outhouse
Atheistically
Wow, tell me something else that I've never heard before.I'm aware of the scholarly history of it.
I was simply explaining the origin of the "father" figure.
El was the father of all deities, he was Yahwehs father.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The battle of evolution vs creationism
- Thread starter bobhikes
- Start date
I was simply explaining the origin of the "father" figure.
El was the father of all deities, he was Yahwehs father.
This is more of the same old nonsense. It is metaphorical and isnt meant to be taken literally.
The reason why is because according to the bible Jesus was born unto the virgin marry so Jesus didnt have an earthly father and referred to god as being his heavenly father. Someone only he could apparently relate to and understand. By saying a bastardized prayer.
This is also wrong. Jesus doesnt identify his heavenly father as god. He makes reference to god as being his heavenly father.
The reason why is because according to the bible Jesus was born unto the virgin marry so Jesus didnt have an earthly father and referred to god as being his heavenly father. Someone only he could apparently relate to and understand. By saying a bastardized prayer.
outhouse
Atheistically
So do you interpret all of the bible as you see fit, cherry picking what ever you want it to mean?
Do any research on this, or just wing it as you go?
Okay, I take you think Jesus could walk on water and turn water to wine too.
I would like for you to address these question since you know so much about God and the Bible.
Why did Jesus never mention a Heavenly Mother? Heavenly Father =/= God
Surely his father in heaven isn’t asexual and if he is or was why would there be a need to call him father?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Why do you assume heavenly father means aspirations?Okay, I take you think Jesus could walk on water and turn water to wine too.
I would like for you to address these question since you know so much about God and the Bible.
Why did Jesus never mention a Heavenly Mother? Heavenly Father =/= God
Surely his father in heaven isnt asexual and if he is or was why would there be a need to call him father?
outhouse
Atheistically
I think he was a man, a Galilean traveling healer from a peasant family. Nothing more.
And he has no business in a creation thread at all.
Because Jesus didn't mention anything in the bible, he didn't write a single word.
The unknown authors that did write the bible, had never met or heard the real Jesus.
They only knew the mythology that grew in oral tradition after his death.
because A real Galilean Jew would not have made claims of divinity fighting Roman oppression at Passover.
I think your correct here. The god concept was always a male in human form.
Father in heaven, has not been prove to be real outside mythology.
Joseph was probably his real father.
It is the mythology created after his death.
Those who built his divinity placed him as "son of god" like Augustus since they were competing with his divinity and he was "son of god" before Jesus was even born.
The Roman converts they were trying to attract, had worshipped a "son of god" the Emperor for quite a while, almost a hundred years before the first gospel was written using that phrase now turning Jesus into another "son of god"
"Father in heaven" goes back probably 1300-1400 years before jesus was even born. El was the father of all deities, and El is where this originates.
El was Yahweh's father before both were compiled into one deity by the redactors switching to monotheism after 622 BC during king Josiahs reforms.
When the religious attack evolution, instead of trying to convince them of science they would never accept no matter how sound it was. I prefer to dig into their creation mythology with more biblical knowledge they would ever possess.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Of course it is because whenever a Biblical statement goes against the practicality of one's belief by default it's metaphorical.
This is like saying 1+1 = 2 but 2 ≠ 1+1. I know this breaks down when one believes in the Trinitarian doctrine that God exists as three persons, but is one being, having a single divine nature, but that's your word-puzzle to make sense of---or ignore for convenience sake. For me, I'm sticking with 1+1 = 2 AND 2 = 1+1
The inverse doesnt always work like that when you apply logic.Of course it is because whenever a Biblical statement goes against the practicality of one's belief by default it's metaphorical.
This is like saying 1+1 = 2 but 2 ≠ 1+1. I know this breaks down when one believes in the Trinitarian doctrine that God exists as three persons, but is one being, having a single divine nature, but that's your word-puzzle to make sense of---or ignore for convenience sake. For me, I'm sticking with 1+1 = 2 AND 2 = 1+1
All apples are fruit, but not all fruits are apples. See how simple that is to understand?
outhouse
Atheistically
Only when people make bad use of it and continuously insist on comparing apples to oranges.Yes, logic, reason, common sense, education and knowledge all bad right?
My only rebuttal is that the bible never claimed god to be perfect based on creation and evolution.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3583717-post120.html
Nor was I the one to conflate the debate by saying Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect, which I disagree with and have already stated several reasons for doing so.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3583766-post121.html
I see no reason to continue on with this debate, until you or others explain why "The Heavenly Father" is god and why you think or can explain why god is perfect in regards to creation and evolution.
outhouse
Atheistically
What is your stance on evolution?
That is the only real question, one can debate endlessly on supernatural aspects of deities, as well as interpretation of said deities.
I agree with evolution as a naturally occurring phenomenon as long as it isnt forced or induced by artificial selection.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Of course not because the Christian trinity lacks logic structure. It's a concept that essentially comes out as nonsense: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. It's one of those religious concoctions that sounds really neat, but defies close questioning and is expected to be taken on faith.
That's a terrible analogy. Of course you can't take a categorical and make it a member of a particular.
But rather than waste my time trying to explain, HERE is an explanation---a rather lengthy one---of the Christian trinity problem.And, so as to not take the thread off topic anymore than we have, this will be my last comment on the issue.
Last edited:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
So, you're not a big fan of carrots?
Skwim
Veteran Member
Same thing with corn, which was intensively bred away from its original form as a wild grass called teosinte.
We will just have to agree to disagree then. Everything you have posted so far has been complete rubbish. It isnt a jab at you, just that garbage you insist on continuously posting.Of course not because the Christian trinity lacks logic structure. It's a concept that essentially comes out as nonsense: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. It's one of those religious concoctions that sounds really neat, but defies close questioning and is expected to be taken on faith.
That's a terrible analogy. Of course you can't take a categorical and make it a member of a particular.
And, so as to not take the thread off topic anymore than we have, this will be my last comment on the issue.
Not really. I am a bigger fan of all the trolls the internet has created.
outhouse
Atheistically
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Are they a result of artificial selection as well? That would explain a lot.
McBell
Unbound
Don't forget bananas
And a goodly part of the beef, chicken and pork.
Hopefully Slapstick does not own a dog, or a cat for that matter.
Otherwise they would be a hypocrite.