Unbeliever impressions of BR X debate

[godrulz]

You forgot one... a gradual accretion and fabrication by the Church to the person of a first century Jewish rabbi over the centuries to bolster its political, economic, and social control over its adherents.

So, you are saying He is a liar and a lunatic, not a legend or Lord? He claimed to be God. This makes Him a crazy liar if He is not God. It also leaves no credibility for the rest of His moral teachings. Quacks are not worth dying for.

Nice counter-logic (using our arguments against us). At some point, thinking people are confidant that the tooth-fairy or Easter Bunny or Santa Clause are your parents. They may also be people dressed up (make-believe). Knowing that Bush, Zakath, or God exist is in a different realm. Not believing fairy tales is not a strong argument to not believe that your neighbour does not exist.

 

[Balder]

I believe Bob's argument is relatively coherent, but it apparently fails to acknowledge what I consider to be a progressive development of theological and moral understanding in the Bible, and it seems to turn God into just the "Biggest Man" (among men), a contingent entity also bound to time and space in important ways. Which, admittedly, is consistent particularly with early anthropomorphic conceptions of their volcano god, who walked in the garden and through their camps (remember to cover your feces!) and who could show his backside to Moses, etc. God, in this sense, is like the Greek or Roman or other pagan gods: just a bigger version of us, even capable of error. One wonders if God too is learning and evolving, like the rest of us.

Consider the order of His deeper attributes, living, personal, relational, good, and loving, in reverse. God could not be loving if He were not good. And He could not know that He was good if He were not relational. And He could not be relational if He were not personal. And He could not be personal if He were not living. Certainly none of these greater, qualitative attributes depends upon God’s control (sovereignty) over the created order. Now consider the lesser, quantitative attribute of omnipresence which Tyndale Bible Dictionary (2001) defines as: that God “transcends the limitations of space and is present in all places at all times.” Most Calvinists believe that time and space came into existence at creation! And since I’m running out of both, let’s ignore time for now. Typical definitions of omnipresence depend upon the existence of “space” and “places,” neither of which existed prior to creation, requiring a “reformulation” of this doctrine also. Describing God in respect to being in or even working in every location is only relevant if there is a location, so men have construed an “eternal attribute” dependent upon the non-eternal created order. Oops. God can’t be everywhere, until He makes somewhere. It is commitment to their Greek-influenced foundation which biases Bible teachers toward ignoring such simple matters. Sam, I hope you can come to see that the traditional omnipresence is not a fundamental eternal attribute, but came into existence along with sovereignty, at the creation.

Quantity will always be second to quality. God is love, not data. And though I have all knowledge, but have not love, I am nothing (1 Cor. 13:2).

Oh, no! Bob used an argument that I have also used against Clete and BChristianK! That God's traditional eternal attributes are in fact contingent, presupposing and depending on the created order for their meaning! But this argument also goes against "holiness" as an eternal attribute of God, if we understand holiness to mean "set apart."

There was no lack of wicked people standing in line to crucify Jesus. With or without Judas, the high priest Caiaphas could have arrested Jesus. With or without Caiaphas, Pilate could have sentenced Christ (with any mob shouting, "We have no king but Caesar"). But what if every Jew repented, and every Gentile? If the whole world humbled itself, including Judas, Caiaphas, Herod, Pilate, and even Tiberius Caesar, absolutely everybody, then would God be unable to sacrifice His Son? No. Then He could instruct the high priest, who would be obedient, to prepare to sacrifice the Offering. "Caiaphas, stand outside the Temple, and lift up your eyes, and go, and at the top of the hill, as it was prophesied, In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided, there on Mt. Moriah, as Abraham had readied Isaac, prepare to sacrifice My Son, Jesus. He will present Himself there. And at the moment that every family is killing their Passover lambs, you will slay the Atonement, My Holy Passover, and sprinkle His blood on the people."

This makes it pretty clear that Christianity is, without doubt, founded on ritual human sacrifice. Like the old goddess traditions which demanded ritual regicide, or the early Hebrew notion that the slaying of enemies and the gathering of loot was a pleasing sacrifice ("devotion") for God. But if God could have ensured the ritual sacrifice of Christ in any number of ways, and was just "tweaking" events to bring it about one way or another, one wonders why Jesus (as God incarnate) didn't choose Bob's more direct scenario instead of trying to get in trouble and get himself executed in a non-ritual manner by pagan soldiers.

 

[Zakath]

So, you are saying He is a liar and a lunatic, not a legend or Lord?

Reread my post. I said he was a first century rabbi, deified by his followers descendants for their own reasons.

He claimed to be God. This makes Him a crazy liar if He is not God. It also leaves no credibility for the rest of His moral teachings. Quacks are not worth dying for.

I would agree that a quack is not worth dying for. The problem you Christians have is that you don't have any idea what he actually said, and what was attributed to him by his followers, intent on building a political power base...

Nice counter-logic (using our arguments against us).

I'm glad you appreciated it.

At some point, thinking people are confidant that the tooth-fairy or Easter Bunny or Santa Clause are your parents. They may also be people dressed up (make-believe). Knowing that Bush, Zakath, or God exist is in a different realm. Not believing fairy tales is not a strong argument to not believe that your neighbour does not exist.

But your god is just as much a fairy tale, to me, as the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy...

 

[GuySmiley]

You forgot one... a gradual accretion and fabrication by the Church to the person of a first century Jewish rabbi over the centuries to bolster its political, economic, and social control over its adherents.

Then the historical evidence (including the Bible) ought to show a gradual 'evolution' about who Jesus was. But it doesn't. The text of the Bible existed as we have it today very close to Jesus' life. So there is no gradual fabrication. A sudden fabrication too close to the time Jesus actually lived would've been killed off early since people who knew Jesus were still alive. As an example, the gnostics.

 

[GuySmiley]

But if God could have ensured the ritual sacrifice of Christ in any number of ways, and was just "tweaking" events to bring it about one way or another, one wonders why Jesus (as God incarnate) didn't choose Bob's more direct scenario instead of trying to get in trouble and get himself executed in a non-ritual manner by pagan soldiers.

I'm not sure if you've seen the title of the debate, check it out. Also realize that Bob is on the Open View side of the debate. This might clear up why God did not choose the scenario. A lot of free will agents, aka humans, were involved. That might be a good question for Lamerson though.

 

[godrulz]

But your god is just as much a fairy tale, to me, as the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy...

"..to me..."= key.

Gravity still applies to you whether you believe it or not. God is still God, whether puny you thinks so or not. Like Copernicus, you need to discover that the sun/Son, not the earth (you) is the center of our universe.

 

[Balder]

I'm not sure if you've seen the title of the debate, check it out. Also realize that Bob is on the Open View side of the debate. This might clear up why God did not choose the scenario. A lot of free will agents, aka humans, were involved. That might be a good question for Lamerson though.

I'm not sure that free will would have posed a problem to Bob's more direct scenario. As their master and teacher, Jesus could have simply asked his disciples to kill him sacrificially, as the "final sacrifice."

 

[Nathon Detroit]

But your god is just as much a fairy tale, to me, as the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy...

There will be no knees bowing to the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.

There will come a day when you think back upon that statement in a remorseful way.

 

[fool]

Then the historical evidence (including the Bible) ought to show a gradual 'evolution' about who Jesus was. But it doesn't. The text of the Bible existed as we have it today very close to Jesus' life. So there is no gradual fabrication. A sudden fabrication too close to the time Jesus actually lived would've been killed off early since people who knew Jesus were still alive. As an example, the gnostics.

Guy Smiley, straw man maker;
There is alot more writings about the matter that aren't included in your Bible.
That fact alone should tell you that editing has occured.

 

[godrulz]

Guy Smiley, straw man maker;
There is alot more writings about the matter that aren't included in your Bible.
That fact alone should tell you that editing has occured.

The Bible, like other historical literature, is selective history. It does not record everything that happened. What is recorded is true (see Jn. 21:25; Acts 1:1).

 

[fool]

The Bible, like other historical literature, is selective history. It does not record everything that happened. What is recorded is true (see Jn. 21:25; Acts 1:1).

You are no doubt aware that you can't substantiate that.

 

[godrulz]

You are no doubt aware that you can't substantiate that.

It is obviously selective history. Luke was a doctor and historian. Archaelogy and secular references have confirmed much of Bible history. Just as skeptics doubted certain things, the evidence came in. The historical veracity and manuscript evidence for the Bible exceeds many ancient works that you accept without question. At some point, faith (not presumption) will be a factor.


Jesus said that if you believe, you will see. You want to see in order to believe. Seek and you will find. Draw near to Him and He will draw near to you.

 

[fool]

Jesus said that if you believe, you will see. You want to see in order to believe. Seek and you will find. Draw near to Him and He will draw near to you.

What if I believe the Koran? Or the Book of Mormon? Or The Book of Shadows? Or Dianetics? Adherents to these books can use the same arguement. Are you ready to concede that, just perhaps one should use a modicrome of rationality?

 

[godrulz]

What if I believe the Koran? Or the Book of Mormon? Or The Book of Shadows? Or Dianetics? Adherents to these books can use the same arguement. Are you ready to concede that, just perhaps one should use a modicrome of rationality?

Absolutely, we need to use our coconut. This is how we avoid deception. Dianetics was written by a science fiction writer who said the best way to make money is to start a religion. His ideas are pure science fiction.

The BOM has anachronisms, plagiarisms from the KJV, archaelogical false data, 4000 changes from the 1830 edition, and no MSS evidence (the supposed gold plates written in a non-existent language= Reformed Egyptian Hierglyphics are lost in space). Joseph Smith had no credibility.

The Koran is also problematic, etc. etc.

Christianity and the Bible are intellectually defensible. Other religious books are not the inspired Word of God.

Here is a helpful reference for you (click next page for contents):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0802429165/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-7911674-7031268#reader-link

 

[fool]

Absolutely, we need to use our coconut. This is how we avoid deception. Dianetics was written by a science fiction writer who said the best way to make money is to start a religion. His ideas are pure science fiction.

And yet people still believe it. Wouldn't the " belief before understanding" arguement apply?
Seems that it would.

The BOM has anachronisms, plagiarisms from the KJV, archaelogical false data, 4000 changes from the 1830 edition, and no MSS evidence (the supposed gold plates written in a non-existent language= Reformed Egyptian Hierglyphics are lost in space). Joseph Smith had no credibility.

And the body of Jesus is lost in space as well. Apple for apple.

The Koran is also problematic, etc. etc.

Christianity and the Bible are intellectually defensible. Other religious books are not the inspired Word of God.

Lotsa things are intellectually defensible, especialy when there's a talented wordsmith in the mix.

Here is a helpful reference for you (click next page for contents):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0802429165/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-7911674-7031268#reader-link

Thanks for the link, I'm saving up to by Freaks book, and then maybe The First Hunderd Days.

 

[GuySmiley]

Guy Smiley, straw man maker;
There is alot more writings about the matter that aren't included in your Bible.
That fact alone should tell you that editing has occured.

So the earliest writings about Jesus present him as only a man, and then we see a gradual shift in later writings that presents Jesus as God? What writings are you talking about? I was directly replying to a statement that Zak made so I dont see where you get that I made a straw man. Zak did make the statement. But if I had a strawman, he'd know you are wrong also.

 

[godrulz]

And yet people still believe it. Wouldn't the " belief before understanding" arguement apply?
Seems that it would.

And the body of Jesus is lost in space as well. Apple for apple.

Lotsa things are intellectually defensible, especialy when there's a talented wordsmith in the mix.

Thanks for the link, I'm saving up to by Freaks book, and then maybe The First Hunderd Days.

Jesus is not lost in space. The Mormon Gold Plates are fictitious. Jesus Christ is alive and bodily risen from the dead ruling at the right hand of the Father.

Jesus was talking about trusting Him to have your spiritual eyes open. Unbelief blinds one to the truth.

 

[fool]

Jesus is not lost in space. The Mormon Gold Plates are fictitious. Jesus Christ is alive and bodily risen from the dead ruling at the right hand of the Father.

Are You absolutly sure the plates aren't sitting next to Him on th coffee table?

Jesus was talking about trusting Him to have your spiritual eyes open. Unbelief blinds one to the truth.

And belief makes whatever you think you see true.

 

[avatar382]

There will be no knees bowing to the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.

There will come a day when you think back upon that statement in a remorseful way.

Always threats with you people.... :chuckle:

 

[Balder]

Always threats with you people.... :chuckle:

That's one of the areas where "god as relational" vs. "free will creatures" becomes rather monstrous, because what you end up with is deadly compulsion: "Love me or else."