#41
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
god is probably smarter than you
#42
penitent
Post rating: ~
i dunno man i finished cyclonopedia
#43
penitent
Post rating: ~
its kinda ok i guess when people try to present god as being some vague nebulous concept of the Beyond or the Absolute or the Teleological i guess but god is def not the noumenon. jesus
#44
penitent
Post rating: ~
christ is lord. hth
#45
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
god is the one, absolutely transcendent and immanently absolute
#46
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
The dream of the messiah, the dawning of justice on earth which holds together the Jews in the Diaspora, is over and done with. It created no end of martyrs, caused untold suffering - and gave hope. Now the persecuted have gone to Zion without a messiah, have established their nation and their nationalism like other peoples, and Jewry has become a religion. The Diaspora is the backwoods. The Jews are remnants. Their situation is not dissimilar to that of Communism and Socialism... Those who adhere to Critical Theory can choose one of the two forms of nationalism... They may also become provincial, romantic sectarians. The realm of freedom is the backwoods. Those who remain loyal to the theory are remnants like those that cling to the Talmud and messianic hope.
#47
Post rating: ~
I don't really understand your animosity towards me, Emanuela. That view of God I presented, as the Creator of the universe, is not something I invented. It is common to all of the Abrahamic religions. But you could also associate it with the Sikh, so I used the word "theist". But I used it to describe not all existing theologies but instead the Creator theology, which I believe is the true theology. You all got hung up on that word for some reason. That you reject it, and reject it so fiercely for some reason, shows just how weak the understanding of religion is amongst atheists such as yourself. If what I say there looks like made-up nonsense to you, then you basically uphold the "flying spaghetti monster" objection to God, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what God is.

It's not like you follow the prime orthodoxy. Even if you hadn't abandoned God, arguing that the Holy Spirit is "made up" in Christianity is clearly against orthodoxy. Saying that it's "not even mentioned in Mark" is a really weak objection, and a tacit acknowledgement it is mentioned in the other three Gospels. The Sermon on the Mount is only mentioned in Matthew, should we throw that out?

The "heat death" is not just an old account but the most likely end of the universe according to materialists. How can you not know this?

I won't accept objections of heresy from a heretic such as yourself, not to mention an atheistic heretic. If the best you have is to call me "new age" and snarl, then I'm not worried. I even like Enya.
#48
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
lol
#49
Post rating: ~

Alyosha posted:

The "heat death" is not just an old account but the most likely end of the universe according to materialists. How can you not know this?



AHAHAHAHHA. No it's not.. you're totally just making shit up at this point lol

Alyosha posted:

I won't accept objections of heresy from a heretic such as yourself, not to mention an atheistic heretic.



I'm not an atheist... where did you get that impression?

Alyosha posted:

Saying that it's "not even mentioned in Mark" is a really weak objection, and a tacit acknowledgement it is mentioned in the other three Gospels. The Sermon on the Mount is only mentioned in Matthew, should we throw that out?



Yes because Matthew is awful and is 80-90% horse shit, the rest of it which is not being stolen directly from Mark, the only meaningful one of the four gospels.

#50
Post rating: ~
I got that impression by you denying the Creator view of God, and also saying you were a "former Christian". What do you consider yourself?
#51
Post rating: ~
I don't deny the creator view of God I deny the gay way in which you try to describe God through the lense of modern scientific and metaphysical means, and do so extremely badly clearly having just a basic understanding and probably not a full reading of the bible, probably having come about recently
#52
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
oh me i'm just a lital noobie. dont flame me trolls! i'm just here for teh lulz.
#53
Post rating: ~
What I'm saying is you need to stop talking about things you don't know about and leave that sort of discussion to people who, first of all, have actually studied the Bible at length because what you are talking about has nothing to do with Christianity
#54
Post rating: ~
Also where does it talk about 'heat death' in the Bible? It doesn't... you fucking heretic
#55
Post rating: ~
Why would God or his prophets or apostles talk about a Something Awful forums account? wtf...
#56
Post rating: ~
I don't know what you mean about trying to describe it in modern scientific and metaphysical means. What I said was that God created the universe, and is therefore not bound by spacetime (you seem to have a problem with this, call it "time and space" if you prefer) and exists outside it, although he can interfere with it, and will one day bring it to a close. What do you object to here? Do you reject modern science?
#57
Post rating: ~

Alyosha posted:

Theists also consider themselves to uphold Reason.

Many atheists think God is supposed to exist in space and time. But this is not what theists claim. They claim that God created space and time, not that he is part of it. God is extra-universal, although he can tamper with the universe as he wishes. The Christian view does have God present in all of our souls via the Holy Spirit; and, of course, God is believed to have once come to Earth as a human. But this is not the same as the Creator being dependent on spacetime so much as his ability to willfully enter into it.

Then they say that maybe God is another word for the universe. But this pantheistic view is also not in keeping with the view of God as Creator. If God were the universe then we would be part of God's body, and we would also be part of God. And when the heat death comes, presumably the universe and God would be dying? This is just not the theistic view.

The theistic view is not that complicated. It is that God created the universe. That he set off the big bang, and that he will one day bring it to a close. The universe is just something he made, as are we within it, and none of us know the breadth of reality that exists outside the universe.

this is pretty dumb

#58
Post rating: +

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

yeah alyosha is trying to reconcile some made up 'religious' view with secular views but is really just being a gay modern agnostic/atheist person posting on a forum acting like they believe in God. if you're a real 'theist' these made up issues and questions are not really worth discussion

#59
Post rating: ~

babyfinland posted:

god is probably smarter than you

i dont think so tim

#60
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

Impper posted:

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

yeah alyosha is trying to reconcile some made up 'religious' view with secular views but is really just being a gay modern agnostic/atheist person posting on a forum acting like they believe in God. if you're a real 'theist' these made up issues and questions are not really worth discussion



lol literally this

#61
Post rating: ~
what if god were one of us? just a slob like one of us?
#62
Post rating: ~

Alyosha posted:

I don't know what you mean about trying to describe it in modern scientific and metaphysical means. What I said was that God created the universe, and is therefore not bound by spacetime (you seem to have a problem with this, call it "time and space" if you prefer) and exists outside it, although he can interfere with it, and will one day bring it to a close. What do you object to here? Do you reject modern science?



I object to you posting boring summaries of your n00b understanding of God as a creator. At least post some cool scriptures or something not just paragraph after paragraph of a nerdy white johnny-come-lately's Christians scientific explanation of God's and space time or whatever.

#63
Post rating: ~
Like it's cool that you found God, and I support you in all your endeavors I just don't like your posting and I don't understand why you're like bringing your old parachute account from LF into a religious discussion, which is kinda weird tbh
#64
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
wow! this is like a genuine flame war! hold fire h@x0rz!
#65
Post rating: ~
This "religious discussion" only really started with my post, which was in response to the long post that DogTown posted before it. You must be trolling to bring up that LF account again, as if you earnestly thought that was my intent. And you still have not rejected anything about the notion of the Creator as I presented it. You reject the notion of "the Creator", which is a rejection of God, and of "spacetime", which is a rejection of our scientific knowledge. And then you basically said the issue of Creation is unimportant to true believers.
#66
Poronto
Post rating: +
you have to be pretty fucking bored of your yuppie friends boring facebook posts to go and embrace a religion over it imo
#67
penitent
Post rating: ~
i think most atheists understand that god transcends the material universe bro
#68
penitent
Post rating: +
congrats on reflecting on the uncreated nature of god and the nature of his relationship with the material universe and coming out with the most boring obvious and useless nonsense ever
#69
Post rating: ~
Do I have to repeat myself? I wrote that post in response to something posted just before it which DID fail to understand the relation God has with creation. Do you really think all atheists properly understand Creation? I don't think many people do honestly think about Creation in the proper light, since many objections (including the popular atheistic symbol the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as I mentioned before) are based around misunderstanding it. I mean, a minute ago my ideas were absurd, and now they're completely obvious? What a turnaround!

Also, Emanuela, do you really deny that the heat death is the generally accepted prognosis of the material universe?
#70
Post rating: ~
the popular atheistic symbol the Flying Spaghetti Monster
#71
[account deactivated]
#72
Post rating: ~

Also, Emanuela, do you really deny that the heat death is the generally accepted prognosis of the material universe?



Accepted by who? I would assume that 'generally' people dont know what heat death is let alone accept it as the prognosis of the 'material universe,' whatever that is

#73
[account deactivated]
#74
Post rating: ~
You reject the phrase "material universe"? Really?

Whether or not the heat death is common knowledge is irrelevant. Not that I'd call it uncommon knowledge; it is generally accepted by anyone who has bothered to research the ultimate fate of the universe.
#75
Post rating: ~

Alyosha posted:

You reject the phrase "material universe"? Really?



I didn't reject it I just said you have yet to provide an explanation as to what you mean by that. I can't read your mind, dude...

Alyosha posted:

Whether or not the heat death is common knowledge is irrelevant. Not that I'd call it uncommon knowledge; it is generally accepted by anyone who has bothered to research the ultimate fate of the universe.



Source?

#76
Poronto
Post rating: ~

Alyosha posted:

Also, Emanuela, do you really deny that the heat death is the generally accepted prognosis of the material universe?



lmao put down the helmholtz

#77
[account deactivated]
#78
penitent
Post rating: ~

Impper posted:

#79
penitent
Post rating: ~

Alyosha posted:

Do I have to repeat myself? I wrote that post in response to something posted just before it which DID fail to understand the relation God has with creation.



why didnt you just say 'lol no' instead of doing Bad Pontificate Words.

#80
Post rating: ~
Because I thought the common misconception about the relationship God has with the universe deserved clarification. What do you think, deadken, of the objections by other posters that the established creation doctrine of the Church is "absurd" and "new age"?

For something so obvious, many people do not seem to understand it. In fact, it stirred up controversy and denials by the so-called theologians of this forum. So, I don't understand your claim that it was a post so obvious it was not worth making.