David Mathews

Hello Answerer,

David: If you would like to argue about that interpretation of the creation account, I will answer that interpretation in this manner:

God owns humankind and therefore God can do anything He wishes to us, including making us mortal, and allowing us to suffer & experience sorrows. God can kill us, if He wishes; and He can make us alive again, if He wishes. God can do all of these things to us, without our approval or permission.

God can make us wealthy, and God can take away all of our wealth. God can allow us to live in peace, or God can bring war and devestation to us. God can allow nature to sustain us, or God can bring upon us natural devestation by volcanoes, hurricanes, or earthquakes. God can make us healthy, and God can make us sick. God can do all of these things, and many others, without our approval or permission.

Humans cannot really complain about God doing so, either. I killed several ants a few days ago just because I didn't want them in my place, I ate some yogurt and brought millions of bacteria to their death, I eat plants and the meat from dead animals. Humans do whatever they wish to these life forms, without their approval or permission.

If humans can act in that manner to all sorts of life forms, God can act in the same manner toward humans. God owns us, God will do whatever He wishes to us. God will do it whether we approve or not, as He does not need our permission to do so.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Goliath

David Mathews,

Unproven assertion. Hell, you didn't even bother to support it.

Although only proof will suffice, do you even have any *evidence* to back up your above assertion?

Sincerely,

Goliath

queue

Hello David,

This will be my last post in this discussion since (it appears to me) that you have your hands full with rainbow walking (and others) and I do not wish distract you from their discussion points.

I doubt that who these people were as individuals have been forgotten. There are currently people who study the lives of these individuals and know quite a bit (considerably more than I know) about who these people were as individuals.

I did bring this up because you had responded to rainbow walking that "all human accomplishments are forgotten." I was giving examples where the human accomplishments were not forgotten. Their ideas and accomplishments have been remembered for centuries and will probably be remembered as long as humans survive.

Okay, I am confused again. You had stated that rainbow walking's portayal of religion as a narcotic and an intoxicant was incorrect, then rainbow walking asked you to prove that religion was not a narcotic and and intoxicant, then you stated that there were approximately 4 billion theists. I did not see how this showed that religion was not a narcotic and an intoxicant, so I asked how this proved that religion was not a narcotic and an intoxicant, then you posted the above quote.

For the record, I do realize the theists currently live and die just like atheitsts (the theists just believe in a god that can intervene in their lives). How does this prove that religion is not a narcotic and an intoxicant?

If the other religions (some which were polytheistic) did not get this correct, how do you know that you have this correct? Could it be that a different god created humans, but your god killed that god? Or that multiple gods were involved in creating humans? Or that no gods were involved in creating humans?

So in other words, How do you know that without your deity mankind would not exist?

Thank you for your time.

John Page

David:

This thread is about you and the existence of god. I'm not wishing to debate whether the death penalty is right or wrong - that's a moral debate. I just want to know whether you support the death penalty (for the specific crime of premeditated murder I defined earlier).

This will help me determine whether, measured against conventional christian wisdom, you are a christian or not. If not, I'm interested in your interpretation of the bible for your moral compass.

You continued willful avoidance of answering specific questions relevant to the topic thread appears disingenuous and IMO less than christian. I am happy to share my beliefs with you and explain why I believe what I believe.

I am looking forward to receiving a response, for the third time of asking - do you wish to deny your faith for the third time of asking, like Peter the Rock?

Cheers, John

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

HelenM

David,, this is an interestingly conservative piece of theology...

God, so as not to be a hypocrite, presumably wouldn't treat us worse than He expects us to treat each other...

And, of course He wouldn't abuse His power over us, would He?

So don't those things somewhat limit his options to less than doing whatever He wants with us?

Or is it that what He wants is limited by His character so, His doing whatever He wants is not the horrific thing that we see when a human obtains power over other humans and then does whatever he/she wants with them?

love
Helen

Zippy

Er - how do you know? I think it's very, very likely that eternal life is possible (note - possible, not necessarily desirable). Why wouldn't it be? Once we fully understand every aspect of the human body, it should be relatively easy to halt the aging process (or at least create humans that do not age past a certain point).

Paul

lpetrich

Does not seem like very much faith in the existence of Heaven.

Why not ask your parents why they produced you? After all, you didn't pop into existence out of nowhere.

And one can always create a purpose for oneself.

Thus, Heaven is not worth going to.

Except that many more things were considered to have had supernatural causes in centuries past. Malicious sorcery has been a very widespread fear, but I don't think that many present-day people lose much sleep over the prospect that someone had placed a hex on them. Lunar and solar eclipses were widely blamed on the machinations of sorcerers or monsters rrying to eat those objects. Demonic possession was widely believed to be a cause of disease; in the Bible, Jesus Christ had been an exorcist.

Lightning had long been blamed on gods or devils; in early modern times, ringing church bells was thought to be a good way to repel lightning -- even though it resulted in many bell-ringers getting struck by lightning. And even after Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod, it took a few decades before they become really widespread on churches.

However, there were occasional notes of rationalism, like Hippocrates commenting that epilepsy is called the disease of the Gods because nobody knows what really causes it.

Ah, the god who runs away and hides.

The early-modern-times ones would have had to profess that, or else their careers would have been seriously endangered. And I wonder if Copernicus and Galileo make DM want to convert to Catholicism, or Brahe and Kepler make DM want to convert to Lutheranism or Bacon and Newton make DM want to convert to Episcopalianism.

Also, Galileo had expressed what Stephen Jay Gould had called Non-Overlapping Magisteria, and Newton rejected the Trinity.

And let us not forget about their Greek predecessors, who had been Hellenic pagans, at least nominally. I wonder if that makes DM want to convert to Hellenic paganism. Simply read the original Hippocratic Oath -- some Hellenic paganism in it right there.

Why not?

Again, the god who hides.

Yet again, the god who hides.

This reminds me of the argument of some Muslim apologists that Mohammed had not worked any miracles.

That's pure idiocy. All one has to do is expound on appropriate general principles. Like the circulation of the blood. Or the brain being the seat of the mind. Etc.

However, it took centuries to solve them, when it would have been easy to reveal the answers in the first place.

Or create Heaven

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

wordsmyth

Not only do texts of various religions differ in their description of God(s), but also in the manner in which he/she/it is to be worshipped.

Other important differences include...
Number of Gods
Manner in which God(s) are to be worshipped
Origin of the Universe
Origin of life
After-life?

If you view descriptions of God(s) from other religious texts as merely differing descriptions of the same God, then you must also believe the answers to the above questions vary from religion to religion for the same reason of human diversity. In this case, how do you qualify the xian texts as more valid in answering these questions accurately than the texts and beliefs of other religions?

Answerer

Thanks for answering my questions finally, so far, based on what you said, Your God is clearly having an unreasonable and unpredictable character, this is not surprising if He break his promises to his 'faithful' in the future. Even if he do exist, there is no point in worshipping Him.
By the way, David, God don't own me regardless of how you think, He owns you including your whatever beliefs that you have.

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Answerer ]</p>

David Mathews

Hello Goliath,

If you read the writings of Joseph Campbell you would know exactly what I am talking about.

Sincerely,

David Mathews