Christianity's most inconsistent position

[Erik Nelson]

Michael Heiser (google "Heiser Divine Council") and Prof. Richard Elliott Friedman ("The Exodus") both have shown that the OT speaks of a "Divine Council" of "sons of God" divine beings (of lesser status than YHWH). God judges them and gradually destroys them all, e.g. God judges the gods of Egypt in the Exodus.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That was wikipedia, I just cut and paste.

Wikipedia added that simple definition of atheism.

OK. Then it seems multiple people have been editing that page.

Not harsh at all, no one can with any confidence, claim that a deity does not exist.
Certainly we cannot make assertions one way or the other.

Then do you concede that Thor could exist?

An assertion that a God does not exist, is exactly what a hard atheist claims. See the definition of a hard atheist in the earlier post.

I was thinking a hard atheist would be someone who claims that no deity of any kind could exist. I'm merely saying that one who advocates that a deity must not contain self-contradictory properties is not necessarily a hard atheist.

Whether a God has contradictory attributes is not what we are discussing.

I was adding it for clarification.

Thor could exist, what has that got to do with the conversation.

OK thanks for your honesty, but let me know when you read the OP.

I do not claim ownership of God, so I would not call a God, 'my God'.

Now you're just being silly. Possessive pronouns do not always imply ownership. Please try to be serious. I don't have time for jokes.

A square circle is a paradox by definition.

Says you. Are you the final arbiter of all reality?

Not sure what your arguing here?

God should be able to do whatever he wants.

I don't need to settle any debate, that is not my concern. Everyone will find out sooner or later whether God exists anyway, we just need to be patient.

So you don't care if I go to hell or not? Not your concern, eh? I guess all that talk of love in the New Testament is not to be taken literally.

By the way, the knowledge of Jesus Christ is a revelation. One cannot deduce that Jesus is the Lord of Heaven and Earth, God's intervention is necessary.

OK, what do I have to do in order to receive this revelation?

 

[dzheremi]

Well, let's just cut right to the heart of the matter. Let's take Baal for example. Was he a real god unrelated to Jehovah, or was he one of Jehovah's fallen angels, or did he never exist apart from being an idea?

Seeing these questions makes it pretty clear to me that we are still talking past each other. I do not know about being one of Jehovah's fallen angels or whatever, but the point is that any of the "gods of the nations" would be rejected by the Jews, which makes their 'real world' existence or non-existence a moot point. If the gods of the nations were 'real' in some sense, it wouldn't matter, because they were already told to only worship their own God, and if these other gods were only ever ideas, then it wouldn't matter, because they were already told to only worship their own God.

A slightly different answer could probably be given to the question of relatedness. Since it's not good enough to simply have an idea of there being only one true God, or for that matter more than one, to actually qualify as worshiping Him within any particular religion (or else Judaism, Christianity, and Islam would actually be the same religion, rather than three different religions conveniently grouped under the title of "Abrahamic" by lazy people, and all forms of polytheism would be the same religion), it's entirely possible to say that, yes, every group's idea of "God" or "gods" is ultimately related to the one true God, while also maintaining that the God or gods of every group but your own is false. This is what you've rightly identified as henotheism, and it is a part of the monotheism put forward by the aforementioned three religions, not something separate from it. I mean, would you wonder about the Islamic commitment to monotheism because a place like Saudi Arabia executes people for witchcraft? That surely makes it seem like the Saudis at least behave as though spirits other than Allah exist, and to the extent that they can be given the supplication (successfully, maybe?) which in Islam is due only to Allah, this is effectively a kind of roundabout recognition of the existence of other gods besides Allah, despite their creedal statement saying otherwise (they go even a bit further than Judaism or Christianity on this point, stating that there is no "small g" god but God/Allah, whereas at least in the other two the small-g gods are recognized as existing in whatever sense they may among the non-believers).

In summary, I would say that the "separate existence" idea is simply irrelevant, while the "relatedness" idea is both obvious and irrelevant.

So...I don't know or care, and yes.

 

[NBB]

This is nothing more than blank assertions, with absolutely no substance. So until you provide specifics, and also demonstrate how all opposing anecdotal claims are false, your response is nothing more than sheer fallacious banter.

For me the experiences were very real, like being filled with the Holy spirit, feeling the glory of God, feeling his presence and others. You call that allucinations of delusions i know the way.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm sure by now we all know that most atheists are lack-of-belief atheists and not there-definitely-is-no-God atheists. Despite this, many Christians saddle atheists with the positive claim that God does not exist so they can respond to their own strawman by saying that one cannot possibly inspect every crevice reality to make such a conclusion. Yet these same Christians positively assert that no God exists aside from the God of the Bible. How do they know this? Even if their God is assumed to exist, how does the existence of a supreme deity negate the existence of a lesser deity? How can it be said that Christians are even remotely reasonable on this issue? Or do Christians allow for the possibility that, say, Thor really does or did exist?

The Scriptures are clear. You do know there is a God (Romans 1:18-21)

 

[cvanwey]

For me the experiences were very real, like being filled with the Holy spirit, feeling the glory of God, feeling his presence and others. You call that allucinations of delusions i know the way.

What about all the near death experiences, and same feelings received from alternate Gods. in which others believe, which are just as heart-felt as yours?

 

[NBB]

What about all the near death experiences, and same feelings received from alternate Gods. in which others believe, which are just as heart-felt as yours?

I guess is impossible to tell just reading who had real experiences with God and who didn't, but i'm so already sold to God being real, because of all i have experienced, it is not easy to describe, but for me those experiences are so important and were life changing. I often think to myself when speaking with unbelievers: "if this person only knew...."
If you are interested in knowing which god is true, investigate yourself who can be the true one, i already found Him.

I think finding God is the most important part in life.
And i'm not talking about finding a religion, but actually finding an alive and active God.

 

[cvanwey]

I guess is impossible to tell just reading who had real experiences with God and who didn't, but i'm so already sold to God being real, because of all i have experienced, it is not easy to describe, but for me those experiences are so important and were life changing. I often think to myself when speaking with unbelievers: "if this person only knew...."
If you are interested in knowing which god is true, investigate yourself who can be the true one, i already found Him.

I think finding God is the most important part in life.
And i'm not talking about finding a religion, but actually finding an alive and active God.

I hear what you are saying, and actually believe you. However, I've spoken to countless people, with their life changing anecdotal experiences. Many of them not Christian in orientation.

So I ask... If the others, whom experienced just as real of events as you, truly felt they had them, and I believe they actually have had them, how might one go about concluding which one is right, if any? But you kind of already answered, by stating it is 'impossible to tell'.

So how might such anecdotal experiences convince others? And more importantly, if you openly admit no such events can be proven, then why even bring them up as 'evidence' to others at all?

I mean, if a Hindu came up to you and told you of their experiences with their creator(s), and was willing to lay down their life for this believed event, would you even care? Would it even begin to convince you of Vishnu/other? I hasten to say it would do no such thing.

 

[NBB]

I hear what you are saying, and actually believe you. However, I've spoken to countless people, with their life changing anecdotal experiences. Many of them not Christian in orientation.

So I ask... If the others, whom experienced just as real of events as you, truly felt they had them, and I believe they actually have had them, how might one go about concluding which one is right, if any? But you kind of already answered, by stating it is 'impossible to tell'.

So how might such anecdotal experiences convince others? And more importantly, if you openly admit no such events can be proven, then why even bring them up as 'evidence' to others at all?

I mean, if a Hindu came up to you and told you of their experiences with their creator(s), and was willing to lay down their life for this believed event, would you even care? Would it even begin to convince you of Vishnu/other? I hasten to say it would do no such thing.

Because we need to tell what God has done, valid as a sort of a eyewitness account.
I think is almost the only way people find God, trough testimonies and preaching that can't be scientifically proven, is not like finding God in the sky some day.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm sure by now we all know that most atheists are lack-of-belief atheists and not there-definitely-is-no-God atheists. Despite this, many Christians saddle atheists with the positive claim that God does not exist so they can respond to their own strawman by saying that one cannot possibly inspect every crevice reality to make such a conclusion. Yet these same Christians positively assert that no God exists aside from the God of the Bible. How do they know this? Even if their God is assumed to exist, how does the existence of a supreme deity negate the existence of a lesser deity? How can it be said that Christians are even remotely reasonable on this issue? Or do Christians allow for the possibility that, say, Thor really does or did exist?

Sure, Thor could "exist," assuming the Bible is false. But of course, I'm going to have a slew of Hermeneutical inquiries to make if I'm inclined to think that Thor "exists" on more than just a comic-book page since I live in one of today's Western paradigms, with science standing at the helm.

 

[cvanwey]

Because we need to tell what God has done, valid as a sort of a eyewitness account.
I think is almost the only way people find God, trough testimonies and preaching that can't be scientifically proven, is not like finding God in the sky some day.

I'm sorry, but this is in no way answered my seemingly concise questions...

1. How do you know the ones speaking to other gods are wrong, whom carry just as much as genuine conviction as you? You already answered, you can't; as you confirmed it is impossible.

2. Why even bring up anecdotal experiences at all, when many of opposing beliefs, provide the very same heart-felt ones, in which they truly believe internally as well? Unanswered...

3. Would any opposing anecdotal testimonials given to you, with as much sincerity and earnestness, even begin to sway your current conclusions about your current beliefs? Unanswered.... But I doubt it would even matter. So why give yours?.?.?.?

 

[cvanwey]

Sure, Thor could "exist," assuming the Bible is false. But of course, I'm going to have a slew of Hermeneutical inquiries to make if I'm inclined to think that Thor "exists" on more than just a comic-book page since I live in one of today's Western paradigms, with science standing at the helm.

Well, could you blame them if they did? (rhetorical question)... But you are leaving out one important piece...

Was the intent of the comic book to represent truth in the existence of Thor?.?.? (Not rhetorical)

 

[NBB]

I'm sorry, but this is in no way answered my seemingly concise questions...

1. How do you know the ones speaking to other gods are wrong, whom carry just as much as genuine conviction as you? You already answered, you can't; as you confirmed it is impossible.

2. Why even bring up anecdotal experiences at all, when many of opposing beliefs, provide the very same heart-felt ones, in which they truly believe internally as well? Unanswered...

3. Would any opposing anecdotal testimonials given to you, with as much sincerity and earnestness, even begin to sway your current conclusions about your current beliefs? Unanswered.... But I doubt it would even matter. So why give yours?.?.?.?

1. Allah didn't do anything to me. And there can be only one truth.

2 I did answered that one, is important to give testimony and preach since is the almost the only way to know God. Study the different beliefs and experiences and make conclusions.

3. Thing is for me are not 'anecdotal' they were very real, and then i logically assume other religions experiences are NOT from their respective Gods because if God exists then allah etc don't.

Anyways, remember that i'm not in any obligation in answering your questions, like if you deserve something or anything like it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, could you blame them if they did? (rhetorical question)... But you are leaving out one important piece...

Was the intent of the comic book to represent truth in the existence of Thor?.?.? (Not rhetorical)

In a certain kind of way, some comic books up until at least 1980's, have "represented" some form or other of truth, typically of moral truth. This wouldn't be surprising since a lot of comic books from the 1930s to the 1980s have had Jewish writers/creators.

But as for the specific topic of 'Thor,' I'm not actually focusing on the comic-book per say. No, what I'm saying is that without deep hermeneutical study of the literary and religious forms by which the concept of 'Thor' has come to us in history, primarily as a Nordic version of Hercules, then I'd have little reason to be concerned with the entity of Thor as being anything other than just a modern day adapted figure in comic books.

 

[cvanwey]

1. Allah didn't do anything to me. And there can be only one truth.

I agree that there exists one true answer to each very specific question, (for the most part), and specifically so in this case.

However, millions claim Allah has, with as much, or seemingly even more conviction in claimed truth as you. So much so, they are willing to martyr and/or even die for it. So why is yours more truthful or valid? What sets their truth apart from yours, if the experience or feeling itself, or the feeling of contact, is not the actual gauge for it's truthiness?

2 I did answered that one, is important to give testimony and preach since is the almost the only way to know God. Study the different beliefs and experiences and make conclusions.

But I hear testimonial truths from the opposing gods as well. Theirs appear just as 'possible' as yours. But quite frankly, it would not matter if I agreed with their assertions or not. Their God either actually exists, and is asserting truth, or not - whether I agree or can make sense of it or not. My point being, I just want to know which one actually exists, if any? And thus far, personal experiences and testimonials does not appear to be any foundational methodology to provide as such. It lends nothing to the cause.

All I receive from such claimers, such as you, is that they feel it is real. Well, so do the ones whom have their feelings, in direct opposition to yours.

3. Thing is for me are not 'anecdotal' they were very real, and then i logically assume other religions experiences are NOT from their respective Gods because if God exists then allah etc don't.

an·ec·do·tal
/ˌanəkˈdōdl/
adjective
adjective: anecdotal
(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

Anyways, remember that i'm not in any obligation in answering your questions, like if you deserve something or anything like it.

I'm not sure why you feel necessary to mention as such? The exchange goes both ways, at all times. No one forced you to sign up here and engage. But if the questions start to get uncomfortable (meaning, they are difficult to reconcile using logic), will you leave? That's the question, in which of course, you are not obligated to answer

 

[NBB]

I agree that there exists one true answer to each very specific question, (for the most part), and specifically so in this case.

However, millions claim Allah has, with as much, or seemingly even more conviction in claimed truth as you. So much so, they are willing to martyr and/or even die for it. So why is yours more truthful or valid? What sets their truth apart from yours, if the experience or feeling itself, or the feeling of contact, is not the actual gauge for it's truthiness?



But I hear testimonial truths from the opposing gods as well. Theirs appear just as 'possible' as yours. But quite frankly, it would not matter if I agreed with their assertions or not. Their God either actually exists, and is asserting truth, or not - whether I agree or can make sense of it or not. My point being, I just want to know which one actually exists, if any? And thus far, personal experiences and testimonials does not appear to be any foundational methodology to provide as such. It lends nothing to the cause.

All I receive from such claimers, such as you, is that they feel it is real. Well, so do the ones whom have their feelings, in direct opposition to yours.



an·ec·do·tal
/ˌanəkˈdōdl/
adjective
adjective: anecdotal
(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.



I'm not sure why you feel necessary to mention as such? The exchange goes both ways, at all times. No one forced you to sign up here and engage. But if the questions start to get uncomfortable (meaning, they are difficult to reconcile using logic), will you leave? That's the question, in which of course, you are not obligated to answer

lol, all 'atheists' logic goes to the garbage bin once you encounter Jesus.

 

[cvanwey]

In a certain kind of way, some comic books up until at least 1980's, have "represented" some form or other of truth, typically of moral truth. This wouldn't be surprising since a lot of comic books from the 1930s to the 1980s have had Jewish writers/creators.

But as for the specific topic of 'Thor,' I'm not actually focusing on the comic-book per say. No, what I'm saying is that without deep hermeneutical study of the literary and religious forms by which the concept of 'Thor' has come to us in history, primarily as a Nordic version of Hercules, then I'd have little reason to be concerned with the entity of Thor as being anything other than just a modern day adapted figure in comic books.

You brought up the comic book, not me. My question is very simple. Was the --> intent <-- of the author to demonstrate truth to the existence of Thor, yes or no? If yes, then 'hermeneutic' the crap outta it If not, then case closed.

 

[cvanwey]

lol, all 'atheists' logic goes to the garbage bin once you encounter Jesus.

LOL, and like I've told many others here, which seems to be validated time and time again...

When the person on the other end feels they no longer have any valid responses, they either:

1. Change the subject
2. State they will no longer respond, or stop responding
3. Insult

So far, you are 3 out of 3

BTW, I'm undecided, not an atheist. Indoctrination has a tight grip on me, even to this day.

 

[NBB]

LOL, and like I've told many others here, which seems to be validated time and time again...

When the person on the other end feels they no longer have any valid responses, they either:

1. Change the subject
2. State they will no longer respond, or stop responding
3. Insult

So far, you are 3 out of 3

BTW, I'm undecided, not an atheist. Indoctrination has a tight grip on me, even to this day.

I did not insult you, where i offended you...
This is not a very kind 2 way conversation as it should be and you started it by being the 'hard to please' one.
I did not change any subject, you are being the 'i must win this conversation' type here.

 

[cvanwey]

I did not insult you, where i offended you...
This is not a very kind 2 way conversation as it should be and you started it by being the 'hard to please' one.
I did not change any subject, you are being the 'i must win this conversation' type here.

No, my point is simple. Personal experience lends nothing to truth. If so, then all religions are true. The fact that I'm making points, which have no easy and slick asserted blank answers, is not my problem. It's yours. Blank assertions are abundant. And in your case, they are somehow 'validated' simply because you assert them. So please do not tell me 'I must win'. Your every blankly asserted response in this thread speaks to such a conclusion - that you have 'found Jesus', and all the the one's who have not are just lost in their illogic.