In many areas of life, if you have an idea then you patent it.
The more accurately you define your idea, the more protection you get but you leave the door open for someone with an adaptation of that idea to gain his own patent.
If you go with a more general description of the idea then you protect yourself from copycats but you dilute the idea.
Can you define your concept of God tightly enough to satisfy your belief but widely enough to protect your comfort zone?
Maybe not phrased well but I'm sure you get the idea.
Can You Patent God?
Can You Patent God?
Erm. 
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Can You Patent God?
Galbally;739042 wrote: Erm.
Obviously not - ho hum, there's an idea in there somewhere
Obviously not - ho hum, there's an idea in there somewhere
Can You Patent God?
Bryn Mawr;739034 wrote: In many areas of life, if you have an idea then you patent it.
The more accurately you define your idea, the more protection you get but you leave the door open for someone with an adaptation of that idea to gain his own patent.
If you go with a more general description of the idea then you protect yourself from copycats but you dilute the idea.
Can you define your concept of God tightly enough to satisfy your belief but widely enough to protect your comfort zone?
Maybe not phrased well but I'm sure you get the idea.
I'm not sure that I'm going to answer your question directly, Bryn, but I'm going with what it evoked in me....
My concept of God is scattered. It's as if the more I want to know, the more I have to let go of and the less I know...no comfort zone there. And I wonder, is there any belief either? I don't know. But there's a sense of something, mysterious and unfathomable, that doesn't desert me, but which doesn't lend itself to patenting.
The more accurately you define your idea, the more protection you get but you leave the door open for someone with an adaptation of that idea to gain his own patent.
If you go with a more general description of the idea then you protect yourself from copycats but you dilute the idea.
Can you define your concept of God tightly enough to satisfy your belief but widely enough to protect your comfort zone?
Maybe not phrased well but I'm sure you get the idea.
I'm not sure that I'm going to answer your question directly, Bryn, but I'm going with what it evoked in me....
My concept of God is scattered. It's as if the more I want to know, the more I have to let go of and the less I know...no comfort zone there. And I wonder, is there any belief either? I don't know. But there's a sense of something, mysterious and unfathomable, that doesn't desert me, but which doesn't lend itself to patenting.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
Can You Patent God?
Bryn Mawr;739034 wrote: In many areas of life, if you have an idea then you patent it.
The more accurately you define your idea, the more protection you get but you leave the door open for someone with an adaptation of that idea to gain his own patent.
If you go with a more general description of the idea then you protect yourself from copycats but you dilute the idea.
Can you define your concept of God tightly enough to satisfy your belief but widely enough to protect your comfort zone?
Maybe not phrased well but I'm sure you get the idea.
You can only patent something if it is real and you can prove you actually invented it. Since you can't prove god exists never mind that you invented him i think you are flogging a dead horse. You might be able to claim copyright for the idea but you can hardly claim it as original. but then it similar to the arguments over copyrighting mathematical algorithms in software programmes perhaps no one should be able to claim property rights over ideas
The more accurately you define your idea, the more protection you get but you leave the door open for someone with an adaptation of that idea to gain his own patent.
If you go with a more general description of the idea then you protect yourself from copycats but you dilute the idea.
Can you define your concept of God tightly enough to satisfy your belief but widely enough to protect your comfort zone?
Maybe not phrased well but I'm sure you get the idea.
You can only patent something if it is real and you can prove you actually invented it. Since you can't prove god exists never mind that you invented him i think you are flogging a dead horse. You might be able to claim copyright for the idea but you can hardly claim it as original. but then it similar to the arguments over copyrighting mathematical algorithms in software programmes perhaps no one should be able to claim property rights over ideas
Can You Patent God?
theia;739046 wrote: I'm not sure that I'm going to answer your question directly, Bryn, but I'm going with what it evoked in me....
My concept of God is scattered. It's as if the more I want to know, the more I have to let go of and the less I know...no comfort zone there. And I wonder, is there any belief either? I don't know. But there's a sense of something, mysterious and unfathomable, that doesn't desert me, but which doesn't lend itself to patenting.
It is perfectly acceptable to spread your net wide as long as all versions of God so described are within your comfort zone.
If someone has a concept of God outside of you definition then it's a different patent and you have no right to criticize.
If I believe in a God with the head of an elephant and four arms (as some of my work colleagues do) and you believe in a God that cannot possibly be physically represented (as others in the office do) then they are obviously different animals and one cannot denigrate the other.
My concept of God is scattered. It's as if the more I want to know, the more I have to let go of and the less I know...no comfort zone there. And I wonder, is there any belief either? I don't know. But there's a sense of something, mysterious and unfathomable, that doesn't desert me, but which doesn't lend itself to patenting.
It is perfectly acceptable to spread your net wide as long as all versions of God so described are within your comfort zone.
If someone has a concept of God outside of you definition then it's a different patent and you have no right to criticize.
If I believe in a God with the head of an elephant and four arms (as some of my work colleagues do) and you believe in a God that cannot possibly be physically represented (as others in the office do) then they are obviously different animals and one cannot denigrate the other.
Can You Patent God?
Bryn Mawr;739034 wrote: Can You Patent God?Is'nt god already patented 
Can You Patent God?
abbey;739062 wrote: Is'nt god already patented
By whom?
By whom?
Can You Patent God?
Bryn Mawr;739064 wrote: By whom?(Excuse my athiest views)The churches.
( My apologies, I really should stay out of religious threads )
( My apologies, I really should stay out of religious threads )
Can You Patent God?
abbey;739066 wrote: (Excuse my athiest views)The churches.
( My apologies, I really should stay out of religious threads )
Be my guest - all views welcome.
I was just wondering which church - there are so many!
( My apologies, I really should stay out of religious threads )
Be my guest - all views welcome.
I was just wondering which church - there are so many!
Can You Patent God?
abbey:-6
All are welcome. Jesus never turned anyone away.
Shalom
Ted:-6
All are welcome. Jesus never turned anyone away.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Can You Patent God?
Bryn Mawr:-6
I'm not sure one could patent such a concept. If one so believes then God is beyond human comprehension in any linguistic sense. It is impossible for human language to begin to describe the indescribable.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I'm not sure one could patent such a concept. If one so believes then God is beyond human comprehension in any linguistic sense. It is impossible for human language to begin to describe the indescribable.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Can You Patent God?
Bryn Mawr;739069 wrote: Be my guest - all views welcome.
I was just wondering which church - there are so many!The first church that springs to mind is the Catholic church.
I was just wondering which church - there are so many!The first church that springs to mind is the Catholic church.
Can You Patent God?
Ted;739070 wrote: abbey:-6
All are welcome. Jesus never turned anyone away.
Shalom
Ted:-6Bless you Ted and HAPPY XMAS my friend :-4
All are welcome. Jesus never turned anyone away.
Shalom
Ted:-6Bless you Ted and HAPPY XMAS my friend :-4
Can You Patent God?
PATENT PENDING
Can You Patent God?
Ted;739071 wrote: Bryn Mawr:-6
I'm not sure one could patent such a concept. If one so believes then God is beyond human comprehension in any linguistic sense. It is impossible for human language to begin to describe the indescribable.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I've realised from the response that patent was a poor metaphor for the idea I wanted to explore.
I believe that if you worship a God who is 5'6" with red hair and webbed feet then you cannot comment on someone who has a God who is 7'3", bald and has six fingers. They are so obviously different concepts that bear no relationship to each other that there is no overlap in the concepts.
My personal belief is that the different Gods that humans worship are different aspects of the one true God and that the differences between them are a result of man's lack of understanding and comprehension of something so far beyond us that we cannot hold the totality in our mind.
We cannot understand what drives God, the motives and intentions behind the actions. It follows, therefore, that we cannot tightly describe or constrain God to any single model and deny the sanctity of any different model. To condemn another for having a different definition of God is to demean and belittle a God who is beyond our definition.
It saddens me that I cannot put my thoughts in order well enough to put the question in a meaningful way but I do believe that no man has the right to tie God into a rigid image or to condemn any person for having a different view of God.
I'm not sure one could patent such a concept. If one so believes then God is beyond human comprehension in any linguistic sense. It is impossible for human language to begin to describe the indescribable.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I've realised from the response that patent was a poor metaphor for the idea I wanted to explore.
I believe that if you worship a God who is 5'6" with red hair and webbed feet then you cannot comment on someone who has a God who is 7'3", bald and has six fingers. They are so obviously different concepts that bear no relationship to each other that there is no overlap in the concepts.
My personal belief is that the different Gods that humans worship are different aspects of the one true God and that the differences between them are a result of man's lack of understanding and comprehension of something so far beyond us that we cannot hold the totality in our mind.
We cannot understand what drives God, the motives and intentions behind the actions. It follows, therefore, that we cannot tightly describe or constrain God to any single model and deny the sanctity of any different model. To condemn another for having a different definition of God is to demean and belittle a God who is beyond our definition.
It saddens me that I cannot put my thoughts in order well enough to put the question in a meaningful way but I do believe that no man has the right to tie God into a rigid image or to condemn any person for having a different view of God.
Can You Patent God?
Bryn Mawr:-6
I concur completely. I am also trying to think of how one might rephrase that question. Very interesting.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I concur completely. I am also trying to think of how one might rephrase that question. Very interesting.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Can You Patent God?
Ted;739104 wrote: Bryn Mawr:-6
I concur completely. I am also trying to think of how one might rephrase that question. Very interesting.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why bother? If god made all things and always was and ever shall be then no one can claim to have invented him, made the story up or whatever way you want to put it.
Conceivably you might claim copyright on how you worship and that's why you have religious wars, monotheists killing each other over who has the right way to do it. God either is or is not. I would put it to you that religious groups arguing about who is right about the way to worship rather than being unified by a shared belief are the bane of the planet. It's like you all have a copy of the same book and arguing whether the cover should be blue or green. (for those of you up on your sectarian colour schemes)
The very idea that you ask the question can you patent god suggests that secretly you believe it is all a figment of your imagination. :sneaky: If you can accept that somebody did invent/dream him up then all you claim to believe is false.
Does a dyslexic atheist not believe in dog?
I concur completely. I am also trying to think of how one might rephrase that question. Very interesting.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why bother? If god made all things and always was and ever shall be then no one can claim to have invented him, made the story up or whatever way you want to put it.
Conceivably you might claim copyright on how you worship and that's why you have religious wars, monotheists killing each other over who has the right way to do it. God either is or is not. I would put it to you that religious groups arguing about who is right about the way to worship rather than being unified by a shared belief are the bane of the planet. It's like you all have a copy of the same book and arguing whether the cover should be blue or green. (for those of you up on your sectarian colour schemes)
The very idea that you ask the question can you patent god suggests that secretly you believe it is all a figment of your imagination. :sneaky: If you can accept that somebody did invent/dream him up then all you claim to believe is false.
Does a dyslexic atheist not believe in dog?
Can You Patent God?
gmc;739196 wrote: Why bother? If god made all things and always was and ever shall be then no one can claim to have invented him, made the story up or whatever way you want to put it.
Conceivably you might claim copyright on how you worship and that's why you have religious wars, monotheists killing each other over who has the right way to do it. God either is or is not. I would put it to you that religious groups arguing about who is right about the way to worship rather than being unified by a shared belief are the bane of the planet. It's like you all have a copy of the same book and arguing whether the cover should be blue or green. (for those of you up on your sectarian colour schemes)
The very idea that you ask the question can you patent god suggests that secretly you believe it is all a figment of your imagination. :sneaky: If you can accept that somebody did invent/dream him up then all you claim to believe is false.
Does a dyslexic atheist not believe in dog?
No, it's a belief that those who tie God down to a highly specific definition cannot object about someone else who definition of God lies outside the first - they are obviously different concepts that just happen to have the same generic name.
I totally agree that religious groups arguing about who is right about the way to worship rather than being unified by a shared belief are the bane of the planet. I would go farther and say that they are an insult to God - when Jesus instructed us to turn the other cheek how can we possibly justify killing our fellow believers over a difference in mens interpretation of the Scriptures.
Conceivably you might claim copyright on how you worship and that's why you have religious wars, monotheists killing each other over who has the right way to do it. God either is or is not. I would put it to you that religious groups arguing about who is right about the way to worship rather than being unified by a shared belief are the bane of the planet. It's like you all have a copy of the same book and arguing whether the cover should be blue or green. (for those of you up on your sectarian colour schemes)
The very idea that you ask the question can you patent god suggests that secretly you believe it is all a figment of your imagination. :sneaky: If you can accept that somebody did invent/dream him up then all you claim to believe is false.
Does a dyslexic atheist not believe in dog?
No, it's a belief that those who tie God down to a highly specific definition cannot object about someone else who definition of God lies outside the first - they are obviously different concepts that just happen to have the same generic name.
I totally agree that religious groups arguing about who is right about the way to worship rather than being unified by a shared belief are the bane of the planet. I would go farther and say that they are an insult to God - when Jesus instructed us to turn the other cheek how can we possibly justify killing our fellow believers over a difference in mens interpretation of the Scriptures.
Can You Patent God?
Bryn Mawr;739369 wrote: No, it's a belief that those who tie God down to a highly specific definition cannot object about someone else who definition of God lies outside the first - they are obviously different concepts that just happen to have the same generic name.
I totally agree that religious groups arguing about who is right about the way to worship rather than being unified by a shared belief are the bane of the planet. I would go farther and say that they are an insult to God - when Jesus instructed us to turn the other cheek how can we possibly justify killing our fellow believers over a difference in mens interpretation of the Scriptures.
I dare say you will find a priest somewhere that could tell you. Nowadays if you suggest turning the other cheek some religious groups might accuse you of encouraging homosexual practices
I totally agree that religious groups arguing about who is right about the way to worship rather than being unified by a shared belief are the bane of the planet. I would go farther and say that they are an insult to God - when Jesus instructed us to turn the other cheek how can we possibly justify killing our fellow believers over a difference in mens interpretation of the Scriptures.
I dare say you will find a priest somewhere that could tell you. Nowadays if you suggest turning the other cheek some religious groups might accuse you of encouraging homosexual practices
Can You Patent God?
gmc:-6
I've already been accused of encouraging homosexual practices. LOL.
None of this denigrates the basic tenets of all the great faiths; justice and compassion. Do atheists disagree with those two?
You are correct about some religious folks killing each other. Now what about the millions massacred under the atheist Stalin or those under Mao or those under Pol Pot etc.? It seems to me that the religious do not have a monopoly on killing. Nor should we forget Hitler who simply used religion as a mask and nothing more.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I've already been accused of encouraging homosexual practices. LOL.
None of this denigrates the basic tenets of all the great faiths; justice and compassion. Do atheists disagree with those two?
You are correct about some religious folks killing each other. Now what about the millions massacred under the atheist Stalin or those under Mao or those under Pol Pot etc.? It seems to me that the religious do not have a monopoly on killing. Nor should we forget Hitler who simply used religion as a mask and nothing more.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Can You Patent God?
Ted;740081 wrote: gmc:-6
I've already been accused of encouraging homosexual practices. LOL.
None of this denigrates the basic tenets of all the great faiths; justice and compassion. Do atheists disagree with those two?
You are correct about some religious folks killing each other. Now what about the millions massacred under the atheist Stalin or those under Mao or those under Pol Pot etc.? It seems to me that the religious do not have a monopoly on killing. Nor should we forget Hitler who simply used religion as a mask and nothing more.
Shalom
Ted:-6
These ones are always brought up. At least they never claimed to have the moral right to do what they did in the name of god. Compared to the suffering caused by religious wars it's a moot point which is worse. What would you prefer? being killed in the name of god or of political expediency? Hitler's anti semitism had an awful lot of supporters in some surprising places he was playing to the prejudices that were already there. It's one of the lessons of the nazis-prejudice against anyone for any reason should be condemned. How to stop what it is another question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ted_States
In 1952 a Roper poll found that only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that "Jews are different and should be restricted" and ten percent believed that Jews should be deported. [13] The United States’ tight immigration policies were not lifted during the Holocaust, news of which began to reach the United States in 1941 and 1942 and it has been estimated that 190 000 - 200 000 Jews could have been saved during the Second World War had it not been for bureaucratic obstacles to immigration deliberately created by Breckinridge Long and others.[14]
The pope could have stopped hitler had he wanted to, The notion that he powerless to do so with millions following his lead is absurd. He chose to say nothing and if that's god's will
Come to that how often have different religious groups been living in harmony with each other and some church or other decides this is no good and must be stopped and the unbelievers stamped out.
I've already been accused of encouraging homosexual practices. LOL.
Have you been preaching love your fellow man again? People just read in to things whatever they want don't they?
None of this denigrates the basic tenets of all the great faiths; justice and compassion. Do atheists disagree with those two?
Of course they do. Why would they not? Unless you hold to the absurd notion that you need religion-and specifically monotheism- to teach morality.
I've already been accused of encouraging homosexual practices. LOL.
None of this denigrates the basic tenets of all the great faiths; justice and compassion. Do atheists disagree with those two?
You are correct about some religious folks killing each other. Now what about the millions massacred under the atheist Stalin or those under Mao or those under Pol Pot etc.? It seems to me that the religious do not have a monopoly on killing. Nor should we forget Hitler who simply used religion as a mask and nothing more.
Shalom
Ted:-6
These ones are always brought up. At least they never claimed to have the moral right to do what they did in the name of god. Compared to the suffering caused by religious wars it's a moot point which is worse. What would you prefer? being killed in the name of god or of political expediency? Hitler's anti semitism had an awful lot of supporters in some surprising places he was playing to the prejudices that were already there. It's one of the lessons of the nazis-prejudice against anyone for any reason should be condemned. How to stop what it is another question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ted_States
In 1952 a Roper poll found that only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that "Jews are different and should be restricted" and ten percent believed that Jews should be deported. [13] The United States’ tight immigration policies were not lifted during the Holocaust, news of which began to reach the United States in 1941 and 1942 and it has been estimated that 190 000 - 200 000 Jews could have been saved during the Second World War had it not been for bureaucratic obstacles to immigration deliberately created by Breckinridge Long and others.[14]
The pope could have stopped hitler had he wanted to, The notion that he powerless to do so with millions following his lead is absurd. He chose to say nothing and if that's god's will
Come to that how often have different religious groups been living in harmony with each other and some church or other decides this is no good and must be stopped and the unbelievers stamped out.
I've already been accused of encouraging homosexual practices. LOL.
Have you been preaching love your fellow man again? People just read in to things whatever they want don't they?
None of this denigrates the basic tenets of all the great faiths; justice and compassion. Do atheists disagree with those two?
Of course they do. Why would they not? Unless you hold to the absurd notion that you need religion-and specifically monotheism- to teach morality.
Can You Patent God?
gmc:-6
Whichever way it goes the individual is dead. As I've said the religious don't seem to have a monopoly on murder. Yes, apparently the pope could have but that is subject to debate. That Stalin et al are brought up is a moot point? I don't think so. I'm simply showing that those on all sides commit murder. No one has a monopoly.
BTW when I can find the quote I will present it. There is a scholarly quote that shows that far more folks were killed by the likes of Stalin et al than in all the religious wars known.
I'm still not clear as to whether atheists support justice and peace. I can only presume that they exist in the same ratio as the rest of society.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Whichever way it goes the individual is dead. As I've said the religious don't seem to have a monopoly on murder. Yes, apparently the pope could have but that is subject to debate. That Stalin et al are brought up is a moot point? I don't think so. I'm simply showing that those on all sides commit murder. No one has a monopoly.
BTW when I can find the quote I will present it. There is a scholarly quote that shows that far more folks were killed by the likes of Stalin et al than in all the religious wars known.
I'm still not clear as to whether atheists support justice and peace. I can only presume that they exist in the same ratio as the rest of society.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Can You Patent God?
Ted;742401 wrote: gmc:-6
Whichever way it goes the individual is dead. As I've said the religious don't seem to have a monopoly on murder. Yes, apparently the pope could have but that is subject to debate. That Stalin et al are brought up is a moot point? I don't think so. I'm simply showing that those on all sides commit murder. No one has a monopoly.
BTW when I can find the quote I will present it. There is a scholarly quote that shows that far more folks were killed by the likes of Stalin et al than in all the religious wars known.
I'm still not clear as to whether atheists support justice and peace. I can only presume that they exist in the same ratio as the rest of society.
Shalom
Ted:-6
No one ever claimed they did. trouble is many religious people seem to want to ignore the historical reality and pretend religious wars never happened. OK religion wasn't the sole cause and there are usually political and economic factors at play (you can have great fun arguing about what was the most important) and a thoroughly cynical manipulation of religious belief and there still is and it is still going on. If you can't appreciate what happened in the past you don't see it happening now. If all christians were christians and all muslims were muslim there would be no wars since both advocate tolerance and understanding. (Leaving aside the absurdity or otherwise of religious belief)
Why on earth do you think the individual is dead? Fascism, communism, theocracy (however disguised) all put the rights of the individual secondary to the state be it religious or non religious, with a few at the top in control and making all the decisions. (supreme leader or king anointed by god if you accept anothers right to absolute power you are no longer free) that's why I find myself opposed to all three. Though all have some good points that are worth paying attention to. The individual is only dead if people give up and accept what they are told and start to believe they have no rights to question things, or the social order or even to demand social change. You don't owe your freedom to kings or armies or religion but to people standing up saying I'm not accepting this I have as much right as you do.
I'm still not clear as to whether atheists support justice and peace. I can only presume that they exist in the same ratio as the rest of society.
Why would they not be? I don't understand why you need to ask the question. A belief in god or not has nothing to do with morality. You don't need religion to have a moral sense. People were talking about these things long before monotheism came long. Please don't tell me you are one of those that believes someone without religion is amoral.
Off topic perhaps but fun.
Whichever way it goes the individual is dead. As I've said the religious don't seem to have a monopoly on murder. Yes, apparently the pope could have but that is subject to debate. That Stalin et al are brought up is a moot point? I don't think so. I'm simply showing that those on all sides commit murder. No one has a monopoly.
BTW when I can find the quote I will present it. There is a scholarly quote that shows that far more folks were killed by the likes of Stalin et al than in all the religious wars known.
I'm still not clear as to whether atheists support justice and peace. I can only presume that they exist in the same ratio as the rest of society.
Shalom
Ted:-6
No one ever claimed they did. trouble is many religious people seem to want to ignore the historical reality and pretend religious wars never happened. OK religion wasn't the sole cause and there are usually political and economic factors at play (you can have great fun arguing about what was the most important) and a thoroughly cynical manipulation of religious belief and there still is and it is still going on. If you can't appreciate what happened in the past you don't see it happening now. If all christians were christians and all muslims were muslim there would be no wars since both advocate tolerance and understanding. (Leaving aside the absurdity or otherwise of religious belief)
Why on earth do you think the individual is dead? Fascism, communism, theocracy (however disguised) all put the rights of the individual secondary to the state be it religious or non religious, with a few at the top in control and making all the decisions. (supreme leader or king anointed by god if you accept anothers right to absolute power you are no longer free) that's why I find myself opposed to all three. Though all have some good points that are worth paying attention to. The individual is only dead if people give up and accept what they are told and start to believe they have no rights to question things, or the social order or even to demand social change. You don't owe your freedom to kings or armies or religion but to people standing up saying I'm not accepting this I have as much right as you do.
I'm still not clear as to whether atheists support justice and peace. I can only presume that they exist in the same ratio as the rest of society.
Why would they not be? I don't understand why you need to ask the question. A belief in god or not has nothing to do with morality. You don't need religion to have a moral sense. People were talking about these things long before monotheism came long. Please don't tell me you are one of those that believes someone without religion is amoral.
Off topic perhaps but fun.
Can You Patent God?
Well in a sense the various religous sects have patents. If you dont subscribe to their specific ideaology then you suffer being excluded from the church.
__________ has exclusive rights to their teachings and printed material and any profits rendered.
__________ has exclusive rights to their teachings and printed material and any profits rendered.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Can You Patent God?
Jester;742912 wrote: I have read this thread over and over, and this post seems to be the juxt of your thread if I am correct so I settled here.
I disagree with your view, a correct view of God as laid out in the bible and defines God in a fashion that lays out a specific way he operates. The only patent that God uses is how he reveals himself in creation and the written word of God. There is only one God, there are no others. Therefore there is nothing to criticise about other gods, there are none to deny. Anything worshipped other than the God of the bible is a tangeable portion of an existance, like stone or wood or the figment of ones imagination.
Given the number of Bibles in existence (even within the Christian religion there are several mutually exclusive versions) and the number of descriptions of God across the religions, then your statement can only be a matter of personal worldview, probably instilled as part of upbringing - a matter of your personal faith.
Given the closeness of you highlighted statement to "there is no God but the true God; and Mohammed is His prophet" it is even clearer that different worldviews are not only possible but are held with as much belief and faith as your own.
God has revealed himself in many ways to different people at different points in history - it is his right and his privilege. Whilst you can make a statement of your faith and lay out hat you believe, you have produced nothing to show that other faiths and beliefs have no validity.
As I said in my previous post, God is greater than any mere human and is beyond our comprehension - we have not right or power to constrain Him.
I disagree with your view, a correct view of God as laid out in the bible and defines God in a fashion that lays out a specific way he operates. The only patent that God uses is how he reveals himself in creation and the written word of God. There is only one God, there are no others. Therefore there is nothing to criticise about other gods, there are none to deny. Anything worshipped other than the God of the bible is a tangeable portion of an existance, like stone or wood or the figment of ones imagination.
Given the number of Bibles in existence (even within the Christian religion there are several mutually exclusive versions) and the number of descriptions of God across the religions, then your statement can only be a matter of personal worldview, probably instilled as part of upbringing - a matter of your personal faith.
Given the closeness of you highlighted statement to "there is no God but the true God; and Mohammed is His prophet" it is even clearer that different worldviews are not only possible but are held with as much belief and faith as your own.
God has revealed himself in many ways to different people at different points in history - it is his right and his privilege. Whilst you can make a statement of your faith and lay out hat you believe, you have produced nothing to show that other faiths and beliefs have no validity.
As I said in my previous post, God is greater than any mere human and is beyond our comprehension - we have not right or power to constrain Him.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Can You Patent God?
Jester;742912 wrote: I have read this thread over and over, and this post seems to be the juxt of your thread if I am correct so I settled here.
I disagree with your view, a correct view of God as laid out in the bible and defines God in a fashion that lays out a specific way he operates. The only patent that God uses is how he reveals himself in creation and the written word of God. There is only one God, there are no others. Therefore there is nothing to criticise about other gods, there are none to deny. Anything worshipped other than the God of the bible is a tangeable portion of an existance, like stone or wood or the figment of ones imagination.
I hope all that falls under "as laid out in the bible" and not as a general statement.
I disagree with your view, a correct view of God as laid out in the bible and defines God in a fashion that lays out a specific way he operates. The only patent that God uses is how he reveals himself in creation and the written word of God. There is only one God, there are no others. Therefore there is nothing to criticise about other gods, there are none to deny. Anything worshipped other than the God of the bible is a tangeable portion of an existance, like stone or wood or the figment of ones imagination.
I hope all that falls under "as laid out in the bible" and not as a general statement.
Can You Patent God?
I see we have had the tired "who killed more" argument going on here. It's by and large a bogus point. "religions have caused wars" has long been a refrain of the anti-theists, but it's an argument that is as misleading as the "stalin defense" that inevitably follows. Inevitably people lie, steal and kill because of either greed or fear. Whether a person rationalizes the act by claiming devine right or collective ideology, is immaterial to the actual cause. Thus we have seen that the reasons change, but the killing does not slow or falter.
What my spirituality and beliefs have meant to me is that I'm less constrained by want and fear. If you can reach that space without belief, that is a more worthy goal than denigrating a set of belief systems that have not only given us the crusades, but also Ghandi, Mother theresa, and Martin Luther King.
What my spirituality and beliefs have meant to me is that I'm less constrained by want and fear. If you can reach that space without belief, that is a more worthy goal than denigrating a set of belief systems that have not only given us the crusades, but also Ghandi, Mother theresa, and Martin Luther King.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Can You Patent God?
I only object when someone tells me their version of faith is the truth. I don't see it as any more or any less true than my own. 
Can You Patent God?
Jester;743698 wrote: Yeah they stole it. I wonder if I can get them on a patent infringement charge?
God defines Himself as He reveals Himself. Those are the parameters He chooses to operate by so we can trust and understand Him.
Pretty much all my life folks have told me that God does not exist and He is a lie. but say the opposite, that God is truth and all others false and I get a few folks up in arms!
It is just as easy for me to say nothing else is real as it is for other folks to say God isnt real. You have no valid proof for your statements.
You miss my point completely - I have never remotely suggested that God does not exist, that he's a lie.
God is boundless. There are many views of God, all held in good faith. You insist that your very specific view of God is the only possible truth so it is for you to offer proofs to substantiate that claim.
You hold you beliefs honestly and sincerely yet you deny that anyone holding a different faith can do so with equal honesty and sincerity.
God defines Himself as He reveals Himself. Those are the parameters He chooses to operate by so we can trust and understand Him.
Pretty much all my life folks have told me that God does not exist and He is a lie. but say the opposite, that God is truth and all others false and I get a few folks up in arms!
It is just as easy for me to say nothing else is real as it is for other folks to say God isnt real. You have no valid proof for your statements.
You miss my point completely - I have never remotely suggested that God does not exist, that he's a lie.
God is boundless. There are many views of God, all held in good faith. You insist that your very specific view of God is the only possible truth so it is for you to offer proofs to substantiate that claim.
You hold you beliefs honestly and sincerely yet you deny that anyone holding a different faith can do so with equal honesty and sincerity.
Can You Patent God?
Rather arrogant attitude, actually. I think one of my major complaints about organized religion is the common belief that there's only one god, "MY" god, and everyone else is wrong.
I can't remember the group that came to our door when I was a child, but when my mother told them that we had just come back from mass, they loudly proclaimed that we'd all burn in hell. That's always nice to hear when you're a 6 year old child. :rolleyes:
I can't remember the group that came to our door when I was a child, but when my mother told them that we had just come back from mass, they loudly proclaimed that we'd all burn in hell. That's always nice to hear when you're a 6 year old child. :rolleyes:
Can You Patent God?
If there is only one god as you all profess to believe, does it really matter how you view or worship? After all you all believe the same thing. It's like people looking at a round tower and arguing which side is the best view or even the only view.
Can you patent mankind? Certainly all the squabbling over the genome project suggests some people think you can
Can you patent mankind? Certainly all the squabbling over the genome project suggests some people think you can
Can You Patent God?
gmc;743837 wrote: If there is only one god as you all profess to believe, does it really matter how you view or worship? After all you all believe the same thing. It's like people looking at a round tower and arguing which side is the best view or even the only view.
Can you patent mankind? Certainly all the squabbling over the genome project suggests some people think you can
Good point. "There's only one god. No, not your one god, MY one god."
Sheesh.
Can you patent mankind? Certainly all the squabbling over the genome project suggests some people think you can
Good point. "There's only one god. No, not your one god, MY one god."
Sheesh.
Can You Patent God?
Jester;743962 wrote: The problem is that the many views try to change how God really is. Its not the same as viewing a tower, the tower doesnt change its paint and become blue simply because I say it is blue. I have to agree that the towers paint color is its true color if I want to acribe to its reality.
To continue the analogy. (which I thought was quite a good one) If you're colour blind and just see an off white tower and someone else sees it as blue does it change the fact that it is a tower and immutable? The basic nature is the same so why does it matter what colour somebody sees it as? Going to war over the colour scheme is a bit silly.
I would put it to you that you can't change the nature of the tower and those who see different colours are still seeing the same tower and just appreciate it in a different way. Those who would impose their own colour scheme and insist it is painted the way they want kind of miss the point as the tower will remain the same in essence and the colour scheme doesn't really matter and to allow your self to get sucked in to a dispute about what is the correct colour is lunacy.
posted by jester
I think many folks hold many beliefs that are sincere and in good faith but the beliefs are wrong.
Since you all believe god exists why not just enjoy that belief stop worrying what someone else believes.
To continue the analogy. (which I thought was quite a good one) If you're colour blind and just see an off white tower and someone else sees it as blue does it change the fact that it is a tower and immutable? The basic nature is the same so why does it matter what colour somebody sees it as? Going to war over the colour scheme is a bit silly.
I would put it to you that you can't change the nature of the tower and those who see different colours are still seeing the same tower and just appreciate it in a different way. Those who would impose their own colour scheme and insist it is painted the way they want kind of miss the point as the tower will remain the same in essence and the colour scheme doesn't really matter and to allow your self to get sucked in to a dispute about what is the correct colour is lunacy.
posted by jester
I think many folks hold many beliefs that are sincere and in good faith but the beliefs are wrong.
Since you all believe god exists why not just enjoy that belief stop worrying what someone else believes.
Can You Patent God?
Jester;743960 wrote: I think many folks hold many beliefs that are sincere and in good faith but the beliefs are wrong. Others believe the same about me and are just as arrogant in their beliefs. but what Ive noticed is that if your a Christian and you speak your view you get slammed for it. If your Islamic even though many are militant and extreme you get protected under freedom of speech. Yet the Islamist is expressly intent on denouncing Christinaity as a lie.
I'm not going to change what the bible says to suit others, I will change my life to suit the biblical imperitives and follow along and at the same time, where and when approiate, express the truth of it. It is always for the hearer to decide if they belive or not.
It's not like I'm saying 'believe what I tell you or I'll cut your head off', is it?
That's the part I've got a problem with. How, exactly, do you know (you're right) for sure? Because the bible tells you so? Not good enough.
As my mother used to tell me when I'd ask an unanswerable question... it's one of god's mysteries. There's no certainty in this life. Get used to it.
I'm not going to change what the bible says to suit others, I will change my life to suit the biblical imperitives and follow along and at the same time, where and when approiate, express the truth of it. It is always for the hearer to decide if they belive or not.
It's not like I'm saying 'believe what I tell you or I'll cut your head off', is it?
That's the part I've got a problem with. How, exactly, do you know (you're right) for sure? Because the bible tells you so? Not good enough.
As my mother used to tell me when I'd ask an unanswerable question... it's one of god's mysteries. There's no certainty in this life. Get used to it.
Can You Patent God?
Jester;744250 wrote: Ah, I see your point but then the analogy changes and the color is a nuance of an ideal that folks can disagree on but the tower still retains its form shape and character, in which case we all still see basically the same thing through different views, and the truth doesnt change. Thats different I'd say then that those two views are of the same denomonation but they differ on an application of the same truth. I can accept that form of difference and call them brother.
I have never been able to understand why those who see it as green feel the need to make those who see it as blue agree with them and are prepared to inflict the most terrible acts in order to convince them otherwise. Meanwhile those that just see plain stone hate the other two equally.
Or rather I do but IMO the reasons have nothing to do with the tower. When you point this out to those who see it as one colour or another rather than taking the point that the decoration is irrelevant you get accused of denying their right to view the tower rather than denigrating the fashion sense. The vitriol when you point the tower may not in fact exist and might be a mirage and you won't believe it until you can touch, taste or whatever is unbelievable. Indeed many would punish you for daring to suggest such a thing and do everything in their power to stop you saying it. Understand you're not saying they can't believe in the tower merely that you have doubts and think it should be up to each to make their own decision.
Without religion (or in this case the exterior decorator) life would be a lot more peaceful. On the other hand people would probably argue about whether the grass needs cutting.
I have never been able to understand why those who see it as green feel the need to make those who see it as blue agree with them and are prepared to inflict the most terrible acts in order to convince them otherwise. Meanwhile those that just see plain stone hate the other two equally.
Or rather I do but IMO the reasons have nothing to do with the tower. When you point this out to those who see it as one colour or another rather than taking the point that the decoration is irrelevant you get accused of denying their right to view the tower rather than denigrating the fashion sense. The vitriol when you point the tower may not in fact exist and might be a mirage and you won't believe it until you can touch, taste or whatever is unbelievable. Indeed many would punish you for daring to suggest such a thing and do everything in their power to stop you saying it. Understand you're not saying they can't believe in the tower merely that you have doubts and think it should be up to each to make their own decision.
Without religion (or in this case the exterior decorator) life would be a lot more peaceful. On the other hand people would probably argue about whether the grass needs cutting.
Can You Patent God?
A couple of points.
First of all I claim to be a Christian pluralist and get slammed for it by other Christians. In fact the only folks on forums to call me names or condemn me have been so called Christians. I get along with most folks.
Second point. I could pose a fairly good argument that the reformers usurped the term Christian and created their own faith. So to the Muslims have been accused of stealing things from Christianity.
Shalom
Ted:-6
First of all I claim to be a Christian pluralist and get slammed for it by other Christians. In fact the only folks on forums to call me names or condemn me have been so called Christians. I get along with most folks.
Second point. I could pose a fairly good argument that the reformers usurped the term Christian and created their own faith. So to the Muslims have been accused of stealing things from Christianity.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Can You Patent God?
Ted;744933 wrote: A couple of points.
First of all I claim to be a Christian pluralist and get slammed for it by other Christians. In fact the only folks on forums to call me names or condemn me have been so called Christians. I get along with most folks.
Second point. I could pose a fairly good argument that the reformers usurped the term Christian and created their own faith. So to the Muslims have been accused of stealing things from Christianity.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I just wanted to say something to you Ted. I have read many of your posts, and we may not agree nor understand each other - but I just wanted to say that your impression on me is great. You seem like a great person, full of understanding and acceptance. I am not religious but I do appreciate a good person, and that I see you are. Good one Ted - its great to know you :-4 Knowing you renews my faith in religion.
First of all I claim to be a Christian pluralist and get slammed for it by other Christians. In fact the only folks on forums to call me names or condemn me have been so called Christians. I get along with most folks.
Second point. I could pose a fairly good argument that the reformers usurped the term Christian and created their own faith. So to the Muslims have been accused of stealing things from Christianity.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I just wanted to say something to you Ted. I have read many of your posts, and we may not agree nor understand each other - but I just wanted to say that your impression on me is great. You seem like a great person, full of understanding and acceptance. I am not religious but I do appreciate a good person, and that I see you are. Good one Ted - its great to know you :-4 Knowing you renews my faith in religion.
Can You Patent God?
ThePheasant:-6
Thank you. I am simply a servant of my master.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thank you. I am simply a servant of my master.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Can You Patent God?
Me too, I think Ted is absolutely one of the good guys.:-4
Can You Patent God?
Ted;744944 wrote: ThePheasant:-6
Thank you. I am simply a servant of my master.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I don't know your master - you obviously have a great bond with him :-4
Its just you are the only person I have met who seems .. at peace with it. I am having trouble explaining this .... its just a feeling .... you are a good person and you explode goodness .. :-4:-4
Thank you. I am simply a servant of my master.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I don't know your master - you obviously have a great bond with him :-4
Its just you are the only person I have met who seems .. at peace with it. I am having trouble explaining this .... its just a feeling .... you are a good person and you explode goodness .. :-4:-4
Can You Patent God?
Snooze:-6
Thanks.
The Pheasant:-6
Yes, I am at peace with my path. For me the master is one Jesus of Nazareth and ultimately the God that I see revealed in him.
However, there are thousands, probably millions, in other faiths who have found the same peace as they too follow the will of God as they understand it.
In Acts 10 we read that all who love God and do what is right are acceptable to him. Keep in mind that God has a thousand or more names; God, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, the Great Spirit etc.
I am part of an ecumenical society and we have made it a point this year to get to know and understand our brothers and sisters in other faiths. Exclusivism is not part of the Christian faith as I understand it.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thanks.
The Pheasant:-6
Yes, I am at peace with my path. For me the master is one Jesus of Nazareth and ultimately the God that I see revealed in him.
However, there are thousands, probably millions, in other faiths who have found the same peace as they too follow the will of God as they understand it.
In Acts 10 we read that all who love God and do what is right are acceptable to him. Keep in mind that God has a thousand or more names; God, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, the Great Spirit etc.
I am part of an ecumenical society and we have made it a point this year to get to know and understand our brothers and sisters in other faiths. Exclusivism is not part of the Christian faith as I understand it.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Can You Patent God?
There is an excellent site on the thread "Who Wrote the Bible". It is a well researched and presented documentary on how the Bible came about. It is 1hr 43 min long but worth the time.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6