God's Sister

HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
God's Sister

I'm seeing a lot of arguments for God recently that approach the problem philosophically. Let's test out another entity: God's sister.

So from Metacrock's site, I'll just take an a priori argument for God and change all the instances of "God" to "God's sister" and see if they're any less true.

"God's sister is not given directly in sense data, God's sister transcends the threshold of human understanding, and thus is not given amenable to empirical proof."

"As I have stated in previous essays, what we must do is find the "co-detemrinate," the thing that is left by God's sister like footprints in the snow. The trace of God's sister can be found in God's sister's affects upon the human heart, and that shows up objectively, or inter-subjectvely in changed behavior, changed attitudes, life transformations. This is the basis of the mystical argument that I use, and in a sense it also have a bearing upon my religious instruct argument. But here I wish to present anther view of the trace of God's sister. This could be seen as a co-detmiernate perhaps, more importantly, it frees religion from the structures of having to measure up to a scientific standard of proof: the religious a prori."

Ignoring the multitude of spelling mistakes, do you want to believe more or less, now that it's God's sister? She could be nice!

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Ignoring the multitude

Quote:
Ignoring the multitude of spelling mistakes, do you want to believe more or less, now that it's God's sister? She could be nice!

She has a body just like ours, except perfect, right? I'm getting excited.  Seriously though, why is god usually male?

Don't forget to prove the existence of the FSM and IPU too.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I've always thought this is

I've always thought this is a very compelling argument against most God arguments.  We can pretty much use the same text and put any damn thing we want, so long as it is incoherently defined.  If the argument is to be believed for God, it must be believed for "<insert silly incoherent concept here>."

I wrote something similar in today, as a matter of fact.  You might get a kick out of it:

Quote:
What about imaginary friends?  Children don’t have to be taught to invent imaginary playmates.  They do it quite on their own, and again — they do it across cultures.  Is Frank the Imaginary Eight Year Old really the agent responsible for throwing the baseball through Mrs. Crabtree’s window?  Should we be more inclined to believe that some children have imaginary friends that really exist, just because lots of children imagine them?  It seems obvious when we include the word imaginary that a thing is not real, but this is the crux of presup’s argument!  He suggests that because lots of people imagine gods, that gods are real!  We can say with complete accuracy that his argument goes like this:  “The fact that people all over the world have imaginary gods is evidence that imaginary gods exist in reality.”

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
God's sister sounds hot. I

God's sister sounds hot. I think this is a great improvement in theology. Please keep up the good work.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

God's brother is gay.

 

 

 

We met in an airport restroom after he visited a pentacostal megachurch and convinced them they didn't need health care.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't prove that it didn't not happen!

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:God's brother

ClockCat wrote:

God's brother is gay. 

 

We met in an airport restroom after he visited a pentacostal megachurch and convinced them they didn't need health care.

 

  

 

 

You can't prove that it didn't not happen!

 

Yah, he said he was god's brother.  Whatever.  You really ought to know that guys will say anything to get the tube steak played with...

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
My wife and I always pick up

My wife and I always pick up Christian tracts when we find them. We replace every instance of "God," "Jesus," "Christ," and so on with "Elvis." It makes them almost entertaining.

Then we leave them for other people to find.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:God's brother

ClockCat wrote:

God's brother is gay.

You, my friend, are a genius. I'm tempted to do a God's Brother's Bible (see earlier efforts from the Church of The Cosmic Moose) and have it filled with rebuttals about the whole men lying with other men bit.

14 For today, God's Brother hath said unto me, "Yaweh is verily a total bitch, and makes commands solely for the purpose of irking me. All those things about lying with other men be Great Nonsense, for there shall always be Interesting Men of Different Types, and God knew fully that I set that part up. Ridiculed shall be his name who insists that men cannot lie with men. For look to the birds, and how totally gay they are. Also the bonobo -- I added extra gay to that species. Yaweh wasn't even there for that part, for in truth, he's a completely lazy hack who has no sense of proportion or dimension."

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Should we

Hambydammit wrote:
Should we be more inclined to believe that some children have imaginary friends that really exist, just because lots of children imagine them?  It seems obvious when we include the word imaginary that a thing is not real, but this is the crux of presup’s argument!

So true. Nothing to say but "so true."

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Lord_of_Rock
Posts: 79
Joined: 2009-08-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Ignoring

HisWillness wrote:

Ignoring the multitude of spelling mistakes, do you want to believe more or less, now that it's God's sister? She could be nice!

If, at the end of the philosophical inquiry, we are left with a being who is eternal, intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and self-sufficient, then we will have satisfied our case.

We really do not care if you call this being "God's sister", "Zues", "Allah", "Jehovah", "Odin", etc.

God actually does have many different names. 

Read up:

http://www.gotquestions.org/names-of-God.html

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Lord_of_Rock wrote:If, at

Lord_of_Rock wrote:

If, at the end of the philosophical inquiry, we are left with a being who is eternal, intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and self-sufficient, then we will have satisfied our case.

Well good luck with that.

Here, I'll help: "omnipotent" encompasses most of that list, because if something is omnipotent, it is de facto omniscient, intelligent as it wants to be, eternal, and self-sufficient.

It's not necessarily omnipresent, as it can be anyplace and no place simultaneously. So don't worry about that one, that would conflict with omnipotent.

Of course, omnipotence is complicated. It means that the being in question is having its will satisfied no matter what. It would be impossible to do something that an omnipotent being didn't want to happen. In fact, desire is irrelevant to an omnipotent being, because omnipotence eliminates the space between wanting something and getting it.

If such a creature existed, it would be immediately irrelevant. Sin certainly wouldn't exist.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Lord_of_Rock
Posts: 79
Joined: 2009-08-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Here, I'll

HisWillness wrote:

Here, I'll help: "omnipotent" encompasses most of that list, because if something is omnipotent, it is de facto omniscient, intelligent as it wants to be, eternal, and self-sufficient.

Omnipotent is the ability to do anything which is logically possible.  Eternality, intelligence, and self-sufficiency are not verbs, so what you are saying is illogical.

"It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible. For a thing is said to be possible or impossible absolutely, according to the relation in which the very terms stand to one another, possible if the predicate is not incompatible with the subject, as that Socrates sits; and absolutely impossible when the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject, as, for instance, that a man is a donkey."

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm#article3

Quote:
It's not necessarily omnipresent, as it can be anyplace and no place simultaneously. So don't worry about that one, that would conflict with omnipotent.

Omnipresent means present everywhere at once.  Therefore, God is neither anyplace nor no place.  He is everyplace.

For God to be here and not there would assign him a spatial extension, which would be contradictory to his nature.

http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog11.htm

Quote:
Of course, omnipotence is complicated.

It means the ability to do anything which is possible to do.  What is so difficult about that? 

Quote:
It means that the being in question is having its will satisfied no matter what. It would be impossible to do something that an omnipotent being didn't want to happen.

That does not follow at all. 

 

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Lord_of_Rock wrote:Quote:It

Lord_of_Rock wrote:

Quote:
It means that the being in question is having its will satisfied no matter what. It would be impossible to do something that an omnipotent being didn't want to happen.

That does not follow at all.

I'm not sure what you're having trouble with. If a creature is all-powerful, that is, can and does have total control over all things at all times, then at all times, that creature is in control. At all times, that creature's desire is being fulfilled. The creature cannot at any point have unfulfilled desires, simply by virtue of having total control of all things at all times.

Is that clear? Sin can't exist if such a creature exists.

If God is all-powerful, then God can change the rules of logic, and thus perform what is currently impossible, simply by changing what impossible would be. So no, God is not limited to the possible, or logically possible, because that's not omnipotence.

The problem is that if God is limited to the logically possible, then God is bound to self-immolate by virtue of God's numerous contradictory attributes. In the same sense that a "four-sided triangle" does not exist, neither does a perfectly forgiving being who is jealous and vengeful.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:blah blah

HisWillness wrote:

blah blah blah

Your true form emerges a hair. Not only a heretical heathen, but a sexist one too. Capitalising the Brother without the same treatment for the Sister. The Panda's list of your offences grows ever more.

By the way, I would argue that omnipotence does not require omniscience. The ability to do anything does not necessarily require the knowledge of how to. Nor does omniscience require omnipotence.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Lord_of_Rock
Posts: 79
Joined: 2009-08-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:I'm not

HisWillness wrote:

I'm not sure what you're having trouble with. If a creature is all-powerful, that is, can and does have total control over all things at all times, then at all times, that creature is in control.

Yes.  But God is still restricted to acting in a way that accords with his own nature.  That is a logical necessity.   God is not a creature, he is uncreated.

Quote:
At all times, that creature's desire is being fulfilled. The creature cannot at any point have unfulfilled desires, simply by virtue of having total control of all things at all times.

Is that clear? Sin can't exist if such a creature exists.

You are correct that God has no void within him that needs to be fulfilled.  He is already infinite in perfection.  Therefore, anything he does could not, in any logical sense, be related to a void.

Sin can exist because God has a permissive will which allows certain things to happen, even if they are contrary to his nature. 

Many atheists make the mistake of presuming that sin leaves a void in God.  That has never been the Christian position.  Sin is reflective of a void within the sinner himself.  It is the sinner who is hurt by sin, not God.  In fact, God, being omniscient, knew ahead of time that this person would sin, just as he knew that Jesus would be brutally beaten and crucified.

Quote:
If God is all-powerful, then God can change the rules of logic, and thus perform what is currently impossible, simply by changing what impossible would be. So no, God is not limited to the possible, or logically possible, because that's not omnipotence.

Sorry, but you do not get to decide what "omnipotence" means.

This issue has been beaten to death by theologians for the past 500 years and the paradox of the stone is practically laughed out of every philosophy class in college campuses across the nation.

What you are saying is that if God is omnipotent, he could make possible something that is impossible.  But then it would logically follow that this impossible thing already was possible because while we assumed that it was impossible, the impossibility is based on contigent states of affairs which God could potentially alter.  Therefore, by your criteria, if God is omnipotent, then nothing is impossible, which is silly if you consider that it would also be possible for God to make himself to be not God.

Quote:
The problem is that if God is limited to the logically possible, then God is bound to self-immolate by virtue of God's numerous contradictory attributes. In the same sense that a "four-sided triangle" does not exist, neither does a perfectly forgiving being who is jealous and vengeful.

He is neither jealous nor vengeful.  You are building off of false ideas.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"He is neither jealous nor

"He is neither jealous nor vengeful.  You are building off of false ideas."

Uh huh. Then why exactly are you here trying to convince us of your delusions anyway?

By the way, you're the one who doesn't know what omnipotent means. I'll help.

Omnipotent: almighty: having unlimited power wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Omnipotence (from Latin: Omni Potens: "all power") is unlimited power.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent

Unlimited power, literally defined, is unlimited energy, control, influence, and authority over All. The existence of omnipotence would require that nothing is impossible, by definition. If that's not what you mean, use another word.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

I should make an argument for creation in "God's brother is gay". It will give the ID movement a new direction.

 

 

1. The universe requires an Intelligent Designer

2. This Designer has to be very good with proportions and use of negative space

3. God is good in everything

4. All good designers are gay

Therefore

5. God is gay

 

 

 

 

 

Please support the ClockCat Cosmological Argument.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Now all I have to do is convince people my argument is "compelling" and "controversial", getting on mainstream TV to show "both sides to the story".

 

 

Laughing out loud

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:What you are saying is

Quote:

What you are saying is that if God is omnipotent, he could make possible something that is impossible.  But then it would logically follow that this impossible thing already was possible because while we assumed that it was impossible, the impossibility is based on contigent states of affairs which God could potentially alter. 

 

No. It also logically follows that this impossible thing is therefore still impossible since only an omnipotent entity can make it possible, and if the possibility of everything is measured against the capability of such a being then nothing is impossible. Which of course is stupid, as we know many things are indeed impossible and there is no evidence of any omnipotent entity having altered any "contingent states of affairs" ever, simply the odd claim that one has done this made by extremely deluded people.

 

Which leaves the omnipotent being fairly and squarely in the realm of pure fantasy.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Now all I

ClockCat wrote:

Now all I have to do is convince people my argument is "compelling" and "controversial", getting on mainstream TV to show "both sides to the story".

GayGen 3:23 And the LORD looked upon His work and declared, "This is simply fabulous. I must say, I like what I've done with the lights. They are dramatic, set against the velvet black of the Void."

GayGen 3:24 And of His Creatures, the LORD sayeth, "And aren't baby hippos just the cutest darlings ever? And they are wonderfully silly when they grow up!"

 

GayLev 5:19 The wearing of white after labor day shall be denied. Those who wear pants several sizes too large, so they must be held up at all times while your boxers show, shall be mocked vigorously. While eating shellfish, red wine shall not be consumed; rather, the righteous will drink of the white.

 

Hm. I can see it. I kinda like it.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:4. All good

ClockCat wrote:

4. All good designers are gay

Therefore

5. God is gay

What did I say? Fucking genius.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Lord_of_Rock wrote:But God

Lord_of_Rock wrote:

But God is still restricted to acting in a way that accords with his own nature.  That is a logical necessity.

[...]

You are correct that God has no void within him that needs to be fulfilled.  He is already infinite in perfection.  Therefore, anything he does could not, in any logical sense, be related to a void.

Sin can exist because God has a permissive will which allows certain things to happen, even if they are contrary to his nature.

You're saying two very strange things, here: God is subject to logic, which is part of his nature, and he allows things to happen that are contrary to his nature. The more intricate this gets, the more I can't figure out how you know this stuff.

God is not related to the void, but he is omnipresent, and outside the boundaries of nature (void). God is omnipotent, but not really omnipotent, just omnipotent within the rules he presumably created. It just goes on and on. And it all points to someone rationalizing, and not actually having a real subject of discussion. There's no way for me to believe you without abandoning the logic that you say God must follow.

Lord_of_Rock wrote:
Many atheists make the mistake of presuming that sin leaves a void in God.  That has never been the Christian position.  Sin is reflective of a void within the sinner himself.

None of that even made sense to me. When a person sins, is it not breaking God's law? Isn't that how one sins? Maybe I'm missing something about sin, here. I thought it was just breaking the rules. Or are the rules to be taken in the historical context as well? Sin doesn't even come close to making sense. When God allows something, that's God's will. You can't go against God's will. If it's God's will that you sin, then sin is not what it's described as being.

Lord_of_Rock wrote:
Sorry, but you do not get to decide what "omnipotence" means.

This issue has been beaten to death by theologians for the past 500 years and the paradox of the stone is practically laughed out of every philosophy class in college campuses across the nation.

It sure has. After all, it's a joke. But then, so is theology. 500 years of having arguments about something that's ridiculous. Okay, I don't get to decide what omnipotence means, but ... someone else does? Who would that be?

Lord_of_Rock wrote:
What you are saying is that if God is omnipotent, he could make possible something that is impossible.  But then it would logically follow that this impossible thing already was possible because while we assumed that it was impossible, the impossibility is based on contigent states of affairs which God could potentially alter.  Therefore, by your criteria, if God is omnipotent, then nothing is impossible, which is silly if you consider that it would also be possible for God to make himself to be not God.

Luke 1:37 "For with God nothing will be impossible." I agree that it's silly, but if you're not looking at the bible for this stuff, where are you getting your information?

How should omnipotence be defined? We're back to nonsense if it's the power to do all things that are logically possible, because of the number of things that are not logically possible. God is then subject to rules we can only guess at, rather than be sure of. What other god keeps this God in check? Why can't he do things that are logically impossible?

Lord_of_Rock wrote:
He is neither jealous nor vengeful.  You are building off of false ideas.

So I can ignore Exodus 20:5, where God actually says he's "a jealous God", and Psalm 94:1, where God is the owner of vengeance? I'm building off of a guess as to what the hell you're talking about, because one second you're saying one thing, and the next another. One section of the bible is to be literally interpreted, and the next is given careful consideration in context.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Don't knock slimmed-down

Don't knock slimmed-down bibles. They're very useful for propping up wobbly tables.

 

In Exodus, god isn't even getting close to the root of his dementia when he calls himself "jealous". Just a little further on he reveals his anal retentive side much more succinctly with (and get this for a load of bull):

 

loony deity wrote:

If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death. 30 However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded. 31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. 32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels [f] of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.

 

Now I don't know about Jewish over-arm technique in the Bronze Age, but there is NO WAY I'm facing down a bloody bull with a load of pebbles - even with some similarly armed mates around - just so god can get his rocks off! (or pebbles, as the case may be)

 

lord_of_pebbles wrote:

You are correct that God has no void within him that needs to be fulfilled.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (choke) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH (choke) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH (choke choke) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH (gasp - clutches throat) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ... (drops dead from apoplectic fit induced by unintentional humour and with horrible foreboding for the next four generations I spawn)

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Lord_of_Rock
Posts: 79
Joined: 2009-08-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:You're

HisWillness wrote:

You're saying two very strange things, here: God is subject to logic, which is part of his nature, and he allows things to happen that are contrary to his nature.

Yes.  What is the problem with that?

Quote:
God is not related to the void, but he is omnipresent, and outside the boundaries of nature (void).

What do you mean, "the void"? I was not using "void" to refer to nature.  I was responding to your assertion that God is somehow unfulfilled unless all human beings are saved.

Quote:
God is omnipotent, but not really omnipotent, just omnipotent within the rules he presumably created.

I've told you what "omnipotent" meant.  God is omnipotent, and he is really omnipotent.

Quote:
None of that even made sense to me. When a person sins, is it not breaking God's law? Isn't that how one sins?

Yes.

But you are probably unfamiliar with the distinction between God's sovereign will and God's permissive will. 

In your arguments, you are strictly adhering to the idea of God's sovereign will, or the idea that God has a singular plan and that everything which occurs in our lifetime must occur in order for God's will to be done.  When people hit hard times and they say that all the bad things are for some higher purpose, this is what they are usually referring to.

God also has a permissive will.  This is best understood as God's will for the ungodly, so that his sovereign will may be fulfilled.  Therefore, he permits bad things to happen, such as him permitting the suffering of his son in order to offer salvation to those who trust in him.  In 1 Timothy, we read that God wants us all to be saved.  But in John 6:44, it states that salvation is strictly in God's hands.

What you've stated was that sin cannot exist if God exists because God would never allow things that were against his will.  That is just a misunderstanding of Christian theology.  God's will is not in the hands of creatures such as us.  IOW, God is not going to be a crying shepherd looking for his lost flock if we all choose to reject him.  In fact, he already knows who has accepted him and who has rejected him.

Quote:
Maybe I'm missing something about sin, here. I thought it was just breaking the rules.

It is breaking the law of God, yes. 

Quote:
When God allows something, that's God's will. You can't go against God's will. If it's God's will that you sin, then sin is not what it's described as being.

You can go against God's will.  He permits you to do it.  Yet you can rest assured that God is never unfulfilled.  Whatever he wants, he will end up getting.

Quote:
Luke 1:37 "For with God nothing will be impossible." I agree that it's silly, but if you're not looking at the bible for this stuff, where are you getting your information?

What's silly is you cherrypicking certain passages out of 66 books to validate yor claim.

First of all, you have to read Luke in context.  The passage you've quoted was where the angel Gabriel was speaking to Mary.  Mary asked how she could bear a child if she was a virgin.  In response, Gabriel said that she would be having the son of God and that added, "Nothing is impossible with God."

Did he mean that God could make squared circles or make himself not God?  In the context of the conversation, it is quite clear that this is not what Gabriel meant.  He was referring to what we perceive to be technological, biological, or physical impossibilities, since Mary was asking a scientific question.  Not metaphysical impossibilities.

This becomes more clear when we come across other passages such as:

"God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged." --Hebrews 6:18

"if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself." --2 Timothy 2:13

Quote:
What other god keeps this God in check? Why can't he do things that are logically impossible?

God keeps God in check.  He is consistent with his own nature.

Quote:
So I can ignore Exodus 20:5, where God actually says he's "a jealous God", and Psalm 94:1, where God is the owner of vengeance?

I thought about those passages after I made the post and I was wrong, to a certain degree.  My statement was too vague.  Context is everything.

In Exodus 20:5, God is specifically forbidding the practice of idolatry, explaining that praise belongs to him alone.  Thus, he will rightfully judge those who do not give him that which he is entitled to.  He describes this as "jealousy", as he is speaking to people and conveying a message.  But this is not "jealousy" in the human sense, where people get petty of things that they need not be petty about, such as you getting jealous over your friend's car.  That's sinful.  This distinction is made by Paul in 2 Corinthians, "I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him."

In Psalm 94:1,  God is making it clear that only he has the authority to avenge the righteous.  So yes, he is vengeful, but in a righteous manner.  I could go into this in further detail but I'm getting tired.

Quote:
I'm building off of a guess as to what the hell you're talking about, because one second you're saying one thing, and the next another. One section of the bible is to be literally interpreted, and the next is given careful consideration in context.

Actually, I do not believe I ever cited a bible passage without taking context into account.  When did I do that?

 


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Thus, he will

Quote:

Thus, he will rightfully judge those who do not give him that which he is entitled to.

 

Rightfully? Bullshit! He extends the punishment to four generations of their offspring.

 

He's a spiteful little wanker, isn't he? And what sort of a wanker would elect to defend this behaviour as "rightful", I wonder?

 

The shit some people buy into ...

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Lord_of_Rock

Lord_of_Rock wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

You're saying two very strange things, here: God is subject to logic, which is part of his nature, and he allows things to happen that are contrary to his nature.

Yes.  What is the problem with that?

Are you joking?

You know what? Having read the rest of your post, I'm done. I can only assume the person I'm talking to is sane for so long. I'm not qualified to diagnose you, so it's not like I'm asserting that you're actually insane, but the things you're saying are pure gobbledygook.

Square circles are impossible, but human parthenogenisis is no problem. Right. Vengeance is cool if it's righteous. Mary was asking a "scientific question". You can go against God's will, but whatever he wants, he gets. It's amazing to me.

Who taught you this nonsense?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence