Do you believe that God revealed himself to Abraham?
Is Atheism Irrelavent?
- Thread starter Mazulu
- Start date
Do you believe that God revealed himself to Abraham?
I read that he had a vision, and he followed it. It was a sign of faith in God. That is why he is called the Father of Nations even though there were many generations before him.
Hence, you (and all) christians following Abrahams god.
The god that revealed himself to Abraham is the god of Judaism.
The christian tradition (as I recall) is that Judaic texts propheseyed that the God of Abraham would send a messiah to deliver the jews, and that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah but the Jews failed to recognize him as such.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
It's the third largest religious category on the planet! More than Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews.
The Aussie has gone for a beer! Thank God for that. For there are things I've got to do.
I'm just going to assume you didn't understand what I meant when I said Super Ego.
The superego (German: Über-Ich)[26] reflects the internalization of cultural rules, mainly taught by parents applying their guidance and influence.[27] Freud developed his concept of the super-ego from an earlier combination of the ego ideal and the "special psychical agency which performs the task of seeing that narcissistic satisfaction from the ego ideal is ensured ... what we call our 'conscience'."[28] For him "the installation of the super-ego can be described as a successful instance of identification with the parental agency," while as development proceeds "the super-ego also takes on the influence of those who have stepped into the place of parents — educators, teachers, people chosen as ideal models."[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego
All with no God.
The superego (German: Über-Ich)[26] reflects the internalization of cultural rules, mainly taught by parents applying their guidance and influence.[27] Freud developed his concept of the super-ego from an earlier combination of the ego ideal and the "special psychical agency which performs the task of seeing that narcissistic satisfaction from the ego ideal is ensured ... what we call our 'conscience'."[28] For him "the installation of the super-ego can be described as a successful instance of identification with the parental agency," while as development proceeds "the super-ego also takes on the influence of those who have stepped into the place of parents — educators, teachers, people chosen as ideal models."[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego
All with no God.
That is how the story reads, but Jesus introduced another previously unknown God over and above the God of Abraham, and it is this God, this previously unknown God that I want to understand.
Of course I don't know what you are talking about. It might be similar to the idea of God writing on our hearts and minds. Maybe we are the same belief?
How about talking on Physforums instead so Trippy doesn't have to ask so many questions.
No he didn't, he offered a new covenant with the god of abraham. Accept Jesus of Nazareth as the saviour and son of the god of abraham and be accepted by the god of Abraham into the kingdom of heaven. Same god, different deal.
The table shows the point I want to make, but it didn't cut'n'paste very well. But there are three categories: Believe in God, Believe in some sort of spirit or life force, don't believe in any kind of god/spirit or life force. I do believe that people should believe what they want to believe. It's entirely possible that non-believers can still be nice people. But there are a few bad apples around here with internet balls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism said:
See how that works?
Unless you believe this why preach to me?
I'm sorry. Point out where I'm preaching? Oh wait, you can't, because I'm not. I was explaining to you what the traditional christian view is on the matter.
At this point I'm forced into believing either you're incredibly stupid, or a masterful troll, and I honestly can't decide which it is.
Had you prefaced that advice with the note "This is the traditional Christian view" I would have known where you were coming from, but the way it was written it was preaching by the definitions of this forum.
"Accept Jesus of Nazareth as the saviour and son of the god of abraham and be accepted by the god of Abraham into the kingdom of heaven." A statement like that cannot be viewed as anything else.
But I thought it weird that a sceptic would be preaching to me, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Now as to your attempt to categorize me, I am just a simple farm boy like you were who went searching for God and found him.
The conversation so far:
You: Is "Those fighting against the God idiots" a better phrase then?
Me: Is "Stone-age cultist" a better phrase for christians then?
You: No because Christ came in the Iron age not the stone-age.
Me: That's your comeback?
You still follow the god of Abraham.
You still insist on the accuracy of the teachings of the Old Testament.
Therefore you still follow a stone-age cult. At best it's an iron age cult of personality that has its roots in a stoneage cult.
Do you even understand the differences between Judaism, Christianity and Islam?
You: You don't know me very well yet do you?
I am writing my life story in the BCS thread and I can't ever remember saying anything much about the God of Abraham. You are jumping the gun as you tend to.
Me: Do you even understand christianity?
You: I am telling my life story, most would say I'm not Christian, but I call myself a Christian because I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. So I understand some parts of the Christian story. But there would be plenty of debateable bits.
Are you an expert?
Me: Hence, you (and all) christians following Abrahams god.
The god that revealed himself to Abraham is the god of Judaism.
The christian tradition (as I recall) is that Judaic texts propheseyed that the God of Abraham would send a messiah to deliver the jews, and that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah but the Jews failed to recognize him as such.
You:That is how the story reads, but Jesus introduced another previously unknown God over and above the God of Abraham, and it is this God, this previously unknown God that I want to understand.
Me: No he didn't, he offered a new covenant with the god of abraham. Accept Jesus of Nazareth as the saviour and son of the god of abraham and be accepted by the god of Abraham into the kingdom of heaven. Same god, different deal.
You: Unless you believe this why preach to me?
Me: I'm sorry. Point out where I'm preaching? Oh wait, you can't, because I'm not. I was explaining to you what the traditional christian view is on the matter.
At this point I'm forced into believing either you're incredibly stupid, or a masterful troll, and I honestly can't decide which it is.
You: Had you prefaced that advice with the note "This is the traditional Christian view" I would have known where you were coming from, but the way it was written it was preaching by the definitions of this forum.
"Accept Jesus of Nazareth as the saviour and son of the god of abraham and be accepted by the god of Abraham into the kingdom of heaven." A statement like that cannot be viewed as anything else.
But I thought it weird that a sceptic would be preaching to me, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Now as to your attempt to categorize me, I am just a simple farm boy like you were who went searching for God and found him.
Do you see the problem here? The context of my side of the conversation was explaining to you what the traditional christian view is and why I refered to it as a stone age cult. Not preaching, and no preface neccessary.
You: Is "Those fighting against the God idiots" a better phrase then?
Me: Is "Stone-age cultist" a better phrase for christians then?
You: No because Christ came in the Iron age not the stone-age.
Me: That's your comeback?
You still follow the god of Abraham.
You still insist on the accuracy of the teachings of the Old Testament.
Therefore you still follow a stone-age cult. At best it's an iron age cult of personality that has its roots in a stoneage cult.
Do you even understand the differences between Judaism, Christianity and Islam?
You: You don't know me very well yet do you?
I am writing my life story in the BCS thread and I can't ever remember saying anything much about the God of Abraham. You are jumping the gun as you tend to.
Me: Do you even understand christianity?
You: I am telling my life story, most would say I'm not Christian, but I call myself a Christian because I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. So I understand some parts of the Christian story. But there would be plenty of debateable bits.
Are you an expert?
Me: Hence, you (and all) christians following Abrahams god.
The god that revealed himself to Abraham is the god of Judaism.
The christian tradition (as I recall) is that Judaic texts propheseyed that the God of Abraham would send a messiah to deliver the jews, and that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah but the Jews failed to recognize him as such.
You:That is how the story reads, but Jesus introduced another previously unknown God over and above the God of Abraham, and it is this God, this previously unknown God that I want to understand.
Me: No he didn't, he offered a new covenant with the god of abraham. Accept Jesus of Nazareth as the saviour and son of the god of abraham and be accepted by the god of Abraham into the kingdom of heaven. Same god, different deal.
You: Unless you believe this why preach to me?
Me: I'm sorry. Point out where I'm preaching? Oh wait, you can't, because I'm not. I was explaining to you what the traditional christian view is on the matter.
At this point I'm forced into believing either you're incredibly stupid, or a masterful troll, and I honestly can't decide which it is.
You: Had you prefaced that advice with the note "This is the traditional Christian view" I would have known where you were coming from, but the way it was written it was preaching by the definitions of this forum.
"Accept Jesus of Nazareth as the saviour and son of the god of abraham and be accepted by the god of Abraham into the kingdom of heaven." A statement like that cannot be viewed as anything else.
But I thought it weird that a sceptic would be preaching to me, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Now as to your attempt to categorize me, I am just a simple farm boy like you were who went searching for God and found him.
Do you see the problem here? The context of my side of the conversation was explaining to you what the traditional christian view is and why I refered to it as a stone age cult. Not preaching, and no preface neccessary.
Why go to all that effort Trippy, we had covered all that before, and now you try and bring it up again as some form of justification! It won't work. There was just the one sentence of preaching and it doesn't matter what was said before or after, it was still preaching. The site rules state no preaching. So I was surprised you allowed yourself to preach. I'm not reporting it to the moderators or anything so just let it slip mate.
I wasn't preaching you idiot. That's precisely what I was just explaining to you. The only way that could be regarded as preaching is if you were being dishonest and twisting the words out of context.
So which is it. Are you a liar or a moron?
I mean come off it.
Here's what I said in full:
"No he didn't, he offered a new covenant with the god of abraham. Accept Jesus of Nazareth as the saviour and son of the god of abraham and be accepted by the god of Abraham into the kingdom of heaven. Same god, different deal. "
Even ignoring every other one of my posts, it's still not preaching. The second and third sentences explain the new covenant elaborated in the first sentence.
The only way it could be regarded in any other way is if you're a liar or a fool. Which are you?
Here's what I said in full:
"No he didn't, he offered a new covenant with the god of abraham. Accept Jesus of Nazareth as the saviour and son of the god of abraham and be accepted by the god of Abraham into the kingdom of heaven. Same god, different deal. "
Even ignoring every other one of my posts, it's still not preaching. The second and third sentences explain the new covenant elaborated in the first sentence.
The only way it could be regarded in any other way is if you're a liar or a fool. Which are you?
Now a question like that is definitely unacceptable on the forum. Shall i quote the rule for you?
"Accept Jesus of Nazareth as the saviour and son of the god of abraham and be accepted by the god of Abraham into the kingdom of heaven." A statement like that cannot be viewed as anything else other than preaching. So I'm not a liar or a moron. Was that a reflection?