Christianity

[attofishpi]

And it’s “crucifixion” not ten thousand word salady syllables.

Yes, the point(s) I make are incomprehensible to the unreasonable, irrational, short-sighted mind.

[attofishpi]

Paranoid?
PA_ annoyed

Oh He does get annoyed if you eat of the Tree of Know_Ledge.


Paranoia?
PA_ annoy ya

Oh, He will annoy ya in the most evil ways if you have also eaten of the Tree of Life.

[Fairy]

More word salady nonsense.

Everyone’s word salad is a hell no except for the glib strawdog God himself. Just an insignificant Disposable piece of rubbish like everyone else.

[Fairy]

And it’s “crucifixion” not ten thousand word salady syllables.

Yes, the point(s) I make are incomprehensible to the unreasonable, irrational, short-sighted mind.

That’s rather a defeating attitude. Every seer is a little mini me of God.

There is only God. Every mini me is a holographic image of God.

I’m just smarter at putting God into words, you, are still playing the game of catch up.

[attofishpi]

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
GOD that manifests all matter within REAL_IT_Y, operating at below the Planck scale has manipulated KEY words within English into their present form...to think all these key words, many of which are phonetically identical to letters within the alphabet, formed via natural language evolution is ludicrous.

If one is to remain atheist and consider the likelihood as to how these key words came to be formed as they have, one must consider that a bunch of men perhaps, many moons ago, whilst sipping on some ales, constructed their form!!


Did the crew members of "spaceship Earth" see fiction?

Crucifiction: Crew See Fiction?

Why? The shape Christ made upon the crucifix --> Y


A word used ubiquitously around the world nowadays by citizens, when they greet each other: HELLO = HELL OWE

I do get taken aback now when someone passing whilst I walk my dog says "Hello" - sometimes I feel like saying "No I don't!"


YOU

Y O U?

U O Y?


As far as I am aware, per conversations with Europeans that I know speak other languages, that it is not common for WORDS to be phonetically identical in sound to letters of the AlphaBet. In fact, none of them have found any.


Rather important concepts in Christianity (Hell Owe/U O Y), just happens to be embedded in the common ubiquitous language of planet Earth. English. Rather worth considering Y.



It's very hard to LIVE when GOD is doing EVIL to you. (*from many years of personal experience)

A man's best friend is a DOG. A man's worst enemy, if a wo/man happens to cross certain ethical lines, is GOD.


Moses got the Commandments, the rules not to cross re SIN from Mount SIN_AI (* A.I. we can now comprehend how an entity could be all knowing)

Mount SINAI (Red Sea to scale)
https://www.androcies.com/Images/Art/Mount%20Sinai.jpg


..I could provide more.

[Lacewing]

Thanks for the discussion.

No worries, not sure what the point is though.

Okay. I guess we're both GOOD then -- I've put as much energy into this right now as I care to, also.

Carry on with all the other stuff you do that has a point.

[attofishpi]

Thanks for the discussion.

No worries, not sure what the point is though.

Okay. I guess we're both GOOD then -- I've put as much energy into this right now as I care to, also.

Carry on with all the other stuff you do that has a point.

Hey, sorry if you are taking that as some personal 'it's pointless talking to LW' thang!

..I'm just pondering with what my reasons are for discussing esoteric matters on this forum.

Nice to chat, glad you're back on the forum.

[Lacewing]

Hey, sorry if you are taking that as some personal 'it's pointless talking to LW' thang!

No, I didn't.

..I'm just pondering with what my reasons are for discussing esoteric matters on this forum.

Okay.

Nice to chat, glad you're back on the forum.

Thanks

[iambiguous]

Faith & An Unreliable God
Patrick Wilson argues that it’s irrational to trust an untrustworthy God.

Now, having faith in an untrustworthy God is different from believing in an evil God. Believers in an evil God affirm the existence of an immoral deity. By contrast, those who have faith in an untrustworthy God align themselves with an understanding of the divine whose character they consider untrustworthy..

On the other hand, in my view, nothing is more important in a world bursting at the seams with all manner of conflicting leaps of faith than the capacity of the faithful to go beyond this in providing evidence that a God, the God, their God really does exist. After all, what does it mean to broach either an untrustworthy God or an evil God if it always comes down to leaps of faith?

Having faith in an untrustworthy person or thing is not so uncommon: people often choose to put their faith in romantic partners who repeatedly let them down. Nor is it unheard of for voters to have faith in politicians commonly acknowledged to be corrupt, even by them. However, in both cases, the morality and rationality of maintaining these faith positions are easily criticised.

Okay, but leaps of faith among mere mortals revolve precisely around the fact that romantic partners or politicians can be demonstrated to exist. Instead, among and between mere mortals, such leaps exist because we can never really know for certain what is going on inside the minds of others. But no one will challenge you that they exist. For example, some deem Donald Trump to be untrustworthy, others to be evil. But who is going to argue that he does not exist?

Religious faith, on the other hand, is often given a free pass.

Why? Because the stakes involved on both sides of the grave are staggering. If you are unable to sustain your faith in God, what of moral commandments "here and now" or immortality and salvation "there and then"?

Critiquing the claims made by religions and objecting to portrayals of God are common; but questioning the rationality of having faith in an untrustworthy God even if that God turns out to be real is less common: “My God might look like a monster – a violent bully who once demanded racial cleansing and who allows great suffering in the world; but if he or she is real, you had better follow him or her” – or so the argument goes. However, absolute submission on the basis of retributive, fear-based threats is rarely seen as the best exercise of reason.

This can be a tricky thing for some, of course. Suppose a God, the God is in fact demonstrated to exist. Or suppose he simply "reveals" Himself. There may be any number of things about His "mysterious ways" that rub you the wrong way. But if denouncing or rejecting Him gets you thrown in Hell or sends you tumbling down into the abyss that is oblivion...?

[Belinda]

Faith & An Unreliable God
Patrick Wilson argues that it’s irrational to trust an untrustworthy God.

Now, having faith in an untrustworthy God is different from believing in an evil God. Believers in an evil God affirm the existence of an immoral deity. By contrast, those who have faith in an untrustworthy God align themselves with an understanding of the divine whose character they consider untrustworthy..

On the other hand, in my view, nothing is more important in a world bursting at the seams with all manner of conflicting leaps of faith than the capacity of the faithful to go beyond this in providing evidence that a God, the God, their God really does exist. After all, what does it mean to broach either an untrustworthy God or an evil God if it always comes down to leaps of faith?

Having faith in an untrustworthy person or thing is not so uncommon: people often choose to put their faith in romantic partners who repeatedly let them down. Nor is it unheard of for voters to have faith in politicians commonly acknowledged to be corrupt, even by them. However, in both cases, the morality and rationality of maintaining these faith positions are easily criticised.

Okay, but leaps of faith among mere mortals revolve precisely around the fact that romantic partners or politicians can be demonstrated to exist. Instead, among and between mere mortals, such leaps exist because we can never really know for certain what is going on inside the minds of others. But no one will challenge you that they exist. For example, some deem Donald Trump to be untrustworthy, others to be evil. But who is going to argue that he does not exist?

Religious faith, on the other hand, is often given a free pass.

Why? Because the stakes involved on both sides of the grave are staggering. If you are unable to sustain your faith in God, what of moral commandments "here and now" or immortality and salvation "there and then"?

Critiquing the claims made by religions and objecting to portrayals of God are common; but questioning the rationality of having faith in an untrustworthy God even if that God turns out to be real is less common: “My God might look like a monster – a violent bully who once demanded racial cleansing and who allows great suffering in the world; but if he or she is real, you had better follow him or her” – or so the argument goes. However, absolute submission on the basis of retributive, fear-based threats is rarely seen as the best exercise of reason.

This can be a tricky thing for some, of course. Suppose a God, the God is in fact demonstrated to exist. Or suppose he simply "reveals" Himself. There may be any number of things about His "mysterious ways" that rub you the wrong way. But if denouncing or rejecting Him gets you thrown in Hell or sends you tumbling down into the abyss that is oblivion...?

It doesn't always come down to leaps of faith. What it all comes down to is paradigm. Reasoned belief, or scientific hypothesis , begin with paradigm and proceed to evidence of the paradigm .
For instance, Immanuel Can, to take an easy example, his paradigm is that a particular supernatural way of being is true. Another , contrasting, example of paradigm is my own belief that there are no supernatural ways of being and that absolutely all is natural.

Religious faith is not given a free pass by philosophers. Religious faith is often given a free pass by politicians who are are populist to that degree. Similarly to religious faith----- ethnic customs are often given a free pass for the same reason: a degree of populism.

If one's paradigm includes that only natural beings exist the question does not arise that a supernatural being may send one to Hell.

Some religion may also be given a free pass for historical reason. An old friend had to 'accept ' Christianity in order to get into a particular college at Oxbridge.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

All these what-if convolutions of internally contradictory thought. Once again demonstrating the absurdity of free will. It's all about disposition, which is hard dried when the wind turns, early.

[Eodnhoj7]

Faith & An Unreliable God
Patrick Wilson argues that it’s irrational to trust an untrustworthy God.

Now, having faith in an untrustworthy God is different from believing in an evil God. Believers in an evil God affirm the existence of an immoral deity. By contrast, those who have faith in an untrustworthy God align themselves with an understanding of the divine whose character they consider untrustworthy..

Paradigms are objects of faith in a given structure to achieve specific results.

On the other hand, in my view, nothing is more important in a world bursting at the seams with all manner of conflicting leaps of faith than the capacity of the faithful to go beyond this in providing evidence that a God, the God, their God really does exist. After all, what does it mean to broach either an untrustworthy God or an evil God if it always comes down to leaps of faith?

Having faith in an untrustworthy person or thing is not so uncommon: people often choose to put their faith in romantic partners who repeatedly let them down. Nor is it unheard of for voters to have faith in politicians commonly acknowledged to be corrupt, even by them. However, in both cases, the morality and rationality of maintaining these faith positions are easily criticised.

Okay, but leaps of faith among mere mortals revolve precisely around the fact that romantic partners or politicians can be demonstrated to exist. Instead, among and between mere mortals, such leaps exist because we can never really know for certain what is going on inside the minds of others. But no one will challenge you that they exist. For example, some deem Donald Trump to be untrustworthy, others to be evil. But who is going to argue that he does not exist?

Religious faith, on the other hand, is often given a free pass.

Why? Because the stakes involved on both sides of the grave are staggering. If you are unable to sustain your faith in God, what of moral commandments "here and now" or immortality and salvation "there and then"?

Critiquing the claims made by religions and objecting to portrayals of God are common; but questioning the rationality of having faith in an untrustworthy God even if that God turns out to be real is less common: “My God might look like a monster – a violent bully who once demanded racial cleansing and who allows great suffering in the world; but if he or she is real, you had better follow him or her” – or so the argument goes. However, absolute submission on the basis of retributive, fear-based threats is rarely seen as the best exercise of reason.

This can be a tricky thing for some, of course. Suppose a God, the God is in fact demonstrated to exist. Or suppose he simply "reveals" Himself. There may be any number of things about His "mysterious ways" that rub you the wrong way. But if denouncing or rejecting Him gets you thrown in Hell or sends you tumbling down into the abyss that is oblivion...?

It doesn't always come down to leaps of faith. What it all comes down to is paradigm. Reasoned belief, or scientific hypothesis , begin with paradigm and proceed to evidence of the paradigm .
For instance, Immanuel Can, to take an easy example, his paradigm is that a particular supernatural way of being is true. Another , contrasting, example of paradigm is my own belief that there are no supernatural ways of being and that absolutely all is natural.

Religious faith is not given a free pass by philosophers. Religious faith is often given a free pass by politicians who are are populist to that degree. Similarly to religious faith----- ethnic customs are often given a free pass for the same reason: a degree of populism.

If one's paradigm includes that only natural beings exist the question does not arise that a supernatural being may send one to Hell.

Some religion may also be given a free pass for historical reason. An old friend had to 'accept ' Christianity in order to get into a particular college at Oxbridge.

Paradigms are objects of faith in a given structure to achieve intended results.

[iambiguous]

Faith & An Unreliable God
Patrick Wilson argues that it’s irrational to trust an untrustworthy God.

Some theists argue that the goodness and therefore trustworthiness of the divine should not be questioned because as mere mortals we have no right to question our creator, and moreover, God Himself set up morality.

Of course some theists are going to conclude that. After all, to challenge or question or reject God is to risk being left behind...given how each religious denomination deals with infidels. On the other hand, some are more fanatical than others regarding this part: Or else!

And while theists from any number of religious denominations might not question the goodness of their own Creator, or insist that Goodness and moral rectitude revolve solely around their own Creator, they are all in the same "leap of faith" boat. They think what they do and feel what they do and "deep down inside" for some, they "just know" it's their own One True Path to salvation.

Again just ask them. Though I'd suggest one at a time.

But their argument is fallacious as it derives an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’: God did something, and we ought to respond in a certain way. Moreover, the values of a creator do not necessarily determine the meaning or values of the creation.

All any of us can really do here is to take an assessment of this sort to theists and true believers around the globe and ask them to at least make an attempt to divine the most Divine conclusion. Otherwise, it still all revolves basically around what is believed "in one's head" rather than demonstrated existentially, experientially and experimentally.

The inventors and developers of automobiles, tanks, and atomic bombs do not by virtue of their scientific ingenuity have a monopoly on how their creations should be used.

The parts pertaining to political economy...and crony capitalism.

Likewise, if a God fashioned our world and maintains the capacity to determine events which occur in it, this deity’s responsibility for outcomes which appear unjust might be criticised in the same way that subjects of a state might question their rulers. This weak form of moral argument need not and should not give any deity an ethical get-out clause, resulting merely from their creative ability.

Go ahead, take the argument there. Though I suspect any number might point out there is a truly significant difference between criticizing political rulers and criticizing God. For one thing, among many secular objectivists, few will bring up immortality and salvation.

And the "or else" part pertains only to what the rulers can do to you on this side of the grave.

[iambiguous]

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent God
Zdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism

From this perspective [above], God’s omnipotence is not undermined, but rather redefined, to include voluntary constraints based on a broader understanding of his character and purposes. However, as David Hume argues in his Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion (1779), extreme cases of suffering, such as that in genocides or significant natural disasters, seem disproportionate to any conceivable greater purpose or higher good.

On the other hand, what can we mere mortals possibly grasp with any sophistication regarding an entity said to have created the universe itself? And while any number of atheists might insist this is all predicated on leaps of faith [or on Scripture] that is hardly likely to change many minds given all that is at stake in a No God universe.

And on the other hand, even without such pervasive evil, life presents us with numerous obstacles to be overcome by applying virtues and moral qualities which are developed in the face of these obstacles.

And which particular virtues might they actually be, given what particular set of obstacles to be overcome? How about someone noting how this is manifested given their own interactions with others. What were they able to overcome themselves?

Free will is often invoked to explain the existence of moral evil, which is to say, evil committed by people as opposed to natural disasters. The contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantinga, in his free will defense, argues that even an omnipotent being cannot do self-contradictory things like creating a square circle or controlling someone without violating their autonomy (God, Freedom, and Evil, 1977).

Back to that again. Simply assuming that a God, the God must exist because that really is the only way to account for free will. And who really dwells on God creating square circles? His job instead is to recognize that we've been either good or bad so that on Judgment Day the verdict will go in our favor.

Then back to this as well...

However, some atheists argue that the very notion of an all-knowing deity contradicts the concept of free will. Simply said, if God knows our future decisions, then they are fixed in advance, so we have no free will, and the free will argument collapses.

What rarely changes though is that, if moral commandments, immortality and salvation are important to you, you'll come up with a way to rationalize anything and everything that is ascribed to God on your very own One True Path in order to sustain the comfort and the consolation it gives you all the way to the grave.

I know that I would if I could.

[Belinda]

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent God
Zdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism

From this perspective [above], God’s omnipotence is not undermined, but rather redefined, to include voluntary constraints based on a broader understanding of his character and purposes. However, as David Hume argues in his Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion (1779), extreme cases of suffering, such as that in genocides or significant natural disasters, seem disproportionate to any conceivable greater purpose or higher good.

On the other hand, what can we mere mortals possibly grasp with any sophistication regarding an entity said to have created the universe itself? And while any number of atheists might insist this is all predicated on leaps of faith [or on Scripture] that is hardly likely to change many minds given all that is at stake in a No God universe.

And on the other hand, even without such pervasive evil, life presents us with numerous obstacles to be overcome by applying virtues and moral qualities which are developed in the face of these obstacles.

And which particular virtues might they actually be, given what particular set of obstacles to be overcome? How about someone noting how this is manifested given their own interactions with others. What were they able to overcome themselves?

Free will is often invoked to explain the existence of moral evil, which is to say, evil committed by people as opposed to natural disasters. The contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantinga, in his free will defense, argues that even an omnipotent being cannot do self-contradictory things like creating a square circle or controlling someone without violating their autonomy (God, Freedom, and Evil, 1977).

Back to that again. Simply assuming that a God, the God must exist because that really is the only way to account for free will. And who really dwells on God creating square circles? His job instead is to recognize that we've been either good or bad so that on Judgment Day the verdict will go in our favor.

Then back to this as well...

However, some atheists argue that the very notion of an all-knowing deity contradicts the concept of free will. Simply said, if God knows our future decisions, then they are fixed in advance, so we have no free will, and the free will argument collapses.

What rarely changes though is that, if moral commandments, immortality and salvation are important to you, you'll come up with a way to rationalize anything and everything that is ascribed to God on your very own One True Path in order to sustain the comfort and the consolation it gives you all the way to the grave.

I know that I would if I could.

Some may use a version of God as a psychological comfort: there are people who refused to do so until they died. Socrates ,Epicurus, Marcus Aurelius, Jesus of Nazareth, Meister Eckhart , Simone Weil, Camus, Nietzsche. And persons known to me personally.