Posts by Monsieur

100

cantleave had a valid opinion. Is God like a pencil-pointless?

by KateWild in

i don't know?

what do you think?.

kate xx.

Monsieur

adam,

God is, according to the parable of Job.

so a God that doesn't exist is responsible for evil?

100

cantleave had a valid opinion. Is God like a pencil-pointless?

by KateWild in

i don't know?

what do you think?.

kate xx.

Monsieur

caedes,

How much have you picked out of the koran then? Why do you choose to leave out the parts where god is murdering people? So is your god just what you wish it to be?

caedes, if the God who is murdering people in the Bible doesn't exist, then obviously no one was murdered BY THIS GOD. am i wrong here? (otherwise we are arguing lord of the rings here. so let's discard this notion of an angry old man in heaven hacking away at innocent babies).

IF, and only IF, people were murdered as the Bible account would state, the question should be, WHO murdered these people. Then we could get to the WHY.

What has maths and science got to do with your god? where is the evidence to link them? Where is the description of the substance of your god?

again, you've missed my incredibly simple description of 'God', God is a SYMBOL. A symbol represents many things. In another comment Adam and I agreed that a rose (when used as a symbol for example) can represent the following from wikipedia-

Medieval Christians identified the five petals of the rose with the five wounds of Christ. Roses also later came to be associated with the Virgin Mary. The red rose was eventually adopted as a symbol of the blood of the Christian martyrs. A bouquet of red roses, often used to show love, is used as a Valentine's Day gift in many countries.

God, (a symbol) then can represent MANY things as well, such as love, or math, and science. why math and science? because God is described as being PERFECT, ETERNALY TRUSTWORTHY, UNFALABLE. Thus God (as a symbol remember) also represents these things. Man wouldn't catapult himself up into space or on the moon unless there was considerable trust in math, woudlnt' you say so??

Couldn't answer the question why must god be anything else? Nice deflection. Couldn't answer the point that there is nothing perfect, infallable or infinitely trustworthy in the universe? again nice deflection.

Math ISN'T perfect, infallabe, and infinitely trustworthy??? come on now...

Are you arguing with voices in your head because I cannot see where I argued against mathematics.

You just did, above, by stating that there is nothing perfect and infallible in the universe.

You have so far failed to provide any evidence to support your assertion the two ideas are in any way linked, strangely I find your say so to be unconvincing.

caedes, you are asking how is God a symbol of love. How is anything a symbol of anything?

you accept that the peace sign stands for peace, right? why? how does the simple peace sign encompass such a powerful message? and why does anyone accept the meaning of the peace sign?

I did that and came to an answer diametrically opposed to the answer you came to, so the answer is clearly not obvious.

so, when you read that Jesus walked on water, he did...what?

100

cantleave had a valid opinion. Is God like a pencil-pointless?

by KateWild in

i don't know?

what do you think?.

kate xx.

Monsieur

yadda,

What Christians like Tammy choose to ignore or fail to understand is that answering prayers is INTERVENTION. If God is not intervening to prevent evil and suffering, neither can he intervene in the form of answering any prayers whatsoever. If God does not intervene to save starving and diseased babies and infants and their mother's heart-wrenching pleas to heaven, then obviously neither is he answering the pleas of smug, self-righteous western Christians. Otherwise God is a moral monster.

lol yadda

you are throwing terms like 'existential crisis' around simply because you assume that people do not know what such term means.

But Yadda, makes a far more important point that just doest sit well with me. Why does he permit suffering? The JW answer is not satisfying to me.

kate,

you ask a question 'Why does god permit suffering?' whose answer requires that we think 'outside of the box'.

the key word here is PERMIT. who is REALLY permiting evil in this world? is it possible that MAN has become complacent and has simply chosen to ignore fundamental human values ?

as i explained to yadda, MAN'S capacity for good and acomplishment is hugely under rated. There is a book called 'The Power of One' often used in business, but the concept applies to bigger spectrums. In my opinion, it can also apply to attacking the evil in this world. It implies that many minds that come together become 'One' very powerful mind, capable of powerful accomplishments.

but us (man) waiting around for 'God' to intervine is EXACTLY the same as PERMITING evil. we would not (i would hope so) stand still and watch abuse or evil occur without us intervening(waiting on 'God'). if enough of us in this world would do this, I guarantee that evil would greatly decrease.

thus the question 'why does God permit evil' (which does NOTHING to correct the problem) must be interpreted as

'What can I do to prevent evil' (ACTION to correct the problem).

100

cantleave had a valid opinion. Is God like a pencil-pointless?

by KateWild in

i don't know?

what do you think?.

kate xx.

Monsieur

adam

Words mean what they actually mean, and someone who hasn't even learned what their current definitions are is going to have a hard time convincing others to change their current meanings.

God is attributed with being omnipresent, all powerfull, all knowing.

This pretty much means (correct me if im wrong) that God can be pretty much ANYTHING, or am i wrong??

I didn't stick these attributes on God yesterday, adam. 'God' has had them, well since forever.

100

cantleave had a valid opinion. Is God like a pencil-pointless?

by KateWild in

i don't know?

what do you think?.

kate xx.

Monsieur

caedes,

That specific god is exactly as I described, if you are claiming that your god is the same one mentioned in the bible then it is up to you to attempt to reconcile the murderous god of the bible with what you believe.

big emphasis on the word IF. God is mentioned everywhere, not just the Bible. But, in the Bible, there is a verse that says 'God is love', hence my inclusion of it.

If you are satisfied with a god that simply means all good things then as I stated before your god is a an ephemeral god with no substance and can be discounted as having no effect on this universe. But I suspect that this is where your description of a symbolic god will fall down because your god will have to have an effect on this universe for the concept to have any meaning. After all, all the words you have used are simply description of behaviours or qualities not of substance.

you suspect wrong caedes. i would not categorize math and science as having no effect on the universe or of being unsubstantial. our solar system's perfect transit alone is purely mathematical.

on a more 'down to earth' sense, i would argue that my mother's love has had an immense effect on me.

Why must god be something else? The simple alternative is that god is a fiction. I would argue that there is nothing perfect, infallable or infinitely trustworthy.

God as an angry old man in heaven is fiction. Again, math and science are not. Care to argue against mathematics? i can guarantee you that you wll lose every time.

You really need to work on your comprehension skills, I said before the bible was written. Yes, we do know that other, older civilisations had these concepts long before they were discussed in the bible. We have archeological evidence. Remember that you were the one that first started mentioning the bible in the context of your god. If you now wish to discuss a different earlier god then by all means start a new thread.

you assumed that my interpretation of 'God' was limited by the Bible. My response to you had the objective of clarifying otherwise. your comprehension skills here unfortunately failed you.

here is where you make the second mistake. you KNOW 'God' is not a literal bearded man somewhere in heaven, yet your reaction toward these accounts would indicate otherwise. You react to a SYMBOL as you would react to a literal person. Man has a tendency to do this, watching a fictitious movie can arise strong emotions in us for example.

I Know no such thing, there is a complete lack of evidence to support the idea of any sort of god.

for starters, there is plenty of love in the world to go around.

I do not KNOW there is no god.

here adam would say 'you cannot use TWO negatives in the same sentence.'

If you are saying that you think the bible is figurative, I would ask how do differentiate between the bits that are figurative and the bits that aren't?

this is rather very simple to do.

what did REALISTICALLY, MATHEMATICALLY, SCIENTIFICALLY, actually happen. Apply this rule to the various bits, and the answer becomes obvious.

100

cantleave had a valid opinion. Is God like a pencil-pointless?

by KateWild in

i don't know?

what do you think?.

kate xx.

Monsieur

adam,

the topic was about what God trully is. (pointless or not) not about defining symbols (that was you.)

while knowing inside that it's an intellectually-dishonest tactic and likely done to deceive others and yourself, making you feel better. Are you sure you're not just engaging in semantics to play Pascal's Wager?).

four pages later you've circled back to your assertion that i am intellectually dishonest.

who do i decieve by stating that God is a symbol? why am i decieving myself? pleasee DO explain.

Pascal's wager unfortunately also assumes that God is a literal person in heaven dispensing punishment via thunderbolts or hell. So it's irrelivent.

100

cantleave had a valid opinion. Is God like a pencil-pointless?

by KateWild in

i don't know?

what do you think?.

kate xx.

Monsieur

And?

and?! please see your comment below.

Thus saying "God is love" is connecting two imperceptible concepts together, but neither one is perceptible, and hence neither can be described as a symbol for the other.

yet the PICTURE (which represents comedy and tragedy) of the mask IS symbolizing THEATER (another imperceptible).

in other words, one symbol IS reprenting another symbol, (otherwise know as layering) perfectly possible by virtue of what a SYMBOL is.

your next post then neatly falls into place

To anyone who didn't yet know of the meaning associated with the symbol (in ALL of it's various permutations), it carries no meaning: they wouldn't KNOW that it's a symbol for the theater since it has to be TAUGHT. It is a LEARNED association, and one accepted and used as a convention.

totally agree with this.

You cannot now claim that the two masks actually represent, say, the used cars sales profession, and expect anyone else to honor that re-definition of it's meaning. Yet that's precisely what you are attempting to do by "moving the goalposts" and changing the definition of God into something else than what is commonly associated with the word.

here, however, you contradict your previous comment, or at least your are limiting the individual who wishes to comprehend a symbol's deeper meaning by stating to him that his first understanding upon seeing the symbol is the ONLY acceptable understanding.

this is not 'changing the goalposts', it is progressive understanding.

you MUST agree that the 'conventional' idea of God is a failed idea.

100

cantleave had a valid opinion. Is God like a pencil-pointless?

by KateWild in

i don't know?

what do you think?.

kate xx.

Monsieur

Symbols are not exclusive: there can be MANY meanings associated with symbols.

adam

lol, what have i been saying all this time!?

let me also correct you. you are seeing a PICTURE of a mask, not the masks themselves.

100

cantleave had a valid opinion. Is God like a pencil-pointless?

by KateWild in

i don't know?

what do you think?.

kate xx.

Monsieur

Monsieur, you seemingly don't grasp that a 'symbol' is perceptible, and is thus helpful to represents an imperceptible (eg a rose is said to be a symbol of love).

adam,

let's settle this 'definition of what a symbol is' issue now, lol.

they symbol above, what does it stand for?

it stands or represents comedy and tragedy. (both of which or NOT perceptible according to you, only the manifestations of comedy and tragedy are perceptible. )

YET, this symbol also represents, THEATER (another imperceptible concept!) In fact, the play for which this symbol is used might not even have humor in it! But the symbol applies nonetheless! When you look at it, ALL these things come to mind at once in your mind, and thus the symbol has done its job.

100

cantleave had a valid opinion. Is God like a pencil-pointless?

by KateWild in

i don't know?

what do you think?.

kate xx.

Monsieur

caedes,

I see you have changed your position. The second statement just sounds to me like 'I want to define my god in such a way that the idea is so nebulous that it is beyond critical review' Which is fine because it means that your god is completely and utterly ephemeral.

there are two obstacles that are currently preventing you from understanding what i am stating.

you believe that i am being complicted and two, you are still seeing 'God' as a literal person in the heavens somewhere ready to dispatch angels of death to inflict punishment on the next sinner.

i am not being complex, i simply stated that 'God' is a SYMBOL. a symbol represents MANY things. that is not complex! therefore, God CAN be love, loyalty, wisdom, power, intelect, insight, why? Because these are all GOOD things, and God is also defined as good.

When we read that God is perfect and infalliable, it cannot possibly be an old man in heaven, because you and i know that he doesnt exist due to lack of proof. Obviously then, 'God' must be something else. what? what is perfect and infalliable, indefinetely trustworthy? i argue that in this case, it is science and math, AND your mother's love (or MY mother's love).

This is possible because 'God' is a SYMBOL, representing many things. Remeber, the name attributed to God is Jehovah Yahweh, and it is suppose to mean 'I will be WHATEVER i need to be'.

Are you prepared to admit you were completely and utterly wrong about Gallileo?

sure, i used Galileo in an improper comparison. but with a very specific reason. that the current line of thought is always open to questioning and reinterpretation, as i am doing in this thread.

After all when we talk about power, justice, wisdom and love we are talking about our (humans) power, justice, wisdom and love since those concepts were defined long before the bible was written.

here i will differ with you. can we REALLY prove that the concept of 'God' came along well after the these listed attributes? if we can't, then we should not assume it as fact. I am open to the idea that both of these concepts originate in the mind of man at about the same time.

Well now are back to stating god is love and changing the definition of words, you really should make up your mind. By the way how is the definition of god, loyalty? The whole first half of the bible has god vacillating between loving people and killing them. Would you like some examples from the bible showing god displaying a lack of wisdom, and generally being a murderous twat?

here is where you make the second mistake. you KNOW 'God' is not a literal bearded man somewhere in heaven, yet your reaction toward these accounts would indicate otherwise. You react to a SYMBOL as you would react to a literal person. Man has a tendency to do this, watching a fictitious movie can arise strong emotions in us for example.

what you are reading Caedes, are also symbols, NOT actual accounts of literal occurrences. If you don't believe me, show me proof that they actually happened.