Crackpot religious ideas

[Gob]

Roger that, by man not God.



So follow God, not man.



Juss sayin'

No, you're not saying anything Lo, that was such a hopelessly bland thing to say , you might as well have said; "Blah, blah, blah..."

[loCAtek]

To you maybe, too bad 4 U.

Your friend, 'stoat' at least contemplates, before he posts.

[loCAtek]

Om-nom-nom...


..i steal yer cokie!



OM!

[Crackpot]

It's been done. Multiple times if you believe the Bible. It's humans ability to follow said instructions that's been the problem.

Then the instructions have not been set out; "in clear and unequivical form that is understood internationally, in all languages and cultures, what he/she/it expects of us."

unequivocal
adjective
1. not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation: an unequivocal indication of assent; unequivocal proof.
2. absolute; unqualified; not subject to conditions or exceptions: The cosigner of a note gives unequivocal assurance that it will be paid when due.

The problem is that the rules of the god of the bible have been set out badly, by man, not by a deity.

No deity worth the name would come up with the bunch of crap that is the bible, and expect anyone to live their lives by it.

Have you ever read the Bible for Doctrine? What's there is pretty clear cut. THe problem is not all that's in the bible is doctrine and it ranges form the simple to the complex issues.

Heck all that's required for "salvation" is the acknowledgment that Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins.

That in itself is not that hard a concept to grasp.

But questions follow.

Why did he have to die to forgive sins?

Hey I can understand my salvation (I'm a great guy after all) but why is that asshole George W. Bush, Jerry Falwell, my next door neighbor Bob, the Pope... who make life so much more difficult for me and the rest of the world also "saved"?

------

Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins.

That's the simple answer if that's what you want. Boiled down it's really that simple. But if you want a complete deconstruction of the human condition well that's what the rest of the Bible is there for.

[Gob]

Have you ever read the Bible for Doctrine? What's there is pretty clear cut. THe problem is not all that's in the bible is doctrine and it ranges form the simple to the complex issues.

Which just goes again to prove that the bible is not set out; "in clear and unequivical form that is understood internationally, in all languages and cultures, what he/she/it expects of us."

You then go on about Jesus etc.

C-P, you know I respect you and like you, so take this as offered.

The whole Jesus thing, if true, is the best example of giving a message badly I can think of.

Why do it then? Why do it that way at all, IT'S SO FUCKING STUPID.

Seriously, if god thinks sending himself down as his son to be born of a virgin so we can kill him so that he will forgive us, to an illiterate society, in the year 33 AD, is the way to get people in 2010 to accept faith, then he really needs to go back to the drawing board.

It's stupid, illogical, counter productive and not worth of a simpleton, let alone an omnipotent deity.

Now then if he had sent down a tablets of rules, say 200 foot high made of burning ice, which, no matter what your language or intellect, when you read them they were clear and concise and unequivocal, lets say about 2000 of them distributed around the world.

Then I'd call him a deity.

[Crackpot]

C-P, you know I respect you and like you, so take this as offered.

The whole Jesus thing, if true, is the best example of giving a message badly I can think of.

Why do it then? Why do it that way at all, IT'S SO FUCKING STUPID.

Seriously, if god thinks sending himself down as his son to be born of a virgin so we can kill him so that he will forgive us, to an illiterate society, in the year 33 AD, is the way to get people in 2010 to accept faith, then he really needs to go back to the drawing board.

It's stupid, illogical, counter productive and not worth of a simpleton, let alone an omnipotent deity.

Err they weren't illiterate. Quite the opposite. That being said it took me over a decade of study for me to suitably answer that problem for myself. A good knowledge of the Bible in general and in depth study of Romans would probably be a good start. Romans itself is a tough read with complex arguments and it also the source of probably 80% of the out of context quotes that shit dogma is based on. (another 15% is from Paul's other writings.)

Note: I had to adjust those numbers downward because I remembered you're familiar with DBA and most of his shit is invented out of near whole cloth. (DBA method: Take any verse, Ignore context, Interpret it in the most hateful way possible and run with it, Repeat)

Ok where was I? Oh yeah Romans. In short it's a long collegiate level dissertation on what Christians believe and why.

Now then if he had sent down a tablets of rules, say 200 foot high made of burning ice, which, no matter what your language or intellect, when you read them they were clear and concise and unequivocal, lets say about 2000 of them distributed around the world.

Then I'd call him a deity.

You ever read Exodus? plagues, miracles, deliverance from bondage, near daily if not daily presence of the deity and what happens? People start worshiping a golden calf.

Miracles simply don't have long term effect. At best they last a generation till people start doubting them at worst people demand more. Either way same result: a constant demand for miracles. The problem with that? It causes God to be a slave to his creation. Can you see the paradox in that?

Incidentally an incident like the one you describe happened at Pentecost (they were speaking and understood by all rather than writing) You know the response of some of the witnesses?

13Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They have had too much wine."

In short in and of themselves miracles are non-starters.

[Gob]

Err they weren't illiterate. Quite the opposite. That being said it took me over a decade of study for me to suitably answer that problem for myself. A good knowledge of the Bible in general and in depth study of Romans would probably be a good start. Romans itself is a tough read with complex arguments and it also the source of probably 80% of the out of context quotes that shit dogma is based on. (another 15% is from Paul's other writings.)

Again, you have been reading a book which has been corrupted and interfered with over 2000 years which was not ever a contemporary report, and have made your own decisions based on your own prejudices. This in no way constitutes a doctrine set out "in clear and unequivocal form that is understood internationally, in all languages and cultures, what he/she/it expects of us."

You ever read Exodus? plagues, miracles, deliverance from bondage, near daily if not daily presence of the deity and what happens? People start worshiping a golden calf.

Thanks that's a fine example of what happens when doctrine is not set out "in clear and unequivocal form that is understood internationally, in all languages and cultures, what he/she/it expects of us."

Miracles simply don't have long term effect. At best they last a generation till people start doubting them at worst people demand more. Either way same result: a constant demand for miracles. The problem with that? It causes God to be a slave to his creation. Can you see the paradox in that?

If they are done properly, see my example, they would. Fallible ancient nonsense set out by man, representing miracles does not. Once, if done properly and permanently would be enough.

I

ncidentally an incident like the one you describe happened at Pentecost (they were speaking and understood by all rather than writing) You know the response of some of the witnesses?

13Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They have had too much wine."

In short in and of themselves miracles are non-starters.

Again, nothing like what I have described was done, and the fact that whatever was done, if anything, failed so badly, is the hallmark of incompetence, not a deity.

[loCAtek]

What God wants of is easy: Love each other.

[Crackpot]

Acts 2

5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" 12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does this mean?"

13Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They have had too much wine."

Nothing like? Really?

and what purports this?

and the fact that whatever was done, if anything, failed so badly, is the hallmark of incompetence, not a deity.

Do you deny that there are really thick and or stubborn people out there? Or do you merely wish God to negate free will?

Again, you have been reading a book which has been corrupted and interfered with over 2000 years which was not ever a contemporary report, and have made your own decisions based on your own prejudices.

Err... not really OT is check-summed rendering it very reliable. (a perk of having a lettering system that doubles as a numeric system) So much has been proven by archaeology. The new testament has fragments dating back to 125 and complete texts from the 300s "interference" is not nearly the problem you make it out to be.

This in no way constitutes a doctrine set out "in clear and unequivocal form that is understood internationally, in all languages and cultures, what he/she/it expects of us."

I never said it was. You made a statement about what it would take to accept the Bible on faith. I told you what it took me.

As for the rest are you deliberately trying to be obtuse?

[Gob]

That's good C-P, I think we're talking about two different things here. One is what I woudl expect of an omnipotent being, the other what you accept of your chosen religion.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Set out in clear and unequivical form that is understood internationally, in all languages and cultures,

sounds like it should be the language of physics (aka math).


Other than that, God hasn't spoken to me nor let me know what he wants. Only the laws of the universe, described by physics and explained by math are the ultimate truth AFAIK.

ETA
All else seems to be a human construct.

[loCAtek]

Well, they say quantum theory is based on philosophy and can lead to metaphysics. Werner Heisenberg, who was nominated for the Nobel Prize by Albert Einstein, wrote on this;

In late 1955 to early 1956, Heisenberg gave the Gifford Lectures at St Andrews University, in Scotland, on the intellectual history of physics. The lectures were later published as Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science.[134]

During 1956 and 1957, Heisenberg was the chairman of the Arbeitskreis Kernphysik (Nuclear Physics Working Group) of the Fachkommission II "Forschung und Nachwuchs" (Commission II "Research and Growth") of the Deutschen Atomkommission (DAtK, German Atomic Energy Commission). Other members of the Nuclear Physics Working Group in both 1956 and 1957 were: Walther Bothe, Hans Kopfermann (vice-chairman), Fritz Bopp, Wolfgang Gentner, Otto Haxel, Willibald Jentschke, Heinz Maier-Liebnitz, Josef Mattauch, Wolfgang Riezler, Wilhelm Walcher, and Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker. Wolfgang Paul was also a member of the group during 1957.[135]

In 1957, Heisenberg was a signatory of the manifesto of the Göttinger Achtzehn (Göttingen Eighteen).[136]

From 1957, Heisenberg was interested in plasma physics and the process of nuclear fusion. He also collaborated with the International Institute of Atomic Physics in Geneva. He was a member of the Institute's Scientific Policy Committee, and for several years was the Committee's chairman.[7]

In 1973, Heisenberg gave a lecture at Harvard University on the historical development of the concepts of quantum theory.[137]

On 24 March 1973, Heisenberg gave a speech before the Catholic Academy of Bavaria, accepting the Romano Guardini Prize. An English translation of its title is "Scientific and Religious Truth." And its stated goal was "In what follows, then, we shall first of all deal with the unassailability and value of scientific truth, and then with the much wider field of religion, of which--so far as the Christian religion is concerned--Guardini himself has so persuasively written; finally--and this will be the hardest part to formulate--we shall speak of the relationship of the two truths."[138] A more detail insight in Planck and Heisenberg on religion has been discussed by Wilfried Schröder in " Natural science and religion" (Bremen 1999, Science edition) and Wilfried Schröder " Naturerkenntnis und Religion" Bremen, science edition 2008).

[Econoline]

Set out in clear and unequivical form that is understood internationally, in all languages and cultures,

sounds like it should be the language of physics (aka math).

Anybody else here read the book Contact by Carl Sagan (as opposed to the movie, which was also pretty good, but different from the book)--in which, near the end, God does indeed make Himself known by mathematical means: specifically by means of the digits deep in the interior of the irrational number π ? Now that might work, huh?

[Gob]

Nope, as that would need translation for the stupid, and mathematically inept. (Like me)

[loCAtek]

Mathematical means like this: [...1,2,3..]
meaning a set of numbers to infinity in either direction, to or from?

If mathematics are infinite, then that proves the existence of infinity and 'god', no?

[Crackpot]

That's good C-P, I think we're talking about two different things here. One is what I woudl expect of an omnipotent being, the other what you accept of your chosen religion.

Sorry it took so long to respond I don't know if you've noticed by now but I tend to take a break from threads that I feel i'm getting too involved in. Mainly for 2 reasons: 1) to keep from saying something stupid 2) it stops being fun.

The irony being that 90% of the time I come back to find that what I was getting all worked up about has more or less been resolved.
---

THat being said two statements to further clarify my position and confusion.

1) It seems odd to me that in order for you to believe in an omnipotent being it must first submit itself to your demands. One seems to negate the other.

2) My belief in "God" is not based in Christianity. That is to say I've believed in a non desrcript "God" for many years. The basis for my belief in a supreme being comes from a belief in a objective moral code and an objective moral code requires something outside of humankind to define it.

[Gob]

Sorry it took so long to respond I don't know if you've noticed by now but I tend to take a break from threads that I feel i'm getting too involved in. Mainly for 2 reasons: 1) to keep from saying something stupid 2) it stops being fun.

Ditto here on that.

1) It seems odd to me that in order for you to believe in an omnipotent being it must first submit itself to your demands. One seems to negate the other.

Not really what I was indicating, I make no "demands" of an omnipotent being. However, should such a thing exist, and I very much doubt it does, then if it has expectations of us, it should be omnipotent in the way these are shown. This is not a demand, just a request. If an omnipotent being doesn't want to act that way, then fine, but do not expect me to waste my time on this mortal coil in chasing it down and obaying what I think it may want of me.

2) My belief in "God" is not based in Christianity. That is to say I've believed in a non desrcript "God" for many years. The basis for my belief in a supreme being comes from a belief in a objective moral code and an objective moral code requires something outside of humankind to define it.

I am envious to a degree.

[loCAtek]

Not really what I was indicating, I make no "demands" of an omnipotent being. However, should such a thing exist, and I very much doubt it does, then if it has expectations of us,
it should be omnipotent in the way these are shown. This is not a demand, just a request. If an omnipotent being doesn't want to act that way, then fine, but do not expect me to waste my time on this mortal coil in chasing it down and obaying what I think it may want of me.

What expectations? We (well, some) ask and pray for the 'meaning of life', that meaning is given as 'love each other' in many different doctrines. The rest is all window dressing as to ways of doing that. You're saying you can't, or don't want to love? Why not?


It's not easy to do, I'll grant you that (some of you are rat bastards!) but why say, you're not even going to try? Not even for God's sake?

[Crackpot]

Not really what I was indicating, I make no "demands" of an omnipotent being. However, should such a thing exist, and I very much doubt it does, then if it has expectations of us, it should be omnipotent in the way these are shown.

That would depend on the expectations wouldn't it?

If an omnipotent being doesn't want to act that way, then fine, but do not expect me to waste my time on this mortal coil in chasing it down and obaying what I think it may want of me.

So you expect the burden would be heavy?

2) My belief in "God" is not based in Christianity. That is to say I've believed in a non desrcript "God" for many years. The basis for my belief in a supreme being comes from a belief in a objective moral code and an objective moral code requires something outside of humankind to define it.

I am envious to a degree.

Care to expand?

P.S. Sorry for being cryptic I'm trying to get you to think about the possibilities without trying to spoiling, coloring, or otherwise influencing your responses.

[Gob]

Yes, it would depend on the expectations of us.

If, as some, not all, Christians tell us, it expects us to shun homosexuality, or out of wedlock sex, on the pain of ...whatever.... I would expect that to be overt. If there is hell, as many believe there is in varying forms, as the ultimate punishment, then I believe for something of that magnitude, then the rules for avoiding it should be overt. If there are ways of worship required (though no one has yet been able to tell me why an omnipotent being would require something so naff, ) then it should be laid out clearly.

I am envious of you, to a slight degree, due to your contentment in your belief, and your past study and conclusions, whiel I porbably wont agree with them, it is good that you have them and they make you a better person.