the invention of God

[Uncle Nate 2097]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

You should probably do a little research on this. Josephus did write that a person named Jesus existed and was crucified. No one is debating that. But he doesn't describe any miracles.

 

He does note that multiple witnesses attest to the miracles and to the resurrection.  He was not an eye-witness, but he does report that multiple people claim to have witnessed it.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, Uncle Nate said:

He does note that multiple witnesses attest to the miracles and to the resurrection.  He was not an eye-witness, but he does report that multiple people claim to have witnessed it.

No offense, man. But the three links you posted are Christian websites. 

Wiki has a very different take:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

[Uncle Nate 2097]

8 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Sure. But how do you prove that what they are saying is in fact the word of God?

Aren’t you the one that believes the Bible is to be taken literally?

 

All scripture has to be tested against (or with) other scripture.  Over and over again.  Jesus says to test scripture with scripture.  That's how we know.

Plus, God loves to use parables and similes to make his points...his preferred form of communication isn't even delivered literally.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

No offense, man. But the three links you posted are Christian websites. 

Wiki has a very different take:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

No offense taken.

I was just answering the question if there was any non-Biblical history written by someone who was not a Christian regarding Jesus.  That's the most famous one.  But it's not going to satisfy anyone wanting hard and fast "proof".  

To quote the granny from the commercial...That's not how this works.  That's not how any of this works.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Nate, you are doing this right. A lot better than most in this site (or “in the real world”) do. You use words such as “faith” and “believe” because you know that there is no proof. You acknowledge that the links and writings you reference are far from air tight and not enough to corroborate anything. You should do a seminar for other Christians on how to have a discussion about religion without getting bent out of shape or claiming something is a fact when really it’s a concept of faith. Have some more rep.

[gsoda3 3279]

19 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Sure. But how do you prove that what they are saying is in fact the word of God?

Aren’t you the one that believes the Bible is to be taken literally?

second question first -  some parts are to be taken literally.

first question-  yeah that's a great question.  how do i know the bible is the word of God?  

 

for me it's several ways.

the first few deal with the historicity of the Bible- the historical accuracy of the Bible proven by archaeological findings.  the consistency of the Bible over time.  the acceptance of scripture by the early church.  the lives the early church lived in the face of overwhelming persecution. 

 

and then there's the personal aspect -  John Piper puts it best.  

"

The Bible Shines a Peculiar Glory

 

My conclusion is that, just as God confirms that the world is his by revealing his glory through it, and that Jesus is the Son of God by revealing God’s glory through him, and the gospel is the gospel of God by revealing his glory through it, in the same way, the whole Bible authenticates itself by shining with the glory of the one who inspired it. Which means that we know that the Scriptures are the word of God because in their true meaning we see the self-authenticating glory of God. Or to use the words of Jonathan Edwards, “The mind ascends to the truth of the gospel but by one step, and that is its divine glory.”

Of course, the problem is that by nature we are blind to the glory of God. We suppress it. We love the darkness, Jesus says (John 3:19). Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:14, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” We have eyes, but we do not see. Ears, but we do not hear.

The only hope for us to see the glory of God in Scripture, and have a well-grounded confidence that it is the word of God, is for God to perform a miracle and take away our spiritual blindness that we are all born with. And Paul says God, in fact, does do this. God comes to us and he speaks a word of new creation just like he did in the old creation and says, “Let there be light.” And we are given life and new spiritual eyes. “God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6).

You know Christ is real. You know the gospel is real. And you know the Scriptures are true, because God says, “Let there be light.” You see the peculiar glory and you know this is not the mere work of man. This is of God."

[cactusflinthead 27601]

8 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

You should probably do a little research on this. Josephus did write that a person named Jesus existed and was crucified. No one is debating that. But he doesn't describe any miracles.

 

I thought the question on Josephus was as verification of the witnesses. 

I'll read what was posted and get back with y'all. 

That's the thing though. You present the evidence and dismiss it simultaneously. We do have at least some of Josephus extant, same as Tacitus. We've also had several centuries to argue and speculate about them. Surely there has to be a least common denominator of consensus. If there are gray areas that's cool. That's normal too. 

I keep hearing about the Gospels being supported by Josephus and Tacitus but no quote. I've found other religions cited by Tacitus too. Still working on him. Josephus mentions didn't seem nearly as conclusive of the veracity of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John from what I recall. 

Refresh my memory. I am going to have to read your links later. 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

7 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Nate, you are doing this right. A lot better than most in this site (or “in the real world”) do. You use words such as “faith” and “believe” because you know that there is no proof. You acknowledge that the links and writings you reference are far from air tight and not enough to corroborate anything. You should do a seminar for other Christians on how to have a discussion about religion without getting bent out of shape or claiming something is a fact when really it’s a concept of faith. Have some more rep.

Yep. Carry on. Subscribed.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

second question first -  some parts are to be taken literally.
first question-  yeah that's a great question.  how do i know the bible is the word of God?  
 
for me it's several ways.
the first few deal with the historicity of the Bible- the historical accuracy of the Bible proven by archaeological findings.  the consistency of the Bible over time.  the acceptance of scripture by the early church.  the lives the early church lived in the face of overwhelming persecution. 
 
and then there's the personal aspect -  John Piper puts it best.  
"

The Bible Shines a Peculiar Glory

 

My conclusion is that, just as God confirms that the world is his by revealing his glory through it, and that Jesus is the Son of God by revealing God’s glory through him, and the gospel is the gospel of God by revealing his glory through it, in the same way, the whole Bible authenticates itself by shining with the glory of the one who inspired it. Which means that we know that the Scriptures are the word of God because in their true meaning we see the self-authenticating glory of God. Or to use the words of Jonathan Edwards, “The mind ascends to the truth of the gospel but by one step, and that is its divine glory.”

Do you have secular sources that cite and corroborate these ideas?

[Uncle Nate 2097]

3 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

I thought the question on Josephus was as verification of the witnesses. 

I'll read what was posted and get back with y'all. 

That's the thing though. You present the evidence and dismiss it simultaneously. We do have at least some of Josephus extant, same as Tacitus. We've also had several centuries to argue and speculate about them. Surely there has to be a least common denominator of consensus. If there are gray areas that's cool. That's normal too. 

I keep hearing about the Gospels being supported by Josephus and Tacitus but no quote. I've found other religions cited by Tacitus too. Still working on him. Josephus mentions didn't seem nearly as conclusive of the veracity of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John from what I recall. 

Refresh my memory. I am going to have to read your links later. 

Dude...I'm neither a historian nor a theologian.  I've always heard about Josephus being a 1st century historian who recorded a non-Biblical account of Jesus life and the events surrounding his death.  As I understood it, he wrote down what he heard witnesses say...he was not a first-hand witness. 

I have heard there are Roman historical documents also with similar accounts, but I have not read them and couldn't tell you what they were.  

So I just googled what was out there and threw them up there...but like I said, if the roles were reversed, I wouldn't accept those.  Anyone can put anything on the internet.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

40 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

No offense taken.

I was just answering the question if there was any non-Biblical history written by someone who was not a Christian regarding Jesus.  That's the most famous one.  But it's not going to satisfy anyone wanting hard and fast "proof".  

To quote the granny from the commercial...That's not how this works.  That's not how any of this works.

FWIW, I'm not "Anti-Christian". Most of the people I admire are Christian and believe having faith is a good thing.

I'm more concerned about the truth of who Jesus is vs. who Jesus' followers claim he is. I don't think it unreasonable to desire what the truth is before "giving your life" to a cause, whether that be a church or government or a person.

[B00M 6436]

16 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Kind of what I was thinking. 

Some dude with a really tiny dick, like really tiny, we are talking probably less than 6 and 1/2 inches, wanted to see the other guys lose a little bit. 

Lulz, I gotta ask. What in the actual fuck do you think a circumcision removes that reduces the length your ass has to take? ...or, just how meaty and nasty is your fuckin foreskin bro? Please PM your repy to derka 

[gsoda3 3279]

33 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

 

Do you have secular sources that cite and corroborate these ideas?

there's been lotsa discussion on the old site with sources cited, i'm sure it's still there.  there's also lots of stuff on google out there too.  not trying to brush you off at all, it's just more efficient. 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

there's been lotsa discussion on the old site with sources cited, i'm sure it's still there.  there's also lots of stuff on google out there too.  not trying to brush you off at all, it's just more efficient. 

The old country is a minefield of scat imagery.

[Spankytoes 1743]

49 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Nate, you are doing this right. A lot better than most in this site (or “in the real world”) do. You use words such as “faith” and “believe” because you know that there is no proof. You acknowledge that the links and writings you reference are far from air tight and not enough to corroborate anything. You should do a seminar for other Christians on how to have a discussion about religion without getting bent out of shape or claiming something is a fact when really it’s a concept of faith. Have some more rep.

Respect. Gsoda3 goes about it the wrong way. 

"Look, you either accept that all of the factual answers are in that book or you don't. It exists, and its old, so its legitimacy is irrefutable as the Word of God...the real one, not the one those dot or towel heads look up to."

[Steamboat1874 4075]

If you are of the belief that all of this cannot just create itself and there must be a creator then my question would be who created the creator?

Edited June 7, 2018 by Steamboat1874

[gsoda3 3279]

1 hour ago, Spankytoes said:

Respect. Gsoda3 goes about it the wrong way. 

"Look, you either accept that all of the factual answers are in that book or you don't. It exists, and its old, so its legitimacy is irrefutable as the Word of God...the real one, not the one those dot or towel heads look up to."

well you DO either accept those are the answers or you don't.  as for the rest of what you claim i said, your reading comprehension's awfully suspect for a lawyer.

Edited June 7, 2018 by gsoda3
*your

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

6 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

well you DO either accept those are the answers or you don't.  as for the rest of what you claim i said, you're reading comprehension's awfully suspect for a lawyer.

Good luck with that.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

6 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

If you are of the belief that all of this cannot just create itself and there must be a creator then my question would be who created the creator?

Here's one of the things I cannot wrap my human head around...the concept of "eternal".

It's actually always been a very scary concept to me for some reason.  God is eternal.  He is not created.  He has always been and always will be.  And by what is written and what I believe, we will live with Him for eternity.

You want to talk about a concept that scared the crap out of me as a child?  The concept of eternity, and the concept that God is eternal.  

But think about it like this...for a God to be able to create all of this...the math, the physics, the subatomic, the solar system, nuclear fusion and fission, the universe, us, everything...he has to be on a level of existence that we couldn't possibly comprehend...a level that is not created, but that just exists.  Otherwise, would He even be God? 

Think about it...how disappointing would God be to us if we could understand Him?  He created the freaking universe...why would we want a God we could comprehend?  Wouldn't that be kind of boring if God was simple enough for us to understand?  Then we would question how a being that simple could have possible created all of the complex universe.  This is why the incarnation of God in the form of a man named Jesus was necessary...that is the only way our simple minds could possibly talk and interact with God.  He had to bring himself down to our level for us to get it.

On a side note...I always thought it was cool how consistent God is in his creation.  He basically has atoms and the subatomic particles that make up atoms  look and act like the planets and solar systems, which then are small particles to the much larger galaxies and so on and so forth.  Little particles orbiting around bigger particles...everything sticking together through what we understand as gravity (but still have so much more to learn about it...especially how it bends space & time).  You gotta admit...He is consistent in how he constructs everything...loves him some stuff orbiting around other stuff. Major props.

 

[Spankytoes 1743]

15 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

well you DO either accept those are the answers or you don't.  as for the rest of what you claim i said, you're reading comprehension's awfully suspect for a lawyer.

The defense rests.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

3 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

Here's one of the things I cannot wrap my human head around...the concept of "eternal".

Regardless of God or no God, "eternal" is a reality. I agree with you--It's hard to wrap our heads around. What was before the Big Bang? Is the Big Bang the first of an infinite number of Big Bangs? Does the universe eventually pull in upon itself?

I need a drink.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

4 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Regardless of God or no God, "eternal" is a reality. I agree with you--It's hard to wrap our heads around. What was before the Big Bang? Is the Big Bang the first of an infinite number of Big Bangs? Does the universe eventually pull in upon itself?

I need a drink.

Right?

 

[Viper 12111]

1 hour ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Never thought of that. Any decent examples?

For a specific passage, Issiah 40:3 comes to mind. There's a discussion on it at the r/Judaism reddit.

There Genesis 3:15 which translates zera to seed when it should more accurately be egg or offspring. This is kept translated as seed to imply a virgin birth while the same word (zera) is translated as descendants in Gen 16:10.

 

There's also the whole "Suffering Servant" part of Issiah that was always understood to be an allegory to the Israelites in Babylon and their return to Jerusalem that was reinterprited to fit with Jesus since it was quite a surprise that the Messiah would die in such a humiliating way. The Jewish idea of the Messiah was originally thought of as a leader who would conquer, but by Jesus time, some were expecting a kingly Messiah, others a priestly one, others a prophetic Messiah and some expecting all three in succession. (Incidentally I consider this to also be good proof that Jesus actually did live, as anyone trying to make up a religion would not have the leader and Messiah die by crucifixion)

One sort of instance is how "Christ", "Son of God" and "Son of Man" are all titles of the Jewish Messiah and the Messiah was not considered to be God, he was expected to be a man sent by God. In fact if you read the first three Gospels (Mark, Luke, and Matthew) and Paul accordingly (depending on the translation of course), they could be read to not even be claiming Jesus to be God. John, the last Gospel which was probably written in the early 1st century, can be read to be the first account claiming Jesus to be God.

[atomheartbevo 89774]

34 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

If you are of the belief that all of this cannot just create itself and there must be a creator then my question would be who created the creator?

While the Magratheans created the planets, it was probably The Great Green Arkleseizure who did.  Either way, it as a bad move. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

While the Magratheans created the planets, it was probably The Great Green Arkleseizure who did.  Either way, it as a bad move. 

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

[Viper 12111]

1 hour ago, Uncle Nate said:

He does note that multiple witnesses attest to the miracles and to the resurrection.  He was not an eye-witness, but he does report that multiple people claim to have witnessed it.

 

1 hour ago, Cheeseweasel said:

No offense, man. But the three links you posted are Christian websites. 

Wiki has a very different take:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

 

1 hour ago, Uncle Nate said:

No offense taken.

I was just answering the question if there was any non-Biblical history written by someone who was not a Christian regarding Jesus.  That's the most famous one.  But it's not going to satisfy anyone wanting hard and fast "proof".  

To quote the granny from the commercial...That's not how this works.  That's not how any of this works.

Josephus is probably the best proof that Jesus lived, but one has to understand that the consensus among historians is that the Testimonium Flavianum was partially added to by later Christian scribes, particularly the parts you mentioned about the miracles and resurrection. What makes everyone think that Josephus was actually talking about Jesus is that in a separate passage he mentions Jesus's brother James. Josephus, in his youth, was a contemporary of James and, being a member of the upper class, would likely have heard or seen James's execution himself. So if Jesus had a brother, James, who Josephus knew as a real person, then Jesus must have been a real person.

Tacitus also makes a reference to Jesus and Christians but this is more secondhand knowledge and Tacitus talking about how much he hates them.

[elfenix 34331]

On a side note...I always thought it was cool how consistent God is in his creation.  He basically has atoms and the subatomic particles that make up atoms  look and act like the planets and solar systems, which then are small particles to the much larger galaxies and so on and so forth.  Little particles orbiting around bigger particles...everything sticking together through what we understand as gravity (but still have so much more to learn about it...especially how it bends space & time).  You gotta admit...He is consistent in how he constructs everything...loves him some stuff orbiting around other stuff. Major props.
 

Bohr model was abandoned about 5 years after people thought it was great. Moose out front yada yada.

[Viper 12111]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Bohr model was abandoned about 5 years after people thought it was great. Moose out front yada yada.

 

Good point, it would be more accurate to say that we modeled atoms to look like planets and solar systems. When you get into the nitty and gritty of particle physics (as I understand it) you really don't even have particles but probabilities in a field that sometimes act like particles and sometimes not.

[Viper 12111]

but we've gotten really off topic to the point we moved on to a different God. I found this answer that goes into a more detail with examples showing the process from polytheism to henotheism, to monolatry, and finally to monotheism.

https://www.quora.com/The-Christian-God-says-there-is-no-god-before-him-Does-that-imply-that-there-are-other-gods-recognized-in-Christian-mythology/answer/Frans-du-Plessis-1

Quote

The specific sentence in question ["Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”] is one of many examples of monolatry in the Bible:

• Polytheism: Polytheists say that many gods exist and they worship many gods.
• Henotheism: Henotheists say that many gods exist, but they worship only one of them. They say that it is acceptable if other people worship other gods.
• Monolatry: Monolatrists say that many gods exist, but they worship only one of them. They say that it is not acceptable if other people worship other gods.
• Monotheism: Monotheists say that there is only one god and they deny the existence of other gods.

The Hebrew beliefs originated in polytheism, in the Canaanite pantheon of gods, called the Elohim (meaning “children of El”), with the sky god El and his wife Asherah at the head of the pantheon, and other gods (the children of El) and minor deities in the second and third tiers. This concept of a pantheon with a head god and his consort at the top of a pantheon of gods was widespread in other ancient religions in the Ancient Near East.

The Hebrew nation seems to have grown from before and after the Bronze Age Collapse, which happened around 1200 BCE, and the chaos that ensued from that. The ancient Hebrews were indeed Canaanites who settled in the area which is today known as Israel, and they took their Canaanite gods with them. For example, there is archaeological and Biblical evidence of the Hewbrews worshipping El’s wife Asherah and having temples and statues of her, and also worshipping other minor gods in the pantheon, for example Baal, one of the sons of El. The Hebrew beliefs gradually evolved from polytheism to monolatry/henotheism, with El and the Hebrew war god Yahweh (one of the sons of El) gradually merging together to become the god called God/Elohim/El/El Elyon/Yahweh/Adonai.

Over roughly the same period, the Hebrew society became much more patriarchal, and that was reflected in their pantheon, like what happened in similar ancient egalitarian societies which later became patriarchal. As a result, the role of the female goddess was diminished and eventually eliminated. For example, the role of creating life traditionally belonged to the female goddess, but that role was later allocated to El himself. In the end, only the male sky god (the Heavenly Father) remained.

At the time of the Judahites’ captivity in Babylonia 2500 years ago, the Hebrew beliefs were still fluctuating between monolatry and henotheism, very much dependent on the political landscape and climate at the time. They only became fully monotheistic after their exposure to the Supreme God Ahura Mazda and Zoroastrianism, an older monotheistic religion than Judaism, during their fifty year captivity in Babylonia. The Bible only became fully monotheistic (denying the existence of the other gods) in those parts that were written after the captivity.

There are many examples of monolatry, henotheism and polytheism in the Bible in those parts that were written before the captivity, of which I am listing some here:

• “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” - ‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20:3‬ ‭KJV‬‬
• “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God” - ‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20:5‬ ‭KJV‬‬
• “Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;” - ‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭6:14‬ ‭KJV‬‬
• “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:” - ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:26‬ ‭KJV‬‬
• “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:”‭‭ - Genesis‬ ‭3:22‬ ‭KJV‬
• “Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.”‭‭ - Genesis‬ ‭11:7‬ ‭KJV‬
• “When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.” - ‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭32:8-9‬ ‭KJV‬‬
  • In this case, the “most High” refers to El, the head god of the pantheon, dividing humans into nations and giving his children (the other gods in the second tier) their inheritance, with “the Lord’s portion” refering to Yahweh receiving the Israelites as inheritance. It is one of the verses which indicate that Yahweh was initially one of the lesser gods in the pantheon below El, before El and Yahweh were later merged together into one god.
  • The above is not that clear from the KJV translation, but original texts, for example the same verse from the Dead Sea Scrolls, make it much clearer: “When Elyon divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he established the borders of the nations according to the number of the sons of the gods. Yahweh’s portion was his people, [Israel] his allotted inheritance.” - Deteronomy 32:8–9
  • According to the Ugarit texts from Northern Canaan, which describes the ancient Canaanite religion, El and Asherah had 70 children, which is a likely explanation for the 70 nations that came from Noah’s descendents (Genesis 10).
  • This is also consistent with the earlier Canaanite and other Mesopotamian polytheistic religions, in which different gods ruled different areas and tribes, like kings.
• Psalm 82, where God has council with the other gods in the Divine Council of gods, accuses them of corruption, and sentences them to death.
  • The concept of the Divine Council (also called the Divine Assembly or Synod of gods) also appear in other parts of the Bible that were written before the Babylonian captivity.
  • The Divine Council also played an important role in the Canaanite and other Mesopotamian religions. For example, in Canaanite polytheism El presided over the Divine Council, with the rest of the council consisting of the “sons of El”, the other gods.
• The word “Elohim” is used 2500 times in the original Hebrew Tanakh (Old Testament) for a number of different purposes: to describe a range of gods or the Divine Council (the original Canaanite usage of the word), the god of the Bible, other gods (for example Chemosh, the god of Moab), and even kings and prophets.
• “Let the heavens praise your wonders, ADONAI, your faithfulness in the assembly of the angels. For who in the skies can be compared with ADONAI? Which of these gods can rival ADONAI,” - ‭Psalms ‭89:6-7‬ ‭CJB‬‬
• “For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods.” - ‭‭Psalms‬ ‭95:3‬ ‭KJV‬‬
• “For thou, Lord, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods.” - ‭‭Psalms‬ ‭97:9‬ ‭KJV‬‬
• “For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods.” - ‭‭Psalms‬ ‭135:5‬ ‭KJV‬‬
• In polytheistic and henotheistic religions the gods were not always all powerful, and this is, for example, reflected in the following two stories in the Bible, where God loses a battle:
  • The Israelites attack the Moabites, but the King of Moab offers his first born son to Chemosh, the god of the Moabites. Chemosh’s subsequent divine anger causes the Israelites to retreat: “So he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him up as a burnt sacrifice on the wall. There was an outburst of divine anger against Israel, so they broke off the attack and returned to their homeland.” - ‭‭2 Kings‬ ‭3:27‬ ‭NET‬‬
  • God and the Judahites are unable to handle the new technology of iron chariots of the enemy: “And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” - ‭‭Judges‬ ‭1:19‬ ‭KJV‬‬
  • The matter of fact way in which the above two stories are told in the Bible, is a reflection of polytheistic/henotheistic beliefs. They did not necessarily blame their god, because he is not expected to be all-powerful. In other cases though, a perceived failure of Yahweh/El could cause them to lose confidence in their god. He would have to produce results, for example in battles, otherwise they would start worshipping another god instead.

---

After the Judahites’ fifty year captivity in Babylonia and their exposure to Zoroastrianism and monotheism, these references to polytheism, henotheism and monolatry abruptly stops and the Bible starts to deny the existence of other gods.

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Viper

[Guest]

On 6/6/2018 at 2:42 PM, Patricio Swayze said:

Countdown to when the religious whackos get here.

You must be new to the internet.  In non-internet life it's true that Christians are more likely than the nonreligious to proselytize and be dogmatic and aggressively react to anything that doesn't agree with their worldview.  But on the internet it is the complete opposite.  Go to r/atheism and you will find no discussion or debate or tolerance for other worldviews; it is as dogmatic a forum as you will find.  Go to r/Christianity and you will find lots of atheist participants (and participants from almost every other religion and worldview) who are respected members of the forum and generally supported.  I mention these two because they are among the largest and most trafficked forums of their type, but this phenomenon is exhibited throughout the internet.

 

5 hours ago, Spankytoes said:

The Big Bang Theory is severely flawed. Where did the particles come from and when did infinite time and space come into existence...and who created the chain reaction for that? 

The big bang theory is not severely flawed; please highlight the flaws you believe it contains.  It makes no statement on "who created the chain reaction."  It also does not state that space and time are infinite; this is an open question in modern cosmology.   

 

4 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Nate, you are doing this right. A lot better than most in this site (or “in the real world”) do. You use words such as “faith” and “believe” because you know that there is no proof. You acknowledge that the links and writings you reference are far from air tight and not enough to corroborate anything. You should do a seminar for other Christians on how to have a discussion about religion without getting bent out of shape or claiming something is a fact when really it’s a concept of faith. Have some more rep.

The title of the seminar could be "Fideism: The Theology Endorsed by Internet Atheists."  

 

3 hours ago, Steamboat1874 said:

If you are of the belief that all of this cannot just create itself and there must be a creator then my question would be who created the creator?

Uncreated things do not need a creator.   It was once the case that many philosophers and scientists believed that the universe was uncreated.  No one considered this a violation of reason.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

7 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

 The title of the seminar could be "Fideism: The Theology Endorsed by Internet Atheists."  

I personally wouldn't consider my position fideism.  I feel we have all the facts we need to know that God is real, God is the creator of all things visible and invisible, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is God incarnate and literally died for our sins and destroyed death with his resurrection, and that God works through us with the Holy Spirit. 

My positions in this thread that one has to have have faith to believe is still based on facts and scripture...because I still feel that the Bible and the world around us provide us the proof and facts we need.  HOWEVER, it is through faith alone, given by the Holy Spirit, for me to believe the Bible as factual and as proof. Does that qualify as fideism?

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."  Nothing I have done or can do can have me believe.  Only faith allows me to believe, and that is a gift from the Holy Spirit.  Granted, this is a very Lutheran doctrine, I admit.

Not sure that qualifies as 100% fideism.  But like I said, I'm no theologian, so I should probably just shut up now.

[Damor 1237]

3 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

Here's one of the things I cannot wrap my human head around...the concept of "eternal".

It's actually always been a very scary concept to me for some reason.  God is eternal.  He is not created.  He has always been and always will be.  And by what is written and what I believe, we will live with Him for eternity.

You want to talk about a concept that scared the crap out of me as a child?  The concept of eternity, and the concept that God is eternal.  

But think about it like this...for a God to be able to create all of this...the math, the physics, the subatomic, the solar system, nuclear fusion and fission, the universe, us, everything...he has to be on a level of existence that we couldn't possibly comprehend...a level that is not created, but that just exists.  Otherwise, would He even be God? 

Think about it...how disappointing would God be to us if we could understand Him?  He created the freaking universe...why would we want a God we could comprehend?  Wouldn't that be kind of boring if God was simple enough for us to understand?  Then we would question how a being that simple could have possible created all of the complex universe.  This is why the incarnation of God in the form of a man named Jesus was necessary...that is the only way our simple minds could possibly talk and interact with God.  He had to bring himself down to our level for us to get it.

On a side note...I always thought it was cool how consistent God is in his creation.  He basically has atoms and the subatomic particles that make up atoms  look and act like the planets and solar systems, which then are small particles to the much larger galaxies and so on and so forth.  Little particles orbiting around bigger particles...everything sticking together through what we understand as gravity (but still have so much more to learn about it...especially how it bends space & time).  You gotta admit...He is consistent in how he constructs everything...loves him some stuff orbiting around other stuff. Major props.

 

For anyone interested in these lines of thinking, I must strongly recommend Stephen Barr's Modern Physics and Ancient Faith.

Someone on the old board recommended it, I wish I remembered who.  I cannot pretend to have completely grasped either the theology or the physics, so I can't speak authoritatively as to the accuracy of either; however, I thought it was a very measured and well reasoned discussion which makes some very profound points.

I also liked it because it quietly stands against the anti-intellectualism that has come to characterize modern 'religious debate.'

I think this is a great read for both Christians and non-Christians who are able to refrain from dismissing these subjects out-of-hand (from either side), and to really put some thought into it.  It's meant a lot to me.

[Spankytoes 1743]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

The big bang theory is not severely flawed; please highlight the flaws you believe it contains.  It makes no statement on "who created the chain reaction."  It also does not state that space and time are infinite; this is an open question in modern cosmology.   

Not sure if serious or you hit your head on the pavement. Every argument that you can make against Creationism can also be made about the BBT with regards to the beginning, who/what created it, and who created them, and so on. Space and matter didn't appear from nowhere to start a complex chain reaction that took billions of years to evolve into today's world. It's no more plausible than "God has always been and always will be". The difference is that the BBT is supported by modern scientific evidence, which we all know, means slightly more than jack shit a decade after it was considered revolutionary. Therefore, it's easier to palate than "The arbitrary book of hearsay accounts told me so". For all we know, today's understanding will be the small dwarf living in your stomach, smoking is OK and blood transfusions don't count in the future.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Spankytoes

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Not sure if serious or you hit your head on the pavement. Every argument that you can make against Creationism can also be made about the BBT with regards to the beginning, who/what created it, and who created them, and so on. Space and matter didn't appear from nowhere to start a complex chain reaction that took billions of years to evolve into today's world. It's no more plausible than "God has always been and always will be". The difference is that the BBT is supported by modern scientific evidence, which we all know, means slightly more than jack shit a decade after it was considered revolutionary. Therefore, it's easier to palate than "The arbitrary book of hearsay accounts told me so". For all we know, today's understanding will be the small dwarf living in your stomach, smoking is OK and blood transfusions don't count in the future.

You are conflating a physical theory with metaphysical speculations outside the theory.  To have a meaningful conversation on this subject it is necessary to understand this distinction.   The big bang theory is not severely flawed; it is a physical theory and it does not address the metaphysical questions you list.  

[Uncle Nate 2097]

“Let there be Light”

Big Bang. 

Seems to me here is where science and religion come together quite nicely. 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Uncle Nate

[Ollie Slatt 289]

23 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Oh, what you say is hardly "consistent" with the OT. Remember Genesis 1:26? "Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”"

Maybe God was just using the royal we. You know, the editorial.

[BlueGreySky 1024]

The BBT was developed by a Catholic priest, fwiw.

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/12/05/big-bang-theory-catholic-priest/

 

[WhatTheBuck 28795]

On June 7, 2018 at 9:19 PM, BlueGreySky said:

The BBT was developed by a Catholic priest, fwiw.

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/12/05/big-bang-theory-catholic-priest/

 

Whether true or not that wouldn't validate Catholicism, Christianity, or any of the other Abrahamic religions as being true. Some Christians have done science in their spare time. That doesn't mean there's a scientific basis for Christian belief.

Science is above religion. Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs and Jews, etc. have all contributed to our collective understanding of the natural world. Real, actual science doesn't involve religion (or politics). Most scientists in America today claim no religious affiliation. 

Btw, the God of Abraham is an immoral monster god that can only be a human invention. Everyone old enough to drink should've figured that out by now. 

[BlueGreySky 1024]

Thanks for sharing.

[Viper 12111]

21 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Whether true or not that wouldn't validate Catholicism, Christianity, or any of the other Abrahamic religions as being true. Some Christians have done science in their spare time. That doesn't mean there's a scientific basis for Christian belief.

Science is above religion. Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs and Jews, etc. have all contributed to our collective understanding of the natural world. Real, actual science doesn't involve religion (or politics). Most scientists in America today claim no religious affiliation. 

Btw, the God of Abraham is an immoral monster god that can only be a human invention. Everyone old enough to drink should've figured that out by now. 

 

I actually partly agree with you, but bluegreysky edited his reply

Edited June 9, 2018 by Viper

[RollLeft 5045]

On 6/8/2018 at 10:26 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

Whether true or not that wouldn't validate Catholicism, Christianity, or any of the other Abrahamic religions as being true. Some Christians have done science in their spare time. That doesn't mean there's a scientific basis for Christian belief.

Science is above religion. Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs and Jews, etc. have all contributed to our collective understanding of the natural world. Real, actual science doesn't involve religion (or politics). Most scientists in America today claim no religious affiliation. 

Btw, the God of Abraham is an immoral monster god that can only be a human invention. Everyone old enough to drink should've figured that out by now. 

I am always struck by how arrogant and seemingly bitter you are when these threads/conversations arise.  While I'd bet you bring value to other threads in these i have yet to understand your basis for your posts and frankly wish you would post less in them.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, RollLeft said:

I am always struck by how arrogant and seemingly bitter you are when these threads/conversations arise.  While I'd bet you bring value to other threads in these i have yet to understand your basis for your posts and frankly wish you would post less in them.  

He just needs a little jeebus in his life.

[WhatTheBuck 28795]

35 minutes ago, RollLeft said:

I am always struck by how arrogant and seemingly bitter you are when these threads/conversations arise.  While I'd bet you bring value to other threads in these i have yet to understand your basis for your posts and frankly wish you would post less in them.  

I always marvel at the arrogance of the religious who like to cite some instance of a clergy member contributing to science as if that's some scientific validation of their mysticism. Speaking of arrogance, what could be more arrogant than making the claim that there is one creator God and he has a "chosen people" who are favored above the rest of his creation? Or just the arrogance of insisting that your unprovable mythology is the correct one while all the others are false? What about the arrogance of disbelieving scientific facts because they conflict with your literal interpretation of scripture? Is there anything more arrogant than willful ignorance? It's not just arrogant, I'd call it immoral. 

[Guest]

On 6/7/2018 at 11:27 AM, cactusflinthead said:

Rex Kramer made the same claim. He also stated that Tacitus did as well. 

Going to ask you to cite it.

 

On 6/7/2018 at 11:38 AM, Cheeseweasel said:

You should probably do a little research on this. Josephus did write that a person named Jesus existed and was crucified. No one is debating that. But he doesn't describe any miracles.

 

Actually, cactus and others in a Cloak Room thread did debate just that. Cactus asked me to “cite” what is common knowledge. I ignored him. 

I never claimed what Uncle Nate did, cactus. You might wanna reread that thread. 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, RollLeft said:

I am always struck by how arrogant and seemingly bitter you are when these threads/conversations arise.  While I'd bet you bring value to other threads in these i have yet to understand your basis for your posts and frankly wish you would post less in them.  

Indeed. For as much as Buck bitches, he races to these threads like moths to the flame.  

[Guest]

10 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I always marvel at the arrogance of the religious who like to cite some instance of a clergy member contributing to science as if that's some scientific validation of their mysticism. Speaking of arrogance, what could be more arrogant than making the claim that there is one creator God and he has a "chosen people" who are favored above the rest of his creation? Or just the arrogance of insisting that your unprovable mythology is the correct one while all the others are false? What about the arrogance of disbelieving scientific facts because they conflict with your literal interpretation of scripture? Is there anything more arrogant than willful ignorance? It's not just arrogant, I'd call it immoral. 

Jesus dude. He wasn’t talking about the originator of the BBT to validate the “science” behind Christianity. He was pointing it out, I suspect, as an example of science and religion co-existing. 

Nothing can “prove” Christianity. Yet, Christ’s historical existence (no, not of his works, but his existence, cactus) is about as well-corroborated as any from 2000 years ago, Swayze. 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

That's a better reply.

All I expect is when you make a claim you back it up. Sure, I can google it, but I am not the one making the argument. I'm quite capable of finding it. The anus is on you to bring your evidence. It ain't on me to go find it for you.

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

That's a better reply.

All I expect is when you make a claim you back it up. Sure, I can google it, but I am not the one making the argument. I'm quite capable of finding it. The anus is on you to bring your evidence. It ain't on me to go find it for you.

 

Lulz. Making a common knowledge “claim” obligates me to back it up?  I don’t work for you, assface. And I know exactly where to find it. 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

Man, it's the basic level. And no that's not necessarily common knowledge. 

Wow. Got him pissed off enough to start the attack.

That's some excellent evangelism. Way to go. 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Man, it's the basic level. And no that's not necessarily common knowledge. 

Wow. Got him pissed off enough to start the attack.

That's some excellent evangelism. Way to go. 

It is fairly common, what is ‘basic level’ is google and being the slightest bit resourceful, and I’ve no desire to proselytize.