God Is Not A Christian

[Segev Moran]

I believe those words are not in the text and are only your misinterpretation of the text.

I do not see any implication. What I see is an "if then" statement not a "then if" statement. In other words you are not allowed to reason backwards on an "if then" statement.

For instance if I am a Christian I may speak in tongues and certainly some will but a person who speaks in tongues might not be a Christian. Soo one may not be able to determine if a person is Christian by those signs. You can't reason backwards.

I Agree.. If anyone who showers takes a shave, doesn't mean that everyone who is shaved takes a shower

 

[Trichakra]

God wouldn't exist without human concepts, ideas, testimonies, et cetera of him.

You mean god does not exist?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

What if Satan were just "demonized" to distract from personal failings? Claims of Satan's evil are like claims of Jesus' sinlessness: unsubstantiated in the actual scenes where they exist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You mean god does not exist?

I use god for convinence. Human ideas, concepts, experiences makes up what we call god. God doesnt exist as a separate entity. In that point of view, he does not.

God is life and all the facets of it. Take out the name god and live life, than yes, life exists. We are living it now.

 

[ak.yonathan]

God is not a Christian.
God is not Jewish.
God is not Islamic.
God is not a Hindu.

God, as the supreme being, monotheistic deity, or creator of the universe, is not a member of any man made, earth bound religion. No single religion/denomination can lay claim that God belongs to them, and them alone. If anything, the exact nature of God is unknown. You can quote whatever holy book that you want, it does not prove anything.

It is important to separate the human conceptions of God from what we can actually observe...which will be difficult, since God does not make personal appearances and has yet to be captured on camera/video. To that end, we have to study nature and the cosmos in order to see God's creation at work and evolving (incidentally that is the core of deism).

God can't be bound in any human system of belief. Nor can God be restricted to one culture or geographic location. The exact details about God are unknown, and will remain so until said deity decides to make a personal appearance at a press conference, and goes through a Q&A session.

If it is true that at present God is still a mystery, then how do you know that He isn't Islamic, for instance? Just because God cannot be bound in any human system of belief does not mean that there no religions which don't do at least a crude job of depicting Him. Also, you're assuming that the religions you mentioned are man-made and earth-bound, but do you really have any evidence for those assertions? We haven't observed aliens yet, for instance, so how can we say that they won't have religion or that their religion will be different from ours?

 

[Neo Deist]

We haven't observed aliens yet, for instance...

Says who?

With the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe, and each galaxy having billions of planets, to think that God is bound up in some man made, earth centric religion is just wishful thinking.

 

[ak.yonathan]

Says who?

With the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe, and each galaxy having billions of planets, to think that God is bound up in some man made, earth centric religion is just wishful thinking.

Have you made contact with an advanced alien civilization? What is your basis for making such statements? As far as I know the Abrahamic religions are not earth-centric because they do not exclude the possibility of life outside Earth.

 

[Neo Deist]

Have you made contact with an advanced alien civilization? What is your basis for making such statements? As far as I know the Abrahamic religions are not earth-centric because they do not exclude the possibility of life outside Earth.

 

[ak.yonathan]

That doesn't explain anything about your views, now does it?

 

[Neo Deist]

That doesn't explain anything about your views, now does it?

My views are well documented on this forum, and thus no need to repeat them here. You can start with the Deism DIR.

 

[Trichakra]

God is "alive"

Every one has to taste the death one day except god. God is creator.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I Agree.. If anyone who showers takes a shave, doesn't mean that everyone who is shaved takes a shower

I think you and @Muffled need to read the passage again.

"And these signs shall follow them that believe:"

If a person believes, they will exhibit the signs listed.

It really isn't that hard to comprehend. The only problem is that we know that the passage is wrong: believers often don't exhibit the signs the passage says they will.

One response to this (i.e. that this section of Mark was a later addition, so it can be incorrect without reflecting on the "original" Bible) is generally reasonable. Denying that the passage says what it clearly does is not a reasonable response.

 

[savagewind]

I think you and @Muffled need to read the passage again.

"And these signs shall follow them that believe:"

If a person believes, they will exhibit the signs listed.

It really isn't that hard to comprehend. The only problem is that we know that the passage is wrong: believers often don't exhibit the signs the passage says they will.

One response to this (i.e. that this section of Mark was a later addition, so it can be incorrect without reflecting on the "original" Bible) is generally reasonable. Denying that the passage says what it clearly does is not a reasonable response.

To handle snakes might mean to be able to overcome Satan and the demons. Revelation 12:9 1 John 2:14
Speaking in tongues might mean the ability to communicate spiritual language. Zephaniah 3:9

 

[Segev Moran]

I think you and @Muffled need to read the passage again.

"And these signs shall follow them that believe:"

If a person believes, they will exhibit the signs listed.

It really isn't that hard to comprehend. The only problem is that we know that the passage is wrong: believers often don't exhibit the signs the passage says they will..

I Think that one of the problems with religion, is that people who actually believe, might actually think they saw signs.. That is the scary part of it...
People are imagining things and interpret them as Signs...

And I think that the statement is still relevant to the shower and shave example..
You could say that same phrase this way: Anyone who sees signs is a believer..
This does not mean that anyone who believes sees signs..

Never the less.. Seeing signs or not, These are all illusions and thing one's imagination is responsible for...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And I think that the statement is still relevant to the shower and shave example..
You could say that same phrase this way: Anyone who sees signs is a believer..
This does not mean that anyone who believes sees signs..

No. You have it backwards. It says that the believers will exhibit the signs.

This means that not all people exhibiting the signs are necessarily believers, and that all believers will necessarily exhibit the signs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To handle snakes might mean to be able to overcome Satan and the demons. Revelation 12:9 1 John 2:14
Speaking in tongues might mean the ability to communicate spiritual language. Zephaniah 3:9

What reason do you have to assume that the writer intended these passages to be interpreted non-literally?

 

[savagewind]

What reason do you have to assume that the writer intended these passages to be interpreted non-literally?

What reason do you have to assume he meant them to be interpreted literally?

 

[Segev Moran]

No. You have it backwards. It says that the believers will exhibit the signs.

This means that not all people exhibiting the signs are necessarily believers, and that all believers will necessarily exhibit the signs.

No matter what order we read the sentence.. Seems we both agree it wrong

 

[Muffled]

I Agree.. If anyone who showers takes a shave, doesn't mean that everyone who is shaved takes a shower

I shower regularly but only shave once a week on Sunday to save money on razor blades.

The thing is that there is another verse on this subject:
I Cor. 12:10 and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discernings of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; and to another the interpretation of tongues:

So although the gifts will show up among Christians not all Christians will have the same gift and maybe some will have none mentioned and others many.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What reason do you have to assume he meant them to be interpreted literally?

The fact that it's presented in the context of a straightforward instruction: "go and do this thing, and if it worked, here's what you'll see."

Do you think the parts of the passage about baptism and salvation are also meant non-literally?