Can Jesus Christ can be shown to be the Son of God by logical deduction?jimvansage wrote: I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction
3. Jesus Christ is the Son of God
Can Jesus Christ can be shown to be the Son of God
Moderator: Moderators
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Can Jesus Christ can be shown to be the Son of God
Post #1Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
-
jimvansage
- Apprentice
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:39 pm
- Location: Sesser, IL
Post #39
Put yourself in a scenario:
If you act now, you could save 8 people
but if you wait and prepare, you could save 5,000 (and more)
Only eight were saved in the days of Noah
After Pentecost 5,000 Jews accepted Christ as their savior
It's simple mathematics
Noah could have claimed that Jesus was coming, and all but 8 souls would have rejected Him (they rejected God's word spoken through Noah)
Learn what this means: "the dispensation of the fullness of times" (Eph. 1:10)
The Babylonian empire rose up, and synagogues were built
The Medo-Persian empire rose up, and they brought a law which could not be changed
The Macedonian empire rose up, and they provided a common language for the whole world (Koine Greek, which the New Testament was written in)
The Roman empire united the known world and gave roads.
(compare these four kingdoms to the kingdoms mentioned in Daniel 2)
In the first century
they understood law
they understood a common language
there were synagogues in every city to preach Jesus to
and roads by which to travel to spread the Good News
I can't prove God's providence (Philemon verse 15: "perhaps")
but Christianity emerged when it emerged for a reason
If God chose the time to set it up
If you act now, you could save 8 people
but if you wait and prepare, you could save 5,000 (and more)
Only eight were saved in the days of Noah
After Pentecost 5,000 Jews accepted Christ as their savior
It's simple mathematics
Noah could have claimed that Jesus was coming, and all but 8 souls would have rejected Him (they rejected God's word spoken through Noah)
Learn what this means: "the dispensation of the fullness of times" (Eph. 1:10)
The Babylonian empire rose up, and synagogues were built
The Medo-Persian empire rose up, and they brought a law which could not be changed
The Macedonian empire rose up, and they provided a common language for the whole world (Koine Greek, which the New Testament was written in)
The Roman empire united the known world and gave roads.
(compare these four kingdoms to the kingdoms mentioned in Daniel 2)
In the first century
they understood law
they understood a common language
there were synagogues in every city to preach Jesus to
and roads by which to travel to spread the Good News
I can't prove God's providence (Philemon verse 15: "perhaps")
but Christianity emerged when it emerged for a reason
If God chose the time to set it up
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2576 times
Post #40
From Post 39:
You said a mouthful.jimvansage wrote: ...
I can't prove God's providence (Philemon verse 15: "perhaps")
What do you propose was this reason?jimvansage wrote: but Christianity emerged when it emerged for a reason
That "if" is bigger'n Stone Mountain.jimvansage wrote: If God chose the time to set it up
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #41
You're placing limits on God again.jimvansage wrote: Put yourself in a scenario:
If you act now, you could save 8 people
but if you wait and prepare, you could save 5,000 (and more)
So you're suggesting that God was in a pickle and had to make a choice between lesser evils?
I wouldn't have allowed things to get so far out of control in the first place. I would have handled the situation far better way back in the Garden of Eden.
Supposedly this God commanded people to stone sinners to death to "rid" them of the evil that was among them. But clearly that "plan" didn't work. God's plan failed.
I would have never relied upon humans to judge each other in the first place. Knowing that they are inept and I, as God, am the only one who is omniscient, if I wanted to keep them "weeded" of evil influences I would have weeded out the evil people myself in a timely fashion.
The problem with these biblical fables is that this God keeps waiting until things are grossly out of control before he ever does anything. Any sensible person will tell you that it's far wiser to nip things in the bud before they get so far out of control.
Clearly this God's methods of having humans judge each other and kill sinners to weed them out didn't work. So this God's plan failed.
My question to you is why?
Why is it so important to you that these ancient God-myths be true?
Do you feel that either Christianity is true, or there is no God?
Does it just come down to either Christianity or pure secular atheism for you?
There must be some reason why it's so important to you that these ancient fables be true.
You must be convinced that if they aren't true things can only be even worse.
This picture of God is a horrible picture. Surely you can see that. Even the Christian Gospels have Jesus himself proclaiming that only few will make it into the kingdom of God, that leaves that vast majority to suffer the fate of hell fire.
So the biblical picture of God is picture that confesses that this God loses the vast majority of souls that he creates. He's a loser God (in terms of a creator). He loses the vast majority of souls he creates, both in things like the Great Flood, and even later according to the words attributed to Jesus. The path is straight and the gate is narrow and few will make it into the kingdom of God. That can only mean that the vast majority of souls this God creates will be damned to the hell fire.
Talk about a looser God. You do the math. No calculator required. FEW go to heaven, MOST souls are lost.
It's a story of a God who loses the vast majority of souls he creates.
Why is that picture of a creator so attractive to you?
There's certainly nothing "Perfect" about a creator who loses the vast majority of souls that he creates. That's an extremely inefficient creator who plays craps with human souls and LOSES most of the time by his own admission.
Why is that picture so attractive to you, that you'll do anything to support it?
Do you fear that if you dare to doubt it you'll be condemned?
-
jimvansage
- Apprentice
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:39 pm
- Location: Sesser, IL
Post #42
I wouldn't have allowed things to get so far out of control in the first place. I would have handled the situation far better way back in the Garden of Eden.
[That would deny people of free will - "rape" on a cosmic scale]
Supposedly this God commanded people to stone sinners to death to "rid" them of the evil that was among them. But clearly that "plan" didn't work. God's plan failed.
[Their failure to drive out sinners (all of the Canaanites; Joshua 1) caused Israel to sin and Jerusalem to be destroyed. Again, free will. Again, man rejecting God's plan does not mean the plan was flawed]
I would have never relied upon humans to judge each other in the first place. Knowing that they are inept and I, as God, am the only one who is omniscient, if I wanted to keep them "weeded" of evil influences I would have weeded out the evil people myself in a timely fashion.
[If they judged according to what God told them, they wouldn't have any problems]
The problem with these biblical fables is that this God keeps waiting until things are grossly out of control before he ever does anything. Any sensible person will tell you that it's far wiser to nip things in the bud before they get so far out of control.
[God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah for 10 righteous people - your faulting God's patience and compassion]
Clearly this God's methods of having humans judge each other and kill sinners to weed them out didn't work. So this God's plan failed.
My question to you is why?
Why is it so important to you that these ancient God-myths be true?
Do you feel that either Christianity is true, or there is no God?
Does it just come down to either Christianity or pure secular atheism for you?
There must be some reason why it's so important to you that these ancient fables be true.
[your assuming again that it is a myth or a fable.
I believe God exists to be true based on evidence whether the Bible is true or not.
I believe the Bible and Christianity to be true based on the evidence.
Why believe something if it isn't true? why belief anything if you can't be certain of it?
A God who exists but doesn't communicate to us is a cold, distant unloving God.
We may still need to recognize Him as Creator, even if not just and pure.
A God who doesn't reveal His will for man in an objective manner, without identifying His will as the one true teaching to follow may or may not cast us all into hell because He inflicted ignorance upon us.
But a God willing to suffer and die for His Creation so we may enjoy life and fellowship with Him is not just the lesser of two evils]
You must be convinced that if they aren't true things can only be even worse.
This picture of God is a horrible picture. Surely you can see that. Even the Christian Gospels have Jesus himself proclaiming that only few will make it into the kingdom of God, that leaves that vast majority to suffer the fate of hell fire.
[the context might demand that there would be few of the Jewish people who would find the path - they were the focus of Jesus' earthly ministry.]
So the biblical picture of God is picture that confesses that this God loses the vast majority of souls that he creates. He's a loser God (in terms of a creator). He loses the vast majority of souls he creates, both in things like the Great Flood, and even later according to the words attributed to Jesus. The path is straight and the gate is narrow and few will make it into the kingdom of God. That can only mean that the vast majority of souls this God creates will be damned to the hell fire.
Talk about a looser God. You do the math. No calculator required. FEW go to heaven, MOST souls are lost.
It's a story of a God who loses the vast majority of souls he creates.
Why is that picture of a creator so attractive to you?
[I didn't say it was attractive, I believe it because the evidence shows that He exists]
There's certainly nothing "Perfect" about a creator who loses the vast majority of souls that he creates. That's an extremely inefficient creator who plays craps with human souls and LOSES most of the time by his own admission.
Why is that picture so attractive to you, that you'll do anything to support it?
[I didn't say I'd do anything to support it. I only follow the evidence/argument wherever it leads]
Do you fear that if you dare to doubt it you'll be condemned?[/quote]
~~~~~I'm willing to consider any evidence that might be brought to my attention that anyone thinks would be detrimental to the case. All you have done so far in this post is blame God when His children go astray. Denying people free will would be as objectionable as rape, and you know as well as I do that you can't always blame the Father for the lawlessness of his children. Sin is a product of human desire (James 1:14, 15), a squandering of the gift of free will.
Just because I accept a view does not mean I accept it blindly.
Biblical faith is equated with knowledge (John 6:69)
We are not to blindly believe everything we hear, see, read (1 John 4:1).
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21)
[That would deny people of free will - "rape" on a cosmic scale]
Supposedly this God commanded people to stone sinners to death to "rid" them of the evil that was among them. But clearly that "plan" didn't work. God's plan failed.
[Their failure to drive out sinners (all of the Canaanites; Joshua 1) caused Israel to sin and Jerusalem to be destroyed. Again, free will. Again, man rejecting God's plan does not mean the plan was flawed]
I would have never relied upon humans to judge each other in the first place. Knowing that they are inept and I, as God, am the only one who is omniscient, if I wanted to keep them "weeded" of evil influences I would have weeded out the evil people myself in a timely fashion.
[If they judged according to what God told them, they wouldn't have any problems]
The problem with these biblical fables is that this God keeps waiting until things are grossly out of control before he ever does anything. Any sensible person will tell you that it's far wiser to nip things in the bud before they get so far out of control.
[God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah for 10 righteous people - your faulting God's patience and compassion]
Clearly this God's methods of having humans judge each other and kill sinners to weed them out didn't work. So this God's plan failed.
My question to you is why?
Why is it so important to you that these ancient God-myths be true?
Do you feel that either Christianity is true, or there is no God?
Does it just come down to either Christianity or pure secular atheism for you?
There must be some reason why it's so important to you that these ancient fables be true.
[your assuming again that it is a myth or a fable.
I believe God exists to be true based on evidence whether the Bible is true or not.
I believe the Bible and Christianity to be true based on the evidence.
Why believe something if it isn't true? why belief anything if you can't be certain of it?
A God who exists but doesn't communicate to us is a cold, distant unloving God.
We may still need to recognize Him as Creator, even if not just and pure.
A God who doesn't reveal His will for man in an objective manner, without identifying His will as the one true teaching to follow may or may not cast us all into hell because He inflicted ignorance upon us.
But a God willing to suffer and die for His Creation so we may enjoy life and fellowship with Him is not just the lesser of two evils]
You must be convinced that if they aren't true things can only be even worse.
This picture of God is a horrible picture. Surely you can see that. Even the Christian Gospels have Jesus himself proclaiming that only few will make it into the kingdom of God, that leaves that vast majority to suffer the fate of hell fire.
[the context might demand that there would be few of the Jewish people who would find the path - they were the focus of Jesus' earthly ministry.]
So the biblical picture of God is picture that confesses that this God loses the vast majority of souls that he creates. He's a loser God (in terms of a creator). He loses the vast majority of souls he creates, both in things like the Great Flood, and even later according to the words attributed to Jesus. The path is straight and the gate is narrow and few will make it into the kingdom of God. That can only mean that the vast majority of souls this God creates will be damned to the hell fire.
Talk about a looser God. You do the math. No calculator required. FEW go to heaven, MOST souls are lost.
It's a story of a God who loses the vast majority of souls he creates.
Why is that picture of a creator so attractive to you?
[I didn't say it was attractive, I believe it because the evidence shows that He exists]
There's certainly nothing "Perfect" about a creator who loses the vast majority of souls that he creates. That's an extremely inefficient creator who plays craps with human souls and LOSES most of the time by his own admission.
Why is that picture so attractive to you, that you'll do anything to support it?
[I didn't say I'd do anything to support it. I only follow the evidence/argument wherever it leads]
Do you fear that if you dare to doubt it you'll be condemned?[/quote]
~~~~~I'm willing to consider any evidence that might be brought to my attention that anyone thinks would be detrimental to the case. All you have done so far in this post is blame God when His children go astray. Denying people free will would be as objectionable as rape, and you know as well as I do that you can't always blame the Father for the lawlessness of his children. Sin is a product of human desire (James 1:14, 15), a squandering of the gift of free will.
Just because I accept a view does not mean I accept it blindly.
Biblical faith is equated with knowledge (John 6:69)
We are not to blindly believe everything we hear, see, read (1 John 4:1).
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21)
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #43
No it wouldn't. That is the standard apologetic argument, but it doesn't hold water.jimvansage wrote: [That would deny people of free will - "rape" on a cosmic scale]
This Bible has God intervening in human affairs all the time.
At the tower of Babel people were building a tower to heaven. This God intervened and confused their language and dispersed them.
According to you he just raped the people of their free will.
In fact, the Great Flood itself would have been raping people of their free will.
If this God is cool with killing sinners, then all I'm suggesting is that he should have done it in a timely fashion before it go so far out of control.
Consider the following:
But humans are not omniscient to know what's in the hearts and minds of their neighbors. Therein lies the problem.Supposedly this God commanded people to stone sinners to death to "rid" them of the evil that was among them. But clearly that "plan" didn't work. God's plan failed.
[Their failure to drive out sinners (all of the Canaanites; Joshua 1) caused Israel to sin and Jerusalem to be destroyed. Again, free will. Again, man rejecting God's plan does not mean the plan was flawed]
I would have never relied upon humans to judge each other in the first place. Knowing that they are inept and I, as God, am the only one who is omniscient, if I wanted to keep them "weeded" of evil influences I would have weeded out the evil people myself in a timely fashion.
[If they judged according to what God told them, they wouldn't have any problems]
Besides, according to the Bible every man is a sinner, so you'd have to stone every person you ever meet to death. Someone once posted a very long list of biblical reasons God told people to stone other people to death. I wish I would have saved that post. It's was extremely lengthy and contained some truly trivial reasons. Like you're even supposed to stone someone to death for not showing up at church on the sabbath.
Moreover, if this God knew that sinners would "contaminate" the other humans he should have been killing them himself just as soon as he knew that in their heart and mind they were about to commit a sin.
The very idea that a God would place this dirty work onto mankind after having commanded them not to kill is absurd. That would surely be a mixed message.
Moreover, if you believe that God is like this then you could easily use this religion so support the killing of anyone you deem to be an "infidel" or "sinner". This is why these kinds of religions are so dangerous.
At best this God would be utterly stupid for having expected humans to carry out this task of judging each other and properly killing sinner.
Clearly it didn't WORK!
So there you go right there.
That would imply that this supposedly omniscient God would have actually thought that it could have worked and then was surprised when it didn't work.
As far as I'm concerned there's no point in going any further at that point.
These biblical stories are necessarily man-made fables because no omniscient all-wise God could have been stupid enough to think that having humans do his judging and killing for him could have ever worked.
The reason the authors of these stories even bothered to put this kind of stuff in their stories is because they knew that there was no God to uphold these things and thus they had to convince their readers to do it on God's behalf.
No genuinely all-powerful omniscient God would have ever asked lowly sinful mortal men to judge and kill each other.
It's clearly a man-made devious fable.
It can't have come from any actual supreme being.
-
jimvansage
- Apprentice
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:39 pm
- Location: Sesser, IL
Post #44
No it wouldn't. That is the standard apologetic argument, but it doesn't hold water.
This Bible has God intervening in human affairs all the time.
[even more so would God be justified in punishing them
He had intervened, but they still rejected Him
He did everything possible, but they still refused to acknowledge the truth
It's not like He didn't give them opportunities to repent, but they were not
Rev 2:21 And I gave her time that she should repent; and she willeth not to repent of her fornication.
At the tower of Babel people were building a tower to heaven. This God intervened and confused their language and dispersed them.
According to you he just raped the people of their free will.
[punishment does not deny free will, punishment is the result of abuse of free will]
In fact, the Great Flood itself would have been raping people of their free will.
If this God is cool with killing sinners, then all I'm suggesting is that he should have done it in a timely fashion before it go so far out of control.
Consider the following:
You have only succeeded in proving that the supreme being behind the Bible, if there is one, is not to your subjective liking, does not operate according to your own ideas and moral system.
This Bible has God intervening in human affairs all the time.
[even more so would God be justified in punishing them
He had intervened, but they still rejected Him
He did everything possible, but they still refused to acknowledge the truth
It's not like He didn't give them opportunities to repent, but they were not
Rev 2:21 And I gave her time that she should repent; and she willeth not to repent of her fornication.
At the tower of Babel people were building a tower to heaven. This God intervened and confused their language and dispersed them.
According to you he just raped the people of their free will.
[punishment does not deny free will, punishment is the result of abuse of free will]
In fact, the Great Flood itself would have been raping people of their free will.
If this God is cool with killing sinners, then all I'm suggesting is that he should have done it in a timely fashion before it go so far out of control.
Consider the following:
Your objections, claims of superior moral system (what God should have done), lack of knowledge of the Scriptures (what the Bible says God did and why), and cavalier dismissals do nothing to objectively conclude that there is no supreme being behind the Bible.Supposedly this God commanded people to stone sinners to death to "rid" them of the evil that was among them. But clearly that "plan" didn't work. God's plan failed.
[Their failure to drive out sinners (all of the Canaanites; Joshua 1) caused Israel to sin and Jerusalem to be destroyed. Again, free will. Again, man rejecting God's plan does not mean the plan was flawed]
But humans are not omniscient to know what's in the hearts and minds of their neighbors. Therein lies the problem.
[Right, but God and man do not judge men in the same sense - Joseph desired to put Mary away/divorce her rather than have her put to death when he thought she was unfaithful.
Mercy and forgiveness are always emphasized within reason]
Besides, according to the Bible every man is a sinner, so you'd have to stone every person you ever meet to death. Someone once posted a very long list of biblical reasons God told people to stone other people to death. I wish I would have saved that post. It's was extremely lengthy and contained some truly trivial reasons. Like you're even supposed to stone someone to death for not showing up at church on the sabbath.
Moreover, if this God knew that sinners would "contaminate" the other humans he should have been killing them himself just as soon as he knew that in their heart and mind they were about to commit a sin.
[now who's limiting God? you take mercy and repentance out of the picture and, by your definition, God would condemn all people and waste His time in creating man. Your definition of how God should be is on no better moral ground than how you paint the biblical God]
The very idea that a God would place this dirty work onto mankind after having commanded them not to kill is absurd. That would surely be a mixed message.
[killing/capital punishment is not premeditated murder]
Moreover, if you believe that God is like this then you could easily use this religion so support the killing of anyone you deem to be an "infidel" or "sinner". This is why these kinds of religions are so dangerous.
[there is no capital punishment in Christianity/the New Testament]
At best this God would be utterly stupid for having expected humans to carry out this task of judging each other and properly killing sinner.
Clearly it didn't WORK!
So there you go right there.
That would imply that this supposedly omniscient God would have actually thought that it could have worked and then was surprised when it didn't work.
As far as I'm concerned there's no point in going any further at that point.
These biblical stories are necessarily man-made fables because no omniscient all-wise God could have been stupid enough to think that having humans do his judging and killing for him could have ever worked.
The reason the authors of these stories even bothered to put this kind of stuff in their stories is because they knew that there was no God to uphold these things and thus they had to convince their readers to do it on God's behalf.
No genuinely all-powerful omniscient God would have ever asked lowly sinful mortal men to judge and kill each other.
It's clearly a man-made devious fable.
It can't have come from any actual supreme being.
You have only succeeded in proving that the supreme being behind the Bible, if there is one, is not to your subjective liking, does not operate according to your own ideas and moral system.
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #45
Well clearly if I'm presented with ancient fables that have a God doing things that I personally consider to be immoral there is no reason for me to consider those fables have anything to do with a moral God.jimvansage wrote: Your objections, claims of superior moral system (what God should have done),
Why would I consider God myths about a God who does things that I consider to be unwise and immoral?
There's no lack of knowledge of these scriptures here. That's a false accusation that is often held out by people who don't like the truths that I point out.jimvansage wrote: lack of knowledge of the Scriptures (what the Bible says God did and why),
"Cavalier dismissals"?jimvansage wrote: and cavalier dismissals do nothing to objectively conclude that there is no supreme being behind the Bible.
You're bearing false witness against me by claiming that my dismissals are "cavalier". Far from it. My dismissals of the Hebrew mythologies are very well-thought-out, deeply considered, and a very sincere and honest dismissal.
So please, don't be bearing false witness against my character or intentions.
I may not believe in a God who proclaims that bearing false witness is a sin, but I still consider it to be a highly unethical and disrespectful thing to do.
I have rock solid grounds for dismissing the entire Biblical Canon from Genesis to Revelation and everything in between.
Yes, there is a huge problem here. I hope you can see it.jimvansage wrote: You have only succeeded in proving that the supreme being behind the Bible, if there is one, is not to your subjective liking, does not operate according to your own ideas and moral system.
The Biblical God is proclaimed to be "all-wise", omniscient, all-compassionate, etc. His the only thing that outshines his love is supposedly his mercy.
Yet, I don't see any wisdom, compassion, omniscience, or anything like that in these stories. All I see are stories that totally violate all of these things.
And so if you and I disagree, you claim that it's simply because I don't "subjectively" agree with you on what constitute wisdom, compassion, omniscience, love and mercy, etc.
Clearly your belief or acceptance that all of these traits have been "satisfied" can only be your "subjective" opinion.
~~~~~
From my perspective there is no question at all that these fables are the works of men. I might even add that they are quite devious and underhanded works of men, IMHO.
These men told people that some God demands that they kill sinners, and then described for their readers what constitutes a sinner. Their hope was that they could get people to kill anyone who disagrees with their religious fables. Fortunately that didn't pan out as well as the authors had hoped it might.
I don't believe there was any Great Flood. On the contrary there is actually profound scientific evidence that no such flood could have possibly occurred during the time that humans have been on planet Earth.
Geologists have shown that if such a flood would have occurred it would show up in the sentiment layers, but there is no trace of any such flood having occurred whilst humans roamed the earth. That's more than just "Absence of Evidence". It's absence of evidence that would have definitely been there had the flood occurred. So it's proof that no such flood occurred.
Completely independently the Human Genome Project also recognized and acknowledges that the human genome record that goes clear back to the earliest humans in Africa would necessarily need to have a profound break in it had all of humanity been destroyed save for about 8 or so people. But no such break exists in the human genome record.
So we have proof positive that the Noah Story can be nothing more than man-made fiction anyway.
That's hardly waving things off subjectively without deep consideration.
So I have more than sufficient objective grounds for my conclusions.
I point out that even if such a God existed for him to have done such a thing as the Great Flood would have been far beneath what I would personally consider to be an all-wise omniscient God. He clearly would have been dealing with a situation that he himself would have not been wise enough to deal with earlier in a timely fashion before it got so far out of control.
Finally, my point about it being absurd to believe that an omniscient God would instruct people to do his judging for him, and his killing for him, would have failed anyway (just as the biblical stories demand).
But that would mean that this supposedly all-wise omniscient God actually thought it could have worked!
Otherwise why would he have even bothered telling humans to judge people and kill them on his behalf if he didn't think that might work?
So you end up with a God who didn't even realize that instructing mortal humans to do his judging and killing for him wouldn't even work.
That's a blatant oxymoron.
It's an extremely valid objective point. There's nothing subjective about it.
You have a situation where a supposedly omniscient God thought something might work, but it doesn't work. So he couldn't have been very omniscient or wise.
It's a simple logical contradiction. No subjectivity required.
It's as objective as it gets.
These fables cannot possibly be true. Period. No personal subjective opinions required.
How do you apologize for the fact that this God instructed people to do his judging and killing for him only to discover that it didn't work?
Was God SURPRISED that it didn't work?
Is so, then he couldn't be omniscience nor all-wise.
And if he wasn't surprised that it didn't work, then why did he bother even doing it?
It's clearly just a man-made fable, and one that wasn't even very well-thought-out.
-
jimvansage
- Apprentice
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:39 pm
- Location: Sesser, IL
Post #46
Well clearly if I'm presented with ancient fables that have a God doing things that I personally consider to be immoral there is no reason for me to consider those fables have anything to do with a moral God.
Why would I consider God myths about a God who does things that I consider to be unwise and immoral?
~You may think me arrogant to say that my way of understanding the universe is the truth, but at least I'm appealing to objective evidence.
I respect your beliefs and the time you've spent in introspection arriving at them, but how do you expect anyone else to accept your personal musings "by faith" as it were?
You or I don't decide what is immoral or immoral.
~The alternative the the biblical presentation of reality:
that man has free will to trust and obey God or forsake Him, both with respective consequences,
the alternatives are either that God force us to serve Him and love Him against our will (the obsessive abusive Lifetime movie boyfriend scenario)
or He never create man in the first place
There's no lack of knowledge of these scriptures here. That's a false accusation that is often held out by people who don't like the truths that I point out.
~I don't reject the truths you have presented from the Bible, just your interpretation which paints God as a moral monster.
You can't object to God sacrificing Himself for the sake of His creation, so you rely on the punishment He is recorded as meting out as some flaw.
If you assume He is not perfect, then He would have no right.
But a morally superior being would not allow genocide and infanticide to continue when He can put a stop to it - a morally perfect being would not allow such to continue without some kind of correction, sabotage, or punishment.
"Cavalier dismissals"? . . . I have rock solid grounds for dismissing the entire Biblical Canon from Genesis to Revelation and everything in between.
~I guess elevating your own personal opinion as "rock solid ground" is a cavalier dismissal - I suppose my beef with cavalier dismissals was not with you personally, but something I face constantly. I certainly didn't mean to offend you.
If you have rock solid evidence other than your personal opinion, I'd like to hear about it.
The Biblical God is proclaimed to be "all-wise", omniscient, all-compassionate, etc. His the only thing that outshines his love is supposedly his mercy.
Yet, I don't see any wisdom, compassion, omniscience, or anything like that in these stories. All I see are stories that totally violate all of these things.
[~which stories? No wisdom at all, or no wisdom in some of the narrative?]
And so if you and I disagree, you claim that it's simply because I don't "subjectively" agree with you on what constitute wisdom, compassion, omniscience, love and mercy, etc.
Clearly your belief or acceptance that all of these traits have been "satisfied" can only be your "subjective" opinion.
These men told people that some God demands that they kill sinners, and then described for their readers what constitutes a sinner. Their hope was that they could get people to kill anyone who disagrees with their religious fables. Fortunately that didn't pan out as well as the authors had hoped it might.
[~Is "thou shalt not commit murder" a religious fable, or rock solid moral advice?]
I don't believe there was any Great Flood. On the contrary there is actually profound scientific evidence that no such flood could have possibly occurred during the time that humans have been on planet Earth.
Geologists have shown that if such a flood would have occurred it would show up in the sentiment layers, but there is no trace of any such flood having occurred whilst humans roamed the earth. That's more than just "Absence of Evidence". It's absence of evidence that would have definitely been there had the flood occurred. So it's proof that no such flood occurred.
~they call it the ice age, but that's just one interpretation of the sediment layers and such
Completely independently the Human Genome Project also recognized and acknowledges that the human genome record that goes clear back to the earliest humans in Africa would necessarily need to have a profound break in it had all of humanity been destroyed save for about 8 or so people. But no such break exists in the human genome record.
So we have proof positive (~really? I must have missed a lot of steps in your reasoning) that the Noah Story can be nothing more than man-made fiction anyway
[a worldwide flood could NEVER occur? You'd have to be omniscient to make such a claim - this is possibly the closet you have come to a cavalier dismissal]
That's hardly waving things off subjectively without deep consideration
[ok, you've considered it, but are you willing to consider it now?]
So I have more than sufficient objective grounds for my conclusions [claims and hasty generalizations? all you've really tried to disprove is the Noahic flood, there's many more chapter in Genesis and 65 more books to consider]
I point out that even if such a God existed for him to have done such a thing as the Great Flood would have been far beneath what I would personally consider to be an all-wise omniscient God. He clearly would have been dealing with a situation that he himself would have not been wise enough to deal with earlier in a timely fashion before it got so far out of control [once again, God should have violated free will, condemned all, or never created man - which would have been wisest?]
Finally, my point about it being absurd to believe that an omniscient God would instruct people to do his judging for him, and his killing for him, would have failed anyway (just as the biblical stories demand).
[the biblical stories do not demand this at all - Moses and the priests were to judge and arbitrate in their day, but God still punished and intervened at times e. g. Korah's rebellion]
But that would mean that this supposedly all-wise omniscient God actually thought it could have worked!
[God knew it wouldn't work, He chose before time began to send His Son to save mankind - that's what it's all about. Man was given an ideal knowing that man could never live up to a perfect ideal standard (would man invent a standard he couldn't ever keep?)]
...
It's an extremely valid objective point. There's nothing subjective about it. [points don't prove anything - it's just a point]
You have a situation where a supposedly omniscient God thought something might work, but it doesn't work. So he couldn't have been very omniscient or wise.
It's a simple logical contradiction. No subjectivity required.
~~~~~BOTTOM LINE: You have to prove that God thought it would work.
Where in the Bible does it say that God set up a religion that He thought would be sufficient, but didn't know that people would rejected, and had to throw together some plan B and then see what happens.
If God gave them the law (Torah; Genesis-Deuteronomy), and thought that the children of Israel could keep it, why the Levitical priesthood? Why the sacrifices and oblations for transgression of the law/sin?
Why the promise of another prophet/lawgiver like Moses (Deut. 18:18) or a new covenant (Jer. 31:31) if God thought the first was sufficient (or the time before the law was sufficient)?
Why would I consider God myths about a God who does things that I consider to be unwise and immoral?
~You may think me arrogant to say that my way of understanding the universe is the truth, but at least I'm appealing to objective evidence.
I respect your beliefs and the time you've spent in introspection arriving at them, but how do you expect anyone else to accept your personal musings "by faith" as it were?
You or I don't decide what is immoral or immoral.
~The alternative the the biblical presentation of reality:
that man has free will to trust and obey God or forsake Him, both with respective consequences,
the alternatives are either that God force us to serve Him and love Him against our will (the obsessive abusive Lifetime movie boyfriend scenario)
or He never create man in the first place
There's no lack of knowledge of these scriptures here. That's a false accusation that is often held out by people who don't like the truths that I point out.
~I don't reject the truths you have presented from the Bible, just your interpretation which paints God as a moral monster.
You can't object to God sacrificing Himself for the sake of His creation, so you rely on the punishment He is recorded as meting out as some flaw.
If you assume He is not perfect, then He would have no right.
But a morally superior being would not allow genocide and infanticide to continue when He can put a stop to it - a morally perfect being would not allow such to continue without some kind of correction, sabotage, or punishment.
"Cavalier dismissals"? . . . I have rock solid grounds for dismissing the entire Biblical Canon from Genesis to Revelation and everything in between.
~I guess elevating your own personal opinion as "rock solid ground" is a cavalier dismissal - I suppose my beef with cavalier dismissals was not with you personally, but something I face constantly. I certainly didn't mean to offend you.
If you have rock solid evidence other than your personal opinion, I'd like to hear about it.
The Biblical God is proclaimed to be "all-wise", omniscient, all-compassionate, etc. His the only thing that outshines his love is supposedly his mercy.
Yet, I don't see any wisdom, compassion, omniscience, or anything like that in these stories. All I see are stories that totally violate all of these things.
[~which stories? No wisdom at all, or no wisdom in some of the narrative?]
And so if you and I disagree, you claim that it's simply because I don't "subjectively" agree with you on what constitute wisdom, compassion, omniscience, love and mercy, etc.
Clearly your belief or acceptance that all of these traits have been "satisfied" can only be your "subjective" opinion.
These men told people that some God demands that they kill sinners, and then described for their readers what constitutes a sinner. Their hope was that they could get people to kill anyone who disagrees with their religious fables. Fortunately that didn't pan out as well as the authors had hoped it might.
[~Is "thou shalt not commit murder" a religious fable, or rock solid moral advice?]
I don't believe there was any Great Flood. On the contrary there is actually profound scientific evidence that no such flood could have possibly occurred during the time that humans have been on planet Earth.
Geologists have shown that if such a flood would have occurred it would show up in the sentiment layers, but there is no trace of any such flood having occurred whilst humans roamed the earth. That's more than just "Absence of Evidence". It's absence of evidence that would have definitely been there had the flood occurred. So it's proof that no such flood occurred.
~they call it the ice age, but that's just one interpretation of the sediment layers and such
Completely independently the Human Genome Project also recognized and acknowledges that the human genome record that goes clear back to the earliest humans in Africa would necessarily need to have a profound break in it had all of humanity been destroyed save for about 8 or so people. But no such break exists in the human genome record.
So we have proof positive (~really? I must have missed a lot of steps in your reasoning) that the Noah Story can be nothing more than man-made fiction anyway
[a worldwide flood could NEVER occur? You'd have to be omniscient to make such a claim - this is possibly the closet you have come to a cavalier dismissal]
That's hardly waving things off subjectively without deep consideration
[ok, you've considered it, but are you willing to consider it now?]
So I have more than sufficient objective grounds for my conclusions [claims and hasty generalizations? all you've really tried to disprove is the Noahic flood, there's many more chapter in Genesis and 65 more books to consider]
I point out that even if such a God existed for him to have done such a thing as the Great Flood would have been far beneath what I would personally consider to be an all-wise omniscient God. He clearly would have been dealing with a situation that he himself would have not been wise enough to deal with earlier in a timely fashion before it got so far out of control [once again, God should have violated free will, condemned all, or never created man - which would have been wisest?]
Finally, my point about it being absurd to believe that an omniscient God would instruct people to do his judging for him, and his killing for him, would have failed anyway (just as the biblical stories demand).
[the biblical stories do not demand this at all - Moses and the priests were to judge and arbitrate in their day, but God still punished and intervened at times e. g. Korah's rebellion]
But that would mean that this supposedly all-wise omniscient God actually thought it could have worked!
[God knew it wouldn't work, He chose before time began to send His Son to save mankind - that's what it's all about. Man was given an ideal knowing that man could never live up to a perfect ideal standard (would man invent a standard he couldn't ever keep?)]
...
It's an extremely valid objective point. There's nothing subjective about it. [points don't prove anything - it's just a point]
You have a situation where a supposedly omniscient God thought something might work, but it doesn't work. So he couldn't have been very omniscient or wise.
It's a simple logical contradiction. No subjectivity required.
~~~~~BOTTOM LINE: You have to prove that God thought it would work.
Where in the Bible does it say that God set up a religion that He thought would be sufficient, but didn't know that people would rejected, and had to throw together some plan B and then see what happens.
If God gave them the law (Torah; Genesis-Deuteronomy), and thought that the children of Israel could keep it, why the Levitical priesthood? Why the sacrifices and oblations for transgression of the law/sin?
Why the promise of another prophet/lawgiver like Moses (Deut. 18:18) or a new covenant (Jer. 31:31) if God thought the first was sufficient (or the time before the law was sufficient)?
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #47
Sure we do.jimvansage wrote: ~You may think me arrogant to say that my way of understanding the universe is the truth, but at least I'm appealing to objective evidence.
I respect your beliefs and the time you've spent in introspection arriving at them, but how do you expect anyone else to accept your personal musings "by faith" as it were?
You or I don't decide what is immoral or immoral.
You decide whether or not you accept that a God is "moral" based on your own choice.
Not only do you decide whether God is moral or not, but all you've been doing since the beginning of our conversation is making arguments that you think the biblical God is a moral God.
Do you disagree with the morals of the God of the Bible?
If so, then you disagree what what you believe to be God.
If you agree, then you have "decided" that you have personally accepted these fables as being "moral".
So ultimately you are the one who is deciding what you consider to be moral or not.
What are you talking about?jimvansage wrote: ~The alternative the the biblical presentation of reality:
that man has free will to trust and obey God or forsake Him, both with respective consequences,
the alternatives are either that God force us to serve Him and love Him against our will (the obsessive abusive Lifetime movie boyfriend scenario)
or He never create man in the first place
Why have you given such limited options?
You claim that either God plays hide-and-seek with us and demands that we believe in him based on outrageous highly questionable rumors with no proof or evidence whatsoever,...
OR
He forces us to serve him and love him against our will.
Excuse me?
With all due respect if that's the limit of your imagination and creativity then I'm not surprised that you believe in these ancient stories.
I can easily offer you a very sand and reasonable alternative to both of the scenarios you've just offered.
God could simply make himself known to us and appear before us like a decent honest respectable person would, and simply ask us whether we would be interested in what he has planned or not.
Then we can either accept his offer, or politely decline it. And if we politely decline it there's no call for him to go off the deep end and start throwing angry fits screaming that he'll cast us into eternal damnation. Instead all he has to do is politely thank us for hearing his offer, and then he could very politely and peacefully cause us to cease to exist without any pain or agony.
That would be a responsible way to handle the situation as far as I'm concerned.
What's up with all this damnation and threats of eternal horror if we aren't interested in what he has to offer?
There's no way to "politely" decline to serve and love this God.
You either serve and love him, or be damned.
You just said above:
Well according to the Bible that's precisely what he's doing!jimvansage wrote: the alternatives are either that God force us to serve Him and love Him against our will (the obsessive abusive Lifetime movie boyfriend scenario)
He's proclaiming that we either serve him and love him or he'll cast us into a state of eternal damnation.
That's basically is (the obsessive abusive Lifetime movie boyfriend scenario)
Love me or I'll beat the hell out of you!
That is precisely what the Biblical God is saying.
~~~~
I'm saying that if this God is truly benevolent why doesn't he simply show himself and ask people whether or not they are interested in being his eternal pets.
He should also explain to them precisely what this entails exactly. After all, shouldn't they have a right to know all the fine print before they make their decision?
And if after hearing all the details and what this God has planned, shouldn't they have the option of simply bowing out "gracefully"?
Shouldn't they have the right to say, "I thank you very much for your generous offer God, but after having read all the fine print I'm really not interested. Can you simply un-create me as painlessly as possible?"
That is a very sincere, legitimate, polite and respectful request.
Shouldn't God give people a chance to reject his offer politely without getting all bent out of shape about it?
Why cast them into eternal damnation just because they aren't interested in what he has to offer?
~~~~~
Well, I'm only reporting what I see. I see a God who demands that we be his eternal servants and worshipers, lest he'll be extremely cruel and mean to us, far more cruel or mean than the most despicable human criminal you can even think of.jimvansage wrote: ~I don't reject the truths you have presented from the Bible, just your interpretation which paints God as a moral monster.
Yes, to me that's a "monster".
And he doesn't even provide people with a polite and respectable way to decline his demand that they become his eternal pets.
Yes, absolutely. That appears to me to be a totally unreasonable monster.
Jim, it makes absolutely no sense to me that a supposedly all-powerful God who has complete omniscience would need to "sacrifice" himself before he can forgive people of their supposed sins.jimvansage wrote: You can't object to God sacrificing Himself for the sake of His creation, so you rely on the punishment He is recorded as meting out as some flaw.
Why should God be appeased by having himself nailed to pole by humans who need to be forgiven?
Why should a God want to do such an absurd thing, and hold that over humanity as a "Symbol of Love"?
To me it's nothing more than a symbol of a truly sick and demented God.
This God couldn't have done this because it was "necessary" because that would mean that he had no choice in the matter. And if he had no choice in the matter he can't be omnipotent.
If he had to do it to "win" some sort of battle with Satan (a mere fallen demonic angel) then he would be jumping through hoops for a mere fallen angel.
There no excuse for it. The only reason he could have possibly done it is because he wanted to do it. And that to me means that he's mentally ill.
It can't have been "necessary" for an omnipotent God to have no choice in the matter, because would mean that he wasn't omnipotent. It would also mean that he had limited choices and could not solve the problem using a more sane approach.
There's just no way that this story can be made to make sense, IMHO.
It has to be a superstitious rumor. That's the only sane conclusion, IMHO.
And if I assume God is perfect, then he'd have no reason to do such an imperfect thing.jimvansage wrote: If you assume He is not perfect, then He would have no right.
There's certainly nothing perfect about having yourself nailed to a pole just so you can offer someone forgiveness.
Oh please. Give me a break Jim.jimvansage wrote: But a morally superior being would not allow genocide and infanticide to continue when He can put a stop to it - a morally perfect being would not allow such to continue without some kind of correction, sabotage, or punishment.
So Jesus sat by for over 300 years watching innocent midwives being burned alive on stakes in HIS NAME and didn't step in to correct the situation?
He supposedly appeared before Saul on the road to Damascus, and converted Saul into Paul.
But he couldn't appear before the Christian monks who wrote the Malleus Maleficarum and convince them not to write that based on his religion?
A God who can, and often does, intervene in the lives of men should have nipped the Malleus Maleficarum in the bud, and have never allowed it to become associated with Christianity in any way shape or form.
If you ask me if this is a "moral God" I would say no. If Jesus was truly God then I would have no respect for him at all. The only reason I respect him at all is because I believe he was actually a mortal man.
I just gave you tons of valid reasons for questioning these myths above.jimvansage wrote: ~I guess elevating your own personal opinion as "rock solid ground" is a cavalier dismissal - I suppose my beef with cavalier dismissals was not with you personally, but something I face constantly. I certainly didn't mean to offend you.
If you have rock solid evidence other than your personal opinion, I'd like to hear about it.
You can dismiss it as "mere opinion" if you like, but I'm quite sure there will be other people who read these posts and realize the wisdom of my observations.
In fact, this is why I only post on forums. I would have absolutely no desire to discuss any of this with you personally in emails.
I doubt that anyone is going to change your mind about anything. Clearly you'll just continue to support the biblical notion of God no matter how many rock-solid points I make.
You don't even care. All you seem to care about is supporting the biblical picture at all cost. No doubt because you are convinced that to fail to support it could potentially jeopardize your chance at salvation and place you in a position where you might be included in those who are cast into an eternal hell fire.
Both. The narrative and the stories.jimvansage wrote:[~which stories? No wisdom at all, or no wisdom in some of the narrative?]Yet, I don't see any wisdom, compassion, omniscience, or anything like that in these stories. All I see are stories that totally violate all of these things.
Ok, I confess that I went overboard by saying "no wisdom at all". I'm sure there is wisdom in the Bible. I personally agree with the moral teachings of Jesus. So there's some wisdom to be sure.
But I'm talking about the overall big picture. And specifically in many of the most crucial stories. Like the story of the fall from grace for example. With all due respect to anyone who can see wisdom in that story, I personally feel that it conveys a picture of a truly ignorant, and even pathetic God.
I'll confess that this is my opinion, but still, I personally wouldn't think much of anyone who supports that cursing a woman with multiple sorrow in conception and childbirth is a wise solution to anything. Nor is it an intelligent "punishmen" IMHO.
And yes, this is of course - In My Humble Opinion.
That's what I offer and people are more than free to agree or disagree.
But as long as you continue to argue apologetics for this God, that just give me ample room to voice my opinions.
That why I bounce of of posts like yours. I see them as a great opportunity to address concerns that I have.
Almost every religion holds that is immoral to murder someone. Even Wicca has a Rede "Do as you will but harm none". Well you can hardly murder someone without harming them.jimvansage wrote: [~Is "thou shalt not commit murder" a religious fable, or rock solid moral advice?]
Yet there is nothing contradicting in Wicca that says that we should be stoning infidels or heathens to death.
In the bible there's plenty of contradictions to the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".
Well ice is a far cry from rain.jimvansage wrote: ~they call it the ice age, but that's just one interpretation of the sediment layers and such
Not a global flood that killed all humans save for 8 who were living on this planet. The evidence is in the human genome record.jimvansage wrote: [a worldwide flood could NEVER occur? You'd have to be omniscient to make such a claim - this is possibly the closet you have come to a cavalier dismissal]
Don't forget this flood would have had to have occurred after mankind had evolved enough to have become quite civilized and built entire cities. It also would have had to have occurred after mankind had well-established language and was capable of recording the story.
The Human Genome Project as traced the human genome clerly back to prehistorical times. To the days of the Neanderthal and homo erectus. Had humanity been wiped out during that time it would have definitely had a huge effect on the human genome. But no profound catastrophic event shows up. On the contrary just the opposite shows up. A very undisturbed record shows up that couldn't possible exist had such a catastrophic flood occurred.
So yes, a world-wide flood that wiped out all of humanity save for 8 people could NEVER have occurred. That's right.
The Human Genome Project has traced the evolution of humans out of Africa. Long before humans were capable of building cities or had become civilized enough for the events describe in the Biblical flood. So the flood would have had to occur after that, but it could have occurred because if it had occurred it would be apparent in the genome record.
How much of ancient fables do I need to recognize are false before I reject it?jimvansage wrote: [claims and hasty generalizations? all you've really tried to disprove is the Noahic flood, there's many more chapter in Genesis and 65 more books to consider]
And what are false stories doing in a canon that is supposed to be the infallible word of God?
You limiting God's abilities and choices extremely. Why just those two options?jimvansage wrote: [once again, God should have violated free will, condemned all, or never created man - which would have been wisest?]
Can't you imagine more creative ways to foster a creation?
I most certainly can.
jimvansage wrote: [God knew it wouldn't work, He chose before time began to send His Son to save mankind - that's what it's all about. Man was given an ideal knowing that man could never live up to a perfect ideal standard (would man invent a standard he couldn't ever keep?)]
If Jesus was the plan from the very beginning then Adam and Eve should have been given the chance to accept Jesus as their savior in the Garden of Eden.
Then they could have accepted or rejected and that would have been the end of all this foolishness.
Who said anything about proving anything?jimvansage wrote: [points don't prove anything - it's just a point]
I just give common sense arguments that should be accessible to anyone.
That's all that the apologists do. Except their arguments never even stand up to common sense.
Because that's what these stories portray.jimvansage wrote: ~~~~~BOTTOM LINE: You have to prove that God thought it would work.
Where in the Bible does it say that God set up a religion that He thought would be sufficient, but didn't know that people would rejected, and had to throw together some plan B and then see what happens.
You claimed that God had Jesus as a plan for the salvation of mankind from the very beginning.
Well duh? How does the Great Flood fit in with that hypothesis?
Why is God drowning men out as a solution to sin one minute and then the next minute he's sacrificing his only begotten son to pay for their sins and offering them salvation through grace?
It's not even a consistent story.
I don't need to prove anything. The story speaks for itself.
Because it's a collection of incompatible fables really.jimvansage wrote: If God gave them the law (Torah; Genesis-Deuteronomy), and thought that the children of Israel could keep it, why the Levitical priesthood? Why the sacrifices and oblations for transgression of the law/sin?
Why the promise of another prophet/lawgiver like Moses (Deut. 18:18) or a new covenant (Jer. 31:31) if God thought the first was sufficient (or the time before the law was sufficient)?
That's the answer to that.
Either that or you've got a God who has no clue what he really wants to do.
-
100%atheist
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:27 pm
Re: Can Jesus Christ can be shown to be the Son of God
Post #48If God exists and if he made us, we all are relatives of God. Then, Jesus (if existed) is not a unique sun of god.McCulloch wrote:Can Jesus Christ can be shown to be the Son of God by logical deduction?jimvansage wrote: I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction
3. Jesus Christ is the Son of God
If God doesn't exist, then Jesus (if existed) is not a sun of god.
Either way, logically, if god existed then anything's possible ...
