Questions for christians: more trinitarianism

zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Questions for christians: more trinitarianism

The doctrine of the trinity remains an ambiguous topic. There are some ongoing discussions about the role jesus plays in the trinity (1,2); I am seeking clarification on some other points of trinitarian confusion, primarily in regard to the 3rd member.

1) What exactly does the holy spirit do, which cannot be accomplished by the father and son?

2) If the holy spirit is the one who impregnated the virgin, then why is the father called “the father”?

3) I’m assuming that the son and the holy spirit always existed, alongside the father. Had man not sinned, would there be any need for them? Did they serve any function prior to the creation (and fall) of man?

It would be good if these get clarified before anyone tries to tell us again why “the Blasphemy Challenge doesn’t work.

Thank you in advance.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I don't think

TGBaker wrote:

I don't think it necessarily does. I think that it does in the case of the texts. The 40 years I have studied the"Historical Jesus" has led me to conclude contrary to the Jesus Mythicist view that jesus was a historical person. What you find is mostly myth attached to the original impact had on his contemporaries. You see a consistent development from  a Galilean ( and there were several similar to him) to a more and more miraculous figure. Then I see and association with the Wisdom motif that open the doors to the Logos concept and gnosticism. This later in dialectic developed into trinitarianisms.

 

 

A Christian would say untestable activities... which is why they're considered miracles.  The problem is, in history there are a lot of "real people" who have a lot of myth attached to their stories, e.g. John Chapman, Paul Bunyan...  Paul being one who is so steeped in mythical stories it's hard to tell which person the story originated from... There's I think 4 or 5 possibilities, but it is understood that it did originate from a real person in history.... or possibly a combination of people.  

There are historians that will accept Jesus as a historical figure.  They may not agree on his abilities, but they don't disagree that he was a person in history.   

The problem with tying him to others is what he is said to claim. 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I don't think it necessarily does. I think that it does in the case of the texts. The 40 years I have studied the"Historical Jesus" has led me to conclude contrary to the Jesus Mythicist view that jesus was a historical person. What you find is mostly myth attached to the original impact had on his contemporaries. You see a consistent development from  a Galilean ( and there were several similar to him) to a more and more miraculous figure. Then I see and association with the Wisdom motif that open the doors to the Logos concept and gnosticism. This later in dialectic developed into trinitarianisms.

 

 

A Christian would say untestable activities... which is why they're considered miracles.  The problem is, in history there are a lot of "real people" who have a lot of myth attached to their stories, e.g. John Chapman, Paul Bunyan...  Paul being one who is so steeped in mythical stories it's hard to tell which person the story originated from... There's I think 4 or 5 possibilities, but it is understood that it did originate from a real person in history.... or possibly a combination of people.  

There are historians that will accept Jesus as a historical figure.  They may not agree on his abilities, but they don't disagree that he was a person in history.   

The problem with tying him to others is what he is said to claim. 

What he is said to claim is another whole matter that seems to be a primary problem for historical Jesus research.  I guess you are familiar with the Jesus Seminar.  Now I think it is steeped in as much dogma ( or was) as fundamentalism.  I unintentionally insulted Robert Funk about some of his conclusions one time. I try to be polite but it did not happen that time. I think that whtever he claimed was not dissimilar to Hannina ben Dosa or Honi the Circle Drawer who had the same local Galilean background. ben Dosa called god Abba and spoke to women. The Galileans were from the only area in Palestine that was forcefully converted to Judaism. Half of the population was Gentile. Kosher behavior was not very doable.  You see that in Jesus as presented in the texts as well as the other teachers from there. The eschcatology of the Apocalypses and the Dead Sea Scrolls was in line with what was credited to Jesus (so much so that Albert Schweitzer said that as the primary mistake of Jesus).  What the texts claims jesus said and what he actually claimed are two different subjects to me.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I was trying

caposkia wrote:

I was trying to use physical terminology to explain something that's happening spiritually.  It seems that approach isn't going to work.  It is understood that Jesus was delivered into this world just like any other birth.  The delivering i was talking about was the spirit to the baby if you will.  Or the person of Jesus to the flesh.  It's not saying that no other part could not have done it on their own, but they all work in cooperation with each other, so they all have a part in the tasks regardless of how capable one is.  It's a perfect cooperation.

It seems you're reverse engineering a role for the h.s. to fill in order to make tenable the doctrine of trinity.  "Delivering spirit to baby" seems a rather contrived mechanism.

caposkia wrote:

Think about your job... I'm not sure what you do, it's not relevant, but instead of you being fully responsible for your position and your boss theirs, you'd split the complete job of everyone in your company equally among each of you so that you all had a part of everyones position and all had equal power in the company.   Would that mean that you're not capable of doing your position on your own?  of course not, but by splitting it up evenly, it makes the whole process much easier for everyone.  

I'll then have to ask this, as I tried with razorphreak before:  Did your god always exist as a trinity; did god have no choice but to exist in 3 parts?  In other words, when the salvation of mankind came on the agenda, was it simply serendipitous that the work could be parceled out to the different members ('good thing there's 3 of us, or we'd be scrwed')?  For it seems that if not for the Fall of man, there would be nothing for jesus and the h.s. to do.    

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I don't think

TGBaker wrote:

I don't think it necessarily does. I think that it does in the case of the texts. The 40 years I have studied the"Historical Jesus" has led me to conclude contrary to the Jesus Mythicist view that jesus was a historical person. What you find is mostly myth attached to the original impact had on his contemporaries. You see a consistent development from  a Galilean ( and there were several similar to him) to a more and more miraculous figure. Then I see and association with the Wisdom motif that open the doors to the Logos concept and gnosticism. This later in dialectic developed into trinitarianisms.

I know many who have come to your same conclusion about Jesus... but I also know just as many who have just as many years of study who would disagree with you.  I personally can't claim that many years of study, so I'd bow to the experts on the historical Jesus debate here.  From the evidences I've seen so far, I have reason to believe he is a historical character.  These evidences would include artifacts made by peoples that are dated around the time of Jesus that seem to be in direct relation to a following of this Biblical Jesus among other explanations from history buffs i've discussed with.  I think the more convincing history buffs who believe Jesus is a real historical person are those who don't think twice about denouncing the Christian following, but will admit that Jesus is found to be historically real.  They just don't believe he was anything more than just another person.  Obviously with an agenda and just ticked off the wrong people.  

You seem to focus on the following and the progression of attempts to understand the heavenly hierarchy.  That is of course speculation and has been manipulated many times by those who think they understand better than the last person.  

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:I'll then

zarathustra wrote:

I'll then have to ask this, as I tried with razorphreak before:  Did your god always exist as a trinity; did god have no choice but to exist in 3 parts?  In other words, when the salvation of mankind came on the agenda, was it simply serendipitous that the work could be parceled out to the different members ('good thing there's 3 of us, or we'd be scrwed')?  For it seems that if not for the Fall of man, there would be nothing for jesus and the h.s. to do.    

For the question:  'did God have no choice but to exist in 3 parts?'  for me to answer that I'd have to speculate only due to the fact that there's really nothing, not even in scripture that I could use to support any conclusion I'd try to present to you.  I think to accurately and appropriately answer that I'd have to have knowledge of God prior to existence.  That is just not possible.

For the claim about Jesus having nothing to do if the fall of man didn't 'happen'.  the NT eludes to the fact that everything was created 'through' Him, referring to Jesus and Jesus is quoted in scripture claiming such as well.  Therefore, it is safe to assume that all parts always had a role.  

I don't know the limitations of God because that is way beyond our comprehension if there are any.  As far as our mindset is concerned, there would have to be limitations... as far as some people read into scripture he has none and everything is possible.  My take is that as far as our existence is concerned, everything is possible for God and nothing is impossible.  If there is a whole existence beyond our own existence, I would only be able to speculate any possibility of God having limitations. 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I don't think it necessarily does. I think that it does in the case of the texts. The 40 years I have studied the"Historical Jesus" has led me to conclude contrary to the Jesus Mythicist view that jesus was a historical person. What you find is mostly myth attached to the original impact had on his contemporaries. You see a consistent development from  a Galilean ( and there were several similar to him) to a more and more miraculous figure. Then I see and association with the Wisdom motif that open the doors to the Logos concept and gnosticism. This later in dialectic developed into trinitarianisms.

I know many who have come to your same conclusion about Jesus... but I also know just as many who have just as many years of study who would disagree with you.  I personally can't claim that many years of study, so I'd bow to the experts on the historical Jesus debate here.  From the evidences I've seen so far, I have reason to believe he is a historical character.  These evidences would include artifacts made by peoples that are dated around the time of Jesus that seem to be in direct relation to a following of this Biblical Jesus among other explanations from history buffs i've discussed with.  I think the more convincing history buffs who believe Jesus is a real historical person are those who don't think twice about denouncing the Christian following, but will admit that Jesus is found to be historically real.  They just don't believe he was anything more than just another person.  Obviously with an agenda and just ticked off the wrong people.  

You seem to focus on the following and the progression of attempts to understand the heavenly hierarchy.  That is of course speculation and has been manipulated many times by those who think they understand better than the last person.  

 

 

I think when you look at  the many who came to the same conclusion as me verses those who disagree after many years of study can be divided into categories.  Those that still believe after years of studies seldom take the bible literally. They believe in some sort of symbolic truth that reaches to the real world. There are those that believe that the resurrection is real though the stories are not factual.  Those that believe that the resurrection is symbolic for the gospel overcoming finality though not a historical fact. Those that create implausible harmonizations to the point of two cleanings of the temple, repeated occurrences to explain variation etc.;  These people assume their faith is valid and continue to believe regardless of their findings, can not see the findings because of their presuppositions, see the findings and assume their reasoning is wrong and choose to believe infallibility anyway ( Billy Graham).

Those on my side of the camp often come from a inerrancy background who were studious rather than indoctrinated, saw the serious issues and tried to maintain there faith in the face of contradiction until the evidence was overwhelming.  Some come from non-faith backgrounds who study scripture as literature. They do not start from a bias of faith. Some are anti-religious and look far things to tear down the bible with even to the point of absurd propositions.  Some come from other religions and see the bible like many other religious writings as mythic stories.  To me the plausibility would lie with the non-historicity of the bible simply because of the observation of bias in the belief which defends it in areas where other literature would be confidently judged as non-factual.  Research should be objective and not apologetic as those defending the bible or those who would criticize without factual reasons to do so.  A Christian would easily see this trend if analyzing the Koran.  A Muslim would see it analysing the Bible. This is a telling factor to me that the degree of historicity placed on dubious information in the bible is not from good historical research. Rather it is from a prejudice that would defend a cherished belief from a factual conclusion that is a devastation to ones whole life built upon that cherished but delusional belief.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I think when

TGBaker wrote:

I think when you look at  the many who came to the same conclusion as me verses those who disagree after many years of study can be divided into categories.  Those that still believe after years of studies seldom take the bible literally. They believe in some sort of symbolic truth that reaches to the real world. There are those that believe that the resurrection is real though the stories are not factual.  Those that believe that the resurrection is symbolic for the gospel overcoming finality though not a historical fact. Those that create implausible harmonizations to the point of two cleanings of the temple, repeated occurrences to explain variation etc.;  These people assume their faith is valid and continue to believe regardless of their findings, can not see the findings because of their presuppositions, see the findings and assume their reasoning is wrong and choose to believe infallibility anyway ( Billy Graham).

You seem to be referencing to apologists and not necessarily historians and scientists.  Everyone can be categorized and I'm including the those in the categories of (finding God through their studies when they've had no intention or reason to find Him).  Some people, like author Lee Strobel sought out to disprove God and in turn became a Christian.  Though not all of them are in that category, there are a great many well researched individuals in that category.  

I'm not in any way discrediting your claim because unfortunately on both sides there are individuals as you describe above... It doesn't look good for anyone when they fail to look at the facts and try to support their own conclusion.  

TGBaker wrote:

Those on my side of the camp often come from a inerrancy background who were studious rather than indoctrinated, saw the serious issues and tried to maintain there faith in the face of contradiction until the evidence was overwhelming.  Some come from non-faith backgrounds who study scripture as literature. They do not start from a bias of faith. Some are anti-religious and look far things to tear down the bible with even to the point of absurd propositions.  Some come from other religions and see the bible like many other religious writings as mythic stories.  To me the plausibility would lie with the non-historicity of the bible simply because of the observation of bias in the belief which defends it in areas where other literature would be confidently judged as non-factual.  Research should be objective and not apologetic as those defending the bible or those who would criticize without factual reasons to do so.  A Christian would easily see this trend if analyzing the Koran.  A Muslim would see it analysing the Bible. This is a telling factor to me that the degree of historicity placed on dubious information in the bible is not from good historical research. Rather it is from a prejudice that would defend a cherished belief from a factual conclusion that is a devastation to ones whole life built upon that cherished but delusional belief.

All those categories apply to my side of the camp as well... the non-faith backgrounds, anti-religous, multi-religious, etc... and they are Christians today.  in my study, it seems we're on a pretty level playing field with expertise balanced out on either side with backgrounds balanced as well.  Both sides are claiming that there was overwhelming evidence found that in their mind proved or disproved the existence of God or specifically the Christian God if we're talking about the muti-religious backgrounds.    So where to from here?  Well, most get into debates... Sadly I have yet to see a debate that:

1. showed either side presenting 'more' evidence than the other

2.  both sides being on the same page through the debate

3. either side kicking the otherside's ass.  

I find that last one most comical because I have heard nothing but praise from atheists from every religious debate saying that the religious side was shut down and destroyed... I have yet to see it... I hear the religious side say the same thing about the atheist side and... I have yet to see it.  

Ultimately, any evidence... "evidence" presented by either side in a public setting is subjective at best.  In the last forum i never finished watching, one side was spitting out what they were claiming as facts when even I with less than the expert level of research knew they were obviously mistaken.

 

 

 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I think when you look at  the many who came to the same conclusion as me verses those who disagree after many years of study can be divided into categories.  Those that still believe after years of studies seldom take the bible literally. They believe in some sort of symbolic truth that reaches to the real world. There are those that believe that the resurrection is real though the stories are not factual.  Those that believe that the resurrection is symbolic for the gospel overcoming finality though not a historical fact. Those that create implausible harmonizations to the point of two cleanings of the temple, repeated occurrences to explain variation etc.;  These people assume their faith is valid and continue to believe regardless of their findings, can not see the findings because of their presuppositions, see the findings and assume their reasoning is wrong and choose to believe infallibility anyway ( Billy Graham).

You seem to be referencing to apologists and not necessarily historians and scientists.  Everyone can be categorized and I'm including the those in the categories of (finding God through their studies when they've had no intention or reason to find Him).  Some people, like author Lee Strobel sought out to disprove God and in turn became a Christian.  Though not all of them are in that category, there are a great many well researched individuals in that category.  

I'm not in any way discrediting your claim because unfortunately on both sides there are individuals as you describe above... It doesn't look good for anyone when they fail to look at the facts and try to support their own conclusion.  

TGBaker wrote:

Those on my side of the camp often come from a inerrancy background who were studious rather than indoctrinated, saw the serious issues and tried to maintain there faith in the face of contradiction until the evidence was overwhelming.  Some come from non-faith backgrounds who study scripture as literature. They do not start from a bias of faith. Some are anti-religious and look far things to tear down the bible with even to the point of absurd propositions.  Some come from other religions and see the bible like many other religious writings as mythic stories.  To me the plausibility would lie with the non-historicity of the bible simply because of the observation of bias in the belief which defends it in areas where other literature would be confidently judged as non-factual.  Research should be objective and not apologetic as those defending the bible or those who would criticize without factual reasons to do so.  A Christian would easily see this trend if analyzing the Koran.  A Muslim would see it analysing the Bible. This is a telling factor to me that the degree of historicity placed on dubious information in the bible is not from good historical research. Rather it is from a prejudice that would defend a cherished belief from a factual conclusion that is a devastation to ones whole life built upon that cherished but delusional belief.

All those categories apply to my side of the camp as well... the non-faith backgrounds, anti-religous, multi-religious, etc... and they are Christians today.  in my study, it seems we're on a pretty level playing field with expertise balanced out on either side with backgrounds balanced as well.  Both sides are claiming that there was overwhelming evidence found that in their mind proved or disproved the existence of God or specifically the Christian God if we're talking about the muti-religious backgrounds.    So where to from here?  Well, most get into debates... Sadly I have yet to see a debate that:

1. showed either side presenting 'more' evidence than the other

2.  both sides being on the same page through the debate

3. either side kicking the otherside's ass.  

I find that last one most comical because I have heard nothing but praise from atheists from every religious debate saying that the religious side was shut down and destroyed... I have yet to see it... I hear the religious side say the same thing about the atheist side and... I have yet to see it.  

Ultimately, any evidence... "evidence" presented by either side in a public setting is subjective at best.  In the last forum i never finished watching, one side was spitting out what they were claiming as facts when even I with less than the expert level of research knew they were obviously mistaken.

 

I would say that Strobel hardly qualifies as an authority on the subject for which he writes. Also I do not care for debates. I prefer discussions in that they are more meaningful. The very rules of debate are counte rproductive to an actual dialectic that resolves a topic or question. I think that where we go from here is to actually deal very specifically not a general overall polemic against a system (theism) or the antithetical.  Again I view the theistic position based upon and grounded in scriptural authority. Apart from looking at it systematically I do not think there is any real dialogue going on.

I posted this elsewhere that I think applies. I do not disagree with your distaste about kicking ass. We at most make asses of ourselves: 

We can assume that there is no god simply in the basis that it is not plausible that there is a god.  Plausibility includes the possibility of something meeting acceptance but being deceptive and wrong.  This has a close analogy by the way to th OA rational validity.   To say that god is implausible means that there is simply nothing convincing that does not violate the laws of science or the understanding of the world as such.  We are dealing with weltanshauung. It is much like Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  A paradigm of averaged out theism holds sway to a goodly portion of people. The idea of god is plausible for them.  The several hundred year old paradigm of science (with its underpinning of enlightenment) is replacing sociologically and anthropologically the older paradigm.  Within this paradigm there is no plausibility structure to make meaningful a proposition of god. The presuppositions of each paradigm are largely mutually exclusive. Immaterial vs  physical ... dualism vs monism.  Theists speak a language that is not meaningful to non-theists. It is true in reverse.  There are common crossover concepts but those concepts taken out of their context mean something different when placed in another. Ask yourself how could I construct a plausible god in my worldview.  A theist cannot conceive of removing the raison d'etre of their world. Why does god have not plausibility to us. The other paradigm's language has no reference to our worldview. 

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

In sociology and especially the sociological study of religion, plausibility structures are the sociocultural contexts (or bases) of systems of meaning, action, or beliefs which are basic to and tend to remain unquestioned by individuals in a given society. The term seems to have been coined by Peter L. Berger, who says he draws his meaning of it from the ideas of Karl Marx, G. H. Mead, and Alfred Schutz (The Sacred Canopy, 1967. 45, 192). For Berger, the relation between plausibility structure and social "world" is dialectical, the one supporting the other which, in turn, can react back upon the first. Social arrangements may help, say, a certain religious world appear self-evident. This religious outlook may then help to shape the arrangements that contributed to its rise.

 

Within the social scientific study of religion, the problem of plausibility usually revolves around the question of why and how individuals regard their beliefs as real or true. Although some psychological explanations have interpreted plausibility as an almost purely subjective phenomenon, many social scientists focus not only on the content of meaning systems but also on the dialectical relationship between meanings and the broader sociocultural context within which these meanings "make sense" or are plausible.

 

Any beliefs held by individuals and groups are sustained through sociocultural institutions and processes. But the metaempirical or transcendent nature of religious beliefs makes their plausibility especially problematic. Believers require social support, usually in the form of a religious community or congregation, to authenticate and reaffirm the typically extraordinary truth claims of their faith. Members of the community will likely use a somewhat specialized language and participate in sacred rituals as important means for expressing, sharing, and internalizing their beliefs. For the religion to survive beyond the current generation, believers also must develop appropriate socialization processes to ensure that new and future members accept their faith as plausible.

 

Some sociologists refer to the concept of "plausibility structure" when describing the sociocultural context or "base" for meaning systems. Societywide structures were likely the norm in earlier historical periods. But in a modern, pluralistic society characterized by rapid social change, many diverse groups, each with its own somewhat distinctive plausibility structure, are forced to coexist. For religious groups especially, the very presence of other denominations, sects, and cults carries with it the implication that alternative truth claims are now available to members. As the relativization of meaning systems continues, each group's confidence in the plausibility or certainty of its shared beliefs may become weakened.

Sociological research into this phenomenon, particularly among scholars interested in the development and career stages of new religious movements, has examined the factors influencing the strength or relative "firmness" of a given religious plausibility structure. Some studies have directed attention to the strategies employed by specific religions in protecting the plausibility of their meaning system from the effects of pluralism and social change. Researchers also have applied the concept to theory construction regarding conversion and defection dynamics as well as the process by which some defectors from religious communities become reintegrated within other groups.

I do think you can move from one paradigm to the other.  Looking at my on experience it was the slow analysis of each presupposition that I held that caused me to assume a necessity of god. One is a dualism where a very ancient idea about a transcendent or immaterial/ non-physical  assumes a spirit   and/or soul. We saw the heavy clinging to this idea in the recent posting.  Even after one moves to a monism one still effects within typical philosophic structures a functional dualism being/existence, being/nothingness. While philosophy is the source of science it also is the source of a lot of presuppositions that cause endless debate within the physics community. Philosophy itself is much like religion. It has some very advanced ideas from a thousand years of reasoning. However many of those things once brought into the paradigm of science are not plausible. What is plausible.  Science has moved us forward. Religion and philosophy have not.  The propositions of Science correspond to reality in a way that theism and philosophy simply do not. The reason is empirical knowledge obtains to the actual world in ways that logical worlds do not. This is not to negate logic. But language is context specific  and logic is ultimately a language. As to how to move one from a theistic or pantheistic view to a scientific world view:  I assume that most belief is underpinned by scriptural authority. I attempt to demonstrate through historical means the non-factual and ahistorical elements in those writings as well as the intent and fabrication of them along the lines of propaganda.  Religion is really easier to deconstruct than philosophy.  Science is another element. For example hey does it make sense that god created plants a day before he created the sun in Genesis? What was the world revolving around?  yada yada yada.  The idea of science first seldom works because they have a caveat of god 's intrusion into the natural order and disrupting it with miracles (heilsgeschichte) When I was a probation officer and got pulled over for speeding I flashed my badge.  No ticket. Causality can be disrupted.  So you go back to the source.  You get nowhere arguing DNA or cosmology when there are parentheticals where god has snuck in. Explanatory gaps.... pre-big bang, consciousness from NCC (neuroscience). and even with evolution and Darwin the creation of life and a life force ( spirit/soul).  The jugular vein is not even god...it is a holy book from which they revision a god for each new culture and era.  Literary criticism of all things holds the future of our civilization.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Historical researchers in

Historical researchers in this field generally see jesus as a wondering Cynic teacher spouting out words of wisdom and folk philosophy. It does seem to be the core of what developed into Christianity. Jesus was a human who came from Galilee. Galilee was the only area in Palestine that was forcefully converted to Judaism.  Even so only 50% of the population was Jewish. Rabbi Hannina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle Drawer were very similar characters to Jesus. ben Dosa called god Abba like Jesus ( meaning Daddy instead of a reverential , father).  He spoke openly with women as Jesus did. The reason that historians posit these as historical is because they are contrary to the believing Jewish or Christian movement. You can see evidence that the church tried to cover up the fact that Jesus was baptised as others to get rid of sin. Historical Jesus research is a discipline to explain the sociological development of what became Christianity ... what historical kernel was the catalyst for all the mythic construction.  It is commonly understood that the bible is mythic in seminaries and theological  schools like Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Emory, Vanderbuilt. The bridge from school to church is teach it as truth and avoid the lack of factual basis. So statements are demythologized and taken into a philosophical meaning rather than a grounded factual historical meaning. Virgin birth does not really mean a women had a child and was a virgin. It becomes a story to honour Jesus as both god and man.  So you have pure historical work. Then the theologians that try to make it still meaningful and then the preachers to present it as literal.  When I was in seminary my mentor (Hendrikus Boers)  who wrote Who Was Jesus? was a Marxist atheist from South Africa. He would point to people like Jurgen Moltmann (theologian) as a fraud that needed to be exposed. Then there is the whole moderate movement that tries to salvage some Christianity out of the historical/critical conclusions. Crossan was on the Jesus Seminar team. He knows Jesus was simply a person who got into trouble and was removed from being an irritation.  The people who cared about where Jesus was buried did not know where he was buried. The people who did know where he was buried ( communal grave) did not care.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I would say

TGBaker wrote:

I would say that Strobel hardly qualifies as an authority on the subject for which he writes.

Strobel is just one example of many in his category.  I wouldn't call him an "authority" either, but i wouldn't discredit his information be it that his mission in publishing his first book was to show why God is not plausible. 

TGBaker wrote:

Also I do not care for debates. I prefer discussions in that they are more meaningful. The very rules of debate are counte rproductive to an actual dialectic that resolves a topic or question. I think that where we go from here is to actually deal very specifically not a general overall polemic against a system (theism) or the antithetical.  Again I view the theistic position based upon and grounded in scriptural authority. Apart from looking at it systematically I do not think there is any real dialogue going on.

I posted this elsewhere that I think applies. I do not disagree with your distaste about kicking ass. We at most make asses of ourselves:

 

couldn't agree with you more.

TGBaker wrote:

We can assume that there is no god simply in the basis that it is not plausible that there is a god.  Plausibility includes the possibility of something meeting acceptance but being deceptive and wrong.  This has a close analogy by the way to th OA rational validity.   To say that god is implausible means that there is simply nothing convincing that does not violate the laws of science or the understanding of the world as such. 

I would say that God is plausible, but you touch on that below... though my take on His plausibility doesn't exactly fall in your category explained below.  Scientists who support scripture would say that most of God's large miracles with the details presented in scripture can be explained as more of "perfect timing" and not so much against nature.  I hold to the notion that when it comes down to it, it'd be easier for God to use the Laws he put in place to make things happen and it would be a logical approach to action.  Granted he would have the ability to break those laws, but science would suggest that many scientific laws broken could have drastic results... thus God would be aware of that and not cause havoc when attempting say a parting of the sea. 

TGBaker wrote:

We are dealing with weltanshauung. It is much like Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  A paradigm of averaged out theism holds sway to a goodly portion of people. The idea of god is plausible for them.  The several hundred year old paradigm of science (with its underpinning of enlightenment) is replacing sociologically and anthropologically the older paradigm.  Within this paradigm there is no plausibility structure to make meaningful a proposition of god. The presuppositions of each paradigm are largely mutually exclusive. Immaterial vs  physical ... dualism vs monism.  Theists speak a language that is not meaningful to non-theists. It is true in reverse.  There are common crossover concepts but those concepts taken out of their context mean something different when placed in another. Ask yourself how could I construct a plausible god in my worldview.  A theist cannot conceive of removing the raison d'etre of their world. Why does god have not plausibility to us. The other paradigm's language has no reference to our worldview. 

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

the problem with this perspective is that it needs to be left alone "without question"... I can't do that.  I question everything.

TGBaker wrote:

 

Within the social scientific study of religion, the problem of plausibility usually revolves around the question of why and how individuals regard their beliefs as real or true. Although some psychological explanations have interpreted plausibility as an almost purely subjective phenomenon, many social scientists focus not only on the content of meaning systems but also on the dialectical relationship between meanings and the broader sociocultural context within which these meanings "make sense" or are plausible.

 

 

 

Any beliefs held by individuals and groups are sustained through sociocultural institutions and processes. But the metaempirical or transcendent nature of religious beliefs makes their plausibility especially problematic. Believers require social support, usually in the form of a religious community or congregation, to authenticate and reaffirm the typically extraordinary truth claims of their faith. Members of the community will likely use a somewhat specialized language and participate in sacred rituals as important means for expressing, sharing, and internalizing their beliefs. For the religion to survive beyond the current generation, believers also must develop appropriate socialization processes to ensure that new and future members accept their faith as plausible.

interesting you say that... for me to come to the faith, i had to reject what my "religious community" was trying to tell me.  I went out on my own and studied up on everything.  Much of what i found is still not agreed upon by most churches including the one I currently attend.  Therefore, i really don't have the social support that this example is suggesting is needed.  In fact, it the opposition that has helped me better understand and accept what I now believe in.

 

 

TGBaker wrote:

 

Some sociologists refer to the concept of "plausibility structure" when describing the sociocultural context or "base" for meaning systems. Societywide structures were likely the norm in earlier historical periods. But in a modern, pluralistic society characterized by rapid social change, many diverse groups, each with its own somewhat distinctive plausibility structure, are forced to coexist. For religious groups especially, the very presence of other denominations, sects, and cults carries with it the implication that alternative truth claims are now available to members. As the relativization of meaning systems continues, each group's confidence in the plausibility or certainty of its shared beliefs may become weakened.

the state of mind I just explained getting strengthened by the opposition is not just my own path... I've found there are a lot of Christ followers (or Christians) that take this same path.  Many of them have been constantly involved in multi-denominational crowds and discuss with opposing believers.

TGBaker wrote:

 

Sociological research into this phenomenon, particularly among scholars interested in the development and career stages of new religious movements, has examined the factors influencing the strength or relative "firmness" of a given religious plausibility structure. Some studies have directed attention to the strategies employed by specific religions in protecting the plausibility of their meaning system from the effects of pluralism and social change. Researchers also have applied the concept to theory construction regarding conversion and defection dynamics as well as the process by which some defectors from religious communities become reintegrated within other groups.

I would agree generally speaking that 'religion" has it's way of manipulating its followers into thinking they're the only right way in turn pinning them against all others who might have a similar following.  It usually goes to an extreme making them think that everyone else is evil and wrong no matter what... (hence the "without question" clause)

TGBaker wrote:

I do think you can move from one paradigm to the other.  Looking at my on experience it was the slow analysis of each presupposition that I held that caused me to assume a necessity of god. One is a dualism where a very ancient idea about a transcendent or immaterial/ non-physical  assumes a spirit   and/or soul. We saw the heavy clinging to this idea in the recent posting.  Even after one moves to a monism one still effects within typical philosophic structures a functional dualism being/existence, being/nothingness. While philosophy is the source of science it also is the source of a lot of presuppositions that cause endless debate within the physics community. Philosophy itself is much like religion. It has some very advanced ideas from a thousand years of reasoning. However many of those things once brought into the paradigm of science are not plausible. What is plausible.  Science has moved us forward. Religion and philosophy have not.  The propositions of Science correspond to reality in a way that theism and philosophy simply do not. The reason is empirical knowledge obtains to the actual world in ways that logical worlds do not. This is not to negate logic. But language is context specific  and logic is ultimately a language. As to how to move one from a theistic or pantheistic view to a scientific world view:  I assume that most belief is underpinned by scriptural authority. I attempt to demonstrate through historical means the non-factual and ahistorical elements in those writings as well as the intent and fabrication of them along the lines of propaganda.  Religion is really easier to deconstruct than philosophy.  Science is another element. For example hey does it make sense that god created plants a day before he created the sun in Genesis? What was the world revolving around?  yada yada yada.  The idea of science first seldom works because they have a caveat of god 's intrusion into the natural order and disrupting it with miracles (heilsgeschichte) When I was a probation officer and got pulled over for speeding I flashed my badge.  No ticket. Causality can be disrupted.  So you go back to the source.  You get nowhere arguing DNA or cosmology when there are parentheticals where god has snuck in. Explanatory gaps.... pre-big bang, consciousness from NCC (neuroscience). and even with evolution and Darwin the creation of life and a life force ( spirit/soul).  The jugular vein is not even god...it is a holy book from which they revision a god for each new culture and era.  Literary criticism of all things holds the future of our civilization.

 

I would agree that "religion" has held us back, but I would disagree that belief in God does the same.  I have stated in the past that I hate religion... mainly for that reason.

You seem to elude that science and Genesis do not agree by saying; "does it make sense that God created plants a day before he crated the sun in Genesis?  

Just to pull that out for a moment, these are assumptions without looking into the context.  Did he "create" the sun before or after?  If he indeed did create the sun after then how was there light?  if you look right at the beginning the first thing created after the heavens and the Earth was light.  What was that light from if it wasn't the sun... or a sun of some sort?  Looking further into the context, verse 16 mentions that God created the sun and the stars...  this would be after it is mentioned that God created plants... Just by reading it, it seems to me as if it's an afterthought of what has been created and not necessarily talking about the sun being created right then and there.  After researching it a bit myself, I find that scholars would agree with that.  Zondervan states that it was likely an afterthought, not that they weren't important, but just separating to make them different.  

By a theoretical take, the light was created... at this point after the plants were created, it seems like he took the 'light' and broke it up and spread it out to make many stars, but kept one close to be the light for Earth.  Either way, scientifically speaking, the only explanation for light would have to be the sun... or a star either close enough to provide light or a star that had supernova and brought an intense amount of light, enough to allow photosynthesis.  

Finally many atheists try to pull out Genesis to say that the order that is said is not logical, despite the English translation, it is understood that it's not to be taken chronologically, but what is important that during a certain period of time, these things were created.  

Conclusion:  God is still plausible through a scientific understanding.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I would say that Strobel hardly qualifies as an authority on the subject for which he writes.

Strobel is just one example of many in his category.  I wouldn't call him an "authority" either, but i wouldn't discredit his information be it that his mission in publishing his first book was to show why God is not plausible. 

TGBaker wrote:

Also I do not care for debates. I prefer discussions in that they are more meaningful. The very rules of debate are counte rproductive to an actual dialectic that resolves a topic or question. I think that where we go from here is to actually deal very specifically not a general overall polemic against a system (theism) or the antithetical.  Again I view the theistic position based upon and grounded in scriptural authority. Apart from looking at it systematically I do not think there is any real dialogue going on.

I posted this elsewhere that I think applies. I do not disagree with your distaste about kicking ass. We at most make asses of ourselves:

 

couldn't agree with you more.

TGBaker wrote:

We can assume that there is no god simply in the basis that it is not plausible that there is a god.  Plausibility includes the possibility of something meeting acceptance but being deceptive and wrong.  This has a close analogy by the way to th OA rational validity.   To say that god is implausible means that there is simply nothing convincing that does not violate the laws of science or the understanding of the world as such. 

I would say that God is plausible, but you touch on that below... though my take on His plausibility doesn't exactly fall in your category explained below.  Scientists who support scripture would say that most of God's large miracles with the details presented in scripture can be explained as more of "perfect timing" and not so much against nature.  I hold to the notion that when it comes down to it, it'd be easier for God to use the Laws he put in place to make things happen and it would be a logical approach to action.  Granted he would have the ability to break those laws, but science would suggest that many scientific laws broken could have drastic results... thus God would be aware of that and not cause havoc when attempting say a parting of the sea. 

TGBaker wrote:

We are dealing with weltanshauung. It is much like Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  A paradigm of averaged out theism holds sway to a goodly portion of people. The idea of god is plausible for them.  The several hundred year old paradigm of science (with its underpinning of enlightenment) is replacing sociologically and anthropologically the older paradigm.  Within this paradigm there is no plausibility structure to make meaningful a proposition of god. The presuppositions of each paradigm are largely mutually exclusive. Immaterial vs  physical ... dualism vs monism.  Theists speak a language that is not meaningful to non-theists. It is true in reverse.  There are common crossover concepts but those concepts taken out of their context mean something different when placed in another. Ask yourself how could I construct a plausible god in my worldview.  A theist cannot conceive of removing the raison d'etre of their world. Why does god have not plausibility to us. The other paradigm's language has no reference to our worldview. 

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

the problem with this perspective is that it needs to be left alone "without question"... I can't do that.  I question everything.

TGBaker wrote:

 

Within the social scientific study of religion, the problem of plausibility usually revolves around the question of why and how individuals regard their beliefs as real or true. Although some psychological explanations have interpreted plausibility as an almost purely subjective phenomenon, many social scientists focus not only on the content of meaning systems but also on the dialectical relationship between meanings and the broader sociocultural context within which these meanings "make sense" or are plausible.

 

 

 

Any beliefs held by individuals and groups are sustained through sociocultural institutions and processes. But the metaempirical or transcendent nature of religious beliefs makes their plausibility especially problematic. Believers require social support, usually in the form of a religious community or congregation, to authenticate and reaffirm the typically extraordinary truth claims of their faith. Members of the community will likely use a somewhat specialized language and participate in sacred rituals as important means for expressing, sharing, and internalizing their beliefs. For the religion to survive beyond the current generation, believers also must develop appropriate socialization processes to ensure that new and future members accept their faith as plausible.

interesting you say that... for me to come to the faith, i had to reject what my "religious community" was trying to tell me.  I went out on my own and studied up on everything.  Much of what i found is still not agreed upon by most churches including the one I currently attend.  Therefore, i really don't have the social support that this example is suggesting is needed.  In fact, it the opposition that has helped me better understand and accept what I now believe in.

 

 

TGBaker wrote:

 

Some sociologists refer to the concept of "plausibility structure" when describing the sociocultural context or "base" for meaning systems. Societywide structures were likely the norm in earlier historical periods. But in a modern, pluralistic society characterized by rapid social change, many diverse groups, each with its own somewhat distinctive plausibility structure, are forced to coexist. For religious groups especially, the very presence of other denominations, sects, and cults carries with it the implication that alternative truth claims are now available to members. As the relativization of meaning systems continues, each group's confidence in the plausibility or certainty of its shared beliefs may become weakened.

the state of mind I just explained getting strengthened by the opposition is not just my own path... I've found there are a lot of Christ followers (or Christians) that take this same path.  Many of them have been constantly involved in multi-denominational crowds and discuss with opposing believers.

TGBaker wrote:

 

Sociological research into this phenomenon, particularly among scholars interested in the development and career stages of new religious movements, has examined the factors influencing the strength or relative "firmness" of a given religious plausibility structure. Some studies have directed attention to the strategies employed by specific religions in protecting the plausibility of their meaning system from the effects of pluralism and social change. Researchers also have applied the concept to theory construction regarding conversion and defection dynamics as well as the process by which some defectors from religious communities become reintegrated within other groups.

I would agree generally speaking that 'religion" has it's way of manipulating its followers into thinking they're the only right way in turn pinning them against all others who might have a similar following.  It usually goes to an extreme making them think that everyone else is evil and wrong no matter what... (hence the "without question" clause)

TGBaker wrote:

I do think you can move from one paradigm to the other.  Looking at my on experience it was the slow analysis of each presupposition that I held that caused me to assume a necessity of god. One is a dualism where a very ancient idea about a transcendent or immaterial/ non-physical  assumes a spirit   and/or soul. We saw the heavy clinging to this idea in the recent posting.  Even after one moves to a monism one still effects within typical philosophic structures a functional dualism being/existence, being/nothingness. While philosophy is the source of science it also is the source of a lot of presuppositions that cause endless debate within the physics community. Philosophy itself is much like religion. It has some very advanced ideas from a thousand years of reasoning. However many of those things once brought into the paradigm of science are not plausible. What is plausible.  Science has moved us forward. Religion and philosophy have not.  The propositions of Science correspond to reality in a way that theism and philosophy simply do not. The reason is empirical knowledge obtains to the actual world in ways that logical worlds do not. This is not to negate logic. But language is context specific  and logic is ultimately a language. As to how to move one from a theistic or pantheistic view to a scientific world view:  I assume that most belief is underpinned by scriptural authority. I attempt to demonstrate through historical means the non-factual and ahistorical elements in those writings as well as the intent and fabrication of them along the lines of propaganda.  Religion is really easier to deconstruct than philosophy.  Science is another element. For example hey does it make sense that god created plants a day before he created the sun in Genesis? What was the world revolving around?  yada yada yada.  The idea of science first seldom works because they have a caveat of god 's intrusion into the natural order and disrupting it with miracles (heilsgeschichte) When I was a probation officer and got pulled over for speeding I flashed my badge.  No ticket. Causality can be disrupted.  So you go back to the source.  You get nowhere arguing DNA or cosmology when there are parentheticals where god has snuck in. Explanatory gaps.... pre-big bang, consciousness from NCC (neuroscience). and even with evolution and Darwin the creation of life and a life force ( spirit/soul).  The jugular vein is not even god...it is a holy book from which they revision a god for each new culture and era.  Literary criticism of all things holds the future of our civilization.

 

I would agree that "religion" has held us back, but I would disagree that belief in God does the same.  I have stated in the past that I hate religion... mainly for that reason.

You seem to elude that science and Genesis do not agree by saying; "does it make sense that God created plants a day before he crated the sun in Genesis?  

Just to pull that out for a moment, these are assumptions without looking into the context.  Did he "create" the sun before or after?  If he indeed did create the sun after then how was there light?  if you look right at the beginning the first thing created after the heavens and the Earth was light.  What was that light from if it wasn't the sun... or a sun of some sort?  Looking further into the context, verse 16 mentions that God created the sun and the stars...  this would be after it is mentioned that God created plants... Just by reading it, it seems to me as if it's an afterthought of what has been created and not necessarily talking about the sun being created right then and there.  After researching it a bit myself, I find that scholars would agree with that.  Zondervan states that it was likely an afterthought, not that they weren't important, but just separating to make them different.  

By a theoretical take, the light was created... at this point after the plants were created, it seems like he took the 'light' and broke it up and spread it out to make many stars, but kept one close to be the light for Earth.  Either way, scientifically speaking, the only explanation for light would have to be the sun... or a star either close enough to provide light or a star that had supernova and brought an intense amount of light, enough to allow photosynthesis.  

Finally many atheists try to pull out Genesis to say that the order that is said is not logical, despite the English translation, it is understood that it's not to be taken chronologically, but what is important that during a certain period of time, these things were created.  

Conclusion:  God is still plausible through a scientific understanding.

The typical ancient concept. He created light before anything. No on the 4th day the sky things are made. You are attempting to harmonize a primitive cosmology that says what it says and is consistent with other views of the period. Zondervan is a typical apologetic propoganda. The light was from god.  Look at other creation myths not the sun.  he separates the light from the darkness not the sun from the earth. he does not create the sky until the second day after the light. The third day earth things were made.

 

The fourth day he specifically makes them  the sun, stars and moon in the sky to govern seasons.  The only way you would get your interpretation is as an attempt to harmonize the conflicts with science.  The text is quite understandable without the presupposition of inspiration and simply says what it says. Come on now which meaning is more plausible... what the text says or what one wants it to say for doctrinal harmony. Goodness...

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

 

The earth is a formless matter or clay to be sculpted.  The deep is the idea of the chaotic primal ocean as in other myths of that period. God's breath blew over the waters. He was drying out the water for earth.

 

 

3And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

 

He created light not the sun or stars for he has yet to create the "sky".  So day and night are created before there is a sky or stars or moon or sun... Simple and common idea.

 

6And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

 

GOD creates the sky to separate the waters ( the blue above the sky) from the waters that the earth floats in.

9And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. 11And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

 

GEE Caposkia he creates the earth and plannt earth thingys after he created the sky and ground. 

14And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

 

Simple statement meaning what it says.  These things are created after the earth and plants.  If you contend that these are just an after thought brought in then the writer is still mistaken and God rests on the fourth day because there ain't anything else he does on the fourth day. The text simply means what it says. And of course its WRONG.

 

How bout 13.7 billion years ago there was a collapse of a wave function wherein the universe expanded  and as it did so the forces of physics separated. As the expansion continued to cool matter could form.  Then gases then stars and galaxies and planets and complex chemical reactions, self replicating stochastic processes of dissipative structures and DNA and plants and animals and people and myths and legends and memes.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Even a 'plausible' God

Even a 'plausible' God cannot logically be the Creator of everything, because He is part of everything that exists, so it would require that he be the reason for his own existence.

The only way to avoid the divergent infinite regress problem - what 'requires that God exist', then what requires that whatever it is that requires that God must exist, must itself exist, etc - is to realize that causes may be far less that what they effect, which then makes God unnecessary.

So a 'plausible' God is more like an extremely advanced alien race or intelligence, ie no omni or infinite attributes.

The other assumed aspect of God, as arbiter and source of morality is explicitly counter to all the evidence. The world he allegedly 'created' is rife with injustice and flaws which cause much pain, distress and death, and it would still require evidence and an external standard that God is actually good, even without that fact.

Our own feelings of pain and distress and recognition of what it means to suffer, combined with our need to cooperate to thrive, are all that is needed to construct a practical moral code.

'God' explains nothing, it only raises puzzles, such as the Problem of Evil, and why do the accounts of 'creation', and many other things in the Bible, not match what we now understand about both ourselves and the Universe.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Even a

BobSpence1 wrote:

Even a 'plausible' God cannot logically be the Creator of everything, because He is part of everything that exists, so it would require that he be the reason for his own existence.

The only way to avoid the divergent infinite regress problem - what 'requires that God exist', then what requires that whatever it is that requires that God must exist, must itself exist, etc - is to realize that causes may be far less that what they effect, which then makes God unnecessary.

So a 'plausible' God is more like an extremely advanced alien race or intelligence, ie no omni or infinite attributes.

The other assumed aspect of God, as arbiter and source of morality is explicitly counter to all the evidence. The world he allegedly 'created' is rife with injustice and flaws which cause much pain, distress and death, and it would still require evidence and an external standard that God is actually good, even without that fact.

Our own feelings of pain and distress and recognition of what it means to suffer, combined with our need to cooperate to thrive, are all that is needed to construct a practical moral code.

'God' explains nothing, it only raises puzzles, such as the Problem of Evil, and why do the accounts of 'creation', and many other things in the Bible, not match what we now understand about both ourselves and the Universe.

I think the recent argument based on the matrix is a more plausible concept than a god.  It runs like your advanced alien race. The race has learned how to generate virtual big bangs in their advanced computers. They experiment with different initial conditions creating different multiverses.  We are one of those experiments. Suffering and evil is more sensible (plausible) than with the idea of the classical god.  From that we could argue that the universe is a multiverse of constantly evolving big bangs of which we are one. This is  more plausible than the other two.  This presently is even more plausible than we just happened to have the right conditions as a one time thing ( which is still possible but improbable.  )The multiverse scenario has a lot going for it.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:
TGBaker wrote:
I would say that Strobel hardly qualifies as an authority on the subject for which he writes.

Strobel is just one example of many in his category.  I wouldn't call him an "authority" either, but i wouldn't discredit his information be it that his mission in publishing his first book was to show why God is not plausible. 

If this is indeed true about his initial mission, then I am forced to conclude one of two things. Either he is awful at evaluating the christian "evidence", or he came to realize that writing books telling the deluded what they want to hear would make him rich.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:caposkia

KSMB wrote:

caposkia wrote:
TGBaker wrote:
I would say that Strobel hardly qualifies as an authority on the subject for which he writes.

Strobel is just one example of many in his category.  I wouldn't call him an "authority" either, but i wouldn't discredit his information be it that his mission in publishing his first book was to show why God is not plausible. 

If this is indeed true about his initial mission, then I am forced to conclude one of two things. Either he is awful at evaluating the christian "evidence", or he came to realize that writing books telling the deluded what they want to hear would make him rich.

He was a newspaper guy, editor of a Chicago paper. You sell books to Xtians if you can say you were an atheist until you looked at the evidence. Hid evidence however reads like Josh McDowell. It should be embarrassing but "believers" really don't know better. I tried to ask McDowell reasonable question back in the early 80's when I was still in bible College and it was like talking past an automated menu system when you phone some places. The problem is that you could not push any button to get a new menu. They have their own straw men that they think non-believers are pointing to and they are mostly minor cherry picked conflicts or scriptural contradictions that have no significance anyway.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Eleven Non-Commandments

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p). 

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:]The typical

TGBaker wrote:

]The typical ancient concept. He created light before anything. No on the 4th day the sky things are made. You are attempting to harmonize a primitive cosmology that says what it says and is consistent with other views of the period. Zondervan is a typical apologetic propoganda. The light was from god.  Look at other creation myths not the sun.  he separates the light from the darkness not the sun from the earth. he does not create the sky until the second day after the light. The third day earth things were made.

Zondervan is a publishing company and a corporation as well.  The person himself... maybe, but the study Bible specifically uses contextual and historical reference to back up any claim made.  apologetics tend not to do that.

In order to conclude that the light was from God and not created by God as the sun in that moment, you'd have to read further into the text than what's there... sure you can try to compare to other myths, but the Bible is not other myths, it's the Bible... yes, that sounds like I'm trying to justify the Bible over other myths, in this case, I'm simply trying to say you can't say apples have to be red because oranges are orange.  Apples have nothing to do with oranges and are not dependent on oranges to exist.   You can't justify your own comprehension of a text because another unrelated text makes such a claim.  There must be sound reason to justify the specified comparison

TGBaker wrote:

 

The fourth day he specifically makes them  the sun, stars and moon in the sky to govern seasons.  The only way you would get your interpretation is as an attempt to harmonize the conflicts with science.  The text is quite understandable without the presupposition of inspiration and simply says what it says. Come on now which meaning is more plausible... what the text says or what one wants it to say for doctrinal harmony. Goodness...

well, i could argue the other point that you could simply be trying to make it not harmonize with science.  It wouldn't be an issue if it was really that clear... you seem to think it's clear as day that the light at the beginning could not have possibly come from the sun yet nothing specifically states that.  due to the lack of scientific knowledge of the writers of that time, it's likely that they really just didn't know and could easily assume either way.  Due to lack of reference I don't think either of us can empirically conclude on such, but it's naive to assume you could come up with a empirical truth from that.

TGBaker wrote:

 

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

 

The earth is a formless matter or clay to be sculpted.  The deep is the idea of the chaotic primal ocean as in other myths of that period. God's breath blew over the waters. He was drying out the water for earth.

Ok, so then you're picturing it as a completely non science act going on and had nothing to do with what we would understand to be natural production of land...  You were a young earth creationist, weren't you

TGBaker wrote:

 

3And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

 

He created light not the sun or stars for he has yet to create the "sky".  So day and night are created before there is a sky or stars or moon or sun... Simple and common idea.

Ok, we can assume that, but then again, what is the light?  We could say that the light is from God himself... Revelation talks about how the new city will be lit with the Glory of God and there are many references throughout scripture that state a "glow" about people who were very close to God or filled with teh spirit... but then again if this is the light being referenced here, it would make sense then that it was always there and that God didn't create it... either that or we'd have to assume that God had absolutely no glory or whatever the spiritual glowing is before he decided to "create it" which then God's glory isn't really glory by definition, but just a created light.  This would go against the complete scriptural description of God.   So it's hard for me to accept your theory that its' not the sun... unless you can come up with a better explanation of what the light is exactly.  

"The light is from God" is a very Sunday School answer and I know you're smarter than that.  What else do you have.

TGBaker wrote:

 

6And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

 

GOD creates the sky to separate the waters ( the blue above the sky) from the waters that the earth floats in.

9And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. 11And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

 

GEE Caposkia he creates the earth and plannt earth thingys after he created the sky and ground. 

it makes rational sense... this mysterious light also must have had some radiation of sorts to allow photosynthesis otherwise, the laws put in place by God would not work and he'd have to change them, why change them if they work fine the way they are?  The God of the bible would have known the complications and worked them out.

I know you're trying to get at the point that this could not have possibly happened and that God is not real, but all i'm seeing on your part is speculation.  You've got to give me more than excuses.

TGBaker wrote:

14And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

 

Simple statement meaning what it says.  These things are created after the earth and plants.  If you contend that these are just an after thought brought in then the writer is still mistaken and God rests on the fourth day because there ain't anything else he does on the fourth day. The text simply means what it says. And of course its WRONG.

I see what you're saying... I read through it myself.  What is the literal Hebrew of `16?  Does it in any way suggest that the sun had just been created right here and now after all the others?  A simple contextual implication of "after all these things" or something along those lines would support your conclusion, otherwise, again it's only speculation.

TGBaker wrote:

 

How bout 13.7 billion years ago there was a collapse of a wave function wherein the universe expanded  and as it did so the forces of physics separated. As the expansion continued to cool matter could form.  Then gases then stars and galaxies and planets and complex chemical reactions, self replicating stochastic processes of dissipative structures and DNA and plants and animals and people and myths and legends and memes.

yea, that makes sense.  There's no explanation scripturally on exactly HOW God did it.  There is suggestion that there is "self replicating stochastic processes." e.g. 'let the Earth bring forth...'... not 'God formed the plants... or built the plants....'  

You seem to think I'm trying to make it look like it is comparable to science as if it's impossible to do so.. granted my comparison has some speculation as to exactly how it happened, but it makes sense to me... though my speculation isn't any more speculation than you are throwing in trying to make it look like it can't cooperate with scientific law.  Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just dont' see anything beyond speculation.  

The light is what's in question.  The naive Sunday School answer is... "it's from God" (cue church choir AAAAAWWWWWWW)   The scientific explanation, the sun had to be there in order for plants to grow... if you can't see it any other way than that it was from God and not the sun, then you'd still have to logically conclude that the light being provided from God allowed for photosynthesis or his plan would not have worked... to say that a light is from God is to suggest the light has any possibility of properties and very likely could have sustained life therefore nullifying any possibility of this not being possible if God is in fact real.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Even a

BobSpence1 wrote:

Even a 'plausible' God cannot logically be the Creator of everything, because He is part of everything that exists, so it would require that he be the reason for his own existence.

Plausibility in our minds would suggest this or that there is more than God out there that doesn't directly affect/govern us, but govern's God... Bible states that God is was and always will be suggesting he always was there and was never created or didn't exist.  To conclude on anything about this point is to speculate only because no one can claim to have evidence to any point about God's existence any more than they can have evidences of what was before the Big Bang.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The only way to avoid the divergent infinite regress problem - what 'requires that God exist', then what requires that whatever it is that requires that God must exist, must itself exist, etc - is to realize that causes may be far less that what they effect, which then makes God unnecessary.

I will guess that most Christians don't believe in God because they think he's necessary.... at least this Christian doesn't.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

So a 'plausible' God is more like an extremely advanced alien race or intelligence, ie no omni or infinite attributes.

The other assumed aspect of God, as arbiter and source of morality is explicitly counter to all the evidence. The world he allegedly 'created' is rife with injustice and flaws which cause much pain, distress and death, and it would still require evidence and an external standard that God is actually good, even without that fact.

Our own feelings of pain and distress and recognition of what it means to suffer, combined with our need to cooperate to thrive, are all that is needed to construct a practical moral code.

see, all we have is speculation...  Granted we could come up with 100 possible scenarios for the existence of God and as far as our knowledge leads us, all of them are just as plausible... none of them are able to be anything more than speculation at this point.

BobSpence1 wrote:

'God' explains nothing, it only raises puzzles, such as the Problem of Evil, and why do the accounts of 'creation', and many other things in the Bible, not match what we now understand about both ourselves and the Universe.

which has been my point since day 1.  It's funny how many people try to excuse my belief as an explanation or an answer to something i don't understand.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:caposkia

KSMB wrote:

caposkia wrote:
TGBaker wrote:
I would say that Strobel hardly qualifies as an authority on the subject for which he writes.

Strobel is just one example of many in his category.  I wouldn't call him an "authority" either, but i wouldn't discredit his information be it that his mission in publishing his first book was to show why God is not plausible. 

If this is indeed true about his initial mission, then I am forced to conclude one of two things. Either he is awful at evaluating the christian "evidence", or he came to realize that writing books telling the deluded what they want to hear would make him rich.

Interesting conclusions... wouldn't a book proving the existence of God to be a fallacy make him rich as well?  Books telling any group of people what they want to hear are a guaranteed seller.   Which would lead to your first conclusion, but then again, he makes some valid points... don't know, cant' say I've read all his books, but the one's I have read were well thought out and seemed to be well researched.  They consist of interviews with non-believers, which would be a fail if he was trying your first conclusion.  

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:KSMB

caposkia wrote:

KSMB wrote:

caposkia wrote:
TGBaker wrote:
I would say that Strobel hardly qualifies as an authority on the subject for which he writes.

Strobel is just one example of many in his category.  I wouldn't call him an "authority" either, but i wouldn't discredit his information be it that his mission in publishing his first book was to show why God is not plausible. 

If this is indeed true about his initial mission, then I am forced to conclude one of two things. Either he is awful at evaluating the christian "evidence", or he came to realize that writing books telling the deluded what they want to hear would make him rich.

Interesting conclusions... wouldn't a book proving the existence of God to be a fallacy make him rich as well?  Books telling any group of people what they want to hear are a guaranteed seller.   Which would lead to your first conclusion, but then again, he makes some valid points... don't know, cant' say I've read all his books, but the one's I have read were well thought out and seemed to be well researched.  They consist of interviews with non-believers, which would be a fail if he was trying your first conclusion.  

 

That last statement shows you haven't read any of Strobel's books. If he interviewed non-believers in the text of his books (instead of just the preface of one) I'd have no problem with him. He only interviews those who agree with him and poorly plays the "skeptical, hard-nosed interviewer".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:That last

jcgadfly wrote:

That last statement shows you haven't read any of Strobel's books. If he interviewed non-believers in the text of his books (instead of just the preface of one) I'd have no problem with him. He only interviews those who agree with him and poorly plays the "skeptical, hard-nosed interviewer".

I was referencing to the Case For Faith.  Which i have read...and I'm guessing you haven't. granted it has been a while, but from what I remember, it consisted of information from a bunch of different interviews.  i would agree with you for some of them and I thought so at the time too.  Again, i never said he was the end all in the conversation.  he was just an example of many people who are just like him.  He did make some good points in his book.  You just have to pull them out of a lot of fluff.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

That last statement shows you haven't read any of Strobel's books. If he interviewed non-believers in the text of his books (instead of just the preface of one) I'd have no problem with him. He only interviews those who agree with him and poorly plays the "skeptical, hard-nosed interviewer".

I was referencing to the Case For Faith.  Which i have read...and I'm guessing you haven't. granted it has been a while, but from what I remember, it consisted of information from a bunch of different interviews.  i would agree with you for some of them and I thought so at the time too.  Again, i never said he was the end all in the conversation.  he was just an example of many people who are just like him.  He did make some good points in his book.  You just have to pull them out of a lot of fluff.  

Yep and all those interviewed agreed with the position that Strobel was trying to prove. No opposing interviews at all.

It would compare to me offering to write an unbiased biography of you but only talking to people who didn't like you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Answer

Answer to OP,

The Theists on here have tried, and have failed miserably.

It is FALSE to say God is a spirit. The correct way to say it is:

God IS Spirit (John 4:24).

A very important detail.

Second,

The confusion with the ***** *** atheists on here is that they don't know logic via categories and they don't know the difference between the Economical Trinity and the Ontological Trinity.

I've discussed this before.

While the 3rd Person of the Trinity is equal to the Father and Son ontologically speaking, He is inferior to the Father and the Son economically speaking.

What that means is economically speaking, there are roles. This is why Jesus never prayed to the Holy Spirit but to the Father.

They have eternally been in harmony for different roles. An example at creation.

The Father Made the Matter out of nothing.

The Son Created the matter out of something

The Holy Spirit gave life to everything.

So while the Father made the matter for the Son to form man out of, it was the Holy Spirit that gave man life since God breathed into Him.

But while there is categories, it must be understood that it was one God who did these things ontologically speaking.

When the ***** *** learn logic, and listen, they will understand the issues behind logical Christian doctrine. The Trinity is logical since God is the source of all logic, and it will be this God who sends you to **** on your judgement day.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Mod edit: Kill 'Em With Kindness sub-forum Jean. You're not respectful.

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Yep and all

jcgadfly wrote:

Yep and all those interviewed agreed with the position that Strobel was trying to prove. No opposing interviews at all.

It would compare to me offering to write an unbiased biography of you but only talking to people who didn't like you.

ok, you're excusing Strobel, he's one of thousands like him.  What is your excuse for them?  My point was his book made some good references and asked good questions.  I never said it was perfect and it is understood that there were opposing beliefs.  It's logical to conclude that a lot of the interview content had been edited and that those people weren't exactly in agreement with Strobel.  He likely pulled out what he felt was important for his book.  

Bad reference, sorry for pulling a name out... instead what of the rest? 

let's get back to the op

 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

]The typical ancient concept. He created light before anything. No on the 4th day the sky things are made. You are attempting to harmonize a primitive cosmology that says what it says and is consistent with other views of the period. Zondervan is a typical apologetic propoganda. The light was from god.  Look at other creation myths not the sun.  he separates the light from the darkness not the sun from the earth. he does not create the sky until the second day after the light. The third day earth things were made.

Zondervan is a publishing company and a corporation as well.  The person himself... maybe, but the study Bible specifically uses contextual and historical reference to back up any claim made.  apologetics tend not to do that.

In order to conclude that the light was from God and not created by God as the sun in that moment, you'd have to read further into the text than what's there... sure you can try to compare to other myths, but the Bible is not other myths, it's the Bible... yes, that sounds like I'm trying to justify the Bible over other myths, in this case, I'm simply trying to say you can't say apples have to be red because oranges are orange.  Apples have nothing to do with oranges and are not dependent on oranges to exist.   You can't justify your own comprehension of a text because another unrelated text makes such a claim.  There must be sound reason to justify the specified comparison

TGBaker wrote:

 

The fourth day he specifically makes them  the sun, stars and moon in the sky to govern seasons.  The only way you would get your interpretation is as an attempt to harmonize the conflicts with science.  The text is quite understandable without the presupposition of inspiration and simply says what it says. Come on now which meaning is more plausible... what the text says or what one wants it to say for doctrinal harmony. Goodness...

well, i could argue the other point that you could simply be trying to make it not harmonize with science.  It wouldn't be an issue if it was really that clear... you seem to think it's clear as day that the light at the beginning could not have possibly come from the sun yet nothing specifically states that.  due to the lack of scientific knowledge of the writers of that time, it's likely that they really just didn't know and could easily assume either way.  Due to lack of reference I don't think either of us can empirically conclude on such, but it's naive to assume you could come up with a empirical truth from that.

TGBaker wrote:

 

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

 

The earth is a formless matter or clay to be sculpted.  The deep is the idea of the chaotic primal ocean as in other myths of that period. God's breath blew over the waters. He was drying out the water for earth.

Ok, so then you're picturing it as a completely non science act going on and had nothing to do with what we would understand to be natural production of land...  You were a young earth creationist, weren't you

TGBaker wrote:

 

3And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

 

He created light not the sun or stars for he has yet to create the "sky".  So day and night are created before there is a sky or stars or moon or sun... Simple and common idea.

Ok, we can assume that, but then again, what is the light?  We could say that the light is from God himself... Revelation talks about how the new city will be lit with the Glory of God and there are many references throughout scripture that state a "glow" about people who were very close to God or filled with teh spirit... but then again if this is the light being referenced here, it would make sense then that it was always there and that God didn't create it... either that or we'd have to assume that God had absolutely no glory or whatever the spiritual glowing is before he decided to "create it" which then God's glory isn't really glory by definition, but just a created light.  This would go against the complete scriptural description of God.   So it's hard for me to accept your theory that its' not the sun... unless you can come up with a better explanation of what the light is exactly.  

"The light is from God" is a very Sunday School answer and I know you're smarter than that.  What else do you have.

TGBaker wrote:

 

6And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

 

GOD creates the sky to separate the waters ( the blue above the sky) from the waters that the earth floats in.

9And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. 11And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

 

GEE Caposkia he creates the earth and plannt earth thingys after he created the sky and ground. 

it makes rational sense... this mysterious light also must have had some radiation of sorts to allow photosynthesis otherwise, the laws put in place by God would not work and he'd have to change them, why change them if they work fine the way they are?  The God of the bible would have known the complications and worked them out.

I know you're trying to get at the point that this could not have possibly happened and that God is not real, but all i'm seeing on your part is speculation.  You've got to give me more than excuses.

TGBaker wrote:

14And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

 

Simple statement meaning what it says.  These things are created after the earth and plants.  If you contend that these are just an after thought brought in then the writer is still mistaken and God rests on the fourth day because there ain't anything else he does on the fourth day. The text simply means what it says. And of course its WRONG.

I see what you're saying... I read through it myself.  What is the literal Hebrew of `16?  Does it in any way suggest that the sun had just been created right here and now after all the others?  A simple contextual implication of "after all these things" or something along those lines would support your conclusion, otherwise, again it's only speculation.

TGBaker wrote:

 

How bout 13.7 billion years ago there was a collapse of a wave function wherein the universe expanded  and as it did so the forces of physics separated. As the expansion continued to cool matter could form.  Then gases then stars and galaxies and planets and complex chemical reactions, self replicating stochastic processes of dissipative structures and DNA and plants and animals and people and myths and legends and memes.

yea, that makes sense.  There's no explanation scripturally on exactly HOW God did it.  There is suggestion that there is "self replicating stochastic processes." e.g. 'let the Earth bring forth...'... not 'God formed the plants... or built the plants....'  

You seem to think I'm trying to make it look like it is comparable to science as if it's impossible to do so.. granted my comparison has some speculation as to exactly how it happened, but it makes sense to me... though my speculation isn't any more speculation than you are throwing in trying to make it look like it can't cooperate with scientific law.  Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just dont' see anything beyond speculation.  

The light is what's in question.  The naive Sunday School answer is... "it's from God" (cue church choir AAAAAWWWWWWW)   The scientific explanation, the sun had to be there in order for plants to grow... if you can't see it any other way than that it was from God and not the sun, then you'd still have to logically conclude that the light being provided from God allowed for photosynthesis or his plan would not have worked... to say that a light is from God is to suggest the light has any possibility of properties and very likely could have sustained life therefore nullifying any possibility of this not being possible if God is in fact real.

Look I know what the **** Zonervan is was AND i OWNED HALF THEIR PUBLICATIONS. i HAVE NOT GOT TIME TO PLAY THESE CHILDISH GAMES. The text says what it says you have to add to the text because it does nto fit with a contemporary view of the world, I was not a young earther and what are your talking about.  There is not explantion that god did it other htan what the text says. You simply do not like what the text actually says or you can live with a cosmology where god's light sustains plants until he creates the sun, moon and stars..... The naive Sunday school  answer is that it does not mean what it says because it would conflict with what we know of the world. If it did then it would be simply written by a person and not god. And that niave response would be right.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
de quoi s'agit-il?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Answer to OP,

The Theists on here have tried, and have failed miserably. They are like a bat with no ball, Or cloud with no sky. Or fish with no beer.

It is FALSE to say God is a spirit. The correct way to say it is:

God IS Spirit (John 4:24).

A very important detail.

So god is spirit, but only 1/3 of that spirit is holy?  And did jesus represent spirit converting to matter?

E = mc2 {E:  Esprit; m:  matériel; c: chrétienté}

Quote:

Second,

The confusion with the nutty nut atheists on here is that they don't know logic via categories and they don't know the difference between the Economical Trinity and the Ontological Trinity.

I'll admit I've never encountered these trinitarian categories before (not even when I was a believer).  Would you care to provide the origin of these terms (is there a scriptural precedent; is this post-Reformation; or did you just pull them out of your croissant)?

Quote:

I've discussed this before.

While the 3rd Person of the Trinity is equal to the Father and Son ontologically speaking, He is inferior to the Father and the Son economically speaking. What that means is economically speaking, there are roles. This is why Jesus never prayed to the Holy Spirit but to the Father.

Which means what?  The holyspirit has less disposable capital than the other two? The father could expense jesus' prayers to petty cash, while the holyspirit would have to liquidate assets

I'm sorry, but if you mean something other than the common definition of "economic", you'll have to be explicit.

Quote:

They have eternally been in harmony for different roles. An example at creation.

The Father Made the Matter out of nothing.

The Son Created the matter out of something

The Holy Spirit gave life to everything.

So while the Father made the matter for the Son to form man out of, it was the Holy Spirit that gave man life since God breathed into Him.

Sounds like an assembly line.  

This does at any rate tread upon the question I posed to caposkia, who to his rare credit admitted ignorance, and refrained from speculating:  Did god have no choice but to exist as a trinity?  Are there constants by which the nature of god is constrained, i.e., is the trinity fine-tuned?  

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: Look I know

TGBaker wrote:

 Look I know what the **** Zonervan is was AND i OWNED HALF THEIR PUBLICATIONS.

good for you.  You should know i don't take what anyone says verbatim including Zondervan, but there are legitimate references within their publications.  

TGBaker wrote:

i HAVE NOT GOT TIME TO PLAY THESE CHILDISH GAMES.

relax... I'm not playing games with you.  You're one of the few on here who is willing to think and I appreciate that.

TGBaker wrote:

The text says what it says you have to add to the text because it does nto fit with a contemporary view of the world, I was not a young earther and what are your talking about.

just the way you were presenting your case, it sounded like you were opposed to the "god did it" point of view due to that basis of belief.  i apparently was wrong.

TGBaker wrote:

 There is not explantion that god did it other htan what the text says. You simply do not like what the text actually says or you can live with a cosmology where god's light sustains plants until he creates the sun, moon and stars..... 

oh now don't start falling into that rut.  I think you're smarter than that.  I have expressed open mindedness to anything that is presented to me on here.  I'm not going to ignore what a text says simply because 'I don't like it'.  It's such a poor case.  i can claim the same thing about you and then where are we?  Nowhere.

TGBaker wrote:

The naive Sunday school  answer is that it does not mean what it says because it would conflict with what we know of the world. If it did then it would be simply written by a person and not god. And that niave response would be right.

The text says God did it.  It does not elaborate as to when or how specifically, to read into the idea that it doesn't follow the rules of science is speculation only.  if you are going to conclude that it happened out of order, then it's just as plausible to conclude that the "godlight" has properties that would allow photosynthesis until the sun was put in place.  

Simply put.. with my research, other than what can't otherwise be explained, much of God's "work" seems to fall in line with natural laws.  it would make sense that a God who created everything as is would use the laws within the creation he made to cause things to happen.  It would be the most efficient way without disrupting the balance of the system beyond what he intended.  

There is not enough information in the Bible to conclude that science is or isn't congruent ultimately and to claim otherwise is to delve into ones own wishful thinking.  

i didn't mean to upset you before.  If I did, i'm sorry.  I again see you as a well researched individual who can think for themselves and ultimately isn't trying to 'prove' themselves to others.  I appreciate that about you.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Sorry Lets start from

Sorry Lets start from scratch then. I apologize in that I wound up in the hospital with AML Luekemia and chemo.o I've been a bit pissy. Butlets then assume Genesis says that god created the unviverse. Which it does as do many creation myths. I guess the question is that a precursor for grounding the text in some type of authority. Or does it simply say that as many other texts that our god did it?  To me the quality of info would at least some degree be self-authenticating. And I think that was the point of looking at any propostional statements in a story of creation. Do the statements really simply reflect the world view of the time of the writing about  a universal strutcture or do they reflect aspects that are relevetory, ontological or phenomenological  beyond the writing of an individual or story telling group (tribe) such that logical and/or new incite is found by the recepient of the statement narrative.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Sorry Lets start from

Sorry Lets start from scratch then. I apologize in that I wound up in the hospital with AML Luekemia and chemo.o I've been a bit pissy. Butlets then assume Genesis says that god created the unviverse. Which it does as do many creation myths. I guess the question is that a precursor for grounding the text in some type of authority. Or does it simply say that as many other texts that our god did it?  To me the quality of info would at least some degree be self-authenticating. And I think that was the point of looking at any propostional statements in a story of creation. Do the statements really simply reflect the world view of the time of the writing about  a universal strutcture or do they reflect aspects that are relevetory, ontological or phenomenological  beyond the writing of an individual or story telling group (tribe) such that logical and/or new incite is found by the recepient of the statement narrative.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Sorry Lets

TGBaker wrote:
Sorry Lets start from scratch then. I apologize in that I wound up in the hospital with AML Luekemia and chemo.o I've been a bit pissy.

geez man, I'm sorry to hear that. You have every right to be pissy and I completely understand. Take it easy and please don't let our conversations stress you out. You have enough to deal with. Let's just keep it friendly and fun.

TGBaker wrote:
But lets then assume Genesis says that god created the unviverse. Which it does as do many creation myths. I guess the question is that a precursor for grounding the text in some type of authority. Or does it simply say that as many other texts that our god did it? To me the quality of info would at least some degree be self-authenticating. And I think that was the point of looking at any propostional statements in a story of creation. Do the statements really simply reflect the world view of the time of the writing about a universal strutcture or do they reflect aspects that are relevetory, ontological or phenomenological beyond the writing of an individual or story telling group (tribe) such that logical and/or new incite is found by the recepient of the statement narrative.

If you strictly take the beginning part of Genesis (the creation story) and compare it to other long separated cultures stories of creation, it's eerily similar. so much so that the process and method described... as elaborate as Genesis... are almost identical with a few different twists with methodology and names... which leads me to believe there is a single source for all of those creation stories. To claim any of these stories self-authenticating, I think we would need to take into consideration the sources of all the cultures creation stories and their intentions of writing them down and how they came to understanding these stories. This task would be impossible today.

Instead, why would all these stories be so similar if in fact they were independently created? I think we can come up with some logical theories as to why and how this could be the case.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

double post

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: TGBaker

caposkia wrote:
TGBaker wrote:
Sorry Lets start from scratch then. I apologize in that I wound up in the hospital with AML Luekemia and chemo.o I've been a bit pissy.

geez man, I'm sorry to hear that. You have every right to be pissy and I completely understand. Take it easy and please don't let our conversations stress you out. You have enough to deal with. Let's just keep it friendly and fun.

TGBaker wrote:
But lets then assume Genesis says that god created the unviverse. Which it does as do many creation myths. I guess the question is that a precursor for grounding the text in some type of authority. Or does it simply say that as many other texts that our god did it? To me the quality of info would at least some degree be self-authenticating. And I think that was the point of looking at any propostional statements in a story of creation. Do the statements really simply reflect the world view of the time of the writing about a universal strutcture or do they reflect aspects that are relevetory, ontological or phenomenological beyond the writing of an individual or story telling group (tribe) such that logical and/or new incite is found by the recepient of the statement narrative.

If you strictly take the beginning part of Genesis (the creation story) and compare it to other long separated cultures stories of creation, it's eerily similar. so much so that the process and method described... as elaborate as Genesis... are almost identical with a few different twists with methodology and names... which leads me to believe there is a single source for all of those creation stories. To claim any of these stories self-authenticating, I think we would need to take into consideration the sources of all the cultures creation stories and their intentions of writing them down and how they came to understanding these stories. This task would be impossible today.

Instead, why would all these stories be so similar if in fact they were independently created? I think we can come up with some logical theories as to why and how this could be the case.

More to the point, cap, why do you assume the Genesis story was first?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Sorry Lets start from scratch then. I apologize in that I wound up in the hospital with AML Luekemia and chemo.o I've been a bit pissy.

geez man, I'm sorry to hear that. You have every right to be pissy and I completely understand. Take it easy and please don't let our conversations stress you out. You have enough to deal with. Let's just keep it friendly and fun.

TGBaker wrote:
But lets then assume Genesis says that god created the unviverse. Which it does as do many creation myths. I guess the question is that a precursor for grounding the text in some type of authority. Or does it simply say that as many other texts that our god did it? To me the quality of info would at least some degree be self-authenticating. And I think that was the point of looking at any propostional statements in a story of creation. Do the statements really simply reflect the world view of the time of the writing about a universal strutcture or do they reflect aspects that are relevetory, ontological or phenomenological beyond the writing of an individual or story telling group (tribe) such that logical and/or new incite is found by the recepient of the statement narrative.

If you strictly take the beginning part of Genesis (the creation story) and compare it to other long separated cultures stories of creation, it's eerily similar. so much so that the process and method described... as elaborate as Genesis... are almost identical with a few different twists with methodology and names... which leads me to believe there is a single source for all of those creation stories. To claim any of these stories self-authenticating, I think we would need to take into consideration the sources of all the cultures creation stories and their intentions of writing them down and how they came to understanding these stories. This task would be impossible today.

Instead, why would all these stories be so similar if in fact they were independently created? I think we can come up with some logical theories as to why and how this could be the case.

I would think that the similarities are not based upon origination rather from a common mentality or structure of psychological archetypes that Jung and Joseph Campbell pointed to that seem to be the common language of myth.  Again the question is what if any authority would such stories or could such stories have that reflect more of a psychological anthropology than some revelation of a deity.  These myths of the area seem to follow suit with Persian themes which in turn altered Judaism's theology considerably.  I think you are looking at 600 BCE writings myself.  I see nothing that denotes any revelation, scientific marvel or authoritative claim upon the reader. I do find a wonderful anthropology that parallels on a primitive level Eastern intuitions about consciousness that distinquishes Eastern thought from Western in its angst about dualism and its source.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:
TGBaker wrote:
Sorry Lets start from scratch then. I apologize in that I wound up in the hospital with AML Luekemia and chemo.o I've been a bit pissy.

geez man, I'm sorry to hear that. You have every right to be pissy and I completely understand. Take it easy and please don't let our conversations stress you out. You have enough to deal with. Let's just keep it friendly and fun.

TGBaker wrote:
But lets then assume Genesis says that god created the unviverse. Which it does as do many creation myths. I guess the question is that a precursor for grounding the text in some type of authority. Or does it simply say that as many other texts that our god did it? To me the quality of info would at least some degree be self-authenticating. And I think that was the point of looking at any propostional statements in a story of creation. Do the statements really simply reflect the world view of the time of the writing about a universal strutcture or do they reflect aspects that are relevetory, ontological or phenomenological beyond the writing of an individual or story telling group (tribe) such that logical and/or new incite is found by the recepient of the statement narrative.

If you strictly take the beginning part of Genesis (the creation story) and compare it to other long separated cultures stories of creation, it's eerily similar. so much so that the process and method described... as elaborate as Genesis... are almost identical with a few different twists with methodology and names... which leads me to believe there is a single source for all of those creation stories. To claim any of these stories self-authenticating, I think we would need to take into consideration the sources of all the cultures creation stories and their intentions of writing them down and how they came to understanding these stories. This task would be impossible today.

Instead, why would all these stories be so similar if in fact they were independently created? I think we can come up with some logical theories as to why and how this could be the case.

More to the point, cap, why do you assume the Genesis story was first?

I appreciate your question. How and why would we assume a myth to be the original one apart from our own incultration in that tradition itself?

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:More to the

jcgadfly wrote:

More to the point, cap, why do you assume the Genesis story was first?

If it's the truth, it really doesn't matter whether the Genesis story was first or not.  Why would you assume I assume that the Genesis story was first?  The Genesis story is what we have.  It is generally understood that we do not have the original copies of most if not all Bible stories... therefore, it is possible that the Genesis story was written with references and other sources.  The Genesis story is not the oldest book of the Bible and therefore is likely a copy.  There is little known about the author and only theory that it was Moses that wrote it.  If Moses did in fact write it himself... it is likely the original.  Then again, whos to say another person wasn't told the creation story in another culture besides Moses?  Therefore, there may be more than 1 original.  Still both originals would be right despite the differences in the way the story was portrayed.  Remember the stories were ultimately written down within the perspective of the writer and not necessarily exactly how it happened. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: I would

TGBaker wrote:

 I would think that the similarities are not based upon origination rather from a common mentality or structure of psychological archetypes that Jung and Joseph Campbell pointed to that seem to be the common language of myth.  Again the question is what if any authority would such stories or could such stories have that reflect more of a psychological anthropology than some revelation of a deity.  These myths of the area seem to follow suit with Persian themes which in turn altered Judaism's theology considerably.  I think you are looking at 600 BCE writings myself.  I see nothing that denotes any revelation, scientific marvel or authoritative claim upon the reader. I do find a wonderful anthropology that parallels on a primitive level Eastern intuitions about consciousness that distinquishes Eastern thought from Western in its angst about dualism and its source.

With that state of mind, common mentality could have written all of history... thus what we think we know is all a fabrication.  I always come back to the point that if all these common stories are based off myths that follow suit in any means, then where did it all start and why did it take off?  

You would think similarities are not based upon origination, but then again you have just as much support to assume that as you would to assume they are historically speaking.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: I appreciate

TGBaker wrote:

 I appreciate your question. How and why would we assume a myth to be the original one apart from our own incultration in that tradition itself?

If we're assuming myth then it takes it to a whole different level.  Figuring out an original myth is far different than figuring out an original source in history.  


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

 I would think that the similarities are not based upon origination rather from a common mentality or structure of psychological archetypes that Jung and Joseph Campbell pointed to that seem to be the common language of myth.  Again the question is what if any authority would such stories or could such stories have that reflect more of a psychological anthropology than some revelation of a deity.  These myths of the area seem to follow suit with Persian themes which in turn altered Judaism's theology considerably.  I think you are looking at 600 BCE writings myself.  I see nothing that denotes any revelation, scientific marvel or authoritative claim upon the reader. I do find a wonderful anthropology that parallels on a primitive level Eastern intuitions about consciousness that distinquishes Eastern thought from Western in its angst about dualism and its source.

With that state of mind, common mentality could have written all of history... thus what we think we know is all a fabrication.  I always come back to the point that if all these common stories are based off myths that follow suit in any means, then where did it all start and why did it take off?  

You would think similarities are not based upon origination, but then again you have just as much support to assume that as you would to assume they are historically speaking.  

I guess it is as simple as why would we assume that they are anything other than fabrication of a mythic mind.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

 I appreciate your question. How and why would we assume a myth to be the original one apart from our own incultration in that tradition itself?

If we're assuming myth then it takes it to a whole different level.  Figuring out an original myth is far different than figuring out an original source in history.  

Why would we assume it is not myth since it is not historical, it falls into the same category of writing as myth and it certainly is non-factual.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: I guess it

TGBaker wrote:

 I guess it is as simple as why would we assume that they are anything other than fabrication of a mythic mind.

This I think  could apply to both your posts... you claim it's not historical in your next post, yet there is support in history of many biblical happenings... including the Jesus character.  To claim any of it is not historical is to say you have a means of filling in the gaps where the Bible stories are said to have taken place.  otherwise you're only  making an assumption.  Looking through the history myself, it seems that there is very little evidence in history that we can use at this point to support scripture, however, there is no evidence what-so-ever that I have come across that would support the idea that any of the stories of scripture couldn't have happened.  


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

 I guess it is as simple as why would we assume that they are anything other than fabrication of a mythic mind.

This I think  could apply to both your posts... you claim it's not historical in your next post, yet there is support in history of many biblical happenings... including the Jesus character.  To claim any of it is not historical is to say you have a means of filling in the gaps where the Bible stories are said to have taken place.  otherwise you're only  making an assumption.  Looking through the history myself, it seems that there is very little evidence in history that we can use at this point to support scripture, however, there is no evidence what-so-ever that I have come across that would support the idea that any of the stories of scripture couldn't have happened.  

It is not a matter that it could not happen. It is a matter that it did not happen.  To look at the evolution of toward homo sapiens from  3 1/2 million old fossil examples such as Australiapithicus aferensis, homo habilus, homo erectus etc.;  simple indicate that the Genesis story about the creation of man is mythic without historical value.  The samer is said of the ceration myth. The presentation of the creation of the earth and plants prior to the sun, moon and stars. This point that the stories are simply myth the imaginings of early contemporary man as to his origins.  The Jesus caharater wqas certainly historical but the stories about him are late contrived and point to waht Jesus original was like. The original followers of jesus did not agree with Paul and continued as Ebionites. They did not believe inthe virgin birth, that Jesus was divine or preexistent apart from a concept of election of which the name off the Messiah was known from eternity. They thought of him as returning to usher in the Kingdom with the general resurrection of the dead. I'm not sure that you are familiar with historical Jesus researxh within the seminaries of christianity but history is constructed about the development of Christianity by comparing how the gospels were formed, their soureces and how they were edited ( altered from their sources) This is a very fruitful critical-historical methodology and has a general consensis through scholarship.  We can tell the authors of Matthew and Luke redacted Mark with a  saying sources. It is not the gospels that created a mythic interpretation of Jesus. It is a quasi-mystic Hellenisstic Greek philosopher called Paul. He completely de-historized Jesus into a CHrist figure that could compete with myths like Mythros, Osiris, Dyonsian etc: This is to say that in the case of New Testament we can fill IN THE GAPS.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: It is not a

TGBaker wrote:

 It is not a matter that it could not happen. It is a matter that it did not happen.  To look at the evolution of toward homo sapiens from  3 1/2 million old fossil examples such as Australiapithicus aferensis, homo habilus, homo erectus etc.;  simple indicate that the Genesis story about the creation of man is mythic without historical value. 

I have looked at that evolution.  There are gaps in the evolution timeline.  All science can do right now is theorize due to the fact that DNA is close... but there are no fossil samples that link the evolutionary chain.  The attributes of these species that are different from humans have no evolutionary fossil change that we have in our possession.  As far as science can see, those fossils ended.  Human fossils existed around the same time and they can't empirically link the 2.  It is only theory that the evolution is a link.

TGBaker wrote:

The samer is said of the ceration myth. The presentation of the creation of the earth and plants prior to the sun, moon and stars. This point that the stories are simply myth the imaginings of early contemporary man as to his origins.  The Jesus caharater wqas certainly historical but the stories about him are late contrived and point to waht Jesus original was like. The original followers of jesus did not agree with Paul and continued as Ebionites. They did not believe inthe virgin birth, that Jesus was divine or preexistent apart from a concept of election of which the name off the Messiah was known from eternity. They thought of him as returning to usher in the Kingdom with the general resurrection of the dead. I'm not sure that you are familiar with historical Jesus researxh within the seminaries of christianity but history is constructed about the development of Christianity by comparing how the gospels were formed, their soureces and how they were edited ( altered from their sources) This is a very fruitful critical-historical methodology and has a general consensis through scholarship.  We can tell the authors of Matthew and Luke redacted Mark with a  saying sources. It is not the gospels that created a mythic interpretation of Jesus. It is a quasi-mystic Hellenisstic Greek philosopher called Paul. He completely de-historized Jesus into a CHrist figure that could compete with myths like Mythros, Osiris, Dyonsian etc: This is to say that in the case of New Testament we can fill IN THE GAPS.

The gaps if you will don't seem to be a problem.  We can talk specifically if you want about Paul's perspective vs.  the gospels, but so far, every attempt to do so has not shown a different perspective, only explaining the gospels in words that can be better understood by the party paul happens to be preaching to.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
trinitarianism

 I realize that this has for a bit now gone way beyond the point of this thread and I'm sorry.  If people want to continue with me off topic, please take it to my 'quest for the unholy grail' forum which at this point is all about being off topic.  i want this forum to go back to the trinitarian focus.  Granted it all can be linked, but there's a point where you just have to say it no longer has to do with the point, which at this point it is.  maybe a discussion about paul could focus on trinitarianism, but it's not necessary then to go into historical validity of genesis and/or a discussion of Jesus and who he was assumed to be by different perspectives.  

Trinitarianism is about the 3 in 1.  It is a spiritual focus of who Jesus was and not a physical perspective, therefore, the conversation would have to stay focused on the spiritual..  


Vasiliki (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The Holy Spirit

Hello, firstly thank you, that whoever reads this, will be a rational responder, I appreciate it greatly, as I have never used a forum before, and it's all totally new to me. But even though I feel like a blind person having walked into a new town with different rules, I will write, what I have found to be true in my personal experience.

I am overcoming severe illness also, and have been mainly housebound, but still very busy because we have a farm, and in a lot of pain unfortunately, but I am working towards overcoming my illness. In answer to your first question, I have found this to be true in my experience. God is the Father of creation, Jesus the saviour for anybody who would like to go to heaven and the Holy Spirit, is Gods' Spirit of True Love and they are all in perfect unity harmony and peace together - no wrongdoing. And that is what I know the trinity is. If anybody would like to read some of my personal experience please find it below.

I had become a christian when I was about 7 years old. To cut a long story short, my mum stopped me from going to Ralley (it was like girl guides, but they shared the love of Jesus, which was totally selfless, before that I had never experienced such precious love, yet full of fun). As I grew older I got into wrong things I had not wanted to do. I continued to do the wrong things, until I couldn't bear even living, and tried to kill myself. In my utter desperation, I talked with Jesus, and He started to help me. I did start to learn that the reason why He hadn't helped me earlier was because I hadn't asked Him to, and He could not push me into it, until I was ready He waited wanting to help me while His heart was breaking, He would not force Himself onto me, but when I opened the door myself by asking Him to help, He did, (this is my experience). I was an alcholic, drug addict, and had done other bad things. I started looking for a little church somewhere, but unfortunately, had only found ones that were very staiyed, (very religious - unfortunately without life in them, then I asked Jesus if He would somehow help me to find a church for me to go to. I found one, it was religious in some ways, but had some life. They helped me move out of the relationship, where the man had physically abused me, that I had been in. Then as I was sitting in the service, The Good Lord spoke with me, by His Holy Spirit of Love, in my own language - Greek.

I since found out that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Love, joy, peace, longsuffering (patience), gentleness, goodness, faith(assurance), Meekness (submissive humbleness), temperance (restraint): against such there is no law. it is in 1 Corinthians chapter 13. I couldn't understand why there was so much wrong in the church, being done in Gods' name even, or even in this world, it was so hard. It took many years before I finally found out why in the church.

I heard a testimony of a lady who had worked her way right up to becoming one of the 6 brides of satan, who had said that satan's kindergarten was in every church for his witches.

I believe God is Love, (and pure religion is feeding the orphans or helping widows who have no money or help otherwise), as is written in 1 John 4:8, and He made hell only for satan and his demons, not for any souls, satan is the deceiver, thief and murderer. Life in this world is temporal, after we die it is eternal, and it's our choice.

I heard another testimony, a man called Dr Ebe, he wrote a book, it could be got from amazon.com. He died and went to heaven, he was dead 3 hours, it was all documented in the hospital in all the reports. And when he arrived in heaven, he said it was the most loveliest place, and he spoke with Jesus, (when he looked into Jesus' eyes, he saw 100% pure love, no condemnaation, harshness, unforgiveness, it was lovely. Dr Ebe said the most perfect body he had ever seen, because he himself was a medical doctor. He asked many questions, but to keep it as short as possible. The one question that was burning in my own heart - Dr Ebe asked, if you are good, why do you send anybody to hell. And Jesus said basically, God cannot send anybody to hell, by man's own words they are justified or condemned. But the Good Lord wants the best for everybody, even though He will not force a person to love, the choice is ours. Take care to all who read this, from Shalom

Mod edit: Formatting.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1514
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Where is that pesky Topic ?

 >>Where is that pesky  Topic ?

Quote:
..necessary then to go into historical validity of genesis and/or a discussion of Jesus and who he was assumed to be by different perspectives.

   Caposkia  "On-Topic"?  To begin, it is very hard to tell where the topic is.  You did mention the first of the five books of the Pentateuch in a direct response to jcgadfly. Earlier,  you say "truth" can we determine what that means and how significant it really is ?   Has everyone missed out ? Or That remains to be determined ?  Author Kenneth C. Davis wrote: "(quote)The six-day Creation in Genesis, for instance, is widely thought to have been influenced by Mesopotamia's Creation epic, first translated a little more than a century ago and rattling religious teacups ever since".    Thoughtlessly Gramps bailed on me so I was curious your reply to Ken Davis's thought. Is that for another place?  Post ANOTHER thread if that is needful for you to reply.

Quote:
Caposkia wrote: "The Genesis story is what we have".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

 >>Where is that pesky  Topic ?

Quote:
..necessary then to go into historical validity of genesis and/or a discussion of Jesus and who he was assumed to be by different perspectives.

   Caposkia  "On-Topic"?  To begin, it is very hard to tell where the topic is.  You did mention the first of the five books of the Pentateuch in a direct response to jcgadfly. Earlier,  you say "truth" can we determine what that means and how significant it really is ?   Has everyone missed out ? Or That remains to be determined ?  Author Kenneth C. Davis wrote: "(quote)The six-day Creation in Genesis, for instance, is widely thought to have been influenced by Mesopotamia's Creation epic, first translated a little more than a century ago and rattling religious teacups ever since".    Thoughtlessly Gramps bailed on me so I was curious your reply to Ken Davis's thought. Is that for another place?  Post ANOTHER thread if that is needful for you to reply.

Quote:
Caposkia wrote: "The Genesis story is what we have".

I say that because i know I can be a bit ADD when it comes to discussions and I work hard to stay "on topic".  I kind of felt like I had pulled the thread off the OP and I didn't want to do that.  If I did it was unintentional.

I'm not sure what context the quote you have about genesis from me is, but it is what we have as much as Atheists have the Big Bang.  Just as Atheists have reasoning to believe the Big Bang is a legitimate theory and is how it happened, so do Christians have reasoning outside of the book as to reasoning.

In regards to Ken Davis' thought.  Historically speaking.  it's not uncommon to find parallels to stories that are based in reality.  Due to the many copies of copies found that were pieced together to make the Bible it is very logical to assume another cultures rendition of the story is an influence on or even a part of the Genesis story, or vise versa.  Would that necessarily make the Genesis story untrue?  Of course not.  If it did, then every historical person who had a tall tale written about them would have to be assumed fake as well. 

 Let's face it, part of the support for Genesis' authenticity is the fact that cultures from all over the world have stories that parallel some part of the Genesis story when it is known that they would have never had any access or contact to the culture that is assumed to have followed this particular God.    

 (it is assumed that Moses wrote the whole book of Genesis, but some scholars question this be it that much of the writings don't seem to suggest Moses' style or even a self written book, but more from the perspective of an outsider.  Therefore, it is possible that the Genesis story itself was around before Mesopotamia's Creation epic before it was written down as the story we know today.)  Most stories true or legend alike were usually passed down by word of mouth, be it that writing utensils and paper were not easy to come by, especially in that part of the world.   Point and case, Job is understood to be the oldest book in the Bible.  The oldest book because the content of the story dates it back before Moses' time.  Interesting to note the hard copies of Job from what I understand are not as old as the Genesis hard copies.