2010-12-02, 05:44 PM
octopusprime Wrote:What as in you used to be a professor or speaker with the degree professionally or you just stopped pondering? If the former, i can see why. If the later, i have some bad news, cause you're at it again.
Ex theologian was the incorrect terminology ex-theist would have been more accurate (should be obvious what i meant).
octopusprime Wrote:Yep, that is some ace theology. I suppose if i were teaching a sunday school class to four year olds, that's exactly how i'd explain it (actually probably not). But since we are having a rational adult discussion i think i'll go with actual theology. You know, utilize logic and reasoning as to a creators possible motives for creating man, In this case with a judeo christian backstory. Furthermore what i actually said is bolded above. You even quoted it.
Theology is the study and interpretation of religion, when looking for an explanation especially from a person who believes in that religion it is rare to encounter an admittance to a lack of knowledge and in often times when put into a corner most people will state how it is "above us". But maybe that falls more into ideology and philosophy.
octopusprime Wrote:Equating babies to the relationship between an almighty being and his creation is first off a fundamentally flawed comparision. As to the bulk of your post, it is seriously the exact same question i've been answering for several posts and I guess you just aren't getting my answer. I'll try to be as verbose as possible with this.
Without the tree (more importantly the command from god to not eat from the tree), man does not ever have the choice of living outside the will of the creator. Making them just facets of gods will. So they don't really have a true free will of their own.
No tree = No choice.
No choice = No free will.
No free will = Fleshy robots.
Fleshy robots = a thoroughly unsatisfied, imperfect, and idiotic creator.
I'd like an explanation on how it is flawed as well as your personal beliefs in the properties of God (using Epicurus may help). Because depending on who you ask the equating to God as a parent is not only accurate, but factual.
Who says man can not choose what to do? Are you basically arguing free will can ONLY exist if there is some sort of consequence or secondary options? Even so it still doesn't explain why God allowed for that to be the only alternative. Even by you're argument you seem to claim that God intended for man to be nothing but fleshy machines through threats, punishments, and coercion.
octopusprime Wrote:I don't understand how any one could take anything but a religious or philosophical message with religious context out of the part of the video that says: What I thought were quite clear messages were taken to unusual extremes. While transposing an image of the ten commandments (a famous and undeniably specific religious image) with bullets going on to show the bible pretty clearly (it's a book with a cross on it while he's talking about a "message" also refers to jesus as a "message" and mentions the crucificion with a picture) as well directly afterwards talking about religion and it's progression from being faith to being an institution. (to see what most of what i'm talking about, watch the video after 1:00) I'm so baffled as to how Erebus could have found this message as one that is primarily environmental without trolling. Speaking of which, are you Erebus?
That's a fan made video fyi -_-
(and no he's not me)