"TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe the

[Jagella]

Due to popular demand, I've decided to again tackle the subject of what may or may not be an accurate description of the Bible god. I think it's safe to say that most Christians would reject or at least not affirm that the god they believe in can be accurately described as "The Invisible Man In The Sky." They probably feel that "TIMITS" is not a name that most people can respect because it makes the Bible god appear to be mythological or even the product a a child's imagination.

While I think the name TIMITS fits well, another member here disagrees.

Invisible

Might have a problem here. Just because something is unseen does not mean that it is invisible. My brother lives on the other side of the country; I cannot see him, but he is not invisible.

God dwells in the spiritual realm (in unapproachable light). We may not currently see Him; but that does not mean He is invisible; nor does it mean that other spirit beings cannot see Him. As well, what would be the point of God saying, 'No one can see me and live'... if He was invisible, if no one could see Him, ever? Would He not have said instead, "No one can see me because I am invisible"?

"No one can see me and live" implies rather than that He is too powerful a being for us to physically (stand in His presence and) see Him. At least not in this vessel (the body that we currently inhabit).

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

This argument is very easy to disprove. The Bible god is indeed invisible. Just read Colossians 1:15:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Question for Debate: Would anybody else like to affirm or deny that the Bible god is The Invisible Man In The Sky?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

If it's The Invisible Man In The Sky v The Invisible Multiverse In The Sky...

My money is on the former, it appears to be the less improbable explanation no matter how you chose to word it.

[tam]

[Replying to post 38 by Jagella]

I just don't understand why Christians would object to referring to their God as TIMITS anyway.

Simple.

Because it is not true.

That is my reason at least. But then, I would never refer to my God as that in the first place, because my God is the God and Father of Christ; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the Most Holy One of Israel; and He has a name. There are many accurate ways to refer to my God.

But TIMITS is inaccurate, as has been pointed out in this thread. So why would I use it?

You guys can use whatever you want of course. I am merely pointing out that this description is inaccurate. Even being shown how it is inaccurate, you continue using (or defending) it. And that is your choice.

But me, I prefer to stick to the truth. At the very least, I prefer not to continue saying something that is shown to be untrue.


To each their own.




Peace again to you!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 39 by Divine Insight]

To answer your post 39, DI, I theorize that it may be embarrasment. It may be that Jagella's non-flowery language, his efforts to "dumb-down" the descriptions of Bible God so that it essentially is the Invisible Man in the Sky reveal what is essentially the silliness of their beliefs.
Two or three thousand years ago, a person who said that God was in the sky was not thought of as silly. It would have been thought of as obvious that God is there. Hence why the Bible, a collection of documents from two or three thousand years ago, make so many references to God in the sky.
But today? Today we have airplanes, drones, rocket ships, satellites and even the ISS! We know for a fact that there is no man in the sky (though there may still be an invisible one).
So when Jagella talks about TIMITS, he's pointing out the silliness of the Christian belief, their theology - that there is a man in the sky who is invisible.
We tend to "wean" children out of the belief that there are monsters underneath their bed - we have them kneel down with us, shine a light underneath and point out there's nothing there besides their shoes and maybe some socks they forgot to throw in the laundry. The child eventually accepts that their prior belief of monsters is silly, there's nothing to it.
But the Christian belief about their God? We've shown them there's no such thing as a man in the sky, so now they probably feel embarrassed to still maintain the belief.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 42 by tam]

Simple.

Because it is not true.

Tam, if you somehow talked to a Christian or a Jew from two or three thousand years ago, what is your estimate of the probability that they would refer to God in the sense as a man who is invisible who lives in the sky?
Jagella has pointed out Bible phrases that refer to such. Greeks who believed in Zeus and Hera believed they lived on top of Mount Olympus, and they had a convenient excuse for believing such - they never climbed to the top to see whether or not their gods were actually there.
You have tried to counter Jagella's argument by saying something along the lines that the Greek word used for sky in Biblical texts actually means a spiritual realm. Is it your contention that any time the word sky is used in the Bible to refer to Jesus and/or God, it must mean a spiritual realm, and not the physical sky you and I see (the one with the clouds)? If so, you'll have to explain all the Christian artwork over the centuries depicting Jesus and/or God being in a cloudy sky realm.
It seems clear to myself and Jagella that Christians think and have thought of their God as being from the sky. It's only in recent decades, with the advent of flying machines, that now we (meaning non-Christian skeptics) are seeing Christians backing away from this line of thought. However, centuries of Christian artwork cannot be easily brushed away. Were Christians for two thousands years wrong on just where their god is?

But then, I would never refer to my God as that in the first place, because my God is the God and Father of Christ; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the Most Holy One of Israel; and He has a name. There are many accurate ways to refer to my God.

None of this precludes your God from being TIMITS.

But TIMITS is inaccurate, as has been pointed out in this thread.

If you asked a person from the 1600s, would they have agreed with you?

Even being shown how it is inaccurate, you continue using (or defending) it. And that is your choice.

Jagella and I are only going by Christian writings and artwork. As Jagella points out in earlier comments, his description comes from those sources. So you have to actually argue with those Christians who depicted their god as coming from the sky.

At the very least, I prefer not to continue saying something that is shown to be untrue.

I agree 100%. Now that we have technology that has mapped the complete sky, we can be very confident that there is no man floating around in the sky.
So why should I continue to put stock in Christian beliefs and theologies that still maintain this? I mean...it's not like you can just chuck the Bible out and still claim to be talking about the very same god as the one in that...or can you?
Wouldn't you think someone silly if, after Mount Olympus has been reached, they continue to maintain a belief in Zeus and Hera and the other Greek gods as having their home there?

[Goose]

Question for Debate: Would anybody else like to affirm or deny that the Bible god is The Invisible Man In The Sky?

I don't believe that the Biblical God is this guy...

...in the sky.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

If it's The Invisible Man In The Sky v The Invisible Multiverse In The Sky...

You are obviously comparing the credibility of TIMITS to a modern scientific hypothesis. While I'm not too sure that there is a multiverse, I do understand that the multiverse follows from the principles of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics has been extensively tested and has survived all those tests. TIMITS, by contrast, is an idea that originated among primitive, superstitious people many of whom made good use of TIMITS for political purposes.

My money is on the former, it appears to be the less improbable explanation no matter how you chose to word it.

I see those political purposes are very effective!

[Jagella]

...it is not true.

That is my reason at least. But then, I would never refer to my God as that in the first place, because my God is the God and Father of Christ; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the Most Holy One of Israel; and He has a name. There are many accurate ways to refer to my God.

But TIMITS is inaccurate...

...Even being shown how it is inaccurate, you continue using (or defending) it. And that is your choice.

But me, I prefer to stick to the truth. At the very least, I prefer not to continue saying something that is shown to be untrue.

I'm still wondering what the "accurate" image of the Bible god might be. How can he be present yet unseen if he is not invisible? If he is not invisible, then why is he unseen? Is he hiding somewhere?

In any case, if you disagree with TIMITS, then you need to straighten out all those Christian artists who have depicted him in the sky. You may wish to publish your own version of the Bible in which you make clear what the Bible god is really like to clear up all the confusion.

Finally, as I have proved, Jesus often referred to his "Father in the sky." So I'm thinking of a new acronym for the Bible god: "Father In The Sky" or FITS.

[Goose]

Finally, as I have proved, Jesus often referred to his "Father in the sky." So I'm thinking of a new acronym for the Bible god: "Father In The Sky" or FITS.

Old news. It's already been done.

Sky daddy

But go ahead and refer to God as whatever you wish.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 46 by Jagella]


Guy Threepwood wrote:

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

If it's The Invisible Man In The Sky v The Invisible Multiverse In The Sky...

You are obviously comparing the credibility of TIMITS to a modern scientific hypothesis. While I'm not too sure that there is a multiverse, I do understand that the multiverse follows from the principles of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics has been extensively tested and has survived all those tests. TIMITS, by contrast, is an idea that originated among primitive, superstitious people many of whom made good use of TIMITS for political purposes.

Not so long ago all physical reality was understood to be accounted for by a handful of simple 'immutable' laws. Nothing was more 'superstitious' than concepts of deeper, mysterious, invisible guiding forces.. coincidence that Planck was a skeptic of atheism?

Similarly the Primeval Atom was mocked as religious 'pseudoscience' and 'big bang' for it's theistic implications- Lemaitre had no such ideological restrictions to scientific progress.

The Invisible Multiverse In The Sky, or Flying Spaghetti Multiverse, or whatever you prefer to call it, is philosophical speculation, inherently beyond scientific investigation. But we all believe in something, as long as we acknowledge our belief, faith as such- we can all get along.

on political purposes:

Atheist states like USSR, North Korea, Communist China required massive political brute force to oppress every other belief. And where that oppression recedes, faith in God returns among millions of free thinking people.

Can we at least agree that we should not mix politics with religion?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 38 by Jagella]

I just don't understand why Christians would object to referring to their God as TIMITS anyway.

Simple.

Because it is not true.

That is my reason at least. But then, I would never refer to my God as that in the first place, because my God is the God and Father of Christ; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the Most Holy One of Israel; and He has a name. There are many accurate ways to refer to my God.

But TIMITS is inaccurate, as has been pointed out in this thread. So why would I use it?

You guys can use whatever you want of course. I am merely pointing out that this description is inaccurate. Even being shown how it is inaccurate, you continue using (or defending) it. And that is your choice.

But me, I prefer to stick to the truth. At the very least, I prefer not to continue saying something that is shown to be untrue.


To each their own.




Peace again to you!

But don't you see how utterly absurd this is?

The Christians are desperately attempting to try to make their God appear somewhat respectable by refusing to acknowledge that anything in the Bible should be taken literally, and demanding that they can twist everything to mean something else by simply appealing to abstract metaphors in an attempt to push what they see as some sort of "respect" or "reverence" onto the Biblical God.

But how silly is that?

Why not just allow the acronym of TIMITS to be an abstract metaphor for an invisible God who constantly spies on people and watches every move they make whilst reading every thought they have?

Surely you don't deny that the Biblical God is a shameless spy who is constantly watching everything you do and knowing all of your thoughts as well as your intentions. Christians even claim that their God knows your intentions even better than you do.

And you certainly can't see this Spy God as he stalks your every move. Therefore he is indeed invisible while he spies on you.

So surely you can't complain about the following acronym.

TIGS - The Invisible God Spy

To renounce that acronym you'd need to argue that your God doesn't spy on people constantly whilst remaining entirely invisible to them.

You certainly can't claim this description isn't true.