Who Made God?

That's just silly Phat, what does honesty have to do with my pointing out what is actually written in the Bible Stories? I don't "teach" scripture. I don't "interpret" scripture. The snake oil salesmen do those things. I simply point out what was actually written and don't deny that there are contradictions, absurdities, evolving folk tales as well as lots of mythos and ethics. No shit Little Beaver. Jesus was at odds with the gobal majority of those who called themselves Jews.But what is actually written rather than what do the apologist market? Again Phat I am not selling anything. I am simply pointing out what is actually written in the Bible and the Creeds and the Canons. The story of Joseph is a great example and it's from Genesis, the very beginnings of the Bible. Who filled the granaries? Who grew the food? Who preserved the meats? Who built the graneries themselves? We've been over that before Phat, many times. If Jesus was more than simply human while living here on Earth then the whole play is simply a worthless farce and conjob.

You are attempting to market an idea and ideology. Freedom of speech allows this, thank God. I get a little terse with you because you frame your arguments with personal jibes such as "Learn To Read" and "Have You Ever Read The Bible"?You are admittedly a master at framing arguments and steering them in the direction that *you* want them to go. But I wont let you get away with the argument that you are not selling anything. You are engaged in a full-on attack on Biblical Christianity. I see that in a larger context you are supporting the idea that Jesus was merely teaching reformed Judaism and that Paul came along and started a new religion which Biblical Christians continue to support to this very day. In a way, you are marketing the basic idea that the best Jews are those who live a secular life, do good at every opportunity (as their Rabbi Jesus taught) and don't bother getting to know God except by doing good deeds every day and living like Gods people. I charge you with selling the idea to everybody that essentially says:

Biblical Christianity is illogical and wrong and is one of the greatest threats to the Western Culture and indeed global culture today.

"Getting to know God or Jesus" is a marketing con carried out by carnys and snake oil salesmen. Most Biblical Christians are dishonest snake oil salesmen. (I expect your mama taught you this initially) You likely will ask me what the evidence shows.

We are simply charged with feeding, clothing, and comforting each other. Secular humanism is perfectly fine.

There will be more people in heaven who don't buy the snake oil than those that do. Most of those that do are Christians. (and yet you say that you too are a Christian...and invite other Christians to consider what you point out. )

​

Notice that I listened. I'm sampling your *product* as we speak, yet I likely will return it. Like Paul, I prefer marketing my own.

​

Its good practice for Faith and I, though. Teaches us to learn to think and to read our Bible.

---

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

​

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile

Still waiting for you to roll out one who isn't.

I'm listening to two who are very good. They provide a persuasive argument. Of course, Theodoric won't trust Dr.Ravi Zacharias, who is one of them, but I await any evidence that shows Ravi to be in error. He is joined by Vince Vitale, whom I have listened to with increasing admiration the past couple of weeks. (I listen to audio podcasts and books on audible. ) I may in fact start a new topic over in Book Nook.
Here is another great audio podcast by an apologist named Cameron McAllister. He indeed has a refreshing outlook which I respect. It would be a challenge for some of you to ridicule or poke holes in his basic arguments.In addition, I need to know what you and jar define as dishonesty? jar might think that anyone who claims that Jesus is God is, in fact, being dishonest. He once claimed that the Apostle Paul himself played "fast and loose" with the truth.You yourself claim that many Biblical stories and beliefs are "childish fairytales." Granted, I agree with both of you in that a majority of today's Biblical Christian teachers are simply parroting earlier dogma from earlier teachers and that few Christian teachers and preachers ever have an original thought. It is an interesting argument, though it annoyed me when initially presented by both of you. I am of the belief that the Bible is inspired...and yet you accuse me of not listening to what it says. I feed people, ringo. Fear not. I may not let go of the spare change as easily as you might, but I have to look out for my own future. I was a gambling addict for many years and I have saved virtually nothing for my retirement even now at Age 60. I don't trust that the secular humanists are going to take care of me anytime soon. I struggle to trust God and I DO feel that I should trust humanity a bit more than I do, but after listening to some of the apologetic arguments and contrasting them with the secular arguments which I hear at EvC, I realize that either my faith (in humanity) will have to increase or my belief in God needs to get stronger. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

I would say somebody is dishonest if he tries to make the Bible say something it doesn't say - for example, claiming that God told the truth and the snake lied. That has nothing to do with the subject of apologetics.

Yet those are still unanswered questions. I simply point out what the Bible actually says or what is actually written in the Creeds or ask what the actual evidence shows. In each case it is not anything I am marketing; it is simply what the Bible actually says, what is actually written in the Creeds, what the evidence actually shows.There is no idea or ideology involved. I am marketing nothing. I am telling you to read the label instead of just believing me. Look at what is on the ingredients list. That's silly Phat. If telling folk to read what is actually written in the Bible or in the creeds or to look and see what the evidence shows attacks Biblical Christianity it is not I who is attacking but rather the Bible and the Creeds and reality that are the threat to Biblical Christianity. Then support that charge. Point out where I said anything about what the best Jews are. Are Christians not supposed to be living like Gods people? Are we not supposed to do good deeds?When I post something related to the Bible is what is actually written in support of what I claim? Remember Phat, everyone on here has the ability to check what I say is written in the Bible against what is actually written in the Bible.What does the evidence show?Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Is--->If.Edited by jar, : clarify reading labels versus listening to the sales pitch.

Allow me to frame this argument with a bigger picture. We are talking about Truth and Lies.

Some believe that humanity itself is incapable of truth in the way that the Bible describes it. They would argue that Jesus is a man full of truth while satan was essentially the father of lies, and that no truth can be found in him. Going with this belief, Genesis was written after the Fall, so the writers were fallible men. Im not arguing against you pointing out what the words actually say. I'm basically saying that the apologetic argument that teaches that Adam and Eve fell out of the pure truth circle and became aware of the alternative. The snake may well have been a plot device, but he accomplished his job. If the snake represents Satan, there is no way that any truth could come out of him. Jesus said so later..(referring to the devil, not specifically the snake)

​

I would say somebody is dishonest if he tries to make the Bible say something it doesn't say - for example, claiming that God told the truth and the snake lied.

All I'm saying is that God by definition cannot lie(why would He even need to?) and that if the snake is satan, than according to later verses in the Bible there would be no truth in him.

---

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

​

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile

That doesn't even make sense. If He is omnipotent, how can there be things He can not do? We've been through that. He might have lied to protect His children, etc. There's no reason to think he is. And there's a whole raft of different Satan characters that shouldn't be shoehorned into one entity anyway.

Based on that logic, God could *even* not exist and yet exist, (since He can do anything! You asked me about *honest* apologists---and I have been reading a very good book written by two.
Ravi Zacharias is an apologist who has been plagued with some controversy in his life, which to some diminishes his credibility. He was involved in a lawsuit, settled out of court (and using no ministry funds) by a couple who claimed he corresponded with the wife and accepted nude photos. Zacharias admitted that he should have been more careful about exposing himself to such possible attacks on his character, but upon examing the 2017 allegations and subsequent settlement One prominant critic said

quote:

---

I've been worried for 20 years about someone finally doing exactly this: calling Ravi Zacharias to account for inflating his academic credentials.
He's certainly not the only one who has done it, and this article is harsher than it has to be. But just as God has used RZ to bless people in positive ways, may his shortcomings also stand as an instruction to the rest of us who, apparently like him and certainly like me, are tempted to make more of ourselves and our little accomplishments than we ought. (...) I raised the problem with an RZIM associate more than a dozen years ago--the only person I felt I could approach quietly and in a friendly way. She didn't disagree but wasn't in a position (at the time) to confront. It's hard when everybody's job depends on The Big Man, and everything else seems to be going well, and... Anyhow, I was disappointed that the practice not only continued but expanded: It is so easy for someone who actually is an academician to spot this kind of credential inflation, I'm surprised this hasn't surfaced much earlier.
It seems so sadly unnecessary.

---

All honesty and alleged dishonesty aside, I agree with Stackhouse when he says above: "

quote:

---

In my experience, an audience generally is impressed with one's credentials for about the first two minutes one speaks--and then you are what you are, baby. If you're good, the audience appreciates it, and if you're bad, no amount of credentialing will make up for it.[

---

I don't trust many of the atheist speakers because I feel that they have an ax to grind and, in fact, I believe in the concept of a very real spiritual war(which you call childish). Nevertheless, I respect some of the atheist speakers and academicians as very honest, sincere, and well learned. Matt Dillahunty is one of my favorites. He really causes me to think.In conclusion, I don't believe that all Christian Apologists seek to misdirect and "palm the pea" as jar asserts. It is simply a defense of a belief that most of you do not share.Oh, and about one who I think is honest as the day is long? Vince Vitale. Doubtless, because he is associated with RZIM, many will doubt his credentials because of that. I will freely admit that there are many conmen in organized religion, and I feel I can spot them, though I am likely not as critical as many of you are. You wouldnt even give them an opportunity to present a case. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

No. Existing is not doing.Try again. If God can do anything, how can He be incapable of lying? I did. Show us one who doesn't make up stories to nullify Genesis 3. So you prejudge them, not based the least bit on what they say. You're doing exactly what the apoligists are doing - making up stories to fit your pre-conceived "Truth". So roll out one who isn't. You always avoid discussing what they say. What does he say about Genesis 3? That's blatantly false. I've been asking you and asking you to present their case.

After reading about Ravi Zacharias’ attempt to blame atheism for the Holocaust - tenuous links based in misrepresentations - i can’t consider him an honest person. Especially since a stronger case could be made against Christianity.

quote:

---

I don't trust many of the atheist speakers because I feel that they have an ax to grind...

---

ALL apologists have an axe to grind. By definition.

quote:

---

...I believe in the concept of a very real spiritual war

---

But apparently not enough to care which side you are supporting.

That actually would be a good argument. Let me see if we have a topic already started...
hmmm...any ideas?

quote:

---

That actually would be a good argument

---

Not really. Zacharias’ argument is that bad.Summarising it.Nietzsche was an atheist (true but nor really relevant - for all his distinction as a philosopher he’s not exactly that important to a lot of atheists)The Nazis liked Nietzsche (only sort of true - Nietzsche’s sister was the Nazi of the family and she censored his work in ways that made it more appealing to the Nazis - Nietzsche himself hated anti-semites)And that is the heart of it. Incredibly tenuous.While Christianity has a long history of anti-semitism, has a history of massacring Jews and was the dominant religion in Germany at the time.Which is more likely to contribute to the Holocaust ?

Hitler said he modeled the holocaust on the Catholic Inquisition. It is also known that he made use of eugenics as he understood it from Darwinism (as did Margaret Sanger).Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Hitler said he modeled the holocaust on the Catholic Inquisition.

---

If it is true that he said that and if he wasn’t lying that would support my point.

quote:

---

It is also known that he made use of eugenics as he understood it from Darwinism (as did Margaret Sanger).

---

Selective breeding pre-dated Darwin. That’s how he could use the results of selective breeding as evidence for his theories.