The Tension of Faith

Not really. I freely admit to being clueless about GOD's character or anything much related to GOD. I do not try to create a God and pretend it reflects GOD.You and Faith and millions of other Christians as well as all of the authors and editors and redactors that wrote the Bible stories though claim to be able to describe GOD's character. Unfortunately you all have different ideas on that and so you create millions of GOD's. It's not new, you can see it in the Bible stories themselves, the God character reflects the needs of that particular story. There is no attempt to create some universal God but rather a tacit unstated assumption that there is some composite but undefined GOD that is made from all the different caricatures.

GOD, if GOD actually exists and really is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, would definitely not be just a human. GOD, if GOD exists and really is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, and definitely not a human, would be unlikely to show distinctly human traits or attributes.Terms like He, She, It, really can have no meaning when applied to something that is neither human or any other natural life form. Those are all terms humans use to describe the gods they create. They are comfortable terms; familiar terms; understandable terms.Jesus, if Jesus actually existed and is worthy of having any meaning for us though must have been just human; not chimera, not man/god, but just human. If you were one of many children, how would you feel if your father favored the others over you?If GOD actually exists, and really is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, should GOD favor one creation over the others? Would it be unreasonable for GOD to say "You know, pond scum never gives me any trouble. Pond scum is such a good child."

Or perhaps humans give human traits to the gods they create.But even there, the Bible is contradictory. The God found in Genesis 1 does not interact with any of creation; that God is aloof and separate, overarching but never contacting or interacting with what is created.

Actually, all I do is ask how someone can determine they are communicating with a God?When I communicate with someone there are several lines of verification. One is to test prior knowledge, compare the current communication to ones in the past. The more personal the communication, the more often there is a communication, the more possibilities for verification exist. There are other methods; for example here you had to verify who you were through a password system. It's possible someone hacked your account but then they are also replicating both style and content and have access to past communications between us as well.There is additional evidence since other people can read and respond to the posts, the communion between Phat and jar, and in doing so verify the content and style.So what are the methods that someone can employ to verify that the conversation is actually between the individual and a god?Beyond that, what are the tests to see if it is some particular God?Then what are the tests to see if it is not just a god or God but GOD?The Books of the Bible are not describing "a God whom we created" but rather a whole host of different and often contradictory Gods, each created to serve some purpose within a given narrative.Look at the God character found in 2Kings 5. That God is the God of Israel, not the God of Judah or Syria or any place else. It is a God having power over a given area and given people which is why Naaman needs the two donkey loads of dirt. Naaman needs the soil so that it extends the God of Israel's influence into the territory of yet another local God.(there are a bunch of other important lessons in that story as well)

Yet the Bible also tells us that God's Commandments are not absolute but that even common courtesy should take precedence over the commandments. An example from the Old Testament can be found in 2Kings 5 when Elisha tells Naaman not to get his panties in a wad just because he goes with his master to worship Rimmon and bows to Rimmon and from the New Testament Jesus himself tells us that even common sense should override God's commandment when he points out that if you ass falls in a crack on the Sabbath you should not wait until the next day to pull it out.And the Bible itself tells us that Man has the capability and responsibility to also know what is right and wrong just as God. That's it!It is only the Christian Cult of Ignorance that does not seem to understand anything the Bible or Jesus might teach us.

We will live as long as we live and hopefully learn from our mistakes, acknowledge our failings, try our best to make amends and to not repeat those mistakes.

Thank you for agreeing that God's commandments are not authoritative, that humans have the ability and responsibility to determine what is right and wrong and that even common sense and courtesy trump God's commandments.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

God expects us to think.The gift in Genesis 2&3 was the ability to know right from wrong. I pity the fool that thinks that is true. How utterly sad that position is.

As long as it does nothing when you click on it it is evidence that it does nothing. Should I click on it and it actually does something then that is clear and direct evidence that it is not a Do Nothing button regardless of how it is labeled.

And I pity the Christians that see what Paul and the others wrote as pieces parts, bumper sticker, carny freak show one liners.Jesus message was for THIS life; it is the snake oil salesmen that sell the afterlife.

The evidence seems to show that it is not the story of Christ at all but rather the political fact of Christianity becoming the State Religion of the dominate world wide power in the West that was the effective factor. This is also true for most other religions; it is not the tenets of any given religion that are the driving force but rather the political, cultural and economic advantages that effect change.Christianity became the dominate force when the choice was prosper as a Christian or die as a Heathen.The same is seen in other religions, Islam in countries where the government is Muslim, Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism in ares where the current power is in the hands of one of those religions.The fantasy that Christianity was spread based on the story is simply that; a cute story.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

People decide based on their pocketbook or life. Christianity was spread not by hope but by fear and threat; often by imposed power and law. Until recently to be an open atheist or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist in a Christian dominated State meant a direct threat to your livelihood, often even your life.But wait, there's more. Often being a Roman Catholic Christian in a Protestant Christian dominated State meant the same direct threat to your livelihood, often even your life. Often being a Protestant Christian in a Roman Catholic Christian dominated State meant the same direct threat to your livelihood, often even your life. And the list goes on. Pennsylvania was established as a refuge for Quakers who were persecuted by the Pilgrims, Maryland as a Roman Catholic refuge from the Protestant Church of England.

Now that has to be among your silliest posts yet Faith.Of course Christianity recognizes Judaism; hell, Jesus was a Jew not a Christian.

Sorry but that is just nuts Phat as well as demonstrably false. Lots and lots of folk believe that some message is true and has great value when in fact the message is plain bollix.All it is evidence of is the fact that the messenger may believe that the message is true and has great value and says absolutely nothing about whether or not there really is any validity or value.

You listen to John Locke and test the message against logic, reason and reality but remember that reality always trumps logic or reason. They certainly generate cash flow. If there is to be a future then there can be no future for Biblical Christianity except as a limited cult. I can think of no greater waste of time or energy than a spiritual war of ideas.