intellgence....you either have it or you don't

[variant]

This is your hypothetical situation, not mine...you need to define what Jesus was right about, and what He wasn't. You can't expect me to understand your rules if you don't establish them properly. You still agree that there was a Jesus. Jesus said many things.

It wasn't my hypothetical at all. I was expanding on the scenario of someone else.

So, God never talked to Abraham, but Abraham was somehow conscious of the concept of a god...SO much so, that he decided to begin an entire race of people based on this "dream" of a god derived from no outside influence whatsoever. Or do you mean to say that Abraham could see God, but not speak with Him? How did he know it was God?

Similarly to other world religions started by people.

What was Abraham's motivation for this?

He had everything to gain, just like every religious founder.

Let's not start bringing up other faiths...

Why not? You don't think other faiths are wrong?

If the God before you is Vishnu and it is the only real God, the Bible is simply wrong.

Well, the Bible speaks of one true God. Here's a deity in my face claiming to be that God. That statement alone validates the Bible. "I'm the one true God, but that one book isn't talking about me when it states that there exists a one true God." For the third time, this deity is denying its very existence. Or, it's denying the truth of its existence:

It's denying the correctness of the Bible's characterization of God outside of the monotheism.

In such a scenario Christianity is false and there is a God.

You really don't get this?

The Bible says truth is "X"
The deity says "I am X, but I am not truth"
"X" exists, says the deity, but "X" is not truth.
Therefore, it is false. "There is truth, but there is not truth" makes no sense.

The Bible makes more than one claim.

So The Bible says X and Y
X is true but Y is not
Y is central to Christianity

Christianity is false.

Obviously, I have an idea of the concept of "love", so love exists. It is not some "odd assumption" that something claiming to be God yet denying extremely vital parts to the book which speaks of Him would not be malevolent. Love is patient, love is kind, love is forgiveness...so says the Bible. Which of those are true, and which are not? You have to understand that in this scenario, I'm still an adherent of Bible doctrine. This is what I will use to determine whether or not this thing I'm looking at is the one true GOD. So far, this deity isn't making a very good case for itself...it is saying that certain things are true, and others are not, yet it it incapable of providing me with sufficient information as to WHAT the truth IS. If this deity says that love is impatient, unkind, and unforgiving, then hatred must be the opposite of these. So why has mankind been using the incorrect terms? Is hatred then "good"? Shall we mix them up? Is love impatient and unforgiving, yet kind? How is that logical?

Well I didn't specify that God is malevolent or not in this scenario but it is patently false that God can not be loving if Christianity is basically false, you just don't seem to understand how to sort out logical ideas.

That's because you haven't built any sort of universe which has an established truth. Your scenario shows me a deity that claims to be the god of the Bible, but the Bible is not truth. You're not making sense.

No, you are just being remarkably bad at logic.

Every claim of Christianity needed be false for the Bible to be basically full of it with regard to describing God.

I specified a scenario where merely two conditions that God corrects the Bible on RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, and yet you are saying you would be sitting there saying that being must be malevolent without any further info.

You bind me to unestablished rules in a hypothetical scenario that you invented, and then tell me that it is due to my own limitation that I cannot understand your scenario.

You seem to be quite limited, the scenario is straight forward and yet you can't step outside of your ideology enough to even address it properly.

 

[variant]

P.S...is that your kitty? He's cute...

No but this is:

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

It wasn't my hypothetical at all.

Oh, it was the other guy's idea to throw in the bit about Abraham and Jesus?

Similarly to other world religions started by people.

He had everything to gain, just like every religious founder.

Who told Abraham to tell others to follow this thing that sits there silently that he's decided to call "God"? Why wouldn't they just follow him? What sort of influence did he have on people? Was he a masterful storyteller?

Why not? You don't think other faiths are wrong?

Of course I do. But this deity is using the Bible as verification of its existence. Not the Q'ran.

If the God before you is Vishnu and it is the only real God, the Bible is simply wrong.

The Bible makes no mention of Vishnu. So again, this boils down to "whatiff I'm following the wrong God?" Why don't you just say so? That wouldn't be the Christian God, that would be the Hindu one. Hindus don't follow the Bible. In that case, the Bible would be irrelevant. The deity would then have to say "I am NOT the Christian God of the Bible; I am Vishnu, and I am the one true God."

It's denying the correctness of the Bible's characterization of God outside of the monotheism.

Which SPECIFIC characterizations? Why do you constantly dodge other specifics that I require in order to better understand and facilitate a response to your rhetoric? Is this deity the God of the Bible, yes or no?

1. "Yes, I am the God of the Bible, but I am Vishnu" is a false statement, as the Bible makes no mention of Vishnu.

2. "NO, I am NOT the God of the Bible, I am Vishnu" would indeed be a true statement. We would then be free to discuss issues about Abraham and Jesus (those qualify for discussion in this scenario, as you presented them) and how this deity's account of those people contradicts what the Bible states about them, how they agree, and the relative effect each false statement has on the statements that are true (You did say Jesus could have said some "true" things and still be considered an overall fraud, yes?)

In such a scenario Christianity is false and there is a God.

Still waiting on how you can establish a Christian God that is not Christian. Either the one true God is not the Christian one, or it is, OR, there is no god at all. Your scenario has a god in it, so option #3 is false. You scenario indicates the truthfulness of the Bible's claim of a "certain" god being the one and only, but in doing so, it also indicates the Bible itself as being the authority to this claim.

You really don't get this?

The Bible makes more than one claim.

So The Bible says X and Y
X is true but Y is not
Y is central to Christianity

Christianity is false.

Yes, but which aspects? Love? Forgiveness? Salvation? Mercy? Justice?

Well I didn't specify that God is malevolent or not in this scenario but it is patently false that God can not be loving if Christianity is basically false, you just don't seem to understand how to sort out logical ideas.

This doesn't make any sense to me. If this is so logical to you, you should be able to explain it better. Stop being so lofty. Set some guidelines and stick with them.

Every claim of Christianity needed be false for the Bible to be basically full of it with regard to describing God.

Beg pardon?

I specified a scenario where merely two conditions that God corrects the Bible on RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, and yet you are saying you would be sitting there saying that being must be malevolent without any further info.

Oh, come on...now this is getting silly...this god in your scenario didn't "correct" anything...it merely denied things:

"Abraham made all that stuff up"

Abraham existed. He made some stuff up. It's the wrong stuff. There is right stuff, tho...but we dunno what it is...and, for all we know, lying could be okay, too...

"Jesus was a fraud"


Jesus existed! Yay! He was a fraud. Boo. But he did say some things that were true! Yay! But we still don't know which ones. Boo.

You seem to be quite limited, the scenario is straight forward and yet you can't step outside of your ideology enough to even address it properly.

Personal attacks...classy...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You do realize this opens up way too many more questions, don't you?

So, if Jesus was a fraud, that implies He did exist. So the Bible wasn't wrong about that. You never said "there was never a Jesus". This means that everything Jesus said was a lie. There's no such thing as salvation through faith. Furthermore, everything about Abraham was a lie as well, so Jesus is not a descendent of that bloodline. Therefore, there's no such thing as a Jew. So who are all these people claiming to be Jewish if they're not Jewish? And what determines a Gentile?

Much of the Old Testament talks of the eventual coming of a Savior. So, if Jesus is/was not the Savior, who is? Or is that made up as well? Let's assume it is:
Is the very mention of a Savior in the Old Testament also a lie? Because, if that's the case, this deity had no intention of demonstrating love, forgiveness, or mercy. Those things are good, and this deity is evil.

So, again, I would ask "If good things are not good in your eyes, then what is?"

Getting back to Abraham and Jesus, the OT mentions the imputation of Mosaic Law to the client nation of Israel - the Jews. But Abraham made all that up, so there was never a Mosaic Law, either. In fact, everything regarding Law was just made up. This god evidently had zero interest in concepts such as respect for your fellow man among many others. How about lying? If the Bible is wrong, then lying is okay. This deity could be lying to me right now. How would I even know?

However, Jesus came to fulfill this Law, and talked of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone. But Jesus was a fraud as well, so He must've been just talking complete and utter gibberish. And somehow, there are Jews, there is law, there is love, and there is a difference between good and evil.

There's more...a lot more.

It shouldn't take much thinking to realize how ridiculous of a notion this is...

You're missing the forest for the trees...

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

No but this is:

Now that is a beautiful cat!

 

[variant]

Oh, it was the other guy's idea to throw in the bit about Abraham and Jesus?

No but it's an example of what he was talking about.

Who told Abraham to tell others to follow this thing that sits there silently that he's decided to call "God"? Why wouldn't they just follow him? What sort of influence did he have on people? Was he a masterful storyteller?

The idea of God predates Abraham by many millennia, there have been thousands of proposed religions.

Of course I do. But this deity is using the Bible as verification of its existence. Not the Q'ran.

No, you are using your senses for verification.

The Bible makes no mention of Vishnu. So again, this boils down to "whatiff I'm following the wrong God?" Why don't you just say so? That wouldn't be the Christian God, that would be the Hindu one. Hindus don't follow the Bible. In that case, the Bible would be irrelevant. The deity would then have to say "I am NOT the Christian God of the Bible; I am Vishnu, and I am the one true God."

If Vishnu shows up and is the only real God then the Bible IS irrelevant.

Which SPECIFIC characterizations? Why do you constantly dodge other specifics that I require in order to better understand and facilitate a response to your rhetoric? Is this deity the God of the Bible, yes or no?

Because there would be countless specifics. A God shows up and tells you specifically where the Bible is dead wrong. What do you think?

1. "Yes, I am the God of the Bible, but I am Vishnu" is a false statement, as the Bible makes no mention of Vishnu.

2. "NO, I am NOT the God of the Bible, I am Vishnu" would indeed be a true statement. We would then be free to discuss issues about Abraham and Jesus (those qualify for discussion in this scenario, as you presented them) and how this deity's account of those people contradicts what the Bible states about them, how they agree, and the relative effect each false statement has on the statements that are true (You did say Jesus could have said some "true" things and still be considered an overall fraud, yes?)

No one has proposed a "God of the Bible" but you.

If a God tells you the Bible is wrong it is not the God of the Bible.

Still waiting on how you can establish a Christian God that is not Christian. Either the one true God is not the Christian one, or it is, OR, there is no god at all. Your scenario has a god in it, so option #3 is false. You scenario indicates the truthfulness of the Bible's claim of a "certain" god being the one and only, but in doing so, it also indicates the Bible itself as being the authority to this claim.

I'm not trying to do anything of the sort. I'm simply saying that there can be a single True God that isn't accurately described by the Bible.

Yes, but which aspects? Love? Forgiveness? Salvation? Mercy? Justice?

I didn't specify every detail because they aren't important.

This doesn't make any sense to me. If this is so logical to you, you should be able to explain it better. Stop being so lofty. Set some guidelines and stick with them.

It isn't making sense because I posited a very general idea and you keep inserting your own ideas into it that were not there.

Start over and read carefully and then we can speak:

OK, so the one true God shows up and says "Yeah I'm the God that created the universe, and I am the only one, but I never talked to Abraham he made all that up, and Jesus was a fraud."

This would not be the God described in the Bible.

Does this God claim to be the God of the Bible? No.

Has the God in question claimed to be beneficent or malevolent? No.

Is the God claiming that everything in the Bible is wrong? No.

What did I specify It created the universe and it is the only one. You can assume it can demonstrate these to you.

What you would have for such a being is questions, yeah me too.

Beg pardon?

I'm not sure how to put that more clearly.

Christianity for instance holds killing to be morally wrong. This doesn't necessarily change if Jesus wasn't really who the Bible says he was.

Oh, come on...now this is getting silly...this god in your scenario didn't "correct" anything...it merely denied things:

"Abraham made all that stuff up"

Abraham existed. He made some stuff up. It's the wrong stuff. There is right stuff, tho...but we dunno what it is...and, for all we know, lying could be okay, too...

"Jesus was a fraud"

Jesus existed! Yay! He was a fraud. Boo. But he did say some things that were true! Yay! But we still don't know which ones. Boo.

It's God in that hypothetical scenario so it is also correct in that scenario.

Personal attacks...classy...

I'm just observing your limited abilities to think outside of your religious assumptions.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

You're missing the forest for the trees...

You were actually the one who presented me with a see-able god which is in direct opposition to what I'd believed prior to seeing it. That would be pure evil. Variant did not present such a scenario. Variant said:

Well I didn't specify that God is malevolent or not in this scenario but it is patently false that God can not be loving if Christianity is basically false,

So this deity is capable of love. Your deity is not. Your deity is in direct opposition to the Bible (which I believe), which says "God is love".

So, which forest am I even in...?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You were actually the one who presented me with a see-able god which is in direct opposition to what I'd believed prior to seeing it. That would be pure evil. Variant did not present such a scenario. Variant said:

Well I didn't specify that God is malevolent or not in this scenario but it is patently false that God can not be loving if Christianity is basically false,

So this deity is capable of love. Your deity is not. Your deity is in direct opposition to the Bible (which I believe), which says "God is love".

So, which forest am I even in...?

Yes, I posed you with a situation in which you face a deity that you extremely dislike, and also a situation in which the Bible's claims about God are wrong. Yet you seem totally unable (or unwilling) to even contemplate that the Bible could be wrong in any respect.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Yes, I posed you with a situation in which you face a deity that you extremely dislike, and also a situation in which the Bible's claims about God are wrong. Yet you seem totally unable (or unwilling) to even contemplate that the Bible could be wrong in any respect.

To both of you...

I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea that the Bible is wrong with you. However, NEITHER of you has presented any specifics as to what IS wrong.

Why can't you understand that? You say some of it is wrong, in this scenario. My response will always be "well WHAT is RIGHT?" Is it all wrong? Fine. So I see something that says it's God, and the Bible is ALL wrong. I would tell it to strike me dead where I stand, and I will trust in my Bible's truths.

 

[MehGuy]

I've read that if you have an IQ above 115 you can pretty much grasp anything. Might take you longer than a person with an IQ of 150, but you'd slowly get there.

Mental disorders can limit your cognitive abilities too. There are many times I have trouble thinking, and other times I feel lightning quick. I've been called slow and brilliant from people all my life, lol.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To both of you...

I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea that the Bible is wrong with you. However, NEITHER of you has presented any specifics as to what IS wrong.

Because it isn't necessary for you to answer the question! We don't need to go through the Bible, verse by verse, to establish that, in the scenario, the God you encounter differs significantly from the God of the Bible.

Why can't you understand that? You say some of it is wrong, in this scenario. My response will always be "well WHAT is RIGHT?" Is it all wrong? Fine. So I see something that says it's God, and the Bible is ALL wrong. I would tell it to strike me dead where I stand, and I will trust in my Bible's truths.

Then that would be denialism. You are saying that even if God himself showed you that particular claims within the Bible were not true, you would still believe those claims. So basically, you can't contemplate the Bible being wrong at all, under any circumstance. Not even God himself could convince you otherwise?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Because it isn't necessary for you to answer the question! We don't need to go through the Bible, verse by verse, to establish that, in the scenario, the God you encounter differs significantly from the God of the Bible.

Okay. Differs how? He's not loving? He's mean and unfair? When you say "differs significantly from the God of the Bible" that can mean many, many things.

Then that would be denialism. You are saying that even if God himself showed you that particular claims within the Bible were not true, you would still believe those claims.

This God has offered no such claims...only that they exist. This God evidently had no problem showing himself to my naked eyes, but somehow he's reluctant to prove to me that several things are contrary to my beliefs by stating alternatives in place of them?

So basically, you can't contemplate the Bible being wrong at all, under any circumstance. Not even God himself could convince you otherwise?

What is this "convince" you speak of? Simply saying "Some stuff's not true" does nothing to "convince" me. See, look...

Evolution's not true.
Now, have I just convinced you by saying that, or do I need to show you why? What if I said "evolution is in 'some' ways true"? Wouldn't you ask me what I mean by "some" ways? Especially if I claimed to be the ultimate authority on it? So you say "Which ways?" and I say "meh...it's not important." And if you say "I don't believe you", that's denialism...? I suppose I could simply say "You're just not seeing the forest for the trees", but that still doesn't tell you anything, does it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Okay. Differs how? He's not loving? He's mean and unfair? When you say "differs significantly from the God of the Bible" that can mean many, many things.





This God has offered no such claims...only that they exist. This God evidently had no problem showing himself to my naked eyes, but somehow he's reluctant to prove to me that several things are contrary to my beliefs by stating alternatives in place of them?





What is this "convince" you speak of? Simply saying "Some stuff's not true" does nothing to "convince" me. See, look...

Evolution's not true.
Now, have I just convinced you by saying that, or do I need to show you why? What if I said "evolution is in 'some' ways true"? Wouldn't you ask me what I mean by "some" ways? Especially if I claimed to be the ultimate authority on it? So you say "Which ways?" and I say "meh...it's not important." And if you say "I don't believe you", that's denialism...? I suppose I could simply say "You're just not seeing the forest for the trees", but that still doesn't tell you anything, does it?

You are not following. In the hypothetical, it's not me saying anything. It's the God you encounter who both says and shows you which aspects of the Bible in particular are wrong. In such a situation, even if God himself were to show you that you were wrong, you would still maintain that you are right. If that's not denialism then what is?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

You are not following. In the hypothetical, it's not me saying anything. It's the God you encounter who both says and shows you which aspects of the Bible in particular are wrong. In such a situation, even if God himself were to show you that you were wrong, you would still maintain that you are right. If that's not denialism then what is?

I'm really trying to understand. So I encounter a god who says he's the one true God. We've established that. It is me he's talking to. I have an idea about what I think God is based on my belief in the Bible. This god is not like that idea at all. The Bible says God - the one true God - is love. I believe that. But in this scenario, this God that I'm speaking with is NOT like what I believe. Therefore, this God is hatred.

I use the same formula for all the attributes of God that I believe Him to possess. I believe them because I believe the Bible, and the Bible speaks of MANY attributes of God. I can't objectively SEE such attributes as love, justice, mercy, forgiveness...maybe if this God were to give Variant's kitty up there a nice warm hug, that would be a demonstration of love, but since this thing is and represents everything I dislike, it does not possess the attribute of "love", because I dislike absolute hatred. It would be more likely to kill the kitty.

Ultimately, if it turns out that the real God is a mean, unfair, vicious, contemptuous, apathetic, selfish, unkind, spiteful entity, I suppose would likely do what just about anybody would...I would descend into complete madness. The very notion that this evil god created everything including man's concept of "good" just to snatch it all away and force His people to choose between torture and torture would be the very definition of insanity. What would YOU do?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

If I am STILL failing to understand the basis for this scenario, I'm admittedly at a loss. You will not accept anything I use as a guideline to truth, that I shouldn't question a hateful deity who says that everything I was told about him was a lie. Even if he were to produce a "corrected" version of the Bible, you - the creator(s) of this scenario - would have to establish what those corrections were. The bits about Abraham having self-serving motives, and Jesus being only some unknown percentage of truthful create massive questions as to anything else brought up in the book, including the existence of this being itself. I don't know what to use, or what "not" to use to establish truth.

Perhaps someone else can help Variant and Archaeopteryx explain this better to me? Or maybe someone can understand my side and convey it better?

 

[single eye]

MehGuy, our abilities, including our ability to think clearly, are controlled by hormones, and hormones are determined by diet.

 

[paul becke]

Beware of 'truth seekers', particularly leaning towards atheism/scientism, as seems the case here, who start off threads, bending over backwards to convince Christians how sincere and reasonable they are in their quest for the truth.

This thread has added a hilarious new dimension to that customary disingenuousness with the most abject, intellectual humility - not too common in tertiary students.... coupled with a touchingly expressed total awe of atheist scientists.

 

[WindStaff]

Not having a satisfying answer leaves us at square one, which is ignorance, not Goddidit. An argument from ignorance is a fallacy.

How will trading the language of physics for the language of theology lead to improvements in our understanding of cosmogony?



You seem to be going on a tirade against science. There are things we do not know. Not knowing does not automatically lend credence to Goddidit.

I'm not anti-science, I am against the scientists- they do not heed God.

And that's the bottom line, God created the universe, it does not exist out of it's own accord and one is a fool to think otherwise.

Whether you like it or not, life and reason are things which cannot possibly result by default. There must be an intelligent designer and you will receive no other alternative.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not anti-science, I am against the scientists- they do not heed God.

And that's the bottom line, God created the universe, it does not exist out of it's own accord and one is a fool to think otherwise.

You are free to have that belief and others are free to disagree.

 

[Davian]

Beware of 'truth seekers', particularly leaning towards atheism/scientism, as seems the case here, who start off threads, bending over backwards to convince Christians how sincere and reasonable they are in their quest for the truth.

This thread has added a hilarious new dimension to that customary disingenuousness with the most abject, intellectual humility - not too common in tertiary students.... coupled with a touchingly expressed total awe of atheist scientists.

In several my exchanges with the OP, he made it clear to me that he was not an atheist: link