Is It Possible That God And Satan Are In Cahoots?

[Dino Velvet]

It'd be the ultimate swerve and explain the plot holes in The Bible. The Lord works in mysterious ways and has a friend with a dark sense of humor that keeps different hours.

[muh_muh]

i think youll find the simpler more or less historically accurate and thus more likely explanation for the plot holes is that its a bunch of made up stories from hundreds of different sources collected into an almost but not quite coherent... id hate to call it narrative but lets go with that

[Dino Velvet]

i think youll find the simpler more or less historically accurate and thus more likely explanation for the plot holes is that its a bunch of made up stories from hundreds of different sources collected into an almost but not quite coherent... id hate to call it narrative but lets go with that

I wish I was older and wrote The Bible. The shit I would make people do.

[russtafa]

the bible was a history with miracles for explanations of events taking place

[hippifried]

It's a bet between 'em to see who can collect the most souls.
Not sure what the stakes are. Maybe ownership of purgatory?

[robertlouis]

It'd be the ultimate swerve and explain the plot holes in The Bible. The Lord works in mysterious ways and has a friend with a dark sense of humor that keeps different hours.

If Satan = Mammon, then definitely yes.

It's called capitalism.

[russtafa]

and socialists are the devils children

[Prospero]

Dino - brilliant stuff. Keep it coming you old devil, you.
Of course the real devils on here don't have a sense of humour....

[robertlouis]

Dino - brilliant stuff. Keep it coming you old devil, you.
Of course the real devils on here don't have a sense of humour....

Sorry, I didn't get that.......

[trish]

There is no Satan. God just gets tempted and slips down the dark side every once in a while. (heavy asthmatic breathing) Duck, there He goes again!

[robertlouis]

There is no Satan. God just gets tempted and slips down the dark side every once in a while. (heavy asthmatic breathing) Duck, there He goes again!

Thanks Trish. I was just wondering when the Manichean heresy would get an airing!

[trish]

Heresy? HERESY?! It's no heresy and you're all DAMNED TO HELL for saying it is.

Oh, wait.
There's no hell either.
Damnit!

[Nicole Dupre]

If there was a "God", wouldn't "he" have to be "Lucifer" or "Satan" anyway? lol

[Dino Velvet]

There is no Satan. God just gets tempted and slips down the dark side every once in a while. (heavy asthmatic breathing) Duck, there He goes again!

How about a 4th member of the Trinity? Guess you'd have to change the name.

Father
Angel
Son
Holy Spirit

[trish]

Trinity, schminity!

[Prospero]

So Trish - you an Albigensian or Cathar then?

[trish]

Having very little idea of who the Cathars were (are?) or what they believed (believe?) I had to summon ultimate source of all knowledge, Wikipedia. I kind of like the dualist notion that Rex Mundi created the world and all other material things and that some other Dude created the spirit world and all things spiritual. But I have to differ with the Catharic (?) view that the material world is evil and the spiritual good. My experience is that they may have gotten it backwards. More likely there is neither good nor evil in either world, and even more likely than that, there’s probably no spiritual world at all.

If we have to have gods, then I prefer to have lots of them. Creatures that powerful need checks and balances__like Hinduism, or Norse Mythology. The ancient Greek pantheon is cool. The pantheism of Wicca is an interesting. When hiking through the territory of a certain clamorous Yellow-breasted Chat I can understand the temptation to think of him as the god of this little domain with mind, intention and will. But it’s just a fun metaphor. Actually I’m what Nagel calls a “hardheaded atheist.”

[muh_muh]

How about a 4th member of the Trinity? Guess you'd have to change the name.

Father
Angel
Son
Holy Spirit

do all 4 of them own time machines?

[Dino Velvet]

do all 4 of them own time machines?

I imagine all 4 could afford them. Allah helps them out to the car with no tip.

[hippifried]

do all 4 of them own time machines?
Yes & no, maybe.
I guess Dino has rewritten the dogma & given us a "quadrinity". Okay. It all makes sense now. Explains all the squares making the religious rules.

Piers Anthony wrote an interesting take on all this in a 5 part fantasy series called ~The Incarnations of Immortality~. It documents the "bet" that I spoke of earlier. The incarnations (human form) are:
Death
Time (travels from future to past & is immune to paradox)
Fate (3 aspects: Clotho, Atropos, & Lachesis)
War &
Nature
Of course he couldn't leave it hanging, so he added 2 more books dealing with the incarnations of:
the dEVIL (father of lies)
& GOoD (disinterested & losing the bet)


Heresy? HERESY?! It's no heresy and you're all DAMNED TO HELL for saying it is.

Oh, wait.
There's no hell either.
Damnit!
Blasphemy!!
That's a mortal sin! For the right favors, I could take your confession & hook you up with my afterlife lawyer. Might be able to cut you a deal for a few millenia in purgatory...:praying:for:fuckin:

[runningdownthatdream]

It'd be the ultimate swerve and explain the plot holes in The Bible. The Lord works in mysterious ways and has a friend with a dark sense of humor that keeps different hours.

In cahoots!?!?! 'God' is really Loki on crack.............not sure good or evil are distinguishable on that juice.

[trish]

[QUOTE...I could take your confession & hook you up with my afterlife lawyer.QUOTE]Reminds be of one of my favorite "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episodes. Larry David and his wife decide to renew their wedding vows. She thinks it's a good idea to write their own vows this time. Larry notices that she has changed "until death do you part" to something like, "forever unto eternity." Larry complains that wasn't the original deal.

[hippifried]

Still :praying:for:fuckin:

I'll have one miracle to go, please, with a side of guilt.

[robertlouis]

So Trish - you an Albigensian or Cathar then?

That really reminds me of the dread challenge in the dark back streets back home in Glasgow, many moons ago.

"Billy or a Dan or an aul' tin can?"

In which Billy = Protestant = Rangers, Dan = Catholic = Celtic and Aul' tin can? Buggered if I know, but it always seemed the most sensible answer.

[Prospero]

I find the position of "hard headed athiest" as illogical as believer.... and that agnosticism is the only feasible place to stand.
"Of what we cannot speak we must remain silent" - Wittgenstein.

[trish]

Every theism ever put forward that was specific enough to have checkable consequences (past deadlines on armegeddon, for example) has failed to check out. It's within the realm of supernatural possibility that your car will sprout wings this morning and fly you to work, though maintaining a cautious agnosticism on the matter is not reasonable.

[Prospero]

I think that he certainty implicit in either belief or atheism is a place i can't go to.I tend towards the atheist position and, of course, the fall back is prove there is something rather than nothing.

[robertlouis]

Every theism ever put forward that was specific enough to have checkable consequences (past deadlines on armegeddon, for example) has failed to check out. It's within the realm of supernatural possibility that your car will sprout wings this morning and fly you to work, though maintaining a cautious agnosticism on the matter is not reasonable.

Should there be an "un" before reasonable, Trish?

Is "cautious agnosticism" the halfway house for the would-be atheist? I think that's where I stand, as nobody has (or can?) either prove or disprove the existence of god or some other universal guiding power to meet any set of demanding criteria.

BTW, if there is a God, wouldn't it be wonderful if She was both lesbian and black? :)

[Prospero]

Ha ha - if there is a god perhaps it arnie (which i guess proves that god and the devil are one)

[robertlouis]

Ha ha - if there is a god perhaps it arnie (which i guess proves that god and the devil are one)

Nah, just the second half of the partnership. :dancing:

[trish]

Outside of mathematics there is no absolute certainty, but there is still proof. Sure phlogiston might exist. But it no longer serves an explanatory function because combustion is now "known" to be the process of oxidation. There is no need to prove phlogiston doesn't exist. There's simply no need to consider phlogiston. Hence it is with the pantheon of gods. They explain nothing. What does it mean to say a god created the universe? Does that really help our understanding of anything? What does it mean to say a god gave us law? Does that really help us determine whether the law is moral? What does it mean to say a god placed the Earth at the center of the solar system and the Sun and the planets revolve around tracing out epicycles? Well, okay that does actually mean something and it's false.

So yes, I meant to leave out the "un". It is not reasonable to maintain a cautious agnosticism concerning phlogiston, your current car sprouting wings tomorrow morning and flying you to work, or angry gods withholding rain from Texas (or mischievous rain fairies for that matter). Phlogiston doesn't exist, though I'm always willing to reconsider the issue given sufficient reason to do so.

[hippifried]

I find the position of "hard headed athiest" as illogical as believer.... and that agnosticism is the only feasible place to stand.
"Of what we cannot speak we must remain silent" - Wittgenstein.
I'm atheist. I'm not agnostic. I really don't have a problem with gnostic thought. I just have a problem with assumptive absolute certainty. The claim to know as a certainty is a challenge to intellect. Most of the time, I'm not interested or feeling contrary enough to take up the challenge.


Outside of mathematics there is no absolute certainty, but there is still proof.
Oh. So why do we need string theory again? Something about standard math being size exclusive & calculous formulae not jiving across the full range from chemical to astronomical? That's the simplistic way I understood it anyway. The question is rhetorical. I'm old & I'm not going to study it. (Is it ignorance or apathy? I don't know & I don't care.) I was just making a point, that you can be as certain as you like with mathematics because it's an abstract. I've never seen the Pythagoreum theorum fail, & I assume it's going to work every time. But I can find square off a straight line, & be even more certain of it's accuracy, without the use of a single number. Knolwing where to be standing when that fly ball coms down is rocket science. The outfielder isn't thinking about the math. He just knows.

Twas brillig
& the slivey thoes
did gyre & gimble in the wabes...

Hope the number gods don't send me to 7734. uh oh, forgot to invert. *hELL

[Nicole Dupre]

One God Universe - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcJ_yITF9so)

[trish]

I don't know & I don't care.) I was just making a point, that you can be as certain as you like with mathematics because it's an abstract. I think we're closer to agreement than you might think. What is certain in mathematics is abstract logical consequence. For example, it is certain that the Pythagorean theorem follows from the Euclid-Hilbert Axioms. What is not certain is the concrete application to the natural world. For example, which axioms actually apply to a given situation can never be certain. String theory is not mathematics. It is a physical theory that is best explicated in the language of mathematics. The only thing certain about String Theory is what propositions logically follow from what assumptions. But the assumptions of String Theory are famously uncertain and ungrounded, at least at the present time.

So why do we need string theory again?No one has yet demonstrated a need for String Theory, or more accurately String Theories ('cause there are a lot of them competing for attention). String theories are quantum field theories that are mathematically consistent and generally (more or less) covariant. Which means that if we ever found a String Theory that was consistent with the natural world it would successfully circumvent the conflict between quantum field theories and general relativity. That's why some people think there may be a use for String Theory. But we're not there yet, and there may not be a there there to get to.

[trish]

Fantastic youtube clip, Nicole. William S. Burroughs, gotta love that voice.

[hippifried]

That clip was funny. Made perfect sense too. Maybe. Lack of assumption is a hedge, just in case I die & there's some robed guy saying "what were you thinking?". Lack of commitment in life gives me wiggle room for a plea deal. It's all so confusing...:hide-1:

All mimsy were ye borogoves
And ye mome raths outgrabe