Originally posted by Grampy BobbyMy opinion is based on your posts and Sonhouse's posts so it is not
Your opinion is based on raw ignorance; you haven't a clue how much contact with him meant to me in 2011 and since.
based on "raw ignorance" - although I do acknowledge that you
know far more about "raw ignorance" than I.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Correction: "My opinion is based on your posts and Sonhouse's posts..." as received and decoded through a subjective lens.
My opinion is based on your posts and Sonhouse's posts so it is not
based on "raw ignorance" - although I do acknowledge that you
know far more about "raw ignorance" than I.
Originally posted by sonhousewe aren't talking about all the inconsistencies in the bible, ever. we are talking about you attempting to ridicule religion by trying for another weak reductio ad absurdum.
I am talking about the human attributes attached to the Jewish god which has morphed into Christianity and Islam.
'I am a jealous god' and so forth. These are, in my humble opinion, NOT something a real god would EVER say, considering such a god allegedly can call in whole universes at its whim. I say its because it would probably not be biological at al ...[text shortened]... he stage for thousands of years of gender bias.
I see no other interpretation of these facts.
now you gave up arguing that and you bring up the genocidal god and the mysoginistic god, all of which have nothing to do with "god looking like humans"
Originally posted by PatNovakhumans aren't god. humans may have some god-like attributes, yet god is more. if A includes B it is wrong to say A is like B.
There is no subtlety here. You are making a distinction without a difference. It is logically consistent to say that if A is similar to B, then B is similar to A. There is absolutely no difference in the information provided between the statements: "man looks like god" and "god looks like man." In both cases, we know what man looks like, and therefore we make a conclusion about what god looks like.
Made in God's image means that we have self consciousness, mentality, conscience, volition and self determination as He does. God's Character [the absolute, perfect, uncompromising attributes shared by each member of the trinity]: sovereignty, perfect righteousness, justice, love, eternal life, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, immutability and veracity.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYour statement "if A includes B it is wrong to say A is like B" is clearly false. Just because B is a subset of A does not mean B cannot be similar to A. For example, I ate pizza for supper. A pizza slice is a subset of a pizza, and the slice is similar in certain respects to the entire pizza.
humans aren't god. humans may have some god-like attributes, yet god is more. if A includes B it is wrong to say A is like B.
How similar (or dissimilar) god and humans are isn't important to my point. My only point is about logical consistency. If humans are a little like god, then god is a little like humans. If humans are a lot like god, then god is a lot like humans. If humans are nothing like god, then god is nothing like humans.
In an earlier post, you said "its not god that looks human, it is humans that are godly." I took this to mean that you think humans are similar in some fashion to god, but god is not similar to humans. That is of course logical nonsense, and that is what I was objecting to.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAnd yet this doesn't stop him from being ignorant of the truth.
sonhouse has an exceptional and multi faceted intelligence and the global experience to go with it.
Sounds like a complete waste of that same intelligence and experience.
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" -- Mark 8:36, KJV
Originally posted by wolfgang59depends on the magnitude.
But if Man has some of god's characteristics then god must have some of Man's.
has anyone ever said "the sequoia is like a large bonsai"? in explaining bonsais, we use the analogy "little trees". we don't refer to trees as little bonsais.
Originally posted by PatNovakyour example has nothing to do with our discussion. a pizza is made up of pizza slices, each being pizza. in that case pizza is not a set of slices but rather a whole object which you divide in an arbitrary number of subparts.
Your statement "if A includes B it is wrong to say A is like B" is clearly false. Just because B is a subset of A does not mean B cannot be similar to A. For example, I ate pizza for supper. A pizza slice is a subset of a pizza, and the slice is similar in certain respects to the entire pizza.
How similar (or dissimilar) god and humans are isn't importan ...[text shortened]... not similar to humans. That is of course logical nonsense, and that is what I was objecting to.
if you want to make the pizza as an example, you must state it differently.
pizza is food. if you eat pizza you eat food. if you eat food you don't necessarily eat pizza. pizza is like food. food is not like pizza.
4 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziI didn't give up on the Mysoginistic and genocidal stuff at all. Are you saying it's ok for a god to have those attributes?
we aren't talking about all the inconsistencies in the bible, ever. we are talking about you attempting to ridicule religion by trying for another weak reductio ad absurdum.
now you gave up arguing that and you bring up the genocidal god and the mysoginistic god, all of which have nothing to do with "god looking like humans"
How can you say just what attributes a god would have?
All I am saying is we project our OWN attributes to a cleverly designed man made god for the express purpose of controlling populations.
We can NEVER know the true attributes of a true god.
Only what that god would communicate to us but IMHO that has never and will never happen.
I can't see how people could ever read "I am a jealous god'' with a straight face🙂
The thing is, if a being sufficiently more advanced than humans showed up, you may think it a god. But you would not know anything about its true agenda, whatever that may be and you would not know anything about what kind of pecking order there may or may not be among other gods if such exist at all.
So such a being comes down to Earth, can cure the sick, etc., calls itself a god and you better worship me, you really think this is the top of the line god that would require that?
Wouldn't you want to understand what is going on in the background of such a being? What would be the agenda of such a being?
Why would such a being want to muck around with mere humans, for instance?
Is everyone on Earth so dense and gullible as to believe the words of such a being when they know nothing about it?
Everyone just assumes this deity has some kind of pure purpose, assuming it exists.
That does not HAVE to be the case.
It might be also such a being wants to prepare the way for the next step in our kind and we have to go, softly.
Just a point I am making, not that I believe any of this stuff, just pointing out possibilities as much as it will definitely rankle the religious.
The religious just fall for every stupid book supposedly written by a god with out ever even TRYING to think things through, just follow it blindly and then collide with the culture across the river that happens to have a different book.....
Originally posted by sonhousesnore
I didn't give up on the Mysoginistic and genocidal stuff at all. Are you saying it's ok for a god to have those attributes?
How can you say just what attributes a god would have?
All I am saying is we project our OWN attributes to a cleverly designed man made god for the express purpose of controlling populations.
We can NEVER know the true attrib ...[text shortened]... ly and then collide with the culture across the river that happens to have a different book.....