God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?

[Bucky Ball]

(05-10-2012 06:14 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  Quite the use of grammar.

Quite the use of grammar indeed. Look at the post above that one,
After writing an almost incoherent post, which does not even get that theological "infinite time" is not endless time, but timelessness, he's criticizing one of the most thoughtful people here.

(05-10-2012 06:14 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  Yet you ignore that the writers of the O T do not read it literally and have rejected the Jesus you believe in.

WTF ? The writers of the OT lived long before Jesus. How in hell could they reject a guy who they didn't even know about ?

(05-10-2012 06:14 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  Who has more authority over the O T. The Jews who wrote it of the Christians who reversed much of what the Jews believed about their own book of myths.

The Jews did not consider any of the torahs "books of myths", and they also did not play an important role in Jewish life and culture until after the Diaspora. (There was no "bible", or "OT" until much later).

[Erxomai]

(05-10-2012 05:39 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 02:59 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Talking about an imaginary spirit is dumb.

Do you not read fairy tales to your children as a teaching tool?
I have and they are quite handy.

Just think of the bible as a fairy tale for adults.

There is a lot of moral teachings in the bible if you have the brains to look the right way. Not to jump the judgement gun, because I do not know your mind, but this remark of yours shows that you may not have what it takes.

Don't get mad. Prove me wrong.

Regards
DL

But if I prove you wrong, then I'd be talking about an imaginary spirit, and if I talked about an imaginary spirit, I'd be doing something dumb. So thank you for your invitation, but I'll continue shaking my head over people who get so intense talking about unicorns and fairy dust.

[Godless]

(06-10-2012 05:13 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Oh noes! Another prophet!

(06-10-2012 12:40 AM)Godless Wrote:  First of all your very ignorant...

What's up with his very ignorant? Learn some fucking grammar before you try to insult someone, k?

When the best you can do is pick on grammar when I post at 1 in the morning I know I've made a good argument.

[Birdguy1979]

(05-10-2012 10:00 AM)Vlad Wrote:  Well, going by their twisted, immoral logic, God created everything and therefore he can give and take as he pleases.

Speaking of children not being able to sin. According to the Jewish belief, children less than 13 years old (or 12, for girls) cannot be held accountable for their actions, they cannot be guilty of sin as you said. So I wonder, just how does it fit with some Jews' belief that God punished the 6 million Jews who were killed during the Holocaust? Many of them were children, less than 12/13 years old... what did God punish them for?

The only thing they can say is that God punished them for their past-lives' sins... which obviously makes no sense, and immoral. Not to mention that it doesn't even make sense when we take the Jewish belief in Hell into consideration: According to the Jewish belief, people who're guilty of sin go through 11 months in Hell, and afterwards they're purified and can go on to Heaven. So how does it even fit with the idea that God punished them for their past-lives' sins if they're supposed to go through Hell and then to Heaven? How does the idea of resurrection even fit with all these?!

As for your first question about why god would punnish children. If he exists, he/she/it is a psychotic piece of shit with no sense of morals. As far as the contradiction you mention, it doesn't apply to bible thumpers of any denomination, because they just believe in whatever the priest, rabbi, or other religious leader picks out of their holy book. They would never think to actually read the stupid thing. Most of those that do, quickly become atheists.

[Egor]

(05-10-2012 01:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Before one "names" a god, or discuss what it does or does not do, one must come up with a coherent definition of what "god" means, which is the position of Ignosticism :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
I have yet to see one, which does not limit the "o" s, (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresent), and is coherent. The very concept of "existence" requires certain properties of his universe, which theists assume, then Special Plead away. A being which does not change is either dead, or a rock, (and even the rock is changing).

As far as I can tell, Ed (Egor)'s definition of god, is synonymous with "reality", except he adds a universal super-consciousness to it. I don't see any evidence or need for the "consciousness" part.

Well, you have to account for consciousness, because there is consciousness, and if everything is God (or whatever we call it) then so is consciousness. And since the universe displays order and must have had that order in place before it came into existence, it suggests that consciousness is the pime substance of all things, just as consciousness is the prime substance in a dream (in that case, your own consciousness).

[Chas]

(06-10-2012 10:06 PM)Egor Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 01:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Before one "names" a god, or discuss what it does or does not do, one must come up with a coherent definition of what "god" means, which is the position of Ignosticism :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
I have yet to see one, which does not limit the "o" s, (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresent), and is coherent. The very concept of "existence" requires certain properties of his universe, which theists assume, then Special Plead away. A being which does not change is either dead, or a rock, (and even the rock is changing).

As far as I can tell, Ed (Egor)'s definition of god, is synonymous with "reality", except he adds a universal super-consciousness to it. I don't see any evidence or need for the "consciousness" part.

Well, you have to account for consciousness, because there is consciousness, and if everything is God (or whatever we call it) then so is consciousness. And since the universe displays order and must have had that order in place before it came into existence, it suggests that consciousness is the pime substance of all things, just as consciousness is the prime substance in a dream (in that case, your own consciousness).

We may be conscious of reality, but reality doesn't care a hoot about consciousness.

[Marco Krieger]

God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?

Something that only exists in the mind of some human beings can not follow any principle.
An idea can not have empathy, an idea can lead to empathy.
The idea of god has failed this, because the idea of god leads to hate.
Hate yourself(sin), hate others(differend beliefers/non-beliefers) hate the world in which you live, embrace the death, so you can come to god.
And dont go to fare away from me, i need your ass-kissing twice a day.
A system of hate, created to control people and hold a view choosen once in power use the first principle of moral to drive people insane.
You dont have to be an nuclear-scientist to see how easy one can made a mindtrapp to fool people in.

[Bucky Ball]

(06-10-2012 10:06 PM)Egor Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 01:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Before one "names" a god, or discuss what it does or does not do, one must come up with a coherent definition of what "god" means, which is the position of Ignosticism :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
I have yet to see one, which does not limit the "o" s, (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresent), and is coherent. The very concept of "existence" requires certain properties of his universe, which theists assume, then Special Plead away. A being which does not change is either dead, or a rock, (and even the rock is changing).

As far as I can tell, Ed (Egor)'s definition of god, is synonymous with "reality", except he adds a universal super-consciousness to it. I don't see any evidence or need for the "consciousness" part.

Well, you have to account for consciousness, because there is consciousness, and if everything is God (or whatever we call it) then so is consciousness. And since the universe displays order and must have had that order in place before it came into existence, it suggests that consciousness is the pime substance of all things, just as consciousness is the prime substance in a dream (in that case, your own consciousness).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

I don't "have to account" for anything. The default position is "we don't know", not "god did it", or "insert creator here", or "s'plain THIS, or my god did it".

Consciousness is "accounted for" by Cognitive Neuro-science, and requires no gods. It arises from, and is damaged by the molecular level of matter. The real question is "why does it ONLY arise from that level of the structure of matter ?" There is no evidence that anything is conscious, other than advanced biological systems. There may be machine-based consciousness some day, or we may meet that. This past Friday, on Science Friday, there was a researcher who discussed that not only is memory dependent on present brain chemistry, but there is now evidence the memory is also dependent on the way genetics controls some enzymes, and other chemical structures.
You state, "if everything is god, then so is consciousness". You have provided no justification or support for either the premise, or the necessity for the (sole) conclusion.

There is no reason the "order" could not have arisen spontaneously, (Chaos Theory has proven that), and it could have arisen concurrently. It did not have to be in place a priori.

There is no "substance". There is ONLY the "thing" itself. You don't understand your own Dualism, apparently ??

[Impulse]

(05-10-2012 12:50 PM)Egor Wrote:  God is not bound by morality any more than you are bound by morality in a dream you are having. Babies, bugs, adults, Hitler, Ghandi, Mohammed, Jesus, my late dacshund--it's all the same to God. He creates a drawing in his mind and crumples it up at will.

In a universe with "God", morality would, by definition, come from God. It would make no sense for "God" to define morality (or for morality to simply exist) in some way that is inconsistent with his own behavior, beliefs, or wishes. You're correct, "God" would not be bound by it, but "God" would exemplify it because it would have come from his very nature. God could define rules for something contrary to his behavior, beliefs, or wishes, but then those wouldn't be rules related to morality; just rules for something else. So it seems to me that your reply doesn't really answer the question raised in the OP.

[kingschosen]

(05-10-2012 06:14 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 03:10 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I'm saying that because we are finite we can't define something with infinite properties. It's beyond our grasp of understand and obtainable knowledge.

I have let you go for now but now you are bordering on foolishness and lack of thought. I went back and

“God is the three O's; however, He operates under created parameters when dealing with us.”

This is a definitive statement that you cannot get close to proving because all you have is hearsay and book say. All from men.

“He isn't limited but only by His own infinite nature”

He isn’t limited except he is. Quite the use of grammar.
As to infinite, one would need to know where and when the end of time is for him to know that he can get further in time and if he did, then that was not the end of time then was it? IOW, you nor God can truthfully say that God is infinite.

“What evidence are you talking about, the Bible?

When referring to Christianity, yes.”

Yet you ignore that the writers of the O T do not read it literally and have rejected the Jesus you believe in.

Who has more authority over the O T. The Jews who wrote it of the Christians who reversed much of what the Jews believed about their own book of myths?

Regards
DL

I have no idea what you said.