God of the System aka More Omnipotent s**t

[Brham]

do you fear your ancestor sins?.
If not then Y do you belive sins can be, in fact, passed down from father to son.

[Deep Vermillion]

Triste Morningstar

And I was under the impression that animal sacrifices did take away sins in some sense. Or least forgive them. If not, what was the point of them?

Well, one of the Levitical laws calls for parts of the sacrificed animal to be fed to the people, so one might argue that it was (for argument's sake) God's way of keeping all his people fed, rather than let the rich sit on all the wealth without sharing it.

[Triste Morningstar]

Reagun Ban

Humans can make circles that are squares.
Logic:
A circle, considering we exist in a pixellated universe, can only exist as the product of mathematical function.
A square, considering chaos theory and uncertainty, can only exist as product of a mathematical function.
There are many formula which, when graphed with certain paramaters, will produce either a square or, with other paramaters, a circle and since they are both merely representations of the same function, they are the same thing.

... You lost me there, but whatever. 'Square circles' is really just an easier way of saying 's**t that is completely illogical.'

[Triste Morningstar]

Brham

do you fear your ancestor sins?.
If not then Y do you belive sins can be, in fact, passed down from father to son.

What are you talking about?

[CuAnnan]

Dermezel

Not at the same time, nor in the same respect.

Ok, I was about to apply uncertainty again but it's a little abstract. I was merely trying to explain that putting a restriction on God by saying that he can't break the laws we make for him was a little ridiculous.

[Theopneustos]

Triste Morningstar

And I was under the impression that animal sacrifices did take away sins in some sense. Or least forgive them. If not, what was the point of them?

Verse 8, continuing from the same chapter, says, "First he said, 'Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them' (although the law required them to be made.)" So, it's because of the law. They had to do it. xp

[CuAnnan]

Reagun Ban

Ok, I was about to apply uncertainty again but it's a little abstract. I was merely trying to explain that putting a restriction on God by saying that he can't break the laws we make for him was a little ridiculous.

and, that considering God is God, God can just project the equation onto a lower plane (for all plains are lower than God) as a circle and at the same time a square on another plane.

[Dermezel]

Reagun Ban

Dermezel

Not at the same time, nor in the same respect.

Ok, I was about to apply uncertainty again but it's a little abstract. I was merely trying to explain that putting a restriction on God by saying that he can't break the laws we make for him was a little ridiculous.

That's presuming these are laws we make, and that there are things beyond them (both presumptions require abandoning logic to establish their truth-value from the onset).

[Brham]

Triste Morningstar

Brham

do you fear your ancestor sins?.
If not then Y do you belive sins can be, in fact, passed down from father to son.

What are you talking about?

Let's say your great great graet grandfather stole $5 when he was a kid, never confesed it, so therefore never got gods forguiveness. Do u have to pay for what he did?

[CuAnnan]

Triste Morningstar

... You lost me there, but whatever. 'Square circles' is really just an easier way of saying 's**t that is completely illogical.'

No, what I'm saying is that, since nothing that is not God is on the same plane as God, squares can be circles at the same time and, since God made everything, God made a square circle.
In short, Quantum Physics states that all squares are not only circles, but triangles as well until we look at them. God only made quantum physics so that he could make square triangles.

[Ban]

Deep Vermillion

Triste Morningstar

And I was under the impression that animal sacrifices did take away sins in some sense. Or least forgive them. If not, what was the point of them?

Well, one of the Levitical laws calls for parts of the sacrificed animal to be fed to the people, so one might argue that it was (for argument's sake) God's way of keeping all his people fed, rather than let the rich sit on all the wealth without sharing it.

I dunno. There's a lot of stories in the Tanakh that seems to say God is pleased when you burn dead animals, which seems directly in conflict with Theo's Hebrews quote. Take the whole Noah thing, for instance. Noah burns some clean animals, God is pleased, he now considers all evil of man in the past. Sins washed away, everthing is good, and if those bastards had just killed something and burned it every now and again, the Lord mightn't have had to destroy everything.

[Brham]

Ban

Deep Vermillion

Triste Morningstar

And I was under the impression that animal sacrifices did take away sins in some sense. Or least forgive them. If not, what was the point of them?

Well, one of the Levitical laws calls for parts of the sacrificed animal to be fed to the people, so one might argue that it was (for argument's sake) God's way of keeping all his people fed, rather than let the rich sit on all the wealth without sharing it.

I dunno. There's a lot of stories in the Tanakh that seems to say God is pleased when you burn dead animals, which seems directly in conflict with Theo's Hebrews quote. Take the whole Noah thing, for instance. Noah burns some clean animals, God is pleased, he now considers all evil of man in the past. Sins washed away, everthing is good, and if those bastards had just killed something and burned it every now and again, the Lord mightn't have had to destroy everything.

But what about Adam, god told him that everything that was in the earth was for him to rule.

[Fiddlers Green]

From a humancentric point of view, it is very hard for any god concept to be logical. Does that refute the concept of god, or does it refute the validity of our logic. When people don't understand something, they tend to doubt it at every turn, poking and prodding, trying to fit the square pegg into the round whole. When the square peg doesn't fit, it must be wrong, most people overlook the concept that it may be the whole that doesn't fit the peg, rather than the other way around. As I understand most monothiestic beliefs, the god is beyound the comprehesion of mortals, and therefore should operate outside our rules for logic.

[Yisp]

Dermezel

Reagun Ban

Dermezel

Not at the same time, nor in the same respect.

Ok, I was about to apply uncertainty again but it's a little abstract. I was merely trying to explain that putting a restriction on God by saying that he can't break the laws we make for him was a little ridiculous.

That's presuming these are laws we make, and that there are things beyond them (both presumptions require abandoning logic to establish their truth-value from the onset).

And presuming that these laws are inherent to nature is what?
It's just as empty a conjecture.

Assuming that Logic is a human concept is imo more rational than stating it as absolute.

But, iirc, we already had this discussion. And you were the one who suddenly disappeared.

[Dermezel]

Reagun Ban

Triste Morningstar

... You lost me there, but whatever. 'Square circles' is really just an easier way of saying 's**t that is completely illogical.'

No, what I'm saying is that, since nothing that is not God is on the same plane as God, squares can be circles at the same time and, since God made everything, God made a square circle.
In short, Quantum Physics states that all squares are not only circles, but triangles as well until we look at them. God only made quantum physics so that he could make square triangles.

But that's not at the same time, in the same respect, which is what a logical contradiction would entail.