Utterly Disgusting
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-05-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 09:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-05-2015 11:16 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Morally suspect? Absolutely. But it also belies a complete ignorance of physics if he thinks that raindrops started to refract light only after a deity drowned the entire world's population as a form of apology; instead of you know, restoring everyone back to life, which was also clearly within his power to do. Dodgy

Yea, but bringing them back to life doesn't have the same sort of chutzpah, as keeping them dead, and then regretting it and offering condolences. It's apparently within his power to know the results before hand, that the the act was to be futile, but apparently he didn't. He was startled by the fact that he was left with the same problem he begun with.

Wow, so he is not omniscient?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
11-05-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 09:57 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 09:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yea, but bringing them back to life doesn't have the same sort of chutzpah, as keeping them dead, and then regretting it and offering condolences. It's apparently within his power to know the results before hand, that the the act was to be futile, but apparently he didn't. He was startled by the fact that he was left with the same problem he begun with.

Wow, so he is not omniscient?

Not the God character in the Flood Story, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone whose actually read it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2015, 10:41 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 10:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 09:57 AM)Dom Wrote:  Wow, so he is not omniscient?

Not the God character in the Flood Story, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone whose actually read it.

It's like you don't understand that there is a significant portion of people who believe these stories in a way differently from you. Plenty of people who still read it actually still believe it's describing the Omni-trio god they believe in.

But it leads to more open realm of questioning, where would objective morality even come from if there isn't this Omniscient/omnipotent God anywhere to have evidence of. If it's just a God that all we know is what info it gave to us, but we can determine it isn't Omniscient. How do we the God is morally right? Why would we trust it's morals or trust it has a say in what is good morality?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2015, 11:17 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 10:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 09:57 AM)Dom Wrote:  Wow, so he is not omniscient?

Not the God character in the Flood Story, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone whose actually read it.

I read it over 50 years ago. Not going to read it again, either. Tongue

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2015, 11:23 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 10:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 09:57 AM)Dom Wrote:  Wow, so he is not omniscient?

Not the God character in the Flood Story, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone whose actually read it.

*who's

And your unjustified, passive-aggressive attempt at insult is noted. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
11-05-2015, 11:30 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 11:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 10:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Not the God character in the Flood Story, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone whose actually read it.

*who's

And your unjustified, passive-aggressive attempt at insult is noted. Drinking Beverage

Attempt is right - I'd rather spend my time trying to understand the human body than reading about god handing out a rainbow in fair trade for the death of most of human kind. Tongue

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2015, 11:46 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 10:41 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's like you don't understand that there is a significant portion of people who believe these stories in a way differently from you. Plenty of people who still read it actually still believe it's describing the Omni-trio god they believe in.


If they assume the God character in the Flood story, as well as some other OT stories is omnipotent, it would likely just indicate that they haven't really read the stories, or just glanced over these conflicting details.

The problem would be more acute for those for those who subscribe to strict forms of literalism, than those that don't.

Quote:But it leads to more open realm of questioning, where would objective morality even come from if there isn't this Omniscient/omnipotent God anywhere to have evidence of. If it's just a God that all we know is what info it gave to us, but we can determine it isn't Omniscient. How do we the God is morally right? Why would we trust it's morals or trust it has a say in what is good morality?

Even though I believe in omniscient/omnipotent God, it doesn't follow that objective morality is dependent on this. Not even the biblical writers assumed that one would have to subscribe to their religion, or their book, to know right from wrong. Such as Paul observation of the moral behavior of the gentiles, who had no book of their own:

"or when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,…" (Roms 2)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2015, 04:26 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 11:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If they assume the God character in the Flood story, as well as some other OT stories is omnipotent, it would likely just indicate that they haven't really read the stories, or just glanced over these conflicting details.
<snip>
Even though I believe in omniscient/omnipotent God, it doesn't follow that objective morality is dependent on this. Not even the biblical writers assumed that one would have to subscribe to their religion, or their book, to know right from wrong. Such as Paul observation of the moral behavior of the gentiles, who had no book of their own:

"or when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,…" (Roms 2)

Once again, which is it? Is the God of the Old Testament a different God than in the New Testament?

Is your omniscient/omnipotent God the same God as the one (or two?) in the Bible?

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
11-05-2015, 04:40 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 04:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 11:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If they assume the God character in the Flood story, as well as some other OT stories is omnipotent, it would likely just indicate that they haven't really read the stories, or just glanced over these conflicting details.
<snip>
Even though I believe in omniscient/omnipotent God, it doesn't follow that objective morality is dependent on this. Not even the biblical writers assumed that one would have to subscribe to their religion, or their book, to know right from wrong. Such as Paul observation of the moral behavior of the gentiles, who had no book of their own:

"or when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,…" (Roms 2)

Once again, which is it? Is the God of the Old Testament a different God than in the New Testament?

Is your omniscient/omnipotent God the same God as the one (or two?) in the Bible?

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too.

Well, yeah. Anyone who has read the bible realises the character of God evolved as the book was compiled. The Omni-max version is a very late addition, the earliest stories being much closer to the other Sumerian Gods, greedy, jealous, vengeful, ignorant of what lay beyond their sphere of influence. It is only a problem if you attempt to portray this nonsense as fact and have to figure out how the same God that spitefully killed the entire world is also the loving God of the later stories. There is a reason so many christians that read the bible to better learn their faith become Atheists.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Revenant77x's post
11-05-2015, 05:20 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 04:40 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Well, yeah. Anyone who has read the bible realises the character of God evolved as the book was compiled.

Just because the Hebrew writer/s wrote a story in which the God character is startled, surprised, befuddled, less than omnipotent, doesn't mean that they believed he was less than omnipotent. Nor does it follow that the writers of the stories imagined themselves as writing historical accounts of a past they were not a part of. As if these writers imagined that God breathed into them these insights as to what happened ages ago before their own existence, and they penned these events down.

This doesn't seem to be the case by a long shot, competing stories of Genesis written side by side, the hebrew interpretive histories, etc.. suggest that these writing were viewed a bit differently that how a rabid fundie might believe.

They wrote stories, stories which often encapsulated their histories, their reflections on life and meaning, and their grappling with the question of God. If you seek to understand their purpose and meanings you have to deal with them as stories first, before anything else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: