Who Made God?

Yup, you decide not to think.

The apologists say that all is fallen and so the numerous wars, atrocities, and even now the competitive nature of some nations who feel they have a manifest destiny to override others and racism and all the other evils are not just humans fault but because they are fallen. Their cry is "We can't help doing evil because Adam and Eve learned how to tell right from wrong."Honestly, their position is simply pitiful and disgusting. Yet the Bible says that God does not have omnipotent power and omniscient knowledge and I have pointed out the passages that support my assertion numerous times. Sure there are passages in the Bible where characters claim such things for the God character but the examples I use are the stories where it is the God Character who directly demonstrates and claims to not have total knowledge and where the God Character shows fear or the God Character actually does lie.There is a difference between some character in a story making claims about another character and examples where the character itself is acting.The same is true of the Jesus Character in the stories; their are the tales where the behavior of Jesus is directly shown and there are the stories where some other character is making claims about Jesus.The issue Phat is that I agree that the Bible actually says what is actually written while the Apologists say the Bible means what they want it to mean and not what is actually written.

And all this is essential to the topic and your position simply adds to the weight of evidence that Man Created God.You market the God you have created.The author of the Genesis 1 God would likely agree with you about an all powerful, all knowing, assured God but would laugh at your idea of a God who needs, wants or even bothers with any communion or contact or aid to anything created. That author created a hands off God who got it started but then retired from the game entirely.The author of the Genesis 2&3 God would likely agree with you about the God communing with the creation and even helping the creation but had no problems imagining the God lying or cheating or being afraid or punishing the creation unjustly.You market a God who steps in and helps individuals through difficulties, a Ganesha that is the enabler and smoother of ways.The point is that so far all of the evidence, all of the testimony supports the answer "Man Made God".

I don't claim to be a believer; I am a believer. For example I believe the Bible actually says what is actually written in the Bible stories. I don't pretend that what is actually written is not what is actually written. It is not the evidence of my mind but rather the very factual evidence of what has been written in the various Holy Books; the Book of the Dead; the Vedas; the Quran & Hadath; the Sutras; the Tanach, Mishnah, Talmud and Midrash; the Bible; the works of Mencius & Confucius; the Greek & Roman theologies; the Norse theologies; Raven & Coyote...Do not all of those include Gods or Moral Pathways? Is not Theos the study of God regardless of which God is the subject? Why not state that I am a member of a recognized Christian Sect when the fact is that I am a member of a recognized Christian Sect? And Phat, have you not noticed yet that I don't have the decoder ring. Don't I have to ask you repeatedly "How do you know" and "What is the test you use" and still get no answers?

No Phat, you know that is simply not true.What you are describing are what YOU believe. If you were a Muslim you would believe that Jesus was a Prophet of Allah. If you were Jewish you would believe that God had no sons and that Jesus was simply a failed Messiah. How would I know I had met God and not the Great Deceiver? How do you know it is not a fantasy?AbE: but back to the topic. (Who started the topic and did the OP want any answer other than the one he wanted?)The evidence still stands.The God in Genesis 1 is described as a totally different God than the one in Genesis 2&3 and both of them would deny what you market is the real God.What does the evidence show?Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Easy to explain. The author of John asserts that Jesus claimed to be God. Blasphemy was a capital offense.Yet it is still what is written in the Nicene Creed and has been included in every version since 325.

No, it simply points out that we should be honest about what has actually been written and admit that there are contradictions, evolution of tales and that each writing simply reflects the God the authors created.

No, nor has anything I have said implied such. GOD is totally irrelevant to this discussion and topic.

Phat, remember that not only does the atheist population in general find they can behave morally without God, there are quite a few religions that do fine without God. Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism are three that I know I've discussed with you in the past.So once again, the evidence shows that God is not necessary.But the evidence goes even further and shows that in general over the recorded history it has been beliefs and allegiance to one God over some other God that has been the source of immoral behavior.Beliefs are very powerful though and it is conceivable that for some people the belief that there is so vengeful critter that will punish them should they misbehave could lead to that individual behaving in a manner suitable for polite company. But again the evidence shows it can also and unfortunately far more often lead to great immorality, genocide, repression and evil.

Sorry but you are simply misrepresenting what I said and what is actually written in the Bible yet again.The author of John asserts that the character Jesus claimed he was God. It is not even written as a first hand retelling but rather as others reporting and in significant mostly as another indicator of the change from Christianity as a Jewish sect to Christianity as a separate religion.But as I have explained many times here at EvC, if that was true, if Jesus was God when living here on Earth, then it simply denigrates and diminishes and worth or value to Jesus life and Jesus death, Jesus resurrection and Jesus ascension.The author of John was marketing a revisionist Jesus tale which is quite different than what is found in the other Gospels. The Jesus the author of John markets is as different from the Jesus character found in the other Gospels as the God in Genesis 1 is different than the God in Genesis 2&3.

Again Phat, reality says you are wrong. The Gospels have always been divided into two groups with three called the Synoptic Gospels and John which stands separate.This is really basic stuff Phat.And you still have not explained what all the word salad Jesus is Alive in our Hearts spiel means or can be tested.Sorry Phat but I am simply reporting what is actually written and you are simply selling the fantasy of the sizzle and not the reality of the steak.

Phat, I am not preaching anything, rather I am reporting what is actually written. It seems it is not me or what I post that gets your panties in a bind but rather what is actually written in the Bible.If anyone honestly reads Genesis 2 & 3 then they would admit that in the story the serpent tells the truth, the God lies and in fact the God character in the story even admits that the serpent told the truth and that Adam & Eve, far from falling, became more like God.It is Jesus that says we are responsible as well as Paul and many other characters in the Bible.And you REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY need to learn some history of Christianity.Paul had absolutely NOTHING top do with Protestantism.

No Phat, I simply point to what is actually written. Again, that is just word salad and unsupported assertions. Then would it be a good idea to think before you post? Phat I can only respond to what you actually post. I'm not an apologist who will say that what you actually write is not what you actually wrote.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

But once again you are simply denying reality. The Gospel of John has always been recognozed as different than the other three Gospels which is why Mathew mark and luke are grouped as the Synoptic Gospels. Sorry but that is basic Christian history.Yet the fact also remains that that is what is actually written in the Nicene Creed.

Again, you are simply being dishonest.All through this thread I have repeatedly pointed out that John os different and not one of the synoptic gospels.The author of John though is trying to market a different "Jesus" than in the Synoptics; a Jesus who preforms miracles as a sign of divinity (although the Bible of course also has lots of people who are not divine performing miracles). It a definite difference in marketing. Actually the Church in Rome was but one of the parties at the council of Nicea in 325CE.Yet the fact remains what is actually written takes precedence over the dogma of your cult.The Nicean Creed says that Jesus became man. All the claims of your cult cannot change the fact of what was actually written.