Do you believe in God?

[RalliArt/////]

Assuming the form of a thing or taking it's likeness is not the same as becoming that thing in entirety. If I disguise myself as a gorilla, I've taken on the form of the gorilla but I'm still me, and still a human.

CEV Instead he gave up everything and became a slave, when he became like one of us.
NSV Instead, poured out in emptiness, a servant's form did he possess, a mortal man becoming. In human form he chose to be,
NLT he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being.
WNT He stripped Himself of His glory, and took on Him the nature of a bondservant by becoming a man like other men.

As far as privileges, one can give up privileges and it changes nothing about who you are. Privileges are simply some advantage or positive thing that you have or get because of who you are. Jesus can turn down divine privileges all day, but it doesn't make him any less divine. A white man can reject all white privilege and he's still white as the driven snow.

But God gave them, and he can take them away, they weren't inherently got just because he was who he was.
Acts 2:22 "Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him."
Why would God have to do works and wonders and signs through Jesus if he could do them himself?

Other verses use phrases like ..
"Instead, he emptied himself" "He stripped Himself of His glory" "gave up all he had" "he made himself nothing" ... doesn't sound very divine to me.
Surely you have to acknowledge that the verses at least might be suggesting Jesus wasn't divine.

What's more, when talking about spiritual identity like this, the central part of "self-ness" is generally considered to be non-physical; the soul or whatever label you'd like to put on it. That's how Jesus can take human form and still be Jesus. But given that he can still perform miracles as a human, I'd have to assume that his divinity is a part of his soul and not removed upon his assuming the likeness of a man.


And honestly, whatever quotes you come up with to support this idea of non-divinity while on earth, it's still going to have to contend with the fact that Jesus could perform miracles. Humans can't do that. God does that when humans ask. Even saints do not perform miracles themselves, but only with God's power through them.

Jesus performing miracles doesn't mean he was a divine being or some God-man. Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Joshua, Isaiah etc. all performed miracles, were they divine? Been given the power to preform a certain task doesn't make one divine.
Again, Acts 2:22 Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him.
Jesus did not consider himself God’s equal either..."for the Father is greater than I."

Another way to show Jesus was a man, and not some God-man - is where Jesus is called "the second man" or “last Adam” because he's only the second perfect man God has created. While on earth, Jesus was human, just like Adam was, that's why Jesus’ death is called "a corresponding ransom for all." The value of Jesus’ perfect human life corresponds to what the first man originally possessed before he rebelled against God. If Jesus was a human deity he wouldn't have had a corresponding value to that of Adam.

And in relation to this, if Jesus was God on earth, then it renders meaningless the fact that God rewarded Jesus for his great sacrifice.
Or are we supposed to believe that God rewards himself for being loyal to himself and gives himself gifts that he has always possessed?

You've never said to yourself "I worked really hard today, I'm gonna treat myself to some ice cream from the freezer"? One can absolutely reward oneself with things that one already possesses. It's one of the fundamental tools of self-motivation.

I find it absolutely plausible that a being could reward itself for making a sacrifice that it intellectually knows is the right thing to do, but is nonetheless difficult and painful. I would find that more praiseworthy than a being that made the sacrifice for an external reward. Doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing is hard, and I have respect for people and beings that can do so.

Your analogy doesn't fit in this instance because God's gift to himself was to give himself "a place of honor next to himself " ( What?) and to give himself "all authority in heaven and on earth" (But He already had all authority, if not, who did ?) and gave himself a "name that is above every name". (Who's name was above his?)
1 Peter 3:22, Matthew 28:18, Philippians 2:9
------------

Humans can not see god or the holy spirit, jesus is the visible instance of the trinity. That quote does not say god created jesus, it says that jesus is the firstborn of all creation. Of all creation.

"Are you saying God had a beginning? It says "firstborn of all creation", what do you suppose this means?"

Revelation 3:14 The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:

Not sure what you think this one means but it certainly doesn't say that god created jesus. It couldn't because he didn't.

"the Beginning of the creation of God". What bit don't you understand?"



Can I get your thoughts on the above from my previous post?

 

[TenEightyOne]

"Are you saying God had a beginning? It says "firstborn of all creation", what do you suppose this means?"

He is the firstborn of the dead, the spirit made flesh. Have you read much of the bible? That's a serious question. Firstborn is not an order of things in time, it's prototokos, a notation of eminence. Kings are notably firstborn (try to think of being born or borne as a position rather than a vaginal expression), Jesus is the Word made man and the firstborn over all creation. Like what the bible says. I know you're using some 20th century translations but I'm not sure they're being much help to you.

"the Beginning of the creation of God". What bit don't you understand?"

God is alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, the darkness and the light. Before god the bible tells us that there is nothing. Like before the big bang there is no time as a sequenced length as we understand it in our frame of reference. When god begins to exist then jesus and the holy spirit "also" exist, insofar as they're all exactly the same Thing.

Here's a question for you: do you accept that trinitarianism is the core doctrine of mainstream christianity?

 

[TheGeologist]

Ya'll are just quoting the bible. Why do you believe what the bible says more than other current or historical religious texts?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Ya'll are just quoting the bible. Why do you believe what the bible says more than other current or historical religious texts?

@RalliArt///// is being very specific in saying that the bible doesn't contain evidence that the father, son and holy spirit are the same thing or even mentioned. That's why the bible quotes are necessary in explaining to him (over and over again) that they are and that it's the core doctrine of mainstream christianity. He eschews writings from other sources, even noted popes and other theologians whose interpretations of the texts have been key to the development of the liturgies.

If you're saying that there are plenty of texts and analyses of the bible that would help him understand why his argument is fallacious... I entirely agree, but seemingly he's a bible-or-bust kind of guy

 

[user3392345]

My wife called me a gullible moron this morning. I was so stunned I almost dropped my bible.

 

[TheGeologist]

@RalliArt///// is being very specific in saying that the bible doesn't contain evidence that the father, son and holy spirit are the same thing or even mentioned. That's why the bible quotes are necessary in explaining to him (over and over again) that they are and that it's the core doctrine of mainstream christianity. He eschews writings from other sources, even noted popes and other theologians whose interpretations of the texts have been key to the development of the liturgies.

If you're saying that there are plenty of texts and analyses of the bible that would help him understand why his argument is fallacious... I entirely agree, but seemingly he's a bible-or-bust kind of guy

For sure, but looking at this at a broader scale. I've never read the bible so I cannot comment on specific quotes nor can I comment on the current argument.

But in general, when it comes to religion, people often believe their personal texts without fault and assume that the other texts are wrong.

I guess I'm just curious how one rectifies that thinking.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But in general, when it comes to religion, people often believe their personal texts without fault and assume that the other texts are wrong.

I guess I'm just curious how one rectifies that thinking.

By changing their sect or religion. It's a circular argument, particular texts are central to particular religions. Particular interpretations thereof are central to particular sects.

 

[Imari]

For sure, but looking at this at a broader scale. I've never read the bible so I cannot comment on specific quotes nor can I comment on the current argument.

But in general, when it comes to religion, people often believe their personal texts without fault and assume that the other texts are wrong.

I guess I'm just curious how one rectifies that thinking.

Learn to think critically and divorce ones sense of self from the religion, I'd say.

 

[TheGeologist]

Learn to think critically and divorce ones sense of self from the religion, I'd say.

???

 

[Danoff]

???

Different interpretation of the word "rectify". I think you meant "how can you hold those two views simultaneously" and he meant "how can you fix that inconsistency". The answer to your questions is that it is a form of "selective rigor" or cognitive dissonance.

 

[Imari]

???

???

I mean, what am I supposed to read into a reply composed entirely of punctuation?

Edit:

Different interpretation of the word "rectify". I think you meant "how can you hold those two views simultaneously" and he meant "how can you fix that inconsistency". The answer to your questions is that it is a form of "selective rigor" or cognitive dissonance.

I'm not sure that there's a conflict between arbitrarily assuming that one text is absolutely correct and that other texts are absolutely incorrect. It's illogical, but it's self-consistent. To use the example of the Bible and the Koran; the Bible is not correct because of it's contents but purely because it's the holy book of Christianity, and the Koran is wrong because it's not the holy book of Christianity. The actual text is irrelevant. The textual justification comes after the fact, as can be seen in the last couple of pages.

As far as "rectify", I've never seen it used as a synonym for "reconcile". Maybe he typed the wrong word, but I don't think it's correct to interpret "rectify" in the way you're suggesting he meant.

 

[Danoff]

As far as "rectify", I've never seen it used as a synonym for "reconcile". Maybe he typed the wrong word, but I don't think it's correct to interpret "rectify" in the way you're suggesting he meant.

I agree, it's not the proper use of the word. But I think that's a common misuse.

 

[Imari]

I agree, it's not the proper use of the word. But I think that's a common misuse.

Fair enough, I've never come across that one but in hindsight I can see how it could happen.

 

[user3392345]

"Poll Options:
Do you believe in god?
Of course, without him nothing would excist!
Maybe.
No way!"


Wouldn't it be more correct to have a simple "Yes", "No" and "Other: elaborate", for example?

I'm about to vote, and my answer will be "no". Though I read the "No way!" answer and I feel almost as if I'm answering "Eeew, gross!!!"...

Reason I don't believe is mostly because a real existing (don't confuse with 'excisting') God would never allow a lot of things to happen the way they do; good people punished for their goodness, bad people rewarded with wealth and long life for their despicable actions.
Plus, the whole "worship" thing doesn't cut it for me either, I fin'd it much like a circus, a play or a puppet show. And a bad one at that.

The tangible side of the question is also a part of it, though not as important, at least to me. Because I believe we're not alone in the universe despite never having seen any hard evidence of it.

Maybe god is a sadist asshole and like what he see The bible god is just a story and instrument to rule dumb people. Im sure someone/something created this universe where we live in but that was not someone from the bible guys

 

[TenEightyOne]

Im sure someone/something created this universe where we live in but that was not someone from the bible guys

This thread isn't just about the bible though. It's the same god in the texts of two other major religions. Maybe, if there's really a god, it's the same god (or one of them) that other religions worship?

How would you describe this creator that you're sure of?

 

[user3392345]

Must be someone who is realy good at math

 

[RalliArt/////]

He is the firstborn of the dead, the spirit made flesh. Have you read much of the bible? That's a serious question. Firstborn is not an order of things in time, it's prototokos, a notation of eminence. Kings are notably firstborn (try to think of being born or borne as a position rather than a vaginal expression), Jesus is the Word made man and the firstborn over all creation. Like what the bible says. I know you're using some 20th century translations but I'm not sure they're being much help to you.

You say.." Firstborn is not an order of things in time," But the link you posted says firstborn "could refer either to something or someone that is first in order of time" And when reading about Jesus being "the firstborn from the dead" the author says... "Jesus was the first person in time to come back from the dead never to die again."
You're contradicting your own evidence.

Have you read much of the bible? That's a serious question.

Maybe you should read what you're posting first before asking if I've read much of something.

God is alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, the darkness and the light. Before god the bible tells us that there is nothing. Like before the big bang there is no time as a sequenced length as we understand it in our frame of reference. When god begins to exist then jesus and the holy spirit "also" exist, insofar as they're all exactly the same Thing.

You haven't provided any biblical citation to backup anything you've said here. Just post the verses and explain how they show why Jesus isn't "the (literal) Beginning of the creation of God" as the Bible simply says he is.

Here's a question for you: do you accept that trinitarianism is the core doctrine of mainstream christianity?

Of course it is, I never said it wasn't, even though you've said a few times that I don't think it's the core doctrine of mainstream christianity...

I guess the problem for your argument is that it interferes with the fringe theory that the the trinity isn't the core doctrine of christianity - despite it having been the core doctrine of christianity for 2,000 years, a fact so plain that nobody should need to explain it to you

Should've asked first instead of guessing.

RalliArt///// is being very specific in saying that the bible doesn't contain evidence that the father, son and holy spirit are the same thing or even mentioned.

What I actually said was...

If the Trinity is the "core doctrine of christianity" why isn't it explained clearly in the Bible or even mentioned in it?

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
"In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together."

Encyclopaedia Britannica
"Neither the word “Trinity” nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord”

The Encyclopedia of Religion
"Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament."

The Encyclopedia Americana
"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching"

Mark 7:8 This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’. You are so busy holding on to the traditions of men that you let go the commandment of God!”

That's why the bible quotes are necessary in explaining to him (over and over again) that they are

Lets have another look at these quotes that you say support the notion of the trinity - since that's what this whole discussion is about.

There are many quotes where Jesus explains that he is God, they can be cherry-picked as easily as yours (Timothy 3:16, John 10:30, John 5:17-18)

They're the ones that demonstrate the bible's support for the notion of trinity.

The Trinity according to you is...

.. the father, son and holy spirit as one thing seen from different directions in different times and all at once. It's the core doctrine of christianity

Lets start with the first verse on your list. Can you first explain how this verse demonstrates the concept of the Trinity?

1 Timothy 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh,vindicated by the Spirit,seen by angels,proclaimed among the nations,believed on in the world,taken up in glory.


And BTW - feel free to have a go at these, I'll add a third to the list too.

Spoiler: Unanswered Questions

Question: #1
"if Jesus was God on earth, then it renders meaningless the fact that God rewarded Jesus for his great sacrifice.
Or are we supposed to believe that God rewards himself for being loyal to himself and gives himself gifts that he has always possessed?"

Question: #2
"If the Son and Spirit are equal, why is blasphemy against the Son forgivable but not against the Spirit? (Luke 12:10)"

Question: #3
Jesus said that ONLY His Father knew the day of the second coming, not the Son (Mark 13:32). What about the Spirit? Apparently he does not know because only the Father knows. Are there things that the Father knows that the Spirit does not? If so, in what sense can the persons of the Trinity be equal, and of the same essence?

 

[TenEightyOne]

You haven't provided any biblical citation to backup anything you've said here. Just post the verses and explain how they show why Jesus isn't "the (literal) Beginning of the creation of God" as the Bible simply says he is.

I provided quotes that showed Jesus was always at the beginning of creation (there was nothing before the beginning, that's the point of Alpha and Omega). Jesus is God. In mainstream christianity the father, the son and the holy goat were there at the beginning and will be there at the end. Accept them or not, that's up to you, but they're here in this thread and I'm not posting them again.

The big question you keep missing: do you accept that trinitarianism is the core doctrine of mainstream christianity?

 

[Denur]

The big question you keep missing: do you accept that trinitarianism is the core doctrine of mainstream christianity?

@RalliArt///// answered this very question in his last post.

Of course it is, I never said it wasn't, even though you've said a few times that I don't think it's the core doctrine of mainstream christianity...

I'm under the impression that there is misunderstanding regarding Trinity doctrine: It does NOT state that Jesus, the Father and the Spirit are one and the same God. Instead, together they form one god. This article explains how many Christians have come to believe that there is such a thing as the Trinity.

 

[evldave333]

All you know is that you dont know, theres plenty of room outside of our perception range for there to be something behind the curtain... but that doesnt mean there is... All organised religions are not built upon truth, just conjecture... and without exception are co-opted for a privileged few to exploit the many... Choose to believe the choice is yours, but faith is not necessarily truth... Only trust the seeker...

 

[TenEightyOne]

@RalliArt///// answered this very question in his last post.

Apologies. I'd begun to go cross-eyed. If indeed he accepts the Trinity then I'm not quite sure what the point he's trying to argue is.

I'm under the impression that there is misunderstanding regarding Trinity doctrine: It does NOT state that Jesus, the Father and the Spirit are one and the same God. Instead, together they form one god. This article explains how many Christians have come to believe that there is such a thing as the Trinity.

From your own link:

there are three eternal and co-equal Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the same in essence but distinct in role — three Persons (or three centres of consciousness) and one Being. The different senses of one-ness and three-ness mean that the doctrine is not self-contradictory.

They are three and they are one at the same time. They are each a slice of the whole cake that they themselves are. It depends how/where/when you see them in/from/at. They are not, as your link points out, self-contradictory because they each form part of the whole that they themselves are individually-onely-all-ly.

EDIT: Forgot the funky little graphic from your post. Note that all of them Is God.

 

[Dotini]

Must be someone who is realy good at math

Yes. There are so many universal physical properties and constants (that must be anywhere from a tiny fraction of one percent up to 10 percent of where they are to allow life to exist and evolve on Earth) that it really leaves only two possible explanations: Random or created by higher intelligence. String theory has it that there are 1^500 universes, a number which is far greater than the number of atoms that exist in our universe. So our universe is clearly random once you accept string theory as a premise. The created by a higher intelligence theory is equally debatable, though it has the advantage of giving inherent meaning and purpose to our universe and our individuals lives. But in either case it is a red herring to equate "'God' the creator of universe" with the mythical, errant and dangerous gods of the world's humanly written religious literature.

 

[TexRex]

It was only a matter of time until he found a new audience.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So our universe is clearly random once you accept string theory as a premise.

Acceptance of string theory isn't a pre-requisite for accepting that the position we observe our surroundings from is a successful random product out of countless random failures.

But in either case it is a red herring to equate "'God' the creator of universe" with the mythical, errant and dangerous gods of the world's humanly written religious literature.

Personally I think "mythical, errant and dangerous" describes the Abrahamic god very well.

 

[Dotini]

Personally I think "mythical, errant and dangerous" describes the Abrahamic god very well.

Yes, I excel at describing.

Question: Do you believe there is inherent meaning and purpose in your life and every human life, or do you think that is something you must create for yourself or be assigned to you?

 

[BobK]

Question: Do you believe there is inherent meaning and purpose in your life and every human life, or do you think that is something you must create for yourself or be assigned to you?

I'm not sure if the question is directed to @TenEightyOne in particular or if it's a general question. In any case, I do not believe there is inherent meaning or purpose to life.

It seems to me that many people cannot accept that for whatever reason, and concoct all sorts of things such as religion as justification.

 

[Dotini]

I do not believe there is inherent meaning or purpose to life.

It seems to me that many people cannot accept that for whatever reason, and concoct all sorts of things such as religion as justification.

Aye. If people either culturally or individually cannot deal with a meaningless and purposeless existence, they are likely to do all sorts of dumb stuff like violence, crime, drugs, and suicide with cocktails of crazy self-justifications, as you say. A perfect enactment of a meaningless and purposeless life. If human life on Earth indeed is random and lacks meaning and purpose, then of course so do our own lives. All we have to do is accept and deal with it. A grudging philosophy of nihilism, gross materialism and alienation is definitely one way to go. Of the seven deadly sins, my personal favorites are sloth, lust and gluttony.

Question: How best to deal with the nihilism and alienation that follows from a purposeless and meaningless life?

 

[Imari]

Yes. There are so many universal physical properties and constants (that must be anywhere from a tiny fraction of one percent up to 10 percent of where they are to allow life to exist and evolve on Earth) that it really leaves only two possible explanations: Random or created by higher intelligence.

Not really. We exist in this universe instead of one that we couldn't exist in because we couldn't exist in the other one. That doesn't mean that the physical constants are random, nor does it mean that they were created. For all we know there may be some process during universe creation that forced the universe to have the properties that it does. Our currently inability to even meaningfully extrapolated back to the beginning of the universe, let alone beyond (if there's a meaningful way to see "beyond" the beginning of time) means you really can't say much meaningful about how it was created.

 

[Dotini]

...you really can't say much meaningful about how it was created.

If I understand you correctly, then nobody can say much that is meaningful about the creation of the universe. So the argument becomes essentially moot, or a draw, if you ignore subjective evidence. Perhaps we then are free to choose how it began? If that is the case, why would we choose to believe that the universe is without purpose or meaning - and so must be our own lives - when the reasonable alternative is to choose to live in a universe of purpose and meaning in which our lives also have innate purpose and meaning, and are not just an aimlessly enforced treadmill of toil and reward?

 

[BobK]

If I understand you correctly, then nobody can say much that is meaningful about the creation of the universe. So the argument becomes essentially moot, or a draw, if you ignore subjective evidence. Perhaps we then are free to choose how it began? If that is the case, why would we choose to believe that the universe is without purpose or meaning - and so must be our own lives - when the reasonable alternative is to choose to live in a universe of purpose and meaning in which our lives also have innate purpose and meaning, and are not just an aimlessly enforced treadmill of toil and reward?

You can believe anything you like as long as you accept it's pure baseless fantasy. If it makes you feel better thinking you have a purpose in life, great. That doesn't make it true, of course.