Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to WE ARE MADE IN GOD'S IMAGE?
Gheeghee
So you are saying that if one does not believe in something then one should not talk or debate about what one does not believe in? Sorry, but that would be like ignoring the world around you because it does not fit into your own little design of everything. Being blind to ideas is not healthy.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 20, 2005 at 3:03 PM
| link to this | reply
"I am lost as to your reasoning here. That would be like saying 'Since Christians do not believe in evolution, then that lack of belief means that they should not be trying to disprove it'." EXACTLY.
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 20, 2005 at 12:00 AM
| link to this | reply
Gheeghee
"My purpose is to achieve clarification from Kooka, and it seems that he's unwilling."
I have done nothing but made clarification. I can not help if it is not what you wish to hear. Every time you ask a question I answer it. You just have not liked the answers and so have decided that they must not be clear because they are not what you wish to hear.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 16, 2005 at 4:16 PM
| link to this | reply
JJ
I will admit that I can get carried away with my replies at time and more or less end up writing a full post worth of ideas. That is one reason as to why comments often end up taking up so much of my time.
And I do agree that basically at the end no one is going to be convinced of anything. I am not trying to convert or convince with my posts here, just get people to think and when I am lucky I can get someone to politely and reasonably debate with me. That is rare, but has happened.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 16, 2005 at 4:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Gheeghee
"Then why bother making the claims in this post? Your lack of belief in a God you attempt to explain further destroys your logic."
I am lost as to your reasoning here. That would be like saying 'Since Christians do not believe in evolution, then that lack of belief means that they should not be trying to disprove it'.
I am pointing out what I see as flaws in the Biblical idea of God, just as many creationist seem to enjoy trying to find flaws in evolution. I am also trying to present new ideas to people to get them thinking. (I know, another thing that many Christians are against)
That comment shows a great level of hypocrisy.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 16, 2005 at 4:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Gheeghee
What questions did I not answer? I went point by point (Which was one reason why the reply was so long) and addressed everything you said. The only question left unanswered was the final one that was based on a typo. If you wish to reword that question to fit the corrected sentence I would be more than happy ot answer it. I find this amusing coming from you since you have yet to answer any of my questions. You always, always dance around the questions and never give a direct answer. Since we are talking about spiritual ideas, then opinions are fully acceptable. if they were not then you would have to dump everything you are saying because nothing from the Bible can be proven, it is all opinion based for one to believe it to be true. I did provide many facts that you seem to wish to just overlook as opinion because you do not agree with them. But they are no less facts just because you do not like them.
Once more you did not respond to a single remark, but have instead gone to trying to discredit me.
Just address the issues if I am so easy to prove wrong.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 16, 2005 at 4:04 PM
| link to this | reply
By the way, you really didn't answer my questions; you instead offered more of your opinion, which do not prove you know what you are talking about. Also, your staunch protection of your point without any real information to back it up is weak. I can only conclude, therefore, that your opinion as presented in this post is really not worth considering in my own thought process or belief structure.
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 16, 2005 at 7:54 AM
| link to this | reply
"I fixed the 'veer' and 'resent' typos already before I read this comment. I did put this post through your great Microsoft Word 2000 by the way, and it missed those typos. " That's what PROOFREADING is for.
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 16, 2005 at 7:48 AM
| link to this | reply
JJ Wilde: "I'm afraid I'm not very impressed by any super-logical argument for or against any religious issue. By the time that the debate is done, there is nothing but a complete rat's nest of verbosity with shards of logic pointing out of it in every direction." Actually, I've not made much of an argument for my beliefs, as this is not my blog. My purpose is to achieve clarification from Kooka, and it seems that he's unwilling.
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 16, 2005 at 7:46 AM
| link to this | reply
"First off I say 'if' because I do not believe there is a God out there, so I often use the word 'if' when talking about God." Then why bother making the claims in this post? Your lack of belief in a God you attempt to explain further destroys your logic.
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 16, 2005 at 7:40 AM
| link to this | reply
Kookie, GG
This debate is interesting, not in that I learned anything new from either side, but in that I was able to see the debators in action. GG, your logic and the work that you have done in structuring your side of the argument go beyond being admirable. I was quite impressed.
Kooky, your presentation was very well done. Had I the patience to read through the whole thing, my own patience would have amazed me. Who are you trying to convert, or convince? I can't imagine anyone reading through all of that.
I'm afraid I'm not very impressed by any super-logical argument for or against any religious issue. By the time that the debate is done, there is nothing but a complete rat's nest of verbosity with shards of logic pointing out of it in every direction. I, personally, consider it a waste of time. I have formed my own beliefs into a stability that cannot be shaken by convoluted ill logic--and I don't mean illogic.
That's about all I plan to bother with. JJ
posted by
Jack_Flash
on February 15, 2005 at 4:49 PM
| link to this | reply
And Gheeghee
The word Ego on its own does not have to refer to that idea of Ego. You really do like picking out just one definition that is clearly not meaning of the word as it is being used. I went ahead and wrote a post about the regular meaning of the word Ego in my 'Do you know what these words mean?' blog.
Not that the Freudian idea you presented did not work to help me make my point.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 15, 2005 at 4:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Gheeghee
First off I say 'if' because I do not believe there is a God out there, so I often use the word 'if' when talking about God.
Beyond that the God of the Bible can not be a physical being. By all logic the biblical idea of God is a purely spiritual one. The idea of the trinity says that he went from spiritual to physical for a time and then returned to spiritual. You could then say he has a physical connection, but logically that connection was not there when he created man, so man would only be in God's image spiritually and God then made himself match man when he took physical form.
I do nothing but talk about spiritual forms here, unless you somehow are thinking that a person's personality is not part for his/her spiritual form. The sprit is the basic driving force of a person. the sprit is defined by their actions and words and such. Motivation is a large part of what a spiritual form is after all. Ego would very much be a part of one's spiritual form as well as the ability to control one's emotions and so on. I talk in great depth about the spiritual aspects.
"God would have just used whatever creatured roamed the Earth to house the human spirit." Wow, you even created typo that is not in the post itself here. Love it.
Anyway, that came from talking to an actual minister who signed off on my Eagle Scout award. He was the first one I ever heard talk about this idea. The basic idea being that God evolved the animals until he got what he needed. This was a true man of God talking about this and it made a lot more sense with what we know of the world than God creating man out of nothing. Since then I have seen where it can very much fit into the general Biblical ideas if one were smart enough to not take it all literally. So there is a real Christian based belief out there which follows this idea of the human body being just an evolved animal that is housing our souls and is in the end unimportant in the long run. Actually if you believe that souls live on after the body dies, then this should make a lot of sense to you. It says our souls and our bodies are not the same, the body just holds the soul for a time.
I have studied the concept of God greatly. One does not need to believe in a fictional character to understand that character's motivation. I am a writer and I do look at characters when I read or watch TV or a film. I thin about their motivations and if I believe they would act as they are. There have been several times where I have been greatly upset because a fictional character has done something which he/she should not have done because ti did not fit their character. it is just part of observing life.
I in general do not believe that most people are in a healthy state of mind. I very much believe that most people allow for their ego to dominate. The Biblical God is very obviously far from being balanced and mentally stable, so your point becomes meaningless. Once more helping to show just how like man the idea of God really is. Man in general is not mentally stable and God is that idea to na extreme.
The basic story of Adam and Eve is a great example. I never claimed the story to have happened. It is just what the story itself represents. And even if the story has been changed in time to fit different ideas, the basis of the story is that by gaining knowledge one looses innocence. Such a story is present in many, many different beliefs and myths. Since I was talking about the Biblical ideas it just made the most sense to use a Biblical story to help show my point. One does not need to believe a story to be true to believe that there is a lesson that can be learned from that story. Otherwise there would be no point at all to story telling. The Bible, like nay other group of collected mythical stories, has many stories that can be used to show various aspects of man in general.
I fixed the 'veer' and 'resent' typos already before I read this comment. I did put this post through your great Microsoft Word 2000 by the way, and it missed those typos.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 15, 2005 at 3:42 PM
| link to this | reply
"First off if God truly is purely a spiritual entity, then our physical forms are not in God's image." I have three questions regarding this sentence:
1. You say "if." What if God is NOT purely a spiritual entity? Just a note here, IF he's not "purely a spiritual entity" (as many Christians believe God has a dual nature, Human AND Spiritual in Christ, God the Son, Person of the Trinity), then your entire argument following is conditional.
2. You say our "physical forms are not in God's image." You do not mention our spiritual forms here, why?
3. How would you explain an alternate reality...what if God IS purely a spiritual entity, for example?
"God would have just used whatever creatured roamed the Earth to house the human spirit." Why do you believe this to be true? In other words, what have you read, seen, encountered, etc., that gave you this insight into the mind of God?
In an earlier conversation with me, you stated this. If you reject any source about God, and do not believe in God, how do you know what he would have done in any situation? How would you know whether or not our physical forms are created in God's image?
Regarding your conclusion that "ego is about the most dominate force that drives mankind." How do you answer the entire field of human psychology that claims a balance between id, ego and super-ego is what achieves a healthy mental state? You state: "logic would say that God has such an ego." Are you saying that God has a personality, an outward image that when in balance with his physical and consciousness (id and super-ego respectively) he achieves mental health? Logic would certainly apply here as well, wouldn't it?
Additionally, how do you answer spiritual writers that claim ego (defined as a self-induced force that drives the human away from his God and spiritual center instead of psychology's accepted definition as being the outward personality of the human) is a post-fall phenomenon?
Here are some sources for anyone interested in reading more about the human ego:
http://peace.saumag.edu/faculty/Kardas/Courses/GPWeiten/C12Personality/EgoIDSuper.html
http://allpsych.com/psychology101/ego.html
http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L8-4StructureMindIdEgoSuperego.html
http://changingminds.org/explanations/personality/freud_personality.htm
http://www.wandea.org.pl/spiritual-direction.html
http://homepage.newschool.edu/~quigleyt/vcs/psychoanalysis.html
http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/landow/post/achebe/cafreud.html
"Now we can look back to the time.....found knowledge and lost their innocence." As you've time and again rejected the Scripture as a credible source, why are you using it to prove your point? Don't the typos, translation errors, differences in interpretation and understanding across the board dilute your argument considerably when you choose to use the bible to make your points?
"Such ideas are veer much resent through the Bible." What do ideas have against the Bible that they resent it so much, and who is veer?
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 15, 2005 at 10:07 AM
| link to this | reply
Here are some sites to check out for Bible typos
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/bibletypos/bibletypos
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2004/05/bible_typos.html
(This talks about the adultery one)
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 14, 2005 at 6:05 PM
| link to this | reply
A typo in teh Bible?
But that would mean that those who wrote the Bible had no respect for the readers of it and were not serious about writing it. I have got to find that list of real typos form various versions of the Bible. I think there was one that actually said 'Thou Shalt Commit Adultery' if I remembering correctly.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 14, 2005 at 5:57 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka_lives -- you touched on what I think is the truth of this matter
people have been wandering around muttering that Man was created in God's image when it is simply the other way around. God is created in man's image. This was probably caused many eons ago by a simple typo. You of all people can appreciate how easy it is to make typos......ha ha ha .
posted by
gomedome
on February 14, 2005 at 5:48 PM
| link to this | reply