question about Christianity

#276
#276
I saw someone use the Descartes explanation for God. Love it.

"I have an idea in my head that there is a God, which means God put it there. Therefore, God must exist."
 
#277
#277
therealUT said:
In the beginning, there was at least one supernatural force. The universe was either created by this force alone or in conjunction with another supernatural force. The main controlling structure of this creation is science. Over billions of years, in accordance with the laws of science, simple carbon based lifeforms were both produced and mutated into more complex carbon based lifeforms. Eventually, some of these lifeforms, through the process of natural selection, became the forms of the creatures we observe in the present: humans, apes, cows, etc.

It is possible that this supernatural force is still around; I am not sold on the necessity of that proposition, though. It is possible that this supernatural force has some telic plan; not sold on that either, though.

It does seem beyond my comprehension, though, to ever imagine that this supernatural force needs and/or desires our veneration.
Click to expand...

I have to admit, after reading your previous posts I did not infer this. Do you mind expanding what exactly you mean by supernatural force? Characteristics? Or are you using “supernatural force” in a very broad sense. Your description reminds me of Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen.
 
#278
#278
PKT_VOL said:
I have to admit, after reading your previous posts I did not infer this. Do you mind expanding what exactly you mean by supernatural force? Characteristics? Or are you using “supernatural force” in a very broad sense. Your description reminds me of Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen.
Click to expand...

he means he's agnostic. He believes something unexplainable (at least with our current means) happened to kick start the universe.
 
#279
#279
KiffinKiller said:
he means he's agnostic. He believes something unexplainable (at least with our current means) happened to kick start the universe.
Click to expand...

Yes. However, agnostic is far from a uniform term. I am agnostic as well. Since "agnostic" is such a blanket term, there are many degrees of difference between any two "agnostics." He could be a positive or negative agnostic, etc. I was just wondering what his parameters are for his supernatural force.
 
#280
#280
PKT_VOL said:
I have to admit, after reading your previous posts I did not infer this. Do you mind expanding what exactly you mean by supernatural force? Characteristics? Or are you using “supernatural force” in a very broad sense. Your description reminds me of Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen.
Click to expand...

The only characteristic that I am assigning to this (these) supernatural force(s) is non-obedience to the laws of nature (specifically to regression of causes and motion/change).
 
#281
#281
PKT_VOL said:
Yes. However, agnostic is far from a uniform term. I am agnostic as well. Since "agnostic" is such a blanket term, there are many degrees of difference between any two "agnostics." He could be a positive or negative agnostic, etc. I was just wondering what his parameters are for his supernatural force.
Click to expand...

apologies. :hi:
 
#284
#284
therealUT said:
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 following two separate chronologies. This distinction leaves the reader forced to either accept the first as literal truth, the second as literal truth, or neither as literal truth. Since their is no instruction as to which to accept as literal truth, the selection of one over the other would simply be personal preference; therefore, it is prudent to remain agnostic toward the literal truth of both and, until given a definitive reason to choose one, view both as allegorical.
Click to expand...

They aren't wholly contradictory, but they do present two different timeframes. Since both are allegorical, as you stated, the contradiction is not terribly significant. Reading both, it's obvious that they weren't written at the same time in history, but were written at various stages in Hebrew history when God was viewed more as a removed, impersonal creator (Gen 1), and then during a period when God was viewed as an active, personal creator (Gen 2).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#285
#285
therealUT said:
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 following two separate chronologies. This distinction leaves the reader forced to either accept the first as literal truth, the second as literal truth, or neither as literal truth. Since their is no instruction as to which to accept as literal truth, the selection of one over the other would simply be personal preference; therefore, it is prudent to remain agnostic toward the literal truth of both and, until given a definitive reason to choose one, view both as allegorical.

As to the second question regarding darkness, God says "let there be Light" then he views light and sees that it is good. This is the first day; he has yet to create the celestial orbs or the sun. Light can only be interpreted in a metaphorical manner and it must be interpreted as absolute. It is not a stretch to interpret it as absolute goodness; regardless, though, it is "good" according to God. He separates this from darkness (notice, he does not destroy darkness); this darkness is absolute, there are still not stars, no sun, etc. He never qualifies dark as "good"; this is the only omission of "good" from any of his acts during the 6-day narrative. Whether the absolute darkness is absolute evil or is just not good, and therefore a gradation of evil, is immaterial in the critique: God, a being that is assigned the properties of omnibenevolence and omnipotence according to Judaism and Christianity, has either created an imperfection (a degree of evil) or has allowed it. His creation, from the beginning of the Bible, is regarded as imperfect if one carefully reads Genesis 1.
Click to expand...

LOL, yeah it's a stretch. God allows being their own free will, that's why satan rebelled against God. however, your statement that God created an imperfect earth is not accurate because God had not cursed the earth until after adam and eve sinned. it was a perfect creation until humans sinned.
 
#286
#286
therealUT said:
The only characteristic that I am assigning to this (these) supernatural force(s) is non-obedience to the laws of nature (specifically to regression of causes and motion/change).
Click to expand...

Gotcha. If I inferred correctly from your posts, you believe strongly in the semi-infinite progression (and regression) of our perceived natural laws of the known universe. The problem arises at the inevitable starting point when regressing upon a liner timeline. If correct, I too believe similarly. Our difference arises in being able to "break" from those natural laws of our universe. You do with your supernatural power. Thus far, I cannot.
 
#287
#287
therealUT said:
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 following two separate chronologies. This distinction leaves the reader forced to either accept the first as literal truth, the second as literal truth, or neither as literal truth. Since their is no instruction as to which to accept as literal truth, the selection of one over the other would simply be personal preference; therefore, it is prudent to remain agnostic toward the literal truth of both and, until given a definitive reason to choose one, view both as allegorical.

As to the second question regarding darkness, God says "let there be Light" then he views light and sees that it is good. This is the first day; he has yet to create the celestial orbs or the sun. Light can only be interpreted in a metaphorical manner and it must be interpreted as absolute. It is not a stretch to interpret it as absolute goodness; regardless, though, it is "good" according to God. He separates this from darkness (notice, he does not destroy darkness); this darkness is absolute, there are still not stars, no sun, etc. He never qualifies dark as "good"; this is the only omission of "good" from any of his acts during the 6-day narrative. Whether the absolute darkness is absolute evil or is just not good, and therefore a gradation of evil, is immaterial in the critique: God, a being that is assigned the properties of omnibenevolence and omnipotence according to Judaism and Christianity, has either created an imperfection (a degree of evil) or has allowed it. His creation, from the beginning of the Bible, is regarded as imperfect if one carefully reads Genesis 1.
Click to expand...

One can accept both, since both chapters say that God created/gave life to man. I don't see any contradiction at all.
 
#292
#292
therealUT said:
Of course it is allegorical, as the two creation stories in Genesis are inconsistent and contradictory.
Click to expand...

Plus, who wrote it and how to they know what happened? And, if they are all-knowing, why didn't they know the Earth is round and not the center of the Universe? Also, Where did Adam's daughters-in-law come from?
 
#294
#294
UGADawg4Life said:
Plus, who wrote it and how to they know what happened? And, if they are all-knowing, why didn't they know the Earth is round and not the center of the Universe? Also, Where did Adam's daughters-in-law come from?
Click to expand...

have you studied Genesis? I would say not.
 
#298
#298
UGADawg4Life said:
Plus, who wrote it and how to they know what happened? And, if they are all-knowing, why didn't they know the Earth is round and not the center of the Universe? Also, Where did Adam's daughters-in-law come from?
Click to expand...

It appears someone knew the earth was a circle, hanging on nothing

Job 26:7
King James Version (KJV)
7. He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Isaiah 40:21-22
King James Version (KJV)

21. Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

22. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
 
#300
#300
Gramps said:
It appears someone knew the earth was a circle, hanging on nothing

Job 26:7
King James Version (KJV)
7. He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Isaiah 40:21-22
King James Version (KJV)

21. Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

22. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Click to expand...

"the writers had a hard time interpreting the word of the lord because he is so complex."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top