What? Spoiled heiresses?

Please expand your explanation here. Don't force me to write it for you and guess what you are driving at. I don't read minds - and I am quite sick of restating the argument over and over and over again. *sig*

Trying to define God is like trying to figure out a riddle with no answer.

Good way to make a point ...I like it

If I know Bruce Willis personally and am close friend of his, then there are things I will be able to tell you about his likes, dislikes, personality traits, personal history and I may even be able to pick out subtle hints and jokes in something he writes and other such things that you would be incapable of knowing if you just know Bruce Willis as a celebrity figure.

In the same way, if I know God personally, then there are things that I will know about Him, things I will be able to understand about Him, and things about Him I will be able to grasp, that someone who doesn't know Him personally would, of course be incapable of knowing or understanding.

God is a supernatural being. Bruce Willis is a not-supernatural being. That's a huge mega-f'in difference. Furthermore, since, once again you've decided to wade down a red-herring here, this has nothing to do with God submitting to the evil (in Christian terms) of the universe with Jesus's death since the universe (according to human-view - unless you want to deny this:) contains nothing but suffering, ie the Pitiless Indifference of the Universe.

Try again Son.

Then we are no longer struggling with an "IF." Just various degrees of ignorance or knowledge of what we can not know or know about the universe we inhabit.

Isn't it the Christian and or Abrahamic God we were discussing as he/she/it is described in the Bible.
I get your point BM and if you took a more globalised look at God/Gods then you would be correct but The Abrahamic God has actually been described as I mentioned earlier in my post.

S.A.Gacious I have nothing more to add to your original post, it is very similar in concept to the question of, if God can do anything is he capable of creating a rock so big that even he could not lift it? I can't see how a definative answer could be reached.

But I would like to comment on the Black and white nature of this post or perhaps I don't quite understand what you are saying.
Why are we only talking about nature in this statement. Why would this mean that there would be no room for varying degrees of Natural and Super natural?

Paradoxes are usually caused by a lack of understanding in humans. When we are discussing GOD, we have an outright contradiction of terms and in associations of terms, or terminology misapplied to a belief in GOD.

I was referring to our (that is, humanities) degrees of knowledge and ignorance of nature. The supernatural is beyond our providence. (Our as I have stated before an epistemological schism.) You are asking me a different question here and I am not sure what you are stating.

Not actually refering to your comment on the degrees of knowledge and ignorance as you have abviously allowed for diferences in that statement But I was directly refering to this... and I myself am not stating anything more than asking for clarity on the above quote. Is it that if one aspect of God describes nature, then we are only talking about nature. Or could it be that if one aspect of God describes Nature, then other aspects of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent all knowing, all seeing God could be Supernatural. Isn't there room for a God to be Natural and Super Natural at the same time?

As far as the paradox goes it matters neither way to me my God is the spark that is life, nothing more and nothing less.

The very nature of the universe pooh-poohs any notion of this type of God. The evidence is pretty clear. Christians site this evidence themselves. (And some Christians state they wouldn't exist if Jesus had not suffered on the cross and died.)


How do we demarcate between the two if GOD is said to exist in both states? In what ways can we qualify, scientifically, by measurement and analysis that discriminates between the two? What suite of instruments would make this possible? Would these instruments and tools have to exist in both states themselves? If so, how do we again verify that this special suite of intruments are indeed capable of this binary?

And let's say somehow that we do have a set of instruments that can do this, how do we, again, understand the data collected, considering that the supernatural (by the very law of idenity) is being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

I'm assuming that in this endeavor we will use the scientific method, verified through empiricism in which data is collected and can be falsified. If not, by science, then by some other means? Palm reading? Pet Psychics? Mediums? Quija Boards? Chrystals? David Eicke?

Fair enough, however I was making a point about logic and how we know things based upon their identity. Your belief in your God conforms to your own dogma as everyone's God does. That's not empirical proof of God, but proof that people believe in as many permutations of God as there are people.

I just wanted to jump in and point out that there is nothing Super natural. It is all natural. We tend to refer to things we don't understand as 'supernatural'. I would suggest that having 399 songs inside a piece of plastic no larger than a business card is 'supernatural' to one who had no understanding of IPods. Carry on!

lol Joc, I saw that one comming from a mile away


Well perhaps not the bit about the ipod.

I don't know why you keep accusing people of throwing out red herrings. You just don't understand our point because you don't want to understand it. Its a completely full answer to your original question but it hinges on the mindset that would write the line above.

We have taken God and explained him in human terms. These terms are our way of understanding God but they are obviously going to be lacking because it is impossible for us to understand the true nature of God. Your error is in deciding that our human definitions are more superior and more official than the actual way that God exists.

Example. We've all made the same point btw, Bruce Willis, Ipod, all of these things are saying the same thing. Your lack of understanding is not evidence that we have not made a valid point.

Example. The monster is red. If you were to take a picture of a maroon monster and ask a small child what color the monster is the child would probably say red. Now the fact is the monster is not red, its just the best way the child can describe the monster with his limited vocabulary and understanding. If we come to the point of seeing that the monster is indeed maroon we don't go back and say "The monster can not exist because they said the monster is red and the monster is maroon"

This is what you are doing. All powerful knowing God. Means his powers exist on levels beyond our comprehension. The path he is looking at is beyond our comprehension. We try to explain it with our feeble language but the language is lacking. Not God. You say God should just change it to be what he wanted. Which he did, but because in your mind its not instant it is not enough. Because it doesn't fall into the parameters of what you want it to be, you say its not good enough. Your rejection of his solution doesn't mean that there was no solution. It just means you reject it. As is your right. But it doesn't negate the reality of it for those who have not.

Not in all cases and not all people. Atheists are not ashamed to admit that we simply do not know, nor do we make arguments of ignorance to cover up that fact.


This is quite similar to an argument that theists make about god as a designer or arguments based on intelligent design. However, the caveman would never recognize what an iPod is and does, and neither would we recognize an alien piece of technology. (New technology is always based upon previous technology and paradigms.)

My point being that there is nothing in the Universe that is 'super' natural...be it Alien Technology, God Technology, etc.

The suggestion that God is omnipotent through supernatural powers is just as whacky as the suggestion that Ipod technology is supernatural to the caveman. It is our ignorance of the Universe that leads us to believe that 'super' natural events occur.

If entities from the realm of the Dead actually intermingle with the living...for instance...there is nothing super natural about it...if it occurs in the Universe it is natural. That's my only point really.

I see you can read my mind. Do you even know what a red herring is Salieri? Furthermore, do you know what a contradiction is? (For the record I did not accuse Kismet of that form of intellectual dishonesty, but had answered her as straightforward as I could.)

All your doing is accusing me of being stubborn and biased and its intellectually dishonest of you to remove the context of my post to Kismet in order to brand me as biased. (Now I am just waiting for the Tu Quoque here after calling you out...)

So, I will pose the question to you again:

"If GOD is All-PKG, then the question must be answered...why did Jesus have to die? The very nature, the very tautology of the word "omnipotent" is all-powerful, that is, GOD is the infinite expression of unlimited power. To deny this definition of GOD otherwise abrogates and makes the meaning of the word God a joke and further inchoates an already confusing and contradictory concept where believers, by-and-large, admit that GOD is incomprehensible. With unlimited power and unlimited scope of knowledge, GOD - if the word is to have any meaning at all, MUST change the rules of the Universe, whereby not only the suffering of humans, but of animals in its fecundity abated and made obsolete."

You stated that "An all powerful loving God would create a solution to the problem." And you said "He has." But the evidence to the contrary weighs against you in the definitive and even the solution (Jesus dieing) confirms my argument.


Semantics aside, this relates how to a universe that disapproves any notion of an ALL-PKG god and that fact that Jesus had to suffer and die, how?

(Btw...this is technically a strawman. And I don't know what you mean by a monster? You believe in monsters? Monsters are fun. They are great to see at the cinema and play spookie at Hollowween. However, we grow up and put away our beliefs in imaginary and invisible monsters when we are no longer nonaged. Only we are pressured and indoctrinated to believe in other likewise imaginary friends and monsters by religion, by supersition, and by tradition and is desired, expected, and admirable to believe so.)


Yet you continue to make positive statements of fact about something you admit you can not "comprehend" about something that is beyond "comprehension." You state that language "lacks" and is "feeble" and this is evidence for God existence, much less HIM being ALL-PKG?

Let me get this straight, you are making a positive argument for God's existence (or for why the continual suffering in the universe is GOD"S plan) based upon this incoherence?


You have an argument here Salieri? Or are you going to continue to read my mind and continue to attack me?

Let me ask you this...

01. Did Jesus suffer on the cross?
02. Did Jesus Die?
03. Does suffering still exist?
04. Do people still die?
05. Is a natural, painless death still the most rarest event in the universe?
06. Is not the universe indifferent to ours and the suffering of animals?
07. Is God, all-PKG?

Add all this up Salieri and there is no "solution" that HE enacted. And if the "solution" was Jesus dying, then the "solution" only disconfirms any notion of an ALL-PKG GOD. Harmonize this with the belief in an ALL-PGK GOD and we then can continue this conversation.

I have no objections to any of that or to your orginal statement. I was just making a comparision about the forms of the argument. Not the conclusions. (Obv. the conclusions are quite different.)


Well, then can one say your truly "dead" if your consioussness is active? You may not have a body so are we then referring to a different form of life? However if life is predicated upon a biological engine, then is that form of consioussness can be understood as living? Dead and living have specific meanings that are trampled upon all the time in spiritual metaphysics and religion - which is basically your point in how humans misappropriate the terms "natural" and "supernatural" for these cherished beliefs or as answer for perfectly natural ignorance.

You are not interested in having a conversation as is evidenced by your ridiculous answer regarding the "monster" statement.

So never mind.

Everybody...I called it! Tu Quoque.

But really Salieri, can you not answer how semantics relates to a universe which requires that Jesus to suffer and die? And if that is too difficult, explain just us how ridiculous I am with an adherence to this evidence that is supposedly stacked in my disfavor by a methodology that does not rely on some form of mind reading or ad hominem? Please. Give us the reasoning behind your assertions, instead of making accusations and retreating like a seagul. Thanks.

Btw my ribs feel fine.

I haven't seen anyone ask you to believe anything. I see instead people acknoweldge that you refuse to believe something as is your right. So what I find interesting is your hyperdefensive name calling (yes you went back and edited that I should muster two brain cells to rub together to think and other such insults") now you are "red herring" yourself by deciding to discuss monters is silly and other such things.

You are missing that I nor you nor anyone else has the capability of explaining why Jesus had to suffer and die. Who is asking you anything? In fact most people I have seen respond because you are being rude to them and twisting their words.

So you win! You see how you wrote "Everybody....I called it!" that's all this is to you. You are angry for some reason. That's all.

Just a quick comment here...Why wouldn't they have the capability of explaining...the NT seems to indicate why. You just can't give the logic of why. Could that be because there is no logic to the why and that the religion is no different than any other religion, simply man-made constructs with no real bearing on what theists waveringly call God?

I have not made any positive statements about GOD's existance and I am only making self-evident statements about the universe, even taking Christian beliefs as fact about GOD and Jesus and seeing what can be coherently said.

However, Salieri I do believe it was you that said "Come to God." In my book that qualifies as asking me to believe.

And that acknowledgment is confirmation of what? That I am evil, biased, angry hateful person? Even if this is the case, Salieri, hows does that refute my argument and the premise of this thread? Well?

Yes, I removed because it was offensive and it was during the course of my editing. I tend to edit alot. I am a terrible writer and I want to communicate these concepts as clear as I can.

Show me how I have done this, please.


Well that's honest. Thank you. Now that you do acknowledge that, can you not take that next step forward and analyze what that means if the universe is believed and said to be governed and created by an ALL-PKG GOD?


How have I twisted words? Please illustrate how. Just don't accuse and fly off. Furthermore, perhaps my rudeness - as you put, wouldn't be so earned if you would stop reading my mind and projecting what you think you know about me.


Reading minds again, are we? Never stated that I won. I did however, call the fact that you'd accuse of me of this fallacy. Anyway, will you be invoicing me for all this theraphy you've been administring?

The question as to why Jesus had to die is because God among many other things is absolutely just. The penalty for sin is death and if one is guilty then justice must be served. Now we see Gods compassionate side as he steps down from His judgment seat and serves the penalty on our behalf. Devine justice is served and grace is offered to those that accept the price as having been paid in full for their transgressions.

Irish

Which, if you think about it, goes a long way to explaining what I am saying about the 'supernatural' not existing.
Pain is real...in a 'supernatural' world...there wouldn't be any pain for God...however, having taken on the natural nature of man upon himself...he experienced the pain of man on a scale that pales with the norm.

Good point He experienced many of the pains of humankind such as humiliation loneliness and even grief, the shortest verse in the bible is John 11:35 Jesus wept.

Irish

Irish, Joc's point is against supernaturalism. Don't rush off into confirmation bias here.

This doesn't make sense to me, if God created us He would know what we feel and experience without turning into a man himself. That's like me designing a building, and not knowing how it is made.

You two don't agree. But I will let Joc speak for him/herself.

I did not say that you should come to God. I stated that this is what God in the bible has instructed man to do.


Second I'm glad that you understand that you are a terrible writer because that is what is causing the confusion in this thread. Perhaps you'd also like to read up on the definition of "red herrings" and "ad hominem" because you are the one who is attacking the people in this thread rather than considering the arguments which do indeed address your original question.

Wrong. It was you:

Therefore, you are corrected.

Well I accept the bible too (at least in the context of this thread) and church doctrine as far as God, Jesus, and the nature of the universe is concerned. So I don't see what your problem is with me.

Great. So what of it? Are you happy this thread is being derailed so we can have our lover's spat? The longer you keep focus on you and me, the longer your silence answers the many acute, appropriate and focused questions I have asked you.

That's fine. I don't know what else to say to you.

Please keep your comments on the subject and not on attacking each other.

Thank you Irish.

Let me restate the premise of this thread.

If GOD is All-PKG, then the question must be answered...why did Jesus have to die? The very nature, the very tautology of the word "omnipotent" is all-powerful, that is, GOD is the infinite expression of unlimited power. To deny this definition of GOD otherwise abrogates and makes the meaning of the word God a joke and further inchoates an already confusing and contradictory concept where believers, by-and-large, admit that GOD is incomprehensible. With unlimited power and unlimited scope of knowledge, GOD - if the word is to have any meaning at all, MUST change the rules of the Universe, whereby not only the suffering of humans, but of animals in its fecundity abated and made obsolete.

You're falling into a trap you have accused others of falling into here... reading minds. You are assuming that since there is suffering in the world, then God can't be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. However, in order to make that statement you have to assume you know the mind of God, and that God has no purpose for the suffering that we experience in these measly 80+ years of life in this plane of existence. So, I ask you, gacious can you absolutely, positively completely prove that there can be no good reason for the suffering and death we experience?

Really? So putting this list:

01. Did Jesus suffer on the cross?
02. Did Jesus Die?
03. Does suffering still exist?
04. Do people still die?
05. Is a natural, painless death still the most rarest event in the universe?
06. Is not the universe indifferent to ours and the suffering of animals?
07. Is God, all-PKG?

is reading minds?

Or is it this:

"Add all this up Salieri and there is no "solution" that HE enacted. And if the "solution" was Jesus dying, then the "solution" only disconfirms any notion of an ALL-PKG GOD. Harmonize this with the belief in an ALL-PGK GOD..."

Is that reading minds? In what way do you pull from that statement that I am positively reading GODS mind? Well?

(You do realize that GOD is an all intelligent being in infinite expression. Therefore, it is going to take a brain at least equal to HIS brain in order to read it. And before you accuse me of this, no I do not have a brain equal to GOD.)


Really? I have assumed to know the mind of GOD? Please, cite where I have done so. No, I have only asked what this suffering means in light of the beliefs of an ALL-PKG GOD and the fact (at least in the context of this argument) that Jesus had to suffer and die anyway.

In fact it is the Christians on this board that state they know God's plan even though they volunteer the information that GOD is incomprehensible. I have never made such a positive statement and again, I challange you to cite where I have.

Also, reviewing this board, I stated to Flower and Salieri that we already know GODs plan (according to the Book of Revelation). Here it is again: ""Jesus will come back with a tongue of a sword and feet made of brass as the host of God smites the unbeliever and the dead rise once again. All Jews go to hell. 144,000 virgins go to heaven. The Earth is consumed by flame. This is the methodology of an All-PKG GOD?"

Take a stab at answering it Son. Please.


That's not the question I am asking dear Son. Again, for the millionth time I have asked if GOD is ALL-PKG and Jesus still had to suffer and die, then what can be said about an ALL-PKG GOD?


Did the point about what benefits do I recieve by the torture or murder of a child escape you?

Here is the full question I asked before:

I'm sorry, dear gacious, but you have done more than simply question how an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God could allow suffering in the world. If you were merely questioning how that could be so, you would have at least acknowledged and considered some of the responses you have gotten.

But it's obvious you're not actually looking for an answer you're simply using the guise of asking a question to state your point.

And since your point (which you are unable to defend so you pose it as a mere question) is that God is either not all-powerful and all-knowing, or not all-good because otherwise He would not allow suffering, it requires that you know, beyond all doubt, God does not have a plan (which requires a brief period of suffering to bring about a situation which is all good). This certainty which goes against what God has said about who He is, implies that you can read His mind and know He is lying about being all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. By the way, please send my warmest regards to gw.

Okay Gacious, I'm confused about something.

I've been following this thread for a few days now, not putting in my two cents only because I honestly felt I was not educated enough about the subject matter to do so. But I feel I may possibly have something to add. I guess only time will tell

Original thread premise: (As quoted by Gacious)

"If GOD is All-PKG, then the question must be answered...why did Jesus have to die? The very nature, the very tautology of the word "omnipotent" is all-powerful, that is, GOD is the infinite expression of unlimited power. To deny this definition of GOD otherwise abrogates and makes the meaning of the word God a joke and further inchoates an already confusing and contradictory concept where believers, by-and-large, admit that GOD is incomprehensible. With unlimited power and unlimited scope of knowledge, GOD - if the word is to have any meaning at all, MUST change the rules of the Universe, whereby not only the suffering of humans, but of animals in its fecundity abated and made obsolete."

Did Irish not answer you question with this post? I thought I noticed you did not have a retort to it. I was genuinely curious about whether or not you missed it or if it just didn't answer enough for you. I'm very curious following this thread and seeing what turns up

My point is NOT against the existence of God. My point IS against 'supernaturalism'. I suppose further explanation is necessary:

We perceive God as 'all powerful', as 'supernatural'. My perception of God is that he is completely natural. It isn't supernatural that electrons revolve around a nucleus. That is natural. My point is that the entire Universe is completely natural. My point is that there is nothing that is 'supernatural'. My point is that God is not supernatural but natural. More than viewing God as 'all powerful'...I rather view God's power as Infinite...because God is Infinite.
It is inconceivable to many why an Infinite God would need to explain anything to His own creation. I suggest that neither you nor I have any idea why we are even here. Isn't that the age old question...why are we here? We are here and we are alone in the Universe or so it seems...the Infinite God shows us that we are not.

How do you explain Algebra to a two year old? You don't. You have to get down on the two year olds mental level of understanding and start with one and look, here is another one, that makes two. How does the Infinite who has overcome all pain and suffering explain love to mankind? Jesus. It isn't really hard to understand. One makes a mistake when one attempts to apply logic to the Infinite. Logic suggests that we shouldn't even exist.

You're making a great point joc. I think what we should really be looking at is that by it's nature science cannot account for or measure certain things, including God. The fact that science is unable to grapple with those things does not make them supernatural, it merely reflects the limits of science.

When Irish first posted this, I had originally marked it as a sermon and that it added no value to the discussion. I stand behind sermon part, although as I work on my response now, I find that it does add value. We had a conversation behind the scenes about it. So I will answer him point per point, however, I must admit I don't even know how quite to make of it as it is such a sermon. Sorry, Irish, I just can't shake it, but I will play nice in the sandbox and try not to kick too much sand.

Anyway...

We both acknowledge that Jesus died. I say that his death only confirms that God is not ALL-PKG as HE must succumb to the nature of the universe and is powerless to change it. I defined GOD (in accordance to Christian belief) at the beginning of this thread as:

"Omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Meaning that GOD is all-powerful, all-knowning, and all-good. (All-PKG) For each quality, GOD is the infinite expression and unlimited practice of each characteristic."

This being the case, GOD is the infinite expression and unlimited practice of justice. Since this is a fact, then god must necessarily change the nature of the universe in accordance to the definition of what an ALL-PKG means.

You've stated that "Jesus had to die." Fair enough. Do you see how that violates the concept of infinite compassion and benevolence? Christians state that Jesus was innocent. But divinely innocent. (As somehow on the cosmic level Jesus divine innocence cancels out sin? Even though he died and sin is still here.)

Correct me if I am wrong, but if we take your above logic Irish, then you must be against theThe Innocence Project? They are a "national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing." Is this not true?

If you think putting an innocent man to death is justice, then I am just left speechless. And if you don't think putting the innocent to death is justice, then congrats Irish! you are more humane and benevolent than the GOD you serve.


Jesus never died. He was busy for three days with Satan. Spends an afternoon appearing as large head in the sky, freaking out his disciples (look at my wounds!) and then buzzing out into outer space without an environmental suit to protect him from the vacuum and without a rocket to boost him off the earth to escape gravity.

Anyway....

And served it was. GOD, Jesus father, sent his innocent son to death.

You know Irish, I find that monstrous. I will gladly take Jesus place in order to pay for my own sins, instead of every Sunday celebrating his death and eating his blood and flesh in this death-cult orgy of blood celebration that Christians so approve of. In this context, the utility of HIS death is meaningless. And if his death did accomplish anything to alleviate a universe of suffering, it still goes to prove that GOD is not ALL-PKG.


TRANSLATION:
GOD created the universe. GOD has a plan. GOD had sex with a human. GOD becomes Jesus. GOD dies on the cross. GOD goes back up to heaven.

Wow... that is some atonement there. GOD suffers and dies for HIMSELF, only to go back up to heaven and throw just about everybody into Hell for eternity because of HIS plan.

You know what would be easier and actually accomplish that? Cheat. Change the universe. Pretty simple. I would if I were an ALL-PKG being. I'd have no choice. It would be necessarily incumbent on me that I do so. And if you are like most Christians, you subscribe to the Divine Command Theory. Which is if God does it, it is just, which is the point behind your first sentence.

Only, its justice that GOD demand of HIMSELF. Despite all that, it failed, it did not change the nature of the universe. And as I have stated before and to other members of this board when the Rapture comes, GOD will only be adding more suffering and death to the universe. Again, in accordance to the Christian beliefs as GOD as ALL-PKG, GOD the FATHER and the SON and the HOLY GHOST is as much as powerless, helpless, and a victim of the universes pitiless indifference to our suffering.

The best way I could possibly think to relate this in "human" terms, would be Gandhi. Gandhi continually fasted in protest, starving himself near death quite a few times. He was assissinated for his fight in civil disobediance. He often times hurt himself in some way, sacraficing his own well being for the well being of the very people he had come to inspire. And was assissinated by the like. (Kind of like Jesus?)

Now also having discussed that most Christians believe that Jesus was indeed God in human form, this is where I would try to relate this. God came down as a human, to better show and express the way he wanted his people to live, to be, to believe. In the end, he also time and time again sacraficed his own well being for the very well being of the people he'd come to inspire...it was probably worth it to him to personally deliver the message. In the case of my comparison to Gandhi, it is said that God created us in his image...so it is not obscene that the best way he would think to relate to us is in human form. Why'd he do it that way? Why didn't he just "cheat?" Who knows. Only God I would suppose. Having said that, I would think that those actions might somehow explain the PKG God you are looking for. As for the current pain and suffering...well, I imagine you'd have to put it on a scale of knowledge. What we know to be perfect, what we understand as all-knowing, what we understand as good...are all baised upon human experience, principle, and law...none of these which, in theory, God is held accountable to. So for us to say that God is not living up to the standards at which we hold him, well, I guess it's possible that we don't understand the standards as he meant them. This is purely theoretical, however, and I am a Jack-Christian at best just trying to play Devil's Advocate. (IRONY LOL)

Hope I conveyed myself well enough. If I didn't, hell, I took a crack at it.

Which responses? Care to cite them for me? Are referring to when I have pushed back against all the mind reading and attacks I received from Selari and every other mind reader and therapist on this board?

Or perhaps you are referring all my other responses where someone else has first made a statement that was, as you put it, "simply question" outside the context of this thread?

Maybe you'll cite these ones since you ignored my request for the others above.

Thanks.


Which do you feel were considered responses Son? Which ones did you feel were particularly acute and effective. Please cite question and answer please.

Thanks.

In what way? Can you cite with questions I have poised that functionally accomplish this?

Thanks.


Actually, this is quite false. Please refer back to post #1. Or did you not read it? I made only self evident statements about the universe and cited the definitions and beliefs that Christians believe adhere too.

I added Dawkins to frame the argument.


Yes Son. That is correct. But only partially so. Given that GOD is all three of these things, in order for these to be true and the meanings of each to mean anything at all, that GOD is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (infinite expression and unlimited practice of each) he must necessarily change the nature of the universe in accordance to the definition of what an ALL-PKG means.


Please, again cite where I stated that GOD does not have plan. I have, in fact, on numerous occasions acknowledged GOD's plan to you, to Flower and to Selari. The Rapture. However, the suffering that ensues and is enacted by GOD only confirms that HE can do nothing to change the universe as he is only adding exponentially to the suffering and death to the universe.


Really? Do you believe in Heaven? Does Heaven exist? Can you describe what Heaven is like for me? Answer me that and I will address the above point you've made above. Thanks.


You are still accusing me of reading GOD's mind. You've shown no evidence that I believe I have. Please cite this evidence.

I have in fact, stated that I can not read GOD's mind.

Are you not getting tired of attacking me yet with your mind reading and unproven assertions? Really?


Not likely. I voted for the other guy.

S.A. Gacious

I was thinking about your question last night and the way we've gone back and forth so I'd like to start over and say "I'm sorry" for being harsh.

The reason I am frustrated with you is because the answer to your question requires you for a moment to take a leap of faith in thought. Its the only way to see it. Once you see it its like "Ooooh!" but until then you won't. Its like those magic illusion pictures.

Now the act of grace is why Jesus had to die. Jesus didn't "have to die" Jesus chose to step in to fill the spot of his fellow man.

For all we know there could be millions of planets filled with God's different kinds of people all living in the varying forms of perfection or sin.

Our task is what lays before us. Not what could have should have would have been. I think you focus too much on the possibility and not the reality.

We don't know God's reasons. For example I'm not all powerful all knowing etc. But I do know that sometimes if I see a person lying to me I'll let them go with it it because I want to watch how the situation unravels. Someone once said on here that God's power means he can see all possibilities that could unfold but can't control the one that does. We control that. Its his gift to us. So perhaps in answer to your question, God is just amusing himself.

Ambriel, I apologise, I edited your post because the Green hurt my eyes.

no harm done my friend, though before I realized how little the change was, I re-read my post over and OVER again trying to figure out what it was that changed and what it was I'd done wrong! LOL!

FYI... I have a busy weekend here with family and friends. So, please be patient and I will respond to whatever has been posted since my post to Irish when I get a chance.

Thanks!

Fair enough, I'm off work here in about 10 minutes anyway and won't get to check back until tonight. Have a good weekend everyone!

Hi Ambriel. Thanks for reply and being so cordial. It's a breath of fresh air.

That is absolutely correct. Protestants believe that it is a spiritual communion. (Whatever that means.) My guess is that Irish is most likely Catholic. If I am wrong, I am open to correction.

However, I do find the ritual abhorrent.


You'll have to expand this one for me Ambriel. I really don't understand the correlation you are making. Sorry.

What happened to Ghandi is abhorrent, but what he stood for and how he accomplished through civil disobeince (which btw, inspired Dr Martin Luther King) was extremely admirable for the gains in human rights he achieved. He, however, did not believe in Jesus so he'll be in HELL right along with me. Or maybe not. Muslims believe you go to HELL if you believe that Jesus was DIVINE...so perhaps there is a chance, heh Ambriel?


But HE is GOD. Supreme. ALL-PKG creator of the universe. Immortal. Eternal. Preeminent. Predominant. Ever-lasting. Omnipotent. Omniscient. Omnibenevolent. Amen Amen.

I fail to see what he could sacrifice anything. Ghandi was at least a man. He actually died and has since stayed dead for what he believed and has inspired many followers, like Dr Martin Luther King since. Being the case, divinity is unnecessary.

________

But those actions are unnecessary. God has already created such a universe without suffering and pain according to Christian theology. Can you guess where and what that is?


You've stumped me here. Do I have to be GOD to acknowledge the pain and suffering of the world to draw some conclusions about it? If that is the case, how can any Christian then affirm in the positive that the pain and suffering in the world is apart of some majestic plan if they are denying that they have knowledge? They are not GOD after-all but they can draw the conclusion while I am forbidden to do so.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.


Yet Christians can say without a hint of irony that GOD is loving, that GOD cares, that GOD vengeful, that GOD is jealous, that GOD is forgiving - which, by my tally are human emotions. Amrbiel, you can't have it both ways.

Besides, requiring me to not be "biased" as a human is, well, ridiculous. How else should I focus my bias? As GOD?

Also, Ambriel, can you answer for me why we can not hold GOD accountable to human standards. The United States Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment." HELL in my book is exactly that. Whereas we humans forbid inhuman treatment amongst ourselves in this respect, we give GOD a pass. (Unfortunately for us, the current POTUS and Puppet Master Cheney have decided to turn their back on this American value.)


I disagree. We can understand perfectly. Just one needs to address the issue by defining what the beliefs actually are and at the end-of-the-day see what is left.


Thanks for playing!

(PS. I'll try to keep up here with everybody, but as I stated before I have lots to do. Also, I may have to start not answering some people's post. I apologize for that, however, there is one of me and many of you.

Back to house cleaning with my lovely girlfriend!!!!)

01. Did Jesus suffer on the cross? - NOPE

02. Did Jesus Die? - Lots of people called Jesus died over the years lol

03 Does suffering still exist? - Yup and always will

04. Do people still die?... - Well D'UH!!..its going to be the last thing I do (part quote from Kismit)

05. Is a natural, painless death still the most rarest event in the universe?... - I dunno, but I hope its the only way i go LMAO...*looks at belly, yup still yellow*

06. Is not the universe indifferent to ours and the suffering of animals?.. - eh?

07. Is God, all-PKG? - wtf is PKG?

Why should I waste my time, and yours quoting and counting posts you already dismissed?

I'm not here to do your work for you gasious, if you really care, why don't you go back and read the thread.

I did read post #1. I actually responded to it. Maybe you do need to go back and actually read posts instead of just answering them to dismiss them.

If and only if there is no purpose to the way the universe works. This is why I stated that you are in effect, doing what you accused others of doing--reading minds, because you are basically saying God doesn't have a purpose for the way the universe is, and the only way to know that is to read His mind, since there is nothing written that says that.

I never stated that you said God did not have a plan. If you had actually taken the time to read what I wrote you would see that I was addressing what your posts have implied. And again I say, simply because you are unable to see the purpose for the suffering doesn't mean there is no purpose.

Yes, Really. Now, please answer.


Yes, you may have stated that, but your argument implies knowledge of God's purpose that, since it is in opposition of what is written in the Bible, must come from another source, and the only source for knowing God's purpose other than the Bible or the personal relationship Christians have with Him, is to have read His mind.


Attacking you? Pointing out the flaw in your thinking is attacking you? Apparently you seem to think so, because so far you seem to have accused anyone who has opposed your view of attacking you. It's a very poor debate tactic.