sotto voce

God is to life what syphilis is to extra-marital sex.

QED

Chili

But the papacy has nothing to do with that. It was and still is Jewish myth and it was by their own law, and their own law only that they crucified him: "We have our own law," the Jews responded, " and according to that law he must die because he made himself God's Son." (John 19:7).

What you guys miss here is that they were doing Jesus a favor because he was God's son and just the Jesus identity must be removed from him to set the Son free and only then will be be Christ.

In the allegory it is much like throwing a self proclaimed Christian in the Thames, and if he truly is a Christian he will be a 'water walker' and so be set free. Remember here that it is a comedy in the glorious divine for which the test is very simple, and all the Inquisitor says is: "show me and you are free."

Iskander

The world of myth is one indivisible reality .In the one world of myth there is no heaven above and there is no earth below but only one continuum of life ruled by the same law and most importantly in the world of myth there is only one reality and that reality is god and everything created by god. And in this one world of myth everything that happens is real and attracts consequences.


For the Papacy the torture of the man-god and his-its murder at the hands of an identifiable human group is real. It is a repugnant story.

WVIncagold

Sow your god punishes the guilty the same as the innocent? You really do worship a vile and despicable despot. By the way your analogy is a difference without a distinction. You just input a legal contract caveat to it. Basically you agreed with the first statement.

Chili

It is a divine comedy par excellence, and repugnant are those who see it otherwise. I know myth very well and also know its counterpart that Seneca wrote, and Machbeth is a pime example of this in England while Coriolanus is divine and that takes place in Rome.

More tragic maybe is that these two plays are written in England by the most celebrated author the world has ever known while in fact it was a slam-dunk against the C of E, where now the proof is in the pudding because he walked away from that and not get quartered by the king instead.

TedM

I was addressing spin's hypothetical creator God. In this context, 'my' God is the creator of all things.


So is any God who creates. Allah would qualify took, for example. But I'm not narrowing it down for this discussion.

spin

Where are the many assumptions exactly?

The process of learning means questioning. If you cannot question then you are little different from a potato. Everything is a target for questioning. There are no exceptions, if learning and understanding are significant. Such limits as those implied in the arrogantly ignorant "who are we to question" response should lead one to living like an Amish, for many of the social and cultural developments we seen in history come from breaking limits. We've done away with slavery despite Eph.6:9; we don't stone children for being refractory as typified in children with ADHD; we don't force women into subservience; we know that as a reflection of reality Gen 1 fails.

Prohibitions against questioning anything are counterproductive and overly protective. You protect what needs protecting, don't you? (Does god need protecting?) Questioning the notion of god is only natural. It's the answers--as with all questions--that need to be weighed.

I have seen your postings here for quite a few years. You've shown little willingness to step outside the realm of the comfortable tendentious questions and ask anything difficult. Whenever you start a thread here it presupposes your religious conclusions. That doesn't give you any hope of learning much, of reaching any new understandings. You come here under false pretenses. We do freethought and rationalism here: question everything (though that might be hard for many here). It's not too late to join in.

TedM

All over the place. Why can't you see them?:

1. That God wouldn't want to create something not 'at his level'
2. That God created us to 'grovel' before him
3. That God would be bored by his creation
4. That God requires or wants intellectual stimulation
5. That God reflects on man's past wars
6. That God views us the way we view ants
7. That God would have to be 'small time' since he created 'stupid' people
8. That God could have and would have preferred to create something more 'fruitful'
9. That God doesn't want or find value in 'mess'.

These assumptions/conclusions reflect your values and judgements -- conceived with a mind that is highly limited in comparison to what the Creator's mind would have to be. Who are you to say that God has the same mind as you?



Sure, question God all you want. See where is really gets you. The answer is nowhere. That's because your mind is too limited to know the real answers. Let me know when you solve the mysteries of life, spin.

The problem I see is that you are applying your judgements, limited as they are, to God himself. You imply that he doesn't exist since he wouldn't do things the way you think he should, or in a way that is 'becoming' to an Intelligent Being. That's a normal way we all perceive and react, but it is not a wise road to go down. It is wiser to not conclude anything since clearly God would have to be way more intelligent than we. It makes no sense to believe we can 'figure out' God. That's true arrogance. "who are we to question" is not 'arrogantly ignorant' as you say. Rather it is 'admittedly humble'.



It's a waste of time when used to form conclusions about why God can't exist by transferring your own values to Him, spin. It's mental masturbation and nothing more..

spin

These are nearly all your own sad projections. Get over it and join the rational world.


You are just so confused. You've converted speculation, questioning, and irony into assumptions.

This reaction has little sense to it. Did I say that god has the same mind as me? I appreciate the pathos, but not your reasoning power.

What means have you to test your assumption?

Again, how would you know? This is sad and demeaning to you.

So?

Green is still green to a person of limited or unlimited mental capacity. If you have problems with what I've said, you should deal with them in a constructive manner, rather than this apparent you don't want to understand so no-one else should either attitude.

You are making no analysis here. You are advocating that it is better to vegetate.

I don't know if god exists, but then I don't think you do either. Given the working understanding we have of god, we have no way to know.

However, if the premises I was working from were correct, you'd agree with me, wouldn't you?

One of the good things about logic is that it is not dictated by intelligence.

That's very contorted, I mean the claim of arrogance. It's true arrogance to bolster your views in mystification. You're right because... well, because you know you're right. No-one can question that.

We have responsibilities as functioning human beings to understand the world in order to interact with it the best we can. Defiantly pleading ignorance is arrogant.

I didn't say god "can't exist". I am not an atheist. I am just attempting to understand this strange god concept that so many people are trying to sell, people who don't seem to have investigated the concept meaningfully.

Ah, the sty of contentment.

aa5874

So who or what is your hypothetical God? "My God" means absolutely nothing if you cannot identify it and what he or it created.

The Stone God is the Creator of all things. Oh My God !!! The Stone God may have created your God.