"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?

[bjs]

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."

I am at something of a loss here. You seem to understand that “timins� is a straw man. It does not accurately describe what Christians believe.

Why then would you intentionally use an argument that you know is false?

Or are you claiming to know what is going on in other people’s minds better than they do?

[Divine Insight]

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."

I am at something of a loss here. You seem to understand that “timins� is a straw man. It does not accurately describe what Christians believe.

Why then would you intentionally use an argument that you know is false?

Or are you claiming to know what is going on in other people’s minds better than they do?

This is where Christian Theology fails miserably.

Christian theology is not just the random opinion of individual who have decided to call themselves "Christians" and then pretend that Christianity represents what they personally believe.

In fact, to argue that is to reject the Biblical Scripture as being meaningless, undependable, and untrustworthy.

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

The Bible itself proclaims that its God is invisible.

If a Christian disagrees with this, then the Christian disagrees with the Bible.

It's that simple.

I understand that Christians would love to be able to toss out everything in the Bible that they don't agree with. But if that can be done, then people who toss out everything in the Bible could claim to be Christians. Because after all, who's to say what is and isn't permissible to toss out?

So this idea that Christianity can simply be whatever any individual "Christian" would personally like for it to be is not a valid argument for the actual religion which is based upon the Bible as being the trustworthy and dependable scriptures inspired by God.

Not only this, but if we allow for people to make up their own individual Christianities, then the very terms "Christian" and "Christianity" become absolutely meaningless and ill-defined.

[Jagella]

You seem to understand that “timins� is a straw man. It does not accurately describe what Christians believe.

I already documented straight out of the Bible that the god therein is invisible. Did you miss it?

To demonstrate that he is a man as well, all I need to do is cite other numerous passages that prove Jesus is a man (Romans 5:15, 1 Timothy 2:5) and that he is the Bible god: John 1:1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So Jesus, as both man and god, demonstrates that the Bible god is a man.

The sky part is derived from passages like Matthew 5:48:

You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The Greek word for heavenly here is ο��άνιος which can be translated as "of the sky." So "heavenly Father" can be translated as "Father of the sky."

Why then would you intentionally use an argument that you know is false?

Well, my argument isn't false as I just demonstrated. My purpose is to reveal that even Christians, if they must really face what they believe, cannot accept it.

Or are you claiming to know what is going on in other people’s minds better than they do?

I'm not sure what's going on in other people's minds regarding their religious beliefs, but I think it's fair to say that when push comes to shove, many of them are as skeptical as I am.

[Jagella]

I understand that Christians would love to be able to toss out everything in the Bible that they don't agree with.

What we are seeing here is that many Bible believers will toss out what's embarrassing to anybody who has a basic understanding of modern cosmology. Long ago many Christians would have no problem with TIMITS and no doubt many still do. However, with the knowledge we have gained from modern science, older versions of the Bible god may no longer be tenable.

[bjs]

[Replying to Jagella]

So, just to be sure that I understand your position, when Christians say, “I don’t believe this,� your response is, “Yes you do! I know what you really believe better than you do.�

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to Jagella]

So, just to be sure that I understand your position, when Christians say, “I don’t believe this,� your response is, “Yes you do! I know what you really believe better than you do.�

Why should someone who is debating against Biblical theology care what a Christian might "believe".

Christians aren't the creators of Biblical Theology. To the contrary, they are supposed to be followers of it.

In fact, it makes no sense at all to even bother debating with someone who claims to be a "Christian" yet denies what Christian Theology (i.e. The Bible) has to say.

This is why I always make it clear in my debates that my position is that the Bible cannot be true "as it is written".

Christians who actually ignore, renounce, or refuse to acknowledge what is actually written in the Bible apparently already agree with my position.

This idea that you can make up your own non-Biblical religion and call that "Christianity" is nothing short of utterly absurd.

[Jagella]

[Replying to Jagella]

So, just to be sure that I understand your position, when Christians say, “I don’t believe this,� your response is, “Yes you do! I know what you really believe better than you do.�

Assuming I'm wrong, it would be very helpful if you would correct me. Is it safe to assume that "God" for you is visible, not a man, and not in the sky? Bible passages to refute what I'm saying and that support your view would be very helpful.

And just for the record, I think I do know what many Christians believe despite what they might say. Bald denial proves nothing.

[Jagella]

Christians who actually ignore, renounce, or refuse to acknowledge what is actually written in the Bible apparently already agree with my position.

It's the strangest thing. We quote a Bible passage that very clearly describes the Bible god as invisible only to be told that it's wrong to describe him as invisible! As you say, some people deny the Bible to maintain faith in it.

Anyway, the Biblical TIMITS is no longer tenable in light of modern science and what we know about mythology. He no longer parts seas, rains fire down from the sky to burn up his enemies, impregnates virgins, or restores sight to the blind. It is then imperative that he be "redefined" to try to fit him into the modern world. He's been moved far away and said to have acted long ago. The more remote he is, presumably then the more difficult he is to disprove. Nobody is likely to believe he raised your uncle from the dead in your backyard this morning, but billions will believe he raised Jesus from the dead near Jerusalem two thousand years ago! It's easy to disprove the resurrection of your uncle, but we are just too far away in space and time to disprove the resurrection of Christ.

"Nobody is likely to believe he raised your uncle from the dead in your backyard this morning, but billions will believe he raised Jesus from the dead near Jerusalem two thousand years ago!"

[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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

The fallacy of this ancient mythology is so blatantly obvious, yet people just can't seem to give it up. I guess the promise of eternal life in paradise is just too darn attractive to give up on.