Who Made God?

The main reason is that I am only now understanding and absorbing the arguments in order to articulate the response which I feel. For another, there are no transcripts from which to quote. I can quote scripture, but you have your own preconceived "belief" as to what it means and you even have the audacity to *show* believers where they are wrong. One of these days when I get the time I will try and formulate a response in my own words...in fact, I may try this morning as I have a couple of hours. Perhaps God respects your methodology more than I do, I dunno. He has already confirmed much of your "its the message, stupid" argument to me, though He and I argue about why and how you can get away with your argument by throwing Him away.

"Making Sense of the Old Testament" is kind of a bad way to start. It assumes that the Old Testament will "make sense" if you look at it "correctly". That's the beginning of dishonesty right there.Stop spamming us with these links and actually bring the arguments here.

Well, you've absorbed enough to decide that they're "high quality". That should be enough to articulate a response.Or does "high quality" just mean they tell you what you want to hear? If there's nothing to quote, you don't need to quote. Use your own words. There's no belief and no audacity. The scripture says what it says. If you want to claim that it doesn't mean what it says, you need something extraordinary to back up that claim. The onus is on you to pony up the backup.

Yet you and all the other Apologists have NEVER presented a process, procedure, method or mechanism to explain how anyone can actually find Jesus or GOD other than through what has been written in the Bible. Which is all simply yet another example of your dishonesty as you have no idea what Mama said, mama said.Fool!But there is yet more glaring falsehoods in what you post. First the evidence is overwhelming that people find god through the religion they happen to be born into. Other find god in "Conversion" experiences. People find god through the Glorious Qu'ran, the writings of Mencius and Confucius, through Tao Chi or through any one of the many Hindu Esthetics.Second there is reality and fantasies can be tested against reality.What happens when you test the claims and writings of the apologists against reality?

Which you do. You claim that the characters are only found in the book and have no life of their own outside of the book. The book itself says that the characters pre-existed the book, but you frame that issue in the context of human authors of the book. Like jar, you ask what the evidence supports. Did it ever occur to you that this is not simply another science experiment.? You use the scriptures to point out how they support your secular belief in a government of by and for the people that helps its own. You adopt the message to your political and humanist ideology. I'm not sure why you are an atheist, but I will again ask.

Is it because you observed that Christians obeyed the message evn less than some secular people you knew?

Is it because you found evidence that called into question the authorship of the Book?

Is it because you never felt that warm fuzzy certainty that God was real and alive? Or did you throw away that feeling based on lack of objective evidence?

​

I observe you and Stile going round and round. In some ways you two are alike and in some ways you are different. You are different in that you claim to always be looking for God as a useful realistic pursuit, whereas he declares the reasoning why he concludes there is none.

---

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

This reminds me of a Chapter in the RZIM book. You likely will ignore it due to the indiscretions of Ravi, but I still see the message of the ministry as rational.
Moreover, after examining the evidence you gave me, I conclude..(tentatively) that
1) Ravi did, in fact, have communication with the woman. It is unclear by the blacked-out texts and court insinuations from the woman how guilty he was at exploiting/pursuing her. I tend to see it as she and her husband attempting to extort him. Nevertheless, I will take your evidence into consideration when judging his character, despite the fact that everyone sins and makes mistakes. Ravi blew it, quite frankly...by even trying to interact with that person. They likely felt that broader public disclosure would have hurt the ministry...not through Ravi being a snake (which I don't believe he was..) but by calling into question his character.
I will agree that he also blundered by exaggerating his credentials. That is not relevant in regards to the ministry in that I see many apologists there with valid and honest credentials and education, likely due to the fact that they purposefully went that direction after Ravi's careless blunders.You have a bias against Christianity and apologetics anyway, so I expect it from you. You might argue that I have a similar bias that Christians are better than other people and always deserve a free pass of forgiveness, so we are even in that regard.Getting back to what the RZIM leaders present in the podcasts is my focus, however. I see no snake oil there.It appears you are biased towards the God marketed by either Faith herself or in probability Christianity in general. You might even say that what you object to is clearly contained within scripture. My question is that if you were to believe that a higher power existed, what attributes would *you* expect such a higher power to have? You seem big on integrity. What would it take for this Higher Power to do or to exhibit that would gain your respect, if not worship?Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

How is that an "overall interpretation"? It's an obvious fact - and one that applies to a lot of books. You can't use the book itself to back up the book itself to back up the book itself to back up the book itself to back up the book itself to back up the book itself to back up the book itself.... No. Why would you suggest that it isn't? You have it backwards. I can see what works. The people have to help each other if there's going to be any help because your God is flat-out not doing it. I could see that whether or not I had ever heard of the Bible. I don't self-identify as an atheist. I self-identify as agnostic.My reasoning is similar to your reasoning about the Tooth Fairy: it's just a silly idea. And the idiotic theology that you spout doesn't make it any less silly.

So what about Jesus?If anyone watches the audience reactions in this song, I would be interested on your comments regarding their emotional experience.
Edited by Phat, : added video

There is no evidence that Jesus actually lived other than the stories; no independent confirmation. And there is overwhelming evidence that "Jesus" as recorded in the stories and traditions is a creation of human minds just like all the Gods and gods.The Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels is quite different than the Jesus of the Gospel of John or the seven different descriptions of Jesus in the letters to the churches in Revelation.It is certain that Jesus was not at all like the creations depicting Jesus in images and statues.So the existence of Jesus just as the existence of some god can only be a matter of belief; a symbol rather than the thing itself. As a symbol it is closer to apple than middle c.

See? This is what confuses and even annoys me about your beliefs. Of course they are personal and are yours alone...but how you can claim to be a Christian when the very Christ on whom the name is based is said by you to be a human creation? And then you have the gall to ask other Christians how they know that Jesus lives, or the Holy Spirit lives, or the God we market lives. Sad at best and Scary at worst.The way that I can and will answer that is based on what I make of myself the next few years. And yes, I agree with you now that Christianity is measured by what we do rather than simply what we believe.I always ask you what about the apologists. Granted you have opened my eyes as to the many instances of fantasy based thinking, dishonesty, and willful ignorance within Biblical Christianity.
But you dont see God the way I see God. Which is OK...hey, to each his own. But the way you describe Jesus is troubling. How you can wear the badge that says Christian is only because of your empathy and critical thinking skills, coupled with your inclusive (as opposed to exclusive) belief system. The Left Christians may take you. I still see you as more of a humanist, however. I see myself as all in regarding the living Christ. Now, my main challenge is to show ringo that understand and do what the good book says. Or to show Jesus. Or to show myself.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

There was (and most likely still is, since they never make any progress) a proselytizing script based on a catch-phrase (by C.S. Lewis, I seem to recall): "So based on the claims he made about himself, what was Jesus? Lunatic, Liar, or Lord?" -- c. 1970 (my time among the Jesus Freaks) there was even a Chick Pubs tract with 3-L as its title and main argument.That leaves out the fourth and far more important "L": Legend. What the New Testament and associated works (eg, church fathers, theologians, preachers, street proselytizers) described is a legend, not an actual person or demi-god.The entire question of whether an actual person, Jesus, actually lived is completely meaningless. The Legend is the important thing and the Legend exists whether the actual person existed or not. And whether such a person did anything that's attributed to the Legend.It doesn't take long for a legend to arise, even when based on an actual person. If Jesus actually lived, his conversion to legend took maybe a couple/few generations. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln actually lived, but they became legends very quickly, within decades. Every schoolchild learns their legends (eg, Father's cherry tree, Honest Abe), but rarely who and what they actually were.The process of turning a person into a legend takes even less time. In less than three years, Trump became a legend who is a God recast in the image of the legendary Rambo complete with a shirtless muscular body, star-spangled head band, and an AR-15 in either hand -- actually, that shirtless look is probably taken from Trump's own god, Vladimir Putin. Of course the real Trump is nothing at all like the legend, but then that's how the process usually works.In Jesus' case, he was either recast or created out of whole cloth in the image of Mithra. The person, Jesus, is unimportant. It is the Legend, Jesus, that is important.

Lear how to read Phat.What I posted was not beliefs but rather the evidence that actually exists as opposed to the dogma marketed.What does the evidence show Phat?Explain why the descriptions of Jesus in the Synoptic gospels vs the Gospel of John or the letters to the seven churches found in Revelations are so different?Does the evidence show that each of those is simply a creation of the author or authors/editors/translators/redactors of each passage? More than just asking those questions I also ask "What do those bumper stickers even mean?" and the response has always been deafening silence. And yet again; "What does that even mean?"

That's what I keep asking you. You dismiss the Bible as a dusty old book and you deny what the closest thing to an objective version of Christ said. It's blindingly obvious that YOUR version of Christ is made up by you.

Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-10-2004Send Private Messageramoss Posts OnlyCheers/Jeers:
Message 12 of 868 (688052) BY RAMOSS
01-18-2013 3:06 PM Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
03-14-2006 12:58 AM
Re: The apologists defense of the literalist faith
Well, this question begs so many questions.
​
First of all, and for most, it assumes there is a God to begin with.
​
Can you show there is a God , so show that God exists independently of what people made up about she/he/it?_____________________________________The insuperable statistics of original polypeptide synthesis offer one of many compelling proofs of Nature's God, as He is called in our Declaration of Independence by the Founding Fathers, who had no doubt whatsoever of His existence.The human body has over 20,000 different polypeptides (proteins and enzymes), the largest of which is titin, with ~38,148 alternating amino acid residues in a precise sequence. The first assembly of titin was required before any new humans could possibly "evolve."Please do not try to shortcut the synthesis by claiming that parts here and there were joined together from previous sites because the same statistics apply to any "part" however small.Computing 1/20 to the 38,138 times 1/2 to the 38,138 for peptide vs. non-peptide bonds, which are equally probable, times 1/2 to the 38,138 for the L vs. D amino acid gives an overall probability of 1 chance in about 10 to the 74,000.Distinguished statistician, Emile Borel, defined "impossible" as 1 chance in 10 to the 50th. Richard Dawkins defines "impossible" as 1 chance in 10 to the 40th.10 to the 50th marbles one cm in diameter would fill 924,800 billion billion spheres the size of earth. Pick one on your first and ONLY try, if you think you can."If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?" - Professor John Lennox, Oxford University Mathematician

From the many books I have read, I selected the most important citations I could find to share with others for the purpose of teaching.It is a very hypocritical practice of evolutionists and atheists to angrily protest "quote-mining" by their adversaries. But they never hesitate to "quote-mine" the Holy Bible, do they?____________________________________________“I say unequivocally that the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.” – Sir Lionel Luckhoo, The Most Successful Attorney in History, according to the Guiness Book of RecordsSimon Greenleaf – professor of law at Harvard in the 1800s
His three-volume work, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, has been considered by The Supreme Court to be the greatest single authority on legal evidence.He said, “If the evidence for the resurrection was set before any unbiased courtroom in the world it would be judged to be an historical fact - Jesus Christ rose from the dead.”There remains, therefore, no supposition possible to explain the recorded phenomenon except the combination of the fructification and rupture of the heart. - Samuel Houghton, M.D., great physiologist from the University of DublinWe are told on eyewitness authority that “blood and water” came out of the pierced side of Jesus. The eyewitness clearly attached great importance to this.This is evidence of massive clotting of the blood in the main arteries, and is exceptionally strong medical proof of death. It is all the more impressive because the evangelist could not possibly have realized its significance to a pathologist. the “blood and water” from the spear-thrust is proof positive that Jesus was already dead. - Michael Green , The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, pages 224-225