• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Birth of Yahweh

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
This is the same god as brought the Holocaust on his Chosen People, right? You're saying they all died rich, though, so it was okay?

That's the snake oil salesman, no? Get your god here, ladies and gents, a lousy 10% of your income, and comes with eternal life or your money back!

I'm unsure what either of your comments have to do with you testing God, to do a controlled experiment on whether the scriptures are true.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm unsure what either of your comments have to do with you testing God, to do a controlled experiment on whether the scriptures are true.
I'd be more than interested to encounter a real god and examine its properties, but so far, nothing.

As for whether the scriptures are true, that depends on which sentence in scripture one's referring to.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Or Herself? Or Themselves?

It seems pretty clear that gods evolve too. You can trace the rise of Yahweh through the bible, from one Bronze Age deity among many to declarations of his jealousy of the others and claims of his preeminence, to his arrival at monogod status.

Or the endurance of the Goddess, it can be argued, from the unnamed goddess worshiped at Çatal Hüyük from perhaps 7000 BCE to Inanna of the Sumerians, perhaps from 5000 BCE, certainly from the third millennium BCE, to Babylonian Ishtar to Greek Hekate and so on.

Look at the place the (much much milder) BVM holds in the RCC.

Indeed, in practice it can be very difficult to distinguish the more famous saints (from among the 13,000 or more) of the RCC from polytheism, despite the clear theological distinctions.

I don't believe there are any writings that point to God in the Bronze Age. I believe if you think you found one that was different it was because it wasn't God.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I think there is a misunderstanding here. I have written in 2017 about some things I experienced in 1990. That would make the earliest writing extant in 2017 but I accurately described things that occurred in reality in 1990.

Genesis was written by Moses where he communed with God on a holy mountain. God, who present with Adam and Eve in the person of Jesus, told accurate tales of the events that transpired. Note the first words, IN THE BEGINNING.

I hope this clears it up for you.

There is no evidence to support this notion.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't believe there are any writings that point to God in the Bronze Age. I believe if you think you found one that was different it was because it wasn't God.
By God, you mean Yahweh, I take it?

Earliest records are later than 1500 BCE, so late Bronze Age, leading up to iron, I'd put it, but the Bronze Age isn't clearly defined at the best of times.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I'd be more than interested to encounter a real god and examine its properties, but so far, nothing.

As for whether the scriptures are true, that depends on which sentence in scripture one's referring to.

You may have already encountered God and failed to respond. I do not know.

I'm suggesting you test the given hypotheses in the scriptures. That's different than judging what you hope or feel is true. Through this process, a number of hardened atheists became the greatest apologists of the past century!
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
There is no evidence to support this notion.

If there is no evidence to support this notion, how do millions of people know about it? What you are trying to say is that the documentary evidence of the Bible is evidence you dislike/distrust/find unreliable.

There is more evidence that Jesus resurrected than that you exist. :)
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You may have already encountered God and failed to respond. I do not know.
Can't say I ever have.
I'm suggesting you test the given hypotheses in the scriptures.
Namely?
Through this process, a number of hardened atheists became the greatest apologists of the past century!
The apologist is a defense attorney, with no moral obligation to, or interest in, objective truth ─ merely in finding arguments to maintain that the sky is green, or candy-striped, depending on the day of the week. There are few more hypocritical callings, or at kindest, callings that put their practitioners in such false, doublethink, positions.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Can't say I ever have.
Namely?
The apologist is a defense attorney, with no moral obligation to, or interest in, objective truth ─ merely in finding arguments to maintain that the sky is green, or candy-striped, depending on the day of the week. There are few more hypocritical callings, or at kindest, callings that put their practitioners in such false, doublethink, positions.

Unless Jesus exists, in which case everything you wrote is true of atheists.

And anyone who asks me, "I don't know, what are the ways to test and learn from Jesus?" has clearly never read the Bible, so please keep your opinions on apologists more private until you actually read it!
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Unless Jesus exists, in which case everything you wrote is true of atheists.
On what basis do you say that? I see no point at all in lying to 'protect' atheism. If someone gives a satisfactory demonstration of a real Jesus during the rest of my lifetime, I'll express astonishment and immediately adjust my world view.

Whereas apologists have no intention of dealing rationally with the evidence against them, only in inventing ways around it.
And anyone who asks me, "I don't know, what are the ways to test and learn from Jesus?" has clearly never read the Bible
Now now. That wasn't my question.

You say Jesus is real ie exists independently of anyone's imagination ie has objective existence, do you not? (If that's wrong, how exactly do you claim Jesus exists?)

Since he has objective existence, why are you, or anyone else, unable to give us a satisfactory demonstration of him in reality?

Since he has objective existence, why don't you have even a recent photo?

Since he has objective existence, what real properties does Jesus have that will allow us to identify any particular entity as Jesus if we encounter him in reality?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
On what basis do you say that? I see no point at all in lying to 'protect' atheism. If someone gives a satisfactory demonstration of a real Jesus during the rest of my lifetime, I'll express astonishment and immediately adjust my world view.

Whereas apologists have no intention of dealing rationally with the evidence against them, only in inventing ways around it.
Now now. That wasn't my question.

You say Jesus is real ie exists independently of anyone's imagination ie has objective existence, do you not? (If that's wrong, how exactly do you claim Jesus exists?)

Since he has objective existence, why are you, or anyone else, unable to give us a satisfactory demonstration of him in reality?

Since he has objective existence, why don't you have even a recent photo?

Since he has objective existence, what real properties does Jesus have that will allow us to identify any particular entity as Jesus if we encounter him in reality?

Do you apply these same standards to proof that gravity exists? Or your mind? Or the love of a good partner?

This is why atheists are known to have double standards that are highly subjective and not objective.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do you apply these same standards to proof that gravity exists? Or your mind? Or the love of a good partner?
Gravity, yes, I can demonstrate it, and if I wish, I can check the maths. My mind? I read the science news, with a layman's interest in progress in brain research. My wife? She gave demonstrations of it every day, and I hope I did too.
This is why atheists are known to have double standards that are highly subjective and not objective.
Well, technically I'm not an atheist, but let it pass. What do you find highly subjective, unfactual, unreasoned, in my posts? If you have any examples, lay them out clearly and I trust I'll learn from them.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Gravity, yes, I can demonstrate it, and if I wish, I can check the maths. My mind? I read the science news, with a layman's interest in progress in brain research. My wife? She gave demonstrations of it every day, and I hope I did too.

Well, technically I'm not an atheist, but let it pass. What do you find highly subjective, unfactual, unreasoned, in my posts? If you have any examples, lay them out clearly and I trust I'll learn from them.

No, you can attempt to demonstrate gravity from a teleological assumptive base regarding correlation, causation and effect, but there is no instrument that measures any such gravitational force. We can see gravity and mass via a scale, but . . .

Again, you are being silly regarding your metaphysical mind--I said "mind," not "brain". You CLAIM to read the science news using your mind or "consciousness", yet many reasonable scientists believe the existence of such a thing is unproven.

No, atheist or no, you have double standards regarding your beliefs in metaphysics (math, logic, reasoning, mind) and a metaphysical God with a physical Son, Jesus Christ.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No, you can attempt to demonstrate gravity from a teleological assumptive base regarding correlation, causation and effect, but there is no instrument that measures any such gravitational force. We can see gravity and mass via a scale, but . . .
But what? Not only can we measure gravity and mass and calculate the path of spaceships to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, even Pluto, but now that we've found the Higgs boson, we even have a successful model in physics of the nature of mass.
Again, you are being silly regarding your metaphysical mind--I said "mind," not "brain".
'Mind' is just a word for a loosely defined set of brain functions.
You CLAIM to read the science news using your mind or "consciousness", yet many reasonable scientists believe the existence of such a thing is unproven.
I didn't claim to read the science news using my mind or my 'consciousness'. I claimed, correctly, that I read the science news. This I did thanks to the functions in my brain for interpreting nerve signals from the retina, identifying symbols in the image so perceived, as standing for words, and putting the words together to form cohesive sentences (&c). As for consciousness, I'm not aware of any reputable scientist who denies its existence ─ it seems a very silly thing to deny if one is awake at the time ─ and I'm aware of various theories of consciousness, one of which, the 'global workspace' hypothesis, has passed a couple of repeatable experiments and last time I looked, was still the front runner.
No, atheist or no, you have double standards regarding your beliefs in metaphysics (math, logic, reasoning, mind) and a metaphysical God with a physical Son, Jesus Christ.
As I said above, you're using an archaic notion of 'mind' (untenably involving dualism). Maths and symbolic logic are formalized methods of reasoning about particular topics. The reasoning is done by the brain, and you can watch it doing so in real time on modern brain scans. Nothing of supernatural metaphysics there.

Nothing of supernatural metaphysics with gods and still-living Jesuses either. They can be real ie have objective existence hence you can show them to me, or imaginary, in which case you can't. Which is it?
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
But what? Not only can we measure gravity and mass and calculate the path of spaceships to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, even Pluto, but now that we've found the Higgs boson, we even have a successful model in physics of the nature of mass.
'Mind' is just a word for a loosely defined set of brain functions.
I didn't claim to read the science news using my mind or my 'consciousness'. I claimed, correctly, that I read the science news. This I did thanks to the functions in my brain for interpreting nerve signals from the retina, identifying symbols in the image so perceived, as standing for words, and putting the words together to form cohesive sentences (&c). As for consciousness, I'm not aware of any reputable scientist who denies its existence ─ it seems a very silly thing to deny if one is awake at the time ─ and I'm aware of various theories of consciousness, one of which, the 'global workspace' hypothesis, has passed a couple of repeatable experiments and last time I looked, was still the front runner.
As I said above, you're using an archaic notion of 'mind' (untenably involving dualism). Maths and symbolic logic are formalized methods of reasoning about particular topics. The reasoning is done by the brain, and you can watch it doing so in real time on modern brain scans. Nothing of supernatural metaphysics there.

Nothing of supernatural metaphysics with gods and still-living Jesuses either. They can be real ie have objective existence hence you can show them to me, or imaginary, in which case you can't. Which is it?

You make some interesting claims--you almost sound like the total scientific consensus is that we have physical proof of invisible forces. Do you go to dark matter conferences and harangue the participants that dark matter is theoretical because we lack physical evidence for it? You again have a strong double standard here.

What is also upsetting is your insistence that we provide the physical Jesus to you, now, personally. It's as if you've read almost zero of the New Testament. Almost 100% of the New Testament books explain Christ's resurrection and ascension, and that the Holy Spirit is on Earth appearing to followers of Christ.

You have no right to claim you have not encountered the Christian God--and therefore the Christian God cannot exist--when you know well from your brief New Testament explorations that you are denied the appearances and experiences of Christ as a scoffer.

What's more, I've never seen your physical brain, nor have you, so to claim you have one is some kind of cause-and-effect teleological argument we can apply to God, dark matter or anything else.

The question, my friend, is this. Do you have a metaphysical heart? It is there that you might just find the Kingdom of God, I hope! I urge you to not receive the grace of God in vain.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
you almost sound like the total scientific consensus is that we have physical proof of invisible forces.
Not invisible in the broad sense, since they're all detectable. But yes, we have strong evidence of gravity, electro-magnetism, the strong force and the weak force. For details, just look in Wikipedia.
Do you go to dark matter conferences and harangue the participants that dark matter is theoretical because we lack physical evidence for it?
I don't have to. Being scientists, they know that dark matter is the name of a problem, a hypothetical thing, one we're yet to define and find.
What is also upsetting is your insistence that we provide the physical Jesus to you, now, personally.
No, get him to appear to a body of researchers with the necessary instruments to detect the qualities of this being. That's all that's needed.

And it seems that although you say he's real, has objective existence, you don't have a recent photo to set the ball rolling.
It's as if you've read almost zero of the New Testament. Almost 100% of the New Testament books explain Christ's resurrection and ascension, and that the Holy Spirit is on Earth appearing to followers of Christ.
Ah, so if you're on earth, it's impossible to meet Jesus. I hadn't understood you to say that before. But if that's the case, does the Holy Ghost have objective existence? Or is [it] imaginary?
You have no right to claim you have not encountered the Christian God--and therefore the Christian God cannot exist
That wasn't what I said. I said that the Christian god lacks a definition such that if we encountered [him] we could tell it was him. Nor any useful description of the manner in which [he] exists. And that the only place he'd ever been detected is in the imagination of individuals.

But then you claim that [he]'s real, [he] exists independently of anyone's imagination, [he] has objective existence. So I very reasonably say, Really? Show me. And you can't.
you are denied the appearances and experiences of Christ as a scoffer.
No wonder [his] PR is a disaster. [He] should be appearing unambiguously to the scoffers and rubbing their noses in their error, and then going and having a beer with them and telling them how the system works. That'd fix the scoffer problem quick enough!
What's more, I've never seen your physical brain, nor have you
No, I haven't had a direct view of my brain, and I hope not to. I have however seen various sectioned x-rays of it (they're in a cupboard somewhere) so I know it's in there. Indeed, even before the x-rays I was pretty much aware that it produced my sense of self and so on.
The question, my friend, is this. Do you have a metaphysical heart?
I'm not clear what that is, but fortunately I have a real heart.
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
By God, you mean Yahweh, I take it?

Earliest records are later than 1500 BCE, so late Bronze Age, leading up to iron, I'd put it, but the Bronze Age isn't clearly defined at the best of times.

I believe Yahweh is a name He uses but prior to using it He was known also so for me it makes sense to use the term God. He also identified Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

I believe that sounds about right but then the record bears witness of things that happened at creation (God only knows when that was) and 5,000 BC when the Adamic race was revived. I believe DNA shows an ancestor from 40,000 years ago but like the Neanderthals it is possible for a race to die out.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
If there is no evidence to support this notion, how do millions of people know about it? What you are trying to say is that the documentary evidence of the Bible is evidence you dislike/distrust/find unreliable.

There is more evidence that Jesus resurrected than that you exist. :)

I believe I am saying that there is no evidence Jesus existed before His birth. So the notion that Jesus was there with Adam and Eve is ridiculous. Now God who is in Jesus was there but that is not the same thing.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
No wonder [his] PR is a disaster. [He] should be appearing unambiguously to the scoffers and rubbing their noses in their error, and then going and having a beer with them and telling them how the system works. That'd fix the scoffer problem quick enough!
Yes, Yes, a thousand times YES!

Jesus (to unbelievers): Oh, you're a doubting Thomas, just like my disciple! So, you doubt that I exist! Well, instead of showing you personally and individually as I did with my Thomas, you're just out of luck: Off to Hell with you, you doubter you!

Now, if you'd just accepted the mass of contradictions and unbelievable stories that others assembled into the Bible, you'd be going right through the pearly gates with no problem. But can't or won't believe, so no matter how good of a person you've been otherwise, you're condemned. Ta, Ta! Off with you now!
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe Yahweh is a name He uses but prior to using it He was known also so for me it makes sense to use the term God. He also identified Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
My own view is based on the findings of straightforward archaeology. What you choose to believe is a matter for you, of course.
 
Top