On religion

[NotAllThere]

It depends if you believe God exists inside the rules of logic or not.

If inside, then no.

If outside, then yes, and he can then lift it.

The question is nonsensical. It is equivalent to "can God create four-side triangles". It reveals more about the ambiguity inherent in language, than it says anything about the nature of God.

[sasguru]

Some of the ridiculous statements made on this thread by people who you'd imagine were more intelligent and imaginative and able to take the bigger picture only serve to enhance my working hypothesis:
religions and the power figures that (usually but not always) come with them are human constructs to make sense of the world. Different cultures have come up with completely different myths and fantasies in this subject, as you'd expect.
It is is surely the height of arrogance assume your own beliefs are somehow superior to all others when there is no evidence whatsover for most of these beliefs.

[NotAllThere]

Some of the ridiculous statements made on this thread by people who you'd imagine were more intelligent and imaginative and able to take the bigger picture only serve to enhance my working hypothesis:
religions and the power figures that (usually but not always) come with them are human constructs to make sense of the world. Different cultures have come up with completely different myths and fantasies in this subject, as you'd expect.
It is is surely the height of arrogance assume your own beliefs are somehow superior to all others when there is no evidence whatsover for most of these beliefs.

There's only one possible comment to that:

Some of the ridiculous statements made on this thread by people who you'd imagine were more intelligent and imaginative and able to take the bigger picture only serve to enhance my working hypothesis:
religions and the power figures that (usually but not always) come with them are human constructs to make sense of the world. Different cultures have come up with completely different myths and fantasies in this subject, as you'd expect.
It is is surely the height of arrogance assume your own beliefs are somehow superior to all others when there is no evidence whatsover for most of these beliefs.

[Gibbon]

Free will and predestination are very interesting and the church does seem to have some ambiguity on this matter. This is expressed brilliantly in one of the most famous paintings in the world, Michelangelo’s creation of Adam. We have God bringing life to Adam and passing down his divine law; however in his cloak, containing the souls of those yet to live, we have Eve looking at Adam and ignoring the words of wisdom being whispered to her. God’s left hand has a finger touching a cherub like figure that is no other than the Christ child. In other words God already knows that Adam will fail and that Christ will redeem mankind.

So the Church likes to use predestination at times, but is either fooling us about free will (otherwise what is the point trying to be good if you’re going to fail at some point) or maybe it has it wrong.

[speling bee]

But God can easily recreate Jesus absolutely perfectly with relevant memories etc as God is all powerful. I cannot do that with my son. It is clearly not the same relationship.



I thought that God was immortal? How can he die as God if God is immortal.
If he died as both why is he still around?
Isn't the entire thing pointless as God can bring him back to life in any way he wants as God can do anything?


But surely nothing can be separated from God as God can do anything.


God can create an infinite amount of 'sons' if he chose to. He could even bring Jesus back if he liked but also they both knew that Jesus would come back to life in a couple of days and rejoining his father in heaven so was it much of a sacrifice?

There has been substantial bloodshed over the centuries over this and the Athanasian orthodoxy won our over the Arian heresy. We can see the outcome in the line of 'O come all ye Faithful': ''Begotten not created.'

It stems from the Prologue of John (from memory):

In the beginning was the Word (logos)...and the Word became flesh.

So to say God could create a son misses the point. The Son is as eternal as the Father.

[sasguru]

There's only one possible comment to that:

Some of the ridiculous statements made on this thread by people who you'd imagine were more intelligent and imaginative and able to take the bigger picture only serve to enhance my working hypothesis:
religions and the power figures that (usually but not always) come with them are human constructs to make sense of the world. Different cultures have come up with completely different myths and fantasies in this subject, as you'd expect.
It is is surely the height of arrogance assume your own beliefs are somehow superior to all others when there is no evidence whatsover for most of these beliefs.

I see what you're doing there, the difference of course being the fact that lack of evidence for supernatural intervention means one shouldn't posit it in the first place. This sort of "begging the question" fallacy is common in religious argument.

[speling bee]

The question is nonsensical. It is equivalent to "can God create four-side triangles". It reveals more about the ambiguity inherent in language, than it says anything about the nature of God.

I think it leads us to interesting questions:

Is God inside or outside logic?

Does God operate inside or outside time? Can God change the past?

Did something cause God?

[NotAllThere]

I see what you're doing there....

Ah, so you're not as stupid as speling bee looks.

btw - speling bee, a question that is logically inconsistent (such as posited) is as much a logical fallacy as an ad hominem argument, you plank.

[sasguru]

Ah, so you're not as stupid as speling bee looks.

btw - speling bee, a question that is logically inconsistent (such as posited) is as much a logical fallacy as an ad hominem argument, you plank.

I don't know, equating the Buddha with Satan sort of is almost at cretin level

[doomage]

I don't know, equating the Buddha with Satan sort of is almost at cretin level

Well, he is a fatty. And fatties are evil.