Who Made God?

There is no need to make rash conclusions when so much circumstantial evidence clouds the issue.First, we have a large absence of evidence. I would argue that unbelief should never be the default position----especially among those of us who have experienced a strong subjective awareness of the presence of God. Some things cannot be objectively proven. My default is to remain a believer and ascribe these situations as mysteries.But then again, many of you see no need for God to begin with...so your world view is necessarily different. Your juries are all in.

Okay, why don't you argue that instead of just asserting it? God said it. You're calling God foolish. There is no reason to think that that's true. Nope. We don't know that. We know that John thought that. Tell it to God. He admitted that the snake told the truth. I have made that argument many times and you have never, ever made any attempt to refute it. Why not? Again... the only source you have for your Jesus is the Book. You can't just throw the book out the window for some silly tales about "Satan" made up by a bunch of apologists.Please stop spouting the same nonsense over and over again and think before you call God a liar. Come up with an actual argument before you call God a liar.

Nothing there but word salad Phat; you argue for a position totally divorced from reality that has no meaning. When you can explain how a communion between God and man is possible or even what that means, then perhaps you might have something other than fantasy. Again, you argue for a position totally divorced from reality.What is actually written in the story!Edited by jar, : clear sig

Again, what I post related to being a Christian is actually based in reality and testable and verifiable.And you still have not presented a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure to test whether Jesus is alive today or even explained what the hell that even means.

How can you honestly make such an argument when you don't even believe that God exists? Oh but of course you mean the God in the book! How silly of me! Jesus is the human character of God in the book, and Jesus said in"John 8:44 (ESV)
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
Of course you will argue that it was John and not Jesus who actually said this. You don't see the God Who wrote the book as the preexisting Word. There are plenty of reasons. Quit dismissing the apologists as a group of conmen. You yourself are doing more to distort the meaning of the book than they have collectively ever done. You attempt to reduce Christianity to a philosophical subset of human truth. This places it as fallible and untrue as your socialist "each according to their ability" claptrap (which wont work in today's world without a global war, by the way) Can even dare suggest! You need God before you will ever achieve utopia on this 3rd rock!What reasons would you have to question Johns motives? He seems more in touch with God than either you or I. Forget your human morality argument...it falls flat at this point! Oh? So you admit that God wrote the book? I'm doing it as we speak. Better quit sipping and start flippin them pages, satch.I can and do argue that God preexisted the book. It is a belief, but it will stand the test of time far longer than any modern secular humanist utopian kum-ba-yah nonsense spouted by extreme Leftist idealists! My God never lies. Not even in Genesis. It is your God...or rather your interpretation of the book---that's on trial here.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

You answered your own question. That's a separate issue. I have asked you and asked to to back up something that the apologists say. Anything. Until you do, you have no business putting them above what the Bible actually says. That's an empty accusation. Back it up or withdraw it. Not at all. The Christianity that you push has little truth to it. That "claptrap" is right in the Bible and right in Jesus' mouth. I strongly advise you not to spit in your "leader's" face. Sure it will. Nonsense. Nonsense.That whole sentence was one of the stupidest things you've ever posted. What reason would you have for swallowing them hook, line and sinker without question? *shrug* Long John Silver seems like a nice guy much of the time. Considering the fact that you call your own God a liar and you call your own Jesus' teachings "claptrap", I think I'll keep my morality over yours. I didn't say a word about who wrote the book. Yes, what the book says does support the conclusion. Is that a bad thing? You really should learn the difference between argument and assertion. Yeah, every belief that didn't stand the test of time said it would stand the test of time. Don't try to predict the future. Behave yourself. You don't know your left from your right any better than Faith does.

Consider C. S. Lewis' idea that calling someone a Christian based on whether or not you believe they are following Christian doctrine is not a reasonable definition of Christian. C. S. Lewis says that one must distinguish between Christians who follow doctrine (good Christians) and those who don't (bad Christians) but not call the latter non-Christians.

Are you sure Lewis said that? It's been years since I read him but I remember him saying that the term "Christian" is commonly bestowed on people without justification, just because they are nice people or live in a Christian culture. I guess he could ALSO have said something along the other lines but I'm surprised if so, orrect doctrine is a big part of what makes a Christian.ABE: More I think about it and see the context in which this came up the more sure I am Lewis said nothing at all like that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My recollection is that he said if a person claimed to be a Christian we would take them at their word and if they did things Christians weren't supposed to do we would call them bad Christians.

That does not sound like C. S. Lewis.

C. S. Lewis wrote, in Mere Christianity"Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they, will mean that they think him 'a good man' But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to 'the disciples', to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were 'far closer to the spirit of Christ' than the less satisfactory of the disciples The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian."

OK, I accept that. I'm impressed that you found it.But when someone actively badmouths standard Christian doctrine as jar does I don't think we are out of line to say he isn't a Christian no matter how strenuously he claims that he is on the basis of external facts such as belonging to a church and so on. He actively rejects the foundational doctrine of salvation through Christ's death on the cross for instance. And I doubt Lewis would disagree with me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's C. S. Lewis' point, I think. If someone says they're a Christian but then breaks into your house, sits in your kitchen eating your food and tries to steal your TV we'd say that they're a Christian and a bad person, but if they, to use your example, reject the foundational doctrine of salvation through Christ's death on the cross, then we'd say they were something other than Christians. Deists, perhaps.

You're always out of line to say somebody isn't a Christian. Judge not. Similarly, anybody else would be out of line to say that you are not a Christian because of your atrocious unChristlike behaviour.

What qualifies you to ask that? Is it not those inside the Church whom you are to judge? (1Cor 5:12) do not trust every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist (1John 4:1-3)