What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?

[Freodin]

Abhorrent? What post was abhorrent to you? What was I a jerk for? No, I don't know you nor do you know me, you take a snap-shot of my conversation with these characters and solicit opinions form what you called "devout" Christians at some office who then called me a jerk for defending the faith with Atheists? Jesus was bitterly hated for what he said no matter how nicely he said it, do you think Jesus sacred off the fence sitting atheists? Should we reword the bible so as not to hurt anyone's feelings because you have such a need to be liked? There is no what around it, the gospel is just going to make some people angry. They hated him without a cause.

You don't get it, some of these people here could have been raised in a community of saints yet they still would find something wrong with at least one of them.

Someone who joins a Christian Forum and tells Christians that their faith is false is called subversive secular totalitarian atheist.

Someone who enters a jewish synagogue and tells Jews that their faith is false is called... Jesus.

It seems, atheists are bitterly "hated" for the same reason the Jesus was "hated": because dogmatic believers cannot stand being critizised.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Someone who joins a Christian Forum and tells Christians that their faith is false is called subversive secular totalitarian atheist.

Someone who enters a jewish synagogue and tells Jews that their faith is false is called... Jesus.

It seems, atheists are bitterly "hated" for the same reason the Jesus was "hated": because dogmatic believers cannot stand being critizised.

That's a keen insight.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

Someone who joins a Christian Forum and tells Christians that their faith is false is called subversive secular totalitarian atheist.

Someone who enters a jewish synagogue and tells Jews that their faith is false is called... Jesus.

It seems, atheists are bitterly "hated" for the same reason the Jesus was "hated": because dogmatic believers cannot stand being critizised.

But Jesus never entered a synagogue and told Jews their faith is false, Jesus was the answer to Abrahams promise, he was the answer to century's of blind faith in Gods promise. ALL of Jesus' apostles were Jews and most of his early followers were as well.

However, your comparison of heckling subversive atheist to the arrogant and hard hearted Pharisees, who would just ask insincere questions of Jesus to try to humiliate him or get him to say something to use against him or that would turn the people against him is appropriate. Jesus told them that their Father was the devil.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But Jesus never entered a synagogue and told Jews their faith is false, Jesus was the answer to Abrahams promise, he was the answer to century's of blind faith in Gods promise. ALL of Jesus' apostles were Jews and most of his early followers were as well.

However, your comparison of heckling subversive atheist to the arrogant and hard hearted Pharisees, who would just ask insincere questions of Jesus to try to humiliate him or get him to say something to use against him or that would turn the people against him is appropriate. Jesus told them that their Father was the devil.

The irony Freodin was getting at seems to have passed you by. You claim that new revelations are resisted by the religious authorities of the day and are often the subject of scrutiny and ridicule. When I asked you how conflict between previous and ongoing revelations is resolved, you even seemed to suggest that we can recognise the authenticity of new revelations by the fact that their messengers are often treated poorly and their messages resisted and ridiculed. Yet look at what you are doing, the people you are treating poorly on this very forum, and the messages you resist and disdain. It would follow from your reasoning that our new "revelation" (if that is the right word) is being authenticated by you and by your behaviour toward us - how ironic is that?

 

[Freodin]

But Jesus never entered a synagogue and told Jews their faith is false, Jesus was the answer to Abrahams promise, he was the answer to century's of blind faith in Gods promise. ALL of Jesus' apostles were Jews and most of his early followers were as well.

However, your comparison of heckling subversive atheist to the arrogant and hard hearted Pharisees, who would just ask insincere questions of Jesus to try to humiliate him or get him to say something to use against him or that would turn the people against him is appropriate. Jesus told them that their Father was the devil.

You are aware the the Pharisees... those arrogant and hard hearted people... were Jews as well? Believers in the same God? People who were just as convinced that they had the correct way as you are?

Yes, the bible portrayes them as rather unpleasent folk who were chided in righteous anger by the noble Jesus.

But the bible is a rather biased document in this regard... and I don't accept it any more than I do accept your biased position about atheists.

 

[Colter]

The irony Freodin was getting at seems to have passed you by. You claim that new revelations are resisted by the religious authorities of the day and are often the subject of scrutiny and ridicule. When I asked you how conflict between previous and ongoing revelations is resolved, you even seemed to suggest that we can recognise the authenticity of new revelations by the fact that their messengers are often treated poorly and their messages resisted and ridiculed. Yet look at what you are doing, the people you are treating poorly on this very forum, and the messages you resist and disdain. It would follow from your reasoning that our new "revelation" (if that is the right word) is being authenticated by you and by your behaviour toward us - how ironic is that?

You have a twisted way of reasoning, of hearing me say what I didn't say in order to fit your narratives or desparatly find ANYTHING at all to disagree with me about.

The irony wasn't lost on me if the foundation of Freodins premise was accurate (but your sarcasm was just another pot-shot directed at me, if I reacted to it, you would proclaim me as disdainful, proof that Christians are just nasty or whatever and gosh why is colter so rude?).

Freodins clever analogy is not accurate, it's a false construct which could be missed by someone who did not know the story. Had the prophets spiritual insights been understood and maintained spiritually and had Jesus' spiritual teaching, about a spiritual relationship, with a spiritual God, ruler of a spiritual kingdom, in the hearts of ALL man, of ALL the earth, then the Jews would have better understood Jesus and been more receptive of the Son of Man and answered their calling as the torch bearers if this light of the world.

Again, you are mischaracterizing my response to how conflict is resolved between new and old revelation [in truth it's how evolved religion, religion that evolved from, and away from, previous revelations, when presented with new additional enlightenment]. A gallon cannot fit into a quart.

Hypothetically speaking, if you went to the Bantu tribe, deep in the jungles of Africa, and revealed advanced truth to the people that both enlightened them and came into conflict with the older established beliefs of the head Shaman, then there could be a risk of danger. So, suppose you get out of there alive and could go back 500 or 1,000 years later? You would find that the truths you revealed had undergone contamination from older beliefs, failure to fully understand the truths that you left, and addition perhaps of new truths by the more enlightened members of the tribe who made use of what you left them with. That's what has happened to the major and minor revelations of truth to our sin darkened, fallen world.

 

[Colter]

You are aware the the Pharisees... those arrogant and hard hearted people... were Jews as well? Believers in the same God? People who were just as convinced that they had the correct way as you are?

Yes, the bible portrayes them as rather unpleasent folk who were chided in righteous anger by the noble Jesus.

But the bible is a rather biased document in this regard... and I don't accept it any more than I do accept your biased position about atheists.

Yes, the Pharisees and Sadducees of Judaism had lost their way, in some ways Judaism had lost its way as it evolved away from it's purpose. Had they been able to swallow their pride and opened their hearts to the spiritual teaching of Jesus they would have recognized the spiritual kinship between Jesus and the faith of their ancestors.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You have a twisted was of reasoning, of hearing me say what I didn't say in order to fit your narratives or desparatly fing ANYTHING at all to disagree with me about.

The irony wasn't lost on me if the foundation of Freodins premise was accurate (but your sarcasm was just another pot-shot directed at me, if I reacted to it, you would proclaim me as disdainful, proof that Christians are just nasty or whatever and gosh why is colter so rude?).

Freodins clever analogy is not accurate, it's a false construct which could be missed by someone who did not know the story. Had the prophets spiritual insights been understood and maintained spiritually and had Jesus' spiritual teaching, about a spiritual relationship, with a spiritual God, ruler of a spiritual kingdom, in the hearts of ALL man, of ALL the earth, then the Jews would have better understood Jesus and been more receptive of the Son of Man and answered their calling as the torch bearers if this light of the world.

Again, you are mischaracterizing my response to how conflict is resolved between new and old revelation [in truth it's how evolved religion, religion that evolved from, and away from, previous revelations, when presented with new additional enlightenment]. A gallon cannot fit into a quart.

I'm not mischaracterising your response at all. I'm highlighting the problems that arise from it. What is to say that we are not presenting you with "new additional enlightenment" and that you are responding exactly in the manner of the Pharisees you earlier condemned? That is, you are resisting any attempt to have your religion evolve away from previous revelations (Urantia) and toward this "new additional enlightenment," one that you resist just as fervently as the Pharisees resisted the "new additional enlightenment" of Jesus?

 

[Colter]

I'm not mischaracterising your response at all. I'm highlighting the problems that arise from it. What is to say that we are not presenting you with "new additional enlightenment" and that you are responding exactly in the manner of the Pharisees you earlier condemned? That is, you are resisting any attempt to have your religion evolve away from previous revelations (Urantia) and toward this "new additional enlightenment," one that you resist just as fervently as the Pharisees resisted the "new additional enlightenment" of Jesus?

Yes, now I see that particular point. In that case, you are a false prophet, your branches don't produce fruit, but terminate in death, no seeds, no regeneration, no ultimate life, no ultimate meaning, no path to the Father. There is no truth in you, just exalted humanisms at best. The relief you have found in embracing the doctrines of doubt is like the relief one would get peeing their pants on a cold day, warm for a while but ultimately more cold.

There were other prophets before and after Jesus that people called the Messiah. None of them did what Jesus did, taught what Jesus taught or have fostered the church that Jesus fostered. Jesus is here among us now. That's is the difference.

The Pharisees rejected the real thing, the Son of God. In so doing the promise was broken and the light was given on to other people.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, now I see that particular point. In that case, you are a false prophet, your branches don't produce fruit, but terminate in death, no seeds, no regeneration, no ultimate life, no ultimate meaning, no path to the Father. There is no truth in you, just exalted humanisms at best. The relief you have found in embracing the doctrines of doubt is like the relief one would get peeing their pants on a cold day, warm for a while but ultimately more cold.

That's exactly what you would say if you, as the recipient of some earlier enlightenment (Urantia Book), resisted the "new additional enlightenment" others had delivered. Given that, according to you, this is apparently how conflicts between different stages of enlightenment are resolved, it would follow that you have cast yourself in a similar role to the Pharisees who, as the recipients of an earlier enlightenment, reacted in a similar manner to the "new additional enlightenment" delivered by Jesus. Like you, they accused the herald of this new enlightenment of being a false prophet. They accused him of heresy, blasphemy and deceit, exactly the same charges you have levelled at atheists on this board.

 

[Colter]

The prophets were often rejected and disliked by the elite religious establishment. Some were even killed, but their message would live on among some believers and find favor with subsequent generations.

One of my favorites are the far reaching words of Micah:

"Micah denounced “the rulers who judge for reward and the priests who teach for hire and the prophets who divine for money.” He taught of a day of freedom from superstition and priestcraft, saying: “But every man shall sit under his own vine, and no one shall make him afraid, for all people will live, each one according to his understanding of God.”

Ever the burden of Micah’s message was: “Shall I come before God with burnt offerings? Will the Lord be pleased with a thousand rams or with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has shown me, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” And it was a great age; these were indeed stirring times when mortal man heard, and some even believed, such emancipating messages more than two and a half millenniums ago. And but for the stubborn resistance of the priests, these teachers would have overthrown the whole bloody ceremonial of the Hebrew ritual of worship."

UB 1955​

There will be a time in a future age when religion in it's current institutional, sect divided form, won't exist. The kingdom of heaven established by Jesus will have been realized."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The prophets were often rejected and disliked by the elite religious establishment. Some were even killed, but their message would live on among some believers and find favor with subsequent generations.

You dislike us, so I suppose that shows we are right, no? The disliked party always win the day. After-all, this is how conflict between different stages of religious enlightenment is resolved, is it not?

 

[Colter]

You dislike us, so I suppose that shows we are right, no? The disliked party always win the day. After-all, this is how conflict between different stages of religious enlightenment is resolved, is it not?

I've already answered that, and it's not you, I don't know you, it's your faith in unproven godlessness that you now promote. You are a false prophet.

As a movement atheism may continue to grow for a while, but within every sin are the seeds of it's own destruction. The world will return to faith and have no interest in the death reward offered by the atheist philosophy when something better comes along and overwhelms it.

 

[Freodin]

Yes, the Pharisees and Sadducees of Judaism had lost their way, in some ways Judaism had lost its way as it evolved away from it's purpose. Had they been able to swallow their pride and opened their hearts to the spiritual teaching of Jesus they would have recognized the spiritual kinship between Jesus and the faith of their ancestors.

If you were able to consider the - completely different - ways of the Pharisees and Sadducess - or a correct representation of the old jewish faith, you would be able to recognize their spiritual kinship between them and the "faith of their ancestors".

Because your only source is the biased portrayal of these groups from the Bible, you cannot do that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I've already answered that, and it's not you, I don't know you, it's your faith in unproven godlessness that you now promote. You are a false prophet.

That's exactly what the Pharisees' accused Jesus of being when he delivered his "new additional enlightenment." Do you see why your method for discerning the truthfulness of revelations is problematic? You've rendered your own position suspect. Your accusations against atheists could be interpreted in a similar light to the Pharisees' resistance to Jesus' "new additional enlightenment."

As a movement atheism may continue to grow for a while, but within every sin are the seeds of it's own destruction. The world will return to faith and have no interest in the death reward offered by the atheist philosophy when something better comes along and overwhelms it.

Perhaps the Pharisees thought the same about Jesus?

 

[Colter]

If you were able to consider the - completely different - ways of the Pharisees and Sadducess - or a correct representation of the old jewish faith, you would be able to recognize their spiritual kinship between them and the "faith of their ancestors".

Because your only source is the biased portrayal of these groups from the Bible, you cannot do that.

Well, ok fair enough, but I can compare Jews today who reject Jesus' gospel and consider that the Jewish Messiah (as that concept developed in Judaism) never came.

 

[Freodin]

Well, ok fair enough, but I can compare Jews today who reject Jesus' gospel and consider that the Jewish Messiah (as that concept developed in Judaism) never came.

And you think that rejecting Jesus' gospel is wrong, and the idea that the Messiah hasn't come yet as well?

 

[Colter]

That's exactly what the Pharisees' accused Jesus of being when he delivered his "new additional enlightenment." Do you see why your method for discerning the truthfulness of revelations is problematic? You've rendered your own position suspect. Your accusations against atheists could be interpreted in a similar light to the Pharisees' resistance to Jesus' "new additional enlightenment."



Perhaps the Pharisees thought the same about Jesus?

* Yes I see, so consistent with your line of reasoning, when you found problems with Jesus' teachings, you considered converting back to Judaism???? Or am I to assume that the prophets of godlessness trumped both?

* Evolution, both planetary or cosmic, is a far grater power and process than any one generation of belief or being. It's all purposive transient scaffolding for the next faze.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

* Yes I see, so consistent with your line of reasoning, when you found problems with Jesus' teachings, you considered converting back to Judaism???? Or am I to assume that the prophets of godlessness trumped both?

What are you talking about? It's your reasoning we are examining here, not mine. According to you, conflicts between different stages of enlightenment, or different revelations, are resolved in this manner, with the stubborn recipients of earlier enlightenment eventually yielding ground to the bringers of newer enlightenment. You cited the Pharisees' reaction to Jesus as an example of this stubbornness, noting that they accused him of heresy, deceit, and being a false prophet. I simply pointed out that, rather ironically, your accusations against atheists on this forum - that their motives are impure and deceitful - mirrors the Pharisees' in your own example. Make of that what you will.

* Evolution, both planetary or cosmic, is a far grater power and process than any one generation of belief or being. It's all purposive transient scaffolding for the next faze.

And what if atheism is the "next phase"? Is that not a possibility?

 

[Colter]

What are you talking about? It's your reasoning we are examining here, not mine. According to you, conflicts between different stages of enlightenment, or different revelations, are resolved in this manner, with the stubborn recipients of earlier enlightenment eventually yielding ground to the bringers of newer enlightenment. You cited the Pharisees' reaction to Jesus as an example of this stubbornness, noting that they accused him of heresy, deceit, and being a false prophet. I simply pointed out that, rather ironically, your accusations against atheists on this forum - that their motives are impure and deceitful - mirrors the Pharisees' in your own example. Make of that what you will.



And what if atheism is the "next phase"? Is that not a possibility?

No, it's not possible, because it discounts and ignores God who is the first truth and the last fact. Just because your finite, critical intellect has obscured the living God from your vision does not mean that God is not available to others who have found him. You assume that everyone is like you apparently were, religious as opposed to spirit born. The collapse of fear based superstitions left you without a real true God and therefore vulnerable to the atheist meme. At present you can't see beyond your own reasoning. For you our failure to provide the proof that only you can find in living faith is proof or your mechanistic contentions. However much it may appear to you to be right, it just isn't. The universe, reality and Gods ways were not designed to suit you.