So where is our and St. Thomas Aquinas’s apology. Let’s hear it. Oh, wait, you probably don’t believe in apologizing because you do no *wrong * because sin doesn’t exist and you believe ONLY in your own personal set of morals. So tell me, does your (probably small) set of morals that you adhere to include apologizing? To anyone?
I am definately happy, Tracy. Sorry to hear that you think staying in a torturous relationship is the right thing to do. I put the happiness of my partner WAY ahead of my own, or an imaginary god. My partner does the same for me (as far as I can tell).
Don’t forget, everyone here can read the post you wont answer, and me speaking callously about an author of fiction from far in the past.
That’s my point. Of course you’re happy because the Devil is making it that way. I have no proof of this; it’s just a theory, but I don’t think you can rule it out completely.
The one thing we have evidence of, through billions of years, is life. Granted evidence of life does not go back to the beginning of this planet but that does not mean life did not exist on other planets before this one. Individual lives may begin and end, yet there is no proof that life itself has a beginning or an end.
A…I’ve read many of your posts and will say I consider you to be an extremely intelligent person…FAR more intelligent than myself, in fact…though, that isn’t saying much!
That was not my impression when I was debating with him!
Ah! maybe that is the explaination!FAR more intelligent than myself, in fact…though, that isn’t saying much!
No, its merely a statement I’m stating.
I said allegory and then “/cultural/linguistic, etc”. I am saying I can understand how it is not to be read as that god ordered it. Reading it in the above mentioned manner is the only way I can partially reconcile so much of it. However, when you have to read a large chunk of the OT in that manner it makes things suspect.
I took your first sentence to mean that God is right in doing whatever he choses (including unnecessary suffering), while the last sentence now refutes that. That’s why I was asking over and over to give a reason why causing a child unnecessary suffering was compatible with the idea of god, and stating the distintinction between killing, and killing coupled with unnecessary suffering. I was thinking you were going to give a different explanation other than allegory/cultural/linguistic/spiritual/etc, which I stated was the only way I was able to partially reconcile it.
We can go nowhere with this line of discussion. I already stated that I can use that to justify any number of things from zeus – it is anti-discussion. I ask that you do not keep bringing this up as fact and justification when I clearly disagree.
Again, we will either need to keep this out of the discussion or agree to disagree on this. I absolutely don’t agree with using this – this cripples an argument from being productive. What is the point of discussing when you say there is no logical way of drawing conclusions?
Truthfully, I don’t know what, if any, would be most productive now that I see we’ve been walking a parallel path in the discussion. Are there any parts of the OT that you feel that god played a significant, active, direct, world-changing part in, i.e., if you would say that god did cause a worldwide flood that killed off all humans except those that were on the boat? Maybe we can go from there, if you think that of a portion that I think needs to be taken as allegory/cultural/spiritual/etc? I do have significant wariness in having to have so much of the OT be read in a certain way. But my larger issues are of the psychology, history, and comparison of religions(biggie); free will vs omnimax god vs god’s actions(biggie); POE; church hierarchy, decrees, and history; miracles/prayer; lack of evidence alongside concept of faith and worship.
Thanks, you as well. I know you’ve spent a lot of time on your posts, and I appreciate the effort.
I credit most of that appearance to the fact that I work hard to not believe - the way that some believe in gravity, or their political party. That kind of ‘intelligence’ is available to everyone.A…I’ve read many of your posts and will say I consider you to be an extremely intelligent person…FAR more intelligent than myself, in fact…though, that isn’t saying much!
I will not be getting it, then. I won’t leap without reason. I don’t understand why anyone would leap, just because it felt good. For me I would need more reason to suspend my critical faculties.
Once again, I didn’t read it right. Great. If I show reluctance to read more of the stuff on this thread, that is why right there. In your first breath, you call me intelligent, then in this one you say I can’t read a simply written chapter correctly. The chapter you mention suggests that it doesn’t matter what god you believe in, as long as you believe in one (but I paraphrase). That doesn’t suggest much that is worthwhile to me. It further suggests that no faith is more correct than any other (since *any * faith will help you through the program). To me, that says that the good feeling you get from believing helps to resist alcohol. It does not suggest that there is a god. It does not say how to tell the real god from an hallucination of the real god.
You ruled out the existence of your god? That, my friend, is another faith position (unless of course you had evidence). I don’t believe. That is the thing that I am having the hardest time gettin people here to understand. I can honestly say that I would not worship Yahweh even if he slapped me himself, but that is because of the rumours about him in the bible, and I would be willing to talk them over with him. Might change my mind, but I wouldn’t just do it because someone said I should. That would be lying.
I am not trying to get faith for myself. I am trying to understand what possesses rational people to suspend rationality in favour of belief without evidence.
What a kind and downright christian thing to say, zerinus.That was not my impression when I was debating with him!
Ah! maybe that is the explaination!
zerinus
Thank you for your contributions thus far, AJ
I hope that one day you regain your ability to read the publications of your church critically.
I have not read the book you mention. I don’t think we need to go to history to see things clearly, either. Look at those countries which are run by churches, and compare them to countries which have secular governments. I offer Nicaragua vs Holland for the moment.(though there are loads of examples) Compare poverty levels, violent crime, and let me know what you discover.
Your self admission that you are “seizing upon anything you say” is evidence that you are twisting things. Take what I said for what it said and why I said it. Attempting to stretch it into more than that is twisting it. We cannot agree that God is not a living God by any stretch of the imagination or by anything that I have stated.
Well, we may have to agree to disagree on what I have pointed out concerning options, our knowledge etc but that is an incredibly important and obvious point in my view. You and I can cite numerous examples in our own lives and experience where we would be unwilling to hazard a guess less draw a conclusion about matters that we know nothing about.
It is clear that my assumption that you were using ‘living’ in the biological sense was incorrect. You meant in the metaphysical sense (or something). I just wanted to point at what I see as another misleading term. You told me that your god was more real than the gods of the pagans because he was the ‘living god’, and so I thought you had evidence of his living. Since you do not, we are back to your god being just as likely to be fiction as those others.