To shit with respect!

[CindyLou]

No God The Creator can't be Santa Clause or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or human. The Creator of all things if It exists, exists necessarily and must be beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and immaterial. An Mind with no body.

 

[CindyLou]

Well its definitely essential to Catholics. If you don't get baptized as a catholic you basically stay in purgatory forever. And the whole point of a baptism is to wash away original sin, so whats the point if you don't believe in it? I would say Baptism is essential for Christianity.. and the point of baptism is original sin... and original sin comes form adam and eve. Do you see where I am personally confused?

Yeah I am a little too. I really don't see the connection for all Christianity. I don't have to accept that doctrine to recognize I'm a sinner. I don't know that much about the Catholic faith but it sounds like I might be in a little trouble then. I am not baptized.

 

[Jack]

Billy, if I've understood your position here, you're saying that it offends/offended your sensibilities that people were discussing religion in a carefree way, and it annoyed you.

You're solution was ridicule and verbal abuse to 'balance things out'.

Unless I've misunderstood you, you seem to be using your over-sensitivity to justify outright bullying.

I was really hoping I had misunderstood you.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.

In other words, because you think you're right about the supposed irrationality of what everyone else thinks, you can ridicule people.

Brilliant.

Also, I hope you realize that quoting Thomas Jefferson like a Christian would quote a bible verse will not make you any more right.

At any rate, having read biographies of Jefferson, I can attest that he knew better than to badger people. His idea of ridicule referred to in the quote seems more akin to Mark Twain's than Dawkin's or your's. Also note, his criticism of the trinity you quoted was a substantiative one of a specific proposition, not a broad-side attack on trinitarians as irrational, or delusional. Even had it been, it wouldn't have made it right.

 

[acd]

No God The Creator can't be Santa Clause or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or human. The Creator of all things if It exists, exists necessarily and must be beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and immaterial. An Mind with no body.

Except to have a penis.
A spirit penis.

 

[Apone]

No God The Creator can't be Santa Clause or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or human. The Creator of all things if It exists, exists necessarily and must be beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and immaterial. An Mind with no body.

Well, how much do we really know about Santa Claus or the flying spaghetti monster?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

You mean you believe that when you eat the Eucharist its literally the body of Christ? That Adam and Eve were the 1st people. That contraception is sinful? That sex is for procreation only? Like those?

When you eat the Eucharist, it is substantially the body of Christ (re. transubstantiation vs transformation vs trans-signification).

I think it was Pope Pius XII who taught that it is not incompatible with the Catholic faith that we understand humans to have descended from primitive hominids - but that at some point a rational soul was infused into two individuals. That is, that there was a definite point when a rational soul was given to the hominid species. These two we call Adam and Eve, whose names (presumably in Hebrew) describes them - I think Adam means humankind, or red earth/soil; and Eve means 'source of life' or something like that.

Contraception is only sinful when it interferes with the basic process of conception. Connected to this, sex is not exclusively for reproduction, but is definitely connected with it - so that it is legitimate to have sex at non-fertile times.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Why does being able to conceive of the possibility of infinite universes imply that their existence is according to some order? I also don't think that we can conceive of infinity, even though we can understand it as a concept. You don't think that there are things that are so complex, or so random, or so immeasurable that nothing could ever possibly penetrate them on any level?

I guess it might be arrogance to think that we would be able to make some sense of any possible universe. However, if we were exposed to other realities in which things behaved in a way radically different from our own, we would at least be able to recognise that this reality was different. And, presumably, be able to say how it is different from our own - in such a way that we could cogently describe the difference sufficiently, so that any one else who observed this different reality, would be able to recognise it as the same one we had described.

This in essence, might not operate on the level of our being able to fathom an alternate universe in itself. However, we being accustomed to the order of our universe, would use our order as a reference point by which to describe the alternate universe - or at least its difference to our own. In which case, by simply interacting with an alternate universe, we would have in reality made it part of our own - because even the slight contact of observation establishes a relationship between everything we currently know and that which was thereto unknown. So that even if we were to observe complete chaos, it would still form part of the order of our universe - as that part which is consistently not consistent - which is quite an orderly category.

 

[Lemonworld]

The whole irony of this thread is that it's as patronising and sanctimonious as those religions it attempts to ridicule for the very same reasons. I feel as if I'm watching some sort of twist on atheist martyrdom, if such a thing could exist, complete with the use of religiously-derived words and concepts like 'good' and 'evil' to support its cause. The only thing we are missing is a bonfire and pitchforks.

Shouldn't atheism by definition be beyond the need to even discuss God? So what gives?

 

[Billy]

When you eat the Eucharist, it is substantially the body of Christ (re. transubstantiation vs transformation vs trans-signification).

I think it was Pope Pius XII who taught that it is not incompatible with the Catholic faith that we understand humans to have descended from primitive hominids - but that at some point a rational soul was infused into two individuals. That is, that there was a definite point when a rational soul was given to the hominid species. These two we call Adam and Eve, whose names (presumably in Hebrew) describes them - I think Adam means humankind, or red earth/soil; and Eve means 'source of life' or something like that.

Contraception is only sinful when it interferes with the basic process of conception. Connected to this, sex is not exclusively for reproduction, but is definitely connected with it - so that it is legitimate to have sex at non-fertile times.

Yeah so in other words you dont follow the tenets of the religion, you just justify (weakly) the reasons you dont.

 

[Billy]

I was really hoping I had misunderstood you.



In other words, because you think you're right about the supposed irrationality of what everyone else thinks, you can ridicule people.

Brilliant.

Also, I hope you realize that quoting Thomas Jefferson like a Christian would quote a bible verse will not make you any more right.

At any rate, having read biographies of Jefferson, I can attest that he knew better than to badger people. His idea of ridicule referred to in the quote seems more akin to Mark Twain's than Dawkin's or your's. Also note, his criticism of the trinity you quoted was a substantiative one of a specific proposition, not a broad-side attack on trinitarians as irrational, or delusional. Even had it been, it wouldn't have made it right.

Was there a point to this post?

 

[Billy]

or human.

SO Jesus wasnt the son of God or God in human form?

 

[CindyLou]

SO Jesus wasnt the son of God or God in human form?

I believe he is, but I believe Jesus is The Word made flesh. Where I am now in my belief, He was not made flesh when The Word created all that exists.

(trying my best not to state my belief as fact)

 

[CindyLou]

Except to have a penis.
A spirit penis.

lol @ spirit penis.

Actually, from what I gather, no. Its as if, we complete each other; man and woman, and only together in that state we can momentarily be in the image of God.

 

[acd]

lol @ spirit penis.

Actually, from what I gather, no. Its as if, we complete each other; man and woman, and only together in that state we can momentarily be in the image of God.

That's not what the bible says though right? Man was created in gods imagine and woman is supposedly just a helper and child bearer. Besides---god the father, the son, and the holy spirit. No mention of female divine anywhere there.

 

[CindyLou]

That's not what the bible says though right? Man was created in gods imagine and woman is supposedly just a helper and child bearer. Besides---god the father, the son, and the holy spirit. No mention of female divine anywhere there.

No, it says God created man in His image, the man and woman he created he them. Adam was both the man and the woman; together they were Adam. They together were in the image of God and equal in every respect. I mean, if anything, the woman was greater than the man because 'she' was the crown of creation! Plus, after "the fall" 'the woman' was the only one that told truth and didn't try to blame everyone else. 'The man' in the story of the fall was a typical man! ahaha "Oh God, the WOMAN that YOU gave me TEMPTED ME..." lololol

 

[Patrick Williams]

That's not what the bible says though right? Man was created in gods imagine and woman is supposedly just a helper and child bearer. Besides---god the father, the son, and the holy spirit. No mention of female divine anywhere there.

If my memory serves me correctly, I think that in Judaism the Holy Spirit is seen as the feminine aspect of God but I am going from memory here and may not remember this exactly right (in Eastern Orthodoxy, I think it is the same but please research this further to insure I am telling you correctly - I am going from memory here).

By virtue of God being infinite, He is both masculine and feminine and yet also transcends both too (we are forced to use finite language to describe infinite concepts so something will always be lost in the "translation" process).

IMO, everything in this world is an analogy to teach us about the greater, infinite immaterial world or to teach us aspects of God. Since Humans are both (male and female) created in the image of God, we are both (male & female) very small finite representations of the Infinite One.

P.S.: Judaism does not believe in the Trinity as Christians do but they do talk about God's Spirit. If there are any practicing Jewish INFJs out there, maybe you could enlighten us on this concept in Judaism?

 

[MrDoobie]

lol @ spirit penis.

Actually, from what I gather, no. Its as if, we complete each other; man and woman, and only together in that state we can momentarily be in the image of God.

I hate to go there, but what does this say about homosexuality?

 

[Billy]

No, it says God created man in His image, the man and woman he created he them. Adam was both the man and the woman; together they were Adam. They together were in the image of God and equal in every respect. I mean, if anything, the woman was greater than the man because 'she' was the crown of creation! Plus, after "the fall" 'the woman' was the only one that told truth and didn't try to blame everyone else. 'The man' in the story of the fall was a typical man! ahaha "Oh God, the WOMAN that YOU gave me TEMPTED ME..." lololol

I thought it was Adam and Lillith, and Lillith woudlnt fuck Adam and so they were equal so God turned her into a Demon and put Adam to sleep and took a Rib from him to create Eve who would be subservient?

 

[Patrick Williams]

No, it says God created man in His image, the man and woman he created he them. Adam was both the man and the woman; together they were Adam. They together were in the image of God and equal in every respect. I mean, if anything, the woman was greater than the man because 'she' was the crown of creation! Plus, after "the fall" 'the woman' was the only one that told truth and didn't try to blame everyone else. 'The man' in the story of the fall was a typical man! ahaha "Oh God, the WOMAN that YOU gave me TEMPTED ME..." lololol

Too funny! Men still blame women, don't they? : - )

 

[CindyLou]

I thought it was Adam and Lillith, and Lillith woudlnt fuck Adam and so they were equal so God turned her into a Demon and put Adam to sleep and took a Rib from him to create Eve who would be subservient?

Actually the man wouldn't fuck lillith because she wanted to be on top. Or something like that.

No, Eve wasn't named until after 'the fall'. If Lilith fits in there, she could but 'woman' named Eve wasn't named until after the fall so we can't really determine who 'the woman' was, whoever she was she had no name other than 'the woman'. (this is all for fun, if you're going to read the story that way, as actual people. Lol)