Can Christians understand this principle? You can try to argue your God into existence, but by doing so you just end up living a lie.Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.
What Truth Is
Moderator: Moderators
What Truth Is
Post #1The warrior Miyamoto Musashi said:
Re: What Truth Is
Post #11[Replying to post 9 by William]
As I see it, the being you try to argue into existence only exists there--in arguments. The Jews created him with a lot of help from pagans. Here's an excerpt from my upcoming book, Jesus: Human, Hoax, or God?:My theology assumes an original creator being has always existed and the assumption is purely logical.
Thus it is not a matter of trying to argue such a creator into existence as the creator exists whether we wish to accept that logic or not.
So no, it is not 'living a lie'. It is living with the knowledge that the local conclusion to make is that such an eternal entity MUST exist.
So there's no way that the Bible god can exist outside of the pages of scripture. A created god cannot create anything except a lot of trouble.As might be commonly understood monotheism comes into play later when the Hebrews wrote their scriptures. What may not be so well known is that Judaism started out as polytheism. The god of the Biblical Abraham, El, had an entire family. His consort was Ashtoreth, his senior son was Baal, and his daughter was Anath, distinguished as the Queen of Heaven. The Semitic scholar Dr. Raphael Patai maintains that the Yahweh acronym YHWH was originally a consonental reference to these four members of the family of God. Y represented the father, H the mother, W the son, and H the daughter. (1)
It was not until about 1060 BCE, nearly 1,000 years after Abraham, that Israel “put away� these gods and “served the Lord only.� (1 Samuel 7:4 NRSV) Even then the Ashtoreth culture returned with the building of King Solomon's Temple. Moreover, El's daughter Anath appears a number of times in the Hebrew Bible in her role as Queen of Heaven. For instance, in Jeremiah 7:18 the Lord protests that in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem the people make cakes for The Queen of Heaven and pour out drink offerings to her. (2)
(1) Gardner, Laurence, The Origin of God, Brokenhurst Hants, dash house, 2010, Page 50
(2) Ibid, Page 51
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14376
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 922 times
- Been thanked: 1666 times
- Contact:
Re: What Truth Is
Post #12[Replying to post 11 by Jagella]
As I said, it is a logical conclusion to make. Humans naturally had to move into ideas of creator beings as part of the evolving of their understanding.
♦Is Belief in a GOD simply the yearnings of our ancestors to make sense of the incomprehensible?
IF (as logic persists there must be) an overall entity exists who is entirely responsible for All That Is, THEN It is far more likely to always be far ahead of any human idea about It.
Thus what you are referring to has to do with ancient ideas which have not evolved with human understanding and knowledge of their situation.
♦If the idea of GOD is 'evolving', then what's the problem? If 'static' then yes - therein is the problem.
♦The idea that GOD is the same 'yesterday, today and forever' can be aligned with the idea of a GOD evolving within the understanding of human beings.
What my theology is about has nought to do with how humans decided to clothe such an idea of a being.As I see it, the being you try to argue into existence only exists there--in arguments. The Jews created him with a lot of help from pagans.
As I said, it is a logical conclusion to make. Humans naturally had to move into ideas of creator beings as part of the evolving of their understanding.
♦Is Belief in a GOD simply the yearnings of our ancestors to make sense of the incomprehensible?
IF (as logic persists there must be) an overall entity exists who is entirely responsible for All That Is, THEN It is far more likely to always be far ahead of any human idea about It.
Thus what you are referring to has to do with ancient ideas which have not evolved with human understanding and knowledge of their situation.
♦If the idea of GOD is 'evolving', then what's the problem? If 'static' then yes - therein is the problem.
♦The idea that GOD is the same 'yesterday, today and forever' can be aligned with the idea of a GOD evolving within the understanding of human beings.
In relation to the book you are writing - well and good, Obviously you are interested in focusing on that one idea of GOD. There are other vaster ideas of GOD, such as what the theology I have put together presents, which your book and arguments therein simply wouldn't be addressing.So there's no way that the Bible god can exist outside of the pages of scripture. A created god cannot create anything except a lot of trouble.
- tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6477
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 356 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
- Contact:
Re: What Truth Is
Post #13Peace to you Jaqella. Even though realworldjack addressed this already, I will respond as well, as a Christian (though I am not speaking for anyone else).
Then how can you say in your OP that Christians are living a lie?Jagella wrote: [Replying to post 2 by tam]
I'm as susceptible to denying the truth as anybody else. We all must bend to its power as Miyamoto Musashi says. If I deny the truth, then I will live a lie. It's entirely possible that God is real and that I'm missing him for some reason.Would that not be you assuming God does not exist? How do you know THAT is the truth?
That does not mean that Christians are living a lie. I DO have reasons for believing in God.However, after over thirty years as a person who believes in no gods, I still see no reason for believing in any of them.
I guess I do have pressure. I have pressure from my experiences with my Lord and the evidences given to me. To deny the existence of God would be to deny things I know and have heard and experienced. Also I love my Lord (Christ) and my God.But how am I any better off this way than any Christian? The advantage I have is that I experience no pressure to conform to any denial of the existence of gods.
I try to think freely and try to be open as I can to any truth including the possible truths of theism.
Okay then. I have nothing against that.
I am still wondering why you would make the statement that Christians are living a lie though. Since according to you, you don't actually know if God exists or not, yourself.
I am not terrorized with such a thing. I also do not belong to any sect of any religion. I only belong to Christ.Christians, on the other hand, are terrorized by their religion which threatens them with eternal punishment if they fail to believe.
Christianity also dangles the carrot of heaven taking advantage of people's desire to live on rather than die.
Christianity may dangle that carrot, but it is not why I have faith. Nor was it ever a motivating factor.
As am I.With such psychological manipulation, it is unlikely that Christians truly feel free to think rationally about the truth of what they're being told. Such things do not have bearing on me I am free of that kind of manipulation,
Would you 'therefore' say the same thing about me?and therefore I can confidently say that I am facing the truth "bending to its power" and admitting it.
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2412
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
- Location: real world
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 56 times
!"
Post #14[Replying to post 10 by Jagella]
If what you say were true, then you would think that I would have received many warnings by now, but I have not, and the reason is, because I never get upset.
So again, as we can see, you deal a whole lot in assumptions, and this is what would be upsetting. In other words, it is upsetting for one to express their own opinion, as if it were a fact.
Did you really? I must have missed it. Oh brother!Golly gee! Didn't I suggest you not waste your time reading the Peanuts comic strip?
Oh, okay, I thought you had a point? I guess you had no point at all then? What it sounded like to me was, you were expressing your own truth. Didn't I suggest you not waste your time watching, Oprah?What argument? I was just explaining what I've concluded about the gods.
The problem here is Oprah, it really does not matter what, "you would say!" Rather what would matter is what the facts may be. So then, if you were a thinking.........that in a debate.......that what you would say, would even matter, then I am afraid to tell you, that you are on the wrong show, because here we do not deal in, "what you would say", or what "YOUR truth may be." We only deal with what would be true.I wouldn't go so far as to say I know with 100 percent assurance that there are no gods. I'd say I'm 99.99 percent sure there are no gods.
Oh really? Well, I have never heard it explained like that? Your argument is so, so good here, that I cannot even think of any sort of rebuttal? So much so, that I am just about ready to forget all the time, and effort I have put into coming to the conclusions I have, and joining the ranks of the Atheists, because I have never heard such a great argument? I cannot believe that I did not think of it myself? And here I was, thinking that I was a logical thinker.I've never seen any good evidence for any gods after looking very hard for them for a very long time.
Yeah! You're right! Your truth is the only truth that matters! When is the next episode of Oprah, anyway? You go ahead man, and speak your own truth!As I see it, after such a long time but with no evidence, the sensible thing to do is to doubt that there are any gods.
Listen! I will assure you, that you are reading something into what I say that is not there in the least. I have been here on this site for some 5 years now, and I am very use to folks doing far more than simply "openly doubting" my beliefs, and I have never once become upset. My most common response after reading posts, is to laugh.Well, frankly after reading posts like yours, I see people who claim to believe in one god or another as insecure. They really get upset if anybody openly doubts their cherished belief.
If what you say were true, then you would think that I would have received many warnings by now, but I have not, and the reason is, because I never get upset.
So again, as we can see, you deal a whole lot in assumptions, and this is what would be upsetting. In other words, it is upsetting for one to express their own opinion, as if it were a fact.
And here we go again, with another of your many assumptions. Well please allow me to assume for a moment about you. I would assume that you were a Christian at one time. I would also assume that you will say, you came to faith without the use of the mind. I will also assume that you now want us to believe, that someone such as yourself, who made such a major life decision, without the mind, now has the mind engaged, and it was this thinking process that has lead you to the truth of Atheism. However, when you were a Christian, (you know when you were not using your mind) one of your main motivations was, "the ticket to heaven", therefore all Christians must operate in the same way as you, which means, "the ticket to heaven" must and has to be why they are a Christian............. Well, how'd I do?It seems to me that Christians and other theists are desperate to get a ticket to heaven and cheat death.
And again, another assumption, with no facts to back them up, other than the fact that this is the way you must have operated as a Christian, and you cannot imagine there are really Christians who use the mind, simply because you did not use your mind as a Christian.Since they know it's a long shot, they need all the agreement and support they can get from people assuring them that yes, there is a god!
I don't think so! At least this is not the way it came out. Here is your comment.I was just posting my opinion.
Notice here that you do not qualify this statement as an opinion by adding something like, "you just MAY end up living a lie." Rather, you state it as a fact.You can try to argue your God into existence, but by doing so you just end up living a lie.
I am certainly not upset about skepticism concerning my beliefs, rather I certainly expect it, don't you think? My objection is when you state opinion as fact.If you're upset with my skepticism, then don't read my posts.
I rather enjoy reading posts that are easily refuted, and I certainly do not need to seek out an apologist, for this one.If you do read them, then seek an apologist to prove me wrong.
Right! This is what I figured. You simply believe things because you want to, right? What the truth may be, has little if any thing at all to do with it. Seriously! How could anyone make such a comment?Then don't believe it.
Could you please describe some of the tactics that were used?All the churches I attended, both Catholic and Protestant, used psychological manipulation to get people to believe.
Well, yes I have read it, but I must have missed where we are told to use "psychological manipulation." Could you please share these passages with me? Can't wait for this!It all comes straight out of the New Testament. Did you ever bother to read it?
Well, we can certainly see that you do a whole lot of "imagining." Because there are very little facts involved, in the things you say! Now, let's go watch Oprah, she will let us, "speak our own truth!"I imagine you dearly hope I'm living a lie. Otherwise, there's no "heaven for Jack."
Re: !"
Post #15[Replying to post 14 by Realworldjack]
"And here we go again, with another of your many assumptions. Well please allow me to assume for a moment about you. I would assume that you were a Christian at one time. I would also assume that you will say, you came to faith without the use of the mind. I will also assume that you now want us to believe, that someone such as yourself, who made such a major life decision, without the mind, now has the mind engaged, and it was this thinking process that has lead you to the truth of Atheism. However, when you were a Christian, (you know when you were not using your mind) one of your main motivations was, "the ticket to heaven", therefore all Christians must operate in the same way as you, which means, "the ticket to heaven" must and has to be why they are a Christian............. Well, how'd I do? "
You did very well. You spoke for many of us.
"And here we go again, with another of your many assumptions. Well please allow me to assume for a moment about you. I would assume that you were a Christian at one time. I would also assume that you will say, you came to faith without the use of the mind. I will also assume that you now want us to believe, that someone such as yourself, who made such a major life decision, without the mind, now has the mind engaged, and it was this thinking process that has lead you to the truth of Atheism. However, when you were a Christian, (you know when you were not using your mind) one of your main motivations was, "the ticket to heaven", therefore all Christians must operate in the same way as you, which means, "the ticket to heaven" must and has to be why they are a Christian............. Well, how'd I do? "
You did very well. You spoke for many of us.
Re: What Truth Is
Post #16[Replying to post 12 by William]
Actually, we're evolving away from belief in gods as we continue to learn about the world we live in. This learning is called "science." The more we learn, the more we see the world as devoid of these creations of ours we call "gods." You can see I'm right by simply checking any science text used by an accredited university. It doesn't matter if it's a physics text or chemistry text or geology text or cosmology text--you'll find nothing about any gods in them except perhaps for some history in which the authors explain how we used to look to gods for knowledge but found doing so to be a futile endeavor. Theism is worse than useless in attaining knowledge--it stymies our efforts to learn the truth.As I said, it is a logical conclusion to make. Humans naturally had to move into ideas of creator beings as part of the evolving of their understanding.
My book addresses three views of Jesus: as a man, as a hoax, and as the Bible god. I want to cover all the bases. Right now I'm working on Part III: Jesus as God. Among other things I'm explaining that Jesus could do no miracles unless he had the faith of the recipients. You really can't complain I'm saying he was impotent in some ways because as I document, the Bible very clearly says so.In relation to the book you are writing - well and good, Obviously you are interested in focusing on that one idea of GOD. There are other vaster ideas of GOD, such as what the theology I have put together presents, which your book and arguments therein simply wouldn't be addressing.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14376
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 922 times
- Been thanked: 1666 times
- Contact:
Re: What Truth Is
Post #17[Replying to post 16 by Jagella]
This is why in your above statement you claim that theism is anti-knowledge. There have been many theists throughout history who have been pro-knowledge and assisted with the push for humanity to go that way.
To claim otherwise is simply not to know and understand 'what is truth' on the subject.
Judging by the stats, I am not sure I can agree with your claim that this is the case.Actually, we're evolving away from belief in gods as we continue to learn about the world we live in.
You make the same mistake many atheists assume in regard to knowledge and theism. I think this stems largely from the impulse to make sweeping statements and put all theism under the same heading as a particular type of theism.This learning is called "science." The more we learn, the more we see the world as devoid of these creations of ours we call "gods." You can see I'm right by simply checking any science text used by an accredited university. It doesn't matter if it's a physics text or chemistry text or geology text or cosmology text--you'll find nothing about any gods in them except perhaps for some history in which the authors explain how we used to look to gods for knowledge but found doing so to be a futile endeavor. Theism is worse than useless in attaining knowledge--it stymies our efforts to learn the truth.
This is why in your above statement you claim that theism is anti-knowledge. There have been many theists throughout history who have been pro-knowledge and assisted with the push for humanity to go that way.
To claim otherwise is simply not to know and understand 'what is truth' on the subject.
All well and good as it were, but not anything which I have been arguing for or against.My book addresses three views of Jesus: as a man, as a hoax, and as the Bible god. I want to cover all the bases. Right now I'm working on Part III: Jesus as God. Among other things I'm explaining that Jesus could do no miracles unless he had the faith of the recipients. You really can't complain I'm saying he was impotent in some ways because as I document, the Bible very clearly says so.
Re: What Truth Is
Post #18[Replying to post 17 by William]
I suppose it depends on which stats you look at. Here's some pertinent numbers from CNN.
But I wasn't talking about how popular an idea is; I'm arguing that as we learn we see there's nothing that any god has really revealed to us. Those who adopt religion are not adopting knowledge but belief. No matter how many people believe a lie, it's still a lie. I prefer to be in the minority, if it is a minority, who know the truth about the world we live in.
In any case, can you name one verified fact that religion has ever blessed humanity with?
Judging by the stats, I am not sure I can agree with your claim that this is the case.
I suppose it depends on which stats you look at. Here's some pertinent numbers from CNN.
So at least here in America, atheism is on the rise while Christianity declines.-- Atheists, agnostics and religiously unaffiliated people will increase in the United States (from 16% to 26%) but decline as a share of the total worldwide population.
-- Also in the United States, Christians will drop from 78% to 66% of population.
But I wasn't talking about how popular an idea is; I'm arguing that as we learn we see there's nothing that any god has really revealed to us. Those who adopt religion are not adopting knowledge but belief. No matter how many people believe a lie, it's still a lie. I prefer to be in the minority, if it is a minority, who know the truth about the world we live in.
Considering theism's track record, I understand your objecting to be associated with all of it. Religion has a very sordid history, as you have just implied.You make the same mistake many atheists assume in regard to knowledge and theism. I think this stems largely from the impulse to make sweeping statements and put all theism under the same heading as a particular type of theism.
I think you're equivocating here. You are trading the word "theists" in the second sentence for "theism" in the first sentence. The two terms are different, of course. While I realize that many theists have made many great discoveries and have advocated education, that has little to do with their being theists. Theism doesn't deserve the credit for what some theists have accomplished. The reality probably is that theists who have contributed to our knowledge probably did so not because they were theists but despite being theists.This is why in your above statement you claim that theism is anti-knowledge. There have been many theists throughout history who have been pro-knowledge and assisted with the push for humanity to go that way.
In any case, can you name one verified fact that religion has ever blessed humanity with?
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9407
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 931 times
- Been thanked: 1273 times
Re: !"
Post #19Readers, I know that this was meant to be tongue and cheek, but I cannot overlook the fact that this poster IS an atheists when it comes to all the gods out there, except for one of course. A 'real' atheist just takes it one god further. Just look at all the commonality between atheists and Christians!Realworldjack wrote:Oh really? Well, I have never heard it explained like that? Your argument is so, so good here, that I cannot even think of any sort of rebuttal? So much so, that I am just about ready to forget all the time, and effort I have put into coming to the conclusions I have, and joining the ranks of the Atheists, because I have never heard such a great argument? I cannot believe that I did not think of it myself? And here I was, thinking that I was a logical thinker.
Every theist it seems can easily see why competing gods are false, but for whatever reason, these theists cannot seem to make the same determination about their own god concept.
Now we have billions of Muslims believing in their god concept while disbelieving in the claims made on behalf of Jesus, and billions of Christians believing in their god concepts while disbelieving the claims of Mohammed.
As far as the claim goes for being a logical thinker. That is one that I must question.
What is the logic in believing that animals talk, or that bodies that have been dead and liquefying for days come back to life, or that a man lived in the belly of a fish for days, and on and on?
Believe in your god, be proud of your god and worship your god if you must, but to call such a thing logical... well that seems to go too far IMO.
(I'm not saying you didn't just happen to find the correct god concept to believe in by the way, just that I don't see the 'logic' you referred to).
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
Re: !"
Post #20[Replying to post 14 by Realworldjack]
Now before you get too upset, let me explain that I do think that Christians may have other reasons to believe or say they believe what they do.
I know you're well aware of this kind of psychological manipulation in your religion. I'm just posting these example for any member who may not be aware of it.
Then you darned well be ready to prove every word you post as true. No opinions allowed!We only deal with what would be true.
You might attempt to explain how people are missing the truth of your religion. If Christianity is "true," then why are there so many skeptics?Your argument is so, so good here, that I cannot even think of any sort of rebuttal?
OK, but it sure looks like you're upset to me. Why so many exclamation points if you're not upset?...I have never once become upset. My most common response after reading posts, is to laugh.
Sometimes we need to assume. In an online forum, it's a part of life. As long as assumptions are sensible, they can be very helpful.So again, as we can see, you deal a whole lot in assumptions...
You're very close. You only erred when you assumed that I think "all Christians must operate in the same way (I did)." There are other ways for Christians to "operate." TV evangelists, for example, are known to be hucksters who know that Christianity is baloney. They "operate" by selling that baloney for a very handsome profit. So their motivation isn't pie in the sky but money.Well please allow me to assume for a moment about you. I would assume that you were a Christian at one time. I would also assume that you will say, you came to faith without the use of the mind. I will also assume that you now want us to believe, that someone such as yourself, who made such a major life decision, without the mind, now has the mind engaged, and it was this thinking process that has lead you to the truth of Atheism. However, when you were a Christian, (you know when you were not using your mind) one of your main motivations was, "the ticket to heaven", therefore all Christians must operate in the same way as you, which means, "the ticket to heaven" must and has to be why they are a Christian............. Well, how'd I do?
Now before you get too upset, let me explain that I do think that Christians may have other reasons to believe or say they believe what they do.
Wrong. I believe the world is full of religious dopes, but I don't want to believe it.You simply believe things because you want to, right?
They taught that heaven was for believers and unbelievers went to hell--just like Jesus taught.Could you please describe some of the tactics that were used?
There's way too many to post here. Just read the beatitudes in Matthew 5 for the dangling of the carrot, and Revelation 21:8 for the threatened punishment.Well, yes I have read it, but I must have missed where we are told to use "psychological manipulation." Could you please share these passages with me? Can't wait for this!
I know you're well aware of this kind of psychological manipulation in your religion. I'm just posting these example for any member who may not be aware of it.