"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?

[historia]

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?

We don't need to speculate about this. We have dozens of early Christian writings -- known collectively as the Early Church Fathers -- that comment at length on the nature of God. These can tell us definitively what Christians two thousand years thought about God's location.

Here is a sample of those writing:

But this is the attribute of God, the Highest and Almighty, and the living God, not only to be everywhere present, but also to see all things and to hear all, and by no means to be confined in a place; for if He were, then the place containing Him would be greater than He; for that which contains is greater than that which is contained. For God is not contained, but is Himself the place of all.

[The Gnostics] are ignorant what the expression means, that heaven is [His] throne and earth [His] footstool. For they do not know what God is, but they imagine that He sits after the fashion of a man, and is contained within bounds, but does not contain.

For God is not in darkness or in place, but above both space and time, and qualities of objects. Wherefore neither is He at any time in a part, either as containing or as contained, either by limitation or by section . . . And though heaven be called His throne, not even thus is He contained

And we do not ask the question, How shall we go to God? as though we thought that God existed in some place. God is of too excellent a nature for any place: He holds all things in His power, and is Himself not confined by anything whatever.

These examples show quite clearly that Christians living two thousand years ago did not think that God was located in any one place, and was instead thought to be everywhere present. This outright refutes the claim that the early Christians believed God lived in "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?

This claim has no basis in history whatsoever. As we've just seen, Christians have believed from the earliest times to the present that God is present everywhere and is not located in any one place. Christian art depicting God is not authoritative for determining doctrine and, like all art, draws heavily on metaphors and symbolism. The idea that this all changed in the late-19th Century with the advent of aviation is, of course, pure fiction.

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.

It doesn't appear to me that the Christians responding in this thread are embarrassed. If anything, they seem rather bemused that a couple of internet atheists with a poor grasp of Christian history and theology are insisting that their obvious straw man argument should be taken seriously.

[William]

[Replying to post 60 by historia]

Irenaeus wrote:


[The Gnostics] are ignorant what the expression means, that heaven is [His] throne and earth [His] footstool. For they do not know what God is, but they imagine that He sits after the fashion of a man, and is contained within bounds, but does not contain.

This does not sound like any Gnostic belief I have ever encountered. My understanding is that it is [The Gnostics] who have the idea of GOD being more like this;

Theophilus of Antioch wrote:

But this is the attribute of God, the Highest and Almighty, and the living God, not only to be everywhere present, but also to see all things and to hear all, and by no means to be confined in a place; for if He were, then the place containing Him would be greater than He; for that which contains is greater than that which is contained. For God is not contained, but is Himself the place of all.

Indeed, they regarded the idea of the GOD in that first quote as being a false GOD. This is why most Gnostic writ attributed to Gnostic metaphysical-view has not found it's way into the bible, but anything which resembles the idea of the false GOD, did...at least in as far as Christian imagery, shows plainly enough, most Christian beliefs.

[Divine Insight]

It doesn't appear to me that the Christians responding in this thread are embarrassed. If anything, they seem rather bemused that a couple of internet atheists with a poor grasp of Christian history and theology are insisting that their obvious straw man argument should be taken seriously.

I agree that back when I was a Christian I was not embarrassed about believing in a God who is everywhere at once, sees everything, hears everything, and keeps track of every action every individual has ever done.

But if I believed in something like that today I would be embarrassed. Not only because of the obvious lack of evidence to support that such an imaginary entity exists, but because of the absurdity that there would exist an entity who would even want to be spying on everyone ever moment of their lives passing judgement on everything they ever do or think.

Not only this, but we're supposed to imagine this same God paying this close attention to what all humans are doing and not intervening to stop psychopaths from committing their mass murders and horrible rapes?

I mean, when you stop and think about the idea of an actual God paying this close attention to what everyone is doing and not intervening for the sake of righteousness that doesn't say much about this God's character does it?

And this is especially true if we're also going to think that this is a God that we can pray to and ask him to intervene in our own private lives.

And as a Christian we absolutely need to believe this latter line of thinking because we have Jesus proclaiming that he will do anything we ask in his name.

Well, think about this:

My aunt is a very sincere devout Christian. She's quite involved with the church and definitely believes in Jesus. Her daughter married a man who turned out to be an abusive husband. So my aunt was very sincere in praying in Jesus' name to protect her daughter from harm by her daughter's abusive husband.

What ended up happening is that the husband ended up killing her daughter by beating her to death with a jack handle. He not only beat her to death, but he also continued to beat her dead body beyond recognition. In addition to be charged with murder he was also charged with mutilating a corpse. That's how violently this man unleashed his anger.

So now we're not supposed to be embarrassed by thinking that some all-knowing God who watches every second of everyone's lives did absolutely nothing to prevent this horrible brutal murder?

And don't give me the "Free Will" excuse because there are countless ways that God could have prevented this from happening without violating anyone's free will.

Apparently it's a lie that Jesus will do anything we ask in his name. He won't even protect our children from harm.

I personally think Christians should be extremely embarrassed for believing in these ancient superstitious religions when it's crystal clear that they aren't even true.

The excuse that a couple atheists have a poor grasp of Christianity simply doesn't cut it.

There is nothing in Christianity that could justify a God who spies on everyone 24/7, PROMISES to do whatever we ask in his name, and then does absolutely NOTHING we ask when it comes time to keep his promises.

When are the Christians going to recognize that they've been taken for a ride by an ancient false religion?

Exactly how much proof do they need to realize that this religion simply cannot be true?

Trying to blame atheists for a failed religious doctrine simply doesn't hold water.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 62 by Divine Insight]

But if I believed in something like that today I would be embarrassed. Not only because of the obvious lack of evidence to support that such an imaginary entity exists, but because of the absurdity that there would exist an entity who would even want to be spying on everyone ever moment of their lives passing judgement on everything they ever do or think.

Yes the concept of an ephemeral 'cloud' of knowledge, keeping track of the activity of billions of people all over the planet at every moment is clearly absurd...



or it at least it still was bout 20 years ago. if we mere mortals can build such a system, Id hardly put it past the creator of the universe,

[Jagella]

We don't need to speculate about this. We have dozens of early Christian writings -- known collectively as the Early Church Fathers -- that comment at length on the nature of God. These can tell us definitively what Christians two thousand years thought about God's location.

Actually, the truth of the matter is that the early Christians varied greatly in their theology. So sure, some of the early church fathers may have disagreed with the New Testament writers whom I have extensively documented on this thread as obvious believers in TIMITS. It appears that some people here misunderstand TIMITS as confined to the sky, but like other mythological figures he could on occasion act upon the earth and dwell on it for periods of time like he did when he "sent" the mythological Christ.

So I apologize for the confusion. Everybody please take note that TIMITS is not confined to the sky although it is his normal dwelling place.

These examples show quite clearly that Christians living two thousand years ago did not think that God was located in any one place, and was instead thought to be everywhere present. This outright refutes the claim that the early Christians believed God lived in "the sky."

Not really. All it proves is that some Christians said that the Bible god could be in places aside from the sky--a claim that is not in conflict with TIMITS (see comment above).

Christian art depicting God is not authoritative for determining doctrine...

And neither are the teachings of the early church fathers! There is no single, universally accepted "church doctrine" or "Christian theology" but many conflicting views. There always has been dissent among Christians and that includes the nature of the Bible god. So quoting a handful of early Christians to deny TIMITS proves nothing.

So your main error in this post is your assumption that there was one, universally accepted theology in the early church dictated by some of the church fathers.

It doesn't appear to me that the Christians responding in this thread are embarrassed.

Now there I might agree with you. They appear desperate to me.

If anything, they seem rather bemused that a couple of internet atheists with a poor grasp of Christian history and theology are insisting that their obvious straw man argument should be taken seriously.

Your posts would be much shorter without the ad hominems and other logical errors.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 62 by Divine Insight]

But if I believed in something like that today I would be embarrassed. Not only because of the obvious lack of evidence to support that such an imaginary entity exists, but because of the absurdity that there would exist an entity who would even want to be spying on everyone ever moment of their lives passing judgement on everything they ever do or think.

Yes the concept of an ephemeral 'cloud' of knowledge, keeping track of the activity of billions of people all over the planet at every moment is clearly absurd...



or it at least it still was bout 20 years ago. if we mere mortals can build such a system, Id hardly put it past the creator of the universe,

You seem to have forgotten to address the absurdity of why an entity would want or even need to do this?

You also can't ignore the myriad of contradictions involved with the religion that holds this to be the case. Their God is supposed to be omniscient far into the future. He knows what you're going to do even before you do it. Keep in mind that this necessarily has to be true in this religion because the whole religion is based on the idea that it's all been "prophesied" to happen.


So why does this God need to watch people when he already knows everything they will ever do?

Not only this, but if he is as powerful as claimed then why wasn't he able to mentor humans correctly in the first place. Was this God this inept as a teacher that he has so many disobedient children?

Keep in mind that this is a religion where the God condemns that vast majority of souls he creates. Shouldn't we expect that after he had seen how inept of a creator he was he would have stopped creating humans by now?

This God supposedly realized that he was a terrible designer/creator thousands of years ago, when he was sorry he had ever created humans and drown them all out save for a handful of sinners, that only when on to procreate precisely what this God supposedly didn't want to happen in the first place.

Not only should humans feel embarrassed for believing in such an inept God, but this God himself should be extremely embarrassed by his own ineptitude.

Of course, the God could only be embarrassed if actually existed, right? But then again, we can always ask how a fictional character should feel if they were real. So I guess it's an interesting question to ponder in any case.

[Jagella]

Trying to blame atheists for a failed religious doctrine simply doesn't hold water.

The fact of the matter is that when the early Christians were making up their religion, they didn't always get the opportunity to work together closely enough to avoid contradicting each other. So to whitewash these embarrassing contradictions some apologists today ridicule skeptics who criticize some Christian dogma that those apologists may not hold. The apologists falsely claim that the dogma is not a "true" Christian dogma while it is actually a Christian dogma they don't agree with.

I just hope nobody is stupid enough to fall for those kinds of tactics.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 65 by Divine Insight]

Why would you watch over your own children?, provide guidance, yet allow them to make and learn by their own mistakes?

All you need is Love, Divine!

[RightReason]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

I honestly can't understand how any modern person can continue to believe in these ancient stories.


There are just too many obvious problems with them.

Wait, let me guess – they are problematic because they defy nature? That’s kind of the point and something called supernatural intervention. A problem only occurs in applying natural laws to a supernatural world. People don’t like the notion of revealed truth being given as much weight, or even more than discovered truth. However, for Christians this is not a problem. We aren’t as narrow in our thinking.


"The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel.�


“Spiritual doctrines do not actually limit the mind as do materialistic denials. Even if I believe in immortality I need not think about it. But if I disbelieve in immortality I must not think about it.� – G.K. Chesterton

1. We now know that it's simply not true that humans are to blame for the ills of the world that we have come to label as "evil".


So the very accusation that the Biblical fables hold out against humans is clearly a false accusation.

Actually, we don’t know that “it's simply not true that humans are to blame for the ills of the world� How do you know this to be false possibility? Unless you are the creator of the universe, you would have no way of knowing what is or is not a result of man’s fall. Again you don’t accept revealed truth. That’s fine. It requires an act of faith. But many people do accept it.


Again, you fail to acknowledge the supernatural and yet insist on using natural explanations to explain supernatural ones. That doesn’t necessarily follow.

2. This is a God who at one point hates the world so much that he drowns out humans and wishes he had never created them. Only to turn around later and arrange to have humans brutally crucify his only begotten son (or himself) so that he can offer them undeserved amnesty for being sinners.

That is a very general explanation that I would say misses much.

Just these two observations alone should be more than enough to convince anyone that these stories are absurd.

Why? If you created something and realized some of your creation became corrupted, you might want to purge them so as not to prevent the corruption from spreading further. This makes sense to me.

And the real truth is that I could list at least 100 more items related to the Bible that are basically just as compelling evidence that it's nothing more than an obviously absurd collection of superstitious tales.

Ha! Go ahead and try. Again what you can do is list some things you think are absurd superstitious tales. Let me guess you will claim it is impossible for a human being to walk on water or give sight to the blind? It’s only impossible until it happens. And that of course is what makes it so unbelievable – that it isn’t the norm, but also so awesome to acknowledge there exists things beyond this earthly world’s natural laws. To limit oneself in thinking only one’s own little bubble is the only thing is what perhaps should be considered absurd.

In fact, let's just go with one more just for fun:

3. Mark 16: [17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; [18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Really?

Yes.

Where are these believers? I never met a so-called "believer" who could do anywhere near these things.

You must be very unfamiliar with the litany of Saints. Those individuals who have fought with Satan, spoken in tongues, healed the sick, miraculously survived dangerous things, etc. You also must not be in circles where lay folk have experienced miracles that they don’t go public with, but share with other believers.

*******

At one point, John was arrested and sentenced to death by the authorities. The method? Being plunged into boiling hot oil in front of a crowd of spectators at the Colosseum. But, miraculously, when John was dumped into the pot, he didn’t get burned. He was able to be in the oil just fine; he was totally unaffected. The story goes that everyone at the stadium was converted to the Christian faith.

St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, lived from A.D. 80 to 167 and was a disciple of the Apostle John. He was arrested and taken to a stadium in Rome to be burned to death in a front of a crowd.

He was tied to a stake, the fires were lit… but then he wouldn’t burn.

St. Daniel the prophet was thrown into a lion’s den. When the king awoke the next morning, he checked on Daniel, who was miraculously still alive! An angel had closed the mouths of the lions.

St. Catherine of Siena - save for receiving the Eucharist, she apparently ate very little (or nothing at all) for the last 19 years of her life. 19 years. And yet she miraculously continued on, serving the Church.

https://churchpop.com/2015/01/07/6-sain ... d-not-die/

The fallacy of this ancient mythology is so blatantly obvious,

You have established no fallacy. When you do, we can talk.

[Jagella]

Probably?

At the time, the writers of those passages were denying the idea that God might change His mind (or lie)... as men do. God is not a man that He would do these things. This has nothing to do with your personal idea that some 'heretic' Jews might have believed God was a mere man.

Second...

Are you using 'man' in your title based on (your idea of) what might 'probably' have been a heretical belief that prophets rebuked as being untrue? How does that make sense? How does it make sense to take a heretical idea that was rebuked as being untrue... and turn around and tell people today that this heretical belief is what they must believe? That this accurately describes their God?

Third...

Those quotes state explicitly that God is not a man. Didn't you and DI go on about how 'believers' toss out what they don't agree with? How are you not doing that very thing right now?

You're making the same huge blunder that Historia has made. You assume that since some of the Jewish or Christian writers say something about the Bible god, then that was a universally accepted theology. I say that some of the Jews at that time probably believed the Bible god was a man for the obvious reason that some of the Jewish writers were denying that the Bible god was a man. Why would they bother to say he wasn't a man if everybody believed he wasn't a man?

And yes, I'm arguing what I think probably happened. That's history: what probably happened.

And no, I'm not "tossing anything out." I have no doubt that some of the Jews did not believe the Bible god was a man or at least they said he wasn't a man. But TIMITS, if I did not make it clear, is primarily a Christian version of the Bible god. In fact, you should be aware that one of the major theological conflicts between Jews and Christians is the possibility of the Bible god becoming a man. Jews deny that Christ, who was said to be a man, could be the Bible god while Christians say he was the Bible god.

So do you deny that Christ is the Bible god, or do you deny that he is a man? If you deny either, then you deny what most Christians believe.