How the Bible Actually Works

Call me crazy, ...

I know this one: OK, you're a taxi.

No, wait, wrong punchline. OK, you're crazy.

 

quote:

---

"God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. For if you understand, you have failed."
     (Augustine of Hippo )

---

Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430 CE) is also known as "Saint Augustine," arguably the inventor of the Christianity. He obviously outranks you.

LOL.

They called Jesus crazy too, although He even outranks Augustine!

jar writes: Christianity in fact is about the most inconsistent of ALL the major religions when it comes to descriptions of the God they claim to worship.

I'd have to think about that...

So dwise1, why is the concept of Jesus as God (Given that at least One God *should* exist) so unreasonable.

Phat writes: You always reframe the issues based on what evidence you have (what the Bible says) and on logic, reason, and *skepticism*.

No Phat, that is NOT what I have ever said.

Phat writes: You seem to frame the issue presupposing that 1) God is found only in scripture. There are many mutually exclusive descriptions of Him. 2) God can only be found in the books. 3) "the Gods of scripture are just human constructs reflecting what people of an era and culture thought a God would be like"

Again, that is NOT what I presuppose; that is exactly what ALL of the evidence shows.

It is a conclusion Phat rather than a presumption. Can you even understand the difference between those two words and concepts?

Phat writes: Of that list, only the Jew is usually included with the Christians.

You really are crazy; Jews KNOW that God has no son. Period. Full stop.

Do you ever think about what you post?

I won't join the chorus of crazy calling.

First off, there is no "God" found anywhere other than human descriptions.

Yes, this is correct. And those descriptions are all over the map.

There's no doubt that some people believe that there's a God, but it is pretty clear that there is a lot of making stuff up. If there is a God, then He should be unchanging. But the descriptions of God in the Bible do change.

As to whether there is a God -- I don't know, and you likely cannot know either. I can live with that uncertainty. Can you?

jar writes: You really are crazy; Jews KNOW that God has no son. Period. Full stop. Do you ever think about what you post?

Messianic Jews would disagree. And based on what I've read, Jews don't presume to *know* what G-d does and does not have. They rejected Jesus as Messiah, not as possible "Son". He was one of them.

They reject Jesus as God's son.

And you are still just tap dancing.

What makes the idea of Jesus ever existing more plausible than Ganesha or Raven or Coyote or Zues or Odin or ... ?

Edited by jar, : No reason given.

So dwise1, why is the concept of Jesus as God (Given that at least One God *should* exist) so unreasonable.

No more unreasonable than any other claim of godhood. And no less so.

But the point of quoting Augustine of Hippo is to call into question of who elected you as the Oracle?

Phat writes: So dwise1, why is the concept of Jesus as God (Given that at least One God *should* exist) so unreasonable.

The fact that Phat accepts the concept that at least one God should exist is interesting.

Is there any reasoned argument to support the concept that at least one God should exist?

Even if an argument might be made that there was some initiator, and that initiator would be called a God, is there any reason to think the initiator would continue to exist after the instant of initiating?

Is there any reasoned argument to support the concept that at least one God should exist?

I believe that I've expressed my opinion on this here many times.

God is infinite; Man and Man's mind is finite. Anything even beginning to consider to approach the full scope of God would be infinitely beyond Man's ability to comprehend to any possible degree.

The main thrust of Christian thought (at least within Jesus Freakery of circa 1970 ... and beyond) is that there is an impassible gap between Man and God, which necessitates the Christ. Thus the Christ (which I differentiate from the personage of Jesus) was needed to bridge the gap between Man and God such that he needed to serve as an intermediary, the entire raison d'être for Christianity -- this imagery of "A Bridge over Troubled Waters" got used overly much. And the resultant gap between Christ and Man gave rise to Marianism in which the Virgin Mary came to serve as intermediary, as well as the various saints.

Even if an argument might be made that there was some initiator, and that initiator would be called a God, is there any reason to think the initiator would continue to exist after the instant of initiating?

I'm not a cultural anthropologist, but I feel certain that most if not all myths are based in some part to what we observe in nature.

The insect world seems particulary rife with examples. Leafing quickly past the females who immediately devour their mates immediately after or ever during copulation ... . I seem to recall some spiders where the parent who has been carrying the eggs around then becomes the first meal of the hatchlings.

How more epic could a creation be than to become incorporated into your own creation! Kind of like Tiamat, I would guess.

Any gods present to pipe in at this point?

Is there any reasoned argument to support the concept that at least one God should exist?

The only thing there is, jar, is the total lack of any evidence, other than negative, that such an entity exists. And, in this case, a total lack of any evidence for such a concept is the major fact in evidence against the concept.

Science is full of the philosophy that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But we also hold that, without any evidence, there is no justification for such speculations. This is where science divorces fantasy. Show evidence to support the hypothesis or the consideration fails.

Physics is the only reasoned argument available. There is no reasoned argument for this concept that any can cite. Gods fail.

… is there any reason to think the initiator would continue to exist after the instant of initiating?

The initiations that we know of eventually, with study, yield the initiator. We might be able to answer that question if the evidence of initiation could be analyzed. We have a long way to go on that.

So, if god, God, GOD or gOd, initiated the universe, would it then just up and disappear? You could speculate that the case if the initiator’s entire being had to be dissolved into the creation. Or we could just speculate there is no god, God, GOD or gOd.

Frankly, I think the Matrix is exceptionally well coded and finding the user interface then the initiation command sequence is going to be tough.

Edited by AZPaul3, : title

What we think of reality could just be a brain dreaming in a bottle. It makes sense, because what science claims to have found about the real world is too weird to be true. I mean, come on, wave/particle duality? A standard model that stubbornly refuses to give up the secrets of the universe? Dark matter that throws its weight around but refuses to be seen? Dark energy that will eventually crack the universe apart? Time and space relative? Trillions of stars tantalizingly visible but with a speed limit that makes visiting them impossible.

And here on Earth, a dominant life form that would rather think itself right than live? That is destroying its home while denying all responsibility and ignoring solutions? Who can put a camera, a video camera, a phone, a video phone, and a powerful computer in a small thin rectangular disk that they use to rave like lunatics and share important information about yesterday's lunch and mining ethereal data bits in clouds.

There's no doubt it's a brain in a bottle. Or maybe an intelligent magnetic plasma cloud drifting through a space that rationally consists of only two particle types of opposite charge and where nothing is relative.

Notice, no God.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Phat writes: I will never convince anyone at EvC that believers (some, at any rate) have had an encounter with God. I ask myself why I even keep trying.

Because you're whistling in the dark. You're trying to convince yourself, not anybody else.

Phat writes: Call me crazy...

The consensus seems to be that you're crazy. Are you the only genuine Napoleon in the asylum?

Phat writes: ... but I say to get a clue.

So give us a clue. But you keep telling us there aren'y any.

Phat writes: You all will have opportunities in your lives to change your mind.

Yes indeed. I used to think like you do but I changed my mind.

I mean, come on, wave/particle duality? A standard model that stubbornly refuses to give up the secrets of the universe? Dark matter that throws its weight around but refuses to be seen? Dark energy that will eventually crack the universe apart? Time and space relative? Trillions of stars tantalizingly visible but with a speed limit that makes visiting them impossible.

If I may steal a thought from ringo in another thread, these aren't problems to be solved but gifts to the human intellect. Think of these as additional exercises in sharpening our understanding of the universe. Kind of advanced study modules from Brilliant.org.

And here on Earth, a dominant life form that would rather think itself right than live? That is destroying its home while denying all responsibility and ignoring solutions?

Sounds like the local apes got uppity after finishing their first few modules on Brilliant. We got the technology parts but skipped on the social responsibility parts.

Who can put a camera, a video camera, a phone, a video phone, and a powerful computer in a small thin rectangular disk that they use to rave like lunatics and share important information about yesterday's lunch and mining ethereal data bits in clouds.

You forgot to mention the cats. The initial killer app that made the internet. Sharing pictures of our cats.

Ok, so the depth of intellect is not uniform in the population.

Notice, no God.

Brain in a bottle has the same intellectual structure as god done it and carries a similar weight of evidence ... none at all.

If we must make up fantasies as creation myths I think a more interesting universe would be the Lewis Carroll worlds of Douglas Adams. Zebra crossings can be very instructive.

ringo writes: You're trying to convince yourself, not anybody else.

Oh I'm convinced! I am unafraid to question God, but I never have doubts. It is you guys who keep trying to introduce doubts into my thought process.

Everything in the world that we live in centers around Jesus Christ. I'm not talking about religion, either. You will of course ask me for a reasoned argument.

How about

1 Peter 2:4-8 writes: As you come to him, the living Stone-rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him- 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone," 8 and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message which is also what they were destined for.

See? This scripture not only mentions Jesus as the chief cornerstone (and Capstone which the builders rejected, preferring the eye of Baal.....ref dollar bill) but it emphasizes the message. I realize that you have been right all along regarding my need to listen to Jesus. I am simply challenging you in regards to doing the same rather than throwing away God's Son simply to be humanist imitations of the Creator. In that regard, you are building on human logic, reason, and perceived reality and ignoring the Creator....but I suppose you could argue that following the message will prevent your damnation. I never liked the idea of a God Who sends people to hell. For the record, I believe that if hell exists, the only way we would end up there is by us rejecting the message. In essence, we send ourselves there. You will likely argue that any "God" worth their salt would *not create attractive nuisances nor allow *anyone* to fail.

That is not a reasoned argument. That is religious apologetics

This is another one of those "obey or else" threats that are the cornerstone and the capstone of the christian power scam that has been in play for 2000 years.

Everything in the world that we live in centers around Jesus Christ. I'm not talking about religion, either.

Everything in the world that we live in centers around a molten iron core. I'm not talking about religion, either. There is no jesus down there nor anywhere else.

Your version of jesus is a charlatan.