god strikes again

[The Devil]

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers, but you haven't contributed much of any value.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers, but you haven't contributed much of any value.

No, you're quite right.

I'm not going to contribute any more to this thread - it's beginning to make me quite poorly.

I used to think I was quite smart. It's hard coming to realise you're not.

And no, before you reply, this is not sarcasm.

You've managed to make one person feel like a wanker, I hope you're happy.

 

[Dave Simpson]

What mechanism(s) in this big ol' universe would lead anyone to think a superior being was required for all things (hell, anything) to exist? Sorry, but I don't see where some dude with robe, beard and throwing lightning bolts fits into the scheme of things. Evolution on the other hand seems plausible. So do gases swirling and attracted by mass forming planets over billions of years. On the other hand, a robed guy clapping hands/snappin' fingers or whatever gods do as they poof planets into existence before our very eyes sounds a tad far-fetched.

 

[hifinutt]

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.

GE 16:15, 21:1-3, GA 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.
HE 11:17 Abraham had only one son.

mr devil you make some fascinating and thought provoking comments.
these 2 first comments.
as i understand it gen 1.31 God had made all of creation and it was good but he pronounced if man disobeyed him he would surely die [gen 2v17]
then it seems in gen 6v5-6 man`s wickedness had increased so much that he was grieved he had made them which is pretty understandable if they chose to go their own way.

as to abrahams sons . it is clear that ishmael was a bastard i.e not his son from his marriage . it is clear that " it is through isaac [his son by marriage] that your offspring will be reckoned. gen 21v12.
gen 22v2 says take isaac your only son, in this regard ismael and any other sons don`t count because through the line of isaac his posterity would be traced .

your next point as to why the plainsmen could not be defeated by judah despite God being with them is curious. all i know is that the philistines had iron and they desperately tried to keep the hebrews from this technology . they simply couldn`t match it.

could you liken it to british troops facing a panzer division. . I guess the british thought God was on their side but they had a hell of a job against the panzer tanks although they won in the end .

 

[The Devil]

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.

GE 16:15, 21:1-3, GA 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.
HE 11:17 Abraham had only one son.

mr devil you make some fascinating and thought provoking comments.
these 2 first comments.
as i understand it gen 1.31 God had made all of creation and it was good but he pronounced if man disobeyed him he would surely die [gen 2v17]
then it seems in gen 6v5-6 man`s wickedness had increased so much that he was grieved he had made them which is pretty understandable if they chose to go their own way.

as to abrahams sons . it is clear that ishmael was a bastard i.e not his son from his marriage . it is clear that " it is through isaac [his son by marriage] that your offspring will be reckoned. gen 21v12.
gen 22v2 says take isaac your only son, in this regard ismael and any other sons don`t count because through the line of isaac his posterity would be traced .

your next point as to why the plainsmen could not be defeated by judah despite God being with them is curious. all i know is that the philistines had iron and they desperately tried to keep the hebrews from this technology . they simply couldn`t match it.

could you liken it to british troops facing a panzer division. . I guess the british thought God was on their side but they had a hell of a job against the panzer tanks although they won in the end .

In the fairy stories being discussed, "god" is a character who is supposed to be all-knowing, and all-powerful. The contradiction in genesis is to do with god's apparent surprise and indignation when the human characters behave in a way god doesn't like. But if god actually was all-knowing, then god wouldn't have been the least bit surprised or indignant.

If this putative god actually was on your side during a conflict, then you would definitely win, no matter what sort of chariots the enemy were using. But god's documented as being on the losing side of a conflict here, which isn't consistent with his unlimited power.

 

[mr cat]

**** me...been away for a few days and this thread's still going strong... keep it up boys...

 

[Graffoeman]

In the fairy stories being discussed, "god" is a character who is supposed to be all-knowing, and all-powerful. The contradiction in genesis is to do with god's apparent surprise and indignation when the human characters behave in a way god doesn't like. But if god actually was all-knowing, then god wouldn't have been the least bit surprised or indignant.

If this putative god actually was on your side during a conflict, then you would definitely win, no matter what sort of chariots the enemy were using. But god's documented as being on the losing side of a conflict here, which isn't consistent with his unlimited power.

Well, let's take the 'free will' one. If you were a god and you were toying with the free will idea but you weren't too sure, you'd just have to work through all the choices, going all the way forward, go through all the causes and effects, and then decide. I reckon even a god would get fed up of that one - there'd be no time for shopping, listening to cd's, cavorting with other gods, nothing. No. I reckon it would just come down to one of those 'oh! bollix to it' sort of moments and live with it if it all went wrong. Which it did. Bollix.

As for the battle bit, was God actually playing? I thought he was just watching. And probably wishing he'd held off on the free will decision. If he hadn't gone for that one then he could have stopped 'em all fighting, couldn't he?

 

[The Devil]

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Looks like he was playing to me. But no doubt there's "an error in the translation".

 

[TonyL]

Chariots of iron sound like very useful things.

Tony.

 

[tones]

Something vaguely relevant noticed in Yesterday's "New York Times":

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/god-talk/

 

[The Devil]

Mr Fish needs an intellectual Zimmer frame.

By theological questions, Eagleton means questions like, "Why is there anything in the first place?", "Why what we do have is actually intelligible to us?" and "Where do our notions of explanation, regularity and intelligibility come from?"

The fact that science, liberal rationalism and economic calculation can not ask — never mind answer — such questions should not be held against them, for that is not what they do.

Er, that's exactly the sort of question which science answers, or attempts to answer. The message is that if science and reason can't provide an answer right here and now, then let's all stop thinking and embrace god instead -- the "god of the gaps (in our knowledge)".

The other source of his anger is implied but never quite made explicit. He is angry, I think, at having to expend so much mental and emotional energy refuting the shallow arguments of school-yard atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins. I know just how he feels.

As someone else points out in the comments, if you can't answer a "shallow schoolyard argument" without expending significant mental and emotional energy, then perhaps the argument isn't as shallow as you might like it to be.

 

[dragonwhip]

The link is bad - it's to a story about some Taliban executing two Pakistani adulterers; nothing at all to do with a god.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect.
We will, of course, never know how religion actually started in the first place, but does any thinking being atually believe that there some omnipitent being who watches over our every move and actually has some say in our lives? Has not religion been a tool for the aquisition and maintainance of power for millenia? It has also been a crutch for those who neede a crutch of some sort.

 

[lbr]

Unfortunately, you are incorrect.
We will, of course, never know how religion actually started in the first place, but does any thinking being atually believe that there some omnipitent being who watches over our every move and actually has some say in our lives? Has not religion been a tool for the aquisition and maintainance of power for millenia? It has also been a crutch for those who neede a crutch of some sort.