| Nov 5 @ 11:34 AM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas
|
|
LanceVarden7
Posts: 1,092
|
God could, this very moment, give you everything you ever wanted. Even Iam would scramble to his knees if he felt confident it would net him a winning lottery ticket.
So why doesn't he do it?
It's a little like not wanting your kid to steal. Do you want them to not do only because they fear getting caught. A cat is never going to stay off the dinner table because it is the wrong thing to do, it is going to weigh out the rewards versus the chances of getting caught.
Any child will tell you they love you if you have an ice cream cone in their hand, and tell you they hate you if you make them clean their room.
Here is the thing. God wanted sentient beings, seperate from himself, to commune with. To do that, he had to give them free will. Without that, they would merely be extensions of himself. Then he had to stay mostly hidden to allow them to pursue that free will. (All the kids on the playground are well behaved when they know the teacher is watching)
God is like a farmer sewing seeds. Some will grow and bear fruit and others will not. There is a passage in the bible (I can't remember where just now) about an orchard. A farmer keeps the tree that bear fruit, and cuts down the ones that don't an burns them in the fire.
Hell is not a physical fire as we know it. It is a place where the souls who didn't work out are disposed.
We are in God's image, but we are not exactly like God. If we were, then we would be Gods. We're not. We are weak and we are flawed. We are also mortal.
God made the angels, including Lucifer and his bunch, immortal from the start. They will exist forever. They cannot be destroyed in the lake of fire. Humans are not like the angels. Some of them will get to eat of the Tree of Life, and some will not. The ones who don't are destroyed. He didn't make the same mistake with humans as he did with angels.
Yes, God makes mistakes (sort of). I guess it depends on what you call a mistake. God regretted creating man and flooded the Earth to try again. God can be influenced. He backed off on his requirements for sparing Sodom and Gamoreau.
When he went ahead with the destruction of Sodom and Gamoreau, that didn't work either. The human race was not purified. In modern times, things go on today that Sodom and Gamoreau would have never dreamed off. God tries things that don't always work. That has to happen, or you are back to the problem of us not really being seperate beings with free will, but just little pieces of God.
After the purges of evil humans didn't work, and God saw that man was still hopelessly corrupt, he sent the Christ. The Christ was not man and not God, or he was both, depending on how you look at it.
God is a God of love, and God is also a God of justice. He is both. Sometimes we focus on the love and get all happy (like the kid getting an ice cream) and sometimes we focus on the judgement and get all angry (like the kid having to clean his room). Hopefully, we sometimes come to a point where we accept him as both.
Since God is a God of judgement, he can't just turn a blind eye to our wickedness. It is not in his nature. God can do anything, and that includes limiting himself. God CAN make a stone so heavy he can't lift it, because his justice prevents himself from going back on himself.
Since God is a god of love, he sent the Christ to die on the cross in our place. Were it not for the justice aspect of God, it wouldn't have been necessary.
So now, we get a free ticket to the next world if we cash it in. All we have to do is recognize that we didn't earn it ourselves and confess that before men. We cannot expect the Christ to speak for us before God, it we deny him before men.
|
|
  |
|
| Nov 5 @ 1:30 PM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas |
|
sail_dancer
Posts: 9,857
|
Lance,
Well done! Just goes to show how easy it is for someone to develop a yarn and create something from nothing.
The problem with creating the concept of a god, is that you have to assume what it would be like to be all powerful, all knowing. perfect ..... etc. In your case you assume god created man because he wanted "sentient beings, separate from himself, to commune with". The problem is that you added the "free will" card to the game.
You even said why he created man with free will ..... that being "Without that, they would merely be extensions of himself".
Here is the problem with that view:
1. Giving man "free will" and not accepting the results of that "will", can never meet that goal.
2. Weeding out anyone that disagrees with the will of god would only produce "imitation extensions of god".
3. Why raise the dead just to judge them and submit them to a second "final" death? God surely would know before time which people will bend to his will and those that would not. So why reincarnate those that are not acceptable just to judge and condemn them to a "second final death"? Why not just let them remain dead from their first death? Do you really think that the intellect of a god would not see how useless this would be? Or are you somehow saying that a god of that magnitude would also have a huge ego that needs to be fueled by acts like that?
4. Creating man with limited free will that would mimic that of god, would have produced the same results without all the blood spilt by god to eliminate the bad apples. Huge ego again? Seems that god would have known that "free will" would result as it has and that much weeding would be necessary to achieve the desired results. So what was gained by this god's approach? Was it to feed his hunger for violence? His need to seeing blood spilt?
5. If the results are the same why did god choose the one that would also force him to sacrifice his only son to eventually save people? Did this god need Jesus' ultimate sacrifice not only fueled his ego but fed his hunger for violence?
You did a good job presenting a story that closely parallels the bible. But the god you present continues to create things that are not well thought out. Maybe the creation was just something to fuel his ego and feed his hunger for violence. That would mean that the creation was planned out very well.
The idea that accepting a savior is required for admission into eternal life is cute but very dangerous unless free will is taken away from the eternal man. If free will is not taken away, then even these people that accepted Jesus, have the power to use it as they wish once they gain eternal status. Why would anyone think that man will act any differently in the next life? Even christians admit that they are not perfect and rely on Jesus' help to gain eternal life. Are you of the belief that once in heaven sin is out of the question? If that is the case how could certain angels have rebeled against god?
So ..... Why go through the trouble of giving man "free will" in the first place?
Why not create something based on your final requirements in the first place?
Peace
|
| |
|
| Nov 5 @ 2:08 PM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas
|
|
LanceVarden7
Posts: 1,092
|
1. Giving man "free will" and not accepting the results of that "will", can never meet that goal. Well, it is hard to find the right words. If I buy a mannequin and work its mouth and speak for it, is not the same thing as a seperate person who can create company for me. God, for whatever reason, deisires company.
2. Weeding out anyone that disagrees with the will of god would only produce "imitation extensions of god." Well, the best comparision I can think of off the top of my head is Jimmy Buffet. He has a yaucht full of friends that he cruises around with in between concerts. It is his yacht. If you don't like Jimmy Buffet then he probably won't take you along on the cruise. If you pretend to like him and he over hears you saying what an a$$hole he is, he probably won't want you along then, either.
3. Why raise the dead just to judge them and submit them to a second "final" death? God surely would know before time which people will bend to his will and those that would not. So why reincarnate those that are not acceptable just to judge and condemn them to a "second final death"? Why not just let them remain dead from their first death? That may very well be how it happens. The wording (I think) is more illustrative of the resolution of the situation, rather than the mechanics of how it happens.
Do you really think that the intellect of a god would not see how useless this would be? Or are you somehow saying that a god of that magnitude would also have a huge ego that needs to be fueled by acts like that? See above
4. Creating man with limited free will that would mimic that of god, would have produced the same results without all the blood spilt by god to eliminate the bad apples. Huge ego again? Seems that god would have known that "free will" would result as it has and that much weeding would be necessary to achieve the desired results. So what was gained by this god's approach? Was it to feed his hunger for violence? His need to seeing blood spilt? I think it just comes down to his wanting company
5. If the results are the same why did god choose the one that would also force him to sacrifice his only son to eventually save people? Because the evil works required a punishment. To my logic, there are two problems with that in the eyes of the justice. The first is letting the evil go unpunished. Having an innocent punished for someone else's evil seems like an added injustice instead of bringing justice to the first situation, but that is justice as seen through my logic, and not through the logic of God.
Did this god need Jesus' ultimate sacrifice not only fueled his ego but fed his hunger for violence? I don't think it was either, but the needs for justice. To be honest, I myself don't understand why that would be justice as mentioned just above.
You did a good job presenting a story that closely parallels the bible. But the god you present continues to create things that are not well thought out. Maybe the creation was just something to fuel his ego and feed his hunger for violence. That would mean that the creation was planned out very well. I guess it is in how you look at it. One of the hardest things to do with a computer is produce a true random number. It always needs seeded, in some way, by human intervention, and even then, subsequent numbers will always follow some sort of pattern until it is reseeded, in effect meaning that the only real random numbers are a direct result of the randomness of a human event.
When you throw a dice, you don't know how it is gong to come out. That doesn't mean that you threw it badly. You threw it with the intent of producing a random.
I think God made us wanting us to create our own choices. That is why man cannot emulate it with a computer. Only God can create a soul. God does not control those choices, but responds according to the choices we make.
The idea that accepting a savior is required for admission into eternal life is cute but very dangerous unless free will is taken away from the eternal man. Not sure I follow that one
If free will is not taken away, then even these people that accepted Jesus, have the power to use it as they wish once they gain eternal status. Why would anyone think that man will act any differently in the next life? I don't know. Let me ponder that one and see if I can come up with a guess.
Even christians admit that they are not perfect and rely on Jesus' help to gain eternal life. Are you of the belief that once in heaven sin is out of the question? Good quesion. My inital response is that I think there is no sin in heaven (I may have to reverse if there is something I am not thinking of just now)
If that is the case how could certain angels have rebeled against god? Angels are very different. I beleive the bible says that God loves us more than angels. I think possible, that man has the capacity to become more like God than angels do.
I am not sure if angels will be in heaven, or if heaven is even finished yet. I know that God will be there as well as us. Angels and God have abided in a place not of this world prior to the creation of Heaven.
[QUOTE]So ..... Why go through the trouble of giving man "free will" in the first place?
Why not create something based on your final requirements in the first pla
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 5 @ 2:09 PM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas |
|
LanceVarden7
Posts: 1,092
|
So ..... Why go through the trouble of giving man "free will" in the first place?
Why not create something based on your final requirements in the first place? There is a Star Trek episode based off the "Q" god like creature who had become tired of being a Q. He longed for spontaneity and fresh input. I am guessing that is what God wants from us. If we are just his parrots, it would be like us watching the same movie over and over. When you call someone on the phone, you want a conversation. You don't want to listen to their outgoing message over and over.
|
| |
|
| Nov 5 @ 2:39 PM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas
|
|
iam01
Posts: 6,265
|
God could, this very moment, give you everything you ever wanted. Even Iam would scramble to his knees if he felt confident it would net him a winning lottery ticket. I really doubt I would because that's just not my style but I would say thanks.
Here is the thing. God wanted sentient beings, seperate from himself, to commune with. How do you know this as a fact? Where is this information coming from?
God is like a farmer sewing seeds. How do you know this as a fact? Where is this information coming from?
God made the angels, including Lucifer and his bunch, immortal from the start. How do you know this as a fact? Where is this information coming from?
Yes, God makes mistakes (sort of). How do you know this as a fact? Where is this information coming from?
Well, you get the idea. Every time you state assumptions about a being you never met is like a reporter doing an interview all by themselves.
The question is who or where are you getting this information? Is it first hand direct knowledge or are there go betweens you're relying upon? If the later is true then who are they and where are they getting the information from? Can it be verified?
[Edited on 11/5/2009 2:41 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 5 @ 2:40 PM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas |
|
sail_dancer
Posts: 9,857
|
He longed for spontaneity and fresh input. I am guessing that is what God wants from us. If we are just his parrots, it would be like us watching the same movie over and over. When you call someone on the phone, you want a conversation. You don't want to listen to their outgoing message over and over It seems to me that for this to happen ..... things have to remain the same ..... that being retaining the ability to disagree or not act as god wishes. Christians call this sin Based on what you present, god would require exactly what he created to filfull what he needs. So why eliminate those that sin if they are required to provide spontaneity and fresh input?
No matter how you look at it, the presence of both good and evil. holy and unholy, etc. are required in people to fit your description of what god wants in a companion.
Actually the type of people required would be those that achieved a balance. Someone that does not love but also does not hate. Someone that is not good but also is not evil, someone who is not holy but also not unholy. Seems to me you are describing what Yash has always said about awakening ..... that being achieving a balance in all things ..... that special place where neither good/love/holiness or evil/hate/unholiness exists.
Peace
[Edited on 11/5/2009 2:50 PM]
|
| |
|
| Nov 5 @ 3:39 PM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas
|
|
LanceVarden7
Posts: 1,092
|
How do you know this as a fact? I don't. Anyone who says they do is blowing smoke.
Where is this information coming from? This is my personal inerpretation. I usually add a disclaimer like "this is just my interpretation, may or may not be correct, blah, blah, blah" but I didn't think to do it this time.
Iam would scramble to his knees if he felt confident it would net him a winning lottery ticket. I really doubt I would because that's just not my style but I would say thanks. Heck yes you would.  So would anyone. Anybody who says they wouldn't isn't telling it like is.
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 5 @ 3:47 PM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas |
|
LanceVarden7
Posts: 1,092
|
It seems to me that for this to happen ..... things have to remain the same ..... that being retaining the ability to disagree or not act as god wishes. Christians call this sin Based on what you present, god would require exactly what he created to filfull what he needs. So why eliminate those that sin if they are required to provide spontaneity and fresh input?
No matter how you look at it, the presence of both good and evil. holy and unholy, etc. are required in people to fit your description of what god wants in a companion.
Actually the type of people required would be those that achieved a balance. Someone that does not love but also does not hate. Someone that is not good but also is not evil, someone who is not holy but also not unholy. Seems to me you are describing what Yash has always said about awakening ..... that being achieving a balance in all things ..... that special place where neither good/love/holiness or evil/hate/unholiness exists. I think I see where you are going. It is the "if you take away my bad side, is it still me?" Type of idea. Like Kirk getting split into bad Kirk and good Kirk, both sides make up the individual.
If I am have some evil in me, and you take away that evil, then it's not me because the mixture is no longer the same.
So either you go to heaven unchanged, and there is some evil in heaven, or you go changed and it is not actually you going into heaven.
Hmmmm
I think it may be possible to change and it still be you. People change here on Earth. Sometimes (not often) people who are evil come to a point where they leave that behind. Likewise, good people sometimes become more evil.
For example, if Jankia ceased to be an arrogant braggart, would it still be Jankia? I think so, just a new and better Jankia.
|
| |
|
| Nov 5 @ 4:52 PM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas
|
|
Gallows_Humor
Posts: 13,645
|
Well done! Just goes to show how easy it is for someone to develop a yarn and create something from nothing.
The problem with creating the concept of a god....
a good start  ... but a weak finish...
the problem..imho..is man trying to explain who god is..rather than just accepting him at face value...
which might be a concept and form that mere mortal men cannot fathom..
were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorra real..??probably so..did God destroy them ?? 
all I know is that men ..who wanted to contol other men... say he did....
Historicity
The historical existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is still in dispute by archaeologists. The Bible indicates they were located near the Dead Sea (Genesis 14:1-3, Genesis 14:8-10, Deuteronomy 34:3).
Strabo states that locals living near Moasada (as opposed to Masada) say that "there were once thirteen inhabited cities in that region of which Sodom was the metropolis". Strabo identifies a limestone and salt hill at the south western tip of the Dead Sea, and Kharbet Usdum ruins nearby as the site of biblical Sodom.[32].
Dr. Steven Collins, amongst other archaeologists, now believe Sodom was located at the northern end of the Dead Sea, possibly at Tell El-Hammam, where a three-foot destruction layer may connect to the biblical story.[citation needed]
Archibald Sayce translated an Akkadian poem describing cities that were destroyed in a rain of fire, written from the view of a person who escaped the destruction; the names of the cities are not given.[33]. However, Sayce later mentions that the story more closely resembles the doom of Sennacherib's host[34].
Skeptics point out that the name Sodom is a derivative of the Hebrew word for "scorched" and Gomorrah is from the Hebrew ‘amar, meaning "a ruined heap",[35] surmising that since these names could only have been given after their destruction, the entire story would have to be fictitious. However, the traditional explanation for the use of retronyms in ancient historical literature is that it is retroactive nomenclature. The name Sodom could likewise be a word from an early Semitic language ultimately related to the Arabic sadama, meaning "fasten", "fortify", "strengthen", and Gomorrah could be based on the root gh m r, which means "be deep", "copious (water)".[36]
In 1976 Giovanni Pettinato claimed that a cuneiform tablet that had been found in the newly discovered library at Ebla contained the names of all five of the Cities of the Plain (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela), listed in the same order as in Genesis. The names si-da-mu [TM.76.G.524] and ì-ma-ar [TM.75.G.1570 and TM.75.G.2233] were identified as representing Sodom and Gomorrah, which gained some acceptance at the time.[37] However, Alfonso Archi states that, judging from the surrounding city names in the cuneiform list, si-da-mu lies in northern Syria and not near the Dead Sea, and ì-ma-ar is a variant of ì-mar, known to represent Emar, an ancient city located near Ebla.[38] William Shea points out in 1983 that on the 'Eblaite Geographical Atlas' [TM.75.G.2231], ad-mu-ut and sa-dam are good readings by Pettinato and correspond to Admah and Sodom, and they are contained in a list of cities that traces a route along the shores of, or quite possibly within the Dead Sea, whose position may have since shifted along its fault.[39] Today, the scientific consensus is reported as being that "Ebla has no bearing on ... Sodom and Gomorra"[40]
If the cities actually existed, they might have been destroyed as the result of a natural cataclysm. Geologists have confirmed that no volcanic activity occurred within the last 4000 years. However, it is possible that the towns were destroyed by an earthquake in the region, especially if the towns lay along a major fault, the Jordan Rift Valley, the northernmost extension of the Great Rift Valley of the Red Sea and East Africa. However, there is a lack of contemporary accounts of seismic activity within the necessary timeframe to corroborate this theory. [41]
Possible candidates for Sodom or Gomorrah are the sites discovered or visited by Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub in 1973, including Bab edh-Dhra, which was originally excavated in 1965 by archaeologist Paul Lapp, only to have his work continued by Rast and Schaub following his death by accidental drowning in the waters off of Cyprus in 1970. Other possibilities also include Numeira, es-Safi, Feifeh and Khanazir, which were also visited by Schaub and Rast. All sites were located near the Dead Sea, with evidence of burning and traces of sulfur[42][3] on many of the stones and a sudden stop of inhabitation towards the end of the Early Bronze Age.[citation needed] Archaeological remains excavated from Bab edh-Dhra are currently displayed in Karak Archaeological Museum (Karak Castle) and Amman Citadel Museum.
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 5 @ 6:44 PM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 6,161
|
Iam would scramble to his knees if he felt confident it would net him a winning lottery ticket.
That would seem to indicate a serving/worship of mammon/money as opposed to a worship of god. "You cannot serve two masters...you cannot serve god and mammon."
If the cities actually existed, they might have been destroyed as the result of a natural cataclysm.
Or in a laser from a space ship or a nuclear weapon assault of some kind from alien beings (angels).
|
| |
|
| Nov 5 @ 10:20 PM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas
|
|
iam01
Posts: 6,265
|
I asked
How do you know this as a fact?
Lance says
I don't. Anyone who says they do is blowing smoke.
This is why I respect Lance. He is honest with himself and others. He doesn't get into long convoluted reasons why he is right. He knows what the facts are and states them clearly.
Heck yes you would. So would anyone. Anybody who says they wouldn't isn't telling it like is. You get me a winning lottery ticket for millions of dollars and I'll go  and then invite you to all my yacht parties. I think there are many ways to show one's gratitude but if any deity or person makes an appearance to offer me a ticket, I'm going to ask a lot of questions first like what they're looking for in exchange.
There is a movie, The Box, with Frank Langella. Push the button and you get a million dollars but someone unknown dies when you press it. I haven't seen the movie but I know for a fact I would not press that button.
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 6 @ 7:03 AM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas |
|
eyesofastranger
Posts: 923
|
I thought of the box in this thread too. At any amount I would not press that button, It goes against everything I believe, but I do think we should ask who would?
|
| |
|
| Nov 6 @ 8:58 AM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas
|
|
yashaenka
Posts: 8,235
|
A cat is never going to stay off the dinner table because it is the wrong thing to do, it is going to weigh out the rewards versus the chances of getting caught.
Cats are agnostics in the truest sense of the world, they are loving yet indifferent to our babbling towards them. 
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 6 @ 9:03 AM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas |
|
iam01
Posts: 6,265
|
If you have a Siamese, they babble back.
Those are his books, not mine.
|
| |
|
| Nov 6 @ 9:14 AM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas
|
|
LanceVarden7
Posts: 1,092
|
There is a movie, The Box, with Frank Langella. Push the button and you get a million dollars but someone unknown dies when you press it. I haven't seen the movie but I know for a fact I would not press that button. I haven't seen that. I will check it out. I suppose I might be tempted to push the button if I could pick the person.
How do you know this as a fact? Actually, I know this because Jankia told me, and his 8th grade education is never wrong.
If you have a Siamese, they babble back. That doesn't look like babbling, that looks more like laying-down-the-law. Like "Get off your butt and open me a can of tuna!!!!"
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 6 @ 9:25 AM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas |
|
Deborah551
Posts: 1,010
|
There is a movie, The Box, with Frank Langella. Push the button and you get a million dollars but someone unknown dies when you press it. I haven't seen the movie but I know for a fact I would not press that button. What if you push the button and you're the one who dies? The one unknown to you who dies could be you, right? 
Those are his books, not mine. Cute cat, smart too.
I thought of the box in this thread too. At any amount I would not press that button, It goes against everything I believe, but I do think we should ask who would? I doubt that anyone who would push the button would say so on this thread. I don't think I could because if I tried to spend it, I would be reminded that someone had to die in order for me to enjoy that much money. I really believe I couldn't do it no matter how tempted I was.
[Edited on 11/6/2009 9:30 AM]
|
| |
|
| Nov 6 @ 9:30 AM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas
|
|
yashaenka
Posts: 8,235
|
Actually I do not feel this is necessary or appropriate! Actually, I know this because Jankia told me, and his 8th grade education is never wrong.
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 6 @ 9:44 AM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas |
|
LanceVarden7
Posts: 1,092
|
However,your pessimist attitude towards people whose pride is in what theyve accomplished without atttaining a college degree is unfounded.
Would you like for me to go into detail of all the professionally educated people that either ask me how or hire this simple highschool graduate to do something for them? Sorry. When I see an over inflated ego, it is in my nature to want to poke a little hole in it, and Jankia's ego is stretching at seams.
|
| |
|
| Nov 6 @ 9:53 AM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas
|
|
yashaenka
Posts: 8,235
|
Well it made me wonder about the 8th grade comment I do not think it came from Jankia. Were you just taking literary license?  Beside yesterday we had a interesting exchange about education as not being the end all of things.
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 6 @ 10:04 AM |
Keeping the cat off the dinner table and other ideas |
|
iam01
Posts: 6,265
|
As in any thought experiment, we can speculate any way we want. If God did exist and did present me with a lottery ticket I might be willing to give it all away in exchange for God to teach me everything he knows. Such education is worth the price. Since this a God it would grant me this education instantly and then I would be smart enough to earn the millions I gave away. I would feel the same way if it was a superior being from another planet, a far more likely possibility than any god showing up. Either way, I would first need to feel the being is benevolent and willing to teach.
But we already have superior beings on this planet. Why not seek knowledge from them? They are our teachers, professors and scientists. A good education is expensive but its worth the money. It took me 10 years to pay off my student loans and it was worth it but it took me far less time to earn enough to make those payments seem small.
|
| |
|
|
|
|