Chronological order of the bible

[Jor-el]

What is the matrix, but a computer program to make people think a certain way, the same thing with the bible(s), they are programs designed to make people think a certain way. As Morpheus said, what is the matrix? Control.

The matrix is about "Perception".

[Doug1029]

I see the false reality in the way people live their lives without God... everything is artificial, nothing is real...

From a purely practical and pragmatic POV: theological/metaphysical questions cannot be resolved by objective means. Believe what you want in those fields as no one will ever prove you wrong. But leave the physical to those trained in investigation of the physical; otherwise, one ends up looking like a fool.

Physical questions include: evolution and whether there is enough evidence to conclude that Jesus actually lived.

Note that the latter is objective only in regards to the existence of evidence. As far as I know at this point, there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus existed. The issue cannot be resolved rationally; thus, Jesus belongs in the theological/metaphysical universe and no one will ever be able to prove anybody's beliefs about Jesus wrong.

Doug

[+Paranoid Android]

Then god is not all-powerful because it lacks the resources and/or compassion to do anything about it. In a nutshell: god isn't god.

This is called The Paradox of Evil. Men have been wondering about it for the past 2500 or so years (It's in the Book of Job.). If the issue hasn't been resolved by now, it probably can't be. Best to drop it and go on to something with a better chance of resolution.

Doug

P.S.: Free will is what the Pelagian Heresy was all about. At the instigation of St. Augustine, the church rejected free will and excommunicated Pelagius. So much for rational thought; religion has a long history of suppressing ideas it doesn't agree with.

Doug

Aren't you basing your opinion here on the assumption that God's primary goal (if it exists) is to make us happy, or at least should be to make us happy? And if he doesn't then he is either incapable of doing so, or not compassionate enough to do so? I'm simply asking whether this assumption is correct, and if we change the assumption then we change the answer and it's no longer illogical.

You are right though, this is a question that won't be resolved. All I can say is that I've personally reconciled the problem of evil on the basis of looking at the question from a different assumption than "God's existence means that we should be happy and content 100% of the time, with never any pain or suffering of any kind".

[cormac mac airt]

Aren't you basing your opinion here on the assumption that God's primary goal (if it exists) is to make us happy, or at least should be to make us happy? And if he doesn't then he is either incapable of doing so, or not compassionate enough to do so? I'm simply asking whether this assumption is correct, and if we change the assumption then we change the answer and it's no longer illogical.

You are right though, this is a question that won't be resolved. All I can say is that I've personally reconciled the problem of evil on the basis of looking at the question from a different assumption than "God's existence means that we should be happy and content 100% of the time, with never any pain or suffering of any kind".

PA, the above IMO assumes that the Creator would care enough to even notice us separately from any other of the millions of lifeforms on this planet, not to mention any other possible lifeforms in the universe to begin with. A middle ground between the two extremes above, again IMO, is that the Creator might have no more interest in our welfare specifically than we have for the welfare of a single-celled organism. This is also a question that will never be resolved.

cormac

[Jor-el]

From a purely practical and pragmatic POV: theological/metaphysical questions cannot be resolved by objective means. Believe what you want in those fields as no one will ever prove you wrong. But leave the physical to those trained in investigation of the physical; otherwise, one ends up looking like a fool.

Physical questions include: evolution and whether there is enough evidence to conclude that Jesus actually lived.

Note that the latter is objective only in regards to the existence of evidence. As far as I know at this point, there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus existed. The issue cannot be resolved rationally; thus, Jesus belongs in the theological/metaphysical universe and no one will ever be able to prove anybody's beliefs about Jesus wrong.

Doug

I disagree, your Physical questions are loaded with everything but objectivity... and double standards are the norm...

Edited July 13, 2013 by Jor-el

[Mr Walker]

People -- you say over and over that your God is omnipotent. He can solve any problem even though we can't see how He could do it. Free Will is an example. Then you tell us that He can only do that by creating a world with all the suffering in it we see. Why didn't He choose a less sadistic method?

By the way, as generally formulated, the teaching is essentially Christian. Muslims reject it outright as a restriction on Allah's power (so much for it being "self-evident", as do most Calvinists). Buddhists, if they have anything along these lines, have the concept of our being responsible for our choices and that we must accept and live with the consequences, both good and bad, of these choices. We do not have a judging God waving his finger at us, but these consequences, referred to collectively as karma, are damn hard to do anything about and so are predestined in a sense.

Of course god is not omnipotent or omniscient. How could a real living physicla entity be either? It would negate that entities own free will if it could se its own future, let alone that of any other creature it encountered.

Some people frame god in this way, because they would like him to be so But god is just like us; only older wiser and more technolgically evolved. If we survive long nough we will have the same attributes and powers of god but we will never be all seeing or all knowing or all powerful because for sapient and living beings that is impossible.

None the less we will eventually become like the god we understand and recognise now, and wil appear like that god to beings who evolve sapient self awreness over the next few millenia God has learned how to stop physical and psychological suffering and will teach others how to achieve it. I do not have it in my life.

You can read how to do it in the religious writings of many human faiths. It is not hard but it starts with self and becoming one with god. if you read the bible god created a world with NO pain suffering death or decay In tha tallegoricla story Humans brought all tha ton them sleves by their choices. An atheist would agree All pain and suffering on earth is a consequence of humanity because god does not exist (excluding natural pain like burning your hand on a fire )

But the use of fire is technology and biblically the knowledge of things and the use of knowedge goes to the heart of humanity's separation from god. We chose fire (technology) and we use it for good and evil. It is the story of prometheus and icarus, only a much earlier version. It represents humanity's evolution fromm a spiritual based existence and world into one of technology and materialism.

If you want to understand early humans connection to god, look at the connection betwen Australian aboriginal people and their land and nature. It is innate in their hearts and minds and colours the way they understand and value everything. They often sicken and die if taken away from their "country" and certainly at least suffer real emotional and psychological trauma if this happens.

[Mr Walker]

Walter Mitty wasn't one of your school mates was he???

fullywired

You disbelieve me? Who could make up such things and to what purpose?

Google Laurel Mcgowan, actor and Duncan Wass, actor. I have photographic evidence of my in and out of class activities with these two..

MR walker never lies. (although he may elaborate just a little)

[Harte]

Then god is not all-powerful because it lacks the resources and/or compassion to do anything about it. In a nutshell: god isn't god.

That argument is flawed.

Exactly what does not having the compulsion to do a thing have to do with not having the power to do that thing?

I have the power to mow my lawn, I lack the compulsion.

This is called The Paradox of Evil. Men have been wondering about it for the past 2500 or so years (It's in the Book of Job.)

It's only a paradox from a certain point of view.

Value judgements made by human beings likely don't correlate with those made by the Divine.

There are degrees of evil. It is evil to stand by and let somebody suffer, but not if interfering would result in more people suffering.

Whatever you may believe about any religion, it's easy to see that you can't expect God to save your baby from the dingo.

Harte

[Mr Walker]

PA, the above IMO assumes that the Creator would care enough to even notice us separately from any other of the millions of lifeforms on this planet, not to mention any other possible lifeforms in the universe to begin with. A middle ground between the two extremes above, again IMO, is that the Creator might have no more interest in our welfare specifically than we have for the welfare of a single-celled organism. This is also a question that will never be resolved.

cormac

Self aware sapience is required to recognise self aware sapience, and in a way it calls to itself. Humans seek other entities capable of communicating with them. So do gods because inherently a god is a form of self aware sapient.

We take little interest in earth worms but considerable more interest in whales dolphins dogs and monkeys, where they establish at least a primitive form of communication feedback with us. There can only be a recognition of, and communication between, a god entity and a non god entity where both have the capacity to regognise and communicate with the other.

There may well be many entities in the universe, with powers we consider god like, who have no interest in us; but when such an entity takes an interest, and lines of communicaiton are established, entities like us will make of entities like that , god figures. Such entities will tend to make of us, "clients" who have self awareness and hence unlimited potential for evolutionary growth and development.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Mr Walker

[fullywired]

...

MR walker never lies. (although he may elaborate just a little)

Or as a certain British politician once said ." being a little economical with the truth"

fullywired

[Mr Walker]

Or as a certain British politician once said ." being a little economical with the truth"

fullywired

More the opposite. But the basics are all true. For example, Laurel and Duncan aren't Nicole Kidman or Russell Crowe but they both have long and well regarded film, television, and stage careers. and I did spend the last 3 years or so of high school in the same class with them. I have photos of their acting debut "starring together" in our high school drama production of "Salad Days"

[fullywired]

More the opposite. But the basics are all true. For example, Laurel and Duncan aren't Nicole Kidman or Russell Crowe but they both have long and well regarded film, television, and stage careers. and I did spend the last 3 years or so of high school in the same class with them. I have photos of their acting debut "starring together" in our high school drama production of "Salad Days"

Kinda bathing in reflected glory eh?

fullywired

[Beckys_Mom]

More the opposite. But the basics are all true. For example, Laurel and Duncan aren't Nicole Kidman or Russell Crowe but they both have long and well regarded film, television, and stage careers. and I did spend the last 3 years or so of high school in the same class with them. I have photos of their acting debut "starring together" in our high school drama production of "Salad Days"

That's pretty cool... I like Nicole Kidman and Russell Crow, even though so many call him a thug, I like him.. Come to think of it, there has been a good few actors who have risen in Hollywood that came from Australia...My personal favourite is - Hugh Jackman..Its not the fact that he is great looking ( but that's a bonus ) but he can act ...

[cormac mac airt]

That argument is flawed.

Exactly what does not having the compulsion to do a thing have to do with not having the power to do that thing?

I have the power to mow my lawn, I lack the compulsion.

It's only a paradox from a certain point of view.

Value judgements made by human beings likely don't correlate with those made by the Divine.

There are degrees of evil. It is evil to stand by and let somebody suffer, but not if interfering would result in more people suffering.

Whatever you may believe about any religion, it's easy to see that you can't expect God to save your baby from the dingo.

Harte

That's just it, one has nothing to do with the other. It's the height of human ego IMO to think that simply because we exist and consider ourselves sentient that a Creator would necessarily take any specific notice of us whatsoever. What we consider sentient does not automatically equate to what a Creator would consider sentient. We could just as well be considered a bunch of dumb animals to such a being, if we were even noticed at all.

cormac

[Harte]

That's just it, one has nothing to do with the other. It's the height of human ego IMO to think that simply because we exist and consider ourselves sentient that a Creator would necessarily take any specific notice of us whatsoever. What we consider sentient does not automatically equate to what a Creator would consider sentient. We could just as well be considered a bunch of dumb animals to such a being, if we were even noticed at all.

cormac

I would agree with that.

But the other possibility is equally agreeable, I would say.

That is, even if "the" or "a" Creator did take an interest, the dingo would still be able to eat your baby, based on what I said earlier - the unknowable consequences of Divine interference.

Harte

[cormac mac airt]

I would agree with that.

But the other possibility is equally agreeable, I would say.

That is, even if "the" or "a" Creator did take an interest, the dingo would still be able to eat your baby, based on what I said earlier - the unknowable consequences of Divine interference.

Harte

I hear you. After losing both my girls in the last 11 years I'm not exactly "feeling the love".

cormac

[Harte]

Perfectly understandable. Besides, these are personal choices and always will be.

That's the hallmark of religion, or theology if you will.

Harte

[Doug1029]

That is, even if "the" or "a" Creator did take an interest, the dingo would still be able to eat your baby, based on what I said earlier - the unknowable consequences of Divine interference.

What is the point of a god that does not intercede in the physical universe? Such a god is irrelevant. Why worship it? Why even believe it exists?

Doug

[cormac mac airt]

What is the point of a god that does not intercede in the physical universe? Such a god is irrelevant. Why worship it? Why even believe it exists?

Doug

Who says there has to be a point? True artists create works of art all the time, simply because they can.

cormac

[Mr Walker]

Kinda bathing in reflected glory eh?

fullywired

Na!! but they they might bask in my glory, if they were aware of it. Like OMG, you're Mr WALKER!!!

I am simply verifying the account of my teenage mundane life, and going on from our earlier conversations. ALL the things I claimed as part of that life are true and a lot more besides. You disbelieved, so I offered some physical evidence that was available. I haven't seen either of them, except in films, since we left school but when I googled them up they both still have the beauty, presence and charismatic looks that led them to their chosen careers (as well as undoubted talent)

I do keep in contact with the bloke who was in the RAAF/smuggled bibles into Russia (He is a baptist pastor now; and the one who barely escaped from iran and india with his life who, last time I got a postcard, was in las vegas having spent many years teaching at colleges and universitys in Taiwan, China and Japan. But they were among a small group of my best mates while i was at school and we kept in contact . Apart from a few who remained in my local area, I rarely see anyone from my school days.

[Harte]

What is the point of a god that does not intercede in the physical universe? Such a god is irrelevant. Why worship it? Why even believe it exists?

Doug

Talk about vanity.

Harte

[Doug1029]

Who says there has to be a point? True artists create works of art all the time, simply because they can.

cormac

Let me rephrase that: what is the point of worshipping such a god? Because you can?

Doug

[Harte]

Let me rephrase that: what is the point of worshipping such a god? Because you can?

Doug

There is no point, unless you belioeve it pays off after death.

Harte

[Doug1029]

Talk about vanity.

Harte

It's not about vanity, but about freeing oneself and others of the self-imposed tyranny of the unsupported speculation of which religion is mostly composed. One can still have faith. One can still believe in god. But one must not let anyone else (including me) come between oneself and Ultimate Truth. In the final analysis, we are responsible for ourselves - not god, not some hireling priest (or preacher) who has no access to knowledge not possessed by the rest of society.

Doug

Edited July 15, 2013 by Doug1029

[Beckys_Mom]

That's pretty cool... I like Nicole Kidman and Russell Crow, even though so many call him a thug, I like him.. Come to think of it, there has been a good few actors who have risen in Hollywood that came from Australia...My personal favourite is - Hugh Jackman..Its not the fact that he is great looking ( but that's a bonus ) but he can act ...

It's Russell Crowe, not Crow.. Good gravy, I don't think there is a post of my own I have messed up, and full of edits.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Beckys_Mom