What?! I'm sorry Rusty but that is just insane! My big pet peeve with this is that you said "let's dig deeper." That's really not needed and can be removed, as well as the "Hmmm." I'm just picking at you I have 3 problems with this. 1. I don't like to think of god as having emotions. Anything that is capable of emotion is capable of emotional breakdown. 2. Heartbreak implies that we emotionally hurt god. Something that is omnipotent shouldn't be affected by a mortal sin. 3. You imply that god could be provoked but he usually doesn't because he loves us. I'm not inclined to believe in a god that can be provoked by something a mortal does. This also presents the problem, if he has been provoked before, can't he be provoked again? Why hasn't my blasphemy killed me? Kinda making god sound like an elitist there, just be careful how you play that one out. "Ew, mortals. Their sins appall me!" Kinda like me saying "Ew, blacks. Their music appalls me." (I'm not racist you assholes). With your second point you claim that we hurt god and so to make up for it god wants us to feel some sort of pain so we kill a goat that didn't do anything to god. You also claim that I don't "feel bad" if I lie, cheat or steal. I do feel bad when I do but apparently not enough. All that aside, I don't kill a goat when I lie, cheat or steal. So whats the reminder? Jesus, the lamb of god is the reminder of my sin. But couldn't a lamb of the field just as easily remind me of my sin? Why Jesus? How about if we sin, we go to hell? That would sure as hell (pun) make me want to not sin! You get a little confusing here at the end. You said that we need to feel the pain of god by killing a goat. Here, however, you say that this is an illustration of the pain god felt. Somehow I don't think sins are slitting god's throat and then lighting him on fire, otherwise we've got pretty ashy god - I guess proves hes black, eh? I could see how killing a goat would be a serious way of showing your commitment. However, if my girlfriend killed a bunny on my doorstep I'd be inclined to break up with her. Since god, to you, seems to share all humanly emotions then he is probably sympathetic with me when I say that ***** is crazy. You make god sound like some blood thirsty, sick son of a *****. Ok so one sin = death. I lie to my parents. ****! God's pissed off at me now. I can either, tell my parents the truth and then tell them I lied to show my repenant heart OR I can go out back, kill a goat, be back for diner, and no one has to know (but god) about my dirty little sin. Which sounds better to you? Blood of an innocent or ACTUALLY righting a wrong. Animal sacrifice is an archaic ritual that has somehow managed to make it to the modern day with justification. There is no way you can be serious about this. Do you actually believe that killing a goat or a kitten or a bunny rabbit is going to absolve you of your wrong doings? Take some responsibility in your life. Do more than just pray for forgiveness. Act, seek out the person you wronged and right it. No immaginary force will do it for you. So now god sacrificed something? We sacrificed goats to save ourselves but god decided "well **** that ****" and sacrificed his son for us. We didn't do the sacrificing? Why should god do the repenting for us? Isn't that counter-intuitive to what you were going for earlier? I'm sorry Rusty, I don't want to offend you but this is just out there man. It is way out there.
No Nitrous, not really. You just like to nitpick the details instead of looking at the whole picture. I'll get back to this later.
Not self-sacrifice because it is easier to give yourself up than someone you love. You and I would rather take the bullet for a friend than let them die, right? (Or am I just crazy?)
Thanks, Rusty. Your explanation actually gave me new insight on the whole process. I hadn't previously viewed it that way, and it opened my eyes a bit. That said, Nitrous, I think you're missing and mistaking a few parts of his explanation. Namely... Not true. We were made in His image, right? You've heard of that verse, I assume. That's why, when people paint heavenly pictures with God's finger touching the masses or something, He's depicted as a very large human and not a goat/pig spawn. I view His emotional state just the same. It would be senseless to follow a god with no feelings or heart, wouldn't it? To say that He's capable of emotional breakdown is just searching for flaw instead of searching for truth. If we claimed Him to be unemotional and heartless, you'd obviously have an issue with that. Here is one of the "mistaking" situation I initially mentioned. This isn't to insult your intelligence, but more to say that we obviously view the same sentence from different stances. In an effort to explain mine.... The spilling of blood you speak of did right the wrong. His entire post weaved itself in and out of that "mother topic," so to speak. To think of animal sacrifice as archaic doesn't harm a thing, but to criticize its use in that day is a shot in the dark, if you ask me. You and I live in a world where expelling feces in a hole is barbaric, but doing so in previous years might've been the most sanitary method of that day. You can't fully understand a world that you don't live in.
If he's capable of emotion then he is capable postive and negative emotion. Jealous, rage, provocation, etc. I'd prefer my god to be the epitome of logic and the keeper of secrets. As in, doesn't **** with humans. He just watches, but doesn't intervene. Kind of like the Prime Directive in Star Trek. Again, I'd just prefer it that way. I think if there was a god, he'd be much better off doing that. It did not right the wrong. Maybe for the young boy it gave him some comfort but his parents will never know his sin. He will never confess and thus the crime is unpunished. The only punishment was given to a helpless animal. There is NO justification for animal sacrifice. It doesn't right wrongs, it doesn't please god, it doesn't do anything BUT cause needless violence. People got by "back in the day" without animal sacrifice. They, you know, killed to survive. Not to absolve themselves of some imaginary sin. Even if the entire world practiced it, it is not out of the question to scrutinize and even condescend upon the stupidity of the modern day supporters. They may not have known any better but we should, and we shouldn't tolerate people who think they did what they did for a worthy cause. Have you ever been camping? ...Not too many toilets out there. Yeah...
That's why we'll never see eye to eye, becuase you want God to confrom to what you think he should be like so you can understand him. God contols, He isn't controlled. Also, God doesn't need logic, God know's everything, knowledge is intuitive for Him. God doesn't need to figure out anything, because he already knows what happened, is happening, could have happened, what might happen, and what will happen in one eternal act. God is illogical because logic is a human quality, so is fairness. You have a choice in pooping in the woods though. Ask any bimbo and I'm sure she'll tell you it's archaic in her own terms. EDIT: Nitrous it almost seems like you think God works on our time. Like God is upstairs debating with himself how to handle humans, like he's reasoning out a response to our actions. God doesn't debate though. We debate to come to a conclusion or predict what will happen, but God already knows, will know, has known how he will act. I mean there isn't any way of conveying the point that he doesn't think at least in human terms. Here we sit trying to use our logic and reason out how God works, who is illogical and doesn't reason, doesn't ponder, doesn't philosophize, doesn't deduce or induce. I can't stress enough the fact that he knows everything.
That's why I added "Again, I'd just prefer it that way" Meaning that while my ideal god is what I have mentioned, the popular opinion of god is an emotional one. Which is just an archaic way of equating human thoughts and emotions to an omnipotent being. God did not create man in his own image, we created god in our image.
It is true that what we think of God may be biased because of certain influences and misinterpretations from humanity. (EX: God is sometimes depicted with a white beard, much like Zeus.) But that does not mean that God is all-knowing because of "popular opinion". Anyone/thing who created the universe must be all-knowing. Do you think the universe was created by accident? Whomever God is must have had some idea as to what he was doing, and what would happen next. He created the universe for people to live in. He created people because he was probably lonely. But since Adam and Eve sinned against him, he created Heaven and Hell as a place to separate the good and the bad. Now, what I think about God is that he can make people, but he can't control them. That is why there is a separation of the good and bad. He doesn't want to have bad people hanging around ruining anyone else's life. So I think he has someone rule Hell so he doesn't have to deal with them.
k, well im jewish, and i dont believe the devil is even existent. i believe in god, and thats it, religiously. i also believe in bigfoot, the loch ness monster, ghosts, yetis, chupacabra, etc.
I can't stress to you enough that he doesn't exist. God doesn't use logic, deduce, induce or think for that matter. He's not intelligent, can't make a decision, and he certainly can't comprehend. So why do we call him god again? Now to be a little more serious. You said god is illogical and unreasonable. Meaning that you have completely undermined all of Christianity's theology pertaining to free will. In order for something to have choice, something must have a cause which can be described in normative terms. If it can only be described in descriptive terms, it isn't a choice. This cause is called a reason and it makes understandable to us the persons actions as a rational agent. If god is unreasonable then he lacks the ability to follow even his own rules by choice and is thereby bound by cause and effect. To put it simply: We can describe the behavior of an agent as a choice if and only if we can identify a cause which can be given a normative description, called a "reason." The reason (as a reason) makes the choice of the agent intelligible to us as a rational agent, and explains the behavior of the agent as being a rational thing to do. God by your definition is a compulsive one bound by his own urges. Might I remind you the church frowns upon natural urges...
You can't say he definitely doesn't exist for the same reason we can't say he definitely exists. You don't know.
To be philosophically correct what you are saying is true. However, there is no sense in wasting my time describing that every time I say god doesn't exist, k?
Yeah, but this is a debate about whether or not God is also the Devil. So saying God is non-existent is kinda straying off-topic. Just saying. Eh, this whole thing has been kind of off-topic. Whatevs.
First off, the church does not frown upon natural urges at all. It frowns upon natural urges that are satisfied in a way that is apart from God's plan as laid out via the Bible. Now that that's taken care of... Nitrous, you say that God doesn't use logic, and there I'd agree with you, but for a different reason. It's not that He chooses not to use it. It's that He created it. When we Christians say God created all things, we mean it. That includes logic, laws of nature, etc. This view also answers your question on God's omnipotence/our free will. God is not boxed-in by time; therefore, He sees all things at once, because He's outside of time itself. So, His omniscience does not interfere with our free will. He cannot not know all, as He is omniscient, so it's useless to argue that He does not know what we're going to do. But knowing what someone will do and forcing that person to do something are completely unrelated. Take an alcoholic who embraces alcoholism thoroughly. If he is thirsty, angry, and alone in a room full of his favorite alcoholic beverage, I, being an fairly intelligent being who knows this man fairly well, know that he will begin drinking. But to say that my knowledge of his core character, his beliefs, and his habits forced him to drink...is ludicrous. That, Nitrous, is why it's illogical to constrict God in the manner you've been using; He's outside of human laws and thinking. It's one of the essential factors to being God.
I'm not sure where in my post I said anything about human not being able to study God and understand some things about Him. God limits Himself, actually: God chooses to never break a promise, to be completely and utterly just, etc. In the same way, He limits Himself in some ways so that man can comprehend small portions of Him and, thus, get to know Him better. Things such as His love can be both understood (God loves all) and unfathomable (why He continues to love all despite how awful some people are). I never said anything about Him being something that was totally incomprehensible. I said He was "outside" of human thinking...not that He was completely impossible to understand. You also didn't respond to any of my points. =/
Lance, I'm just going to take an opposite stance from you for the heck of it. How would you know that God loves all and is "unfathomable"? You can believe in those kinds of things, but your beliefs won't always match up with someone else's. So you can't say those things as if they were facts. Also, you can't really study God, as he is not physically present. You can't see him or ask questions. You can only study other's experiences with God and their account of what they heard or saw. But you never know if they are telling the truth, unless you experience such a revelation yourself.
You've got a good point, actually. You can't know God except by trusting in others' experiences and their account. And, by faith (which means you can't physically prove it), I believe the accounts and experiences of the writers of the Bible to be true. Thus, the God I'm talking about, according to those people and their texts, loves all and is unfathomable.
Yeah but for someone like Nitrous, who doesn't believe in a god, it's harder to bring that point home for them. He has to see to believe apparently. For the record, I am a Catholic, and I do believe in God. Nitrous for next god FTW! Give him someone to believe in!
But God cannot be proven. Period. I'm a strong, believing Christian myself, but I know that cannot be proven. Things can point to Him, experiences and miracles can reveal Him, but empirical proof simply does not exist, for He is supernatural, or, in other words, other-worldly. He would lose the very definition of godhood if He could be proven by mere men.