[SeraphimsCherub]

Hey Silent Hunter. I dare you to read G.K. Chersterton's "The Everlasting Man".

[Silent Hunter]

Originally Posted by SeraphimsCherub

Hey Silent Hunter. I dare you to read G.K. Chersterton's "The Everlasting Man".

I've read it and . . . wasn't impressed.

[Joaquin Gough]

absorb

Originally Posted by Herod The Swiss

That's god in a nutshell.

He makes us, allows sin to take effect, gives us a final ultimatum by sending himself to save us on the proviso that failure to accept his works will mean eternal torment...these are the works of a negligent being.

All I see in the bible is wasted opportunity and a god bumbling though an attempt at creation and having to step in when he realises just what an almighty ****-up he made of it all. The saddest part of the story is that he takes it out on his creation rather than manning up and realising his own errors. The impetuous fool.

God works in mysterious ways? Not at all. He works in completely human ways, the construct that he is.

A forceful rendering of some of the more disappointing areas of scripture.

Why this would result in a ban is beyond me.

There are some real conundrums for a Christian to handle before fully resting on faith. This one of them.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by Joaquin Gough

absorb

A forceful rendering of some of the more disappointing areas of scripture.

Rather, a sophomoric, contextually clueless bit of posturing even sans profanity.

Why this would result in a ban is beyond me.

You should probably read through the rules you've agreed to abide by when participating here. It would make this less of a shock than Andrew Luck's draft selection.

There are some real conundrums for a Christian to handle before fully resting on faith. This one of them.

I think there are challenging questions for the faithful to address and understand. I don't think he advanced much in that regard beyond animus.

[Joaquin Gough]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Rather, a sophomoric, contextually clueless bit of posturing even sans profanity.


You should probably read through the rules you've agreed to abide by when participating here. It would make this less of a shock than Andrew Luck's draft selection.


I think there are challenging questions for the faithful to address and understand. I don't think he advanced much in that regard beyond animus.

I think the kernel of an argument against the biblical god is clearly made when the bluster is reduced to an acceptable level. Whatever way a Christian wants to dress up the origins of sin and the need for salvation, the core of the process accepted by orthodox Christianity requires the logic organ be switched off. If it isn't, the salvation story reads like the most fantastical contortionism possible, and if that whole process stems from an all-powerful, all-knowing God, it shows huge gaps in judgment and execution.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by Joaquin Gough

I think the kernel of an argument against the biblical god is clearly made when the bluster is reduced to an acceptable level. Whatever way a Christian wants to dress up the origins of sin and the need for salvation, the core of the process accepted by orthodox Christianity requires the logic organ be switched off.

Sorry, but I was a rationalist/atheist for nearly thirty years and all you've done here is repackage the same declarations. And it's nonsense. Within the context of the Bible and the God it speaks to, whatever you think of that context, the issues an atheist frames are answerable and without resorting to irrational platitudes. Your problem isn't with the rationality or irrationality of it, but the context itself. Most serious and sustained religious thought, Christian or otherwise, has an intelligent and consistent approach to it. Attempting to reduce the argument as you do here is both pointless and errant.

If it isn't, the salvation story reads like the most fantastical contortionism possible, and if that whole process stems from an all-powerful, all-knowing God, it shows huge gaps in judgment and execution.

Supra. You're advancing a portrait of bias, not argument. But at least you're doing it within the spirit of the rules. The want of even that much was HTS' undoing.

[Joaquin Gough]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Sorry, but I was a rationalist/atheist for nearly thirty years and all you've done here is repackage the same declarations. And it's nonsense. Within the context of the Bible and the God it speaks to, whatever you think of that context, the issues an atheist frames are answerable and without resorting to irrational platitudes. Your problem isn't with the rationality or irrationality of it, but the context itself. Most serious and sustained religious thought, Christian or otherwise, has an intelligent and consistent approach to it. Attempting to reduce the argument as you do here is both pointless and errant.


Supra. You're advancing a portrait of bias, not argument. But at least you're doing it within the spirit of the rules. The want of even that much was HTS' undoing.

But to build on Herod's points - which do have some validity despite the phrasing - there is one question that naturally follows: what is the point of Jesus? Or rather, what would have been the pointof Jesus IF SIN NEVER HAPPENED. Of course, it did, and for the narrative of the bible story, that is the money-maker, tying together all the loose ends. Which is where suspicion creeps in, because it's all a little TOO tidy. Maybe the whole process, assuming it even happened (which of course I don't), needed the sort of foresight to create the creator in the first instance (firstborn, etc) to deal with the preordained fall experiment that God put in motion.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by Joaquin Gough

But to build on Herod's points - which do have some validity despite the phrasing - there is one question that naturally follows: what is the point of Jesus?

To live the life you do not, demonstrating the righteousness of our judgment and separation, then to meet the justice of God and through his sacrifice allow the reconciliation of man and God.

Or rather, what would have been the pointof Jesus IF SIN NEVER HAPPENED.

What's the point of the question since it did?

Of course, it did, and for the narrative of the bible story, that is the money-maker, tying together all the loose ends. Which is where suspicion creeps in, because it's all a little TOO tidy.

So is causality.

Maybe the whole process, assuming it even happened (which of course I don't),

Right. You assume it didn't.

needed the sort of foresight to create the creator in the first instance (firstborn, etc) to deal with the preordained fall experiment that God put in motion.

Or, the majority of humanity since its beginnings are right and there's more to you than happenstance.

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by Joaquin Gough

and if that whole process stems from an all-powerful, all-knowing God

It doesn't. God is only all powerful in the sense that He is the original power. But in this context since He has given power to many of His creations, God is not currently all powerful.

God only knows what is possible to know. I suspect you mean by "all-knowing" a God that knows the future exhaustively. Is that right? The future is impossible to know exhaustively.

[freelight]

Originally Posted by Herod The Swiss

That's god in a nutshell.

No matter our 'concept' of 'God', we ought be careful before we put 'Him', 'Her' or 'It' in a 'box'

'Infinity' is kinda hard to 'shell' as it is

He makes us, allows sin to take effect, gives us a final ultimatum by sending himself to save us on the proviso that failure to accept his works will mean eternal torment...these are the works of a negligent being.

We've dealt with the 'insanity' of the 'eternal hell' doctrine elsewhere. On that point we might agree.

All I see in the bible is wasted opportunity and a god bumbling though an attempt at creation and having to step in when he realises just what an almighty ****-up he made of it all. The saddest part of the story is that he takes it out on his creation rather than manning up and realising his own errors. The impetuous fool.

Ouch. I suppose its all how we 'envision' God, let alone what 'God' might actually BE. Our 'image' of 'God' however could be more or less our own creation.

God works in mysterious ways?

We use that saying only when somethings are beyond knowing

Not at all. He works in completely human ways, the construct that he is.

And that logically so, since the human mind often conceives and imagines a 'God' that is most probable or convenient to itself.

However, there is a reality that is prior to any conception or mental construct whatsoever, existing as What is (reality itself). This original source-condition from which existence itself springs, is even before any god-concept or 'form'. Absolute Reality itself, is before all relativity-concepts as what is eternally and infinitely 'original'. That reality is absolute.

As far as a 'god' being 'needy', 'confused' or 'negligent', ...such would be a 'god' of man's making since it is flawed, egotistical, imperfect. In the world of concepts, the play of duality,.....concepts are posed against other concepts, and so many 'images' of 'God' enter the play of mind. When all these 'images' fade or are surrendered...there is only that crystal clarity of awareness subsisting in which all these images come and go. That which is prior to all these forms...is the original reality. In this case, 'Real God' is not at all what we imagine or think.


pj

[zippy2006]

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

I've read it and . . . wasn't impressed.

Who are you trying to kid?

[Silent Hunter]

Originally Posted by zippy2006

Who are you trying to kid?

What are you trying to say?

[zippy2006]

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

What are you trying to say?

Every time someone says, "You ought to read x," you say "I've read it and . . . wasn't impressed." It's simply not true that you've read all of the various books that people propose to you.