Valid Question: Is the Bible erotic literature?

[ValiS]

I don't need to be asked a question in order to take issue with it.  Besides, you're acting like it's a bad thing that we can't fully understand God.  If God was able to be fully understood by humans, he wouldn't be much of a God, would he? What would then make him greater than us, or worthy to be worshiped? 

If You don´t understand god fully, then how can you say it is a loving god? By saying god is loving you are already impliing that you understand it. I have exactly the same right to say god is evil.

I'm going to use the dimensional argument again, since it seems the most readily applicable to the situation.  If we existed in a two-dimensional world, why should we believe that a third dimension exists? How could we comprehend it?  The answer, of course, is that we understand that our 2D world is incomprehensible yet far superior to a one-dimensional world, and it only makes sense that a third dimension would also exist, similarly trumping ours.

Wait, that logic is flawed I think. First: 3 dimensions is the minimum for life to be possible, if we only count spatial dimensions. So, of course we can see that 3d is better than 2d (because in 2d we would not be able to exist). BUT, just because we can IMAGINE that there could be a 2d world, does not mean there really could be one. Here your logic breaks down: you are arguing, that because we can THINK of a 2d world, there HAS TO BE a 4d world. That kind of reminds me of the ontological argument - inducing things out of thin air.

Or consider a painting.  Should one be sentient, it would know nothing except its own composition.  It would know that it must not have always existed, and that somehow, something must have created it.  It would probably logically conclude that its elements and details represented something in the creator's mind; that is, some aspect of the creator.  But how could it know anything beyond what it was? Could it comprehend that the same creator could also produce sculptures, or use watercolors instead of oil paints? Of course not.  That painting can understand nothing except what it is, though it would be foolish to assume that it always existed and that there were no outside forces besides the ones it knew.

Yes, but there is no reason to believe these outside forces were god.

I feel like I've said this to you before (in fact I know I have) things that don't exist can neither be proven or disproven. Why don't you start by disproving leprechauns or the tooth fairy, and if you can manage that then I'll disprove God.

The key problem here is your second paragraph.  You've precluded that God doesn't exist, and that it's impossible to prove otherwise.  If that's the case, what can I say that will convince you of God's existence? You've already decided any of my arguments are wrong before even hearing them, haven't you?

The key problem here is, that you accuse him of precluding god does not exist (this debate would not have happened, if he thought god did exist, so thats kind of the point here.) but you dont realise, that you have done exactly the same, only you preclude the opposite. And you too have decided science can not explain certain things, before even hearing it. So there would be a nice symmetry here, if only it wasn´t ruined by one side having logic, reason, evidence.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

1: If You don´t understand god fully, then how can you say it is a loving god? By saying god is loving you are already impliing that you understand it. I have exactly the same right to say god is evil.

2: Wait, that logic is flawed I think. First: 3 dimensions is the minimum for life to be possible, if we only count spatial dimensions. So, of course we can see that 3d is better than 2d (because in 2d we would not be able to exist). BUT, just because we can IMAGINE that there could be a 2d world, does not mean there really could be one. Here your logic breaks down: you are arguing, that because we can THINK of a 4d world, there HAS TO BE a 4d world. That kind of reminds me of the ontological argument - inducing things out of thin air.

3: Yes, but there is no reason to believe these outside forces were god.

4: The key problem here is, that you accuse him of precluding god does not exist (this debate would not have happened, if he thought god did exist, so thats kind of the point here.) but you dont realise, that you have done exactly the same, only you preclude the opposite. And you too have decided science can not explain certain things, before even hearing it. So there would be a nice symmetry here, if only it wasn´t ruined by one side having logic, reason, evidence.

1:
I can only go by his actions, especially the ones that other people have recorded.  From what I've seen, God wants humans to join him in the eternal bliss that is heaven, and he wants it so much that he offered up Jesus in order to take our sin for us.  He's willing to show us undeserved grace because it's best for us, and he's willing to enter into a personal relationship with us through his Holy Spirit because he wants to be an important part in the lives of his creations.  I'd say that makes him a loving God.

You might argue "why didn't he just make it so that everyone goes into heaven anyway?" and I admit I don't have an answer for that.  I do, however, have two insights that may help point us in the right direction.  The first is simply that if humans were unable to sin, then we might as well not exist in the first place.  There's no good or evil; there just IS.  Social interaction would be eradicated.  The second is that maybe the question is like asking "why didn't God make circles have right angles?"  It just can't be that way.  I don't know how absolute morality works, but I'm not going to assume that it doesn't exist just because I don't understand it.

2:
I can only draw examples from what everyone knows.  The dimensions comparison is the most basic way I can think of to address the nature of supernatural reality, and your refusal to accept it just shows how unwilling you are to consider alternate mindsets.  Of COURSE a third dimension has to exist; we're in it! But that's the only way you can prove that a dimension exists as more than a theoretical concept, as far as I know.  Each dimension provides awareness of all the dimensions below it, but naturally it doesn't work the other way around.  So by providing an example of a dimension that exists without the awareness of a lesser dimension, I hope to make you understand that a spiritual plane can exist without the awareness of many people in the material one.

3:
These forces created the painting and control and perceive every aspect of it; what is a God if not that?

4:
No, your side is using a different sort of logic, reason, and evidence than mine.  Your commandeering of the entirety of logic, reason, and evidence just proves how limited your understanding of those concepts is.  To show what I mean, let me put it this way: I've taken a class in digital logic, so does that make me qualified to claim knowledge of modal logic as well? Of course not.  And just because you use certain elements of logic to support your claims doesn't mean that your side is the only one to do so.  In fact, I'd argue that my side uses reason more extensively than yours, since theological argument requires a higher level of thought than simply accepting the things you see.  Remember, many of the great thinkers (Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, etc.) all heavily explored metaphysics and their relation to the real world.

[ValiS]

1:
I can only go by his actions, especially the ones that other people have recorded.  From what I've seen, God wants humans to join him in the eternal bliss that is heaven, and he wants it so much that he offered up Jesus in order to take our sin for us...  I'd say that makes him a loving God.

But you have no reason to belive, these are "his" actions. Of course you CAN believe, but there is no reason, other than that the bible sais it is "him". For me the fact that bible sais something will never be PROOF of it. I guess we do have different conceptions of truth. I have learned during my life not to trust someone just because he/she claims to be speaking the truth.

2:
I can only draw examples from what everyone knows.  The dimensions comparison is the most basic way I can think of to address the nature of supernatural reality, and your refusal to accept it just shows how unwilling you are to consider alternate mindsets. 

I did not say I did not understand the comparison, or that I am unwilling to consider different mindsets - you are putting words in my mouth. All I said was, that the comparison does not PROVE anything. Sure I understood what you wanted to say with the comparison, it was fine as an example, but it was NOT LOGICAL, as it made conclusions, which were not possible from the given assumptions. These kind of LEAPS IN LOGIC are okay in religion. NOT in logic. Again, i guess your definition of logic is different than other peoples.

3:
These forces created the painting and control and perceive every aspect of it; what is a God if not that?

I paint too, does that make me god then?

4:
No, your side is using a different sort of logic, reason, and evidence than mine.  Your commandeering of the entirety of logic, reason, and evidence just proves how limited your understanding of those concepts is.  To show what I mean, let me put it this way: I've taken a class in digital logic, so does that make me qualified to claim knowledge of modal logic as well? Of course not.  And just because you use certain elements of logic to support your claims doesn't mean that your side is the only one to do so.  In fact, I'd argue that my side uses reason more extensively than yours, since theological argument requires a higher level of thought than simply accepting the things you see.  Remember, many of the great thinkers (Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, etc.) all heavily explored metaphysics and their relation to the real world.

WTF, seriously. The definition of logic is pretty clear, to say you have your own logic just shows you are willing to say anything to justify your beliefs. I have read philosophy too, and I think actually philosophy requires higher level of thought than theology, because in theology you have dogmas you can not ignore or question. In philosophy you are free, you can critizise something everyone else thinks is true.
And on what basis do you say that I am simply accepting the things I see? If you want to play like this, I think YOU are the one who believes everything you read in the bible, and you mold your thinking to fit that "knowledge". I would believe in your god if you could show to me there is no possibility of it not existing. However, would you ever say that your god does not exist, if it was proven to you? Then who of us is the one with limited understanding?

Besides, I never said I dont believe in god as such. I just dont believe your god, which has the attributes of a spoiled and cruel child.

PS.
I have seen "your" logic. The ontological argument. To be honest it is not logical in my opinion:
"The argument is often criticized as committing a bare assertion fallacy, as it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent to the unproven statement."
Thats typical of your "logic" just claiming something, and then saying it must be true because it is "documented" in the bible.

PS2.

I hope to make you understand that a spiritual plane can exist without the awareness of many people in the material one.

This is pure material dualism. Did you got that from the bible too? I personally dont "believe" in material dualism. Read Henri Bergson and think about it. Philosophies like that are obstructing us to see the world more objectively, as they imply made up distinctions between different aspects of the world.

[Mangled*]

I don't need to be asked a question in order to take issue with it.  Besides, you're acting like it's a bad thing that we can't fully understand God.

I think it's a bad thing that you believing in God makes you feel like you have a better understanding of what God is. All based on the assumption that you understand at all.

I'm going to use the dimensional argument again,

Save it, your dimensional argument is terrible. It's terrible because you're assuming there's a higher dimensional plane when you're in one that shows no evidence for the other. We're saying 'prove it' and you're responding with 'prove there isn't'.

You've precluded that God doesn't exist, and that it's impossible to prove otherwise.  If that's the case, what can I say that will convince you of God's existence? You've already decided any of my arguments are wrong before even hearing them, haven't you?

I'm going to respond to this with bold text because this is the most important thing you need to absorb:

I've concluded that God doesn't exist because there's no proof that he does, much in the same way that a court would conclude that someone is innocent because there's no proof that they have committed a crime. You're alledging that he exists and you have no evidence.

All of your arguments boil down to "because I think so". Court dismissed.

No, your side is using a different sort of logic, reason, and evidence than mine.  Your commandeering of the entirety of logic, reason, and evidence just proves how limited your understanding of those concepts is.

There's only one true sort of logic. Your dismissal of logic, reason and evidence just proves how far from reality you're willing to go to maintain your beliefs. All of your arguments are just based on your own embellishment and assumptions.

God gave you eyes, now open them.

PS: if you have any evidence, we're welcoming you to share it with us.

[Smegma]

It's terrible because you're assuming there's a higher dimensional plane when you're in one that shows no evidence for the other. We're saying 'prove it' and you're responding with 'prove there isn't'.

Actually, there is some evidence that we aren't operating on the highest dimension.

[Mangled*]

Actually, there is some evidence that we aren't operating on the highest dimension.

Not in his made up dimensional argument that he's trying to use as an example.

[Smegma]

Actually, there is some evidence that we aren't operating on the highest dimension.

Not in his made up dimensional argument that he's trying to use as an example.

The evidence does relate to his argument, but I wouldn't say its not understandable.

[jrgp]

I wonder... If i start fapping on the bible, will god stop me? Will he punish me? Maybe if i start fapping on it then i start seeing the truth that no one else see?

I triple dog dare you to!

[Lord Frunkamunch]

Who had sex with my bible?

[Shard]

I feel like I started something, something bad....And now this thread has been abducted. Yet it is a highly interesting discussion.

I like how my posts have been ignored on the actual matter at hand and everything has spiraled out.

Might have something to do with the fact that reading and understanding your posts is about the same level of enjoyment as sucking on a turned on cattleprod.

My posts have not been that bad, and they have been accurate, and at least its my own opinions.