WHY I BELIEVE THAT CHRIST IS GOD

[Colt]

See that bold, red, underlined part there? The atheist doesn't even have to go as far as to say "that's proof that it doesn't exist." Not at all. All they have to say is "I don't believe you." And then, with that said, the scenario becomes EXACTLY like this one:

It goes like this, "A" claims he owns a bridge and will sell it to "B". "B", the prospective buyer demands to see the deed. "A" says: I don't have the deed LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!. "B" says: well, then you don't have the potential of receiving any of my money either.

And so it goes, Atheist go to religious forums and just heckle people. Do you have an hobbies?

 

[Colt]

Yeah... and you will get it day in and day out until your butt-hurt self can DELIVER.

And you will get off repeating the same demands and getting the same answer which you already know cant be provided. So you get some form of satisfaction of that?

 

[mmarco]

.

Let's take a simple example that puts your idea here into serious question. The value PI - the intrinsically present constant that is the same for all circles, regardless their radius. It is an irrational number - when approaching the limit of infinite sides to approximate the value using various equations, the series of decimals is non-terminating and varied to no end. There is literally no way that one could imagine/draw a circle that did not adhere to PI as a root to its evaluation.

Your example does not make your point. In fact, a perfect circle is only an abstract concept which can exist only in an intelligent and conscious mind. Perfect circles do not exist by themselves; therefore, also PI and its value is only an abstract concept and it exists only as a concept in a thinking mind.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And so it goes, Atheist go to religious forums and just heckle people. Do you have an hobbies?

Hahaha... typical. Don't actually refute anything I say, because it TOO APTLY REFUTED everything you said. You've got nothing to come back with to the "buy my bridge" analogy... and it shows. It really, really shows - especially with replies like this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have clearly shown such contradictions, and you have provided no valid counter argument.
You are simply denying the obvious.
You need to reject all our scientific knowledges abut matter in order to keep your assumption that consciousness is generated by cerebral processes; this is sufficient to prove that materialism is incompatible with our scientific knowledges.
However, you will never recognize and understand the truth as long as you are not willing to accept te truth.

No, you only had empty claims that amounted to "I don't know, therefore God". There were no contradictions. If you think there was one pick your best contradiction and post it again. If a person posts a bunch of garbage a rare pearl may get covered up in it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You wanted an example, I provided it. Atheist take the same approach to any and all discussions of spirituality or revelatory works.

It was not an example of reliable evidence. You provided nothing but an illustration of your failure.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And you will get off repeating the same demands and getting the same answer which you already know cant be provided. So you get some form of satisfaction of that?

Are you kidding?! OF COURSE I do! Of course. Displaying to you that you have no valid reason to be claiming any of the nonsense many theists like you are constantly bombarding the world with? Of course I get satisfaction in putting up a road block to your shenanigans. Oh man... you really have no idea, do you?

 

[Colt]

Hahaha... typical. Don't actually refute anything I say, because it TOO APTLY REFUTED everything you said. You've got nothing to come back with to the "buy my bridge" analogy... and it shows. It really, really shows - especially with replies like this.

I wouldn’t ask you to disprove the God of spiritual experience because I already know you can’t. The difference is I don’t need to win that argument.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No. Trinitarians parse synonyms, person and being.

Jesus died. God did not. Jesus was resurrected by God. That is the text of Scripture. Jesus lifeless corpse was acted upon. God, in his unitarian nature, did the acting.

Who did Jesus pray to? God. Who did Jesus tell us to pray to? God. Saint Paul said it strongest, ‘For us, there is One God, the Father.’ 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Show us the Father and it will satisfy us. Don't you know me even after I have been among you so long. IF you have SEEN me you have SEEN the Father. How can you say show us the Father? John 14:8-9 (The Father was the one dwelling in that body.) But you are correct there is no Trinity.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Simply false and absurd. First of all the structure of the brain provides no explanation for consciousness.

Sure it does. There are plenty of papers on the subject. Here's a super interesting one by nature!

What Is Consciousness?

If my brain doesn't produce a normal amount of noradrenaline, serotonin, or dopamine, it would alter the way I experience life; it would alter my consciousness. This is what people with bipolar disorder deal with, and why they oftentimes take medication to help balance out the biochemical imbalances of their brain. Bipolar disorder runs in my family, and though I don't have it, I am well aware of how this effects people with it.

The kind of consciousness you experience has a lot to do with the health of your brain, though behavioral factors play a role as well (which are also stored in the brain).

Besides, your idea of "zoomed out view" implies the existence of consciousness.

My intention of "zooming out" was to not be so focused on one aspect. If you stay focused on one thing, you'll miss everything else.

Consciousness is a very complex thing... You can't just take one thing, like the subatomic, and go *BOOM!* Done. Any subject worth anything deserves a thorough investigation from other perspectives.

As for the existence of consciousness, sure it exists. It's a byproduct of a healthy, functioning brain. Someone who is unconscious because they don't have a healthy, functioning brain wouldn't be experiencing consciousness; at least, not on the level you and I are right now.

In fact, the choice of zooming or not can be done only from a conscious being. This means that consciousness is a necessary preliminary conddition for your exlanation for consciounsess, which represents an intrinsic logical contradiction.

So, a functioning, healthy brain is the preliminary condition of consciousness. With that consciousness, I can then ponder the nature of consciousness. There are varying degrees of consciousness, though... If I had microcephaly, I might have a harder time grasping the nature of what consciousness is exactly than I do now with a functioning, healthy (mostly) brain. That's because the brain is the main factor in what kind of consciousness I experience.

I don't understand where the contradiction lies. Maybe you could unpack that for me, more.

Nothing which intrinsically implies the existence of cosnciousness or the existence of a sujective point of view can provide a valid explenation for consciousness.

According to what? Have you seen or read all that there is on the subject? If you said yes, I might suspect dishonesty...

The fact that consciousness is irriducible to the law of physics proves that your assumption that consciousness is a product of the cerebral processes is incompatible with our scientific knowledges.

There are more fields of study other than physics. Physics isn't the end all, be all to every answer in life.

At my job at the hospital, I deal with people's dietary restrictions. What does physics have to say about feeding someone who is on a cardiac, renal diet and a fluid restriction of 1500ml? A dietition might be someone who would be more relevant to consult in that situation than a physicist, no? So why would physics be consulted exclusively on matters of the brain?

Consciousness is covered in the field of neuroscience; physics is a different field entirely. That might be why "consciousness is irribucible to the law of physics." You're looking in the wrong place.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

what?! Thomas is talking to Jesus and he calls Him "my God!. You are denying the obvious.

Hi mmarco,

You are correct he is God. But there is no Trinity. Simply an eternal Spirit (God) that didn't have flesh and blood to shed for man's sin. So God (the eternal Spirit) took on a fleshly body to sacrifice for our sins. The flesh was weak and prayed to the Spirit for strength - but it wasn't 2 separate persons. It was God himself manifesting himself in flesh. The eternal Spirit was the one dwelling in that body. The eternal Spirit was the Father of that body.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I wouldn’t ask you to disprove the God of spiritual experience because I already know you can’t. The difference is I don’t need to win that argument.

You're definitely the one with a horse in this race though. No denying that. I am not making affirmative claims like "God doesn't exist." You're the one who states (pretty emphatically I might add) that God does exist. All I say is "I don't believe you" and give my reasons.

I don't have a horse in the race. I Do Not. I just don't believe a single thing you say about God, and won't until the ideas are properly evidenced. Did you see that? The word "IDEAS?" That's key - because you need to realize that THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE. And it isn't good enough. Not by a long shot. Get evidence to go with the ideas and we can have a serious discussion. Until then, there is barely anything to discuss except to tell you again and again and again to go look for something that constitutes evidence. Go look for the deed to your bridge!

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The fundamental reason why I believe that Christ is God, is that I find that the christian concept of God and of divine love is the highest possible concept. I find that the idea itself that God loves us so much that He chose to assume the human nature and accepted to suffer crucifission in order to save us, expresses such a high concept of God and of divine love that it can comes only from God and it is certainly a truth. This concept is fully convincing for me, it proves itself by itself and makes superfluous any other arguments . I believe that Chirst suffered His Passion to help us to have faith in Him and trust Him, to make us understand that God loves us infinitely, that God is good and mercifull and that God is near to us so that we may totally trust Him and open our heart to Him, be in communion with Him and be saved.
There are other religions teaching that God is love, but the problem is to define what the word “love” means, because by itself it could be only a vague and generic concept.
The christian faith is unique because it gives a very concrete and unique meaning to the concept of divine love: in fact God’s love actualizes in the acceptance of a terrible physical suffering; the God of the christian faith loves us so much that He is willing to suffer a painful death in order to save us. In the christian faith, love is not only a theoretical and vague concept; Christ’s Passion is a clear and concrete realization of the concept of divine love which teaches us what is the true meaning of love. I think that this christian idea of divine love is the highest possible concept of divine love and it is the fundamental reason why I believe that Christ is God.

It's great what Jesus is said to have done for us and all, but I feel like the Christian God is just as spiteful as any man. True divine love sees the most terrible human you can imagine, reflecting at all of the evil things he has done in his life, and He puts his hand on the man's shoulder and says with a smile, "I understand."

Whereas the Christian God may do that (which I appreciate Christianity for: the recognition that sin is a part of man's nature) but first you have to accept Christ through a matter of faith. I don't understand how the Christian idea of God can be considered loving when He is not impartial to that. Real divine love would be impartial to anything let alone if someone guessed the secrets of the universe's metaphysics correctly.

 

[Wrangler]

No.

Let's take a simple example that puts your idea here into serious question. The value PI

Another Appeal to Strawman. A good example is the basis for the greatest revolution of all time, the agricultural revolution. The only thing that made it possible was for men to understand - AND PREDICT - the sowing and reaping seasons.

Only a Spiritual Man, gazing into the heavens could connect the dots our Creator made for us.

 

[Fool]

The fundamental reason why I believe that Christ is God, is that I find that the christian concept of God and of divine love is the highest possible concept. I find that the idea itself that God loves us so much that He chose to assume the human nature and accepted to suffer crucifission in order to save us, expresses such a high concept of God and of divine love that it can comes only from God and it is certainly a truth. This concept is fully convincing for me, it proves itself by itself and makes superfluous any other arguments . I believe that Chirst suffered His Passion to help us to have faith in Him and trust Him, to make us understand that God loves us infinitely, that God is good and mercifull and that God is near to us so that we may totally trust Him and open our heart to Him, be in communion with Him and be saved.
There are other religions teaching that God is love, but the problem is to define what the word “love” means, because by itself it could be only a vague and generic concept.
The christian faith is unique because it gives a very concrete and unique meaning to the concept of divine love: in fact God’s love actualizes in the acceptance of a terrible physical suffering; the God of the christian faith loves us so much that He is willing to suffer a painful death in order to save us. In the christian faith, love is not only a theoretical and vague concept; Christ’s Passion is a clear and concrete realization of the concept of divine love which teaches us what is the true meaning of love. I think that this christian idea of divine love is the highest possible concept of divine love and it is the fundamental reason why I believe that Christ is God.

couple of problems



jesus was a monist. john 14:10

colossians 3:11 everyone is christ

everyone is god john 10:34

isaiah 45:5 apart from god there is no other

 

[Deeje]

It's great what Jesus is said to have done for us and all, but I feel like the Christian God is just as spiteful as any man. True divine love sees the most terrible human you can imagine, reflecting at all of the evil things he has done in his life, and He puts his hand on the man's shoulder and says with a smile, "I understand."

Have you ever read the account of Manasseh? If ever there was a man who merited a severe punishment from God's perspective, it was him......but when the chips were down and he reconsidered his plight, he went down on his knees and pleaded for forgiveness......it was granted by a God who reads the heart and sees what motivates such a prayer.
Manasseh was reinstated to his Kingship and tried his best thereafter to abide by the rules that God had set out for his people. (2 Kings 21:1-17; 2 Chronicles 33:10-13) If God could forgive Manasseh, he can forgive anyone if they are truly repentant.

Whereas the Christian God may do that (which I appreciate Christianity for: the recognition that sin is a part of man's nature) but first you have to accept Christ through a matter of faith.

Why is that a problem? Without Christ offering his life as a release from our captivity to sin and death, mankind has no hope for the future.

What direction do you see the world going that inspires you to believe in man's ability to solve the problems that he, in his selfishness and greed, has created? We are being brought to the brink of extinction by our own hand, and science (the religion of the atheist masses) is more responsible for that threat than any other cause.....if there is no Christ.....there is no hope....and no future to rely on. Some idiot dictator could hit a button and we could all be toast.

I don't understand how the Christian idea of God can be considered loving when He is not impartial to that. Real divine love would be impartial to anything let alone if someone guessed the secrets of the universe's metaphysics correctly.

God is more impartial than you think. When he put humans here on this earth, the only way to guarantee that things would not go 'belly-up' was to give their free will necessary limits. That meant that God was to decide what was good and what was not in human conduct. As those 'made in God's image and likeness', we were supposed to reflect his qualities. We were not to have free will without limits because, when you use your free will to impinge upon the free will of others, only disharmony and conflict result.

When free will was abused, God stepped back to allow his intelligent creation enough time to test their own abilities to exercise free will correctly......so how are we doing this far into the exercise?

Apparently, humans could not be told, but they could be shown the folly of their choices...and they could be given enough time to try out all their own ideas, because God already knew that none of them would work. He did not design humans to decide those important things for themselves, so every time a human gains power over other humans, it corrupts them. Every time free will is taken away, harm is caused to someone.

By not making our will more important than the will of others, it ensures peace and harmony, and implementing the golden rule would guarantee that the welfare of others was placed before our own. (Philippians 2:3)

At the end of this object lesson, humans will have proven how well they have learned to use their free will....either in harmony with God's guidance....or still clinging to the vain idea that their ideas are better.

 

[firedragon]

The fundamental reason why I believe that Christ is God, is that I find that the christian concept of God and of divine love is the highest possible concept. I find that the idea itself that God loves us so much that He chose to assume the human nature and accepted to suffer crucifission in order to save us, expresses such a high concept of God and of divine love that it can comes only from God and it is certainly a truth. This concept is fully convincing for me, it proves itself by itself and makes superfluous any other arguments . I believe that Chirst suffered His Passion to help us to have faith in Him and trust Him, to make us understand that God loves us infinitely, that God is good and mercifull and that God is near to us so that we may totally trust Him and open our heart to Him, be in communion with Him and be saved.
There are other religions teaching that God is love, but the problem is to define what the word “love” means, because by itself it could be only a vague and generic concept.
The christian faith is unique because it gives a very concrete and unique meaning to the concept of divine love: in fact God’s love actualizes in the acceptance of a terrible physical suffering; the God of the christian faith loves us so much that He is willing to suffer a painful death in order to save us. In the christian faith, love is not only a theoretical and vague concept; Christ’s Passion is a clear and concrete realization of the concept of divine love which teaches us what is the true meaning of love. I think that this christian idea of divine love is the highest possible concept of divine love and it is the fundamental reason why I believe that Christ is God.

1. Is God incapable of doing all of that with out a personal suffering and a blood sacrifice to another?

 

[74x12]

The fundamental reason why I believe that Christ is God, is that I find that the christian concept of God and of divine love is the highest possible concept. I find that the idea itself that God loves us so much that He chose to assume the human nature and accepted to suffer crucifission in order to save us, expresses such a high concept of God and of divine love that it can comes only from God and it is certainly a truth. This concept is fully convincing for me, it proves itself by itself and makes superfluous any other arguments . I believe that Chirst suffered His Passion to help us to have faith in Him and trust Him, to make us understand that God loves us infinitely, that God is good and mercifull and that God is near to us so that we may totally trust Him and open our heart to Him, be in communion with Him and be saved.
There are other religions teaching that God is love, but the problem is to define what the word “love” means, because by itself it could be only a vague and generic concept.
The christian faith is unique because it gives a very concrete and unique meaning to the concept of divine love: in fact God’s love actualizes in the acceptance of a terrible physical suffering; the God of the christian faith loves us so much that He is willing to suffer a painful death in order to save us. In the christian faith, love is not only a theoretical and vague concept; Christ’s Passion is a clear and concrete realization of the concept of divine love which teaches us what is the true meaning of love. I think that this christian idea of divine love is the highest possible concept of divine love and it is the fundamental reason why I believe that Christ is God.

Yes, this is why I believe that Jesus was "slain from the foundation of the world" That is to mean that God already planned to die for love since the beginning and everything is really founded on this event. All things God made are really founded on the idea that He would die for love.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Have you ever read the account of Manasseh? If ever there was a man who merited a severe punishment from God's perspective, it was him......but when the chips were down and he reconsidered his plight, he went down on his knees and pleaded for forgiveness......it was granted by a God who reads the heart and sees what motivates such a prayer.
Manasseh was reinstated to his Kingship and tried his best thereafter to abide by the rules that God had set out for his people. (2 Kings 21:1-17; 2 Chronicles 33:10-13) If God could forgive Manasseh, he can forgive anyone if they are truly repentant.

I definitely understand the pleading for forgiveness, it's only proper to ask God or the universe or fate to forgive you of your wrongdoings if you have done something truly awful. It's not necessary to ask, God/universe/fate should already forgive you - it knows the nature of your being, it designed every aspect of you including your flaws and it also designed the moment in time where you desired to seek forgiveness.

But the God part shouldn't be mandatory in forgiveness. If a man feels guilty for his or her sins then why isn't that enough?

Why is that a problem? Without Christ offering his life as a release from our captivity to sin and death, mankind has no hope for the future.

What direction do you see the world going that inspires you to believe in man's ability to solve the problems that he, in his selfishness and greed, has created? We are being brought to the brink of extinction by our own hand, and science (the religion of the atheist masses) is more responsible for that threat than any other cause.....if there is no Christ.....there is no hope....and no future to rely on. Some idiot dictator could hit a button and we could all be toast.

I can't say for sure what direction the world is going. Whether or not God wants to come down (or return if you believe it's a second coming), is His own decision. It seems rather pointless to me that He would create this world as a lesson of some sort and let it play out only until the end where He intervenes. Why not just let the lesson play out in its entirety?

God is more impartial than you think. When he put humans here on this earth, the only way to guarantee that things would not go 'belly-up' was to give their free will necessary limits. That meant that God was to decide what was good and what was not in human conduct. As those 'made in God's image and likeness', we were supposed to reflect his qualities. We were not to have free will without limits because, when you use your free will to impinge upon the free will of others, only disharmony and conflict result.

When free will was abused, God stepped back to allow his intelligent creation enough time to test their own abilities to exercise free will correctly......so how are we doing this far into the exercise?

Apparently, humans could not be told, but they could be shown the folly of their choices...and they could be given enough time to try out all their own ideas, because God already knew that none of them would work. He did not design humans to decide those important things for themselves, so every time a human gains power over other humans, it corrupts them. Every time free will is taken away, harm is caused to someone.

By not making our will more important than the will of others, it ensures peace and harmony, and implementing the golden rule would guarantee that the welfare of others was placed before our own. (Philippians 2:3)

At the end of this object lesson, humans will have proven how well they have learned to use their free will....either in harmony with God's guidance....or still clinging to the vain idea that their ideas are better.

I do agree with you that we can choose to act in self improvement or succumb to our "freewill" and dirty desires.
I personally am not a believer in freewill. But I do believe we have the illusion of it and we can (clearly) reflect on the bad things we've done and life and feel remorse. Of course we'll always fall back on committing bad actions, it's inevitable - human desires are very powerful, but to feel remorse for those actions and to try to be good should suffice for salvation/redemption/moksha/nirvana, whatever your belief is. I don't see how belief comes into play.

 

[MonkeyFire]

And your evidence for such claims is . . . ?

If you were worthy you would know.