(AX) God is real page 7

176 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

To your way of thinking perhaps, but I have to agree with the others, that Sataniel is much more the one worthy of respect, even if neither is worthy of worship.

If it is ‘right’ and ‘proper’ for the being who owns the playset to behave like a spoiled three year old child, then arguably the playset is in entirely the wrong hands to begin with.

By the way, nobody is doubting that the Abrahamic god is real, least of all me. Even if he’s not in charge of the universe, he is no less real.

You’re completely entitled to your beliefs. The very most, and very least I can say is that we disagree.

Look at the last two sentences you just read. Those two. Do you see how that is done? Do you see how respectful I am of your beliefs. I really wish this forum were more tolerant, and less acidic.

 
Flag Post

It’s really tiring to hear you play the respect card over and over again. It is not disrespect to illustrate or characterize your beliefs the way we see them. Disrespect: “You’re an idiot because your beliefs are stupid.” Respect: “I think your beliefs are stupid and this is why.”

To get back to the actual discussion instead of taking your bait, you imply that the goodness of God’s actions rely on his omnipotence, but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, omnipotence by it’s very nature would negate any choices or decisions a person made anyway. If God knows what man will do already, why does he set it up in a way that allows satan to betray him? Why does he allow man to have free will when their decisions are foreseeable? To know everything is to not need to ask man to choose in the first place. If you position him as all knowing, than Satan is just playing his part in God’s plan, not Satan’s. God introduced sin, then.

Furthermore, for what reason do you trust God’s claim to omnipotence? He never actually demonstrates any measure of omnipotence within the Bible, and seems incredibly limited to the same direction of time that we experience, since he changes over time, apologizes for mistakes he’s made, and offers people ultimatums, things no one who knows the outcome of a given situation would do.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:Respect: “I think your beliefs are stupid and this is why.

This is respectful?

Originally posted by TheBSG:To get back to the actual discussion instead of taking your bait, you imply that the goodness of God’s actions rely on his omnipotence, but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, omnipotence by it’s very nature would negate any choices or decisions a person made anyway. If God knows what man will do already, why does he set it up in a way that allows satan to betray him? Why does he allow man to have free will when their decisions are foreseeable? To know everything is to not need to ask man to choose in the first place. If you position him as all knowing, than Satan is just playing his part in God’s plan, not Satan’s. God introduced sin, then

Because God is all knowing, God is the one controlling everything? It’s interesting to see someone try to twist the concepts of free will, and fatalism, all at the same time. Because God knows our sins, even before we do them, doesn’t mean He is at fault for them, nor that they are His doing. I mean, it’s a stretch, but it doesn’t quite make logical sense.
Originally posted by TheBSG:Furthermore, for what reason do you trust God’s claim to omnipotence?
Why not just ask what reason I have to trust God. If God is all loving, all knowing, and righteous, then that’s what He is, and then He is deserving of trust. If He is not those things, then he is not God. You’re asking me why I believe in God, in essence. If God is, then He is omnipotent, or is not God. In essence, if God is God, then I trust God is God. If an omnipotent being exists, I would trust that that being is omnipotent. A non-omnipotent being is not God.

If you are breathing air, how do you trust that you are breathing?

Finally, I’m not going to stop playing the “respect card” over and over. I really really want to enjoy this forum, and see it grow. It needs to grow beyond arguments framed in such a way as “I think your beliefs are stupid because of X”. That’s so unproductive. That’s as far from respect as you can get. You actually think something like that is respectful? Every time I read a post in these forums, I’m left in a little disbelief that these thoughts are actually formed in serious minds. I have trouble believing that this sort of thing is not some kind of joke.

 
Flag Post

You’re oversensitive. Your beliefs are not you. If you believe in things other people think are stupid, you’re the one with a problem, not them. I assume your initial reaction was to vikatae characterizing your God as an angry child that ruins his toys, which you simply disagree with, and want that to mean she’s being disrespectful. She’s interpreting your beliefs the way she sees it, and she’s not trying to attack you or insult your beliefs. If you’d like to point to a place where I’m disrespectful towards you because I have an opinion about your religion, I’d love for you to cite it.

Your presupposition that God is omnipotent doesn’t answer the question. Why do you think that the character writing the bible was God, and not satan, or a non-omnipotent being that has superior knowledge and power to our own and is manipulating people? Trusting a superior being simply because it’s superior seems incredibly easy to be mislead.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

You’re oversensitive. Your beliefs are not you. If you believe in things other people think are stupid, you’re the one with a problem, not me.

I do have a problem. I don’t claim that my issue with calling other people’s ideas “stupid” is universal. I reserve the right to say “hey, let’s be a bit more respectful and productive in our debates”. YOU are the one telling me not to do that anymore.

As for “my beliefs not being me”. I couldn’t disagree more. We are much a part of what we think, and vice versa. Your beliefs are a huge part of who you are. To tell someone that you find their beliefs “stupid” is to attack that person. That is ad hominem. It is not productive. It is not respectful. It is not necessary.

 
Flag Post

That’s not even close to the definition of ad hominem. The onus of your beliefs are not being based upon you believing them, but their internal logic failing. If someone believed the world was flat, I would tell them their beliefs are stupid because we have evidence that the world is not flat. If your problem is with the word stupid, that’s a linguistic choice. Your opinions are logically inconsistent, are self serving, and appear incredibly unexamined. AKA Stupid.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Why do you think that the character writing the bible was God, and not satan, or a non-omnipotent being that has superior knowledge and power to our own and is manipulating people? Trusting a superior being simply because it’s superior seems incredibly easy to be mislead.

It is badly written if it is supposed to be advertising propaganda for satan. To me, it seems what is going on is we have two deities, ‘God’ and ‘Satan’, both of whom are equivalent in power level or thereabouts. Both have an interest in sentient minds (no clue why). The bible reads like a propaganda campaign designed to shut the other deity out as much as possible, and villify them.

It would be great to see an original bible (translated) from the point of view of the followers of the other deity. Of course, if such a thing exists, it has likely been squashed by the various churches as ‘heresy’.

 
Flag Post

Many of the books of the bible that were thrown out contain stories about satan, so you’re entirely accurate in your proposition, however those books were not very becoming of satan, either. The Book of Job was only put back in because the editors at the time wanted more obedience and fear back in the book.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

That’s not even close to the definition of ad hominem. The onus of your beliefs are not being based upon you believing them, but their internal logic failing. If someone believed the world was flat, I would tell them their beliefs are stupid because we have evidence that the world is not flat. If your problem is with the word stupid, that’s a linguistic choice. Your opinions are logically inconsistent, are self serving, and appear incredibly unexamined. AKA Stupid.

This is stupid. It’s stupid because it is quite abrasive to the other people in this forum. To think that it is productive is stupid. It’s my linguistic choice to describe your post as just, mind bogglingly stupid, and ignorant.

See how wonderfully unabrasive, productive, and respectful that is?

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Many of the books of the bible that were thrown out contain stories about satan, so you’re entirely accurate in your proposition, however those books were not very becoming of satan, either. The Book of Job was only put back in because the editors at the time wanted more obedience and fear back in the book.

Source?

 
Flag Post

God offered free will, but if you choose wrong you are punished?

God never really offered free will though. I suppose there was the freedom to choose, but only in choosing blindly. Taking the fruit of the tree, taking Knowledge, was forbidden. We stole our free will, as the story goes. Furthermore, perhaps ironically, it is that act which put us on the same moral authority as God himself, as per his own words.

Genesis: 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Also interesting to note the plurality of Godhood. A feature of the early OT which is rarely translated accurately anymore. But the term used was specifically a plural.

-Also guys we’re treading the same ground here as much of the early Gnostic writings.
You mentioned wanting to hear it from the point of view of the “other guy” and that is very much the gnostic approach to the OT.
To keep it short they found the OT and NT generally irreconcilable and the older morality and mythic structure monstrous. They reinterpret, to keep it very simple, that the OT-God is very much the bad guy, and that the Serpent is a spirit of wisdom supporting mans growth and ascension from a flawed realm of material and tyranny. Neat! They were all but eradicated as heretics pretty repeatedly :(

Secondly, the association of The Serpent, with Satan, is a loose one. There really is nothing scriptually to tie the “Satan/Lucifer/Serpent” character-paradigm together. Nowhere is The Serpent established as anything but The Serpent. There is a big Devil-Dragon-Satan in Revelations, which is described as a serpent, but with no direct reference to the Garden. Even the association of Satan as a cohesive singular identity is questionable. Satan means adversary in the most literal way. It’s not a proper name, it is a description of your enemies, adversaries and tempters. Jesus calls Peter (or one of them anyways.) Satan as he begins to press upon him. Even Lucifer is an artificial construction, a projection of a metaphor about a fallen king onto the fallen angels mentioned in Revelations. The whole Fallen Angel mythos as described in Revelations doesn’t even happen until the End of Days, as in not yet.

The whole thing is a desperate and flimsy attempt to press every single bad guy together into one boogeyman entity. The crazy thing is it has stuck. There was a serpent. There is an adversarial angel. There will be a war in heaven with rebel angels a dragon called satan. Lucifer is a shiny star which you can’t always see and makes for a good metaphor for fall from grace stories.

I mean nobody loves The Rebel Hero immortalized by Dore and Milton more than me. But it doesn’t really make sense. It’s our projection of simplicity upon a history and book that was far more complicated then we really wanted it to be.

http://www.danshort.com/pl/b/Paradise0020.jpg can’t help but gush.

MyTie,

You asked for a source on Satan related texts being removed from the bible. He is quite correct, and it isn’t quite a secret. I learned about the Apocrypha in Catholic Grade School, I am a little surprised you are not immediately familiar with it. Although I found my formal education in that regard quite shockingly open and open minded; I find the RomCathChu frequently gets a worse reputation then it always deserves. Anywho, It is not really secret or contested knowledge, so I hope just pointing you in the right direction here will be enough of a source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha

Also, in general, right now is a very interesting time in consideration of Early Christianity versus The Bible. The Nag Hammadi texts and Dead Sea Scrolls are starting to see the light of day after being brutally repressed for decades. We have a broader access to unapproved materials then perhaps any generation has ever had. Awash in all these new texts the idea of Canonical and of Church Sanctioned has never been more relevant to any discussion of what Christianity is now, has been, or could be.

 
Flag Post

If you actually believed an argument I made was stupid, and could show how you came to that conclusion, I wouldn’t be offended at all. I guess we differ in what we consider respectful.

Also, you should really read some of the excluded books of the bible, and tell me why you believe some of the things some people wrote, but not the things these other people wrote? You literally have to believe God was behind the editing of the Bible for you to accept one and not the other, especially because they’re either not contradictory at all, or they’re obviously wild allegories and parables. You have to understand, Jesus Christ of Nazareth was well aware of these books, and makes direct quotes from them. He believed in them but you don’t.

Of course, Jesus could have understood and referenced them as allegory, or the authors and editors of the bible referenced those things that hadn’t been included in cannon but was important to them. Of course, these possibilities would negate literal readings of the bible by transience, so I doubt you will humor those potentials.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:Also, you should really read some of the excluded books of the bible, and tell me why you believe some of the things some people wrote, but not the things these other people wrote?

This is a pretty wide net. You might as well ask me why I don’t accept mormonism, islam, Luthanism, and Catholicism. Why not narrow it down to a single book that is not included in the Bible I read, and then I’ll explain it to you. If I can’t come up with a good reason that that book should not be studied, then I’m open minded enough to consider it in my religion.

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:-snip-

Biblical Apocrypha is just another way of saying different texts related to Christianity that various people take to be Divine inspired. Just like BSG, you’re going to need to be specific if you want me to address a certain book.

I did find a source that summarizes many of my concerns with texts not included in the Bible. http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

 
Flag Post

It’s your religion, don’t you think it’s your responsibility to determine why you don’t follow books written by early Jewish scholars that your own prophet cites specifically, not mine? Not to mention, if you’re not familiar with them, you can go familiarize yourself with them. Satan is both a regular character, and inspired by stories in these books.

Edit: Your link would negate most of the bible that does exist… not to mention, it makes an arbitrary distinction between Catholicism and Judaism and calls it “Christianity.” The books were in the early manuscripts, were originally written in Hebrew and were lost or destroyed, and were removed by editors, and for far more reasons than “inconsistencies and immoral practices.” They were changed to make the religion more viral. The idea that a religion can change at all, and that some edits were inspired but other edits weren’t, is just more of the circular logic that because you believe in God, everything he does and says must be true, except the parts that aren’t true and that’s human error, satan, or metaphor. You have rose colored glasses.

I could go on and on about this all day, but what’s even funnier about your rejection of these books, and every other Christian-flavored theist, especially Catholics rejection, is that much of the superstitions and opinions about angels, healing, satan, specific prayers, and other magical thinking that Catholics believe comes directly from these books.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:It’s your religion, don’t you think it’s your responsibility to determine why you don’t follow books written by early Jewish scholars that your own prophet cites specifically, not mine?

I’m not. I’m saying that there are charachtaristics of each book I’ve rejected that have let me to that rejection, and that if you’d like me to talk about those reasons, as you said earlier, that you will have to be specific in which book you’d like me to discuss. Saying “excluded books” is… what… hundreds and hundreds of books? I’m saying if you want to seriously discuss a book, then tell me which book.

 
Flag Post

No, there’s not hundreds of discluded books. There’s roughly 12-20, and you disregarded them with a link that generalizes and misleads people into thinking they’re distinctively different than the other books. You’d have to be the one who defines what sets those books apart, not me. For instance, if you have ever spoken one of the prayers from any of those books, which any catholic and most non-protestants have, you have cherry picked a particular phrase for no apparent reason, unless you actually have one. I don’t know your beliefs, so the onus is on you, not me.

 
Flag Post

Those books, like Macabees, and other books ARE different from canon books, in where they were found, where they were kept, how they are authenticated, what is written, what is the intentions of the writers, etc. They are different. Yes, they are distinctively different. That’s not misleading at all. Tell me how you find that they are the same. And there are hundreds of discluded books from the Bible. Generally, there are less than 50, depending on who you ask, discluded books that have historical significance.

Finally, I don’t know what you think I have to explain to you. You are the one that brought up that I have not accepted some books. If you want reasons for it, then we can talk about those books. Just give me an example of a book you want to discuss. I’m not going to spend hours writing a dissertation on Biblical Cannon. Be specific about a book and we’ll look at it. If you don’t want to discuss it, then I don’t know why you brought it up, but I certainly have nothing to explain to you.

 
Flag Post

The bible contains every one of the things you’re using to discredit those pieces, is my point though. The arguments you already gave are not true. The books were originally written in Hebrew, but were purposefully squelched by editors. The inclusion of books over other books wasn’t a technical or consistent action simply by it’s very nature of happening over thousands of years. I’m not going to get into specific biblical literature for the very reason you just cited, I’m just asking what consistent measurements do you use personally to legitimately argue features of God over other features that were disregarded by other men?

If we found a new book from the bible, what rules would determine it’s holy inspiration? Why does god allow such wide variations on what different groups believe if the books were inspired? How did even those people who were editing decide to a convincingly adequate level for you to agree to their rules? How do you come up with certainty from a thing we’re all agreeing is uncertain by the very implication of faith itself? This is a technical question that doesn’t relate to specific claims, because it’s a question about your thinking, your logic.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

how they are authenticated

I would love to hear more on this one.

 
Flag Post

There are no “new” books to the Bible. Jesus completed the scripture, and named specific people to write for him, and empower others. Specific people were given authority to build the Church. Included in that authority was the authority to do miracles. Those people wrote stuff. If anything could be found to have been written by those people, authentically, then it MUST be included. I would insist on it. I would follow it. I have yet to see anything like that. Most books that you are referring to do not say that they are inspired, or written by those who were instructed to write by God, or given recognition in the Jewish nation of the time they lived.

 
Flag Post

For one, it’s a misconception that Jesus asked anyone to further their church. The timing of Peter’s (not paul’s) claim doesn’t make any sense, considering Jesus is either dead, or told him during the resurrection, which isn’t consistent with any other retelling. An alternate account has him telling the three women to start his church (and is included in the bible). Besides, those quotations about starting the church are arguably misunderstood by both translators, and the interpretations given by modern theologians. Furthermore, there are several letters from Paul that weren’t included because of their admittance of writing what would attract followers, and not the true story. Lastly, there is no single author to any of the works of the bible, and not even bible scholars refute that.

And you keep missing the part where Jesus directly references 3 of the 12 books I’m mentioning, and the others are referenced throughout the OT. They were a deep part of the Jewish nation, and were thrown out by editors far later. I don’t know how many times I have to say what no theologian even disagrees with. I could provide sources, but I feel like I’m teaching you about your own religion at this point. The disregard of some books was political, manipulative, and hardly spiritual in the least. The idea that an individual can modify and throw out parts of a religion are specifically what I’m disputing. Either people never changed the bible, or you can answer the basic question about why you cherry pick things, and whether that cherry picking is consistent or not. I can tell you, it isn’t. If everyone who felt inspired by God wrote a book, we’d have an awful big bible.

 
Flag Post

Jesus gave Peter authority. He said that upon Peter he would build his Church, and Peter worked with Paul. That’s pretty definitive.

 
Flag Post

Considering Peter’s Papal authority is highly contested and is the reason for non-Orthodox Catholicism, I wouldn’t say it’s pretty definitive at all. As I said (mistakenly referring to Paul and not Peter) the language of this single doctrine is poorly translated, and is more likely a poetic illustration and not authority over God’s word. Again, why this single line, and not others? What about this concept makes your highly inter-contingent beliefs logical and sound, but every other Christian is mislead? The only “satisfying” answer is that God especially told you the truth and no one else, since individuals in a given church aren’t even necessarily going to agree on a particular interpretation.

 
Flag Post

Biblical Apocrypha is just another way of saying different texts related to Christianity that various people take to be Divine inspired. Just like BSG, you’re going to need to be specific if you want me to address a certain book.
I did find a source that summarizes many of my concerns with texts not included in the Bible. http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

Neat. That actually really answered my question and seemed fairly convincing. I recognize that some did not find it as convincing. But that the books specifically do not claim a divine/prophet authorship and cannot be traced to a hebrew source I find pretty damning.

I try to keep up on some biblical scholarship and such a perspective was new to me. But, the justifications and books looked at in your link refer to post-judaic pre-christian writings. How do you feel about Christ era, or post-christ era writings? (I’ll pin some down in a moment.) My understanding is that not all the Gospels claim direct divine inspiration in their writing. Namely John.
Considering a roughly equal period of time, same discovered language base, and no mention of divine assistance, how does one begin to separate Christian era writings into canon and non canon? Off hand, such as the Gospel Of Thomas. But I’m going to look some more into what we’ve dug up, to furnish some more examples later.

Reading along there are some specific stuff I’d like to press you on.

Jesus completed the scripture, and named specific people to write for him, and empower others.

That seems like a bit of a logical circle, but if we assume divine inspiration for the gospels then it seems pretty fair. Do you consider the discovery/construction/collection (general book work) of the bible divinely assisted? Where does Jesus name these people? Lastly, John specifically cites the scripture unfinished. That Jesus goes on to do, what amounts to more or less “stuff”, that he will not write about.

BSG,

Although, as I read on you suggest that some of the current biblical apocrypha has been traced to a hebrew source. Could you give me some examples? More would be better, but any would be great.

 
Flag Post

It isn’t that they were traced to Hebrew writings (actually, some were), Hebrew scholars wrote them. Their lack of availability in Hebrew to the Romans is like saying we can’t find anything from Muslim history during 12th century. If you read any of the Catholic apocrypha wiki articles, you’ll find that many of them were probably originally written in Hebrew, and even many of the non-catholic ones. I’m making less of a claim about their origin and criticizing the distinction itself. Not to mention, many of the books that are included were translated from documents that were translated into Koine, and while the original hebrew documents were known to exist, they were incomplete. Saying books are excluded from the bible because they weren’t originally written in hebrew is a misnomer, is my point. It’s also easy to say in retrospect, but hardly Constantin’s thinking.

 
Flag Post

Well they did seem to be acknowledged a legitimate theorizing, hence their inclusion in some variations of the bible. The point of contention seems to rest on authority. As far as the language base I think that is of more concern to Judaic, or Judaic-heavy, branches of the faith which see Hebrew as a divine tongue.

So what do you feel was the root of their exclusion? As far the OT-related texts go they do seem to be a little superfluous. Hardly straying enough from canon in a distinct enough way to seemingly warrant it on that account – to my understanding. I can’t claim to have read the entire apocrypha, so I admit I’m shooting from the hip somewhat.