We are all the Sons and daughters of the creative force or unified energy field, we euphemistically call the universe.

Where everything is energy!

Can the universe think or create?

Well you and I can and we are an integral part of this universe or unified energy field.

The immutable/first law of science is, energy can neither be created nor destroyed! Merely transformed!

So, had to exist in some form, [dark matter/energy perhaps,] for all time/eternity, before and after creation/manifestation/transformation and projection!?

Could something so massively, enormously, mind bogglingly vast and unimaginable, be transformed/projected, without aforethought or purpose!?
Alan B.

It's not easy .
"If a kindly Father God was looking down from above ready to intervene for his Son he must have turned aside so as not to see..As with the Spirit, there exists the danger of isolating the Son from the other two persons of the Trinity."
Sells , would you like to write on another subject?

What a peculiar religion, where the deity sends an emissary to his creation, but feels the need to have him tortured to a gruesome death to appease his own anger.

It utterly baffles me why this religion ever took off.

JBSH
It was 2 soldiers , possibly named Drusus Sextilius Emeritus and Vel Papirius Ferentinus , who did that.

//The second person of the Trinity: the Son//

Is the only one that matters.

But none of this 'God made incarnate as man' crap. The reason the good man Jesus of Nazareth matters - the only reason he matters - is because he was a good man.

In fact, I consider him to be one of the finest ethical philosophers that has ever lived. And yes, I do believe he was a real person, and that he suffered death by crucifixion for his 'sins'. But I don't believe he got up and walked three days later.

It isn't just the Golden Rule, because he just helped to popularise it rather than invent it. If you read the scriptures carefully, you'll find that he has an awful lot to say about the virtues of forgiveness, and humbleness, and treating all men as your neighbour. It's like Star Trek, two millennia ahead of its time.

Sorry, brief comic interlude. Couldn't resist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqU

For those who were offended: it's a joke. The humour works because of the absurdity. We all know Jesus wasn't really a racist.

He was a good man. Unfortunately, many people seem to fall into the trap of assuming that everybody else published in the same anthology is just as good.

Which is nonsense on stilts. The Old Testament is horrifically barbaric. The New Testament contains the Gospels, which are the highlight of the whole anthology - and whole lot of unnecessary crap from a nasty little toad by the name of Saul/Paul.

But Jesus of Nazaareth? Top bloke.

The two words Laughing Stock provide a very accurate description of this unmitigated piffle.

Only thing to add is not just the life and death of Jesus. But also the reserection of Jesus.

The life of Jesus is both hope and rebuke. He taught to turn from our sins. He taught forgiveness but repenting was ongoing subject. In His life Jesus healed, forgave and He taught our current condition. That no one is good and all have sinned.

In Jesus's death, yes that can be counted as a failure of religion in Isreal, and as a failure of mankind, but it is also the beginning of why Jesus came. The death and sacrifice of sins. AND the reserection and our newfound hope. Our forgiveness (and need for forgiveness) by God showing a real sacrifice to save us; as well as our hope that Jesus rose and promised eternal life for all who believed in Jesus.

Our redemption and our hope is based on the death and reserection of Jesus. Our lives and our way of living should be based on Jesus's life and His teachings. The faith of a Christian is from the life of Jesus, His death in the cross, and His reserection, and the Holy Spirit that was given after He rose and went to Heaven without death.

To Toni Lavis. It's good to see you acknowledge the merrit Of Jesus's teachings. But there's one thing to add. Jesus wasn't just a good man, or a top bloke. It's that He's the only one that can be counted as a good man. Everyone else from the past to the future (include you and me) fail the measure to be good, pure and without any sin or wrong in them.

So studying Jesus's lessons; His life; and his parables are worth a great measure for us. Each of us. The Beutitudes, and the lessons of the two famous sermons Jesus gave. The parables that give insight, and also talk about the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus's answers to the people, including that Jesus is the Son of God. And His consistent message to seek forgiveness and repent of (turn away from) our sins.

If you would like I think talking about Jesus's teaching (any of them or all of them) would be a great discussion to have. Thankyou for providing the acknowledgement of Jesus by His life and his teachings. Because I now feel confidant in inviting this topic forward. :)

This is a little like going through The Lord of the Rings chapter by chapter, and telling us where Tolkein got it wrong:

"Well, of course, Gandalf didn't really have a beard..."

And YOU know this, Peter, how?

.

Dear Peter,

.

You conclude :

« Any healing of the Church, which is now in disarray on all counts, must begin with a return to the conceptions of God produced by the early Church. Crucially, this involves the reintegration of the doctrine of the Trinity and the dispersal of the idolatry that has made the Church a laughing-stock. This alone is the answer to both the theism and the atheism that is, at present, destroying us »
.

That’s a strange diagnosis. Are you sure you haven’t overlooked something there, Peter ?

You can’t have read the same things I have been reading in the newspapers these past few years. A pity … but never mind. It’ll blow over, I guess. Like everything else …

.

Not_Now.Soon,

I think it’s sad that you believe that no-one is good. I think there are a lot of good people in the world. No-one’s perfect, but that doesn’t mean that all are bad. I think you highlight part of what is so immoral about the doctrine of Original Sin.

On a separate note (ignoring for the moment that there is no good reason to believe anything about an Historical Jesus happened as reported in the Bible), Jesus did not sacrifice himself. Jesus basically had a bad weekend and then got to be God at the end of it.

Jesus suffered a temporary inconvenience, but in no meaningful way was his crucifixion a sacrifice.

PS.

All the years through which I've been a member of this forum, you have ignored my comment. Apart from the “rude” that is, it taught me something of your views.
In a phrase; you are lost.

I'll put this idea to you. If all the Christian churches in the world were simultaneously blown up, Christianity among “true” believers would continue on.
The established church is not needed by God or man!

“Where two or more are gathered together in my name, (notice, no mention of a church establishment), there I am in the midst”

I think you are lost in the woods of theology!

As there are 2 billion Christians then the Trinity is increasing in number , maybe a Tri billionity.

" Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

No mention of Ms H Spirit there , but the mega millions have some.

//That no one is good and all have sinned.//

And to not judge thy neighbour, for it is only he that is without sin who may cast the first stone. Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

//In Jesus's death, yes that can be counted as a failure of religion in Isreal//

Oh of course... it's all the Jews' fault. Nothing at all to do with Romans, even though crucifixion was a Roman punishment. The Jews would have just stoned him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

//Our forgiveness (and need for forgiveness) by God showing a real sacrifice to save us//

Yeah, I consider human sacrifice to be a barbaric practice.

//It's that He's the only one that can be counted as a good man.//

Bollocks. He may have been a fine ethical philosopher, but he was neither the Alpha nor the Omega when it comes to sound ethical philosophy. The Buddha and Laozi were also fine ethical philosophers, and so were Immanuel Kant and Yoda. Jesus was good, but it doesn't follow that he has a monopoly on goodness.

//Everyone else from the past to the future (include you and me) fail the measure to be good, pure and without any sin or wrong in them.//

Original sin? Nah, that's bollocks. Rationally and scientifically, Genesis is a steaming load of crap.

But if we are to consider it just as a story... I don't subscribe to the idea that Adam & Eve were sinful in the first place, and as for the notion that we all inherit that sin...

Cobblers.

//The Beutitudes//

Yes, blessed are the cheesemakers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpkWT5voTSE

Oh, and the meek. Which is nice, 'cause they've had a hell of a time.

Hello AJ Philips. I hope your doing well.

[I think it’s sad that you believe that no-one is good. I think there are a lot of good people in the world. No-one’s perfect, but that doesn’t mean that all are bad.]

It is a sad reality, but it's not just my belief, it's the truth. No one makes the mark. You can look at it from what you just said. No one is perfect. In that simple but true assessment what we can count as good is either a standard of good enough, or to reach high enough the average. But no one is really good.

However, I believe Jesus is the exception to this observation. He also taught great lessons for us, such as forgiveness against someone else wronging us, because we're in the same light of not being perfect as they are.

I don't see why you would consider the term historical Jesus. He either existed or He didn't. With the bible being the only source to really tell us about who Jesus was, why would we reinvent who he was 2000+ years after He left the make a historical version? I get people not believing the bible is true. I don't understand though not believing the bible but taking pieces out of it to reinvent it to fit them even though they don't believe what's written there. Jesus either existed or he didn't. There is no historical Jesus alternative to the equasion.

Toni Lavis. Do you have any teachings of Jesus you would like to discuss? You said he was a good man and a fine ethical philosopher. If we can at least agree on this much then we can discuss His lessons. ....or do you mean "Ethical philosopher" in a non complementary kind of way. If that's the case why not just say so.

Hi Not_Now.Soon. I’m doing well, thank you.

Generally speaking, we shouldn’t proclaim something as the truth unless we can support it with evidence.

<<It is a sad reality, but it's not just my belief, it's the truth. No one makes the mark. You can look at it from what you just said. No one is perfect.>>

Perfection is an unrealistic standard. Even if Christian theology were indeed true, it would still be an unrealistic standard as the Christian God made us to be imperfect beings.

<<In that simple but true assessment what we can count as good is either a standard of good enough, or to reach high enough the average. But no one is really good.>>

There is a difference between good and perfect, though. I think my computer is good, but it’s far from perfect.

<<However, I believe Jesus is the exception to this observation.>>

Yes, Jesus had some good lessons (many of which were not original, though, I might add), However, he also had some not-so-good advice, and he had some terrible advice too. The Sermon on the Mount (often hailed by Christians as evidence of Jesus’ divinity) was a mixed bag like this.

<<I don't see why you would consider the term historical Jesus.>>

Because there is no evidence for a divine Jesus. There is, however, some scant evidence for an historical Jesus.

<<He either existed or He didn't.>>

Correct, and if he did exist, then he was either divine or he wasn’t.

<<With the bible being the only source to really tell us about who Jesus was …>>

That’s the biggest problem, the Bible is the only source for an alleged divine Jesus, and the Bible is utterly unreliable.

<<… why would we reinvent who he was 2000+ years after He left the make a historical version?>>

Because the Bible was never reliable to begin with.

//It is a sad reality, but it's not just my belief, it's the truth. No one makes the mark. You can look at it from what you just said. No one is perfect.//

Perhaps not, but that doesn't preclude them being good.

//I don't understand though not believing the bible but taking pieces out of it to reinvent it to fit them//

You don't? But that's what Christians do. Everybody reads the Bible selectively.

And they completely ignore non-canonical Gospels like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, in which a young Jesus kills a child by miraculously cursing him so that his body withers into a corpse, and then later Avada Kedavra's another kid for accidentally bumping into him and blinds the kid's parents when they complain to Mary and Joseph. Although he does turn over a new leaf in the end, and miraculously revokes all his evil-doing.

But maybe not so perfect after all... little wonder that Pope Gelasius I decreed the Gospel heretical.

//even though they don't believe what's written there.//

Disbelief in some bits of the Bible (miracles, mostly) does not preclude belief in others.

//Jesus either existed or he didn't. There is no historical Jesus alternative to the equasion.//

Well if he existed (which seems likely) then he was definitely a historical figure; hence historical Jesus.

//With the bible being the only source to really tell us about who Jesus was//

Nope, there are a whole load of writings about Jesus that got cut from the Bible because early Popes didn't like them, and then there are the writings of historians like Josephus and Tacitus (although the latter don't go into much biographical detail). It is definitely not the only source available.

//or do you mean "Ethical philosopher" in a non complementary kind of way.//

No, if I was being sarcastic I would have used my sarcasm brackets, like this:

Donald Trump is a great president. (sarcasm)

AJ Philips.

I feel like you just say assertions to put the other person on the defense. Make them explain themselves when you've barely explained yourself, and sometimes even less explained your complaint.

1). What did I say that you count as untrue. (Don't be lazy. Actually say what your critizing.)

2). The sermon on the mount is a mixed bag? Go ahead, explain what you mean?

3). The bible is unreliable? Is this coming from you or from archeological finds that give credit to events within the bible? It's a nice assertion, but please give something to provide how either the bible failed you; it's teachings failed you, or in archeological finds it has been proven wrong. From where I stand it's very reliable.

(Continued)

As for good verse perfect. We live in world where everything is relative. Some even argue there is no good or bad, but that those are speculative concepts that don't really matter or they change from person to person and (same difference as not mattering) can't be forced from one person to another. (To those I'd just say read the newspaper.)

Put it another way. We know bad, we know evil. We know what is wrong. In fact we have a scale of bad to worse to way worse. We can say "at least it's not like ________," when we try to make the best of a sitution or when we defend ourselves or another person's wrong actions.

But no one is actually really good. Some are just a bit on the opposite side of the spectrum where we recoginize that they are above average on a sliding scale of good qualities.

For the moment forget about perfect and focus on just being good. They say that power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I would disagree. If a person who is trustworthy holds power, then that power is trustworthy hands.

The failure in that power corrupts is that people all have weaknesses that enough power can shine a spotlight on our faults. People are already corrupt, but don't have the means to show their anger, their greed, their laziness, or any other fault without consequences. Having power removes that and our faults have oppurtunity to shine.

It's an unfortunate reality. No one is good. Some are kind, very kind. Some are responsible. Some are humble and put others first. These are all good qualities, but they are not alone. It's a sad truth. If I'm wrong please make my day and say how it's untrue. Finding out how this is a misconception would make my day.
_________________________

Toni Lavis. Do you have any teachings of Jesus you would like to discuss

To Alan B.

[Can the universe think or create?

Well you and I can and we are an integral part of this universe or unified energy field.]

What a wonderful observation and thought. There is a whole philosophy about how the universe reacts to our thoughts. But outside of believing in God, I've never heard someone say the universe can think.

Very refreshing thought. Thankyou.

To Peter.

In your article you said:

[The Son in the Trinity denotes the historical experience of both Israel and the Church and is the starting point for all speech about God.]

That's a pretty deep thought. Can you unpack that thought? Or at least go into more detail.

Not_Now.Soon,

I’m doing the best I can with the limited words we’re afforded. Rationing posts is a skill that someone like myself needs to acquire in order to defend one’s ideas on an overwhelmingly conservative forum.

<<I feel like you just say assertions to put the other person on the defense. Make them explain themselves when you've barely explained yourself ...>>

I’m sorry if you feel I put you on the defensive. My goal is, instead, to use what little word count I have to voice my opinion such that others may query me further on the points/claims they’re interested in. If I went into great detail on every point that I made, then I would run out of words and posts, bore people, and probably waste a lot of my own time, too.

<<What did I say that you count as untrue.>>

I don’t think I claimed that anything you had said was “untrue”, only that you had made assertions for which you had not provided any evidence.

<<The sermon on the mount is a mixed bag? Go ahead, explain what you mean?>>

I did. It’s a mixed bag of both good advice and bad advice. If you want to know specifically what I think is bad advice, then I will be happy to expand on that.

<<The bible is unreliable?>>

Yes, it is unreliable evidence for a divine Jesus.

<<Is this coming from you or from archeological finds ..?>>

Both. The archaeological accuracies are not evidence for a divine Jesus any more than the existence of New York is evidence for Spiderman.

<<... please give something to provide how either the bible failed you; it's teachings failed you, or in archeological finds it has been proven wrong.>>

Whether the Bible, or its teachings, failed me (whatever that means) is irrelevant. Incidentally, what archaeological findings are you referring to?

As for your discussion regarding ‘good’ versus ‘perfect’, I can only go back to my ‘computer’ analogy: things (including people) can be good despite not being perfect. I don’t see how you’ve contradicted this.

//Do you have any teachings of Jesus you would like to discuss//

Very well then, if you're to be so insistent that I quote scripture:

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Chapter 3
1 The son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Jesus. Taking a branch from a willow tree, he dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered.
2 When Jesus saw what had happened, he became angry and said to him, "You godless, brainless moron, what did the ponds and waters do to you? Watch this now: you are going to dry up like a tree and you will never produce leaves or roots or fruit."
3 And immediately, this child withered up completely. Then, Jesus departed and returned to Joseph's house.
4 The parents of the one who had been withered up, however, wailed for their young child as they took his remains away. Then, they went to Joseph and accused him, "You are responsible for the child who did this."

Chapter 4
1 Next, he was going through the village again and a running child bumped his shoulder. Becoming bitter, Jesus said to him, "You will not complete your journey."
2 Immediately, he fell down and died.
3 Then, some of the people who had seen what had happened said, "Where has this child come from so that his every word is a completed deed?"
4 And going to Joseph, the parents of the one who had died found fault with him. They said, "Because you have such a child, you are not allowed to live with us in the village, or at least teach him to bless and not curse. For our children are dead!"

Chapter 5
1 And taking his child aside, he warned him, saying, "Why are you doing these things? These people are suffering and they hate us and cause trouble for us."
2 Then, Jesus said, "I know that the words I speak are not mine. Nevertheless, I will be silent for your sake, but these people will bear their punishment." And immediately his accusers became blind.

Do you think Jesus' words and deeds in this Gospel represent the actions of a morally 'perfect' individual?

Why do you think early Christians censored this Gospel from the Bible?

The Koran which is totally uncorrupt says the Bible is corrupt and gives some info about Jesus . This is helpful like the book of Thomas.

" J. Menard produced a summary of the academic consensus in the mid-1970s which stated that the gospel was probably a very late text written by a Gnostic author, thus having very little relevance to the study of the early development of Christianity."

Superman's first appearance was April 18, 1938.
Spiderman's first appearance was Aug. 1962.
Both wear red and blue , work at the Daily news , were orphans and were bullied by the school quarterback . Didymos Judas Thomas means "twin Judas twin" which may be 3 but was not Muslim, Christian or super-hero.

NNN

sarcasm is the lowest form of "Wit". That probably explains why your posts are mostly "unfunny" to normal people!

Consequently, you don't come over as intelligent. But you do come across as a nark (v) quite successfully.

yeah for so long Harvey Weinstein was a good man among the democrats and Hilary supporters. Watched a few BBC debates from new atheist. What a self righteous sickening mob. With no moral base to draw from its no wonder they deny their own depravity. God certainly has handed them over to their own delusions. Strange how they castigate paedophile priests while having so many sickos among the ranks.

diver dan
I will explain what it means. Toni questioned the gospel of Thomas. So I compared it with incorrect texts such as Koran which mentions Jesus . Spiderman was brought in so I compared him with the original Superman to show that close texts are not authentic. If this stuff is not for you that's OK .

It is sad Tony Lavis, that you can not be honest with your views of Jesus. You say He is a good guy, but don't believe in His miracles, then quote scripture that is not scripture to show your distaste for him. Quoting hateful miracles from a false gospel. You say He is a good ethical philosophies and when asked to talk about His teaching you quote what you can ridicule. How much better if you could be honest instead of a liar. How much better it would be if you could be upfront instead of a Hippocrate. So instead, I think I will teach. For you, or anyone else who wishes read. Jesus taught of God's love. And I would like to encourage you any anyone else who feels proud in their hatred to God. In spite of it all He still loves you.

Those of you who do not trust God, believe in God, or seek Him. Take heart, he loves you anyways. In fact He loves you in spite of it. Even if you don't believe, take heart that you will always be welcome in coming to church or to pray, or to read in the bible. A celebration is made because of you if you return to God. Do not think that if you go to church you will be condemned, because of your unbelief, or because of what you've done in your lives. He loves you and reaches out to you. Even if the people are unreceptive to you that is unfortunate, but God is happy to see you there. Be encouraged you are always welcome.

Luke 15:1-7

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”
3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

God will celebrate over one sinner more then 99 who remained with Him. Luke 15 continues this point, if you are intreasted Jesus gives two more parables explaining His love for you. :)

Those of you who are new in your beliefs take heart and be encouraged. God loves you and looks out for you, as much as He does those who have been faithful and Christian their entire lives. In His generousity He will look after you as much as He looks after those who have worked hard to live up to their call of faith.

Mathew 20:1-15

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing.6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

...(Continued)...

8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

NNN

I think your explanation borders on a cowards way out.
I give no credibility to your posts until I can clear the air.
I have concluded you are actually "Pseudonymous Alan".

Till I'm convinced otherwise , Zi Ya Ay..:-|

Not_Now.Soon looks to be a reincarnation of One-with-God, an OUG who has learned to type.

diver dan
Coward you say. "Coward" from what? What are you on about.

//It is sad Tony Lavis, that you can not be honest with your views of Jesus.//

Oh, but I have been.

//You say He is a good guy, but don't believe in His miracles, then quote scripture that is not scripture to show your distaste for him.//

Congratulations! You've completely missed the point.

But I suspect that may have deliberate. Apparently thou shalt bear false witness when it suits thee.

But maybe I'm being unfair, and it just went straight over your head. Maybe if it wasn't so devoutly bowed all the time, things wouldn't go over it as easily.

The point - in case you haven't already worked it out and were just being disingenuous - is that people are highly selective when it comes to stories, and that's OK. Here we have a story dated to the 2nd century, about Jesus, written by somebody who for all we know could have been the Apostle Thomas, and I think you'd be far from the only Christian to reject it out of hand simply because you dislike it. Which is fine. If you read to the end then it does have some valuable things to say about repentance, but given how it starts I can entirely understand why Christians would not approve and just ignore that particular story about Jesus. They're being selective, and that's OK.

The extremely large Catholic family bible that my parents got for a wedding present contains books that I don't have in my copy of the Bible such as the Book of Tobit and the Book of Judith. I'm missing these books because I have a Protestant Bible. There are a whole group of books known collectively as the Apocrypha that Catholics consider canonical and Protestants do not, although they don't necessarily consider them heretical (e.g. Anglicans accept 'the Apocrypha for instruction in life and manners, but not for the establishment of doctrine'). They're being selective, and that's OK.

Even if we set a strictly defined canon as a boundary condition - we'll use the Catholic canon because I'm most familiar with Catholic doctrine - there is a huge amount of selectivity when it comes to the way Catholics read their Bibles. Which is entirely understandable, given the considerable diversity within the Church. My parents are still faithful Catholics, go to mass every sunday, very involved in their parish. Most of the Bishops etc. who've offered public opinions on the gay marriage debate have urged a 'no' vote, because that's how they read their Bibles. My parents voted 'yes', because that's how they read theirs. They're being selective, and that's OK.

And I've been known to selectively read the Bible too, despite being pantheist, and that's OK. I can reject the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as a load of crap because of the miracles, and all the miracles in canonical gospels because they are equally a load of crap, and just pick out the bits I like, i.e. the philosophy. It's not a package deal.

//Quoting hateful miracles from a false gospel.//

It's only false if you choose to believe it's false. If you choose to believe it's true, then it's true. That's how religion works.

//You say He is a good ethical philosophies and when asked to talk about His teaching//

Yes, did it occur to you that that might have had anything to do with your persistent efforts to attempt to rail-road a lively discussion into a non-discussion? I don't get it, dude. If you're not interested in the back-and-forth of ideas why not just go into an echoic chamber and talk to yourself?

Oh, and give the evangelising a rest. We've all heard it all before and the repetition doesn't make it more persuasive, just very tiresome. If we want to convert then that's our business, and we can get by just fine without your help.

//How much better if you could be honest instead of a liar.//

How much better it would be if you didn't throw tantrums when people challenge your ideas.

//How much better it would be if you could be upfront instead of a Hippocrate.//

Et tu, brute.

Oh, and the word is 'hypocrite'. Christ, that one's in the Bible and everything. A Hippocrate is presumably some sort of box used for transporting hippos. I imagine they'd have to be fairly sturdy.

//So instead, I think I will teach.//

You do realise this the exact reason that nobody joins your churches, right? Because of this sort of patronising behaviour?

We all have access to Bibles, and we can all read, and I must have heard both those parables at least a dozen times before. But we don't believe you're privy to some divinely revealed truth which we're all too ignorant to comprehend. And we find it rather arrogant of you that you do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geStcOk2tmM

Not_Now.Soon,

Quoting Scripture is ineffective on anyone who is not lost and in desperate need of something (which is why God can be found at AA meetings), because there is no good reason to believe that there is any truth to what you’re quoting. You may as well be quoting Harry Potter.

If your God exists, then He knows what it would take to convince each of us of His existence. The ball is in His court. But if I were to seek out this god of yours hard enough, and for long enough, then I would eventually find Him whether or not He exists - and that’s a problem.

--

Anyway, I’m looking forward to Sells’ third instalment to this trilogy, as we are now only left with the most evil being of the trinity:

Gott der Vater!

Watch as he creates little people to love and then blames all his problems on them; be horrified as he kills and oversees the deaths of 2,476,633* people; be puzzled by his inability to forgive his creations, for what is not even their fault, without a filthy human sacrifice.

Is it a joke? Is it a delusion? Or is it just the attempt of an alleged virgin to cover up her infidelity gone way out of hand?

Romance.

Intrigue.

Desire!

This week in…

The first person of the Trinity: der Vater

*Figure does not include the countless victims of the Flood.

Not_Now.Soon

Hello NNS…I think you lack understanding with your approach to conversion.

If you wish to convince a body to convert to the Christian belief system, you first must convince them of the need to convert. Physics is near as ever it will be, to help with this need.

The scientific field of study is epigenetics. In crude terms, it is explaining in physical terms, how the sins of the father are passed on down the line of generations.
It's called the inherent badness of man. In colloquial terms, the bad streak, or even the black sheep of the family!
It's this bad streak, that God is attempting to rectify, by the addition of Christ!

He had one bite of the cherry with the great flood. But sadly, it was not entirely successful.
The Jews were/are battling the outcome of this failure to the present day. (Their approach to cleaning up the mess, is annihilation of the enemy in physical terms. It's why they should be feared).

Most of the bad people were drowned, but as it now appears, not all. Faulty genetics which slipped the net of the flood, have reproduced the bad-arse in man. Thus the Christian belief of a need for a saviour in Christ! The mission is to save the Gentiles, (the masses). The Jews are seen by Christians, as “hard of heart” and beyond saving!

Cont.,

Cont.,

The law. The law of Moses was made null and void by the advent of a saviour. (The Jewish way to salvation by good works, and following the law of Moses, is dead in the water). Not by good works will you be saved, but by grace alone! Your fate is entirely in Gods hands.
Believe in me and your sins (inherited genetic sins of the father), are forgiven, and you may enter the kingdom of God and be seated with him after death of the sinful body, which will remain inherently sinful on this earth, no matter what; its genetics!

There shall be no remedy for the war between good and evil here on earth, unless a way is discovered, (and it may be), to remove the epigenetic scars of sin on the DNA.

So it is possible, to my mind, the second coming of Christ may be through a Laboratory discovery that will genetically cleanse man from sin, and convert him to the perfect man here on earth. (Jehovah's witnesses).

AJPhillips

AJP. Ug….We meet again.

Tw’d be appealing if people could criticise Gods and religion on OLO, without spitting all over the page!

Were/are you a RC: X-Catholics seem the most scornful; holding religion in complete contempt.

Why not, as an alternative, view Christianity from an Historical perspective, and create some meaningful and interesting dialog? I credit you with a brain.

Man and his Gods are securely entwined in history after all.

What do you mean by “ugh”, diver dan?

<<Ug….We meet again.>>

You’re the one who has just approached me. We’d been happily ignoring each other for months until now.

<<Tw’d be appealing if people could criticise Gods and religion on OLO, without spitting all over the page!>>

How did I “spit all over the page”?

<<Were/are you a RC: X-Catholics seem the most scornful; holding religion in complete contempt.>>

No, actually, I was a Protestant. Lutheran to be precise. Catholicism is heretical.

It’s funny, though. My observations have been the opposite to yours. In my experience, former-Protestants tend to become the more vocal atheists, while atheist Catholics (I won’t call them “former”, for a reason which is about to become apparent) seem to insist on retaining the “Catholic” label, even when they realise it’s all rubbish. It’s something I’ve never understood. Paul1405 here on OLO is the only exception to this that I can think of off the top of my head. Go to any atheist/sceptic meet-up and you will see very few Catholics, because the Catholic atheists are still attending mass and calling themselves Catholic.

<<Why not, as an alternative, view Christianity from an Historical perspective, and create some meaningful and interesting dialog?>>

Sure, if you have something in mind. My primary concern, however, has always been the truth of the claims, because that's ultimately what matters.

I’ve heard others (atheists included - usually right-wing, though) claim that the West could not have possibly flourished without Christianity, yet when I ask them how Christianity did this exactly, or what we have that could not have possibly arisen without Christianity, the bold and confident proclamations tend to peter off into muttering about correlations that don’t account for sociological or environmental factors.

AJ Philips. You said:

[I'm doing the best I can with the limited words we’re afforded. Rationing posts is a skill that someone like myself needs to acquire in order to defend one’s ideas on an overwhelmingly conservative forum]

I understand, and have acknowledged the same issue in a different conversation. I didn't realize that you were trying as well or if there was a different element going on. When I was trying to address as many points as I could, to the best degree that I can without neglecting information for points. I got a similar response from you. I did not explain it enough to overcome your counterpoint. My complaint and frustration is that you gave so little, even with your explanation now, but you ask for others to offer much more then you yourself provide.

It is easier to provide a counterpoint that offers doubt (you can do that in less then 2 sentences), then it is to give an explanation. Keep that in mind in your responses and don't ask for something you are reluctant to provide yourself. More time, words, and effort. Or at least offer some more time and effort so I (or anyone else) can see you ask no more then what you are willing to give as well.

Yes expand on the mixed bag. I will look into collecting what I have for archeological finds.

Is Mise, what is a OUG?

Tony Lavis.

[I suspect that may have deliberate. Apparently thou shalt bear false witness when it suits thee.]

You have given me this criticism before. You have also in a different discussion included one nickname or another to insult me with on every one of your posts directed to me. At what point are you accountable for your own actions? I haven't lied about you, nor deliberately missed your point. You never made that point until now.

If I am honest with you I have guessed your age to be between 17 and 20. Hopefully not younger because of your views on sex. Hopefully not older because of a lack of maturity. In that age, I know people are less exposed to the world and less likely to know that things aren't obvious if they are not said. The world does not think like you nor can read your mind. Neither can I. If you do not say your points, then you haven't made your points.

Diver Dan. Thank you for your insight for reaching people. With respect though, I might ignore your insight at this time. Two reasons. One is that I think just teaching the bible is a good thing, and isn't done enough. It clears up misconceptions and mis-quotes by studying from direct quotes. The second reason is that converting isn't something I'm good at, nor something I can take credit for. That's God's territory. But being a Christian should be a way of life, not just a belief for the sake of salvation. With that in mind I have one more element to add on the study of God's love for us.

Take heart and be encouraged by God's love for you. But be warned. God is a protective sort. Treat others fairly and with love. And expecially don't try to trip people up, or to corrupt those who are innocent. Be good to the sinner you see, and the child who is unencumbered by the corruption of the world.

Mathew 18:6-7

6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!

Luke 17:1-4

Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. 2 It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. 3 So watch yourselves.

“If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.4 Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them.”

One more thing. An explanation. These three posts regarding the love of God are of value to be a foundation to look at other teachings such as the laws of morality and the laws to love your neighbor, even your enemy. Because God loves them. The second reason I gave these teachings are because they have been on my mind in discussions with many of you. Having to remind myself that God loves each of you and to not let my frustrations with some of these conversations become a stumbling block for you to find God. I might not be what leads any of you to change your mind and accept God to be real and active in the world, but if I take my frustrations and act on them I can be a stumbling block for you from someone else trying to reach you.

Regardless if you believe in God or not though, please remember. You are always welcome at church. God loves you greatly. If you become Christian God will look after you as He would anyone else in His flock. Do not fear and do not worry. Even if you die or lose much, God has you. Try hard in life and trust in God. And remember that God is protective of those He loves. That includes everyone, so take advantage of no one and treat everyone fairly and with kindness or integrity. No matter who they are.

The cook is welcome in church.
OCT. 11, 2017
BELFAST, Northern Ireland — When a young Catholic cook moved into a newly built house in a Protestant part of Belfast last September, it was a vote of faith in not just his own future — but that of the province of Northern Ireland.

That hope ended just before midnight on a Tuesday in late September, when two policemen knocked on his door and that of three other Catholic families in Cantrell Close. “We believe there is a threat on your life,” the cook remembers being told, “if you’re not out of your property by Friday.”

The cook, his pregnant fiancée and their 14-month-old son were gone by Wednesday morning. At least two other Catholic families left that day, too, while others told local politicians that they wanted to leave as soon as possible.

//At what point are you accountable for your own actions?//

At all points along my worldline where I'm conscious, because I'm accountable to my conscience and it is my constant companion.

//I haven't lied about you, nor deliberately missed your point.//

Well that's good to know.

Although I note that you've failed to address any of my other points. What, you can only address one point per post or something?

Maybe if you devoted fewer words to personal attacks on the basis of my perceived immaturity, you'd have more space to devote to arguments and rebuttals.

//You never made that point until now.//

Yeah, I did. On Friday. Here's the link:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19345#343854

And here's the relevant quote:

//You don't? But that's what Christians do. Everybody reads the Bible selectively.//

And here's your rebuttal:

//Do you have any teachings of Jesus you would like to discuss?//

Because if your first attempt to rail-road the discussion doesn't work, why not just keep repeating yourself? That's bound not to annoy people that enjoy healthy debate. (sarcasm)

//If I am honest with you I have guessed your age to be between 17 and 20.//

Oh dear, it sounds like somebody has been taking mind-reading lessons from the Amazing Phanto. Sorry, old reference... probably before your time. Link here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19267#342653

I am very nearly 9.57321407938342 x 10^18 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom old, in case you're actually interested.

//Hopefully not older because of a lack of maturity.//

Yep, definitely studying under the Amazing Phanto: zero insight, but that doesn't matter because it was just the build up to some personal abuse. Charming. And so very Christian.

Oh well... as a wise man once said: 'whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.'

//In that age, I know people are less exposed to the world//

Well if that is the metric we're using to determine age (rather than the standard and more commonly accepted metric of rotations around the sun), I think yours would be in negative terms. No offence, but you come across as more sheltered than an armadillo in a kevlar jacket living in a specially sheltered habitat inside the Presidential nuclear bunker.

//The world does not think like you nor can read your mind. Neither can I.//

Hold onto that last thought. The Amazing Phanto may not have fully corrupted you yet.

//If you do not say your points, then you haven't made your points.//

But if I do - and it's hard to get more direct than 'Everybody reads the Bible selectively' - and you don't read so good, then that is your fault, no mea culpa required on my part.

//Regardless if you believe in God or not though//

Where does God come into this? I thought we were talking about a Jewish carpenter called Jesus.

Worst bait & switch ever.

Dear Nick,

Your reference to the cook is disturbing, but my experience is very different. Though not a Christian, I am always most welcome in church, I actively participate in services, I have clergy as friends and nobody ever asked me why I don't become a Christian.

The cook was disturbed by the 3500 previous deaths and also the Thirty Years' War was the deadliest European religious war. It took place in Central Europe between 1618 and 1648 and resulted in eight million casualties .

To AJ Phillips. Some archeological finds.

Here is a site that gives several archeological remains that support several narratives of events in the bible.

http://www.equip.org/article/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/

In that site it includes.
-The Code of Hammurabi. A find that gives the laws of Babylonian empire.
-The Nuzi Tablets.
-The Merneptah Stele.
-hieroglyphic wall carvings on the Temple of Amon at Thebes, that tell about a Pharaoh's conquest on Judea (mentioned in 1st Kings 14 and 2nd Chronicles 12)
-The Moabite Stone
-Obelisk of Shalmaneser III
-Burial Plaque of King Uzziah.
-Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription.
-The Sennacherib Prism.
-The Cylinder of Cyrus the Great.
-as well as evidence of cities mentioned in the bible and their factually existing.
-and a discovery of the remains of Joseph Caiaphas, one of the high priests mentioned in Jesus's trial before being crucified.

There is also (might have to look these up separately. I know of them from a study bible "NIV First-Century Study Bible.")
-A carving of an Assyrian battle scene (c.728 BC) that relates to Jeremiah 19:7
-Tablet discovered in 2007 confirms the historical accuracy of Jeremiah.
-seal impressions of Baruch, who was a scribe of Jeremiah.
-"Lamentation over the distraction of Ur." A tablet of non biblical writing similar to the bible book "Lamentations.
-Brick of Nebuchadnezzar II
-Relief of Persian King Darius the Great. Gives historical credit to Haggai who was an old testament prophet said to begin his preaching in the second year of King Darius's reign.

One other thing AJ Phillips.

You said earlier
[the Bible was never reliable to begin with.]

But latter amended this statement.
[it is unreliable evidence for a divine Jesus.]

I'm not sure if this list of finds will help you or not, but if at least the bible can be given credit as showing historical accuracy that's at least a start.

Not_Now.Soon,

I apologise for the delay in reply. Feel free to ask me as many questions as you like.

<<My complaint and frustration is that you gave so little, even with your explanation now, but you ask for others to offer much more then you yourself provide.>>

I invite you (or anyone else) to. But, over the last ten years on OLO, I have had lengthy debates on just about every claim I make. I’d rather not be a forum hog on topics I have covered in excruciating detail with others many times before.

<<It is easier to provide a counterpoint that offers doubt (you can do that in less then 2 sentences), then it is to give an explanation.>>

Indeed. I would note that it is theists who still bear the burden of proof. So, naturally, it is theists who are going to be doing most of the explaining.

<<Keep that in mind in your responses and don't ask for something you are reluctant to provide yourself.>>

I have never been reluctant to expand on anything. I have a posting history of 10 years demonstrating this,

<<Yes expand on the mixed bag.>>

Here is a link to a page which goes through the entire Sermon in great detail:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Sermon_on_the_mount

As for the archaeological finds your link cites, I would go back to my point about Spiderman. That the Bible notes some events and places that really did happen is hardly surprising. As evidence of these events and places, however, it is unreliable by itself because it is a book primarily concerned with religious proclamations.

I would not take that particular site very seriously, though. Any site that talks about the Flood as though it actually happened loses all credibility. There is no evidence whatsoever for a global flood. Had such a flood occurred, the planet would be filled with geological evidence for it, yet there is none at all. The fact that there are a lot of stories of floods in a lot of different cultures is a testament to the fact that floods occur frequently.

http://i.imgur.com/VsZ6rTj.jpg

To AJ Phillips.

Thankyou for that reply and assurance that you are ok with being questioned as equally as you question. That you'll answer those questions. Based on this I'll reconsider my approach with you, based on the idea that your questions and answers are sincere. (After a while I've learned the hard way that some are very much not sincere, but instead use any device to try and trip someone up. I'll try to keep my actions away this conclusion with regards to your responses. Hopefully this will work out.)

If you have written out a response to my questions elsewhere then go ahead and put a link to it if you don't wish to re-explain it all again. That sounds fair, as long as you still put the effort to answer the questions or critisms.

As for the sermon on the mount I've a thought on that, but would like to address a separate issue first.

In our first conversation (after reviewing it), I noticed several times you are willing to disregard the rationale and experiences of a Christian (and perhaps for anyone who has spiritual beliefs.)

[Rational and intelligent people can still believe irrational things.]

This is bad and unfair logic. Undermines rational people without cause, and creates a witch hunt situation of doubt based on their conclusions believing in God and being "irrational" without merit or reason.

[If one wants to believe strongly enough, then naturally one is going be convinced that they found evidence or witnessed a sign, eventually - whether or not a god exists.]

This logic allows you to not seek for yourself, nor be willing to take in the evidence and rationale brought by others who have sought God. It's a blatant unwillingness.

...(continued)...

...(Continued from above)

From part of the discussion between you and OzSpen.

[None of your so-called evidence is particularly extraordinary. Certainly not extraordinary enough to believe that the miracles in the Bible actually happened as reported. That’s some pretty mundane stuff you’re provided me with, actually.]

This shows a disregard to evidance in general and a lack of showy evidance counts as no evidance.

[Even if you could rule out all the other more rational explanations, though, all that leaves you with is a mystery. There is no way to rationally conclude that any of it was the work of a god.]

This last statement is an approach agnostics take. It is a more honest approach.

These rationales for disregarding Christian or religious observations are well tight nit to avoid actually looking. They are much of my criticism to atheists in general to open their eyes. The world is full of extraordinary experiences, events, and observations. Not all of them need to fit into a Christian mindset about God, but do give merit to conclusions that something is out there.

Don't be willfully blind. Even if we do not come to the same conclusions, there are things that don't have a more rational explanation. The best that sometimes can be offered if you can't settle on an explanation is that it's a mystery (as you've said). At least that much will acknowledge events, even without concluding their causes.

//This is bad and unfair logic.//

No it isn't. It is accepted as sound and valid logic in every philosophy department in the land. And your counter-argument - that everything rational people say is necessarily rational because they are rational people - is question-begging.

//It's a blatant unwillingness.//

A blatant unwillingness to what? Accept hearsay as evidence?

Seems reasonable to me. Keep up the good work, AJ.

//The world is full of extraordinary experiences, events, and observations.//

Yep, and damn near all of them can be understood without recourse to the supernatural. Mind you, that wasn't always the case. That's the problem with Gods of the Gaps: the poor buggers keep shrinking, until they just fade away into Small Gods.

//Not all of them need to fit into a Christian mindset about God, but do give merit to conclusions that something is out there.//

Yep, it's called the universe. And there aren't words to truly describe how majestic, beautiful and awful (archaic sense) it is. Far more impressive than any story our tiny little monkey brains might ever dream up.

//there are things that don't have a more rational explanation.//

Nah, there are always more rational explanations. Look at Newton: everyone thought his theory of gravity was the bee's knees until Einstein came along with general relativity. The idea of consigning the mysteries of our universe to the Gods of the Gaps and giving up the search for answers because 'some things don't have a rational explanation' is abhorrent to me, and fills me with despair. Just because we don't know what the rational explanation is yet, it doesn't follow that it doesn't exist, it just means we haven't found it yet - and giving up looking should be the last thing we do.

Not_Now.Soon,

I’ll happily admit that some of what I say is to trip people up. It is, after all, a good way to get them thinking. Either way, if one’s position is sound, then one cannot be tripped up. If you feel you have been tripped up in these sorts of discussions before, then there is probably a very good reason for that, and one which probably requires more attention from you.

<<If you have written out a response to my questions elsewhere then go ahead and put a link to it if you don't wish to re-explain it all again.>>

I often do this, but I can’t always remember when, or with whom, I discussed a particular topic.

<<I noticed several times you are willing to disregard the rationale and experiences of a Christian ...>>

Absolutely, but never without good cause. Why I disregard the rationale and experiences should be what matters, and for so long as I have good reason to do so, there should be no problem.

My rejection of the rationale and experiences of theists and mystics is the (tentative) end point, not a starting point; it is a (tentative) conclusion, not a methodology. Your concerns, regarding my rejection of supernatural claims and so-called experiences, confuses these two.

<<This is bad and unfair logic.>>

No, it was a perfectly reasonable observation. I can’t add anything more to what Toni Lavis said other than to say that I found your accusations which followed this claim both confused and bizarre.

<<This logic allows you to not seek for yourself, nor be willing to take in the evidence and rationale brought by others who have sought God.>>

No, but it does prevent me believing things without good reason (as Toni Lavis hinted at, hearsay is not a good reason to believe something). As I pointed out earlier, though, the ball is in your god’s court. If He wants me to believe in Him, then He would know how to convince me, and given the consequences of not believing, He would be an absolute monster not to do so.

Continued…

…Continued

<<This shows a disregard to evidance in general …>>

No, it doesn’t. I am very open to evidence when it’s reliable, and can spot bad evidence when I see it. That’s why I’m no longer a Christian.

<<This last statement is an approach agnostics take.>>

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive: http://imgur.com/nzOxfIA

<<These rationales for disregarding Christian or religious observations are well tight nit to avoid actually looking.>>

No, they’re not. I look. I’ve spent many posts with you demonstrating that. The problem is, however, that you (or any other theist) have not overcome the problem that is the fact that there are more rational explanations for these so-called experiences, and even when there aren’t, there is no reason to believe that no explanations will ever be found or that a god is responsible for them. As I’ve pointed out before, what kind of a god plays silly buggers with “experiences”?

On the contrary, assuming that a god is behind the experiences is a good way to stop looking. It’s gullibility. It is where investigation ends. It’s lazy.

Just imagine where we’d be if we continued doing that over the millennia?

If we were to destroy all science books now, in a thousand years’ time, humans would figure it all out again because the facts are rational and reliable and objective. The same could not be said for religion if we were to destroy all holy books now. This is a problem for your religious beliefs and so-called evidence for God.

<<The best that sometimes can be offered if you can't settle on an explanation is that it's a mystery (as you've said).>>

Yes, but a mystery isn’t a conclusion, nor is it evidence of a god. There’s also no reason to believe that the mystery can never be solved. Mysteries are solved all the time and, as Toni Lavis points out, the gaps which gods hide in become increasingly small until they disappear into a puff of sophisticated theology or logic.

On the other hand, here is some evidence in favour of a divine Jesus that I had not previously considered:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-muWrq7UQvGA/VKYq1vcl8tI/AAAAAAAAqdE/WzXtGX9TZoA/s1600/h3C9C36BC.jpg

AJ Phillips.

[I’ll happily admit that some of what I say is to trip people up. It is, after all, a good way to get them thinking. Either way, if one’s position is sound, then one cannot be tripped up.]

Not everyone is great at debating, nor at addressing logical fallacies and mind games used against them. I'd say intentionally tripping someone up will usually end up with the person being frustrated, not enlightened. So be careful with this rationelle. It can be a horrible excuse to act dishonestly, or brutally. (Or to encourage the other person to do the same back to you, thus completely avoiding the position they held regardless of it's merit).

[No, it was a perfectly reasonable observation.]

The observation might be true, but the way you've applied it becomes an excuse to disregard a person based on their conclusions regardless of merit. Reasonable people should be given the benefit of their good sense until they show a lack of sense in one aspect or another. Not the other way around.

I'm making these points because you've collected several perspectives that close in on you from seeing outside of them. They close your mind to the possibility of God. I want you to be aware of this.

[I would note that it is theists who still bear the burden of proof.]

I disagree. The burden of proof first falls on the people who seek out the truth. If it is important to them they have the burden to seek out what is true and what isn't. Kind of like a buyer beware mentality. In order to find good new stuff the buyer needs to be open enough to look at other stuff, but to find out if the item is worth their money and time it's their burden to determine if the salesman's pitch is trustworthy or not.

Second to that, the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim. If you disagree with a theist and make a claim that they are wrong. The burden then falls on you to support that. Not on them to disprove you. The same is true in reverse, if a theist has a claim they wish to share with you, it's their burden to support it.

That said, I would go a different route then worry about who holds the burden. If something is important enough to say, then say it. If you can support it great, but if not then it's out of your hands. Sometimes you have to do what you can and move on.

Not_Now.Soon,

It’s not about being great at debating. Nor is it about mind games.

<<Not everyone is great at debating, nor at addressing logical fallacies and mind games used against them.>>

Once again, if your position is sound (okay, I’ll add: and you understand it adequately (which should always be the case anyway)), then the risk of being tripped up shouldn’t be a problem.

<<I'd say intentionally tripping someone up will usually end up with the person being frustrated, not enlightened.>>

Not if they are open to reason.

<<… the way you've applied [the observation] becomes an excuse to disregard a person based on their conclusions regardless of merit.>>

No, it doesn’t. Not in any way shape or form. it was a simple observation. You are drawing more from it than was meant.

<<Reasonable people should be given the benefit of their good sense until they show a lack of sense in one aspect or another Not the other way around.>>

It matters not who says what, but how sound the reasoning behind what they say is.

<<… you've collected several perspectives that close in on you from seeing outside of them. They close your mind to the possibility of God.>>

My mind is not closed on the possibility of a god, and nothing I have said should suggest this.

<<The burden of proof first falls on the people who seek out the truth.>>

No, it doesn’t. It falls on the one making the claim: http://goo.gl/sUz7ky

<<Kind of like a buyer beware mentality.>>

No, it’s not like the ‘buyer beware’ caution at all, because the burden is on the seller to be honest.

<<… the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim.>>

NOW you’ve got it!

<<If you disagree with a theist and make a claim that they are wrong. The burden then falls on you to support that.>>

Yes, provided I make the claim that they are wrong. There’s a third option, though, and that is one of scepticism. There is no burden of proof in a position of scepticism.

//Reasonable people should be given the benefit of their good sense until they show a lack of sense in one aspect or another.//

Nope, arguments stand or fall on their own merits. The identity of the person making an argument has no bearing whatsoever on the strength or weakness of that argument. Doesn't matter if it's J.S. Mill himself: if he makes a crap argument, it's still a crap argument even if he's had good form in the past.

And it works the other way around as well: if by some bizzare twist of fate the Trumpenfuhrer was to somehow come up with some good policy, it would still be good policy despite Trump's previous form.

", the gaps which gods hide in become increasingly small until they disappear "
That is an assertion , not scepticism . The claim needs proof.
Knowing how to use a smartphone does not remove the designer . Knowing how to design the electronics does not remove the laws . Knowing the laws does not remove a cause of laws . That's a big puff.

//Knowing how to use a smartphone does not remove the designer . Knowing how to design the electronics does not remove the laws . Knowing the laws does not remove a cause of laws .//

Very clever, young man. But it's turtles all the way down.

You feel turtles organise gravity to hold themselves in place?
"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument."
-
He feels that 'created' things ( for the purpose of this paradigm) are equal to their 'creator' . And that the world can be a cause .
The man in the moon is watching closely and hacks your emails.

Nicknamenick,

You’ve got to be kidding me. Even the most fundamentalist theist concedes that the God of the Gaps shrinks as we learn more. This should be common knowledge.

<<That is an assertion , not scepticism . The claim needs proof.>>

If you’re going to request proof for every little claim and every little premise that should be safe to assume is common knowledge, then we’re going to be here for a very, very long time.

<<Knowing how to use a smartphone does not remove the designer .>>

The fact that this has nothing to do with what I said aside, this is the Watchmaker fallacy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design

You need to demonstrate that there is a designer first. We can do this with smartphones. Even if you could do this with the cosmos, though, it would merely be temporising, as you would then need to demonstrate where the god came from.

All that aside, though, this is not a refutation for a shrinking God of the Gaps, but an example of it, since it was once believed that gods took a far more active roll in the goings on around us (e.g. Thor's lightning bolts).

You sound very confused.

AJ
The topic is God as in trinity father son spirit . If you expand that to all gods it needs proof (as you direct Not Now Soon to prove his points). The god of gaps is your issue and is not a side-comment. Then it needs evidence from the Bible .

My designer of laws relates to Toni's turtles. Blustering that everyone agrees with you about shrinking god presumes that knowing how thunder works takes it away from created design . Why?

//You feel turtles organise gravity to hold themselves in place?//

They don't hold themselves in place. They're turtles, for heaven's sake. They swim. That's what turtles are for.

But yes, according to a standard interpretation of the Einstein field equations, turtles organise spacetime and spacetime organises turtles.

//The man in the moon is watching closely and hacks your emails.//

O....kay.

Dear Toni
It were you wot brung in turtles in a big heap . They are used in some way to argue about laws , gaps and puffs. But they don't arrange laws do they , just shuffle about using spacetime . Using a smart phone is not organising the laws . If the world can be a cause parallel with God then so can the moon which arguably needs a moon-person to get things done . Emperor Caligula thought he spoke with the ocean which is sensible.

AJ Phillips.

Once again, it looks like I disagree with all of your counterpoints. Which I assume means you will disagree with my counter points as well. I'll address a few, but then I'll move on. You had mentioned the sermon on the mount, which I'd like to get to.

The burden of proof. In philosophy of logic the burden is placed on the person making a claim. In real life, we are surrounded by claims and counter claims; perspectives and counter perspectives. In order to find out what's true and what isn't each person holds individual responsibility to seek out what holds merit and what sinks in the ocean. If it is important enough to the person then it is up to them to seek out the truth.

You would not expect in real life someone to say "prove it" when another person talks about a good experience and recommends it. More likely you might say "that's nice" if it doesn't interest you, or say "great, I'll look into it" if it does interest you. It's the same way in anything else. In politics during voting season no one should expect someone else to prove their political ideals, taking you by the hand and walking you through the right decision so yo vote for. No the burden to make the right choice and the right vote lands on the voter. If it is important to them, then they hold the burden to seek out what is true and what isn't. So it is with everything else.

(Continued)

(Continued from above)

Second to this (a far second down the line) is that the burden falls on the person making a claim. You and I agree with this part, but still you reserve an escape of burden through being skeptical. (That I disagree with). Making a skeptical claim is still a claim. If you would like to continue that thought, then I encourage you to back up one of your skeptical claims. "There's always a more rational reason then answered prayers." If so then apply those reason to the experiences I gave you before. We can talk about it and I can tell you that one reason fits or explain how it doesn't based on each experience.

[if your position is sound (okay, I’ll add: and you understand it adequately (which should always be the case anyway)), then the risk of being tripped up shouldn’t be a problem.]

I would say that I understand my faith adequately enough. But this is usually not the case for newer Christians. In fact someone who is new to any field of knowledge probably can be easily tripped up, not because they are wrong, but because they are new to it. Additionally tripping people up does not have a good excuse but instead usually hold underhanded tricks to them. A good rule of thumb. If you would not do it to a child, don't do it to anyone else. (If you would try to trip up a child then we disagree on much more then these philosophical views.)

//Emperor Caligula thought he spoke with the ocean which is sensible.//

The wolf cries boy in vain, for the penny-farthing has flown south with the rising of the moon. Hand wash only. Threescore and thrice the shoal circles the elk, forecasting heavy rains of fish over central Prussia. The point is frozen; the Beast is late out of Paddington: the point is taken. Millennium hand and shrimp.

Correct, Not_Now.Soon.

<<In philosophy of logic the burden is placed on the person making a claim.>>

Unfortunately, though, it all goes downhill from here.

<<If it is important enough to the person then it is up to them to seek out the truth.>>

Fair enough. This doesn’t mean that the individual is saddled with a burden of proof, though. If they were, then this would result in an absurd situation where everyone was expected to falsify every claim they came accross. An individual can accept or reject a given claim as they please, but at no point does a burden fall on them to falsify the claim. This isn’t just my opinion, this is a widely accepted philosophical reality.

<<You would not expect in real life someone to say "prove it" when another person talks about a good experience and recommends it.>>

No, you wouldn’t, but that person still bears a burden of proof.

<<In politics during voting season no one should expect someone else to prove their political ideals, taking you by the hand and walking you through the right decision so yo vote for.>>

No, I don’t imagine many would expect that. That person still bears a burden of proof, though.

<<No the burden to make the right choice and the right vote lands on the voter.>>

Yes, but now you’re talking about something entirely different. No-one can expect another to make a choice for them, but if someone wants to tell us that there is a right way to vote, and what that right way is, then that person bears a burden of proof for that claim.

<<Second to this (a far second down the line) is that the burden falls on the person making a claim.>>

No, the person making the claim bears the entire burden of proof until they provide evidence, and your attempts to get around this, by introducing a faux-responsibility to seek the truth (people are free to remain ignorant), fall flat.

Continued…

…Continued

<<… but still you reserve an escape of burden through being skeptical.>>

There is no “escape”. One cannot escape a burden they are not saddled with.

I am sceptical because the claims have not yet met their burden of proof. There is no other motive for my scepticism. The fact that a position of scepticism leaves one with no burden of proof (at least until evidence has been provided) may frustrate you, but that doesn’t change the fact.

You are doing what so many Christians do (including myself when I was a Christian): in the absence of any reliable evidence, you assume that there is this conscious effort among sceptics to just not look at the evidence, or to wriggle out of something. It is as wrong as it is offensive.

<<Making a skeptical claim is still a claim.>>

Correct, but rejecting a claim is not. You’re confusing a position of scepticism with actual claims.

<<… I encourage you to back up one of your skeptical claims. "There's always a more rational reason then answered prayers.">>

I already did by listing other possible explanations. Perhaps you could provide me with a scenario that you do not think has a rational explanation?

<<In fact someone who is new to any field of knowledge probably can be easily tripped up, not because they are wrong, but because they are new to it.>>

Certainly. Like I said, tripping people up is a good way to get them thinking and investigating further. You wrongly assume that there is always an element of deceit.

One good example of tripping someone up is to ask a Christian (who has boldly asserted that his god is omnipotent) if God is so powerful that he can create a rock so big he can’t lift it. This forces them to revise their belief, which is why we now have a ‘maximally powerful’ god; it’s why the Cosmological Argument was revised to become the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which is still flawed, just less so).

Things comply with laws. Compliant behaviour is different from causing laws . How can mass /energy cause laws ?
-
One of the gaps won't shrink due to it's age and traditional ways:
Current Biology
Volume 25, Issue 19, 5 October 2015, Pages R911-R921

Endosymbiosis and Eukaryotic Cell Evolution
"Understanding the evolution of eukaryotic cellular complexity is one of the grand challenges of modern biology. The precise nature of the host cell that partnered with this endosymbiont is very much an open question. And while the host for the cyanobacterial progenitor of the plastid was undoubtedly a fully-fledged eukaryote, how — and how often — plastids moved from one eukaryote to another during algal diversification is vigorously debated.
Introduction
There are two kinds of cellular life forms on Earth — prokaryotes and eukaryotes. How the latter evolved from the former is a mystery that has intrigued biologists for the better part of a century. In the early 1960s, Stanier, Douderoff, and Adelberg referred to the prokaryote–eukaryote divide as “the greatest single evolutionary discontinuity to be found in the present-day world”
.. mystery ..religion...
-
Nature 2006
"Eukaryotic evolution, changes and challenges T. Martin Embley & William Martin. The idea that some eukaryotes primitively lacked mitochondria and were true intermediates in the prokaryote-toeukaryote transition was an exciting prospect.. But the evolutionary gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is now deeper, and the nature of the host that acquired the mitochondrion more obscure, than ever before. New findings have profoundly changed the ways in which we view early eukaryotic evolution, the composition of major groups, and the relationships among them."
-
" The mitochondria (and plastids) of extant eukaryotic cells are remarkably similar suggesting aerobic bacteria (or cyanobacteria) were incorporated on only one occasion each. We might assume that the evolution of the Eukaryotic cell was a most unusual event because an amazing array of other cellular characteristics has evolved over the same period." _ Uni Sydney. Bio Sciences. "Endosymbiotic Theory of Evolution of Eukaryotic Cells"

//Things comply with laws. Compliant behaviour is different from causing laws .//

"You are walking through it howsomever. I am, a stride at a time. A very short space of time through very short times of space. Five, six: the nacheinander. Exactly: and that is the ineluctable modality of the audible. Open your eyes. No. Jesus! If I fell over a cliff that beetles o'er his base, fell through the nebeneinander ineluctably. I am getting on nicely in the dark. My ash sword hangs at my side. Tap with it: they do. My two feet in his boots are at the end of his legs, nebeneinander. Sounds solid: made by the mallet of Los Demiurgos. Am I walking into eternity along Sandymount strand? Crush, crack, crick, crick. Wild sea money. Dominie Deasy kens them a'."
- Ulysses by James Joyce

Toni
Do you get the feeling you can't express a view on causation of laws?

//Do you get the feeling you can't express a view on causation of laws?//

No, not at all. I was just chewing the fat in gibberish until you were ready to try your hand at framing an argument or question in plain English, because I'm only fluent in rudimentary gibberish.

Now what was it you wanted to know about causality?

Now what was it you wanted to know about causality?
" express a view on causality of laws "

//express a view on causality of laws//

Rather depends which laws you're talking about.

But assuming you're talking about the laws of nature: they don't require a cause. Nature is the unmoved mover.

I'm a pantheist, nick: I believe that God is Nature (not the sort of Nature that Captain Planet and the Planeteers devote their energies to, Nature as in the multiverse) and that Nature is God: two different words for exactly the same thing, like pants and trousers.

I see no necessity to invoke the notion of some supernatural entity who dwells outside of Nature to explain God. God just is. It's quite capable of supporting itself without the need of a cosmos turtle.

And if you decide that it isn't, then I can't see any way around the infinite regress problem.

Nature is the unmoved mover = mother nature made it , it's just there. Just a little bit more of rational thought would assist .

Infinite regress presumes that the definition for "God" in this setting is replaced by a thing within nature , effectively non-God . So it's assumed God is subject to what it's alleged he made , in the "God" paradigm.

Is there some notion using logic that space-time moved laws of science into being ? It needs more logic than the false-premise of re-defining "God" .

AJ Phillips.

[I already did by listing other possible explanations. Perhaps you could provide me with a scenario that you do not think has a rational explanation?]

None of the explainations were enough. However at the time I was trying to address several points. I would rather let you choose one of the events I described and we can explore your explaination instead of trying to go into detail over all of the experiences. With limited space I'd rather hash out one described event at a time, so that more detail can go into it. If that does not sound satisfactory then I'll move on to the Sermon on the mount. I read the article you referenced. I assume you wrote it or agree with all of it? (Bacause you didn't highlight any specific parts I figure it's one of those two options). If that's the case I plan on giving what I understand on it a section at a time. Then in a seperate post I can try to address some of the critisms from the article that I can explain.

[tripping people up is a good way to get them thinking and investigating further. You wrongly assume that there is always an element of deceit.]

Experience says otherwise. There has always been an element of deceit or maliciousness in it when someone tries to trip up another person. I've never seen it used to teach someone, but instead to tare someone down. Knock em down a peg so to speak. Perhaps you might think it is justified. To teach a lesson? Or that they had it coming? However you justify it, don't fool yourself into thinking that tripping people up is for their benifit.

[One good example of tripping someone up is to ask a Christian (who has boldly asserted that his god is omnipotent) if God is so powerful that he can create a rock so big he can’t lift it. This forces them to revise their belief, which is why we now have a ‘maximally powerful’ god; it’s why the Cosmological Argument was revised to become the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which is still flawed, just less so).]

Counter that. Why would God, who is full of wisdom, want to make a rock that was too heavy for Him to lift? If He made an unmovable rock then it's purpose is to not be moved. It would not be His intent to lift it if He meant it to be immovable. Philosophical arguments aside this is not practical and serves no purpose. There's no reason to argue a philosophical "what if" senerio, to counter real life that actually does exist.

The way Human anatomy is built. The way the natural world works. The way God interacts in the world (from prayer to other awesome events). The magistic night time sky. These are the things show God's greatness from His design, to His power, to His actions with us even though we are so small in the grand scheme of things.

Not_Now.Soon,

If an explanation is rational, then is it enough. Period.

<<None of the explainations were enough.>>

They were all enough. Even when there isn’t a rational explanation, assuming that an event is the result of a god is still not justified.

Just how rational do you think an explanation needs to be, by the way, and how do you gauge it?

<<I would rather let you choose one of the events I described and we can explore your explaination instead of trying to go into detail over all of the experiences.>>

I figured you could pick an example so that there was no risk of you thinking that I just picked the least convincing one. I wasn’t just referring to your answered prayers, either, by the way. But, since you insist, let’s look at the first alleged answered prayer at: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19198#341544

This could be rationally explained by psychophysiology, or it could simply be a co-incidence that your adrenal glands kicked in after you prayed (our bodies eventually release adrenaline to keep going if we hold ourselves awake for long enough).

That’s plently.

<<I read the article you referenced. I assume you wrote it or agree with all of it?>>

Yes, I agree with all of it.

<<There has always been an element of deceit or maliciousness in it when someone tries to trip up another person.>>

There isn’t in the example I gave. Perhaps we should just move away from that terminology, if it’s concerning you that much? You’re attaching a lot more to it than I am, and all of it negative.

<<Why would God, who is full of wisdom, want to make a rock that was too heavy for Him to lift?>>

That is a deliberate sidestep and beside the point.

<<If He made an unmovable rock then it's purpose is to not be moved.>>

But if He can’t move it, then He’s not all-powerful.

<<There's no reason to argue a philosophical "what if" senerio, to counter real life that actually does exist.>>

Yes, there is. Do you not understand the concept or purpose of a hypothetical?

"to make a rock that was too heavy"
You feel that God works in
Jerusalem Gardens Stone Works, Ltd
Industrial Zone Har-Tuv B
Beit-Shemesh 99000, ISRAEL.?

The universe spacetime is curved , so they say , in infinite distances so energy extends to infinite with infinite inputs possible . This stone would fill everything , with all mass and all energy and has only its own gravity . Can you see how impossible it is to measure anything there? By definition , if God made the whole thing , he is external to it which has no external aspects , being curved . So infinite mass and energy in that non-place are zero , and there's no mass and no energy . Your question is false to the term "God" and false to spacetime.

AJ Phillips.

[If an explanation is rational, then is it enough.]

If the explaination fits the sitution, then it is enough. Or at least worth consideration. But that part is probabley more my fault then yours. In trying to address several points and offer differing examples of answered prayers, I kept the discriptions short.

For your benifit for rational explainations. Here is some more detail.

The first event described was an accident and coming out of a coma. That can be reasoned away possibly with a good doctor, except for one part. I'm told that on a follow up check on an MRI the doctor heading the results told my mom that if he didn't see me in front of him, he would say these are the scans of a person who didn't make it.

The second example we've explored already. That I felt a reaction from God while praying. The two explanations you gave are that prayer acts as a relaxation technique, or that it was all in my head and feeling God to be there is of no merit. That also does not fit because I was in a depression that I couldn't shake on my own. I tried and tried then eventually prayed a request concerning it. God answered with a feeling that was not mine.

The third example similar to the second you have disregarded as no merit because it can be thought of a trick of the brain. Just in my head. However it is quite a trick. In moments after the prayer my anger after a failed relationship was just removed. Again it was a foreign feeling, but this time it was not an emotional feeling. A physical feeling that I've concluded as God helping clean house of my anger that was attached to that relationship. The result was exactly that. Once moment watching myself grow in anger, moment by moment. Stewing in it. The next moment and ever since no anger associated to that person. The rational would need to be somewhat in-depth to explain both the timing and the actual result.

...(Continued)

I assume the forth example is the one you chose to look at.

[This could be rationally explained by psychophysiology, or it could simply be a co-incidence that your adrenal glands kicked in after you prayed (our bodies eventually release adrenaline to keep going if we hold ourselves awake for long enough).]

The prayer in question was an answer to being tired while driving and worried I would fall asleep or cause an accident. Your explanation might fit if this had ever happened in this manner again when I wasn't driving or praying, but as far as I can tell the only time
I can relate to this is not to do with being so tired I wake up. Instead that I am tired from work but wake up excited to be done with the day and to go home. Perhaps God used my adrenal glands to be a pick me up that day in the car. Or perhaps He just did it on His own. Either way this occurrence has no second comparison to relate to on other late nights that it would have helped to stay awake for. (Studying in college for example). This event is not explained.

The fifth example was one that co-incidence might fit the best. Praying for another to get along with family they were working for. The prayer was answered, though the person said they did not see any changes. Just a different attitude one day. If the person I prayed for had made an effort to change their attitude then it could be counted much more likely as co-incidence. Just good timing. It doesn't fit though because the person said she did not know why she was getting along better. Nothing had changed as far as she was aware.

These were diverse enough experiences to show that answered prayer is not an easy one answer explanation to explain away. But with enough detail so far all of those explanations still don't fit the situations.

Yes, I agree with all of it.]

Good, that will make responding to the points in the article easier. I don't want to juggle too many points at once though, so I'll wait to address the sermon on the mount till after we have some time with these points and the rock question.

[That is a deliberate sidestep and beside the point.]

No it wasn't. It was an answer to your hypothetical question. It's just that the answer includes a fuller view of God. Not just as all powerful, but also all knowing. If He made a rock that He intended not to be moved, then He wouldn't later change His mind and try to move it. He is wiser then that. Nor do I see any reason why He would make a rock "too big for Him to move." As the whole universe is at His command and under His authority I don't think anything in the physical world could become too heavy for Him to lift. The only way for me to cont the question is to replace big rock, with perhaps an unmovable spiritual element. Perhaps a law, a promise, a spiritual being. Or even a landmass in the spiritual realm. Replacing the idea of the large rock with something that could be unmovable for God. My only conclusion is that in His wisdom when he made the "rock," whatever it could be, that rock was intended to never move.

[Do you not understand the concept or purpose of a hypothetical?]

If hypothetical doesn't relate to real life, what benefit can it accomplish? If the person giving the hypothetical doesn't believe in it, what could it do except create a confused state. You now have my answer. It was not a sidestep and was explained.

Not_Now.Soon,

The results of your MRI might have been highly unusual (unheard of, even), but I don’t think either of us is qualified to declare it a miracle. It doesn’t sound like the doctor was too blown away by it if he didn’t ask if you wanted to participate in some research to so that they could gain a better understanding of what it was they had just witnessed.

Your second experience is easily explained. You may not have been able to shake your depression on your own, but if you had requested outside help from a celestial father figure that you are convinced is able to help you and would want to, then it’s hardly surprising that you felt better after praying. Then there’s also the points I raised the last time we discussed this. Saying that the feelings somehow weren’t yours doesn’t eliminated these as explanations.

Your third experience experience is easily explained as just psychological. The brain can do some amazing things, and we still don’t fully understand it. I’ve had similar experiences even as an atheist, only I didn’t pray before they occurred.

As for the experience I most recently addressed, this may still be rationally explained as psychophysiological, even if we could rule out a release of adrenaline from exhaustion.

Your fifth experience could be explained by a simple change of heart, and co-incidence. I’ve had changes of heart which didn’t seem to have any apparent origin, too. I just put them down to maturing. I'm sure they would have felt miraculous, as well, had I prayed moments before them.

Again, though, even if there were no rational explanation for your experiences, all we’d be left with would be unknowns because there is no evidence of anything supernatural and every time, throughout history, where an event or phenomenon was assumed to have supernatural causes the explanation turned out to be perfectly rational.

Continued…

…Continued

I would also add that it is rather arrogant to assume that the all-powerful creator of the universe is tinkering with your life while millions of people starve to death. Apparently your god is not omnibenevolent.

<<If He made a rock that He intended not to be moved, then He wouldn't later change His mind and try to move it.>>

Why not? He changed his mind many times in the Bible. What’s so different about this situation?

Even if you were right, though, this wouldn’t get you around the dilemma because intent doesn’t come into it. You have inserted intent into the dilemma as a means of sidestepping it.

<<He is wiser then that.>>

I'm not so sure about that. Creating Satan, knowing in advance what he was going to do, and then not destroying him now that he's making everyone's lives miserable, isn't exactly wise. It doesn't sound to me like experimenting with rocks would be too far beneath Him.

<<Nor do I see any reason why He would make a rock "too big for Him to move.">>

There doesn't have to be one for the dilemma to work and be valid.

<<If hypothetical doesn't relate to real life, what benefit can it accomplish?>>

But it does relate to real life - as far you’re concerned, at least - because you believe that a god exists and that he is all-powerful. So, if God cannot create a rock so big that he cannot lift it, then he is not omnipotent; if he can, then he is still not omnipotent.

Omnipotence is a logical impossibility. Saying that God wouldn’t do something doesn’t get around that. This is a valid dilemma, and one that has demoted God, in the eyes of many theists, to maximally powerful. You absolutely sidestepped it.

//These were diverse enough experiences to show that answered prayer is not an easy one answer explanation//

Yeah it is: coincidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1TxH0zf07w

//If He made a rock that He intended not to be moved, then He wouldn't later change His mind and try to move it.//

The question is not 'does God want to do such and such?', it is 'CAN God do such and such?'.

//As the whole universe is at His command and under His authority I don't think anything in the physical world could become too heavy for Him to lift.//

So in that case, he can not create a rock that is too heavy to lift. Which means he can't do everything, which means (by definition) that he's not omnipotent. QED.

"they don't require a cause. Nature is the unmoved mover."
This is which scientific theory ? Moving is a cause . How do uncaused scientific laws arise - by blind religion of Mother Nature?

As mass interchanges with energy , a universal rock is universal energy . Which infinite is the larger? Can an omnipotent god become un-omnipotent so that she's not god ? Your ideas are as contrived as saying nature can't be un-natural and so isn't a universal principle

Dear Toni and Nick,

Yes, this and similar paradoxes eliminate the possibility of God's existence. The question is, who, when and why, stumbled upon this strange idea to treat God like an object, requiring God, no less, to exist, as well as to possess certain properties (such as omnipotence) and to be subjected to the rule of logic.

Speaking of either existence or logic, is nonsensical outside of God, yet someone down in history invented this nonsensical word-play - thank God for the atheists that expose it!

Yuyutsu
Maybe we're in different frames of definition . The Biblical God created the universe rather than being a super-hero lifting rocks . The paradox can be formed to suit a warped frame . And you can presume that a one-legged builder who made a house had problems so he didn't build the house , obviously . Then you could fall back to say the house is modern , moves with the times and has to exist today . Or you can remove goal-posts , throw away the rules and say the score is 30-20 because it is .

Dear Nick,

I was referring to God, rather than to the biblical god.

The biblical god is a limited being: While He can do and know so much more than humans, He still has moods, He changes His mind, He can regret what He previously did, He prefers some people over others, etc.

Don't get me wrong: the biblical god is still a good and useful construct, like scaffolds that allow a one-legged builder like us to build houses. While I often recommend Him to others, please do not confuse Him with God because God is not a construct.

But..but..the topic is about the Biblical God. If he is real with a mind, then wouldn't he do the things you describe - choose, interact and judge?

Toni and AJ don't reply to my questions about causing laws of science. How do you view it?

//This is which scientific theory ?//

It's not a scientific theory. It's philosophy. Metaphysics rather than physics.

//How do uncaused scientific laws arise//

The same way as uncaused deities: they just do.

After all, if that weren't the case then they wouldn't be uncaused, would they?

//Your ideas are as contrived as saying nature can't be un-natural//

Nature can't be unnatural (or to put it another way, supernatural).

But only if you're using a fairly strict, philosophical, definition of unnatural because it's a word that gets used a lot and has multitude of usages. If you mean unnatural in the sense of artificial or man made, then nature can indeed be unnatural. Similarly, if you mean it in the sense of something you find personally find perverse, abhorrent or distasteful in the way that many homophobes use it to refer to homosexuality, then once again nature can be unnatural. But the way I mean it, that's a contradiction in terms and a logical impossibility.

//and so isn't a universal principle//

Why does nature have to be unnatural to be a universal principle? The uni/multi-verse does not extend outside of nature.

To AJ.

The first experience was an answer to prayer. By the measure that it was prayed for and then it happened it counts as an answered prayer. In my opinion the MRI just adds an extra touch of it so to not mistake God's answer as just being lucky.

The explaination to the second experience doesn't fit either. When I prayed, I didn't pray for the depression to go away. My request was for God to let me die. Take me from this world. His reply was an abundance of love and a great feeling of peace.

You've had an experience close to the third experience I described? I would very much like to hear about it. As for the explanation. I agree the brain can do some amazing things. But a slight feeling of warmth and electric feeling I had accompany it? I don't think that God needs to give any recognizable signs of what He's doing, but if He does that's even better so we can recognize what He's done in our lives and be thankful for it. The problem with the explanation is both the event and the timing. It wasn't an eventual answer to a prayer. It was a immediate.

Same issue with the explanation of the forth experience. It was immediate. God answered the prayer and the timing of the answer removes doubt of a physiological element that my body did on it's own. (Without God's intervention).

Maturity could have been it. I don't think so though. Same reasoning with the first experience and the coma. It was prayed for, and it was answered. This one doesn't have an MRI or a physical feeling to act as an extra marker of God's answer. But at this point it's no longer needed. It is yet another prayer given and answered.

(Continued)

With the amount of events chalked up to co-incidence so far, I'd think people should pray regularly just on the likelihood that they would be answered by co-incidence. People believe in not saying certain things or you'll "jinx it." Your good fortune will turn bad; your bad fortune will get worse. People believe this without belief that the bad luck stems from something or a spiritual someone. Why not recommend prayer to people even if they don't believe in God. The co-incidences sometimes just line right up.

That might not be rational though, and I agree that there is a rational explanation. That God exists. He hears the prayers sent to Him. And He answers them.

[it is rather arrogant to assume that the all-powerful creator of the universe is tinkering with your life while millions of people starve to death. Apparently your god is not omnibenevolent.]

God tinkers with anyone who will turn to Him though. We live in a broken world. Why it's broken or why it was even allowed to become broken I don't know. You've heard my best guess on it though. It's not just about us. In either case, it's still a mess of horrible suffering, and we are not rescued from this. (At least not yet). Would you be surprised to find out God is with those who starve as well?

We live in a world where our consequences matter. What we do affects those around us. Strive to help the person in need, the person in sadness, or anyone that you have the opportunity and the resources to help. We live in a broken world and we need to be a soothing element on the suffering wounds of our planet. It is broken because of us. Both because of our actions and because we turn from God. It stays broken because we don't turn back to God, repent of our wrongs and make efforts to correct it. On a country by country state, as well as an individual by individual state. We need to turn to God or He won't heal us.

(Continued)

Regarding the rock problem. Remind me why it's a problem again?

If God can't (or won't) create a rock that He can not lift, this proves there's a limit to His power? Is that it? The limitation being we reclassify God from being all powerful to being in charge and nothing can be more powerful then Him (making a limitation in what He can create). So far this doesn't seem like a problem that would shift God from existing to not existing. It just means God won't make anything that is out of His control. If He can and won't then it makes Him wise. If He can't make something that He can not move, then this doesn't sends Him spiraling into non-existence. None the less I do think God can make un-moveable promises. If that counts as a rock that He can not lift (or won't), then I'd count that as something awesome.

Not_Now.Soon,

Regarding your first experience, I spoke only of the MRI because you conceded that the coming out of the coma could have simply been the result of good medical help. Now you want to fall back to that and assert that it was the result of an answered prayer? It sounds like I’m wasting my time here, now.

As for your second experience (now that you’ve reminded me of a detail I had forgotten), this could be the result of all sorts of psychological phenomena. Given how powerful the brain is, and how little we know about it, how could you possibly rule out a rational explanation? You are fast approaching the Argument from Ignorance fallacy here.

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

<<You've had an experience close to the third experience I described? I would very much like to hear about it.>>

And I would very much like to tell you, but I get the feeling that you’d simply pick out some trivial difference to dismiss it as nothing like your experience.

<<I agree the brain can do some amazing things. But a slight feeling of warmth and electric feeling I had accompany it?>>

Yes, that’s not unusual at all.

Temporal Lobe Epilepsy can cause its sufferers experience God in a way which I can assure you that you never have. These people are often hyper-religious.

<<The problem with the explanation is both the event and the timing. It wasn't an eventual answer to a prayer. It was a immediate.>>

A simple co-incidence explains this. You should watch the video Toni Lavis linked to.

<<Same issue with the explanation of the forth experience. It was immediate.>>

Again, co-incidence and psychological.

There is another factor I haven’t mentioned yet, and that is the fact that our memories are terrible and change over time. This is why eyewitness testimony is now taken with a VERY big grain of salt. People can also invent memories. Not only are we VERY prone to remembering things differently over time, but our memories tend to change to favour how we want an event to have occurred.

Continued…

…Continued

<<With the amount of events chalked up to co-incidence so far, I'd think people should pray regularly just on the likelihood that they would be answered by co-incidence.>>

Sounds to me like there's a bit of confirmation bias going on here. You’re remembering all the hits and forgetting about a lot of the misses. We all do it. It's the reason so many parents think that sugar sends their children hyperactive when there is no evidence to support this: they forget all the times their children consumed sugar and nothing happened.

<<God tinkers with anyone who will turn to Him though. We live in a broken world.>>

That’s not an excuse.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

This little pearl of wisdom has been around longer than Christianity, and Christians are yet to come up with a satisfactory resolution to the problem.

<<We need to turn to God or He won't heal us.>>

Then your god is immoral.

<<Regarding the rock problem. Remind me why it's a problem again?>>

I cannot possibly explain it any clearer than I already have. Everyone else here seems to understand it. Although, it sounds like you may (reluctantly) understand it now.

<<So far this doesn't seem like a problem that would shift God from existing to not existing.>>

No, but it does infinitely reduce His power. Which is why many Christians have now demoted him to ‘maximally powerful’.

<<It just means God won't make anything that is out of His control.>>

More importantly, that it is possible for something to exist that is out of His control.

<<None the less I do think God can make un-moveable promises. If that counts as a rock that He can not lift (or won't), then I'd count that as something awesome.>>

So, you no longer believe that He is all-powerful, then?

// I'd think people should pray regularly just on the likelihood that they would be answered by co-incidence.//

Why? Random events leading to favourable outcomes occur independently of prayer, so what is the point?

//People believe in not saying certain things or you'll "jinx it." Your good fortune will turn bad; your bad fortune will get worse. People believe this without belief that the bad luck stems from something or a spiritual someone.//

If they're superstitious. It's what is known as 'magical thinking': the fallacious attribution of causal relationships between actions (such as prayers or jinxes) and unrelated events.

If you want to see magical thinking in action, a really good place to observe it is in the poker machine sections of pubs and clubs. Not all pokie players are superstitious (I've been known to make the occasional donation to my yacht club, even though I know full well how lousy the odds are), and not all magical thinking is obvious. But it is fairly common to observe people carrying pointless and frankly bizarre rituals when playing pokies - rubbing the screen for good luck and such like. Why do they do it? The machines are run on pseudo random number generators, and if it's not a touch screen interface then the computer inside has no way of knowing that you're polishing the screen, let alone caring. But still they rub away.

Research suggests that the explanation for this strange behaviour is very simple: people tend to have a far better memory for all the times when they've polished the screen and the machine has produced a favourable outcome, but ignore the cases when they've polished the screen and the machine has just swallowed their money - even if the latter are more numerous. The favourable coincidences of action and event reinforce their belief in magical thinking, whilst the occasions when their actions fail to produce favourable outcomes are - perhaps unconsciously - ignored.

One cannot help but see certain similarities between the supposed power of prayer and the power of pokie polishing.

//Why not recommend prayer to people even if they don't believe in God. The co-incidences sometimes just line right up.//

Because there is no point. The favourable event would occur even without the causally unrelated action, so you might as well save yourself the bother.

//I agree that there is a rational explanation. That God exists. He hears the prayers sent to Him. And He answers them.//

And I bet if you ask a pokie polisher, they'll tell you that their behaviour is perfectly rational because the machine knows when it is being rubbed the right way, and smiles favourably upon those who do it, rewarding them with great riches.

//Both because of our actions and because we turn from God. It stays broken because we don't turn back to God, repent of our wrongs and make efforts to correct it. On a country by country state, as well as an individual by individual state.//

And in the meantime, Christian children so young they're not actually considered to be capable of sin in the 3rd world continue to starve to death, die of malaria etc., whilst 1st world pagans, heretics, Buddhists etc. remain well fed and healthy. Many of those developing countries are considerably more Christian than Western countries, but seem to be copping way more supposed divine retribution than us. Seems a bit unfair, doesn't it?

Perhaps you might like to pray for your supposedly omniscient god to gain a better understanding of 'benevolence' and 'fairness'.

//this doesn't sends Him spiraling into non-existence.//

No one said it does. It just means he can't be omnipotent.

Here's a good one I found just now, AJ... a bit more relevant to the digital age than big rocks :)

Can God create a cryptography/key exchange system so secure that he himself cannot crack/bypass?

If no: He does not have the ability to authenticate any of his revelations, and therefore he lacks omnipotence, and cannot authentically reveal anything to anyone.

If yes: He does not have the ability to bypass encryptions therefore he lacks omnipotence and omniscience.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Dear Nick,

«But..but..the topic is about the Biblical God»

Actually, the topic at hand is the Son of God, the Saviour and, as I prefer to relate to him, the remover of obstacles.

(as I am not a Christian, I have not contributed directly to this topic)

«If he is real with a mind»

Minds are limited and finite, minds exist in order to help us cope in the world: why would God need a mind?

«then wouldn't he do the things you describe - choose, interact and judge?»

Those actions require the existence of two (duality).
Since there is nothing but God, how would this be possible?
Choose among what? Himself and Himself?
Interact with what? There is no other.
Judge whom? Himself?

«causing laws of science. How do you view it?»

I am not bothered about them or how they came about. The laws of science are here for now, that's a fact, and will seemingly continue to operate as long as we remain under the spell of this illusion as if the world is real. My aspiration is to wake up and be released from the bondage of this illusion, so why should I waste my time trying to "understand" more about its internal workings? The solution for nightmares - is to wake up!

---

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«So far this doesn't seem like a problem that would shift God from existing to not existing»

But existence itself is a limitation. Do you consider God to be limited? Would you worship a limited God?

Both existence and logic can make no sense outside of God.
Is your faith in existence greater than your faith in God?
Is your faith in logic greater than your faith in God?
These are tests.

Yuyutsu in the battle picked up her brahmin and knocked his head on a tree who asked :"why did you do that?" Yuyutsu said "I didn't" and flew away.

To AJ Phillips.

[I spoke only of the MRI because you conceded that the coming out of the coma could have simply been the result of good medical help. Now you want to fall back to that and assert that it was the result of an answered prayer? It sounds like I’m wasting my time here, now.]

Why would I not think it was a result of answered prayer? I put it in my examples because I see that it was. If this is a waste of time though then we can move on to the sermon on the mount. The weak explaination of co-incidences is also making me think we should move on. Thank you for giving some other explanations, like a well timed seizure that helped me out (and never happened again), or the unexplained psychophysical elements. however if the explainations for prayers being answered rests on bad memory, the brain doing weird things, or convient co-incidences; then then perhaps it's time to move on. Though thankyou for taking the time to be part of it.

[And I would very much like to tell you, but I get the feeling that you’d simply pick out some trivial difference to dismiss it as nothing like your experience.]

It's your call. I really am interested, but I understand that kind of doubt. (I had it as well before giving my examples of experiences). I don't think that these kinds of experiences happen only when someone prays. A friend who is agnostic shared a strange story she had regarding avoiding a car accident. Said she felt something push her out of the way when no one else was there just before a car crash occurred where she was standing. She's of the opinion that something is out there, but she's not sure what, and it's not a priority for her right now. I don't doubt you can have a similar experience, I just don't understand the reluctance to address that God is real.

[Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"]

The key factors for me is that
1). God is real.
2). The world is broken in it's suffering, corruption, and evil acts committed in it.

Because of these I've gone to my best guess of why the world exist in the state that it's in. It's a testament to the powers and authorities that rebelled against God in Satan's rebellion, of what their rebellion would come to. Not a utopia, but a broken world that eventually God will fix, and remove all of the evil elements that made it so evil. A living history to show the whole world, the whole universe not to turn away from God. My best guess of an answer is that God allowed the world to come to the state it is in, because it is a witness to not just us but to everyone in heaven

Even if I'm wrong on why the world is the way it is, the 2 factors are still the same. 1). God does exist, and loves the world greatly. 2). The world is broken.

If the rock problem isn't about whether God exists or not, then perhaps we should move on. After all, if God has limitations, but is still all powerful to the worlds He created, what difference does it make?

To Yuyustu.

[But existence itself is a limitation. Do you consider God to be limited? Would you worship a limited God?]

How would existing be a limitation, Yuyustu? God created the heavens and the earth of the physical universe, as well as whatever exists in the spiritual planes that are not seen. He is not just a concept of God. He is God. His interactions on our world throughout history show that unlike other deities worshiped God isn't a figment of our imagination, or a hand crafted statue that has no influence. Not existing is a limitation. But existing? I don't see how that is an issue.

My faith in God stems from both His love, and my trust in Him. From there my understanding grew from seeking Him, reading His written word, praying and always seeking.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Only objects exist.

Often we hear women complaining: "Stop treating me like an object", but how come we have no second thoughts about treating God like an object?

An object is subject to time and causation. Also, when objects interact with each other, they incur a counter-reaction (Newton's law) that changes them in some way or another. If for example an object created this world, then prior to creation that object was a potential creator, while afterwards it would change to become the actual creator.

Existence is an illusion, a false human sensation, whereas in Truth, all that seems to exist and change is the never-changing, Absolute, God.

May your faith in God ever grow.

//however if the explainations for prayers being answered rests on bad memory, the brain doing weird things, or convient co-incidences; then then perhaps it's time to move on.//

Spoken like a true pokie polisher: your superstition is correct, and more mundane explanations of why the poker machine occasionally pays out when you rub its screen are of no concern. Makes sense psychologically - if I'd been making mystic hand gestures over pokies for the last 20 years and somebody told me it was bunk, I reckon there'd be a fair bit of cognitive dissonance arising from trying to reconcile my deeply held superstition with cold hard mathematics.

AJ, have you ever heard the phrase 'unsinkable rubber duck'?

//she felt something push her out of the way when no one else was there just before a car crash occurred where she was standing.//

Cool story, but I don't see where the supernatural comes into it. If she felt a mechanical force, then it's a force that can be tested. We can formulate a falsifiable hypothesis, do some measurements, get some data. Science!

//She's of the opinion that something is out there//

Yep, it's called the universe.

//I just don't understand the reluctance to address that God is real.//

God is real.

I just don't believe in your god. Because he's rubbish.

And if I was going to start believing in other gods, it still wouldn't be your god.

//It's a testament to the powers and authorities that rebelled against God in Satan's rebellion//

Ah yes, Satan's rebellion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SvBrYJVcOE

And there's only one teensy little theological problem with that whole idea: Satan is an angel. You heard the scary man quoting the Bible: 'the dragon and his angels'. Satan is an angel, and so are all the angels that fell with him.

Angels aren't people. According to most theologians, they are created by God, in his image, and with powers beyond those of mortals - but without free will. When Eve was offered the apple by the Serpent in Eden, she had free choice to eat it or not because she was a person and had free will. But the Serpent did not have a choice about it offering it to her: he was an angel, a messenger of God's will.

So he didn't get to choose to fall, either. How could he, with no free will? Poor bugger. Poncy Archangels like Michael & Gabriel get all the glory, and he gets all the blame. But it was your God that created him, and created him to fall with no free will to choose a different path, and in full knowledge of what evil he was unleashing.

If you were an omnibenevolent and omniscient deity, wouldn't it be easier to just not create all the evil angels in the first place?

//A living history to show the whole world, the whole universe not to turn away from God.//

Wow, really? You think that aliens worship your god, who'll they'll never get to hear of? Yeah, that seems likely… (sarcasm)

//the 2 factors are still the same. 1). God does exist, and loves the world greatly. 2). The world is broken.//

3) God is ultimately responsible for the world.
4) And I wouldn't say it's 'broken'. Are you OK? 
5) But yeah, it could be a whole lot better. Especially in the 3rd world.
6) Maybe he doesn't love it that much after all?
7) Or maybe he doesn't exist;
8) Maybe shite just happens
9) And it's up to us try and make the world a better place in spite of a cold, uncaring universe and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Not_Now.Soon,

I understand that you believe that your coma experience was the result of answered prayer.

<<Why would I not think it was a result of answered prayer?>>

However, you had acknowledged that there was a rational explanation for it, so I addressed the MRI part of the experience. When there is a rational explanation for an occurrence, then it wins out by default since there is no evidence for the supernatural.

<<The weak explanation of co-incidences is also making me think we should move on.>>

Co-incidence is not a weak explanation. Co-incidence is an infinitely stronger explanation than the work of a god because, again, there is no evidence for the supernatural. Co-incidences, on the other hand, do occur. We can know this.

In light of the points regarding confirmation bias which both Toni and myself spoke of, co-incidence is a very reasonable explanation.

<<Thank you for giving some other explanations, like a well timed seizure that helped me out (and never happened again) …>>

I never said that you had had a seizure. In fact, I had suggested the opposite.

<<… if the explainations for prayers being answered rests on bad memory, the brain doing weird things, or convient co-incidences; then then perhaps it's time to move on.>>

Yes, if you can still believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that the creator of the universe is intervening in your life, despite how reasonable and likely every other explanation is, then I would agree that it is time to move on.

<<I just don't understand the reluctance to address that God is real.>>

Because there is no reliable evidence, and I care about the truth of my beliefs. I dare say it’s the same for your friend.

Even if one could attribute such occurrences to a god, one would still not be able to determine to which god they should be attributed. You believe it is the Christian god because Christianity was the dominant religion where you grew up. Had you been born in ancient Greece, you probably would have attributed it to Zeus.

Continued…

…Continued

<<[The existence of evil is] a testament to the powers and authorities that rebelled against God in Satan's rebellion, of what their rebellion would come to.>>

So, is God weaker than these other forces then?

<<… a broken world that eventually God will fix, and remove all of the evil elements that made it so evil.>>

So, what is He waiting for then?

If I created a whole heap of little people to love and something was making their lives miserable, then I’d remove that something. That would be the moral thing to do.

<<A living history to show the whole world, the whole universe not to turn away from God.>>

Why can’t He just tell us, then? It would save a lot of heartache and pain.

More to the point, if He’s so omniscient and omnipotent, then why did He create this universe, knowing in advance what it would become?

<<My best guess of an answer is that God allowed the world to come to the state it is in, because it is a witness to not just us but to everyone in heaven.>>

Then He is immoral.

<<Even if I'm wrong on why the world is the way it is, the 2 factors are still the same. 1). God does exist, and loves the world greatly.>>

... But would clearly not be omnipotent or omnibenevolent.

<<After all, if God has limitations, but is still all powerful to the worlds He created, what difference does it make?>>

But He WOULDN'T be all-powerful.

To Yuyustu.

God is beyond everything. But He exists. He can cause the world to move or to turn on itself full stop. Like a king with the universe as His subjects He can give the world a comand and it obeys. But still with all of this at His comand He not only exists, He also reaches out to us. A small oasis in the desert ocean of magistic space. I don't know why He created us, nor do I understand His patience to love us. But He does. God is not like an object that interacts with another object. He is the greatests of all names. That even calling on His name has influence. Being alive and real is not an illusion. It is a journey. Existing in the sense that I mean it is that God is real. He is not like the idols and the alters that the ancient world crafted for belief without reaction (because they weren't real). God exists and both acts and reacts.

The amount of power He holds is worth noting, and I mention it to explain my reasoning that He exists. But that is not the only quality to be concerned with. God is great and powerful and worthy of our fear. He is also wise writing laws and teaching that never grow old or obsolete. His love is merciful, strong and protective. His justice is that of a king against enemies, as well as like a father's discipline to the children He loves.

You are right though that people objectify God. It would be better to know Him or serve Him, instead of thinking of Him as a force to grant wishes or a concept to justify their life. But even these wrong approaches that acknowledge God are better then not knowing Him. Deceived to believe that He doesn't exist.

I have a question for you Yuyutsu. Reading some comments it sounded like you were identified as Hindu in your beliefs. I know nothing of those beliefs or it's culture. But I wonder about if it holds modern day tales of miracles and Angels.

In my conversations with AJ Philips he has challenged me that I don't know if God is the cause of some of the most awesome unexpected and unexplained elements in them. Or if it is due to another God, not God as I know Him.

So my question is do you know (from your experience or those of people you know), does Hinduism have miracles and Angels witnessed by it's believers?

//God is great and powerful and worthy of our fear. He is also wise writing laws and teaching that never grow old or obsolete. His love is merciful, strong and protective. His justice is that of a king against enemies, as well as like a father's discipline to the children He loves.//

But he's still happy to let innocent kids die of malnutrition.

What an awesome god.

AJ Phillips.

I think a lot of your questions and challenges about God can be discussed more fully if we look at Jesus's teachings. I still would like to hear any of your experiences. And I'm sorry for showing contempt for your experiences (if I did it wasn't my intent. More out of frustration then anything else. My doubts are central on if you had an experience and rationalized it away, then how can that be. If you can explain an event or two and your rationale for not believing it was from a supernatural experience then I will probably trust what you say more.

To be honest it's hard to trust you based on some of the things you've said. Like you hold the idea of God existing to a higher standard of scrutiny then you hold everything else. It turns the confirmation bias into a skeptic's version of it. It seems like it's turned into a bias to find excuses how God doesn't exist. You might not see it that way, but look at it from my view. Answers to prayers become complicated but seem more reasonable then God being real. Even prayers answered immediately after they are said are easily tossed as co-incidence. This sounds un-rational to me and more defiantly argumentative.

Where do you want this conversation to go? We've explored my experiences and touched on philosophical arguments (agreeing on none of them). I would like to stay on only a few points at a time, or go into the topic of the sermon on the mount (which admittedly is many many points). But what about you? Where do you want this discussion to go? Again I'm sorry for my frustrations.

Toni Lavis. I don't trust you. But you seem to be begging for attention. Here is my standard. Something practical that can be observed.

1). Arguments don't rely on creatively insulting an opposing view. (Neither directly nor indirectly insulting them). It is childish and distracting. I will not acknowledge you as long as I see you do this in in response to me or to anyone else.

2). Enough of the obfuscating of your points, and having bait and switch arguments. These childish games are what a teen does to get out of trouble (unsuccessfully get out of trouble). If you have no real points without whining that you're being insulted or that the other person is avoiding the points that you never made clear, then you have no real points.

3). Over all be more mature. If you can't do that now then maybe in a few years you'll know how to. In that time someone else might give you more attention. Until then, I see no point for me to address anything you say.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«So my question is do you know (from your experience or those of people you know), does Hinduism have miracles and Angels witnessed by it's believers?»

Hindu literature is replete with cases of miracles, both objective and subjective, including in modern times. Some (specifically Yogananda) speak of angels too. I have not witnessed any objective miracle myself that I can be sure of, although some people that I met have. I do however consider many harmful things that could have occurred to me with high probability, but did not, as objective miracles. Neither myself nor anyone I know experienced angels. I did however experience some subjective miracles - and these are what really counts.

While the West speaks highly of objective reality and considers the material world to be important (thus also the questions pertaining to its creation), Hinduism considers the world an illusion, thus the question whether objective miracles exist, is of little or no religious consequence.

What matters most in Hinduism is the transformation of consciousness, culminating in the direct and permanent experience of one's unity and identity with God.

The Hindu scriptures, especially Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, therefore warn us of miracles. Accordingly, in advanced stages when one comes very close to God (but is not quite there yet), one gains all sorts of powers and can produce miracles, including objective ones. One must NOT be tempted by those powers or play with miracles, but continue to focus on God alone. Miracles might happen, but should be ignored - otherwise, this would bring the aspirant's downfall.

---

You raised many interesting points in your other post. God willing, I will find the time to address them later.

Not_Now.Soon,

I would be fascinated to hear how the teachings of Jesus negate the fact that the Christian god would be an absolute monster.

<<I think a lot of your questions and challenges about God can be discussed more fully if we look at Jesus's teachings.>>

I think if anything, they’d merely contradict them.

<<I still would like to hear any of your experiences.>>

Well, one example was a prayer which appeared to have been answered. There was a girl at church who was my age. I’d had a big crush on her since we were both 9. In all those years, we never spoke. I simply admired her from a distance. When we were 18, I prayed hard that God would let me date her. A couple of weeks later, I was doing just that.

There are countless explanations for this, ranging from mere co-incidence (After all, how many times had I prayed and nothing happened?); to subconscious behavioural changes on my part after a prayer to a god whom I trusted would provide me with what I wanted; to me remembering the timing of the events such that they favour the way in which I would have liked to have explained the co-incidence at the time.

<<And I'm sorry for showing contempt for your experiences.>>

I don’t think you have.

<<… if you had an experience and rationalized it away, then how can that be.>>

Because there are usually rational explanations. I didn’t try to rationalise the experiences and then stop believing. After I stopped believing, the more rational explanations became apparent because I no longer had the emotional need to interpret them in a particular way. I didn’t really have to think about it all that hard. The freaky co-incidences did make more sense, however, when I learned of confirmation bias and the line of research Toni has mentioned.

Continued...

…Continued

<<… you hold the idea of God existing to a higher standard of scrutiny then you hold everything else.>>

Yes, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The amount of evidence I expect for any claim correlates with the extent to which I find the claim extraordinary.

<<It seems like it's turned into a bias to find excuses how God doesn't exist.>>

If you can point to me any instance where the supernatural is more plausible than rational explanations, then I will grant that you may have a point here. However, there would still be the issue of a position of scepticism not typically being something the individuals cling to for irrational or emotional reasons.

<<Even prayers answered immediately after they are said are easily tossed as co-incidence. This sounds un-rational to me ...>>

It’s perfectly rational in light of confirmation bias and the ‘pokies’ example Toni provided. You are likely focusing on the few hits and playing down the numerous misses.

<<Where do you want this conversation to go?>>

That’s up to you. I think I provided plenty to respond to in my last post. How about exploring some objective evidence for God? Personal experiences are too subjective and the subjective is never very reliable. Apologists like William Lane Craig, for example, believe in god because of their personal experiences and a feeling that God has touched their lives, but they’ll never appeal that in a formal debate.

Or, we don’t have to go anywhere. Usually the theists I debate have either left by now started hurling insults anyway.

//Usually the theists I debate have either left by now started hurling insults anyway.//

He already has, AJ.

//Toni Lavis. I don't trust you. But you seem to be begging for attention. Here is my standard.//

Playing the man rather than the ball? Well I suppose that is a standard, but I think you're setting the bar rather low.

//1). Arguments don't rely on creatively insulting an opposing view. (Neither directly nor indirectly insulting them).//

Correct: they rely on their substance, not their rhetoric.

There's naught wrong with rhetoric - even robust rhetoric - but at the end of the day, it's of little relevance when critically evaluating the strength of an argument.

//2). Enough of the obfuscating of your points//

Obfuscating my points? Christ, I must be doing something wrong. I thought I was a fairly plain-speaking sort of chap. I rather thought that that was most of the reason you're so upset. Which points do you think I've obfuscated?

//and having bait and switch arguments.//

Oh yes? Which ones were those then?

Do you think it's a bait & switch if I say I admire some of Jesus's teachings, but then go onto say that I reject some of the dogmas preached by various Christian denominations, or reject the idea of omnibenevolent god on the basis of the available evidence?

Because I disagree that any bait & switch is involved there, and would suggest that your perception of me having pulled a fast one arises from your misconception that anybody who admires even one small aspect of Christianity necessarily accepts the whole, and vice versa.

//If you have no real points without whining that you're being insulted//

GOTO 1)

//or that the other person is avoiding the points that you never made clear//

I don't care if you avoid my arguments - you've been making a concerted effort do so for some time now. That's OK: you're free to rebut or ignore as you see fit. But if you attack strawmen, rebut arguments I haven't made but you have mistakenly interpreted me as having made, or otherwise misrepresent my positions, then I will correct you. And if I believe that your attacks on strawmen are disingenuous rather than an honest mistake, I will be quite harsh in my rebuke.

Perhaps it might be best to read my posts carefully to see what they actually say rather than what you think they should say, and if something isn't clear then ask for clarification.

//you have no real points.//

Aside from all the ones you're going to such pains to avoid that you'd prefer to write a detailed and considered ad hominem attack over a brief and pithy rebuttal of even one of my arguments.

//Until then, I see no point for me to address anything you say.//

Well of course there's no point....

Nevertheless, if you're going to post crap then I am likely to post some sort of rebuttal, because crap annoys me.

And some advice: you should ask a certain poster by the name of 'Armchair Critic' just how effective ad hominems are at dissuading me from rebutting crap. He's considerably more robust in his rhetoric than yourself... hasn't worked so far :P

Mind you, I must give credit where credit is due: it was a nice attempt to segue the discussion away from the arguments being but forward and into a pointless name calling session.

And you did manage to divert me for a full two posts - not bad for a novice.

But at the end of the day, the rhetoric is irrelevant.

So perhaps now we could get back to some substantial discussion. Or not.

To Yuyutsu.

[You raised many interesting points in your other post. God willing, I will find the time to address them later.]

I'll look forward to it. Thanks also for answering about miracles and Angels from a Hindu understanding. I agree with the thought to focus on God. But I also think that miracles or any spiritual experience with God is good to validate against one's doubts. Expecially in today's world where there's so much philosophy to believe in whatever feels good, or philosophy to doubt everything. Having something substantial as a foundation is worth while. Thanks again.

To AJ Phillips.

[I would be fascinated to hear how the teachings of Jesus negate the fact that the Christian god would be an absolute monster.]

I'll try. In general I think a skewed view of God and His teachings fuel a skewed hatred towards him. Going to what is actually said and taught hopefully can clear up the confusion.

[There are countless explanations for this,]

I can relate. I've got a large number of experiences where I wonder if something is due to God or due to something else. I also see people hold to something to be from God, karma, or "the universe" that also holds the same amounts in of questionable doubt. Because of these I cherish are experiences that hold more validity to them that. Whether they are my experiences or another's, it's encouraging. Who knows, maybe God did allow you the chance to date that girl. Maybe it was your confidence after praying.

[The freaky co-incidences did make more sense, however, when I learned of confirmation bias and the line of research Toni has mentioned.]

Not all co-incidences fit the bill of confirmation bias. Most of the examples I gave were a surprise to me when they happened.

(Continued)

Regarding potential contempt for your experiences you said:

[I don’t think you have.]

I had mentioned doubt when you mentioned you having experiences. So
I understand if you would be reluctant to share any examples. Thank you for giving one example. I appreciate it.

Regarding where the conversation should go, I asked mostly because you mentioned the course it is currently taking is wasting your time. If that is the case I'm ok with changing gears before all things are addressed. We are coming from two very different paradigms. Me I see that God has complete control over the world, and from there look for understanding in both faith, and regarding the state of the world. Yours on the other hand somehow misses that God exists at all, and instead you are surrounded by ideas that assist rejecting the possibility of God.

I've pointed this out to you before, but even this observation you disagreed with. I understand if you feel it's a waste of time. I'm starting to wonder if I should have started with bible verses and teaching from what I understand instead of trying to convince anyone that God is real. His words and His understanding is worth more then my understanding and experiences.

[That’s up to you. I think I provided plenty to respond to in my last post. How about exploring some objective evidence for God? Personal experiences are too subjective and the subjective is never very reliable. ]

What I gave you is what I have to offer for evidence that is outside of the bible. I'm going to move on. Sorry if I'm not addressing some of your points. I thought experience was a more objective aspect then paradoxes and philosophical arguments though.

In my first lesson, I talked about God's love in three of Jesus's teachings. 1). God loves a sinner and celebrates when they come back to Him. 2) God loves all the faithful equally and will provide for them without favoritism. 3) God's love is protective. Do not actively try to do harm to another, or to lead them astray.

Keep those three application of love and consider them when reading the Sermon on the Mount.

For reference I'll be following along the sermon on the mountian in Mathew 5-7, and a similar sermon in Luke 6, along with verses in few other places as well. It will take several posts to get through it all. And I'm going to try and address some critisms from a blog AJ Phillips directed me to. First a section of the lesson then the critisms that
I have something to say about. That'll be my approach. Hope it's not confusing.
_____________

In Mathew, Jesus taught 8 things for people being blessed. Those who are poor in Spirit, because theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who mourn, because they will be comforted. Those who are meek, because they will inherit the earth. Those who hunger and thirst for rightousness, because they will be filled. The merciful because they'll be shown mercy. The pure in Heart, because they will see God. The peacemakers, because they will be called children of God. Those who are persecuted because of rightousness, theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Jesus even explains that if you are insulted, perscuted or slandered and lied about, any of those things because of following Jesus. Then even then you are blessed, because that is how the prophets were also perscuted.

Luke also shows Jesus teach about blessings, simular to the blessings in Mathew. But there is also warnings of woe as well. To those who are blessed: there is the poor, because they will have the Kingdom of God. Those who are hungry, because they will be satified. Those who weep, because they will laugh. And blessed are those who are hated, excluded, insulted rejected as evil because of being a follower of Jesus, because that is how our ancestors treated the prophets, and great is your reward in heaven.

Jesus continues though with a warning of woes though. Woe to those who are rich, because they have already received their comfort. Those who are well fed, because they will go hungry. Those who laugh now because they will weep and morn later. And woe to you when people speak well of you, because that is how our ancestors treated false prophets.

These are the teachings from Jesus concerning rewards and warnings. From the blessing in Mathew, they teach how we should be, and from the blessings and warnings in Luke we are taught that in times of suffering, we will be rewarded, and in times of good things, there is justice awaiting us, and seems to speak of the social injustice we have in the world, and the price of being blessed in an unjust world.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

To attempt to speak of God using human words and terms, is more presumptuous than for an ant to describe our OLO discussion.

You could still say "God is beyond everything", but it wouldn't be a positive attribute of God: all it means is that God is not contained in anything. Similarly, saying "God exists" does not include or contain God in any category that we normally describe as existing, so it really doesn't mean anything. Perhaps you wanted to say "It is good to trust in God", to which I wholeheartedly agree, but the idea of trusting and worshipping someone only on condition that they exist, is equivalent to trusting and worshipping existence itself, which is a case of serving two masters.

Similarly, what is the use of saying "God is real" when you have no other example of realness, when everything that you call "real" in practical everyday situations, is only a temporary illusion?

Next you describe God as "Like a king", "Great", "Powerful" and with the verb "command". This again is found on human paltry perception.

Yes there is nothing wrong with such descriptions if they inspire love, good deeds and worship: it's an appropriate and practical human thing to do, but philosophically/theologically it is like the ant trying to make sense of our conversation in ant-terms.

Hinduism understands that relating directly to God without human concepts, is the exception and only a handful are capable of that after a lifetime of preparation: most people would literally go completely insane if they tried. Therefore, one should choose some object to represent God and to worship God through that object. The chosen object could be physical and/or mental - whatever inspires one the most to tread the path of/to God. It is understood (by Hindu scholars, perhaps not by every uneducated villager) that these objects are merely tools in the service of God rather than God Himself. They reflect facets of God (for lack of accurate language, God is not divided into facets) that are particularly attractive to the worshippers.

(continued...)

(... continued)

Hinduism offers a variety of deities to suit the varied circumstances and temperament of each devotee. The Hebrew God of Abraham, or "The Father", is one such mental representation of God - Hinduism has no problem with this, so long as you personally find this particular form the most inspiring and encouraging, the best representation of God you can find.

Hinduism also has the Creator God, Brahma, but only a few worship him. In fact, he is often thought of as a dishonest villain, the one who got us into this whole mess to begin with. Hinduism understands that living in the world means trouble, more suffering than pleasure, more ignorance than wisdom. Nevertheless, if despite this a person feels excitedly in awe of the world, thankful and in love with life, then Brahma could be his/her God, as well as the Hebrew Father, God of Abraham (but I wouldn't recommend worshipping God as Father to someone who had an abusive father in childhood).

Regarding God's love, mercy, protection and justice: it is all true, yet subjective - which is all that really counts!

This you summarised yourself: «It would be better to know Him or serve Him, instead of thinking of Him as a force to grant wishes or a concept to justify their life.»

//Going to what is actually said and taught hopefully can clear up the confusion.//

The problem with that line of thinking is that going to what is actually taught - i.e. what is written in the Bible, and presented as the literal, divinely inspired and unalterable word of God, along with various dogmas that churches have invented off their own bat and teach as revealed truth - is exactly what causes what you euphemistically refer to as 'confusion' (i.e. the very clearly articulated and well-considered view that accepting mainstream Christian theology leads to the inescapable conclusion that Jehovah is a real dick).

//Not all co-incidences fit the bill of confirmation bias. Most of the examples I gave were a surprise to me when they happened.//

If they just came out of the blue, how can you attribute them to the power of prayer?

//Me I see that God has complete control over the world//

And hence, control over the mosquitoes that spread malaria. And the plasmodium that cause malaria. He could have eradicated smallpox thousands of years ago, thus saving the WHO a lot of effort and saving countless innocent lives to boot.

Pestilence.

Revelation 6:2

2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

He could beat all our swords - and our guns, and our nuclear warheads - into ploughshares. He could banish hatred and wrath from the mortal minds of men, and instead grant us tolerance and brotherhood.

War.

Revelation 6:4

4 And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.

He could vastly improve the yields of our crops and livestock, and bless us with better means to get the food to the people who need it most. He could banish gluttony from the thoughts of men, so that every man ate only what he needed, and passed the rest to his neighbour.

Famine.

Revelation 6:5-6

5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.

6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

But he doesn't. He holds the reigns of all four riders.

Jehovah.

Revelation 6:8

8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

//God loves all the faithful equally//

Nope, not just the faithful. Good Samaritans too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqU

//God's love is protective. Do not actively try to do harm to another//

Shame it wasn't a bit more protective during the Inquisition... or slavery.

To AJ Phillips and Yuyutsu. Sorry for the delayed response. I'm going to give my thoughts concerning the critisms so far for the sermon on the mount from the site AJ Phillips provided first, then tomorrow I'll reply to Yuyustu gave. AJ Phillips if you have more to add For this portion I'll try to address it before moving on to the next section.

•Criticisms of the sermon notes of the mount. Found on http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Sermon_on_the_mount
And countering those points.

•Blessed are the poor/poor in spirit, to the hungry. Woe to the rich.

The criticism given is that these verses stress that poverty is a virtue and wealth is a vice. Half of the criticism is worth noting. Wealth does seem to be a vice. A distraction and deceptive allure, or in some cases, a continuation of a hard and evil heart. With greed towards our wealth, as well as indifference to others pain while we seek our wealth.

Giving to the poor is a virtue. If one is wealthy enough to do this but doesn't, then yes wealth is a vice.

The other half of the critism needs to be corrected. Again giving to the poor is a virtue, thus showing that those in poverty are in need. Blessed are the poor because they will be given the Kingdom of Heaven is not addressing a virtue to be in poverty, but addressing a need and promising comfort. Trust in God. Even in poverty when all else have discarded you, God has not.

But woe to you who are well fed and wealthy. You have neglected the poor and their needs. If you must know this teaching affects me as well. I am not the most wealthy, but I am not worried about my next meal, my health, or my home. At least not in the same way those who don't have those are worried about it them. Pay attention to this because I bet if you have Internet access you too are wealthy enough to be under the warning of woe to the rich.

(...continued...)

(...continued.)

•Blessed are the poor, those who morn, the meek, and those who hunger for justice.

A second criticism for the first 4 blessing is that these verses provide comfort that isn't validated, and focuses on the life after this one instead of bettering our current conditions in this life. The criticism goes on the idea that these verses negate our needs in this life instead of offering solutions to living a better life.

What the critic got right is that these verses offer us a hope in God's Kingdom. In the life after this one. That should be a great focus on our lives. But it is not the only focus. We have much to do in this life. What the critic got wrong is that there is no spiritual advise for us to follow in this life. It offers comfort to the poor and to those who morn; but it also give direction to be humble, and seek justice. Both humility and justice are common themes throughout the bible. And here they are as well.

•Blessed are the merciful, the pure of heart, and the peacemakers.

The criticism given to these verses is not about to be merciful, pure of heart, or peacemakers, but that God would reward that behavior, or teach about a reward instead of teach to do good for it's own sake. The critic also criticizes Jesus by these words. Saying that Jesus's teaching that those who deny Jesus will be denied by Jesus before God in Heaven is not merciful.

This criticism is misguided. It acknowledges the good teachings to be merciful, pure of heart, and a peacemaker. But then in it's own conclusion that these are good, the critic says they are not good enough, and should not hold rewards. I disagree with that. God gave us a standard, but is a standard any good is there is nothing backing it up? It is His decision on how He would reward anyone. There is no harm in God rewarding those who follow Jesus's teachings, nor in the depth of the reward.

(Continued...)

(...continued.)

Show mercy if you want to receive mercy. We all need mercy. No one is perfect and based on that, we all usually offer a little forgiveness in each other's weaknesses. The standard is revealed by God that if we don't show mercy we won't receive it.

Clean your heart, and hold no impure motive. Instead have a pure heart. The reward for this is that those who do will see God, but the challenge of having a pure heart? That is something of a hard battle. Be pure and not guilty of greed, lust, anger, cruelty. Be pure and full of love, sorrow for the suffering of others, helpful and humble. However one looks at a pure heart with the removal of our wrong desires and full of positive motivations; having a pure heart is not an easy task. The reward is great, but the task is not easy. Therefore it is worth striving for whether we are successful in it or not.

And to bring peace to any conflict. Their reward is to be known as children of God. What a wonderful thing. But this is something that requires both a heart for the conflict and wisdom to resolve it. The badge of honor might be more then just a badge of honor in Heaven. Who knows what awaits us if we make it to paradise. On our way there though we should try to bring peace instead of conflict.

As for the criticism against Jesus. Jesus suffered for our benefit. He died because God loves us. He rose again as a testament of both His promises and God's promises. To reject Him has a severe consequence. But to accept Jesus in our faith in Him, and in our lives. That will help us on many other aspects too. He will help shape us to be better then we were before. It is worth noting this reality instead of complaining that God isn't merciful when He gave us an out to the dirt and grime that is part of who we are.

(....Continued.)

•Blessed are those persecuted for rightousness sake.

The critic from this verse says ignores what the verse says and goes on about what it implies. It brings divisiveness between Christians and nonchristians. Free from any criticism because that is counted as persecution, and discourages cooperation.

What the critic is wrong about is what he implies though too. That Christian persecution isn't a real thing. Those who are lucky enough to live in a nation that protects a Christian from harm are the minority. The majority of the world does persecute those that are in it's way. From both religious persecution of another religion beheading and torturing Christians, and political persecution of the government that holds no religion, wholesale persecuting Christians. This is both current in our modern day, as well as in the past. It's even unfortunate to note that the conflict has existed among Christians when they split into different denominations and sects. And fought with each other instead of focus on God.

That said this is not just towards Christians, but to those persecuted for righteousness. For following God, or for seeking what He commanded. It should also be noted that in the previous verses we are encouraged to be peacemakers, how is that already forgotten to be the criticism of not having cooperation with non Christians? The criticism can be applied to Christians if they fit the criticism, but not to the teaching.

To Yuyutsu,

Thankyou for your replies. I now have a fuller understanding of how our views differ and disagree with one another. It sounds like to me that in Hinduism God is something to be obtained. To be enlightened enough to become part of, maybe? Perhaps after many lives?

Christianity is quite the opposite of the spectrum. God knows us and He made us. He reaches down to us. And in that way, He has made Himself known to us. It's not something we obtain after a lifetime of understanding. It's something He gives. I don't know the whys for how we are the way we are, or why (or how) God is the way He is. But I do know how He introduces Himself from the bible. I accept those terms because it's how He has made Himself known. I trust God, and from searching for Him I've also come to trust the bible.

As for the aspect of God being real, or existing. These are practical terms, not in depth concepts. Counting God as real and as existing therefore is to compare Him to things that don't exist. Or things that aren't real. It is a topic that goes into much more detail in Israel's history. False idols, and wicked worship existed in the land Israel was given. And unfortunately much of that culture continued after Israel was given their "promised land." Saying that God exists is an acknowledgement of Him. I don't mean it on a deeper level then that to be how I worship Him or focus on when I worship. There is so much more to love then to only focus on God just existing.

(Continued...)

(...Continued)

The other element that Hinduism and Christianity differ in is the idea that an object is a good focus for our worship of God, and that having many deities to help conceptualize God. In Christianity to worship idols is a horrible act against God. It is compairable to adultery with a wife or a husband cheating on their spouse.

Instead of this God has shown Himself through His acts, His miracles, and His prophets. When Jesus came He gave us one more element. The only way to God is through Jesus. And the only way to Jesus is if God leads us to Him.

It gets complex to think about but simply put God reaches down to us so that we can have a relationship with Him. It's a gift, not something we earn or deserve. It's love.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

That differences exist is not surprising, but I consider them superficial. Religion is still religion, no matter which perspective you take to describe it. Looking deep enough, nothing you wrote is untrue.

The Hindu perspective is not that God is something to be obtained, because there is nothing else but God, including ourselves: what needs to be defeated is our ignorance whereby we see/feel ourselves as separate from God. Once ignorance is defeated and the veil of illusion lifts, we realise that nothing new was obtained, that we have been God all along.

The key question in Hinduism is not "Who is God?", but "Who am I?".
By solving this question, one automatically realises that they were never separate from God. This however, is not a question of understanding: intellectual understanding is relatively easy, but in order to realise our true nature, our identity with God, we need to give up our attachment to the world, including to our bodies and minds, we need to renounce all our desires, gross and subtle - and that effort takes many lifetimes, when finally our efforts are met with God's grace.

Jesus has realised his identity with God and his teachings, the Christian path, are one viable way to achieve this detachment from the world and desires. Christianity emphasises love and service to others as a way to overcome the selfishness which separates us (subjectively) from God.

As mentioned, Hinduism teaches that most of us require some object to concentrate/channel our devotion to God through. The object can be physical, mental or both, including exemplary persons. It can be referred to as "deity" or "idol" (if physical), but it does not replace God. Hinduism respects anyone's genuine choice of deity/idol, including the Hebrew Father and the His human Son, Jesus (which by contrast, Judaism and Islam reject as an idol). Should the method of worship through a particular deity require exclusivity, Hinduism has no problem with it.

To Yuyutsu.

You said earlier that you did not want to debate the errors in the bible because you did not want to harm my faith. I thank you for that kind of kindness. It seems like I'm at a similar point now, where discussing Hinduism and Christianity potentially could harm your faith. If I go too far let me know and I'll stop. I don't want to harm you anymore then you want to harm me. None the less how can I teach you if you don't think the bible is reliable? How can you teach me if I don't think Hinduism is trustworthy?

I hope you can forgive that last part but to go further, there's a difference between Hinduism and Christian teachings that I can't ignore. That being that 1) if Chrustianity is right then Jesus is the only way to God. And 2) Jesus's teachings (as well as the old Testiment in the bible) of condemning a false witness, and in general a liar.

If these two elements have merit then, though you can accept my faith based on it being focused on God, I can't give the same kind of acceptance because of the first issue. With the second issue I can't reccomend for you to accept Christianity because if you see it as based on a lie then I can't in good conscience try to teach a lie if I am against lies. Nor should I recommend that you believe me if you believe it came from a lying source.

(...Continued...)

In order to continue, there is the risk of harming eachother's faith. In order to teach better I'd like to be able to confront what you say is the errors of the bible. (I'm not a bible scholar, so it's likely that I might not be able to answer the errors you see). And failing to approach that aspect we both might be in the same element of respecting eachother's beliefs as their own, but have a barrier between us that keeps us from further acknowledging those beliefs to accepting them.

I respect you and enjoy our discussions. I am concerned though. Talking about both Hinduism and Christianity will likely approach the areas that if challenged would challenge eachother's faith. I think I'm ok to continue and be challenged by your doubts and critisms. I don't think you would say them in a way that others sometimes do to try and break a person's beliefs down, or in some cases belittle them.

I don't know enough about Hinduism to challenge your beliefs (perhaps that's a good thing, I don't want to harm you either), but I figure that if I can answer your doubts and critisms, then that would be more then enough of a counter challenge to your own beliefs. Let me know what you think.

After the beatitudes in Mathew's sermon on the mount Jesus continued with two metaphors. Again after these posts I'll try to comment on the critisms from the web page AJ Phillips presented earlier.
__________________________________
Jesus taught that we are the salt of the earth, but warned that if salt loses it's saltiness, it's worthless. Likewise in Luke's comparable sermon Jesus compaired us to a tree and it's fruit. Saying, "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of."

Jesus also taught that we are the light of the world. But Jesus also said that a light was not meant to be covered, but to be held high to light up everything around it. Comparably in Luke 11, Jesus says a light is not meant to be hidden, and adds on to it saying, "Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy, your body also is full of darkness. See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness. Therefore, if your whole body is full of light, and no part of it dark, it will be just as full of light as when a lamp shines its light on you." Once more in Luke. In Luke 12 Jesus says, "Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, like servants waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him."

(...Continued...)

(...Continued...)

It should be pointed out that Jesus elsewhere said He is the light of the world, and also that He is whe way, the life, and the truth. For Jesus to say we are the light is I think a calling to be like Jesus, and an encouragement. In the same way we need to testify for Jesus and not shy away. Be bold to be a light by our actions, and not falter. And be brave to teach when God gives us an oppurtunity. And focus not on darkness but set our eyes on what will fill ourselves with light. Going back to Jesus is the light of the world, for us to also have light in us we need to remember Jesus, and focus on Him.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«I can't give the same kind of acceptance because of the first issue»

I have no problem with Jesus' words: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me":

"The way" is through God's grace; "The truth" is God; and "the life" is the only true and eternal life, in God. Jesus could say all this because he already realised that "me and my father are one" and as he tells in the next verse: "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father".

"By me" can be similarly explained as by what Jesus really is (which he knew, but Thomas didn't), rather than by Jesus the historical human. However, in the context, I think that this response to Thomas was actually more down-to-earth, a criticism of the prevailing Jewish rituals (like animal sacrifices) and hypocrisy that lacked the spirit that Jesus taught. In other words, "this won't get you anywhere, Thomas, follow me instead".

In any case, while it is possible that the Jewish deity of "Father" cannot be reached except through Jesus, I am seeking God rather than that particular deity.

«if you see it as based on a lie then I can't in good conscience try to teach a lie if I am against lies.»

Christianity is not based on a lie: it is based on the teachings of the enlightened soul, Jesus!

There seems to be just one difficulty, however: the old testament and the 'one iota' statement.

Jesus' path did not require the old testament, yet he said what he said about the law and the prophets, and this needs to be addressed.

Yes, it's my conviction (based on critical/scholarly reading rather than on Hinduism) that the old testament as we know it has been tampered for political reasons. It could best be described as "The book of the Jewish nation". It includes law, religion and words of the prophets, but also history and mythology; and it were the historical parts that were tampered with the most, to suit the Jewish political/ethnic ethos.

[continued...]

[...continued]

But was Jesus speaking of the "old testament" as such?
The old testament was only finalised around 200A.D.

One possibility is that he spoke of the untainted version of the actual law and the actual prophets, perhaps even a censored version that we no longer have in writing.

I could offer some other explanations for this very statement of Jesus which changed the course of history, but with your permission I rather stop here: what matters most, is that in the following verses, Jesus uses the OT law as a launching pad for higher standards and upgrades the former social code into a spiritual practice.

Not_Now.Soon,

Sorry I haven't replied. I've been a bit too busy lately to give a full response to your lengthy reply. I'm finding the time now because this discussion will no longer show by default tomorrow, and I refuse to post after a thread disappears, when I have been absent from it, since some do that dishonestly in the hope that the person they're responding to doesn't see their response and discredit it.

I will respond to this bit however:

<<Not all co-incidences fit the bill of confirmation bias. Most of the examples I gave were a surprise to me when they happened.>>

It doesn't matter if your experiences came to you as a complete surprise. There can still be a confirmation bias in your recollection of prayers being answer (i.e. you are more inclined to remember the hits than you are the misses).

Regarding the Sermon on the Mount, I don't think any of your criticisms negate the criticisms in the link I gave you. I might reply in more length at a later date.

What I will note now, however, is that if there can be so much disagreement as to the precise meaning behind the author of those words, then it can hardly be evidence of Christ's divinity, as a divine being should be able to communicate their message in a way that was clear enough for everyone to understand, without room for ambiguities or disagreements.