Main Problem with religion.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I don’t really care much what definition of ‘god’ you or anyone else
employs.

'anyone else' includes yourself; so i infer that you don't really care much what your own definition of 'god' is. however, i think that you should care because if one cannot properly define the object of his debate, then he literally fails to know what he is tal ...[text shortened]... laces i am paraphrasing some of Smith's remarks on the topic, which he touches on only briefly.[/b]

What debate, I'm not attempting to prove anything to you about
God? I have always for 20+ years maintained I cannot prove God,
only God can do that.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What debate, I'm not attempting to prove anything to you about
God? I have always for 20+ years maintained I cannot prove God,
only God can do that.
Kelly

when i mentioned debate, i meant in the general sense, as in the theist debating the atheist on the existence of god. i didn't mean to point the finger at you per se. i still think the the task of defining 'god' is a very important (necessary) one that cannot be overlooked. even if you don't intend to engage in 'debate', how do you worship something if you don't know what that something is?

what do you think about the interpretation 'he who is'?

I have always for 20+ years maintained I cannot prove God,
only God can do that.

fair enough -- in fact, this is the only theist position i find reasonable because it remains true to the notion that faith is not founded on 'proof'. do you, then, characterize yourself as an agnostic theist?

Originally posted by KellyJay
What debate, I'm not attempting to prove anything to you about
God? I have always for 20+ years maintained I cannot prove God,
only God can do that.
Kelly

KellyJay, you say that
"I don’t really care much what definition of ‘god’ you or anyone else
employs. It does matter that you know who you are talking about..."

Therefore you appreciate that it does matter what your definition of "God" is to you, KellyJay.

So tell me KellyJay, is YOUR God omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I don’t really care much what definition of ‘god’ you or anyone else
employs.

'anyone else' includes yourself; so i infer that you don't really care much what your own definition of 'god' is. however, i think that you sh ...[text shortened]... f Smith's remarks on the topic, which he touches on only briefly.[/b]

this definition of god as 'he who is' is just completely incomprehensible to man and fails to ascribe any knowable content to 'god'.

YHVH (often rendered “Yahveh” or “Yahweh,” although the actual pronunciation is unknown), literally means “who is.” It derives from eh’yeh asher eh’yeh, “I am that I am.” In the third-person form, the ending is masculine, but Yah is feminine—as in Hallelu Yah.

You may be right, that this name assigns no “content” to God, but it “assigns” being. YHVH is “the one who is.” Now, in some varieties of Judaism (Hasidism, for example) this is taken to mean God as the “ground of being,” rather than as a being. This is a more monistic, or at least panentheistic, viewpoint, than one of “supernatural theism.” A metaphor that I read which touches on this: “God is in us, not like a raisin in a bun, but like the ocean in a wave” (anonymous). This, of itself, is not that far removed from the Vedantist’s concept of Brahman, until you get to the point of describing—or attempting to describe—the nature of the divine ground; then there are differences. The Vedantist, for example, may “assign” no intentionlism to the divine ground; other monists, and certainly theists, do. Vedantists (and Buddhists) also use the ocean/wave metaphor; there is one story about a young fish asking his mother: “When are you going to show me this ocean you’re always talking about.” And some Vedantists may define themselves as technically “atheistic,” again, in the sense of “supernatural theism.”

In a sense, YHVH is an ontological term. If you wade back through whatever “content” various traditions may assign to it, it’s as far as you can get.

An aside: I have long thought that most (all?) attributes that various traditions “assign” to God as the divine ground should be taken metaphorically, rather than as logical propositions. And I’m not sure how much logically coherent content a term like omnipotence, for example, has; we have no other referent for such a term, so that, if we say “God is omnipotent,” we have essentially stated a tautology.

Originally posted by LemonJello
when i mentioned debate, i meant in the general sense, as in the theist debating the atheist on the existence of god. i didn't mean to point the finger at you per se. i still think the the task of defining 'god' is a very important (necessary) one that cannot be overlooked. even if you don't intend to engage in 'debate', how do you worship someth ...[text shortened]... ith is not founded on 'proof'. do you, then, characterize yourself as an agnostic theist?

As I was pointing out to you in scripture, God is defined by us on how
God has revealed Himself to us. I call Him King of the Universe,
Creator God, Light of my life, Giver of Wisdom and all things good, so
on. The One who has saved my soul from my wickedness my sins that
are before me. There is but one God, yet having said that, you must
now see that it is only those that have come to God who can define
Him that way, since those that mock and despise God, to them He is
only judge, not the giver of Grace and Mercy since they have rejected
God's mercy even though it is offered to all. It isn't that those that
have turned toward God are any better if we were to use human
standards of good and bad, more times than not I'd say we are
worse. That being said it must be clear that it isn't our righteousness
that matters, but the one given to us by God, if it were up to us to get
good enough, we would fail.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
when i mentioned debate, i meant in the general sense, as in the theist debating the atheist on the existence of god. i didn't mean to point the finger at you per se. i still think the the task of defining 'god' is a very important (necessary) one that cannot be overlooked. even if you don't intend to engage in 'debate', how do you worship someth ...[text shortened]... ith is not founded on 'proof'. do you, then, characterize yourself as an agnostic theist?

I just call myself a Christian, that is enough for me. I would not say
I'm a agnositc theist.
Kelly

Originally posted by howardgee
KellyJay, you say that
"I don’t really care much what definition of ‘god’ you or anyone else
employs. It does matter that you know who you are talking about..."

Therefore you appreciate that it does matter what your definition of "God" is to you, KellyJay.

So tell me KellyJay, is YOUR God omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent?

Yep
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It isn't that those that
have turned toward God are any better if we were to use human
standards of good and bad, more times than not I'd say we are
worse.

I wanted to edit this line but for some reason I keep getting errors.
I don't really think this is correct after thinking about it, it isn't that
those that are Christians are worse, we basically are the same as anyone
else as far as human rightousness is concern, it isn't a matter of
being better or worse.
Kelly

Originally posted by howardgee
"Until people realise that God does not exist, then there is no chance that everybody will see everyone else as equals."
How can any rational atheist respect some-one who thinks that God ...[text shortened].... investigated Scientific evidence?

I think the use of the word respect in your post was somewhat harsh, I am an atheist and although I don't have the same beliefs as some of my freinds and family I still respect them. It's their choice, it doesn't make them any less kind, decent people. Its like supporting a football team, some of my freinds support other teams, some think football is stupid, but I respect them all.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yep
Kelly

Imagine this scene, KellyJay:

You are walking through the country when you see a young child playing near a heavy bucket full of water. As you stroll past, the child suddenly falls headfirst into the bucket and despite frantic kicking, cannot escape. The child is drowning, but you can easily save it by pulling it out by the legs.
What would you do?

A good person would save the child, whilst only a truly evil person would stand by and watch the child die; murder by neglect!

When people commit torture for no other reason than to convert non-believers to become Christians (such as the Spanish inquisition), God plays the part of the person watching the child drown.
He is OMNISCIENT, therefore knows about the suffering , he is OMNIPOTENT, therefore can prevent the torturing and he is BENEVOLENT, therefore he would not want unnecessary torturing to occur.

The fact that such torturing occurs and unnecessary suffering continues in the world, indicates that the OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT and BENEVOLENT god which you, KellyJay, and others believe in does not exist.

Originally posted by howardgee
Imagine this scene, KellyJay:

You are walking through the country when you see a young child playing near a heavy bucket full of water. As you stroll past, the child suddenly falls headfirst into the bucket and despite frantic kicking, cannot escape. The child is drowning, but you can easily save it by pulling it out by the legs.
What would you d ...[text shortened]... SCIENT, OMNIPOTENT and BENEVOLENT god which you, KellyJay, and others believe in does not exist.

We were given command over this planet, we rebelled.

All the torturing taking place here is our own doing.

We didn't want God, we are living the life we set oursevles up for.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
We were given command over this planet, we rebelled.

All the torturing taking place here is our own doing.

We didn't want God, we are living the life we set oursevles up for.
Kelly

You have contradicted yourself!

Earlier you stated that God was omnipotent. Now you state that "We were given command over this planet".

Either we have the power to do as we want, or God is omnipotent. You cannot have it both ways.
It is nothing personal, KellyJay; your confusion reflects the typically illogical reasoning of all religious people.

This is why I will never fully respect theists.

Originally posted by howardgee
You have contradicted yourself!

Earlier you stated that God was omnipotent. Now you state that "We were given command over this planet".

Either we have the power to do as we want, or God is omnipotent. You cannot have it both ways.
It is nothing personal, KellyJay; your confusion reflects the typically illogical reasoning of all religious people.

This is why I will never fully respect theists.

I did not contradict myself; you just do not seem to understand what
people have been saying to you about scripture. You want to bash
it and those that follow God, it is rare you do anything else.

If you had any military experience you would know that generals
have power over their troops, but they do not micro manage their
troops, there are those that have power under them too. We were
given power, we were given authority, and God did not remove that
except our relationship with Him was damaged, and the earth was
cursed once Adam and Eve sinned.

God is going to judge evil, that time is coming and once it is done
it will be done forever. In the mean time we find ourselves in the
world we have shaped as we will, people are living for themselves
and for some at the expense of others. Because the judgment has
not yet happened, do not think it isn't coming. Those who think God
delays run the risk of finding themselves before God in their sins
without Christ. Evil is just a small bump in the road of eternity before
us, we will either be entering God’s Kingdom or not, we choose
Jesus has opened the door, Jesus is the door..
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I did not contradict myself; you just do not seem to understand what
people have been saying to you about scripture. You want to bash
it and those that follow God, it is rare you do anything else.

If you had any military experience you would know that generals
have power over their troops, but they do not micro manage their
troops, there are those th ...[text shortened]... entering God’s Kingdom or not, we choose
Jesus has opened the door, Jesus is the door..
Kelly

If "Jesus is the door", then you are a doormat, KellyJay.

No I did not have any military service; I was too busy learning about philosophy and studying concepts and philosphical logic. Luckily this training has enabled me to spot 'baloney' arguments such as yours.

It is interesting that you compare God to a general controlling people whose primary aim is to butcher human beings!
Of course this analogy is pathetic, since God is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient - traits which Generals have proven time and time again that they lack!

Just listen to yourself rambling on, KellyJay: " We were
given power, we were given authority, and God did not remove that
except our relationship with Him was damaged, and the earth was
cursed once Adam and Eve sinned."

Put down your bible, Kelly and try to think for yourself.
Now I will ask you again, do you understand the argument against the existence of God from Evil?

Originally posted by howardgee
If "Jesus is the door", then you are a doormat, KellyJay.

No I did not have any military service; I was too busy learning about philosophy and studying concepts and philosphical logic. Luckily this training has enabled me to spot ' ...[text shortened]... ou understand the argument against the existence of God from Evil?

Explain it, to me.
Kelly