Christianity

[henry quirk]

age,

You seem to have JUMPED, VERY QUICKLY, here that God is a person.

nope...that's been my position from the start


And, what, EXACTLY, is your "holy book"?

I don't have one

[henry quirk]

lace,

FOR FUCK SAKE, HENRY...




Human words and beliefs do not necessarily answer that question in an unbiased and logical way if they are describing what man might want to believe/imagine.



This all may be true, but that has nuthin' to do with the word God and its accepted meaning. If we're talkin' about God, then we're talkin' about a person. If we're not talkin' about a person, then -- in context -- we're not talkin' about God (or any god).


Then might it be possible that a god is not 'a being' in the way that humans frame such a thing?

Sure, but then we're not talkin' about God anymore. If the entity or force isn't a person, has no being, then we're not talkin' about God (or any god).

[henry quirk]

sculptor,

Then might it be possible that a god is not?

Yep. It's possible we are amoral, morally-vacant, ape-variants livin' in an amoral, Godless, universe.

[uwot]

It's possible we are amoral, morally-vacant, ape-variants livin' in an amoral, Godless, universe.

Is there any reason to think that is not the case?

[Lacewing]

Lacewing: Then might it be possible that a god is not 'a being' in the way that humans frame such a thing?

If the entity or force isn't a person, has no being, then we're not talkin' about God (or any god).

Do you think that all gods throughout human history have been imagined as persons?

This discussion began talking about an 'intelligent being'... then YOU introduced the concept of 'God' (and all you think it implies) because, apparently, your brain can't grasp anything other than that. So, yes, you've been distorting the discussion with your limited projections and beliefs.

[Lacewing]

It's possible we are amoral, morally-vacant, ape-variants livin' in an amoral, Godless, universe.

As demonstrated, we are able to be and do all kinds of things regardless of beliefs.

[Lacewing]

Then might it be possible that a god is not 'a being' in the way that humans frame such a thing?

Then might it be possible that a god is not?

The god imagery created by humans all throughout history has never turned out to be more than human creations of their time period.

Interesting how Christianity wrote-in the idea of a grand revelation and judgement 'coming someday', to secure and perpetuate it indefinitely.

Claiming (suddenly at that time in history) there can be 'no other gods' -- only this one is 'true'. How many times has humankind done that throughout history?

Human history shows that religions last thousands of years before people work through them. A sign of how programmable humans are, and how dependent they are on their programs. Very imaginative species, apparently programming ourselves.

[henry quirk]

It's possible we are amoral, morally-vacant, ape-variants livin' in an amoral, Godless, universe.

As demonstrated, we are able to be and do all kinds of things regardless of beliefs.

free will is a bitch

[henry quirk]

Do you think that all gods throughout human history have been imagined as persons?

cite one who hasn't been taken or seen as a person

[henry quirk]

It's possible we are amoral, morally-vacant, ape-variants livin' in an amoral, Godless, universe.

Is there any reason to think that is not the case?

Here are 4 that work for me (along with all the more formal arguments)...

The existence of mind, free will, ownness, and conscience.

[Sculptor]

Then might it be possible that a god is not 'a being' in the way that humans frame such a thing?

Then might it be possible that a god is not?

The god imagery created by humans all throughout history has never turned out to be more than human creations of their time period.

Interesting how Christianity wrote-in the idea of a grand revelation and judgement 'coming someday', to secure and perpetuate it indefinitely.

Claiming (suddenly at that time in history) there can be 'no other gods' -- only this one is 'true'. How many times has humankind done that throughout history?

Human history shows that religions last thousands of years before people work through them. A sign of how programmable humans are, and how dependent they are on their programs. Very imaginative species, apparently programming ourselves.

You say it like it is inevitable, yet programming can be broken.
South Korea is 56% non religious.
Most wester countries are showing growing rejection of all religion.

[Age]

age,

You seem to have JUMPED, VERY QUICKLY, here that God is a person.

nope...that's been my position from the start

Because you have, ONCE AGAIN, JUMPED, VERY QUICKLY, to an ASSUMPTION, BEFORE you have begun to make ANY CLARIFICATION AT ALL, you have answered Falsely, Wrongly, and Incorrectly, AGAIN.

If you EVER do DECIDE to seek out CLARIFICATION, especially in regards to my words, BEFORE you make ASSUMPTIONS, then you WILL find out that what I am ACTUALLY saying and MEANING is, just about on EVERY occasion, MUCH DIFFERENT from what you first ASSUME and think, on FIRST GLANCE.

But please feel FREE to carry on the way you have been here.

And, what, EXACTLY, is your "holy book"?

I don't have one

Okay.

[Age]

lace,

FOR FUCK SAKE, HENRY...




Human words and beliefs do not necessarily answer that question in an unbiased and logical way if they are describing what man might want to believe/imagine.



This all may be true, but that has nuthin' to do with the word God and its accepted meaning. If we're talkin' about God, then we're talkin' about a person.

When 'you', "henry quirk", are talking about 'God', then 'you' may well be talking about 'a person'. But, most people that I know of are CERTAINLY NOT talking about 'a person' when they talk about 'God'.

In fact they thing it would be absolutely ABSURD to even think or imagine that God, Itself, was or could even be 'a person'. So, if we are talking about God, then we are CERTAINLY NOT talking about 'a person' AT ALL.

But who and what 'we' are is YET to be DISCOVERED and CLARIFIED, correct?

If we're not talkin' about a person, then -- in context -- we're not talkin' about God (or any god).

Okay.

Then might it be possible that a god is not 'a being' in the way that humans frame such a thing?

Sure, but then we're not talkin' about God anymore. If the entity or force isn't a person, has no being, then we're not talkin' about God (or any god).

So, here you are now suggesting that God is NOT 'a being' but rather 'has' 'a being', correct?

If no, then what is correct here?

[Age]

It's possible we are amoral, morally-vacant, ape-variants livin' in an amoral, Godless, universe.

Is there any reason to think that is not the case?

Yes. The very fact of what the word 'God' refers to, EXACTLY, and how 'that' ACTUALLY EXISTS, is a reason WHY to NOT think that 'you', human beings, are NOT living in a Godless Universe.

In fact, when LOOKED INTO the figure of speech, 'Godless Universe', is an oxymoron.

As the two are INSEPARABLE, and thus an IMPOSSIBILITY.

But not EVERY one, in the days when this is being written, SEES what I SEE, and UNDERSTAND, YET.

[uwot]

It's possible we are amoral, morally-vacant, ape-variants livin' in an amoral, Godless, universe.

Is there any reason to think that is not the case?

Here are 4 that work for me (along with all the more formal arguments)...

The existence of mind, free will, ownness, and conscience.

Great that they work for you. Is that any reason they should work for others?