Questions for God

[1213]

Many humans are. Extremists tend not to be.

I don't think it has anything to do with their wisdom, or understanding.

I notice you offer no reason why you disagree. Maybe you don't know why.

Then God is a sociopath, because no good reason to think so.
And any smart thinker could not do better than the Creator of Genesis, because I think it was best way. And I think it was the best way for example, because it allows freedom.

Have you ever wondered why your God doesn't save kids with deadly diseases?

Why should I believe God doesn't save kids with deadly diseases?

I think it would also be good to understand, in Biblical point of view this "life" is the first death. No one survives this alive. This short lesson is not even meant to last forever. Eternal life is with God. And I believe many children can have that. However, I don't know who are the ones who God has saved to the eternal life. I only know that it is promised for righteous. That is why I believe all righteous people are saved to there.

 

[Bthoth]

Can a person visualize a new prime color for the rainbow? I don’t think so.

ever have an x-ray? Man created the machine.

How is it that anyone could even conceive of anything that doesn’t exist and that he hasn’t experienced?

The same way, evolution is described.

Yet, you are saying people created the idea of God without any stimulus or experience. Where did that idea come from?

Nyctophobia.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I’m sure Paul did.

There are righteous people in the Bible, so whoever says otherwise clearly didn’t read the whole thing.

 

[F1fan]

Fictional stories or characters are created based on things people are already familiar with in the physical world, they are just tweaked or exaggerated.

That's why God is modeled after man. Look at the referrences, like "God the Father". Yahweh even had a female partner before Hebrews intertwined her with Yahweh. Greek and Roman gods are modeled after humans. Hindu gods modeled after humans and animals.

But if a Creator God type character is non-existent and not a part of any ancient person’s experience, how would the concept of God/gods with supernatural powers ever come to mind, be invented, or even be seen as providing answers, as you imply?

This construct isn't factual, it is an invented answer to questions that had no factual answer, yet.

I don't think it has anything to do with their wisdom, or understanding.

Extremism is the antithesis to wisdom.

Then God is a sociopath, because no good reason to think so.

Just read the the Old Testament. There is your reason to categorize Yahweh as a sociopath.

And any smart thinker could not do better than the Creator of Genesis, because I think it was best way. And I think it was the best way for example, because it allows freedom.

Yeah, God did such a good job that Eden failed, and he then had regrets what he created and flooded the planet. I could do better. Mabe you can't, which is nothing to brag about. God is either a screw up (like humans) or is a sociopath. I'm being kind, God is a serial killer.

Why should I believe God doesn't save kids with deadly diseases?

Because of the death rate. If not for modern medicine and science more would die. How else do ou explain little kids getting cancer if not God? How often do we hear Christians claim God has a plan for everyone, and that must include cancer if you lose the lottery of life.

I think it would also be good to understand, in Biblical point of view this "life" is the first death. No one survives this alive. This short lesson is not even meant to last forever. Eternal life is with God. And I believe many children can have that. However, I don't know who are the ones who God has saved to the eternal life. I only know that it is promised for righteous. That is why I believe all righteous people are saved to there.

This is all dogma, and none of it factual or reasonable to believe.

 

[Dimi95]

Religious faith is unjustified belief, meaning belief that has no factual or reasonable basis. To have faith in a partner or process is synonymous with trust.

Both have something in common - personal relationship.

So you are a person and i can't get to know you , if you are not prepared to reveal yourself to me.

The claim that Christ is God incarnate makes perfect sence to me.

Becauase If there is a God who invented this marvelous universe , then he has taken the initiative of getting to know us and revelaing himself.

And he has revealed to us in a way that is understandable - as a person.

So Is that really truth?
Or it's just myth and fantasy?

The ancient Greeks created logic, and these have become the formal standard for reasoning in law, debate, science, and basic critical thinking. Logic and critical thinking is not useful, nor used by theists.

I have no problem with what you pointed.

When i look at debates between theist who practice science and atheist who also practice science , i see how that logic gets back to atheists like a boomerang.

That does not mean that they are not knowlegable.

Still no explanation to support your claim that Catholicism created Islam.

I am occupied with work at the moment , but when i have time i will collect what i have and present it as evidence.

Of the many diverse God claims none I have seen has been able to prove any exist. The question is why believers keep thinking their Gods exist when there is no factual basis for their judgment. It's notable that believers tend to adopt the version of God the are exposed to socially.

Well for start , Eastern Orthodoxy presents different culture , philosophy , wisdom etc etc..

I was raised in the East , and i live now in the West , i see the difference everyday in human affairs.

We have different morals and principles, that's just as simple as it gets.
We belive in different kind of ultimate justice.

 

[Dimi95]

You haven't even tried to talk about history, so how would you know?

If the resurrection did not take place as the four gospels describe, then how do we explain the explosive growth of the Christian church to over 33 million believers and 56 percent of the Roman Empire’s population, just 300 years after the resurrection was first reported?

These facts of secular history, preserved today in the records of the Roman Senate, are compelling and empirical evidence that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was well known by the Romans.It is irrelevant that the Romans didn’t believe the resurrection had taken place. What we should pay attention to is the fact that Roman Leaders understood that Christians believed this doctrine so fervently that they would rather die than deny it had taken place.

While it is possible that a person could die for a lie, in the case of Christianity, those who believed Jesus had risen from the dead, had credible evidence to support their fervent belief. Christians of that time had something in their possession that others who died for their beliefs did not have; a written record from eyewitnesses who stated they had seen Jesus crucified and then alive three days later.

“I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him.” ~1 Corinthians 15:3-8

There is no possibility that 5 million Christians would willingly go to their death, if they were not convinced that Jesus had risen.It was this written and disseminated eyewitness testimony that every Christian knew, believed, and lived to their death, that proves Jesus had risen from the dead. Even without scientific evidence that many demand for the resurrection, there is an even greater and more compelling evidence that proves many events of antiquity: How people lived their lives after an event is said to have taken place. Five million Christians who would rather die than deny Jesus’ resurrection, is extraordinary evidence that it really happened.

This record also contains the testimony of the most astute Pharisee in Israel, Saul of Tarsus, who stated in 14 letters that He had seen the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes: “Am I not as free as anyone else? Am I not an apostle? Haven’t I seen Jesus our Lord with my own eyes?” ~1 Corinthians 9:1.

It is certain that Roman leaders did not believe in the resurrection, but they certainly accepted that Christians believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. It is this record that remains in the Roman Senate today that is compelling evidence of Jesus’ resurrection.

These facts were established by the writings of Roman Historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, as they described the resurrection as a terrible superstition that would endanger the Roman Empire. It was for this reason that we have an incredible record that Jesus had risen from the dead because history records that over five million Christians went to their death during a 250-year period of history under ten Roman Emperors, rather than recant and deny Jesus’ resurrection had taken place.

The early Roman writers viewed Christianity not as another kind of piety, but as a 'superstition.' Pliny, a Roman governor writing circa 110 AD, called Christianity a 'superstition taken to extravagant lengths.' Similarly, the Roman historian Tacitus called it 'a deadly superstition,' and the historian Suetonius called Christians 'a class of persons given to a new and mischievous superstition.'

Myths and legends which claim that a person had risen from the dead cannot survive 2,000 years of scrutiny if they are not true.This has never happened during man’s history, and for good reason. People want to know the truth, and they will invest themselves in seeking to discover whether events are genuine or not.

It was because Christians believed in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, that ten Roman Emperors gave their orders to execute any Christian who would not repent of their Christianity and worship a Roman god.Since Christians maintained such a firm belief that Jesus had risen from the dead because it is firmly established in their scriptures, they would not deny Jesus.

History records that early Christians were persecuted and killed by the Roman government for a period of 250 years,beginning with Nero in 54 A.D. and ending with Diocletian in 313 A.D.

Nero (54-68):
Paul was beheaded; Peter was crucified upside down.
Domitian (95-96): John was exiled to Patmos, and wrote the Book of Revelation.
Trajan (104-117): Ignatius was burned at the stake.
Marcus Aurelius (161-180): Polycarp was martyred.
Septimus Severus (200-211): He executed Irenaeus.
Maximinus (235-237): He killed Ursula and Hippolytus.
Decius (249-251)
Valerian (257-260)
Aurelian (270-275)
Diocletian (303-313): He killed more Christians than all before him.

"If the resurrection did not take place as the four gospels describe, then how do we explain the explosive growth of the Christian church to over 33 million believers and 56 percent of the Roman Empire’s population, just 300 years after the resurrection was first reported?

These facts of secular history, preserved today in the records of the Roman Senate, are compelling and empirical evidence that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was well known by the Romans.It is irrelevant that the Romans didn’t believe the resurrection had taken place. What we should pay attention to is the fact that Roman Leaders understood that Christians believed this doctrine so fervently that they would rather die than deny it had taken place.

While it is possible that a person could die for a lie, in the case of Christianity, those who believed Jesus had risen from the dead, had credible evidence to support their fervent belief. Christians of that time had something in their possession that others who died for their beliefs did not have; a written record from eyewitnesses who stated they had seen Jesus crucified and then alive three days later.

“I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him.” ~1 Corinthians 15:3-8

There is no possibility that 5 million Christians would willingly go to their death, if they were not convinced that Jesus had risen.It was this written and disseminated eyewitness testimony that every Christian knew, believed, and lived to their death, that proves Jesus had risen from the dead. Even without scientific evidence that many demand for the resurrection, there is an even greater and more compelling evidence that proves many events of antiquity: How people lived their lives after an event is said to have taken place. Five million Christians who would rather die than deny Jesus’ resurrection, is extraordinary evidence that it really happened.

This record also contains the testimony of the most astute Pharisee in Israel, Saul of Tarsus, who stated in 14 letters that He had seen the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes: “Am I not as free as anyone else? Am I not an apostle? Haven’t I seen Jesus our Lord with my own eyes?” ~1 Corinthians 9:1.

It is certain that Roman leaders did not believe in the resurrection, but they certainly accepted that Christians believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. It is this record that remains in the Roman Senate today that is compelling evidence of Jesus’ resurrection.

These facts were established by the writings of Roman Historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, as they described the resurrection as a terrible superstition that would endanger the Roman Empire. It was for this reason that we have an incredible record that Jesus had risen from the dead because history records that over five million Christians went to their death during a 250-year period of history under ten Roman Emperors, rather than recant and deny Jesus’ resurrection had taken place.

The early Roman writers viewed Christianity not as another kind of piety, but as a 'superstition.' Pliny, a Roman governor writing circa 110 AD, called Christianity a 'superstition taken to extravagant lengths.' Similarly, the Roman historian Tacitus called it 'a deadly superstition,' and the historian Suetonius called Christians 'a class of persons given to a new and mischievous superstition.'

Myths and legends which claim that a person had risen from the dead cannot survive 2,000 years of scrutiny if they are not true.This has never happened during man’s history, and for good reason. People want to know the truth, and they will invest themselves in seeking to discover whether events are genuine or not.

It was because Christians believed in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, that ten Roman Emperors gave their orders to execute any Christian who would not repent of their Christianity and worship a Roman god.Since Christians maintained such a firm belief that Jesus had risen from the dead because it is firmly established in their scriptures, they would not deny Jesus.

History records that early Christians were persecuted and killed by the Roman government for a period of 250 years,beginning with Nero in 54 A.D. and ending with Diocletian in 313 A.D.

Nero (54-68):
Paul was beheaded; Peter was crucified upside down.
Domitian (95-96): John was exiled to Patmos, and wrote the Book of Revelation.
Trajan (104-117): Ignatius was burned at the stake.
Marcus Aurelius (161-180): Polycarp was martyred.
Septimus Severus (200-211): He executed Irenaeus.
Maximinus (235-237): He killed Ursula and Hippolytus.
Decius (249-251)
Valerian (257-260)
Aurelian (270-275)
Diocletian (303-313): He killed more Christians than all before him.

The most reliable source for the true facts of this persecution of Christians is from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. During this period of history, John Foxe estimated that five million Christians were killed for simply believing in Jesus as their Savior.

 

[Dimi95]

Continues

Documentation For The Reliable Testimony of John Foxe
Warren Wooden wrote in 1983:

“Foxe’s reputation as a careful and accurate, albeit partisan, historian especially of the events of his own day, has been cleansed and restored with the result that modern historians no longer feel constrained to apologize automatically for evidence and examples drawn from the ‘’Acts and Monuments’’⁠

Noted English Historian, Patrick Collinson, acknowledged Foxe’s work as a valid historian, and said:

“John Foxe was the greatest [English] historian of his age….and the greatest revisionist ever.”⁠

J. F. Mozley stated that John Foxe “preserved a high standard of honesty… and proclaims the honest man, sincere seeker after truth.”⁠

Mozley quotes the words of John Foxe on page 168 of his book “Actes and Monuments”:

“What the intent and custom is of the papists to do, I cannot tell: for mine own I will say, although many other vices I have, yet from this one I have always of nature abhorred, wittingly to deceive any man or child, so near as I could, much less the church of God, whom I with all my heart do reverence, and with fear obey.”⁠

The 2009 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica describes the work of John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs as:

“Factually detailed and preserves much firsthand material on the English Reformation unobtainable elsewhere.”

The false charges that John Foxe did not accurately record the actual deaths of the early believers of Jesus is further impeached by those who have investigated this early Christian author.

Dr. Herbert Samworth writes:

“There is probably no other book that accomplished the repudiation of the Roman Church in England as did the Acts and Monuments. However, I believe that a strong case can be made that this was not the original intent of the work. Certainly it possesses an anti-Roman bias but this was because of the intolerance and cruelty imposed on those who disagreed with its teachings. However, Foxe did not limit his disagreement against temporal forms of punishing heresy to the Roman Church. He was totally opposed to any form of temporal punishment against false teaching whether it was practiced by the Roman Church or the Protestant Church.

However, if we are to understand this we must know something of the man himself. Foxe matriculated in 1534 and graduated from Oxford University around four years later because he became master in 1539. There was always one consistent thing about John Foxe and it was his pronounced Protestantism. Indeed, his faithfulness to its teaching cost him his fellowship because it required ordination to hold it. However, to be ordained meant to take the vow of celibacy and Foxe remained unconvinced that this was what the Word of God taught even though the Church had made it a sacrament.
Not only was Foxe a person of integrity he was also known for his unwillingness to seek preferment in the church for the sake of material gain. The case of those who used the religious changes in England under Henry VIII and Edward VI to enrich themselves is not pleasant to read.

Source : Historical Evidence That Proves The Resurrection Of Jesus

 

[ppp]

f the resurrection did not take place as the four gospels describe, then how do we explain the explosive growth of the Christian church to over 33 million believers and 56 percent of the Roman Empire’s population, just 300 years after the resurrection was first reported?

The same way we explain every other religion in history. People said something. People believed it, or found it useful to proclaim belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you are a person and i can't get to know you , if you are not prepared to reveal yourself to me.

God did reveal Himself to us through Jesus, and that is how we can relate to God personally.

The claim that Christ is God incarnate makes perfect sence to me.

It makes no sense to me that God became a man, which is what incarnation means. The Bible says that God is not a man, God is spirit.

I believe that Jesus was a Manifestation of God in the flesh, not God in the flesh. This excerpt from a longer paper explains the difference between an incarnation and a Manifestation.

“The Christian equivalent to the Bahá'í concept of Manifestation is the concept of incarnation. The word to incarnate means 'to embody in flesh or 'to assume, or exist in, a bodily (esp. a human) form (Oxford English Dictionary). From a Bahá'í point of view, the important question regarding the subject of incarnation is, what does Jesus incarnate? Bahá'ís can certainly say that Jesus incarnated Gods attributes, in the sense that in Jesus, Gods attributes were perfectly reflected and expressed.[4] The Bahá'í scriptures, however, reject the belief that the ineffable essence of the Divinity was ever perfectly and completely contained in a single human body, because the Bahá'í scriptures emphasize the omnipresence and transcendence of the essence of God…..

One can argue that Bahá'u'lláh is asserting that epistemologically the Manifestations are God, for they are the perfect embodiment of all we can know about God; but ontologically they are not God, for they are not identical with God's essence. Perhaps this is the meaning of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospel of John: 'If you had known me, you would have known my Father also' (John 14:7) and 'he who has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9).”

Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings

Becauase If there is a God who invented this marvelous universe , then he has taken the initiative of getting to know us and revelaing himself.

And he has revealed to us in a way that is understandable - as a person.

Yes, that is what a Manifestation of God is, a person who manifests God. A person is understandable to us but God isn't.

 

[Dimi95]

Because of the thousands of believers I have encountered since 1996 none have ever been able to offer evdience that an God exists. Are you really the first? Not according to your posts so far. Just more handwaving.

I am just one number after 0.0...

Individual interpretation is why Christianity is fragmented.

That is an argument of personal incredulity
In the same way i can opose that with the argument of personal credulity, so based on Individual interpretation is how Christianity is perserved.

Whatever is availble in resources online.

I think there is more then that.

Where is it? Look at your posts so far, no evidence at all despite many fantstic claims. So you're not even serious about arguing your claims.

Am I?

That's OK. You're doing fine. I would suggest iyou learn about evidence for claims. That you believe something is true is irrelevant if you can't support it with evidence.

I have buyed some books , we will see where that goes..

Absolutely. There is no reason to accept the story as true. The whole Jesus myth is absurd, and likely derived from Egyptian lore.

We value evidence in history differently

 

[F1fan]

I am just one number after 0.0...

That's bad luck.

That is an argument of personal incredulity

No it isn't, it is an observation that personal interpretations of the Bible has resulted in massive fragmentation of Christianitÿ.

In the same way i can opose that with the argument of personal credulity, so based on Individual interpretation is how Christianity is perserved.

This makes no sense. How does Christianity fragmenting into new sects preserve it?

I think there is more then that.

No one cares unless you have a good argument. Go on.

Am I?

LOL, you are a loss for words where it comes to debate.

We value evidence in history differently

Actual evidence is what I value, not religious dogma.

 

[Dimi95]

The same way we explain every other religion in history. People said something. People believed it, or found it useful to proclaim belief.

There is a difference between Christianity and other religions in history because of the evidence and the claims.

When you say useful , do you mean neccessary or unnecessary useful?

 

[Dimi95]

That's bad luck.

At the end , it's mine

This makes no sense.How does Christianity fragmenting into new sects preserve it?

Is having different theology a bad thing?
Protestantism is clear proof of that fragmenting
Protestantism methods are statistically the most efficient in preaching Christianity.
Does that make Protestantism true?
We are all different on something , but we are same in Christ.

LOL, you are a loss for words where it comes to debate.

Maybe i am , but i envy to learn and try to be honest.

Actual evidence is what I value, not religious dogma.

No problem with it.

 

[ppp]

There is a difference between Christianity and other religions in history because of the evidence and the claims.

So Christian apologists say. But they tend to depend on pointing to what people have said in order to obscure the fundamental fact that all that they have is what people have said.

When you say useful , do you mean neccessary or unnecessary useful?

When I said useful, I mean useful. If you have a distinction that you want me to assess, you are going to have to explain your distinction, and why you think it matters.

 

[YoursTrue]

If he knows everything, there is nothing he doesn't know.
If he doesn't know something, then he doesn't know everything.

It is possible that God chooses not to know certain things, if one believes in a God who is all-powerful.

 

[blü 2]

If the resurrection did not take place as the four gospels describe,

First, the resurrection did not take place as the four gospels, and the brief mentions in Paul and in Acts 1, describe, since each of the six accounts contradicts the other five on major points, but as I understand it, it's not claimed that there were six resurrections.

Second, the resurrection did not take place at all, since death is the irreversible cessation of the body's life support systems, so that anyone who 'comes back to life' wasn't dead in the first place. A claimed event contrary to this, being innately not believable, would require evidence of the very highest quality. But instead there is no eye-witness account of it, there is no contemporary account of it and there is no independent account of it. Indeed, the first account with any details is in Mark, written some 45 years after the traditional date of the crucifixion.

then how do we explain the explosive growth of the Christian church to over 33 million believers and 56 percent of the Roman Empire’s population, just 300 years after the resurrection was first reported?

I don't know where you got your numbers from, but yes, from about 250 CE Christianity had reached critical mass and was steadily spreading through the Roman Empire. It was illegal but only occasionally were there outbursts of persecution, nothing systematic. They were attractive to a wide range of citizens, they were organized with local leaders and regional bishops, they were as involved as anyone in local and regional politics. Thus they too had internal feuds, popular and unpopular candidates and leaders, manipulations and maneuverings, all those good things that go with corporation life, including schism, and so on and so on.

And when Constantine found the idea of one Great God politically useful, and as a matter of expediency put an end to their illegal status, they shortly became the politically and actually dominant religion of the Empire.

So what? Do you think the Chiefs won Superbowl LVII this year because God was on their side?

And how do you account for the schism of Christianity into Eastern and Roman, Roman and Protestant, Pisco and Southern Baptist, Mormon and Rastafarian, on and on endlessly?

While it is possible that a person could die for a lie, in the case of Christianity, those who believed Jesus had risen from the dead, had credible evidence to support their fervent belief.

No, not even a single eye-witness account. All they had was uncritical indoctrination.

You may find >this< instructive. There were even videos of it on the net. Yet despite the video evidence and the fact that I like Ganesha and the principles he stands for, learning and fellowship, I don't believe that anything miraculous was involved. What about you?

 

[1213]

Extremism is the antithesis to wisdom.

I think it is their choice to do stupid things. It is not because they would not have enough capacity to understand.

Just read the the Old Testament. There is your reason to categorize Yahweh as a sociopath.

I have read it many times, no reason to believe you.

Because of the death rate. If not for modern medicine and science more would die.

100 % of people die.

How else do ou explain little kids getting cancer if not God?

Modern medicine could be the reason for kids getting cancer.

 

[F1fan]

I think it is their choice to do stupid things. It is not because they would not have enough capacity to understand.

Do you think any of the Jan 6 rioters are happy they made an emotional and irrational decision to attack the Capitol, only later being arrested and convicted? Could it be many people don't have the skill to understand consequences of their actions?

You don't understand human psychology. Look at you, can you chose to not believe in God? Atheists can, and explain why. I can't decide to believe because I assess the ideas with reason, and all God and gods lack adequate evidence. How Humans come to adopt certain irrational behaviors and beliefs is outside of reasoned conclusions.

I have read it many times, no reason to believe you.

See, you can't be convinced. And do you admit it is your choice?

100 % of people die.

Then don't oppose abortion. Murder means nothing. Morals are irrelevant since we all die. Is this what Christianity has taught you? Humanism is vastly better as a moral code.

Modern medicine could be the reason for kids getting cancer.

Is this they best you can do? Attack medicine? Medicines were created by humans because life is not perfect. Why not just admit that hour interpretation of the Old Testament (that even Jews don't do) implicates God as the cause for cancer. A God that deliberatel murdered all but 7 people because he regreted what he created. And even that act did not fix anthing.

 

[Muffled]

Oh, so God cares for US because we didn't die from childhood cancer like so man other kids. Those other kids, tough ****, says God. Well, I still can't respect that God if it were to exist. Aren't you glad there's no evidence, because then you would have a lot of explaining to do as a worshipper. How embarassing to worship a serial killer, right?

I believe God has the right to take life whenever He wants just as He has the right to give and save life when He wishes.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe God has the right to take life whenever He wants just as He has the right to give and save life when He wishes.

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.... it is not about whether He has a right or not.