"TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe the

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

"TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe the

Post #1

Post by 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.
tam wrote: 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?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #71

Post by Divine Insight »

RightReason wrote: 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.
Well, you are already jumping to totally incorrect assumptions.

The reason the Biblical fables are problematic is not because they defy nature. They are problematic because they make self-contradictory claims about the nature and character of their God.
RightReason wrote: "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.�
All non-believers in Christianity are not necessarily "Materialists".

Again, more incorrect jumping to conclusions on your part.
RightReason wrote: “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
Again, this complaint is aimed at "materialists" not at non-believers of Biblical mythology. This also sounds like a quote from someone who can't face the thought of actually dying.
RightReason wrote:
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.
That's fine. But you just said that it requires an act of faith.

So them my question to you would be to ask, "Why in the world would I want to place my faith in the idea that humans are to blame for the ills of the world?"

I mean, of all the things I could place my faith in, that would surely be the last on the list. I can't imagine why anyone would want to believe such a derogatory things about humans as a matter of faith.
RightReason wrote: Again, you fail to acknowledge the supernatural and yet insist on using natural explanations to explain supernatural ones. That doesn’t necessarily follow.
Wrong again on your part. Where did I ever refuse to acknowledge anything supernatural? All I've ever done is reject Hebrew mythology as being clearly too ignorant and self-contradictory to be a true description of any God.

I most certainly don't hold that there cannot be a God. But I do hold that no omnipotent, omniscient, all-wise, all-intelligent God could be as ignorant and barbaric as the God described by Hebrew mythology. Not to meaning behave in such extremely self-contradictory ways.
RightReason wrote:
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.
Well, of course you would say this because you don't want to address the fact that any God who would behave this way would clearly be inconsistent, not to mention untrustworthy.

You can't allow the Bible to stand "as written" because it can't stand "as written". So you have no choice but to pretend that you could twist it into a story that it doesn't even tell.

RightReason wrote:
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 then you're going to continue making more of these defective units?

Don't you think the creator should take a bit of responsibility for the results of the things he's creating.

Keep in mind that the Biblical God fails at creating decent humans far more than creating decent ones. In fact, according to Christianity the Christianity has NEVER created a decent human. Not so much as a single solitary one.

That's a pretty bad record for a creator God.
RightReason wrote:
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.
Clearly you have absolutely no clue who you are talking with in this post.

What you don't seem to understand is that I am totally open to giving tales of Gods the ability to do any manner of supernatural "magic".

If there really does exist a creator of our physical reality that creator could do whatever he so desired, including walking on water, healing the sick, raising himself from the dead, etc, etc, etc.

I don't reject the Bible because I don't believe that supernatural magic is possible. That's your totally incorrect conclusion there.

I reject the Biblical description of God because I see no reason to believe that a God who could do all those things would ever do them in such an ignorant way.

Do you even realize that if an omnipotent God exists he would have no need whatsoever to have himself incarnated on earth specifically with the plan of having humans brutally beat him and crucify him on a pole with the purpose to be to offer undeserving sinners FREE amnesty.

He could surely do that without all the sick theatrics.

So no, my rejection of Hebrew mythology has absolutely nothing at all to do with refusing to believe that a supernatural God could exist.

In fact, I personally think it would be great if a truly all-wise and all-intelligent God could exist. That would be GREAT! :-k

But let's face it, Hebrew mythology (i.e. the Bible) simply doesn't describe an all-wise, all-intelligent God. To the contrary it describes a God that would need to be seriously mentally ill as well as extremely inept and powerless.

So my rejection of these ancient absurd and barbaric fables has absolutely nothing to do with thinking that a supernatural God could not possibly exist.

RightReason wrote:
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.

*******
Well, you seem to be forgetting that Jesus was all about "Glorifying the Father in Heaven".

You don't Glorify God by keeping these things secret. Also wasn't it Jesus who preached to let your light shine so other men could see the great works of God?

Remember the old Bible School song, "This little light of mine, I'm gonna let is shine?"

RightReason wrote:
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.
Yeah right. Would you be interested in buying a bridge?
RightReason wrote:
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.
I have some prime land in the Florida Everglades I'd like to sell you too. :D
RightReason wrote:
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/
You don't happen to have anything more recent that could actually be verified do you?
RightReason wrote:
The fallacy of this ancient mythology is so blatantly obvious,
You have established no fallacy. When you do, we can talk.
I have no desire to talk to you personally. I really don't care what you might believe. If you think I'm trying to change your mind you are once again jumping to absurd conclusions.

I post on a public forum so the public and see how utterly absurd Christian apologies truly are. And I thank you for the exchange. You have served my purpose already.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #72

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Divine Insight]
Well, you are already jumping to totally incorrect assumptions.

The reason the Biblical fables are problematic is not because they defy nature. They are problematic because they make self-contradictory claims about the nature and character of their God.
Well, your original comment:
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.
Made no mention of your problem with them being you think they consist of “self-contradictory claims about the nature and character of their God�

But sure let’s go with that . . .

I would then say that is your erroneous interpretation. You think God can’t be loving and tough? You think an all knowing God can’t allow things to play out? You think there is no place for punishment for an all just God? Obviously, all those things are possible and hardly something I would call contradictory. It reminds me of an immature teen accusing his parent as being cruel and overly strict because he just got caught doing something wrong and punished for it. Yeah, I’m sure it isn’t about his parents wanting what is best for him and others. I’m sure they are just monsters.



All non-believers in Christianity are not necessarily "Materialists".

Again, more incorrect jumping to conclusions on your part.
The quote could apply to many materialists, skeptics, non believers, agnostics, atheists, etc. It was simply making the point that often believers are more open to new ideas and recognizing there may be more than we can see right now. Whereas, those who profess to be non believers, atheists, agnostic, materialists, etc. have already made a veto of sorts, which can preventing them from seeing. It’s really a much more narrow world view.

That's fine. But you just said that it requires an act of faith.

So them my question to you would be to ask, "Why in the world would I want to place my faith in the idea that humans are to blame for the ills of the world?"

Because it has been revealed to us and I see it as true. There are lots of things that I might not want to believe, but end up being true. There are also things I think appear one way and then I realize I didn’t have all the information.

I mean, of all the things I could place my faith in, that would surely be the last on the list. I can't imagine why anyone would want to believe such a derogatory things about humans as a matter of faith.

We don’t put our faith in things because it is easy or is always accompanied by warm fuzzies. We put our faith in things that we believe to be true – good and bad. As far as someone believing such derogatory things about humans, I could argue pot meet kettle. It is funny to me to dismiss the claims/testimony/eye witness accounts of my fellow man regarding God. It’s funny how many non believers liable Christians as absurd and or mad. Sane, intelligent, rational, good, sincere individuals who claim to believe in God are ridiculed and belittled – talk about derogatory.

Wrong again on your part. Where did I ever refuse to acknowledge anything supernatural? All I've ever done is reject Hebrew mythology as being clearly too ignorant and self-contradictory to be a true description of any God.

You judge God according to natural ‘rules’. You fail to recognize their might be (supernatural) explanations beyond your understanding so you treat God as if He were a mere human, having the intellect of a mere human and couldn’t possible know more than us or have information we are not privy to. I stand by my original comment, you judge God according to man’s ways because you do not accept the supernatural. You think a God sending a flood upon the earth is equivalent to a human being do so. You reduce God to how you think He should act according to what you think is fair. Again, like a small child screaming, “That’s not fair�. You fail to know God and congratulate yourself for knocking down the straw man you have created for Him.

I most certainly don't hold that there cannot be a God. But I do hold that no omnipotent, omniscient, all-wise, all-intelligent God could be as ignorant and barbaric as the God described by Hebrew mythology.

Yep, just like the disgruntled teen cannot give his parents credit for being wise in their punishments toward him. They instead accuse them of being stupid and cruel, unable to see the love behind their actions.


Well, of course you would say this because you don't want to address the fact that any God who would behave this way would clearly be inconsistent, not to mention untrustworthy.

Sorry, again it is you who sees Him this way not me. I find no inconsistency or untrustworthiness. Is it inconsistent to say I am loving, but then I refuse to allow evil to go unchecked? I don’t think so, but apparently you do.

You can't allow the Bible to stand "as written" because it can't stand "as written". So you have no choice but to pretend that you could twist it into a story that it doesn't even tell.

Ha! Right back at ya. Your view requires interpretation just like mine. Yours just happens to be different than mine. I’d also say yours appears to be an immature simplistic take.



And then you're going to continue making more of these defective units?
And more amazing ones.

Don't you think the creator should take a bit of responsibility for the results of the things he's creating.

I think you don’t understand love, freedom, God.

Keep in mind that the Biblical God fails at creating decent humans far more than creating decent ones. In fact, according to Christianity the Christianity has NEVER created a decent human. Not so much as a single solitary one.

That's a pretty bad record for a creator God.
And yet Christianity claims we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses – Saints in heaven who have gone before us cheering us on. You hear what you want to hear. . .


“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a huge crowd of witnesses to the life of faith,� -Hebrews 12:1


"The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart. –Luke 6:45


“Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.� –Hebrews 13;7


“The precious sons of Zion, Weighed against fine gold, How they are regarded as earthen jars, The work of a potter's hands!� –Lamentations 4:2


"His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.' –Matthew 25:21



“And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another�. –Romasn 15:14


“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,� -Galationas 5:22



Clearly you have absolutely no clue who you are talking with in this post.

Right back at ya.


I don't reject the Bible because I don't believe that supernatural magic is possible.

So, you keep saying.


I reject the Biblical description of God because I see no reason to believe that a God who could do all those things would ever do them in such an ignorant way.

So, you reject God because He doesn’t fit into your view of God. How convenient. Reminds me of this clip from one of my favorite movies . . .



Image



Do you even realize that if an omnipotent God exists he would have no need whatsoever to have himself incarnated on earth specifically with the plan of having humans brutally beat him and crucify him on a pole with the purpose to be to offer undeserving sinners FREE amnesty.
The word according to Divine Insight. LOL! Did you ever think you might not have it all figured out and the incarnation could have a reason/purpose you don’t see and for the benefit of man?

He could surely do that without all the sick theatrics.
Everybody’s a critic. Everybody thinks, “Well, if I were God, I’d do it this way ______ “ he, he.


But let's face it, Hebrew mythology (i.e. the Bible) simply doesn't describe an all-wise, all-intelligent God. To the contrary it describes a God that would need to be seriously mentally ill as well as extremely inept and powerless.

Again, the word according to Divine Insight. Forgive us if some of us disagree with your take.

Well, you seem to be forgetting that Jesus was all about "Glorifying the Father in Heaven".

You don't Glorify God by keeping these things secret. Also wasn't it Jesus who preached to let your light shine so other men could see the great works of God?

Remember the old Bible School song, "This little light of mine, I'm gonna let is shine?"

Wow, you really do pick and choose your Bible passages, huh? Did you forget these? . . .




A man came to Jesus with a bad skin disease. This man got down on his knees and begged Jesus, saying, “If You want to, You can heal me.� 41 Jesus put His hand on him with loving-pity. He said, “I want to. Be healed.� 42 At once the disease was gone and the man was healed. 43 Jesus spoke strong words to the man before He sent him away. 44 He said to him, “Tell no one about this. Go and let the religious leader of the Jews see you. Give the gifts Moses has told you to give when a man is healed of a disease. Let the leaders know you have been healed.� 45 But the man went out and talked about it everywhere. After this Jesus could not go to any town if people knew He was there. He had to stay in the desert. People came to Him from everywhere. –Mark 1:40-45


Immediately the man’s ears were opened and his tongue was released, and he began to speak plainly. 36Jesus ordered them not to tell anyone. But the moreHe ordered them, the more widely they proclaimed it. –Mark 7:36


If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. –Matthew 10:14

Yeah right. Would you be interested in buying a bridge?

You commented there are no Christians who can do what the Bible claims they can do and I can provide quite a few examples. You probably don’t hear about these things much in your neck of the woods. One can only cry wolf so many times. Non believers claim they would believe if they heard/saw all these things the Bible claims and yet whenever someone tries to tell/show them, they disregard it. Is it a surprise if people stop sharing their experiences with you? You make it clear you want no part of it. So be it.

I post on a public forum so the public and see how utterly absurd Christian apologies truly are. And I thank you for the exchange. You have served my purpose already.
Right back at ya once again. I too, post to expose the typical/usual non believer rants. Yours was the usual, “How could a good God do such mean things? If God can be so mean I don’t want any part of Him.� The entire complaint is based on a straw man, as has already been pointed out to you by other Christians in this thread. You sum God up as you want to and then proceed to ask Christians how they can believe in such a God?� We don’t believe in the God you created.

You don’t seem to even be able to read the Bible as a whole, but instead cherry pick to fit your agenda. And your understanding of the Hebrew God fails to even understand the purpose/point of the Old Testament. Much of it is meant as a story/journey of man. Much of it is meant to explain the relationship between God and man and creation. Your simplistic approach seems to cause you to get a great deal wrong. But hey, keep on telling us how absurd it all is. I’m sure you know what you’re talking about. I thank you for the exchange as well.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6522
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 331 times
Contact:

Re: "TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe

Post #73

Post by tam »

Peace to you Jagella,
Jagella wrote:
tam wrote:
As JW has pointed out, the word translated heaven refers also to the abode of God.

You are using the one definition:
the vaulted expanse of the sky with all things visible in it
How can you consider that to be the correct definition of the place where God dwells when it is a place with all things visible in it?
Well, as I have demonstrated, the Bible god not only dwells in the sky but Christ goes so far as to refer to him as "Father in the sky."


You have a quote for that Jagella? Or are you actually just replacing 'heavenly' with 'in the sky', to suit your theology?
The "abode of god" is the sky. If the Bible god dwells in a place with all "all things visible in it," then he would live in the sky because visible things are in it! You know--the sun, moon, clouds, and stars.
A - the sun, moon and stars are not in the earthly atmosphere (with the clouds).

B - I urge you to read the post I wrote in response to Rik. Post 54. Because you are incorrect.

viewtopic.php?p=933172#933172

The second explanation of the meaning of the word ouranos (the place ABOVE the sidereal heavens - so above the stars and constellations) is the place where God is said to dwell. Not in the literal atmosphere of the earth.
Oh, and where did Christ go when he left the earth to return to his Father? He went up! And what is up?
You think the sky is the 'highest' up a person can go?

Christ was "taken up"... the apostles watched until a cloud hid him from their sight... and He returned to His Father in the spiritual realm.
In any case, allow me to reiterate that believers are changing the Bible god to make him more consistent with modern knowledge.


No one can change God.

But you seem to have a problem with the possibility of people growing in their understanding of God. Why? When that is something people (hopefully) do? Grow in their understanding of things?

If people misunderstood something once upon a time, that does not mean the 'something' does not exist.
The ignorant and superstitious people of the "Bible days" would have no problem believing in TMITS,


This has been proven throughout the thread as being false. But even if it were true, why would that preclude anyone from admitting a mistake and learning better now?
He is now in some ill-defined "spirit realm" the location of which is unknown or at least unspecified. There he is safe from the prying eyes of skeptics and their troubling tendency to insist he be observed and his existence verified. He is a "spirit" that we now insist is no man. Spirits, after all, are much more difficult to disprove than men.
God was always a Spirit and not a man. See again post 14. Try not to ignore the third point.

viewtopic.php?p=932898#932898

And yes, the location of the spiritual realm is unspecified (if you are looking for geographical coordinates). But the spiritual realm was not defined as being the atmosphere around the earth.

So apologists make the Bible god a moving target and they hope harder to shoot down.

No one is 'making God a moving target' for the specific reason of making it harder for you to shoot down. There is no conspiracy theory going on.

You simply cannot shoot Him down.



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

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Ancient Jewish Cosmology

Post #74

Post by Jagella »

[Replying to post 72 by tam]

Most of what you're arguing can be quickly and easily rebutted by checking the figure below. Complete with Bible references, it depicts ancient Jewish cosmology. As you can see, the Bible posits a flat earth above Sheol. The sky, made up of the firmament that separates the stars and clouds from the waters above, is directly below the realm of the Bible god. So if you want to get technical, the Bible god dwells directly above the sky rather than in it. However, from a human perspective here on earth, his realm is essentially in the sky.

Image

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6522
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 331 times
Contact:

Re: Ancient Jewish Cosmology

Post #75

Post by tam »

[Replying to post 73 by Jagella]

Most of what you're arguing can be quickly and easily rebutted by checking the figure below.
How can you look at that figure (an artistic rendition of those verses) and not see that it absolutely disputes your claim?


Also, I must ask if you also insist that Christians must believe that the earth is flat?



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

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #76

Post by Divine Insight »

RightReason wrote: You think there is no place for punishment for an all just God?
Absolutely. In fact the very concept of punishment as a solution to anything is extremely ignorant. We're already talking about an ignorant barbaric mentality the moment we speak about punishing anyone for anything.
RightReason wrote: Obviously, all those things are possible and hardly something I would call contradictory.
Well, you and I then have dramatically different views on things. If you don't see the concept of punishment as a solution to anything as being a contradiction to genuine intelligence then you and I are living in dramatically different mental worlds.
RightReason wrote: It reminds me of an immature teen accusing his parent as being cruel and overly strict because he just got caught doing something wrong and punished for it. Yeah, I’m sure it isn’t about his parents wanting what is best for him and others. I’m sure they are just monsters.
Well, they certainly aren't infinitely wise if they think that punishment is a positive or constructive solution to anything. Apparently these parents are doing this because they simply don't know any better. They simply don't have enough intelligence or creativity to figure out or know how to better deal with the problem so they resort to the ignorance of punishment. In fact, it's quite possible that these parents are doing this because they were taught this is is how a supposedly all-wise all-intelligent God deals with his children. :roll:

In other words, this very religion may actually be responsible for why these parents have accepted such an ignorant and barbaric means of attempting to solve their problems.

And apparently you are supporting this kind of ignorance today.
RightReason wrote: The quote could apply to many materialists, skeptics, non believers, agnostics, atheists, etc. It was simply making the point that often believers are more open to new ideas and recognizing there may be more than we can see right now. Whereas, those who profess to be non believers, atheists, agnostic, materialists, etc. have already made a veto of sorts, which can preventing them from seeing. It’s really a much more narrow world view.
I suggest that precisely the opposite is true. Believers continually support and stand by ancient ignorant barbarism and refuse to think that there could ever be a better way to deal with their problems.

In fact, I suggest that you have just proven my case a moment ago when you tried to justify God punishing people by suggesting that this is the way parents behave.

The problem with this is that parents are neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Parents are inept humans of limited intelligence and resources. They may indeed need to resort to ignorance and barbarism simply because they don't know any better or can't do any better.

Is this your argument for the Christian God? His behavior is "justified" because he behaves like ignorant inept human do? Humans who, by the way, have been taught that ignorant barbaric methods are the methods used by an all-wise, all-intelligent omnipotent, omniscient God, and they believed it! :roll:

So now you are trying to argue that it's not these believers who are stuck in an ancient rut of ignorance and barbarism but rather it's the atheists who refuse to become puppets to these ancient fables of an ignorant barbaric God.
RightReason wrote:
That's fine. But you just said that it requires an act of faith.

So them my question to you would be to ask, "Why in the world would I want to place my faith in the idea that humans are to blame for the ills of the world?"
Because it has been revealed to us and I see it as true. There are lots of things that I might not want to believe, but end up being true. There are also things I think appear one way and then I realize I didn’t have all the information.
But now you are attempting to argue just the opposite of "faith". Now you are arguing that you have simply been convinced that it "must be true" whether you like it or not.

That's not faith. That's just being convinced that you have no choice but to believe it because someone has convinced you that it "must be true", whether you like it or not.
RightReason wrote: We don’t put our faith in things because it is easy or is always accompanied by warm fuzzies. We put our faith in things that we believe to be true – good and bad. As far as someone believing such derogatory things about humans, I could argue pot meet kettle. It is funny to me to dismiss the claims/testimony/eye witness accounts of my fellow man regarding God. It’s funny how many non believers liable Christians as absurd and or mad. Sane, intelligent, rational, good, sincere individuals who claim to believe in God are ridiculed and belittled – talk about derogatory.
Well, to begin with those arguments aren't meant to be derogatory. They are simply meant to point the way to truth. The argument is that even the believers should be able to begin to recognize that an ignorant barbaric God must necessarily be a man-made fable. It's actually an argument that tries to get the believer to see the truth of the situation.

The believer then becomes offended at the suggestion that the God myths they have embraced as truth are being demonstrated to actually be quite ignorant and barbaric. This then naturally becomes offensive to the believers. So they go into defense mode, rather than realizing that what the non-believers are saying might actually be true.
RightReason wrote: You judge God according to natural ‘rules’. You fail to recognize their might be (supernatural) explanations beyond your understanding so you treat God as if He were a mere human, having the intellect of a mere human and couldn’t possible know more than us or have information we are not privy to. I stand by my original comment, you judge God according to man’s ways because you do not accept the supernatural. You think a God sending a flood upon the earth is equivalent to a human being do so. You reduce God to how you think He should act according to what you think is fair. Again, like a small child screaming, “That’s not fair�. You fail to know God and congratulate yourself for knocking down the straw man you have created for Him.
I don't create any straw man concerning the Biblical God character. All I do is point out what these fables claim about their obviously fictitious God and why those claims are not only self-contradictory but also not compatible with the very concepts of omnipotence, omniscient, infinite wisdom, and infinite intelligence.

By the way, the apology that you have given above is indeed the apology the Biblical authors have handed to you. The argument is that their God is so far more intelligent than us that just because we recognize the ignorance and barbarism of these ancient fables doesn't mean that they are ignorant and barbaric. They argue that their God is so far more intelligent than us that he just appears to be stupid. But in his infinite wisdom he actually has valid reasons for all this obvious stupidity.

Here is the ACTUAL apology once you really get to the bottom of things:

Yes, the Bible does indeed appear to be stupid and ignorant. But let's ignore that fact and pretend "on pure faith" that there exists an invisible imaginary God who could actually explain all that ignorance and stupidity away!

In other words, this is nothing more than a very sly (and clever) underhanded trick by the Biblical authors to take the pressure off having to defend the obviously flawed Biblical fables and instead turn the readers attention to imagining that this invisible imaginary God actually exists and that HE could explain why the Bible is so ignorant and stupid.

This then relieves the authors from having to deal with the FACT that this complaint about the Biblical fables is indeed a genuine concern.

And of course, all Biblical apologists continue to use this same apology because it apparently works. People are willing to accept this absurd apology for a failed doctrine with open arms.

But think about it. This same apology could be applied to any religious fables. If the fables don't make sense just claim that the God their refer to has reasons why these fables appear to be ignorant. And although the authors of those fables can't justify them, their imaginary God can!

How silly is that apology? I mean really?
RightReason wrote: Yep, just like the disgruntled teen cannot give his parents credit for being wise in their punishments toward him. They instead accuse them of being stupid and cruel, unable to see the love behind their actions.
Parents who punish their children are already indeed quite ignorant themselves. They were probably taught that some God uses punishment to try to solve his problems. By the way have you ever noticed that the God of the Bible never succeeded in solving any of his problems?

The God of the Bible uses punishments and threats of punishment the whole way through the Bible. They never solved anything or made anything any better. So clearly that method of trying to solve problems doesn't work anyway.

Parents who have a mentality of punishment as a solution to anything have already embraced a very sick system of mentoring their children. And they no doubt have this mentality precisely because they were taught to believe that some imaginary infinitely wise God not only uses this same method, but also condones it and supports it.

And as long as these parents are convinced that some all-wise God uses punishments to solve problems it's going to be next to impossible to convince them to abandon this ignorant barbaric mentality and move forward to something more intelligent, constructive, and productive.

So this religion is actually keeping parents in the dark ages and preventing them from moving forward to more intelligent methods of mentoring their children.
RightReason wrote: Sorry, again it is you who sees Him this way not me. I find no inconsistency or untrustworthiness. Is it inconsistent to say I am loving, but then I refuse to allow evil to go unchecked? I don’t think so, but apparently you do.
It's a straw man on your part to say that I would allow "evil" to go unchecked.

Nowhere did I ever suggest such a thing. In fact, this actually demonstrates just how powerful this religion has a hold on you. You have apparently accepted that if we don't "punish" people to teach them a lesson, then there must not be any other possible way of dealing with the problem.

In fact, this actually supports my argument. You have come to believe that a God punishes people in a means of trying to solve the problem of evil. And this God never uses any other methods. Therefore you have apparently come to accept that this must be the only way to deal with the problem. Because after all, if there were better ways to deal with the problem of evil, surely God would have known about those better methods and used them. But according to the Bible he didn't. Therefore punishment must be the ONLY method available.

The Bible simply doesn't teach any intelligent methods to deal with these problems because it was written by ignorant barbarians who simply weren't intelligent enough to figure out better ways to deal with their problems.

So now you are apparently convinced that you either punish people to teach them a lesson or "Do nothing about it at all".

But keep in mind that this is how you think. It's not how I think. So to push this onto me is indeed a straw man.

Nowhere have I ever said that parents should "Do nothing at all". In fact, they wouldn't be very good mentors if they did nothing at all.

All I have been suggestion is that there are far more intelligent, constructive, and productive ways of dealing with behaviors. At no time did I ever suggest that parents should just ignore the behavior of their children.
RightReason wrote:
You can't allow the Bible to stand "as written" because it can't stand "as written". So you have no choice but to pretend that you could twist it into a story that it doesn't even tell.
Ha! Right back at ya. Your view requires interpretation just like mine. Yours just happens to be different than mine. I’d also say yours appears to be an immature simplistic take.
Well, you're the one who is attempting to defend "punishment" as being the best method of teaching children how to behave properly.

So apparently you see the same "interpretations" in the Bible as I do.

Let's not pretend that we aren't talking about the same collection of fables.

RightReason wrote:
Don't you think the creator should take a bit of responsibility for the results of the things he's creating.
I think you don’t understand love, freedom, God.
So how do love and freedom justify an irresponsible creator?

~~~~

As to the rest of you post which is mostly Bible quotes, I'm not going to waste time responding to those. Obviously the Bible is filled with many claims that humans are too ignorant to understand God. I've already pointed out why the authors had to say that because even they knew that the Biblical scriptures are indeed ignorant.

I think our above conversation says it all.

The Bible has you convinced that the ignorant barbaric practice of punishing people is the best method of teaching people how to behave properly.

I simply disagree. That method of parenting is ignorant and barbaric and the mere fact that an attempt to defend the bible is what has cause you to bring up that as an apology for the Bible says it all.

You are attempting to justify the Bible because, according to you, punishing our children as a means of teaching them good behavior is obviously the most intelligent and wise way to go.

I couldn't disagree more.

But if that's your apology for the Biblical God so be it.

We'll just need to let this stand and let the readers decide for themselves. I'm sure other Christians will support the Biblical views as well. Because apparently people who believe in the Bible also believe that ignorant barbaric means of dealing with problems are the divine way to it.

And this is certainly one of the reasons why non-believers see this religion as being so detrimental to humanity. This ignorant barbaric religion is preventing so many people from moving forward in discovering far better way to even raise their own children.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 12738
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 444 times
Been thanked: 467 times

Re: "TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe

Post #77

Post by 1213 »

Jagella wrote: ...
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?
Invincible to what, to human eye, to human soul, or something else?

And what is sky, the atmosphere at 10000 feet, or higher level of understanding?

Bible tells God is spirit and love.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.

1 John 4:8

Now, before I continue, one should understand this: If you take a picture of a house made of stone, is the house paper, because the image is on paper? I assume that most people understand that the house is not paper. Similarly, if people are image of God, flesh is only like a canvas for the image. Image of God is painted in the body. To see the image, you should look something else than the canvas. And Bible tells God is spirit. So, to see God, one should see spirit. Spirit seems to be invisible in materialistic point of view, which is why the “invisible God� is correct, from certain point of view.

However, spirit can be seen for example like gravity, by its effect. As the Bible tells, God is love. If you see things done in love, you can see God. But it is spiritually. And perhaps it is not for all, because:

But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that were freely given to us by God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things. Now the natural man doesn't receive the things of God's Spirit, for they are foolishness to him, and he can't know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual discerns all things, and he himself is judged by no one.
1 Cor. 2:12-15

Perhaps this could be also compared to team spirit? Have you seen or felt team spirit ever?
My new book can be read freely from here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rIkqxC ... xtqFY/view

Old version can be read from here:
http://web.archive.org/web/202212010403 ... x_eng.html

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: "TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe

Post #78

Post by Divine Insight »

1213 wrote: He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8
There you go!

The very theology that you are attempting to defend proclaims that God is love.

Therefore everyone who knows love must know God.

Thus it can only follow from this that there must be countless loving people out there who know God but who don't buy into Hebrew Theology. They don't believe that Jesus was the Son of Yahweh. And they don't believe that Yahweh represents God.

And ironically John apparently agrees with them, because he has just claimed that "God is LOVE".


How can you support a religion that proclaims that God is "love" and then methodically set out to hate on everyone who refuses to believe that Jesus was the demigod Son of Yahweh sent to earth to offer them undeserved amnesty from his wrath?

In fact, why in the world is a God of "LOVE" threatening everyone with his wrath in the first place? :-k

I just don't understand how these Christian apologists cannot see the self-contradictory nature of their own dogma.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Ancient Jewish Cosmology

Post #79

Post by Jagella »

tam wrote: How can you look at that figure (an artistic rendition of those verses) and not see that it absolutely disputes your claim?
You'll need to explain how the figure that illustrates Jewish cosmology "disputes" my TIMITS model of the Bible god. But for now, let me reiterate that the only difference between TIMITS and the God in the figure is that the location of the Bible god is slightly different. TIMITS is "in the sky" while the god in the figure is "above" the sky but close to it. In any case, the locations are close enough that the difference is insignificant.

It is also important to note that the cosmology supposedly "revealed" to us by the Bible god is dead wrong. There is no firmament and no waters above the celestial bodies. The Bible god is located in a place that doesn't exist. As such, he cannot exist either.
Also, I must ask if you also insist that Christians must believe that the earth is flat?


Well, it appears that based on the evidence they must believe in a flat earth if they wish to believe in the Bible god as he was created by the Jews long ago.

But no, Christians can believe whatever they wish. I would hope, though, that they maintain beliefs that are consistent with modern science, and if those beliefs are not consistent with modern science, then they would admit that there is a discrepancy.

And for the purposes of this discussion, I hope that the Christians here would concede that TIMITS is basically correct in how it models the god they believe in.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6522
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 331 times
Contact:

Re: Ancient Jewish Cosmology

Post #80

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
Jagella wrote:
tam wrote: How can you look at that figure (an artistic rendition of those verses) and not see that it absolutely disputes your claim?
You'll need to explain how the figure that illustrates Jewish cosmology "disputes" my TIMITS model of the Bible god. But for now, let me reiterate that the only difference between TIMITS and the God in the figure is that the location of the Bible god is slightly different. TIMITS is "in the sky" while the god in the figure is "above" the sky but close to it. In any case, the locations are close enough that the difference is insignificant.
You would like to think that it is insignificant, but it is proof positive that your acronym is false. You are downplaying it, but that is exactly what that diagram says.

Note in your diagram that heaven (the abode of God) is NOT the sky, nor even the place of the stars and constellations just 'above' the sky, nor even the waters 'above' the stars and constellations (do you have a guess for what those waters might actually be, much less 'where' that might actually be? Of course not.) The abode of God is heaven, and heaven is not the sky. Which is exactly what everyone who professes to be Christian on this thread has stated and you have denied.

Nor is God a mere man... which is another thing wrong with your acronym.
It is also important to note that the cosmology supposedly "revealed" to us by the Bible god is dead wrong. There is no firmament and no waters above the celestial bodies. The Bible god is located in a place that doesn't exist. As such, he cannot exist either.
Heaven is the spiritual realm.

"Above" all of the things that you have stated. Just because you cannot see this place does not mean that it does not exist. Just because you do not know where this place is, does not mean that heaven does not exist. (Oh, and a diagram is merely an artistic rendition of what those verses state.)


But the point of this thread was to discuss your acronym. Not to discuss the existence of God.

"Timits" is inaccurate.

The very thing that I and others have stated from the start. You have been shown how inaccurate from the bible. More than that, your OWN evidence shows that your acronym is inaccurate.



Also, I must ask if you also insist that Christians must believe that the earth is flat?


Well, it appears that based on the evidence they must believe in a flat earth if they wish to believe in the Bible god as he was created by the Jews long ago.
What does the shape of the earth - and what people might have believed about it - have to do with God?

I am going to refer you back to post 72 and something you ignored (you ignored a lot of that post actually; DI does the same thing):

**

No one can change God.

But you seem to have a problem with the possibility of people growing in their understanding of God. Why? When that is something people (hopefully) do? Grow in their understanding of things?

If people misunderstood something once upon a time, that does not mean the 'something' does not exist.

**

But see, I asked you that question because even you seem to know that it would be ridiculous for you to come up with an acronym that included 'god of a flat earth'.

But no, Christians can believe whatever they wish. I would hope, though, that they maintain beliefs that are consistent with modern science, and if those beliefs are not consistent with modern science, then they would admit that there is a discrepancy.

Modern science changes as better tools are invented and more evidence is discovered.


But there is no discrepancy between science and God. The only discrepancy comes from our (mis)understanding of one and/or the other.

And for the purposes of this discussion, I hope that the Christians here would concede that TIMITS is basically correct in how it models the god they believe in.
So it has gone from correct... to "basically correct".

Or in more accurate terms, it is simply incorrect.




Peace again to you.

Locked