Why is god so egoistic?

[LDS]

They're only helpful if you believe in them

Agreed.

Trust me, black and pink and very different. It's not just in my mind.

Believe what you will.

I would PREFER to live in hell and suffering instead of feel guilty whilst living in God's paradise?

Do you want the scripture reference?

"Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in hell."

http://scriptures.lds.org/morm/9/4

Plain as word can be.

the Catholics were acting on god's behalf

How can that be? They claim in their own mandate that prophets have ceased after the apostles. How can they act on behalf of god when they themselves claim there is no revelation from that god?

it's just that without faith you'll never know him.

We do agree on some things.

[orgaelin]

Originally posted by LDS, How can they act on behalf of god when they themselves claim there is no revelation from that god?

Easy - they believe the pope is devine. What the pope says, goes. How obvious a set up was that one eh?!

[LDS]

Easy - they believe the pope is devine. What the pope says, goes. How obvious a set up was that one eh?!

Isnt it catholic doctrine that revelation was completed during the apostilic age? So then how can the pope still recieve revelation when they believe there is no revelation had anymore?

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by LDS, how can the pope still recieve revelation when they believe there is no revelation had anymore?

The Pope keeps continue Peter's task.

[Mia]

Originally posted by LogicaLunatic,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LogicaLunatic,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Mia, Questioning statements that obviously don't have any basis in fact is the appropriate thing to do, and Rainbow cannot be expected to debate until Castille clarifies his position.

I'm back all...

Mia, no discussion about God in the history of our species has ever been based on "fact." It appears Rainbow can't be expected to debate at ALL. Castille provided the reasons he thinks the way he does. An appropriate, "debate like" response would be to explain to Castille why his/her take on Christianity is incorrect based on Rainbow's beliefs/knowledge.[/b][/quote]

Wrong. If Castille's "argument" is based on a logical fallacy, the fallacy has to be addressed and solved before any discussion or debate can take place.

Additionally, Castille asked questions, he didn't make any arguments. Rainbow and I are trying to clarify one of his questions so we can properly respond to them.

Until he has the guts to back up his assertions, no one should waste time on his topic.

[LDS]

The Pope keeps continue Peter's task.

But if there is no revelation how can he claim that it is on god's behalf?

Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Is the pope a prophet commissioned of god?

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by LDS, But if there is no revelation how can he claim that it is on god's behalf?

Can you define the "revelation" , understand in your terms, please ? It seems that there is a data "missing" in this matter, or "mishandled".

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by castille, Why does the Christian god have an ego the size of a Christian priest's sex crimes record? He demands to be worshipped, threatens to execute anyone who refuses ("Hell" after all is his threat). Yet he (or she, or it) created men in the first place. So if this god created all humans....doesn't that mean he/she/it would know not all humans are going to worship him/her/it? Why he is complaining about a lack of worshippers, when he knew this would happen in the first place?

These are the originally posted by castille questions, which have initialized this thread.
I think that in order to debate this issues, we should concentrate on the answers (ourselves), since castille is lacking to provide any (answer).

I question every single castille's statement for the following reason :
- no source is provided, to be taken as a base that supports every single issue.

[Mia]

Originally posted by Rainbow,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rainbow,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-castille, Why does the Christian god have an ego the size of a Christian priest's sex crimes record? He demands to be worshipped, threatens to execute anyone who refuses ("Hell" after all is his threat). Yet he (or she, or it) created men in the first place. So if this god created all humans....doesn't that mean he/she/it would know not all humans are going to worship him/her/it? Why he is complaining about a lack of worshippers, when he knew this would happen in the first place?

These are the originally posted by castille questions, which have initialized this thread.
I think that in order to debate this issues, we should concentrate on the answers (ourselves), since castille is lacking to provide any (answer).

I question every single castille's statement for the following reason :
- no source is provided, to be taken as a base that supports every single issue.[/b][/quote]

Pages have been wasted because no one but you and I see this!!

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Mia, Pages have been wasted because no one but you and I see this!!

I hope "Volcanvo" is not going to sue me :-)))

Off topic
A person who raises an issue up for a debate, should provide all the informations which serve as a supportive material for that issue's bases.

In the case that concerns this thread, castille should provide the source, but he failed to comply with it.
The reason : not all the people represent the same religious "path".
Additionally, there are people who are not believers at all.
We should respect them ALL. That is why a source for supportive material is important and needed, in order to give ALL the debating participants a chance to present their view based on that source.
Also, it will prevent others from making "turns" into "off-topic" issues.

[Mia]

Castille never follows the rules or bothers to back anything up. He just talks out his b***, and for some reason people respond anyway.

[Ken Carman]

"Why is god so egoistic?"

Going back to the statement that started this thread, how about this for an answer? "Because the God too many people believe in is more of their own creation than whatever deity(ies) there may, or may not, actually be out there?"

This statement, to me at least, covers from Atheist, to Fundie, to Pentacostal to Mormon. An Agnostic would agree, I think. Now as to the nature, or lack of any nature of God, Gods, Allah... whatever. Isn't that, in a way, a separate topic? Seems to me to answer the question one doesn't need to be of any specific theistic flavor. (Oh, wait, I guess that means it might not satisfy any cannibals when it comes to picking what missionaries they like to eat... can't satisfy everyone, I guess.)

[orgaelin]

I think you've nailed it Ken!

[LDS]

Because the God too many people believe in is more of their own creation than whatever deity(ies) there may, or may not, actually be out there?

Yes, and No. There is a god who does interact with this world. However the conclusions reached based upon those observations are different depending on the observers perspective.

For instance, Orgaelin views the flood as a terrible act of genocide. I on the otherhand view it as a sort of mercy (its complicated unless you know the plan of salvation). Two different conclusions, same event. Neither of our conclusions alter the reality of why god caused the flood, thus are conclusions should be presented in humility (neither knows 100% whether we are right), make sense? I'll try to clarify if needed.

[Ken Carman]

Originally posted by LDS, Yes, and No. There is a god who does interact with this world. However the conclusions reached based upon those observations are different depending on the observers perspective. For instance, Orgaelin views the flood as a terrible act of genocide. I on the otherhand view it as a sort of mercy (its complicated unless you know the plan of salvation). Two different conclusions, same event. Neither of our conclusions alter the reality of why god caused the flood, thus are conclusions should be presented in humility (neither knows 100% whether we are right), make sense? I'll try to clarify if needed.

But aren't we discussing the percieved nature of God(s)? If so, seems like the answer is still, "Yes." I would never argue that the actual nature of God changes according to our perceptions, although it would be an interesting theological twist where, as Tom Lehrer once suggested lyrically, we all go to our respective Valhallas. Is God actually overly egotistical, or just our perceptions? I would argue the latter. This does not change the actual nature of whatever deity(ies) there may or may not be out there.

[orgaelin]

For instance, Orgaelin views the flood as a terrible act of genocide. I on the otherhand view it as a sort of mercy (its complicated unless you know the plan of salvation).

Ever heard of the phrase "Occam's Razor?"

It's a term used in science to denote a general rule that says 'whenever there are two possibilities which both seem likely to be true, it is always the simpler possibility, that requires less explanation, that is true'.

It's a universal truth, not just a scientific rule.

So looking at that quote again...

For instance, Orgaelin views the flood as a terrible act of genocide. I on the otherhand view it as a sort of mercy (its complicated unless you know the plan of salvation).

Enough said?

[LDS]

But aren't we discussing the percieved nature of God(s)?

I dont know, thats why I put both yes and no. :)

It's a term used in science to denote a general rule that says 'whenever there are two possibilities which both seem likely to be true, it is always the simpler possibility, that requires less explanation, that is true'.

Compare Newtonian mechanics to Einstein's mechanics. According to "Occum's Razor" who is correct? According to reality who is correct?

[orgaelin]

You can't compare them! They're too broad as subjects. You could take aspects of each theory and compare them, but then you don't have any identical concepts with alternative explanations.

Einstein's mechanics explain a wide range of things, as does Newton's. But they don't both provide simple alternative versions of the same thing. There's no comparison.

For instance, Orgaelin views the flood as a terrible act of genocide. I on the otherhand view it as a sort of mercy (its complicated unless you know the plan of salvation).

Why should it be complicated?

If I sell you a watch and you ask, "Does it work?" And I say, "well, it's complicated really..." but another guy says "Yes, it works fine, look, see for yourself"

Who are you going to trust?

I can just point to the bible and say, look, millions of people got a bit rowdy so god killed them all. It's murder if you kill with the intent to kill. He murdered them all! There's no dispute here about that. The only question you can raise is whether or not he was justified in killing them all.

Was he? Is it ok to kill? Because I seem to remember that God himself says it is NOT. He said, thou shalt not kill! But then I suppose that's just it isn't it - he never said 'I shalt not kill'.

I honestly don't comprehend how you can love a god who would wipe you out without a second thought for minor transgressions that he designed you to make.

[LDS]

But they don't both provide simple alternative versions of the same thing.

A man is walking on a bus, from my reference(outside the bus, v=0) what is the man's velocity?

According to Newton: (Bus velocity) + (Man velocity)= (how fast the man is going from my reference)

According to Einstein: I dont remember the exact equation but it was a bit more complicated (including square roots, and the speed of light, Leave it to Einstien to take something simple and complicate it :) )

Both: You get close to the same answer with either one (unless the man hopped on the express bus traveling near the speed of light)

According to "Occum's Razor" who is correct?
According to reality who is correct?

Gotta go, more later.

[Ken Carman]

"It's a universal truth, not just a scientific rule."

While I don't have the actual "Razor" quote, one would hope it says "probably" or "most likely." Logic seems to dictate that if some thing is complicated that doesn't necessarily make it untrue. There are complicated things out there.

"Universal?"

Obviously... not. Or we wouldn't be arguing/disagreeing/discussing all this to begin with.