Who Made God?

Are you actually claiming religion doesn't change? Are you claiming Christianity hasn't changed?

I meant that jar makes a case that the book evolved and changed even during its inception. While evidence shows this to be true, I sense a defense of the earlier world view and a disdain for the later worldview within the book itself. Religions change because people change. Science and Scientism have now become the dominant belief system. Look at your boys...The New Atheists.
They essentially believe:

There is something called "Faith" which can be defined as unjustified belief held in the teeth of the evidence. Faith is primarily a matter of false propositional belief.

​

The cure for faith is science: The existence of God is a scientific question: either he exists or he doesn't. "Science is the only way of knowing — everything else is just superstition"~Robert L Park

​

Science is the opposite of religion and will lead people into the clear sunlit uplands of reason. "The real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition" [Jerry Coyne] "I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented." [Dawkins]

​

In this great struggle, religion is doomed. Enlightened common sense is gradually triumphing and at the end of the process, humanity will assume a new and better character, free from the shackles of religion. Without faith, we would be better as well as wiser. Conflict is primarily a result of a misunderstanding, of which Faith is the paradigm. (Looking for links, I just came across a lovely example of this in the endnotes to the Selfish Gene, where lawyers are dismissed as "solving man-made problems that should never have existed in the first place".)

​

Religion exists. It is essentially something like American fundamentalist Protestantism or Islam. More moderate forms are false and treacherous: if anything even more dangerous because they conceal the raging, homicidal lunacy that is religion's true nature. [Sam Harris]

​

Faith, as defined above, is the most dangerous and wicked force on earth today and the struggle against it and especially against Islam will define the future of humanity. [Everyone]

​

Regarding the New Atheists(as opposed to older classical arguments regarding atheism, the last two points are indicative of the newer group.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

​

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

​

As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

None of these people speak for me. I am not a proponent of New Atheism, which as a movement is dead.
Atheist are not a monolithic group. Atheism is nothing like religion. It is a non belief in a deity. Nothing more.

But Phat, there is no "earlier worldview" or "later worldview within the book itself". You are trying to impose a uniformity and certainty that simply does not exist within either the writings or the actual history. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Hi Phat,I just came back for a short visit and noticed this topic close to the top of the list and read the following statement about God and time. Phat time does not exist where God resides.Time as you and I know it will cease to exist when the angel stands with one foot on land and one on sea and declares that time shall be no longer.

quote:

---

Revelation 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

---

Forever and ever is eternal existence and answers the question "Who Made God". God is eternal in existence. But this verse declares that time will cease to exist at some point in future existence.If God does not exist eternally, and has created the universe. The universe has to have existed eternally, due to the fact it exists today. Since energy and matter can not be created or destroyed they had to have existed eternally.The biggest problem I have with the Standard Theory is that it requires me to have faith in and believe that the universe existed in an entity smaller than an atom that expanded into the universe we see today.That assumption has to be accepted as a fact. Which requires more faith than to believe that an all powerful God created the universe, and everything in it.I know most here say they do not have faith.Either the universe has always existed in some form or it had a beginning to exist.To believe the universe had a beginning to exist from non existence would take a lot more faith than I have.God Bless

Was Pauls message the same as Jesus message then?

Cameron McAllister is another of the RZIM group that provides a stimulating an honest cultural commentary on the times and beliefs which we all share and individually hold.
Oops, something lostNote the list of topics.

So what is it with all this audio and video that you never bother to quote ? It’s as if you’re afraid that we’ll spot the dishonesty.And I’ll note that choosing to associate with Ravi Zacharias looks like a bad sign to me.

Ravi is a known and admitted fraud.
RaviWatch - Investigating the false claims of evangelist Ravi Zacharias

First, that is simply silly. Just as there is no "Bible " or "earlier worldview" or "later worldview within the book itself" there is no "Jesus message" or "Paul's message".

I don't know the extent and to what degree, Ravi was found in his sins. Everyone must ultimately be accountable for their actions. I don't judge the overall character of a man by the sins which he commits. There is not one of you (nor I) who do not have a skeleton or two in their closet. And the quality of the apologetic arguments is not dependent on the character flaws...real, imagined, exaggerated or proven--that Zacharias had done. Of course, to you, it discredits any other intelligence the man may have...but even dismissing his input does not detract from the other apologists under the ministry. Overall, I still rate that ministry as better than average content and I support the world views espoused. This whole idea that only the Christian apologists lie and con people is unrealistic. I suppose that you think that Dawkins, Harris, Carrier, (the late Hitchens) and Dennet have sterling character and are above reproach.Which would tend to be a biased belief in human character being selective?But I will agree with you to strike Ravi's credibility, for the sake of argument.
But you have yet to show me that the ministry of RZIM is either willfully or unknowingly dishonest. The other apologists have actual college degrees, (not that this in and of itself means anything) good and persuasive arguments, and an approach to defending their world view that appears honest to me. And as to what kind of social justice warrior would bother with a raviwatch webpage shows me an antichristian bias and agenda. Whats their motive? Let he who is without sin cast stones....I maintain that the apologists at RZIM are honest and thoughtful. I cant find the transcripts. I suppose I could bother to type it out...but I dont spend a lot of time here when I work. Nonsense. If I thought there was dishonesty, I wouldnt post the information to begin with. As I have mentioned elsewhere, Ravi has had his day and has been found guilty yet I'm not sure I trust RaviWatch. Who in the heck are they? Where is their credentials? I tend to believe that there are people who want to discredit Christians. I know that if I stepped out of line even a little, I would get crucified as well. Im not convinced Ravi was anything apart from careless and afraid of discrediting his ministry. The ministry itself has a good reputation, apart from his blunder.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Then why did you once claim that Paul was trying to start a new religion?And why does your interpretation of Christianity differ from the mainstream? (And why does ringo, an atheist, agree with you and defend a worldview based on interpretation of Genesis 3 and Matthew 25? Finally, why are *most* of the apologist's liars and conmen? I have yet to understand the charge.

If the apologetics are high-quality, why do you keep refusing to discuss them with us?

I didn't make the claim but simply pointed out the evidence and ALL of the evidence says that Paul was trying to market a new religion. BUT there was never "Paul's message" rather the message changed over time as it became necessary to try to apologize for the utter failings of what was earlier marketed.Paul started as did all the other folk marketing the Christology marketing a short term "the end is not just nie, it's here" product. It was based on the belief that Jesus was not simply mistaken when he said the end would come within the lifetime of his immediate audience of that moment. It was probably the first major crisis of faith and caused a total rewrite of the marketing spiel.Paul's message changed over time and evolved to something entirely different than the early product marketed. I don't interpret Christianity. I acknowledge that the others try to market what they actually wrote and claim to believe. I simply point out when their writings and marketing contradicts what is actually written in the Bible and the Creeds and reality and factual Christian history. Again, what does the evidence show?

First, I might point out that attempting to approach the Bible scientifically is not the only approach nor, in my opinion, the best approach for studying it. It leads to erroneous conclusions such as you and ringos insistence that the only place a human can "find' Jesus and various human interpretations of "God" is literally within the book. And when the so-called redactors who wrote john claim that in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word *was* God, you simply gloss over this observation as a literary plot device of humans. The only way that you will "find God" in scripture is if He wrote Himself into the plot. You won't find Shakespeare in Hamlet either, for Shakespeare *never* wrote himself into that plot. We would claim that there is one uniform God of scripture, despite your conclusion (based *yawn* on evidence derived as a result of your scientific approach) and thus there is no One God in the Bible. I see that humans described different natures and thus had different "god characters" but what I see is humans describing their impression of God as they understood Him and that this in no way limits God to the book. You arrive at your own erroneous conclusion that Jesus was a fallible human the same way. Who gives a flying leap whether or not he got mad in the Temple? It was His Fathers house, for crying out loud. People seem to think that God has no right to get mad, to impress the necessity of brutal military tactics on armies formed by His people, or to change His mind(learn on the job, as you so glibly put it) as if we humans create Him as a mere literary character. There is no difference between creating Long John Silver and God if you conclude that you are simply describing a character in a book, but what if Long John Silver led to an entire human cult of worship where humans justified human actions through his(His) influence and altered the course of history. At that point, one would question just how this long John Silver character caused humans to do both good and bad things in their own personal environments far removed from their church or their reading room. Also, keep in mind that if Long John Silver was for many decades the *only* reading book in the room, (even as is true among illiterate Christians today) the book itself would exert more possible influence as life imitates art.In the final analysis, you would conclude that the "evidence" showed precisely what it showed...and that the book should be approached with such scientific methodology. I argue that the Bible is (and should be) approached with more than simple scientific methodology. You guys seem to think that science alone echos our (way of knowing things--Stile) and dismiss Faith & Belief and subjective experience as being in any way comparable. It is why you charge believers with providing evidence for you. (A wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign) you tell everyone not to *drink the Koolaid* because you were warned years ago by your sweet mama never to trust those carny barkers known as Christian Apologists and Preachers. She must have seen evidence that they wre *all* fake.