Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (4809)	12/13/2000 12:56:11 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

God is totally and unalterably good. Satan is a created being who became evil by choosing to rebel against God. Key philosophical point here G. My CF by necessity includes those things that are what you would call Good and Evil. Therefore the CF that I describe is everything that you describe and adhere to PLUS those things you don't. It appears you don't like the ramifications of this classification system, namely, that the whole is the sum of its parts plus the relationships between the parts. Therein lies the unity. You can't have Good without Evil because Evil is only meaningful by its contrast with Good. The reverse is also true. If everything is Good, how would you know it? Clearly you couldn't. Here is a concrete example. If you are in a windowless room and I accelerate you forever at 1g, how would you know you aren't on Earth? The fact is that you can't. It is only by the context and relationships between objects in your frame of reference to those outside this frame that you can establish such meaning. God created "rebellion". He had to have. Satan could not have "chosen" rebellion if it did not exist, a priori. So if evil came from rebellion, it came from God, QED.

To: Greg or e who wrote (4809)	12/13/2000 3:31:02 PM
From: Mitch Blevins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

>>Glorification is the end result of our relationship with God. We will receive new, glorified bodies that will have an eternal perfection. Our hearts will also be transformed, not in a way that stifles our wills and therefore prevents us from sinning like a wall that keeps something out, or in. Rather our wills themselves will be transformed so that the desire to sin will be totally absent. In other words we will be like Christ in all possible ways. It would obviously not be possible for us to be God since we are created beings, yet it is possible for God to perfect our characters without denying us freedom.<< If it is possible for such beings to exist (free-will yet perfect and no desire for evil), then why did God not create them in the first place? Why go through the trouble of creating man, watching him fall from grace, sending Jesus as a sacrifice, redeeming a small minority of the people, and send the rest to eternal damnation? Would it not be much easier to just create the end result? Do you think God is incapable of creating the end result without the preceding process? If the answer to these questions is to remind me that we cannot understand the mind and motives of God, then what makes you think that your understanding of God's methods (belief and acceptance of Jesus) and promises (you will then have Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification) are understood correctly by you? Do you understand just enough about God?

To: Greg or e who wrote (4809)	12/13/2000 4:31:45 PM
From: Mitch Blevins	Respond to of 28931

>>I am not familiar with non-euclidian geometry. Is it irrational? If so why is it important to understand?<< It is not irrational in the sense that it is incoherent, but in the sense that it lies outside of the normal, everyday geometry that you would be used to. Your normal view of geometry is most likely Euclidian, which is a system based on five assumptions which are just taken as true (with no proof). Non-euclidian geometry (or goemetries, as there are more than one) uses the first four assumptions of Euclidian geometry, but uses a different fifth assumption. Amazingly, the resulting theories produced by these altered set of assumptions/axioms is internally consistent, and also useful in real-world applications. But to somebody used to thinking in a Euclidian sense, these geometries might seem strange or even irrational. You can read more at www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk >>Do you also believe there are different standards of reason for East and West, or are the laws of logic fixed?<< I don't think that we should arbitrarily define one "standard of reason" for the East and another for the West. But there do exist several systems of logic, most of which are useful to both academics and in real-world situations. The logic that is used should probably be the one suited to the task at hand. Logic is a tool. An example of alternative logics would be "modal logic", where the truth of falsehood of a statement is qualified by adjectives such as "necessarily". Another logic is "partial logic", which does not just allow either TRUE or FALSE, but also UNKNOWN and BOTH_TRUE_AND_FALSE, as well as the negation of each of these four. Robert Koons is a Christian philosopher who likes to use both of these logics in his apologetics. So it is not just the infidels who recognize the value of alternative logics. dla.utexas.edu

To: Greg or e who wrote (4809)	12/13/2000 5:24:58 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

This sacrifice, propitiated or satisfied God's just wrath so that He could be (at the same time) both just, and the Justifier. This statement is at the core of my objections to Christian dogma. I find it impossible to believe that an omniscient and omnipotent being would require a blood sacrifice to satisfy his own "just wrath". I find it very easy to believe that primitive humans could convince themselves that such a sacrifice was necessary. It seems, like so many religious elements, very human and not divine at all. One more reason to believe that God was created in Man's image, rather than the other way around.