Is there a supernatural?

[Quesi]

My statement that you refer to is that Jesus offered to go and die, and therefore God sent him. God did not force him, he went willingly. The statement, "God sent his son..." Does not mean that the son did not go willingly or that he was forced to go. But that after he decided to go, the Father using his power, and means, sent him.

And this is justice. The life of Jesus, since he is God, is worth the life of everyone created and will ever be created. Over 7 billion people his life is worth, and they all had to pay the penalty of sin, which was death. Since Jesus paid this penalty of death, by dying himself, the scales of justice are now equal, those people can be justified to God.

But if Jesus is God, (and God's son), if this is what God decided, then how could Jesus have free will to do otherwise?  The Trinity stuff gives me a headache.

[jakec47]

In what way?  What specifically do you mean by this?

I mean that I trust God for my needs. Shelter, food, air...not neglecting my own duty to work and go out and buy the food I need. But for example, I tithe and though I could save that money and use it for something else, I trust that God will bless me as he has promised. I trust all his promises, that is one way I rely on him. I rely on him to forgive me for my sins. I rely on him to provide all my needs. If I sold all my possessions and left everything I would rely on him to provide for me.

[jakec47]

No, I am not saying the bible cannot be referenced.  I am saying when you are asked for evidence, quoting the bible generally does not cut it for us.  It depends on the context.  If you say jesus was real and you use the bible as evidence, that is not what we are looking for.  It is self-refernecial and circular. In that case we would be interested in a valid contemporary source.

If you want to talk about how you interpret the story of Job, quoting the bible is fine.  That coversation would be more like literary criticism and little external evidence would be required, if at all, though you may want to reference arguments other people have made on the topic.

You can tell me what you think you know, but then you have to explain to me why I should believe you.  If I tell you gravity on earth accelerates objects in a vacuum at 9.81 m/s², I could point to numerous physics books that support that number.  I could even explain how you could set up an experiment to verify it for yourself.

When you say "[God] gives them things they need. And He doesn't ignore anyone," we are looking for you to tell us why we should believe that.  We see no evidence of god giving anyone anything, regardless of what the bible says.  So we look to you to say, "this is what god did and this is how I know it."

Does that help?
 

Yes very much, thank you. I will try to not use the circular reasoning in the context of the discussion as you have stated.

[jdawg70]

So, your answer for why people do not find god without other people telling them about god is that...people only find god when god manifests themselves to them and not when other people tell them about god?

Is...what...um...are you familiar with how the whole question/answer thing works?

I'm saying that it started out that way, God revealed himself to people. In turn those people went out and told others. If God revealed himself to me, no one would believe it. Even if it was true. Well perhaps some would believe it but most would not. But I am saying that people find out about God both ways. Through God revealing himself, which I believe he still does now, but not always, and people telling others.

Jesus arrived at a time very important, the common language was Greek and Jerusalem was a major city. He could proclaim the good news there are the news would spread. Why ask God to go tell everyone personally, why can't people just tell about him? Why can't the testimony of eyewitnesses by used. In a criminal court case if the defendent doesn't testify that he committed the crime, they you go on the testimony of eyewitnesses, or on the evidence. Or both.

Thanks for the clarification, but I guess I'm confused as to why you would trust second-hand accounts (people telling you about the existence of an entity) over first-hand accounts (the entity in question telling you it exists).  I'm also unsure where you get your 'find out about God both ways' claim from, unless you are specifically countering the claim made earlier to you that people ONLY hear about god from other people and NOT directly from god itself.

As to why would god go tell everyone personally?  Maybe because of the level of importance of 'salvation' and 'love'.  Do people who love you only interact with you via proxies and avatars?

[jdawg70]

Yes very much, thank you. I will try to not use the circular reasoning in the context of the discussion as you have stated.

A bit of an aside, but does there exist a context where circular reasoning WOULD be acceptable?

[jakec47]

Other religions--Jews, Muslims, Mormons--say the same thing. How do we know who god really revealed himself to?

Thats when you look at the evidence. The Jewish God, the Muslim God, and the Mormon God are all the same God, Yahweh, The God of Abraham, Muslims call him Allah. So God revealed himself to Abraham and eventually these 3 religions formed because of different beliefs along the way. Jews don't believe Jesus was the expected Messiah, but there are plenty of reasons he must be. (This discussion would be a Biblical discussion on why Jesus was the Messiah, so you would have to believe the Bible). Muslims believe differently because they believe God revealed everything to Muhammad, one guy. Over the time of his life. Whereas in the Bible it was written by over 40 authors who God revealed himself to and over a period of 1,500 years. They all agree. And Mormons, like the Muslims base their beliefs of what one guy said he "saw". So what is more reliable, one person, or 40.

Why does it matter what language was common in that little region at that time in history? What about the rest of the world where people did not speak Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic? Why didn't god just tell everyone in the world as soon as they were old enough to understand, using the language each person understood best? If god is all-powerful, and all-knowing, he could tell everyone clearly without any problem at all. And he could keep on telling everyone clearly throughout history.

Since there are thousands of different religions, with different beliefs, all geographically separated and culturally specific, and non-believers in every country, it is obvious that your bible god does not speak to everyone.

What matters about the language is because it was the common language of the people of the Roman Empire, which was a world power, the message was able to be spread very quickly since translating languages was not as easy back then as it is today. Greek was like what English is today.

And again, why should God have to go tell every person, why can't he just tell one and the one tell 2 and the 2 tell 4 and so on and so forth until everyone has heard. In my job, I don't get instructions from the owner of the company, it goes down the line until someone tells me. Should I complain because I don't think he really told me?

For most of the important stuff in the bible, there were no human eyewitnesses. Who witnessed god creating the heavens and earth? Who witnessed Adam and Eve in the garden? Who witnessed Noah putting the animals onto the ark and sailing away? Who witnessed Jesus fasting in the desert? Who witnessed Jesus being raised from the dead and leaving his tomb? And so forth.

Furthermore, the miraculous events in the bible need more than just some guy saying it happened. So what? That one guy could be joking, or crazy or mistaken or lying. There should be lots of witnesses saying the same thing, but there are not. And there should be some evidence, because when things actually happen they leave a record. There is no physical record of most of the major events in the bible.

Actually that statement, "For most of the important stuff in the bible, there were no human eyewitnesses." You are clearly making that statement up. What do you mean most? How many is that? What's important? Don't answer these questions, I'm just telling you that This is incorrect. The Creation, no one witnessed it, but God told Adam and Eve all about it. Who witnesses Adam and Eve in the garden, Adam and Eve witnesses themselves. They told their children who told their children, until it was written down. And God revealed all that to Moses who wrote it down, plus oral transmission was probably used as well. Who witnessed Noah, Noah did, and all this family members. There were at least 8 people (including Noah) who witnessed Noah going into the ark. Jesus in the desert, Jesus told the disciples what happened. And who witnessed Jesus being raised from the dead...the disciples, the women who were with the disciples, and to more than 500 other people!

There wasn't just one guy saying it happened, there were Twelve, and many many more. How about the 5,000 he fed, they saw it. As far as written evidence, the New Testament, you have the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James. Plus we have secular authorities who speak of Jesus' existence. And again you make a blind assertion "There is no physical record of most of the major events in the bible."

How about the findings at Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho, finding on Saul, David, Solomon. The Bible says Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by fire and brimstone, what do we find there, a destroyed city with brimstone all around. How about Jericho, the Bible says the walls fell outward, what do we find? The walls fell outward and the city was destroyed, just as the Bible claims, and it is interesting because walls of cities do no fall outward, they fall inward. There are many findings we have discovered on the Bible. They may not prove it was the word of God and inspired but they do prove that the Bible has historical accuracies within it. What we can say is that no evidence has been issued that disproves the Bible.

[jakec47]

My statement that you refer to is that Jesus offered to go and die, and therefore God sent him. God did not force him, he went willingly. The statement, "God sent his son..." Does not mean that the son did not go willingly or that he was forced to go. But that after he decided to go, the Father using his power, and means, sent him.

And this is justice. The life of Jesus, since he is God, is worth the life of everyone created and will ever be created. Over 7 billion people his life is worth, and they all had to pay the penalty of sin, which was death. Since Jesus paid this penalty of death, by dying himself, the scales of justice are now equal, those people can be justified to God.

But if Jesus is God, (and God's son), if this is what God decided, then how could Jesus have free will to do otherwise?  The Trinity stuff gives me a headache.

Well if Jesus is God, then God offered his own life up, who was Jesus, who offered his own life up. The Trinity is confusing but it is beyond human understanding, if we could explain the nature of God, we would be superior to him.

[jdawg70]

Thats when you look at the evidence. The Jewish God, the Muslim God, and the Mormon God are all the same God, Yahweh, The God of Abraham, Muslims call him Allah. So God revealed himself to Abraham and eventually these 3 religions formed because of different beliefs along the way. Jews don't believe Jesus was the expected Messiah, but there are plenty of reasons he must be. (This discussion would be a Biblical discussion on why Jesus was the Messiah, so you would have to believe the Bible). Muslims believe differently because they believe God revealed everything to Muhammad, one guy. Over the time of his life. Whereas in the Bible it was written by over 40 authors who God revealed himself to and over a period of 1,500 years. They all agree. And Mormons, like the Muslims base their beliefs of what one guy said he "saw".

Wouldn't it be in every single sentient beings' interest for god to simply clear up any of this mix up of different beliefs?

So what is more reliable, one person, or 40.

Objective physical evidence.

[jdawg70]

Well if Jesus is God, then God offered his own life up, who was Jesus, who offered his own life up. The Trinity is confusing but it is beyond human understanding, if we could explain the nature of God, we would be superior to him.

How does one differentiate between the completely non-understandable and the untrue?

[jakec47]

Yes very much, thank you. I will try to not use the circular reasoning in the context of the discussion as you have stated.

A bit of an aside, but does there exist a context where circular reasoning WOULD be acceptable?

No. I don't mean to imply that there are instances where it is acceptable.

And its not that I trust second hand accounts over first hand, but if someone told me they saw God, and I know this person to be trustworthy, I would trust him. But if God Himself appeared to me and told me other stuff I would trust him. So I trust firsthand over secondhand but I have never experienced firsthand literally, so I have to trust second hand.

About my find out about God both ways claim. I am just saying that  perhaps it is so in other countries or something that people hear it that way. I didn't, but I'm just suggesting it is a possibility.

"Do people who love you only interact with you via proxies and avatars?" What if they can't interact with you another way, because if they came to you face to face, you would die. For example, If someone put a bomb in your backpack and told your significant other not to go near you, and they tried to tell you about the bomb but couldn't tell you personally but had to tell others to tell you, because of the bomb, and so that you would not die. Well God is a holy God, and cannot be in the presence of sinners. If he would appear to us, we would most certainly die, because of his brightness and because the Bible says that nothing unholy can be in the presense of a holy God. That is why when he would appear in the Old Testament he would have to veil his true being. Such as in the case of Moses. God told Moses he would hide Moses in the cleft of a rock until God passed by and they he would allow Moses to see his back, because God says, no one can see God's face and live. Moses was one of priviledge to see God, because God found favor with him. I would think that would be why God has to use others and can't reveal himself. Very good question.

[jakec47]

Well if Jesus is God, then God offered his own life up, who was Jesus, who offered his own life up. The Trinity is confusing but it is beyond human understanding, if we could explain the nature of God, we would be superior to him.

How does one differentiate between the completely non-understandable and the untrue?

Well I could say that for something to be non-understandable it would mean that we have all the evidence that is going to be given to us, and we still can't understand. For untrue, it would be that we have proven it to be false.

"Wouldn't it be in every single sentient beings' interest for god to simply clear up any of this mix up of different beliefs?" It would be good, but God has allowed us to chose, he has given us enough evidence, if we look close enough and actually try to find it, to believe in him as the one and only God. In the past he has displayed he is the only God, many times he has done this, but eventually he probably was angry for people not believing dispite him given them plenty of evidence. In the case of the Exodus and the parting of the Red Sea, the people believed and followed God, but after that they turned to other gods. So he showed them again, like in the case of Elijah, when the prophets of Baal, prayed that fire would fall on their sacrifice, but nothing happened, then Elijiah prayed to the LORD, and fire fell. God has proven himself many times, now he has left the door open for us to take this and believe. The LORD is patient, but patience has its limits.

[jdawg70]

"e author=jakec47 link=topic=22431.msg508499#msg508499 date=1337811448]
Well I could say that for something to be non-understandable it would mean that we have all the evidence that is going to be given to us, and we still can't understand. For untrue, it would be that we have proven it to be false.
[/quote]
If I don't understand it, how do I know something is evidence for it?
You: "The Holy Trinity is true."
Me: "Well, it appears to be impossible for something to simultaneously be three separate distinct entities and the same entity.  This would appear to falsify the claim."
You: "Well you just don't understand it."
Me: "Um.  K.  I've never seen god, Jesus, or the holy spirit.  They haven't conveyed any of this information to me.  The behavior of the world appears no different to the non-existence of a Holy Trinity.  This would appear to falsify the claim."
You: "The behavior of the world does appear to be different than one where there is no Holy Trinity.  I just can't quantify or explain any of it.  Just trust me."

You know that there are 7-sided triangles in the non-local plane of quasi-existence, right?  Or are you going to deny the truth-value of that statement for some reason?

"Wouldn't it be in every single sentient beings' interest for god to simply clear up any of this mix up of different beliefs?" It would be good, but God has allowed us to chose, he has given us enough evidence, if we look close enough and actually try to find it, to believe in him as the one and only God. In the past he has displayed he is the only God, many times he has done this, but eventually he probably was angry for people not believing dispite him given them plenty of evidence. In the case of the Exodus and the parting of the Red Sea, the people believed and followed God, but after that they turned to other gods. So he showed them again, like in the case of Elijah, when the prophets of Baal, prayed that fire would fall on their sacrifice, but nothing happened, then Elijiah prayed to the LORD, and fire fell. God has proven himself many times, now he has left the door open for us to take this and believe.

The earlier post that you received from a moderator about 'using the bible for evidence' bit is going to apply here.  I contend that the whole 'god reigning fire down' thing is simply a fictional account.  You'll have to site some non-biblical source before I begin to believe that an actual entity 'god' actually caused fire to fall.

Now, it is a distinct possibility that I am simply too stupid to believe.  Should I be eternally punished (or I guess extinguished - possibly with some level of discomfort prior to the actual event of nonexistence - as per your belief system) for being unintelligent?

The LORD is patient, but patience has its limits.

I thought he/she/it was of infinite grace?  Doesn't that mean 'no limits'?

[jdawg70]

"Wouldn't it be in every single sentient beings' interest for god to simply clear up any of this mix up of different beliefs?" It would be good, but God has allowed us to chose, he has given us enough evidence, if we look close enough and actually try to find it, to believe in him as the one and only God. In the past he has displayed he is the only God, many times he has done this, but eventually he probably was angry for people not believing dispite him given them plenty of evidence. In the case of the Exodus and the parting of the Red Sea, the people believed and followed God, but after that they turned to other gods. So he showed them again, like in the case of Elijah, when the prophets of Baal, prayed that fire would fall on their sacrifice, but nothing happened, then Elijiah prayed to the LORD, and fire fell. God has proven himself many times, now he has left the door open for us to take this and believe. The LORD is patient, but patience has its limits.

I should also clarify that when I said every single sentient being, I included god in that set.

[nogodsforme]

Other religions--Jews, Muslims, Mormons--say the same thing. How do we know who god really revealed himself to?

Thats when you look at the evidence. The Jewish God, the Muslim God, and the Mormon God are all the same God, Yahweh, The God of Abraham, Muslims call him Allah. So God revealed himself to Abraham and eventually these 3 religions formed because of different beliefs along the way. Jews don't believe Jesus was the expected Messiah, but there are plenty of reasons he must be. (This discussion would be a Biblical discussion on why Jesus was the Messiah, so you would have to believe the Bible). Muslims believe differently because they believe God revealed everything to Muhammad, one guy. Over the time of his life. Whereas in the Bible it was written by over 40 authors who God revealed himself to and over a period of 1,500 years. They all agree. And Mormons, like the Muslims base their beliefs of what one guy said he "saw". So what is more reliable, one person, or 40.

Why does it matter what language was common in that little region at that time in history? What about the rest of the world where people did not speak Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic? Why didn't god just tell everyone in the world as soon as they were old enough to understand, using the language each person understood best? If god is all-powerful, and all-knowing, he could tell everyone clearly without any problem at all. And he could keep on telling everyone clearly throughout history.

Since there are thousands of different religions, with different beliefs, all geographically separated and culturally specific, and non-believers in every country, it is obvious that your bible god does not speak to everyone.

What matters about the language is because it was the common language of the people of the Roman Empire, which was a world power, the message was able to be spread very quickly since translating languages was not as easy back then as it is today. Greek was like what English is today.

And again, why should God have to go tell every person, why can't he just tell one and the one tell 2 and the 2 tell 4 and so on and so forth until everyone has heard. In my job, I don't get instructions from the owner of the company, it goes down the line until someone tells me. Should I complain because I don't think he really told me?

For most of the important stuff in the bible, there were no human eyewitnesses. Who witnessed god creating the heavens and earth? Who witnessed Adam and Eve in the garden? Who witnessed Noah putting the animals onto the ark and sailing away? Who witnessed Jesus fasting in the desert? Who witnessed Jesus being raised from the dead and leaving his tomb? And so forth.

Furthermore, the miraculous events in the bible need more than just some guy saying it happened. So what? That one guy could be joking, or crazy or mistaken or lying. There should be lots of witnesses saying the same thing, but there are not. And there should be some evidence, because when things actually happen they leave a record. There is no physical record of most of the major events in the bible.

Actually that statement, "For most of the important stuff in the bible, there were no human eyewitnesses." You are clearly making that statement up. What do you mean most? How many is that? What's important? Don't answer these questions, I'm just telling you that This is incorrect. The Creation, no one witnessed it, but God told Adam and Eve all about it. Who witnesses Adam and Eve in the garden, Adam and Eve witnesses themselves. They told their children who told their children, until it was written down. And God revealed all that to Moses who wrote it down, plus oral transmission was probably used as well. Who witnessed Noah, Noah did, and all this family members. There were at least 8 people (including Noah) who witnessed Noah going into the ark. Jesus in the desert, Jesus told the disciples what happened. And who witnessed Jesus being raised from the dead...the disciples, the women who were with the disciples, and to more than 500 other people!

There wasn't just one guy saying it happened, there were Twelve, and many many more. How about the 5,000 he fed, they saw it. As far as written evidence, the New Testament, you have the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James. Plus we have secular authorities who speak of Jesus' existence. And again you make a blind assertion "There is no physical record of most of the major events in the bible."

How about the findings at Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho, finding on Saul, David, Solomon. The Bible says Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by fire and brimstone, what do we find there, a destroyed city with brimstone all around. How about Jericho, the Bible says the walls fell outward, what do we find? The walls fell outward and the city was destroyed, just as the Bible claims, and it is interesting because walls of cities do no fall outward, they fall inward. There are many findings we have discovered on the Bible. They may not prove it was the word of God and inspired but they do prove that the Bible has historical accuracies within it. What we can say is that no evidence has been issued that disproves the Bible.

Where is the evidence that this stuff happened? In what museum or university? How come nobody but believers think this is real?

I reassert that there are no physical records of most of what happens in the bible. If this evidence existed, where is it? We would be able to see it in museums and everyone in the world would believe it. A few places that actually exist are mentioned, like Egypt and Rome. But that does not mean that any miracles occured there.

Witnesses are people who actually observed events, but did not actually participate. You can't be a witness for yourself. Noah's family can't be witnesses to themselves being on the ark. Jesus can't be his own witness as to what happened when he was alone in the desert. Anyone can make up a story and tell it to other people. Don't you understand this? Oral stories are not generally accurate, especially after hundreds or thousands of years. Haven't you ever played Telephone?

That is why we don't believe people who say they were abducted by aliens. It is only them being their own witness. There have to be other who saw it happen and have concrete evidence like the door handle of an alien ship. So far, nothing like that has shown up.

There are no contemporary Greek, Roman or Egyptian accounts of the miraculous events that are described in the bible. Nobody writes about the miracles that Jesus supposedly did, and you think someone might have noticed and written about it other than the bible folks involved. Nobody outside of the Middle East noticed that the world was drowned in Noah's flood. China and India just went on building empires and inventing science and stuff.

The Egyptians never noticed all the plagues, the death of their first born children, Jewish slaves leaving, the chariots being destroyed, and the Red Sea parting. They recorded things like every grain of wheat collected in tax from every province and the depth of the Nile every season. You would think they would take note of frogs raining from the sky, all their kids mysteriously dying in one year or all their slaves suddenly taking off. But not a word. The Egyptian society, pyramids and so forth, were not destroyed by a global flood. Neither was anything else.

[jeremy0]

Yes very much, thank you. I will try to not use the circular reasoning in the context of the discussion as you have stated.

A bit of an aside, but does there exist a context where circular reasoning WOULD be acceptable?

No. I don't mean to imply that there are instances where it is acceptable.

Jakec: you were using circular logic.  Therefore, since you both stated it is unacceptable reasoning, I will say that you are a flawed person with reasoning abilities.  I'm referring to the internet to give you an example..

Wikipedia: Circular reasoning/logic is a logical fallacy (wrong) in which the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with. 

Example:  I am saved if I believe in God, I am saved because I believe in God.
Example 2:  I am loved by Jesus, I know this because I know I am loved by Jesus.  Here's why...
Example 3: Jesus is real.  If the Bible says he is real, Jesus is real.
Example 4: Jesus is God.  I know because the Book told me Jesus is God.

So I guess I'll discard most of your statements...

And its not that I trust second hand accounts over first hand, but if someone told me they saw God, and I know this person to be trustworthy, I would trust him. But if God Himself appeared to me and told me other stuff I would trust him. So I trust firsthand over secondhand but I have never experienced firsthand literally, so I have to trust second hand.

Jake:  I am the Son of God.  I have revisited this place in order to try and save it.  But there's a problem - nobody really believes in me anymore.  So I can't prove that I came back to save this place.  This is my circular, second hand account of the supernatural.  Also, God visited me in my house years ago and told me this.  Do you believe what I just said?  It's a second-hand account, you said you would believe it.  How can you prove that I'm not the son of god?  Do you have any proof that I'm not the son of god?  Do you have any proof that I don't know God personally?  Do you have any proof that I'm just a man, even if I die and get re-born in the spirit?  No.  You don't. 

The above is, in fact, your argument in these forums...

"Do people who love you only interact with you via proxies and avatars?" What if they can't interact with you another way, because if they came to you face to face, you would die. For example, If someone put a bomb in your backpack and told your significant other not to go near you, and they tried to tell you about the bomb but couldn't tell you personally but had to tell others to tell you, because of the bomb, and so that you would not die. Well God is a holy God, and cannot be in the presence of sinners. If he would appear to us, we would most certainly die, because of his brightness and because the Bible says that nothing unholy can be in the presense of a holy God. That is why when he would appear in the Old Testament he would have to veil his true being. Such as in the case of Moses. God told Moses he would hide Moses in the cleft of a rock until God passed by and they he would allow Moses to see his back, because God says, no one can see God's face and live. Moses was one of priviledge to see God, because God found favor with him. I would think that would be why God has to use others and can't reveal himself. Very good question.

Can you count the circular reasoning and contradictions in the above paragraph?  My head's getting dizzy...  JakeC:  You have no clear argument..  You're no longer making any real sense.

[bertatberts]

So what is more reliable, one person, or 40.

Neither! If a lie is told to a Trillion people it still remains a lie.
Remember Jake you have to first establish it's true objectively, regardless of how many people tell you it's true.

[Anfauglir]

Sure I've heard of them - of PEOPLE doing stuff.  You know, like dentists in the West help people with problems with their teeth?

But you said that your god intervenes directly in your life.  Miraculously heals teeth.  THAT is my point - that he will do it for you, but not for them.

THAT is what I am asking you to explain.  Why god can and will make a direct and personal intervention in your life, but is content to leave far greater problems up to the good will of the (by comparison) scantily resourced and impotent mankind.

How do you know he doesn't? You know he did it for me because I told you. You will never hear a report that God saved someone, but if you ask them they may say that he did. Plenty of people are alive who would otherwise be dead if God did not intervene.

So prove it.   Because every time I open the papers or turn on the TV I see more and more people dying of starvation or disease or children being beaten to death or......and it goes on.  So you're right.  I DON'T hear reports that your god saved someone.  But I hear you telling me about how god cured your toothache because he didn't want you to have a little discomfort.  So what I SEE is a god who will cure the niggling little issues of a pampered westerer, but offers a big "tough luck" to most of the rest of the world.

[Anfauglir]

In what way?  What specifically do you mean by this?

I mean that I trust God for my needs. Shelter, food, air...not neglecting my own duty to work and go out and buy the food I need. ..... I rely on him to provide all my needs. If I sold all my possessions and left everything I would rely on him to provide for me.

How convenient.  You trust that god will meet your needs.....providing that you do the work to fill them yourself. 

You originally said you RELY on god.  But when pushed, you've shifted away to TRUST - a completely different thing.

So are there any ways that you RELY on god?  Or do you just TRUST you can rely on him should you ever stop supporting yourself - which of course you would never do?

[screwtape]

I mean that I trust God for my needs.

As Anfauglir touched on, there is a difference between reliance and trust.  When you rely on someone, it is because they are actually doing things. As you have explained it, you do not apparently rely on yhwh at all because yhwh does not seem to actually do anything for you.  That is, yhwh does not take action.

Trust is another thing.  Trust is normally based on observing patterns.  I trust my wife to not go bonkers with our finances because I have observed a pattern of her being responsible with our money in the past. I trust my friends because I have observed a pattern of them being kind and good people.

What is your trust in yhwh based on?

[kaziglu bey]

If this evidence existed, where is it?

It's hidden away in the Vatican in the Pope's private jerk off room.

[stuffin]

Well if Jesus is God, then God offered his own life up, who was Jesus, who offered his own life up. The Trinity is confusing but it is beyond human understanding, if we could explain the nature of God, we would be superior to him.

Jake wins with that statement, there is no way you can argue with his logic.

Everyone  needs  to  convert  instantly,  so  pick  a  god  and  start  worshipping.

[gonegolfing]

I like your statement "No adult in their right mind allows their own innocent life to be taken or offered up for the life of the guilty." That just shows how much Jesus cared for everyone for him to do that.

And you are incorrect in saying that Jesus had no free will. My statement that you refer to is that Jesus offered to go and die, and therefore God sent him. God did not force him, he went willingly. The statement, "God sent his son..." Does not mean that the son did not go willingly or that he was forced to go. But that after he decided to go, the Father using his power, and means, sent him.

And this is justice. The life of Jesus, since he is God, is worth the life of everyone created and will ever be created. Over 7 billion people his life is worth, and they all had to pay the penalty of sin, which was death. Since Jesus paid this penalty of death, by dying himself, the scales of justice are now equal, those people can be justified to God.

No, it shows nothing of the kind, except the lunacy and deception of the writers to try and make the story go in that direction.

You keep sinking further into the abyss Jake. Where in the scriptures do we see the conversation between god and his son in heaven where jesus offers himself as a blood sacrifice for the sins of the faulty people that he created ??. Books and verses please !... You're making things up again. Stop it.

Your thinking is refuted by this verse alone--remember it ? :

Joh 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

God gave its son up to die...jesus gave nothing, and it was out of his hands. When will you read the story correctly ?

The incoherent idea of the trinity was formed in the decades and centuries that followed after 35AD for the very purpose of trying to make this part of the fiction work. The story is absurd enough on it's own, but then takes on a whole new level unbelievability when the idea of a triune--god, who kills a part of itself, is introduced into the legend. Therefore, an incoherent mystery simply becomes more of an incoherent mystery.... The credulous will, of course, always buy into incoherency though, so it does not surprise me that you would believe such obvious absurdities.

And this is justice. The life of Jesus, since he is God, is worth the life of everyone created and will ever be created. Over 7 billion people his life is worth, and they all had to pay the penalty of sin, which was death. Since Jesus paid this penalty of death, by dying himself, the scales of justice are now equal, those people can be justified to God.

No ! It is not moral justice and you know it...Your thoughts in that statement are simply subjective tripe ! .....True justice would in fact demand that god admit its mistakes in its creation, and that it own them enough to show infinite mercy to the beings that it created faulty. God should be penalizing itself, and not at the expense of taking out its revenge through its supposed son either, for the massive failure in its thinking and creation. If such a god were to exist, then it must penalize itself by freely and humbly exonerating all beings for the finite mistakes that they make, and god must ask for forgiveness from its creation.... That's how the story should go.

I mean that I trust God for my needs.

Trust ?? Come on man ! get serious ! ....If one of us were to come and knock on your door and ask you to show us one visible sign that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that a god has provided for you and has been tangibly reliable towards your needs.....you'd stand there blank and with nothing to say...... You'd be silenced because you would quickly realize that all that you are, and have, is of your own making and that anything that you would try and claim is divinely provided--could also be provided by your own actions, luck, or coincidence.

You don't trust god for your needs....you merely hope that a god will supply your needs. You want and desire a god to do so, but since a god has never done anything that clearly creates reasonable expectations then there can be no sincere trust, and as well, the word faith cannot apply either

Your faith can be summed up as: Claiming to know things that you don't really know. 

The god idea is a massive failure and more importantly--morally reprehensible.

An idea that is a tissue of absurdities that should be rejected outright.




 

[ParkingPlaces]

And this is justice. The life of Jesus, since he is God, is worth the life of everyone created and will ever be created. Over 7 billion people his life is worth, and they all had to pay the penalty of sin, which was death. Since Jesus paid this penalty of death, by dying himself, the scales of justice are now equal, those people can be justified to God.

No ! It is not moral justice and you know it...Your thoughts in that statement are simply subjective tripe ! .....True justice would in fact demand that god admit its mistakes in its creation, and that it own them enough to show infinite mercy to the beings that it created faulty. God should be penalizing itself, and not at the expense of taking out its revenge through its supposed son either, for the massive failure in its thinking and creation. If such a god were to exist, then it must penalize itself by freely and humbly exonerating all beings for the finite mistakes that they make, and god must ask for forgiveness from its creation.... That's how the story should go.

An excellent post, and the above is a gem. Turning the tables on this god guy! An excellent observation.

If he is real, the dude has some 'splainin to do!

Hope I don't have to explain the +1 I am sending your way.

[Add Homonym]

Thats when you look at the evidence. The Jewish God, the Muslim God, and the Mormon God are all the same God, Yahweh, The God of Abraham, Muslims call him Allah. So God revealed himself to Abraham and eventually these 3 religions formed because of different beliefs along the way. Jews don't believe Jesus was the expected Messiah, but there are plenty of reasons he must be. (This discussion would be a Biblical discussion on why Jesus was the Messiah, so you would have to believe the Bible). Muslims believe differently because they believe God revealed everything to Muhammad, one guy. Over the time of his life. Whereas in the Bible it was written by over 40 authors who God revealed himself to and over a period of 1,500 years. They all agree. And Mormons, like the Muslims base their beliefs of what one guy said he "saw". So what is more reliable, one person, or 40.

Nice attempt to unify religion, but it's not true.

Allah is a decent chap, who lets people get into heaven, if they are also decent chaps. He lets men marry 10+ wives, and allows divorce. Pauline Christianity insists that God is a prick that cannot tolerate humans without a Jesus prophylactic. Allah says that Jesus was a prophet, who was not crucified.   Quran 4:157-158

(Matthew-version Christianity says that you have to be real nice and follow Jewish law, in the correct way to get into heaven, so it's similar to Islam. Pauline saviour-Christianity is desperately at odds with Islam, so cannot be the same god.)

Jews don't believe Jesus was the expected Messiah, but there are plenty of reasons he must be.

Err, no. Nobody ever expected a messiah that did what Jesus did. His messiahness was manufactured after the supposed event. It is true that some Jews expected a messiah, since messiah is a just generic name for an anointed priest.

Perhaps you should start a thread, discussing just ONE REASON Jesus was the messiah, and see if you can defend just ONE reason. If you can't get a consensus, then you will become dimly aware of why your arguments aren't as powerful as they should be.

[Add Homonym]

Whereas in the Bible it was written by over 40 authors who God revealed himself to and over a period of 1,500 years. They all agree.

No. They don't agree, except by "argument from silence". The books are written in succession, in full knowledge of previous books, to exploit loopholes in previous works, and coerce previous interpretation to a new interpretation.

I can write a succession of statements that agree, but subtly change my mind as I do, so you won't notice, or at least can't logically object

1. My cat has 4 legs
2. My cat is blue
3. My cat has a very big head
4. My cat's head is 100miles across
5. My cat's head is red
6. My cat has 17 eyes
7. My cat was born on a 13 headed monster that rules the world
8. My cat has a 5th leg in a spiritual world
10. My cat looks like a dog, and barks
11. My cat is invisible
13. You have to worship my cat
14. My cat doesn't like jake
15. Everything my cat says is inspired by God
16. My cat knows God, personally
17. God thinks my cat is a dog. In God's eyes, my cat is theologically a dog
18. You can only go to heaven by worshiping my dog
19. My dog was crucified, to become a cat
20. After my dog was crucified, he thought about becoming a newt
21. God thinks my cat is a trinity: dog, cat, newt.
22. You can only be saved, if you worship my dog, while thinking he is a newt.
23. God will hate you if you don't like newts.
25. The trinity cat-newt-dog never lived on earth
26. The body of my cat is so big, the whole planet fits in it
27. My cat was born before the universe was created.
28. My cat created the universe.
29. My cat created God.

Thus, the original intent of the first author can be mutilated beyond comprehension by successive authors, and still apparently agree with the first author, who cannot object, because he is dead.

..and even if you can find a reason to logically object, I have an army of apologists that can make up arbitrary reasons why there is no contradiction, and never supply any evidence that any of it is true.

Voila Bible.

[jeremy0]

Yes very much, thank you. I will try to not use the circular reasoning in the context of the discussion as you have stated.

A bit of an aside, but does there exist a context where circular reasoning WOULD be acceptable?

No. I don't mean to imply that there are instances where it is acceptable.

Goddammit, man!  You say it's unacceptable but use it in every fucking post.  I'm OUT!

[Gill]

Question for everyone...are miracles possible? Do we live in a closed system? Is there a supernatural? Is it possible for their to exist things that are not of this natural world, and if so how can we know that?

Ever heard of NDEs? 

[One Above All]

Ever heard of NDEs? 

Those natural experiences people have when near-death, due to the various chemicals released by the brain?

[Gill]

Ever heard of NDEs? 

Those natural experiences people have when near-death, due to the various chemicals released by the brain?

Anything could be reduced to 'chemicals released by the brain'.  So I don't see that meaning much.