Who Made God?

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: 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.

"Making Sense of the Old Testament" is kind of a bad way to start. It assumes that the Old Testament will "make sense" if you look at it "correctly". That's the beginning of dishonesty right there.

Stop spamming us with these links and actually bring the arguments here.

Phat writes: The main reason is that I am only now understanding and absorbing the arguments in order to articulate the response which I feel.

Well, you've absorbed enough to decide that they're "high quality". That should be enough to articulate a response.

Or does "high quality" just mean they tell you what you want to hear?

Phat writes: For another, there are no transcripts from which to quote.

If there's nothing to quote, you don't need to quote. Use your own words.

Phat writes: 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.

There's no belief and no audacity. The scripture says what it says. If you want to claim that it doesn't mean what it says, you need something extraordinary to back up that claim. The onus is on you to pony up the backup.

Phat writes: 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.

Yet you and all the other Apologists have NEVER presented a process, procedure, method or mechanism to explain how anyone can actually find Jesus or GOD other than through what has been written in the Bible.

Phat writes: 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.

Which is all simply yet another example of your ********** as you have no idea what Mama said, mama said.

Fool!

But there is yet more glaring falsehoods in what you post. First the evidence is overwhelming that people find god through the religion they happen to be born into. Other find god in "Conversion" experiences. People find god through the Glorious Qu'ran, the writings of Mencius and Confucius, through Tao Chi or through any one of the many Hindu Esthetics.

Second there is reality and fantasies can be tested against reality.

What happens when you test the claims and writings of the apologists against reality?

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.

Phat writes: You claim that the characters are only found in the book and have no life of their own outside of the book.

How is that an "overall interpretation"? It's an obvious fact - and one that applies to a lot of books.

Phat writes: The book itself says that the characters pre-existed the book...

You can't use the book itself to back up the book itself to back up the book itself to back up the book itself to back up the book itself to back up the book itself to back up the book itself....

Phat writes: Did it ever occur to you that this is not simply another science experiment.?

No. Why would you suggest that it isn't?

Phat writes: 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 have it backwards. I can see what works. The people have to help each other if there's going to be any help because your God is flat-out not doing it. I could see that whether or not I had ever heard of the Bible.

Phat writes: I'm not sure why you are an atheist, but I will again ask.

I don't self-identify as an atheist. I self-identify as agnostic.

My reasoning is similar to your reasoning about the Tooth Fairy: it's just a silly idea. And the idiotic theology that you spout doesn't make it any less silly.

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

Phat writes: So what about Jesus?

There is no evidence that Jesus actually lived other than the stories; no independent confirmation. And there is overwhelming evidence that "Jesus" as recorded in the stories and traditions is a creation of human minds just like all the Gods and gods.

The Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels is quite different than the Jesus of the Gospel of John or the seven different descriptions of Jesus in the letters to the churches in Revelation.

It is certain that Jesus was not at all like the creations depicting Jesus in images and statues.

So the existence of Jesus just as the existence of some god can only be a matter of belief; a symbol rather than the thing itself. As a symbol it is closer to apple than middle c.

See? This is what confuses and even annoys me about your beliefs. Of course they are personal and are yours alone...but how you can claim to be a Christian when the very Christ on whom the name is based is said by you to be a human creation? And then you have the gall to ask other Christians how they know that Jesus lives, or the Holy Spirit lives, or the God we market lives. Sad at best and Scary at worst.

The way that I can and will answer that is based on what I make of myself the next few years. And yes, I agree with you now that Christianity is measured by what we do rather than simply what we believe.

I always ask you what about the apologists. Granted you have opened my eyes as to the many instances of fantasy based thinking, dishonesty, and willful ignorance within Biblical Christianity.
But you dont see God the way I see God. Which is OK...hey, to each his own. But the way you describe Jesus is troubling. How you can wear the badge that says Christian is only because of your empathy and critical thinking skills, coupled with your inclusive (as opposed to exclusive) belief system. The Left Christians may take you. I still see you as more of a humanist, however. I see myself as all in regarding the living Christ. Now, my main challenge is to show ringo that understand and do what the good book says. Or to show Jesus. Or to show myself.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

There is no evidence that Jesus actually lived other than the stories; no independent confirmation. And there is overwhelming evidence that "Jesus" as recorded in the stories and traditions is a creation of human minds just like all the Gods and gods.

There was (and most likely still is, since they never make any progress) a proselytizing script based on a catch-phrase (by C.S. Lewis, I seem to recall): "So based on the claims he made about himself, what was Jesus? Lunatic, Liar, or Lord?" -- c. 1970 (my time among the Jesus Freaks) there was even a Chick Pubs tract with 3-L as its title and main argument.

That leaves out the fourth and far more important "L": Legend. What the New Testament and associated works (eg, church fathers, theologians, preachers, street proselytizers) described is a legend, not an actual person or demi-god.

The entire question of whether an actual person, Jesus, actually lived is completely meaningless. The Legend is the important thing and the Legend exists whether the actual person existed or not. And whether such a person did anything that's attributed to the Legend.

It doesn't take long for a legend to arise, even when based on an actual person. If Jesus actually lived, his conversion to legend took maybe a couple/few generations. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln actually lived, but they became legends very quickly, within decades. Every schoolchild learns their legends (eg, Father's cherry tree, Honest Abe), but rarely who and what they actually were.

The process of turning a person into a legend takes even less time. In less than three years, Trump became a legend who is a God recast in the image of the legendary Rambo complete with a shirtless muscular body, star-spangled head band, and an AR-15 in either hand -- actually, that shirtless look is probably taken from Trump's own god, Vladimir Putin. Of course the real Trump is nothing at all like the legend, but then that's how the process usually works.

In Jesus' case, he was either recast or created out of whole cloth in the image of Mithra. The person, Jesus, is unimportant. It is the Legend, Jesus, that is important.

Phat writes: This is what confuses and even annoys me about your beliefs.

Lear how to read Phat.

What I posted was not beliefs but rather the evidence that actually exists as opposed to the dogma marketed.

What does the evidence show Phat?

Explain why the descriptions of Jesus in the Synoptic gospels vs the Gospel of John or the letters to the seven churches found in Revelations are so different?

Does the evidence show that each of those is simply a creation of the author or authors/editors/translators/redactors of each passage?

Phat writes: And then you have the gall to ask other Christians how they know that Jesus lives, or the Holy Spirit lives, or the God we market lives.

More than just asking those questions I also ask "What do those bumper stickers even mean?" and the response has always been deafening silence.

Phat writes: I see myself as all in regarding the living Christ.

And yet again; "What does that even mean?"

Phat writes: ...but how you can claim to be a Christian when the very Christ on whom the name is based is said by you to be a human creation?

That's what I keep asking you. You dismiss the Bible as a dusty old book and you deny what the closest thing to an objective version of Christ said. It's blindingly obvious that YOUR version of Christ is made up by you.