Who Made God?

I'm listening to two who are very good. They provide a persuasive argument. Of course, Theodoric won't trust Dr.Ravi Zacharias, who is one of them, but I await any evidence that shows Ravi to be in error. He is joined by Vince Vitale, whom I have listened to with increasing admiration the past couple of weeks. (I listen to audio podcasts and books on audible. ) I may in fact start a new topic over in Book Nook.
Here is another great audio podcast by an apologist named Cameron McAllister. He indeed has a refreshing outlook which I respect. It would be a challenge for some of you to ridicule or poke holes in his basic arguments.

In addition, I need to know what you and jar define as dishonesty? jar might think that anyone who claims that Jesus is God is, in fact, being dishonest. He once claimed that the Apostle Paul himself played "fast and loose" with the truth.

You yourself claim that many Biblical stories and beliefs are "childish fairytales." Granted, I agree with both of you in that a majority of today's Biblical Christian teachers are simply parroting earlier dogma from earlier teachers and that few Christian teachers and preachers ever have an original thought. It is an interesting argument, though it annoyed me when initially presented by both of you. I am of the belief that the Bible is inspired...and yet you accuse me of not listening to what it says. I feed people, ringo. Fear not. I may not let go of the spare change as easily as you might, but I have to look out for my own future. I was a gambling addict for many years and I have saved virtually nothing for my retirement even now at Age 60. I don't trust that the secular humanists are going to take care of me anytime soon. I struggle to trust God and I DO feel that I should trust humanity a bit more than I do, but after listening to some of the apologetic arguments and contrasting them with the secular arguments which I hear at EvC, I realize that either my faith (in humanity) will have to increase or my belief in God needs to get stronger.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Allow me to frame this argument with a bigger picture. We are talking about Truth and Lies.

Some believe that humanity itself is incapable of truth in the way that the Bible describes it. They would argue that Jesus is a man full of truth while satan was essentially the father of lies, and that no truth can be found in him. Going with this belief, Genesis was written after the Fall, so the writers were fallible men. Im not arguing against you pointing out what the words actually say. I'm basically saying that the apologetic argument that teaches that Adam and Eve fell out of the pure truth circle and became aware of the alternative. The snake may well have been a plot device, but he accomplished his job. If the snake represents Satan, there is no way that any truth could come out of him. Jesus said so later..(referring to the devil, not specifically the snake)

I would say somebody is dishonest if he tries to make the Bible say something it doesn't say - for example, claiming that God told the truth and the snake lied.

All I'm saying is that God by definition cannot lie(why would He even need to?) and that if the snake is satan, than according to later verses in the Bible there would be no truth in him.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile

ringo writes: If He is omnipotent, how can there be things He can not do?

Based on that logic, God could *even* not exist and yet exist, (since He can do anything!

You asked me about *honest* apologists---and I have been reading a very good book written by two.
Ravi Zacharias is an apologist who has been plagued with some controversy in his life, which to some diminishes his credibility. He was involved in a lawsuit, settled out of court (and using no ministry funds) by a couple who claimed he corresponded with the wife and accepted nude photos. Zacharias admitted that he should have been more careful about exposing himself to such possible attacks on his character, but upon examing the 2017 allegations and subsequent settlement One prominant critic said

quote:

---

I've been worried for 20 years about someone finally doing exactly this: calling Ravi Zacharias to account for inflating his academic credentials.
He's certainly not the only one who has done it, and this article is harsher than it has to be. But just as God has used RZ to bless people in positive ways, may his shortcomings also stand as an instruction to the rest of us who, apparently like him and certainly like me, are tempted to make more of ourselves and our little accomplishments than we ought. (...) I raised the problem with an RZIM associate more than a dozen years ago--the only person I felt I could approach quietly and in a friendly way. She didn't disagree but wasn't in a position (at the time) to confront. It's hard when everybody's job depends on The Big Man, and everything else seems to be going well, and... Anyhow, I was disappointed that the practice not only continued but expanded: It is so easy for someone who actually is an academician to spot this kind of credential inflation, I'm surprised this hasn't surfaced much earlier.
It seems so sadly unnecessary.

---

All honesty and alleged dishonesty aside, I agree with Stackhouse when he says above: "

quote:

---

In my experience, an audience generally is impressed with one's credentials for about the first two minutes one speaks--and then you are what you are, baby. If you're good, the audience appreciates it, and if you're bad, no amount of credentialing will make up for it.[

---

I don't trust many of the atheist speakers because I feel that they have an ax to grind and, in fact, I believe in the concept of a very real spiritual war(which you call childish). Nevertheless, I respect some of the atheist speakers and academicians as very honest, sincere, and well learned. Matt Dillahunty is one of my favorites. He really causes me to think.

In conclusion, I don't believe that all Christian Apologists seek to misdirect and "palm the pea" as jar asserts. It is simply a defense of a belief that most of you do not share.

Oh, and about one who I think is honest as the day is long? Vince Vitale. Doubtless, because he is associated with RZIM, many will doubt his credentials because of that. I will freely admit that there are many conmen in organized religion, and I feel I can spot them, though I am likely not as critical as many of you are. You wouldnt even give them an opportunity to present a case.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

PaulK writes: After reading about Ravi Zacharias’ attempt to blame atheism for the Holocaust - tenuous links based in misrepresentations - i can’t consider him an honest person. Especially since a stronger case could be made against Christianity.

That actually would be a good argument. Let me see if we have a topic already started...
hmmm...any ideas?

Every God, jar? How did humans create Jesus? How does all of the evidence point to this? Or is it just that you don't prefer the Jesus as marketed? Do you see the obvious attempts at anthropomorphization? You seem to agree with the group of scholars who accuse the religion of undergoing change, which to me simply means that you are biased. Both sides present a case unless you can prove to me that the apologists are lying. Why don't you believe their story? You once said that if the God that traditional apologetics marketed were real you would likely laugh at such a God. Why is this? Let's just suppose that Billy Graham's message was the Truth. What aspects of this truth would alienate you? What did your Mama warn you about? Why are they *all* snake oil salesmen? I only see evidence that some of them are, and I dont reject the story...likely because (according to you) it fits my fantasy. Do you reject the story because of the lack of evidence alone? Or would you likely reject it if there were evidence to support it?

I meant that jar makes a case that the book evolved and changed even during its inception. While evidence shows this to be true, I sense a defense of the earlier world view and a disdain for the later worldview within the book itself. Religions change because people change. Science and Scientism have now become the dominant belief system. Look at your boys...The New Atheists.
They essentially believe:

There is something called "Faith" which can be defined as unjustified belief held in the teeth of the evidence. Faith is primarily a matter of false propositional belief.

The cure for faith is science: The existence of God is a scientific question: either he exists or he doesn't. "Science is the only way of knowing – everything else is just superstition"~Robert L Park

Science is the opposite of religion and will lead people into the clear sunlit uplands of reason. "The real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition" [Jerry Coyne] "I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented." [Dawkins]

In this great struggle, religion is doomed. Enlightened common sense is gradually triumphing and at the end of the process, humanity will assume a new and better character, free from the shackles of religion. Without faith, we would be better as well as wiser. Conflict is primarily a result of a misunderstanding, of which Faith is the paradigm. (Looking for links, I just came across a lovely example of this in the endnotes to the Selfish Gene, where lawyers are dismissed as "solving man-made problems that should never have existed in the first place".)

Religion exists. It is essentially something like American fundamentalist Protestantism or Islam. More moderate forms are false and treacherous: if anything even more dangerous because they conceal the raging, homicidal lunacy that is religion's true nature. [Sam Harris]

Faith, as defined above, is the most dangerous and wicked force on earth today and the struggle against it and especially against Islam will define the future of humanity. [Everyone]

Regarding the New Atheists(as opposed to older classical arguments regarding atheism, the last two points are indicative of the newer group.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

“As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

Was Pauls message the same as Jesus message then?

Cameron McAllister is another of the RZIM group that provides a stimulating an honest cultural commentary on the times and beliefs which we all share and individually hold.
https://www.rzim.org/listen/thinking-out-loud

Note the list of topics.

I don't know the extent and to what degree, Ravi was found in his sins. Everyone must ultimately be accountable for their actions. I don't judge the overall character of a man by the sins which he commits. There is not one of you (nor I) who do not have a skeleton or two in their closet. And the quality of the apologetic arguments is not dependent on the character flaws...real, imagined, exaggerated or proven--that Zacharias had done. Of course, to you, it discredits any other intelligence the man may have...but even dismissing his input does not detract from the other apologists under the ministry. Overall, I still rate that ministry as better than average content and I support the world views espoused. This whole idea that only the Christian apologists lie and con people is unrealistic. I suppose that you think that Dawkins, Harris, Carrier, (the late Hitchens) and Dennet have sterling character and are above reproach.

Which would tend to be a biased belief in human character being selective?

But I will agree with you to strike Ravi's credibility, for the sake of argument.
But you have yet to show me that the ministry of RZIM is either willfully or unknowingly dishonest. The other apologists have actual college degrees, (not that this in and of itself means anything) good and persuasive arguments, and an approach to defending their world view that appears honest to me. And as to what kind of social justice warrior would bother with a raviwatch webpage shows me an antichristian bias and agenda. Whats their motive? Let he who is without sin cast stones....

I maintain that the apologists at RZIM are honest and thoughtful.

So what is it with all this audio and video that you never bother to quote ?

I cant find the transcripts. I suppose I could bother to type it out...but I dont spend a lot of time here when I work.

It’s as if you’re afraid that we’ll spot the dishonesty.

Nonsense. If I thought there was dishonesty, I wouldnt post the information to begin with. As I have mentioned elsewhere, Ravi has had his day and has been found guilty yet I'm not sure I trust RaviWatch. Who in the heck are they? Where is their credentials? I tend to believe that there are people who want to discredit Christians. I know that if I stepped out of line even a little, I would get crucified as well. Im not convinced Ravi was anything apart from careless and afraid of discrediting his ministry. The ministry itself has a good reputation, apart from his blunder.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Then why did you once claim that Paul was trying to start a new religion?

And why does your interpretation of Christianity differ from the mainstream? (And why does ringo, an atheist, agree with you and defend a worldview based on interpretation of Genesis 3 and Matthew 25? Finally, why are *most* of the apologist's liars and conmen? I have yet to understand the charge.

jar writes: I didn't make the claim but simply pointed out the evidence and ALL of the evidence says that Paul was trying to market a new religion. BUT there was never "Paul's message™" rather the message changed over time as it became necessary to try to apologize for the utter failings of what was earlier marketed.

First, I might point out that attempting to approach the Bible scientifically is not the only approach nor, in my opinion, the best approach for studying it. It leads to erroneous conclusions such as you and ringos insistence that the only place a human can "find' Jesus and various human interpretations of "God" is literally within the book. And when the so-called redactors who wrote john claim that in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word *was* God, you simply gloss over this observation as a literary plot device of humans. The only way that you will "find God" in scripture is if He wrote Himself into the plot. You won't find Shakespeare in Hamlet either, for Shakespeare *never* wrote himself into that plot. We would claim that there is one uniform God of scripture, despite your conclusion (based *yawn* on evidence derived as a result of your scientific approach) and thus there is no One God in the Bible. I see that humans described different natures and thus had different "god characters" but what I see is humans describing their impression of God as they understood Him and that this in no way limits God to the book. You arrive at your own erroneous conclusion that Jesus was a fallible human the same way. Who gives a flying leap whether or not he got mad in the Temple? It was His Fathers house, for crying out loud. People seem to think that God has no right to get mad, to impress the necessity of brutal military tactics on armies formed by His people, or to change His mind(learn on the job, as you so glibly put it) as if we humans create Him as a mere literary character. There is no difference between creating Long John Silver and God if you conclude that you are simply describing a character in a book, but what if Long John Silver led to an entire human cult of worship where humans justified human actions through his(His) influence and altered the course of history. At that point, one would question just how this long John Silver character caused humans to do both good and bad things in their own personal environments far removed from their church or their reading room. Also, keep in mind that if Long John Silver was for many decades the *only* reading book in the room, (even as is true among illiterate Christians today) the book itself would exert more possible influence as life imitates art.

In the final analysis, you would conclude that the "evidence" showed precisely what it showed...and that the book should be approached with such scientific methodology. I argue that the Bible is (and should be) approached with more than simple scientific methodology. You guys seem to think that science alone echos our (way of knowing things--Stile) and dismiss Faith & Belief and subjective experience as being in any way comparable. It is why you charge believers with providing evidence for you. (A wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign) you tell everyone not to *drink the Koolaid* because you were warned years ago by your sweet mama never to trust those carny barkers known as Christian Apologists and Preachers. She must have seen evidence that they wre *all* fake.

ringo writes: f the apologetics are high-quality, why do you keep refusing to discuss them with us?

The main reason is that I am only now understanding and absorbing the arguments in order to articulate the response which I feel. For another, there are no transcripts from which to quote. I can quote scripture, but you have your own preconceived "belief" as to what it means and you even have the audacity to *show* believers where they are wrong. One of these days when I get the time I will try and formulate a response in my own words...in fact, I may try this morning as I have a couple of hours. Perhaps God respects your methodology more than I do, I dunno. He has already confirmed much of your "its the message, stupid" argument to me, though He and I argue about why and how you can get away with your argument by throwing Him away.

Phat writes: Dont you have an overall interpretation of your own?

ringo writes: No more than I have an overall interpretation of the library.

Which you do. You claim that the characters are only found in the book and have no life of their own outside of the book. The book itself says that the characters pre-existed the book, but you frame that issue in the context of human authors of the book. Like jar, you ask what the evidence supports. Did it ever occur to you that this is not simply another science experiment.?

ringo writes: I do point out where the scriptures get it right and where believers get it wrong.

You use the scriptures to point out how they support your secular belief in a government of by and for the people that helps its own. You adopt the message to your political and humanist ideology. I'm not sure why you are an atheist, but I will again ask.

Is it because you observed that Christians obeyed the message evn less than some secular people you knew?

Is it because you found evidence that called into question the authorship of the Book?

Is it because you never felt that warm fuzzy certainty that God was real and alive? Or did you throw away that feeling based on lack of objective evidence?

I observe you and Stile going round and round. In some ways you two are alike and in some ways you are different. You are different in that you claim to always be looking for God as a useful realistic pursuit, whereas he declares the reasoning why he concludes there is none.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

“As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

Theodoric, to Faith writes: I reject your concept of a god totally and completely. If your god existed I would tell him to fuck himself for all of the misery he has caused.

This reminds me of a Chapter in the RZIM book. You likely will ignore it due to the indiscretions of Ravi, but I still see the message of the ministry as rational.
Moreover, after examining the evidence you gave me, I conclude..(tentatively) that
1) Ravi did, in fact, have communication with the woman. It is unclear by the blacked-out texts and court insinuations from the woman how guilty he was at exploiting/pursuing her. I tend to see it as she and her husband attempting to extort him. Nevertheless, I will take your evidence into consideration when judging his character, despite the fact that everyone sins and makes mistakes. Ravi blew it, quite frankly...by even trying to interact with that person. They likely felt that broader public disclosure would have hurt the ministry...not through Ravi being a snake (which I don't believe he was..) but by calling into question his character.
I will agree that he also blundered by exaggerating his credentials. That is not relevant in regards to the ministry in that I see many apologists there with valid and honest credentials and education, likely due to the fact that they purposefully went that direction after Ravi's careless blunders.

You have a bias against Christianity and apologetics anyway, so I expect it from you. You might argue that I have a similar bias that Christians are better than other people and always deserve a free pass of forgiveness, so we are even in that regard.

Getting back to what the RZIM leaders present in the podcasts is my focus, however. I see no snake oil there.

It appears you are biased towards the God marketed by either Faith herself or in probability Christianity in general. You might even say that what you object to is clearly contained within scripture. My question is that if you were to believe that a higher power existed, what attributes would *you* expect such a higher power to have? You seem big on integrity. What would it take for this Higher Power to do or to exhibit that would gain your respect, if not worship?

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

jar writes: I understand there is no such thing as "the God of the Bible" and that there is no consistent characterization of any God or god in the Bible. I understand that the God in Genesis 1 is an entirely different creation than the much older God found in Genesis 2&3. Humans created the God of Genesis 2&3 and much later humans created the God of Genesis 1. Even earlier humans created Ganesha and Ra and Nut and Horus and Saturn and Hypnos and Eros. Later humans created Allah. They are all the product of the human mind. At least the Buddha and Confucius and Lao-Tzu have a basis in reality and actually existed.

So what about Jesus?

If anyone watches the audience reactions in this song, I would be interested on your comments regarding their emotional experience.

Edited by Phat, : added video