Tell him to bring his bitch ass on, if he thinks he's bad.Quote:
Originally posted by O-Nieronaut
Heh, I don't think I would say such things where an omnipotent entity that might exist might overhear. :gator:
Printable View
Tell him to bring his bitch ass on, if he thinks he's bad.Quote:
Originally posted by O-Nieronaut
Heh, I don't think I would say such things where an omnipotent entity that might exist might overhear. :gator:
Actually, I also believe that while being an amorphous mass of energy, God also "gave birth" to the universe, so that would make it more female than male. :wink:Quote:
Originally posted by Universal Mind
Tell him to bring his bitch ass on, if he thinks he's bad.
Isn't that kinda narrow-minded? If your god was a seahorse, then if memory serves, it would be the male of the species that "gives birth", no?Quote:
Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
Actually, I also believe that while being an amorphous mass of energy, God also \"gave birth\" to the universe, so that would make it more female than male. *:wink:
[followed my own advice and double-checked that factoid. It is correct]
Yeah, I know -- I was just messing with U-Mind, mostly, didn't mean much by that comment. :P However, it is still the female seahorse that conceives and grows the babies, she just transfers them to the male for birth. I'm pretty sure that's also accurate.Quote:
Originally posted by kimpossible
Isn't that kinda narrow-minded? *If your god was a seahorse, then if memory serves, it would be the male of the species that \"gives birth\", no? *
[followed my own advice and double-checked that factoid. *It is correct]
Not to be too disagreeable, but I think you'll find it's the male that conceives and grows them.
The female inserts her oviduct (kinda like a female penis) into his brood pouch. She humps him for a little while and then deposits her _unfertilized_ eggs into his pouch. He fertilizes them, they develop in his pouch, then he gives live-birth. Contractions and all.
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/anphys...eproduction.htm
There are species of pipe-fish that are similar.
I was a seahorse in my former lifeQuote:
Originally posted by kim
The female inserts her oviduct (kinda like a female penis) into his brood pouch. *She humps him for a little while and then deposits her _unfertilized_ eggs into his pouch. *He fertilizes them, they develop in his pouch, then he gives live-birth. *Contractions and all.
How'd that work-out for you?Quote:
Originally posted by OpheliaBlue
I was a seahorse in my former life
Wow, I stand corrected. My bad. :doh:
Isn't it refreshing to hear someone just say that, in all simplicity? :P Nothing like admitting you're wrong, getting it straight, and moving on to make a body healthy and wise.
LMAO, Blue. :chuckle: Wait, but which were you? The male or the female?
Actually, I found it most refreshing to have a disagreement with an intelligent and [reasonably] sane person using fact and referencing scholarly works. Notice I didn't get all offensive and up-in-arms? That's what happens when we can talk about reality. We can disagree and no one gets hurt.Quote:
Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
Isn't it refreshing to hear someone just say that, in all simplicity?
And yes - I appreciate your standing up and saying "my bad". I did that in another thread with Nes, where I'd missed the quote. It's really not that painful, huh? ;)
Thanks; and yeah, nothing to it, really. Now if only certain others could understand that. >_>Quote:
Originally posted by kimpossible+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kimpossible)</div>Totally. :content:Quote:
Actually, I found it most refreshing to have a disagreement with an intelligent and [reasonably] sane person using fact and referencing scholarly works. *Notice I didn't get all offensive and up-in-arms? *That's what happens when we can talk about reality. *We can disagree and no one gets hurt.[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-kimpossible
And yes - I appreciate your standing up and saying \"my bad\". *I did that in another thread with Nes, where I'd missed the quote. *It's really not that painful, huh? *;)
Well, I have seen worlds without suffering, and where there are absolutely no problems with there being completely no suffering, and that has been in dreams.Quote:
Could God (defined as infinitely powerful and totally good) createa universe with conscious minds but without suffering and without there being any problem with the complete absence of suffering?[/b]
Coincidentally, in my dream world, I'm God.
So the answer to your question is yes, if we say that the dream world, or worlds within, are self-contained "universes," independent from this one, which clearly has something we call suffering.
I'm not comfortable with that notion, though, for how would I be able to "travel" between these universes? What holds them together? I think in this case imagining that they are alternative universes it is an artifact of our imagination, which does appear to be a reasonably self-contained universe when highly active in a dream, but is not actually so. And this is demonstrable in many ways, if only by the fact that noises like the sound of your alarm clock can interfere with your dreaming, without stopping it right away.
But, the answer would still be yes, in a way, if we allow dreams to be act as functionally separate universes, with no discernable interference from the outside world, for the purposes of having a functional universe without suffering, even if is not actually a separate universe to begin with.
Functional universes without suffering will be marketed to us someday. They already are in very rudimentary forms - and to great success. Why need God when market forces will bring it to us eventually? :content:
I'm hung like a seahorse. (female that is)Quote:
Originally posted by The Sexy Sea Equestrian
I was a seahorse in my former life
/me flaunts his oviduct
Well, originally God was a man, but then he said, "I want to be a woman. From now on, call me Loretta. I want to have babies." Now, she has a vagina. I have seen it. She needs to cover it up before she gets arrested for indecent exposure.Quote:
Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
Actually, I also believe that while being an amorphous mass of energy, God also \"gave birth\" to the universe, so that would make it more female than male. :wink:
(This lawless forum is going to be fun.)
Was great. I boinked roughly 1 million males. Most of them were seahorses.Quote:
Originally posted by kimpossible
How'd that work-out for you?
lmao james :P
Yes.Quote:
Could God (defined as infinitely powerful and totally good) createa universe with conscious minds but without suffering and without there being any problem with the complete absence of suffering?[/b]
:shock: :o :!: My goodness, a second straight answer from a theist who wants to have a discussion about this! I need to sit here for a moment and come out of my shock. Thank you!Quote:
Originally posted by MarthaM
Yes.[/b]Quote:
Could God (defined as infinitely powerful and totally good) createa universe with conscious minds but without suffering and without there being any problem with the complete absence of suffering?
Now for the apparently hard part. Awaken got to phase 1, the yes/no answer portion of the conversation, but has yet to come out of that box and finish the 2nd and final phase of this. Please complete it. If God is real, he knows that several atheists here are trying very hard to understand the resolution to the apparent contradiction in the Christian belief. So please do what in that case would be your duty to God... Clear this up for us. Wouldn't God be wanting you to give a thorough performance on this?
You just said that God COULD create a universe without suffering and WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY PROBLEM WITH THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SUFFERING. However, that obviously did not happen. So, why not? He could have a universe with no suffering and (very, very importantly...) no problem with that absence of suffering. The existence of suffering disproves the notion that a being that CAN do what you just said he can do exists AND is not indifferent to suffering. If he is in fact able to create the universe I described, but allowed suffering any way, then he is indifferent to suffering. Remember, telling me what problems there would be with the absence of suffering (which Awaken does every time he actually dares to address this) misses a very important part of the concept. We have covered the "problems with the complete absence of suffering" part of the issue. They don't have to exist, under your belief. So why would suffering exist under such circumstances? It is a contradiction. Please explain to me how there is no contradiction.
Also, telling me what God cannot do because he "limits himself" (Awaken's words) does not answer the question. Under the described scenario, God would not have to limit himself, so his doing so would be a sign of indifference to suffering.
The big issue: Where is the flaw in my point that the contradiction exists?
Theist.Quote:
* My goodness, a second straight answer from a theist who wants to have a discussion about this! I need to sit here for a moment and come out of my shock. Thank you![/b]
Do you mean? \"Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.\"
By this definition I am not a Theist.
As a human being I hate being misquoted. If I were God I really, really would not want anyone else to speak for me.Quote:
Wouldn't God be wanting you to give a thorough performance on this?[/b]
I don't know.Quote:
You just said that God COULD create a universe without suffering and WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY PROBLEM WITH THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SUFFERING. However, that obviously did not happen. So, why not?[/b]
I do not assume that God is indifferent to suffering. I do assume that God has a purpose for allowing suffering to exist. I do not know what that purpose is.Quote:
The existence of suffering disproves the notion that a being that CAN do what you just said he can do exists AND is not indifferent to suffering.[/b]
You assume too much.Quote:
The big issue: Where is the flaw in my point that the contradiction exists?[/b]
[quote]You seem to get off on writing that. Unfortunately, you don't detail any flaw in the logic, so you just end-up looking silly and evasive. With the emphasis on silly.Quote:
You assume too much.Quote:
The big issue: Where is the flaw in my point that the contradiction exists?
NO !
What would be bigger suffering :
When you can walk only on the bridge?
or
you walk whereever you want, even theres a possibility
to get eated by hippopotamus ! :-P
Martha, I asked you a legitimate question, which is not a matter of assuming too much. Your response was nonsensical. By "theist", I mean somebody who believes in God. You assume too much, but answer too little.
You, like the others, are missing the WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY PROBLEM WITH THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SUFFERING part of my point. Why am I having such a difficult time getting people to take that part of the scenario into account? My point is not that complex. It is very simple, but MAN the evasiveness is out of hand!Quote:
Originally posted by Lucid Mind
NO !
What would be bigger suffering :
When you can walk only on the bridge?
or
you walk whereever you want, even theres a possibility
to get eated by hippopotamus ! :-P
I don't know why God did not create a perfect world for you to live in.Quote:
You just said that God COULD create a universe without suffering and WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY PROBLEM WITH THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SUFFERING. However, that obviously did not happen. So, why not?[/b]
Come to think of it, that world would be quite dull and boring wouldn't it? No heated discussions because emotions get involved and eventually lead to suffering. No one to fall in love with because eventually there would be - - - suffering. No physical challenges to face because feelings will get hurt when at least one of Mankind fails to meet the challenge. For example, swim the English Channel, climb K2, etc.
Who brought suffering into this world: Man or God?
Or maybe, the world is perfect but Man is not.
Hei, its you here who misses the point of free will. If i want to kick somebody and cant, then its suffering to me,if i have free will and kick somebody then its suffering to that person!Quote:
Originally posted by Universal Mind
Martha, I asked you a legitimate question, which is not a matter of assuming too much. Your response was nonsensical. By \"theist\", I mean somebody who believes in God. You assume too much, but answer too little.
You, like the others, are missing the WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY PROBLEM WITH THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SUFFERING part of my point. Why am I having such a difficult time getting people to take that part of the scenario into account? My point is not that complex. It is very simple, but MAN the evasiveness is out of hand!
:!:
Or to you want to point out that it would be like "rabbit is enjoing eating carrot - enjoing getting eated by wolf and enjoing to be get shot and enjoing doing that rabbit thing very same way?"If you really think that way then why just not sayit? :?
No - it wouldn't be boring. Nor would it be suffering. Hello? INFINITE POWER.
So your god just waves his wang around and poof! No boring, no suffering.
There are no rules that apply. Hence infinite power. Any issue that you could come up with, ANY ISSUE you could come up with (are you getting the "any" and "infinite" thing yet?) is answered simply by his deciding that's not the way it works.
I can't figure out if you guys are arguing for the sake of arguing, or if you're just not bright enough to get the point...
I don't think they have to courage to get the point, Kim.
Only God is strong enough to understand or some such.
I am absolutely stunned at the blind spot so many people have when it comes to that very simple point. I have posted "... without there being any problems with the complete absence of suffering" so many times here, and I always get, "Of course he could create that, but then there would be such and such problems..." Hello?!!!!Quote:
Originally posted by kimpossible
So your god just waves his wang around and poof! No boring, no suffering.