• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The god who (once again) wasn't there: Virginia Tech

mophed20

Soon-to-be OCA catechumen.
May 1, 2007
179
7
University Place, WA
✟15,340.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
i found something that totally explains my point. it's Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho. section i am showing is sorta long, but it's good. it's chapters 2 and 3.

Chapter 2. Justin describes his studies in philosophy.

"I will tell you," said I, "what seems to me; for philosophy is, in fact, the greatest possession, and most honourable before God, to whom it leads us and alone commends us; and these are truly holy men who have bestowed attention on philosophy. What philosophy is, however, and the reason why it has been sent down to men, have escaped the observation of most; for there would be neither Platonists, nor Stoics, nor Peripatetics, nor Theoretics, nor Pythagoreans, this knowledge being one. I wish to tell you why it has become many-headed. It has happened that those who first handled it [i.e., philosophy], and who were therefore esteemed illustrious men, were succeeded by those who made no investigations concerning truth, but only admired the perseverance and self-discipline of the former, as well as the novelty of the doctrines; and each thought that to be true which he learned from his teacher: then, moreover, those latter persons handed down to their successors such things, and others similar to them; and this system was called by the name of him who was styled the father of the doctrine. Being at first desirous of personally conversing with one of these men, I surrendered myself to a certain Stoic; and having spent a considerable time with him, when I had not acquired any further knowledge of God (for he did not know himself, and said such instruction was unnecessary), I left him and betook myself to another, who was called a Peripatetic, and as he fancied, shrewd. And this man, after having entertained me for the first few days, requested me to settle the fee, in order that our intercourse might not be unprofitable. Him, too, for this reason I abandoned, believing him to be no philosopher at all. But when my soul was eagerly desirous to hear the peculiar and choice philosophy, I came to a Pythagorean, very celebrated—a man who thought much of his own wisdom. And then, when I had an interview with him, willing to become his hearer and disciple, he said, 'What then? Are you acquainted with music, astronomy, and geometry? Do you expect to perceive any of those things which conduce to a happy life, if you have not been first informed on those points which wean the soul from sensible objects, and render it fitted for objects which appertain to the mind, so that it can contemplate that which is honourable in its essence and that which is good in its essence?' Having commended many of these branches of learning, and telling me that they were necessary, he dismissed me when I confessed to him my ignorance. Accordingly I took it rather impatiently, as was to be expected when I failed in my hope, the more so because I deemed the man had some knowledge; but reflecting again on the space of time during which I would have to linger over those branches of learning, I was not able to endure longer procrastination. In my helpless condition it occurred to me to have a meeting with the Platonists, for their fame was great. I thereupon spent as much of my time as possible with one who had lately settled in our city,—a sagacious man, holding a high position among the Platonists,—and I progressed, and made the greatest improvements daily. And the perception of immaterial things quite overpowered me, and the contemplation of ideas furnished my mind with wings, so that in a little while I supposed that I had become wise; and such was my stupidity, I expected forthwith to look upon God, for this is the end of Plato's philosophy.
Chapter 3. Justin narrates the manner of his conversion.

"And while I was thus disposed, when I wished at one period to be filled with great quietness, and to shun the path of men, I used to go into a certain field not far from the sea. And when I was near that spot one day, which having reached I purposed to be by myself, a certain old man, by no means contemptible in appearance, exhibiting meek and venerable manners, followed me at a little distance. And when I turned round to him, having halted, I fixed my eyes rather keenly on him.
"And he said, 'Do you know me?'
"I replied in the negative.
" 'Why, then,' said he to me, 'do you so look at me?'
" 'I am astonished,' I said, 'because you have chanced to be in my company in the same place; for I had not expected to see any man here.'
"And he says to me, 'I am concerned about some of my household. These are gone away from me; and therefore have I come to make personal search for them, if, perhaps, they shall make their appearance somewhere. But why are you here?' said he to me.
" 'I delight,' said I, 'in such walks, where my attention is not distracted, for converse with myself is uninterrupted; and such places are most fit for philology.'
" 'Are you, then, a philologian,' said he, 'but no lover of deeds or of truth? and do you not aim at being a practical man so much as being a sophist?'
" 'What greater work,' said I, 'could one accomplish than this, to show the reason which governs all, and having laid hold of it, and being mounted upon it, to look down on the errors of others, and their pursuits? But without philosophy and right reason, prudence would not be present to any man. Wherefore it is necessary for every man to philosophize, and to esteem this the greatest and most honourable work; but other things only of second-rate or third-rate importance, though, indeed, if they be made to depend on philosophy, they are of moderate value, and worthy of acceptance; but deprived of it, and not accompanying it, they are vulgar and coarse to those who pursue them.'
" 'Does philosophy, then, make happiness?' said he, interrupting.
" 'Assuredly,' I said, 'and it alone.'
" 'What, then, is philosophy?' he says; 'and what is happiness? Pray tell me, unless something hinders you from saying.'
" 'Philosophy, then,' said I, 'is the knowledge of that which really exists, and a clear perception of the truth; and happiness is the reward of such knowledge and wisdom.'
" 'But what do you call God?' said he.
" 'That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other things —that, indeed, is God.' So I answered him; and he listened to me with pleasure, and thus again interrogated me:—
" 'Is not knowledge a term common to different matters? For in arts of all kinds, he who knows any one of them is called a skilful man in the art of generalship, or of ruling, or of healing equally. But in divine and human affairs it is not so. Is there a knowledge which affords understanding of human and divine things, and then a thorough acquaintance with the divinity and the righteousness of them?'
" 'Assuredly,' I replied.
" 'What, then? Is it in the same way we know man and God, as we know music, and arithmetic, and astronomy, or any other similar branch?'
" 'By no means,' I replied.
" 'You have not answered me correctly, then,' he said; 'for some [branches of knowledge] come to us by learning, or by some employment, while of others we have knowledge by sight. Now, if one were to tell you that there exists in India an animal with a nature unlike all others, but of such and such a kind, multiform and various, you would not know it before you saw it; but neither would you be competent to give any account of it, unless you should hear from one who had seen it.'
" 'Certainly not,' I said.
" 'How then,' he said, 'should the philosophers judge correctly about God, or speak any truth, when they have no knowledge of Him, having neither seen Him at any time, nor heard Him?'
" 'But, father,' said I, 'the Deity cannot be seen merely by the eyes, as other living beings can, but is discernible to the mind alone, as Plato says; and I believe him.'



http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01281.htm
 
Upvote 0

Theogonia

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2006
9,103
142
34
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
✟10,109.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
the second, that is a matter of Jewish/Christian doctrine, and that is not the point of this discussion. existence is really a poor explanation of God as well, for that very reason. i keep telling you guys all this stuff about how language is a human creation, science is a human creation, logic is a human creation, and is the product of the mind that was given to us by God. do you get it? God does not exist! God is! God was! God will always be unto the ages of ages! (instead of our lame word "unto" insert the greek word "heos," it's a little more correct. if you are looking for the meaning, it's here: http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=2193) make sense?

I understand, look at my signature.

and the last part: how would a God who is infinite, all powerful, all knowing, and the creator of all, want or even need to be sustained. doesn't He have everything He needs (which is everything+infinity+fill in the blank with an inexpressible word that our finite brains are unable to understand).

Maybe not. Since God is love, maybe he feeds off our love. Maybe our love sustains him.
 
Upvote 0

Theogonia

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2006
9,103
142
34
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
✟10,109.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Humans brought this upon themselves. God would have LOVED to stop this shooting, but we humans have to learn suffering on earth. Becuase humans will suffer on earth, we will not dream of trying to overthrow god in heaven like satan did, becuase by then we will have learned true suffering and what happens when you try to overthrow god for personal gain.

So God hurts us because he is afraid of us.

This is the worst explanation I've heard yet.
 
Upvote 0

livingforGod135

Regular Member
Apr 3, 2007
163
13
WA
✟22,828.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You're not seeing it. If you love me you'll obey what I command.

yes

Therefore if I obey God I must love him

no

what about the kid who does what his drunken stepfather tells him to because he is scared, not because he loves his stepdad but because he doesnt want to get hurt?

because I'm obeying him. If I didn't love God I wouldn't be obeying him.

hmmm previous comment wasnt meant to meaqn people are scared of God... so ur saying if u didnt love God u would find out everything u could about what he wants people to do n then go out of ur way to do the exact opposite??

You're still obeying the commands. It's not by accident if you know what's right and wrong.

no it is not by accident... it is because parents have shown me and/or you what is right and wrong... btw not everyone knows what is right and what is wrong

The law is written on all of our hearts.

hmmm where did u get this from? proof?

Love is not knowledge, love for God is obediance to God.

awwwww so now u are telling me that i cant love God if i am not 100% obedient to him? (because i am not)

i know love isnt knowledge

I know pagans who walk as Jesus did.

because they love Jesus? for Jesus? or because they are good people?

Love is actions, not words or knowledge.

this is of no relevance... i also think that true love is shown thru actions as well but this doesnt change that people cannot love someone they refuse to recognise... because the actions of love, have to be done out of love for someone (whom they have to recognise)

It was the spirit working in you.

makes no difference... i have still done good things and it was still my choice. and how do u explain the bad things i have done?

just because the spirit (which is part of the trinity btw) was showing me what the right thing to do was... doesnt mean that took my choice away... i have had times when i knew what the right thing to do was and went in the opposite direction

Because the spirit is intermittent. Those who are aware of it's existance will be more in tune with it, but it is still on and off. Every act of good you do is God's spirit working in you.

are u saying there is no free will (for god things) now?

WRONG. The spirit is in EVERYONE. I know people that are not christian that have the spirit of God strong in them. How do I know? Because of their fruit, the way they live.

it is possible to have a good life and not know God. just like it is possible to have a crappy life and know him

good people does not = spirit of God within them

Well you shouldn't be sarcastic because there is absolutely no evidence to support the virgin birth, and there is strong evidence that the account of it in the bible was added by the catholic church after Jesus died.

since when is it all about evidence and proof. since when was it 'i'll believe whatever is explained best'? that takes away the point of belief n faith

Can you explain to me in logical terms why Jesus would need to die so we can be saved? Or died for our sins? It is nonsense.

-we stuff up
-God warns us
-we keep stuffing up
-God sends his son to die for us
-so that because of his obediance to his father and his perfect life, we are saved
-he paid the price for our sins when he was on that cross
-he did it so that we could know God so that we didnt have to live perfect lives

Reincarnation.

yeah... it is false. and btw it was u who first claimed it as to be real, so its actually up 2 u to prove it

No, I said that I believe to be saved our righteousness has to outweigh our sin. But God is going to factor in the individual's level of understanding and their state of mind when they do die.

why are u trying to tell me what God will or wont do? do u even know?

Just because it's not torture for our bodies doesn't mean it isn't for our spirits.

hmmmm. btw ur comment about being told where we stuffed up would be like being given a test back, told to do it again and given the right answers to what we got wrong. actually the way u r describing it: not being told that we even stuffed up would be like the teacher not bothering to tell u why u had to do it again... in fact it would be like not even being told u were doing it again.

telling us that we had stuffed up would be like giving us the test back n being told to do it again because we got some wrong

oh and torture for our spirits... why arent we even vaguely aware of this?


Think of one of the cells on your body. It is part of you and you of it,

no it is part of me... but i am not part of the cell

but you are beyond. The cell is the universe and you are God

thats rubbish

The only things that don't make sense to me are things that don't have any logic.

well yeah... do u really have to understand everything?

God can do anything within the laws of this world.

God can do anything. simple as

Likewise, he can do anything within the laws of other worlds and universes, which might have laws that would break the laws of this world.

u believe in other worlds?

Because it's a completely different realm. It's probably in a completely different plane of existance. It could be a parallel world to this one, but in a completely different dimension.

well neither of us know. and since it can be so different then it is possible that Jesus is in human form

That is not the point of revelation.

i didnt say it was. i said if it gets nothing else across it gets across that Jesus is returning. i never said that was the point to revelation

btw what do u think the point to revelation is?

It has about as much literal significance as one of the parables Jesus told. That's basically what revelation is.

how would u know?
What I mean is it is too fantastical to be literal.

this is God we are talking about. u said urself that he is bigger than we could imagine. yet u claim he is limited by rules of the earth... but he created them. how can u say he cant to something fantastical?

I personally believe so.

cool well i guess making a difference is important

Lucifer is a fictional character created by English poet John Milton for an epic poem entitled "Paradise Lost" (which is an excellent poem), in which he describes the fall of man and the fall of Lucifer.

so big deal all that proves is that someone wrote a poem about satan

Lucifer is not even a real Latin word,

so? u said urself furthur down that it would be hebrew

but a name he made up for the poem, combining words. Its approximate translation from latin would be "Light-Bringer"

dont forget he was an angel first

. If one believes there really is an Archangel named "Lucifer", one is horribly wrong for this fact alone.

where is the proof for this?

Should a real "Lucifer" have any name, it would be Hebrew.

i guess so

This is partially incorrect.

what is?

While the popularization of this story and several facets of it DID come from the poem, the name Lucifer did not.

what?? first u claim lucifer is made up by this poet n then u claim the name didnt come from this poem

In addition, the whole "cast from heaven" concept and Lucifer tempting man stems from this poem. In genesis, Adam and Eve are
tempted by a SNAKE,

hate to break it to ya n all that but the bible was put together long before this poem. did it occur to ur friend that the guy may have got the idea for the poem from genesis?

and while some say that this was Satan in the form of an animal, the syntax of the text might prove otherwise:

does it even matter if it was satan or not?

If the Serpent was really Satan, it would not say that the creature was "more crafty than any of the wild animals", because it would not BE a wild animal, it would be "Satan", and though it would not say "Satan", it would likely say that the serpent talking to Eve was not actually an animal.

but only 'likely'? it didnt big deal.

Now there is also debate that the "serpent" could refer to a Seraphim (seraph = fiery serpent, or something to that extent :p)

ok ok it was a serpent which... is the same thing as a snake. n btw just because satan may or may not have been 'inside' the snake it doesnt make the snake any less snake. think about it say there is a person possesed: there is a demon inside of this person, the person is still a person; they have a demon inside them, doesnt stop them being a person

There is no further evidence in the text to indicate that the serpent is anything BUT a normal snake, aside from the fact it talks, but who's to say talking animals weren't a common occurance in "Eden", or wait... the entire story is symbolic and not actually real events.

the entire story is symbolic?? right... so where did the earth come from again. yes the serpent talked. and who is to say talking animals werent an occurance then? but who is to say that it wasnt? and if it was dont u think they would have been mentioned??

Lucifer, in the Latin Vulgate text, is another name for the "morning star" or "light bringer (in regards to a STAR bringing the first light of morning)"; a person versed in astrology would know the "morning star" to be none other than the planet Venus! And so "Lucifer" WAS the morning star -- Venus! Originally this literal, astrological definition was the connotation
of the "name".

he was an ANGEL is it not even a little bit possible that he had a name meaning 'light bringer'? funny how he is now 'prince of darkness'

And notice that I am willing to admit my error, unlike the Christians!

what error? and if u stopped being ignorant u would notice that Christians will admit when they are wrong... not all but some, just like every1 else, some will swallow their pride and others wont

Finally, "hell".
"Lucifer" was only placed in "hell" because of literature. Dante placed him in Hell as well as Milton, and for some reason, people took the words of these two poets as another Gospel.

wheres ur proof for this one? u cant make a statement like that n not back it up. no dates of when this was claimed n it being 'put in the bible'?

Now the common view of hell is a Dantean 9-layered pit, full of Demons and Tortures for sinners, depending on their sin of choice.

just because some people with imaginations have made this place up it doesnt mean it is real... but that doesnt mean hell doesnt exist. personally i believe hell is simply a place without God

Unfortunately for those believers, this was created as a
work of fiction

some peoples view of hell is wrong, hey maybe everyones is

It was never meant as Gospel, nor was Milton's poem,

it seems perfectly obvious and milton is allowed to use genesis as a base for his poem... doesnt mean he created genesis

all i see here is u using a poem to try and tell me that satan and hell are fake

Laura
 
Upvote 0

loudatheist101

Logic is the train, evidence is the track.
Feb 10, 2007
8,400
78
Saturn
✟31,540.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
So there is no God.
I think he is using "God" as an adjetive. The Universe and everything in it is "God" to him, okay, then you can call it that but, don't make false religions based off of "God".
 
Upvote 0

OrestesMantra

Active Member
May 21, 2007
103
2
38
✟22,744.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Maybe not. Since God is love, maybe he feeds off our love. Maybe our love sustains him.

So, if everyone on earth all of a sudden stopped loving God, would he disappear?

I think it makes more sense to assume that God feeds off money, because he always seems to need more of it.
 
Upvote 0