The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Bit of Philosophy for you
The Bible claims God is:
All powerful (omnipotent)
All knowing (omniscient)
All loving
everywhere at once (omnipresent)
However because of the existence of pain the bibles version of god can only be three of the four things.
either Gods not all powerful (eg. can't stop pain)
not all knowing (doesn't know how to stop all pain)
not all loving (he couldn't care less)
not everywhere at once (cannot get to everywhere pain is)
What do you reckon? I don't exactly believe in God but its an interesting discussion.
The Bible claims God is:
All powerful (omnipotent)
All knowing (omniscient)
All loving
everywhere at once (omnipresent)
However because of the existence of pain the bibles version of god can only be three of the four things.
either Gods not all powerful (eg. can't stop pain)
not all knowing (doesn't know how to stop all pain)
not all loving (he couldn't care less)
not everywhere at once (cannot get to everywhere pain is)
What do you reckon? I don't exactly believe in God but its an interesting discussion.
Page:
Light wrote:
> That's true of many worldviews, but none more so than Christian, Jew,
> and Moslem.
Ahh yes, the "axis of evil"!!
That was a joke by the way, so don't castigate me for it.
> That's true of many worldviews, but none more so than Christian, Jew,
> and Moslem.
Ahh yes, the "axis of evil"!!
That was a joke by the way, so don't castigate me for it.
Rosalind wrote:
> Something that annoys me immensly is that its okay for people to
> believe in god but, I believe as strongly as many believe in a God
> that I have been freed of chains of restriction put on by a God and if
> I air my views I get tagged as a trouble causer.
This is what bugs me about religious types. I mean, I'm perfectly happy with the idea that religion is some people's path to happiness. But it's when they then say that it's the ONLY path to happiness that the contents of my bladder starts to boil. It's a very simple logical progression from "This is the only path to happiness" to "Anyone who tries a different path to happiness is wrong and must be persecuted".
That's true of many worldviews, but none more so than Christian, Jew, and Moslem.
> Something that annoys me immensly is that its okay for people to
> believe in god but, I believe as strongly as many believe in a God
> that I have been freed of chains of restriction put on by a God and if
> I air my views I get tagged as a trouble causer.
This is what bugs me about religious types. I mean, I'm perfectly happy with the idea that religion is some people's path to happiness. But it's when they then say that it's the ONLY path to happiness that the contents of my bladder starts to boil. It's a very simple logical progression from "This is the only path to happiness" to "Anyone who tries a different path to happiness is wrong and must be persecuted".
That's true of many worldviews, but none more so than Christian, Jew, and Moslem.
Thanks Slavie
I wish I'd been in this thread from the start... it looked fun.
Rosalind wrote:
> I believe as strongly as many believe in a God
> that I have been freed of chains of restriction put on by a God and if
> I air my views I get tagged as a trouble causer.
You come out of it on top, and you have my respect, mate. :)
Rosalind wrote:
> I believe as strongly as many believe in a God
> that I have been freed of chains of restriction put on by a God and if
> I air my views I get tagged as a trouble causer.
You come out of it on top, and you have my respect, mate. :)
Being in harmony with your spiritual side doesn't necessary mean that you have to believe in God or, indeed, be religious in any way or form.
Something that annoys me immensly is that its okay for people to believe in god but, I believe as strongly as many believe in a God that I have been freed of chains of restriction put on by a God and if I air my views I get tagged as a trouble causer.
I know people go through religeous enlightenment. I have been through something similar. I discovered that I was causing myself pain trying to be good by believing in something that just isn't there for me.
I know people go through religeous enlightenment. I have been through something similar. I discovered that I was causing myself pain trying to be good by believing in something that just isn't there for me.
The Bible is a tangle of contradictions that should, by all logic, be re-written for a the new millenium.
Light wrote:
> Except that the definition of omnipotent is "All powerful".
> If someone is all powerful, then no external force can make any
> lasting difference. After all, what can defy the will of an omnipotent
> being?
Nothing can. Whether he chooses to wield that power all the time is a different matter. God is biding his time.
> Are you a Jehovahs Witness by any chance? If so, would it comfort you
> to know that the man who came up with that figure had numerous
> convictions for fraud, and that it sorta indicates he used the whole
> thing as part of a scam? Just a thought...
That is total rot. Have you never heard of the Dead Sea scrolls?
> What? You mean like that lovely passage in Deuteronomy that tells us
> that no man with his testicles crushed may enter the kingdom of
> heaven? Or that bit about shunning menstruating women? (though candour
> compels me to admit that they may have a point here...) Or how about
> that Old Testament exhortation to destroy ones enemies and crush their
> cities and civilisations? Are they the bits about happier lives? What
> about Moses' fun little speech where he declares which races of men
> are pure enough to have contact with? A nice bit of racism always
> makes for a happier life...
Don't dismiss such passages simply because you don't understand them. There are meanings and reasons behind all scriptures, and these can be discovered if you just take the time to research them. And from unbiased sources I might add.
> What a blinkered crock of old toss.
Resorting to insults is never a good thing. Laughing at someone's beliefs is even worse. Be careful.
> Except that the definition of omnipotent is "All powerful".
> If someone is all powerful, then no external force can make any
> lasting difference. After all, what can defy the will of an omnipotent
> being?
Nothing can. Whether he chooses to wield that power all the time is a different matter. God is biding his time.
> Are you a Jehovahs Witness by any chance? If so, would it comfort you
> to know that the man who came up with that figure had numerous
> convictions for fraud, and that it sorta indicates he used the whole
> thing as part of a scam? Just a thought...
That is total rot. Have you never heard of the Dead Sea scrolls?
> What? You mean like that lovely passage in Deuteronomy that tells us
> that no man with his testicles crushed may enter the kingdom of
> heaven? Or that bit about shunning menstruating women? (though candour
> compels me to admit that they may have a point here...) Or how about
> that Old Testament exhortation to destroy ones enemies and crush their
> cities and civilisations? Are they the bits about happier lives? What
> about Moses' fun little speech where he declares which races of men
> are pure enough to have contact with? A nice bit of racism always
> makes for a happier life...
Don't dismiss such passages simply because you don't understand them. There are meanings and reasons behind all scriptures, and these can be discovered if you just take the time to research them. And from unbiased sources I might add.
> What a blinkered crock of old toss.
Resorting to insults is never a good thing. Laughing at someone's beliefs is even worse. Be careful.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> God being omnipotent does not mean the world can not be bad. It means
> that there may be an external force that caused it. And that would be
> the Devil.
Except that the definition of omnipotent is "All powerful". If someone is all powerful, then no external force can make any lasting difference. After all, what can defy the will of an omnipotent being?
>
> As for heaven and hell, neither in the shape or form the churches
> teach are actually like that. The word translated as hell in the bible
> comes from three different words. In the Old Testament it is the
> Hebrew word Sheol, which does not mean eternal torment but simly it is
> death. The common grave of dead mankind. Nothing more. Which is why in
> Genesis, Jacob a good guy who you would think would go to heaven,
> actually asks to be sent to hell.
>
> The New Testament was in Greek, and the word that is translated as
> hell in it is Hades. This again just meant death. In a few places in
> the New Testament the word Gehenna, another Greek word was used. This
> comes from Gehenna which was a rubbish tip outside Jerusalem in the
> Valley of Hinnom. Dead animals would be thrown into the fires which
> were kept burning with the addition of Sulfur. Criminals who were
> considered unworthy of a proper burial were thrown into Gehenna. It
> symbolises eternal destruction, not fiery torment, because it was dead
> bodies that were thrown into the pit, hence there would be no
> suffering.
>
> Another reason that the bible does not actually give rise to hell is
> found in Ecclesiastes. It says For the living are conscious that they
> will die, but the dead are conscious of nothing at all.
>
> The bible does say that some would go to heaven, but this would be a
> very small number, 144000. For everyone else there is the prospect of
> resurrection after armageddon.
Are you a Jehovahs Witness by any chance? If so, would it comfort you to know that the man who came up with that figure had numerous convictions for fraud, and that it sorta indicates he used the whole thing as part of a scam? Just a thought...
>
> The bible is a book that will always be relevant. Everything it
> contains shows us how to lead better happier lives.
What? You mean like that lovely passage in Deuteronomy that tells us that no man with his testicles crushed may enter the kingdom of heaven? Or that bit about shunning menstruating women? (though candour compels me to admit that they may have a point here...) Or how about that Old Testament exhortation to destroy ones enemies and crush their cities and civilisations? Are they the bits about happier lives? What about Moses' fun little speech where he declares which races of men are pure enough to have contact with? A nice bit of racism always makes for a happier life...
>
> If there was no God, and evolution was real, then it would be survival
> of the fittest, and as such no-one should care about others. There
> would be no need for government or law and order. If evolution was the
> answer then we would, we should, be little more than the animals we
> supposedly evolved from.
What a blinkered crock of old toss. Not only that, but simplistic to the point of insulting. Do you actually understand what evolution is? Have you read anything about it from the scientific point of view? Because, for a laugh, I used to invite Jehovah's and Mormons in to argue with them, and what you're spouting there sounds just like their fall back argument.
What you seem to be saying is that mankind arrived fully formed and that we did not evolve in any way. Whilst that may be the case, your approach to the MOUNTAINS of geological, anthropological and archaealogical data (dismissing it without even bothering to examine it) is somewhere beyond ignorance. (Incidentally, if you're offended by any of this, then consider how offensive your post is to humanists).
I'd quite like to hear your theory behind the story of life, the universe and everything from your own perspective. I'm intrigued to know whether or not it fulfils the basic premise of any theory; the ability to be tested and proved correct or incorrect in the face of the available evidence.
>
> Belief in God, even if you don't worship him, brings a little bit more
> sanity to the world. It gives life a meaning, something to look
> forward to. A real reason to live. Other than that we were all just an
> accident.
Is that like the belief in God that Osama Bin Laden has? Or the belief in God that Dubya exhibits?
If you're saying that belief in God is the ONLY way to a better future, then I'll have to make a mental note to avoid reading posts from you in future. No offence, but fundamentalists tend to take the same view as the late, unlamented Belldandy; no interest in learning from different points of view.
But that said, nuff respect for posting what you must have realised would be an unpopular viewpoint.
> God being omnipotent does not mean the world can not be bad. It means
> that there may be an external force that caused it. And that would be
> the Devil.
Except that the definition of omnipotent is "All powerful". If someone is all powerful, then no external force can make any lasting difference. After all, what can defy the will of an omnipotent being?
>
> As for heaven and hell, neither in the shape or form the churches
> teach are actually like that. The word translated as hell in the bible
> comes from three different words. In the Old Testament it is the
> Hebrew word Sheol, which does not mean eternal torment but simly it is
> death. The common grave of dead mankind. Nothing more. Which is why in
> Genesis, Jacob a good guy who you would think would go to heaven,
> actually asks to be sent to hell.
>
> The New Testament was in Greek, and the word that is translated as
> hell in it is Hades. This again just meant death. In a few places in
> the New Testament the word Gehenna, another Greek word was used. This
> comes from Gehenna which was a rubbish tip outside Jerusalem in the
> Valley of Hinnom. Dead animals would be thrown into the fires which
> were kept burning with the addition of Sulfur. Criminals who were
> considered unworthy of a proper burial were thrown into Gehenna. It
> symbolises eternal destruction, not fiery torment, because it was dead
> bodies that were thrown into the pit, hence there would be no
> suffering.
>
> Another reason that the bible does not actually give rise to hell is
> found in Ecclesiastes. It says For the living are conscious that they
> will die, but the dead are conscious of nothing at all.
>
> The bible does say that some would go to heaven, but this would be a
> very small number, 144000. For everyone else there is the prospect of
> resurrection after armageddon.
Are you a Jehovahs Witness by any chance? If so, would it comfort you to know that the man who came up with that figure had numerous convictions for fraud, and that it sorta indicates he used the whole thing as part of a scam? Just a thought...
>
> The bible is a book that will always be relevant. Everything it
> contains shows us how to lead better happier lives.
What? You mean like that lovely passage in Deuteronomy that tells us that no man with his testicles crushed may enter the kingdom of heaven? Or that bit about shunning menstruating women? (though candour compels me to admit that they may have a point here...) Or how about that Old Testament exhortation to destroy ones enemies and crush their cities and civilisations? Are they the bits about happier lives? What about Moses' fun little speech where he declares which races of men are pure enough to have contact with? A nice bit of racism always makes for a happier life...
>
> If there was no God, and evolution was real, then it would be survival
> of the fittest, and as such no-one should care about others. There
> would be no need for government or law and order. If evolution was the
> answer then we would, we should, be little more than the animals we
> supposedly evolved from.
What a blinkered crock of old toss. Not only that, but simplistic to the point of insulting. Do you actually understand what evolution is? Have you read anything about it from the scientific point of view? Because, for a laugh, I used to invite Jehovah's and Mormons in to argue with them, and what you're spouting there sounds just like their fall back argument.
What you seem to be saying is that mankind arrived fully formed and that we did not evolve in any way. Whilst that may be the case, your approach to the MOUNTAINS of geological, anthropological and archaealogical data (dismissing it without even bothering to examine it) is somewhere beyond ignorance. (Incidentally, if you're offended by any of this, then consider how offensive your post is to humanists).
I'd quite like to hear your theory behind the story of life, the universe and everything from your own perspective. I'm intrigued to know whether or not it fulfils the basic premise of any theory; the ability to be tested and proved correct or incorrect in the face of the available evidence.
>
> Belief in God, even if you don't worship him, brings a little bit more
> sanity to the world. It gives life a meaning, something to look
> forward to. A real reason to live. Other than that we were all just an
> accident.
Is that like the belief in God that Osama Bin Laden has? Or the belief in God that Dubya exhibits?
If you're saying that belief in God is the ONLY way to a better future, then I'll have to make a mental note to avoid reading posts from you in future. No offence, but fundamentalists tend to take the same view as the late, unlamented Belldandy; no interest in learning from different points of view.
But that said, nuff respect for posting what you must have realised would be an unpopular viewpoint.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> If there was no God, and evolution was real, then it would be survival
> of the fittest, and as such no-one should care about others. There
> would be no need for government or law and order. If evolution was the
> answer then we would, we should, be little more than the animals we
> supposedly evolved from.
>
Evolution in no way suggests we should be unfeeling and uncaring animals.
In fact, probably the opposite is true.
> If there was no God, and evolution was real, then it would be survival
> of the fittest, and as such no-one should care about others. There
> would be no need for government or law and order. If evolution was the
> answer then we would, we should, be little more than the animals we
> supposedly evolved from.
>
Evolution in no way suggests we should be unfeeling and uncaring animals.
In fact, probably the opposite is true.
Page: