Oh, but they are, at least some of them. That's the whole point of religion.
The Relevance of the Concept of God
- Thread starter Syne
- Start date
Oh, but they are, at least some of them. That's the whole point of religion.
Who is not answering questions again?
" Please then wynn, between the classifications and denominations we may find, which as far as i can think of are but not limited to, theist, atheist, gnostic, agnostic, deist, which one you think gets close to your path of choice? Enlighten me please.". It was a simple, objective question. Yet...
" I, on the other hand, do not think that the religious path one is on is entirely one's own choice or doing, as I allow that religions, God, and religious people exist with at least as much existential autonomy as I do. And since becoming a member of a religion necessarily involves the approval of God and/or members of said religion, pending such approval, one cannot rightfully deem oneself a member of said religion."
None, could've been a better answer. Still you filled the sausage on the verbose way, avoiding a direct answer.
" If there's anyone here who doesn't answer questions, it is you."
Oh sorry, point which question i haven't answered and i will gladly do that.
" Please then wynn, between the classifications and denominations we may find, which as far as i can think of are but not limited to, theist, atheist, gnostic, agnostic, deist, which one you think gets close to your path of choice? Enlighten me please.". It was a simple, objective question. Yet...
" I, on the other hand, do not think that the religious path one is on is entirely one's own choice or doing, as I allow that religions, God, and religious people exist with at least as much existential autonomy as I do. And since becoming a member of a religion necessarily involves the approval of God and/or members of said religion, pending such approval, one cannot rightfully deem oneself a member of said religion."
None, could've been a better answer. Still you filled the sausage on the verbose way, avoiding a direct answer.
" If there's anyone here who doesn't answer questions, it is you."
Oh sorry, point which question i haven't answered and i will gladly do that.
Last edited:
Nonsense. It is my stance that the classification that you propose is simplistic and misleading. Sure, some people can be categorized by it, but I think many cannot. It's a forced label, like the one-drop rule. Typical for fundamentalists of the theist or atheist variety.
You didn't comment on most of my comments to you.
:facepalm:
" You didn't comment on most of my comments to you.". Aww sorry baaabe that wasn't intentional D: U hurt?
That was a blurry argument at best. Let's give some credit to it. Just because i didn't separate every item within your comments and gave it a counter reply to each one of them doesn't mean that i haven't answered it on the whole. But anyway, if you still think that i haven't answered a single question, it's probably because by doing so i was going to repeat myself. Which renders pointless to answer it again. Just because you have not understood the answer i gave, doesn't mean that i have not actually answered. Am I the only one who's got the feeling that we are going far from the OP? Still... Repeating myself again.
" between the classifications and denominations we may find, which as far as i can think of are but not limited to, theist, atheist, gnostic, agnostic, deist, which one you think gets close to your path of choice?"
" I, on the other hand, do not think that the religious path one is on is entirely one's own choice or doing, as I allow that religions, God, and religious people exist with at least as much existential autonomy as I do. And since becoming a member of a religion necessarily involves the approval of God and/or members of said religion, pending such approval, one cannot rightfully deem oneself a member of said religion" or simply, for better or worse "None!". It's not "Nonsense".. We get what you mean! Now answer.
" You didn't comment on most of my comments to you.". Aww sorry baaabe that wasn't intentional D: U hurt?
That was a blurry argument at best. Let's give some credit to it. Just because i didn't separate every item within your comments and gave it a counter reply to each one of them doesn't mean that i haven't answered it on the whole. But anyway, if you still think that i haven't answered a single question, it's probably because by doing so i was going to repeat myself. Which renders pointless to answer it again. Just because you have not understood the answer i gave, doesn't mean that i have not actually answered. Am I the only one who's got the feeling that we are going far from the OP? Still... Repeating myself again.
" between the classifications and denominations we may find, which as far as i can think of are but not limited to, theist, atheist, gnostic, agnostic, deist, which one you think gets close to your path of choice?"
" I, on the other hand, do not think that the religious path one is on is entirely one's own choice or doing, as I allow that religions, God, and religious people exist with at least as much existential autonomy as I do. And since becoming a member of a religion necessarily involves the approval of God and/or members of said religion, pending such approval, one cannot rightfully deem oneself a member of said religion" or simply, for better or worse "None!". It's not "Nonsense".. We get what you mean! Now answer.
:facepalm:
As I've been saying: A typical example of an atheist objectifying another person, in the atheist's mind not allowing another person to exist with the same existential autonomy as the atheist does.
In a discussion about the adequacy of categories like theist, atheist, agnostic etc., I state that I don't think those categories are adequate, and sketch out why I think they aren't.
And yet you insist that I nevertheless categorize myself according to them.
I don't exist for you, do I? I'm just a figment of your imagination ...
But the Devil is serving God. Without the threat of the Devil's punishments, God is all carrot and no stick. The con doesn't work as well without it.
francescakat
Registered Member
I always thought that God was so pure that he couldn't be touched by the devil , and the devil couldn't be touched by God, because he was so evil and trashed out.
Last edited:
If God is all powerful, so much so that that He can create a universe, He could easily destroy Satan in the blink of an eye and a wave of his magical hand.
According to Christian mythology, they have a working partnership.
I dont know and cannot say which perspective in this matter is right or wrong.
You made me wonder if everything has an opposite. Do you think this is true?
Some easy opposites are dirt and water, oxygen and carbon dioxide, positive and negative. Now if we went on a larger scale would you agree or disagree that the opposite of a planet is a star? Or would you say a planet has no opposite?
Of course not, there are plenty of things that have no opposites, and even some alleged opposites are completely subjective.
How is dirt the opposite of water?
No.
That would make more sense.
God doesn't do that because He is a selfish, vindictive psychopath.
I don't limit myself to Christian theology; I see too many problem with it. Sometimes, I use examples from it to illustrate a point, but that's it.
We see the stain of sciforums has intimate knowledge of God, yet he chooses to remain ignorant. Arguing that God is a "psychopath" takes the superficial perspective of Humanism. Believing that The Most High isn't eternal and thus had a beginning created by the imagination of man. However, what had a beginning is the material world. Satan deceives man by attempting to twist and corrupt his mind by entwining it in the material world of the senses (like yours') and not the reality of the spirit. Thus separating him and his mind from the higher level reality of oneness as much as possible. Making us think that the dualistic forces are completely non-existent. Thus blinding us from the Truth which is hardwired into us. Like CC wrote here, primitive societies or young children just needed a simpler, more consequences-feared concept of good / evil that almost depict them as concrete essences, as "real" forces, rather than evil being a useful generalization or classification for certain behaviors that are harmful to the functioning / maintenance of a society; or are deemed "wrong" according to the standards of a particular cultural system.
Pe-ace.
Actually, all it takes is to read the Bible to observe that behavior from God.
That would make the most sense.
If "spirit" were a reality, we would all know about it, that's why they call it reality, because we all share it the same way.
What higher level reality? How many realities can you conjure? Isn't there supposed to be just one?
No one is making us think that something isn't there when it clearly isn't there. No one can make you think a leprechaun isn't standing in front of you.
Yet, there are a multitude of proclaimed Truths in the world, which one do YOU claim is hardwired into us?
Allow me to, if it's okay with you, elicit a thought from a simple question; if you were God, would you kill and destroy and divide those who are evil and reward those who try their best to be good and/ or who establish a connection of sorts with that higher level reality?
The world of deception surrounds and saturates our senses with un-Truth.
Meaning is found by going inward. Not outward.
The supreme reality of non-separation or unity/oneness.
One inevitably finds it an impossibility to "conjure" a reality. If you are, from the clearly vast knowledge you have of Quantum Science, speaking about the theory of John Wheeler that reality relates to mind via the interaction of awareness' between yours' and God's effecting a merging within the common medium of the meta-reality Langan expounded in his CTMU, saying that observation by telors or agents influences reality at varying levels, then yes, reality is conjured and manipulated. However, if you are speaking about absolution, then no, neither the higher reality of God nor the spirit world can be destroyed, not now, not ever.
To think is not to know. To think is to assume.
No, there aren't. There is only one Truth. And that Truth is a self-reifying theory known as the Universe.
I do not claim. I merely edify.
Absolutely not, I understand reward/punishment systems don't work. And, considering that if I were God and I created people that were evil, I wouldn't punish them, I would take responsibility for my own failures.
Gibberish.
Ah yes, you're that CTMU guy who got banned. Welcome back.
Yet, more gibberish.
In other words, you take no responsibility for the choice to oppose evil and embrace good. Hence, you once more take the perspective of Humanism. The belief that good and evil can be explained away by Psychiatry.
You seem to only reinforce my characterization of you as "the stain of sciforums" by appealing to the perceived superiority in judgement of character by a misrepresented number of past moderators of sciforums to shelter you from the big bad theists at the risk of piercing your flawed perceptions. If I were moderator I'd make a moderator's note of your inferior character.
When you say "gibberish" are you denying my attempts to edify the Truth or are you being sincere in your interpretation of it?
I take responsibility for creating evil, if I were God. In the case, there is no need to reward or punish that which I created.
I have no idea where you got that notion.
But, you're not a moderator, so your point is moot. I was a moderator here at one time, btw.
I am calling a spade a spade. Simple really. You talk gibberish.