Prove that Christian God is the Creator and...

[scotter]

DC:

 

Thanks for the information about Gastrich.

 

I could not but mentioning Lee Merrill also:

 

About the Destruction of Tyre:

 

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=121739&page=1&pp=25

 

Despite all the points and arguments presented to him, Lee could drag the thread for two months and 9 pages.

Perhaps Lee is still working on the thread, it is possible it can go more.....

 

Only Lee himself knows what/why he is doing.

 

It doesn't shame one's religion and integrity simply by admitting, "You are right, I have to admit I could not harmonize Tyre with the prophecy. Being a Christian, Christianity is my religious faith but I have to admit there is still something unresolved."

 

Lee, you win more respect this way.

[Aaryn101]

"sigh" - too bad he left.  Might have been fun.

 

I had to smile when I read his posts, the conviction, the assuredness.

 

Could have been me about a year ago.

 

Too bad he left.  I wanted to talk about prophecies.  Like Jesus' prophecy to Caiaphas that he would not taste death until he saw the Son of Man coming in the clouds. 

 

Evidently Caiaphas is still around.  Maybe he lives down in Sun City.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No no no, I am nowhere near close to leaving these forums.

All that i said was that i am done talking on -this- topic (Replying to Prove that Christian God is the Creator and...). I have made my points, you have made all of yours. End.

 

However, I would be more than happy to discuss other issues in other topics... or through pms/IM. You all havent seen the last of me, so dont think you have gotten off that easily.

[godlessgrrl]

My answer to thankful's initial thread and questions:

 

Can you prove that the Xian deity is The One?

 

No. You can't. Such things are purely a matter of faith, and by their very nature cannot be proven. (I have yet to meet a Xian who was willing to admit such a thing, however.)

 

Who created the Xian deity?

 

Probably humanity, is my guess.

[Mythra]

Aaryn's still here. cool.

 

Ok aa - the bible tells us that if a prophet prophesies something and it doesn't come true, don't believe him. He is a false prophet. According to that criteria, Jesus is a false prophet.

 

Show how Jesus prophecy to Caiaphas came true. Has Caiaphas tasted death yet? Or has Jesus come back in the clouds already, and nobody noticed?

 

I can't wait to hear how this one is worked out.

[chefranden]

Aaryn:  you're not off to a real shiny start here, quoting scripture at us.  We've all been there and done that, and we can blow whatever you quote out of the water.

 

For instance, your quotes here.  In other scriptures, God also refers to the "circle" of the earth.  NOT the "sphere" of the earth.  God had it wrong.

 

Galileo was hung up by his scrotal sac for trying to show the earth was a ball.  (by Christians who were convinced - by the Bible - that it was more like a pizza.)

 

That's right: Anchovy with extra onions and cheese.

[Amanda]

Good post. While it does indeed indicate the possibility of god, it still doesn't point specifically to the reality of the christian god. Which was the topic Thankful originally posted.

 

Is there tangible evidence (by tangible I mean beyond the badly written book) of the christian god?

 

I don't believe there is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Bible does indicate that we are all One. (One example) Emphasis was placed on the first commandment and the second one was added to further perpetuate the first one, as all the rest were derived from those two... more so the first. One is to love God with all your heart and soul. Two is to love your neighbor as yourself. (sorry, not quoted) The studies in the original text seem to imply that we are to love our neighbor as ourself, because our neighbor is ourself! Further, to love one another because that is to love God... and everything is part of God. (Look at Big Picture) Now it seems that Stephen Hawking's scientific theory perpetuates that there is only one 'thing' here (God), with many aspects, and NOTHING (energy) can be created nor distroyed but transformed from one form to another. (Big Picture) Same God? I think so. Yet, that is my insight and could possibly be one that might contribute to more respectful approaches to ALL living things?

[Aaryn101]

Aaryn's still here.  cool.

 

Ok aa - the bible tells us that if a prophet prophesies something and it doesn't come true, don't believe him.  He is a false prophet.  According to that criteria, Jesus is a false prophet.

 

Show how Jesus prophecy to Caiaphas came true.  Has Caiaphas tasted death yet?  Or has Jesus come back in the clouds already, and nobody noticed?

 

I can't wait to hear how this one is worked out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Give me the biblical reference (book, chapter, and verse) to this prophecy, and i will do my best to help you out. I am not personally familiar with it.

[Mythra]

Give me the biblical reference (book, chapter, and verse) to this prophecy, and i will do my best to help you out.  I am not personally familiar with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Matthew 26:64 Jesus said to him "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.

 

In this passage, Jesus was speaking directly to Caiaphas. He was saying that Caiaphas would see him coming on the clouds of heaven. Some translations have deceptively changed this wording to "hereafter you ALL will see the Son of Man.." to try and dodge the inevitable conclusion that he was directing this statement to Caiaphas.

 

"coming on the clouds, or coming in the clouds" was used in several other passages in reference to the "second coming". Caiaphas died having never witnessed Jesus coming on the clouds of heaven. False Prophecy.

 

 

Another similar:

 

Matt 16:27 "For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

 

This is commonly justified as referring to the Transformation. Not true. As you can see in the preceding passage, Jesus is talking about coming with the angels and repaying each person according to what he has done. This cannot be referring to the Transformation. This is another reference to the second coming. Everyone who witnessed Jesus say this died without seeing Jesus come again. Another false prophecy from a false prophet.

 

Just something for you to think about.

 

(But, all this is kind of moot to me - I don't believe there ever was a historical Jesus at all)

[Mythra]

I'm anxiously awaiting some "logical" answers.  BTW..."God has always just been..." will not work.  When I was a fundy I used that one on my 10 year old son, he didn't buy it.  I then tired to force him to accept it by faith, however, he still was not willing to accept it.

 

So please, logical answers only, and please stay on topic/.  Do not turn this around to disprove evolution, etc.  Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry for taking this thread sideways a time or two, thankful.

 

But it's pretty clear that no one can stay on topic, on this topic. Absolutely nothing logical or scientific points a person to biblegod. The bible is the only thing this god has going for him, and it's full of gaping holes.

 

Now we're just back to blind faith. And if I hadn't already exhausted that route (as you have) maybe someone could convince me to try it.

[white_raven23]

The Bible does indicate that we are all One.....

 

The badly written book I was referring to was the bible.

 

Unless you have concrete evidence that book is indeed the word of god, I can't see how it can be evidence.

 

And you can't use the bible to prove the bible, that's circular reasoning.

 

You believe in the warm fuzzy christian god. Where did HE come from? The god in the bible is a petulant violent intolerant prick.....you can't be talking the same egomaniacal monster.

 

Even your "feeling" about god comes more from probable reality than from that book. The feeling you experience in moments of personal spirituality is greater evidence for the warm fuzzy god than the majority of the depictions of god in that book.

 

So you have to decide which is more true. Violent unyieding biblegod? Or a truly supreme being?

[dogmatically_challenged]

Sorry for taking this thread sideways a time or two, thankful. 

 

But it's pretty clear that no one can stay on topic, on this topic.  Absolutely nothing logical or scientific points a person to biblegod.  The bible is the only thing this god has going for him, and it's full of gaping holes.

 

Now we're just back to blind faith.  And if I hadn't already exhausted that route (as you have) maybe someone could convince me to try it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey Mythra!

 

Anything that would punch holes in thier beliefs can't punch holes in thier faith unless they get tired of the B.S. hehe.

 

Even so, I can see why you like scotter.

[Amanda]

Matthew 26:64  Jesus said to him "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.

 

In this passage, Jesus was speaking directly to Caiaphas.  He was saying that Caiaphas would see him coming on the clouds of heaven.  Some translations have deceptively changed this wording to "hereafter you ALL will see the Son of Man.." to try and dodge the inevitable conclusion that he was directing this statement to Caiaphas.

 

"coming on the clouds, or coming in the clouds" was used in several other passages in reference to the "second coming".  Caiaphas died having never witnessed Jesus coming on the clouds of heaven.  False Prophecy.

Another similar:

 

Matt 16:27  "For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.  Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

 

This is commonly justified as referring to the Transformation.  Not true.  As you can see in the preceding passage, Jesus is talking about coming with the angels and repaying each person according to what he has done.  This cannot be referring to the Transformation.  This is another reference to the second coming.  Everyone who witnessed Jesus say this died without seeing Jesus come again.  Another false prophecy from a false prophet.

 

Just something for you to think about.

 

(But, all this is kind of moot to me - I don't believe there ever was a historical Jesus at all)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mythra... consider these verses as metaphors for Christ coming again, only this time in a corporate body... we will be the many members... Jesus will be the head. He comes in a cloud, where those of us are filled with the living water till we thirst no more... collectively making a cloud (metaphor). He will sit in us and rule through us. We'll all be together in ONE body, of ONE mind... could be good y'all. C'mon Mythra... I've got my gloves on... kid-gloves...

[Amanda]

The badly written book I was referring to was the bible.

 

Unless you have concrete evidence that book is indeed the word of god, I can't see how it can be evidence.

 

And you can't use the bible to prove the bible, that's circular reasoning.

 

You believe in the warm fuzzy christian god. Where did HE come from? The god in the bible is a petulant violent intolerant prick.....you can't be talking the same egomaniacal monster.

 

Even your "feeling" about god comes more from probable reality than from that book. The feeling you experience in moments of personal spirituality is greater evidence for the warm fuzzy god than the majority of the depictions of god in that book.

 

So you have to decide which is more true. Violent unyieding biblegod? Or a truly supreme being?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

White_Raven23, with all due respect, and you are due respect my friend, perhaps your interpretation isn't the one I interpret in this book according to the original text. Remember, KJV isn't the original gospel, but a teams interpretation of it. It's more than 'feeling good'. It is about principles endearing the ability to maneuver through the world without waivering and falling, strong integrity. It's about having principles that resolve issues and provide the ability for all to center themselves with a solid internal locus of control. It's about justice in regards to respect and being accountable for decisions and actions in which one chooses to indulge. If those principles work in my life and many others today, right now... then what other proof do I need than that? I read it, I understand it, I use it, it works!

[Sokudo Ningyou]

White_Raven23, with all due respect, and you are due respect my friend, perhaps your interpretation isn't the one I interpret in this book according to the original text. Remember, KJV isn't the original gospel, but a teams interpretation of it. It's more than 'feeling good'. It is about principles endearing the ability to maneuver through the world without waivering and falling, strong integrity. It's about having principles that resolve issues and provide the ability for all to center themselves with a solid internal locus of control. It's about justice in regards to respect and being accountable for decisions and actions in which one chooses to indulge. If those principles work in my life and many others today, right now... then what other proof do I need than that? I read it, I understand it, I use it, it works!

 

 

I think Raven was referring to the fact that half of that "team's interpretation" is full of a vengeful, batshit God that keeps musing over destroying the world because a few people don't worship him/her/it, and the other half is the warm and fuzzy God who sacrifices his/her/its son and predicts a bloody endtime for, well, who knows what reason. Because it's God. God can do whatever the hell he/she/it feels like, apparently. Because saying God did it absolves us of having to actually stand up and account for ourselves, or vice/versa with the Devil.

 

And I think Hawking may have been speaking in strictly scientific terms of force and matter and energy, which is perfectly reasonable. Saying God "created" it because the universe needs a beginning and an end then begs the question of who created God, because the whole rational of God is that....there needs to be a beginning and an end. Which then destroys the concept of God as having no such beginning or end, but always existing. Why can't the universe be that way on its own?

[dogmatically_challenged]

Why can't the universe be that way on its own?

 

Because the bible says it can't. God said it and they believe it , and that settles it.

 

[Sokudo Ningyou]

Because the bible says it can't. God said it and they believe it , and that settles it.

 

 

 

Oh yeah....that book with the "principles." Like the Book of Hosea. Or the Book of Zephania, that one's particularly swell.

 

 

(edit: because I have a bad habit of mixing html with bb code)

[Vigile]

Prove to me beyond a doubt that evolution is correct. And as for the Christian God being the one true God, there is much to be said.

 

 

Go to college. Take a biology class, then take a botany or a zoology class. It's not our job to provide you with your fundamental educational needs. If you want to walk around in the world spouting off your ignorance that's your business.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I don't think Thankful's OP received a full reply. I'm trying to retroject myself to what I believed as a Christian and remember my reasons for why I adhered to Christianity in particular within the broader religious category of theism.

 

I accepted the validity of arguments like the first cause argument and the Kalam argument, as well as ID, to believe that there is a sentient creator.

 

I don't actually think I gave much thought to whether there is one god or many. I more or less accepted that there is one. I thought Hinduism's gods, for example, were all manifestations of one god, as far as I was willing to accept Hinduism as a branch of theism.

 

Then I narrowed down on Christianity as against other religions.

Reasons in no particular order:

-- my powerful, emotional conversion experience

-- miracles

a. that I believed had occurred recently, according to testimony of missionaries who came to my church, friends who told of friends of friends, etc.

b. stories of saints, etc. through recent and more remote history

-- I underwent the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues experience and believed it was caused by God

-- like Aaryn, I believed in fulfilled prophecy:

a. OT fulfilled during OT times

b. OT fulfilled in NT (Matthew a storehouse of those)

c. bible prophecy fulfilled since 1948

-- the overall experience of being a Christian gave order, direction, purpose, solace

-- groupthink provided much encouragement to keep believing

-- oh, I put a lot of weight on this: the "who moved the stone?" argument. I didn't think any explanation of the empty tomb BUT Jesus' resurrection accounted for the historical data; esp. I thought the apostles wouldn't be liars if they were being persecuted, and they were too close to the event to have been simply deceived

-- TAG arguments

 

I held to all these reasons all at the beginning except TAG, which took years for me to become aware of. I was attracted to it after I had already started to notice the weak spots of evidentialist apologetics.

 

Having been raised by parents who were into Vedanta, I came out of a set of Hinduistic-westernized preconceptions. I never really doubted miracles and the like. I never really grappled with how I knew that Christianity was true and Hinduism false; I just had such a powerful experience, and Christianity met so many of my needs for a good length of time, that Hinduism seemed less worth considering. The closest I got, if pushed, would be to fall back on prophecy (the bible couldn't all be true in its doctrinal assertions if Hinduism's most common beliefs are all true) and arguments derived from comparing what I thought were western Europe's superiorities to India's civilization.

 

Why don't I hold to Christianity now?

 

Part of the reason is life experience. To cut this short, the reasons all amount to the lack of evidence for, or in many cases, many counterexamples against, the truth of the argument-groups listed above.

[Mythra]

Mythra... consider these verses as metaphors for Christ coming again, only this time in a corporate body... we will be the many members... Jesus will be the head. He comes in a cloud, where those of us are filled with the living water till we thirst no more... collectively making a cloud (metaphor). He will sit in us and rule through us.  We'll all be together in ONE body, of ONE mind... could be good y'all.    C'mon Mythra... I've got my gloves on... kid-gloves... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry, Amanda. I don't know what to make of you. You're a little bit nam-myoho-renge-kyo for me. You make me wanna break out in a spontaneous chorus of Kum-ba-ya. I got a feeling that I know what fundies are gonna think, though. You freakin heretic, you.

 

P.S. who fries hotter? Heretics or apostates?

 

Let me get out my crystals and bathe myself in white light and see if I can make heads or tails of what you just said.

 

 

[Amanda]

I think Raven was referring to the fact that half of that "team's interpretation" is full of a vengeful, batshit God that keeps musing over destroying the world because a few people don't worship him/her/it, and the other half is the warm and fuzzy God who sacrifices his/her/its son and predicts a bloody endtime for, well, who knows what reason. Because it's God.    God can do whatever the hell he/she/it feels like, apparently.    Because saying God did it absolves us of having to actually stand up and account for ourselves, or vice/versa with the Devil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps King James' team can't take ALL the blame, and maybe popular spin and interpretation has done its share of missing the true intentions also. Could the original 'sin' be that we blamed God, someone else, or the devil made me do it instead of being accountable and responsible for our own actions?

 

And I think Hawking may have been speaking in strictly scientific terms of force and matter and energy, which is perfectly reasonable. Saying God "created" it because the universe needs a beginning and an end then begs the question of who created God, because the whole rational of God is that....there needs to be a beginning and an end. Which then destroys the concept of God as having no such beginning or end, but always existing.    Why can't the universe be that way on its own?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Stephen Hawking presents the assumption that there is no original creator of the universe, all there is has been here all the time and for ever more. Perhaps creation happens within this energy force and this force, according to Hawkins, has always been. Further, this energy force can not be created nor distroyed. However, we see creation and transformation all around us! This is according to Stephen Hawking... yet I believe is congruent with scriptural teachings as well.

[♦ ficino ♦]

White_Raven23, with all due respect, and you are due respect my friend, perhaps your interpretation isn't the one I interpret in this book according to the original text. Remember, KJV isn't the original gospel, but a teams interpretation of it.

 

Dear Amanda, you speak often of how you operate with little beyond the "original text" - no creeds, etc. Surely you are aware that there is no "original text"?

[Amanda]

Good point, and correct, there are no "original texts".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I speak of the text from which the King James Version was derived.

 

My gosh, I see the sparks coming from all directions! Is this how the religous right made many of you feel? If any of you are taking my comments as derrogatory positions against you personally, my apologies for that mistaken communication. Hey, I LIKE you guys!

[Mythra]

(But, all this is kind of moot to me - I don't believe there ever was a historical Jesus at all)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I read my post and realized that I had messed up. And when I mess up, I'm man enough to admit it and post a retraction.

 

I do believe in a historical Jesus. There are lots of historical references to:

 

Jesus ben Sirach 180 BCE

Jesus ben Pandira 150 BCE

Jesus ben Gamaliel, Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus, Jesus ben Ananias, Jesus ben Saphat, and Jesus ben Thebuth.

 

Unless, of course, you're talking about the crucified Jesus. That would be Jesus ben Stada, around 120 CE.

 

But Jesus of Nazareth. Nope. Didn't even make honorable mention. Hell, Nazareth didn't even exist then either.

[Ouroboros]

I speak of the text from which the King James Version was derived.

 

My gosh, I see the sparks coming from all directions!    Is this how the religous right made many of you feel?  If any of you are taking my comments as derrogatory positions against you personally, my apologies for that mistaken communication. Hey, I LIKE you guys!

 

We like you too Amanda, so it's not personally, but we have to discuss the things that are at hand. For instance the “text” that King James Version came from. Unfortunately I don’t remember too much about the history, but I do know that there is not One Book or One Version that all of them came from. Most of the Bible that we have today is formed from many different fragments, not whole books, event though there are some whole books. These fragments are handwritten and 1500-1800 years old. They contain differences too. What constitute a correct writing is when the majority of fragments have the same wording. So if you have 100 fragments of John 3:16 and 70 say the same thing, and the other 30 have different wordings, it’s decided that the “true” Bible is according to the 70 fragments.

 

If I recall it correctly, Mark 16:15 and forward is not part of the older manuscripts, and is not considered to be authentic. But since a majority of later manuscripts have it, it’s still a part of your Bible. Did Jesus really say those things, when the early manuscripts didn’t have it, but 100 years later, all of a sudden someone remembered it? How could they have known that? 100 years later, they weren’t even born at the time of Jesus, but still add this segment to the Bible. Doesn’t God warn us to add things to the Bible in Rev. 22:18? God will punish the people that did that!

 

And this is just the beginning of the road for you.

 

I’m pretty sure you know the books in the Bible were selected with majority votes, right?

So they went thru books and the books most Bishops agreed on, were elected to be part of the Bible. So God speaks through majority. Now who selected the Bishops to speak for God? It was pretty much themselves. So how trustworthy is their judgment to select the right books? That’s up to you to decide, you are putting your life in the hands of people you never met and never will meet, because you just blindly trust them.

[white_raven23]

I speak of the text from which the King James Version was derived.

 

My gosh, I see the sparks coming from all directions!    Is this how the religous right made many of you feel?  If any of you are taking my comments as derrogatory positions against you personally, my apologies for that mistaken communication. Hey, I LIKE you guys!

 

 

No no sweetheart,

 

Nothing at all against you personally. I fully respect your spirituality. It's your religion I detest. Spirituality and religion are not the same thing.

 

I'm hoping you will see that your faith is really not as centered on that book as you think it is. After all, don't you find a religion requiring a book to lead you to god a little suspicious? To be using the experiences of others (that would be hearsey in a court of law) as a guide to what should rightly be YOUR own path?

 

By hashing and rehashing the bible text over and over, you are blinding and deafening yourself to possibilities of god that don't fit in that little book. The book itself limits god's abilities. He's depicted as a superbeing (not a supreme being)with flaws that while normal among people, are bloodchilling in respect to the source of all things.

 

After all, in Genesis, god takes 6 whole days to make everything. Why did this take as long as that? If this is god, truly god, then why didn't it just all happen in less than the blink of an eye? Was the creation of all things too complicated for god? That makes no sense.

 

And of course on the seventh day god rested. WHAT FOR??!!! God got tired?

 

These are human reactions to toil. To apply human attributes to god is by it's nature limiting and defining something that should rightfully be so expansive and immeasurable that all we have any right to feel is pure awe.

 

The bible taints the view of god.....and justifies it by stating we were made in his image. If the bible version of god were true, I'd fervently hope for nonexistence after I die. I'd rather not exist than spend eternity with a volitile manic-depressive.