The Definition of God

So you are saying that your babies understand you and you have a high level of communication with your babies?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So the Bible is right because the Bible says so?

I might as well says that the Holy Book of the Pastafarians is right, because the Holy Book of the Pastafarians said so! Now what?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes it does.

What can be said of your comments is that you are approaching the Bible with that very arrogance you accuse me of. Arrogance and double mindedness do not yield results with God:

For thus says the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: "I dwell in the high and holy place, With him who has a contrite and humble spirit, To revive the spirit of the humble, And to revive the heart of the contrite ones..."But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word...he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

You don't tremble at His Word...you degrade it...disrespect it...place yourself above it. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it with Him and so He will remain at a distance. You must do the changing/adapting/adopting... not Him.

You call that an open mind? I certainly don't. As long as you maintain that mindset you cut yourself off from any possibility of recognising It for what It Is in Truth--The Word of God. As such, you are then prevented from recognising Him for Who He is--Your Lord and Savior. The Bible is full of rationality and reason--and I shared some of it with you yesterday. You dismissed it out of hand.

Paul was testifying to you of what he had seen and heard. You were essentially calling him a liar, and, by virtue of his writing being inspired by God, you call God a liar also. Deny it all you want... it changes nothing.

My last words to you:

God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble. Therefore submit to God...Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Agreed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, you finally see that your position is no more or less tenable than that of anyone making any random claim?

 

No. I meant my reply in the sense that he might as well say "that the Holy Book of the Pastafarians is right, because the Holy Book of the Pastafarians said so!" In other words, to him it's all the same, so...whatever.

I understand what he meant by the comment. Of course, it's not the same, all the while he thinks he's being consistent and logical he's actually comparing apples to oranges so to speak and thereby caught up in a logical fallacy...He can't see it however...He will not/cannot accept the premise that the Word of God is supernatural.

The Word of God is qualitatively/essentially distinct and different from any merely human text.

In the same way the Word of God Incarnate is unique among men, the Word of God written is unique among books.

 

No. You see... you are the one who is committing the fallacy. It's circular reasoning.

 

What is "supernatural"?

No, it isn't. It was written by humans.

That's a gross misunderstanding of the word of God. When the Bible says Jesus is the incarnation of the word of God, it means in a figurative manner. That is, Jesus follows God to such a degree that he is the living proof of God's wisdom and power.

 

The Word of God is the Word of God--Written... Incarnate... they are synonomous.

 

Photizo,

You didn't read what I said. I was a devout Christain and approached the bible with appropriate humility and sincerity at the time of studying, but that was nearly 40 years ago now. My views now are different. You've made the error of assuming that my perspective now is the same one that I had when I was a Christian.

So in light of your error you haven't answered my question. Even in humility I found I could not submit to the message of Christianity since my sense of reason could not be stiffled. The more I studied the more I became convinced of the invalidity of Christianity, and that perspective has only strenghened over this past 40 years. Since your assertion that reading the bible appropriately would reveal truth and it hasn't, it would seem that you will need to convince me of your convinctions through means other than the bible, e.g. through logical reasoning perhaps.

You will need to do more than simply make assertions. Perhaps you could begin by demonstrating that the central character of your mythology actually existed. As far as I can tell there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and without that your religioun has no foundation.

Like I said, I did that and it didn't work, now what?

Also be careful when accusing others of not being open minded since you should be aware that you are closed minded to everything except God did it.

 

How would you go about finding evidence for the existence of Jesus, Cris?

 

TS,

I'm afraid I'm no expert on such historical research so I'm not sure. Unless new documents or artifacts are discovered I suspect we may never find anything. The nearest proof was the one vague indirect quote from Josephus and that seems almost certainly a fraud.

I found the Q research very revealing and while that didn't conclude that he didn't exist it did show that pretty much everything written about him was of a mythical quality. Certainly the long spoken dialogues attributable to him were developed by others. The fictional nature of the gospels is evident when passages describe Jesus as being alone and then state what he said. This is something we expect from a fiction writer but is something impossible to know in real life.

I also found that Paul's absence of support for the gospel stories fundamentally revealing. The premise here is that paul always assumed a savior would be a spiritual entity and the idea of a man-god would be blasphemy. But I think both Doherty and Aharya S point this out in their analyses.

Perhaps it is unfair to expose Photizo to this stance near the beginning of his debating attempts. At this point we can see he has bought the whole Christian indoctrination package and that will take some time to dislodge assuming he has any ability to reason.

 

Maybe not, but I read what you wrote...none of what you wrote in your follow up post could be properly inferred from the previous post.

I assumed nothing of the sort, nor did I have reason to do so. My comments to you are based upon the contemporary evidence put forth by you yourself.

I've committed no "error" and I did answer your question. I stand by my comment...your ah, 'fatal error' notwithstanding.

As far as you can tell? Hmmmm...A tacit--or more likely inadvertant--admission of your 'weakness'... Finite human beings with their pathetically limited knowledge--> 'teachings', agendas, etc. are not suitable objects for one's faith in what is 'true'... Hence my faith and trust in the testimonies concerning Christ recorded in the Word of God in Whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. The only agenda God has is your welfare/salvation:

what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us...not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

You didn't do it, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Like I said, all you've done by turning away is commit a fatal error....i.e. like Essau, you've sold your birthright for a mess of pottage...He is a rewarder of those who dilligently seek Him.

diligent

Main Entry: dil·i·gent
Pronunciation: \ˈdi-lə-jənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin diligent-, diligens, from present participle of diligere to esteem, love, from di- (from dis- apart) + legere to select — more at legend
Date: 14th century
: characterized by steady, earnest, and energetic effort : painstaking <a diligent worker>
Source: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=diligent

I calls 'em likes I sees 'em...

 

Photizo,

Yet it remains a fact that the Jesus character has no independent historical evidence for his existence. We only have the hearsay statements from times when myth making was rife and that whoever controlled the religions of the day also had the political power.

You use the term faith as if you are proud of it. Faith simply means belief that something is true in the absence of evidence or proof. It is an essentially irrational position.

The bible was written by a large number of authors who are mostly unknown, but they were humans not gods. The stories reflect the myths, superstitions and political motivations of the ignorant times in which they were written. Ascribing them to the desires of a deity is unsupported, and continuing to assert it so does not raise any credibility for whatever else you say.

There is nothing to indicate that a super deity has any effect on the lives of any person alive. People suffer and die whether they believe in gods or not. And salvation from what?

Please stop preaching, you instantly lose respect for such an approach in a debate. Support your assertions or stop making them.

No, it didn’t work and there were increasing signs that it would never work. The more I read and studied the clearer it became that the bible was simple nonsense. The diligence you define is that of someone who becomes even more convinced that they MUST believe and tries even harder to ignore and neglect whatever sense of reason they might have had.

If the bible is studied objectively and with reasoned thought and with a truly open mind, then the bible does not offer anything that a rational person could accept. When it is studied alongside knowledge of history and an understanding of the times in which the texts were written, and with an understanding of the political needs in those ancient times, then the full tapestry of why the bible exists and the indoctrination and dogma designed to control the masses, becomes very clear.

 

The independent historical evidence though sketchy is available to those without an agenda. That said, I'm of the opinion that independent historical evidence is not necessary, being generally in agreement with the contents of this paper found here:
( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/indconf.html ) The testimony of the Gospel/Epistle accounts are sufficient evidence for the existence of Jesus. The Church Fathers also provide testimony to His existence. Furthermore, reasons to trust the authenticity and reliability of the NT documents abound of which a few can be found here: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/history.html

Given the proclivities of mankind, "myth making" never goes out of style and is as rife now as it was back then...furthermore, the same individual who controlled both the religions and the political powers then is in control of the same today, FYI...

"Hearsay is "second-hand" information. It occurs when a witness testifies NOT about something they personally saw or heard, but testifies about something someone else told them or said they saw." Source: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/405/405lect11.htm Based upon this fact, the majority of testimony concerning Christ found in the NT is certainly not hearsay.

One arrives at faith through an honest, realistic appraisal of their abilities...in other words, the magnitude/complexity encountered without dwarfs/shames that which is encountered within. Faith is a gift...given to anyone humble enough to receive it.

Agreed. You are not telling me anything I don't already know. My undergrad work is in theology...Had it not been for my family responsiblilities, I would have earned both an M.Div. in church history and a Th.M in Patristics...as far as the rest of your comments--> "...who are mostly unknown, but they were humans not gods." Agreed, the authors are mostly unknown in this day and age, and of course no one in their right mind believes they were gods.
This nonsense--> "The stories reflect the myths, superstitions and political motivations of the ignorant times in which they were written. Ascribing them to the desires of a deity is unsupported" is patently false according to what the Apostle Peter declares under inspiration of the Holy Ghost: (2 Peter 1:16-21). Lastly,--> "...continuing to assert it so does not raise any credibility for whatever else you say." LOL! Whether you--or anyone--find me credible doesn't concern me in the least. Especially in light of your viewpoint concerning the Word of God.

I respectfully disagree as my experience has been precisely the opposite. As a member here ( http://www.epiqsociety.org/ ) I assure you, I am quite the rational person, having indeed studied the Bible "alongside knowledge of history and an understanding of the times in which the texts were written, and with an understanding of the political needs in those ancient times"--and that for many years. Not once have I ever seen a single shred of your "tapestry".

 

Photizo,

Sketchy is perhaps a stretch.

And as I said earlier the Q research did not conclude that a teacher of some form, perhaps called Jesus, existed at the times needed. What cannot be shown is whether the extraordinary claims for such a person are in anyway true and a deeper study of the gospels shows their inherent mythical quality.

Why? These are not direct witness accounts but are all hearsay all having being written down decades after the alleged Jesus would have died. Even today with modern recording devices we often have doubt about exactly was said or meant from a few decades ago, mainly due to significant editing. We also know that the early Church fathers were extremely “versatile” with the texts they selected and edited for final inclusion in the NT.

Paul for example never met the alleged Jesus, so hardly an eye-witness. But Paul was essentially the founder of Christianity, not Jesus. The concept of a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life came from Paul based on his beliefs of the various mystery religions that existed at that time i.e. the violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. This is where the mythology of Christianity began, i.e. simple plagiarism.

You must be joking. These were the editors who decided what the religion was to be, and that occurred centuries after the Jesus lifetime. Not eye-witnesses and of course they would agree with what they had edited and created – doh!

LOL, Hardly authoritative. These are somewhat naïve quotes targeted at beginners. It took about 10 seconds to see the first factual error – “The apostle Matthew wrote the first of the NT gospels, followed by Mark (Peter's interpreter).” The facts - Mark came first during the 2nd century CE, and Mathew about a decade later which was essentially an imaginative enhanced version of Mark. John and Luke came shortly thereafter and similarly heavily adapted mark – the many authors for all the gospels are unknown and almost certainly were a plethora of myth makers turning an increasingly popular folk tale of hero worship into a religion.

How so when the first gospel was written decades after the alleged Jesus was meant to have died and that life spans in those times were only 3-4 decades. And remember Paul never met Jesus so all his letters do not count. There are no reliably quoted eye-witness accounts of the life of the alleged Jesus, and certainly there can be no way that any of the detailed quotes of what he is claimed to have said and done can be deemed authentic.

Why? What would be wrong with a real god showing actual evidence so there would be no doubt? Why leave people guessing? If real evidence is available faith is never required. Faith is only insisted upon out of desperation by disingenuous sales folk.

You’ll need to prove that a Holy Ghost exists and is possible if you want anyone to believe a fantasy over the more credible perspective that it is mythical.

Then you are not serious about debating since the accepted approach to debate is to attempt to convince others that you have a believable reasoned argument and by so doing gain credibility. If your intent is merely to preach and make unsupported assertions then you will be quickly ignored as a waste of time.

How then is it possible for you to argue in favor of faith over reason. That is the epitome of irrationality. Your assurance and logical fallacy by a reference to authority, fails at the outset.

So you disagree with the conclusions of Q then? What are your objections?

 

First a definition of delusion of which VO seems to wrongly conclude we all atheist are.

A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information or certain effects of perception which would more properly be termed an apperception or illusion. Wiki

There you have it, who's deluded by using this definition? A seeker of reason or a subject who's whole belief is based on faith? Faith in tradition, faith in biblical nonsense, faith at the whims of religious leaders, the kind that seduce children.

As for the whole thread, nonsense babble since it seeks to undermine logic over subjectivism.

But since it was mentioned it was a "game" here it goes.

God exists and he doesn't exist all at the same time, cause god seems to exist in the hearts of men who believe in him, sadly these aim to destroy that which they claim god has created! And to boot god doesn't exists in the hearts of men who deny his existence, sadly these are the victims of such god believers, they have always been victim of subjectivists, though it was through reason and reason alone that every modern technological advance and every endeavor of human justice has evolved.

more on this latter...got to work..:bawl:

 

False.

False.

I'm not joking.

Here are the facts...Schools of thought differ regarding the dating of the Gospels....there are those who favor Matthew as the earliest and those who favor Mark. Which Gospel is in fact earliest is entirely speculation. This disagreement over which Gospel was written first in no way dimishes the reliability of the NT documents.

The information available on that site is beneficial for anyone who wishes to know whether the NT documents and their contents are reliable and whether Jesus is an actual historical figure.

Evidence is not the issue with respect to faith but rather knowledge. Faith is that which bridges ones knowledge gap. Reason informs, supports and increases faith despite lack of real knowledge. What we are after is definitive knowledge...in other words, that which we truly know ...completely and beyond any doubt...arriving at such a place, 'scratching' that 'itch', what we desire but which is currently impossible by definition. However, God promises the itch will be scratched, that full and complete knowledge will be provided:

For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

Now we know in part...but, then I shal know even as I am know i.e. by God...How does God know me? Thoroughly...completely. I shall know exactly as I want to know. True love waits.

Currently, we both find ourselves with a knowledge deficit by definition and this because of our humanity...accordingly, we are led by reason into faith. The more accurate the understanding of ones humanity, the less likely one will find humanity a reasonable object of ones faith.

No. 'Proving' something doesn't necessarily result in anyone believing anything...assent only comes through an internal conversation one has with oneself in light of the evidence...people readily deny truth which is right in front of them all the while convinced they affirming truth in that same denial. You are a case in point.

The Holy Ghost Himself bears witness to everyone who encounters the Scriptures...He confirms Biblical Truth to the individual sans doltish human methodologies such as 'science'. Resisting this gracious activity on His part is demonstrated by your efforts at suppression of that which He has made known to you... ultimately such behavior/activity results in your damnation.

 

That might sound feasible and like the right thing to do, but is impossible to do.

You seem to think that while using language and concepts, understanding can still be objective and neutral.

It is impossible to understand if there is no frame of reference.
A frame of reference is a set of conditions and stipulations.

Free of "conditions/stipulations" means free of mind means free of language means free of the ability to understand means free of the ability to discern what's it all about.

What remains, if anything at all, is a fuzzy feeling. But if we are to strictly go along with your "free of conditions/stipulations", then we can't even use the words "fuzzy feeling".

Granted, many people say "You know it in your heart". But in order to consider something as "knowing it in your heart", you need some conditions and stipulations.


IOW, what you say makes sense, but only if we take for granted that phenomena exist objectively and that we can know them objectively and speak of them objectively.

 

To study the Person of Christ as indicated is not an impossible thing to do, nor is arriving at a conclusion regarding Him--and accordingly, yourself. That is, that He is everything you ought to be but are not, followed by the recognition that despite that, He has been purposely sent by God to be that 'everything' for you by His Life, His Death and His Resurrection.

This is the only possible way to experience salvation.

So, set aside your existential/philosophical angst and Read the Gospel of John with no agenda on your part other than seeking Jesus Christ...it is the one Gospel that provides a specific reason indicating why it was written: these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life.

I have been reading your replies in the various religion threads over the course of many days...in light of these replies of yours, consider this my answer to your questions in your "OP" from the thread "To theists: How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking?"

The frame of reference, like the kingdom of heaven, is within you by virtue of being created in the Image of God. This holds true for all human beings. Failure to accept this amounts to what can only be termed a twisted form of self denial.

You carry within yourself all that is necessary to recognise God's purposes for you in Jesus Christ.

 

Nice to see this verse mentioned. Such an important verse and yet most people don't even seem to know it exists.....

What do you think the "mirror" means? That we are God?