MajGenl.Meade wrote:Interesting but not so logical. If God is the creator and man the created, why assume "love" (or anything else) originated in humans? Given that the text says God created man in His image (not meaning physical), "love" is obviously a Godly emotion first, with which He endowed us. We are capable because He is able.
Daft. "Love" is a thing of chemical/biological origin.
God does not "need" love; He lacks nothing. He created all things. You can't create all things without creating love, else then you'd have all things minus one. Having chosen to create all things, is there some reason God should not consider it fondly (if you like that word)? Are you arguing that because you like or dislike certain things, God should not be allowed either to like or dislike? That because you think, God surely cannot do such a "human" thing?
But why? "Oh here I am the supreme being, I feel a bit bored, I'll create some humans for me to love, and make them imperfect so that they can suffer and hate."
I'm only responding to your first. That seems sufficient for the present or else it gets too long and complex. You made an objection - it's answered. You don't have to agree that the answer is correct - it will be perfectly OK to acknowledge that your particular argument has been knocked down.
I'll respond, but I acknowledge that your replies will be based on human emotion, and the need to believe there is something more than human out there. (And your fear of ego death.)
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
And that's a big 'IF' to be hanging a few millennium of faith and hope upon.
Humankind would be so better off today 'IF' it didn't have all the mumbo-jumbo of a myriad of quasi/pseudo religions and beliefs to distort our true purpose. Primarily the ability of thinking for oneself.
God is a concept by which we measure our pain, I have no need to say it again. Death is going to be a true awakening for one of us. And I have much faith that it won't be me. Peace.
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.”
OK Gob... obviously if you take an absolutist position such as "love is of chemical/biological origin" then there's nothing to talk about. You should have just written that in the first place.
I don't accept "you're wrong" as a valid tool in discussion but it does have the virtue of being brief. Mind you, I do have to point out that chemistry and biology are created things too.... all you've done is posit a mechanism, not an origin
But in your terms.... you're wrong, so there
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Can you show me where "love" exists outside of a biological/chemical reaction?
Thought not.
It;s a human trait, a conditioned hormonal and psychological phenomena.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
(a) you can't show me that it doesn't (or even that it is a biological/chemical reaction)
(b) Again, you simply are saying "you're wrong which proves you're wrong"
To say that your assumptions are correct and all others wrong is not much worth discussing
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
bigskygal wrote:Hey you guys, let's have an argument about whether God exists - or about gun control - for a change, huh?
Yeah, but I don't think it is (was) an argument about whether God exists, although some like to turn it to that.
It was a discussion over whether the God that is claimed to exist has "human" characteristics or whether humans have "God" characteristics. Not even that really but it's close enough.
Unfortunately (or not), Gob kind of went the plain contradiction route - what he says is right, so there. Not much of an argument, really. Oh spare me the Python video. wesw you can post it because I won't know if that's what you did
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Didn't say it wasn't, old bean. Just that it wasn't an argument over whether or not God exists. We already know I think yes and you think no. You and Ray will have plenty of time to talk about it...
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Gob wrote:God does not exist.
My faith is as strong and as relevant as yours
From the multi-movie character, God:
""Well, that's a scientific question: Has anybody ever seen hard evidence (that God exists)? What we get is theories from our earlier prophets. Now, people who think that God invented us think that the Earth can't be more than 6,000 years old. So I guess it's a question of belief. My belief system doesn't support a creator as such, as we can call God, who created us in his/her/its image. Asked whether he was atheist or agnostic was hard for him to answer because the actor thinks "WE" invented God."" Morgan Freeman
I am not alone. I rejoice in knowing irreligious individuals comprise up to 22% of the world's population.
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.”
...people who think that God invented us think that the Earth can't be more than 6,000 years old
No, wait. I'm wrong after all, because that quote is actually a lie told in the knowledge that it is a lie.
Most people who think that God invented us do not for one second think that Earth can't be more than 6,000 years old.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
I have; I have a friend whose family goes to an Assemblies of God church, and his wife believes that (well "around" 6000 years old, not 6000 exactly). She is fairly intelligent (she has degrees in political science/sociology and law and is a fairly successful lawyer) but insists that the evidence that shows the earth is older is false, put there by god (I'm not certain whether it is to test our faith or just because), and she insists that her belief is valid in spite of the evidence to the contrary. Which is really the definition of what a belief is. She also takes most of the Adam and Eve story literally, although she concedes that there may have been other humans created by god and populating the earth when Cain went to the land of Nod and took a wife (although she is unsure).
FWIW, her husband doesn't believe the same, and I found out about her belief during a discussion we once all had on evolution (which then ranged toward cosmology, etc.). And I think Meade is right, most people who believe in god do not believe the earth is this age; I would think it's a fairly small minority)
considering that the bible is chock full of metaphors allegories fables and things that must be determined and understood by the reader, and that thinking you are able to fully understand god and his ways is the ultimate in conceited thinking, and that the many translations are not worded in the same way, tho the theme is absolutely clear, trying to go by the exact text is just silly.
