why are we always talking about "followers"? followers usually follow from one of two motives.. fear or reverence. or both combined. now, in the latter case, i doubt there would be any problems getting the object. in the former case i doubt it as well.
but what about if that ominous sacred uber-important object was in the possession of a dialectical materialist, let's say Karl Marx himself, who would spit it flatly to your face that you go and sod off cause you just plainly don' exist. would you burn his house? and why, when you created him with the freedom to believe any bullshit he wants? or why would you burn the house of the poor vermine who'd want to barter with you, when you created him with the freedom of being as greedy a little bastard as he wants to be, in the first place?
I just chose "followers" for lack of a better word. I probably should used "subject" or something like that, but I didn't think of that then.
And yes, I see your point, but I still stick to the belief that God doesn't participate in everything we do around here. He/she may have created everything, but after that they are left to their own doing until God decides to interfere again. Hence, even though God may have created people with the ability to say "You don't exist!", it doesn't mean he/she originally intended that to happen. Also, I don't think that choosing not to believe in some Supreme Power immediately frees you from its influence.
I think it's a bit of a cop out to say God can't disapprove of something his/her creations do, because he/she surely must have created them that way. I don't think it works like that.
well, if God created people with the ability to say "You don't exist!" (which apparently seems to be the case), it means he/she intended for the possibility of that to happen. thus if that happens, is it ok for God to be pissed off and rage and take revenge or punish or whatever? that's just plain vicious.
>>>Also, I don't think that choosing not to believe in some >>>Supreme Power immediately frees you from its influence. certainly. i never implied that. if you don't believe in radioactivity, it doesn't mean you won't get radiation sickness.
>>>I think it's a bit of a cop out to say God can't disapprove of >>>something his/her creations do, because he/she surely must have >>>created them that way. I don't think it works like that. the question is if "God" does approve or disapprove of anything at all. but let's say.. if you make a house of wood, and then invent termites, and then the house gets infested, do you start to disapprove of the house and curse it? YOU built it! you could have made it of marble too.
Hmmmm... *rubs chin* Ah yes, I see your point now. So you're saying if God gave humans the ability to choose not to believe in him/her, then it must meet his approval since he could have made them not capable of it. Okay yes, but still, maybe it still wasn't his intention? I see now that it'd be unfair to be mad at them for developing in a different direction, but it might still not have been God's intention to happen. *rubs head* Oh dear, this is a paradox...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-08-05 11:02 am (UTC)followers usually follow from one of two motives.. fear or reverence. or both combined.
now, in the latter case, i doubt there would be any problems getting the object. in the former case i doubt it as well.
but what about if that ominous sacred uber-important object was in the possession of a dialectical materialist, let's say Karl Marx himself, who would spit it flatly to your face that you go and sod off cause you just plainly don' exist.
would you burn his house? and why, when you created him with the freedom to believe any bullshit he wants?
or why would you burn the house of the poor vermine who'd want to barter with you, when you created him with the freedom of being as greedy a little bastard as he wants to be, in the first place?
no subject
Date: 2003-08-05 11:42 am (UTC)And yes, I see your point, but I still stick to the belief that God doesn't participate in everything we do around here. He/she may have created everything, but after that they are left to their own doing until God decides to interfere again. Hence, even though God may have created people with the ability to say "You don't exist!", it doesn't mean he/she originally intended that to happen. Also, I don't think that choosing not to believe in some Supreme Power immediately frees you from its influence.
I think it's a bit of a cop out to say God can't disapprove of something his/her creations do, because he/she surely must have created them that way. I don't think it works like that.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-05 12:22 pm (UTC)thus if that happens, is it ok for God to be pissed off and rage and take revenge or punish or whatever? that's just plain vicious.
>>>Also, I don't think that choosing not to believe in some
>>>Supreme Power immediately frees you from its influence.
certainly. i never implied that. if you don't believe in radioactivity, it doesn't mean you won't get radiation sickness.
>>>I think it's a bit of a cop out to say God can't disapprove of
>>>something his/her creations do, because he/she surely must have
>>>created them that way. I don't think it works like that.
the question is if "God" does approve or disapprove of anything at all.
but let's say.. if you make a house of wood, and then invent termites, and then the house gets infested, do you start to disapprove of the house and curse it? YOU built it! you could have made it of marble too.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-06 04:13 am (UTC)