Planetary god vs universal god
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2013, 09:20 AM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2013 09:26 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
(10-09-2013 09:09 AM)I Am Wrote:  Lemme try...

heavenbent pave the road with ash and bone, buy their stair with half-saved souls
watch their god make pillars from earth's salt, never look back
they deserve it, they say, didn't think my thoughts

...

Nice. Very nice. See you later in the poetry section.

But next time, we expect I Am bic pentameter Thumbsup


and

Patrick Troughton.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
10-09-2013, 09:29 AM
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
For me, if a planetary god existed, that's really all we need.
I don't need a god to turn the moon neon blue or correct Uranus's axis.
A planetary god who feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless & stops crime is all I need.
I would pick a Superman over a Dr Who for the planetary needs, although Dr. Who is more awesome.
I mean, a guy who can travel to any place or time in the universe....how cool is that ?

If a planetary god meets your earthly needs, why would you need a universal god ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 09:31 AM
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
(10-09-2013 09:29 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  For me, if a planetary god existed, that's really all we need.
I don't need a god to turn the moon neon blue or correct Uranus's axis.
A planetary god who feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless & stops crime is all I need.
I would pick a Superman over a Dr Who for the planetary needs, although Dr. Who is more awesome.
I mean, a guy who can travel to any place or time in the universe....how cool is that ?

If a planetary god meets your earthly needs, why would you need a universal god ?

Remember what I said about the Greeks and their attribute-gods?

If a household goddess meets all your bedroom needs, when do you even need a planetary god?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 10:37 AM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2013 10:52 AM by absols.)
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
(10-09-2013 09:09 AM)I Am Wrote:  I get the gist... I think. It's based on the idea that Hell is reserved for those who have received God's word and rejected it. It points out the disservice done by proselytizing to the ignorant, condemning them to Hell by giving them an unbelievable yet mandatory set of premises. It also refers to the self-serving nature of the proselytizer's endeavor, jockeying for a seat at God's table by giving unbelievers both the carrot of much-needed material aid, and the stick of eternal torture. It's a poison pill disguised as vitamins. Cut out the spiritual middle-man of the hellfire-and-brimstone soup kitchen, and you get believers damning unbelievers by speaking to them, and expecting celestial favor for doing so.

In terms of stylized writing, I much prefer terse semi-poetic lines over, say, text-speak. :-)

Lemme try...

heavenbent pave the road with ash and bone, buy their stair with half-saved souls
watch their god make pillars from earth's salt, never look back
they deserve it, they say, didn't think my thoughts


The later "u" and "b" and "smthg" is beyond abhorrent, though. absols, on the 'Net, your text is like your grooming and clothes in real life. When you mangle your language, it's like you're going out on the town with stained shorts, mismatched shoes, and food in your untrimmed beard. If you want to earn respect, you cannot write like a caffeinated toddler distracted by Spongebob.

it is incredible how far u love to use others stuffs and anything else to limit it for u

again u prove all the ways how all is evil source, so anyone who enjoy writing or posting is definitely an evil free

hey, things that are not urs, like my words or another words belong in forms to what is out totally of ur control, fuck u for wat u dare say and think piece of shit

and my language is the most perfect one of right ones, it is directly of truth source perfection piece of shit
so any right being immediately recognize its value which is himself true free sense happy to confirm its own existing value fact too to itself

i speak perfect dignity of right beings that have to put out superior else and most inferiority too, while being much more the only value obviously to itself and also objective rights hundredpercent

fuck u, with ur dirty poetry put it in ur ass piece of pervert shit

that is how u twisted my clear point that put down ur god and ur argument of love, showin clearly how it is all about to officialize the system based on forcing values to look eternal inferiors to abuse forever for pleasurable powers constance that could reach any freedom true superiority sense, while doing nothing

u did everything to my post to make it look for ur god and christians which confirm my point hundredpercent showing how only truth do all words, exhibiting the way of pervert evil by starting from reversing clear ends

u r pervert bc believer then god is only the worse evil one always

and u r going to hell with him in truth and through for sure, it is god that truth send to hell not humans or miserable souls piece of shit this is in ur dream

whatever a human or free sense is evil it cant but b relative in true existence realms so cant do anything objectively

it is only bc there are powerful freedom outside of existence truth and looking from always how to benefit from the freedom they gain by knowing truth being objective superior always, that shit like u mean to pretend ruling over rights like me and others
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 10:54 AM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2013 12:09 PM by I Am.)
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
(10-09-2013 10:37 AM)absols Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 09:09 AM)I Am Wrote:  I get the gist... I think. It's based on the idea that Hell is reserved for those who have received God's word and rejected it. It points out the disservice done by proselytizing to the ignorant, condemning them to Hell by giving them an unbelievable yet mandatory set of premises. It also refers to the self-serving nature of the proselytizer's endeavor, jockeying for a seat at God's table by giving unbelievers both the carrot of much-needed material aid, and the stick of eternal torture. It's a poison pill disguised as vitamins. Cut out the spiritual middle-man of the hellfire-and-brimstone soup kitchen, and you get believers damning unbelievers by speaking to them, and expecting celestial favor for doing so.

In terms of stylized writing, I much prefer terse semi-poetic lines over, say, text-speak. :-)

Lemme try...

heavenbent pave the road with ash and bone, buy their stair with half-saved souls
watch their god make pillars from earth's salt, never look back
they deserve it, they say, didn't think my thoughts


The later "u" and "b" and "smthg" is beyond abhorrent, though. absols, on the 'Net, your text is like your grooming and clothes in real life. When you mangle your language, it's like you're going out on the town with stained shorts, mismatched shoes, and food in your untrimmed beard. If you want to earn respect, you cannot write like a caffeinated toddler distracted by Spongebob.

it is incredible how far u love to use others stuffs and anything else to limit it for u

again u prove all the ways how all is evil source, so anyone who enjoy writing or posting is definitely an evil free

hey, things that are not urs, like my words or another words belong in forms to what is out totally of ur control, fuck u for wat u dare say and think piece of shit

and my language is the most perfect one of right ones, it is directly of truth source perfection piece of shit
so any right being immediately recognize its value which is himself true free sense happy to confirm its own existing value fact too to itself

i speak perfect dignity of right beings that have to put out superior else and most inferiority too, while being much more the only value obviously to itself and also objective rights hundredpercent

fuck u, with ur dirty poetry put it in ur ass piece of pervert shit

that is how u twisted my clear point that put down ur god and ur argument of love, showin clearly how it is all about to officialize the system based on inferiors forced forever to abuse for powers means to reach any freedom sense that can end anyway real

while u did everything to make it for ur god and christians which confirm my point hundredpercent showing how only truth do all words

u r pervert bc believer then god is only the worse evil one always

and u r going to hell with him in truth and through for sure

Okay, well, I guess I missed your initial point. I have to guess, because I can't really tell... Honestly, I thought my re-statement was accurate.

I'm not going to assume I understand this post either. Suppose I'll have to wait for a clearer message before talking to you again.

I AM he who is called... cat furniture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes I Am's post
10-09-2013, 01:35 PM
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
(10-09-2013 07:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-09-2013 09:07 PM)childeye Wrote:  I feel I must point this out. I was actually being quite honest saying there is a right way to define God and a wrong way, and that it makes a difference in whether such a spiritual entity exists or not.

Yes, and your personal definition is as subjective and unprovable as any other.
I honestly don't think so. First off it is not my personal definition and therefore not subjective. It is clear that empathy is the spirit served that defines moral from immoral. I don't think that can be contested in any valid way. Moreover, There are implications that will necessarily follow according to whether or not one believes there is an ultimate judgment which certifies in one's convictions whether justice will ultimately prevail or not, whether the sacrifice demanded by Love actually accomplishes anything good. We also know that which way one believes alters one's spiritual or emotional composition and reasoning.
Quote:Everyone has their own beliefs, definitions, and opinions - but it just so happens that you are totally, absolutely correct and everyone else is wrong and the extent of your explanation as to why that is is merely BECAUSE IT IS; that's just about the single least compelling explanation ever made.
My explanation isn't merely "because it is" as you claim. Yes I am absolutely sure that hypocrisy is not good and that's all it boils down to. I am ruled by that conviction. I don't think it is possible that I personally invented such a truth as your accusation has implied.

(09-09-2013 09:07 PM)childeye Wrote:  But it makes perfect sense that someone who does not believe in any god according to their understanding of the term does not believe they err in their definition either.

Quote:Here's a hint for you: nobody spends much of their life pretending to hold beliefs they think are wrong.
I think we agree on this generally. You therefore also don't think hypocrisy is good, which makes us seeing the same moral truth that is not of our own making or opinion. You just have an aversion to calling the existence of such a truth being called God.

(09-09-2013 09:07 PM)childeye Wrote:  To be clear, it is not my definition of God that I believe in, but a definition given thousands of years ago, God is Love. Yes I believe in God as Love.

Quote:It is a definition. You believe it. Others do not. That makes it your definition.

You then admit to getting it from somewhere. It's not even an original definition.
Of course I admit to getting it from somewhere. No one makes up the Truth, they learn it. If God was made up by man then God would not actually exist.

(09-09-2013 09:07 PM)childeye Wrote:  I do not agree with your assessment. I would say it this way. God is Love, God is morality. The term God here refers to a Godhead determining what ultimately is morally right both objectively and subjectively. Otherwise one cannot see their hypocrisy.

Quote:That difference in phrasing is immaterial.
Since it exposes hypocrisy it is material.

(09-09-2013 09:07 PM)childeye Wrote:  Hence love others as you would want to be loved is an axiom that serves the ultimate moral authority, Love.

Quote:This is a flawed moral axiom. Others do not wish to be treated the same way you do. Therefore treating them as you would prefer is not treating them as they would prefer, and is morally imperfect.
The letter is never perfect, but the Spirit is. For example, If I don't like chocolate but someone gave me chocolate because they liked chocolate, they did so thinking I too would enjoy it. But if they found I did not like chocolate, they would find out something else to give me, even if they would not personally prefer it over chocolate. Still they have done unto me what they would want done to them.

(09-09-2013 09:07 PM)childeye Wrote:  Actually, It simply makes perfect sense to me that an altruistic Love is the ultimate goodness in mankind and even the very purpose of our existence. There is no other valid challenge to my conviction and I find I am confident with courage.

Quote:Oh, okay. So the extent of your reasoning is literally just "I like the idea". That's not reasoning. But I guess that's your prerogative.
This is hardly a challenge. Tell me instead why an altruistic Love is not the ultimate goodness in mankind. What greater goodness can you conceive of?

(09-09-2013 09:07 PM)childeye Wrote:  On the contrary, to believe I should treat others a s I would want to be treated is the epitome of rational moral reasoning and the exercising of faith when acted upon.

Quote:I have already commented on why that is a flawed precept.
I've already said you have only found fault in the letter, not in the Spirit. Again this is not a valid challenge. You are simply pointing out caveats like any lawyer. Do you honestly expect me to believe that there are less immoral caveats in treating others as you would hate to be treated?

(09-09-2013 09:07 PM)childeye Wrote:  All else in fact ends up in hypocrisy.
Quote:Hypocrisy. You keep using that word. I do no think it means what you think it means.
It means to say one thing and do the other. It is essentially iniquity.

(09-09-2013 09:07 PM)childeye Wrote:  Hence I have a conscience. There is therefore a moral Truth that serves Love that I cannot deny without being dishonest. Subsequently, all reasoning that is not based upon that Truth is hypocritical and therefore wrong in my conscience. The Truth is simple, the lies are complex.

Quote:Reasoning. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It means to weigh back and forth between certain pros and cons so as to arrive upon the best solution. It is rather futile without any valid truth to reason upon.

Quote:Since you cannot articulate why you hold any of the arbitrary and pointless precepts you do, I am forced to conclude that you are indeed incapable of rational thought, at least so far as your own supernatural beliefs are concerned.

Sadly, that's not a rare condition.
I've done my best to articulate what to me is quite simple. Love is Good and is worth living and dying for. I did not invent or imagine Love, nor do I have any supernatural beliefs that I am aware of, so I don't know to what you are referring. Everything I believe is to me self-evident.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 02:16 PM
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
(10-09-2013 09:31 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 09:29 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  For me, if a planetary god existed, that's really all we need.
I don't need a god to turn the moon neon blue or correct Uranus's axis.
A planetary god who feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless & stops crime is all I need.
I would pick a Superman over a Dr Who for the planetary needs, although Dr. Who is more awesome.
I mean, a guy who can travel to any place or time in the universe....how cool is that ?

If a planetary god meets your earthly needs, why would you need a universal god ?

Remember what I said about the Greeks and their attribute-gods?

If a household goddess meets all your bedroom needs, when do you even need a planetary god?

I suppose you could look at it as a hierarchy of needs.
Atheists fulfill their need to know through science and that which we do not know, we have the ability to accept that absence of knowledge.
Theists need every gap filled and when science doesn't fulfill the need, they insert a god in order to fill the gap.

Atheists then would seem to be more content
Theists aren't having their needs met and look for a substitute.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 05:50 PM
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
(10-09-2013 10:37 AM)absols Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 09:09 AM)I Am Wrote:  I get the gist... I think. It's based on the idea that Hell is reserved for those who have received God's word and rejected it. It points out the disservice done by proselytizing to the ignorant, condemning them to Hell by giving them an unbelievable yet mandatory set of premises. It also refers to the self-serving nature of the proselytizer's endeavor, jockeying for a seat at God's table by giving unbelievers both the carrot of much-needed material aid, and the stick of eternal torture. It's a poison pill disguised as vitamins. Cut out the spiritual middle-man of the hellfire-and-brimstone soup kitchen, and you get believers damning unbelievers by speaking to them, and expecting celestial favor for doing so.

In terms of stylized writing, I much prefer terse semi-poetic lines over, say, text-speak. :-)

Lemme try...

heavenbent pave the road with ash and bone, buy their stair with half-saved souls
watch their god make pillars from earth's salt, never look back
they deserve it, they say, didn't think my thoughts


The later "u" and "b" and "smthg" is beyond abhorrent, though. absols, on the 'Net, your text is like your grooming and clothes in real life. When you mangle your language, it's like you're going out on the town with stained shorts, mismatched shoes, and food in your untrimmed beard. If you want to earn respect, you cannot write like a caffeinated toddler distracted by Spongebob.

it is incredible how far u love to use others stuffs and anything else to limit it for u

again u prove all the ways how all is evil source, so anyone who enjoy writing or posting is definitely an evil free

hey, things that are not urs, like my words or another words belong in forms to what is out totally of ur control, fuck u for wat u dare say and think piece of shit

and my language is the most perfect one of right ones, it is directly of truth source perfection piece of shit
so any right being immediately recognize its value which is himself true free sense happy to confirm its own existing value fact too to itself

i speak perfect dignity of right beings that have to put out superior else and most inferiority too, while being much more the only value obviously to itself and also objective rights hundredpercent

fuck u, with ur dirty poetry put it in ur ass piece of pervert shit

that is how u twisted my clear point that put down ur god and ur argument of love, showin clearly how it is all about to officialize the system based on forcing values to look eternal inferiors to abuse forever for pleasurable powers constance that could reach any freedom true superiority sense, while doing nothing

u did everything to my post to make it look for ur god and christians which confirm my point hundredpercent showing how only truth do all words, exhibiting the way of pervert evil by starting from reversing clear ends

u r pervert bc believer then god is only the worse evil one always

and u r going to hell with him in truth and through for sure, it is god that truth send to hell not humans or miserable souls piece of shit this is in ur dream

whatever a human or free sense is evil it cant but b relative in true existence realms so cant do anything objectively

it is only bc there are powerful freedom outside of existence truth and looking from always how to benefit from the freedom they gain by knowing truth being objective superior always, that shit like u mean to pretend ruling over rights like me and others

Do you actually believe your posts make any sense? Your use of English is dreadful and does not communicate your meaning.

Why do you persist?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 06:05 PM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2013 06:08 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
(10-09-2013 01:35 PM)childeye Wrote:  My explanation isn't merely "because it is" as you claim.

Yes it is? You go on to say that it is "self-evident"...

(10-09-2013 01:35 PM)childeye Wrote:  I am ruled by that conviction. I don't think it is possible that I personally invented such a truth as your accusation has implied.

It is not a universal opinion. Therefore it cannot have a universal source - or else, others attempting to draw from the same source would not reach different conclusions.

(10-09-2013 01:35 PM)childeye Wrote:  I think we agree on this generally. You therefore also don't think hypocrisy is good, which makes us seeing the same moral truth that is not of our own making or opinion. You just have an aversion to calling the existence of such a truth being called God.

The fact that two people agree on some moral precepts implies no such thing.

(10-09-2013 01:35 PM)childeye Wrote:  Of course I admit to getting it from somewhere. No one makes up the Truth, they learn it. If God was made up by man then God would not actually exist.

Why do other people learn different Truths?

(10-09-2013 01:35 PM)childeye Wrote:  The letter is never perfect, but the Spirit is. For example, If I don't like chocolate but someone gave me chocolate because they liked chocolate, they did so thinking I too would enjoy it. But if they found I did not like chocolate, they would find out something else to give me, even if they would not personally prefer it over chocolate. Still they have done unto me what they would want done to them.

Yes, insofar as it has been modified to "treat others as they wish to be treated", which is - y'know - not the same maxim.

(10-09-2013 01:35 PM)childeye Wrote:  Tell me instead why an altruistic Love is not the ultimate goodness in mankind. What greater goodness can you conceive of?

Non-sequitor. Not relevant.

(10-09-2013 01:35 PM)childeye Wrote:  I've already said you have only found fault in the letter, not in the Spirit. Again this is not a valid challenge. You are simply pointing out caveats like any lawyer. Do you honestly expect me to believe that there are less immoral caveats in treating others as you would hate to be treated?

Non-sequitor. Irrelevant.

(10-09-2013 01:35 PM)childeye Wrote:  It means to say one thing and do the other. It is essentially iniquity.

Yes. And that does not apply to many of the cases in which you invoked it.

(10-09-2013 01:35 PM)childeye Wrote:  It means to weigh back and forth between certain pros and cons so as to arrive upon the best solution.

Yes. And that does not apply to many of the cases in which you invoked it.

(10-09-2013 01:35 PM)childeye Wrote:  It is rather futile without any valid truth to reason upon.

Such fundamental premises are unverifiable by nature.

(10-09-2013 01:35 PM)childeye Wrote:  I've done my best to articulate what to me is quite simple. Love is Good and is worth living and dying for. I did not invent or imagine Love, nor do I have any supernatural beliefs that I am aware of, so I don't know to what you are referring. Everything I believe is to me self-evident.

The word God refers to a supernatural concept. Love does not. Morality does not. 'Self-evident' is woefully inadequate and symptomatic of an utterly unexamined mindset.

You, quite plainly, are literally incapable of rationally analysing your own beliefs and conclusions. You've demonstrated that repeatedly on this forum. That's not a malicious judgement; unlike some resident bundles of charm around here, I don't think you're likely to claim a divine mandate to genocide. You're probably a nice person. But you're evidently fundamentally unable to consider the basis for your beliefs, and therefore discussion is impossible.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 06:07 PM
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
(10-09-2013 05:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  Do you actually believe your posts make any sense? Your use of English is dreadful and does not communicate your meaning.

Why do you persist?

She's made it plain (well - for an absols value of 'plain') that 'communication' is not a goal.

What the fuck is, I cannot possibly imagine.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: