advancedatheist

I wonder why Abrahamic theists insist on conflating the alleged "Designer" god with the one who nags us about keeping our pants on. It seems as if the two postulated entities operate according to entirely different principles, which may account for the disjunction between the Is-world and the Ought-world argued by David Hume.

Even one of the prophets in the OT discovered that his god wasn't in the whirlwind and other natural phenomena, despite all the ID propaganda we're seeing these days, but rather in the "still small voice," apparently of what we call the conscience. Maybe the nagger god judges people after death, but when people ask why it created the physical universe in such-and-such a way, it responds, "Hey, why ask me? It was this way when I found it."

kaelcarp

It seems to me that the Abrahamic tradition simply brought together a bunch of gods under one name. Well, initially under one name, but that's where they ended up. Satan takes on properties of a trickster god sometimes, but one that hangs out with Yahweh and has some fun (like in Job), but mostly, it seems like they just took all the old stories that probably had different gods doing different things and assigned them all to Yahewh, hence the contradictory - ahem, I mean "mysterious" - nature of God.

Albert Cipriani

Your interpretation of that most profound passage is askew. The phrase is ambiguous at best, and should probably be translated as a “gentle breeze.�? In which case, your natural vs. personal construct is demolished, as the difference between a whirlwind and gentle breeze is one of degree not of substance.

The more intellectually and theologically provocative interpretation is that this is just one more example of God calling us sheep, the dumbest of dumb mammals. That is, those who look for wonders, who expect to see God in displays of power will look in vain. Just as creation is consistently NOT how it seems (e.g., the sun doesn’t rise, the quantum world is discontinuous) to us or as we would expect, so too, its Creator is not.

That’s why most atheists have rejected the same god that most theists accept and which bears no resemblance to the real thing. Mostly, what masquerades as god is but a puppet pulled along by the father of lies. But the Catholic God is as subtle and profound as Elisa’s gentle breeze. – Cheers, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

John A. Broussard

This is definitely the best way to treat scripture. If it doesn't fit a preconceived notion, than the translation is probably wrong. So much for divine inspiration,

Albert Cipriani

Sarcasm does not become you. As a Catholic, I am not responsible for the many poorly translated Protestant versions of the Bible. I have no preconceived notions.

My critical interpretations of the Bible are based upon the 4th century Vulgate version of the Bible, which, if memory serves, refers to the emination of God as a gentle wind, not a soft voice. -- Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

John A. Broussard

I said absolutely nothing about "Protestant versions." What I am saying is that you have simply and arbitrarily rewritten what you insist is divinely inspired writing. No sarcasm is intended here.

jonesg

I think it would be better to focus on this point instead,

"That’s why most atheists have rejected the same god that most theists accept and which bears no resemblance to the real thing."

When I read an atheists rejection of God,
I look at the specific concept which they are rejecting.
And I wouldn't believe in their concept of God either.

jankin

Which this book

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

"The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image" discredits as the editings of a sex-negative theological fascist (the author's image, not mine).

Now the reviews for that book on the Amazon site are almost as fascinating as the book itself (I'm currently eading it).

- jankin

John A. Broussard

I reject god for the same reason I reject unicorns.

Albert Cipriani

Give that man the prize for this month's most meaningless post.

One ought to have a reason for whatever one rejects or accepts. The reason for rejecting something cannot be the reason for rejecting something else. So your reason for rejecting God remains as mysterious as God Himself.

But if you are as most, you reject unicorns for the same reason you would have accepted unicorns 500 years ago... everyone else. It's the herd instinct to conform. Yes, I know, peer pressure is not a reason. But that's the best rational face I can put on your faceless irrational rejection. -- Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic