How does God work again?

[sojourner]

I used popularity of belief to show they were unequal not that Christianity was true. You might want to recalibrate then try it again

“Popularity of belief” simply isn’t cogent to the issue of mythic literature.

All claims about external realities are based on faith not certainty

I suppose on some philosophical level, that’s true, but you’re making an ontological claim that requires empirical evidence for our argument, not experiential claims.

Correct in most cases beliefs are the result of evidence not evidence themselves. I never claimed other wise.

You’re claiming that your belief (and that of others) somehow proves the physical existence of a Christ. There is no evidence for that existence other than your belief.

No all literary scholars do not believe the stories about Christ are a myth no mater what definition of myth you use.

I didn’t say they are a myth. I said they were stories of a mythic genre. And yes, literary critics do recognize that the stories of Jesus as God Incarnate fall within that genre.

The scholars I provide are among if not the best possible scholars concerning testimony and evidence. No one is more relevant than Singleton and Greenleaf. They wrote textbooks on the subjects in question.

The subject in question is the search for the historical Jesus. Neither of them wrote a word within that particular subject. They are not experts in that subject as we understand it today, just as the Wright brothers would not be experts in aeronautical engineering as we understand it today. Their findings are outdated.

The bible (original text) was God breathed (theopneustos) and human recorded.

Prove it. You can’t make such positive claims that are unsubstsntiable.

Wrong, Christology has been at the forefront of dominant mainstream Christianity for 2000 years.

Yes. So? That Christology is summed up in the creeds.

I did exactly what I said. In fact lets do it again

Oh let’s not. That ship has sailed — and sunk already.

I asked you if you knew how what your doing appears to others not yourself

No, you asked, “Do you believe in the supernatural concept of being born again.” I answered that question. As to your question above, I really only care if my professional ministerial work with people is impacted by what they perceive. Thus far, in 20 years of ministry, I’ve been very well received.

 

[Thief]

Known it forever. Quite like it.

And Judas, by the way, got it quite right: "You'd have managed better if you had it planned!" You see, I would say that the "success of Christianity" (in it's many forms) depends more on the willingness of humans to suppress reason when confronting their cherished believes, than anything that the Bible, or the passion of Christ ever managed. The story is so full of loopholes and contradictions that the competent reader cannot miss, that the only explanation is that believers dispense with that competence, at least insofar as their religious beliefs are concerned.

or.....fill in the loopholes with consideration

any story told would have a shift in perspective by the number of people telling it
and again.... another shift by each person listening

that's not what He said
that's not what He meant
you got it all wrong......etc.....etc....

any competent reader can 'see' the faults
anyone can keep his belief

 

[1robin]

That's 750,000 words, not records.

True, I don't know what happened.

And I disagree on both the profundity and complexity. I find very little of the conquest of the Canaanites to be "profound." I find nothing in the endless begats to be profound.

The bible has changed the world more than any other similar work.

And....away we go. How many of those disagreements were resolved by using the Bible to pass judgment -- and somebody winds up charcoal and the other side lights the match?

What? Millions.

And how many times has that be turned into tit-for-tat, with the match and the charcoal changing sides? My goodness, the European wars of religion, claiming millions of lives, started in 1517 and continued through 1714 -- 200 hundred years. How successful, do you estimate, was the Bible at providing the necessary "judgment" to get everybody on the same page? In my view, not at all, because guess what -- there are still Protestants and Catholics, and there are denominations within each of those, and sects proliferating until now there are about 38,000 of them! All claiming to be Christianity, all claiming to be based on the Bible, and all unable to see the same thing in the Bible that the other 37,999 see!

When you post a wall of text it is hard to respond to all of it. The NT does not justify violence for any reason. If it was used to justify it it was used incorrectly.

Here's the thing about "infinitely less powerful," however -- such a thing could accomplish nothing whatsoever that was not condoned by God

True, Satan can only do what God permits. We chose Satan over God and God loves us so much he let us chose wrongly. Everything since has just been the outworking of this choice.

And I would thank that since we're talking about limitless power faced with infinitely less ability to contradict -- one out of three is a ludicrous failure!
But you did talk about Satan. You mentioned him first.

Since were posting semantic technicalities I think you meant think not thank. It is not God's will to destroy Satan's works at this time however at some point in the future God will annihilate Satan and all those who accepted God's pardon will live in eternal contentment. You need to read more of the bible before you attempt to trash it. Do you not know Stan's eschatology and roll?

I am merely pointing out a simple fact of logic. Infinite power confronting limited power must always prevail. Period. Unless it decides not to bother, of course, in which case it is still getting what it would seem to want.

God does not always confront Satan. You don't seem to understand Christian doctrine concerning Satan. God is allowing Satan to act within certain limits for the time being based on our own preferences but this will eventually stop. Where is the foul? Things look exactly like God predicted in that pesky bible you apparently have not read.

 

[1robin]

Keeping it short again, then, since you appreciate that

Yes thank you.

-- any assertion as to whether "God could exist" is entirely meaningless unless there is some means , some trace in the universe in which we must discourse, of that existence. At this point in time, the ONLY thing for which no explanation has ever been reasonable advanced is the "creation of something from nothing." There are extremely plausible explanations for everything after that, requiring (and showing no evidence of) God. Everything said about God, about what God does, or how God works, or what God wants, after that initial moment of primal creation, is entirely unevidenced, and therefore very probably fantasy. (Which of course brings me back to why, in a universe supposedly created by this "God," that humans have managed to come up with millions of gods in over a hundred thousand religions, none of which has actually been refuted by an actual God.)

1. But you seemed to deny even the possibility of God's existence.
2. God is the explanation for how creational ex nihilo occurred.
3. How is God did it based on his attributes not an explanation?
4. We both agree that everything since then has an explanation so I won't address the rest of that.

And even as to that original "primal creation," that in itself depends entirely on the idea that there was once (forgive my use of time in this case, but as a limited, 3 dimensional creature, this defeats my descriptive abilities -- oh to be Shakespeare!) nothing existed except God. And for that, once again, you have nothing from which to make such an argument.

Just to provide a few. My belief that God created everything is based on the fact that at one time nothing but God existed, causation, and sufficient causation to name just a few.

 

[1robin]

“Popularity of belief” simply isn’t cogent to the issue of mythic literature.

You still don't get it. You claimed that Christ and Gandalf were coequal. I simply proved they were.

I suppose on some philosophical level, that’s true, but you’re making an ontological claim that requires empirical evidence for our argument, not experiential claims.

What ontological claim is that exactly?

You’re claiming that your belief (and that of others) somehow proves the physical existence of a Christ. There is no evidence for that existence other than your belief.

Nope, I never said that anything was true simply because a lot of people believe it.

I didn’t say they are a myth. I said they were stories of a mythic genre. And yes, literary critics do recognize that the stories of Jesus as God Incarnate fall within that genre.

Ok, then quote a few early church fathers that stated Christology was mythic. Start with the following.

• Clement of Rome.

• Ignatius of Antioch.

• Polycarp of Smyrna.

• Papias of Hierapolis.

• Justin Martyr.

• Irenaeus of Lyons.

• Clement of Alexandria.

• Origen of Alexandria.

The subject in question is the search for the historical Jesus. Neither of them wrote a word within that particular subject. They are not experts in that subject as we understand it today, just as the Wright brothers would not be experts in aeronautical engineering as we understand it today. Their findings are outdated.

The best sources are the earliest sources.

Prove it. You can’t make such positive claims that are unsubstsntiable.

Come off it I hold the position of faith not scientific certainty. The only burden I have is the absence of a defeater. It is your job to provide that defeater. However I raise the bar concerning my own claims to the best inference to a conclusion, even though I do not have to do so.

My claim is that God's being the author of the original biblical text is the best inference to a conclusion, you supposed to show that it isn't.

Yes. So? That Christology is summed up in the creeds.

Ok, adopt your own standards and prove this.

Oh let’s not. That ship has sailed — and sunk already.

The ship is still in the same harbor where it was found. All of your work is still before you. I would bet you have even read what I provided.

No, you asked, “Do you believe in the supernatural concept of being born again.” I answered that question. As to your question above, I really only care if my professional ministerial work with people is impacted by what they perceive. Thus far, in 20 years of ministry, I’ve been very well received.

I do not remember your even using the term "born again". Do you even know what I am referring to? I went back and looked, you never even addressed my question about being born again.

 

[sojourner]

You claimed that Christ and Gandalf were coequal

No, I claimed that they were the same sort of literary device.

What ontological claim is that exactly

That Christ is existent. You believe it, and that, somehow, makes it magically existent until it can be proven to not exist. This is the same flawed logic that insists that fairies are real because someone believes them to be so — until it can be proven that they’re not. So, my disbelief doesn’t counter your belief, even though the lack of any evidence for the distance of such is on my side.

Nope, I never said that anything was true simply because a lot of people believe it.

See above.

Ok, then quote a few early church fathers that stated Christology was mythic

I never said that a theological device was mythic. Theological devices aren’t literary. I said that Christ and Jesus are two different literary figures. Jesus is historical. Christ is mythic.

The best sources are the earliest sources

Not in the case of scholarship. Otherwise, we’d still be relying on Lilienthal for aeronautics.

Come off it I hold the position of faith not scientific certainty. The only burden I have is the absence of a defeater. It is your job to provide that defeater. However I raise the bar concerning my own claims to the best inference to a conclusion, even though I do not have to do so.

My claim is that God's being the author of the original biblical text is the best inference to a conclusion, you supposed to show that it isn't

No. It’s obvious from looking at the physical, textual evidence that the texts are of human origin. Your faith claims do not change that. Empirical evidence is on MY side, and YOU need to refute that claim with the same kind of evidence. That’s the standard for evidence.

Ok, adopt your own standards and prove this

Read the second, third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of the Nicene Creed.

The ship is still in the same harbor where it was found. All of your work is still before you. I would bet you have even read what I provided

I did. It’s not even in the ballpark of where we need to be for this issue.

I do not remember your even using the term "born again". Do you even know what I am referring to? I went back and looked, you never even addressed my question about being born again

Look again. I did answer it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The bible has changed the world more than any other similar work.

Are you sure? But more to the point, you make the claim (and justify it) that we're talking about change for the better?

And did not Euclid's Elements change the world a bit? The ability to use mathematics and logic surely resulted in just a tiny improvement in human life. Or perhaps the medical texts that have done so much to keep people alive (that religions often wish to see dead, and go to some effort in that regard).

What? Millions.

Well yes, actually. Quora estimates that religion in and of itself has killed somewhere between 16 and 31 million people. I think that qualifies as "millions."

But okay, let's back off a little. The Bible didn't change the world, the people that used it changed the world, for better or for worse. Same with everything else humankind has produced. Good people will find a way to use whatever they have at hand to do good, and they'll find a way to justify it. And bad people will find in anything available, including the Bible, the Qur'an, the Granth Guru Sahib, or even the US Constitution, to do bad things and justify them. So I do wish you could stop your Bible idolatry and think about us, instead.

When you post a wall of text it is hard to respond to all of it. The NT does not justify violence for any reason. If it was used to justify it it was used incorrectly.

Then I don't think you're reading it properly. If I recall, cities that don't "receive" the Apostles will receive horrible deaths worse than Sodom and Gomorrah (that's in the Gospels) and John tells us people are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. That's as "violent" as it gets, although I've no doubt you'd like to pretend it's something else altogether. And pray, don't forget that the crucifixion itself was set up for the single purpose of doing violence because God couldn't bring himself to be forgiving without a blood sacrifice.

True, Satan can only do what God permits. We chose Satan over God and God loves us so much he let us chose wrongly. Everything since has just been the outworking of this choice.

Always hard to tell where you're coming from with stuff like this. I certainly didn't "choose Satan," since I don't believe in him anymore than I believe in God. And I regret that your supposed nonpareil reading of the Bible has led you to forget completely that, even though "God loves us so much he let us chose wrongly," that in fact, we're told that he killed everybody on earth with the exception of 8 people for doing so! I call that an act of violence, though you may not.

Since were posting semantic technicalities I think you meant think not thank. It is not God's will to destroy Satan's works at this time however at some point in the future God will annihilate Satan and all those who accepted God's pardon will live in eternal contentment. You need to read more of the bible before you attempt to trash it. Do you not know Stan's eschatology and roll?

Yuck, Revelation! Stupidest damned book in the canon, and almost not included in it, by the way.

God does not always confront Satan. You don't seem to understand Christian doctrine concerning Satan. God is allowing Satan to act within certain limits for the time being based on our own preferences but this will eventually stop. Where is the foul? Things look exactly like God predicted in that pesky bible you apparently have not read.

In fact, I have read the Bible, quite a bit more thoroughly than most of the Christians that I know. The difference between us, I think, isn't that you've read it and I haven't, but that I've read it critically, and you've read it credulously. I look for knowledge, wisdom, truth, while I suspect a very great many Bible readers look rather for validation and comfort.

I hope you've found it. The Bible does not, however, offer me what I seek, which is as I said, knowledge, wisdom and truth.

 

[Sleeppy]

You really want to tempt stupidity?

 

[Muffled]

When I say Christianity I am referring to Christ's family of believers not to any manmade Christian denomination. Do you think that group is wrong about Christ?

I kind of agree, but the bible is the final arbiter of every biblical disagreement.

I have heard that Christ or the holy spirit is the paraclete but not the father.

Easy enough. Yahweh said he has a unique divine son, Allah is said not to have a son at all. I can do this all day if necessary.

The Quran views Christ as just another prophet, no greater or lesser than Moses or Muhammad (except for Muhammad being the last). If you want we can investigate the founding of biblical faith contrasted with the founding of Islam if you wish to see how they can't possibly be the same faith.

I believe even that group is amorphous about beliefs. Some say there is a Trinity and others deny that Jesus is God. One of those believers is wrong.

I believe so also but I also believe one must understand the Bible and the Paraclete can help with that.

Copied from post # 237: I believe the Qu'ran does say that Jesus is the son of Allah. The translators mess with the text to get it to say otherwise but the Arabic reveals the truth.

I believe it does not say that so that means you have misinterpreted what it says.

I believe hearing is not the same thing as believing. Each "person" in the Trinity is unique but each is God. So when a person has the Paraclete, he has the Father and Jesus also because both are God.

Please try to do one at a time because I believe I don't deal well with text overload.

I believe that is incorrect but it is true of Muslims who don't understand the Qu'ran.

I believe that is a useless exercise. I rely on the Paraclete to authenticate scriptures.

 

[sojourner]

Some say there is a Trinity and others deny that Jesus is God. One of those believers is wrong

Not necessarily. It depends on what you mean by “wrong,” and it also depends on the believer’s particular mythic milieu.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I believe even that group is amorphous about beliefs. Some say there is a Trinity and others deny that Jesus is God. One of those believers is wrong.

Or? They could both be wrong. There's always that option, when it comes to such things.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe even that group is amorphous about beliefs. Some say there is a Trinity and others deny that Jesus is God. One of those believers is wrong.

I believe so also but I also believe one must understand the Bible and the Paraclete can help with that.

Copied from post # 237: I believe the Qu'ran does say that Jesus is the son of Allah. The translators mess with the text to get it to say otherwise but the Arabic reveals the truth.

I believe it does not say that so that means you have misinterpreted what it says.

I believe hearing is not the same thing as believing. Each "person" in the Trinity is unique but each is God. So when a person has the Paraclete, he has the Father and Jesus also because both are God.

Please try to do one at a time because I believe I don't deal well with text overload.

I believe that is incorrect but it is true of Muslims who don't understand the Qu'ran.

I believe that is a useless exercise. I rely on the Paraclete to authenticate scriptures.

Interesting that you have so many things that you "believe." Yet, also interesting that you don't give a single reason for why you believe any of them.

From "Alice in Wonderland:"

At one point Alice says “There’s no use in trying since one can’t believe impossible things.” to which the Queen replies, “I dare say you haven’t had much practice. When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour each day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

 

[Trailblazer]

Or? They could both be wrong. There's always that option, when it comes to such things.

Nice to see you Bob. I been wondering how you are.