HelenM

The Bible uses that word 'worship', for other gods, though, Albert:

Whatever point you're making seems not to have been known by the Bible authors?!

No offense...

love
Helen

Automaton

Albert, good post, but I think you missed some key points in my original that I'd like to hear you address.
[Emphasis mine.] How can a non-temporal platform be a temporal dimension? The dimensions are intertwined, an entity cannot exist solely in say, the time dimension, or the second spatial dimension. One entails the other. Do you believe God exists in the three spatial and the "other" temporal dimension as well?
I also appreciate the logical impossibility of God being able to cause anything without time. Causes-effect relationships require both the cause and the effect to change states. Change requires time.
So are you trying to say that anything eternal can be the Unmoved Mover? What about about an eternal pre-universe system?
What nonsense. That's like claiming that if a fossilized animal was found in the wrong strata, it is not really found in the wrong strata, and all fossils are indeed in the right strata. If there is "no doubt" of everything (well, except X, Y and Z) requiring a cause, you should be able to establish this a priori. I'm waiting... Or if it is evidential (which it is), you cannot simply assert the falsity of a piece of evidence that is contrary, without giving reasons why it is false. That your brain is hard-wired to accept cause-effect relationships in everyday life is no excuse for making baseless assertions.
Actually, you didn't get the point of my statement (which is probably my fault, for not being a very good writer.) I was not claiming that the Unmoved Mover argument itself is invalid because it is inferential, however I was claiming that about the part on "causes always", which masquerades as an a priori axiom, when it is merely an observation which has been falsified by other observations. I do indeed accept that inferential arguments are valid in determining God's existence.
Your original claim, I believe (you tend to be vague on these things) was that bad morals created disorder. Now you're saying bad morals simply begat disordered morals. This makes no sense to me. I have no idea what a "disordered moral" is, but it appears to be, either a tautology (perhaps you mean disordered is the same as bad), or wrong, if you think morals can become disorganized in the same way a filing cabinet can. Hitler very organized and systematic in his "ethical" thought (an impression which can easily be gained by reading Mein Kampf.)
Well, I'll thank him when a potential cure for AIDs becomes obsolete due to the virus becoming resistant to it, and all those people in third-world Africa will have to continue suffering because of it. The Original Sin argument won't work either, as you stated all the mutations were preordained at the big bang... God doomed many of us to die horribly and slowly right from the start, regardless of "sin".

Technos

But your ultimate position in the above discussions with other Atheist holds that you credit it all to some god, as a uncaused cause and divine designer. "God did it" is just a more simplified way of summing up your apparent stance. Or do you mean to say you don't believe that a "god did it?" If you agree that the universe is a natural thing with a natural cause, if a cause is needed, then why argue from the stance that a god made it all?

PS: Why argue for a first cause deity figure if you don't believe in one (which you clearly do ) If I am wrong then I apologize, but you really seem to imply that your god created the universe, which would amount to saying "god did it" and then trying to use first cause arguments to justify your assertion.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Technos ]</p>

Technos

Hmm, what can we think of right off hand that can not be created nor destroyed? Let's see, such a tough one, something natural and eternal and unthinking... Let's see, could it be, hmmm, I don't know, maybe Energy?

jj

I've heard this curious definition of worship before. It is not, as far as I can tell, supported biblically at all, it seems to exist to allow people to equate Satan Worshippers (who pay homage to Satan) with people like Wiccans (who don't even have a concept of an evil deity) and Atheists, who don't worship much of anything.

So keep your eyes peeled. I've had someone try to pull that one on me a few times already.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Helen,


The Bible also uses the word "jealous" (a sin) to describe a sinless God. "Vengeance" is also a sin; yet the Bible tells us that God told us: "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord."

Ergo, some moral percepts applicable to us are not applicable to God, for rank has its privileges.



By quoting this passage, you mean to prove that man can worship false gods because the Bible says he can. That is a semantic argument.

The Bible does not confirm that men are capable of worshiping false gods simply because the semantic expression to that defect can be found in the Bible. The Bible here is merely attesting to the fact that men act as if they worship God and act as if they worship false gods. From God's privileged perspective, those acts are acts of worship when directed toward Him and are sinful violations of the first commandment when directed away from Him. 1 act = 2 realties.

The reality of every conscious act is twofold: objective and subjective. We are privy to only the objective aspect of worship. So one day a priest may celebrate Mass and it is worship. Another day that same priest may celebrate Mass in the same way and it is a sin, for he did it while in a state of moral sin. Likewise, Satanists may believe they are worshiping Satan because their black mass looks a lot like a Catholic Mass, but from God's and the devil's perspective, those "worshipers" are merely being subservient and paying obeisance to a false god.

Worship, by definition, can be paid to God alone. We can try to pay it to anything we want, but all we will succeed in doing is objectively worshiping and subjectively committing sacrilege. This is a theological truism synonymous to the financial truism that our debt can only be paid to our creditor.

Worship, like any other gift, involves both a giver and a receiver. It cannot be conceived of as the isolated singular action of the giver. God, because of His nature, is the only recipient worthy of and capable of receiving the gift of worship. Given to any body, figure, or entity other than God, and worship is destructive to the giver and the receiver. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

David Gould

Albert,

In your second last paragraph I think you have switched subjectivly and objectively, or do I have the idea wrong?

I think you meant to say "subjectively worshipping and objectively committing sacrilege"

Please correct me if I am wrong.

99Percent

Albert Cipriani: The reality of every conscious act is twofold

Speaking of reality, we seriously need a reality check here...

The Bible also uses the word "jealous" (a sin) to describe a sinless God. "Vengeance" is also a sin; yet the Bible tells us that God told us: "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord."

Yeah, make a reality check and you will objectively realize that the bible is full of contradictions.

Ergo, some moral percepts applicable to us are not applicable to God, for rank has its privileges.

How convenient. Your "Lord" is exempt from logic.

That is a semantic argument.

Everything in the bible is semantic because it is written, what a convenient loophole eh?

So one day a priest may celebrate Mass and it is worship. Another day that same priest may celebrate Mass in the same way and it is a sin, for he did it while in a state of moral sin.

But isn't everyone in a state of moral sin all the time by the bibles teaching that all humans are sinful by nature? So by your own admission all Mass celebrations are always a sin, regardless. So by your own theological logic, worshipping is any form a waste of time, in mass or individually.

Likewise, Satanists may believe they are worshiping Satan because their black mass looks a lot like a Catholic Mass, but from God's and the devil's perspective, those "worshipers" are merely being subservient and paying obeisance to a false god.

Subjectively (is there really an objective way to look at this?) each worshipper is faithful to their worshipping idol. So?

Worship, by definition, can be paid to God alone.

By your subjective definition. For an atheist "god" is irrelevant.

We can try to pay it to anything we want, but all we will succeed in doing is objectively worshiping and subjectively committing sacrilege.

How can "worshipping" be objective in the first place? Worshipping is a feeling, an attitude, a subservience, a blinding of logic, a shut off of reality. There is nothing objective in worshipping, even by your own theistic standards, worshipping has to be faith, a shut off of reason and doubt.

This is a theological truism synonymous to the financial truism that our debt can only be paid to our creditor.

"Our" creditor? Give me a break. By admitting that you owe some imaginary debt to a "someone" that does not even exist you are demostrating a serious lack of self esteem. In short you feel worthless.

Worship, like any other gift,

A "gift"? A freaking "gift"? Man this is absurd. Worshipping is a symptom of downright brainwashing. You worship in lack of self esteem to demostrate your own worthlessness, in a pathetic attempt to feel a worth for yourself in some humble way. Worship is a waste of time, valuable time, because your life is limited. This is the reality check I am talking about.

Albert Cipriani

Dear David,
Tho I'm a bit dyslectic, I'm not this time.

Your second take is predicated upon the near idol-worship status we pay science, such that the scientific word "objective" has almost become synonymous with fact or truth while the non-scientific word "subjective" has become code for fanciful nonsense.

In truth, pagans do not worship. But this is a subjective truth not an objective truth because objectively and exteriorly the pagan is truly bowing down and truly doing all the things one can objectively and exteriorly do to express worship. The interior subjective action, that is, the object of the exterior objective action is where the deficiency lies.

Imagine engaging in the Zen-like meditative exercise of archery. This is a objectively good (builds strength) and subjectively good (builds patience) and wholesome pastime. Now let's say a child ran in front of your bulls-eye just as you released.

The dead kid would render your objectively and subjectively good action into an objectively bad action for which you were objectively, but not subjectively, responsible. Conversely, a pagan bowing down to a false god is objectively and exteriorly no different that a Catholic bowing down before the Real Presence, but subjectively the Catholic's bow reaches the target. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

David Gould

Okay, I understand - from an external perspective they are seen to be worshipping, but they are not from an internal perspective.

I was thinking of it more from the idea of God watching/listening. Subjectively, the person believes they are worshipping but the object of their worship does not in fact exist. God can objectively see that they are not in fact worshipping anything at all but simply being blasphemous.

But i think I get your point.

Thanks.