The Bible --- Too liberal For Some - Page 3

OK, so which force is responsible for the phenomena that is the physical world, collectively?

There is no such thing as "the phenomena that is the physical world" as the physical world just is.

I don't have to invent/invoke deity/deities over tens of millenia that look suspiciously human in form.

In other words, I don't need to anthropomorphize the unknown/unknowable simply for the sake of anthropomorphizing the unknown/unknowable (ad nauseam, ad infinitun) as it is TBD.

That's why I am an agnostic, because I can admit and submit that I/we just don't know.

Got it?

Got it - you just don't know, yet your belief system is superior to other belief systems... 'cause it doesn't have a face.

The logic of that position is inarguable. Then again, I find belief systems pertaining to creation and such inarguable, as I've said in an earlier post. Even so, I'd bet you could find an argument from someone if you tried hard enough.

Strawmen. I don't have a belief system. Superior? Again see Anthropomorphism.

The phrase "I don't know" is not a belief system, in and of itself.

It is not testable.

Three points: 'Proof' is really not the issue in such matters. There may never be any proof of matters related to God - that may be the whole point.

2) Beliefs being as good as each other: I don't agree. Belief must be based on some sort of reason. I don't mean that of the scientific sort or in the manner that atheists often demand....rather I mean it should be internally consistent.

For example, if a text claims that God has foreknowledge of all future events and yet portrays this God has having no such knowledge or being somehow hampered by it then this is illogical. The idea itself of a God with foreknowledge is not - imo - the thing that is irrational but rather the claim that God has this but acts as if he does not.

There are literally hundreds of examples of this in the Bible and Xian theology is largely an attempt to get round it. That's why the Devil is such a key figure - itself a classic example of an illogical element in the structure.

3) Critical of other folks beliefs. I don't believe that there are no beliefs you are critical of. There are many that should be opposed.

I am sure you can find your own examples and I'm equally sure that you yourself oppose some beliefs.

It all depends where you draw the line I suppose.

Even Jesus is said to oppose some beliefs to the extent that he ended up causing some aggro in the Temple and the opposition that God Himself is claimed to evince towards certain groups and activities is also well known.

Agnosticism is a philosophical viewpoint, not a belief system, but your insistence on contrasting agnosticism as the means of criticizing belief systems puts them in the same category, by association.

Or not, which makes your contribution to this portion of the thread non sequitur, take your pick.

Sure there are - those beliefs that folks use as license to step of other folks toes.

And stepping on other folks toes includes holding other belief systems up for ridicule.

Guilt by association is a logical fallacy.

As such, I am free to criticize any and all belief systems, even if only to criticize for the sake of criticism.

Therefore, it does follow, that to take a neutral position, is the only position one can take, when evaluating any and all belief systems.

That's irrelevant, since I didn't make the association nor ascribe any guilt for folks holding any belief system or philosophy.
How can one be critical when they "just don't know"? If you don't know, then you can't hold a position that someone else is incorrect.

Lack of evidence proves a position untenable, not incorrect.


A neutral position, yes, but how can someone with a neutral position criticize another? That's the antithesis of neutral.

You were the one positing an either or conditional. However, I was not. Ergo, door number three (or more).

As such, it should go without saying (but to be quite clear), I am critical of all positions that are not neutral.

See safe harbor.

You can know something is incorrect when admitting you don't know what is correct? Nope - you can believe it is, but then you're drawing on your beliefs. Hard to do that then claim no belief system. Impossible, I'd say.
So, tell me, what creditability would you give to an admitted agnostic's determination of a neutral metaphysical belief system? I'm thinking none, by definition.

My logic is airtight, yours on the other hand is so full of strawmen I don't even know where to begin, so I won't.

You would appear to believe or have Beliefs, I on the other hand do not believe or have Beliefs.

I know it's a little hard to twist your ...... head around this lack of beliefs concept, and it would appear that I can't help you come to a complete understanding of said concept.

Now you are simply boring me and wasting my time.

Do you actually believe that? \

Loaded question.

It's a cold hard bone fide fact.

Honed by over five decades of very disciplined training of 100% pure knowledge based acquisition.

So yes, you do believe it?

Is there a diaper so dirty that God could not change it?

Is there a thought process so convoluted that even the person that thought it could not defend it?

Are there people who want to put their own words and thoughts into other people's words and thoughts?

Everywhere.

Organized Religion? ZING!

Ba Dum Bump! Don't forget to tip your waiter!

It's like simple addition compared to what some on these forums claim to espouse...

2 + 2 = god did it!

See how easy that is compared to some other lines of thought?

Sarcasm can be overdone though...

Seriously, how difficult is it really?

No, that adds up.

With Organized religion it would need to be 2 + 3 = 4........ or 5 or 6 or 48953.4596 - depending on what point they were trying to 'prove'.

Looks like you have your new sig...

It's kinda true, sadly.

It can be. Not in every case as this appears to suggest though.
2+2 obviously = John 3:16 (God did it)
feel free to make a signature from that.

I have no love lost with most organized religions. I cannot stand phoney people. However there is no "one size fits all" follower of any organized religion. Most are looking for an easy answer to a long standing question. And most don't realize the answer is actually very easy, and yet quite difficult at the same time due to an inability to accept at face value the simple answer.

That's fair enough. That's the same boat we're all in....looking for an answer.

Looking for an 'easy' answer though is a different matter. It is kind of an ingratitude no?

Like if Einstein were to say "I'm interested in working this Relativity thing out but it had better be simple or I'm not so bothered".


This is where I disagree.

There is such a thing as a "Snake Oil Salesman". And they exist to give "easy answers" where "hard answers" are not what the customer wants. But is Snake Oil all the same.

And, with respect, I think claiming that the mysteries of the Universe are 'easy' is a bit of a disservice to our common human heritage of civilization and the philosophical/scientific thought that has underpinned it.

Why is the simple answer Jesus and not all the other simple answers man has fabricated over its entire history? "No really, THIS is the God that is actually real" just doesn't cut it with me, but frankly that's pretty much what any response I get to that question boils down to.

2 + 2 = 4 : Jesus died for our sins and never rose again. This is a sacrifice.

2 + 2 = 9857643: Jesus died for our sins and even though he was running around again 3 days later it's still a sacrifice (just like Abraham and Isaac - though he would stay dead) and he's God anyway (though he isn't) but he's just the same as you really and still a human and even though he sacrificed to save you well, you're still going to hell....but the plan worked...it really, really, did...

Now we are digging a little deeper than my 30 second sound byte went. First of all, you are correct, people should dig deeper with regards to faith and God. The issue that I was pointing out was that they want to know the answer but they don't want to work for it anymore. But your point goes a bit too far to the other side of the argument. How many people could honestly have come up with the Thoery of Relativity? That is a mystery that few are revealed to as an epiphany of sorts. God did not intend for any to be left in the cold. So of that is the case, the answer cannot be a mystery of that magnitude. But it even goes deeper than that, God loves his creation and so he made a way in for all who want in. The cost of admission is simply to accept that the price was paid.
I have heard the story my whole life. Jesus died, believe and receive. Then spend the rest of your life being a good christian and you will go to heaven. But the reality is even easier. Jesus died for the sins of all who accept that sacrifice. If you do then when you look at what love is: patient, kind, slow to anger, does not keep records of wrong, never fails, etc. God is not telling us what we have to do to be with him. He is describing himself. And people cannot get that fact because nobody on earth knows that kind of love. Not even me. I have given up trying to figure out who gets to go to heaven and who doesn't. I have come to the conclusion that this is not my business. Like the parable of the worker in the fields. I was given my promise of wages, and it is none of my business what the next person gets. I am to do my job and to assist others in theirs. I have not been appointed the boss (judge).

How many?

Depends on 'when'. Before Einstein the answer would be none. Around now - who knows...20? 30?

Maybe in a thousand years then thousands. Or more.

The point is that knowledge is evolutionary. Organized religion does not realize that - what was carved in stone millennia ago never evolved and adapted....that's a problem.

There are no absolutes.

Many religionists are merely people who have a problem with that and want some.


If God exists it must be one of a greater magnitude. The creator of the phenomena that Relativity explains cannot be of an order simpler than His creation.

This is the illogicality I was talking of before.


No, in your paradigm God set up the rules and then refuses to change them - though He could or else He would not be God would He?

An analogy: I invent a game whereby you are a player regardless of your choice and if you fail to score beyond a certain level then you die horribly by means of a machine I have allowed other players to devise.

My excuse "I love my players and will be heartbroken when some of them die" (as they must as this is not a Zero sum game) does not cut it.

At any time I could do many things: change the rules, unplug the machine, stop the game and start a new one.

God, if He exists, cannot be limited in this manner - any God who is so limited is merely a creation of the human mind.

That answer is not acceptable, you only have to wait a few thousand years to understand. Be patient. \


Your position is becoming clearer to me now.



I am not suggesting that we can ever understand or "know" God. I also do not believe that we need to in order to have a relationship with him that has meaning.



Thank you for telling me what I think. I have not actually spoken on that potion of my beliefs.


Your interpretation of what I said is actually very wrong. I do not believe that "the other players" get to choose anything. Reread my post. It seems that you do not believe in free will as well? I don't claim to understand all the reasoning behind why God allows things to happen. Anyone who does is either very broadly generalizing or likely outright lying to you. There is also the possibility that God told them...

The whole human race has developed over thousands of years. Well, except the religionists. They seem stuck in the medieval.


It has some way to go though still...more fog to lift as it were...


Meaningful relationships are largely a product of the mind. There is no reason why God should even know you exist...


I think you'll find you did...


As it happens I do not believe in free will but that is besides the point.

The point is that an omnipotent Creator God cannot be limited by anything - the God you are postulating, or, shall we say, religionists are postulating, is a limited God.

He is a slave to the concept of free will...that is, He is subservient to it.

Or perhaps, alternatively, He is not subservient to it but believes in the concept so much He refuses to exercise His power to over-rule people's will even if it means they will rot in Hell for eternity.

Niether is plausible. And neither is a God we should really want to do anything with other than oppose.

Fortunately, this God is the product of ignoble and limited minds and we really don't need to worry too much. If He exists then it is Him who is 'evil' and those who reject Him who are 'good' but it is highly unlikely that He does so it's win-win.

This answer will have to be "acceptable."

It took us 200,000 years to discover the existence of oxygen and understand its importance to respiration, isolate DNA, describe the mechanisms of chromosomal replication and measure the speed of light. We only started to smelt iron about 9,000 years ago.

So chill. We'll get there.

No it will not. The answer will come long after you are dead is not an acceptable answer for something that you need to know before you die. It is not that hard. But feel free to believe it is.

Only if you're a Christian. Since I am not a Christian, and I do not believe in the existence of heaven or hell, or original sin, or salvation, I'm content with the idea that we won't have it all figured out before my death. I don't like it, but I don't need to know.

So you are saying that God changes because people change?


Of course. People are complex, and so are their positions.


That would be limiting God, would it not?


In your interpretation perhaps.


And so the age old argument goes. If God doesn't work the way I think he should he is evil and must be destroyed. Freely given love makes a being evil. That makes perfect sense.

That is fine, so long as you don't believe that I have think the way you do. I hope you figure it out before you die. Especially since you want to know. If you do, let me know what you figure out, I want to know what you come up with.

Yes. This is perfectly true. That's why no one makes sacrifice to Odin these days and Thimat doesn't have any temples.

That only becomes a true statement if you believe that Odin and Thimat were indeed gods.