Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But those murders and violence are perpetrated by thugs. We all know that. Compare with the violence in the OT was largely led by god himself. He told the Israelites to wipe out the Amelakites (among others) , every man, woman and child and their cattle! And was angry if a cow or two survived. How could this be the god who created of all of us in his own image? Makes zero sense.

The people God told Israel to wipe out were not these nice, friendly folk just minding their own business. Let's see what kind of people they were:

Child sacrifices
for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. --Deuteronomy 12:31

In Leviticus 18 God gives a list of things the people were doing that warranted their destruction:

Verse 6-15: Sex with parents, siblings, and close relatives
Verse 20: Sex with neighbor's wife
Verse 21: Burn children to death in fire to appease the god Molech
Verse 22: Homosexuality
Verse 23: Bestiality

For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled

These people were outrageously immoral, evil, and many of them the result of inter-breeding.
Their culture had disintegrated to the point where the people were more beast than human, even having sex with animals.

They had to go. God gave the correct command: wipe them out, including their animals, for it would not be long before "the new meat" next door looked tempting and they would start raping, murdering, and preying upon the children of the Israel. A land of John Wayne Gacys and Jeffrey Dahmers is not the sort of people you want as neighbors!

Why kill the animals? Because when an evil spirit leaves a human being, they will try to go to the nearest living animal that stays near humans such as swine or cattle. By destroying the animals, the evil spirits would be removed and they would have to "walk through dry places" before finding another human to inhabit.

You cannot be neighbors with people who are utterly depraved and evil. They have to be destroyed just like the nazis had to be destroyed. There is no getting along with them, there is no changing their culture because it is too far gone.

B.S. They were in the wrong place at wrong the time, when the Israelites came to Canaan, and they worshiped a different god, so the god of the OT decided to kill them all. These are the people he had made. Exercising the free will he gave them. Makes zero sense.

Do you have anything that supports your statement that the Canaanites were “in the wrong place at the wrong time” statement?

According to the Old Testament, the Canaanites and other tribes in the land widely practiced child sacrifice, incest, bestiality, and other behaviors that almost everyone in history, including today, rightly regard as unspeakably, grossly immoral.

The Canaanites worshipped a deity called Molech, to whom, according to the Old Testament, the local pagan peoples sacrificed their children in burnt offerings.


John Day’s study, published by Cambridge University Press, argued convincingly that Molech was the name given in Canaanite religion to the god of the underworld. He showed that the same deity is mentioned in the Ugaritic writings (MLK), the Mari tablets (Muluk), and in Akkadian records.

In 1978 an Egyptologist reported that relief pictures on an Egyptian temple showed Canaanite children being sacrificed while their cities were under attack. That the Phoenicians, who at one time controlled Canaan, sacrificed children to their gods is well documented. “Archaeologists have recovered the gruesome evidence not only at the great Phoenician city of Carthage (in modern Tunisia), but also in Sicily, Sardonia, and Cyprus.” It is now clear to biblical scholars that the Old Testament really does refer to child sacrifice and that it really did occur.

6Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah,
and bow myself before the high God?
Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings,
with calves a year old?
7Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams,
or with ten thousands of rivers of oil?
Shall I give my first-born for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8He hath showed thee, O man, what is good;
and what doth Jehovah require of thee,
but to do justly, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with thy God?
(Micah 6:6-8)

Israelites sometimes did practice human sacrifice, including the sacrifice of their children. At least two kings are reported to have done so (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6). According to the book of Isaiah, the Lord condemned Israel for sacrificing children to their idols (Is. 57:5-9). Jeremiah accused the Jews in Jerusalem of setting up idols in the temple and sacrificing their children in a nearby valley (Jer. 7:30-32; 19:5-6; 32:35). Ezekiel cited the practice as one of the reasons that Judah was plunged into the Babylonian exile (Ezek. 16:20-21; 23:36-39).


The Old Testament does not teach that genocide has any sort of general justification. There is no teaching here along the lines of saying that if a nation is wicked enough then anyone has the moral justification to go wipe them out, including men, women, and children. Rather, the Old Testament claims that it was necessary to completely wipe out certain peoples in order to stop the cycle of perversity from repeating generation after generation, in order to protect Israel from succumbing itself to the madness (an apparently accurate description of Canaanite culture). This drastic measure was necessary to create a nation that retained at least some knowledge and worship of the true God alone and some recognition (however limited) of his moral standards.

Archeology gives some hints about what the Canaanites did. On one High Place, archeologists found several stone pillars and great numbers of jars containing remains of newborn babies. When a new house was built, a child would be sacrificed and its body built into the wall to bring good luck to the rest of the family. Firstborn children were often sacrificed to Molech, a giant hollow bronze image in which a fire was built. Parents placed their children in its red hot hands and the babies would roll down into the fire. The sacrifice was invalid if a parent displayed grief. Mothers were supposed to dance and sing. The Israelites later copied this practice in a valley near Jerusalem called Gehenna. Hundreds of jars containing infant bones have been found there.

There was a great deal of sexual sin among the Canaanites. They believed that cultic prostitution was important to encourage their gods, Baal and Ashtoreth to mate so that the land would be fertile and rain would come. VD may have been rampant. Many young people forced into prostitution were abused to the point of death. Even the surrounding pagan nations were appalled by Canaanite religious practices.

Yet God did not hurry to judge the Canaanites. In Genesis 15:16, God tells Abraham:

In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.

God gave the Canaanites 400 years while Israel was in Egypt. After Israel passed through the Red Sea, He waited 40 more years while Israel wandered in the wilderness. The people of Canaan knew Israel was coming, and that God had given the land to them, according to the Rahab, a Canaanite, in Joshua 2:9:

“I know that the LORD has given this land to you and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you."

Jericho had six additional days to repent while Israel did laps around it. The day judgment finally came to Jericho, Israel marched around the city seven times. God judges swiftly when He finally acts, but He patiently warns and allows time for repentance.

Families who wished could have migrated out of the land and settled in nearby areas. God said repeatedly that he would drive out the inhabitants of the land before Israel. Those who wished to leave had time and opportunity. The point was to destroy the evil Canaanite culture rather than the individual Canaanite people. Only individuals who stubbornly refused to leave were destroyed with military force, along with their children, who could not have survived without parents. God gave no instructions to hunt down and kill Canaanites who left the land peacefully. Later in the Bible, Canaanite individuals like Uriah the Hittite show up as righteous characters. Rahab herself was a Canaanite harlot who repented before Jericho was destroyed. She is an ancestor of Jesus Himself. God’s judgment was not based on racism or favoritism.

Scholars have called the Canaanite cult religion the most sexually depraved of any in the ancient world. They had given themselves over to every kind of sexual depravity, including incest and even bestiality. At their worst, their orgiastic worship of idols even included human sacrifice—both of children and adults. There’s imagery of their cult sexual practices of bathing themselves in blood.

Anonymous wrote:

But those murders and violence are perpetrated by thugs. We all know that. Compare with the violence in the OT was largely led by god himself. He told the Israelites to wipe out the Amelakites (among others) , every man, woman and child and their cattle! And was angry if a cow or two survived. How could this be the god who created of all of us in his own image? Makes zero sense.

The people God told Israel to wipe out were not these nice, friendly folk just minding their own business. Let's see what kind of people they were:

Child sacrifices
for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. --Deuteronomy 12:31

In Leviticus 18 God gives a list of things the people were doing that warranted their destruction:

Verse 6-15: Sex with parents, siblings, and close relatives
Verse 20: Sex with neighbor's wife
Verse 21: Burn children to death in fire to appease the god Molech
Verse 22: Homosexuality
Verse 23: Bestiality

For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled

These people were outrageously immoral, evil, and many of them the result of inter-breeding.
Their culture had disintegrated to the point where the people were more beast than human, even having sex with animals.

They had to go. God gave the correct command: wipe them out, including their animals, for it would not be long before "the new meat" next door looked tempting and they would start raping, murdering, and preying upon the children of the Israel. A land of John Wayne Gacys and Jeffrey Dahmers is not the sort of people you want as neighbors!

Why kill the animals? Because when an evil spirit leaves a human being, they will try to go to the nearest living animal that stays near humans such as swine or cattle. By destroying the animals, the evil spirits would be removed and they would have to "walk through dry places" before finding another human to inhabit.

You cannot be neighbors with people who are utterly depraved and evil. They have to be destroyed just like the nazis had to be destroyed. There is no getting along with them, there is no changing their culture because it is too far gone.

B.S. They were in the wrong place at wrong the time, when the Israelites came to Canaan, and they worshiped a different god, so the god of the OT decided to kill them all. These are the people he had made. Exercising the free will he gave them. Makes zero sense.

But those murders and violence are perpetrated by thugs. We all know that. Compare with the violence in the OT was largely led by god himself. He told the Israelites to wipe out the Amelakites (among others) , every man, woman and child and their cattle! And was angry if a cow or two survived. How could this be the god who created of all of us in his own image? Makes zero sense.

The people God told Israel to wipe out were not these nice, friendly folk just minding their own business. Let's see what kind of people they were:

Child sacrifices
for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. --Deuteronomy 12:31

In Leviticus 18 God gives a list of things the people were doing that warranted their destruction:

Verse 6-15: Sex with parents, siblings, and close relatives
Verse 20: Sex with neighbor's wife
Verse 21: Burn children to death in fire to appease the god Molech
Verse 22: Homosexuality
Verse 23: Bestiality

For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled

These people were outrageously immoral, evil, and many of them the result of inter-breeding.
Their culture had disintegrated to the point where the people were more beast than human, even having sex with animals.

They had to go. God gave the correct command: wipe them out, including their animals, for it would not be long before "the new meat" next door looked tempting and they would start raping, murdering, and preying upon the children of the Israel. A land of John Wayne Gacys and Jeffrey Dahmers is not the sort of people you want as neighbors!

Why kill the animals? Because when an evil spirit leaves a human being, they will try to go to the nearest living animal that stays near humans such as swine or cattle. By destroying the animals, the evil spirits would be removed and they would have to "walk through dry places" before finding another human to inhabit.

You cannot be neighbors with people who are utterly depraved and evil. They have to be destroyed just like the nazis had to be destroyed. There is no getting along with them, there is no changing their culture because it is too far gone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, what a nasty thread.
I feel like this should be a New Yorker cartoon where God is saying “you know, not everything is about you….”
Anyway, if I understand God at all, my understanding is that his consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions. It would be like my dog trying to figure out why I go to work, or why I read a book, or why I have philosophical debates on the internet. It’s all totally out of his frame of reference so he can’t even really ask the right questions never mind understand the answers.

The thing is, that your understanding of god is simply your understanding. Not everyone shares it and, despite some of the views of fundamentalist Christians who come here, not everyone has to.

If there is a god, how could you actually understand how his/her mind works? You're going by your understanding, which is different from other people's understanding. You're entitled to think the way you do, but not entitled to force or expect others to share your views.

People discuss their different views here. There may be a right way to view God in particular religious denominations, but not here.

By the way, your first sentence "my understanding is that his [God's] consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions" seems to me to be a convenient way of cutting off any dissension about God's existence.

It sounds like something said in Sunday school to cut off curious children.

Hm, well, what the poster said is kind of in the ball park of St. Anselm and a lot of earlier philosophers. Anselm--God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and moreover God cannot be conceived. A Platonist--or maybe Neo-Platonist--idea would be that we can't give God attributes, because something with attributes becomes divisible in some sense, and God is not divisible. And that all the created stuff kind of spills out of the divine abundance ultimately.

God did spend several millenia (or more, depending on whether you're a creationist) waiting for someone like Galileo to come along and notice things.

It is interesting, though, that although the "wandering stars" (planets) were identified long ago, the Bible has no comment.

How convenient that God can't be defined -- simplifies life for fundamentalists.

Meanwhile, non-fundamentalists just ignore all of that and benefit from the feel-good aspects of religion - the customs, the traditions, the music, the food.

^^also the comforting beliefs. Non-fundies don't believe in hell so much -- just seeing their loved ones in heaven - and even that is a vague concept for some. Unlike fundamentalists, they just want to live a good life and aren't worried about who's going to heaven or hell.

I don’t know why you think you have the right to speak for people and their beliefs? Has it ever occurred to you that other people have the right to speak for their beliefs themselves?

Anytime in life that someone speaks in general terms for other people and for people they don’t personally know, caution is warranted. No one knows the minds of other people.

Please consider the possibility that pp is one of these people or once was and thus knows many people like this.

Generalizations are easy to make and don't take much brain effort, which reflect the limitations of a person's intellect and how simplistically they view the world.

People can have strong convictions over issues, but also need to respect that they don’t have the insight or right to speak to what other people believe.

Even if you know people who think a certain way, that does not mean everyone does. Stereotyping people is harmful and bigoted.

+1 always remember that there can be good and bad people in the world - atheists and christians alike. A person's beliefs and how they express them are not a trustworthy indicator of their innate goodness. It is bigoted to call someone a bigot.

It’s also disingenuous to count all violence in the Bible as reasons Christianity is bad, but ignore all the modern governments that mandate atheism, and not examine the violence and murders and genocides those governments with atheism as state mandated cause. If something that happened over 2,000 years ago upsets you, but the terrible things that are happening today are ignored by you, you are being a hypocrite!

But those murders and violence are perpetrated by thugs. We all know that. Compare with the violence in the OT was largely led by god himself. He told the Israelites to wipe out the Amelakites (among others) , every man, woman and child and their cattle! And was angry if a cow or two survived. How could this be the god who created of all of us in his own image? Makes zero sense.

The explanation that I've heard, is that God mellowed when he had a son, becoming a much nicer guy. Fatherhood can have an effect like that. He was somewhat of an absentee father, though, with Joseph doing most of the work

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, what a nasty thread.
I feel like this should be a New Yorker cartoon where God is saying “you know, not everything is about you….”
Anyway, if I understand God at all, my understanding is that his consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions. It would be like my dog trying to figure out why I go to work, or why I read a book, or why I have philosophical debates on the internet. It’s all totally out of his frame of reference so he can’t even really ask the right questions never mind understand the answers.

The thing is, that your understanding of god is simply your understanding. Not everyone shares it and, despite some of the views of fundamentalist Christians who come here, not everyone has to.

If there is a god, how could you actually understand how his/her mind works? You're going by your understanding, which is different from other people's understanding. You're entitled to think the way you do, but not entitled to force or expect others to share your views.

People discuss their different views here. There may be a right way to view God in particular religious denominations, but not here.

By the way, your first sentence "my understanding is that his [God's] consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions" seems to me to be a convenient way of cutting off any dissension about God's existence.

It sounds like something said in Sunday school to cut off curious children.

Hm, well, what the poster said is kind of in the ball park of St. Anselm and a lot of earlier philosophers. Anselm--God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and moreover God cannot be conceived. A Platonist--or maybe Neo-Platonist--idea would be that we can't give God attributes, because something with attributes becomes divisible in some sense, and God is not divisible. And that all the created stuff kind of spills out of the divine abundance ultimately.

God did spend several millenia (or more, depending on whether you're a creationist) waiting for someone like Galileo to come along and notice things.

It is interesting, though, that although the "wandering stars" (planets) were identified long ago, the Bible has no comment.

How convenient that God can't be defined -- simplifies life for fundamentalists.

Meanwhile, non-fundamentalists just ignore all of that and benefit from the feel-good aspects of religion - the customs, the traditions, the music, the food.

^^also the comforting beliefs. Non-fundies don't believe in hell so much -- just seeing their loved ones in heaven - and even that is a vague concept for some. Unlike fundamentalists, they just want to live a good life and aren't worried about who's going to heaven or hell.

I don’t know why you think you have the right to speak for people and their beliefs? Has it ever occurred to you that other people have the right to speak for their beliefs themselves?

Anytime in life that someone speaks in general terms for other people and for people they don’t personally know, caution is warranted. No one knows the minds of other people.

Please consider the possibility that pp is one of these people or once was and thus knows many people like this.

Generalizations are easy to make and don't take much brain effort, which reflect the limitations of a person's intellect and how simplistically they view the world.

People can have strong convictions over issues, but also need to respect that they don’t have the insight or right to speak to what other people believe.

Even if you know people who think a certain way, that does not mean everyone does. Stereotyping people is harmful and bigoted.

+1 always remember that there can be good and bad people in the world - atheists and christians alike. A person's beliefs and how they express them are not a trustworthy indicator of their innate goodness. It is bigoted to call someone a bigot.

It’s also disingenuous to count all violence in the Bible as reasons Christianity is bad, but ignore all the modern governments that mandate atheism, and not examine the violence and murders and genocides those governments with atheism as state mandated cause. If something that happened over 2,000 years ago upsets you, but the terrible things that are happening today are ignored by you, you are being a hypocrite!

But those murders and violence are perpetrated by thugs. We all know that. Compare with the violence in the OT was largely led by god himself. He told the Israelites to wipe out the Amelakites (among others) , every man, woman and child and their cattle! And was angry if a cow or two survived. How could this be the god who created of all of us in his own image? Makes zero sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, what a nasty thread.
I feel like this should be a New Yorker cartoon where God is saying “you know, not everything is about you….”
Anyway, if I understand God at all, my understanding is that his consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions. It would be like my dog trying to figure out why I go to work, or why I read a book, or why I have philosophical debates on the internet. It’s all totally out of his frame of reference so he can’t even really ask the right questions never mind understand the answers.

The thing is, that your understanding of god is simply your understanding. Not everyone shares it and, despite some of the views of fundamentalist Christians who come here, not everyone has to.

If there is a god, how could you actually understand how his/her mind works? You're going by your understanding, which is different from other people's understanding. You're entitled to think the way you do, but not entitled to force or expect others to share your views.

People discuss their different views here. There may be a right way to view God in particular religious denominations, but not here.

By the way, your first sentence "my understanding is that his [God's] consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions" seems to me to be a convenient way of cutting off any dissension about God's existence.

It sounds like something said in Sunday school to cut off curious children.

Hm, well, what the poster said is kind of in the ball park of St. Anselm and a lot of earlier philosophers. Anselm--God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and moreover God cannot be conceived. A Platonist--or maybe Neo-Platonist--idea would be that we can't give God attributes, because something with attributes becomes divisible in some sense, and God is not divisible. And that all the created stuff kind of spills out of the divine abundance ultimately.

God did spend several millenia (or more, depending on whether you're a creationist) waiting for someone like Galileo to come along and notice things.

It is interesting, though, that although the "wandering stars" (planets) were identified long ago, the Bible has no comment.

How convenient that God can't be defined -- simplifies life for fundamentalists.

Meanwhile, non-fundamentalists just ignore all of that and benefit from the feel-good aspects of religion - the customs, the traditions, the music, the food.

^^also the comforting beliefs. Non-fundies don't believe in hell so much -- just seeing their loved ones in heaven - and even that is a vague concept for some. Unlike fundamentalists, they just want to live a good life and aren't worried about who's going to heaven or hell.

I don’t know why you think you have the right to speak for people and their beliefs? Has it ever occurred to you that other people have the right to speak for their beliefs themselves?

Anytime in life that someone speaks in general terms for other people and for people they don’t personally know, caution is warranted. No one knows the minds of other people.

Please consider the possibility that pp is one of these people or once was and thus knows many people like this.

Generalizations are easy to make and don't take much brain effort, which reflect the limitations of a person's intellect and how simplistically they view the world.

People can have strong convictions over issues, but also need to respect that they don’t have the insight or right to speak to what other people believe.

Even if you know people who think a certain way, that does not mean everyone does. Stereotyping people is harmful and bigoted.

+1 always remember that there can be good and bad people in the world - atheists and christians alike. A person's beliefs and how they express them are not a trustworthy indicator of their innate goodness. It is bigoted to call someone a bigot.

It’s also disingenuous to count all violence in the Bible as reasons Christianity is bad, but ignore all the modern governments that mandate atheism, and not examine the violence and murders and genocides those governments with atheism as state mandated cause. If something that happened over 2,000 years ago upsets you, but the terrible things that are happening today are ignored by you, you are being a hypocrite!

Anonymous wrote:It is bigoted to call someone a bigot.

Can't say I agree with this - or, if it is true, that it is a bad thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, what a nasty thread.
I feel like this should be a New Yorker cartoon where God is saying “you know, not everything is about you….”
Anyway, if I understand God at all, my understanding is that his consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions. It would be like my dog trying to figure out why I go to work, or why I read a book, or why I have philosophical debates on the internet. It’s all totally out of his frame of reference so he can’t even really ask the right questions never mind understand the answers.

The thing is, that your understanding of god is simply your understanding. Not everyone shares it and, despite some of the views of fundamentalist Christians who come here, not everyone has to.

If there is a god, how could you actually understand how his/her mind works? You're going by your understanding, which is different from other people's understanding. You're entitled to think the way you do, but not entitled to force or expect others to share your views.

People discuss their different views here. There may be a right way to view God in particular religious denominations, but not here.

By the way, your first sentence "my understanding is that his [God's] consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions" seems to me to be a convenient way of cutting off any dissension about God's existence.

It sounds like something said in Sunday school to cut off curious children.

Hm, well, what the poster said is kind of in the ball park of St. Anselm and a lot of earlier philosophers. Anselm--God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and moreover God cannot be conceived. A Platonist--or maybe Neo-Platonist--idea would be that we can't give God attributes, because something with attributes becomes divisible in some sense, and God is not divisible. And that all the created stuff kind of spills out of the divine abundance ultimately.

God did spend several millenia (or more, depending on whether you're a creationist) waiting for someone like Galileo to come along and notice things.

It is interesting, though, that although the "wandering stars" (planets) were identified long ago, the Bible has no comment.

How convenient that God can't be defined -- simplifies life for fundamentalists.

Meanwhile, non-fundamentalists just ignore all of that and benefit from the feel-good aspects of religion - the customs, the traditions, the music, the food.

^^also the comforting beliefs. Non-fundies don't believe in hell so much -- just seeing their loved ones in heaven - and even that is a vague concept for some. Unlike fundamentalists, they just want to live a good life and aren't worried about who's going to heaven or hell.

I don’t know why you think you have the right to speak for people and their beliefs? Has it ever occurred to you that other people have the right to speak for their beliefs themselves?

Anytime in life that someone speaks in general terms for other people and for people they don’t personally know, caution is warranted. No one knows the minds of other people.

Please consider the possibility that pp is one of these people or once was and thus knows many people like this.

Generalizations are easy to make and don't take much brain effort, which reflect the limitations of a person's intellect and how simplistically they view the world.

People can have strong convictions over issues, but also need to respect that they don’t have the insight or right to speak to what other people believe.

Even if you know people who think a certain way, that does not mean everyone does. Stereotyping people is harmful and bigoted.

+1 always remember that there can be good and bad people in the world - atheists and christians alike. A person's beliefs and how they express them are not a trustworthy indicator of their innate goodness. It is bigoted to call someone a bigot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, what a nasty thread.
I feel like this should be a New Yorker cartoon where God is saying “you know, not everything is about you….”
Anyway, if I understand God at all, my understanding is that his consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions. It would be like my dog trying to figure out why I go to work, or why I read a book, or why I have philosophical debates on the internet. It’s all totally out of his frame of reference so he can’t even really ask the right questions never mind understand the answers.

The thing is, that your understanding of god is simply your understanding. Not everyone shares it and, despite some of the views of fundamentalist Christians who come here, not everyone has to.

If there is a god, how could you actually understand how his/her mind works? You're going by your understanding, which is different from other people's understanding. You're entitled to think the way you do, but not entitled to force or expect others to share your views.

People discuss their different views here. There may be a right way to view God in particular religious denominations, but not here.

By the way, your first sentence "my understanding is that his [God's] consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions" seems to me to be a convenient way of cutting off any dissension about God's existence.

It sounds like something said in Sunday school to cut off curious children.

Hm, well, what the poster said is kind of in the ball park of St. Anselm and a lot of earlier philosophers. Anselm--God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and moreover God cannot be conceived. A Platonist--or maybe Neo-Platonist--idea would be that we can't give God attributes, because something with attributes becomes divisible in some sense, and God is not divisible. And that all the created stuff kind of spills out of the divine abundance ultimately.

God did spend several millenia (or more, depending on whether you're a creationist) waiting for someone like Galileo to come along and notice things.

It is interesting, though, that although the "wandering stars" (planets) were identified long ago, the Bible has no comment.

How convenient that God can't be defined -- simplifies life for fundamentalists.

Meanwhile, non-fundamentalists just ignore all of that and benefit from the feel-good aspects of religion - the customs, the traditions, the music, the food.

^^also the comforting beliefs. Non-fundies don't believe in hell so much -- just seeing their loved ones in heaven - and even that is a vague concept for some. Unlike fundamentalists, they just want to live a good life and aren't worried about who's going to heaven or hell.

I don’t know why you think you have the right to speak for people and their beliefs? Has it ever occurred to you that other people have the right to speak for their beliefs themselves?

Anytime in life that someone speaks in general terms for other people and for people they don’t personally know, caution is warranted. No one knows the minds of other people.

Please consider the possibility that pp is one of these people or once was and thus knows many people like this.

Generalizations are easy to make and don't take much brain effort, which reflect the limitations of a person's intellect and how simplistically they view the world.

People can have strong convictions over issues, but also need to respect that they don’t have the insight or right to speak to what other people believe.

Even if you know people who think a certain way, that does not mean everyone does. Stereotyping people is harmful and bigoted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, what a nasty thread.
I feel like this should be a New Yorker cartoon where God is saying “you know, not everything is about you….”
Anyway, if I understand God at all, my understanding is that his consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions. It would be like my dog trying to figure out why I go to work, or why I read a book, or why I have philosophical debates on the internet. It’s all totally out of his frame of reference so he can’t even really ask the right questions never mind understand the answers.

The thing is, that your understanding of god is simply your understanding. Not everyone shares it and, despite some of the views of fundamentalist Christians who come here, not everyone has to.

If there is a god, how could you actually understand how his/her mind works? You're going by your understanding, which is different from other people's understanding. You're entitled to think the way you do, but not entitled to force or expect others to share your views.

People discuss their different views here. There may be a right way to view God in particular religious denominations, but not here.

By the way, your first sentence "my understanding is that his [God's] consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions" seems to me to be a convenient way of cutting off any dissension about God's existence.

It sounds like something said in Sunday school to cut off curious children.

Hm, well, what the poster said is kind of in the ball park of St. Anselm and a lot of earlier philosophers. Anselm--God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and moreover God cannot be conceived. A Platonist--or maybe Neo-Platonist--idea would be that we can't give God attributes, because something with attributes becomes divisible in some sense, and God is not divisible. And that all the created stuff kind of spills out of the divine abundance ultimately.

God did spend several millenia (or more, depending on whether you're a creationist) waiting for someone like Galileo to come along and notice things.

It is interesting, though, that although the "wandering stars" (planets) were identified long ago, the Bible has no comment.

How convenient that God can't be defined -- simplifies life for fundamentalists.

Meanwhile, non-fundamentalists just ignore all of that and benefit from the feel-good aspects of religion - the customs, the traditions, the music, the food.

^^also the comforting beliefs. Non-fundies don't believe in hell so much -- just seeing their loved ones in heaven - and even that is a vague concept for some. Unlike fundamentalists, they just want to live a good life and aren't worried about who's going to heaven or hell.

I don’t know why you think you have the right to speak for people and their beliefs? Has it ever occurred to you that other people have the right to speak for their beliefs themselves?

Anytime in life that someone speaks in general terms for other people and for people they don’t personally know, caution is warranted. No one knows the minds of other people.

Please consider the possibility that pp is one of these people or once was and thus knows many people like this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, what a nasty thread.
I feel like this should be a New Yorker cartoon where God is saying “you know, not everything is about you….”
Anyway, if I understand God at all, my understanding is that his consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions. It would be like my dog trying to figure out why I go to work, or why I read a book, or why I have philosophical debates on the internet. It’s all totally out of his frame of reference so he can’t even really ask the right questions never mind understand the answers.

The thing is, that your understanding of god is simply your understanding. Not everyone shares it and, despite some of the views of fundamentalist Christians who come here, not everyone has to.

If there is a god, how could you actually understand how his/her mind works? You're going by your understanding, which is different from other people's understanding. You're entitled to think the way you do, but not entitled to force or expect others to share your views.

People discuss their different views here. There may be a right way to view God in particular religious denominations, but not here.

By the way, your first sentence "my understanding is that his [God's] consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions" seems to me to be a convenient way of cutting off any dissension about God's existence.

It sounds like something said in Sunday school to cut off curious children.

Hm, well, what the poster said is kind of in the ball park of St. Anselm and a lot of earlier philosophers. Anselm--God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and moreover God cannot be conceived. A Platonist--or maybe Neo-Platonist--idea would be that we can't give God attributes, because something with attributes becomes divisible in some sense, and God is not divisible. And that all the created stuff kind of spills out of the divine abundance ultimately.

God did spend several millenia (or more, depending on whether you're a creationist) waiting for someone like Galileo to come along and notice things.

It is interesting, though, that although the "wandering stars" (planets) were identified long ago, the Bible has no comment.

How convenient that God can't be defined -- simplifies life for fundamentalists.

Meanwhile, non-fundamentalists just ignore all of that and benefit from the feel-good aspects of religion - the customs, the traditions, the music, the food.

^^also the comforting beliefs. Non-fundies don't believe in hell so much -- just seeing their loved ones in heaven - and even that is a vague concept for some. Unlike fundamentalists, they just want to live a good life and aren't worried about who's going to heaven or hell.

I don’t know why you think you have the right to speak for people and their beliefs? Has it ever occurred to you that other people have the right to speak for their beliefs themselves?

Anytime in life that someone speaks in general terms for other people and for people they don’t personally know, caution is warranted. No one knows the minds of other people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, what a nasty thread.
I feel like this should be a New Yorker cartoon where God is saying “you know, not everything is about you….”
Anyway, if I understand God at all, my understanding is that his consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions. It would be like my dog trying to figure out why I go to work, or why I read a book, or why I have philosophical debates on the internet. It’s all totally out of his frame of reference so he can’t even really ask the right questions never mind understand the answers.

The thing is, that your understanding of god is simply your understanding. Not everyone shares it and, despite some of the views of fundamentalist Christians who come here, not everyone has to.

If there is a god, how could you actually understand how his/her mind works? You're going by your understanding, which is different from other people's understanding. You're entitled to think the way you do, but not entitled to force or expect others to share your views.

People discuss their different views here. There may be a right way to view God in particular religious denominations, but not here.

By the way, your first sentence "my understanding is that his [God's] consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions" seems to me to be a convenient way of cutting off any dissension about God's existence.

It sounds like something said in Sunday school to cut off curious children.

Hm, well, what the poster said is kind of in the ball park of St. Anselm and a lot of earlier philosophers. Anselm--God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and moreover God cannot be conceived. A Platonist--or maybe Neo-Platonist--idea would be that we can't give God attributes, because something with attributes becomes divisible in some sense, and God is not divisible. And that all the created stuff kind of spills out of the divine abundance ultimately.

God did spend several millenia (or more, depending on whether you're a creationist) waiting for someone like Galileo to come along and notice things.

It is interesting, though, that although the "wandering stars" (planets) were identified long ago, the Bible has no comment.

How convenient that God can't be defined -- simplifies life for fundamentalists.

Meanwhile, non-fundamentalists just ignore all of that and benefit from the feel-good aspects of religion - the customs, the traditions, the music, the food.

^^also the comforting beliefs. Non-fundies don't believe in hell so much -- just seeing their loved ones in heaven - and even that is a vague concept for some. Unlike fundamentalists, they just want to live a good life and aren't worried about who's going to heaven or hell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, what a nasty thread.
I feel like this should be a New Yorker cartoon where God is saying “you know, not everything is about you….”
Anyway, if I understand God at all, my understanding is that his consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions. It would be like my dog trying to figure out why I go to work, or why I read a book, or why I have philosophical debates on the internet. It’s all totally out of his frame of reference so he can’t even really ask the right questions never mind understand the answers.

The thing is, that your understanding of god is simply your understanding. Not everyone shares it and, despite some of the views of fundamentalist Christians who come here, not everyone has to.

If there is a god, how could you actually understand how his/her mind works? You're going by your understanding, which is different from other people's understanding. You're entitled to think the way you do, but not entitled to force or expect others to share your views.

People discuss their different views here. There may be a right way to view God in particular religious denominations, but not here.

By the way, your first sentence "my understanding is that his [God's] consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions" seems to me to be a convenient way of cutting off any dissension about God's existence.

It sounds like something said in Sunday school to cut off curious children.

Hm, well, what the poster said is kind of in the ball park of St. Anselm and a lot of earlier philosophers. Anselm--God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and moreover God cannot be conceived. A Platonist--or maybe Neo-Platonist--idea would be that we can't give God attributes, because something with attributes becomes divisible in some sense, and God is not divisible. And that all the created stuff kind of spills out of the divine abundance ultimately.

God did spend several millenia (or more, depending on whether you're a creationist) waiting for someone like Galileo to come along and notice things.

It is interesting, though, that although the "wandering stars" (planets) were identified long ago, the Bible has no comment.

How convenient that God can't be defined -- simplifies life for fundamentalists.

Meanwhile, non-fundamentalists just ignore all of that and benefit from the feel-good aspects of religion - the customs, the traditions, the music, the food.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, what a nasty thread.
I feel like this should be a New Yorker cartoon where God is saying “you know, not everything is about you….”
Anyway, if I understand God at all, my understanding is that his consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions. It would be like my dog trying to figure out why I go to work, or why I read a book, or why I have philosophical debates on the internet. It’s all totally out of his frame of reference so he can’t even really ask the right questions never mind understand the answers.

The thing is, that your understanding of god is simply your understanding. Not everyone shares it and, despite some of the views of fundamentalist Christians who come here, not everyone has to.

If there is a god, how could you actually understand how his/her mind works? You're going by your understanding, which is different from other people's understanding. You're entitled to think the way you do, but not entitled to force or expect others to share your views.

People discuss their different views here. There may be a right way to view God in particular religious denominations, but not here.

By the way, your first sentence "my understanding is that his [God's] consciousness is so far above ours that we can’t really ask those questions" seems to me to be a convenient way of cutting off any dissension about God's existence.

It sounds like something said in Sunday school to cut off curious children.

Hm, well, what the poster said is kind of in the ball park of St. Anselm and a lot of earlier philosophers. Anselm--God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and moreover God cannot be conceived. A Platonist--or maybe Neo-Platonist--idea would be that we can't give God attributes, because something with attributes becomes divisible in some sense, and God is not divisible. And that all the created stuff kind of spills out of the divine abundance ultimately.

God did spend several millenia (or more, depending on whether you're a creationist) waiting for someone like Galileo to come along and notice things.

It is interesting, though, that although the "wandering stars" (planets) were identified long ago, the Bible has no comment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your obsession with hell is not one shared by Christians.

Christians do not fear hell, because Christians know hell is not a possibility. Christians are not obsessed, knowing that Hell is real and to be avoided.

Atheists don't believe in hell. They will be surprised to land there when they die.

My hell is being on a planet that's populated with people such as yourself.

+1

How can people be so freaking gullible?