are angels really just... miserable?
Hi MadameLavender.
Let’s go round it one more time.
1. Free will does not entail wrong choice. A perfect creature in a perfect environment with perfect knowledge (all duly limited of course) cannot make an imperfect choice. If you believe it can then exactly how?
2. Even if it could then is it worth all the suffering to have the free will?
3. Does heaven have free will? If it does then we can exist happily in a perfect world so why don’t we. If it doesn’t then it can’t be such a wonderful good after all.
4. Whether or not it is worth the suffering, why does God visit the suffering upon us? Why does he not act like a loving God and, if necessary, put those who choose not to love him back, in their own perfect little heaven where they can happily exist as contented atheists, for example? Why not?
5. Finally, as God can realise any one of an infinite number of worlds why does he not realise a world in which people have free will, but choose not to revolt against God?
As to the second coming I suggest that you actually read your own Bible with some care. The word generation is used in some texts, but check out Matthew 16:28 :Verily I say unto you, there are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom. That seems quite clear to me. Besides which, surely God would know that humans are a bit short of understanding and make his words unambiguous.
From what you say, then what is the point of being in Heaven? We would be ‘mannequins’ there, according to your account. Or what would be the difference? Can we only be satisfied and fulfilled by living in a vale of pain and suffering? Why did God make us like that?
And you honestly consider that God made us because he wanted friends? The difference between us and God makes the difference between us and an amoeba look positively tiny. And rather than have your friends programmed to like you and be truly happy and contented you would relegate them to Hell? Really? Honestly?
Why not turn to God indeed. Which requires an answer as to why he does not reveal himself clearly, why he puts such difficulties in our way, why he provides us with partly rational brains then makes belief in him irrational. Odd don’t you think?
It may not be your place to judge but I asked would you send anyone to Hell? Not could you. Because I wouldn’t. And I certainly don’t believe that you would. No, not even Hitler or Stalin. I might be tempted to annihilate them. But to send anyone to an eternity of torment? Who eventually ends up there is moot. I say clearly, that the idea of a place of eternal torment is an obscene and vicious concept and how anyone can hold that concept as due to a loving God is really totally beyond me. I think that you are better than that.
Hi Viddax, I’ve missed your quirky take on things of late. By all means do your will about the reply. Not, of course, that you need my permission!
The rational analysis of irrationality. Actually, you are quite wrong. It is not impossible, like blood from a stone, as psychologists have done a great deal to describe and explain, especially in terms of evolutionary heuristics, why we make the cognitive mistakes that we do.
Rationalism based on empiricism. You are quite right, but rationalism and empiricism are allies, not opposites. There has never been a rationalist who is not partly an empiricist and vice versa. The great divide was between the relative importance the rationalist ‘Continental’ school gave to rationalism as opposed to the British ‘empiricist’ school. The great rationalist Leibniz, for example, accepted ‘we are all mere Empirics in three fourths of our actions.’ So, if you wish me to say that I am an empiricist too, I am more than happy to do so.
Intolerance. You seem to have read far more into ‘But I will do what little I can to encourage the growth of ‘free thought’ and scepticism,’ than is there. It is not a call for intolerance and suppression. That would be counter to all I hold dear, as I indeed said, ‘individuals are free to believe in any God and act accordingly.’
Of course scepticism is not always useful. There is no universally useful position or idea. Contextualism is all. Deep or Pyrrhonian scepticism is the ultimate acid that dissolves every belief. But mitigated scepticism has its place. And pointing out that it may have a negative effect is just the same as observing that so can optimism. I happen to consider that scepticism about fundamental beliefs, to be held pro tem only on the basis of the evidence and argument, is the most likely approach to lead to overall progress. But I may well be wrong. I have to be sceptical of that too.
There can be a value in untruth, you are quite right, but I cannot go with such extreme relativism that sees all beliefs as equivalent. The best way to deal with a massive bleed in a limb is to staunch the bleeding with pressure, raise the limb and apply a tourniquet if necessary. If anyone is of the opinion that the best way is to dance widdershins round the victim chanting the praises of the blood stopping fairy then no, I do not believe that such an untruth (I presume (?)) is as worthwhile as the truth of the appropriate treatment.
Your example of having the value of defying the odds and trying, may well have occasions in which it is worthwhile. It may equally (or more often) have times where it is disastrous. The soldiers in the First World War who defied the odds and walked across No Mans Land against barbed wire, shells and machine guns could attest to that. As the great W. C. Fields said, ‘If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.’
I think you are guilty of a tad of illogicality in your example of the man who believes the untruth that he will walk again which makes him strive to survive and walk again. Either it is indeed an untruth and his struggles are in vain or he does survive to walk again, in which case it isn’t an untruth! The comparison with the truth of boiling water is decidedly odd. That has no relevance to this situation, and the untrue belief has no effect on the truth of boiling water so what point there is in the comparison is totally beyond me. It defeats my logic!
I would be astonished if my logic and rational arguments, such as they be, are not liberally endowed with holes large enough for the proverbial bus to drive through. But I am sorry to say that you have not found them. But it was fun looking.
I solemnly promise that the next time I see an angel I shall tell him(?)/her(?)/it(?) my chicken and librarian joke. That’s my best one, you know.
Let’s go round it one more time.
1. Free will does not entail wrong choice. A perfect creature in a perfect environment with perfect knowledge (all duly limited of course) cannot make an imperfect choice. If you believe it can then exactly how?
2. Even if it could then is it worth all the suffering to have the free will?
3. Does heaven have free will? If it does then we can exist happily in a perfect world so why don’t we. If it doesn’t then it can’t be such a wonderful good after all.
4. Whether or not it is worth the suffering, why does God visit the suffering upon us? Why does he not act like a loving God and, if necessary, put those who choose not to love him back, in their own perfect little heaven where they can happily exist as contented atheists, for example? Why not?
5. Finally, as God can realise any one of an infinite number of worlds why does he not realise a world in which people have free will, but choose not to revolt against God?
As to the second coming I suggest that you actually read your own Bible with some care. The word generation is used in some texts, but check out Matthew 16:28 :Verily I say unto you, there are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom. That seems quite clear to me. Besides which, surely God would know that humans are a bit short of understanding and make his words unambiguous.
From what you say, then what is the point of being in Heaven? We would be ‘mannequins’ there, according to your account. Or what would be the difference? Can we only be satisfied and fulfilled by living in a vale of pain and suffering? Why did God make us like that?
And you honestly consider that God made us because he wanted friends? The difference between us and God makes the difference between us and an amoeba look positively tiny. And rather than have your friends programmed to like you and be truly happy and contented you would relegate them to Hell? Really? Honestly?
Why not turn to God indeed. Which requires an answer as to why he does not reveal himself clearly, why he puts such difficulties in our way, why he provides us with partly rational brains then makes belief in him irrational. Odd don’t you think?
It may not be your place to judge but I asked would you send anyone to Hell? Not could you. Because I wouldn’t. And I certainly don’t believe that you would. No, not even Hitler or Stalin. I might be tempted to annihilate them. But to send anyone to an eternity of torment? Who eventually ends up there is moot. I say clearly, that the idea of a place of eternal torment is an obscene and vicious concept and how anyone can hold that concept as due to a loving God is really totally beyond me. I think that you are better than that.
Hi Viddax, I’ve missed your quirky take on things of late. By all means do your will about the reply. Not, of course, that you need my permission!
The rational analysis of irrationality. Actually, you are quite wrong. It is not impossible, like blood from a stone, as psychologists have done a great deal to describe and explain, especially in terms of evolutionary heuristics, why we make the cognitive mistakes that we do.
Rationalism based on empiricism. You are quite right, but rationalism and empiricism are allies, not opposites. There has never been a rationalist who is not partly an empiricist and vice versa. The great divide was between the relative importance the rationalist ‘Continental’ school gave to rationalism as opposed to the British ‘empiricist’ school. The great rationalist Leibniz, for example, accepted ‘we are all mere Empirics in three fourths of our actions.’ So, if you wish me to say that I am an empiricist too, I am more than happy to do so.
Intolerance. You seem to have read far more into ‘But I will do what little I can to encourage the growth of ‘free thought’ and scepticism,’ than is there. It is not a call for intolerance and suppression. That would be counter to all I hold dear, as I indeed said, ‘individuals are free to believe in any God and act accordingly.’
Of course scepticism is not always useful. There is no universally useful position or idea. Contextualism is all. Deep or Pyrrhonian scepticism is the ultimate acid that dissolves every belief. But mitigated scepticism has its place. And pointing out that it may have a negative effect is just the same as observing that so can optimism. I happen to consider that scepticism about fundamental beliefs, to be held pro tem only on the basis of the evidence and argument, is the most likely approach to lead to overall progress. But I may well be wrong. I have to be sceptical of that too.
There can be a value in untruth, you are quite right, but I cannot go with such extreme relativism that sees all beliefs as equivalent. The best way to deal with a massive bleed in a limb is to staunch the bleeding with pressure, raise the limb and apply a tourniquet if necessary. If anyone is of the opinion that the best way is to dance widdershins round the victim chanting the praises of the blood stopping fairy then no, I do not believe that such an untruth (I presume (?)) is as worthwhile as the truth of the appropriate treatment.
Your example of having the value of defying the odds and trying, may well have occasions in which it is worthwhile. It may equally (or more often) have times where it is disastrous. The soldiers in the First World War who defied the odds and walked across No Mans Land against barbed wire, shells and machine guns could attest to that. As the great W. C. Fields said, ‘If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.’
I think you are guilty of a tad of illogicality in your example of the man who believes the untruth that he will walk again which makes him strive to survive and walk again. Either it is indeed an untruth and his struggles are in vain or he does survive to walk again, in which case it isn’t an untruth! The comparison with the truth of boiling water is decidedly odd. That has no relevance to this situation, and the untrue belief has no effect on the truth of boiling water so what point there is in the comparison is totally beyond me. It defeats my logic!
I would be astonished if my logic and rational arguments, such as they be, are not liberally endowed with holes large enough for the proverbial bus to drive through. But I am sorry to say that you have not found them. But it was fun looking.
I solemnly promise that the next time I see an angel I shall tell him(?)/her(?)/it(?) my chicken and librarian joke. That’s my best one, you know.
And now for those of us who have been through similar if not identical online debates again and again over the last decade, let us pause for a brief intermission.
A song for your listening pleasure.
http://deepundergroundpoetry.com/poems/172925-god-of-the-atheists/
God Of The Atheists
God
My God
God
Your god
My God
Is your God
Your god
Never was
Your god never was
Never ever was your god
Trumpeting
I charge headfirst into battle
No bandwidth restrictions can contain my malice
For these False Ones residing in your palace
Dethrone such wicked servants I shall
Armed with logic and reason
Shouting them into doubt
Here I come now
To cast all you savage heretics out
Your god never was
Nothing more than a Fairy Tale
Witness firsthand, see it for yourselves
As legitimate as bedtime stories
Featuring gnomes, dwarves and elves
Here, let me give you a hand
Smashing your rose colored glasses
Shards of which I use to undo
Stitched eyelids belonging to you
And the likewise nose ringed led masses
Come with me
Become a disciple amongst my brothers
Embrace the reality you have denied
In favor of all these fictitious Others
The God of the Atheists
With our fists, we are hammering
Away at the foundations of your Institutions
Leaving fewer bricks supporting their weight
Caving in the livestock stables
Housing the lambs for the slaughters
Releasing the sons and daughters
To stampede the Church from the State
Hunting you down
Like a pack of wild hounds
As you scatter like game into your cyber bunkers
And other pixelated refuges
My God is your God
The God of the Atheists
God of the Atheists
My devotion to you knows no bounds
Let the battle commence
For the greater good of Humanity
I shall send you further into oblivion
Denying your existence
Is the only way to win
My God is your God
Your god
Never was
Your god never was
Your god never ever was
My God
A song for your listening pleasure.
http://deepundergroundpoetry.com/poems/172925-god-of-the-atheists/
God Of The Atheists
God
My God
God
Your god
My God
Is your God
Your god
Never was
Your god never was
Never ever was your god
Trumpeting
I charge headfirst into battle
No bandwidth restrictions can contain my malice
For these False Ones residing in your palace
Dethrone such wicked servants I shall
Armed with logic and reason
Shouting them into doubt
Here I come now
To cast all you savage heretics out
Your god never was
Nothing more than a Fairy Tale
Witness firsthand, see it for yourselves
As legitimate as bedtime stories
Featuring gnomes, dwarves and elves
Here, let me give you a hand
Smashing your rose colored glasses
Shards of which I use to undo
Stitched eyelids belonging to you
And the likewise nose ringed led masses
Come with me
Become a disciple amongst my brothers
Embrace the reality you have denied
In favor of all these fictitious Others
The God of the Atheists
With our fists, we are hammering
Away at the foundations of your Institutions
Leaving fewer bricks supporting their weight
Caving in the livestock stables
Housing the lambs for the slaughters
Releasing the sons and daughters
To stampede the Church from the State
Hunting you down
Like a pack of wild hounds
As you scatter like game into your cyber bunkers
And other pixelated refuges
My God is your God
The God of the Atheists
God of the Atheists
My devotion to you knows no bounds
Let the battle commence
For the greater good of Humanity
I shall send you further into oblivion
Denying your existence
Is the only way to win
My God is your God
Your god
Never was
Your god never was
Your god never ever was
My God
I wrote that almost 10 years ago when I discovered that some atheists who were the most critical of Christianity actually secretly worshipped a god.
Despite having no proof that this god existed, these atheists are 100% convinced that this being would not be cruel like the god of the Christians forced upon them as children.
Also thoroughly convinced they are that he is omnipotent - as in capable of doing anything, as if God was subject to absolutely no creative limitations in the environment he worked within in whatsoever. All he has to do is wrinkle his nose like a uncorked genie to end mass catastrophes, pain, suffering, aging and death.
All across the globe, these outspoken atheists who never met amazingly invoke descriptions of a similar entity. Same unlimited powers. Same loving and gentle personality. It's like that movie where all the characters have visions of the same mountain, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind.
I say, he for he sake of simplicity, but also because this god is always without fail a singular entity who by default has the final say in all matters of creation.
And yet, he doesn't exist.
Because no God does.
At least, that's what they say with their mouths and their fingers tippy tapping away at keyboards.
Despite having no proof that this god existed, these atheists are 100% convinced that this being would not be cruel like the god of the Christians forced upon them as children.
Also thoroughly convinced they are that he is omnipotent - as in capable of doing anything, as if God was subject to absolutely no creative limitations in the environment he worked within in whatsoever. All he has to do is wrinkle his nose like a uncorked genie to end mass catastrophes, pain, suffering, aging and death.
All across the globe, these outspoken atheists who never met amazingly invoke descriptions of a similar entity. Same unlimited powers. Same loving and gentle personality. It's like that movie where all the characters have visions of the same mountain, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind.
I say, he for he sake of simplicity, but also because this god is always without fail a singular entity who by default has the final say in all matters of creation.
And yet, he doesn't exist.
Because no God does.
At least, that's what they say with their mouths and their fingers tippy tapping away at keyboards.
Feel better now?
Do tell of the secret God that these ‘atheists’ worshipped.
I have certainly never come across such sadly confused personages.
Sounds fascinating. But it does sound awfully like the ‘standard’ Christian theological definition of God.
Of course you might be trying to be subtle, and indicate that atheists set up a straw God that no-one really believes in.
Sorry to be a spoilsport, but the vast majority of believers in the Abrahamic God do indeed believe him to be perfect, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
That is the widely understood position. Every Christian I have talked to accepts it. Perhaps you might provide some evidence for this mistaken understanding if that is, indeed, your position.
If ‘God’ is imperfect and not omnipotent then he cannot be the supreme creator. He cannot be the fundamental ground and cause of all. Because if he is subject to limitations then there must be something external to him that he did not create or control. Perhaps this explains your rather odd idea of God working WITHIN an environment. So this God is like Zeus of the Olympians or Tezcatlipoca of the Aztecs, right? Strictly limited.
And if this God cannot end mass catastrophes, pain, suffering, aging and death, then what is the point of worshipping him?
So do you know if this God is good?
If so how?
By the way, you still haven’t told me what STFU means. I am intrigued.
Do tell of the secret God that these ‘atheists’ worshipped.
I have certainly never come across such sadly confused personages.
Sounds fascinating. But it does sound awfully like the ‘standard’ Christian theological definition of God.
Of course you might be trying to be subtle, and indicate that atheists set up a straw God that no-one really believes in.
Sorry to be a spoilsport, but the vast majority of believers in the Abrahamic God do indeed believe him to be perfect, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
That is the widely understood position. Every Christian I have talked to accepts it. Perhaps you might provide some evidence for this mistaken understanding if that is, indeed, your position.
If ‘God’ is imperfect and not omnipotent then he cannot be the supreme creator. He cannot be the fundamental ground and cause of all. Because if he is subject to limitations then there must be something external to him that he did not create or control. Perhaps this explains your rather odd idea of God working WITHIN an environment. So this God is like Zeus of the Olympians or Tezcatlipoca of the Aztecs, right? Strictly limited.
And if this God cannot end mass catastrophes, pain, suffering, aging and death, then what is the point of worshipping him?
So do you know if this God is good?
If so how?
By the way, you still haven’t told me what STFU means. I am intrigued.
Harpalycus said:Feel better now?
Do tell of the secret God that these ‘atheists’ worshipped.
I have certainly never come across such sadly confused personages.
Sounds fascinating. But it does sound awfully like the ‘standard’ Christian theological definition of God.
Of course you might be trying to be subtle, and indicate that atheists set up a straw God that no-one really believes in.
Sorry to be a spoilsport, but the vast majority of believers in the Abrahamic God do indeed believe him to be perfect, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
That is the widely understood position. Every Christian I have talked to accepts it. Perhaps you might provide some evidence for this mistaken understanding if that is, indeed, your position.
If ‘God’ is imperfect and not omnipotent then he cannot be the supreme creator. He cannot be the fundamental ground and cause of all. Because if he is subject to limitations then there must be something external to him that he did not create or control. Perhaps this explains your rather odd idea of God working WITHIN an environment. So this God is like Zeus of the Olympians or Tezcatlipoca of the Aztecs, right? Strictly limited.
And if this God cannot end mass catastrophes, pain, suffering, aging and death, then what is the point of worshipping him?
So do you know if this God is good?
If so how?
By the way, you still haven’t told me what STFU means. I am intrigued.
STFU means shut the fuck up.
How new to the Internets are you?
Of course there are atheists who claim to be atheists out of disenchantment with the current lineup of deities to available.
Real atheists have no need to relentlessly debate the existence of god. Except for the ones who have convinced themselves that they are doing theists a public service and bettering the world by shattering unproductive or harmful delusions.
Do tell of the secret God that these ‘atheists’ worshipped.
I have certainly never come across such sadly confused personages.
Sounds fascinating. But it does sound awfully like the ‘standard’ Christian theological definition of God.
Of course you might be trying to be subtle, and indicate that atheists set up a straw God that no-one really believes in.
Sorry to be a spoilsport, but the vast majority of believers in the Abrahamic God do indeed believe him to be perfect, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
That is the widely understood position. Every Christian I have talked to accepts it. Perhaps you might provide some evidence for this mistaken understanding if that is, indeed, your position.
If ‘God’ is imperfect and not omnipotent then he cannot be the supreme creator. He cannot be the fundamental ground and cause of all. Because if he is subject to limitations then there must be something external to him that he did not create or control. Perhaps this explains your rather odd idea of God working WITHIN an environment. So this God is like Zeus of the Olympians or Tezcatlipoca of the Aztecs, right? Strictly limited.
And if this God cannot end mass catastrophes, pain, suffering, aging and death, then what is the point of worshipping him?
So do you know if this God is good?
If so how?
By the way, you still haven’t told me what STFU means. I am intrigued.
STFU means shut the fuck up.
How new to the Internets are you?
Of course there are atheists who claim to be atheists out of disenchantment with the current lineup of deities to available.
Real atheists have no need to relentlessly debate the existence of god. Except for the ones who have convinced themselves that they are doing theists a public service and bettering the world by shattering unproductive or harmful delusions.
And ...... perfection?
Tis in the eye of the beholder, as is beauty.
Some people think women with giant silicone enhanced breasts and slathered with enough cosmetics to fill a pharmacy shelf are beautiful and thus perfect women.
I tend to find them to be quite gross looking.
Tis in the eye of the beholder, as is beauty.
Some people think women with giant silicone enhanced breasts and slathered with enough cosmetics to fill a pharmacy shelf are beautiful and thus perfect women.
I tend to find them to be quite gross looking.
Ok Harp-Meister, I'm done here; all you're doing is spinning your wheels at this point. I have read my Bible and perhaps you should read one too and let God do some interpretation for you. Like many of the man made religions, you're now just twisting Scripture and what I say and believe, to fit what you want to hear and believe. And the Matthew passage you quote refers to the fact that at the second coming, some people will still be alive when that happens and not have to pass through death to meet God face to face--simple.
To Magnetron.
Well, I thought that that was what you meant, but you insisted that:
‘Good Lord. I wasn't even talking about you. * shakes head * And trust me, I have no desire to shut you up.’
All the sad head shaking and amazement that I should be so self absorbed as to imagine that you could mean me, and then you admitted,
‘Well, that part of what I said was obviously directly addressed to you. But, was it an attempt to discourage you from speaking your mind? LOL. No.’
So why tell me to STFU?
Methinks you play a little fast and loose with the truth of the matter.
‘Of course there are atheists who claim to be atheists out of disenchantment with the current lineup of deities to available.’
That is not what you said at all. It is certainly not an answer to what I said, but hey, who needs consistency.
You said that ‘some atheists who were the most critical of Christianity actually secretly worshipped a god.’
That is a very different thing.
I would perhaps agree with your second version. I am an atheist because I am ‘disenchanted’ with the generally held view of God, if that can be taken to mean that it is incoherent and contradictory.
As for the ‘relentless’ debate, then it is part of a much wider debate about the very nature of the world we inhabit. It’s called philosophy. I am a philosopher. A very poor one, I will admit. But that is the debate I engage in. Just as I was debating the nature of science in another forum, just as I questioned the existence of mythological creatures, the magic, free will and extreme relativism. There was very little argument about God in it, and what there was, was introduced by others, as you can easily verify for yourselves. So your comfortable picture of sad atheists who are compelled to badger people about their beliefs is far from the mark. If you do not wish to take part in such debate then that is your prerogative. But if anyone is willing to debate such questions then I am afraid, no matter how much it obviously irritates you, that I will immediately join in. As I will on any philosophical question. Except possibly political philosophy, which I find somewhat boring. That might make me argumentative and opinionated. But I said as much in my profile.
Perfection is not in the eye of the beholder. Merely look at a dictionary definition. ‘entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings’.
Or are you saying that God has flaws, defects or shortcomings?
To MadameLavender.
How have I twisted Scripture and what you say and believe? You make the charge. Give me one example.
As for the Matthew passage, Jesus says clearly ‘there are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom.’ Some standing here. Absolutely clear. It is not ‘some will still be alive when they see the Son of Man.’ Check the original Greek in an interlinear. It is not me doing the twisting.
Well, I thought that that was what you meant, but you insisted that:
‘Good Lord. I wasn't even talking about you. * shakes head * And trust me, I have no desire to shut you up.’
All the sad head shaking and amazement that I should be so self absorbed as to imagine that you could mean me, and then you admitted,
‘Well, that part of what I said was obviously directly addressed to you. But, was it an attempt to discourage you from speaking your mind? LOL. No.’
So why tell me to STFU?
Methinks you play a little fast and loose with the truth of the matter.
‘Of course there are atheists who claim to be atheists out of disenchantment with the current lineup of deities to available.’
That is not what you said at all. It is certainly not an answer to what I said, but hey, who needs consistency.
You said that ‘some atheists who were the most critical of Christianity actually secretly worshipped a god.’
That is a very different thing.
I would perhaps agree with your second version. I am an atheist because I am ‘disenchanted’ with the generally held view of God, if that can be taken to mean that it is incoherent and contradictory.
As for the ‘relentless’ debate, then it is part of a much wider debate about the very nature of the world we inhabit. It’s called philosophy. I am a philosopher. A very poor one, I will admit. But that is the debate I engage in. Just as I was debating the nature of science in another forum, just as I questioned the existence of mythological creatures, the magic, free will and extreme relativism. There was very little argument about God in it, and what there was, was introduced by others, as you can easily verify for yourselves. So your comfortable picture of sad atheists who are compelled to badger people about their beliefs is far from the mark. If you do not wish to take part in such debate then that is your prerogative. But if anyone is willing to debate such questions then I am afraid, no matter how much it obviously irritates you, that I will immediately join in. As I will on any philosophical question. Except possibly political philosophy, which I find somewhat boring. That might make me argumentative and opinionated. But I said as much in my profile.
Perfection is not in the eye of the beholder. Merely look at a dictionary definition. ‘entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings’.
Or are you saying that God has flaws, defects or shortcomings?
To MadameLavender.
How have I twisted Scripture and what you say and believe? You make the charge. Give me one example.
As for the Matthew passage, Jesus says clearly ‘there are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom.’ Some standing here. Absolutely clear. It is not ‘some will still be alive when they see the Son of Man.’ Check the original Greek in an interlinear. It is not me doing the twisting.
Harpalycus said:
Perfection is not in the eye of the beholder. Merely look at a dictionary definition. ‘entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings’.
Or are you saying that God has flaws, defects or shortcomings?
What is a flawed god? What is a defective god? What is a god with shortcomings?
I think my head is going to explode.
I don't see God as perfect or imperfect, so ......
Perfection is not in the eye of the beholder. Merely look at a dictionary definition. ‘entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings’.
Or are you saying that God has flaws, defects or shortcomings?
What is a flawed god? What is a defective god? What is a god with shortcomings?
I think my head is going to explode.
I don't see God as perfect or imperfect, so ......
Who’d want to keep the company of gods?
They’re vain, ill-tempered, selfish and unfair;
In any game they’ll always rig the odds.
They never lose, they don’t know how to share.
The Greek lot never played by any rules,
Zeus lied and cheated, threw his weight about,
Sated his lust, treated men like fools,
Devoid of pity, conscience or self-doubt.
But would the Bible’s God be to your taste?
Can you imagine having Him round to dinner?
Vindictive, vengeful, always laying waste,
And it’s hell for ever for the poor, weak sinner.
No, gods, I think, should entertain themselves,
Along with monsters, fairies, gnomes and elves.
They’re vain, ill-tempered, selfish and unfair;
In any game they’ll always rig the odds.
They never lose, they don’t know how to share.
The Greek lot never played by any rules,
Zeus lied and cheated, threw his weight about,
Sated his lust, treated men like fools,
Devoid of pity, conscience or self-doubt.
But would the Bible’s God be to your taste?
Can you imagine having Him round to dinner?
Vindictive, vengeful, always laying waste,
And it’s hell for ever for the poor, weak sinner.
No, gods, I think, should entertain themselves,
Along with monsters, fairies, gnomes and elves.
Magnetron said:Somewhere there is a universe populated by all the gods believed in by Man.
And they all sit around debating how they emerged into existence.
With at least one part of the room dedicated to counselling for deities who have a speech defect, and another for ones who are the 'villain' and have no idea why.
Harp might I remind you that many inventions have been based on trying again against the odds, just think about the likelihood of actually putting a person on the moon.
My example also is correct about untruth: the person (as I try to avoid that stupid cliche of being sexist) will not walk again with their flesh limbs but will walk with mechanical or prosthetic limbs. Yet for the purpose of motivation and a lack of knowledge about prosthetics it is better to lie. In the example, some extra lore is that the person is male and is in Vietnam or WW2 or some other major conflict sometime before modern prosthetic technology.
You have successfully raped this thread. As such it is no longer a place of casual debate which it should given that this is a poetry site and not a purposefully debate centered website.
Angels may or may not be miserable, but Harpalycus definitely does not bring glad tidings which make people float on cloud nine. Or should I state that plainy and true and say there is no cloud nine and that we are all bound to this earth and nothing more? - No, we dare to dream and fly and soar. Read some Neitzsche, Beyond Good and Evil: see how a philosopher can weave wonders in prose that are wonderful for the rythmn of the words, not necessarily what the words say.
And they all sit around debating how they emerged into existence.
With at least one part of the room dedicated to counselling for deities who have a speech defect, and another for ones who are the 'villain' and have no idea why.
Harp might I remind you that many inventions have been based on trying again against the odds, just think about the likelihood of actually putting a person on the moon.
My example also is correct about untruth: the person (as I try to avoid that stupid cliche of being sexist) will not walk again with their flesh limbs but will walk with mechanical or prosthetic limbs. Yet for the purpose of motivation and a lack of knowledge about prosthetics it is better to lie. In the example, some extra lore is that the person is male and is in Vietnam or WW2 or some other major conflict sometime before modern prosthetic technology.
You have successfully raped this thread. As such it is no longer a place of casual debate which it should given that this is a poetry site and not a purposefully debate centered website.
Angels may or may not be miserable, but Harpalycus definitely does not bring glad tidings which make people float on cloud nine. Or should I state that plainy and true and say there is no cloud nine and that we are all bound to this earth and nothing more? - No, we dare to dream and fly and soar. Read some Neitzsche, Beyond Good and Evil: see how a philosopher can weave wonders in prose that are wonderful for the rythmn of the words, not necessarily what the words say.
Good Morning, Viddax.
Of course you may remind me, but it is unnecessary as, if you read my answer, I accepted that trying against the odds can be successful.
I will add, however, that it depends upon the odds and the context.
To try and win a thousand pounds against the odds of two to one, with a stake of five pounds, is not only perfectly sensible but positively to be encouraged (in most instances).
To try and win five pounds against the odds of a million to one, with a stake of a thousand pounds, is positively insane.
You may be right about inventions ‘against the odds’, if you take it as perceived odds, but I am somewhat doubtful. Most inventions are serendipitous or the inventor has a fairly clear idea of what he/she is trying to do and has a credible way of doing it. Consider the electric light bulb. Once Volta discovered that electricity made a wire glow then it was ‘just’ a matter of finding the right conductor. As Edison said, it was 99% perspiration, but not against any significant odds. In fact, your example of getting to the Moon certainly wasn’t against the odds. The necessary underlying technology and scientific knowledge existed. There were no known reasons why it could not be done (though there were some postulated possibilities). Given an acceptance of the cost in money and lives it was all but inevitable.
Hmm. Your idea that untruth would motivate an injured person to survive. Which I did not deny by the way; you are correct about the possibility of untruth being advantageous, and I said as much. I was criticising the logic of your example. And your present version is not what you said at all. I would remind you:
‘the untruth that the wound/damage is not as bad as it looks and they will walk again (but not necessarily with their now detached flesh legs, but with prosthetic legs) as the untruth has a higher chance of resulting in the person defying death and or logic and striving to survive and walk’
If the ‘untruth’ is that they will walk again. And they do. Then it is not an untruth. Simple.
It seems to me that, although we all know of instances where an untruth might be advantageous, in the vast number of cases the truth is the more valuable. This seems intuitively obvious and is found as axiomatic in all societies. The value of being told the untruth that there is a bus at three o clock is the same (as useful, to use your description) as being told the truth that it leaves at two? They are simply not equivalent. Cherry picking the exceptions to the general rule does not invalidate the general rule.
I say, old chap. Steady on. Rape? Just a tad OTT don’t you think? It takes two to tango and is absolutely consensual. You shall be hearing from my solicitors in due course.
Since when has a forum been limited to casual debate (however that might be defined)? It says, ‘Open and frank debate covering a variety of topics.’ Open debate leads to wherever the debaters wish it to lead. If it does not, then they are at liberty to ignore it. What’s the problem?
I do not bring glad tidings. I never considered that to be my responsibility. I have read Nietzsche and tend to agree with you. In many ways he was more of a poet than a philosopher. To me, what the words say is fundamental, both in poetry and in philosophy.
I will stare at the mud at my feet while you look upwards to the starry sky. But do we not both stay firmly anchored to the earth?
Of course you may remind me, but it is unnecessary as, if you read my answer, I accepted that trying against the odds can be successful.
I will add, however, that it depends upon the odds and the context.
To try and win a thousand pounds against the odds of two to one, with a stake of five pounds, is not only perfectly sensible but positively to be encouraged (in most instances).
To try and win five pounds against the odds of a million to one, with a stake of a thousand pounds, is positively insane.
You may be right about inventions ‘against the odds’, if you take it as perceived odds, but I am somewhat doubtful. Most inventions are serendipitous or the inventor has a fairly clear idea of what he/she is trying to do and has a credible way of doing it. Consider the electric light bulb. Once Volta discovered that electricity made a wire glow then it was ‘just’ a matter of finding the right conductor. As Edison said, it was 99% perspiration, but not against any significant odds. In fact, your example of getting to the Moon certainly wasn’t against the odds. The necessary underlying technology and scientific knowledge existed. There were no known reasons why it could not be done (though there were some postulated possibilities). Given an acceptance of the cost in money and lives it was all but inevitable.
Hmm. Your idea that untruth would motivate an injured person to survive. Which I did not deny by the way; you are correct about the possibility of untruth being advantageous, and I said as much. I was criticising the logic of your example. And your present version is not what you said at all. I would remind you:
‘the untruth that the wound/damage is not as bad as it looks and they will walk again (but not necessarily with their now detached flesh legs, but with prosthetic legs) as the untruth has a higher chance of resulting in the person defying death and or logic and striving to survive and walk’
If the ‘untruth’ is that they will walk again. And they do. Then it is not an untruth. Simple.
It seems to me that, although we all know of instances where an untruth might be advantageous, in the vast number of cases the truth is the more valuable. This seems intuitively obvious and is found as axiomatic in all societies. The value of being told the untruth that there is a bus at three o clock is the same (as useful, to use your description) as being told the truth that it leaves at two? They are simply not equivalent. Cherry picking the exceptions to the general rule does not invalidate the general rule.
I say, old chap. Steady on. Rape? Just a tad OTT don’t you think? It takes two to tango and is absolutely consensual. You shall be hearing from my solicitors in due course.
Since when has a forum been limited to casual debate (however that might be defined)? It says, ‘Open and frank debate covering a variety of topics.’ Open debate leads to wherever the debaters wish it to lead. If it does not, then they are at liberty to ignore it. What’s the problem?
I do not bring glad tidings. I never considered that to be my responsibility. I have read Nietzsche and tend to agree with you. In many ways he was more of a poet than a philosopher. To me, what the words say is fundamental, both in poetry and in philosophy.
I will stare at the mud at my feet while you look upwards to the starry sky. But do we not both stay firmly anchored to the earth?
Astyanax said:Who’d want to keep the company of gods?
They’re vain, ill-tempered, selfish and unfair;
In any game they’ll always rig the odds.
They never lose, they don’t know how to share.
The Greek lot never played by any rules,
Zeus lied and cheated, threw his weight about,
Sated his lust, treated men like fools,
Devoid of pity, conscience or self-doubt.
But would the Bible’s God be to your taste?
Can you imagine having Him round to dinner?
Vindictive, vengeful, always laying waste,
And it’s hell for ever for the poor, weak sinner.
No, gods, I think, should entertain themselves,
Along with monsters, fairies, gnomes and elves.
Viddax said:
Angels may or may not be miserable, but Harpalycus definitely does not bring glad tidings which make people float on cloud nine. Or should I state that plainy and true and say there is no cloud nine and that we are all bound to this earth and nothing more? - No, we dare to dream and fly and soar. Read some Neitzsche, Beyond Good and Evil: see how a philosopher can weave wonders in prose that are wonderful for the rythmn of the words, not necessarily what the words say.
At least this topic has inspired me to write some more poetry.
They’re vain, ill-tempered, selfish and unfair;
In any game they’ll always rig the odds.
They never lose, they don’t know how to share.
The Greek lot never played by any rules,
Zeus lied and cheated, threw his weight about,
Sated his lust, treated men like fools,
Devoid of pity, conscience or self-doubt.
But would the Bible’s God be to your taste?
Can you imagine having Him round to dinner?
Vindictive, vengeful, always laying waste,
And it’s hell for ever for the poor, weak sinner.
No, gods, I think, should entertain themselves,
Along with monsters, fairies, gnomes and elves.
Viddax said:
Angels may or may not be miserable, but Harpalycus definitely does not bring glad tidings which make people float on cloud nine. Or should I state that plainy and true and say there is no cloud nine and that we are all bound to this earth and nothing more? - No, we dare to dream and fly and soar. Read some Neitzsche, Beyond Good and Evil: see how a philosopher can weave wonders in prose that are wonderful for the rythmn of the words, not necessarily what the words say.
At least this topic has inspired me to write some more poetry.
