Belief and 'The God Delusion'
- Thread starter eharper256
- Start date
sixtyandaquarter
Member
I had a really long post.
I did. I truthfully did. I even took the time to be respectful and everything. I had every one of those passages - I googled them.
I'd knew I'd know them, if I read them. And I did. Being raised up in numerous religions on the big Jesus Tree. Problem is, every religion saw practically every single one of those notes as something different.
You can't say most pastors and theologists would say the same. Because they don't.
People argue, constantly, over the wording of "My Father". We use words like that today. Look in a church. Go ahead. "Heavenly Father". "Oh Father, look down on high from heaven". We use the term as a humanizing effect.
Maybe we got it from Jesus saying it? No.
"My Father" is also used in countless of religions predating Christianity. You have the old styled sun worshipers whose named for the sun was Father. Consider with that, many old Greek transcripts use the terminology that does not translate itself well to "My Father" but rather "The Father" or simply father - as the old man.
You know that old man in small towns, people call him pops. He ain't their pop, he might be someone elses pop or not, but you call him pop just the same. Some of the terminology closely resembles that.
You have the nice passage there.
Where Jesus says something along the lines (sorry, not googling again) of he who accepts the Son of Man before men, shall see him in heaven before angels. He who sins against him, shall not be forgiven. Holy Spirit. The end.
I'm doing a horrible favor to those lines with that horrible paraphrasing.
But again, too many meanings.
You shall see him before humans - because he leads the way.
You shall see him before angels - because he's taking you there. To heaven.
That's one meaning. It's also one that doesn't state Jesus was ever saying he was the Son of God - just saying "Yo, come with me. Do as I do. It's peachy, let's all have our little thing and be nice, and we'll go up to heaven afterwards. Don't know the way? S'okay, you can hitch a ride with me."
See, I didn't do such a horrible disservice that time. Unless you're a real hard core in the faith. Which case, yeah. I just probably insulted ya.
Either way,
for all the instances where he "could've" just easily said he was just some schmoe, a teacher - he had a hell of a lot of just as easy moments where he could've just said "Yeah, dude totally. God? My dad man. And what?!" and he didn't.
The entirety of the stories relating to him are about as foggy as a Stephen King rewrite. You have no idea what's going on. What? Monsters in the closet? Again?
There's absolutely nothing in that old book that says "Yes/No I am/not the Son of God on high."
Besides this threads about something else.
And you got me typing out these long boring ramblings. What's wrong with you people. Doing this to me again, don't you know my ring finger starts to burn and my wrist starts to ache typing this much this fast?
I did. I truthfully did. I even took the time to be respectful and everything. I had every one of those passages - I googled them.
I'd knew I'd know them, if I read them. And I did. Being raised up in numerous religions on the big Jesus Tree. Problem is, every religion saw practically every single one of those notes as something different.
You can't say most pastors and theologists would say the same. Because they don't.
People argue, constantly, over the wording of "My Father". We use words like that today. Look in a church. Go ahead. "Heavenly Father". "Oh Father, look down on high from heaven". We use the term as a humanizing effect.
Maybe we got it from Jesus saying it? No.
"My Father" is also used in countless of religions predating Christianity. You have the old styled sun worshipers whose named for the sun was Father. Consider with that, many old Greek transcripts use the terminology that does not translate itself well to "My Father" but rather "The Father" or simply father - as the old man.
You know that old man in small towns, people call him pops. He ain't their pop, he might be someone elses pop or not, but you call him pop just the same. Some of the terminology closely resembles that.
You have the nice passage there.
Where Jesus says something along the lines (sorry, not googling again) of he who accepts the Son of Man before men, shall see him in heaven before angels. He who sins against him, shall not be forgiven. Holy Spirit. The end.
I'm doing a horrible favor to those lines with that horrible paraphrasing.
But again, too many meanings.
You shall see him before humans - because he leads the way.
You shall see him before angels - because he's taking you there. To heaven.
That's one meaning. It's also one that doesn't state Jesus was ever saying he was the Son of God - just saying "Yo, come with me. Do as I do. It's peachy, let's all have our little thing and be nice, and we'll go up to heaven afterwards. Don't know the way? S'okay, you can hitch a ride with me."
See, I didn't do such a horrible disservice that time. Unless you're a real hard core in the faith. Which case, yeah. I just probably insulted ya.
Either way,
for all the instances where he "could've" just easily said he was just some schmoe, a teacher - he had a hell of a lot of just as easy moments where he could've just said "Yeah, dude totally. God? My dad man. And what?!" and he didn't.
The entirety of the stories relating to him are about as foggy as a Stephen King rewrite. You have no idea what's going on. What? Monsters in the closet? Again?
There's absolutely nothing in that old book that says "Yes/No I am/not the Son of God on high."
Besides this threads about something else.
And you got me typing out these long boring ramblings. What's wrong with you people. Doing this to me again, don't you know my ring finger starts to burn and my wrist starts to ache typing this much this fast?
Ok, you're right in that I should have been more specific when I said MOST pastors and theologians. I suppose saying a lot of them or almost all the practicing Christian ones would make a similar claim (or at least the ones that say they're Christians ought to as its one of the core beliefs in Christianity) would have been more appropriate.
One of the reasons it makes more sense to me that he is claiming to be the Son of God is because thats what the leading priests' excuse is for having him executed. It makes less sense to me that they'd say there killing him because he calling out to someone (also Jesus was a Jew so when they said Father they were likely referring to Yahweh (God)).
(using the NLT)
Matt 16:15-17 ~ acknowledging he's the Son of the Living God
Luke 12:8-10, ~ calls himself the Son of Man
Matthew 26:62-66 ~ acknowledges himself as the Son of Man, the Messiah
Matt 27:43 ~ priests restating what Jesus said about being Son of God
Luke 22:66-71 ~ calls himself Son of Man, acknowledges he's the Son of God
John 19:4-7 ~ sayi9ng he should die because he called himself the Son of God
John 18: 36 ~ Jesus saying his kingdom is not of this earth
John 11:25 ~ claims he is the Saviour
Though I will agree not everyone agrees with this idea, but like I said in my 1st post intelligent people can come to different conclusions over the same information. Though in the end there can only be one truth (if they differ).
One of the reasons it makes more sense to me that he is claiming to be the Son of God is because thats what the leading priests' excuse is for having him executed. It makes less sense to me that they'd say there killing him because he calling out to someone (also Jesus was a Jew so when they said Father they were likely referring to Yahweh (God)).
(using the NLT)
Matt 16:15-17 ~ acknowledging he's the Son of the Living God
Luke 12:8-10, ~ calls himself the Son of Man
Matthew 26:62-66 ~ acknowledges himself as the Son of Man, the Messiah
Matt 27:43 ~ priests restating what Jesus said about being Son of God
Luke 22:66-71 ~ calls himself Son of Man, acknowledges he's the Son of God
John 19:4-7 ~ sayi9ng he should die because he called himself the Son of God
John 18: 36 ~ Jesus saying his kingdom is not of this earth
John 11:25 ~ claims he is the Saviour
Though I will agree not everyone agrees with this idea, but like I said in my 1st post intelligent people can come to different conclusions over the same information. Though in the end there can only be one truth (if they differ).
sixtyandaquarter
Member
This really should be in another thread...
Well the problem is most priests I've talked to or argued with, going to private schools in 4 different religions, and none of them ever stated he reason he was executed by the Romans had anything to do with him being the Son of God. But rather for the same reason they (authorities, or those who claimed to be) had Pluto poisoned, Malcolm X shot (to several theories at least), and hundreds more who challenged - directly or indirectly - the current state of things.
Don't forget the Jews were not an empowered people at the time, and someone coming out of the blue and gaining support is a danger to those in power - EVEN IF this person is not attempting to lead a political movement. The fact is there are dozens of messiahs in countless regions threw out history, and if Jesus was real and the stories are based on fact, than in general he was killed because he had too much pull.
He was brought up by the Rabbi's who he was calling sinners and heathens and what not. The same Rabbi's whose teachings were being challenged, and found themselves giving prayer to a smaller community. The Romans, Pilot btw who walked away so I'll exclude him in general, needed the political pull more than they did just a few weeks and/or months before, and the Rabbi's are a perfect fit for that.
Romans are smart. They go in and take a place and when they aren't militarily controlling it, they try to reach the teachers and so Rabbi's would and have always been a good target for "friendship". This is the favor the Romans would gladly fulfill for the Rabbis for future support. The death of one man, whom even the crowd was against? Rome looks good now, doesn't it.
Well the problem is most priests I've talked to or argued with, going to private schools in 4 different religions, and none of them ever stated he reason he was executed by the Romans had anything to do with him being the Son of God. But rather for the same reason they (authorities, or those who claimed to be) had Pluto poisoned, Malcolm X shot (to several theories at least), and hundreds more who challenged - directly or indirectly - the current state of things.
Don't forget the Jews were not an empowered people at the time, and someone coming out of the blue and gaining support is a danger to those in power - EVEN IF this person is not attempting to lead a political movement. The fact is there are dozens of messiahs in countless regions threw out history, and if Jesus was real and the stories are based on fact, than in general he was killed because he had too much pull.
He was brought up by the Rabbi's who he was calling sinners and heathens and what not. The same Rabbi's whose teachings were being challenged, and found themselves giving prayer to a smaller community. The Romans, Pilot btw who walked away so I'll exclude him in general, needed the political pull more than they did just a few weeks and/or months before, and the Rabbi's are a perfect fit for that.
Romans are smart. They go in and take a place and when they aren't militarily controlling it, they try to reach the teachers and so Rabbi's would and have always been a good target for "friendship". This is the favor the Romans would gladly fulfill for the Rabbis for future support. The death of one man, whom even the crowd was against? Rome looks good now, doesn't it.
Incognitus
Member
The Archbishop of Westminster has urged Christians to treat atheists and agnostics with "deep esteem".
Believers may be partly responsible for the decline in faith by losing sense of the mystery and treating God as a "fact in the world", he said in a lecture.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor called for more understanding and appreciation between believers and non-believers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7390941.stm
I really think he has a point about treating "God" as an absolute fact set in stone which is repelling those without faith.
Believers may be partly responsible for the decline in faith by losing sense of the mystery and treating God as a "fact in the world", he said in a lecture.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor called for more understanding and appreciation between believers and non-believers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7390941.stm
I really think he has a point about treating "God" as an absolute fact set in stone which is repelling those without faith.
BlackWings
Member
If you wanna think about it as "something that makes sense" I hope these stories are helpful/useful to someone:
Story [1]:
A non-believer asked a simple man "Why do you believe in god ?" & the simple man replied "Camel-shit proves that there is a camel, & foot-prints prove that there is walking; so doesn't the sky, the earth & the universe prove that there is an almighty creator ?"
Story [2]:
- There was a non-believer who's great with debates & he came to debate one of the great men in Islam (Abu Haneefah was his name if memory serves me right) about how the universe was just a coincidence & that there is no god. Abu Haneefah was late to the debate.
- So when he was asked "Why were you late ?" He Replied "I couldn't find a ferry to cross the river, but as I was sitting still some wood drifted & then came the hammers & nails & all of a sudden I got a boat to cross the river".
- The non-believer then said "What is this nonesense! Is this the man you claim to be one of your best debaters?".
- Abu Haneefah Replied "Why? Don't you believe me?".
- The non-believer said "No ... ofcourse I don't".
- Then Abu Haneefah said "If you can't believe a simple coincidence like a boat being made without a creator; How can you believe that the whole universe & our existense was just a coincidence & that there is no creator?"
I'd just like to say that you do not have to SEE something to believe in it. as with the first story by looking at the foot-prints ... that is proof that someone passed by that road & you BELIEVE IT without hesitating. So all of these wonders you see everyday like the human body & how it has an ingenious system. How the seasons change & how the solar system works with absolute accuracy; could it really have been just a coincidence?
In the end i'd like to say I'm just trying to share my knowledge & we are all here to learn from each other & hopefully be helpful to one another.
Best Regards,
BlackWings
Story [1]:
A non-believer asked a simple man "Why do you believe in god ?" & the simple man replied "Camel-shit proves that there is a camel, & foot-prints prove that there is walking; so doesn't the sky, the earth & the universe prove that there is an almighty creator ?"
Story [2]:
- There was a non-believer who's great with debates & he came to debate one of the great men in Islam (Abu Haneefah was his name if memory serves me right) about how the universe was just a coincidence & that there is no god. Abu Haneefah was late to the debate.
- So when he was asked "Why were you late ?" He Replied "I couldn't find a ferry to cross the river, but as I was sitting still some wood drifted & then came the hammers & nails & all of a sudden I got a boat to cross the river".
- The non-believer then said "What is this nonesense! Is this the man you claim to be one of your best debaters?".
- Abu Haneefah Replied "Why? Don't you believe me?".
- The non-believer said "No ... ofcourse I don't".
- Then Abu Haneefah said "If you can't believe a simple coincidence like a boat being made without a creator; How can you believe that the whole universe & our existense was just a coincidence & that there is no creator?"
I'd just like to say that you do not have to SEE something to believe in it. as with the first story by looking at the foot-prints ... that is proof that someone passed by that road & you BELIEVE IT without hesitating. So all of these wonders you see everyday like the human body & how it has an ingenious system. How the seasons change & how the solar system works with absolute accuracy; could it really have been just a coincidence?
In the end i'd like to say I'm just trying to share my knowledge & we are all here to learn from each other & hopefully be helpful to one another.
Best Regards,
BlackWings
sixtyandaquarter
Member
No. It doesn't prove anything.BlackWings":1sqfne98 said:
Foot prints can be faked :p
No. I saw a foot print. Where that foot print came from, can always be argued. Was it man made? If I switch this to big foot for a minute here, did I just prove big foot's existence by seeing a foot print that matched what we believe to be big foot's?
Seeing isn't believing. I can see a thousand things that aren't real. I can see a man made foot print in the sand meant to confuse me into thinking there is a pack of camels going by, or that big foot lurks in the forest region, or that god touched a sandwhich and left a finger print - but that doesn't mean that's the case.
Your stories are nice, they are. I actually love reading up on things like that - but for every one meant to persuade the existence of god there's another one that does the opposite and is equally as nice and poeticly simple.
Yes. Anything and everything can in fact be a coincidence. I don't cling to the idea that "everything happens for a reason". I see no reason for me stubbing my toe in July the 27th at 2:30 am. Perhaps there was, I won't be a fool and say there is absolutely no reason I stubbed my toe. But that's got to be some mysterious ways if there's a reason for that.
See it's nice to have stories, but that's all they are. Stories.
Some people will take them to heart, and others will take them as text. I could argue the three blind men and the elephant. They all felt different things, but agreed that the animal had two tails. It's easily a point to be made there, that while seeing is believing - what you don't see and assume, is not always truthful.
And that goes for both sides of debate on this topics.
This I agree with eternally.
God, god, gods, or not - that's probably the best truth.
BlackWings
Member
That's exactly what I'm trying to say: EVEN if the foot-print was faked ... SOMEBODY faked the footprint in order to confuse you.
Take this for example: could a topic exist without a topic CREATOR, even if you're going to tell me there's bots & programs; someone CREATED those bots or programs. so they couldn't have been a coincidence.
I'm not talking about the reason, I'm talking about the CREATOR ... YOU stubbed your toe. so you created that situation by walking.
Best Regards,
BlackWings
rexxzecutioner
Member
"Camel-shit proves that there is a camel, & foot-prints prove that there is walking; so doesn't the sky, the earth & the universe prove that there is an almighty creator ?"
The answer is no.
The answer is no.