Help of hinderance?

[Elijah John]

Does the claim that "Jesus is God" help or hinder your belief (or would be belief) that there is a God?

Please explain.

[bluethread]

No, we humans have this ability to envision alternate realities. That is what I think is meant by the knowledge or tov(good) and ra'(evil). That is why Adonai says, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." We can imagine what it is like to be a deity, as we can imagine, what it is like to be a dog, a cat, or a dragonfly. Of course, those imaginings will not be entirely accurate, especially if we make the mistake of anthropomorphizing things. That is what one is doing, when one holds a deity to the standards for human existence.

You are correct in that man is merely imagining these deities, then he anthropomorphizes. But the key here is that man is merely using his imagination. But I disagree with you when you claim we cannot hold accountable this imaginary God. You are avoiding the main point I'm making, which is this:

According to you, God can kill, torture, enslave, be sexist, racist, tribalist and do all manner of what we humans consider evil, but you excuse 'him' because he is God. Even accepting your argument, how can you then tell whether a God is good or evil? You have agreed God should not be judged by our human standards. How then do we distinguish between a good god and an evil one?

I did not say that Adonai is imaginary. I said, we can imagine what it would be like to be a deity, just ast we can imagine what it would be like to be a dog, cat or dragonfly. I hope you do not think that I was saying that dogs, cats and dragonfies are imaginary. Now, when you use the phrase "we humans", I gather you mean "we humanists". Some of the things you listed I do not see as "goods", but as we have discussed on other threads, I do not think some of them are necessarily unacceptable for humans. With regard to other life forms, things are even more different. The rules are different for the afore mentioned dogs, cats and dragonflies, even for the humanist. That is the problem with the common modern use of the terms "good" and "evil", they mean different things to different people based on their own philosophical positions. What a humanist sees as "good", a pragmatist might see as "evil", and what a pragmatist sees as good, a rationalist might see as evil. That is why that is one of the first things addressed in the Scriptures. Tov is that which is according too Adonai's ways and Ra' is according to the ways of the nations, or, as you referred to above, the imaginings of man.

The Bible does not give us helpful guidance for this question.
"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God."
__ 1 John 4:2
This of course is circular. Following this blind guide, a spirit that tells you to kill your son, or be a mass murderer, or flood the world as long as he says "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God."

Again, you make my point. I do not recall ever having made the argument you present. I am more of a rationalist than a mystic. However, you do not understand that way of evaluating things, because you come from a different philosphical position.

Getting us back to the OP, a possible difference between Yeshua being just a perfect rabbi and being Adonai would be that in the latter case Yeshua could negate the written Torah. However, I do not see Him doing so. This is important because HaTorah tells us to test the spirits, based on HaTorah. So, for me, there is no need to choose between the two. For me, Yeshua provides a proper application of HaTorah and HaTorah verifies that what Yeshua is saying is true.

[Danmark]

No, we humans have this ability to envision alternate realities. That is what I think is meant by the knowledge or tov(good) and ra'(evil). That is why Adonai says, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." We can imagine what it is like to be a deity, as we can imagine, what it is like to be a dog, a cat, or a dragonfly. Of course, those imaginings will not be entirely accurate, especially if we make the mistake of anthropomorphizing things. That is what one is doing, when one holds a deity to the standards for human existence.

You are correct in that man is merely imagining these deities, then he anthropomorphizes. But the key here is that man is merely using his imagination. But I disagree with you when you claim we cannot hold accountable this imaginary God. You are avoiding the main point I'm making, which is this:

According to you, God can kill, torture, enslave, be sexist, racist, tribalist and do all manner of what we humans consider evil, but you excuse 'him' because he is God. Even accepting your argument, how can you then tell whether a God is good or evil? You have agreed God should not be judged by our human standards. How then do we distinguish between a good god and an evil one?

I did not say that Adonai is imaginary.

Correct. According to you he is not imaginary. But this is a deflection. I repeat, According to you, God can kill, torture, enslave, be sexist, racist, tribalist and do all manner of what we humans consider evil, but you excuse 'him' because he is God. Even accepting your argument, how can you then tell whether a God is good or evil? You have agreed God should not be judged by our human standards. How then do we distinguish between a good god and an evil one?

Since you reject an actual analysis of the acts of this 'god,' to determine his morality, How then do you distinguish between a good god and an evil one? You say God can do what he wants and what ever he says and does is good by definition because HE does it or says it. You appear to be admitting that GOD is God and is not to be judged by us no matter what he does or decrees. Will you face up to this question, or continue to avoid and deflect?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 34 by tam]

For example: hate one's own life... has a different meaning than... hate life itself.

Do you disagree on that point?

I'm not sure. The two statements are ambiguous. "Life" is not defined.

Yes, I am citing a different passage for context, and to show how translating the above passage as life itself can lead to error. Translating as one's own life does not carry the same misconception.

I'd recommend you learn to translate before you offer advice about how to avoid translation errors.

The doctrine of eternal torment in hell is a false doctrine.

I know you will deny this citation, but for those who are open to what the Bible really says...Revelation 20:10, 15:

And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever...

...anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

(And He did not get executed because of any law that he broke; He broke no law.)

Wrong. According to the gospel tale, Jesus was executed for sedition against Rome. As the supposed Messiah, he was seen as Israel's deliverer from the Roman occupation. The Romans didn't fool around with such rebels.

But please note that I did not say that those atheists were happy or unhappy. How would I know? I stated only that their happiness is obviously not based upon their atheism. Or else why would they wish to have their previous beliefs back?

I can't speak for all atheists, but I want my Christian beliefs back about as much as I want my pneumonia back. I love being free of the God lie.

So the practice is to start out with a Jesus who is consistent with modern morality, look for evidence to support that image, and deny any evidence to the contrary.

This is what I see you doing, Jagella.

Perhaps not. In fact, my present view of Jesus developed when I was still a Christian. I tried to prove he was what Christians claim. Do I need to explain the result of that effort?

In any case, the doctrine of eternal damnation (as most teach it: eternal torment in hell) is a false doctrine. That can be argued BECAUSE it is at odds with a God who is love...

Did you consider the possibility that "God" is an idea based in hate rather than love?

The "sword" Jesus taught his followers was surely not lost on them. This teaching inspired John of Patmos to write in Revelation 14:19-20.

I see no 'might haves' or 'could haves' in that ; )

That's not the statement we were discussing.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 36 by Danmark]

You can certainly see why non believers see confirmation bias at work, rather than honest interpretation.

That's correct. When Christians wish to confirm what they want to believe about Jesus, then truth goes right out the window if it gets in the way. Only the "nice" passages about Jesus are accepted at face value. Problematical passages are "reinterpreted" to fit the party line. So "love" is just what it says while "hate" means something other than hate.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 40 by tam]

Christ also said that we are to love all of these ones (including ourselves, including even our enemies).

Did you ever hear of a "contradiction"? So Jesus commanding love contradicted his antisocial statements. He wasn't consistent.

[tam]

Peace to you Jagella,

[Replying to post 34 by tam]

For example: hate one's own life... has a different meaning than... hate life itself.

Do you disagree on that point?

I'm not sure. The two statements are ambiguous. "Life" is not defined.

Fair enough.

Yes, I am citing a different passage for context, and to show how translating the above passage as life itself can lead to error. Translating as one's own life does not carry the same misconception.

I'd recommend you learn to translate before you offer advice about how to avoid translation errors.

Oh, okay then... I'd recommend you get a degree in psychiatry before you offer advice on what constitutes mental illness, and especially before you start stating who in this world is suffering from mental illness.

The doctrine of eternal torment in hell is a false doctrine.

I know you will deny this citation, but for those who are open to what the Bible really says...Revelation 20:10, 15:

And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever...

...anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Why would I deny the citation?

You will note that the only 'things/beings' being reported that they will be tormented "day and night, forever and ever"... are the devil, the beast (which is not a person or an actual living being at all), and the false prophet (I do not know if that is a person or a religion or something else).

No humans though. Humans may be thrown into the lake of fire, but for them, the lake of fire means simply the second DEATH. Says so right in the text at 20:14. The lake of fire is the second death.


No torment. Just death. (eternal death, meaning there is no resurrection from that; that death is forever).

(And He did not get executed because of any law that he broke; He broke no law.)

Wrong. According to the gospel tale, Jesus was executed for sedition against Rome. As the supposed Messiah, he was seen as Israel's deliverer from the Roman occupation. The Romans didn't fool around with such rebels.

Nowhere will you find this account in the gospel tale. According to the gospel tale, Pontius Pilate found NO basis for a charge against Christ and wanted to release Him. He might have been falsely accused of sedition, but Pontius Pilate found no charge against Him that was worthy of death, and he said so, according to the gospel tale. Christ committed no rebellion; and incited NO ONE else to commit a rebellion either.

So the practice is to start out with a Jesus who is consistent with modern morality, look for evidence to support that image, and deny any evidence to the contrary.

This is what I see you doing, Jagella.

Perhaps not. In fact, my present view of Jesus developed when I was still a Christian. I tried to prove he was what Christians claim. Do I need to explain the result of that effort?

But those who profess to be Christian claim many different (and often conflicting) things. Which particular claims are you referring to? And did you forget that there were also false christians out there making false claims?

In any case, the doctrine of eternal damnation (as most teach it: eternal torment in hell) is a false doctrine. That can be argued BECAUSE it is at odds with a God who is love...

Did you consider the possibility that "God" is an idea based in hate rather than love?

I cannot consider God as an idea at all; I have no compelling evidence to do so. Not that I have never entertained the idea that God is an idea, lol. But I would have to ignore the evidence I have to the contrary.

The "sword" Jesus taught his followers was surely not lost on them. This teaching inspired John of Patmos to write in Revelation 14:19-20.

I see no 'might haves' or 'could haves' in that ; )

That's not the statement we were discussing.

It was. Please take a second look at the last part of post 25.




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

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 46 by tam]

You will note that the only 'things/beings' being reported that they will be tormented "day and night, forever and ever"... are the devil, the beast (which is not a person or an actual living being at all), and the false prophet (I do not know if that is a person or a religion or something else).

No humans though. Humans may be thrown into the lake of fire, but for them, the lake of fire means simply the second DEATH. Says so right in the text at 20:14. The lake of fire is the second death.

No torment. Just death. (eternal death, meaning there is no resurrection from that; that death is forever).

Actually, if the Devil and false prophet are tormented forever in the lake of fire, then I think it's reasonable to conclude that anybody that Jesus tosses into that lake of fire will be eternally tormented.

Not clear enough? Here's Revelation 14:11:

And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image and for anyone who receives the mark of its name.

Even if this punishment isn't eternal, don't you think it's a horrible enough thing to do? Jesus is a monster far worse than Satan.

[tam]

Peace to you Jagella,

[Replying to post 46 by tam]

You will note that the only 'things/beings' being reported that they will be tormented "day and night, forever and ever"... are the devil, the beast (which is not a person or an actual living being at all), and the false prophet (I do not know if that is a person or a religion or something else).

No humans though. Humans may be thrown into the lake of fire, but for them, the lake of fire means simply the second DEATH. Says so right in the text at 20:14. The lake of fire is the second death.

No torment. Just death. (eternal death, meaning there is no resurrection from that; that death is forever).

Actually, if the Devil and false prophet are tormented forever in the lake of fire, then I think it's reasonable to conclude that anybody that Jesus tosses into that lake of fire will be eternally tormented.

Well, what we think is reasonable does not always equate to it being true. (Especially not when you consider all the other evidence speaking against the conclusion that we 'think' is reasonable.)

Not clear enough? Here's Revelation 14:11:

And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image and for anyone who receives the mark of its name.

Even if this punishment isn't eternal, don't you think it's a horrible enough thing to do? Jesus is a monster far worse than Satan.

This is speaking about the beast, this does not appear to be speaking about the lake of fire. (and it is the smoke of their torment; not their torment itself that is said to go up for ever and ever).


But do you not see that it is the beast that does not give rest?


Christ is the one who gives us true rest and true peace. (see Rev 14:13) The beast does not. If one turns to the beast instead of to Christ, how can one receive the rest and the peace that Christ gives? One can only receive what the beast gives.




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

[bluethread]

Since you reject an actual analysis of the acts of this 'god,' to determine his morality, How then do you distinguish between a good god and an evil one? You say God can do what he wants and what ever he says and does is good by definition because HE does it or says it. You appear to be admitting that GOD is God and is not to be judged by us no matter what he does or decrees. Will you face up to this question, or continue to avoid and deflect?

I do not reject the analysis of the acts, I acknowledge the philosphical bias inherent in those judgements. There is nothing wrong with philosophical bias, every analysis has it. The point is that it must be acknowledged. From a humanist prospective, one might consider Adonai "evil", just as from an animal rights prospective one might consider humans "evil". I do not argue that Adonai's actions are not "evil" because He is Adonai. I question the idea that "evil" is an objective thing. It is determined by one's philosphical prospective. Humanists presume all human life to be sacrosanct. How is that any different than presuming a deity is infallable. They are both dogmatic premises.

[William]

[Replying to post 49 by bluethread]

You are arguing that if the earth were a prison planet and your idea of GOD was the prison Governor, then while the Governor may not be - at his core/quintessence - a harsh evil being, as Governor of the prison, he has a job to do and that job requires a steadfast resolve to administer the prison accordingly.
Also, the Governor is not infallible and is learning the Job as he goes along...but is the best being for the job.

Is the above a fair assessment of your overall argument this particular GOD?