So what really happened 2000 years ago?

[RecoveringYuppy]

The FSM is also finite, also made up of matter and also an incongruous red herring made up of pasta that we eat (for lunch?)

The red stains on our white shirts are mere accidents but the fundamental substance of the FSM persists.

 

[Breckmin]

Moving toward my favorite theology, but unfortunately in someone's thread and I need

to exit here,

How could it be anything else? You've bestowed the "omniscience" attribute, which means the complete set of consequences for any hypothetical action God might undertake are not only knowable but known.

By what standard would you appeal to? What moral law? To judge that the
Creator has done anything "somehow" wrong???

It seems to me you're also contradicting the "omnipotent" attribute you previously bestowed when you suggest that some consequence was "inevitable" or "unavoidable."
If God is incapable of creating loving beings which have no capacity for evil, that implies that there is some higher law which he is unable to violate.

What if that logical law (not higher) is part of His intrinsic logical existence?

Certainly there is no logical contradiction, as there might be with "a rock so big he can't lift it." If he can't do it, his omnipotence must be bounded,

Of course.. Can He violate His Own nature? Can He commit suicide?
Can He annihilate Himself? This does not mean He is not omnipotent
in a logical application of infinite power which is properly bounded by logic.

which means it really isn't omnipotence at all.

The English word is translated in reference to "all authority."
All power that is given is all logical power that exists. If the power to
cosmically do things that are illogical do not exist, then this doesn't mean
He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence applies to what we call in theology
as Sovereignty which is loaded with implication.

But laying that aside, and getting back to omniscience, even assuming that there is some law higher than God which dictates that he can't create loving beings unless they're also capable of evil -- if he KNOWS his action will inevitably result in the introduction of evil in a universe

First, the law is not higher than God the logic that God is bound by is part
of Him.

We need to differentiate between the state of ordination and progressive
result here, but besides this time progression, I get your point. The issue
is that the universe at this point is a non functional existence because there
is no finite existence to occupy.

which is free from evil,

Evil does not exist in a state of experience or state of actuality here, only
in potential should He create choice.

and takes the action anyway

You mean create "choice."

-- that's some kind of malevolence.

So your argument is that God is malevolent because He created beings
of choice rather than "puppets" who were incapable of volition. The argument
is that God is somehow "wrong" (although I do not know what you will appeal
to) because He create beings in His Image rather than non eternal beings
who were not capable of returning true love (you can't say yes if you can't
say no).

Maybe he's so lonely and desperate for love that he decides it's worth having a little evil just to have a little love, but isn't that a selfish act?

The classic Trinitarian would disagree for obvious reasons. They will argue
that God was not lonely so such motivation is an invalid postulation.

Better to forgo the act of creation altogether and keep evil hypothetical than to set in motion the sequence of events which will make its appearance inevitable.

How would you justify "better" before God? How would you decide for the
owner of the universe what is more logical and rational for Him to do, when
you do not even know whether He exists???? Let's discuss knotts in logic
here....by what measurement do you propose "better?"

BTW, there is a theory in monotheism about logical need for eternal fellowship
with fellow creatures created in His Image but some consider it heretical. I
would be willing to discuss it in another thread perhaps but you are still not
addressing basic moral law. How do you judge that the Owner of the Universe
(were He to create beings of choice) that He has somehow done something
wrong???

~Michael

 

[neltana]

With all due respect to the FSM, the invisible dragon in your garage and the teapot circling the sun (funny, I just got a teapot for Christmas), they all lack a characteristic that Christianity (and all other religions) have.

Nobody actually believes in the former, but some do believe in the latter.

The FSM et al. are constructs created to make a point and they do a good job at that. However, there are many people who believe in Christianity, but nobody actually believes that there is a dragon is your garage. The difference is one of faith. To ignore this component of religion is to disregard what many regard as its fundamental characteristic.

Was Jesus a historical figure. I have my doubts; I think the Old Testament probably has more historical content, although I prefer the music in the New Testament (at least, if we compare Jesus Christ Superstar with Joesph and His Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat).

But the faith that has been inspired by the Jesus stories has been impressive. Maybe 100 years from now the FSM will match them, but to date he is but a delicious noodly strawman (noodleman?).

 

[Mister Agenda]

If God is so beyond the pale that we do not have any basis to judge Him evil no matter what we find in the world He created, we certainly do not have any basis to judge him good, either.

 

[bokonon]

to exit here

I haven't been following the "The Unsolvable Problem of Evil" thread, but that seems to be a more appropriate place to continue this off-topic discussion. I'll read through that thread, and post my response to this there.

 

[DrBaltar]

I was under the assumption it was an open forum that would field ALL truth and not censor anything.

Yes, people can field all truth. Censoring? Well there are certain rules. You don't hijack a thread. Nothing criminal, nothing pornographic or commercial, and some rules on common decency. Not that you've done all these of course (except hijacking ). Just saying that there is some censorship here.

As for truth, you may certainly discuss your version of the truth. But in a skepticism forum, it is expected that you have more meat behind your statements. It's fine that you're a theist. But if you're going to get into a debate on god or no god here, assuming there is a god doesn't cut it - at least not in a forum based in skepticism. Question everything.

Your question about what happened 2000 years ago appears to not want to examine the evidence in support of the Christian
faith.

That subject has been discussed probably thousands of times on this forum. It's a worthy subject, but it's all been pretty much hashed over. I get into that debate sometimes and I have heard both sides. I have made my choice. My question in this thread was on a different subject. Of those people who are atheists, how do they believe the myth of Jesus has come about? If you want to constructively contribute to the subject of this thread, please do. Although your personal bias would seem to preclude you from doing so.

 

[DrBaltar]

Let me just respond to some nonsense assertions about God's impossibility and then I will stop posting at your request.

Even if you didn't read Philo Judeas of Alexandria and his chapter on...

Everything that "begins to exist" has a cause. God by very definition is...

Whoever proposed this one was not aware that many theist and creationist...

Arguments from personal experience are easily countered by other personal experience...

No knots, just leaving out the cause. It was the being of "choice"...

Does the so called "book" claim that there are consequences for such actions of will...

By what standard would you appeal to to judge God, if God is the Owner of the Universe...

How do you know it was a conscious decision rather than an inevitable...

No where would I say this. When someone approaches scripture they are...

Yet the pharisees took up stones to kill Him for blasphemy because ...

Yes. I should have known. More foolishness from Sagan and Dawkins...

Moving toward my favorite theology, but unfortunately in someone's thread and I need to exit here

Are you sure this time? You don't want to post another 11 off topic responses?

 

[arthwollipot]

Everything that "begins to exist" has a cause.

The KCA has been covered here.

 

[m_huber]

Just wanted to point out that there are several instances of Jesus claiming to be God:

John 14:7-10 [7] If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." [8] Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." [9] Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'? [10] Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

Dozens of websites cover this, I got it from here. Attack religion, but use legitimate arguments, please.

 

[manofthesea]

Here's an informative page that deals with the OP:

http://www.biblicalheritage.org/DTB/002_LTY0308_Birth_of_Yeshua.pdf

The site is dedicated to factually investigating Christianity.

Interestingly, there's no mention of the gospel of John on this page. Elsewhere it's stated that John is probably a rework of Thomas.

 

[Hokulele]

Just wanted to point out that there are several instances of Jesus claiming to be God:

Dozens of websites cover this, I got it from here. Attack religion, but use legitimate arguments, please.

If you re-read my post, you will see that I made a sharp distinction between the Jesus as portayed in John (the source of all your quotes) and the Synoptics. My main point was to demonstrate how Jesus and his claims evolved over time.

 

[slingblade]

There is no god. Grow up.

 

[cj.23]

There is no god. Grow up.

There is a god. Grow up.

Happy New Year anyway!

cj x