100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: DOES GOD HAVE THE RIGHT TO | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Alright, how about a philosophical example. I'm a horrible writer, my dialogue sucks. What can I say, I don't really get engaged in a lot of conversations, regional hazard. The point is, I've written a couple of short stories in my day. Nothing fancy, nothing published, but written word none the less. The people in that story while not real in the sense that they are living flesh, are real in the sense that because they have a story, the do exist. If I were to submit them for publication, and they were printed, even read, they would actually be more real than myself, for in two or three centuries, they might be remembered, where I would not. Now then, as I've said, these people have not been published, so to the world at large, they do not exist. They have that potetial (with a generous rewrite). They also could be deleted with a single keystroke if I so desired, well at least three considering back-ups. Those people won't even exist because of a whim. I could do nothing, and they could be found long after my death, and given life by another, thus taking on a form past the restraints of the original creator. These are all possible paths. Now then, while admittedly that was a huge setup, for what will probably be a poor argument, I will revisit the original question, "Does God have the right to destroy His creation?" Well, yes and no. If God sets forth inanimate non-sentient beings, then yes, by all means erase that stuff, but if it grows bigger than the original design, well, it's no longer his. Any adjustments like that, and you might as well call it "Earth II The Sequel." I don't know, it seems to me, he opened Pandora's box, and he let things get out of hand. You know how it is when that happens, even if you have all the knowledge of the universe, sometimes you can't see the way out of a bad mess. Could he cause some major changes, sure, does he have the right, well, yes and no. That's a good explanation, i use it in a similar way to explain time when comparing something [such as god] not in the time space continuum. To me it seems as you state if he is all knowing, that it would not be a yes or no situation, it would have to be yes. IMO I'm sorry if I gave that appearance. I in no way think God, or any other diety is all knowing. Oh they might appear that way to someone of lesser knowledge (like me), but it is only because they see over a longer time and a larger area. I will not give God credit for knowing everything, if (s)he did, (s)he would have never made this mess because the outcome would have been obvious. The human race is the best evidence that God don't know Jack. THNX RO, i appreciate your opinion, but my original question was "IF" there is/was/were/ a god that created everything - does this being/entity not have the power to do with It's creation as IT See's fit, whether it goes along with our personal ideals or not? If IT gives life/animation to all that exist - does IT - not have this right/ability to do so if IT choses to do so? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 09/29/08 09:02 PM
|
|
Procreation is NOT YOUR personal creation. The machine (the body) was created by a Pro. (Hense procreation)
 Its all in the DNA and I don't think you can take credit for creating that. You do not create your children. Your body is merely a machine that has been designed or has evolved to procreate the species. You have sex with someone and if you hit the mark, an automatic process begins to take place. You are not creating anything. You are merely being used by the machine (the body) to propagate the species. You do not create your children and you do not own your children once they are legally born. You create your experiences and situations, not people. You actually know very little about how the human body operates so you have no way of knowing how to create one. jb |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Procreation is NOT YOUR personal creation. The machine (the body) was created by a Pro. (Hense procreation) Its all in the DNA and I don't think you can take credit for creating that. You do not create your children. Your body is merely a machine that has been designed or has evolved to procreate the species. You have sex with someone and if you hit the mark, an automatic process begins to take place. You are not creating anything. You are merely being used by the machine (the body) to propagate the species. You do not create your children and you do not own your children once they are legally born. You create your experiences and situations, not people. You actually know very little about how the human body operates so you have no way of knowing how to create one. jb You can look at it anyway you want I suppose. None the less I chose not to bring any new people into this world. Whether that was a choice to not create them will forever go unanswered I guess. From my point of view it doesn't relly matter whether I create them from scratch or use someone else's raw material and machines to build them. Same difference IMHO. But like I say. That's clearly an opnion and nothing more. Just like everything else I spose. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 09/29/08 09:24 PM
|
|
Procreation is NOT YOUR personal creation. The machine (the body) was created by a Pro. (Hense procreation) Its all in the DNA and I don't think you can take credit for creating that. You do not create your children. Your body is merely a machine that has been designed or has evolved to procreate the species. You have sex with someone and if you hit the mark, an automatic process begins to take place. You are not creating anything. You are merely being used by the machine (the body) to propagate the species. You do not create your children and you do not own your children once they are legally born. You create your experiences and situations, not people. You actually know very little about how the human body operates so you have no way of knowing how to create one. jb You can look at it anyway you want I suppose. None the less I chose not to bring any new people into this world. Whether that was a choice to not create them will forever go unanswered I guess. From my point of view it doesn't relly matter whether I create them from scratch or use someone else's raw material and machines to build them. Same difference IMHO. But like I say. That's clearly an opnion and nothing more. Just like everything else I spose. While having sex is a creative act of itself I don't see it as creating a human being. It's more like getting drafted when you get pregnant accidentally.  Drafted into procreation.  For a man, all he has to worry about is child support, but for a woman she has to spend 9 months of her life with a body growing inside of her, then give birth and then she has a child to raise for the rest of her life. Hopefully there is a male around to help her do that, but many times she is on her own. Its a burden and a responsibility. Its not really very creative IMHO. jb |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 09/29/08 09:37 PM
|
|
Good setup. First of all, just because you create something initially, doesn't mean it is always yours. Prime example, your children. You created them, but they do not belong to you. Why because they grow past your original parameters (and that right quick), and hence is no longer yours to destroy. Edison's light bulb, original design his, you bet no denying it, modern design, not his, so he couldn't halt production of it if he wanted (and was alive to do it).  However, as you guessed, there is a fundamental flaw in the argument: “If God sets forth inanimate non-sentiant beings, then yes, by all means erase that stuff, but if it grows bigger than the original design, well, it's no longer his.” That says that there is something that god did not create: “Its no longer his” implies “It’s no longer his creation”. Or at least that there is some additional thing that he did not create. So I'll leave it to tribo to decide if that argument goes outside the parameters of the original question. God did not create everything, fundamental flaw with religion, and your counter arguement. God did not create himself, he was always there, so no my friend God is not responsible for everything. Nothing anywhere can be held responsible for it's own creation. Even the stars in the sky are actually a response to gravity's effects on large masses of space dust. Similarly, but more personally, I do not subscribe to the postulate that “you create your children”. (JeannieBean covered this quite well so I won’t go into it too.) Furthermore, if god does exist, then he did, by definition, create everything in the universe and is, by definition, responsible for everything in the universe. Unless of course you’re saying that the dictionary definition of god is erroneous. If so, what is the correct definition of god that all the billion English speaking people in the world should now give up their current definition for? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Procreation is NOT YOUR personal creation. The machine (the body) was created by a Pro. (Hense procreation) Its all in the DNA and I don't think you can take credit for creating that. You do not create your children. Your body is merely a machine that has been designed or has evolved to procreate the species. You have sex with someone and if you hit the mark, an automatic process begins to take place. You are not creating anything. You are merely being used by the machine (the body) to propagate the species. You do not create your children and you do not own your children once they are legally born. You create your experiences and situations, not people. You actually know very little about how the human body operates so you have no way of knowing how to create one. jb You can look at it anyway you want I suppose. None the less I chose not to bring any new people into this world. Whether that was a choice to not create them will forever go unanswered I guess. From my point of view it doesn't relly matter whether I create them from scratch or use someone else's raw material and machines to build them. Same difference IMHO. But like I say. That's clearly an opnion and nothing more. Just like everything else I spose. While having sex is a creative act of itself I don't see it as creating a human being. It's more like getting drafted when you get pregnant accidentally. Drafted into procreation. For a man, all he has to worry about is child support, but for a woman she has to spend 9 months of her life with a body growing inside of her, then give birth and then she has a child to raise for the rest of her life. Hopefully there is a male around to help her do that, but many times she is on her own. Its a burden and a responsibility. Its not really very creative IMHO. jb IMHO?? and what is your dishonest opinion??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 09/29/08 09:39 PM
|
|
IMHO?? and what is your dishonest opinion?? IMHO means in my humble opinion. I don't have dishonest opinions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO?? and what is your dishonest opinion?? IMHO means in my humble opinion. I don't have dishonest opinions. Since when have you ever been humble? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good setup. First of all, just because you create something initially, doesn't mean it is always yours. Prime example, your children. You created them, but they do not belong to you. Why because they grow past your original parameters (and that right quick), and hence is no longer yours to destroy. Edison's light bulb, original design his, you bet no denying it, modern design, not his, so he couldn't halt production of it if he wanted (and was alive to do it). However, as you guessed, there is a fundamental flaw in the argument: “If God sets forth inanimate non-sentiant beings, then yes, by all means erase that stuff, but if it grows bigger than the original design, well, it's no longer his.” That says that there is something that god did not create: “Its no longer his” implies “It’s no longer his creation”. Or at least that there is some additional thing that he did not create. So I'll leave it to tribo to decide if that argument goes outside the parameters of the original question. God did not create everything, fundamental flaw with religion, and your counter arguement. God did not create himself, he was always there, so no my friend God is not responsible for everything. Nothing anywhere can be held responsible for it's own creation. Even the stars in the sky are actually a response to gravity's effects on large masses of space dust. Similarly, but more personally, I do not subscribe to the postulate that “you create your children”. (JeannieBean covered this quite well so I won’t go into it too.) Furthermore, if god does exist, then he did, by definition, create everything in the universe and is, by definition, responsible for everything in the universe. Unless of course you’re saying that the dictionary definition of god is erroneous. If so, what is the correct definition of god that all the billion English speaking people in the world should now give up their current definition for? we have been making war over WHO GOD IS, AND WHICH ONE IS CORRECT, SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME, but yet all peoples ever born have a inate knowing or belief there is a god.... all beings born and thinking the same show COMMON things, and perhpas are of greater significance than meets the eye..... are all men down thur time as delusional in thinking there is a god? we are talking a COMMON thougts by billions upon billions...... how are BILLIONS ALL WRONG..... just the math needed to prove all were wrong is beyond any logical reasoning..... but the notion of god is lifted from biblical text, and how it has been made into ONE god is understandable, but by the same token, why it is of such perposterous notion that each if of the greater original self, making all as gods, children while mortals, seems to be the only way text could EVER be interpreted that would ever make all relgions still hold true in essence, and all things in the universe as created hold to the same principle, but this would make many ALL PARTIALLY CORRECT, WITH ALL HAVING SIMPLY MINDS IDEAS TO THE PICTURE, FOR EASIER CONSUMPTION, BUT THE EASIER CONSUMPTION LEADS TO MISERY OF HATRED AMOMUNST ALL GROUPS AGAINST ANOTHER....... catholics found what prove themself correct.. methodists found what prove themself correct... jews found what prove themself as correct... kkk finds what proves themself as correct.... every gang found proof what make themself correct. ucla finds what prive themself as correct.... pita finds what proive themself as correct.... democrats find what proves themself as correct... republicans find what proves themself as correct... does not each one WISH TO BE BETTER THAN ANOTHER? is not this then the true root of belief that inspire religion? so what the erase religion? find what makes all TRUE? IS IT NOT EASY TO FIND WHAT PROVES ANOTHER AS WRONG..... HOW IS THIS HARD TO DO, BUT RATHER THE EASIEST NATURAL HUMAN INCLINATION..... if there is a greater truth, anything that is truth of "god" it seems it would have to tie and connect all partial truths in to one greatest truth, which seems could be nothing more than all the similaritites of mankind, that create brotherhood, as all the differences are as vast as each drop of every ounce of lived human experience, by each mortal soul, so looking at these is a vast sea of infinity...... is it not to find out what makes one the SAME, but then the mind whisper as the devils advocate all the differences it sees, awaiting the heart to answer back TRUE, BUT BULL****, now get the **** out of my way, and let me love those who are no different than myself, as all trod out the mortal path, each one different, inching forward as snails towards FREEDOM, that at first to any group look as going into the dark, but the light each one deems to be as light, is really the darkness of sight of one alone, the opposite of the mind, the dark, lead to the brightness of sight of how all are as one....... to look at the differences is as staring into the mirror of hate, and not see it is ones own reflection staring back..... peace |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
splendidlife
on
Tue 09/30/08 09:56 AM
|
|
DB1:
but the notion of god is lifted from biblical text, and how it has been made into ONE god is understandable, but by the same token, why it is of such perposterous notion that each if of the greater original self, making all as gods, children while mortals, seems to be the only way text could EVER be interpreted that would ever make all relgions still hold true in essence, and all things in the universe as created hold to the same principle, About 15 years ago a Christian friend told me that tying together different religions as equal can be seen as "evil"... "Not of God" (he saw that I was reading A Course In Miracles and became HIGHLY concerned for me).  So, if religion serves to create divide (to suggest one person's or people's ideology "better" than others'... OF COURSE it will be vehemently opposed to any words suggesting equality of all and continuously serve an agenda to "prove" all others false. but this would make many ALL PARTIALLY CORRECT, WITH ALL HAVING SIMPLY MINDS IDEAS TO THE PICTURE, FOR EASIER CONSUMPTION, BUT THE EASIER CONSUMPTION LEADS TO MISERY OF HATRED AMOMUNST ALL GROUPS AGAINST ANOTHER....... Easier consumption... God... Super Size Me! If we each co-exist with an individual higher-self/god, this could completely shift the context of the OP. With this perspective, I would say that, yes... "god" does have the "right". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yahweh gives life and he takes it away. Abraham Believed Yahweh could raise back Isaac to who was his seed that would continue the promice of his descendents being as the stars of Heavens or the sands of the sea. Shalom...Miles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yahweh gives life and he takes it away. Abraham Believed Yahweh could raise back Isaac to who was his seed that would continue the promise of his descendants being as the stars of Heavens or the sands of the sea. Shalom...Miles Hello my friend - i think if god does exist and is who he says he is that what your saying is a given, no debate there for me - but i was thinking more towards his overall actions within all he's created, - some seem to feel that god is not just in his actions towards his creation, or not loving, or not truthful, etc.. That for dome reason this infinite being does not have the right to do as he pleases, past what any creation might disagree with him on, or his judgement or means he uses to affect his desires as a means to an end. So that's why the post - In my thinking - if he is what he claims to be - he has every right to do what pleases him without having to have some intellectual game of wisdom with his own creation as to why they think he is wrong or unfair or unjust etc.. As JB stated, "if he's god he can do anything he wants". And any way he wants, any time he wants to whomever or what ever he wants, he's not concerned with what his creation might think of his actions and why should he be? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO?? and what is your dishonest opinion?? IMHO means in my humble opinion. I don't have dishonest opinions. Since when have you ever been humble? You're right, it was false humility.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO?? and what is your dishonest opinion?? IMHO means in my humble opinion. I don't have dishonest opinions. Since when have you ever been humble? You're right, it was false humility. As billy Joel wrote - i love you just the way you are.     
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Wed 10/01/08 10:00 PM
|
|
Good setup. First of all, just because you create something initially, doesn't mean it is always yours. Prime example, your children. You created them, but they do not belong to you. Why because they grow past your original parameters (and that right quick), and hence is no longer yours to destroy. Edison's light bulb, original design his, you bet no denying it, modern design, not his, so he couldn't halt production of it if he wanted (and was alive to do it). However, as you guessed, there is a fundamental flaw in the argument: “If God sets forth inanimate non-sentiant beings, then yes, by all means erase that stuff, but if it grows bigger than the original design, well, it's no longer his.” That says that there is something that god did not create: “Its no longer his” implies “It’s no longer his creation”. Or at least that there is some additional thing that he did not create. So I'll leave it to tribo to decide if that argument goes outside the parameters of the original question. God did not create everything, fundamental flaw with religion, and your counter arguement. God did not create himself, he was always there, so no my friend God is not responsible for everything. Nothing anywhere can be held responsible for it's own creation. Even the stars in the sky are actually a response to gravity's effects on large masses of space dust. Similarly, but more personally, I do not subscribe to the postulate that “you create your children”. (JeannieBean covered this quite well so I won’t go into it too.) Furthermore, if god does exist, then he did, by definition, create everything in the universe and is, by definition, responsible for everything in the universe. Unless of course you’re saying that the dictionary definition of god is erroneous. If so, what is the correct definition of god that all the billion English speaking people in the world should now give up their current definition for? we have been making war over WHO GOD IS, AND WHICH ONE IS CORRECT, SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME, but yet all peoples ever born have a inate knowing or belief there is a god.... all beings born and thinking the same show COMMON things, and perhpas are of greater significance than meets the eye..... are all men down thur time as delusional in thinking there is a god? we are talking a COMMON thougts by billions upon billions...... how are BILLIONS ALL WRONG..... just the math needed to prove all were wrong is beyond any logical reasoning..... but the notion of god is lifted from biblical text, and how it has been made into ONE god is understandable, but by the same token, why it is of such perposterous notion that each if of the greater original self, making all as gods, children while mortals, seems to be the only way text could EVER be interpreted that would ever make all relgions still hold true in essence, and all things in the universe as created hold to the same principle, but this would make many ALL PARTIALLY CORRECT, WITH ALL HAVING SIMPLY MINDS IDEAS TO THE PICTURE, FOR EASIER CONSUMPTION, BUT THE EASIER CONSUMPTION LEADS TO MISERY OF HATRED AMOMUNST ALL GROUPS AGAINST ANOTHER....... catholics found what prove themself correct.. methodists found what prove themself correct... jews found what prove themself as correct... kkk finds what proves themself as correct.... every gang found proof what make themself correct. ucla finds what prive themself as correct.... pita finds what proive themself as correct.... democrats find what proves themself as correct... republicans find what proves themself as correct... does not each one WISH TO BE BETTER THAN ANOTHER? is not this then the true root of belief that inspire religion? so what the erase religion? find what makes all TRUE? IS IT NOT EASY TO FIND WHAT PROVES ANOTHER AS WRONG..... HOW IS THIS HARD TO DO, BUT RATHER THE EASIEST NATURAL HUMAN INCLINATION..... if there is a greater truth, anything that is truth of "god" it seems it would have to tie and connect all partial truths in to one greatest truth, which seems could be nothing more than all the similaritites of mankind, that create brotherhood, as all the differences are as vast as each drop of every ounce of lived human experience, by each mortal soul, so looking at these is a vast sea of infinity...... is it not to find out what makes one the SAME, but then the mind whisper as the devils advocate all the differences it sees, awaiting the heart to answer back TRUE, BUT BULL****, now get the **** out of my way, and let me love those who are no different than myself, as all trod out the mortal path, each one different, inching forward as snails towards FREEDOM, that at first to any group look as going into the dark, but the light each one deems to be as light, is really the darkness of sight of one alone, the opposite of the mind, the dark, lead to the brightness of sight of how all are as one....... to look at the differences is as staring into the mirror of hate, and not see it is ones own reflection staring back..... peace ... all peoples ever born have a innate knowing or belief there is a god. That's not a true statement. I do not have an “innate knowing or belief there is a god”. And I personally know several people who have expressed a similar viewpoint. how are BILLIONS ALL WRONG If you define right and wrong as "whatever the majority says it is", then yes, the "BILLIONS" are, by definition, right. I just don't happen to agree with that definition of right and wrong. to look at the differences is as staring into the mirror of hate, and not see it is ones own reflection staring back... I see no reason to assume that “looking at differences” has any intrinsic connection to “hate” at all. The three responses above are simply statements of my opinion. Are they differences? Yes. Are those differences born of hate? I don’t see how. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I use to be a pretty religious person until it dawn on me that God is omnipotent, omniscient(knowning all-past present future) Until I started really thinking of the omniscient part, I felt that God had a reason for everything. No more. I'm on the fine line between doubt and denial. If God knows all, why in the hell did he create this specie knowing full well that we were going to mess up big time. Every last one of us. I wish he had saved himself, and all of us for that matter, a whole lot of trouble and stopped with the apes. He KNEW before hand!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I use to be a pretty religious person until it dawn on me that God is omnipotent, omniscient(knowning all-past present future) Until I started really thinking of the omniscient part, I felt that God had a reason for everything. No more. I'm on the fine line between doubt and denial. If God knows all, why in the hell did he create this specie knowing full well that we were going to mess up big time. Every last one of us. I wish he had saved himself, and all of us for that matter, a whole lot of trouble and stopped with the apes. He KNEW before hand! Yeah, that "omniscience+free-will" thing is a tough one to get past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 10/02/08 07:32 AM
|
|
I use to be a pretty religious person until it dawn on me that God is omnipotent, omniscient(knowning all-past present future) Until I started really thinking of the omniscient part, I felt that God had a reason for everything. No more. I'm on the fine line between doubt and denial. If God knows all, why in the hell did he create this specie knowing full well that we were going to mess up big time. Every last one of us. I wish he had saved himself, and all of us for that matter, a whole lot of trouble and stopped with the apes. He KNEW before hand! I think people misunderstand the meaning of the omniscient, omnipotent, etc. The terms are in comparison to other states of consciousness. The state of consciousness that "knows all" is one that is called "being one with God" or "Nirvana" or "God consciousness. It is simply a feeling and knowing all in the sense that all is connected and all is one. This knowing is a knowing of what is going on NOW. It does not know the future because the future does not exist. All that happens, and has happened and will happen, does so in the present moment. Atheists claim that omniscient and omnipotent are incompatible because if God is omniscient he must be knowing what he is going to do at some point of time (say one year later) in the future. Then he is powerless against changing it. Hence He cannot be omnipotent. BUT God does not know the future or what "he" (or "It") will do because consciousness is a free agent and so is the will. People call it "free will." God is being. God IS. Do you KNOW what you will do in one year? Does that mean that you know the future? It is the same with God... There is no Time.... There are only events and outcomes. So God just is, and knows what is happening (and why) in the present moment. God lives within its creation. God does things through its creation. Omnipresent means that God is everywhere and in everything. This is also the pantheist view. I don't hear many people talking about Omnipresent for some reason. Perhaps because it does point to a pantheist view of God. Omnipotent simply means that of all things known to exist, nothing is more powerful than this living force. It does not mean to answer all the silly paradox puzzles people come up with about what God can or cannot do. All is a vast consciousness. I saw it the other day and I saw myself as a tiny spark of individual consciousness twinkling in the vastness of a massive field. We are but a twinkle of consciousness in the body of "God." jb |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All that happens, and has happened and will happen, does so in the present moment. To elaborate on the above, I think that events can be re-adjusted and changed. Imagine a multi-dimensional holographic dream-like matrix where stories unfold. Each story has a basic plot, but many different players and outcomes. Sort of like a DVD movie that has two or three different endings. Only these stories can be changed by the players themselves. After an event unfolds in this matrix, if you don't like the ending, the player can rewind and go back... inside the same story, and change his or her actions and create a new outcome. You can do this in your mind when you write stories. Change characters, change outcomes, with the same basic plot. The holographic matrix is much more complex and involves plots and subplots on an infinte scale. These are the dream worlds of God. jb |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“The movement of time, according to the Bible, is from eternity, since it is created by God and moves out of and in terms of His eternal decree. . . . Because time is predestined, and because its beginning and end are already established, time does not de- velop in evolutionary fashion from past to present to future. In- stead, it unfolds from future to present to past. A simple illustration might help us understand this. Let us say someone finds you packing a sack lunch on a warm Saturday morning, and asks the reason for it. You answer, “Because I’m going to have a picnic at the park today.” What has happened? In a sense, the future– the planned picnic – has determined the past. Because you wanted a picnic at the park, you then planned a lunch. Logically, the picnic preceded, and caused, the making of the lunch, even though it followed it chronologically.
|
|
|
|
|
