Total posts: 3,520
-->
@Stephen
@ Bones; You have not studied and found yourself approved in the sciences of theology or language or historical literature.And we only have the unreliable word and your own poor memory in all things biblical that says that you yourself are approved, accredited and qualified, don't we, Reverend "Tradey" Tradesecret?
Seriously?
"I am a lawyer. There you goBut in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care. And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation. I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications".
I am a lawyer. I do pastoral care. I am a pastor of a church with over 300 people. So what?
"I do understand Orthodoxy. I studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church".Tutored by your ;
and your stumbling block here is what? That I have been taught????
" Hebrew teacher" #45Not to mention your extreme power of memory and your own dogged, thousands of hours reading and memorising the bible.
Again, this is an issue because ?????
" I have been taught to memorise the bible from very young. I have read the bible numerous times. I try and read the OT once every year and the NT twice a year. I know it reasonable well and can even read Hebrew and Greek".And crow;
You do realize that despite you putting these into one post, that these things I mentioned are over several years and quite diverse topics. And never altogether in the same post. But thanks for the commendation. Perhaps one day I might pay you some kind of royalty.
" I study the original languages, translate them to English", #25And while we are speaking languages and the translation of, tell me Reverend "Tradey" once you have translated these ancient scriptures into English do you rely your own English version of the bible?You argue the meaning of the word - perfection - saying ;
Do you find it difficult to translate? I thought someone with your abilities would find this easy.
"You would need to demonstrate that perfection is equivalent to without a flaw. #34" My view is that humans were created very good.As I have already explained to you, the word - perfect / perfection means "without flaw" in any dictionary that I know. But of course, we now know that you don't accept the universally accepted definition of - perfect - but without any sound reason you refuse to accept it and dismiss it (because it was written by humans, suspect)..So lets try this;KJV Dictionary's version , which also happens to agree with the universally accepted version.
Why???????
PER'FECT, adjective [Latin perfectus, perficio, to complete; per and facio, to do or make through, to carry to the end.]1. Finished; complete; consummate; not defective; having all that is requisite to its nature and kind; as a perfect statue; a perfect likeness; a perfect work; a perfect system.So that then the KJV bible dictionary's definition. Are you refusing this definition too?
You are such a dill. No wonder you never passed yr 12. It is surprising you even understand how to log onto this site.
Created:
-->
@Bones
You make it sound like I am operating on some obscure definition. The fact that you disagree with the statement that to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y is honestly quite astounding. The literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. The terms I am using are not controversial.You are.Which word have I invented? Which one? I will repeat, the literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. You are arguing with the dictionary here.Your working definition for being made in the image of God is one which you have invented. Do you understand the idioms used by the Jewish language? I am not arguing with the dictionary here. I am arguing with you. You refuse to accept that the language written has local geographical and time specificities and are in fact trying to interpret it according to a measure delineated by yourself.Repeating yourself does not strengthen your argument. Like I stated, the words I am using are not controversial, the tautological definition of resemble is to "be similar". This is the definition of resemble.
I never said your words were controversial. I said that they were a wrong usage of language. You want to use a literal word according to the dictionary. I said the phrase requires an idiomatic understanding. Hence, your accusation of suggesting I am repeating myself is self-serving since you ignored my previous argument.
Try and find some commentators who agree with you and then we can have a discussion.Again with your appeal to popularity. This is the attitude slave holders adopted.Sorry old chap. It is not an appeal to popularity. It is an appeal to authority. It is not even me saying they are right and you are wrong. It is me saying to you - you ought to engage with the experts in the field rather than ignore them.Imagine if we were to be debating and you attempted to dismiss an entire by saying "okay good point I don't have enough intellect to dismiss your argument but I will say, you haven't gone through the month long process of peer reviewing your paper". How do you think that will work?
I'm not saying you have made a good point. I am saying you have missed the point altogether. Your argument is not only weak it is irrelevant. But you don't have the capacity to even see this. I say use peer reviews - because at least then you will see how much you have missed your point.
A while ago, you stated you were interested in truth. Now it seems you just want to go ahead and do things your own way.I have already given you an argument if which is logic, valid and sound. I am interested in truth - you are interested in preserving the bible.
No, you have given only your own position based entirely upon flawed reasoning. I admit I am biased with the bible - but having said that - preserving the bible - means implicitly preserving the integrity and TRUTH of the bible including its usage of idioms. Why would I argue with that? Your position is not sound. I have demonstrated that by drawing your attention to the distinction between literalism and metaphor and language idioms. You have refused to engage with the same.
But in the day, some skeptic could have given Galileo a look of incredulity and stated "you are not a scientist, no one including yourself knows or accepts that you are a scientist"And .... You are not a theologian, are you?I could be Joe Biden for all I care - my argument doesn't care about it's deliverer.
This is the point though. You want to be able to interpret the bible in the way you want. You don't care about the original author's intentions. This is demonstratable proof - you are not interested in the truth.
Created:
-->
@Bones
You make it sound like I am operating on some obscure definition. The fact that you disagree with the statement that to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y is honestly quite astounding. The literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. The terms I am using are not controversial.You are.Which word have I invented? Which one? I will repeat, the literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. You are arguing with the dictionary here.
Your working definition for being made in the image of God is one which you have invented. Do you understand the idioms used by the Jewish language? I am not arguing with the dictionary here. I am arguing with you. You refuse to accept that the language written has local geographical and time specificities and are in fact trying to interpret it according to a measure delineated by yourself.
Try and find some commentators who agree with you and then we can have a discussion.Again with your appeal to popularity. This is the attitude slave holders adopted.
Sorry old chap. It is not an appeal to popularity. It is an appeal to authority. It is not even me saying they are right and you are wrong. It is me saying to you - you ought to engage with the experts in the field rather than ignore them. It is no different to relying on google to self-diagnose your medical problems. If you think your views are valid - - have them peer reviewed. See what others think - others who are experts. Or not.
When God does something great, it is always literal - when he does something evil, it is always a "lesson", a "proverb", an "interpretation".Stop talking nonsense. I never take anything in the bible literally.If the bible is never literal, then is it fiction?The Bible has no literal genres. Literalism is not a genre.I did not say literalism was a genre - stop putting words in my mouth.
No you asked: if the bible is never taken literal, then is it fiction? I say that is conflating genre with substance. You don't seem to understand the difference. To ask that question - reveals your ignorance of basic grammar and language. Literal and fiction are not opposites.
To be theological is merely to study the nature of God and religious belief - my engagement in this topic is in itself theological. I am using pure logic and reason to deconstruct the validity of the bible - something you have yet to refute.No it is not. You are merely supposing things. Speculation.Again - label my arguments what you want - they are substantiated by logic whereby each premise follows the last trivially.
A while ago, you stated you were interested in truth. Now it seems you just want to go ahead and do things your own way. Fine that is your prerogative - yet it does not seem to be that you are so much interested in the truth as you are about pushing a particular view. Your logic in this instance is at odds with the ordinary logic of understanding historical books and languages. Hence, your logic while consistent with your understanding is inconsistent with the ordinary scientific methodology used by those who are the experts in this field. Therefore I would suggest that your logic is flawed and out of touch with the science.
Of course I am discrediting every theologian in the world, just as how Galileo disapproved of every "scientist" in his day.But the whole point is - you are not. Everyone knew Galileo was a scientist. No one including yourself knows or accepts that you are a theologian.But in the day, some skeptic could have given Galileo a look of incredulity and stated "you are not a scientist, no one including yourself knows or accepts that you are a scientist"
And .... You are not a theologian, are you? You have not studied and found yourself approved in the sciences of theology or language or historical literature. You sound quite proficient in many things - and your mind works logically in the areas that it understands. This however does not mean that you can simply step into another sphere - using the same logic - to draw new and novel ideas. Well I suppose you can - but it certainly won't get you far into the discussion.
To understand the image of God - you need to commence with not just the literal meaning of a word, but with the phrase itself - and to see how it ordinarily is understood in the language it was being used. Calling Jesus a shepherd and us sheep could literally be understood by a dictionary. Yet the dictionary meaning without understanding the metaphor will take your logic - consistently into an understanding that is incorrect. I am not a sheep. You are not a sheep. If the language is understood literally without the idiom, then where does your logic get you? Not to the correct understanding.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Look. >> You have clearly said that you "NEVER take ANYTHING in the bible LITERALLY".Tradesecret wrote: I never take anything in the bible literally.
Yep - I wrote those words. I do not take the bible literally - in the sense of understanding its genre and its meaning. I really don't know why this is such a big deal to you.
This means that you do not take the words of the bible in their usual or most basic sense or with metaphor or exaggeration.
That is not what I said. Stop twisting things. I said - I don't take anything literally. In respect of understanding genre. It is not a genre. I do understand things in the bible in the way they are written, whether, narrative, historical, metaphorical or even exaggeration. Literalism is not a genre. The issue of literalism is the matter of whether words have a literal meaning or an allegorical meaning. In other words, can we rely on their appearance or do we have to dig deeper to find some kind of hidden meaning? It is you who have the secret meanings.
Yet are quick to tell others to go read the bible. Why, if it is not to be taken literally and you profess to us that you, an "accredited and qualified" Pastor and Chaplain don't take it literally yourself? What is the point of the bible!?
I am not sure how quick I am about telling people to read their bible. I would be interested to know how many times I do. I am sure you can help, Stephen my own personal pet stalker. You are deliberately conflating literalism with genre. That is your problem not mine.
Should we take the raising of Lazarus literally or not?What about the parting of the red sea?The Virgin birth?Water into wine?Water from a stone?Walking on water?What about long dead saints rising from their graves?Did Jesus literally rise from being literally dead for three days?
I say we should take each of these pictures and stories in accord with the genre in which they are written. You see, your conflation is mixing up the substance of a word and its genre. I don't think any of the words in the bible are allegorical. The words have a substantive meaning. We don't have to look for a hidden meaning or code word. Some of these pictures are images. But none are allegorical. Some might be poetry. Some might be metaphor. Some might be narrative. Some might be a historical fact.
Do you think they are literal or allegorical? And do you think there is a specific genre for each?
All the above are in the BIBLE, are we then to take these a literal events OR NOT!?
Seems to me that you dip in and out of the literal if and when it suites you to do so and ONLY when it suites your own narrative. .
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Read my words again -
I have never said literal is wrong. I said there is no genre called literal. I distinguished between literal and allegory. But I suppose you missed that as well.
There is no literal genre. Get that into your brain. I know that will be difficult for you.
We don't read the bible literally - save and except that we don't interpret the bible allegorically. Hence every word is literal - yet the point is - that does not mean in a simplistic manner of rejecting the appropriate genre.
Poetry is a genre. Narrative is a genre. History is a genre. Gospels are and so is wisdom literature. If you don't understand what genre you are referring to and how that is to be understood - then literal or allegorical makes no difference.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It is not your thread. I can accept any definition I like - just as you do or don't do. I respond because you talk nonsense as you mostly do.
I think the notion of religion and Christianity in some senses are incompatible and in other senses they are totally consistent.
Am I absurd? O I hope so.
Created:
-->
@Bones
You make it sound like I am operating on some obscure definition. The fact that you disagree with the statement that to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y is honestly quite astounding. The literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. The terms I am using are not controversial.
You are. You are totally inventing an entire new and novel position to try and make a point to reflect your own prejudice. Good for you. Try and find some commentators who agree with you and then we can have a discussion.
When God does something great, it is always literal - when he does something evil, it is always a "lesson", a "proverb", an "interpretation".Stop talking nonsense. I never take anything in the bible literally.If the bible is never literal, then is it fiction?
The Bible has no literal genres. Stop talking nonsense. Literalism is not a genre. Go and have a look. Stop talking nonsense. Fiction is not the opposite of literalism. The categories are literal or allegorical. But neither are genres.
Nowhere does the bible indicate the image of God assumes any of the omni attributes. In fact I do not know of any religion - Jewish or Christian denomination which would assume such a thing.Of course not -just like how an anti globe earther will not accept scientific evidence which disrupts their predetermined belief. This is an argument that I am making, backed by logic and syllogisms.Again more nonsense. Galileo was a scientist. He refuted the then known world's paradigm because he used science to do so. What you are attempting to do is refute a theological concept with something that is not theological.To be theological is merely to study the nature of God and religious belief - my engagement in this topic is in itself theological. I am using pure logic and reason to deconstruct the validity of the bible - something you have yet to refute.
No it is not. You are merely supposing things. Speculation. Not an element of real theology. What part of theology do you think you are talking about?
BTW I don't have an issue with you having novel ideas - even though you are a non-theologian. Yet for you to try and discredit every theologian in the world on the basis of your own presumptions - and without any regard to the current practices of interpretation or even engaging with them is on you.Of course I am discrediting every theologian in the world, just as how Galileo disapproved of every "scientist" in his day.
But the whole point is - you are not. Everyone knew Galileo was a scientist. No one including yourself knows or accepts that you are a theologian.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I don't take the bible literally if the literal is about interpreting it. Literal is not a genre. Would you suggest otherwise, Stephen?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
By my estimate God has only existed for about 2000 years. Try to think that through.
How about this? try and prove that the concept of God has existed for more than five minutes.
Created:
-->
@Bones
Petitio principii. Your objection is essentially "premise 2 is wrong because it threatens the integrity of my desired conclusion". Essentially, your argument isp1. The claim Bones is making is: To create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y.p2. The claim threatens to magnify contradictions in the bible.p3. The bible is immune to critiquec1. Therefore, Bones claim is incorrect.If you want to debunk premise 2, that is, to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y (which is tautological), you must show why, prima facie, it is incorrect.
you use the word - "some" and then specify "omnis". You take a specific and try to apply it generally. How does the bible use the term image and likeness. I can think of no situation whereby such words are used specifically to take on more than at the very most - the outward appearance - never the attributes of the thing it was imaging.
My opinion is backed up with logic which I proposed in a valid and sound form.Your opinion is backed up by your prejudice.To be prejudice is to have a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason. What I have provided is quite literally the definition of reason.
You do have a preconceived position. Why else are you down a literal position rather than using the language it is actually written in. You are a fundamentalist.
You don't believe in God and therefore you want to disprove humanity is made in God's image - and is nonsense.My disbelief in God does not come before my reasons for disbelief. If there were valid reasons to believe in God, I would do so. It just so happens that the reasons which are most valid are the ones for atheism.
Whatever. Of course it comes before your reasons. If you believed in God, you would not even be bothered having this discussion.
So you take what the bible says - and then interpret it "literally".When God does something great, it is always literal - when he does something evil, it is always a "lesson", a "proverb", an "interpretation".
Stop talking nonsense. I never take anything in the bible literally. The bible is not written in a genre of literalism at any point. It contains genres such as history, poetry, prophecy, wisdom, apocalyptic, gospel, etc. There is no known genre as literal, except in the mind of fundamentalists who are actually not talking about genre but about the distinction between literal and allegorical. Literalism is not a genre. At least try and become familiar with the type of genres before making yourself look like a simpleton.
Nowhere does the bible indicate the image of God assumes any of the omni attributes. In fact I do not know of any religion - Jewish or Christian denomination which would assume such a thing.Of course not -just like how an anti globe earther will not accept scientific evidence which disrupts their predetermined belief. This is an argument that I am making, backed by logic and syllogisms.
Again more nonsense. Galileo was a scientist. He refuted the then known world's paradigm because he used science to do so. What you are attempting to do is refute a theological concept with something that is not theological. And without any credentials.
BTW I don't have an issue with you having novel ideas - even though you are a non-theologian. Yet for you to try and discredit every theologian in the world on the basis of your own presumptions - and without any regard to the current practices of interpretation or even engaging with them is on you.
Galileo did not just turn around and say - I am going to reject every known scientific method in order to prove you wrong. He used known and recognized practises to prove his point. It is because he did so - that he was successful eventually.
Let's say your premises are correct and somehow you have lucked onto the proper way to understand this idea of image of God, prove you are correct by now confirming it using the known practices of theology and understanding literature. Otherwise - you stand alone and outside of peer group reviews.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Nope. It is not circular. Stop being such a spineless coward. It is the KJV bible dictionary's definition of the word - religion. Do you not accept this bible dictionary definition?
I have no reason to answer your questions - and while you continue to throw out the delightful insults - I will continue to treat you as you deserve.
Created:
-->
@Bones
I am simply applying what I would consider logic. I do not think that I should consult experts, as the nature of my methodology is free from bias and operates purely on reason. Syllogistically;p1. The bible states: God created man (X) in his (God) own image (Y), in the image of God he created him.p2. To create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y.p3. Resemblance is theoretically quantifiable to some percentage.c1. Thus for X to remember Y, X must have some theoretically quantifiable similarity to Y.p4. God (Y) is infinite in his attributes.p5. Anything which attempts to resemble Y must have some theoretically quantifiable percentage of similarity to Y.p6. Any percentage of Y is still Y, as dividing infinity results in infinity.c2. Only an infinite being can resemble Y.p7. Humans are not infinite.c3. Humans do not resemble God (Y)Of course you do not have to consult experts. Just like people don't need to consult medical people when they are sick or consult scientists when they want to discuss evolution or to consult with lawyers before they go to court. You are INDEED the expert - but therein lies the rub. You are out of sync with every expert in the field of study of these documents. Just don't expect me or anyone who actually wants a credible discussion to discuss your speculation with you.Tell me which premise is wrong and why it is wrong.
I would suggest every premise from P2 down is flawed. the bible in no way suggests that humanity is infinite in any way. In fact it suggests the opposite - that humanity is mortal. And finite. The notion of being made in God's image is not about resembling God in his attributes - as much as it is about humanity being given delegated authority. The essence or core of God in one sense is authority. God gave humanity alone amongst on the earth, authority over the rest. This is where his image or representation is manifest. It is representation. Humanity represents God to the creation. Indeed as man represents the creation to God. It is a priestly duty or a kingly duty. God is king. He made humanity his under kings on earth to rule . Hence to kill a human is intrinsically wrong because it is to harm the image of God - his authority as king. This is why we don't kill each other. This is why we don't assault each other. This is why we don't cheat and lie and steal from each other. It intrinsically harms the image of God. God's authority. Every nation around the world picks this up in their criminal courts. To kill someone is to attack the State. The State is the victim, not the victim per se. This is why we have both a civil court and a criminal court. Criminal courts - protect the State as victim and the civil courts protect the individual as victim.
Adam was made in the image of God. He then ate the fruit (not apple) from the forbidden tree. He was tempted by external matters. It did not originate with himself. It came from outside - even by someone else intentionally baiting him. Being tempted to sin is not a flaw. In fact if he was unable to be tempted - then one might say his free will was flawed. He would then simply be a machine. A robot - unable to love - unable to worship. Unable to think.I have to reiterate - being tempted is not a flaw, I am not asserting this. I am stating that giving in to temptation, which Adam did, reflects a flaw in character.Your opinion has respectfully not a lot of validity to it - unless you actually are going to engage with others. I also reject your opinion.My opinion is backed up with logic which I proposed in a valid and sound form.
Your opinion is backed up by your prejudice. You don't believe in God and therefore you want to disprove humanity is made in God's image - and is nonsense. So you take what the bible says - and then interpret it "literally". The bible is a book which contains many genres. None is literal. Literalism is not a genre. You are not applying textual analysis scientifically and like a pseudo scientist. You are doing exactly what the fundamentalist - and evangelical does - interpreting without understanding what you are reading.
Eating the fruit - or disobeying God was sinful. Was it a flaw per se?I would say directly disobeying God's will is a flaw.So would you say - that you disobeying God is a flaw about you?
I don't believe in God.
Duh!
Or are you merely talking about what you consider a hypothetical situation in a story that you actually don't have authority to talk about?To say that I do not have an authority in a topic, all whilst ignoring the argument that I propose isn't a very good argument on its own.
It is a valid argument. It is one scientists use all of the time in respect of people who are not experts in their field. Besides I have not ignored your argument, I just don't agree with the manner in which you put it. You ignore basic understanding of the texts. You provide novel suggestions. You interpret according to principles which are entirely irrelevant to a proper interpretation. You also ignore what the experts have understood it to mean. Now you don't have to agree with experts - but you ought to engage with what they say - rather than just make up stuff according to your own reasoning.
Your faulty premisesWhich one.
From P 2 down.
have led to define being made in the image of God to a conclusion that is inconsistent.I'm taking the word of the bible and interpreting it in the most reasonable way. Mind you, the way that I interpret "made in the image of" is consistent with how the phrase is used.
No you are not interpreting in the most reasonable way. You are interpreting it literally according to a 21st century person who has no understanding of the language nor the literature you are attempting to interpret. You are doing so ignoring all of the expert opinion available. The book was written in Hebrew. Not in English. It was written in a non-literal genre. It was written pre- Gutenberg. It was written to a culture that understood imagery and symbolism and in a Hebrew idiom. None of these you touch on. You are doing what I would call the literalist fundamentalist - interpreter who tries to interpret the Book of Revelation by the newspaper.
The Jews and Christians both define the image of God as something completely different to you.The only definition of God I have utilized is the one which declares he posses the "omni" attributes.
Nowhere does the bible indicate the image of God assumes any of the omni attributes. In fact I do not know of any religion - Jewish or Christian denomination which would assume such a thing. No one says humanity assumes any of the omni attributes. Again, why I say - strawman argument. The only person who thinks that is a good idea is you. And you do not believe in God. Nor in the Bible and nor in Christianity.
If you want to refute someone - you have to know what they believe. Don't just make stuff up and then prove that made up stuff wrong.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, I don't have to believe it for the sake of a discussion.But the "discussion" is about the believer and why religion is important to him/her? What's the point to posting anything when you don't believe it?Do you accept the KJV Bible Dictionary definition?ReligionRELIGION, noun relij'on. [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to the gods, or the obligation of such an oath or vow, which was held very sacred by the Romans.]1. religion in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man's obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties.
Circular argument.
The believer in what? Religion or whatever a religion really is? I think you are a believer. Religion is inescapable. And it is inevitable.
I can accept any definition for the sake of the discussion.
Effectively, my point is - religion is a word that people use in different senses depending upon the situation.
I can use religion in the following ways:
Religion = worldview
Religion = an organization - organized or not that practices religious practices.
Religion = a worldview that promotes works to find happiness or heaven.
Religion = a worldview that leads to death and promotes slavery.
Religion = a charity that promotes the welfare of orphans and widows - the vulnerable.
Religion = an organization of like minded people to worship some kind of deity.
Religion = the opposite of Christianity.
I often talk about Christianity not being a religion when distinguishing it from religion per se. And yet, when I am talking to fellow Christians, I would say Christianity is a religion. It has the hallmarks of what some call a religion. And yet it - is also a way of life which goes beyond the ordinary definition of religion. In America religion is defined very broadly. In the UK and Australia it is defined narrowly.
Within church circles, religion can have a good name or a bad name. I am not talking about its links to child abuse and greed and lack of morals - which is a different topic altogether. Rather about - the point of religion. Christians would often argue the case that Christianity is not a religion - because religion pursues ways of trying to please God in order to get to Heaven. Whereas Christianity teaches that God came to earth - and brought salvation without the need for humanity to try and please God.
In that sense - Christians see religion as slavery. Always working for God to please him. As opposed to a way of life where God has demonstrated a willingness to live with and love humanity.
Christians therefore distinguish themselves from religions. All other religions attempt to please God - by working hard to please him. Christians want to please God - but it is Christ's work which secures salvation - not theirs. Their good works - are not to please God so much as demonstrating their gratefulness for what God has already done. Saved by grace not by effort.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I have told you that the answer is not simple. Even if you think you have just asked a simple question, it deserves more than just a simple answer. Obviously you are wanting either a yes or no so that then you can ask your next little question or make some assertion proving the contradictions within Christianity or the bible.
Yet, if you really did want an answer you would have addressed some of my questions. But you don't. Your intention is to ridicule and harass. Not to seek answers to questions.
Do you have an answer or simply more questions?
You are correct in that I have indicated that only God is perfect. I have also indicated that at times the bibles uses the term perfect equating it to maturity.
My point is - it deserves more than a simple yes or no answer.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I love how you twist things.
I have no more reason to answer a question than you do. And you choose not to answer questions.
If you take the view that because I ask a question that I do not know the answer - then you are a fool.
If I don't know something - I admit it.
If I am not confident about something I reveal it.
If I forget something I also admit it.
Unlike you, I have nothing to hide. I am an open book. But sadly, you keep forgetting to put on your reading glasses.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Religion is equivalent to worldview. .......................no need for supernatural and indeed goes beyond theistic religions.And you believe this is the definition of the word religion? And do you accept this?
Stephen, I don't have to believe it for the sake of a discussion. Surely you know this.
But I can accept it for the sake of the discussion. It does not mean I have to accept it any further than within this discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I’m guessing you’re in the “God is good no matter what” camp?
Another trick question. Gee people are busy today aren't getting cleverer and cleverer.
Take out the "no matter what" bit and I would answer I am in the God is good camp.
You would need to define what good is before adding the rest.
A measure of good would be helpful as well.
According to humanity without God, God can be good and bad.
According to humanity with God, God is among other things the measure of good.
I take the view that God not only defines what good is - but is the very essence and measure of goodness. Hence God is good.
Yet on that basis good is anything in accord with God's honor and worship. It is good to love one another. Yet it is also good to hate evil.
It is good to punish evil and to punish sin - even by death.
On the other hand, if good is defined by humanity with the measure being "whatever the current culture by majority rule thinks is good", then God is not always good. If the current culture holds the view that abortion is good then God is not good. If the current culture deems polytheism and polygamy is good, then God is not good.
The definition of good, obviously from a human perspective is subjective and fluid. It might remain conservative for lengths of time, for instance - pedophilia is unlikely to be considered a good for some time, although I suspect that as the culture becomes more fluid and as it takes on board more and more the Kinsey Report, then even this so called evil will become good. Like other things, it only takes time and enough people to say - let's let us be what we want and things will like they have in the past with Aristotle go back to it. The same with slavery. Slavery changes its meaning every so often.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Ok.
Religion is equivalent to worldview. No need for supernatural. No need for divine figures. It includes the secular and atheistic worldviews. See Malnak v Yogi 592 F(2d)197 (1979) and Torcaso v Watkins, Clerk 367 US 488 at 495 (1961). It established no need for supernatural and indeed goes beyond theistic religions.
Universal Accepted definition of religion.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I will once you define religion for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Oooh a trick question.
Didn't I already answer that question?
Hmm - you will find it is CIRCULAR REASONING. also known as an axiom.
Created:
-->
@Bones
I am simply applying what I would consider logic. I do not think that I should consult experts, as the nature of my methodology is free from bias and operates purely on reason. Syllogistically;p1. The bible states: God created man (X) in his (God) own image (Y), in the image of God he created him.p2. To create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y.p3. Resemblance is theoretically quantifiable to some percentage.c1. Thus for X to remember Y, X must have some theoretically quantifiable similarity to Y.p4. God (Y) is infinite in his attributes.p5. Anything which attempts to resemble Y must have some theoretically quantifiable percentage of similarity to Y.p6. Any percentage of Y is still Y, as dividing infinity results in infinity.c2. Only an infinite being can resemble Y.p7. Humans are not infinite.c3. Humans do not resemble God (Y)
Of course you do not have to consult experts. Just like people don't need to consult medical people when they are sick or consult scientists when they want to discuss evolution or to consult with lawyers before they go to court. You are INDEED the expert - but therein lies the rub. You are out of sync with every expert in the field of study of these documents. Just don't expect me or anyone who actually wants a credible discussion to discuss your speculation with you.
And as for you being unbiased, well kudos to you. I think all people are biased. No one is unbiased.
Adam was made in the image of God. He then ate the fruit (not apple) from the forbidden tree. He was tempted by external matters. It did not originate with himself. It came from outside - even by someone else intentionally baiting him. Being tempted to sin is not a flaw. In fact if he was unable to be tempted - then one might say his free will was flawed. He would then simply be a machine. A robot - unable to love - unable to worship. Unable to think.I have to reiterate - being tempted is not a flaw, I am not asserting this. I am stating that giving in to temptation, which Adam did, reflects a flaw in character.
Your opinion has respectfully not a lot of validity to it - unless you actually are going to engage with others. I also reject your opinion.
Eating the fruit - or disobeying God was sinful. Was it a flaw per se?I would say directly disobeying God's will is a flaw.
So would you say - that you disobeying God is a flaw about you? Or are you merely talking about what you consider a hypothetical situation in a story that you actually don't have authority to talk about?
After all, if you are arguing that dependency equates to being flawed, then whether Adam had a choice to sin or not is irrelevant, if Adam was dependent upon God.My conclusion is simply that if God were to create something and claim that it is made in his own image, that thing must be infinite in power.
And therein is part of your problem. Your faulty premises have led to define being made in the image of God to a conclusion that is inconsistent. The Jews and Christians both define the image of God as something completely different to you. And they have done so consistently, and independently from each other. And yet, you have some kind of magic button which enables you to define it differently.
Created:
-->
@Bones
God is defined as "omni-x", that is, all of his qualities are infinite in nature. He is infinitely loving, he is infinitely moral, he is infinitely powerful etc. To put simply - if you make something in the imagine of X, there must be some aspect in which X can be observed - even slightly. If I am inspired to recreate the Mona Lisa, in order to be considered successful, some aspect of the Mona Lisa must be observable.However, with God, his qualities are not finite, he is infinite - you can never derive an immoral being from a perfectly moral being.
Thanks for at least attempting to articulate your position. Perhaps though you might attempt to consult what the bible means by being made in God's image rather than putting your own spin on what you think it means. OR perhaps you might consult some experts - commentators on what they think it means. While you are treading down this line of thinking though - it is not helpful for me to answer you. For me - you are simply creating a definition for a concept that has been defined quite a different way. Hence, why I call it a strawman.
You mistake the ability to choose to sin with a flaw.Having the option to choose a sin is not a flaw, choosing the sin is flawed. Obviously, if Adam is the image of God but he took the apple from the forbidden tree, then he is obviously flawed. But there's a contradiction, which I layed out above.
Adam was made in the image of God. He then ate the fruit (not apple) from the forbidden tree. He was tempted by external matters. It did not originate with himself. It came from outside - even by someone else intentionally baiting him. Being tempted to sin is not a flaw. In fact if he was unable to be tempted - then one might say his free will was flawed. He would then simply be a machine. A robot - unable to love - unable to worship. Unable to think.
Eating the fruit - or disobeying God was sinful. Was it a flaw per se? Or did it produce a flaw? I think eating the fruit led to him not being able to eat from the tree of life. His body would continue to deteriorate and die. I also think that without the tree of life Adam would have died. This by implication means that he would not live forever in his current form. He required God to live. Is it reasonable to say that a life that is totally dependent upon another is flawed? I would say no.
As I have said elsewhere, everything is dependent upon God. God is the only independent one in all of everything. Not everything can be God. So - your logic must prove too much. It is therefore incorrect. After all, if you are arguing that dependency equates to being flawed, then whether Adam had a choice to sin or not is irrelevant, if Adam was dependent upon God.
On the other hand, I would argue that dependency does not equate to being flawed. I would argue that Adam was not created perfect but good. Unflawed but immature. And that his capacity to mature was dependent upon his loyalty to God as the determiner of good and evil not himself. By disobeying God, by wanting to be like God, by wanting to determine what was good and evil for himself, was saying "I don't need God". Adam demonstrated he did not want maturity or perfection as God determines it. He wanted to be able to define it himself.
Adam was going to die unless he ate from the fruit of the tree of life. Was he therefore flawed because he was going to die? I say no. Death is inevitable for everything that has life. But nor was he perfect. Hence I would say that perfection and death are not compatible. If a perfect one dies, death could not hold him and would have to spit him back to earth. Ironically, this is what happened to Jesus. Jesus is the only perfect human. He died - the natural result of being hung on a cross to die of asphyxiation and of a spear through your side / heart. Yet death could not hold him down. He rose from the dead.
That is quite logical and reasonable and to be expected.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I think the problem is with you.
In Australia, teachers do not spoon feed their students. We expect them to do the learning. I suppose in England, like often it is in America, students are spoon fed by their teachers. Perhaps that is why both England and America is falling behind the rest of the world.
I happen to think the best methodology for teaching and learning is inductive not deductive.
I like my students to learn - and to do this requires thinking on their part. I will often ask them questions in response to their questions. I could just give them an answer - but that does not make them think. Asking them questions means they have to use their brain.
Now I know, at your tender old age, you have probably got a bit tired. And that is ok. Yet your disability does not require me to start spoon feeding you. And I know you don't want to have to think or use your brain. But I am not your carer.
If you ask me a question - very rarely will I give you a straight answer. Sometimes I will because you Pommies have difficulty learning. But mostly I will ask you a question back. To help you clarify what you have just asked. After all, although sometimes you ask great questions, you don't actually grasp exactly what you are asking, so you require some tuning of your question. To help you retune or fine tune your question - I ask you questions to assist you. You can thank me later.
I know this causes you some frustration. Goodness you have expressed that many times. Yet, in all honesty, I want to help you to think better - so I will continue to ask you questions. How about this? When I ask you a question - rather than moaning about me asking you 14 more- and then letting your frustration falsely accuse me of not having an answer - try answering those questions. I promise you. It will help you start thinking. And eventually you will fine tune your real question - and then the answer will probably come to you.
The best lessons people learn are the ones they learn themselves. Spoon feeding people really does not teach - it just produces propaganda - brainwashing. People will be able to repeat - sometimes even regurgitate - but they won't be able to explain why it is what it is. I don't want you to fall into the cult like brainwashed person - you seem to want to be. I like you too much. And I will do what I can - by helping you learn how to think better by asking you questions.
Created:
-->
@Bones
A strawman refers to the event where one misrepresents a proposition. I literally quoted your book with no edits.
Really??? I'm not referring to the verse I am referring to the way you are expressing what you think being made in the image of God is. No Christian takes it the way you have put it.
Humanity was made very good.When you make something "in the image of X", you derive the outstanding qualities of X and implement it into your creation. If God is defined within the parameters of the "omni's", that is, any attribute he posses is infinite, then deriving even a percent of God's image would yield a perfect creation, as dividing infinity by anything results in infinity.Evidence please.A posteriori and logic.
Is that your way of saying you made it up?
Can you give an example of anything else being made in the image of something else to give some kind of credibility to your assertion?This is not an evidence based assertion, it is a logic based one. Seriously read what I said again.
All I was doing was taking you at your words - and asked you to provide more than just an assertion. What you have said above does not even make sense. Dividing infinity by infinity is not the same as defining perfection. No one in Christian thought takes the view that being made in the image of God means they take on his omnis.
Being made in God's image - is a different concept than talking about humanity having all power and all knowledge and all presence. It is not talking about shape because God is a spirit. It is not talking about divinity. The “image and likeness of God” (Gen 1:26) describes the special status of the human race, male and female, as God’s representatives in the created order. God has entrusted to humanity the rule over the created order and that has not been removed by the fall. Instead, it has been perverted to wrong uses, with dire consequences for the rest of creation.
...Man was made without flawBut man was tempted, so obviously mans eventual capitulate temptation is a flaw.
You mistake the ability to choose to sin with a flaw. Again, you are going to need to join the dots for me. Being tempted is not sinful per se. Giving into temptation is sinful - when the temptation is to sin.
Adam - who had not fallen at that stage - was without flaw. He had no sin in him and had committed no sin. The ability to choose to do right or to do wrong is not a flaw. You have not demonstrated why it is a flaw. I never said Adam was perfect and could only make good decisions. The Bible does not say that either. In fact - since God alone is the measure of perfection and good, only God can ever be perfect. Perfection in this sense is something which belongs to God as the only truly independent being. Everything else - including the angels, and Satan are dependent on God. So everything else can choose to good or not. Hence it is actually an absurdity to suggest humans could be so perfect that they could not possibly choose to do evil. Humans after the fall do choose mostly to do wrong. In fact - since eating the fruit was the first act of doing "right in their own eyes: they have become their own measure of right and wrong.
When people become Christians - they take on the ability to start to choose to do right and good. Good of course is referring to the act of obedience to God and for his honour and glory. Non-believers do good - according to their own standards - but not according to the standard of God. Hence for people to say they are good - makes sense in accordance with their own understanding. Yet it also means they misunderstand goodness and perfection. Why do you think you are struggling with the concept of definition perfection?
You are not a stupid person - and yet you continue to conflate the perfection of God with the measure of what you understand perfection to be. This is understandable - yet foolish as well.
The very fact that man had not reached maturityA man with no flaws cannot mature, for that would indicate that there is some wisdom that they have not obtained.
What do you mean by flaw? I think a baby born essentially has no flaws. They are smaller examples of humanity - but untouched by the depression and angst around them. As they mature or grow into adults - they are becoming more perfect in some senses. Yet the baby is not flawed - it is simply immature. Immaturity is not flawed. Maturity and perfection in the Greek are often interchangeable.
A lack of wisdom does not mean a flaw. It simply means a lack of wisdom. You would need to demonstrate that perfection is equivalent to without a flaw.
There are many books which have no mistakes in them. Are they inerrant? Are they without flaw? An immature idea may not have any flaws in it. Yet it can be improved upon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I base my measure of truth and knowledge from various sources. The most authoritative source is the Bible.Your authoritative source is yourself.The bible is flawed at every corner and was written by people who were as smart as our generations children.
Yet another unprovable assertion. The bible is not flawed. That is simply your perception based upon your own measure of perfection - yourself.
But nevertheless, as you are playing smart with this whole santa thing, I'll ask you one last question. I assume you know about Russell's teapot analogy. Do you think it is possible to prove that such a teapot doesn't exist.
Yes, I have heard of it. And so have many other people. I agree with Alvin Plantinga that at the heart of the teapot is a lie. A lie that assumes there is no evidence to disprove it. You, like Russell simply conflate God with imaginary notions.
I have provided opportunities to people on this site to prove the Bible wrong - and even to prove God does not exist. No one has attempted to take it up.
One way is - since the bible says no one can choose to become a Christian all by themselves - all you need to do is demonstrate to me that you have chosen to become a christian - and then become a christian - and not just pretending for the sake of the discussion - all by yourself. Convince me of that - which is a positive and not even a negative so all on you.
And if you can - then you have proved the bible wrong - and ipso facto - in my mind at least - proved God is not true. (At least the God of the Bible) And since I don't believe in any other god - you will have succeeded.
To prove you are a Christian - you will have to demonstrate to me genuineness. And more than for five minutes. In other words - I would want it to be a true conversion - with church attendance - humble heart and attitude - a change of life. The ability to articulate the doctrines of the gospel. Perhaps even demonstrating true faith - by helping others to convert as well. Oh yes and putting your money where your heart is would contribute towards this demonstration. Once you have proved it to me - then - you will have succeeded.
Obviously, I will initially be skeptical. After all you do admittedly have an agenda - intention -
My point is - there are ways to demonstrate falsifiability even in this realm. True - I will put you through a rigorous test. But other Christians on this site will be able to do the same thing. Christians do have a bond - even in their tensions with one another.
Of course I don't believe you can do it. I am not saying you can't become a Christian. I am saying you can't do it by yourself without God's help.
I however doubt you will take this up. And the reason for that is because it has never been about the existence of God for you , it is a much deeper thing. Pride and humility. You say you like truth - yet -there is more to this than truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I am asking you to prove a negative.
I know what you are doing. I am just not playing by your rules.
I base my measure of truth and knowledge from various sources. The most authoritative source is the Bible.
Your authoritative source is yourself.
I don't believe in Santa Claus. Santa Claus is not referred to in the bible. To argue he does not exist because he is not mentioned in the bible would be an argument from silence. Not a very satisfactory way of dealing with it from my mind.
Yet the Bible also tells us that there is one God. It speaks of other beings apart from humanity and the animals. It calls them spirits or angles or demons. These beings have powers beyond that of humanity. They can be invisible and take the form of humanity. They can have wings and fly. They can wield swords and fight. They have the ability to communicate with humanity - by way of temptation or direct communication. etc.
Hence, is it possible that Santa Clause is one of these beings? After according to tradition - Santa has the ability to know every child's thoughts. Not that any of the angels or spirits has the ability - being a characteristic reserved for God. Although funnily enough, many Catholics pray to Mary and to others so called saints thinking she has this ability.
Santa can fly on a sleigh with reindeer. Elijah went to heaven in a chariot of fire. I suppose there might be a similarity there.
Santa rewards good children with gifts. This is an interesting one. Jesus told us - we ought to be good. Yet the bible also tells us that no one is good. The bible indicates that gifts from God are not a reward but rather a gift out of mercy and grace.
I infer therefore that although Santa whom I have not met personally but is believed on by millions of children around the world is a tradition organized by parents who want to give their children a sense of excitement about Christmas - without worrying them about Jesus or thinking too hard about Jesus.
The bible indicates that beings with some of the powers that Santa has exist. Yet it also excludes some of these powers as well.
Hence- I do not have to prove a negative from powers of observation alone. That is your calling not mine.
Santa Claus as a concept exists. He is copied by millions of people and believed in by many children. Yet, despite the possibility that Santa had an original type which has been mythologised and built up over the centuries - - I am confidence he - as he is portrayed today is imaginary.
My proof - is sourced in the manner by which the Bible describes the world and the beings contained within - without.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Are you asking me to prove to you or to me that Santa does not exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
It's not a trick question.No, not trick, but with an agenda. Yes. I responded by asking you to clarify. Obviously you are talking about existence - not believe as the bible talks about belief.An agenda is merely an intention, so yes of course I have an agenda.
Ok.
Do I believe that Santa Exists today? Not in the North Pole.Do you have evidence to prove this? Can you prove his nonexistence?
Yes. The Bible tells me that Santa Clause is an impossibility.
Created:
-->
@Bones
expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief).
That is how I would understand the meaning of debunk.
The video does not do that.
Created:
-->
@Bones
Debunk must have a different meaning for atheists.
Created:
-->
@Bones
Strawman argument. The bible says God created man after his image and likeness.Genesis 1:27:“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Quoting a verse does not get around your strawman argument.
Humanity was made very good.When you make something "in the image of X", you derive the outstanding qualities of X and implement it into your creation. If God is defined within the parameters of the "omni's", that is, any attribute he posses is infinite, then deriving even a percent of God's image would yield a perfect creation, as dividing infinity by anything results in infinity.
Evidence please. The bible says man was made very good. Not perfect. Can you give an example of anything else being made in the image of something else to give some kind of credibility to your assertion? God does not have outstanding qualities. He is perfect in every way. Omnis in the manner of talking about God is meant to be a way of giving humanity the understanding that God is not limited by humanity's imagination. Man was made without flaw but he was also made not fully mature, and he was made with freedom to make decisions that had implications.
The very fact that man had not reached maturity - and eating from the tree of life - demonstrates he had the ability to grow. Perfection cannot grow more perfect. That would be a redundant situation. If God wanted to make perfect humans, he could have. He chose not to do that. And it was a perfect decision.
Being made in God's image - is a different concept than talking about humanity having all power and all knowledge and all presence. It is not talking about shape because God is a spirit. It is not talking about divinity. The “image and likeness of God” (Gen 1:26) describes the special status of the human race, male and female, as God’s representatives in the created order. God has entrusted to humanity the rule over the created order and that has not been removed by the fall. Instead, it has been perverted to wrong uses, with dire consequences for the rest of creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
It's not a trick question.
No, not trick, but with an agenda. Yes. I responded by asking you to clarify. Obviously you are talking about existence - not believe as the bible talks about belief.
I don't know whether Thor existed or not.Really? Ok, I'll change the question, do you believe in santa.
Was there an original santa or st Nickolas? Possibly. I don't know. There seems to be a certain amount of evidence for such a person. Was this person someone who flew in a sleigh and gave presents to only good children? I don't believe so. No. Could he have had a sleigh which was really fast and gave presents to everyone in his town? Possibly. IDK.
Do I believe that Santa Exists today? Not in the North Pole.
Santa Clause of course is not the same as God or the same as Jesus. There is no need to conflate the two.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Is religion simply a crutch for the lost and lonely wishing for a sense of belonging?Does it give them strength that they believe they otherwise wouldn't have?Is it a social support structure that they cannot find elsewhere?Why is religion so important to the believer ?
I distinguish religion per se from Christianity. Yep, Christianity is a religion but it's not in the same form or kind as others. Its mark of distinguishment is freedom. Oh and the truth of course. (no blush necessary)
Nevertheless, while unthinking and uneducated people often accuse Christianity of being a crutch, they actually miss the entire point. I don't think of it as a crutch - rather as a life support. A crutch is simply the wrong analogy. A crutch assumes we can do quite well by ourselves - with a bit of help from time to time. Christianity actually says - don't be so stupid. You need Christ in order to live. Without him - your life has no objective meaning.
As for a sense of belonging. Humans crave relationships. If not religion, then sports clubs, or social committees. Or families. The sense of belonging is not tied up exclusively with religions.
I am not sure what strength to believe what they otherwise wouldn't is about. Yet if anyone has ever been to church, the myriad of beliefs are constant. There is almost a pride - of "I believe differently to everyone else". Ironically, when every person does this - they all look much the same. It is the cults which tend to regiment belief and not just in doctrine but in practice - even to the point of how long your hair must be or what kind of clothing is appropriate to wear.
Religions per se - tend to be much more general. Of course there will always be exceptions.
Religion is not just important for the believer it is important for everyone. Religion is simply the way people look at the world. An Atheist looks at the world through the lens of no god exists. Yet this is important for him or her or they would not bother calling themselves an atheist. Let alone come onto a site - and play around in the religious forum. Importance is importance. We value something by the amount of time we spend talking about it or using our time discussing it. Or practicing it. Religion is just as important for Stephen as it is for me, even though he is an atheist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
It is not the most common argument. It is an assertion. This is the interesting thing. The atheist asserts there is no god because he can't find any evidence. It is not an argument. Simply an assertion. And as you rightly note, this assertion is made on a very unclear notion of what might constitute as evidence in the first place. This is why atheism is not a rational position but an irrational one.This is why atheism is not a rational position but an irrational one.Do you believe in Thor?
On what basis are asking? In the sense of whether Thor existed or not? Or on the basis that I follow and heed his deity?
I don't know whether Thor existed or not. I certainly don't follow Thor or consider it necessary to follow him. He has never requested for me to do so. Or to listen to him or to obey him.
Is there a holy book of writing for Thor? One which the readers can be confident is actually Thor's words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
Probably the most common atheist argument is that there is no evidence that God exists. However, it is unclear what would constitute positive empirical evidence for God's existence. Most theological arguments for God's existence are rational rather than empirical - except perhaps for the argument for design, based on the inherent rationality evidenced by the material world. How can human beings assess the evidence for an infinite being that is, by definition beyond their comprehension? What would a world without God look like, compared to a world with God - and how can we be sure enough about this to make the comparison? In many ways, the concept of God is beyond the material world, and as such empirical evidence cannot legitimately have any bearing on whether or not we accept it.
It is not the most common argument. It is an assertion. This is the interesting thing. The atheist asserts there is no god because he can't find any evidence. It is not an argument. Simply an assertion. And as you rightly note, this assertion is made on a very unclear notion of what might constitute as evidence in the first place. This is why atheism is not a rational position but an irrational one.
You may be correct about theist arguments being more rational than empirical. Certainly, they tend to be based in logic rather than evidence and probably for the explanation you give. You raise some interesting thoughts. Thank you.
This also brings the question of what it would mean to believe in God at all. If God is truly infinite and beyond human comprehension, then is whatever believers have in mind when they think about God, really God? If an image, or feeling, or idea comes to mind when thinking about God, then this limited idea can never really be God, who is a totally infinite being. Then, our use of the word "God" itself becomes an empty signifier, a vague attribution of sapience to the universe without any concrete application.
The NT tells us that demons believe in God, but don't follow him. I often think that proving God's existence is unhelpful because of that very idea. Hence, why I think it is not really about the strength of such an argument at all. It's about something else. It's about pride and humility. It's about who is the boss and who is not. It's about independence and dependence. Everything else is white noise.
In the end it comes back to the Garden of Eden and the forbidden fruit. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is not a tree that gives such knowledge. It is a tree that says - I want to decide what is good and what is evil. God had decided what perfect was. Humanity said - no - I want to decide. God said such knowledge is objective. Humanity said - no it is all subjective.
Created:
-->
@Bones
How god allegedly created humans.I don't think the bible says that God created humans that were perfect.The bible says that God created man in his image, which means that the image in which man was based on is one which is perfect. Either God isn't perfect, or he isn't a very good artist.
Strawman argument. The bible says God created man after his image and likeness. God alone is perfect. Humanity was made very good. He was made without flaws. God did not make man to demonstrate his artistic skills. But even if he did - how do people determine whether art is good or not? Art is one of the most subjective fields of life. God designed the humanity to be able to make its own decisions. He did not make man to be a robot. Anyone who has been made has the ability to do right - and by implication the choice to do wrong. You still need to get back to the definition of perfect. Is it an objective standard or a subjective one?
Is perfection an illusion you hold in your imperfect mind?
The temptation came from Satan.A perfect being would not be tempted by Satan.
Why not? Is the temptation the problem or giving into the temptation? I think Jesus was perfected and he was tempted by Satan. He didn't give into the temptation. Temptation is not sinful and it is not imperfect to be able to be tempted. It is how we respond to the temptation which is the real issue.
Created:
-->
@Bones
How god allegedly created humans.
I don't think the bible says that God created humans that were perfect. They were surely without flaw. But they were tempted not from within - but from without.
The temptation came from Satan.
They were also immature in the sense that they were on probation.
Like a baby born - without flaw - they needed to grow and mature.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
What is perfection?Can we or anyone, or anything for that matter, ever be perfect Reverend "Tradey"?
Great question Stephen. And like most things in the bible - it is not a simple answer.
But before we can answer your great questions - we still need someone to define for us what perfection is.
Does it mean "without flaw"? Does it mean " can never be flawed?" Does it mean better than best? Is it simply "really good"?
Is perfection as you deem? Or is it as I deem? Is there an objective understanding or measure of perfection? Or is it simply a subjective standard?
My view is that humans were created very good. And without flaw. But were they perfect? Would a perfect human be able to do imperfect things or would a perfect being be unable to do imperfect things?
If a perfect being can do imperfect things - does that make it imperfect?
Or if a perfect being cannot do imperfect things - yet they appear imperfect to an already imperfect being, is the thing imperfect or perfect?
Is the perception of an thing by an imperfect being which is done by a perfect being - going to look flawed or not flawed?
Can an imperfect being - a flawed being - really know whether what a perfect being is perfect or not? Surely the flawed being - having lost the ability to see perfectly is going to misunderstand whatever the perfect being is doing?
Created:
-->
@Bones
What is perfection?
Created:
-->
@Bones
why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,
Jesus died and rose again. The facts of history demonstrate this over and over again. Deny it all you like. That is your prerogative while you live. Yet once you die - your prerogative disappears and then you face the judge of history. I say while there is life there is hope. But one day - we all die. That is inevitable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Depends on what you mean by GOD Trade.And I'm never quite sure what you do mean by GOD.It would be helpful if you accompanied such preaching, with a practical explanation of your idea of GOD.Rather that using loose and undefining ritual speak.....White Noise as it were.
God as defined by the Bible. Terrible and Awefull. loving and merciful. Full of grace and holy. Just and kind. All of the above and many many more characteristics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
humanity - through temptation - external temptation, decided it did not need God, even though God had clearly enunciated that without God, he would surely die.First, how do you qualify an external temptation? If everything is dependent on God, as you say, then the temptation was ultimately sourced from Him.Second, when did God say that humanity would surely de without HIm?
That's a great point. I tossed up using the term external - not thinking anyone would even pick up on it. I suggest you do some reading from the Reformers - like Calvin and the WCF. They make some interesting distinctions between external and internal. They relate it to original sin.
Yes, everything ultimately is sourced in God - the First Cause. Yet Second Causes also play a significant role.
Don't mix the author of history's book up with the characters in the book. When you do - the book loses meaning.
Genesis 2. In the day you eat the forbidden fruit, you shall surely die.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I hope you can see it's kind of hard to buy that your God's existed from the very beginning of the universe but he didn't bother to send anybody to help everyone out until Jesus which was literally just over 2,000 years ago. In the meantime he basically let the devil set up a bunch of other religions that are false just to prove his is right? When you talk about God at the very beginning of the universe and then try to relate it to Christ you can see where it looks like God's a basically uninvolved piece of crap. The god of Abraham is not the Creator. Gods are nothing more than evolved beings. The Creator, the source completely different.And you can't say there's anything such as death if we're eternal. Spirit doesn't die, the body quits working and the spirit leaves the body. We are eternal.
On the contrary. God sent lots of people through history. People just rejected over and over again. Then he sent his son - people still rejected his son. In fact they killed him too.
This is my point. People want to be independent. Yet they need God.
I never said we are eternal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his Son so that whosoever trusts in him will have life and not death.Genesis 6:6-10 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7So the LORD said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created-and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground-for I regret that I have made them.""So loved the world! eh, "Tradey".
Absolutely. God regretted. But God loved. Don't forget God loved. I know you want to focus on the negative. But in doing so - you ALWAYS miss half the story. And the best bits at that.
Every Judge regrets sentencing people to prison. But he does that because he knows it is the right thing to do. Not only that - it is because he or she is sympathetic for the victims. You only demonstrate sympathy for the wicked. Your heart seems to line up with the wicked. That Stephen is your problem.
Created:
-->
@Lunar108
don't most religions claim one of those
I can't speak for other religions. You seem to have a perverted and misconstrued idea of Christian thought.
1.god created humans in the perfect shape ,
The bible never claims humanity was created perfect. Good - even very good. But not perfect. But let's say for the sake of the argument that God did create the perfect body, sin entered the world and distorted everything including the human body. The more the body lives in sin the more corrupt it gets. The more it is likely to have flaws and problems.
2.god have a plan for everyone ?
Yes and no. It stands to reason in one sense that God - the creator of the universe has a plan for every individual and item or subject or object in the universe. Obviously nothing can move or do anything without this said plan. Christians would call this the first cause. Yet Christians also talk of second causes.
Within this second cause God has plans for the world - but mostly it is a general application - with the overall primary purpose of reconciling himself with the world through Jesus. He ordains the ends - and the means. Yet how people's plans play out - are part of what the Christian calls second causes. Hence the notion of God having a plan for everyone is both true and false. One is part of the grand master plan - but on the second part - the plan is general and not specific.
3.religions tend to be extremely homophobic take islam and christianity for example.
Christianity is not homophobic. Some Christians are homophobic. Some atheists are homophobic. Homophobia is not related intrinsically to religion.
The Bible does call homosexuality sinful. It also calls Christians to love homosexuals and to treat them with respect and with dignity. Nevertheless, the Christian is called to call out sin - no matter what form that takes. I don't call that homophobia. For me homophobia is not simply disagreeing with homosexuality and calling it sin, it is about hate and violence. It is about causing people to be disliked simply because of homosexuality. Christians are not called to be homophobic anymore than they are called to call out sin in whatever form it is. Whether that be atheism, following another religion, fascism, socialism, lustful, greedy, selfish, drunkenness, laziness, theft, or pride and arrogance. Christians are called to call the pope sinful since he like the rest of us - is sinful.
perfect shape? a dude that cums from his @ss ?
Sin has created this situation. Not the man's personal sin, sin that has invested itself in humanity since Adam and Eve.
what are god's plans for this dude? , actually he is quite lucky to be born in our age if he was born like few centuries back he would probably be crucified or executed for having this medical issue. why ? homophobia .
I don't know God's plan for this man. Hopefully, it is to repent of his sins and turn to Jesus. Hopefully it is live a normal life as possible and to use his situation to demonstrate how much God loves him. No one needs to be identified by his color, or his sex, or his orientation, or his disabilities, or his sicknesses. If they are - then that is going to cause them discomfort when things are not in their own eyes - perfect. Christians are called to be identified as the redeemed of Christ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
I think your post applies more to lying preachers.Think indulgences and how St. Peters was build on the backs of Temple Prostitutes.
Nuh. Atheist scientists practice the divination of much magic. They are the evil priests of today.
They lie and cheat and steal and mock and rage. And yet they still cannot overcome death. Only one has overcome death.
O Brother, I can't help it. The evolutionists are full of magic. Jumping over themselves in a hurry to avoid the truth.
OF course truth is not the real issue for them. It never has been.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
You agree you should take responsibility, then put it on Jesus.
You twist things a lot don't you. We all die. That is the ultimate responsibility isn't?
Yet, we trust Jesus that after we die - we will live. Do you understand the concept of mercy?
Who is to die for your sins?
Jesus, the Messiah can. Why do you think that God cannot arrange things this way?
If the price of sin is death, then Yahweh died in Job 2;3 Where Yahweh admits to being moved by Satan to sin.
Again more twisting of words. God cannot sin. So Job is not making such an admission.
As to Jesus, where is it written that an immortal Jesus/god can die?
Jesus died as a man. God cannot die.
As to your "We don't use Jesus. God sent the Messiah. This was not only moral justified it was necessary. "God sent the messiah for you to use, and you say you refuse to do so.Rather ungrateful that.
LOL @ your twisting. We don't use Jesus. He rescues us. He does not throw out a life raft. He takes us drowned people and raises us to life.
Sinners don't have the capacity to save ourselves - we don't have the capacity to use God. LLOL @ you. We are TOTALLY dependent upon him for everything.
God is the author of salvation. God is our savior.
Created:
Posted in:
The essence of God is his independence. Everything is dependent upon him for everything.
The rest of everything is dependent upon God to exist, to think, to grow, to consider. etc.
Even before the Beginning, God was and is and will be.
When everything else began, and life was good or very good - everything understood and accepted total dependence upon God. The distinctive between God and creation.
God even placed humanity into his home on earth.
Then humanity - through temptation - external temptation, decided it did not need God, even though God had clearly enunciated that without God, he would surely die.
And so God seeing what man wanted gave him the earth to live on. an earth where man could be god and do whatever he wanted. A Humanity without God. He has gone out of his way to show he can be independent. He has increased knowledge. He has increased in number. He has increased in wealth. Yet he has destroyed many things along the way. The world is clearly the evidence of what happens when humanity does things without God.
But death remains the looming inevitability for every human. Human in all of his independence cannot overcome death. He might delay it for a while. But ultimately it comes to everyone. And ultimately death proves that humanity is not independent.
God however did not leave humanity entirely to himself. For every person who is prepared to acknowledge his dependence upon God there is hope and there is life. It is not simply coincidence that God himself became a man as the Christ - living totally dependent upon God the Spirit - to overcome the one thing that humanity has never defeated, death.
Jesus died - but rose again. The evidence for his resurrection is significant. It is the best fit for all of the data available - and alone explains - not only why the tomb was empty, all of the witness testimonies, the disciples' martyrdom, and the exponential growth of the church for the next several hundreds of years.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his Son so that whosoever trusts in him will have life and not death. This is God saying - if you want your independence, the cost is death - which ultimately shows you are dependent. If you trust me - then you will have life and life abundantly.
Jesus the savior - reveals implicitly, that all of creation is totally dependent upon God in all things.
The gospel simply tells this story about history.
Everything else - is white noise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
No physicist worth his label will say that the Big Bang came from nothing.There is always a small but really compact mass to explode.Est. are from a sugar cube size to a basket ball.Show any bonified physicist who says there was nothing before the Big Bang.
Of course they are not going to say that. The truth would destroy their reputations. And they know it. Rather it is easier to live in denial and float about pretending you are important. And the pay is good as well.
Created: