If Jesus was a god his death wasn't a sacrifi

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Pettytalk said:

 

 

And, meh, I guess the best I can say about that rather boring song is that it's one viewpoint.  I find Pink Floyd had it pegged better:

 

All that you touch 
All that you see 
All that you taste 
All you feel. 
All that you love 
All that you hate 
All you distrust 
All you save. 
All that you give 
All that you deal 
All that you buy, 
beg, borrow or steal. 
All you create 
All you destroy 
All that you do 
All that you say. 
All that you eat 
And everyone you meet 
All that you slight 
And everyone you fight. 
All that is now 
All that is gone 
All that's to come 
and everything under 
the sun is in tune 
but the sun 
is eclipsed by the moon. 

"There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark."

[Jodie.Lynne]

19 hours ago, DieChecker said:

He didn't teleport in and smack the fruit out of Adam's hand..

No, but according to myth, God is the one who put the fruit there in the first place, yes? 

 

19 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think God got it about as right as he could though with Jesus, considering where Christianity is today.

Where it is today? I won't name denominations, but the religion is rife with pedophiles, bigots, scam artists, and parasites. I am talking about the supposed 'leaders', not the rank & file.

[+DieChecker]

7 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

No, but according to myth, God is the one who put the fruit there in the first place, yes? 

Yes. But... He did tell them not to eat it, or they would surely die. Kind of like being told jumping off a skyscraper will kill you, but you do it anyway.

Still, people say, God could have stopped them. But didn't. 

Quote

Where it is today? I won't name denominations, but the religion is rife with pedophiles, bigots, scam artists, and parasites. I am talking about the supposed 'leaders', not the rank & file.

I'd say it is generally benevolent. For every scammer, or perve, or hater there is ten or twenty, who are doing good. Id say probably the same percentage as the general, secular, population. And much better then say, the Muslims, who follow the Hadith, and are treating everyone, and each other, like it is the 13th century.

[jmccr8]

10 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Poor rhetorical going around in circles argument. Man is the product of nature. And all this God business, as you ardent science worshipers always claim, is a product of man's imagination, as there are no gods or God. Or are you one that believes in a god, but believe it's a bad god, one that is partial to some, and also mean and cruel?

Hi Pettytalk

Most of us do not claim god does not exist but do have the position that there is no testable evidence that there is a god. My concept of god is very different than yours but still only exists in my mind no different than yours, mine, on the other hand, has made no claims, promises, revelations or judgments just the intelligence to question who, what and why I am and what is my part in all that potential.

10 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

You cannot have it both ways, no god, and no bad nature. Man is a product of nature in everything. Every human being has been fashioned by nature, if we take your side. Nature gets all the credit for whatever we see as being good or bad in each and every human being. Not to mention everything else in nature. Nature is your god, therefore take responsibility for your god, and I will take responsibility for mine. However, I know my God very much differently than all religions, and I can tell you that God is Good. And in the end, as they say, all that ends well is well. In other words, the end justifies the means.

 Most gods are described as having emotion and reason as part of what they characterized with and claims have been made that they did with malice and intent cause harm to humans, now to compare acts of nature with acts of gods is weak. Nature has no intent, no understanding of consequences and has not been offended by humans that were fortunate enough to have evolved here.

11 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Of course, I'm only human, and I could be wrong about God being Good. And if I am, it only means that we are all in hell already. Mother nature is cruel and sadistic, as it mandates lifeforms to to kill and eat other life forms to survive. Is there anything more tyrannical than that? Is that the best mother nature can do?

Hmm..., I don't recall there has ever been a vegetarian god.

I heard he only got the best.

11 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Mother nature does make promises, and keeps them too. If you are born you will die. If you are born you will have mostly troubles, and mostly failures. I mean we can sit here and enumerate all that is wrong in nature, but what will it serve? As I said, your god, mother nature, can easily be blamed for all the things God is blamed for. What's the difference? We are what we are, and think what we think, or believe what we believe, and all by nature, God or no God.

Seems like a lot of projection in this comment for me mother nature was an opportunity to be an not an entity with intent so it can make no promise, men say gods do and yet I have never seen evidence of it or them.

jmccr8

[Rlyeh]

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Yes. But... He did tell them not to eat it, or they would surely die. Kind of like being told jumping off a skyscraper will kill you, but you do it anyway.

But it didn't kill them, what killed them was God preventing access to the tree of life.

 

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Still, people say, God could have stopped them. But didn't.

God in his infinite brilliance decided everyone should suffer for it.

Edited July 17, 2019 by Rlyeh

[+Pettytalk]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Pettytalk

Most of us do not claim god does not exist but do have the position that there is no testable evidence that there is a god. My concept of god is very different than yours but still only exists in my mind no different than yours, mine, on the other hand, has made no claims, promises, revelations or judgments just the intelligence to question who, what and why I am and what is my part in all that potential.

 Most gods are described as having emotion and reason as part of what they characterized with and claims have been made that they did with malice and intent cause harm to humans, now to compare acts of nature with acts of gods is weak. Nature has no intent, no understanding of consequences and has not been offended by humans that were fortunate enough to have evolved here.

Hmm..., I don't recall there has ever been a vegetarian god.

I heard he only got the best.

Seems like a lot of projection in this comment for me mother nature was an opportunity to be an not an entity with intent so it can make no promise, men say gods do and yet I have never seen evidence of it or them.

jmccr8

Are you back for more mushrooms?

[+Pettytalk]

11 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

And, meh, I guess the best I can say about that rather boring song is that it's one viewpoint.  I find Pink Floyd had it pegged better:

 

All that you touch 
All that you see 
All that you taste 
All you feel. 
All that you love 
All that you hate 
All you distrust 
All you save. 
All that you give 
All that you deal 
All that you buy, 
beg, borrow or steal. 
All you create 
All you destroy 
All that you do 
All that you say. 
All that you eat 
And everyone you meet 
All that you slight 
And everyone you fight. 
All that is now 
All that is gone 
All that's to come 
and everything under 
the sun is in tune 
but the sun 
is eclipsed by the moon. 

"There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark."

Great tune! I have used it here before. But do you really understand the true meaning?

Do you believe that there is a God? Any entity/being that we refer to as God? An entity/being responsible for creating nature and all that pertains to it? And that was my question to you, and whose answer would serve to identity where to put the blame for what many call mankind's evil state.

 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

God in his infinite brilliance decided everyone should suffer for it.

God is still punishing humanity for something that supposedly happened thousands of years ago, but he loves us.... 

[+Sherapy]

On 7/14/2019 at 7:13 AM, ScotDeerie said:

When a sentence starts with "If" almost anything can follow it with little logic required:

If I had hooves instead of fingers, I couldn't type.

If cats could fly there wouldn't be any birds.

If ghosts see us do we look like ghosts to them?

If Jesus had said, "Nah, I don't want to do that, Dad" what would man have found to argue about for the last 2000+ years?

 

Ha ha ha ha ha very funny post, love it.

Welcome to UM.

[+Sherapy]

On 7/13/2019 at 2:37 AM, XenoFish said:

On the opposite side of that coin: nothing. Lights out, no one home. No heaven, no hell, no awareness, just no-thing. Eternal dreamless slumber.

Sign me up. 

[Sojo]

I know it will fall largely on deaf ears, but it seems that some folks have a problem with a God that allows evil to exist (to experience and understand it), but then they also rail about him choosing to incarnate as a human to experience the absolute consequences of, and taking responsibility for, ALL evil and sins. I just think it's his way of saying, "I'll take the blame, and if you can accept this and ask for it, forgiveness is yours for all your past Karmic debt." But it still doesn't absolve those who reject the offer, and then continue free-will treating of others in ways they would not want to be treated themselves. I guess some would rather accept the presence of evil and think, "That's just the way it is, I don't care one way or the other". Which, of course, they are completely free to do.

[Habitat]

5 minutes ago, Sojo said:

I know it will fall largely on deaf ears, but it seems that some folks have a problem with a God that allows evil to exist (to experience and understand it), but then they also rail about him choosing to incarnate as a human to experience the absolute consequences of, and taking responsibility for, ALL evil and sins. I just think it's his way of saying, "I'll take the blame, and if you can accept this and ask for it, forgiveness is yours for all your past Karmic debt." But it still doesn't absolve those who reject the offer, and then continue free-will treating of others in ways they would not want to be treated themselves. I guess some would rather accept the presence of evil and think, "That's just the way it is, I don't care one way or the other". Which, of course, they are completely free to do.

You appear to believe "evil" has some independent existence outside of human value judgements. It doesn't.

[Rlyeh]

37 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

God is still punishing humanity for something that supposedly happened thousands of years ago, but he loves us.... 

God wants you dead at the sametime he doesn't want you dead... if that makes any sense

[Rlyeh]

13 minutes ago, Sojo said:

I know it will fall largely on deaf ears, but it seems that some folks have a problem with a God that allows evil to exist (to experience and understand it), but then they also rail about him choosing to incarnate as a human to experience the absolute consequences of, and taking responsibility for, ALL evil and sins. I just think it's his way of saying, "I'll take the blame, and if you can accept this and ask for it, forgiveness is yours for all your past Karmic debt." But it still doesn't absolve those who reject the offer, and then continue free-will treating of others in ways they would not want to be treated themselves. I guess some would rather accept the presence of evil and think, "That's just the way it is, I don't care one way or the other". Which, of course, they are completely free to do.

I don't have a problem with a god who allows evil, I have a problem with the idea that love requires death to forgive.  I think God just loves death.

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Great tune! I have used it here before. But do you really understand the true meaning?

Yes, and it is a far more positive sentiment than that AM radio classic from Kansas.  And it doesn't have anything to do with God.

2 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Do you believe that there is a God? Any entity/being that we refer to as God? An entity/being responsible for creating nature and all that pertains to it? And that was my question to you, and whose answer would serve to identity where to put the blame for what many call mankind's evil state.

No, I don't think there is a god, and I think the chances are almost nil that your specific god exists.  I don't think mankind's general state is evil, that's a religious belief.  Again, do you blame mentally ill people for committing crimes?  Then why blame nature?  There is a difference in my vocabulary between 'blame' and 'cause' although they can overlap, and I don't think nature can be evil since it has no intent or sentience as far as we can tell.

[GoldenWolf]

On 7/15/2019 at 6:37 PM, XenoFish said:

It's almost as if humans can't design a decent god. 

Gods are just a reflection of their personal tastes.

[GoldenWolf]

2 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

God is still punishing humanity for something that supposedly happened thousands of years ago, but he loves us.... 

A God of love and forgiveness.....

[XenoFish]

Blood for the blood god.

[lightly]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

nature has no intent or sentience as far as we can tell.

...I dunno about that...  "nature" isn't asleep?  Animal's survival instinct and caring for themselves and family is sentient behavior?   Animals are aware/sentient?  They feel pain.     ... Could raising young be considered intent?  

      plants and insects are responsive and interactive with their environments...maybe that can't be considered "sentience" ?  what should we call it?

a cloud doesn't intend to be a cloud...and isn't sentient of the fact (I guess)...so ,yes, some parts of nature agree with your description.

[+Liquid Gardens]

20 minutes ago, lightly said:

...I dunno about that...  "nature" isn't asleep?  Animal's survival instinct and caring for themselves and family is sentient behavior?   Animals are aware/sentient?  They feel pain.     ... Could raising young be considered intent?  

      plants and insects are responsive and interactive with their environments...maybe that can't be considered "sentience" ?  what should we call it?

Good questions, and I guess it depends on how deep you want to go with 'intentions'.  A fish hangs around the nest of eggs it has laid to protect them from predators.  Does that count as an 'intent' if the fish is just executing its instinctual programming, or does 'intent' require some kind of decision-making ability?  Even if we say the fish intends to hang around its nest to protect its eggs, would we say that 'nature' 'intended' to create fish?  I tend to think of nature more like we think of from your example a cloud; even though the products of nature can have intent and sentience, nature doesn't.  If the fish is just behaving deterministically according to natural laws then if it has intent than maybe nature has intent since it is just the sum of all natural laws.  Dunno, although I agree that we don't usually use intent with things that don't have nervous systems.

[+Pettytalk]

15 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Yes, and it is a far more positive sentiment than that AM radio classic from Kansas.  And it doesn't have anything to do with God.

No, I don't think there is a god, and I think the chances are almost nil that your specific god exists.  I don't think mankind's general state is evil, that's a religious belief.  Again, do you blame mentally ill people for committing crimes?  Then why blame nature?  There is a difference in my vocabulary between 'blame' and 'cause' although they can overlap, and I don't think nature can be evil since it has no intent or sentience as far as we can tell.

I was under the impression that the entire album, Dark Side of The Moon, was a conceptual one on good and evil, more or less. And anything having to do with good and evil has to do with God....and also with Socrates.

We'll leave the man-made legal excuses for the mentally ill and crimes out of it for now. But do legally sane people commit crimes? 

If nature cannot be evil, since you say it has no intent or sentience, logically, then what is the intent of laws against crime? And if man is a product of nature, and man, you would agree, is full of intents and very much sentient, does it not follow that nature, expressing herself through the man it has created over time, must also have those qualities?

As I keep saying, you cannot have your cake, and eat it too, when it comes to nature. When you people see suffering, go and ask nature why cancer? Why do we have mental diseases? Why do we have diseases, in general? Why are so many starving, especially children? Why do we have never-ending senseless wars? 

Why do we have endless debates? And if nature has no intent, why are you intent on showing that nature has no intent? And if nature is not sentient, why do you think there is no God? Or better still, why do you even think at all? Thinking is being sentient, right?

 

 

[+DieChecker]

16 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Blood for the blood god.

What is the reply?....

"Skulls for the skull throne" if I remember right.

[+Liquid Gardens]

9 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

I was under the impression that the entire album, Dark Side of The Moon, was a conceptual one on good and evil, more or less. And anything having to do with good and evil has to do with God....and also with Socrates.

No, anything having to do with good and evil does not have to do with God or Socrates; that's like saying anything having to do with evil has something to do with Sauron and Charles Manson.  Agreed, Dark Side of the Moon and specifically Eclipse is 'more or less' a conceptual take on good and evil, among many other things.  You didn't just refer to 'a' meaning though, you referred to the 'true' meaning.  The true meaning is of course defined by in this case the lyricist, who is Roger Waters, atheist.

9 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

If nature cannot be evil, since you say it has no intent or sentience, logically, then what is the intent of laws against crime?

?  To protect people from criminals and punish people who commit crimes to hopefully deter them?  I'm not sure where you are going with this; likewise we don't prosecute tornadoes criminally?

9 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

And if man is a product of nature, and man, you would agree, is full of intents and very much sentient, does it not follow that nature, expressing herself through the man it has created over time, must also have those qualities?

No, that doesn't follow.  Sentience seems to require a nervous system at a bare minimum; where is nature's?  We create lots of things that have qualities that we do not, I'm not sure why you don't think 'nature' then has to possess all the qualities of the things it creates.  Nature 'expresses herself' as much through the vacuum of space as it does through man, is nature then a vacuum?  Does nature spin webs, make honey, belch, etc, because spiders, bees, and beer drinkers are all also her products?

10 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

As I keep saying, you cannot have your cake, and eat it too, when it comes to nature.

Yes you do keep saying that, you just haven't been able to take away the cake I have and am still eating.

10 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

When you people see suffering, go and ask nature why cancer? Why do we have mental diseases? Why do we have diseases, in general? Why are so many starving, especially children?

If there's only an impersonal nature, then the answer to why cancer exists is because cells can grow abnormally, that's what causes cancer.  That 'cells can grow abnormally' is not the answer to why God created cancer, that dodges the question; the theological answer probably has more to do with the value of suffering, the notion that we can't understand good with bad, and other pretty lame excuses that do not apply to nature.  

As I've already said there is no indication that nature is cognizant of anything, it does not claim to be 'good' or compassionate or love us, nor is the fact that people suffer at all inconsistent with everything else we know about nature.  Have you really never encountered the problem of evil with respect to belief in a good god?  It's not like its recent.  "If God is good and loving why does he make children suffer with horrible diseases?".  Do you understand why that is a question is being raised, do you see the inconsistency?  On earth, we don't call being responsible for somebody's suffering for no known reason 'loving and good'.  If you do comprehend the apparent inconsistency there between God's purported qualities and reality, then what is your analogy to nature?  "If nature is 'x', why do children suffer with horrible diseases?"; solve for 'x'.

[+Pettytalk]

37 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

No, anything having to do with good and evil does not have to do with God or Socrates; that's like saying anything having to do with evil has something to do with Sauron and Charles Manson.  Agreed, Dark Side of the Moon and specifically Eclipse is 'more or less' a conceptual take on good and evil, among many other things.  You didn't just refer to 'a' meaning though, you referred to the 'true' meaning.  The true meaning is of course defined by in this case the lyricist, who is Roger Waters, atheist.

?  To protect people from criminals and punish people who commit crimes to hopefully deter them?  I'm not sure where you are going with this; likewise we don't prosecute tornadoes criminally?

No, that doesn't follow.  Sentience seems to require a nervous system at a bare minimum; where is nature's?  We create lots of things that have qualities that we do not, I'm not sure why you don't think 'nature' then has to possess all the qualities of the things it creates.  Nature 'expresses herself' as much through the vacuum of space as it does through man, is nature then a vacuum?  Does nature spin webs, make honey, belch, etc, because spiders, bees, and beer drinkers are all also her products?

Yes you do keep saying that, you just haven't been able to take away the cake I have and am still eating.

If there's only an impersonal nature, then the answer to why cancer exists is because cells can grow abnormally, that's what causes cancer.  That 'cells can grow abnormally' is not the answer to why God created cancer, that dodges the question; the theological answer probably has more to do with the value of suffering, the notion that we can't understand good with bad, and other pretty lame excuses that do not apply to nature.  

As I've already said there is no indication that nature is cognizant of anything, it does not claim to be 'good' or compassionate or love us, nor is the fact that people suffer at all inconsistent with everything else we know about nature.  Have you really never encountered the problem of evil with respect to belief in a good god?  It's not like its recent.  "If God is good and loving why does he make children suffer with horrible diseases?".  Do you understand why that is a question is being raised, do you see the inconsistency?  On earth, we don't call being responsible for somebody's suffering for no known reason 'loving and good'.  If you do comprehend the apparent inconsistency there between God's purported qualities and reality, then what is your analogy to nature?  "If nature is 'x', why do children suffer with horrible diseases?"; solve for 'x'.

I'm sorry to say that I have to submit to the better argument, and let you eat your cake in peace. I'm just not any good at this, and I will only make it more difficult for myself, since I cannot seem to make a good case of it, and that was the best I had. And to be honest, I was not any good at algebra either. Therefore I think that I'll just sit on the sidelines for a while, and watch the thread develop.

But I do appreciate the time you have put in to express your own opinions, and also evaluate mine. And if I may say so, in a very civil way, and with a touch of clean humor. 

Thanks, and God bless you!

[+Liquid Gardens]

33 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Thanks, and God bless you!

Thanks, and no need to ever stay on the sidelines if you feel like discussing something; by default here I usually take a counter position if I can just because I find it more educational and interesting.  And I'm always up for discussing Pink Floyd.