's a possible answer, and I treat it as such. You are
> > overextending the reach of my claims.
>
> Just asking questions. If you are an agnostic theist then I thought that
> you might be agnostic as per demons. From the above, it looks like the
> answer is yes, perhaps?
I'm NOT agnostic as per demons, at least not a strong agnostic in the
sense that I think it unprovable. I don't know that they do or do not
exist yet, but that's hardly an interesting use of the term
"agnostic".
>
> The reason I started this thread was because I suspect that no Christian
> on the planet would accept a command from God that they thought was
> wrong. Thus they all would put their feelings about right and wrong
> above their belief in God communicating with them directly. I don't
> think that any Christian would accept that God is communicating with
> them directly if it didn't communicate things that they wanted it to.
> Else they would dismiss it.
In my case, wanting is not the issue, but consistent with my beliefs
IS. If I heard a voice in my head from God telling me to start going
to church regularly, I'd have far less issues with that ...
William T. Goat
<ericvonl@my-deja.com>Not our own desires, but objective morality. The "consequences" you
speak of are evil, and can only come from an evil God.
Or are you suggesting that it *isn't* unfair?
Because if it is, and we *know* in our *hearts* that it is, there's no
point in trying to keep the honest opinion of our hearts a secret from
God. God can see into our hearts. Which do you think offends God more:
*thinking* He's unfair, or *saying* He's unfair? We're already going
to Hell for *thinking* God is unfair, so we have nothing to lose by
saying it out loud.
> As a more mundane example, take freedom of speech and China. China
> does not recognize freedom of speech. So, if I choose to violate the
> laws for some moral reason, I should expect to be put in prison -- or
> even executed -- and accept that. After all, I knew that that would
> happen going in, and made my choice being fully aware of what would
> occur. Whining about how unfair those laws are -- since I have a
> right to free speech -- is both useless and stupid; the law is the
> law, and I knew it going in. It'd be nice if it was different, but I
> took the risk knowing the outcomes, and if I can't live with that then
> I shouldn't have done it in the first place.
And yet, the laws are indeed unfair. "Whining" about it may be useless
and stupid, but at least it's perceptive and honest. Are you
suggesting we should pretend that unfairness is fairness, and evil is
good? Is that the Christian way? Moral relativism? Dishonesty in the
face of God?
Yes, of course it is.
--Billy
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>And I presume you HAVE the objective moral code to back that up?
>
> Or are you suggesting that it *isn't* unfair?
I am saying that it isn't unfair ... even if what God is asking IS
morally wrong. I did what I did knowing that that is what could
happen if I was wrong (or even right). Knowing this, I did it
anyway. So, that the consequences are precisely as I expected pretty
much means that I should have been willing to accept them in the first
place, and so theres no unfairness about making me do so. In any
case. Even if there shouldn't have been punishment for that.
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> On Jan 14, 11:21 am, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14/01/2010 11:03 AM, Treebeard wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 14, 10:44 am, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You are an agnostic demonist
>>
>>> Who says I'm an agnostic demonist?
>>
>> Nobody I am aware of. That was a question, not a statement.
>
> Then you need to correct your grammar:
>
>> You are an agnostic demonist are you sure there are demons?
Yep, I musta missed the 'or' in there. I would have thought you would
have seen that. Anyway, it was a question.
> Presuming that you meant it this way: "You are an agnostic demonist;
> are you sure there are demons?",
Should have been:
"You are an agnostic demonist or are you sure there are demons?"
Contrasting the agnostic with the surety later in the question.
Anyway, grammatical error corrected, I think you answered the question
anyway.
>> You use the indefinite article with a proper noun. Why?
>
> Because "God" is a name for a specific set of traits, which is what my
> agnosticism is based on.
I see. A tad confusing since God is a proper name of a god with very
well-defined traits so when I see it with an indefinite article it has
some confusing ramifications.
>> Just asking questions. If you are an agnostic theist then I thought that
>> you might be agnostic as per demons. From the above, it looks like the
>> answer is yes, perhaps?
>
> I'm NOT agnostic as per demons, at least not a strong agnostic in the
> sense that I think it unprovable. I don't know that they do or do not
> exist yet, but that's hardly an interesting use of the term
> "agnostic".
I don't find "agnostic theist" to be particularly interesting either. In
fact "spiritual agnostic" would seem more descriptive. Anyway, who cares
what the labels say? You are using God as a proper noun in a way that
has the potential to be confusing, so I just wanted to clarify. No big deal.
>> The reason I started this thread was because I suspect that no Christian
>> on the planet would accept a command from God that they thought was
>> wrong. Thus they all would put their feelings about right and wrong
>> above their belief in God communicating with them directly. I don't
>> think that any Christian would accept that God is communicating with
>> them directly if it didn't communicate things that they wanted it to.
>> Else they would dismiss it.
>
> In my case, wanting is not the issue, but consistent with my beliefs
> IS. If I heard a voice in my head from God telling me to start going
> to church regularly, I'd have far less issues with that ...
Right, because it is what you expect and it creates no dilemma for you.
I was more interested in that which would surprise and therefore would
create a dilemma. Or at least some dissonance.
Anyway, I know your position now, I think. Thanks.
--
Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
"I never see what has been done; I only see what remains to be done."
[Buddha]
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Jan 13, 5:40 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This came up in another thread. Might be interesting enough to get more
> space.
>
> If you heard a voice that claimed to be God and initially you believed
> that it was God but the voice then asked you to do something that
> surprised you because it wasn't what you thought God would ask of you
> (mass murder of all Muslims in your city for instance), how would you
> determine if it really was God?
Interestingly enough, a more pertinent question is:
If one heard a voice in one's head, how would one know it was one's
own voice and not an others?
Regards,
Brock
William T. Goat
<ericvonl@my-deja.com>> On Jan 14, 1:07 pm, "William T. Goat" <ericv...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 8:12 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > So, if the voice could NOT provide suffcient evidence to show that it
> > > was really the voice of God, I wouldn't do it and would accept the
> > > consequences. But accepting the consequences means accepting that God
> > > might, in fact, punish me for ignoring Him and accepting that
> > > punishment should it occur ... which is a far cry from what a lot of
> > > people think that means today. After all, many atheists choose to not
> > > believe in God -- as far as they are able; some claim it is a natural
> > > reaction -- and yet gripe that God would be "unfair" if he punished
> > > them for that. They make claims that God shouldn't punish them for
> > > "being rational", even if they are fairly well-aware that there's a
> > > good chance that will happen. That's not accepting the consequences
> > > of your decisions, that's whining about how the universe should
> > > realign to your own desires.
>
> > Not our own desires, but objective morality. The "consequences" you
> > speak of are evil, and can only come from an evil God.
>
> And I presume you HAVE the objective moral code to back that up?
Of course I do. We all do. In the same way that everyone can
objectively discover that 2+2=4, and that the earth moves around the
sun, everyone can objectively discover morality. That's what
"objective" means. Or are you trying to promote moral relativism?
The fact is that beliefs are not choices. To believe, means to think
something is true. When something seems like the truth, you believe
it. When it doesn't, you don't. Beliefs are instinctual reactions to
experience. They can also be shaped by evidence. But changing your own
beliefs isn't a simple act of will, like flipping a lightswitch.
I know this from my own experience. I'd rather not rehash my life
story here; suffice it to say that I found "choosing" to be a
Christian about as useful as choosing to be a penguin. I simply am not
one; no choice can change that.
So I know that anyone who claims that atheists have made a "choice" to
"reject God," is lying.
Unfortunately, the Bible makes that claim. Therefore, the Bible is
lying. (Much like it lies when it says that the earth rests upon
pillars and never moves, and that pi equals 3.) Thus, if there really
is a God, and if God wrote the Bible, God is a liar.
Notice that I have not yet made any moral judgments. "God is a liar"
comes from logic alone.
Dictionary.com says:
JUST
–adjective
1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness
Justice is "guided by truth."
Time and time again, Christians say that Hell is a just punishment for
atheism, *because* atheism is a choice. But atheism isn't a choice.
So, God's punishment for atheism is based on a lie. God's punishment
is not guided by truth. God's punishment is unjust.
So you see, if you assume that Christianity is true, you are forced to
conclude that God is unjust.
--Billy
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> On Jan 13, 5:40 pm, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This came up in another thread. Might be interesting enough to get more
>> space.
>>
>> If you heard a voice that claimed to be God and initially you believed
>> that it was God but the voice then asked you to do something that
>> surprised you because it wasn't what you thought God would ask of you
>> (mass murder of all Muslims in your city for instance), how would you
>> determine if it really was God?
>
> Interestingly enough, a more pertinent question is:
My thread, I'll decide what question is "pertinent". Answer it or bugger
off.
What an idiot you are.
--
Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
"If I am not pleased with myself, but should wish to be other than I am,
why should I think highly of the influences which have made me what I am?"
[John Lancaster Spalding]
Kippers
<robin@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>On 14 Jan, 16:39, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > Why?
> > Because you reject the idea of the trinity?
>
> Because the concept of the Trinity as I believe it allows for both
> descriptions to be true, and the NT claims that as well. Thus, a God
> that said that would not be the God I believe in.
>
The problem is that the concept of the trinity makes no real logical
sense, theologians have been deliberating over it for centuries and
its unfathomableness (have I just invented a new word?) is often seen
as a sign of the unknowable nature of god. That a voice in your head
claiming be god had a different angle on the trinity than your
understanding should not be surprising nor good enough reason to
dismiss the voice as that of god.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > didn't actually want us to do that?
>
> > > > “You over simplify Jesus’ message, it cannot be accurately surmised as
> > > > “do unto others as you would have them do to you”.
>
> > > Considering that that is what He said, that seems inaccurate.
>
> > > > This actually
> > > > originated from a mortal man named Confucius
>
> > > Which Jesus plagiarized? Please.
>
> > The golden rule was around before Jesus. Confucianism is just one
> > example but the ancient Greeks also used it. It certainly didn’t come
> > from Jesus.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule_(ethics)
>
> > Do you deny this?
>
> ((Are we still in the actual conversation here? I'm acting as if we
> are.))
>
> And so Jesus promoted this without making reference to the fact that
> He was getting it from somewhere else, and now you're saying that this
> isn't the official stance? So He was saying something wrong? If so,
> then what reason do I have to accept anything you say?
>
That is clearly not what I said. I merely pointed out that this
message did not have a divine origin. The fact it was repeated by
Jesus makes it part of the Christian message but as god I was pointing
out that there were more important messages in the bible which did
have a true divine origin such as the eternal punishment of hell which
Jesus spoke of.
>
>
> > > > and thus carries less
> > > > weight than the true DIVINE message brought by Jesus. This message
> > > > can be accurately surmised as “have faith in your lord, do as he tells
> > > > you or you will suffer eternal punishment in hell”. Jesus was not
> > > > quite as meek and mild as you new theist types like to make out.”
>
> > > The NT seems to contradict you, and you should, in fact, know better
> > > than this. You are not God.
>
> > What specifically have I said here which is in contradiction to the
> > NT. The Concept of hell is an important message in the NT.
>
> The above-mentioned "Golden Rule", for starters, as well as notions
> about not simply following the old rules. Additionally, it was about
> having faith in God, not in taking specific actions, which is what
> you're going on about here. And I'm sure I can come up with others if
> I tried.
>
But I correctly identified that the golden rule did not originate with
Jesus. I don’t see how correctly pointing this out should be evidence
against my omnipotence? I don’t really understand the other point you
raise regarding not simply following the old rules.
>
> > > > >I can see, logically, changing
> > > > > conditions requiring different actions, and can even possibly come up
> > > > > with reasons to do this, but if you're gonna say 'Do this' and put
> > > > > someone in authority to carry that across, you had certainly better
> > > > > expect us to be curious when you tell us to do something that violates
> > > > > that principle."
>
> > > > You are the first of my prophets to ever question me.
>
> > > I certainly was not the first, even in the OT. We must also remember
> > > Doubting Thomas, the apostle. You are not God.
>
> > Doubting Thomas betrayed the human form of Jesus.
>
> Which, if you were actually following that "Trinity" line above, is
> indeed you. If you cannot keep your claims consistent in one
> conversation, what reason do I have to think you God?
>
> > That is totally
> > different to the subject at hand which is hearing gods voice directly
> > in your mind which, according to biblical testimony, is what happened
> > to Moses and Abraham.
>
> Why? Since I know that voices can be heard in my mind for other
> causes, why should the voice be overarching?
>
> At any rate, you are now going back on your original claim that no one
> doubted you. God would not have to do that, so you are not God.
>
But my inconsistency is actually evidence in favour of the claim that
I am the god of the bible. Read the OT and the NT and make a list of
inconsistencies. I can guarantee you will have a very long list.
Even if you limited that list to inconsistencies of commands made by
god you would have a fair few.
> > > > This shows a
> > > > lack of faith which I value above everything else and was especially
> > > > prevalent in my favourite prophets Abraham and Moses. Your scepticism
> > > > is more in keeping with an Heathen Atheist’s like Richard Dawkins than
> > > > it is with one of my great prophets. For that reason I smite you (and
> > > > all mankind and all animal kind and all future generations of any form
> > > > of life). Prepare yourselves for another global flood
>
> > > The rainbow is the sign that you will not do that again, so to
> > > threaten that goes against that promise. You are not God.
>
> > Ahh yea the rainbow ensures I will not destroy you all again, unless
> > of course the bible is not literally true. I don’t think you are
> > biblical literalist so I am surprised you don’t consider this part
> > about the rainbow to in fact be a metaphor for something. Do you
> > really believe the rainbow to be a sign from the creator of the
> > universe that he will not destroy his creation again?
>
> No, I consider the metaphor to be an affirmation of the promise not to
> do it again. Did you or did you not make that promise?
Well yes i did but I reserve the right to change my mind as I have
done many times in the past.
>
> As an aside, the evil laugh at the end of that threat does not give
> one confidence that you are a God that could in any way be described
> as loving. No matter how that works itself out -- either you are not
> my God or you are not really loving -- the idea that I should do what
> you say if I find it ... suspicious is undermined.
>
Firstly the evil laugh only came AFTER you had rejected me as being
god. Secondly many of gods actions in the bible are inconsistent with
a loving god so this again this inconsistency is evidence that I am in
fact that god.
>
>
> > > Basically, the problem here is that you aren't doing a good job of
> > > being God;
>
> > No the problem is that you are doing a terrible job of trying to
> > demonstrate why what I say is inconsistent with a message from god.
>
> Well, for starters, God would keep his arguments consistent.
Yea right; the god of the bible would never change his mind or make
contradictory claims right?
>Second,
> God would talk as if He was religious, and wouldn't be >tossing in
> atheist objections to the Bible as an attempt to get me to believe
> that He was God.
>
Yea well that was my attempt at humour and was also only raised AFTER
you had rejected me as being god.
> That's the entire problem; the concerns you raised are atheist
> concerns, but not something that anyone would bring up if they were
> attempting to prove to me that they were God.
>
Well lets face it, neither of us has a clue what tactics god would
employ to convince you he was actually the god of the bible.
>
>
> > > you're acting like an atheist which God would not do.
> > > There are more credible conversations that can be had here, but I
> > > guess you just aren't willing to go that extra mile, and would rather
> > > play a more mocking notion than a credible one ...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > I admit this discussion was meant to done with a touch of humour yet I
> > consider everything said here to be valid and you have not pointed out
> > anything to show why such a Dialogue could not be a genuine one with
> > the god of the bible.
>
> Because the God of the Bible is not an atheist, and you are bringing
> up atheist objections to the Bible in an attempt to prove that I'm
> talking to God. God would not do that. First, He wouldn't because
> God wouldn't accept them, and second because God -- or anyone else --
> would be smart enough to know that UNDERMINING MY IMAGE OF GOD is NOT
> the way to convince me to do something that I consider morally wrong
> because God is telling me to do it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>before you hurt yourself. run along now, thats a good boy ...
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> On 14/01/2010 8:23 PM, Brock wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 13, 5:40 pm, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This came up in another thread. Might be interesting enough to get more
>>> space.
>>>
>>> If you heard a voice that claimed to be God and initially you believed
>>> that it was God but the voice then asked you to do something that
>>> surprised you because it wasn't what you thought God would ask of you
>>> (mass murder of all Muslims in your city for instance), how would you
>>> determine if it really was God?
>>
>> Interestingly enough, a more pertinent question is:
>
> My thread, I'll decide what question is "pertinent". Answer it or bugger
> off.
I consider that the problem answered specifically and clearly by
noting the situation presented does not reflect poorly upon God, but
upon the limitations of a human-centred consideration:
"If you heard a voice that claimed to be God"
My assessment is that your consideration fails to be profitable
because one cannot from a human centred premise distinguish an origin
between any competing "voices" or "communications", as my question
seeks to address:
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> I consider that the problem answered specifically and clearly by
> noting the situation presented does not reflect poorly upon God, but
> upon the limitations of a human-centred consideration:
Fine, so bugger off and let people who can think for themselves answer.
As usual you are all instance and no substance due to your inability to
reason clearly.
Go have another cracker.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> [Brock Organ]
>>
>> I consider that the problem answered specifically and clearly by
>> noting the situation presented does not reflect poorly upon God, but
>> upon the limitations of a human-centred consideration:
>
> Fine, so bugger off and let people who can think for themselves answer.
Or alternatively, one can address the specific fallacies inherent in
the characterization you've presented. :)
Regards,
Brock
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>I prefer that you bugger off since you can never contribute anything
either interesting or meaningful due to your inability to reason clearly.
You are like a summer evening's mosquito, annoying but not worth paying
serious attention to.
Now, go and tell your mother that she wants you.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> [Brock Organ]
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Simon Ewins<sje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [Brock Organ]
>>>>
>>>> I consider that the problem answered specifically and clearly by
>>>> noting the situation presented does not reflect poorly upon God, but
>>>> upon the limitations of a human-centred consideration:
>>>
>>> Fine, so bugger off and let people who can think for themselves answer.
>>
>> Or alternatively, one can address the specific fallacies inherent in
>> the characterization you've presented.
>
> serious attention to.
I accept your concession that you are unwilling to address the point.
Regards,
Brock
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> I accept your concession that you are unwilling to address the point.
I would enjoy discussing anything with anyone capable of clear and
interesting reasoning.
That excludes you so, yes, I concede that I am unwilling to address the
point with an empty-headed parrot with no ability to reason.
Bummer.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> interesting reasoning.
>
> That excludes you so, yes, I concede that I am unwilling to address the
> point with an empty-headed parrot with no ability to reason.
>
> Bummer.
Well, I accept your withdrawal from the debate, but remain willing to engage. :)
Ever yours in the reality of Jesus Christ,
Brock
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> Well, I accept your withdrawal from the debate, but remain willing to engage.
You absolute moron!
Jesus fucking Christ, it is my thread, I am not withdrawing from it. I
am awaiting someone sensible, with some reasoning skills, to explore it
with. That leaves you out.
How the hell do you get dressed by yourself?
> Ever yours in the reality of Jesus Christ,
Stick your real Christ up your real ass.
Thick as two dried planks.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> [Brock Organ]
>>
>> Well, I accept your withdrawal from the debate, but remain willing to
>> engage.
>
> You absolute moron!
>
> Jesus fucking Christ, it is my thread, I am not withdrawing from it. I am
> awaiting someone sensible, with some reasoning skills, to explore it with.
> That leaves you out.
Or not. :)
It's a great point, and particularly relevant in that it shows your
pejorative assertion against God is not well founded, but reflects an
inadequacy of the standard presumed.
Regards,
Brock
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> It's a great point, and particularly relevant in that it shows your
> pejorative assertion against God is not well founded, but reflects an
> inadequacy of the standard presumed.
I thought you were leaving. Christ you can't even get your own
statements straight.
No wonder you can't reason.
--
Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
"He is able who thinks he is able."
[Buddha]
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> [Brock Organ]
>>
>> It's a great point, and particularly relevant in that it shows your
>> pejorative assertion against God is not well founded, but reflects an
>> inadequacy of the standard presumed.
>
>
> I thought you were leaving.
Simply seeking to profitably engage in the specific issue.
I consider that the problem answered clearly by noting the situation
presented does not reflect poorly upon God, but upon the limitations
of a human-centred consideration:
"If you heard a voice that claimed to be God"
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> Simply seeking to profitably engage in the specific issue.
Well, you aren't capable of doing so, so bugger off.
> I consider that the problem answered clearly by noting the situation
> presented does not reflect poorly upon God, but upon the limitations
> of a human-centred consideration:
I have a pretty high tolerance for stupid people but you keep managing
to surmount it with frightening regularity.
Still no reasoning exhibited.
--
Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
"If a man who cannot count finds a four-leaf clover, is he lucky?"
[Stanislaw J. Lec]
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> [Brock Organ]
>>
>> Simply seeking to profitably engage in the specific issue.
>
> Well, you aren't capable of doing so, so bugger off.
I consider that the problem is answered specifically and clearly by
noting the situation presented does not reflect poorly upon God, but
upon the limitations of a human-centred consideration:
"If you heard a voice that claimed to be God"
My assessment is that your consideration fails to be profitable
because one cannot from a human centred premise distinguish an origin
between any competing "voices" or "communications", as my question
seeks to address:
"If one heard a voice in one's head, how would one know it was one's
own voice and not an others?"
Still seeking to profitably engage,
Brock
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> I consider that the problem is answered specifically and clearly by
> noting the situation presented does not reflect poorly upon God, but
> upon the limitations of a human-centred consideration:
I can't believe that this needs explaining, the OP has nothing to do
with "reflections on God". You are missing the point, which is not
surprising.
You are incapable of even understanding the OP. You poor thing.
--
Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
"The only Zen you can find on the tops of mountains is the Zen you take
up there."
[Robert M. Pirsig]
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> [Brock Organ]
>>
>> I consider that the problem is answered specifically and clearly by
>> noting the situation presented does not reflect poorly upon God, but
>> upon the limitations of a human-centred consideration:
>
> I can't believe that this needs explaining, the OP has nothing to do with
> "reflections on God". You are missing the point, which is not surprising.
I don't agree, to one who articulates:
"If you heard a voice that claimed to be God"
I note that the consideration fails to be profitable because one
cannot from a human centred premise distinguish an origin between any
competing "voices" or "communications", as my question seeks to
address:
"If one heard a voice in one's head, how would one know it was one's
own voice and not an others?"
Regards,
Brock
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>Get back to me when you understand.
--
Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
"The virtues, like the Muses, are always seen in groups. A good
principle was never found solitary in any breast."
[Buddha]
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> Get back to me when you understand.
The specific understanding is pretty clear. To one who articulates:
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Simon Ewins<sje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Get back to me when you understand.
>
> The specific understanding is pretty clear.
Not to you.
--
Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
"The scars you can't see are the hardest to heal."
[Astrid Alauda]
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> [Brock Organ]
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Simon Ewins<sje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Get back to me when you understand.
>>
>> The specific understanding is pretty clear.
>
> Not to you.
Well the point is that from human-centred premises:
"If one heard a voice in one's head, how would one know it was one's
own voice and not an others?"
There appears to not be an adequate objective means based on
human-centred premises by which to distinguish. Thus the pejorative
against God in your accusation is realized instead to be simply a
limitation on the part of humanistic reasoning. :)
Regards,
Brock
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> Well the point is that from human-centred premises:
Well, you are very odd but I suppose still human.
--
Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
"You can see a lot by just looking."
[Yogi Berra, also often quoted as "You can observe a lot by just
looking." (original wording as yet unverified)]
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>commenting "in-character" and just point out why the below aren't
comments that God would use to convince anyone that He was God and
that they should do what He says, even if they don't think it
consistent with God.
Yes, the problem is indeed precisely that you are replying as an
atheist, attempting to cast doubt on and undermine my view of God.
Which is not what God wants to do. God -- or anyone doing this,
really -- would not want to argue on the basis of "But see, you've got
the whole God thing wrong; this is how it really is" because all that
would do is undermine the reasons I might have for actually doing what
He says if it doesn't meet my personal standards. It'd be the
equivalent of Him saying "Oh, no, no, no, you've got it all wrong.
There's no God, but I'm Allah and I'm the REAL God". To which any
rational person should say "So, then, why should I do what you say?".
So, in general, your dialogue didn't touch on any actual convincing
issues, and so did indeed come across far more as you simply taking
the opportunity to rag on religion and your "perceived"
inconsistencies than a real attempt to convince. Which is sad,
because this is an issue that it might be worth exploring.
Tell you what: if you want to explore this, give me a thing that God
is asking me to do and I'll write up a dialogue for both sides showing
what a real persuasion would look like. You can start it in another
thread if you want, or here. Either's fine.
On Jan 15, 6:14 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 14 Jan, 16:39, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Why?
> > > Because you reject the idea of the trinity?
>
> > Because the concept of the Trinity as I believe it allows for both
> > descriptions to be true, and the NT claims that as well. Thus, a God
> > that said that would not be the God I believe in.
>
> The problem is that the concept of the trinity makes no real logical
> sense, theologians have been deliberating over it for centuries and
> its unfathomableness (have I just invented a new word?) is often seen
> as a sign of the unknowable nature of god. That a voice in your head
> claiming be god had a different angle on the trinity than your
> understanding should not be surprising nor good enough reason to
> dismiss the voice as that of god.
But it wouldn't be the God I believe in. So why would I think that I
should do what it says?
Especially when it is using that to undermine the basis of
Christianity, which is Christ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > didn't actually want us to do that?
>
> > > > > “You over simplify Jesus’ message, it cannot be accurately surmised as
> > > > > “do unto others as you would have them do to you”.
>
> > > > Considering that that is what He said, that seems inaccurate.
>
> > > > > This actually
> > > > > originated from a mortal man named Confucius
>
> > > > Which Jesus plagiarized? Please.
>
> > > The golden rule was around before Jesus. Confucianism is just one
> > > example but the ancient Greeks also used it. It certainly didn’t come
> > > from Jesus.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule_(ethics)
>
> > > Do you deny this?
>
> > ((Are we still in the actual conversation here? I'm acting as if we
> > are.))
>
> > And so Jesus promoted this without making reference to the fact that
> > He was getting it from somewhere else, and now you're saying that this
> > isn't the official stance? So He was saying something wrong? If so,
> > then what reason do I have to accept anything you say?
>
> That is clearly not what I said. I merely pointed out that this
> message did not have a divine origin. The fact it was repeated by
> Jesus makes it part of the Christian message but as god I was pointing
> out that there were more important messages in the bible which did
> have a true divine origin such as the eternal punishment of hell which
> Jesus spoke of.
The problem is that Jesus would have taken it without revealing its
source. At any rate, if Jesus says it, it's divine and gets that
status. To undermine that is to, again, undermine the entire basis of
Christianity, which is not a smart way to get a Christian to think
that you're his God.
> > Which, if you were actually following that "Trinity" line above, is
> > indeed you. If you cannot keep your claims consistent in one
> > conversation, what reason do I have to think you God?
>
> > > That is totally
> > > different to the subject at hand which is hearing gods voice directly
> > > in your mind which, according to biblical testimony, is what happened
> > > to Moses and Abraham.
>
> > Why? Since I know that voices can be heard in my mind for other
> > causes, why should the voice be overarching?
>
> > At any rate, you are now going back on your original claim that no one
> > doubted you. God would not have to do that, so you are not God.
>
> But my inconsistency is actually evidence in favour of the claim that
> I am the god of the bible. Read the OT and the NT and make a list of
> inconsistencies. I can guarantee you will have a very long list.
> Even if you limited that list to inconsistencies of commands made by
> god you would have a fair few.
>
And God doing that in a short, 5 minute conversation is supposed to be
a sign that He knows what He's doing?
Additionally, the inconsistencies -- to me, at least -- are seen as
introductions through copying or word of mouth corruptions, not God
Himself, or that they are resolvable. Again, to try to rely on that
is simply taking potshots at religion, and if accepted would simply
make me less theist as opposed to more convinced that I should do what
the voice says.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > This shows a
> > > > > lack of faith which I value above everything else and was especially
> > > > > prevalent in my favourite prophets Abraham and Moses. Your scepticism
> > > > > is more in keeping with an Heathen Atheist’s like Richard Dawkins than
> > > > > it is with one of my great prophets. For that reason I smite you (and
> > > > > all mankind and all animal kind and all future generations of any form
> > > > > of life). Prepare yourselves for another global flood
>
> > > > The rainbow is the sign that you will not do that again, so to
> > > > threaten that goes against that promise. You are not God.
>
> > > Ahh yea the rainbow ensures I will not destroy you all again, unless
> > > of course the bible is not literally true. I don’t think you are
> > > biblical literalist so I am surprised you don’t consider this part
> > > about the rainbow to in fact be a metaphor for something. Do you
> > > really believe the rainbow to be a sign from the creator of the
> > > universe that he will not destroy his creation again?
>
> > No, I consider the metaphor to be an affirmation of the promise not to
> > do it again. Did you or did you not make that promise?
>
> Well yes i did but I reserve the right to change my mind as I have
> done many times in the past.
Again, this is an atheist attack. If accepted, the proper response
would be "Are you going to change your mind about this being the right
thing, too?"
>
>
>
> > As an aside, the evil laugh at the end of that threat does not give
> > one confidence that you are a God that could in any way be described
> > as loving. No matter how that works itself out -- either you are not
> > my God or you are not really loving -- the idea that I should do what
> > you say if I find it ... suspicious is undermined.
>
> Firstly the evil laugh only came AFTER you had rejected me as being
> god. Secondly many of gods actions in the bible are inconsistent with
> a loving god so this again this inconsistency is evidence that I am in
> fact that god.
Again, atheist attack. If accepted, I have no reason to think that
this God should be listened to, since if He isn't moral then what He
asks me to do is not necessarily moral, and I should rely on my own
moral code. Which says "Don't do it".
>
>
>
> > > > Basically, the problem here is that you aren't doing a good job of
> > > > being God;
>
> > > No the problem is that you are doing a terrible job of trying to
> > > demonstrate why what I say is inconsistent with a message from god.
>
> > Well, for starters, God would keep his arguments consistent.
>
> Yea right; the god of the bible would never change his mind or make
> contradictory claims right?
In a 5 minute conversation?
>
> >Second,
> > God would talk as if He was religious, and wouldn't be >tossing in
> > atheist objections to the Bible as an attempt to get me to believe
> > that He was God.
>
> Yea well that was my attempt at humour and was also only raised AFTER
> you had rejected me as being god.
Except I never actually did that. I was doubting. If God was going
to give up, simply not carrying on the conversation would have worked
better than the arguments that not only weren't convincing, but would
have made me LESS likely to take the action if they were convincing.
>
> > That's the entire problem; the concerns you raised are atheist
> > concerns, but not something that anyone would bring up if they were
> > attempting to prove to me that they were God.
>
> Well lets face it, neither of us has a clue what tactics god would
> employ to convince you he was actually the god of the bible.
Actually, we have a pretty good idea. Or, at least, I do ... since I
know what arguments or questions I'd want answered, and God -- if
really God -- would know that.
Kippers
<robin@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>On 19 Jan, 18:38, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> I'm going to start from the top here, and am then going to stop
> commenting "in-character" and just point out why the below aren't
> comments that God would use to convince anyone that He was God and
> that they should do what He says, even if they don't think it
> consistent with God.
>
> Yes, the problem is indeed precisely that you are replying as an
> atheist, attempting to cast doubt on and undermine my view of God.
> Which is not what God wants to do.
Unfortunaltely, as you have astutley identified, I am not god. There
is not much we can do about this. I am trying my best to be him given
the testomony of the bible.
> God -- or anyone doing this,
> really -- would not want to argue on the basis of "But see, >you've got
> the whole God thing wrong; this is how it really is" because >all that
> would do is undermine the reasons I might have for actually doing what
> He says if it doesn't meet my personal standards.
Well you clearly know the mind of god better than I as I dont know
what tactics god would use other than what I have read in the bible
which does not seem to lay out his strategy.
> It'd be the
> equivalent of Him saying "Oh, no, no, no, you've got it all >wrong.
> There's no God, but I'm Allah and I'm the REAL God". To which >any
> rational person should say "So, then, why should I do what you say?".
It seems far from obvious to me that god values rationality over
faith. In fact the obvious seems to be the case from the testimony of
the bible.
>
> So, in general, your dialogue didn't touch on any actual >convincing
> issues, and so did indeed come across far more as you simply >taking
> the opportunity to rag on religion and your "perceived"
> inconsistencies than a real attempt to convince. Which is sad,
> because this is an issue that it might be worth exploring.
>
I am sorry that my diologe fell short of the quality you would expect
from the creator of the universe.
> Tell you what: if you want to explore this, give me a thing >that God
> is asking me to do and I'll write up a dialogue for both sides >showing
> what a real persuasion would look like. You can start it in >another
> thread if you want, or here. Either's fine.
>
OK.
God asks you to kill one of your neighbours children.
How would the creator of the universe go about making such a request
of you?
<snip>