Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Magus55 · 04-21-2003, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sourdough
no thanks,(FYI I'm a man)and I dont swing that way,

A family type relationship, but I guess your perverted mind didn't think of that...

Biff the unclean · 04-21-2003, 10:23 PM

Again I ask, where in the OT does God say he wants a "relationship" that ammounts to anything more than us obeying him? Where in the OT does he say that he loves us?

Illithid · 04-22-2003, 12:01 AM

Y'know, I have to come partially to M55's defense, here. Hubble head said "You want proof? We got it", seeming to refer both to "No God" and "Humans=evolved monkeys".

This seems to claim that there is proof of "no God", which renders burden-of-proof tirades directed at Magus moot.

Now the other statement, with due allowance for literary license, does have ample proof, though "evolved apes" would be more accurate.

Anyway, I like the Sea Monkey theory. God is a bored fourth-grader, got all enthused about his "build-a-universe" set that he got for his birthday, set it up to run, and now it's sitting forgotten on a shelf in his closet. The other day he took an interest briefly, but that (the entire account of God/man in OT/NT) was just an afternoon to him, now he's playing with his LiteBrite Galaxy in the living room before going to bed.

"now YHWH, did you study for your quiz tomorrow? Don't give me that 'omniscient' line, young man!"

emotional · 04-22-2003, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaranth
Some new facts for the new world of rational thought: Werewolves are real. Vampires are real. Faeries are real. Leprechauns are real. Changelings are real. The monster under your bed? Not only real, but very upset about that time you wet the bed. Unicorns? Real. Invisible Pink Unicorns? Real as well. Brain eating zombies easily halted with boarded up windows? Real. The X-Men? Protecting you since you were young. Santa Claus? You never caught him cause you were a bad kid, but he's real.

With due respect, Amaranth, I don't think the Creator of the Universe (and I'm not talking about the Christian fiend) is comparable to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I think that, to claim there is no legislator for the laws of nature is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Certainly I believe in [theistic] evolution and not creation, but I think evolutionary design, like any design, requires a designer too, to initiate it. Richard Dawkins did simulations showing evolutionary design (the Weasel and biomorphs simulations, in his Blind Watchmaker), which are impressive, but they still needed a designer to initiate them - Dawkins himself.

AspenMama · 04-22-2003, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
You won't find out for sure until you die, and after that its too late.

Ah yes and Magus55, if you are wrong and countless millions of Muslims are right, then it will be too late for you. With such views as you seem to hold, I think it would be prudent to be looking into which version of hell or the afterlife is the least painful for your soul.

Amaranth · 04-22-2003, 07:12 AM

Quote:

With due respect, Amaranth, I don't think the Creator of the Universe (and I'm not talking about the Christian fiend) is comparable to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I think that, to claim there is no legislator for the laws of nature is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

And I disagree. I tend to think that claiming the non-existance of any unproven being is a completely ordinary claim. History has provided plenty of evidence which people will point to as proof of various gods, monsters, and spirits - I see no reason one myth should be given bearing over another.

So, here's my problem: You're god has not been proven. Vampires have not been proven. Neither can be conclusively, 100% disproven. Which myth can I rationally disbelieve, which can't I, and most importantly - Why?

Magus55 · 04-22-2003, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Again I ask, where in the OT does God say he wants a "relationship" that ammounts to anything more than us obeying him? Where in the OT does he say that he loves us?

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

There is one main example. Jesus' sacrifice was the ultimate act of love for us.

Amaranth · 04-22-2003, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Jesus' sacrifice was the ultimate act of love for us.

This makes no sense. Jesus died bodily, and that is all. He is still quite "alive" in heaven.

How, exactly, is it a sacrifice to give up that which will be immediately replaced with something better? Can I call myself a selfless person for giving away my $300 guitar if I know I'll get a $3000 guitar for doing so?

Seems relatively selfish to me.

JerryM · 04-22-2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
God created humans out of love. He wanted people to have a relationship with Him and share in His wonders. He wanted people that He could love, and they could free willingly love Him back in return.

On a deeper level, this really doesn't answer the question. God is supposed to be utterly perfect in every way. A perfect entity should be totally complete in and of itself. There is no logical reason why a perfect being should want or need to do anything, let alone create an entire universe. The very fact of the existence of the universe clearly presents a logical contradiction.

Biff the unclean · 04-22-2003, 09:14 AM

Magus55 Jhn 3:16�

But I didn't ask about the NT, I asked about the OT. We are talking about why God made man and that isn't covered in the NT.
But in the OT God never says that he loves man. He never says he wants us to share a relationship with him�other than a relationship where we feared and obeyed him. He never shows any interest in sharing with us. Never says word one about "free will."
You appear to be worshipping a different God than the one who is the subject of this conversation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-21-2003, 10:23 PM	#22
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Again I ask, where in the OT does God say he wants a "relationship" that ammounts to anything more than us obeying him? Where in the OT does he say that he loves us?

04-22-2003, 12:01 AM	#23
Illithid Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: BF, Texas Posts: 161	Y'know, I have to come partially to M55's defense, here. Hubble head said "You want proof? We got it", seeming to refer both to "No God" and "Humans=evolved monkeys". This seems to claim that there is proof of "no God", which renders burden-of-proof tirades directed at Magus moot. Now the other statement, with due allowance for literary license, does have ample proof, though "evolved apes" would be more accurate. Anyway, I like the Sea Monkey theory. God is a bored fourth-grader, got all enthused about his "build-a-universe" set that he got for his birthday, set it up to run, and now it's sitting forgotten on a shelf in his closet. The other day he took an interest briefly, but that (the entire account of God/man in OT/NT) was just an afternoon to him, now he's playing with his LiteBrite Galaxy in the living room before going to bed. "now YHWH, did you study for your quiz tomorrow? Don't give me that 'omniscient' line, young man!"

04-22-2003, 09:14 AM	#30
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Magus55 Jhn 3:16� But I didn't ask about the NT, I asked about the OT. We are talking about why God made man and that isn't covered in the NT. But in the OT God never says that he loves man. He never says he wants us to share a relationship with him�other than a relationship where we feared and obeyed him. He never shows any interest in sharing with us. Never says word one about "free will." You appear to be worshipping a different God than the one who is the subject of this conversation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.