Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

If You Were God


Guest end3

Recommended Posts

You get these ideas then expect us to what? Agree with them? And here I supposed that you wanted the ideas critiqued.

 

Whatever bud.

 

You tell me to put on my preacher hat. Well the idea is just as nuts from that perspective. If God wanted a mate, things made out of mud just wouldn't do.

 

 

I don't have to listen to your shit Chef, I got enough at home. adios

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Dhampir

    9

  • chefranden

    7

  • Ouroboros

    4

  • dagnarus

    4

I'll admit to not reading all of the posts, but here's my answer. One idea I have about God is what I call The Divine Wallflower theory. By Divine wallflower, I mean like a shy artist. There are some human artists who create their artwork(Painting, sculpting, writing, etc) for their own pleasure, and if someone else likes it, that's fine but if they don't the artist doesn't care.

 

So then, by Divine Wallflower maybe whatever created the universe,continues to create, but it's strictly for it's own enjoyment. It doesn't care if sentient beings that might arise from that creation like it or not. If they do, fine, if they don't it doesn't matter.

 

So I guess I might be a "Divine Wallflower" were I Almighty God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody seems to be hung up on the word "mate". If you're thinking in terms of an opposite sex "spouse" for God, then yeah, it's kind of a silly question. But if you interpret it in the Australian/British usage, i.e. a good buddy, then it makes total sense. I think if I were God, I'd create a mate shortly after I created alcohol in all its manifestations. Come to think of it... I'd create a whole bunch of mates to be my posse, then we'd go party in Vegas, baby.

 

Damn it, score one for Weetie. I think I said a few posts back that a friend or companion was probably a better choice of words.

 

And the entire point is: God gave his created friend/companion free will instead ofthe alternative. He provided a place to hang out....garden a little in your spare time....and even provided a naked woman to boot.

 

Then, his friend turned on him, so he said go hang with the one you trust(insert Satan here).

 

Now, he has provided a way back by making the friendship voluntary through trust. You can hang with God or Satan, but it's your choice.

 

Thank you Weetie

 

And who wants a friend they can't trust?

 

Let's say that Saddam Hussein had friends in his government, and he gave these friends a choice, an exercise of their free will. They had the choice to remain friends with him or they had the choice to die a horrible death, have their children murdered, their daughters raped, their wifes forced into prostitution. Would you consider this to be any kind of free choice. Why should I consider this a free choice when it is given by god. The simple fact of the matter is that the god of the Bible says be my friend or else I'll fuck you up, Then if you become his friend he says stay my friend or I'll really fuck you up. Therefore if we were to take the friend/mate version of god (which I used to subscribe to), you have to come to the conclusion that god is emotionally stunted. To be able to have a true friend you have to be willing to allow people to not like you, to not want to be your friend. When you use your power to make it so that people have to be your friend or else you pretty much ensure that you will have no true friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... You know, something other than "gawd doesn't exist so it is all bs anyhow" Ahhhhhhhh, sorry, I am getting tired of that tired ole statement just typing it...

What would this mate be? What would be it's purpose? Would the mate be equal to god? Seems it would have to be, or else it would be just some fancy blow up doll.

 

Actually one of the popular doctrines of the early church was that of deification. Athanasius is quoted as saying "God became man to make man God". I don't think that this was ever meant to mean that believer's would get God like powers (although this could also be considered another area in which early christianity was similiar to the pagan religions. They too had the concept that a mortal man could become a God.) but it does show that early christians did have a doctrine whereby they could in someway become equal or capable of matching god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a speculation of then why create anything?

Exactly the right question: why create anything?

 

In my view, "God" (as a somewhat misunderstood noun) constitutes Everything (capitalized). The world, the universe, us, were never "Created". We were never a result of a need, but rather the result of an infinite process of changing states of existence. Before Big Bang, Everything was in a different state, and whatever state that was, before that (in the sense of virtual time) it was in a different state. It's an eternal metamorphosis, not out of need, but out of just the way it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a speculation of then why create anything?

Exactly the right question: why create anything?

 

In my view, "God" (as a somewhat misunderstood noun) constitutes Everything (capitalized). The world, the universe, us, were never "Created". We were never a result of a need, but rather the result of an infinite process of changing states of existence. Before Big Bang, Everything was in a different state, and whatever state that was, before that (in the sense of virtual time) it was in a different state. It's an eternal metamorphosis, not out of need, but out of just the way it is.

 

That's certainly reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it's an interesting concept; when you think about it.

 

 

There is already the idea that "God" is made up of three independant but confluent parts, in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The idea of merging "gods" to create a new one, or a revised one, is not really that new from a historical sense.

 

It may be that God is of an androgynous nature. I never believed that the "made in His image" had a whole lot to do with the physical/biological elements. I always thought that God was transcendant of biology, in every way, and that the "emulation" aspect of created humans had more to do with the individual as having a singular and unique mind, and existing as a seperate entity. I also perceived that the created human emulated God in it's ability to think, and therefore control it's circumstances, and to create, which unfortunately at some point is in conflict with the religious view that humans are a fallen, loathsome piece of crap, destined to be destroyed by a creator who will not plead guilty to faulty "software/hardware programming".

 

At any rate.... It's interesting to note the resistance that the traditional Churches, and even within the Abrahamic tradition, have toward the "feminine" principle. Yes, women !!! At every turn, the Abrahamic religions have attempted to deny an aspect of the feminine approach to spritualism, philosophy, theology, and even wish to claim that God is in fact a "male". This of course, amounts to intellectual and theological "homosexuality", which is ironic since this forms the basis of all historical theology, so shunned if practiced biologically, but so adored when practiced intellectually and even emotionally.

 

It could be that God embodies the complete masculine and feminine principal, in combination, at a psychological and intellectual level. The biological doesn't matter, since God is not a flesh and blood bio-creature, and the idea of that is essentially arcane, but typical of ancient thinkers projecting their "alpha male egocentric warrior/hunter meta-memes" upon the cosmos.

 

God is often thought as a complete entity. "I am Alpha and Omega" pretty well sums it up. IF God were to create a companion, and God may have done so, then it would be to fulfill a purpose that would likely reach far beyond what our monkey brains and biology can comprehend. The Greeks and Romans thought of Zeus and Hera as a couple; with Zeus being leader of the Gods and the most powerful and wise. Hera came in handy for persuading Zeus to practice mercy and reflect the traits of feminist thinking. Similarily, the Virgin Mary achieves this same function in historical Catholicism. Many great Catholic saints died with a picture of the blessed virgin on their bossoms; and it is typical to appeal to "mom" when dad seems to "harsh".

 

So, if I were that powerful an entity, I would likely create or develop a companion that would compliment attributes I might lack; or want for counsel, or just plain making existence more interesting. You have to feel sorry for an entity that is omnipotent, knows everything, and has no problems that it must confront. A meaningless existence in a way; like no more levels to go in a video game. You've seen it all, you know it all, and there is nowhere left to go in even the process of existence.

 

Then I'd create a partner, mate or companion. Something to offset such a hell; someone who could help me create new challenges, ideas, and bring back the joy of "imperfection".

 

By the way, I never believed that God was omnipotent in the first place. Such a state is not possible; it is a delusionary concept on the part of humans who have confused views about what "power" is.

 

Excellent post Franko, thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly the right question: why create anything?

 

In my view, "God" (as a somewhat misunderstood noun) constitutes Everything (capitalized). The world, the universe, us, were never "Created". We were never a result of a need, but rather the result of an infinite process of changing states of existence. Before Big Bang, Everything was in a different state, and whatever state that was, before that (in the sense of virtual time) it was in a different state. It's an eternal metamorphosis, not out of need, but out of just the way it is.

 

It would stand to reason then that the only eternal constant of "God" would be being eternal. That is, God as a benevolent intelligence would be a mutable thing, extant only for a relatively brief period (not that all periods in eternity aren't brief). It therefore makes little sense to speculate anything about this god as it's nature, as an intelligence, and even as a living being could change tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's certainly reasonable.
:thanks: Once in a blue moon we manage to understand each other. :grin:
It would stand to reason then that the only eternal constant of "God" would be being eternal.
Yes. And process. Change as a constant attribute. Eternal, and ever-changing, as the only fixed, "unmovable" foundation. The one Aristotle was arguing for. That's why "first cause" doesn't exist, because it tries to make the infinite series of integers into one specific integer. A set and an item in the set are mutually exclusive (unless we're starting to play with paradoxes :grin: )
That is, God as a benevolent intelligence would be a mutable thing, extant only for a relatively brief period (not that all periods in eternity aren't brief). It therefore makes little sense to speculate anything about this god as it's nature, as an intelligence, and even as a living being could change tomorrow.
Agree.What is "good" in the eyes of a god? Why would something we consider good be the same as a god would consider good? Perhaps the ultimate destruction of the human race is the real good God is looking for? Perhaps our souls are fed into a giant soul-eating pet, and nothing more?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I get this feeling that you just read Genesis again?

 

Anyway, I thought Adam was some version of companion for god. However it may depend on one's version of god.

 

If we ignore the rest of the bible and only take Genesis as a stand-alone book, god appears to be lonely, made mistakes and had regrets and made Adam as a companion - perhaps a pet. A pet that he teased and abused.

 

However, as soon as you introduce god's almighty power and make him all knowing and such you have to wonder what is the point.

 

Mongo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have to listen to your shit Chef, I got enough at home. adios

 

:eek: But, but I love you! :wub: Sigh! Well, it's your free choice, but if you don't listen to my shit, I'm going to burn you in hell. :fdevil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd give myself that disease where you have a big O when you sneeze, then lock up the market on black pepper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disregarding the "why would the xian God make a mate?" question for a moment, suppose he/she/it did. Said mate would have to be made as perfect as God is. If it was, what are the odds that the mate wouldn't just run off and decide that it was better off on its own? It would be complete, perfectly capable of taking care of itself without the aid of another perfect being. And if the mate was made somehow flawed to make the it interesting, would it not live a life of shame, bound to a being it can never satisfy and standards that are impossible to reach? (Not to mention that as punishment for failing to reach those standards, the SO faces an eternity of agony and suffering.) It's an act of horrible sadism, to create a being under these circumstances. The options for the created creature become slim. By its imperfect creation, it cannot overcome its flaws and goes to hell. The depth of horror for a creature like this is virtually unfathomable. It's no small wonder that the xian God has no mate, as anyone would go stark raving mad from the pressure.

 

And how does Christ not address the problems you pose?

 

]

 

Are you implying that I should live a live of unending degradation and horror, subservient to something I have no chance to please? Sorry, but I'll take my imperfection and independence. If enjoying life and rejecting what I can't achieve means going to hell, well then, I'll put the Devil on speed dial. At least he knows how to throw a party. :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for god wishing to create a friend, only equals can be friends. I can't imagine the xian god creating an equal. (a deity -like being, sure, but not an all-powerful, perfect god.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deaf,

Mute,

No teeth,

Waist high,

and a flat head to hold my beer can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.