The Theology of God is an Asshole
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2012, 09:31 AM
RE: The Theology of God is an Asshole
(25-07-2012 09:27 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(25-07-2012 09:26 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  *fixed. Big Grin

Your mom.

Speaking of Ma, she said to stop leaving your socks under the sheets. Angry

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
25-07-2012, 09:38 AM
RE: The Theology of God is an Asshole
(25-07-2012 09:31 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(25-07-2012 09:27 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Your mom.

Speaking of Ma, she said to stop leaving your socks under the sheets. Angry

welp

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 09:51 AM
RE: The Theology of God is an Asshole
There's a difference that people are overlooking. God, to believers, is not a fictional character. He exists. He does things. He has qualities.

Why would one debate those qualities if one believes he doesn't exist?

More to the point, how can someone believe that a fictional character HAS qualities?

Here's the other thing. I don't know of any theologies that draw from the prickishness of God. So if the argument is, as Stark suggested, that God is actually a prick and they don't realise it; therefore, it's dangerous because their theology is based on an asshole, then that's a false argument. Because their theology ISN'T based on God as an asshole. It's based on an interpretation of him as a loving and benevolent. Any contradictions you point out aren't a part of the theology. Now if you were to say that the theology ITSELF is dangerous, that would be something.

To put that another way, their theology is based on THEIR interpretation of God, not yours. So if your interpretation is different, however logical it might be based on your interpretation the source material, it has no impact on their theology whatsoever.

That means that it is its OWN theology. The theology of God is an Asshole.

I think that's the biggest thing I'm saying.

Now say I was trying to keep the conversation to theology as KS suggests. I might say, "you interpret this thing this way, but from what I get from it, it's this. Have you/would you consider that?" That sort of thing might cause a change in the theology or even an abandoning of it. But the way it is said is, "God IS an asshole." It's fucking bizarre.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
25-07-2012, 09:54 AM
RE: The Theology of God is an Asshole
(25-07-2012 09:30 AM)kim Wrote:  
(25-07-2012 08:43 AM)Ghost Wrote:  But how can God have any characteristics or do any of these things if he doesn't exist?

Kirk, Spock, Sulu, God, Scotty, Uhura, Bones, Tribbles, Nurse Chapel, Chekov... Atheists discuss lots of fictional people. Some are corrupt like God, while others make real, positive, and lasting contributions to living... like everyone else listed. Wink

Mm.....Nurse Chapel....HeartDroolingHeartDroolingHeart

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Erxomai's post
25-07-2012, 10:02 AM
RE: The Theology of God is an Asshole
Sorry Matt, I think you're trying to start an argument that really isn't there. You're making it sound like all Atheists actually believe an existing God is an asshole and Christians believe an existing God is good. It doesn't work that way and you know it. The Atheist position CAN come from studying the one Whom Theists propose to be an existing God. These are the people who would come to a conclusion that the Christian God as described in the Bible is an asshole. This is a reasonable conclusion after reading the scriptures. Some Christians like KC will stipulate the point to this because he believes God can do whatever the fuck God wants to. KC isn't going to call God a prick, however, he also is not going to judge God's actions because God is God and KC is not. However, most Christians have a theology that is handed down from parents and teachers, NOT from scripture so they believe God is Good because that is what they have been told. The atheist who is arguing from a Biblical standpoint is going to point out to the Christian what the Bible really says about God. What other conclusion can a non-believer come to regarding a fictional character in literature? If you're saying this is an incorrect assumption, then present your points on why God is not an asshole.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Erxomai's post
25-07-2012, 10:11 AM
RE: The Theology of God is an Asshole
(25-07-2012 10:02 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Sorry Matt, I think you're trying to start an argument that really isn't there. You're making it sound like all Atheists actually believe an existing God is an asshole and Christians believe an existing God is good. It doesn't work that way and you know it. The Atheist position CAN come from studying the one Whom Theists propose to be an existing God. These are the people who would come to a conclusion that the Christian God as described in the Bible is an asshole. This is a reasonable conclusion after reading the scriptures. Some Christians like KC will stipulate the point to this because he believes God can do whatever the fuck God wants to. KC isn't going to call God a prick, however, he also is not going to judge God's actions because God is God and KC is not. However, most Christians have a theology that is handed down from parents and teachers, NOT from scripture so they believe God is Good because that is what they have been told. The atheist who is arguing from a Biblical standpoint is going to point out to the Christian what the Bible really says about God. What other conclusion can a non-believer come to regarding a fictional character in literature? If you're saying this is an incorrect assumption, then present your points on why God is not an asshole.

Pretty much exactly this ^. Gotta be honest here Matt, I'm not so sure you're not arguing this one just for the sake of arguing.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stark Raving's post
25-07-2012, 10:13 AM
RE: The Theology of God is an Asshole
(25-07-2012 09:51 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Why would one debate those qualities if one believes he doesn't exist?

Angry Look man, the only thing they got right in that new "young" Star Trek movie was Bones... and I still can not believe THEY FUCKED WITH THE KOBAYASHI MARU INCIDENT!! THEY GOT KIRK'S ENTIRE ATTITUDE WRONG!


Blink


************

Yes. I understand the point you are making and I agree. But it seems people simply demand others to debate stupid shit.

I have always thought it does nothing but reaffirms and establishes the fictional being's existence, psychologically in everyones' mind. It's always confused me, but I just figured it's because I always grew up understanding that it was a fictional character.

Don't know what to tell you... I haven't had my coffee, yet. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 10:13 AM
RE: The Theology of God is an Asshole
Hey Matt,

Here's the deal... it depends on how it's said.

If an atheist just says, "God is an a-hole," then yeah, that's silly and doesn't make any sense.

If an atheist says, "The Christian God of the Bible is an a-hole," then the person is specifically defining the characteristics of an entity that is describe in the Bible. Whether that person believes God exists or not is irrelevant. The God of the Bible exists as a tangible character just like any character in any story.

If an atheist engages in a debate and says, "God is an a-hole because of what is shown in the Bible," then he is correctly debating because he is trying to prove his claim with the subject matter in which the question is associated.

If an atheist engages in a debate and says, "God is an a-hole because of what is shown in the Bible," and then rebutts with "It doesn't matter because God doesn't exist," is an unfair way to debate. If you want to debate against the existence of God, then you need to be honest about your claim from the beginning.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 10:29 AM
RE: The Theology of God is an Asshole
(25-07-2012 10:13 AM)kim Wrote:  
(25-07-2012 09:51 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Why would one debate those qualities if one believes he doesn't exist?

Angry Look man, the only thing they got right in that new "young" Star Trek movie was Bones... and I still can not believe THEY FUCKED WITH THE KOBAYASHI MARU INCIDENT!! THEY GOT KIRK'S ENTIRE ATTITUDE WRONG!


Blink


************

Yes. I understand the point you are making and I agree. But it seems people simply demand others to debate stupid shit.

I have always thought it does nothing but reaffirms and establishes the fictional being's existence, psychologically in everyones' mind. It's always confused me, but I just figured it's because I always grew up understanding that it was a fictional character.

Don't know what to tell you... I haven't had my coffee, yet. Drinking Beverage

I hardly know you, and I really don't like most people, but Kimmy...eye heart ewe!

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
25-07-2012, 12:56 PM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2012 01:16 PM by Buddy Christ.)
RE: The Theology of God is an Asshole
That's a strange and flawed way of thinking, Ghost.

Jar Jar Binks was an uncoordinated bumbling retard, who ruined an entire movie in his attempt to provide comic relief. I am commenting on a fictional character's motor skills and the quality of his brand of humor, as if he were a struggling comedian doing stand-up. Someone else may debate me over these statements, disagreeing with my assessment, and it doesn't matter whether they believe Jar Jar really exists or not, we're still talking about the proposed attributes of a character.

Should we also be restricted from benefiting from the selflessness of Robin Hood, or the bravery of Frodo Baggins?

Do you sit in movie theaters shouting, "this is stupid! None of this is real so why are we here?"



P.S. And while most of you think Ghost is just arguing for the sake of arguing, I still hold true to my theory that he is a theist (as I've stated previously), clinging to the title of "agnostic" to avoid being berated and lumped in with people like Parture.

P.P.S. Now that I think about it, I don't know anyone named Matt. I only know this electronic representation under the pseudonym Ghost. So to even presume to know the character of this avatar with no basis in reality, is futile. None of us can ever hope to know each other, so we should shut this site down immediately. For all you know, Buddy Christ is an alien communicating from another universe.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Buddy Christ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: