Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote: It is the teaching of Christianity that Christ was God from the beginning, so to know God is to know Christ.

That's just your opinion based on nothing.
Islam says something else, so does Judaism. There are many other religions to choose from; all seem as incoherent as the next.

You say that religion is incoherent and say different things, but of the religions that I have studied, I have found more coherency than not, and much more the same and only a little that is different.

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote: It is the teaching of Christianity that Christ was God from the beginning, so to know God is to know Christ.

That's just your opinion based on nothing.
Islam says something else, so does Judaism. There are many other religions to choose from; all seem as incoherent as the next.

You say that religion is incoherent and say different things, but of the religions that I have studied, I have found more coherency than not, and much more the same and only a little that is different.

You are obviously looking to justify your prejudice.
The reason the big three have some consistencies is that they have all copied from one another.
What would you have done 4000 years ago? Would you have concluded the same thing for God. I doubt it.
You seem not to want to engage in the thread topic here.
If you had been born a Hindu, then what?

Greatest I am wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:[q

That's just your opinion based on nothing.
Islam says something else, so does Judaism. There are many other religions to choose from; all seem as incoherent as the next.

I think Gnostic Christianity the exception to that rule.

Regards
DL

How?

To some degree each religion alone has some coherence, but so what?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: That's just your opinion based on nothing.
Islam says something else, so does Judaism. There are many other religions to choose from; all seem as incoherent as the next.

You say that religion is incoherent and say different things, but of the religions that I have studied, I have found more coherency than not, and much more the same and only a little that is different.

You are obviously looking to justify your prejudice.
The reason the big three have some consistencies is that they have all copied from one another.
What would you have done 4000 years ago? Would you have concluded the same thing for God. I doubt it.
You seem not to want to engage in the thread topic here.
If you had been born a Hindu, then what?

If I had been born a Hindu and studied Christianity I would still have seen the similarities, since I have looked at Hinduism and have noticed similarities to Christianity.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
If an omnipotent God stands by whilst millions of people die, suffer, and presumably go to Hell having never heard about the 'one true god", that implies that God is either impotent, stupid, or evil.
It's your lack of imagination that is weird.

You don't get it. God doesn't just "stand by while people suffer." He causes them to suffer in the first place, for his own entertainment. You see, for God, being alone with his eternal bliss wasn't enough. It was boring. He had to create pain for himself, and he experiences it through you. God is a masochist, you are God. God is in everyone. God is no more intelligent than the sum of it's parts. Why people think Life is a good thing I have no idea.

As for these other gods, maybe they were aliens. Of course the modern theist will call me crazy for even mentioning the possibility of aliens, but believing in drinking the blood and wine of Christ's body (wine and crackers) is perfectly scientific to them.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
If an omnipotent God stands by whilst millions of people die, suffer, and presumably go to Hell having never heard about the 'one true god", that implies that God is either impotent, stupid, or evil.
It's your lack of imagination that is weird.

You don't get it. God doesn't just "stand by while people suffer." He causes them to suffer in the first place, for his own entertainment. You see, for God, being alone with his eternal bliss wasn't enough. It was boring. He had to create pain for himself, and he experiences it through you. God is a masochist, you are God. God is in everyone. God is no more intelligent than the sum of it's parts. Why people think Life is a good thing I have no idea.

As for these other gods, maybe they were aliens. Of course the modern theist will call me crazy for even mentioning the possibility of aliens, but believing in drinking the blood and wine of Christ's body (wine and crackers) is perfectly scientific to them.

You don't get it do you?
God does not.... Is as far as you are able to take any statement.

And yes you are crazy for talking about aliens.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:God is a masochist, you are God. God is in everyone. God is no more intelligent than the sum of it's parts.
As for these other gods, maybe they were aliens. Of course the modern theist will call me crazy

No, you are not to be called, you are crazy! (and not just for the aliens)

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:God is a masochist, you are God. God is in everyone. God is no more intelligent than the sum of it's parts.
As for these other gods, maybe they were aliens. Of course the modern theist will call me crazy

No, just wrong.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:God is a masochist, you are God. God is in everyone. God is no more intelligent than the sum of it's parts.
As for these other gods, maybe they were aliens. Of course the modern theist will call me crazy

No, just wrong.

Contradiction is not an argument.

From anyone's objective point of view, you pretending to know the mind of god is no better that Trixie's. At least her view is in accordance with the evidence, were god to exist, your's is way off the mark.

private wrote:how does the fact that thousands-millions of gods have faded into obscurity not ring with the religious?
i seriously cant understand how you could ignore it
it is not complicated
insight?

private

Simple, FEAR! The term, "God Fearing," was coined in earnest. And is actually the truthful state of the matter.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:God is a masochist, you are God. God is in everyone. God is no more intelligent than the sum of it's parts.
As for these other gods, maybe they were aliens. Of course the modern theist will call me crazy

No, just wrong.

Contradiction is not an argument.

From anyone's objective point of view, you pretending to know the mind of god is no better that Trixie's. At least her view is in accordance with the evidence, were god to exist, your's is way off the mark.

Looks like someone never learned what the winky smiley is for. Further proof you're like a child trying to understand grown-ups.
I'm looking forward to the day when you can actually comprehend a post and then formulate a rational response rather than this blind, scatter-shot approach you take. For someone who seems to take reason so seriously, it's increasingly clear that you're the least capable of rational thought.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Contradiction is not an argument.

From anyone's objective point of view, you pretending to know the mind of god is no better that Trixie's. At least her view is in accordance with the evidence, were god to exist, your's is way off the mark.

Looks like someone never learned what the winky smiley is for. Further proof you're like a child trying to understand grown-ups.
I'm looking forward to the day when you can actually comprehend a post and then formulate a rational response rather than this blind, scatter-shot approach you take. For someone who seems to take reason so seriously, it's increasingly clear that you're the least capable of rational thought.

Yeah, winky-smiley is for people without an argument to disagree in a passive aggressive way. Dismissing their interlocutor, whilst pretending to be friendly.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Contradiction is not an argument.

From anyone's objective point of view, you pretending to know the mind of god is no better that Trixie's. At least her view is in accordance with the evidence, were god to exist, your's is way off the mark.

Looks like someone never learned what the winky smiley is for. Further proof you're like a child trying to understand grown-ups.
I'm looking forward to the day when you can actually comprehend a post and then formulate a rational response rather than this blind, scatter-shot approach you take. For someone who seems to take reason so seriously, it's increasingly clear that you're the least capable of rational thought.

Yeah, winky-smiley is for people without an argument to disagree in a passive aggressive way. Dismissing their interlocutor, whilst pretending to be friendly.

That, or it's intended when making a joke. I know. Crazy, isn't it? The conclusion you jumped to was the wrong one. Again. I can't imagine what it must be like to be wrong so often.

You should read up on the Psychologist's Fallacy. It appears to describe you quite well.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote: Looks like someone never learned what the winky smiley is for. Further proof you're like a child trying to understand grown-ups.
I'm looking forward to the day when you can actually comprehend a post and then formulate a rational response rather than this blind, scatter-shot approach you take. For someone who seems to take reason so seriously, it's increasingly clear that you're the least capable of rational thought.

Yeah, winky-smiley is for people without an argument to disagree in a passive aggressive way. Dismissing their interlocutor, whilst pretending to be friendly.

That, or it's intended when making a joke. I know. Crazy, isn't it? The conclusion you jumped to was the wrong one. Again. I can't imagine what it must be like to be wrong so often.

You should read up on the Psychologist's Fallacy. It appears to describe you quite well.

Keep your hair on sweetie

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Yeah, winky-smiley is for people without an argument to disagree in a passive aggressive way. Dismissing their interlocutor, whilst pretending to be friendly.

I have to agree here. This statement seems the most truthful.