In the beginning, there was ...

[suminonA]

Here "God" stands for the big guy in the Bible. You must have heard about Him

It would be nice if you could explain your vote with some arguments.

---

My stand is this:

I myself would be disappointed if there were a deity called God whose best creation was Humanity. Not that the complexity of the machinery we call "human body" is something trivial, but the psychological weakness of homo-sapiens-sapiens kind of gets me.

On the other hand, having a mere human imagine and sustain the idea of a great deity in order to have an answer to all unanswerable questions, is more convincing. Of course that after being born and baptised “God”, the deity could be a great father-figure for all those that needed someone “greater” than them to show them the way of being good and give power and punish the guilty and so on and so on…

It would also explain why this “God”, even while being omni-ominous and made of love and tolerance still retains many of the human characteristics (i.e. signs of imperfection) such as rage and vengeance. It would also explain why God created such imperfect humans, because an imperfect being simply couldn’t do better. And so the imperfect humans could have thought only of an imperfect deity, therefore have created an imperfect God, who created imperfect humans who … (and that’s why the third option is “fractals”)

What say you?

A.

[Jebus]

Maybe we were God's first try? He's probably moved on to bigger and better creations, which would explain why he hasn't been around in awhile...

[Taalcon]

We are children of God sent off to school, with the opportunity to grow and to learn to become perfect.

[suminonA]

We are children of God sent off to school, with the opportunity to grow and to learn to become perfect.

And who is our teacher?

A.

[wigginboy]

we are our own teacher. God, or the idea of God, is there fore guidance and consolement. Regardless of whther he exists or not, humans put the face on him, and it is us who decide what and who he is. Nobody actually knows who or what God is, so make things up to excuse our ignorance. We are essentially alone.

[suminonA]

Nobody actually knows who or what God is, so make things up to excuse our ignorance. We are essentially alone.

So you agree that Man created God in his own image?

A.

[Taalcon]

we are our own teacher. God, or the idea of God, is there fore guidance and consolement. Regardless of whther he exists or not, humans put the face on him, and it is us who decide what and who he is. Nobody actually knows who or what God is, so make things up to excuse our ignorance. We are essentially alone.

We have several teachers. Our conscience is the most primal. If we listen to that, we will be more likely to hear the Holy Spirit testify when a messenger of God accurately teaches the Truth.

These teachers get us on the path to learn from what has been previously recorded of God's interaction with mankind, and also to the words he currently speaks through his living oracles, or Prophets.

In other words, are teacher IS God, our Father, who uses these means to communicate:

a) Our conscience
b) the Holy Spirit
c) Authorized messengers of God
d) Scripture

And I declare that I DO know 'who or what' God is - He is the father of our Spirits. We are His children.

[suminonA]

We have several teachers. Our conscience is the most primal. If we listen to that, we will be more likely to hear the Holy Spirit testify when a messenger of God accurately teaches the Truth.
[…]
In other words, are teacher IS God, our Father, who uses these means to communicate:

a) Our conscience
b) the Holy Spirit
c) Authorized messengers of God
d) Scripture

Well, what about those that aren’t able to “hear the Holy Spirit”? (I’m one of those)
Are they not following their conscience?

I myself am quite positive that I listen to my conscience, because it is the only “voice” that I hear inside. Now, there are two choices:
1) I’m doing something wrong and therefore I can’t get to the last three means of communication that you proposed. What if that doesn’t change? Am I going to be punished for my imperfection?
2) I’m not doing anything wrong, it’s just that the Holy Spirit didn’t testify about any of the current “messengers”, meaning that they aren’t the true ones. Maybe my idea that Man created God is the closest one to the truth. As far as I’m concerned it is, because it’s the only one that “rings true” to my ears…

Why would God make all this complications, if a simple direct answer would suffice to convince me? And I'm not talking about not giving a choice to a two year old. I'm mature enough to ask the question, am I not mature enough to get the honest answer?

A.

[AnthonyByakko]

d) Scripture

I like Scriptures. Especially the parts in Leviticus where wearing unnatural fibers, shaving, working on Shabbas, eating lobster or shrimp and having more than one plant in your garden are abominations in the eyes of God, equal to that of homosexuality.

[eriador]

d) Scripture

I like Scriptures. Especially the parts in Leviticus where wearing unnatural fibers, shaving, working on Shabbas, eating lobster or shrimp and having more than one plant in your garden are abominations in the eyes of God, equal to that of homosexuality.

Ditto.

-------------

I voted for fractals, but as a literal interpretation, not suminonA's. Personally, mathematical concepts such as fractals are much more concrete and sure. Given the question "which one is more likely," I'll pick math over any theological concept.

[suminonA]

I voted for fractals, but as a literal interpretation, not suminonA's. Personally, mathematical concepts such as fractals are much more concrete and sure. Given the question "which one is more likely," I'll pick
math over any theological concept.

eriador, It’s your choice. Thanks for voting.
The idea of the poll is to choose between the first two options. The third option is there because there are always people who are undecided. If you have a better reason for the third than for the rest, I have no problem with that.

Anyway, I’d ask you, if the only two options were the first two, what would you vote?

A.

[AnthonyByakko]

"Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child." - Robert A Heinlen.

So the second option.

[Dr. Mobius]

God creates dinosaurs.
God destroys dinosaurs.
God creates man.
Man creates dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs eat man.
Woman inherits the earth.

[suminonA]

God creates dinosaurs.
God destroys dinosaurs.
God creates man.
Man creates dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs eat man.
Woman inherits the earth.

Remember that "Jurassic Park" is a work of fiction

BTW, you "forgot" the line "Man destroys God" before creating dinosaurs.

A.

[AnthonyByakko]

God creates dinosaurs.
God destroys dinosaurs.
God creates man.
Man creates dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs eat man.
Woman inherits the earth.

Remember that "Jurassic Park" is a work of fiction

BTW, you "forgot" the line "Man destroys God" before creating dinosaurs.

A.

There are some who might say the Bible is a work of fiction.

[suminonA]

There are some who might say the Bible is a work of fiction.

I know, I'm one of them.

[note that "work of fiction" doesn't mean everything it describes is false, just that not everything is true ]

A.

[Jayelle]

d) Scripture

I like Scriptures. Especially the parts in Leviticus where wearing unnatural fibers, shaving, working on Shabbas, eating lobster or shrimp and having more than one plant in your garden are abominations in the eyes of God, equal to that of homosexuality.

Ditto.

Best. Arguement. Ever. Please, please, point out more places in scripture like you know the bible so much better then any Christian could. I know that I just take the bible as scripture without reading it. Man, oh, man I wish someone would have told me about those parts before!

[Taalcon]

d) Scripture

I like Scriptures. Especially the parts in Leviticus where wearing unnatural fibers, shaving, working on Shabbas, eating lobster or shrimp and having more than one plant in your garden are abominations in the eyes of God, equal to that of homosexuality.

Which means, apparantly, you do not like actually studying the scriptures, or learning about a fun little word called 'context'.

[eriador]

d) Scripture

I like Scriptures. Especially the parts in Leviticus where wearing unnatural fibers, shaving, working on Shabbas, eating lobster or shrimp and having more than one plant in your garden are abominations in the eyes of God, equal to that of homosexuality.

Ditto.

Best. Arguement. Ever. Please, please, point out more places in scripture like you know the bible so much better then any Christian could. I know that I just take the bible as scripture without reading it. Man, oh, man I wish someone would have told me about those parts before!

Read Leviticus, it's a riot.

-------------

Taalcon,
That is taken in context. Read Leviticus.

[suminonA]

Could anyone quote the relevant paragraphs before the name-throwing starts?

Thanks.

A.

[eriador]

Here is the full text of Leviticus. I don't know exactly where the relevant passages are, but I'll look it up and quote them. If you find them, don't hesitate to quote those passages (with the correct citation).

[mr_thebrain]

c'mon, the wikibible? you can do better. doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, they're going to use the fact that it is wiki to void your argument.

[Taalcon]

Here is the full text of Leviticus. I don't know exactly where the relevant passages are, but I'll look it up and quote them. If you find them, don't hesitate to quote those passages (with the correct citation).

I've read Leviticus, in its entirety, more than a few times. In context with reading the entirety of the Bible.

Have YOU read all of Leviticus? Have YOU read the entire Bible, Genesis to Revelation? Have you ever honestly tried to understand the context or purposes therein, or does making fun of things you don't understand at first glance just seem more fun to you?

[Jayelle]

Mommy, how come wikibible calls both Exodus and Leviticus "the second book of Moses"?

[Taalcon]

Don't ask such questions, dear. If wikiBible was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us.

[mr_thebrain]

told you so, eriador.

[Jayelle]

Seriously, Christians aren't morons who just ignore these parts of the Bible. We discuss, struggle, study and disect the bible way more then anyone else. We do this because it's important to us. I can give you many reasons why Leviticus is important and why we don't follow some of it's laws anymore, and why the food laws were really important back then.

My minor is in Biblical Studies. I know what I'm talking about and I can bet that I know alot more about the Bible then you (eriador and Anthony).

It's like yelling at a scientist: E=MCsquared! Over and over when you don't even know what the letters stand for.

[Taalcon]

What argument? Seriously? There was no argument. He said, for all intents and purposes, "All this is so silly. And it's REALLY in the BIBLE, although you probably don't believe me. Here's the proof!"

I'll go up a notch, and post a link to http://www.biblegateway.com - we fully admit and know that Leviticus is, in fact, in the Bible. It is in the Old Testament, it is the 3rd Book of Moses in the section of writings known as torah, or "The Law".

I have read it. I bet Jayelle has read it, too. We've studied it, and we have a basis for context, but theological, and historical.

I haven't taken Collegiate classes on the Bible. But I do my own personal study not only on the text, but the ancient languages, cultures, contemporary literature, etc. I do not just learn about scripture, I live by its precepts, in context.

What is the argument we are avoiding?

[eriador]

People need to realize that just becuse it's a wiki, it doesn't mean that I'm wrong. Wikisource is a good source for texts, so chill out guys.

[mr_thebrain]

i think you'd have an easier time convincing them that they are wrong in their views on religion

[suminonA]

I'm wondering... did Jayelle miss an "m" in her most recent post, or did Taalcon see one extra?

A.

[mr_thebrain]

I don't know, but Taal added an “A” to one of my posts.

Taal, old boy, I never said you were avoiding an argument. Put your defenses down. Your hackles are up. I was saying you would VOID (as in cancel... c’mon a well educated man of your stripe should know that word) eriador’s argument about Leviticus due to the fact that he was referencing a wiki.

I never understood why people use automatic defenses when it comes to talking about religion. It makes them out to be an ass.

[Jayelle]

People need to realize that just becuse it's a wiki, it doesn't mean that I'm wrong. Wikisource is a good source for texts, so chill out guys.

Not arguing the wiki (even though it does have an error that I teased right off the bat), I'm arguing that I've read (and studied) Leviticus.

I missed an m? I'm so confused...

[suminonA]

I missed an m? I'm so confused...

I think we'll need Taalcon to sort this out.

A.

[mr_thebrain]

i fear the only way to lure out our friend Taal is to make some remark about a section of the bible, so that he can call us wrong.