February 8th, 2023, 07:13 AM
All my life and all the generations before have referred to God as He.
Now it needs to change.
https://news.sky.com/story/god-is-ne...terms-12805759
He is the Lord and we say the Lord's Prayer and celebrate the Lord's Supper.
Lord's Prayer will change to God's Prayer and Lord's Supper will change to God's Supper.
And about time, too.
As for God's son Jesus, it is the Greco-Roman name for Yeshua which sounds more female, so that might might do.
Any other suggestions?
Gender seems to be in debate depending on your reference. God is defined as either asexual, or as "the father" (1,2).Originally Posted by ox
Best to simply file all these writings into the fiction category and move on to more rational issues.
After all, does the sexual reference to nonexistent deities have any real significance?
However, the masculine over the feminine seems to dominate all Abrahamic religions.
But then you have "Holy Mary, Mother of God" stirring this up a tad. It is all, not surprisingly, confusing.
"Gender of God"
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_God
"God the Father"
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Father
Those references only seek to further complicate and confuse the issue.
I mean, who do you actually believe among that lot? If they can't agree with such a simple question they are all wrong.
It's all in the imagination of course and I don't care what people believe, I want to see facts, not faith.
The Bible is constantly being reinterpreted.
Not long ago we were told that we had to fear God. Now it's all about God's love for us.
With the decline in attendance it's surely just a ploy to get more bums on seats.
The Catholics have a good one. In my local church Jesus is not depicted as having reproductive organs while naked on the cross.
He also has long hair like a woman. Being bald would never do.
The Catholics also elevated the Virgin Mary to sit alongside the other three.
Strange how women priests are not ordained in the Catholic church.
When I was young I thought Jesus' last name was Murphy. What I find confusing is that all the monotheistic religions don't seem to recognize the fact they believe in one God but can't agree on s/he/its name. I mean don't they share the most important belief? All about who they think God favors....crazy.
Doesn’t it make sense that God, when communicating with folks thru prophets, took into consideration different geographical areas, customs and cultures?
Last edited by zinjanthropos; February 9th, 2023 at 10:47 AM.
As has been pointed out, churches have profited from prophets.
How do prophets see into the future to see that boundaries are often redrawn?
A former English bishop decided that as Jesus never married he may have been gay.
That was a guy called Montefiore.
Also suggested, Jesus may have survived the cross and married Mary Magdalene.
You know the rest. The bloodline still survives.
The Holy Ghost is quite a mystery.
Once an eagle, now a dove, we do not know if the birds are male or female.
It would seem that to further complicate and confuse the issue would take an act of God himherself.
Those references are simply recycled debates about various interpretations, much like many areas of science.
Without doubt the Catholics are the most elaborate with their presentation of Christianity in their churches.
Compare that with the Baptists. Most of them do not allow any symbols or statues in their churches. Even stained glass windows with doves are considered taboo.
And they do not baptize people until they know why. Infant baptism is not permitted.
Baptism is similar to "the body of Christ" and "the blood of Christ" in their directly physical applications. The Eucharist seems rather cannibalistic, and is apparently derived from the "Last Supper of Jesus" where he gave everyone bread and wine as his own flesh and blood. That one is a real doozy. More than likely it has parallels in some other religions.
This brings up the whole issue of original sin. Not a very nice thing for himherself to stigmatize people with. Think of all those in the world who have not been baptized, burning forever in hell. A nasty and unloving outcome for those either ignorant or unexposed to Christianity. Perhaps they will be granted dispensation. If so, all the atheists should be also. We were simply ignorant of the facts because we were not properly indoctrinated. Seems like a good fall-back position.
What’s mind boggling to me is theology. How does a belief become a field of study, how does it earn the ‘ology’ suffix?
if intelligent people turn God into a field of study then shouldn’t theologists have already arrived at a consensus that God is probably not there?
Last edited by zinjanthropos; February 10th, 2023 at 05:20 AM.
I'll enlist the help of R Dawkins on this one
The God Delusion has a chapter called Why there almost certainly is no God.
Implying that he is not quite 100% sure.
First consider a large building with many rooms where you might live or work.
Chances are you have never been inside every room. One such room 'might' contain a machine which programs the universe in some way. You would then have to decide how it got there.
In reality there are things you will never know. An extension perhaps of the Uncertainty Principle.
You can only assume there 'may have' been a maker.
Dawkins does of course pull this idea apart with his emphasis on natural selection.
Back to the chapter. The bit that stands out for me is his reference to 007.
He doesn't actually mean the spy 007, although some would argue that God spies on us all.
He means the number 0.007 which defines how stars transmute hydrogen into all other atoms. If this value were 0.006 or 0.008 we would not exist.
This is described in Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees.
Dawkins refuses to discuss the other numbers, presumably regarding them as unimportant.
But there is another number, a very large one which holds atoms together.
With a few less zeros only a short lived miniature universe could exist and no creature could grow larger than an insect. No time for evolution either.
The other numbers are even more mind boggling so I suggest you read the book.
While Dawkins is right about intelligent design, he can't consider that there might have been some sort of intelligent interference.
Catholic mass is very long winded and the same every time in just about every service. It does celebrate the Last Supper as if such an event actually happened, but as you imply it's a ritual borrowed from earlier beliefs. The idea of bringing your god down from heaven to earth was certainly nothing new.
Read it long time ago. Yes, fine tuning universe implies that there is someone turning the dial. In that case the someone is probably an experimenter/scientist and before zeroing in, other versions of universes existed or still do today. God loses his supernatural quality as well as omniscience. We just attribute it to nature but I guess constant tweaking is always possible. I thought his argument was all about eliminating God as the all knowing instantly created creator. There's always going to be wiggle room for a believer.I'll enlist the help of R Dawkins on this one
The God Delusion has a chapter called Why there almost certainly is no God.
Implying that he is not quite 100% sure.
First consider a large building with many rooms where you might live or work.
Chances are you have never been inside every room. One such room 'might' contain a machine which programs the universe in some way. You would then have to decide how it got there.
In reality there are things you will never know. An extension perhaps of the Uncertainty Principle.
You can only assume there 'may have' been a maker.
Dawkins does of course pull this idea apart with his emphasis on natural selection.
Back to the chapter. The bit that stands out for me is his reference to 007.
He doesn't actually mean the spy 007, although some would argue that God spies on us all.
He means the number 0.007 which defines how stars transmute hydrogen into all other atoms. If this value were 0.006 or 0.008 we would not exist.
This is described in Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees.
Dawkins refuses to discuss the other numbers, presumably regarding them as unimportant.
But there is another number, a very large one which holds atoms together.
With a few less zeros only a short lived miniature universe could exist and no creature could grow larger than an insect. No time for evolution either.
The other numbers are even more mind boggling so I suggest you read the book.
While Dawkins is right about intelligent design, he can't consider that there might have been some sort of intelligence interference.
If the universe is a quantum computer then I guess some intelligence might have created it.
Until we have a full grasp of quantum physics there will always be a god of the gaps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe
What I recognise is only numbers. You can't have facts without numbers. All else is fiction.
The Book of Numbers?
I’m thinking there’s an infinite amount of numbers between 0 & 1 and occasionally we use one of them. So number facts would reside in an infinity of infinities by the looks of things. I suppose a quantum computer can find a correct number in there somewhere.
Can nature build a QC without any help from us or another intelligence? That is the question.
With QM you do get something for nothing.
With mathematics you do also. Starting with 0 then 1, 2, 3.
There is an infinity of infinities as suggested by an infinite number of the set of odd and the set of even numbers.
There is probably even an infinite number of creators, and not just one God.
Like as with the Norwegians a giant cow licked the gods out of a pit.
This is also confusing.
How is God both everywhere but nowhere to be seen?
If God is everywhere then does God have a presence inside stars and a black holes?
What happens to God if a star explodes?
What happens when black holes merge by spiralling into each other?
What was God doing before He created the universe?
To answer these and other questions God needs to reveal Himself once more, say at the next Olympic Games.
God exists in the fourth spatial dimension. Maybe?
Can you explain the 4th spatial dimension?
I am more inclined to think that if God is the creator of everything then we need to examine the Uncertainty Principle.
We know that atoms exist but at the the sub-atomic level it is only an uncertain fog of probability.
God is everywhere but nowhere to be seen. He moves in mysterious ways. Isn't this the Uncertainty Principle?
The Uncertainty Principle deals with sub-atomic aspects which are not well understood.
It would seem that God is not related to the Uncertainty Principle since he/she is not based on known aspects of science.
Any Uncertainty Principle related to a god seems like the definition of agnosticism, defined by Encyclopedia Britannica as "the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience."
Perhaps this should be redefined as The Unknowable Principle, at least for those so inclined. Better is The Impossible Principle, as that seems most definitive.
4th dimension in physics is time.
Time and energy are part of the Uncertainty Principle.
God resides in Heaven which is the 4th dimension in religion.
Angelic realm is the 7th dimension and upwards.
This is the old spiritual way to God. You can't know God until you get past the angelic realm.
You will at least need to invoke your guardian angel.
I'm still confused as to how they did it.
I'm sure they didn't but who knows?
People were living in a different age of enlightenment.
Maybe we are brainwashed by science.
To clarify: personally I call myself a negative agnostic. I happen to be a mathematician, so assuming a fourth SPATIAL dimension is just as reasonable as assuming god(s) exist.
A quick search on "dimensions" for generic religions yielded a wide variety of beliefs, ranging primarily from 5 to 8 issues. They are defined as dimensions, or elements, depending on the religion, or sect. Obviously with the many religious variations, they must too be a form of brainwashing since there are a lot of hard sells in all of them. None with in-your-face proofs, it is all a bunch of old words and constant exposure to them to drill in "truth". That so many religions exist with so many variations, what makes the most dominant forms so successful? A curious aspect of the evolution of the globally dominant religions. Could it all be related to dimensions, or elements? There are psychological reasons why this may be the case.
Science has its many proofs and its reproducibility requirement provides for what is largely a globally accepted religion with all the same rules - dimensions, elements, particles, etc. This alone calls for it to be accepted above all other religions, since it provides realities we all deal with on a continuous basis. But yet the other religions are in constant question about the validity of the sciences. How are we to distinguish which of these is correct? We are all biased for one form or another, but will there ever be a final designation for the "right religion?" Highly unlikely. This clashing of religions will probably always plague human societies, endlessly into the future, unless they adopt the one and only true religion - science. However, the question still remains about the number of dimensions.
With QM you do get something for nothing.
No you don't. We just haven't delved deep enough.
With mathematics you do also. Starting with 0 then 1, 2, 3
There is an infinity of infinities as suggested by an infinite number of the set of odd and the set of even numbers.
Just one infinity, the set of numbers.
There is probably even an infinite number of creators, and not just one God.
Do they war with Supernova bombs?
Like as with the Norwegians a giant cow licked the gods out of a pit.
Best not thought about.
This is also confusing.
How is God both everywhere but nowhere to be seen?
God has Quantum listeners.
If God is everywhere then does God have a presence inside stars and a black holes?
God dwells in light unapproachable by man!
What happens to God if a star explodes?
See above.
What happens when black holes merge by spiralling into each other?
That's a surprise for later generations of humans.
What was God doing before He created the universe?
Probably none of our business.
To answer these and other questions God needs to reveal Himself once more, say at the next Olympic Games.
See answers above.
Things that puzzle me about R Dawkins.
Why does he ignore Alfred Wallace?
Why does he think God would need to be of greater complexity than his creation?
Wallace probably came up with the idea of natural selection before Darwin, yet Dawkins all but ignores him.
Quite possibly because Wallace became a spiritualist and Dawkins doesn't like that.
Dawkins doesn't think a creator could be simple, and yet evolution developed from simplicity into complexity.
The creation could be the result of a type of simple quantum computer. Programming the Universe is a book by Seth Lloyd.
Small dimensions could have developed into large spatial ones.
The Universe could be a hologram. Michael Talbot.
We live by speculation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace
I wonder if Dawkins thinks religious people evolved some particular survival trait, maybe mental, at this stage in the history of life on Earth. Can’t argue with the success if one checked out human population figures unless you think killing one another over religion is in itself a bad thing. But eventually somebody wins/survives and on it goes.
Between the two, Wallace is the least read about it seems. No doubt he provided Darwin with something to think about. Dawkins talks evolution, so what grabs attention, Wallace or Darwin?
Did you know Ricky and I have the same birthdate, Mar 26? He’s ok, just keeps hammering the theists with the same old shit that it gets repetitive and boring after awhile, for me anyways.
Didn't know that but I have the same birthday as Charles Darwin - Feb 12th.
I probably could have argued with him as he was approachable.
By all accounts Dawkins does not suffer fools (like me) gladly.
People who have seen him tell me not to go anywhere near.
He is always right and you are wrong if you disagree with him.
Reading some of his works like the The Blind Watchmaker regarding his support for natural selection certainly gives one this impression. He seems to have all the answers and anyone who contradicts him is an idiot. He may very well be right, at least with regards to gods and evolution.
Are there any real examples where his commentary is lacking in factual content? Probably only to the religious fanatics who constantly attack his positions it seems.
If one has stirred up the hornet's nest of "creation" in such a big way, you have to be doing something right. I cannot find anything to discourage his primary observations.
Do you actually get the point of The Selfish Gene?
A big call to consider we are simply throwaway puppets for our genes. Subconsciously perhaps, that's why people believe in God.
His work is well researched and revised.
You will need to read all his books.
For some folk he lacks empathy and emotion with his relentless logic.
With his 3rd wife now. I imagine one of his ex's might have turned to him and said "All you think about is evolution!"
The genome of an organism calls all the shots. Since the genome is quasi-immortal and the organism is not, it is only natural to assume that we are "throwaway puppets" for our genomes. We are merely a carrier of our genes.
But people have believed in gods long before they knew about genetics and evolution. They believe in them because they see no other reason for existence. For them, their bodies are throwaway puppets for their souls. Difficult to convince either side of this debate which is right and which is wrong. People like Dawkins must have a difficult problem with this, not being able to convince everyone he is right.
Dawkins suggests that even Stephen Jay Gould didn't get the point of the selfish gene.
Gould believed in 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria' where science and religion are in different domains.
Dawkins also has ideas about memes and extended phenotypes which lack hard evidence.
He writes well compared to some scientists who probably have difficulty in even spelling their own names.
Go back a century and popular science books were difficult to understand and now largely discredited.
People were led to believe in the ether and a young earth.
With the test of time we still have a lot to learn and can you ever say anything for sure?
Would like to jump another 100 years to see what science books look like then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ov...C%20fact%20vs.
Unsurprisingly, one of the biggest detractors of 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria' is Dawkins. From that wiki link above, he notes most decisively :
"A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims"
This is a powerful argument based purely on logic and deductive reasoning, the two most important aspects for deriving the functionally accepted observations and applications of science, which provide for all those real advances in technology. There is nothing to support the concept that religious notions have provided advances in anything other than grand illusions. They provide nothing which is based on scientific principles, a powerful detriment to their acceptance. Again as Dawkins notes : "The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference."
Dawkins et al. hammer home a powerful narrative for what is apparent to unbiased observers - Non-Overlapping Magisteria is nonsense because it attempts to explain the same phenomena by vastly different means. Since 'religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims', Gould is attempting to redefine the notion of reality as defined by the scientific method. He is trying to have his cake and eat it too. And this is, like most things with religious foundations, a physical impossibility.
There is little doubt that Dawkins does get carried away at times.
He describes religion as the root of all evil, or at least he puts his name to it.
He later retracted a bit, by saying that he didn't always think so.
Religion of any sort does seem to inspire people to do bad things, but it's all part of the confusion.
Walk along any high street in England and you are likely to find a RC church and a variety of non RC ones.
Some believe the RC to be the most fundamental, but they are wrong. Very little mention of anything in the Hebrew bible.
Here Dawkins tars every religion with the same brush.
Maybe it's to do with his home in Oxford where every college has its own chapel, church or cathedral.
Whoa! That transplanted American Jewish now Muslim guy near the end of the video is downright scary. Obviously has issues with women. I swear the ME people all suffer from PTSD, how can you not when the threat of death from the hands off another person hangs over you on a daily basis? I understand I can be accidentally hit by a car just crossing the street but over there the driver is waiting for you to cross, wants you to cross, wants to run you down when you get careless. How far do you think Ted Haggard would get over there?
edit: I like how Dawkins showed himself being kicked off ‘My land’ by Haggard and later told by the Muslim guy to stay away from their holy site.
Last edited by zinjanthropos; February 20th, 2023 at 08:59 AM.
This is not unreasonable since it has been used countless times to justify some of the most evil things people do.
This is as it should be if they are pushing the same nonsensical rubbish of supernatural powers that control humanity and dictate its destiny. This provides priests and politicians with the power of the deity.
From everything to personal rights to waging war, religions have, and still do, play a major role in some of the most horrible aspects of self-perpetuating inhumanity.
Little wonder why Dawkins considers faith as "one of the world's great evils". It is best spelled out in The God Delusion where he defines religions' influence on society in all its negative dimensions.
One of the biggest delusions religion maintains is the prophets of God. IOW they know the scoop re God and the Heavens. Christians, Muslims have theirs and I suppose the Jewish faith still waiting for that guy. Do they pop up when religions become frustrated because they’ve never had direct communication/contact with their chosen deity? Elevating regular blokes to divine status, whether they’re dirt poor or ruthlessly cruel, seems to be a trend.
Maybe someday religion will join astrology as a nonsensical sideline. As an aside - many wars are independent of religion. Example - Russia attack on Ukraine.
That would be nice, but perhaps overly optimistic. Astrology was for quite some time accepted as a science along with other well defined disciplines. It was only rendered into a pseudoscience with the appearance of real science, and efforts to falsify its predictions demonstrated its nonsensical character.
Most religions on the other hand have never been associated with modern science (for obvious reasons), and one cannot easily falsify them as one can with astrology.
Still, a quick search suggests that 25% of Americans still believe in astrology, so it is far from a sideline after all. "What's your sign?" still appears to be a common question in many places!
Dawkins likely trashed astrology as badly as all other ludicrous concepts and practices.
There is also the Dog Delusion.
This is not to be confused with a children's book of that name.
Dogs do not need astrology as they can already see into the future.
Dogs are closer to humans than their ape cousins.
Humans are deluded into thinking they are top of the tree of evolution.
Dogs have a better moral code and do not need religion.
By Dawkins's own admission, dogs know things that humans don't.
They may even have a 6th sense. This is all down to their receptor genes.
Dogs don't pay taxes and are given meals already on a plate.
They are more likely to eat proper food.
We are their slaves.
There is also the Dawkins Delusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawkins_Delusion%3F
Here we have partially Overlapping Magisteria.
It all reads like a software program which becomes recursive.
Confusion.
There is a God.
There isn't a God.
Go to Confusion.
The Dawkins Delusion is quite interesting. It references the "Nicene Creed"*, which has one similarity to the the laws of physics - very definitive in its conclusions about "correct" beliefs. What seems amazing is that people felt they needed to be codified since the Bible was the first and only interpretation of Christian beliefs.
Dawkins makes a very strong point in this wiki article, quoting from it :
"He's [McGrath] signed up to the Nicene Creed. The universe was created by a very particular supernatural intelligence who is actually three in one. Not four, not two, but three. Christian doctrine is remarkably specific: not only with cut-and-dried answers to the deep problems of the universe and life, but about the divinity of Jesus, about sin and redemption, heaven and hell, prayer and absolute morality. And yet McGrath has the almighty gall to accuse me of a "glossy", "quick fix", naive faith that science has all the answers."
end quote
Dawkins is so well versed in these debates. It is likely he is considered by many of his opponents to be the anti-Christ. Good to have such an ardent supporter of atheism heading the fight against religious dogma.
"Nicene Creed"
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
I don't know how many who say the creed realise what they are saying. It's more of a tribal ritual than anything.
Heaven and hell are places of the mind. People may once have believed in a 3 tier structure. Heaven above the Earth and Hell below.
Repent 3 times and no matter if your life has been good or bad you will find a place in heaven.
As non-believers burn in hell, I'm enlisting Pascal's Wager.
"I believe in one God, the Almighty Himself."
If He doesn't exist, no harm done, but if He does, I might get a place in Heaven.
Only snag with this, have I chosen the wrong god or the wrong church.
If only Catholics go to heaven. I can tick a box there.
But if it's the other side, I'm doomed.
Should I ever be face to face with the Almighty, He might just sense I wasn't a believer.
I'll be honest and say I wanted to but there was not not enough evidence. That might get me off.
It seems that there is one sin that will not get your off, and that is blasphemy. It is the one sin that is not forgiven and is known as eternal sin*. Depending on the various readings of the Bible, to question or deny the holy spirit is the worst thing one can do. From Hebrews 6:4–6 :
"For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt."
end quote
Most of us in our younger years were true believers. It was exposure to various issues that drove us away from religion, rejecting it entirely. If you have done this, there is nothing to 'get you off'. We can only hope that there is no god, and that eternal sin is as big a myth as its eternal judge, none other than god himself. Good luck on that one. You will need it (or not).
Eternal sin
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_sin
The bible, Koran, and other "holy" books were written by people. Who said they knew what "god" meant.It seems that there is one sin that will not get your off, and that is blasphemy. It is the one sin that is not forgiven and is known as eternal sin*. Depending on the various readings of the Bible, to question or deny the holy spirit is the worst thing one can do. From Hebrews 6:4–6 :
"For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt."
end quote
Most of us in our younger years were true believers. It was exposure to various issues that drove us away from religion, rejecting it entirely. If you have done this, there is nothing to 'get you off'. We can only hope that there is no god, and that eternal sin is as big a myth as its eternal judge, none other than god himself. Good luck on that one. You will need it (or not).
Eternal sin
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_sin
The writers themselves believed they are the words of God. The "old testament" is believed by many to have been dictated to Moses by God. It is difficult to imagine that Moses and his followers did not know what "god" meant.
The new testament was written by the earliest Christians, though who they were is not well defined. There remains substantial debate about who wrote it, except that it was composed during the 1st century immediately during and after the life of Jesus. What seems certain is that they were "men of god", and that they were inspired by Jesus and God, or so they believed.
The same can be said for the Koran, which is believed to have been dictated by the angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad.
It is difficult for some of us to accept all this of course, but the historical records do suggest that they knew what they were writing about.
You can't expect me to understand the Bible as it contains confusion in the form of contradictions.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crosse...ontradictions/
Scholars who analyse old testament history seem to suggest that the earliest written versions date from the kingdom of David or later. Moses (if he existed) was about 200 years earlier. Book of Geneis appears to be an edited synthesis of earlier documents (Israel and Judah) after the split.
Book of Genesis contains 2 creation myths, which is also confusing.
The story of Adam and Eve must be the most significant story ever told because after Adam's misdemeanour we are all tarnished with his sin.
It appears that hell overflowed so much with sinners that Jesus had to appear to avoid further overcrowding.
To free up space Jesus rescued everyone from hell.
Heaven at the time could only have had Noah and his family, then it became populated by all those who repented and accepted Jesus as their saviour.
But..."Based on their understanding of scriptures such as Revelation 14:1-4, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that exactly 144,000 faithful Christians go to heaven to rule with Christ in the kingdom of God."
How was original sin transmitted down the generations?
In our DNA perhaps.
I'm sure those guys at Patheos (see above link) would know an answer.
Does Christianity only flourish because it can have a seemingly infinite number of interpretations?
Last edited by ox; February 25th, 2023 at 08:03 AM.
“Mom, the minister says we are all sinners so why should we believe anything people say?” A question a young me once posed.
What makes a sinner’s word, like that of a clergyman, the gospel truth? I get confused because I associate a sinner as an unlikely choice for a truth spewing candidate. When it comes to truth I think a religion should at least originate with one but do I trust a sinner with that responsibility?
What I find most confusing is did Adam sin first or was it Eve?
Did Eve give the fruit to Adam?
Who is most to blame - Adam or Eve for our downfall?
Why did a harmless tree have a forbidden fruit?
Is this a real tree or the metaphorical Tree of Life from the Cabbala?
If I am tarnished with original sin then how did God know I was coming?
He would have needed to know my entire ancestry in advance.
Quote: Genesis 3 states that Eve ate the fruit first, but Romans 5 states that Adam caused sin to enter the world.
That might be considered the true root of all evil since God knows what everyone is going to do at any point in their lives*. Since he created original sin and allowed it to happen, God is actually the original sinner for foisting this horrible attribute onto humanity. He is in essence casting the first stone!
It is also the biggest paradox regarding many religions which have omniscient deities. If they all know what happens in the past, present, and future, what is the point of their creations and all that follows?
Perhaps it is how they get their kicks. Or it is a form of exercise that keeps them in shape. Can't lose that edge on omniscience or they might end up like the rest of us - wondering about the origin and reason for sentient life.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience
Thats got to rank as #1 on the Confusometer. Can’t act surprised and there are no excuses if you’re omniscient.
Why can’t the religious scribes, believers, leaders just say that’s the way God planned it (created sinners)? Why would it be the wrong thing to do…. I don’t get it.
Maybe atheists are right?Thats got to rank as #1 on the Confusometer. Can’t act surprised and there are no excuses if you’re omniscient.
Why can’t the religious scribes, believers, leaders just say that’s the way God planned it (created sinners)? Why would it be the wrong thing to do…. I don’t get it.
God must have created the Devil to tempt us.
Remember that only God is perfect. Yet the universe runs off chaos. Did God get it wrong?
If so God is not perfect.
So what is this universe that God created?
Could it be a failed light show for a greater reality? An unknown unknown.
The one thing we do know it's full of light.
Ultimately why should it destroy itself?
If I were God I wouldn't have created the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Some would say he didn't, and that the laws of science were invented by people who were not paying attention to scriptures.
Our observations of creation and its destiny may be distorted by our lack of understanding of God's true meaning for creating us - a test of our belief in him and having no other gods before him.
The creation of a "religion" of science has generated an alternate view of man in the universe, one which does not end in Judgement Day, but by some principles derived by that science.
This would fall under the scope of blasphemy, one of those unforgivable sins. That would make the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics a sin of the highest order since it contradicts one of God's most important plans as defined in Revelations.
The Bible and modern physics are at odds with each other. Humans clearly do not have that glorious attribute of omniscience, and will ultimately pay a very high price for lacking it.
Looking at what is happening in the world, we already are. It might appear that the apocalypse is approaching soon, and science is a false prophet. Or its the other way around...
I've always been confused as to why some episodes were taken out of the Bible but others left in.
This was taken out.
https://thevcs.org/open-unexpected/j...0of%20Thomas).
Book of Revelation was left in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_...ypse#Narrative
At least the Gnostic Gospels make for more entertaining reading than the official 4, but they are classed as heresy.
Last edited by ox; March 12th, 2023 at 10:46 AM.
Those taken out did not make the "Final Draft" because of various inconsistencies or even heresies. The "Final Editors" who compiled all the various writings judged that some did not mesh with the overall narrative. How that was confirmed will remain a mystery, as does all of it.
Of these Gospels, the one most reviled was the Gospel of Judas*, which was apparently suppressed for over a century following the writings and compilation of many of the components of the Final Draft. Of course this work had to be expunged as Judas was required as a boogeyman, the betrayer of Christ. They threw Judas under the chariot because they needed the drama of betrayal to amplify the evil aligned against Christ, and one from his inner circle was ideal.
Some of us can only wonder if we are getting the true history of those defining times.......
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas
War or peace, love or hate, which is it? What do the scriptures of world religions actually preach. You could say peace & love but the written word doesn’t wholeheartedly go along with that. Don’t want to pick on the Christians all the time so I found this article a good mix.
https://bharatabharati.in/2015/09/18...alerie-tarico/
Yep there is serious body count issue with Old Testament God and when it’s compared to Satan’s …. it’s like the Holocaust vs a nightclub shooting by comparison. Not sure how many deaths Allah is credited for in the Koran but all the Abrahamic gods seem to be on a mission to outdo one another in the kill department. Incitement to murder may even be more of an issue than attributed deaths. Why people put their faith in murderous deities is beyond me. Religion, when it comes to kill or be merciful, is about as confusing as it gets…IMHO.
It's only when bums on seats started to decline that the idea of the fear of God was abandoned in favour of the love of God.
Religions only preach reinterpretations.
My favourite preacher was the Reverend Robert Taylor.
He decided that the Bible was all bullshit and started to bawl out the language of the infidel.
It became the Devil's Pulpit which was later copied by Darwin and Dawkins.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Devils-Pulp.../dp/1585092576
I still do not understand why the church fathers did not like story of the young Jesus bringing birds to life, but did not reject his action sending swine to drown in the river.
I personally like the idea of changing the Lord's Prayer to God's Prayer and the Lord's Supper to God's Supper. It's a small change, but it can have a big impact on how we view and approach our faith. Regarding Jesus, I think it's interesting that you mentioned Yeshua as a possible alternative to the Greco-Roman name. It's always important to question and reexamine our beliefs and traditions, so I appreciate your perspective on this.
Does God identify as a male or female? Should s/he be one or the another? Or are there some unused letters of the alphabet that suits deity identity?
Is the God of Abraham in favour of homosexuals and transgender or not?
The OT condemns homosexuals.
Is it the Lord's Supper or the Last Supper?
Could there have been two such events?
Is Genesis (as one example) one book or two or more books moulded together?
Why does one type of church consider bread and wine is transmuted into body and blood while another church down the road consider it doesn't?
Why are there different interpretations of the Lord's Prayer in the gospels?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Prayer
Why do some people believe the Bible is an historical document and some don't?
I consider it to be all recycled mythology.
Likely a mental aspect which blocks out an understanding of reality.
Kind of like children who believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, which they can leave behind because they are quickly exposed as myths, while gods are not.
Some people cannot cast off the religious myths even as they mature into adults, probably because they were deeply brainwashed at an early age by family, etc.
It all seems bound to some form of mental fixation. Many intelligent people, even scientists, are religious.
Ask yourself why you think it is all myth, and why so many others don't. There is a deeply embedded mental aspect to this issue which may not be so easy to define.
Had an argument here with a guy one day.He was Muslim and extolling the virtues of his one god Allah. My question to him was that since all monotheists have one god then why isn’t it the same one? I argued that even the one and only god should be pleased with people who have no other gods before them. Also the mono god doesn’t seem to care what s/he is called since there’s no 11th commandment dictating a moniker. My Muslim friend couldn’t accept any of it.
This is what defines a religion.
Keep repeating something to a kid and it is likely to accept it for the rest of its life.
No doubt, but can you name a famous scientist who is religious.It all seems bound to some form of mental fixation. Many intelligent people, even scientists, are religious.
Like Einstein, Hawking, Darwin, Dawkins.
Even theists can never agree if the Bible is all true or just some of it is true.Ask yourself why you think it is all myth, and why so many others don't. There is a deeply embedded mental aspect to this issue which may not be so easy to define.
It takes a certain amount of courage to admit you may have been wrong, but it all depends on what you think of as god.
Faith exists only in the absence of evidence for the existence of god.
Faith might even be a mental health issue.
At the coronation of King Charles, the Archbishop of Canterbury sounded to me he had lost touch with reality.
I'll be even more laconic.
What defines a region?
He is the Archbishop of Canterbury because he lost touch with reality, big time, a long time ago.
As you noted, his childhood was swamped with myths which were never corrected as he became an adult.
Sadly, it happens to so many people. And it is not just religion.
Look at all the climate change deniers, who cannot accept reality as increasingly violent storms and droughts destroy their homes and crops, etc.
Apparently, reality is not for everyone. Many prefer to live in a fantasy world where their own concepts represent reality, despite the natural events demonstrating how wrong they are.
From the Nicene Creed:
"We believe in one God, the Father, the almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen."
All over the world Christians are expected to declare their faith, whether they believe this or not.
I agree that paradox is difficult to spot but it should be obvious after a while that if god is the sole maker then god must have made himself.
They will reason that god always existed but will be unwilling to take the argument any further and the subject matter changed.
This assumes that all things have a beginning. There could be one exception that you are denying for apparently obvious but unproven reasons. Running a quick search on the issue comes up with the ultimate answer for you : God is infinite, and needs no creation*.
Quoting from the link below :
"It takes more than mere human comprehension to understand God's infinitude, because His nature is spiritual, not material. Spiritual understanding, though, can grasp it."
end quote
All you naysayers about the existence of God rely on that ill-defined concept known as "reality", which is defined in this regard by atheists. An inability to understand the nature of God could be proof of a lack of spirituality.
Most seemingly rational concepts of reality are based on "we think therefore we are".
But without spirituality, is that thinking based on all parameters, known and unknown, of human comprehension?
There are clearly those who believe that such comprehension is much more complex than those arrogant, opinionated atheists would have us believe.
Please provide a proof that spirituality is itself nonsensical and plays no role in rational interpretations. Yet another challenge to the boundaries of human comprehension.
"The infinite nature of God"
* https://www.csmonitor.com/1985/0419/mrb660.html
why should "god" (any god, and not single personal flavor of god) NOT conform to reality?
Reality is a "scientific" concept. God(s) can do what they want.
It should be rational enough to ask what god was doing before he created the cosmos, other than a mystery that cannot be explained.
It should also be rational to ask how and why he created it. 2 trillion galaxies and counting.
What can be explained is how a few hundred words in a holy book leads to the construction of vast cathedrals and how people can kill in the name of god.
The answer is mathematical. One person starts a religion by converting a second person. 2 become 4 and so on exponentially.
Once the religion has grown to a critical size fall outs and schisms are inevitable.
Christians kill their saviour in order to pay for their accumulated sins by a god who not only demands payment but is the father of the saviour. IOW..kill my kid and you’re forgiven. I don’t know how or why Christians accept that. There’s a job opening for saviour, anyone interested?
Reality is described through scientific concepts. God(s) myths do what proselytizers decide they want.Reality is a "scientific" concept. God(s) can do what they want.
Fixed it for ya
I would be very interested in the post if the terms and conditions (a cushy afterlife) still apply.
Sorry to disappoint, but only the soul survives.
But what is the soul and what is it composed of?
One thought that occurs is that if parallel worlds exist there should be infinite copies of us all, which presumably means that none of us actually die, ever.
If god is the creator then he could have decided that one copy is a waste.
Only snag is lack of hard evidence for parallel worlds.
| « Is the bible Gods word? | - » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
