Albert Cipriani

Gee Tercel;.
Just cuz I transposed two letters in your handle is no reason to consider me discourteous or my theology suspect. I suspect you’re overly sensitive because you’ve been gloved in ideology too long and have not aired out your thoughts enough in the light of day.

I argue against Jobar’s notion which I assume he got from you that “a creator deity could allow or create forces BEYOND HIS OWN CONTROL.” I argue against your notion that our free will is a force that functions independently of or even against God’s will. Our free will is not a force. It is only a value judgment that conforms to reality (God’s will) or conforms to lies. Like a thermal, it either carries aloft an eagle or dust.

For example, the ballplayer who hits a grand slam only controls the ball, not the reaction of the people in the stands. Some people stand and cheer. Others curse. It’s their choice. It’s not their force. It’s not an act that in any way conflicts with the ballplayer or the ball. We can either be awed by creation and show our appreciation to its Creator or be awed by creation and not show our appreciation to its Creator. Either way, we are only revealing ourselves, not acting independently of God or against God.

You correctly, if not a bit overdramatically state: Your problem with my perspective arises from you confusing the suffering of pain with the suffering of evil. Your affliction makes you vulnerable, if you were only consistent, to the accusation that the Christian God is an evil God for did He not will that His only begotten Son suffer an unspeakably painful death? If unjust suffering is to be equated with evil, then why do we call the day our Lord suffered unjustly “Good Friday”?

God is directly responsible for all actions, period. The acts that are good or evil are made so not in and of themselves, not because of their painful or pleasurable consequences, but because of our moral attitudes, our value judgments, our free will decisions that accompany what God does. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

K

If that is the case, then "outside" of time wouldn't actually mean "outside" of time. Just as 3-dimensional doesn't mean outside of space. If that's the case, then "outside of time" doesn't buy God anything since He's still subject to all of the constraints He would be if He existed "in" time.

But that's not what we observe from the character Jesus. He was just as temporal as anyone else (obviously assuming He actually existed). That is hardly existing "outside" of time. Unless outside is defined to mean within.

Answerer

A cartoonist, is it. Well, I think maybe God(if He existed) would have used his power as a pencil to draw out an universe. Nevertheless, since the universe was a part of his power before and I don't think He will remain unaffected by it. Although It may be true that He could be living in higher dimensional plane and even look clearly at what is going around us, the lesser beings, this doesn't mean that He is away from the full effects of spacetime as we are(and so is the two-dimensional cartoon as well).

Albert Cipriani

K says:
Bingo! Give that man another gumdrop. Notice that I put “outside” in quotation marks because it wasn’t my term but yours, and quotation marks are a means of indicating a term’s speciousness.

If you must remain captive to your dichotomous ways, think of God as being inside everything rather than outside of everything. Both views are absurd, so neither should present any difficulty for you. Just whatever you do think, don’t think that I think that God is outside of anything. – Albert the Traditional Catholic

Fiach

I have no shame discussing imaginary entities with rhetorical answers. I do the same with God, Bigfoot, Nessie, Green Saucer men, Leprechauns, ESP, Telekinesis, and other rubbish beliefs.

Fiach

Fiach

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
[B]K says:


Bingo! Give that man another gumdrop. Notice that I put “outside” in quotation marks because it wasn’t my term but yours, and quotation marks are a means of indicating a term’s speciousness.

[deleted insult] Speciousness because it didn't fit your narrow minded view. I don't agree with him either, but you come across as a self-important blow hard.

If you must remain captive to your dichotomous ways,

What a bag of hot air! What do you do have a fancy dictionary word of the day? Dichotomous, eh? Damn your really think you are so bloody fecking smart. [deleted insult]

think of God as being inside everything rather than outside of everything.

Why not neither, because God is purely hypothetical. God exists alright, in the limbic brain circuits of those so hard wired and programmed.

Both views are absurd, so neither should present any difficulty for you. Just whatever you do think, don’t think that I think that God is outside of anything.

Where is an idea located, inside or outside? Neither, they are not located in any one place, but in a complex electrical circuit with multiple synapses, a rather large proportion of the brain cortex, no individual component has the concept, idea, or God.

Albert the Traditional Catholic

Traditonal Catholic? [deleted comment]?
Just joking, of course I really don't know for sure, I'll keep my sons away just to be safe.

You use a rather famous Italian name, I assume you borrowed it, because some of the famous ones were bright chaps.

Fiach

[Let's play nice people - Wyz_sub10]

Fiach

Cipriani cyber-orates:

Trecel’s doubts not withstanding, God is personally involved with every aspect of every speck of the universe.

Unsupported assumption with no evidence, and from a practical point of view, rather ludicrous, superstitious rubbish.

Even if the Bible did not say as much, we would know this from natural law.

What you call Natural Law is an arbitrary, subjective piece of Catholic bullshite.

When we misuse the universe to sin, we do not cause God to sin, as Trecel supposes, because sin subsists in our moral dimension, not in the universe’s physical dimensions.

Sin is in our moral dimension. What the hell is that? Sounds like more of your bollocks, unless you mean by moral dimension, the brain circuitry of concepts and associations. I consider that part of the universe's physical dimensions. I don't think that anything else exists unless someone proves it to me. And I know you are not up to that challenge.

To put it another way, Catholic theology distinguishes between material and formal reality. Ergo, God participates in our sins only materially, not formally.

That is the most irrational statement you have made so far. That makes no fecking sense. What a gobshite!

There is no moral dimension to such participation as there is no moral dimension to the bullet that accomplishes the sinner’s will. Of every sinful act, 99.9% of it is good. It’s just that 0.1% consisting of our evil will that renders our good acts sinful.

Ok, I get it. This is all a big joke and you entertain at parties with double talk, and your thesaurus of fancy words.

For example, there is no sin in a tornado that kills children. But if a mad scientist seeded clouds to create a tornado in order to unjustly kill children, that would be sinful.

Dog Dammit, you actually made sense for the first time since I have been reading your barmy gabberloony. What happened? Did you have a seizure?

It’s not in the tornado nor its consequences that sin resides, but only in the will of the being responsible for both. When God creates tornadoes to kills innocent children He is merely taking back what He gave and has every right to take. It is no violation of justice and hence not a sin.

No if God wills evil then God is evil, assuming for argument sake only, that he exists.

Jobar writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to discuss just how it might be that a creator deity could allow or create forces beyond his own control. I think there are difficulties with this concept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer to Jobar: You are assuming a deity of Judaic-Christian perfection and omnipresence and all of that rubbish. But a creator further undefined may not be an interfering being. He/she/it may be the Deistic God. He creates and lets it roll. Or creation is an unconscious, non-cognitive force, that original creator ceases with his creation and things happen due to natural physical laws. There are difficulties but they relate to the definition of creator. Not all definitions need by the Christian one.


The difficulties are insurmountable.

It is not so, with a rational mind processing the data.

Any theist who believes that God could create that which He cannot control is a theist in name only.

In your narrow minded Catholic view only.

That God chooses -- more or less -- not to control our will is our great opportunity to participate in His being by doing His will and becoming God-like.

God-like? Crikey, so that is your mindset. You think you are God-like. Nobody ever accused you of humility, eh?

We are all God-like in the static sense that we are created in His image, as Satan was.

Satan I can buy for you. I'm kidding. I think that it is reversed. We are not God-like, that is the epitome of narcissism and grandiosity. Man made God in Man's own image and likeness. It is God who is human-like. Face it, God, your god, has jealousy, capriciousness, anger, hate, cruelty, vindictiveness, injustice, narcissism and need for worship, and fits of homicidal rage. He is just a big bad criminally insane cosmic monster. And he is patterned off of the worst in humanity.

It is by actively participating in His will that we are God’s moving, breathing, living shadow as opposed to His silhouette in a cheap frame hanging in His parlor.

I think it is more that God is your shadow.

– Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Stop scaring children with that traditional Catholic rubbish.

Fiach

Albert Cipriani

My My Fiach,
You sound very young. That’s not a bad thing (unless you are very old). So much passion and all those expletives deleted, I kinda admire that. Like a lot of fireworks that have no chance of sinking the enemy’s ships, your words display, nonetheless, a kind of beauty.

Have you seen the film, “End of the Affair.” I highly recommend it. You remind of the atheist in it, disbelieving in God from start to finish, and angry at Him just the same. Paradoxical. Oops. I inadvertently used one of those big words. Damn, I just did it again with “inadvertently.” My, it’s hard to dialogue with you. I’ll try again: The film is like really interesting. There, that sentence should give no trouble to your synapses.

Contrary to your claims, I’ve never used a thesaurus. I hate them. But I don’t hate you. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic, Who Sometimes Sounds Smug When He Is Actually Only Bored

7thangel

I cannot fathom this argument. By what power and force will created things act or moved except through the visible and invisible charateristics being ordained of God to each created thing? It must be that a thing becomes a creator itself when it, by its own power, creates outside from the powers and forces ordained of God. And if we have power of our own, why it be limited, and be called free will? If such will is contained, or limited, there should be other powers and forces acting on it to be limited and not free.

With the above notes, I should conclude that only a perfect being can have a free will. And I guess free will is attributed only to God.

As a Christian, I believe God created ALL things, VISIBLE and INVISIBLE. The word ALL speaks of even the very things we presume came from our very own abilities, which abilities are by the way God-given.

Hawkingfan

Yes, I agree...the idea of God is absurd.