What role does death play?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I have Suzi ... I have. so many times.

God is like a billion photons going through your body in a spit second.
He is not a 'he' ... or a 'She' .
It has no name, is without form, and only enjoys human endeavour when lined up with 'His' own will.
you mean that 'guy' ?

And, like many children, you don't hear the answer that you don't want to hear.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You act as if two cannot be one, or better said, three.

They are one (and the same).
But when all is one then the real number of the universe is zero

Originally posted by Suzianne
And, like many children, you don't hear the answer that you don't want to hear.

Not from the Christians on this board (if that's what you mean)
.
Otherwise I am content with my perception of reality. I really don't have any great expectations of anything or anyone.

Originally posted by Suzianne
When God said that "you shall have no other gods before me", he understood that Man will make his own gods. In this, He was basically saying "I am the real deal, you have no need of 'other false gods', because I AM."






And, ummmmm, who is this "god of the unbeliever", anyways?

The secular and theistic analysis (that is, that this was written in a time of polytheistic beliefs) may perhaps have the same result regardless. IOW whether a real God spoke to the writer in polytheistic terms or there is no such God and it was man-made, the resulting text is supported.

The God of the non-believer is the concept of God that the non-believer typically is thinking of when stating his lack of belief. Or it might be the essential attributes that are such that the non-believer lacks belief in any number of gods said to possess them. That's how I take it, anyway.

Originally posted by KellyJay
He isn't playing by His rules for us, since He has some for Himself He does not apply to
us and those for us He does not apply to Him.

This sounds a lot like the peasants debating whether the lord of the manor should be judged by the rules that the lord applies to the peasants.

It's no accident that the divine order was the model for the social order -- or was it the other way round?

Originally posted by JS357
This sounds a lot like the peasants debating whether the lord of the manor should be judged by the rules that the lord applies to the peasants.

It's no accident that the divine order was the model for the social order -- or was it the other way round?

Do you think I error? No doubt that there are those who will complain about the leadership not living by the same rules they are given. I don't believe that alters my point. It does show we can resist human leadership so it should not surprise we would rebel against the divine as well.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you think I error? No doubt that there are those who will complain about the leadership not living by the same rules they are given. I don't believe that alters my point. It does show we can resist human leadership so it should not surprise we would rebel against the divine as well.

You cant rebel against the divine, but I guess you knew that.
Do you think others don't? Do you think atheists 'rebel against the divine' ?

Thank you

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
He's not playing by his own rules.That's the problem.

'Thou shall not kill.".........Bam, turns someone into a pillar of salt.

When I consider this objection I think there must be something about killing which needs a deeper understanding.

For before Mt. Sinai's giving of the ten commandments God ordained capital punishment in Genesis. After the flood terminating the period in history of universal anarchy God ordains that government of men may shed man's blood when murder has occurred.

"Whoever sheds man's blood By man shall his blood be shed,

For in the image of God He made man."... (Gen. 9:6)

This was in stark contrast to God forbidding that Cain, the first murderer, be executed by ANYONE in threat of divine vengeance.

" and Jehovah said to him [Cain], Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold. And Jehovah put a mark on Cain, so that anyone who found him would not strike him." (Gen. 4:15)

Therefore God first reveals that no one but He has the right to take away the human life.
Then as the dispensation of anarchy concludes with the flood of Noah and the dispensation of human government commences, God does ordain that capital punishment shall rectify the actions of the murderer.

So "You shall not kill" must have some limits establishing some scope. I have heard a Hebrew rabbi say it is better translated "You shall do no murder". I don't know myself.

But taking in the not killing command (in the face of allowed or ordained capital punishment) must have some qualification to it.

Charges of hypocrisy on the part of God come off as superficial to me.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
They are one (and the same).
But when all is one then the real number of the universe is zero

infinity

Originally posted by apathist
infinity

That's not a number either 🙂


Although speaking of death and mathematics, seeing a mortality line for humans is quite disturbing for the well adjusted 'materialist' .

What use is accumilting all this knowledge and influence just to have it snubbed out?

The only question worth contemplating is the question of immortality or afterlife.
As much as the universe seems atheistic , the position which we are all born in is one of ignorance. Ignorance of our true nature.
This knowledge is open for all yet very few seem to take this contemplation (of actual existence beyond physical death) seriously

Originally posted by sonship
When I consider this objection I think there must be something about killing which needs a deeper understanding.

For before Mt. Sinai's giving of the ten commandments God ordained capital punishment in [b]Genesis. After the flood terminating the period in history of universal anarchy God ordains that government of men may shed man's blood when murde ...[text shortened]... qualification to it.

Charges of hypocrisy on the part of God come off as superficial to me.[/b]

I do understand your theological need to water down "You shall not kill" to a more diluted "You shall do no murder," as in its neat form it is difficult for you to dodge accusations of divine hypocrisy.

Your rabbi friend provided an 'alternative' translation, not a 'better' translation. You did well to distance yourself from such a conclusion.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
You cant rebel against the divine, but I guess you knew that.
Do you think others don't? Do you think atheists 'rebel against the divine' ?

Thank you

Why do you think you can not rebel against the divine? If you are free to choose you either walk in love or not, you either walk in righteousness or not. You can seek God or not, the point of our will is we use it. Jesus when He was approaching Jerusalem bemoaned that He wanted to protect it, but it rejected Him. We have the choice to seek God or not, to answer His call upon our lives or not. Why judge anyone who never had a choice?

Are Atheists loving God, are they walking in God's Spirit or their flesh? The ones I see talking about God only do it to accuse Him of something.

Edit: not suggesting you can rebel and be successful.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you think I error? No doubt that there are those who will complain about the leadership not living by the same rules they are given. I don't believe that alters my point. It does show we can resist human leadership so it should not surprise we would rebel against the divine as well.

On the contrary - for the sake of argument - the parallel between the divine and secular hierarchy tells the peasant NOT to rebel against the lord of the manor. Like God, the ruler operates independently of the rules he applies to the ruled. I don't know if this contradicts what you said, and it was not my intention to contradict you.

Originally posted by JS357
On the contrary - for the sake of argument - the parallel between the divine and secular hierarchy tells the peasant NOT to rebel against the lord of the manor. Like God, the ruler operates independently of the rules he applies to the ruled. I don't know if this contradicts what you said, and it was not my intention to contradict you.

I feel our exchange is an honest one don't worry about, what is the worst that can happen, we agree to disagree!? God actually does say obey our leadership without saying only the good ones. There are exceptions where we believe what we are being asked to do is wrong such as kill your firstborn males, or bow and worship someone or things or die. Nothing new here we make choices and will live and die with them. Bad leadership doesn't remove us from our obligations to do good and obey the law.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why do you think you can not rebel against the divine? If you are free to choose you either walk in love or not, you either walk in righteousness or not. You can seek God or not, the point of our will is we use it. Jesus when He was approaching Jerusalem bemoaned that He wanted to protect it, but it rejected Him. We have the choice to seek God or not, to an ...[text shortened]... only do it to accuse Him of something.

Edit: not suggesting you can rebel and be successful.

"Not suggesting you can rebel and be successful "

Ah, so you do know what I mean 🙂

As I may have mentioned elsewhere, Buddhists don't believe in god, they are essentially atheists but carry on like people of faith.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's not as simple as the black/white approach theists seem to propose. One size does not fit all (as Frank Zappa pointed out many years ago)