The word of God

[Smegma]

Deja vu. Haven't we gone through this already?

Each choice you make defines the future, and immediately locks out an infinite number of other timelines. To put it in a different perspective, your free will is basically a choice of infinite variations - and God's omnipotence lies in that he knows all possible outcomes. You have free will, but you can't surprise him.

God exists, but the common image we have of him is faulty.

Okay, so God knows the future as possibilities.

But the bible is all metaphors, so is its statement of God being not one?

[Demonic]

Most statements in the Bible, even some of the straightforward ones can still be interpreted in many ways, and there can be debate about the literal meaning aswell ( not talking about the 'thou shall kill those whom make love with animals' type of things ).

Let's take your approach then. If all scripture on the existance of God ( I am the lord, thus spoke the lord, etc ) is metaphorical, and it does not literally mean that there exists an omnipotent deity, what would be your interpretation of it?

[Smegma]

I don't know, but if you say the whole bible is metaphorical I said that God doesn't exist.

[Demonic]

So, you interpret a metaphor which says that something is, and that something does other things ( like, creating the world ) as it does not exist.

Derrida himself would be in awe.

[Smegma]

So, you interpret a metaphor which says that something is, and that something does other things ( like, creating the world ) as it does not exist.

Derrida himself would be in awe.

If the bible is a metaphor, then whatever it says is comparing it to something other than itself. So if the bible says God created the world, taking that as literal would not be a metaphor.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

If the bible is a metaphor, then whatever it says is comparing it to something other than itself.

Furthermore, where can you look to for facts if the book that's supposed to define absolute truth is inaccurate, especially in spiritual and metaphysical matters that there is no other source for?

[Smegma]

Calling the bible an extended metaphor does not state its false.

[HOFFMANN]

ok, firstable - it's a WTF moment for me seeing a RELIGION thread in a SOLDAT forum =)

secondable - religion is for sheep IMO....and damn, there are so many beliving blindly....there is no scientifical proof that God exists in a way that christians or muslims ETC ETC ETC see it

one of the most ridiculous religion for me is scientology................no comments

if i have to classify myself then atheism all the way.

actually i have a lot of to say about religion but i have go through this thread first and then get some sleep ^^

[Smegma]

You love scientifical stuff too?!

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

secondable - religion is for sheep IMO....and damn, there are so many beliving blindly....there is no scientifical proof that God exists in a way that christians or muslims ETC ETC ETC see it

You seem to not quite grasp the concept of what religion is.  Part of the DEFINITION of a religion is that it is not scientifically observable.

I gotta agree with your sheep comment, though.  Why bother searching for understanding of the metaphysical when scientists can just TELL you that there's no way they can quantitatively prove or disprove its existence?

[Mangled*]

God exists, but the common image we have of him is faulty.

Faulty on account of believers who broadcast their interpretations of God, what he is, and how he operates as the truth? If I make make some examples:

By being created in God's image, everything we do must have some minor aspect of God in it.  Otherwise we'd be no better than Satan and demons, who are beyond redemption.

God is physical in the way that our whole physical world is a part of him.

omnipotence would require standing above all other dimensions, which also means that everything is a part of Him.

You know, it's almost as if you're making it up as you go along really. If those are your opinions then fine, but they don't appear to be based of any scripture at all, let alone scientific findings.

ok, firstable - it's a WTF moment for me seeing a RELIGION thread in a SOLDAT forum =)

secondable - religion is for sheep IMO....and damn, there are so many beliving blindly....there is no scientifical proof that God exists in a way that christians or muslims ETC ETC ETC see it

one of the most ridiculous religion for me is scientology................no comments

if i have to classify myself then atheism all the way.

actually i have a lot of to say about religion but i have go through this thread first and then get some sleep ^^

Hey, I'm an Atheist too. But like I stated at the beginning, I don't want this debate being about Theism vs Atheism, because whenever that is discussed (argued) it always ends with flaming and really ends up with the 'side' with more arguing for it self-proclaiming victory and the thread being locked because it just ends in flame wars.

Personally I'm sort of more interested in seeing individually how believers differ from each other and why. For the purpose of the debate I am posting with the false presumption God theoretically has any plausibility at all. It gives me a somewhat impartial standpoint on it.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

By being created in God's image, everything we do must have some minor aspect of God in it.  Otherwise we'd be no better than Satan and demons, who are beyond redemption.

You know, it's almost as if you're making it up as you go along really. If those are your opinions then fine, but they don't appear to be based of any scripture at all, let alone scientific findings.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Now tell me, using pure logic, what does "Being made in God's image" imply?

[The Geologist]

Multiple things.  But from what you quoted, I fail to see how everything we do has to have some aspect of God involved, "lest we be no better than Satan and demons".

Every time I hear that it always feels like implies we were just made to look like him.  Not to act like him.  And since both male and female were created in "his" image, shouldn't "it" be more appropriate then him?  How does a male create a female in his own image without...scary results?

[frogboy]

god is a pair of siamese twins, one male, one female

[Mangled*]

Doesn't that mean God is really two separate Gods in the same way that siamese twins are recognised as two separate (despite being attached) people? Which would make anybody who believed in him really an unknowing Polytheist. In fact, that doesn't even clear up the gender issue.

Which brings me to the question, do believers believe God is male? If so why? Does he have a penis and testicles and testosterone-related hair-loss problems? Does he produce sperm? What if God is really of indeterminate gender but the fact that the Bible was only written by men gives God a false masculine ego.

[Smegma]

What if it isnt?

[iDante]

God was an artist see, and when he made man he decided that his best medium was some dirt that was laying around at the time. Man = dirt. Then he made woman using that dude (adam)'s rib. Woman = rib of dirt.

If you actually read that and expect it to be true literally, then you are idiot. But if you take it as a metaphor, then you are true.

[Hair|Trigger]

@Mangled

You compared God with science.  your saying we get to choose what makes you a "Man", the physical features of a male.  The word Man does not nessecarily mean Male, it's more focused towards the "mankind" sort of thing.

[poopdogg]

@Mangled

Science is not everything

[Pie]

@Mangled

Science is not everything

Scientology?