[Gem Windcaster]

frookenhauer, on Oct 22 2008, 11:10 PM, said:

Never called you a Nazi and never insulted you, not even once. (Apart from that high horse comment, but that was mostly a fair assessment considering the circumstances)

You compared God to Hitler, and since I am friend of God...

frookenhauer, on Oct 22 2008, 11:10 PM, said:

This whole argument was never about winning or losing, but was essentially a way of getting to know more about the whole religion ideal and its background and unfortunately it is not as robust as it should be, its adherents do not actually know some of the more important answers and the actual text itself cannot stand on its own under scrutiny.

That is very insulting indeed, Frook. Let me get this straight, you take the fact that you don't like what you see as it not being robust? And you take your own ignorance as if I don't know what I am talking about?! That should be strong even for you, but apparently not. All I've tried to do here is trying to explain what I believe - which apparently is very difficult for you to grasp. That's fine, it has nothing to do with intelligence. Instead it has something to do with your attitude. If you really were interested in what I have to say, you would actually take my statements for what they are, namely my belief. Instead you try to tell me what I believe, by mockingly paraphrasing what I am saying in the most insulting way you can muster. And then you have the gall to tell me I've used it as an excuse to back off!

frookenhauer, on Oct 22 2008, 11:10 PM, said:

I would like to a tell you a story about a man named Godefroy. Godefroy had ten kids and he loved them all. They were naughty kids. All of them except Norbert. Godefroy tried and tried to get them to listen to him, he gave them gifts he, he tried everything but they would not listen. In despair he drowned 9 of his children and kept Norbert, because Norbert listened to him. Godefroy is pretty fucked up, aint he?

Good example of what I tried to explain above. You're not interested in hearing what I believe, instead you tell me what I believe, since apparently you don't think I am smart enough to grasp it. No, your way of seeing things is the only way, obviously.

It was not what I want from a discussion like this. If you had said, "this is how I see it", it would have been interesting, instead you put words in my mouth.

Maybe it wasn't your intention, but this is how it seemed to me.

Exeunt for real.

[frookenhauer]

And still more others will run for the hills, and I'll probably join em until we find out if they're benign. If they're not...then its most likely going to be a cookbook. I mean if an alien species manages to cross the vast gulf of space to come say howdy, lets just hope the next words aren't "you look tasty". We aint got nothing on them.

Mind you, unless they look at least a bit like angels I'm sure the church won't be having any of it.

[frookenhauer]

If I go the obvious route and defend/justify my actions, then all this is going to turn into a slanging match, and we'd see exeunt part 3, 4...I'm sorry I upsetted you

Forget the above, you don't deserve it.

This post has been edited by frookenhauer: 23 October 2008 - 10:48 PM

[frookenhauer]

In fact I don't know what you deserve, mind you, I probably deserve no better . But thanks to you and a big thanks to the anger you managed to elicit with your last post, I've had an idea for a story. Its funny, at first I wanted to fire off a few withering remarks, but in the end I thought it better to turn the other cheek. Apologies for criticising and mocking your faith.

I wonder what you'll think of my story...We'll see

[Cold Iron]

frookenhauer, on Oct 23 2008, 09:10 AM, said:

I would like to a tell you a story about a man named Godefroy. Godefroy had ten kids and he loved them all. They were naughty kids. All of them except Norbert. Godefroy tried and tried to get them to listen to him, he gave them gifts he, he tried everything but they would not listen. In despair he drowned 9 of his children and kept Norbert, because Norbert listened to him. Godefroy is pretty fucked up, aint he?

I'll bite.

Godefroy ends up in court, pleads not guilty. Turns out all nine dead kids were killed in circumstances that made them appear accidental, so he gets off. Godefroy's three wives Helgabrot, Vingalhoove and Zeldawyn now can't help but be weary that their husband is, in fact, a crazed infanticidal maniac, despite the fact that he is an attentive husband and good provider. They love him still, but fear him also. Knowing that, if he did it, it was the children's naughty behaviour that set Godefroy off on his murderous rampage, Helgabrot decides to give up gambling, Vingalhoove gives up drinking, and Zeldawyn gives up banging the blacksmith (although she dreams of his iron furnace rod still).

Who knows what could have happened to them had they continued on their previous paths? (Well, Zeldawyn would have been banged harder than a philharmonic timpani, but I meant in the slightly longer term...)

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 27 October 2008 - 06:04 AM

[Cause]

Cold Iron, on Oct 27 2008, 08:03 AM, said:

frookenhauer, on Oct 23 2008, 09:10 AM, said:

I would like to a tell you a story about a man named Godefroy. Godefroy had ten kids and he loved them all. They were naughty kids. All of them except Norbert. Godefroy tried and tried to get them to listen to him, he gave them gifts he, he tried everything but they would not listen. In despair he drowned 9 of his children and kept Norbert, because Norbert listened to him. Godefroy is pretty fucked up, aint he?

I'll bite.

Godefroy ends up in court, pleads not guilty. Turns out all nine dead kids were killed in circumstances that made them appear accidental, so he gets off. Godefroy's three wives Helgabrot, Vingalhoove and Zeldawyn now can't help but be weary that their husband is, in fact, a crazed infanticidal maniac, despite the fact that he is an attentive husband and good provider. They love him still, but fear him also. Knowing that, if he did it, it was the children's naughty behaviour that set Godefroy off on his murderous rampage, Helgabrot decides to give up gambling, Vingalhoove gives up drinking, and Zeldawyn gives up banging the blacksmith (although she dreams of his iron furnace rod still).

Who knows what could have happened to them had they continued on their previous paths? (Well, Zeldawyn would have been banged harder than a philharmonic timpani, but I meant in the slightly longer term...)

Their were a few ways to defend against this anology. Saying that killing nine children stopped his wife from gambling was not one of the better ways.

[frookenhauer]

I'm not sure he was defending the analogy, Cause. Just a way of mocking it and thereby reducing its efficacy. The idea behind the analogy was to basically cut away all the philosophy, religion, omnipotence, etc and frame the flood for what it is. Gem, cleverly, used previous 'points' to sidestep the question, but murder is what it was.

Cold Iron, on Oct 27 2008, 06:03 AM, said:

Who knows what could have happened to them had they continued on their previous paths?

Are you talking about the dead, or the wives? I must admit to some confusion...

[Cold Iron]

frookenhauer, on Oct 28 2008, 07:09 AM, said:

I'm not sure he was defending the analogy, Cause. Just a way of mocking it and thereby reducing its efficacy. The idea behind the analogy was to basically cut away all the philosophy, religion, omnipotence, etc and frame the flood for what it is. Gem, cleverly, used previous 'points' to sidestep the question, but murder is what it was.

Cold Iron, on Oct 27 2008, 06:03 AM, said:

Who knows what could have happened to them had they continued on their previous paths?

Are you talking about the dead, or the wives? I must admit to some confusion...

I wasn't mocking it, I was extending it. I find it a little absurd when atheists claim on the one hand that god doesn't exist but on the other that he commits murder.

The children died, it happened, that is an observable fact. Saying that god killed them is something different, it is synonymous with the statement that they died, because god does everything, or at least causes everything to be as the creator. Sure there is a contradiction here with free will but this is again beside the point. I'll try to put it simply:

God killed my son = god took my son = my son died

With this in mind, my extention of the analogy meant simply that things happen (god does things, god causes things to be, god moves in mysterious ways, fate, chance, providence, cause and effect, existance, we are here, things happen). The original analogy was obviously equating godefroy to god. But "god did it" and "it was an accident" are the same thing. So the kids died. It's a tragedy. We don't know why it happened. But it did, it was an event and like all other events it caused the world to be a certain way, and certain things changed due to this event, they might be good things (like the wives giving up their bad habits), or they might not, the point is you don't know and you can't say. You might assume that the children did not want to die, but dying at that time might have truely been the best thing for them. You can't know. We can't say.

In the end it is a choice to trust that everything that happens is the best thing that can happen. Because of god. Just because you can think of outcomes you would have preferred, you can never know if they wouldn't have ended up causing something worse (donnie darko, butterfly effect etc.). Whatever you believe god to be, belief in it is fundamentally trust that what is is right, and it is right because it is, and what isn't is wrong, and it is wrong because it isn't. And you are exactly how you should be. And you are right, and you can thus love yourself.

"But what about murderers!?" I hear.

They do not love themselves. They do not trust that what is is right. They do not trust god.

"But then god caused that to be! He made the murderer, so he made him what he is!"

And we do not know and can not say why, but we can trust that it had to be, and it is right, and it is as it should be, because it is as it is, and it is good.

"Now you're just talking shit. My genital herpes are not fucking good!"

Perhaps there is some good in them. Maybe if you didn't contract herpes from the first skank, you'd now have syphilis from the second.

"Fine, what about genicide? How can that be good!?"

I don't know. But I trust.

"You're a fucking loony. Look, you're even having a conversation with yourself!"

And you will never love yourself.

"Why?"

Because if what is isn't perfect, then you will always think there is something about you that is wrong, that should be better, that you are inadequate and that you would be happier if you were better.

"Hey I'm fine, I'm not a fucking emo."

Just think about it. Would trusting god help you love yourself more?

[Silencer]

I don't think Frookie was saying God caused those children to be killed.

Wasn't he saying that, if you see a guy who has killed his nine kids, you call it murder, but if God wipes nearly the entire planet and it's population it's somehow not?

Or did you get that?

*hasn't been paying attention*

[Cold Iron]

Silencer, on Oct 28 2008, 12:33 PM, said:

I don't think Frookie was saying God caused those children to be killed.

Wasn't he saying that, if you see a guy who has killed his nine kids, you call it murder, but if God wipes nearly the entire planet and it's population it's somehow not?

Or did you get that?

*hasn't been paying attention*

Yeah that's what I'm saying. When we talk about god killing people it's not the same as when we talk about people killing people. If someone is going to kill you, you can kill them first and prevent your death. If god is going to kill you, you die. God is.

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

Well the idea here is that there isn't any boundaries to God's wisdom and foresight and even if he may kill someone for his own purposes it's going to greatly benefit humanity as a whole.

And after all death is the greatest punishment only from our limited perspective. We have no idea what death is and what (if anything) follows after it.

If death was truly such a horrific act for God he'd be the first to put his most beloved followers to it's test and then probably resurrect them. Instead the trials that God's disciples faced were much different - disbelief poverty misery temptation.

[Gem Windcaster]

Vicodin&FantasyBooks, on Oct 28 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

Well the idea here is that there isn't any boundaries to God's wisdom and foresight and even if he may kill someone for his own purposes it's going to greatly benefit humanity as a whole.

And after all death is the greatest punishment only from our limited perspective. We have no idea what death is and what (if anything) follows after it.

If death was truly such a horrific act for God he'd be the first to put his most beloved followers to it's test and then probably resurrect them. Instead the trials that God's disciples faced were much different - disbelief poverty misery temptation.

From the Bible's perspective death is being away from God - that's why humans started dying in the first place - because God had to turn away from them. Those lives that frook are talking about - they were already doomed in that sense. Everything God is doing points towards bringing back humans to his presence and thereby save their lives. Frook is not seeing the greater picture, or not believing in the greater picture, and therefore he thinks it is murder.
But you can see why I don't have a problem with the supposed killings.

[frookenhauer]

BTW I'm agnostic, I'm willing to believe, but I need more, I think I was born too late, If I was around in the time of miracles, I probably would have subscribed, but unfortunately all the good stuff has supposedly happened and I'm left with unverified second (to the power 1000) hand information, which more holes than a ton of leerdammer, and generally describes how some benevolent loving god goes around destroying humanity whenever they don't listen to him...come to think of it, I'm glad he's taken a step back, you can keep the miracles .

So...because everything happens by gods say so, ignoring the teensy little bit about free will for a moment, its okay to wipe out a planet? So as long as someone has the power over someone else its okay to do what the hell you like? Fine, he's the creator, go create, do something more valuable than trying to make your creations pray to you and obey your will. And if they refuse to listen to you, you what? throw your toys out of the pram and wipe them out? what? And along comes the old classic, its all part of gods plan, he's followed the paths through time and worked out that the descendants are going to do evil deeds in the future...Guess what? We already got evil, at this present moment in time there is enough food on the planet to feed everybody, yet there's a billion people starving, right now we can nuke ourselves into extinction, people are always going to be fucked up, how does wiping people out for being fucked up do any good?

Mind you this is all cycling around. Believers will say its all part of gods plan, ignoring genocide...How? really? Come on? G - E - N - O - C - I - D - E

Quote

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

, but we're talking about everyone on the planet, except my great, great, great....great, great grandfather Noah and his family sooooo, multi genocide? super genocide? or how about megacide? Its genocide, but mega. But its okay because he has complete control of our lives, even though we got free will and he manages to do that without contradiction

God is setting a good example for us all, if they don't listen to you, wipe them out. Leading by example is the only way to fly. Amen.

Welcome back Gem, are you just going to refer to me or are we going to have some direct contact?

On Topic:

We are apparently made in his image. (Apart from the fact that why an omnipotent being that can span the universe needs a form such as this is irrelevant ) Unless them aliens are in our image, do they have a different god? If they land on this planet and blow us to bits with their particle flamethrowers, what happens to judgement day? will it get postponed until he can patch it all up and regrow us from scorched clay...or does god have a backup plan, and why was this eventuality not discussed inside the book?

This post has been edited by frookenhauer: 29 October 2008 - 12:49 AM

[Cold Iron]

frookenhauer, on Oct 29 2008, 09:19 AM, said:

We are apparently made in his image. (Apart from the fact that why an omnipotent being that can span the universe needs a form such as this is irrelevant )

Yeah I have a problem with that passage as well. I wonder if there is any debate about the translation of image here.

Virtual rep for anyone who does the research.

[Gem Windcaster]

Cold Iron, on Oct 29 2008, 02:48 AM, said:

Yeah I have a problem with that passage as well. I wonder if there is any debate about the translation of image here.

Virtual rep for anyone who does the research.

The form was different before the fall - we couldn't die for instance.
But I've always imagined that image means what we are, not the form - I've always thought he meant our ability to love - since God is love. Image means our intellect, our personalities and whatever secret our brains contain that are locked away because we fell.
The form is not the important thing, but what we are is. Things like faith and love, imagination and ambition. The rest I can only imagine. But the new testament describes the resurrected Christ as being the first human to get the new 'upgraded' form, so to speak. But still, the form was never that important.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 29 October 2008 - 03:32 AM

[ch'arlz]

Gem Windcaster, on Oct 28 2008, 11:31 PM, said:

But the new testament describes the resurrected Christ as being the first human to get the new 'upgraded' form, so to speak.

Where do you find that in the New Testament?

[Gem Windcaster]

It's in the Gospels - Christ get a new form when he is resurrected - he can walk through walls for example. And he is also said be the first of many brothers - he goes before us and shows the way. There more that are indicative of this in the rest of the books in the new testament.

[ch'arlz]

Gem Windcaster, on Oct 29 2008, 02:38 PM, said:

It's in the Gospels - Christ get a new form when he is resurrected - he can walk through walls for example. And he is also said be the first of many brothers - he goes before us and shows the way.

Can you provide any cites for these statements? I know it's been almost 40 years since I studied "The Mission and Proclamation of Jesus" but I don't remember any of these references.

[Cold Iron]

Gem Windcaster, on Oct 29 2008, 01:31 PM, said:

Cold Iron, on Oct 29 2008, 02:48 AM, said:

Yeah I have a problem with that passage as well. I wonder if there is any debate about the translation of image here.

Virtual rep for anyone who does the research.

The form was different before the fall - we couldn't die for instance.
But I've always imagined that image means what we are, not the form - I've always thought he meant our ability to love - since God is love. Image means our intellect, our personalities and whatever secret our brains contain that are locked away because we fell.
The form is not the important thing, but what we are is. Things like faith and love, imagination and ambition. The rest I can only imagine. But the new testament describes the resurrected Christ as being the first human to get the new 'upgraded' form, so to speak. But still, the form was never that important.

Yeah, that's how I interpret it as well, but it would be nice to get some indication of what was actually meant by the original hebrew, it is not unlikely that our interpretation was not the intended one.

[Gem Windcaster]

Yeah, it's not like it's one single piece of scripture. Christ is continually described as the second Adam, humanity upgraded 2.0. But it doesn't say anywhere that we as followers of Christ will get exactly the same sort of form as Christ - but when you look at what the bible say about the heaven and the new earth and what we will become then, it kind of doesn't matter to me if it's the same or just alike, just that I know that God will give everything to us through Christ. It's a combination of a lot of scripture, and not that easily explained.

Sorry guys, I don't have time to pull out a collection of scriptures for you, but here's two places you can look at yourselves.

1st Corinthians 15:44-49, 51-52.

Romans 8:29