Comments on God just put nipples on everything then?

Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t - Add a comment - Go to God just put nipples on everything then?

aristotle- check him out

posted by AnCatubh on May 31, 2004 at 3:02 AM | link to this | reply

'will is not a higher power. it is just something we have'

And nipples are just what men have...

posted by AnCatubh on May 31, 2004 at 3:01 AM | link to this | reply

a quote from George Carlin

"Maybe God is a semi-supreme being, because everything he created has died."  -- from the first b-cast of Saturday Night Live. 

I have a hard time with a "god's plan" scenario when kids are dying of cancer, to paraphrase radio personality Don Imus.  But I do accept gifts where I see them, like a parking space close to the store when it's raining.  Or the times I had my heart torn (in one case ripped out, let's be honest), got drunk, went out, and got laid.  For a shy guy like moi, that's all the evidence I need.  tg

posted by tbgroucho on May 30, 2004 at 6:51 PM | link to this | reply

amdg

Then where does your knowledge of God come from?
Most of what you say follows the teachings of the church and the Bible. If you have some other great source of information, please share it with the rest of us.

posted by kooka_lives on May 30, 2004 at 3:35 PM | link to this | reply

once again, the man is right

we are going in circles. I given you examples of how one can logically arrive at the existence of an Unmoved Mover. Perhaps not very well. I don't believe this because the Bible says God is real. Go ahead and speculate on the origins of the universe but please don't presume to know what the origins of my beliefs about this subject are.

posted by AnCatubh on May 30, 2004 at 9:25 AM | link to this | reply

amdg

That love is still just a result of the development of the mind.  Looking out for others is an important part of survival.  This does not come from any kind of higher power. Will is not a higher power thing.  It is just what we have.  When we see that it is better for all to give and help others, it is a good things and helps all. It would be insulting to think that we can not love or feel without God being so kind to us to allow us those emotions.  This idea of God being the end all and be al of who we are (For our emotions are a lage part of making us who we are ) is one of the things that really shows me the flaws in popular religion.

No matter what you come down to the simple fact that something had to come from nothing.  You want it to be a compelx set up called God, which according to this God he has no begining and no ending, which meanings that a thing as complex as God has always been (Which of coruse goes against the laws of nature).  And you just accpet that, no questiosn asked, even though the whole idea is lacking in logic.  While I am saying that matter has always existed, which makes much more snese due to the simpel fact that we know that matter can change form.  It can start out at a much simpler form and then develop into something more complex (Which is the way it works everywhere you look.). At some point the right energies just happened to react and start matter on its path to creatign the universe, very much like how any creature is born.  I of coruse am basing my logic off of knowledge of the workings of nature and science, while you of course are using te Bible for the whole basic of your point of view. 

I tell you what, once someone can prove that it is possible for a man to suddenly step out of his mother's womb, fully grown and fully educated, with all needed skills to get by in life, then I might be able to beleive that somewhere, somehow it might have been possible for such a complex thing as God to have come first.  But I am looking all around me and everything in the universe starts from the simple and grows to the more complex.

posted by kooka_lives on May 30, 2004 at 7:13 AM | link to this | reply

BIG WHEELS

go around in circiles
are we going around in circles?
the Universe is.
our solar system
the galaxie
we are spinning
probably not out of control
right now I see a circle of arguing.
with a great gulf between

matter has always existed

a great designer created it all

basically, we don't know that much for sure.

from the sciences we understand that once a singularity existed, all matter in a space smaller than this period. comprehend? or incomprehensible?

then the questions come: "what about before then?"

the question of God.

I'm overwhelmed by the statement of the singularity and then the questions -- the questions can be endless.

If what I'm saying is incomprehensible it's because I haven't had my coffee yet and you guys decide to comment back and forth like this and I have to see it this early in the morning.

me? I'm on the side of the eternity of matter. what forms it has taken over the eons is unknown. before the Big Bang, what? did that singularity always exist?

my mind reels. I've still not got more than a couple swallows of coffee down me -- this is too much for an early morning brain.

posted by Xeno-x on May 30, 2004 at 4:44 AM | link to this | reply

kooka

I thought I made it clear that the Love I'm talking about is an act of the will. To will the good of someone beyond one's own will is a choice. Emotion may be involved, but it doesn't define it.

Matter always existing makes more sense than God always existing? Hmmm... How is the matter animated or put in motion? And if it was created who or what created it? I'm not sure that's always true about nature starting simple and moving toward complexity. Plenty of things come to mind. Water, fire, trees to name a few. You're saying God can't exist because he would have to be an incredibly complex entity that comes before all else and that is contrary to Nature. You're attepting to disprove God's existence by likening him to things created. When I make a cake, I combine simple ingredients to make something more complex. I am not like the cake or it's ingredients. I do not depend on the cake for my existence but there's no cake until I combine the ingredients and bake it. The cake's existence depends on me.
Could you imagine flour, butter, sugar, eggs, etc. stirring themselves off a counter, swirling around in the air and coming to land in acake pan. Not very plausible.

posted by AnCatubh on May 30, 2004 at 1:14 AM | link to this | reply

amdg

and you have God doing the same thing.
Somehow you can justify God because a book tells you so, but you can not justify matter having always just been there.
It makes more sense for the basic matter to have just been there, and then it built up into the more complex levels as time went on.
Either God has always been or he was created from nothing, or matter has always been or it was created from nothing. Guess what? All those possibilities have abotut eh same chance of being true, but the matter one make the most sense because it is starting at the simpler level and working upwards, which is the way of nature.

As for love and such, are you saying God creates emotions? Then he creates hate and anger just as much as he create love and happiness. Emotions are a by product of our evolved minds. If you study the animal kingdom you will see that the more evolved an animal, the more emotional responses we can see. Insects and fish and such show no real signs of emotions, yet mammals of all kinds do tend to show emotions, especially when you get into the primates. As the mind evolves it seem to develop emotions as part of what is needed to survive. I am thinking this whole topic is a post in itself, so check back for that post in the future.

posted by kooka_lives on May 29, 2004 at 4:08 PM | link to this | reply

yeah lonebutte

here's where we are
here is where we should be.

posted by Xeno-x on May 29, 2004 at 1:49 PM | link to this | reply

lonebutte

I subscribe to the view that the unexamined life is not worth living.

westwend- I agree with that-mostly. Just because we can't fully understand God doesn' mean we shouldn't try. Your analogy is good, but you missed the part that is an elephant. Perceptions may differ,but perceptions don't define reality. What is, is.

Kooka, God is not something from nothing, he always was. Your theory still has created matter existing with no accounting for it's origin. You don't need to accept the God of Christianity to accept that the universe was made by an uncreated creator. Yes it start off with the highest end. Why is that incompatible with evolution. I think the idea of an unmoved mover is hard to grasp because we don't have an example of it precisely. We see cause and effect but we've never seen something that wasn't ultimely created by something else. Yet, there is this cause and effect thing. Seems very logical to conclude that everything must ultimately start with something that always was. We have no experience with that, so it seems impossible. The distinguished gentleman is right- we are finite and our understanding is limited.

I'm still waiting to find out how you explain the human capacity for Love--and reason for that matter....

Pax vobiscum

--amdg

posted by AnCatubh on May 29, 2004 at 12:52 PM | link to this | reply

ant farm experiment

One of my atheist friends once told me that Planet Earth is just an ant farm experiment by giant, intergalactic ETs.  They're amusing themselves watching us race around blindly, trying to figure it all out.  The answer is, there is no answer to the meaning of life.  The point is, don't worry about it too much.  Life is too short as it is.   

posted by lonebutte on May 29, 2004 at 11:15 AM | link to this | reply

AMDG - re: your god and my god - westwend

there are things that you perceive about god that is part of the god i perceive, if you can understand.
but we can't come close to totally perceiving god.
what i personally don't like are the attempts at defining god.
i'll do the blind men and the elephant again here, where the elephant is god and the blind men are those who perceive god from different viewpoints.

one felt the tail and thought the elpehant was like a rope.
one, the trunk and thought it was like a snake
one, the leg, and thought it was like a tree
one, the side, and it was like a wall to him.
one, the ear, and it was like a leaf
and one, the tusk, and it was like a spear.

god is infinite; we are finite. when we encounter god, we can only encounter god in a limited fashion.

but what we encounter is certainly a part of god.

and not all of our perceptions taken together will ever come close to adequately perceiving and expressing god.

posted by Xeno-x on May 29, 2004 at 9:59 AM | link to this | reply

amdg

No mater what the whole idea still has to have something coming from nothing. I my eyes it is the universe itself, in your eyes it is God.
An all powerful, all knowing God just coming out of nothing to create everything else (No matter what he Bible may claim, God had to come from somewhere) seems very unlikely to me. That would be starting things off with the most complex end highest form.
It make a whole lot more sense that atoms where thrown through the void and slowly, over the course of billions of years took shape as they gathered together.
Both version has something form nothing. Just one starts off with the most complex of things just being there at the start, while the others tarts with the most simple of things being there to start.
I have to follow the logic of the universe and say things started off simple and then became more complex as they went

posted by kooka_lives on May 29, 2004 at 8:12 AM | link to this | reply

oops! the first paragraph was a response to westwend's comments

well, most of it is.

posted by AnCatubh on May 29, 2004 at 1:08 AM | link to this | reply

thinking indepedently, that's what's important?

Independent of what? Is thinking independently a virtue? One could say that about the Unabomber and the like.
I think I understand what you are saying about God as the Universe and Existence, although I don't agree. I think you're saying God is not a specific entity, is that right? All is God? I agree that that God is Existence, not just something or someone who exists. We flow from God. He's the Cause, we are the part of the effect.
But what about Love? God as the Universe doesn't explain Love. When we truly love, we will the good for someone. Getting something in return is not the motive. Real love radiates kindness, generosity, total good will. And for those disposed to receive it, it begets more love and we are transformed by it. God is Love just as he is Existence. Why dowe love ? Is it just biology, instinct? I can't believe that. Instinct and biology explain physical attraction. They don't explain selflessness. Why do people yearn to be good? Kooka, you talk about striving to be a good person and you don't think one needs to believe in God to be motivated to be good. My question is why is there any motivation for anyone to be good? What in the human heart compels us to want that and see it as desirable? Yes, we are animals but we have the capacity to rationally choose to will the good of another beyond our own will. What other animal does that? Where does that come from? How does a vague idea of Everything is God account for it? I think He must be a separate entity and our capacity for Love is how we are made in his Image.

Kooka, I can't shake the idea of an Unmoved Mover for the same reason I think we are part of an evolving process: the physical evidence is so compelling. Every effect we see around us has a cause. Isn't it reasonable to deduce that the Universe had a Cause? Nothing comes from nothing. If we follow the trail of evolution back to sub-atomic particles we still have to account for the existence of those, right? And how they were put in motion? There has to be an origin, something that always was.

I think God created us without imperfections but we share in his ability to rationally will things. And we chose poorly. Misery is not his design for us, it is what man has carved out for himself.

Sorry for this post-size comment! I get goin' and it's hard to know when to stop. Hope it makes sense.
Pax!

posted by AnCatubh on May 29, 2004 at 1:07 AM | link to this | reply

IT'S IN THE RELIGION

static religion can lead one to feel this way.
I'm notout to convert you like Shawn, here; on the contrary, as I said, I'm wholly supportive because you are thinking independently -- and that's what's important.The point I'm trying to make is that the common view of God as the perfect cerator of a perfect static, ordered Universe goes against what the reality is.
What the reality is? is . . . . is . . . . well, it's basically different for each individual -- but what it could be as far as I'm concerned???
But is as far as I'm concerned what's important here == it's as far as whoever's expressing a perception is concerned that's important here.
If we try to fit our own reality into another's reality?It don't fit.
If it don't fit, don't force it.
To me, -- why do I have to keep repeating -- if you've already heard this, tell me -- it won't do you any good because I'm oging to say it again anyway.
To me, the Universe is an evolving thing. God is the Universe and the Universe if God -- I'd prefer YHVH -- which is existence which is everything that has existed, does exist or will exist, all matter, antimatter, all forces, every thought, word and deed -- all is God and God is all.

We -- the Universe -- have progressed from a "point", though this is an infinite point in the infinity of time, so I guess it's not really a definite point -- to a point -- which, like the previous point is not really a definite point, but an infinite point in the infinity of time -- and then beyond, for it's infinity.

And in so progressing, we find these things along the way. Like nipples. Nipples don't have to prove or disprove God; however, they do, I really think, contradict the classic perfect God that created the Perfect Universe.

In order to discover God, we have to eschew the obstacles.

posted by Xeno-x on May 28, 2004 at 4:07 PM | link to this | reply

r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y

Shawn:

I under stand where you're coming from. You don't want to see anyone, particularly someone whom you respect and admire, face the condemnation that you are certain they will face unless they change.

Yo have done your part, you have fulfilled your responsibility.

Following your line of reasoning, it is now up go God.

Let go and let God.

Responsibility has shifted shoulders.

posted by Xeno-x on May 28, 2004 at 10:49 AM | link to this | reply

Well, from my perspective....

you've forgotten an important thing. If you follow the Biblical account of creation, then you begin with the fact that G-d created everything, and it was perfect. When He finished creation, it was a perfect world. However, G-d did not want a bunch of little automatons following Him around; He wanted people who would follow Him of their own free will, much as a good parent wants his/her child to obey, not out of fear or compulsion, but out of love and inclination. So G-d made one rule: Don't eat the fruit of this one tree. Now why He picked this one tree is, and has been, a matter of debate for millenia, but the most credible explanation to me is that He had created Adam and Eve as perfect humans. They were utterly innocent. G-d knew that the fruit of this tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, would lead Adam and Eve out of innocence and onto a path that would lead to depravity.

We all know the story. Adam and Eve eventually ate the fruit. Eating the fruit led them into shame, deceit, and ducking responsibility for their actions. It destroyed the perfect creation and corrupted future seed, so that the world is, as the saying goes, a "fallen world." The things that we see as imperfections, flaws, injustices, and wrongs in this world stem from the fact that G-d made a perfect world that has been gradually destroyed through sin.

If you believe the Bible accounts, then it all makes sense. If you don't believe the Bible accounts, then my explanation will be just a bit more drivel to add to the pile.

posted by editormum on May 28, 2004 at 10:40 AM | link to this | reply

shawn

That had to be about the dumbest load of crap you have left here.
I have no desire to be God's equal. Immortality holds no draw for me.
Your logic if fully and completely based off of the bible and the teaching of the Church, neither of which follow any form of reason of rhyme, therefore any logic that you follow is flawed to begin with and I had no desire to follow it. Your way of thinking proves to be much more harmful in the end, although you will never see this because you are way too blinded by all you believe.
If you only wish to reply to me by saying such pointless crap, please just stop reading or at least stop commenting. It is getting old. I am not going to change my ways. If you wish to really debate, and that means to READ what I say and point out the flaws in my logic so that I can counter your arguments then please feel free to come back and do so.

posted by kooka_lives on May 28, 2004 at 10:23 AM | link to this | reply

Kooka

You wish that God had created you as his equal. If he had, then you would be challenging him because you want to be God. You can only be God by embracing his positive energy force. Your negativism and illogical denial is plummeting you into annihilation. Have you not read my Blog? Can you not read and discern the severe implications for your existence if you do not turn immediately away from such hazardous blasphemy? The logic is easy to follow if you will but read all posts to my blog and try to ascend from this chaotic state of blunder in which you find yourself.

posted by telemachus on May 27, 2004 at 9:01 PM | link to this | reply

pluperfect times

perfect god = perfect creation

evolving god = evolving not creation but parts of god.

I think it all adds up.

but never perfectly

posted by Xeno-x on May 27, 2004 at 6:34 PM | link to this | reply