Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Moti]

I've read it numerous times but in your haste to disprove and cast doubt on Christianity, you have also become the very thing you dislike which is a non critical thinker who filters his information to suit your biases and preconceived notions. Naturally you will deny this of course.

Roylion has a lot of knowledge on the subject and I see him providing some of the best possible historical thought to add to the discussion. Whether it is the actual truth is up to you to decide. He will change his opinion tomorrow if it was found a photo of Jesus chilling with Moses and Abraham on the mountain. He is following the available data and I am sure he would agree that if new information becomes available , he will re think what he has included.

At the moment that leaves him to believe that the Abrahamic religions (among many he hadn't discussed) are not real history and have no supernatural base. That's what I get from your posts do please correct if I am off base there.

Unlike some on here, he is not being personal and making fun of faith in the supernatural, he is just passing on his thoughts based on research.

I love some of his research, I enjoy similar pursuits, but whether it alters your position is purely up to your strength of faith in the for or against the existence of a God.

 

[JHF1870]

Moti

Other than the origins of the bible, what evidence is there to prove that Jesus existed, was the son of god, died and was resurrected.

 

[Roylion]

I've read it numerous times

Then refute the information in there. Propose your theory of how Judaism influenced Zoroastrianism and how it and why it did so. Tell me how you know Abraham is older than Zoroaster. Tell me how you know that the Abrahamic religions, particularly Judaism, began with an individual called 'Abraham'?

but in your haste to disprove and cast doubt on Christianity,

As opposed to your haste to prove the accuracy of everything written in the Bible? Where the evidence dictates, I'm very happy to agree that a few parts of the Bible are historically accurate. Those Deuteronomistic, Priestly and Jahwist writers of the 6th and 5th century BC did get something right.

you have also become the very thing you dislike which is a non critical thinker who filters his information to suit your biases and preconceived notions.

I look forward to your dissertation on how Judaism influenced Zoroastrianism, backed up with appropriate evidence. Certainly the vast majority of scholars (and I have mentioned a few above) believe the opposite. Certainly the evidence I have read (and I have presented some earlier) suggests that Zoroastrianism influenced certain aspects of Judaic theology. All you have presented is your assertion that Judaism is older than Zoroastrianism because Abraham, Moasic Law and the psalms of David supposedly pre-dates Zoroaster. None of which can be proven. All that I have said is that due to the Jewish exile in Babylon that the existing Jewish theology was partly influenced and altered by existing Zoroastrian belief.

Naturally you will deny this of course.

Well yes. Always willing to read further and have my opinions altered by well presented, well argued, logical, empirical evidence. I am sure that there remains undiscovered archaeological artefacts that will further illuminate ancient Middle Eastern history and possibly alter existing thoughts about the veracity of Biblical scripture - either negatively or positively.

My thoughts and opinions included. Until then though.....

 

[Boston tiger]

Roylion has a lot of knowledge on the subject and I see him providing some of the best possible historical thought to add to the discussion. Whether it is the actual truth is up to you to decide. He will change his opinion tomorrow if it was found a photo of Jesus chilling with Moses and Abraham on the mountain. He is following the available data and I am sure he would agree that if new information becomes available , he will re think what he has included.

At the moment that leaves him to believe that the Abrahamic religions (among many he hadn't discussed) are not real history and have no supernatural base. That's what I get from your posts do please correct if I am off base there.

Unlike some on here, he is not being personal and making fun of faith in the supernatural, he is just passing on his thoughts based on research.

I love some of his research, I enjoy similar pursuits, but whether it alters your position is purely up to your strength of faith in the for or against the existence of a God.

So is it all about whether Abraham was real or not? If Abraham is real then Jewish monotheism is older than Zoroastrianism monotheism
If vice versa the Jews may have got there idea of one God from the Persians? Etc

 

[Boston tiger]

Not sure if this bit is on topic.
And did Zoroastrianism start out as mono or did evolve out of a duo ?
"
The Bible documents the history of the "Chosen People", who were set apart as an example for the nations, but were not necessarily the only nation with the correct religion. In scripture, there are hints that other nations worshiped the same God, such as the priestly King of Salem, Melchizedek, giving an offer of bread and wine on behalf of Abraham."

I realize I have to be careful because there are 2 old testaments out there with one having 6 more books.

 

[Moti]

Moti

Other than the origins of the bible, what evidence is there to prove that Jesus existed, was the son of god, died and was resurrected.

Firstly, the bible is an historical document. Whether it is true or not, part true or anything in between, it should be considered a document of history as it is clearly an account of history according to the writers opinion and/or experience.

But for me, my first evidence is first hand knowledge. I have seen, felt and heard God through a personal relationship. In history, a first hand account is always the strongest. I know u provably don't recognise the experience as real but to me it is as real as any other experience I have. I have seen the power of God and it is in accordance to the Bible. I accepted salvation through faith and have had it confirmed through experience.

The next is 2nd hand experience gained through trusted sources. Friends and family with similar experiences covers this.

Next is 2nd hand gained through others, again similar experiences.

The other is reviewing and discerning biblical themes and theology and assessing its authenticity, wisdom and consistency. I will never say I have this 100% licked but I am constantly blown away by the incredible truth and wisdom. Unfortunately this takes years to discover and being in an environment that has opportunity to get a download of information. With this, I always test myself. I also look at the fruit of the information giver to assess their competency in living out what they preach.

But if you are asking if I have a signed 33AD copy if the Roman program of crucifixions then no, can't help you there

Anyway, at a Christian conference now about to hear an incredible speaker from the US so gotta run.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Yes but I exist . That's special. Got to be happy about that.

Yes, you're doing better than 'the big guy'.

 

[Cooldude]

It's deflection on your part for you haven't even made a case as to projection. To claim such you'd have to accurately know how much I know about the bible, without assuming. Because you can't do such, that's why it be deflection, for you've got nothing.

Such a claim coming from someone who thinks the bible's laws against homosexuality is in contradiction to showing hospitality. Hahahahahaha!
"You interpret it in a selfish bias way that suits your own personal desires and prejudice" is a fine example of your projection, for you twist the scriptures in order to rationalize that homosexuality isn't against God's law.

Here's the thing, I'm a student of the bible. Your hypocrisy stems from doing as you claim of I, which you've arrogantly projected onto me. Where did I say "the rest of the world doesn't"? What I do believe is that the majority on this forum know only bits and pieces of the bible but display their lack of in-depth knowledge by means of their own non-biblical rationalizations being attributed to God and/or the bible.

Ahhhh! A non-Christian attempting to distort scripture to his own ends as well as school an actual Christian bible student. What actually makes it funny is that you believe that's what you're doing.

Every single sentence in that post is projection, it is amazing, do you have no self awareness?

You haven't' remembered how you somehow think Jesus didn't really care for the poor as such and the oppressed and the marginalized wasn't his priority at all? That you only try to help the poor only when the opportunity arises?

Despite the fact that Jesus said if those who don't do the things to the least of these, they didn't do to him, and they will suffering much and gnashing of the teeth and all that stuff? Despite the fact that Jesus told you people to not worry about tomorrow, sell all your possessions and give it to the poor? Despite the fact that Jesus told the rich guy apparently followed all the commandments who came to him how to get into the kingdom, and he told him to sell all his possessions and give to the poor? Despite the fact that he spent most his time reconciling the oppressed, the exiled, healing the sick, feeding the poor, etc?

But you denied all that, coz that wouldn't suit your own comfortable little world that you have crafted out in your head to suit your own selfish purposes. The narrowed and wrong interpretations you have of the bible that was designed to suit your own prejudice. And yet you're gonna accuse other people of not knowing anything about the bible and interpret it the way they feel like, HA

Btw, you seriously think people being allowed to reject other people from their business just because they think they are homosexuals/sinned is very Jesus like at all? Well exhibit B

Being a "student of the bible" means nothing, the Pharisees and scribes were teachers of the law, knew it inside out, studied it their whole lives, and Jesus went up to them and told them they knew nothing, they don't know God, and a bunch of Fishermen he plucked from obscurity would know more than them. So you arrogantly claim you have superior knowledge of the scriptures because you are "a student of the bible", yet every exchange I have with you shows how precious little you actually know about the text and how incredibly bias your own interpretation is. Yet you will accuse others of doing the exact same thing you're doing,, how is that not projection? So tell me, do you resemble Jesus more, or the people who killed Jesus? You sound more like a Pharisee to me

There are doctors with degrees who are terrible at their jobs, many people who are supposedly "trained' and "specialized" at something have been incredibly subpar at their jobs, I've seen Christians with theology degrees who somehow come out and say God hates gays and mass shooting masscres are because someone else were sinning, it's nothing other than self indulgent tripe to pump up your own tires when in fact they are flat and full of holes

 

[Bennett.]

Then refute the information in there. Propose your theory of how Judaism influenced Zoroastrianism and how it and why it did so. Tell me how you know Abraham is older than Zoroaster. Tell me how you know that the Abrahamic religions, particularly Judaism, began with an individual called 'Abraham'?



As opposed to your haste to prove the accuracy of everything written in the Bible? Where the evidence dictates, I'm very happy to agree that a few parts of the Bible are historically accurate. Those Deuteronomistic, Priestly and Jahwist writers of the 6th and 5th century BC did get something right.



I look forward to your dissertation on how Judaism influenced Zoroastrianism, backed up with appropriate evidence. Certainly the vast majority of scholars (and I have mentioned a few above) believe the opposite. Certainly the evidence I have read (and I have presented some earlier) suggests that Zoroastrianism influenced certain aspects of Judaic theology. All you have presented is your assertion that Judaism is older than Zoroastrianism because Abraham, Moasic Law and the psalms of David supposedly pre-dates Zoroaster. None of which can be proven. All that I have said is that due to the Jewish exile in Babylon that the existing Jewish theology was partly influenced and altered by existing Zoroastrian belief.



Well yes. Always willing to read further and have my opinions altered by well presented, well argued, logical, empirical evidence. I am sure that there remains undiscovered archaeological artefacts that will further illuminate ancient Middle Eastern history and possibly alter existing thoughts about the veracity of Biblical scripture - either negatively or positively.

My thoughts and opinions included. Until then though.....

Roy, if you will, your opinion?

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/antzoro.htm

 

[Bennett.]

Roylion has a lot of knowledge on the subject and I see him providing some of the best possible historical thought to add to the discussion. Whether it is the actual truth is up to you to decide. He will change his opinion tomorrow if it was found a photo of Jesus chilling with Moses and Abraham on the mountain. He is following the available data and I am sure he would agree that if new information becomes available , he will re think what he has included.

At the moment that leaves him to believe that the Abrahamic religions (among many he hadn't discussed) are not real history and have no supernatural base. That's what I get from your posts do please correct if I am off base there.

Unlike some on here, he is not being personal and making fun of faith in the supernatural, he is just passing on his thoughts based on research.

I love some of his research, I enjoy similar pursuits, but whether it alters your position is purely up to your strength of faith in the for or against the existence of a God.

Roy will not count the works and writings and research of anyone whom he thins has an agenda.
The irony being that there is some very good research available to challenge thinking, but does it suit HIS agenda?

 

[Pie eyed]

Yes I am

I agree.
There are many special folk in these threads.

 

[Pie eyed]

Roy will not count the works and writings and research of anyone whom he thins has an agenda.
The irony being that there is some very good research available to challenge thinking, but does it suit HIS agenda?

Just because someone took the time write down their opinion gives it no weight. It has to be backed by some substance.
Opinion is worth jack shit without support.

 

[Bennett.]

Just because someone took the time write down their opinion gives it no weight. It has to be backed by some substance.
Opinion is worth jack shit without support.

are you serious? Do you think people just write down their 'opinions' without any research whatsoever?
Or do you only consider certain people and certain 'qualifications' worthy of acceptance to your lofty standards?

 

[Pie eyed]

are you serious? Do you think people just write down their 'opinions' without any research whatsoever?
Or do you only consider certain people and certain 'qualifications' worthy of acceptance to your lofty standards?

In regard to religion?
Some people, definitely. Absolutely definitely in fact many go as far as to fabricate whatever t takes to support their foundless claims. Even pay substantial numbers of others to fraudulently support their bs stories, threaten, physically abuse and even murder those who won't accept their foundationless claims and opinions. For nearly 2000 years. There are several huge organisations devoted to nothing but enforcing foundationless beliefs and opinions on literally millions under threat of eternal damnation, not to mention real world psychological, physical and social abuse.
Categorically and absolutely yes.

 

[Bennett.]

In regard to religion?
Some people, definitely. Absolutely definitely in fact many go as far as to fabricate whatever t takes to support their foundless claims. Even pay substantial numbers of others to fraudulently support their bs stories, threaten, physically abuse and even murder those who won't accept their foundationless claims and opinions. For nearly 2000 years. There are several huge organisations devoted to nothing but enforcing foundationless beliefs and opinions on literally millions under threat of eternal damnation, not to mention real world psychological, physical and social abuse.
Categorically and absolutely yes.

Indeed, but not just people of different religious beliefs.

 

[Boston tiger]

In regard to religion?
Some people, definitely. Absolutely definitely in fact many go as far as to fabricate whatever t takes to support their foundless claims. Even pay substantial numbers of others to fraudulently support their bs stories, threaten, physically abuse and even murder those who won't accept their foundationless claims and opinions. For nearly 2000 years. There are several huge organisations devoted to nothing but enforcing foundationless beliefs and opinions on literally millions under threat of eternal damnation, not to mention real world psychological, physical and social abuse.
Categorically and absolutely yes.

Good luck with all that.

 

[Pie eyed]

Indeed, but not just people of different religious beliefs.

No not just, but most definitely many.

 

[Pie eyed]

Good luck with all that.

You dispute it or you wish me luck having a sensible discussion about it with religious types?

 

[skilts]

Roy will not count the works and writings and research of anyone whom he thins has an agenda.
The irony being that there is some very good research available to challenge thinking, but does it suit HIS agenda?

I think it highly unlikely that he would place any value on a work to which its author is unwilling to put his name.

 

[Boston tiger]

You dispute it or you wish me luck having a sensible discussion about it with religious types?

What a sensible discussion with us special types.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Finally, a non-believer asks a good and pertinent question that gets to the crux of the issue. I've answered this previously in God related threads, but will do so again.

God could destroy Satan at any time he so desires, but with God created spirit sons and humankind able to know of God's reaction to Satan's challenge of universal sovereignty, for God to immediately destroy Satan would leave the question of who is the rightful sovereign of the universe unanswered, and thus leaving God's position questionable. (Answering this question is the main point of the bible). So, in answer to Satan's challenge, God has allowed Satan a period of time to rule over the earth. With God having created humankind in a state of sinless perfection, and Satan's convincing of Eve to go against God's orders, sin was introduced into the world by Satan's actions. How this relates to the issue of universal sovereignty is how by Satan's actions and under Satan's rulership the earth and all the wickedness that's occurred is all on Satan's watch. Thus God allowing what's occurring on earth at present is proving a point to all as to whom has the right to rule and make a better universal sovereign. Either it be God and his desire for humankind who originally had sinless perfection and has promised in the bible to return faithful humankind to such a state once He calls time on Satan's period of rulership over the earth; or Satan, and we've seen during our lifetime and by means of history books the anguish, misery and death that by means of his actions he has wrought onto humankind during his rule.

Satan and the rebellious spirit beings who followed him have contempt for humankind and know they have only a limited period of time before God calls time on Satan's rulership. Thus in Satan's great anger, knowing his limited time before God finally does away with him, is attempting to drag down with him as many people as possible by turning folks against God, thus making these ones worthy of destruction at God's hand when execution of judgement on Satan's corrupted system and peoples is carried out at what the bible refers to as Armageddon.

Umm no that is a complete load of rubbish, Satan's existence is what makes people question gods reign at a basic level.

If Satan did not exist then there would be no question between them.

Who is your father? You know your father he raised you, you've only ever known him as your father.

Who your father is, is not questionable.

But if another dude shows up claiming to be your father, that calls into question wether your father is actually your father.

If the other guy didn't exist it would never be questioned.

The comparison to "Satan" is very much the same. Rather then legitimise god's rule Satans very existence calls it into question.

Your notion's on "legitimacy" are more reflective with how monarchies used to claim "legitimacy" see: killing there opponent's.

Remember: war doesn't decide who is right only who is left.

The ability to kill another being doesn't prove your right it only silences your critics.

Fact is we're supposed to believe that an all knowing being created other beings knowing they would rebel and lead other beings to rebel and then twist and corrupt, the all knowing beings "greatest creation", all so at some stage down the track this all knowing being and murder (and murder is completely accurate all of this is pre meditated) the **** out everyone who rebelled or got corrupted.

And this is the real crux of the issue. If "God" is omnipotent then he is responsible for everything, there is no issue which he is ignorant of. By definition there cannot be, therefore there is no "test" God knows in advance who will pass and fail his "tests" even before creating them, even what Satan would do. Literally everything.

Now by any sane rationalisation this whole thing is an utterly cruel exercise and unnecessary exercise, if you know the results of your "test" a test which no less results in the slaughter of billions. Why would you go through with it?

We're left with two equally disturbing outcomes either "God"

is sadistic, by an measure of the word.
Or he's not actually sure of the outcome.

The first questions just how much he "loves" people
The second questions wether he's actually omnipotent at all.

Both outcomes question his relationship with people, fact is God cannot be a "loving" God and omnipotent, no one who truly loves someone would put a loved one truth such a test, particularly if they knew the outcome in advance.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Finally, a non-believer asks a good and pertinent question that gets to the crux of the issue. I've answered this previously in God related threads, but will do so again.

God could destroy Satan at any time he so desires, but with God created spirit sons and humankind able to know of God's reaction to Satan's challenge of universal sovereignty, for God to immediately destroy Satan would leave the question of who is the rightful sovereign of the universe unanswered, and thus leaving God's position questionable. (Answering this question is the main point of the bible). So, in answer to Satan's challenge, God has allowed Satan a period of time to rule over the earth. With God having created humankind in a state of sinless perfection, and Satan's convincing of Eve to go against God's orders, sin was introduced into the world by Satan's actions. How this relates to the issue of universal sovereignty is how by Satan's actions and under Satan's rulership the earth and all the wickedness that's occurred is all on Satan's watch. Thus God allowing what's occurring on earth at present is proving a point to all as to whom has the right to rule and make a better universal sovereign. Either it be God and his desire for humankind who originally had sinless perfection and has promised in the bible to return faithful humankind to such a state once He calls time on Satan's period of rulership over the earth; or Satan, and we've seen during our lifetime and by means of history books the anguish, misery and death that by means of his actions he has wrought onto humankind during his rule.

Satan and the rebellious spirit beings who followed him have contempt for humankind and know they have only a limited period of time before God calls time on Satan's rulership. Thus in Satan's great anger, knowing his limited time before God finally does away with him, is attempting to drag down with him as many people as possible by turning folks against God, thus making these ones worthy of destruction at God's hand when execution of judgement on Satan's corrupted system and peoples is carried out at what the bible refers to as Armageddon.

This sounds like a great story. They should make it into a book


Or a cartoon series.

 

[Moti]

Umm no that is a complete load of rubbish, Satan's existence is what makes people question gods reign at a basic level.

If Satan did not exist then there would be no question between them.

Who is your father? You know your father he raised you, you've only ever known him as your father.

Who your father is, is not questionable.

But if another dude shows up claiming to be your father, that calls into question wether your father is actually your father.

If the other guy didn't exist it would never be questioned.

The comparison to "Satan" is very much the same. Rather then legitimise god's rule Satans very existence calls it into question.

Your notion's on "legitimacy" are more reflective with how monarchies used to claim "legitimacy" see: killing there opponent's.

Remember: war doesn't decide who is right only who is left.

The ability to kill another being doesn't prove your right it only silences your critics.

Fact is we're supposed to believe that an all knowing being created other beings knowing they would rebel and lead other beings to rebel and then twist and corrupt, the all knowing beings "greatest creation", all so at some stage down the track this all knowing being and murder (and murder is completely accurate all of this is pre meditated) the **** out everyone who rebelled or got corrupted.

And this is the real crux of the issue. If "God" is omnipotent then he is responsible for everything, there is no issue which he is ignorant of. By definition there cannot be, therefore there is no "test" God knows in advance who will pass and fail his "tests" even before creating them, even what Satan would do. Literally everything.

Now by any sane rationalisation this whole thing is an utterly cruel exercise and unnecessary exercise, if you know the results of your "test" a test which no less results in the slaughter of billions. Why would you go through with it?

We're left with two equally disturbing outcomes either "God"

is sadistic, by an measure of the word.
Or he's not actually sure of the outcome.

The first questions just how much he "loves" people
The second questions wether he's actually omnipotent at all.

Both outcomes question his relationship with people, fact is God cannot be a "loving" God and omnipotent, no one who truly loves someone would put a loved one truth such a test, particularly if they knew the outcome in advance.

As I said in another post, Free Will to coin a better phrase only works if you have two options. Lucifer wasn't created fallen, he chose to turn his back on his purpose in order to fulfil his own desire to be lifted up. There is no true relationship without the ability to choose.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

As I said in another post, Free Will to coin a better phrase only works if you have two options. Lucifer wasn't created fallen, he chose to turn his back on his purpose in order to fulfil his own desire to be lifted up. There is no true relationship without the ability to choose.

You don't seem to understand what omnipotence means.

 

[Moti]

You don't seem to understand what omnipotence means.

Yeah kinda do. Understand what y r getting at if you are in the belief that God should have made a creation without the possibility of rebellion. Double fist pump with the same thoughts of many but I am left with the distinct thought that it is not possible to have true relationship without choice, even if it may mean they say no.