Unscientific survey of 'poly religious beliefs

[Heresson]

First of all, atheist and agnostic should never be the same option. Agnostic is either half-way between atheist and a believer, or closer to the latter.

60% atheist/agnostic?
Forsaken place.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That just says omnipotence is a self-contradictory term. Which is funny, because once the Church defined WHYH in a whole bunch of similar, self-contradictory terms, theists had been having an extremely hard time extracting themselves. So much so that, most discussions on the nature of YHWH eventually end when the theist side fall back on incomprehensibility, e.g. "God is beyond logic" or "God is beyond your imagination."

IOW, they beat a hasty retreat after suffering severe beatings.

Excuse me, not all of us are involved in "the church" nor are we commited in any way to a thomist theology. The closest thing to Thomism in Judaism, IIUC is the philosophy of the Guide to the Perplexed, but that IIUC is a fairly complex piece of work, and isnt really thomist, And its whole approach was rejected by many at the time, including mystics.

The point is that yes, G-d is 'radically other' IE at some level beyond comprehensibility. Though not human experience and thought, though that experience and thought cant be reduced to syllogisms.

this is not so much beating a retreat, and withdrawing from a battlefield that it was never appropriate to "fight" on. Indeed, the whole metaphor of fighting is wrong. You dont fight about G-d, you worship him, and allow that to transform your life. You ENGAGE.
As Buber said, you treat G-d as a YOU, not as an IT, a third party.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Heresson

60% atheist/agnostic?
Forsaken place.

No, we have brains.

[Whaleboy]

First of all, atheist and agnostic should never be the same option. Agnostic is either half-way between atheist and a believer, or closer to the latter.

No. Atheism is the position of positive proof against God (not predicated by faith I might add, though there are those who do make that mistake I am not one of them) while agnosticism is the belief that God is not/cannot be known, in which case Occams razor kicks in as I said earlier and means the agnostic position is God = 0. Both are miles from "believer". I don't consider "agnostic" to mean those who are theists but caught between religions... if so then agnostic as I use it means nitheism as opposed to atheism. But that's just semantics... the same objections to theism would apply to those caught between organised religions but are still theistic, so it's an empty definition.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Heresson
60% atheist/agnostic?
Forsaken place.

Just as well you didn't put God forsaken, cos he doesn't exist...

[Ben Kenobi]

Here's a little thought for you Ben Kenobi - if God is all powerful, is he powerful enough to tie a knot so tight that he himself cannot untie. If that is the case he is not omnipotent, and if it is not the case, the same applies...so what do you say to omnipotence being paradoxical?

Are you familiar with the logic of infinity?

Suppose we had an infinite hotel, we could evict all the customers in even rooms, and still have the same number of guests in the hotel.

The same applies to an infinite mass. What sense does such an object have?

[Ben Kenobi]

one in the same!

To speak of the law written on everyone's heart is different from the doctrines required to be accepted by all members of the Catholic church.

The former is a case of invitation, the latter, of cramming doctrine.

[Brent]

Things can be opposite without being the ultimate extremes. Red and Green are opposite, but pink and dark green are more opposite. Somewhat good is still opposite to somewhat evil.There is contrast between relative light and relative dark. Perhaps matter and antimatter is a better example than light and dark. What is the point of light if it cannot be percieved?

Good and Evil are the ultimate forces. Order, life, and intellect are Good. Chaos, death, and mischief are Evil.

Language does not simply evolve. aspects can improve, aspects can deevolve, on the whole it can remain at an equivalent level. Adam and Eve spoke a perfect language, the language of God.

I am addressing each point I come across that I have anything to say about in order.

God is governed by logic but it is true that He has progressed beyond the need for the scientific method.

Humans elsewhere could differ somewhat from us but still be human.

How is it known that the Hebrew God originated with the Canaanites and not before?

All religions do have part of the truth.

God works in mysterious ways. He does influence people but He does not control them. People can accomplish God's will even if not in a perfect manner.

There are continuums where both extremes are evil.

Absolute luminosity is much more meaningful than apparent luminisity.

Good and light are meaningless if they have no opposite.

If I must have a coclusion, then it is that all things denote there is a God. I do not speak for myself. My words are not complete in themselves.

God is more understandable than some religious views believe.

[RGBVideo]

"Other".

[Ben Kenobi]

But according to your church, where evil exists within humans, the human is salvagable into a good person no?

If a person accepts Christ and repents of his sins, then sure. Else, no.

Unless God seeks retribution that is, as opposed to the elimination of evil. Is that after all not the point of the drive to save souls, and the Church's insistence that accepting Jesus and renouncing sin renders you a Good Person (TM)? For your argument to hold, "evil doers" would need to be essentially evil.

Christians teach that God has already sought retribution, and that Christ has atoned for our sins on the cross. As such, no further retribution for our sins will be taken, and we shall be judged based on whether we accept Christ or not.

If we accept him, then we shall be judged on our faith, if we reject him, then we shall be judged according to our conscience. Invariably, our conscience will bear witness to the sins that we have committed.

This is quite different from how it used to be, in that the sacrifices made for sin, could never fully atone for the sins as imperfect sacrifices.

But isn't evil supposed to be self-contained, in quanta of sins, as opposed to some cosmological construction.

Unsure of where you are going here.

However, do you recall the passage about how consecration cannot be passed from one object to another, and that defilement works the opposite way?

Would God not be able to act to prevent human sin, while allowing the lord god pu... i mean satan to exist.

That's a very good question. Sure he could, but the real question is why would he allow evil to take part in the world, and why would he allow suffering?

I think part of the answer, is that he gives us free will, to reject him, or to follow him, and even as he invites us to be with him, he also permits us to fall into sin, if this is what we choose.

How many times, does God pare Israel down in times of hardship?

That's more marketing than anything, the intention is to get people to subscribe to that philosophy is it not?

The problem is with things in Acts 5, where God makes it clear the issues that are at hand.

"Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him."

God is more concerned, with the righteousness of those who believe in him, than their number. Surely, just a cursory glance at Israel's history would confirm this.

True, he wants everyone to be saved, but on his terms, and not our own.

Or as Paul says, "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to we who are being saved, it is the power of God."

[Ben Kenobi]

Excuse me, not all of us are involved in "the church" nor are we commited in any way to a thomist theology.

Good job, LoTM.

[Brent]

James chapter 2, verses 14, 17, 18, 24

Animal sacrifice in the Old Testament was a symbol of the Ultimate sacrifice.

Mark chapter 7 verse 15 only means that food cannot defile a person.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally posted by Heresson
First of all, atheist and agnostic should never be the same option. Agnostic is either half-way between atheist and a believer, or closer to the latter.

I think saying that they are close to 'believers' is a somewhat deceptive generalization. While you might say one is halfway between a deist and an atheist, all three are a long way from religions with very specific beliefs (i.e. christianity, islam, almost any other religion).

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Are you familiar with the logic of infinity?

Suppose we had an infinite hotel, we could evict all the customers in even rooms, and still have the same number of guests in the hotel.

The same applies to an infinite mass. What sense does such an object have?

And because infinity is an object of the mind-world and does not exist in reality, god is just an object in our minds as well

The same way that you cannot construct an infinite hotel, the same omnipotent mind-god cannot construct a stone that is heavier than he can lift.

[Ben Kenobi]

Which is why it is impossible for God to prove his omnipotence given the constraints of the universe.

It doesn't make God any less real, it just illustrates the limitations of our own world.