39 replies to this topic

[iNtErNeT mYsTeRy]

an agnostic:
Welcome to the majority of population earth who don’t know everything, can’t prove much of anything else and talk mostly about what they only ‘wish’ they knew but don’t need to give it a Name? Though I cannot fault anyone and it’s certainly your prerogative to sit on the fence; did you ever think of Making Up Your Mind About It, as long as it’s not evil, and ‘going with it’ to see what it might lead to? Most common synonyms perhaps for agnostic:
unsure, ignorant, clueless, dumbfounded, constipated, wishy-washy, lofty, whiney, honest, uncommitted, hypocrite, doubtful, along with hundreds of others most of which perhaps most people would probably not want to be thought of ‘as’? Some possibly expected and mostly humorous responses for when someone says: “Hey everyone, I’m agnostic.”:
1. Who cares? 2. Either go or get off the pot. 3. Oh sorry; my condolences. 4. Why? 5. And You’re proud of that because? 6. What time is it? 7. Good for you. 8. Have you tried therapy? 9. Love to stay and chat but I’ve actually made up my mind to be something today. 10. How? 11. Is it contagious/hereditary?

. . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . .

an atheist:
Why do you call yourself an atheist when You can’t prove God does not exist any more than Christians can prove God does exist? So you’re proud of that because? Why do you like the taste of mustard? Why do you not like the taste of mustard? Who cares since believers cannot prove the existence of God any more than Science can prove God doesn’t exist or can prove the big bang theory or intelligent design or any other theories of how mankind was created. That’s why it’s called a “theory” because theories cannot be proven unless/until they are proven and you’ll almost certainly be deceased without ever knowing or proving?

But maybe you’re exploring forums because you’re not truly an atheist either and so you’re naturally trying to find out which “theory” might be best for You to believe? And if you really want to know if God exists, you shouldn’t be asking this forum but rather you have to ask God because that’s the way it works and if so, you’re in luck because your options are simple too? It’s either True or False that God exists. Which means:
1. False; if God doesn’t exist and you’re content to choose death as your inevitable destiny, then you will die an atheist.
2. True; if God does exist and you choose death instead of eternal life in paradise, then you will die an atheist and then be resurrected only to suffer God’s wrath for eternity instead.

Hmmm, wonder what a sane person would hope for? What were the choices again? Oh ya; it’s either eternal paradise or eternal suffering. Yikes that’s a toughy because who in their right mind would want to pass up the hope for ‘eternal suffering’?

Your choice. . . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . .

3. a forum-dwelling so-called Christian:
What are You doing in an anonymous forum? Do you not know the meaning of “anonymous” and ‘deception’ nor haven’t read 2 Corinthians 4:2? Do you think that God doesn’t notice believers are just using the Internet as an excuse to ‘avoid’ Having To Physically Go Into All The World and do what Jesus commands [Mark 16:15-18]? Ergo, most believers aren’t joining forums to serve God or experience fellowship in Christ but rather they just want to boast and start arguments and insult everyone who doesn’t agree with their limited understanding of “God” or even worse and perhaps more likely; they were tempted into a forum by the devil to distract them From God? Thus, “forums” created to entice idle lazy disobedient believers to cower behind Alias usernames being judgmental hypocrites hatefully spewing biblical quotes from ignorance instead of declaring their Real names and going into the Real world and serving God as they Really should be doing and perhaps like many believers that spend most of their time studying the bible instead of ‘doing’ what it says? Can you say: [BUSTED!]?

No offense intended to anyone of course and I’ve been accused of being each of the 3.

Note: Anyone posting ill-considered/vulgar comments to my carefully considered topics for respectful discussion will simply go on my Ignore List for future but might also receive a corrective response.

[the sad clown]

What if your Christian simply used their real name and a photo of themselves as their avatar? Your criticisms seem rather odd, to criticize the agnostic for not deciding there is no God and then blaming the atheist for making such a decision. And while it is trivially true that something is not proven until it is proven, I'm not sure that really tells us anything beyond, "it's not proven". I guess I should ask if this is an attempt at humor before I get too analytical though.

[Big Blooming Blighter]

The OP strikes me as a supremely arrogant bastardisation of Pascal's Wager.

[DaveT]

iNtErNeT mYsTeRy, on 29 September 2010 - 02:26 PM, said:

an atheist:
Why do you call yourself an atheist when You can’t prove God does not exist any more than Christians can prove God does exist? So you’re proud of that because? Why do you like the taste of mustard? Why do you not like the taste of mustard? Who cares since believers cannot prove the existence of God any more than Science can prove God doesn’t exist or can prove the big bang theory or intelligent design or any other theories of how mankind was created. That’s why it’s called a “theory” because theories cannot be proven unless/until they are proven and you’ll almost certainly be deceased without ever knowing or proving?

But maybe you’re exploring forums because you’re not truly an atheist either and so you’re naturally trying to find out which “theory” might be best for You to believe? And if you really want to know if God exists, you shouldn’t be asking this forum but rather you have to ask God because that’s the way it works and if so, you’re in luck because your options are simple too? It’s either True or False that God exists. Which means:
1. False; if God doesn’t exist and you’re content to choose death as your inevitable destiny, then you will die an atheist.
2. True; if God does exist and you choose death instead of eternal life in paradise, then you will die an atheist and then be resurrected only to suffer God’s wrath for eternity instead.

Hmmm, wonder what a sane person would hope for? What were the choices again? Oh ya; it’s either eternal paradise or eternal suffering. Yikes that’s a toughy because who in their right mind would want to pass up the hope for ‘eternal suffering’?

Your choice. . . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . .

Atheist means no God, not one who can prove God does not exist. There are plenty of theists who cannot prove that their deity exists, so why does an atheist have to be able to disprove God to be an atheist? I (and many other atheists) readily admit that I cannot yet disprove God, but that does not make me any less of an atheist, as I strongly believe that there is no God.

Regarding "theory," science works using deductive reasoning, and to dismiss a scientific theory just because it is "unproven" is ignorant. A true scientific theory becomes established when other theories to explain something have been eliminated, therefore leaving only the most likely one/s. Evolution is a theory, but it is the best explanation of how life came to be how it is that we have. The Big Bang is a theory, but it is the best explanation we have for explaining the nature of the universe on both the quantum and macro level (although physicists might very well have produced better theories by now that haven't become public knowledge yet).

Finally, regarding the Pascal's Wager you posited, it's a false dilemma, because there are a variety of Gods to choose from, many of whom are insanely jealous of the others. If you die a Hindu and the Christians are right, you're a theist, but you have naught be torment to look forward to. If you die a Christian and the Muslims are right, don't expect a pleasant afterlife. One could also say that one banks on God existing, and follows silly, oppressive rules for the sake of a gamble; or one banks on there being no God, and lives a freer, more enjoyable life.

Rob, on 29 September 2010 - 03:01 PM, said:

The OP strikes me as a supremely arrogant bastardisation of Pascal's Wager.

It is, although he seems to be describing the hypocrites on teh internetz amongst the Christians rather well, but he doesn't seem to have anything to use against agnostics besides gloating and juvenile personal attacks.

Edited by DaveT, 29 September 2010 - 03:09 PM.

[the sad clown]

It did seem flawed to me as well, but only if I took it at face value. But I thought maybe he was striving for irony or the use of humor to assist others in maintaining a proper perspective for their belief system vis-a-vis alternative belief systems. In other words, he hoped to encourage people to not look down on others. As a serious argument it fails, but I think it could work if it was intended as a humorous reminder. Not sure about that though, since so far, if it was humor, it would have failed to have achieved its intended effect, which was to get us to laugh at ourselves a little.

[Chato]

Pardon me for snipping away much of your post.

iNtErNeT mYsTeRy, on 29 September 2010 - 02:26 PM, said:

an agnostic:
Welcome to the majority of population earth who don’t know everything, can’t prove much of anything else and talk mostly about what they only ‘wish’ they knew but don’t need to give it a Name?

Poor use of language. It implies that there are people who know everything...

iNtErNeT mYsTeRy, on 29 September 2010 - 02:26 PM, said:

But maybe you’re exploring forums because you’re not truly an atheist either and so you’re naturally trying to find out which “theory” might be best for You to believe? And if you really want to know if God exists, you shouldn’t be asking this forum but rather you have to ask God because that’s the way it works and if so, you’re in luck because your options are simple too? It’s either True or False that God exists. Which means:
1. False; if God doesn’t exist and you’re content to choose death as your inevitable destiny, then you will die an atheist.
2. True; if God does exist and you choose death instead of eternal life in paradise, then you will die an atheist and then be resurrected only to suffer God’s wrath for eternity instead.

Hmmm, wonder what a sane person would hope for? What were the choices again? Oh ya; it’s either eternal paradise or eternal suffering. Yikes that’s a toughy because who in their right mind would want to pass up the hope for ‘eternal suffering’?

Your choice. . . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . .

3. a forum-dwelling so-called Christian:
What are You doing in an anonymous forum? Do you not know the meaning of “anonymous” and ‘deception’ nor haven’t read 2 Corinthians 4:2? Do you think that God doesn’t notice believers are just using the Internet as an excuse to ‘avoid’ Having To Physically Go Into All The World and do what Jesus commands [Mark 16:15-18]? Ergo, most believers aren’t joining forums to serve God or experience fellowship in Christ but rather they just want to boast and start arguments and insult everyone who doesn’t agree with their limited understanding of “God” or even worse and perhaps more likely; they were tempted into a forum by the devil to distract them From God? Thus, “forums” created to entice idle lazy disobedient believers to cower behind Alias usernames being judgmental hypocrites hatefully spewing biblical quotes from ignorance instead of declaring their Real names and going into the Real world and serving God as they Really should be doing and perhaps like many believers that spend most of their time studying the bible instead of ‘doing’ what it says? Can you say: [BUSTED!]?

No offense intended to anyone of course and I’ve been accused of being each of the 3.

Note: Anyone posting ill-considered/vulgar comments to my carefully considered topics for respectful discussion will simply go on my Ignore List for future but might also receive a corrective response.

Your post essentially says that my beliefs should not be based on anything but a belief in a Christian God. Ethics? What is right and wrong? How can I improve myself as a human being? Not important; all that is important is a belief in a Christian God.

Well, I'm not quite an atheist, but for the purposes of this discussion I am. So let us assume that my lack of belief in God is false. Why should it then be axiomatic that I have to believe in a cruel vindictive personality who really doesn't care how I behave on earth as long as I believe in it? What if God is this laid back personality who says to me after I die, "Whoa Bro, you lived a really generous life out there. You helped people, you strove to make those you knew happy, and you strove through your politics to make the world a truly better place. Welcome to heaven, Now you know I exist."

The Old Testiment Bible often shows mere mortals arguing with God. How can that be in the choice that you propose?

Let me put it another way, the postulated God that I describe is rational. The Christian God is a psychopath, with a cruel, petty and vindictive streak. There are many non-Christians who have lived saintly lives - But this God of yours would condemn them all to hell. Isn't this true? If the reward of a virtious life is hell, I really don't need this Christian God.

By the way, I've heard your argument before, it's really quite famous; some sort of theorum?. But I forget the name of the author. Could you remind me?

Dave

[DaveT]

Chato, on 29 September 2010 - 03:11 PM, said:

Pardon me for snipping away much of your post.

iNtErNeT mYsTeRy, on 29 September 2010 - 02:26 PM, said:

an agnostic:
Welcome to the majority of population earth who don’t know everything, can’t prove much of anything else and talk mostly about what they only ‘wish’ they knew but don’t need to give it a Name?

Poor use of language. It implies that there are people who know everything...

iNtErNeT mYsTeRy, on 29 September 2010 - 02:26 PM, said:

But maybe you’re exploring forums because you’re not truly an atheist either and so you’re naturally trying to find out which “theory” might be best for You to believe? And if you really want to know if God exists, you shouldn’t be asking this forum but rather you have to ask God because that’s the way it works and if so, you’re in luck because your options are simple too? It’s either True or False that God exists. Which means:
1. False; if God doesn’t exist and you’re content to choose death as your inevitable destiny, then you will die an atheist.
2. True; if God does exist and you choose death instead of eternal life in paradise, then you will die an atheist and then be resurrected only to suffer God’s wrath for eternity instead.

Hmmm, wonder what a sane person would hope for? What were the choices again? Oh ya; it’s either eternal paradise or eternal suffering. Yikes that’s a toughy because who in their right mind would want to pass up the hope for ‘eternal suffering’?

Your choice. . . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . .

3. a forum-dwelling so-called Christian:
What are You doing in an anonymous forum? Do you not know the meaning of “anonymous” and ‘deception’ nor haven’t read 2 Corinthians 4:2? Do you think that God doesn’t notice believers are just using the Internet as an excuse to ‘avoid’ Having To Physically Go Into All The World and do what Jesus commands [Mark 16:15-18]? Ergo, most believers aren’t joining forums to serve God or experience fellowship in Christ but rather they just want to boast and start arguments and insult everyone who doesn’t agree with their limited understanding of “God” or even worse and perhaps more likely; they were tempted into a forum by the devil to distract them From God? Thus, “forums” created to entice idle lazy disobedient believers to cower behind Alias usernames being judgmental hypocrites hatefully spewing biblical quotes from ignorance instead of declaring their Real names and going into the Real world and serving God as they Really should be doing and perhaps like many believers that spend most of their time studying the bible instead of ‘doing’ what it says? Can you say: [BUSTED!]?

No offense intended to anyone of course and I’ve been accused of being each of the 3.

Note: Anyone posting ill-considered/vulgar comments to my carefully considered topics for respectful discussion will simply go on my Ignore List for future but might also receive a corrective response.

Your post essentially says that my beliefs should not be based on anything but a belief in a Christian God. Ethics? What is right and wrong? How can I improve myself as a human being? Not important; all that is important is a belief in a Christian God.

Well, I'm not quite an atheist, but for the purposes of this discussion I am. So let us assume that my lack of belief in God is false. Why should it then be axiomatic that I have to believe in a cruel vindictive personality who really doesn't care how I behave on earth as long as I believe in it? What if God is this laid back personality who says to me after I die, "Whoa Bro, you lived a really generous life out there. You helped people, you strove to make those you knew happy, and you strove through your politics to make the world a truly better place. Welcome to heaven, Now you know I exist."

The Old Testiment Bible often shows mere mortals arguing with God. How can that be in the choice that you propose?

Let me put it another way, the postulated God that I describe is rational. The Christian God is a psychopath, with a cruel, petty and vindictive streak. There are many non-Christians who have lived saintly lives - But this God of yours would condemn them all to hell. Isn't this true? If the reward of a virtious life is hell, I really don't need this Christian God.

By the way, I've heard your argument before, it's really quite famous; some sort of theorum?. But I forget the name of the author. Could you remind me?

Dave

The gamble on whether or not God exists? It's Pascal's wager.

[Chato]

DaveT, on 29 September 2010 - 03:16 PM, said:

The gamble on whether or not God exists? It's Pascal's wager.

Much thanks. If I recall, Pascal didn't phrase this question so bleakly, but it amounted to the same thing. When I first heard it, my impression was, "What kind of God would welcome someone like this to heaven?" Is belief in God something that you do by taking gambols?

Pascal phrased it as a proposition that you can't lose. But it strikes me that the only type of person who would take this bet is a hypocrite.

Dave

[davidm]

iNtErNeT mYsTeRy, on 29 September 2010 - 02:26 PM, said:

2. True; if God does exist and you choose death instead of eternal life in paradise, then you will die an atheist and then be resurrected only to suffer God’s wrath for eternity instead.

Any God who would behave that way toward someone simply for disbelieving in his existence would be the very epitome of evil, and is worthy only of contempt.

Quote

Hmmm, wonder what a sane person would hope for? What were the choices again? Oh ya; it’s either eternal paradise or eternal suffering. Yikes that’s a toughy because who in their right mind would want to pass up the hope for ‘eternal suffering’?

Oh, wait, those are the choices only if God exists, which is precisely the point in dispute, and only if God, if he exists, is the very epitome of evil (as explained just above).

Honestly, please don't spam these boards with this hoary old crap.

[Scotty]

These topics used to be fun. But after ten plus years of listening to the same arguments it does get rather old.

Pascal's Wager is tired, but seems reasonable when you think only one religion is the correct one. When each and every denomination of every type of religion has their own views on what constitutes salvation, how do you really know? I don't think I have met any person that has the same view on their own religion, even between husband and wife.

I am not arrogant in my beliefs, just rather exhausted that one view is the only view, and some people feel they are helping by trying to find out how to save me from myself. The door to door Morman that showed up one day, had me nearly puking, I just had my mouth drop open as this women and her daughter (she couldn't have been more than 16) were telling me how men have control over women in their religion and how much I would like that. "Wouldn't you like that?" I was so stunned I couldn't even talk to them, people believe this? It felt like she was offering her daughter as a prize for joining. Scary.

Ah sorry, probably off topic, but I only have examples of why I don't cater to any belief system. I enjoy learning about discoveries, how things work, what makes people do what they do. Religion didn't offer that to me, except to examine people from outside their perception of reality.

After grudgingly reading the opening, either this person was just trying to stir things up to see what popped out, which isn't unusual, or they are a new convert who just came into these "fresh new arguments". I would be surprised at a comeback.

-Scott

[The Heretic]

Since Internet Mystery is incapable of responding to any of the substantial posts in this thread, then indulge me in a thread hijack....

the first centuries of the first millennium is rather interesting, for it was the epoch where men developed hatred through religion.

Christians were the guilty party here – they became expert in the art of detestation, which contrasted well with the pagans' scorn. Observe the writings of the early Christians, from Tertullian to St. Gregory of Nazianzus. None of these writers knew how to make their adversaries worthy of their time. Gregory couldn't credit Julian with anything but the worst adjectives. Tertullian for example, breathlessly described the Last Judgment as “the greatest of spectacles” where kings and gods “utter dreadful groans in the depths of the abyss.” Early Christian apologetics was little more than a “series of libels camouflaged as treatises.”

The hatred against the pagan world was contagious. Without this hate, Christianity wouldn't have progressed from a mere sect with a limited clientele, no more capable of swapping the old gods for a nailed corpse.

Christians went further and sacrificed all the gods of antiquity in order to recognize the indigenous gods as the only legitimate ones. They couldn't be satisfied with modest remarks of Celsius: “Jews... organized themselves into a nation, established laws of their own which they retain even today. The religion they observe... is the religion of their ancestors. By remaining faithful to it they do no more than other men do as well, who all preserve the customs of their country.” Origen declared the ethnic gods to be mere idols, Paul demoted them to mere demons.

Let's look at monotheism and polytheism in their context. According to the ancients, the more gods you recognized, the better you served divinity. Once you tried to limit their number, yhou were being impious, and to surpress them all for the sake of one, you were being a criminal.

However, polytheism better corresponded to the multitudinous nature of man: the diversity of tendencies and impulses. Each person was free, according to her desires, towards the god who suited her at the moment. Then, how was a person to deal with a single god? How to use him? In the single god's presence, man lived under constant, singular pressure. Monotheism is myopia writ large – it deepens us yet narrows us at the same time. A system of constraints allowed an inner dimension at the cost of developing our abilities by establishing a barrier that stopped expansion.

Under the watch of several gods, fervor was dispersed. But if fervor was addressed to a single god alone, it became concentrated, and exacerbated, and as aggression this fervor mutated into faith. No longer dispersed, this mutated fervor was one dimesnional.

In paganism, there was no distinction between belief and unbelief, or having faith and lacking it. Thus, faith is a christian invention. In the ancient religion, you were left the responsibility of choosing the god you wanted, because none of them were imposed upon you. If you were capricious, shifting from god to god, you would figure out how to adore them all over your lifetime. Those gods were modest: they only demanded respect. You only hailed them. No need to kneel.

We invented gods out of the desire to be protected, insulated from the greed of suffering. As long we believed in a bunch of gods, we had the freedom of choice. After Christianity, we developed mental shackles and throes, and became a monster of psychological vice that doubly expressed self-love and self-hate.

Christianity inherited the Romans' juridical rigor and the Greeks' philosophical gymnastics, but to enchain the mind, not to liberate it. By shackling the mind with dogmas, Christianity has forced the mind to deepen itself. The christian mind, with clear boundaries, was left to explore this inner dimension, to scrutinize its vertigo.

[The Heretic]

Actually, Internet Mystery, it is a philosophical forum. There are plenty of threads that discusses many subjects of philosophy, and many essays in the resources section. Hey, some of them are even mine from graduate school!

However, the ones that are actually good do not engage in petty apologetics or puerile psychologizing, or bad arguments that hastily generalize the entire board.

Given your first post and this one, you clearly don't appear to be able to write an actual philosophical post.

Edited by The Heretic, 02 October 2010 - 05:23 AM.

[Parody of Language]

Great hijack, The Heretic.

I guess one remaining question is to which extent is Christianity still like that. I think Christianity will always have an aspect of pure hatred, look at terms such as "demonized" and how "Satan" is understood in Christian terms. The concept of hell will always be somewhat unfathomable to someone who doesn't understand hate at some level, at least that's the way I see it.

On the other hand, I think there's one thing that acts as a stronger counterweight to this, and that's Christ himself. Does Jesus ever mention hell in the Bible? I just wonder how someone who seeks to learn and understand the way Jesus in the Bible taught, can still reconcile the teachings in the rest of the Bible.

[DaveT]

iNtErNeT mYsTeRy, on 02 October 2010 - 04:22 AM, said:

DaveT sent me a PM whining about why I haven't responded yet to "his" remarks because apparently it's all about his "time" schedule or maybe it's his forum? Have no idea and don't care but what Dave was being too impatiently juvenile to realize, was that someone might consider his remarks to indeed be whiney ill-considered drivel and not worthy of any response? So before anyone else gets impatiently immature and sends me another PM, you may know this. If/when I see respectful responses to my topic, I may have opted to respond in kind at a time of my choosing? But since this forum has taken action to hide the topic anyway (until DaveT is satisfied of course?), I'll assume it's the same old "tired" (as Scotty says) routine of constipated admins/mods who ban people they disagree with and/or have no respect for freedom of speech. As such, wouldn't give this forum the time of day let alone pander to their juvenile behavior. Borrrrrrrrrrrrrrring!

Right, you're an attention-seeking virgin. WE GET IT!

You do realise that people can read what I actually said, right? Obviously not. Trolls these days are getting more obtuse every-time they click "Add Reply."

[DaveT]

Parody of Language, on 02 October 2010 - 07:03 AM, said:

Great hijack, The Heretic.

I guess one remaining question is to which extent is Christianity still like that. I think Christianity will always have an aspect of pure hatred, look at terms such as "demonized" and how "Satan" is understood in Christian terms. The concept of hell will always be somewhat unfathomable to someone who doesn't understand hate at some level, at least that's the way I see it.

On the other hand, I think there's one thing that acts as a stronger counterweight to this, and that's Christ himself. Does Jesus ever mention hell in the Bible? I just wonder how someone who seeks to learn and understand the way Jesus in the Bible taught, can still reconcile the teachings in the rest of the Bible.

There are Christians who claim that Jesus never mentions Hell, and the stuff about being perpetually munched-on by worms is an allusion to the grave.

[davidm]

iNtErNeT mYsTeRy, on 02 October 2010 - 04:22 AM, said:

DaveT sent me a PM whining about why I haven't responded yet to "his" remarks because apparently it's all about his "time" schedule or maybe it's his forum? Have no idea and don't care but what Dave was being too impatiently juvenile to realize, was that someone might consider his remarks to indeed be whiney ill-considered drivel and not worthy of any response? So before anyone else gets impatiently immature and sends me another PM, you may know this. If/when I see respectful responses to my topic, I may have opted to respond in kind at a time of my choosing? But since this forum has taken action to hide the topic anyway (until DaveT is satisfied of course?), I'll assume it's the same old "tired" (as Scotty says) routine of constipated admins/mods who ban people they disagree with and/or have no respect for freedom of speech. As such, wouldn't give this forum the time of day let alone pander to their juvenile behavior. Borrrrrrrrrrrrrrring!

Nope, nobody gets banned by admin or mods. There is community moderation here, and once a post receives a certain number of negative-reputation votes from other members, it is hidden, though the option remains for viewers to view it by clinking on a link.

Anyway, you were given substantial replies to your Pascal's Wager rubbish, and you chose to respond in an infantile way. Please don't give the forum the time of day, and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[Michael S. Pearl]

Let me see if I get any funsies from this.

iNtErNeT mYsTeRy, on 29 September 2010 - 02:26 PM, said:

3. a forum-dwelling so-called Christian:
What are You doing in an anonymous forum? Do you not know the meaning of “anonymous” and ‘deception’ nor haven’t read 2 Corinthians 4:2? ... “forums” created to entice idle lazy disobedient believers to cower behind Alias usernames being judgmental hypocrites hatefully spewing biblical quotes from ignorance instead of declaring their Real names ...

Whether anyone thinks of me as "Christian" or not, whether anyone calls me "Christian" or not, I am using my actual name whereas "iNtErNeT mYsTeRy" is not. Hence, by his or her own reasoning, "iNtErNeT mYsTeRy" is a deceiver, is a hypocrite, and is presumably to be taken as "spewing biblical quotes from ignorance".

iNtErNeT mYsTeRy, on 29 September 2010 - 02:26 PM, said:

Do you think that God doesn’t notice believers are just using the Internet as an excuse to ‘avoid’ Having To Physically Go Into All The World and do what Jesus commands [Mark 16:15-18]?

Mark 16: 15-18 is explanatorily indefinite (especially if a literal interpretation is attempted). Can "iNtErNeT mYsTeRy" see how this is so? Or, need it be explained? Would "iNtErNeT mYsTeRy" deign to put forth an explication?

Furthermore, those who insist on the usual literal interpretation reveal themselves as either having had no personal experience of God or as having thus far utterly failed at having understood an experience of God. Whosoever insists on a literal interpretation is well advised to be careful -- very careful -- when drinking "deadly poison".

No funsies yet. I'll be patient and give "iNtErNeT mYsTeRy" a chance to make any further involvement worthwhile.

Michael

[Michael S. Pearl]

Some remarks which The Heretic posted into a different (now disappeared) thread are now to be found here.

[Chato]

Michael S. Pearl, on 02 October 2010 - 02:53 PM, said:

Let me see if I get any funsies from this.

iNtErNeT mYsTeRy, on 29 September 2010 - 02:26 PM, said:

3. a forum-dwelling so-called Christian:
What are You doing in an anonymous forum? Do you not know the meaning of “anonymous” and ‘deception’ nor haven’t read 2 Corinthians 4:2? ... “forums” created to entice idle lazy disobedient believers to cower behind Alias usernames being judgmental hypocrites hatefully spewing biblical quotes from ignorance instead of declaring their Real names ...

Whether anyone thinks of me as "Christian" or not, whether anyone calls me "Christian" or not, I am using my actual name whereas "iNtErNeT mYsTeRy" is not. Hence, by his or her own reasoning, "iNtErNeT mYsTeRy" is a deceiver, is a hypocrite, and is presumably to be taken as "spewing biblical quotes from ignorance".

iNtErNeT mYsTeRy, on 29 September 2010 - 02:26 PM, said:

Do you think that God doesn’t notice believers are just using the Internet as an excuse to ‘avoid’ Having To Physically Go Into All The World and do what Jesus commands [Mark 16:15-18]?

Mark 16: 15-18 is explanatorily indefinite (especially if a literal interpretation is attempted). Can "iNtErNeT mYsTeRy" see how this is so? Or, need it be explained? Would "iNtErNeT mYsTeRy" deign to put forth an explication?

Furthermore, those who insist on the usual literal interpretation reveal themselves as either having had no personal experience of God or as having thus far utterly failed at having understood an experience of God. Whosoever insists on a literal interpretation is well advised to be careful -- very careful -- when drinking "deadly poison".

No funsies yet. I'll be patient and give "iNtErNeT mYsTeRy" a chance to make any further involvement worthwhile.

Michael

There's a strange verse in Genesis 3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

This seems to imply more Gods then you can shake a stick at. After all, who is God talking to? Angels? Then they must be lesser Gods, other implications exist as well... It seems that's it's difficult to invent a truly monotheistic religion. God needs peers to talk to..

There are quite a few verses in the Bible like the above, but this is the first.

Dave

[John Castillo]

Chato, on 02 October 2010 - 06:19 PM, said:

There's a strange verse in Genesis 3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

This seems to imply more Gods then you can shake a stick at. After all, who is God talking to? Angels? Then they must be lesser Gods, other implications exist as well... It seems that's it's difficult to invent a truly monotheistic religion. God needs peers to talk to..

To my knowledge references by God to "us" in the Bible, like the one you quoted here, are treated (at least in Christianity) as references to the community of the Trinity. As such, there would only be one god in question.

[DaveT]

John Castillo, on 02 October 2010 - 07:58 PM, said:

Chato, on 02 October 2010 - 06:19 PM, said:

There's a strange verse in Genesis 3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

This seems to imply more Gods then you can shake a stick at. After all, who is God talking to? Angels? Then they must be lesser Gods, other implications exist as well... It seems that's it's difficult to invent a truly monotheistic religion. God needs peers to talk to..

To my knowledge references by God to "us" in the Bible, like the one you quoted here, are treated (at least in Christianity) as references to the community of the Trinity. As such, there would only be one god in question.

Maybe, but the Trinity is a concept held by Christians, but not Jews, so it wouldn't explain such a passage in Genesis. It could be that he was talking to angels, as the existence of angels (at least in the world of the Bible) is confirmed in Genesis 3:24 when God, "placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

Another explanation is that the Israelites originally had many Gods, and over time they settled for one who could do all the work for the rest of the lazy sods, but apparently that theory has been shot down all the way to Kokytos (or so I'm told).

A more likely explanation is that they believed in many Gods, but they only worshipped the one they thought was the most powerful. Eventually they decided that only one God actually exists. Psalm 136:2 reads, "O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever," and Psalm 82:1 reads, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." Also, when giving the First Commandment, God said, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, for I am a jealous God." This doesn't imply they don't exist - it implies that they exist, but YHWH didn't want them to get all the glory.

[Chato]

DaveT, on 02 October 2010 - 10:10 PM, said:

John Castillo, on 02 October 2010 - 07:58 PM, said:

Chato, on 02 October 2010 - 06:19 PM, said:

There's a strange verse in Genesis 3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

This seems to imply more Gods then you can shake a stick at. After all, who is God talking to? Angels? Then they must be lesser Gods, other implications exist as well... It seems that's it's difficult to invent a truly monotheistic religion. God needs peers to talk to..

To my knowledge references by God to "us" in the Bible, like the one you quoted here, are treated (at least in Christianity) as references to the community of the Trinity. As such, there would only be one god in question.

Maybe, but the Trinity is a concept held by Christians, but not Jews, so it wouldn't explain such a passage in Genesis. It could be that he was talking to angels, as the existence of angels (at least in the world of the Bible) is confirmed in Genesis 3:24 when God, "placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

Another explanation is that the Israelites originally had many Gods, and over time they settled for one who could do all the work for the rest of the lazy sods, but apparently that theory has been shot down all the way to Kokytos (or so I'm told).

A more likely explanation is that they believed in many Gods, but they only worshipped the one they thought was the most powerful. Eventually they decided that only one God actually exists. Psalm 136:2 reads, "O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever," and Psalm 82:1 reads, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." Also, when giving the First Commandment, God said, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, for I am a jealous God." This doesn't imply they don't exist - it implies that they exist, but YHWH didn't want them to get all the glory.

This doesn't satisfy my definitions. If he refers to Angels, what then are Angels? The verse states that "They live forever" and that if Adam and Eve eat of the Tree of Life, they too will live forever.

And while it's assumed that Angels serve God, what does one make of Lucifer? In the book of Job, Lucifer was busy arguing with God, he apparently wasn't yet the "Fallen Angel" who led a revolution against God. And surely John would'nt make the argument that Lucifer is a part of the Christian trinity?

Although in a conversation I once had with some Satanists, they told me that Lucifer DID win his revolution, and that while everyone else is unknowingly worshiping the Devil, they actually worship God, and want him to regain his throne.

The idea that either Judaism or Christianity is "Monotheistic" doesn't hold up to well, if there are other independent or semi-independent Gods. Zeus was the head honcho in Greek mythology, and all the other Gods, served his will, when ordered to.

Dave

[DaveT]

Chato, on 02 October 2010 - 11:02 PM, said:

DaveT, on 02 October 2010 - 10:10 PM, said:

John Castillo, on 02 October 2010 - 07:58 PM, said:

Chato, on 02 October 2010 - 06:19 PM, said:

There's a strange verse in Genesis 3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

This seems to imply more Gods then you can shake a stick at. After all, who is God talking to? Angels? Then they must be lesser Gods, other implications exist as well... It seems that's it's difficult to invent a truly monotheistic religion. God needs peers to talk to..

To my knowledge references by God to "us" in the Bible, like the one you quoted here, are treated (at least in Christianity) as references to the community of the Trinity. As such, there would only be one god in question.

Maybe, but the Trinity is a concept held by Christians, but not Jews, so it wouldn't explain such a passage in Genesis. It could be that he was talking to angels, as the existence of angels (at least in the world of the Bible) is confirmed in Genesis 3:24 when God, "placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

Another explanation is that the Israelites originally had many Gods, and over time they settled for one who could do all the work for the rest of the lazy sods, but apparently that theory has been shot down all the way to Kokytos (or so I'm told).

A more likely explanation is that they believed in many Gods, but they only worshipped the one they thought was the most powerful. Eventually they decided that only one God actually exists. Psalm 136:2 reads, "O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever," and Psalm 82:1 reads, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." Also, when giving the First Commandment, God said, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, for I am a jealous God." This doesn't imply they don't exist - it implies that they exist, but YHWH didn't want them to get all the glory.

This doesn't satisfy my definitions. If he refers to Angels, what then are Angels? The verse states that "They live forever" and that if Adam and Eve eat of the Tree of Life, they too will live forever.

And while it's assumed that Angels serve God, what does one make of Lucifer? In the book of Job, Lucifer was busy arguing with God, he apparently wasn't yet the "Fallen Angel" who led a revolution against God. And surely John would'nt make the argument that Lucifer is a part of the Christian trinity?

Although in a conversation I once had with some Satanists, they told me that Lucifer DID win his revolution, and that while everyone else is unknowingly worshiping the Devil, they actually worship God, and want him to regain his throne.

The idea that either Judaism or Christianity is "Monotheistic" doesn't hold up to well, if there are other independent or semi-independent Gods. Zeus was the head honcho in Greek mythology, and all the other Gods, served his will, when ordered to.

Dave

I gave three possible explanations.

1) He was talking to angels.

2) He was talking to other Gods, and the Jews worshipped a multitude of them, then eventually just one.

3) He was talking to other Gods, all of whom the Jews acknowledged as existing beings, but they (the Jews) only worshipped one of them.

None of those satisfy you?

[Chato]

DaveT, on 02 October 2010 - 11:29 PM, said:

I gave three possible explanations.

1) He was talking to angels.

2) He was talking to other Gods, and the Jews worshipped a multitude of them, then eventually just one.

3) He was talking to other Gods, all of whom the Jews acknowledged as existing beings, but they (the Jews) only worshipped one of them.

None of those satisfy you?

What are "Angels," if not Gods?

But your explanation and my questions, are a matter of semantics. Because the assumption we take for granted when we hear the word Monotheism is "one God." Angels, Fallen Angels, Demons, whatever, are all "other" Gods. Some of them acting independently of this one God, some of them actively opposing this one God. What's left of monotheistic rhetoric?

Dave

[Big Blooming Blighter]

Chato,

I wonder if you are applying to broad a definition to 'God'. Even granting that angels, demons, et al are, in some sense, deified within Christian doctrine, they certainly are not ever referred to as 'Gods'. Perhaps they might be called 'gods', but the capitalisation of the 'g' is important in distinguishing between lesser deities and the supreme 'God'.

However, I think the main crux of the problem is that the Semitic religions all derived from polytheistic sources. The Old Testament is rife with examples of other gods that, ultimately do not measure up to the supremacy of the Abrahamic God. What presents itself, therefore, is Judaic Henotheism. Since these lesser gods are deemed unworthy of worship, a Semitic worshipper would disregard them, and so for all intents and purposes, the Judeo-Christian religion effectively becomes monotheistic.

In short, religion develops, and worshippers don't always remember to proof read old texts.