The Concept of God

HughFreakingDillon said:

which parts of the bible are based in reality? besides the possible/probable existence of certain humans, of course. I can't think of any right now. Although, I haven't read it in a couple decades. LOL

I was indeed talking about certain specific people as well as certain specific cities (obviously) and certain events. Example: it seems to be factual that John the Baptist actually existed (not at all surprising, since real people were at the root of the spread of early Christianity). Same with Pontius Pilate. Also, the Hebrews did indeed live a nomadic desert existence at one point. King Herod was also a real guy, and King David was supposedly a real King as well. Stuff like that. Also, the descriptions of Romans vs the Jewish counsels were based in reality, that kind of thing. There are also consistencies between the stories that were inflated and reality, i.e. certain plagues and famines and shit like that seem to line up with the stories in the Bible. The writers of the Bible took real things and then twisted them to have religious weight. There is even archeological evidence that shows large floods did take place in that region way back in 5000 BC or whatever. The Biblical scholars do seem to have had some historical records (or oral records) that they based their stories on. It was like history inspiring fiction. There are loads of examples like this in the Bible.

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

FoxyRedLa said:

I'm not even certain the site is reputable. Just thought I'd share.

I've been taking everyone's opinion/thoughts/views into consideration and have been thinking a lot. Been thinking about my kids. As usual.

yeah. I had never seen that site before, so i was wary of the content as well. my comment wasn't directed at you, more the content of the article. if an atheist doesn't believe in god, why would they take this book as confirmation that jesus didn't get crucified? and yet, he went to heaven while still alive. how the hell does that work?

An Atheist doesn't necessarily reject the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion. There is definitely a solid debate about whether or not Jesus was a real man or not (I am personally on the fence on that one), but I think the majority of Atheists probably still think that Jesus was a real guy who went around preaching and who started the religion that eventually became Christianity. I personally think that, if he did exist at all (again, there are some convincing arguments to suggest this isn't the case, but others to suggest it is), he was basically like David Koresh or Jim Jones, but with a much better personality, and not evil. And Christianity can more be almost wholly attributed to his surviving apostles and everything that happened after Jesus was killed (if he was). I'm sure that, if Jesus knew what became of his teachings over the past 2000 or so years, he'd take it all back and kept his mouth shut.

I'm not sure that I believe that.  There were many writers back in the supposed time of Jesus and no one wrote about this person.  

Wouldn't you think that someone that walked on water and turned smelly fish into loaves of bread would have gotten some attention?

Gern Blansten said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

FoxyRedLa said:

I'm not even certain the site is reputable. Just thought I'd share.

I've been taking everyone's opinion/thoughts/views into consideration and have been thinking a lot. Been thinking about my kids. As usual.

yeah. I had never seen that site before, so i was wary of the content as well. my comment wasn't directed at you, more the content of the article. if an atheist doesn't believe in god, why would they take this book as confirmation that jesus didn't get crucified? and yet, he went to heaven while still alive. how the hell does that work?

An Atheist doesn't necessarily reject the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion. There is definitely a solid debate about whether or not Jesus was a real man or not (I am personally on the fence on that one), but I think the majority of Atheists probably still think that Jesus was a real guy who went around preaching and who started the religion that eventually became Christianity. I personally think that, if he did exist at all (again, there are some convincing arguments to suggest this isn't the case, but others to suggest it is), he was basically like David Koresh or Jim Jones, but with a much better personality, and not evil. And Christianity can more be almost wholly attributed to his surviving apostles and everything that happened after Jesus was killed (if he was). I'm sure that, if Jesus knew what became of his teachings over the past 2000 or so years, he'd take it all back and kept his mouth shut.

I'm not sure that I believe that.  There were many writers back in the supposed time of Jesus and no one wrote about this person.  

Wouldn't you think that someone that walked on water and turned smelly fish into loaves of bread would have gotten some attention?

I didn't name Jesus as one of the people who were real in my next post for a reason. That is a big debate, and as I already mentioned, I'm a bit on the fence about him, but tend to lean slightly to the idea that Jesus didn't really exist. However, someone or other obviously started the cult, so if it wasn't Jesus, then it was someone else, right? Does the name really matter? As for the crucifixion - who knows? The Romans actually didn't keep very good records of that stuff a lot of the time, so the fact that nobody can find an account of them crucifying some crazy Jew who was trying to start a cult wouldn't be that surprising. People were crucified for being a perceived threat to the state all the time back then, and just mixed in with all the other criminals who got executed - no biggie as far as the Romans were concerned. I suppose so-called martyrdom does seem like a logical jumping off place for his followers who proceeded to develop Christianity in the region, so I don't find that part totally unbelievable, even with the lack of hard evidence. Also, sorry if I wasn't clear, but whoever this person we call Jesus was, I am not suggesting that all of the bullshit applied to him is real. Only that a male human being, possibly named Jesus but possibly not, existed around the time when Christianity was born, and that he went around preaching stuff as cult leaders do, and his cult followers went around spreading the word. The existence of his apostles is really the important part of the story anyway, IMO. They're the ones who actually got the ball rolling as far as Christianity goes. Real people really did go around preaching "the word" until someone figured out that they could use this story as a means of control.

HughFreakingDillon said:

which parts of the bible are based in reality? besides the possible/probable existence of certain humans, of course. I can't think of any right now. Although, I haven't read it in a couple decades. LOL

Good question.  The problem is, scholars have been arguing over this for a long time and and there still seems to be loads of controversy.  Part of the problem is deciding whether to accept each part of the Bible until proven false or to reject each part until proven true and both sides use which ever argument fits their wishes. It's an intellectual deadlock/stalemate!

rgambs said:

Most of the parts of the Bible that are historically accurate are the ones that detail the atrocities of war as the Israelites committed genocide across the lands.
Jesus's name, if he existed, would have been Yeshua, I believe.
So why Jesus? 

Why does God have 2 names?  Yahweh and Yehovah, shouldn't it be just the one?

Like most people, God also has a username.

lt is taught if you don't believe in the Trinity you're not a Christian. 

I process the Trinity as just more explanation or examples of how infinite and complex God is.

We've mentioned here about how we humans have zero imagination or what have you than God. For example - maybe there are colors we've never seen before in Heaven?

HughFreakingDillon said:

RYME said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

FoxyRedLa said:

I'm not even certain the site is reputable. Just thought I'd share.

I've been taking everyone's opinion/thoughts/views into consideration and have been thinking a lot. Been thinking about my kids. As usual.

yeah. I had never seen that site before, so i was wary of the content as well. my comment wasn't directed at you, more the content of the article. if an atheist doesn't believe in god, why would they take this book as confirmation that jesus didn't get crucified? and yet, he went to heaven while still alive. how the hell does that work?

The Trinity isn't that complicated.
The Father, The Son (Jesus) & The Holy Spirit.  Yes they are all one and the same. It's like ice, steam, and water.  It's all H2O just in different formes.

actually, it is complicated. or rather, nonsensical. if they are all one, why do they each talk to each other as if they were separate? and if god is jesus and jesus is god, how does jesus' existence shield god from the sins of man, if the shield IS god?

why did god have to have a son when he previously just spoke directly to humans, like he did with moses and noah? all of a sudden he's too busy so he gets a subordinate to represent him? I would think a voice from the clouds would be more convincing than just some everyday dude in a robe and sandals preaching this new fan-dangled doctrine that pissed off the locals. 

and then he "sacrificed his only begotten son"? if he's him, he's not his son, he's him. and he didn't sacrifice anything if Jesus is in heaven with him. 

it's really a ludicrous premise in my mind. 

Now that I agree with.... I always figured they used the whole Jesus, son of God premise because it was the only thing they could think of that would completely and clearly separate them from Judaism even though they kept the same God and could still use their religious history.