sunday is his day off

Not if you ask anyone who's Jewish.

So... buy what standard are you accusing God of these "evils". It sounds more like you are whining about things you don't understand. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's wrong.

Um, what? I'm not whining about anything.

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Genesis 5:1
This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.

--

That was just for JediKirby. Man was made in the likeness of God, which is not too far off from what you were saying about seeing God like a human.

I think God is way beyond anything a human could grasp/understand. I think prayer and stuff is good, and I think God is capable of 'wanting' things to be a certain way and making plans and having a will. God is, however, way beyond mankind. Notice that in Genesis 1:26 he refers to himself as 'us'.
God is also capable of anger and love, which is interesting. Hm. I find God very interesting...

Oh. It would help if I quoted the right post. Hang on...

Our? Who else it there in this "Our"? Our is plural, and from what Christianity, Judaism (Sp?), and Islam (I think) all teach that there's ONE God, don't they?

Yeah. Seemed a little odd to me.

The word Eloihim in Hebrew is a plural. In Hebrew, using plurals in reference to a singular entity can imply grandeur.

However, there are more than a few religions who believe in a council of Gods, which Elohim was the head of, and Jehova the second. In these beliefs, Lucifer was part of this council, and when it was decided that Jehova would come to earth to become Jesus to fulfill the need for justice (atoning for the sins of mankind) instead of Lucifer, he got pissed and began to attack, but didn't expect to be blocked by Shaq...

And now we have 1/3 of all the souls in heaven (in these beliefs, WE are the host of heaven that partook in the great war, rather than non-human angels, a view which raise humans above angels and demons) trying to make us miserable because they are all emo about screwing up and not getting a body so they could have sex.

You mean, like, EVOLUTION?

lol

Are you of the belief that God is perfect?

Microwaves are perfect, i mean, you put the food in and it comes out hot!

Maybe god is a microwave.

I should clarify, these are really monotheistic religions for the most part. God is till God, but has many many helpers.

Though some, such as the LDS Church, are henotheistic of sorts, meaning that there is one supreme worshipped God, but other beings that may be called Gods (due to God exalting these other beings) for example, Abraham, Michael (Adam) Noah (Gabriel) or Moses, who, in that faith, have all (IIRC, not entirely sure about Moses) been exalted. This is, however, not the same as ascending to heaven, as contrary to popular belief, none can enter heaven until Christ's return. The Book of Revelation makes this blurry, but in Christendom, it is false doctrine that souls can enter heaven before the judgement.

But anyway, I don't know that I believe in any of this.

Yes.

[QUOTE=Mr. Stafford]Microwaves are perfect, i mean, you put the food in and it comes out hot!

Maybe god is a microwave.[/QUOTE]

Then is it possible for God to microwave Himself so hot that He can't exist?

The issue at hand is predestination, and the little I care to spare on the subject is that Christendom has never been unified on the subject--just like many other issues. Read the Wikipedia article on predestination if you're really interested.

actually money, the reason i enjoy posting threads on my random curiosities instead of looking at wikipedia, is because threads like this will put it in laymens terms that i can understand drunk.

I felt compailed to put a slight spin on this post to maybe help make sense of the differense of actions that God took (it in no way means I disagree with anything that PageWizard said...I agreed entirely). The issues is pretty complicated. One of the things that people often over look is the simple fact of the evolution of human intelligence. We assume that humans would have understood the compassion of the sacrifice of Christ way back in the days of the old testiment. This is a natural, yet very wrong assumption. In the days of the old testiment, our intellegences was the equilevent of a pre-schooler. In case you've never noticed, they don't tend to fully understand the meaning of the word "no". However, a swift swap to the behind ussually gets the message across because they do understand the meaning of pain. Animals have often been trained using the same technique of pain and pleasure. When they do something wrong, they are given something painful. As a consequence, they learn not to do the thing that results in them receiving pain as a punishment. On the other hand, they will also tend to do more of the things that result in them being given something pleasurable (such as an exotic fruit). The same works with pre-schoolers and the same worked with humanity in the days of the old testiment.

I think that's bull****, personally. Take Habib from 200 B.C. and school him enough in today's world and you'll hardly be able to tell the difference.

No. And that does not prove that he's not omnipient, only that he is not affect by microwave radiation. This line of questioning/reasoning is flawed because it is an understood fact that such questioning/reasoning create a paradox. Because it creates a paradox, it thus never proves or disproves anything and thus, ultimately, serves no purpose towards advancing our knowledge or understanding of a subject.

Besides, why would he want to microwave himself out of existence? Surely an omnipent being could think of something a bit more creative and...perhaps, "flashy"?

200 years before the birth of Christ being largely uncomparitive to the tens if not houndreds of thousands of years earlier that the old testiment covers not withstanding; that's just it, 'today's world' didn't exist then. Morals, ethics, philosophy, science, etc. have only started to really come about in the past three to four thousand years. This is largely due to lack of diverse communication prior to that. I'm not saying they lack the capacity to have the level of knowledge and understanding that we have today, but that the knowledge and understanding that we have today simply did not exist at that time. It's something that has developed every day since then (and continues to develop). People will be able to say the same about us ten thousand or so years from now.

This can also be realized in the imagery of Genisis and other parts of the old testiment where a literal translation simply is not logical.

your logic is flawed, you dont even know the wattage of the microwave

rofl

Wow. After reading the last 10 posts, I have one completely heartless thing to say:

FAIRY TALES

By his own standard; the ten commandments, King James Version.



Please tell me what I don't understand.



Also, 1 + 1 = 2 and the sky is blue. Congratulations, you basically said nothing. Because just because I don't like something doesn't mean it's right either.

What, thou shall not kill? So I guess you're not in support of the Death Penalty?



There's a lot you don't understand. Like wise, there's a lot we don't understand either. Additionally, there's a lot we will never understand.



Actually, you're trying to compare humanities sense of morals and ethics with that of an omniepient diety. Which is much like comparing an infant redwood tree to a fully grown redwood tree.

In English, yes. Pretty sure the Hebrew verb is more specific.

Correct



Sure, but I assume since I was told I don't know what I am talking about, Obi could tell me exactly what he's referring to. Until then, I will ignore that useless statement.



So the ethics of an omnipotent deity consist of "do as I say, not as I do." ?
Fair enough, but I wouldn't want to follow a leader like that.

Prayer is overrated, God's plan is not my own.

I'm gonna go microwave a burrito in my God unit.

The rules he laid out were for us to go by. They are not rules that God himself are bound to. The complications in ethics and morality arise when you understand that we are his creations. As such, his rights to destroy his creations supercede that of ours. We do NOT have the right to kill other members of his creations. So, what he meant by the first commandment, is that only He has the right to take the life of his creations.

So, that, in no way, makes him a hypocrite to rules he laid out for us.

Besides, look at the wording. It says (in layman's terms) "You will not kill." It doesn't say, "There will be no killing."



You can ignore it all you want, but it does not deminish the validity of the comment in general. However, if you quote what he said you were mistaken on, perhaps I could try to clear the air on it.



Not at all. You totally missed the point I was trying to get across to you. You're assuming that your sense of morality and ethics are correct, even though the morality and ethics of the human race is continually evolving. What will people 10 thousand years from now think of your sense of morality and ethics?



Placing morality and ehtics aside for the moment, I fail to see where there is even a strong example of 'do as I say, not as I do." Feel free to quote a passage or name off a story if you can think of one that might support your claim.

If you don't want to believe in God and follow the teaching layed out before us, then that is your choice. Ultimately, that's what life is all about. What choice we decide to make.

See?

As a side note, the most commonly accepted translation is "Do not commit murder", not "Do not kill". There's a significant difference between the two, and I figured I'd point that out, since it would appear to be relevant.

Wait, believing in your own morals and ethics that you yourself internally developed is wrong? Your argument being that human's change their minds the more they know? However, a never-changing account from humans themselves telling me that a being that lives in the sky knows everything and told them to tell me not to do something is a better moral to follow?

Fairy tales.

If you have nothing useful to contribute to the discussion other than continually saying "Fairy tales", then don't partake in it.

Well, believing in your own code of ethics would transgress God's law so, yes. If for a moment, we assume that no objective moral standard exists, no, but that's only because the whole concept of good and bad is meaningless.

This is why satanism exsists. If, indeed, there is a God and he created us and gave us all of these laws, then I'm a satanist. I am my own God, as I make my own laws. Be it eternal burning because of that belief, or no, I'd rather justify my morals to myself, not some power craven creator.

And that's your opinion that I wasn't contributing. I'm comparing collective morality vs internally justified morals.

What's your point? That's like saying criminals exist because the government creates and enforces laws. So if there were no laws, there'd be no criminals? I don't see what you're getting at.



That, too, is like saying that you'd rather follow your own rules than those of the authorities above you. Try that here on earth and see how well it works.

Point is, you're arguing with people who believe that there is a higher authority, and making the claim that this authority's laws are invalid because you like your own laws better. It just doesn't work that way. Try committing a felony and then claiming that the government's law doesn't apply because you don't want to follow it.



Mocking someone's beliefs by calling them "fairy tales" is hardly a positive contribution to an intelligent discussion.

For the record:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

Now don't distort nothin.

Satanism is a bunch of CRAP.