PDA

View Full Version : Why does God need to be the only God AND omnipotent to boot?


Lago Ys-Transform
08-24-2011, 12:28 AM
From a completely neutral (as in, not even atheist--someone with no bias looking for a religion) point of view, frankly this is just pretty lame and sad. It'd be like several comic book artists trying to get you to read their product line at a convention and one of them makes a pitch of 'my protagonist has ALL of the superpowers ever and beats up all of their other protagonists--in fact those guys don't even have superpowers, only my guy does, and he's even more badass then them'. Even if you look past that and see that there's a great comic book behind that central premise, it's just plain embarrassing and puerile.

How did this happen? What's wrong with having a God that's A) not omnipotent and B) more importantly, doesn't deny the existence of everyone else's deities?

Lobohan
08-24-2011, 12:36 AM
From a completely neutral (as in, not even atheist--someone with no bias looking for a religion) point of view, frankly this is just pretty lame and sad. It'd be like several comic book artists trying to get you to read their product line at a convention and one of them makes a pitch of 'my protagonist has ALL of the superpowers ever and beats up all of their other protagonists--in fact those guys don't even have superpowers, only my guy does, and he's even more badass then them'. Even if you look past that and see that there's a great comic book behind that central premise, it's just plain embarrassing and puerile.

How did this happen? What's wrong with having a God that's A) not omnipotent and B) more importantly, doesn't deny the existence of everyone else's deities?The God depicted in the bible is clearly not omnipotent. He has to rest after creating the universe and asks questions and can be rebuffed by iron chariots of all things.

That's not to say he isn't the most powerful being, you can be the most powerful thing in the universe without being omnipotent.

I would say that people like attributing omnipotence to him because they're childish and it was probably like the pre-Crisis Superman power creep. With followers falling over themselves to glorify Him, it wouldn't take long for omnipotence to stick.

x-ray vision
08-24-2011, 12:39 AM
From a completely neutral (as in, not even atheist--someone with no bias looking for a religion)
If you're not an atheist, you're a theist. No one can be totally without bias on this issue.

How did this happen? What's wrong with having a God that's A) not omnipotent and B) more importantly, doesn't deny the existence of everyone else's deities?
Are you asking how these beliefs came to be or supposing that if there is a God why He is the way some religions claim He is?

I don't think it says anywhere in the Bible that God is omnipotent and several parts strongly suggest that He isn't.

ITR champion
08-24-2011, 12:39 AM
I'm not really groking this question. It's like if I say that I live in Virginia and you ask me what's wrong with living in North Carolina. Nothing is wrong with living in North Carolina, but I still live in Virginia.

Der Trihs
08-24-2011, 12:44 AM
I would say that people like attributing omnipotence to him because they're childish and it was probably like the pre-Crisis Superman power creep. With followers falling over themselves to glorify Him, it wouldn't take long for omnipotence to stick.
Yes, that's how I've felt for some time; it's just fanwank taken to its logical conclusion.

If you're not an atheist, you're a theist. No one can be totally without bias on this issue.Apatheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism) seems to be the attitude the OP is speaking of.

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 12:44 AM
That's how Judaism went for the first four thousand years, but somewhere along the line (Maimonides, I guess), Other People's Gods got dropped from the roster. Note that the "God of Abraham" or the "God of Moses" or the "God of the Israelites" was called just that: God of ______, not God of Everything and There are None Other, Neener-Neener.

*shrug*

There are still some Jews who believe that there are other lesser gods...I don't know about Christians, but most certainly not Muslims.

I think there's a difference between 'there is only one supernatural deity' and 'there is only one supernatural deity that counts'. I think monotheism falls under both categories; no?

"God"/Elohim is just a generic word. The second commandment is that you shall have no other gods before me - that kind of implies that having another god was a possibility. The first is a very firm reminder that God (or this particular one) brought the Israelites out of Egypt (presumably to follow him til the end of time). "I am the Lord your God" suggests imho that God is speaking directly to a certain set of people.

x-ray vision
08-24-2011, 12:47 AM
Apatheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism) seems to be the attitude the OP is speaking of.
Right, but he claimed he's not an atheist. Even according to your link, apatheists are either theists or atheists.

Lago Ys-Transform
08-24-2011, 12:56 AM
I don't believe that the Bible is the end-all/be-all of its derived faiths. The Abrahamic Religion is OLD and to me what's more important than what's the canon is peoples' interpretation of it--this includes hundreds of years of culture and religious doctrine and arguments made since then. Thus even if the Bible says that there are other Gods and God isn't omnipotent, the fact remains that to (non-Jews at least if CitizenPained is to be believed) the vast majority of God's worshippers he's the only God AND he's all-powerful to boot.

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 12:58 AM
There's a difference between omnipotence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence) and omniscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience), which I think is what Lobohan is trying to say. I could argue that God is the most powerful, but that even He has limits.

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 12:59 AM
Right, but he claimed he's not an atheist. Even according to your link, apatheists are either theists or atheists.


What if you just don't know?

And more importantly, don't care?

x-ray vision
08-24-2011, 01:02 AM
What if you just don't know?
Atheism and theism isn't about knowledge; it's about whether one is with belief or without it.

And more importantly, don't care?
Then you're an apatheist. But one is still with belief or without it.

ITR champion
08-24-2011, 01:02 AM
That's how Judaism went for the first four thousand years, but somewhere along the line (Maimonides, I guess), Other People's Gods got dropped from the roster. Note that the "God of Abraham" or the "God of Moses" or the "God of the Israelites" was called just that: God of ______, not God of Everything and There are None Other, Neener-Neener.
First of all, it's unlikely (though possible) that Judaism existed for 4.000 years before Maimonides. Second, the Torah from Genesis 1:1 onwards makes clear that the Jewish God is the supreme God, creator and sovereign over the world, and able to overpower anyone or thing in the world. Early Judaism may have believed in other beings we call "gods" but did not address them with the same title as they addressed their God.

That said, if Lago wants an non-omnipotent God who shares the universe with numerous other equals he could always try Mormonism.

Lago Ys-Transform
08-24-2011, 01:09 AM
Is it that hard to believe that someone could believe that gods exist but they don't know WHICH gods do--so they're polling other believers to find which one works for them? For example, if I was a Bronze Age goat herder that traveled forwards in time thousands of years and people said to me 'Baal who?' and I learned only a couple of deities from my time period are even named it's not likely that I would immediately switch to atheism even if my religion was effectively dead. At the very least I'd see what's what before abandoning faith altogether.

That was what I meant by the question. I'm saying that to someone who was receptive to the idea of a supernatural entity but not sure which one is 'real' would find the description of God from a Christian or Muslim as trite and embarrassing after listening to several others. And it'd be markedly less so if they went 'yes, there is a God and he's a totally badass war god and does a lot of awe-inspiring things; read our book and find out'.

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 01:11 AM
First of all, it's unlikely (though possible) that Judaism existed for 4.000 years before Maimonides. Second, the Torah from Genesis 1:1 onwards makes clear that the Jewish God is the supreme God, creator and sovereign over the world, and able to overpower anyone or thing in the world. Early Judaism may have believed in other beings we call "gods" but did not address them with the same title as they addressed their God.

That said, if Lago wants an non-omnipotent God who shares the universe with numerous other equals he could always try Mormonism.

Okay, so Rambam was born in the 1100s, so it's fair to say that Judaism had been going on (according to our tradition) for a few thousand years by then. If you follow the formula of the Hebrew calendar, the modern world is at least 5771 years old, so if Rambam was born in the Hebrew year 4895, that means God had a relationship with those would become Israelites/Israelites/Jews for at least four thousand years already.

If you figure that Abraham was about 2-3,000 BCE, I'm really only off by a little. :D

The Torah does make clear that HaShem is the Supreme God and ruler of the Universe, but it does not mean that other gods don't have power. Example: Kings rule their lands, but governors still carry out law, or inhabitants still commit crimes, or whatever. The way that God is addressed in the Torah is much like one would address or describe a King (or possibly a Pharaoh, since Abraham's -and Moses' - closest greatest nation-neighbor would've been ancient Egypt).

In short, yes, there were other gods in Judaism - they were just verboten.

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 01:12 AM
Atheism and theism isn't about knowledge; it's about whether one is with belief or without it.


Then you're an apatheist. But one is still with belief or without it.

I don't know what I believe. An atheist believes there is no god and a theist believes there is one. I believe in both. Or neither.

x-ray vision
08-24-2011, 01:17 AM
An atheist believes there is no god
See this (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm).

I believe in both. Or neither.
Uh-huh.

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 02:00 AM
See this (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm).


Uh-huh.


I've seen these arguments on SDMB before. I think for me, I just...don't...care enough to define my 'weak' or 'strong' atheism much more than a 'meh'. I most certainly wouldn't put myself in the category of Dio, who makes a point to rally against God. I'm not the type of __-ist that is uncomfortable theists, though, so I think I usually get taken for a theist.

I talk of God much like I talk about other human concepts. It's like a conversation about literature or democracy or love or math.

edit: I guess you could say I believe that God exists because the world functions as though He does. Therefore, the matter of him actually existing (e.g., a truth) is completely irrelevant. This is how I can talk about God and what He would think if he were inclined to have human thoughts.

x-ray vision
08-24-2011, 02:05 AM
I've seen these arguments on SDMB before.
They're definitions, not arguments. An atheist doesn't necessarily "believes there is no god."

I just...don't...care enough to define my 'weak' or 'strong' atheism much more than a 'meh'.
But you are defining yourself as an atheist which doesn't jibe with "I believe in both. Or neither."

x-ray vision
08-24-2011, 02:08 AM
edit: I guess you could say I believe that God exists because the world functions as though He does.
The world functions as if there was a particular type of God? I don't see it that way, but I don't want to get further off-topic. So now you're a theist?

cmkeller
08-24-2011, 02:12 AM
How did this happen? What's wrong with having a God that's A) not omnipotent and B) more importantly, doesn't deny the existence of everyone else's deities?

Well, from a logical standpoint, there can't be two omnipotent beings. If either is limited in relation to the other, then that one (or both) is not omnipotent. If you're going to posit an omnipotent being, then of necessity it must be a unique one.

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 02:16 AM
They're definitions, not arguments. An atheist doesn't necessarily "believes there is no god."


But you are defining yourself as an atheist which doesn't jibe with "I believe in both. Or neither."

The world functions as if there was a particular type of God? I don't see it that way, but I don't want to get further off-topic. So now you're a theist?

Depending on my mood, I'm ambivalent, uncertain, or just all-out flipfloppity. :D

I believe we're still in a world that functions as though a god exists, so yes. It doesn't MATTER if God exists because He doesn't manifest Himself in burning bushes and such. The world operates without His input.

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 02:18 AM
Well, from a logical standpoint, there can't be two omnipotent beings. If either is limited in relation to the other, then that one (or both) is not omnipotent. If you're going to posit an omnipotent being, then of necessity it must be a unique one.

There's also the question of if God can take our free will. If He can't, he's not all-powerful. If he can, how do we know we really have it? :o

Der Trihs
08-24-2011, 02:18 AM
edit: I guess you could say I believe that God exists because the world functions as though He does.
:dubious: Say what? The world functions as if it doesn't have a god.

x-ray vision
08-24-2011, 02:19 AM
Depending on my mood, I'm ambivalent, uncertain, or just all-out flipfloppity. :D
You edited your post to say you're a theist two minutes after calling yourself an atheist. That's one Hell of a mood swing.

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 02:20 AM
:dubious: Say what? The world functions as if it doesn't have a god.

Come again?

I am talking about (the majority of) people in the world. Is that better?

Walther Ego
08-24-2011, 02:21 AM
How is god defined anyway? Why is Gabriel not a god? Can any immortal creature just announce goddom? Can a god denounce goddom and say "I'm just a regular angel from now on"?

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 02:26 AM
You edited your post to say you're a theist two minutes after calling yourself an atheist. That's one Hell of a mood swing.


I did not.

Let's try this again:

A schizophrenic 'hears voices'. He has hallucinations. Are there really 'people' talking to him? Is he 'hearing' what we consider to be 'sound'?

No. But he functions as though this were the case, so the details aren't really that important when you're looking at the outcomes. And for the schizophrenic, he really is hearing voices - it doesn't matter if the 'sound' is literal or hallucinatory.

Likewise, God is a human invention, but as long as "God" exists in our mindset, he/she/it is in existence. Like I said: it's sort of like math (or numbers), language, or concepts of democracy and ethics. God exists because people make it so, not because God is an actual tangible thing. If you look at science and research about the earliest man, a belief in God/afterlife/something other than our immediate needs (eg, rituals) is what makes us 'human'. I think if you have a sense of self, you have a sense of god. It's natural.

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 02:27 AM
Can any immortal creature just announce goddom?

Werd.

x-ray vision
08-24-2011, 03:11 AM
I did not.
Sure you did. You even admitted it in post #21.

You said:

"I just...don't...care enough to define my 'weak' or 'strong' atheism much more than a 'meh'."
You're calling yourself an atheist.

"I guess you could say I believe that God exists because the world functions as though He does."
You're calling yourself a theist.


Likewise, God is a human invention, but as long as "God" exists in our mindset, he/she/it is in existence.
If you say so. I guess spaceships not only didn't take down the WTC, they did because some people believe so.

If you believe gods are human inventions, you're an atheist. Unless you believe that believing something causes something to actually exist, but if you do, I don't see why you would have called yourself an atheist to begin with.

Grumman
08-24-2011, 03:16 AM
If you're not an atheist, you're a theist. No one can be totally without bias on this issue.
Sure they can. We call them "atheists".

x-ray vision
08-24-2011, 03:20 AM
You think atheists are without bias regarding the OP's questions?

Measure for Measure
08-24-2011, 03:29 AM
How did this happen? What's wrong with having a God that's A) not omnipotent and B) more importantly, doesn't deny the existence of everyone else's deities? We used to have that: it's called paganism. Christianity supplanted it. As I posted elsewhere (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb//showthread.php?p=13879241) last June, part of Christianity's success is grounded on its intolerance. Following Gibbon, Bertrand Russell discusses this:

The first cause--the inflexibility and intolerance derived from the Jews--may be wholly accepted. We have seen in our own day the advantages of intolerance in propaganda. The Christians, for the most part, believed that they alone would go to heaven, and that the most awful punishments would, in the next world, fall upon the heathen. The other religions which competed for favour during the third century had not this threatening character. The worshippers of the Great Mother, for example, while they had a ceremony --the Taurobolium--which was analogous to baptism, did not teach that those who omitted it would go to hell. A religion whose beliefs crowd out other competing religions has selective advantage.

ETA: I'm not trying to be a wise guy here. There are solid historical reasons for the success of the Abrahamic religions. The persistence of Hinduism is admittedly a puzzle.

x-ray vision
08-24-2011, 03:31 AM
edit: I guess you could say I believe that God exists because the world functions as though He does.

:dubious: Say what? The world functions as if it doesn't have a god.

Come again?

I am talking about (the majority of) people in the world. Is that better?
You said that you believe that God exists because the world functions as though He does. When Der Trihs said it doesn't function as if there's a god, you said you're talking about the majority of people in the world. You're not making a whole lot of sense in this thread.

Little Nemo
08-24-2011, 03:42 AM
A monotheist doesn't believe he chose a single God. He believes that there is a single God and he chose to acknowledge that.

The analogy from the OP is flawed, because the fact that you're at a comic book convention begs the question. Obviously anyone who's telling you they have the only superhero comic book is wrong. You can clearly see there are others. But in theological matters, the evidence is not so objective.

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 03:46 AM
[QUOTE=x-ray vision;14176270]Sure you did. You even admitted it in post #21.

You said:

"I just...don't...care enough to define my 'weak' or 'strong' atheism much more than a 'meh'."
You're calling yourself an atheist.


I see the disrupt in communication here. I was using the term atheist because I was called one via post #16.

"I guess you could say I believe that God exists because the world functions as though He does."
You're calling yourself a theist.

Like I said:

Either. Both. Neither. Whatever. No idea.

If you say so. I guess spaceships not only didn't take down the WTC, they did because some people believe so.

I don't think...that's a fair comparison. I think I compared "God" to "intangible human ideas".

If you believe gods are human inventions, you're an atheist. Unless you believe that believing something causes something to actually exist, but if you do, I don't see why you would have called yourself an atheist to begin with.

I think I covered that. I'm not much for either label. Perhaps it's better to say, "God is a human construct"? Kind of like number concepts, love, democracy, gender, and a host of things we use to define ourselves and the natural world?

Grumman
08-24-2011, 03:50 AM
You think atheists are without bias regarding the OP's questions?
I think an unbiased person can only become an atheist. Trying to pretend that a lack of bias automatically means you pick the middle ground, no matter how one-sided the balance of evidence, is just golden mean bullshit.

That said, ITR's comment is a reasonable one: the question only makes sense to someone who believes the Bible is a work of fiction, so asking the question of someone who believes it's fact isn't going to get you a meaningful answer.

cmkeller
08-24-2011, 09:15 AM
CitizenPained:

There's also the question of if God can take our free will. If He can't, he's not all-powerful. If he can, how do we know we really have it?

Certainly he can. Note the "hardening of heart" that the Bible says G-d did to Pharaoh and Sihon. Free will is something he chooses to allow us not something he must allow us.

The concept of free will is described in many Jewish philosophy and kabalah books as G-d "withdrawing himself" from the "area" where he allows human beings to exercise free will.

How do we know we have free will? How would we know if we didn't? How do we know the world isn't all just shadows on a cave wall? The philosophical debate over whether our perceptions can be taken as reality has been going on since what, the ancient Greeks? Bottom line is, our mind (and to a lesser degree, our senses) is the best tool we have for determining what's real and what isn't, and in practicality, we need to act as if it is. The part of our minds that goes through a process of willful decision making is no different in that regard.

smiling bandit
08-24-2011, 11:06 AM
Strictly speaking, neither Christianity its related Judaic and Islamic brethren deny other beings may exist. What we do say is that they are, like man, either in the right relationship with God or the wrong one. In neither case do/should we worship them. However, while some of these beings may be vastly more powerful than humans, they are also restrained by the will of God from afecting us except in limited ways.

In any case, they aren't all that different from us in concept: limited beings subordinate to the power of God. But some of them might still be godlike in comparison to man, just as a man could be godlike in comparison to an animal or insect or bacterium.

x-ray vision
08-24-2011, 11:40 AM
I see the disrupt in communication here. I was using the term atheist because I was called one via post #16.
No, you weren't.


Like I said:

Either. Both. Neither. Whatever. No idea.
That's plain silly.


I think I covered that. I'm not much for either label.
Is this not being for either label thing new? Things you've said on this board:

*I* am an atheist and Dio knows it.
I don't believe in God
and since I have said I'm atheist and Zombie knows it
I'm an atheistic, mostly practicing, refrain-from-pork-and-Christmas, only-date-other-Jews type.
My deism? I'm an atheist.

You haven't once called yourself a theist, until this thread where you claim to be both, neither and have no idea.

Thudlow Boink
08-24-2011, 11:54 AM
It'd be like several comic book artists trying to get you to read their product line at a convention and one of them makes a pitch of 'my protagonist has ALL of the superpowers ever and beats up all of their other protagonists--in fact those guys don't even have superpowers, only my guy does, and he's even more badass then them'.Where you're going wrong is in thinking of God as like a protagonist in a comic book, when really God is analogous to the comic book artist him/herself.

Czarcasm
08-24-2011, 11:56 AM
Where you're going wrong is in thinking of God as like a protagonist in a comic book, when really God is analogous to the comic book artist him/herself.God is the original "Mary Sue"?

Little Nemo
08-24-2011, 12:44 PM
Where you're going wrong is in thinking of God as like a protagonist in a comic book, when really God is analogous to the comic book artist him/herself.Don't mock the Kirbytarian Faith. Bow before the One-Above-All. Praise Jack.

kanicbird
08-24-2011, 12:52 PM
The reason is 'God is One' and 'God is Love'.

There is but One divine Spirit, that of God, which is also that of Love. Christians and followers of Jesus and also in Judaism call it the Holy Spirit, the Native Americans call it the Great Spirit and there are other names as well, but it's the same spirit.

Even though 'God is one' there are still many people acting in Love towards others, that is the one God working through them. Whenever someone shows you kindness, it is them in union and oneness with God your creator. As you receive that Love you are receiving God your creator.

This is the reason that all things work for the good and why we want one God, instead of multiple gods in control. There is no lack of knowledge between the gods with one God.

Also it does allow for individuality as God created you to rejoice in being you, not just a assimilated being but you living your live desiring and fulfilling (with God's help) to Love and be Loved - which is oneness with God.

It is also why we have the right to be called the children of God, because we are one with God.

We don't become our own god as Satan is trying to but we become God with God as God.

brocks
08-24-2011, 01:16 PM
it was probably like the pre-Crisis Superman power creep

Good analogy. And just as with Superman, who started out fighting bank robbers and later was pitted against super-villians, Satan has also acquired omniscience and near omnipotence over the ages.

humanafterall
08-24-2011, 01:18 PM
I think I get what you are are saying, kanicbird, all the religions talk about the same God, but in their own way,and the problem today, as it has been since ancient times, is whose story is right. I feel that they are all right. Christians believe God sent his only son to die for their sins, Muslims believe really the same thing, with a few alterations, (Jesus= Mohammed), and as far as Judaism goes, I don't know enough to say anything about it.

Czarcasm
08-24-2011, 02:01 PM
I think I get what you are are saying, kanicbird, all the religions talk about the same God, but in their own way...I never get tired of hearing this.
No, wait...I do. Do you even realize how superficial and disrespectful of other religions that idea is?

kanicbird
08-24-2011, 02:48 PM
I think I get what you are are saying, kanicbird, all the religions talk about the same God, but in their own way,and the problem today, as it has been since ancient times, is whose story is right. I feel that they are all right.

I feel they all have been given aspect of God, and there is a more complete picture when they are brought together, and they are made to come together, as we all are God's children and made to come together. By coming together in Love, the pieces will fit and we will know God much better then the individual aspects.



Christians believe God sent his only son to die for their sins, Muslims believe really the same thing, with a few alterations, (Jesus= Mohammed), and as far as Judaism goes, I don't know enough to say anything about it.

I don't know much about Mohammed, so I don't really like to use it, but there was a practitioner of Wicca who did a very nice job describing her faith which was very acceptive and inclusive of other faiths here on the SD.

kanicbird
08-24-2011, 02:52 PM
Do you even realize how superficial and disrespectful of other religions that idea is?

Do you want to accuse me of blasphemy or is that what you are doing?

Sampiro
08-24-2011, 03:00 PM
How did this happen? What's wrong with having a God that's A) not omnipotent and B) more importantly, doesn't deny the existence of everyone else's deities?

I haven't read the entire thread so apologies if I'm repeating info, but what you're describing is called henotheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism). Many cultures have practiced it including- according to many if not most scholars of the ancient Middle East- the ancient Hebrews. God as a single omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent deity is far more recent.

Apollyon
08-24-2011, 05:08 PM
Do you even realize how superficial and disrespectful of other religions that idea is?Disrespectful or not, any religion willing to argue this way would also present a selective advantage... and provide a path from polytheism to monotheism.

Polytheism can accept a new god on the scene (one whose followers have gained recent prominence, moved into the area, etc) as just another god, but a religion that argues for one-true-god with all others as aspects or saints or demons is necessarily agglutinative.

Der Trihs
08-24-2011, 05:53 PM
Where you're going wrong is in thinking of God as like a protagonist in a comic book, when really God is analogous to the comic book artist him/herself.
Not really, since he doesn't exist. God isn't telling anyone anything; it's his believers who are. And they are both creators and fans; religion is more like fanfiction than like professional publishing.

humanafterall
08-24-2011, 09:42 PM
All great truths begin as blasphemies, Czarcasm.

Czarcasm
08-24-2011, 09:45 PM
All great truths begin as blasphemies, Czarcasm.How pseudo-profound. Who are you quoting?

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 10:40 PM
No, you weren't.


According to the link - yes, I was.

That's plain silly.

Is this not being for either label thing new? Things you've said on this board:

You haven't once called yourself a theist, until this thread where you claim to be both, neither and have no idea.

I'm very sorry, but you seem to be the only one who doesn't understand. I don't expressly disbelieve or believe in God; I function as though He exists. I think of him in conceptual terms, not a literal one. Not quite sure where your assault is coming from, but it's pretty unnecessary. When I say something like, "I'm an atheist", I'm using the very literal definition used here on SDMB (like the one in your link) and it's usually when I'm under assault for believing in a God I don't literally 'believe' in.

I believe in the idea of time travel more firmly than I do God. I think that because I can grasp the idea of space-time, I can grasp the idea of a God who is not only omnipotent, but omniscient and knows the future but does not interfere much with man. If anything, God is completely outside our concept of time and is nothing I can grasp. Or perhaps He doesn't exist at all. But I very much love my religion, Torah study, philosophy, whatever. People who do believe in God don't make me feel threatened (as seems to be the case with some atheists here) and I really do think that it doesn't matter if Pie in the Sky God exists or not; people act as though He does. I mean, 'love' or 'bonding with your child' or having a 'best' friend is not a phenomenon, but people still give it a sort of extra-natural weight.

Like I said before, belief in a god, afterlife, spirit world, or anything extra-natural is what separated us from non-humans tens of thousands of years ago.

Disrespectful or not, any religion willing to argue this way would also present a selective advantage... and provide a path from polytheism to monotheism.

Polytheism can accept a new god on the scene (one whose followers have gained recent prominence, moved into the area, etc) as just another god, but a religion that argues for one-true-god with all others as aspects or saints or demons is necessarily agglutinative.

Judaism was polytheistic at first - that was one of the points I was trying to make. I also have a hard time with Christians who say that there is only one God, but then give angels, demons, Jesus or Satan some extra-human power.

x-ray vision
08-24-2011, 11:02 PM
According to the link - yes, I was.
No, you weren't. That linked gave you very common definitions which you said you were already aware of and I believe you as you've called yourself an atheist many times on this board.

I'm very sorry, but you seem to be the only one who doesn't understand.
I don't know where you're getting that idea; no one here has jumped to your defense.

I don't expressly disbelieve or believe in God
You've said in this thread that "an atheist believes there is no god" and in the few months that you've been here you've said you were an atheist several times. You've also said "I don't believe in God." You've never claimed that you were a theist or said "I believe in God." It looks to me that you started playing devil's advocate in this thread, to put it kindly, and now you're backpedaling.

I function as though He exists.
How you function is irrelevant to your belief or lack of it.

I think of him in conceptual terms, not a literal one. Not quite sure where your assault is coming from, but it's pretty unnecessary. When I say something like, "I'm an atheist", I'm using the very literal definition used here on SDMB (like the one in your link) and it's usually when I'm under assault for believing in a God I don't literally 'believe' in.
You claim to be an atheist when you're "under assault?" You believe in a God you don't believe in? Whatever.

Implicit
08-24-2011, 11:04 PM
I'm very sorry, but you seem to be the only one who doesn't understand. I don't expressly disbelieve or believe in God; I function as though He exists. I think of him in conceptual terms, not a literal one. Not quite sure where your assault is coming from, but it's pretty unnecessary. When I say something like, "I'm an atheist", I'm using the very literal definition used here on SDMB (like the one in your link) and it's usually when I'm under assault for believing in a God I don't literally 'believe' in.

I believe in the idea of time travel more firmly than I do God. I think that because I can grasp the idea of space-time, I can grasp the idea of a God who is not only omnipotent, but omniscient and knows the future but does not interfere much with man. If anything, God is completely outside our concept of time and is nothing I can grasp. Or perhaps He doesn't exist at all. But I very much love my religion, Torah study, philosophy, whatever. People who do believe in God don't make me feel threatened (as seems to be the case with some atheists here) and I really do think that it doesn't matter if Pie in the Sky God exists or not; people act as though He does. I mean, 'love' or 'bonding with your child' or having a 'best' friend is not a phenomenon, but people still give it a sort of extra-natural weight.
The term to describe you is 'agnostic theist'. Atheists do not act as though God exists.

Like I said before, belief in a god, afterlife, spirit world, or anything extra-natural is what separated us from non-humans tens of thousands of years ago.

No, that would be opposable thumbs.

Czarcasm
08-24-2011, 11:08 PM
No, that would be opposable thumbs.I thought it was that we had enough self awareness to laugh at ourselves.

Implicit
08-24-2011, 11:10 PM
I thought it was that we had enough self awareness to laugh at ourselves.
Thumbs are kinda funny, so I concede the point. ;)

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 11:39 PM
No, you weren't. That linked gave you very common definitions which you said you were already aware of and I believe you as you've called yourself an atheist many times on this board.


I don't know where you're getting that idea; no one here has jumped to your defense.


You've said in this thread that "an atheist believes there is no god" and in the few months that you've been here you've said you were an atheist several times. You've also said "I don't believe in God." You've never claimed that you were a theist or said "I believe in God." It looks to me that you started playing devil's advocate in this thread, to put it kindly, and now you're backpedaling.


How you function is irrelevant to your belief or lack of it.


You claim to be an atheist when you're "under assault?" You believe in a God you don't believe in? Whatever.

Like I said. I'm very sorry you can't understand the concept of someone who follows a communal religion while being ambivalent about the deity.

I do not believe in God. I also don't actively disbelieve in God to the point of freaking out when He's mentioned, nor am I the type who refuses to engage in conversation addressing God. I also don't really think of myself as a theist in the "I believe in God" sense...maybe "I have a religion/I don't discredit other people's God" puts me in a sub-category of ___ism.

x-ray vision
08-24-2011, 11:43 PM
Like I said. I'm very sorry you can't understand the concept of someone who follows a communal religion while being ambivalent about the deity.
I don't know where you got that idea. I haven't once commented on that subject. I have no problems whatsoever understanding why someone enjoys various rituals and traditions of a religion without giving a damn if any gods exist. Nothing I wrote suggests otherwise.

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 11:45 PM
The term to describe you is 'agnostic theist'. Atheists do not act as though God exists.


No, that would be opposable thumbs.

I can't be an atheist and act as though God exists? Why not?

While atheists don't (generally) follow a religion, I think it's safe to say that religion is the basic foundation for our ethical and moral principles. Kind of hard to escape it.

This is what I was thinking of before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion

eta: I like the term 'agnostic atheist'.

Der Trihs
08-24-2011, 11:46 PM
Like I said before, belief in a god, afterlife, spirit world, or anything extra-natural is what separated us from non-humans tens of thousands of years ago. No, it's a leftover defect. It isn't something that separated us from animals, it is a psychological disease. It drags us down, hampers our species and has an excellent chance of rendering us extinct.

x-ray vision
08-24-2011, 11:46 PM
I don't expressly disbelieve or believe in God

I do not believe in God.
Okay, I think I've got you now. :rolleyes:

Der Trihs
08-24-2011, 11:50 PM
While atheists don't (generally) follow a religion, I think it's safe to say that religion is the basic foundation for our ethical and moral principles.No, religion causes moral and intellectual corruption; it isn't a source for morality, it's largely incompatible with morality. The first step in attaining some kind of useful morality is to ignore or throw out religion. Religion teaches self indulgence, self deception, mindless obedience, and that the world and the people in it don't matter; only imaginary gods and imaginary souls matter. It warps judgment and teaches that facts are something to be ignored.

None of that is compatible with morality.

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 11:56 PM
Okay, I think I've got you now. :rolleyes:

expressly: specifically

According to your link, you are either an atheist or a theist. If I'm not one, I'm supposed to be the other. I'm an atheist, but as Implicit pointed out, the term 'agnostic atheist' suits me best.

I believe that God, real or not, exists as a force as it's part of the human psyche at this point in the world. I don't care if there really is a supernatural deity/ies.

Que es mi barco mi tesoro,
que es mi dios la libertad,
mi ley, la fuerza y el viento,
mi única patria, la mar.

I'm done arguing about your confusion.

Implicit
08-25-2011, 12:01 AM
expressly: specifically

According to your link, you are either an atheist or a theist. If I'm not one, I'm supposed to be the other. I'm an atheist, but as Implicit pointed out, the term 'agnostic atheist' suits me best.

I believe that God, real or not, exists as a force as it's part of the human psyche at this point in the world. I don't care if there really is a supernatural deity/ies.



I'm done arguing about your confusion.
No, I did not say that 'agnostic atheist' suits you best. Here is my post again, please read it carefully:
The term to describe you is 'agnostic theist'. Atheists do not act as though God exists.

The confusion is yours.

x-ray vision
08-25-2011, 12:05 AM
expressly: specifically
That doesn't change the contradictions you've made.

I'm an atheist, but as Implicit pointed out, the term 'agnostic atheist' suits me best.
He actually claimed you were an agnostic theist. It's not easy for anyone to keep up with your claims. Okay, you're back to being an atheist. Alrighty.

I believe that God, real or not, exists as a force as it's part of the human psyche at this point in the world. I don't care if there really is a supernatural deity/ies.
I've never met an atheist that would say that gods aren't part of the psyche. Whether or not I would call that a "force" is another thing.

I'm done arguing about your confusion.
I'm not the one that's confused.

Czarcasm
08-25-2011, 12:06 AM
If you are going to post part of "The Pirate Song", at least credit the author.

"That's my boat my treasure
That is my god freedom
My law, force and wind
My only homeland sea."
-Joseph Espronceda

REDEYZZ
08-25-2011, 12:10 AM
I believe that God, real or not, exists as a force as it's part of the human psyche at this point in the world.


Speak for yourself, there is no such thing in my psyche. The downfall of mankind will be this "transparent god" that most cultures speak of. There is not one shred of hard evidence for gods existence. No one else finds this odd?

Jragon
08-25-2011, 12:21 AM
It seems to me that the reason God is the "only God" has to do with unification. A power divided is very weak, so when you have a bunch of tribes with the same pantheon, but different focus deities and you need to band together to fight off the invaders (note this was a real threat in that region/time period), what do you do? You start implying all the gods in your holy books are super secretly the same god(s). Suddenly you're not so different, those guys aren't different because they worship Zeus principally over Hephaestus, we're all united under the same deity guy, you may like a certain aspect more, but it's the same guy! Hey, brother! Let's fight off these bastards!

In some cases, this involves simple syncretism, how every Buddha is secretly a Hindu god, and every Japanese Kami is a Buddha. In other cases, it involves a priest or council going through the holy books and "correcting" them and LITERALLY trying to imply this random mountain god and the storm god are the same person.

After you have one God, there's no real limiting factor, he just grows and grows in power. He's no longer The Storm God who fell in love with The Tree Goddess and got betrayed by The God of Weaponry, they're all the same god, so they can't in-fight, and so there's no real reason for them to have foils or weaknesses. Then they basically become a Mary Sue in their holy text and everything spirals out from there.

Farmer Jane
08-25-2011, 09:58 PM
If you are going to post part of "The Pirate Song", at least credit the author.

"That's my boat my treasure
That is my god freedom
My law, force and wind
My only homeland sea."
-Joseph Espronceda

I didn't know he went by the English Joseph, but yes, La canción del pirata is a favorite. I've used it for Civics before.

gonzomax
08-25-2011, 11:01 PM
The reason religions claim they have the true way and the real god is their god, is to corner the market. If they can convince you , they own you. Why would you convert ?

Skald the Rhymer
08-25-2011, 11:06 PM
If you're not an atheist, you're a theist. No one can be totally without bias on this issue.


Untrue. One could be an deist, pantheist, or agnostic. One could never have considered the issue at all.

Measure for Measure
08-25-2011, 11:45 PM
No, religion causes moral and intellectual corruption; it isn't a source for morality, it's largely incompatible with morality. The first step in attaining some kind of useful morality is to ignore or throw out religion. Religion teaches self indulgence, self deception, mindless obedience, and that the world and the people in it don't matter; only imaginary gods and imaginary souls matter. It warps judgment and teaches that facts are something to be ignored.

None of that is compatible with morality. Buddhist believe in gods, but they also believe that gods won't help you achieve enlightenment. Buddhist believe in anatman, which means no-self and could easily be translated as no-soul.

Buddhism is a religion. So your broad-brush generalization is false. I don't think it necessarily applies that well to mainline Christianity or Unitarianism either.

SimonMoon5
08-25-2011, 11:45 PM
frankly this is just pretty lame and sad. It'd be like several comic book artists trying to get you to read their product line at a convention and one of them makes a pitch of 'my protagonist has ALL of the superpowers ever and beats up all of their other protagonists--in fact those guys don't even have superpowers, only my guy does, and he's even more badass then them'. Even if you look past that and see that there's a great comic book behind that central premise, it's just plain embarrassing and puerile.

This thread is quickly going to get hijacked by comic book nerds.

Like this:

This reminds me of what happened in the 90's to the Green Lantern characters. At the time, there were several characters called Green Lantern. In addition to the members of the Green Lantern Corps (a handful of Earth humans and many more alien life forms), there was also an unrelated (well mostly unrelated) character with the same name (he was the original in the comics).

But then, the writers-- well, actually the editor, not the writer-- decided to get rid of the boring old Green Lanterns. They had the main Green Lantern inexplicably become insane and evil so he could go on a killing spree, a consequence of which was that all the other members of the Corps had their power rings lose all power. Many died as they had simply been flying through space. Some were in the middle of storylines redefining their character. Those got cut short. Another had to get a completely different power source, revealing that he had actually been half-alien (the superpowered kind of alien) all this time and never knew!

All of this just so they could introduce a newer "kewl" Green Lantern who was so much "better" (they kept telling us but not showing us) than the earlier Green Lanterns who were now all dead or with new names. Even the completely unrelated character named Green Lantern, the original Green Lantern, had to get a new name "Sentinel" and a gosh-awful costume to go along with it.

Just so their pet Green Lantern could be the bestest Green Lantern ever. (The only way he could be guaranteed to be best is if he was the ONLY one.) And members of the Justice League kept telling him what a great Green Lantern he was, sometimes reassuring him that he was better than the previous main Green Lantern. Even if the new guy's a petty, property destroying, unintelligent moron. Hey, he likes manga and he draws purty, so who cares what his personality is like?

It's a common theme. Everybody wants THEIR hero to be the best-est hero ever. Even if that hero's a god.

Der Trihs
08-26-2011, 12:07 AM
Buddhist believe in gods, but they also believe that gods won't help you achieve enlightenment. Buddhist believe in anatman, which means no-self and could easily be translated as no-soul.

Buddhism is a religion. So your broad-brush generalization is false. In what way?

jayjay
08-26-2011, 12:16 AM
The persistence of Hinduism is admittedly a puzzle.

They pretty much took the opposite tack. Instead of "I'm right! You're wrong! We're going to push you out of our society!" they embraced "I'm right. So are you. C'mon into the temple." What we call Hinduism is actually a pretty large array of different religions that all come under that Hinduism umbrella. They're like the English language of religions.

Measure for Measure
08-26-2011, 02:17 AM
Buddhism is a religion. So your broad-brush generalization is false.
In what way?
Religion teaches ...only imaginary gods and imaginary souls matter. Neither imaginary gods nor souls matter in Buddhism: according to Buddhist doctrine, gods won't help you achieve enlightenment and you won't achieve enlightenment without understanding that there is no self or soul. And enlightenment is the raison d'etre of Buddhist doctrine.

Your other characterizations were highly dubious, but I went after the low-lying fruit as they were diametrically opposed to one religion's doctrine. That said, I suspect few preachers would explicitly advance, "...self indulgence, self deception, ...and that the world and the people in it don't matter." On mindless obedience, the Buddha emphasizes understanding of the doctrine: how that plays out in practice is a separate matter and is something I'm not competent to comment on. As for Catholicism, obedience is indeed emphasized, but methinks the Jesuits are anything but mindless.

I won't defend fundamentalism though.

Measure for Measure
08-26-2011, 02:32 AM
Der: I'll put it another way: religions vary in their toxicity.

Arguably, Christianity was an advance over what preceded it, as it promoted literacy, organized charity and paid lip-service at least to generosity. Lip service is superior than the alternative: pagan attitudes could be rather predatory as reflected in some of Aesop's fables. Unfortunately, the board lacks sufficient collective knowledge to debate the pros and cons of Christianity as seen from the POV of 150-800 CE. I lack that knowledge as well.

Farmer Jane
08-26-2011, 06:10 PM
Der: I'll put it another way: religions vary in their toxicity.

Arguably, Christianity was an advance over what preceded it, as it promoted literacy, organized charity and paid lip-service at least to generosity. Lip service is superior than the alternative: pagan attitudes could be rather predatory as reflected in some of Aesop's fables. Unfortunately, the board lacks sufficient collective knowledge to debate the pros and cons of Christianity as seen from the POV of 150-800 CE. I lack that knowledge as well.

Public schooling (for boys), literacy and charity was mandated pre-Christianity.

//cough

See: Judaism in early Judea & Greek civilization.

Bryan Ekers
08-26-2011, 06:15 PM
I'm okay with admitting that organized religion served a purpose at some point. I don't see why we still need it, though.

Kobal2
08-26-2011, 07:20 PM
Wait wait wait wait wait, OP, take it from the top. Who says the god of the Bible is the only god ?

Not himself, that's for sure. It's even in the first commandment : "I am the Lord thy god, [...] you shall have no other gods before me". Which I read as "you worship me, fuckface, not any of them other losers, entiendes ?". There are quite a few other bits of the book where god is credited as being super awesome and the most coolest god of them all, waaaay better than the god of these bastards over there - but it doesn't deny their existence. At best you can infer that they're lower or less powerful gods, since they weren't the ones who created the whole thing ; meaning that Yahweh must have created them too and one might as well worship numbah one instead of the blokes lower on the totem pole.

Then there's the issue of the devil, an immortal being who supposedly can speak to people in their minds and influence their actions, cribs in his own parallel dimension and lives for the day he'll raid god's own parallel dimension. That's sort of godlike in itself, isn't it ? It sure is miles above our own sorry paygrade.

As for omnipotence, that too is something biblically disputable - Yawheh got stumped by the chariots of iron of that mountain tribe the name of which I forget. Maybe he's like the shidhe and cold iron is his kryptonite ;).

The persistence of Hinduism is admittedly a puzzle.

You say that like it's the only form of paganism that resisted the persistent drone of the missionaries - but Shinto's still going strong, as is Buddhism, as are quite a number of African animist cults. Basically, wherever monotheists couldn't just kill everyone they didn't convert, or at least coerce them to become monotheists themselves, the local faith sticks around.

JBDivmstr
08-27-2011, 12:27 AM
What if you just don't know?

And more importantly, don't care?

That would make you an Agnostic or Pragmatic theist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

JBDivmstr
08-27-2011, 12:51 AM
Untrue. ... One could never have considered the issue at all.

Agreed, which would make me an adherent of...

Apathetic agnosticism (also called pragmatic agnosticism) is the view that thousands of years of debate have neither proven, nor dis-proven, the existence of one or more deities (gods). This view concludes that even if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest. Wikipedia

ETA: Works for me!

The Other Waldo Pepper
08-27-2011, 10:12 AM
As for omnipotence, that too is something biblically disputable - Yawheh got stumped by the chariots of iron of that mountain tribe the name of which I forget. Maybe he's like the shidhe and cold iron is his kryptonite

Six days of hard work does it, too.

Farmer Jane
08-27-2011, 11:04 AM
A nitpick: In the Hebrew translation, it reads more like "abstained", or "did not continue/do".

So basically, he stopped. There's nothing in there that says he was tired.

Skald the Rhymer
08-27-2011, 11:09 AM
A nitpick: In the Hebrew translation, it reads more like "abstained", or "did not continue/do".

So basically, he stopped. There's nothing in there that says he was tired.

That has always been my position. Yahweh stopped working because he was done, not because he didn't have any more in him.

Unfortunately, that does nothing to explain the iron chariots thing (which, I note, was assiduously skipped over by my Biblical literalist church in the "read the bible through in a year" thing we did in Sunday school once.

Farmer Jane
08-27-2011, 11:32 AM
That has always been my position. Yahweh stopped working because he was done, not because he didn't have any more in him.

Unfortunately, that does nothing to explain the iron chariots thing (which, I note, was assiduously skipped over by my Biblical literalist church in the "read the bible through in a year" thing we did in Sunday school once.

Is this what you guys mean? (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0701.htm)

It sounds like Judah could not drive out...not...HaShem literally could not.

The whole book of Judges deals with the Israelites suffering for turning away from God. As you read the chapter, you'll see that many peoples were not 'driven out'.

v 2:3


And the angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim. {P}

And he said: '... I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I swore unto your fathers; and I said: I will never break My covenant with you

and ye shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall break down their altars; but ye have not hearkened unto My voice; what is this ye have done?

Wherefore I also said: I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be unto you as snares, and their gods shall be a trap unto you.'

etc etc

23 So the LORD left those nations, without driving them out hastily; neither delivered He them into the hand of Joshua.

Skald the Rhymer
08-27-2011, 11:41 AM
Is this what you guys mean? (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0701.htm)


Yep.


It sounds like Judah could not drive out...not...HaShem literally could not.


Not to me. Here's the exact verse taken from your own cite:

19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the hill-country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

The antecedent of he seems to be "the Lord," not Judah. And even if it is, it makes no difference. If Yahweh is omnipotent and "with" Judah, then why could not Judah drive out warriors using iron chariots?

Farmer Jane
08-27-2011, 11:51 AM
The Lord was with Judah because Judah was righteous and the Lord was with the Israelites, anyway.

But you can see if you keep reading that the Lord was with Benjamin, and Manasseh, and everyone else too and they did not succeed in driving everyone out (as was their punishment).

Farmer Jane
08-27-2011, 12:02 PM
The Shoftim on Chabad.org has 'he' to 'they'. (http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15809/showrashi/true) I don't know how it was originally written or if the verb/noun agreement is appropriate...maybe a native Hebrew speaker with knowledge of Biblical Hebrew could help with that one.

brocks
08-27-2011, 12:50 PM
The antecedent of he seems to be "the Lord," not Judah. And even if it is, it makes no difference. If Yahweh is omnipotent and "with" Judah, then why could not Judah drive out warriors using iron chariots?

At the time, Judah was a tribe, not a person (the patriarch having died some 400 years earlier), so "he" wouldn't make much sense if it referred to Judah.

Skald the Rhymer
08-27-2011, 12:59 PM
The Lord was with Judah because Judah was righteous and the Lord was with the Israelites, anyway.

But you can see if you keep reading that the Lord was with Benjamin, and Manasseh, and everyone else too and they did not succeed in driving everyone out (as was their punishment).

The verse specifically said that the Lord could not defeat the enemy because they had iron chariots.

At the time, Judah was a tribe, not a person (the patriarch having died some 400 years earlier), so "he" wouldn't make much sense if it referred to Judah.

You are, of course, correct. I thought so anyway but was too lazy to verify.

Farmer Jane
08-27-2011, 01:06 PM
The verse specifically said that the Lord could not defeat the enemy because they had iron chariots.


The verse I just cited said that they could not defeat the enemy because the enemy had iron chariots.

Plus it just wouldn't be very good PR for Israelites/Hebrews/Jews to carry on this verse for hundreds - thousands - of years of a God who was stopped by iron.

18. And Judah captured Gaza with its territory, and Ashkelon with its territory, and Ekron with its territory.
19. And the Lord was with Judah, and they drove out the inhabitants of the mountains; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, for they had iron chariots.

20. And they gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses had spoken; and he drove out from there the three sons of the giant.
21. And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; and the Jebusites dwelt with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem until this day.

brocks
08-27-2011, 01:42 PM
Plus it just wouldn't be very good PR for Israelites/Hebrews/Jews to carry on this verse for hundreds - thousands - of years of a God who was stopped by iron.

There's a future precedent for it in Mark 6, where it says Jesus couldn't perform any mighty works in his home town, because the people who knew him didn't believe he was holy.

Farmer Jane
08-27-2011, 02:18 PM
Yeah, but I'm not Christian and I don't buy the 'precedents' Christians claim are in my Tenakh.

Skald the Rhymer
08-27-2011, 02:21 PM
Yeah, but I'm not Christian and I don't buy the 'precedents' Christians claim are in my Tenakh.

The incident brock mentioned doesn't matter anyway, even if you were arguing from a Christian perspective. There's no such thing as "future precedent"; the two terms are warring with one another.

brocks
08-27-2011, 03:01 PM
The incident brock mentioned doesn't matter anyway, even if you were arguing from a Christian perspective. There's no such thing as "future precedent"; the two terms are warring with one another.

It was a deliberate oxymoron, but the point is that it *is* possible for something that makes your God look weak to survive in your scriptures for thousands of years.

Farmer Jane
08-27-2011, 03:08 PM
It just seems rather counter-productive.