Why the Christian God is Impossible

Chat about stuff other than Transformers.
User avatar
Scarrita
Protoform
Posts: 1770
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 10:19 pm
Location: What? No! We can't stop here! This is bat country!

Why the Christian God is Impossible

Post by Scarrita » Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:38 pm

Here's a little something for you guys to chew over for a little while. I'm gonna go to bed now so have an interesting time "discussing" the pros and cons of this argument:

Source: http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library ... sible.html

Introduction
Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth. This assumption is false, not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory.
Proving a universal negative
Many Christians, as well as atheists, claim that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. For example, while we may not have evidence that unicorns or dragons exist, we cannot prove that they do not exist. Unless we have a complete knowledge of the universe, we must admit the possibility that somewhere in the universe, there might be such creatures.

But the claim that omniscience is needed to prove a universal negative presumes that the concept which we are discussing is logically coherent. If the attributes which we assign to a hypothetical object or being are self-contradictory, then we can conclude that it cannot exist, and therefore does not exist. I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which make their existence impossible. A cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible -- they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object.

I intend to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to demonstrate that Yahweh's existence is an impossibility.

Defining YHWH
Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.

God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.

These attributes of God are related by the Bible, which Christians believe to be the perfect and true Word of God.

One verse which many Christians are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible, and reveal the impossibility of all of them being held simultaneously by the same being. There is no foolishness in denying the impossible. Foolishness is worshipping an impossible God.
Perfection seeks even more perfection
What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely?

God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete -- it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing the elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.
Perfection begets imperfection
But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and had the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.

What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans.

The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot make itself imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.
The Freewill Argument
The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.
All-good God knowingly creates future suffering
God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.
Infinite punishment for finite sins
God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely injust. The absurdity of this infinite punishment appears even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of the human's imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.
Belief more important than action
Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.
Perfection's imperfect revelation
The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means for overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books called the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man. No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigma. And yet the perfect God expects the imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.
Contradictory justice
One need look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.
Contradictory history
The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?
Unfulfilled prophecy
The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it with Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The sign given by Isaiah to King Ahaz was meant to assure him that his enemies King Rezin and King Remaliah would be defeated. The prophecy was fulfilled in the very next chapter. Yet Matthew 1 not only misinterprets the word for "maiden" as "virgin," but claims that this already-fulfilled prophecy is fulfilled by the virgin birth of Jesus!

The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.

The Bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged Word of God. Many have been found. A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.
The Omniscient changes the future
A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.
The Omniscient is surprised
A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may react emotionally.

We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.
The conclusion of the matter
I have offered arguments for the impossibility, and thus the non- existence, of the Christian God Yahweh. No reasonable and free thinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is as contradictory as that of Yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of Yahweh is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.

While believers may find comfort in being faithful to impossibilities, there is no greater satisfaction than a clear mind. You may choose to serve an impossible God. I will choose reality.
© Chad Docterman, 1996
Image
Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe
something your intellect would otherwise cause
you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith.

User avatar
homerbot
Protoform
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 2:43 am
Location: sucking down hershey's syrup from the bottle

Post by homerbot » Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:49 pm

wow... umm... long story short anyone?

i read about half of it... thought i was near done, scrolled down and said "oh my god i'm not reading this all"
i need to print it out and force hardcore christian asshole homophobes to read it (only the ones that fall into all categories)
Words suck. Down with words! -saysadie
To actually say which candidate has the better Iraq policy is like saying which Twinkie is more healthy. -Ultimate Weapon
I'd totally hit that Krystal chick...if she were real and sex with animals wasn't illegal. -Drspengler

User avatar
Denyer
Posts: 32326
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2000 4:00 am
Custom Title: Shooty Dog Thing
Location: UK
Contact:

Forget where I found this...

Post by Denyer » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:22 pm

Why I Left the Christian Church
By Matt McLauchlin

I see a religion which denies humanity's ability to construct its own ethical structure. It promulgates moral rules not in reference to any consequences they could have, but just "because He said so". Its followers are not encouraged to consider local conditions when making a choice, but rather to believe in a chimerical universal moral code, whether or not it is useful in a particular circumstance. It is abstract.

As a result, in direct contravention of its founder's dictum that man is not made for the sabbath, every historical indication is of a church that has encouraged its followers to think of the needs of human society as less important than the needs of the church. It is anti-humanist.

It does not encourage learning and knowledge. Consider the prayer "lead us from doubt to faith". It is not interested in consideration and questioning except insofar as that would tend to bolster the Christian argument (consider the Scholasticist clerics prior to the Enlightenment). Eve's eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge caused the stigma of original sin, rather than being rewarded as a portion of the quest for knowledge and understanding. It encourages blindness.

It includes no reference to balance. It instead urges its followers to identify whole halves of the human condition, whole "others", and cut them off, rather than attempting to create an eclectic life, learn from every source, balance their experience, sample, stay in moderation, and enjoy. Once one has identified The One Right, Just and True Way, one is not encouraged to pursue it in moderation or to doubt its rightness, but rather to believe that one has God on one's side in whatever means one might take to that "holy" end. It is unbalanced and dualist.

It involves a God who rules the universe and is outside the universe. Since humans are created in the image of God, this encourages humans to think of themselves as outside the realm of nature - to "have dominion over the Earth" rather than to consider themselves part of it. It does not recognize the need for harmony with nature.

The philosophical failings I listed above have been the spiritual ancestors of debacles such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the slave trade, and the growth of scholasticist rationalism of the Voltaire's Bastards variety.

As I've mentioned, most of these are not the fault of Jehoshua bar-Joseph; they are more or less the fault of Saul of Tarsus and later commentators, who wasted no time converting the popular new cult into an abstract power structure. Much of the dualist and abstract baggage came from the religions of Greece and Rome, and piggybacked quite nicely on the remaining Jewish remnants of Christian doctrine. But there we have it.

This is why I left the Christian church.

User avatar
Ultimate Weapon
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2001 5:00 am
Location: The End of Time

Post by Ultimate Weapon » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:40 pm

Perfection is a giant who can lift 600lbs and devour human flesh.

User avatar
homerbot
Protoform
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 2:43 am
Location: sucking down hershey's syrup from the bottle

Post by homerbot » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:44 pm

Originally posted by Ultimate Weapon
Perfection is a giant who can lift 600lbs and devour human flesh.
why just 600?
Words suck. Down with words! -saysadie
To actually say which candidate has the better Iraq policy is like saying which Twinkie is more healthy. -Ultimate Weapon
I'd totally hit that Krystal chick...if she were real and sex with animals wasn't illegal. -Drspengler

User avatar
Dead Man Wade
Posts: 4890
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:15 pm
Location: Funny location

Post by Dead Man Wade » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:58 pm

Originally posted by homerbot
wow... umm... long story short anyone?


Cliffs' Notes version:

-A perfect being feels no need to create. It is content to exist. Therefore, a perfect creator God is impossible.
-It is impossible for a perfect being to create anything imperfect.
-Free will is not the reason for humanity's imperfection. God presumably has free will, yet is supposed to be perfect.
-A perfect being would not create beings he knew to be doomed to suffering.
-A perfect being would not create a hell to punish its creations for being created imperfect.
-A perfectly just being would not value belief above action.
-The Bible is an imperfect work. No perfect being would convey its perfect will through an imperfect book, nor would it expect its imperfect creations to be able to understand completely.
-No perfect being would produce or allow the atrocities that the Christian God has.
-Emotions are a result of the introduction of new knowledge. As a perfect, omniscient being cannot be surprised with new information, it is impossible for God to feel human emotion.
-Humans feel anger and frustration over things they cannot fix. It is within the power of a perfect, omniscient God to fix anything. Therefore, God cannot feel anger or frustration.

User avatar
Jetfire
Posts: 6434
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 5:00 am
Location: Hard traveling hero.

Post by Jetfire » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:38 pm

Why just Christian?

Surley this applies to Islamic and Jewish beliefs-all being virtually the same?

And the whole arguement is based on one person assumption of how they define "perfection" and assumption that their definitin is how others believe in God.
Emotions are a result of the introduction of new knowledge.
Silly arguement. Has anybody ever relected on something funny, sad or fun and never felt a emotional feeling despite the fact it's not new knowledge?
Image

User avatar
SoundCrush
Protoform
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 2:59 am
Location: Somewhere thinking about love.

Post by SoundCrush » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:40 pm

Agreed.

Besides, this should only apply to fundementalists. I myself believe in Jesus and that it is possible he is the son of a greater divine being but that doesn 't mean he is perfect, nor do I agree that God is all perfect. After all, he had a human mother.

While I'm on the subject of fundementalists, I'm I the only one that believes Buhddist fundementalists are the only right and justified ones?
Skill without imagination gives us craftsmanship, which produces many useful objects such as wickwork picnic baskets. Imagination without skill gives us Modern Art.
- Tom Stoppard

User avatar
Dead Man Wade
Posts: 4890
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:15 pm
Location: Funny location

Post by Dead Man Wade » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:51 pm

Originally posted by Jetfire 2.1
Silly arguement. Has anybody ever relected on something funny, sad or fun and never felt a emotional feeling despite the fact it's not new knowledge?


The point was simply this: One feels sad after hearing about, say, a loved one's death. One feels joyous after finding out their wife gave birth. If one had known for countless millenia that it was going to happen, it's not news, and it's a little hard to feel any real emotion about it. The only emotion one feels when remembering some event is an echo of the actual feeling.
Originally posted by SoundCrush
While I'm on the subject of fundementalists, I'm I the only one that believes Buhddist fundementalists are the only right and justified ones?
There is no such thing as a "right" fundamentalist. One should question the inconsistencies in life, especially in religion. Besides, if one is secure in their faith, there shouldn't be a problem in questioning your beliefs.

User avatar
Ultimate Weapon
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2001 5:00 am
Location: The End of Time

Post by Ultimate Weapon » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:56 pm

Originally posted by fort_max
The point was simply this: One feels sad after hearing about, say, a loved one's death. One feels joyous after finding out their wife gave birth. If one had known for countless millenia that it was going to happen, it's not news, and it's a little hard to feel any real emotion about it. The only emotion one feels when remembering some event is an echo of the actual feeling.


Like when a tree falls in the forest?

User avatar
Jetfire
Posts: 6434
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 5:00 am
Location: Hard traveling hero.

Post by Jetfire » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:59 pm

Originally posted by fort_max
The point was simply this: One feels sad after hearing about, say, a loved one's death. One feels joyous after finding out their wife gave birth. If one had known for countless millenia that it was going to happen, it's not news, and it's a little hard to feel any real emotion about it. The only emotion one feels when remembering some event is an echo of the actual feeling.


I know several kids will get a good GCSE, their too smart and know everything effrotlessly. It doesn't stop me feeling happt.

Likewise most people know a wedding date months in advance. Doesn't stop it being the happiest day in their life.

You have a week before a funeral. Yoi cry atthe news of a beloveded's death. You go the rest of the week sad but surviving. You are still sadder than ever on the day and are unable to control emotion and cry your eyes out.

Yes emotional response can be something new but it doesn't need to be. The above arguement was based on emotional responses can only be something new.

A good example is that some women will cry every time they watch "Brief Encounter" or "Titanic" for those who are dominated by more contempory film. They know what is going to happen. They have seen it several times. It still doesn't stop the emotional response when it actually does occur.
Image

User avatar
Denyer
Posts: 32326
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2000 4:00 am
Custom Title: Shooty Dog Thing
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:04 pm

Originally posted by Jetfire 2.1
Why just Christian?

Surley this applies to Islamic and Jewish beliefs-all being virtually the same?
Yes.

Next question.

User avatar
Jetfire
Posts: 6434
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 5:00 am
Location: Hard traveling hero.

Post by Jetfire » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:07 pm

Originally posted by Denyer
Yes.

Next question.


Aren't religious threads banned because every arguement has been run into the ground, they are boring, cause flame wars like no other topic as well as the fact they encourage shebaitus?
Image

User avatar
Dead Man Wade
Posts: 4890
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:15 pm
Location: Funny location

Post by Dead Man Wade » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:16 pm

Originally posted by Jetfire 2.1
I know several kids will get a good GCSE
No, you assume based on their past performance that they're going to get a good GCSE.

You don't actually know until they get their scores back.
You have a week before a funeral. Yoi cry atthe news of a beloveded's death. You go the rest of the week sad but surviving. You are still sadder than ever on the day and are unable to control emotion and cry your eyes out.
There's a difference between "a week before the funeral" and "eons before the universe was created".

The problem with your argument is that God simply cannot be understood in human terms. The Christian God is timeless, with no beginning and no end, and to assume that he relates to us in any way is sheer folly.

User avatar
Jetfire
Posts: 6434
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 5:00 am
Location: Hard traveling hero.

Post by Jetfire » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:25 pm

Originally posted by fort_max
Again, there's a difference between "a week before the funeral" and "eons before the universe was created".

The problem with your argument is that God simply cannot be understood in human terms. The Christian God is timeless, with no beginning and no end, and to assume that he relates to us in any way is sheer folly.



And week, a month or eternity. It's still in human terms not new news.

In July my mum will morn my older sister who died in a coma. She is happy for the rest of the year (well, life's ups and downs aside) but come that date she will ahve a good cry. It's an emotional response. My sister died 16 years ago, the date is prior knowledge yet she still doesn't need a surprise or recent information to trigger that rather powerful emotional response, and 16 years is a pretty long time to claim any knowledge is new.


I assume God relates or understands us in some ways. But I don't assume he can be understood. Christianity does say that God can't be understood anyway.

And you still, avoided my points about reflecting on old memories and the emotioan responses they can create dispite us knowing them and the knowledge being previously aquired.
Image

User avatar
Sir Auros
Posts: 12980
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA
Contact:

Post by Sir Auros » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:28 pm

Jets, as for the wedding argument, knowing when it's going to occur is quite different from experiencing the day. An omniscient being knows the experience in advance by definition.

User avatar
CloudStrifer
Protoform
Posts: 1780
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 6:07 pm
Location: Canada

Post by CloudStrifer » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:31 pm

I don't agree on the Christan God and Islamic God being the same. How you ask?

The Christan God, or God as I like to call him, is mirred with paganistic figures and made into not one but 3 different beings namely, Jesus, Holy Ghost and God. When one looks at these various ideas, it seems that they are paganistic.

When some says "Oh Jesus save me" they are calling out for the Prophet Jesus and not for God. When one wants to be saved they call out "Jesus will forgive your sins".

This shows that they have mixed up the meaning of God and his prophet Jesus who was a man and not the son of God. They pray to him as an itermediatry to God. Many cultures had these type of belief that there was a Supreme God and to get to that God you had to pray to the Minor God who goes and grants requests to the Supreme God.

Therefore, the Christan God has lost what the Islamic didn't. Its oneness.

In Islam, there is no "Son of Allah". Mohammad [PBUH] was a messenger. He [PBUH] was a servent and told to pray to Allah and nothing else. Therefore when you hear Muslims they say "Allah Save me!" or "Allah will forgive your Sins" and don't inculde some intermediatry to bring prayers or requests to him.

Also they do not pray to a Statue or a Cross yet they pray to nothing signifiying that they are praying to the surroundingness of Allah rather than pray to a cross or wear one.

This is the same in the Jewish fate, thus Islam is closer to the Jewish fate than the Christan one. And most importantly they are not quite the same.

User avatar
Dead Man Wade
Posts: 4890
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:15 pm
Location: Funny location

Post by Dead Man Wade » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:37 pm

Originally posted by Jetfire 2.1
My sister died 16 years ago, the date is prior knowledge yet she still doesn't need a surprise or recent information to trigger that rather powerful emotional response, and 16 years is a pretty long time to claim any knowledge is new.
Assuming God is timeless, sixteen years is not even nothing. Ask her how she feels about it once she's lived forever.
I assume God relates or understands us in some ways.
I'll agree that he relates in some way. But to say that he feels human emotion is much too far for me.
And you still, avoided my points about reflecting on old memories and the emotioan responses they can create dispite us knowing them and the knowledge being previously aquired.

The only emotion one feels when remembering some event is an echo of the actual feeling.
As for the movie thing, yes. They evoke emotional responses, because (shock) they're designed to. They're designed to relate to some experience that the audience has felt, and bring those memories back. In the case of Titanic, it's meant to speak to people that've lost someone they loved. I mean, do you honestly think that, after three hours, the people watching that movie have a deep and abiding emotional connection to Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio?

User avatar
Mirage
Posts: 1649
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2001 5:00 am
Location: please see above

*looks blank*

Post by Mirage » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:42 pm

Uhm, isn't this a deep intelligent type thread?? Uhm, then what in the heck am I doing here???? I'm gonna go grab a no brainer thread!!
join me on myspace!!!! http://www.myspace.com/jezzy_bravo

if you get chance check out my eBay auctions...... http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZjezzy_bravoQQhtZ-1

User avatar
Jetfire
Posts: 6434
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 5:00 am
Location: Hard traveling hero.

Post by Jetfire » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:49 pm

Originally posted by CloudStrifer
I don't agree on the Christan God and Islamic God being the same. How you ask?

The Christan God, or God as I like to call him, is mirred with paganistic figures and made into not one but 3 different beings namely, Jesus, Holy Ghost and God. When one looks at these various ideas, it seems that they are paganistic.

When some says "Oh Jesus save me" they are calling out for the Prophet Jesus and not for God. When one wants to be saved they call out "Jesus will forgive your sins".
I think very few people say that. And that whole arguement is your opinion. Christians believe that God is 3 parts. You have 2 arms and 2 legs etc but you are still one being. Saying God can't be many things and still be one is overtly simplistic thinking.

And many muslims swear by "The prophet" in various incarnations so they are equally paganistic if thats how you see it.


This shows that they have mixed up the meaning of God and his prophet Jesus who was a man and not the son of God. They pray to him as an itermediatry to God. Many cultures had these type of belief that there was a Supreme God and to get to that God you had to pray to the Minor God who goes and grants requests to the Supreme God.

Therefore, the Christan God has lost what the Islamic didn't. Its oneness.


Only by your opinion. you believe Jesus was a prophet. Some might say you have got it mixed up about God. Christains still believe God is one but has shown himself in Jesus.

In Islam, there is no "Son of Allah". Mohammad [PBUH] was a messenger.


But they believe God will come. Christians believe God did come. Some day you believe a son of allah will come as predicted by the old prophets in some manner or another. Christians believ God did come, as Jesus.

He [PBUH] was a servent and told to pray to Allah and nothing else. Therefore when you hear Muslims they say "Allah Save me!" or "Allah will forgive your Sins" and don't inculde some intermediatry to bring prayers or requests to him.

Also they do not pray to a Statue or a Cross yet they pray to nothing signifiying that they are praying to the surroundingness of Allah rather than pray to a cross or wear one.


But Muslims pray to the east, meaning they pray to a made up compass point. Not that much difference to using a cross to focus on to God. Oh Christians don't pray to a cross, it's a symbol just like Islam has some. Christains always pray to God but believe God, while one, has 3 central parts.


This is the same in the Jewish fate, thus Islam is closer to the Jewish fate than the Christan one. And most importantly they are not quite the same.


Nope. They are 1 profit out. thats about it. I never saidal those religiosn were the same but the fundamental beliefs are the same as is most of their holy books. Fact is up untill 2 thousand years ago all 3 religions were exectly the same religion. The differences are basically difference of opinion of relatively recent historical events. Theya ll believe int he same God but have different opinions about him/her/it.
Image

Post Reply