The Passion
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
Not me... Miracles can easily be attributed to some science or tech. Same with showing me something. You can pretty much generate any image or sound today so why would that prove to me hes the real deal?
Its not about being paranoid but think about what approving such a claim as being god by some guy in front of me would mean.
I wouldnt even accept some uber high feeling of ecstasy (drugs or manipulation of cerebral chemicals).
No the only way you can accept god is intellectually. Any further evidence would always be suspect if not in the short run then in the long. I will forever doubt if a person in front of me is really god. He would have to prove it thru his example of the message I accept for all eternity. But simply popping a few miracles and a light and show would only impress me for a little while. And certainly not totally convince me.
I mean how hard is it to believe in other superior beings once one has already manifested himself. Who says its not a longterm and complex psychological study by some very advanced alien?
Its not about being paranoid but think about what approving such a claim as being god by some guy in front of me would mean.
I wouldnt even accept some uber high feeling of ecstasy (drugs or manipulation of cerebral chemicals).
No the only way you can accept god is intellectually. Any further evidence would always be suspect if not in the short run then in the long. I will forever doubt if a person in front of me is really god. He would have to prove it thru his example of the message I accept for all eternity. But simply popping a few miracles and a light and show would only impress me for a little while. And certainly not totally convince me.
I mean how hard is it to believe in other superior beings once one has already manifested himself. Who says its not a longterm and complex psychological study by some very advanced alien?
So if god turned out to be a complete and utter asshole you would be unable to believe in him even if he were the real thing? Why couldnt that superior being who wants to observe us you mention have created us? He might not be god perse, but that doesnt mean he wouldnt be the god of the bible.
BTW as I said, a good answer to why ...
BTW as I said, a good answer to why ...
Just wait till the end of time. God hasn't change from vengeful and violent to evil doers, its just Jesus Christ took all the violent onto himself. And that will only happend until the end of time.
Hate it, ridicule it, call it pagan if you like but that's really what Christianity all about. To participate in that act and share the burden from the wrath of vengeful God.
That's true, but its their covenant. Jesus Christ gave a new covenant for Christianity.
That's why Christians practice this instead of circumcision.
Well um being an utter asshole wouldnt help no. Thats why I said he needs to live up to his original example of the christ of the bible. Its far more important than showcasing some magical abilities. The alien example I gave was one to show that the test you would expect God to pass could be passed by a being more advanced than us but far from being as capable as God.
A few million years of tech evolution will certainly give quite a few means at our disposal as well. Being created by an alien doesnt take away the question of who guarantees our immortality beyond this life and much less the eventual recreation of the universe as a peaceful one devoid of suffering and evil popualted by sincere beings who have no ill will towards their fellows. God in my definition is at the very least a being who has no beginning and is the true original creator of all. Being created by an alien is only pro creation after the fact.
And as for your good answer it comes down to the same thing I asked of Legion. What would constitute one for you?
A few million years of tech evolution will certainly give quite a few means at our disposal as well. Being created by an alien doesnt take away the question of who guarantees our immortality beyond this life and much less the eventual recreation of the universe as a peaceful one devoid of suffering and evil popualted by sincere beings who have no ill will towards their fellows. God in my definition is at the very least a being who has no beginning and is the true original creator of all. Being created by an alien is only pro creation after the fact.
And as for your good answer it comes down to the same thing I asked of Legion. What would constitute one for you?
If I thought a good answer existed then him telling me wouldnt constitute much proof ... I dont believe there can be such a thing, same as with god. To me they are linked.
Ultimately, god or no god ... the only answer can be because, and while it is a answer I dont consider it a good one and it would place god in the same situation as ourselves. If there must be a reason to existence and therefore a god, there must be a reason to god's existence ... repeat ad infinitum to god omega omega.
Ultimately, god or no god ... the only answer can be because, and while it is a answer I dont consider it a good one and it would place god in the same situation as ourselves. If there must be a reason to existence and therefore a god, there must be a reason to god's existence ... repeat ad infinitum to god omega omega.
V3 said:
Yes, exactly. Please remember that my point was that the OT is not really important to Xians and plays the role of background lore rather than theological foundation. Take the OT from the Bible and Xianity would still work the same. The only thing missing would be supplementary stories introducing god and explaining creation etc.
The history of the Israelite people, their laws and god's promise to them, their kings and wars and all this shit doesn't really matter to Xianity. And that's the stuff that makes up most of the OT.
So Christianity is about preparing for the big final massacre?
V3 said:
This sort of literalist fire and brimstone theology has actually little support in Protestant tradition.
Luther described the Relevation as as neither apostolic nor prophetic but in deference to tradition he did not act his own opinion by excluding Relevation from his Bible.
Oecolampadius argued that the seven deuterocanonical books (Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, Revelation) are of lesser authority and should not be compared to the rest.
Calvin also had a distinct aversion to the book of Relevation and he was very vocal about this in his arguments with Catholic authority.
The Swiss reformator Zwingli outright denied that the Relevation was a book of the New Testament, so did Karlstadt.
Even the Catholic Canon proclaims that the 20 books of the NT are inherently worth more than the 7 deuterocanonical books.
Personally, I find it kinda funny that fundy Protestantism reverted back to a pre-reformation stage. The Revelation, which has been generally disregarded or even denied by Reformators, suddenly became a central theological tenet. That's not really surprising though since fundy protestanism generally disregards and destorts the ideas of the Reformators.
I'll give you hint, there are more geneology in the OT for you to check that the geneology given there is incomplete
Yes indeed there are other geneologies. Believe it or not, they contradict Matthew's and Luke's.
Here are some examples
Luke 3:35-36
Gen 10:24
Gen 11:12
1 Chron 4:18
Who was Yeconiah's father?
Matthew 1:11
1 Chron 3:15-16
Or you can check the timeline, that only few were given when it suppose to span longer period of time.
That hardly covers for completely incorrect lineages they conflict with ones provided earlier in the bible. Lets also not forget Paul incourages us to ignore these geneologies talks. Why do you suppose? Probably do to their being completely unsalvagable.
The reason why lineage is so important has little to do with material possessions and everything to do with the gifts of the tribes of Israel (IE tribes of Judah are kings, tribes of levi are preists)
Inheritance by lineage:
Duh! Prove Mary was of the line of david and that her lineage was contained through wedding joseph (why is Mary's cousin a Levi)
But never the less, Jesus Christ can inherit the throne of David. The throne is inheritance afterall.
Actually no he can't, Joseph would have to be the genetic father and Christian dogma simply can't have that.
Actually the more favorite christian apology is that Luke's lineage is of Mary while Matthew's is of Joseph. One person can't have two geneologies. I am sorry, you can't have two fathers
One to show lineage, one to show inheritance.
No father's geneology determins inheritance silly.
pax said:
oh how insipid this is becoming...If God were speaking to me and could provide evidence for himself being God (if not already self evident). I would believe him to be God. Would i love or worship him? No. I would still view him as the same self guided narcissist with the emotional maturity of a two year old.
Please do not attempt at using this as a means to suggest i wouldn't believe in God under any circumstances and that sufficient evidence is already provided. I simply don't have the patience for such a farce.
It is a misguided question that was brought to us as an attempt to rationalize and justify a belief in an unprovable, unvarifiable deity. Keep in mind they are thousands of beliefs with 10s of thousands of deities. This same line of defense "what would it take for you to believe" could be used as an eqaully absurd justification for a belief in any of them. This is such a typical and worthless attempt of Christian apologetics to rationalize any matter of of circumstance as being evidence of God.
Skirting the issue because you cant answer your own demand Legion? You demand proof and when I ask you what would constitute proof to you you go on and describe a narcissist 2 year old... Cmon Legion...
First grab a good definition of God then ask what would be proof to you of his existence. Forget the bible for a minute as I dont wanna 3 pages of debating the bibles def of god...
First grab a good definition of God then ask what would be proof to you of his existence. Forget the bible for a minute as I dont wanna 3 pages of debating the bibles def of god...
pax said:
No Pax, i am dismissing an mindless and completely relative question. Any one could apply this very line of reasoning to any deity thusly rendering it nothing more than a useless arguing tool of apologetics.
Just as i stated before this is an attempt by christian apologists to rationalize all evidence as being equally valid evidence of the existance of God.
I stated what i would constitute as proof. Physical first hand evidence of God. Meaning he'd have to show himself to me before i'd believe in him.
Oh yeah, silly stupid me, Jesus was physical evidence of God...or was it Charles Manson..?
Or Ishtar, or Ahura Mazda, or Brahma, etc etcYes forget the rambeling nonsense that is the basis of your belief system for a moment and put myself in a praxis spared of the ideologies containted within the bible and then by my own reasoning define something i do not believe in or have any evidence of and then ask my self the question what would be evidence for this nonexistant, human generated concept as a loving spiritual third party...
Like i said this is a meaningless farce.
Here is the underlying stupidity of the whole matter:
You are debating with me what should be considered evidence of God when christians are the ones claiming the believe in an existing deity. If they can not determine what is evidence for this deity how can they say with a any certainty they have a valid reason to believe in this deity?
Btw- you should go back and answer some of my questions to you while you are talking about skirting issues.
If you cant be honest enough to at least attempt a good hypotheses on who or what god is then theres not much I can add. I dont think Ive skirted any valid question there legion butill check later as Ive a shift coming up to make sure.
Ive plenty of evidence to satisfy my belief in god as a supreme being whose priority is love.
But since you cant get passed getting a reasonable, at least modest, logical definition for yourself I dont know if telling you what I feel consists as valid evidence will mean to your current mindset.
Ive plenty of evidence to satisfy my belief in god as a supreme being whose priority is love.
But since you cant get passed getting a reasonable, at least modest, logical definition for yourself I dont know if telling you what I feel consists as valid evidence will mean to your current mindset.
pax said:
For starters this is a nonsensical question. What or who is he has no barings on if he exists thusly its irrelevant to the topic of our conversation.
And what of the question concerning a jewish historian's view of the NT emphasizing loving God over what was taught in jewish tradition?
Really? Will you please bring this evidence to the table so that it can be examined?
Legion said:
I think you mean mocked and ridiculed when you write examined.
Of course!John Reynolds said:
