Does God exist? (10 Viewers)

[dan964]

Assuming for a moment this fictional sky daddy exists, why would it demand acknowledgement and subservience? It seemingly suffers from the mortal "sin" of pride which it supposedly decries.

That question is very loaded.
That is all I will say. Several things need to be address:
1. God is not a "sky daddy", and certainly isn't floating on clouds.
2. God is not an "it" like an animal is.
3. Is God demanding it or is he entitled? (If the second is any better). - In the same way that honour is due to a king/queen, same goes for God, especially if he is the giver of life logically.
4. Is humanity simply created to be God's slave? - Certainly not in the way your question implies (food for thought even for me though)
5. God is the one who defines sin - Sin is rejection of God. (Unless your view of God = demiurge)
6. Pride - again is defined as thinking of oneself more highly than one ought.
Impossible for the highest possible being to think of themselves as more than they are.

But your assumption is already given. Really I don't need to answer your question. You have made your conclusion before beginning.
(My answer, if you conclude like you have that God doesn't exist, why would it matter to you whether you acknowledge him or not, you haven't to begin with)

 

[Paradoxica]

2. God is not an "it" like an animal is.

Then what is god? Nothing is above existence. anything that can exist can be referred to as "it" if the properties of "it" are unknown. This also applies to metaphysical concepts.

 

[dan964]

Then what is god? Nothing is above existence. anything that can exist can be referred to as "it" if the properties of "it" are unknown. This also applies to metaphysical concepts.

even God has a preferred pronoun, hehe.

 

[braintic]

and certainly isn't floating on clouds.

Correct

God is not an "it" like an animal is.

Actually I refer to my dog as "he". I refer to objects without gender (real or fictional) as "it". As it should be.

In the same way that honour is due to a king/queen

Really? I think of the royal family as quaint, nothing more. They are certainly not deserving of any honour for anything they have done.

Pride - again is defined as thinking of oneself more highly than one ought.

Pride is defined as "a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements". It has nothing to do with how highly you regard yourself in comparison to others. If there were only two people in the world, me and a chess master, I could feel pride at stretching him further and further each game, without actually beating him or feeling better than him. It is only christians who add the negative connotation to pride.

if you conclude like you have that God doesn't exist, why would it matter to you whether you acknowledge him or not, you haven't to begin with)

Perhaps you haven't encountered the type of christian who believes that everyone should be forced to bow down to their god. I have.

 

[Squar3root]

There is no evidence of a god


inb4bible or quran or supernatural causes

 

[sinophile]

idk but if he does hopefully i didnt piss him off too much

 

[Queenroot]

idk but if he does hopefully i didnt piss him off too much

Nah u just repent then all g

 

[Queenroot]

idk but if he does hopefully i didnt piss him off too much

Nah u just repent then all g

 

[OkDen]

There is no evidence of a god


inb4bible or quran or supernatural causes

Absence of evidence ≠Evidence of absence

hehe xd

 

[Squar3root]

Absence of evidence ≠Evidence of absence

hehe xd

Fuck you got me there

 

[braintic]

Absence of evidence ≠Evidence of absence

hehe xd

I've always disagreed with that statement. Sure, it is not PROOF of absence.
But 'evidence' is not 'proof'. It is merely information that affects your assessment of the probability of an event happening.
And lack of *ANY* evidence for existence (which is certainly the case here) definitely makes the probability of existence minutely small.

 

[SammyT123]

What you do mean by faith? That is the real question. I suspect there is not agreement on the term. So I will not answer.

Don't know. Probably very little room for grey matter.

Sadly this creates a double standard. You hopefully would want to see a high standard of evidence in a medical journal or scientific report, yet do not wish to present such evidence in your beleifs.

Is Tacitus or Josephus not evidence?
I think you will find almost all historical scholarship agrees that Jesus existed and died.
The rest of his claims are contested, depending on whether the person is a Christian or not.

1. Appeal to popularity
2. Lmao took me 3 seconds of searches

"Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.Scholarly opinion varies on the total or partial authenticity of the reference "

"almost all historcial scholarship agrees that jesus existed and died"
Yea prove it

Some historian having one or two references to Jesus does not prove anything at all. I can link you many historians who wrote about Krishna, Allah and Buddha.....

 

[SammyT123]

Sorry, SAMMYT123, I accidentally edited your post instead of mine, so to capture what you have said, what you said is quoted....

Jesus dude pls learn to quote
hehe

You have two grandfathers though not one. That is my point, one is not tracing Joseph's lineage.
Does your mother have the same father as your father? No of course not. And that is the point that you are missing.

I have two grandfathers, agreed
I only have one father, and we are talking about fathers here...

Point in question. Matthew is tracing Joseph's lineage back to Abraham; Luke is tracing the father's through Mary's line (not Joseph) back to Adam (which is why it is much longer as well), and there is a slight "odd-wording" that is suggested.

Trace my lineage however you want. I have one biological father. End of story.
Odd wording is not a proper representation of the point
Blatant contradiction is better

Where are you gettting (2) from the text?
No where in Luke, does it even mention the flight or lack thereof.

Lk.2:21-39

You are reading that idea on the assumption that of difficulty in reconciling timing, when I have gone to the detail in explaining why (2) is false.
Just because Luke doesn't mention it, doesn't mean that (2) is true. Just because it is difficult to reconcile the timing, doesn't mean that (2) is true.
There lies the problem. We will have to disagree because this has been going back and forth circularly. Arguments from "omitted" information are weak, and so the claim of contradiction does not stand.
Yes but that is you. Have you ever tried summarising 33 years of your life. Events in the Gospels are not necessarily compiled chronologically nor sequenced immediately one after the other, the only clues we have is when exact time periods are given.
Maybe that is a problem, as it doesn't understand the author's style of writing and compilation in reporting the events. For instance Mark, often uses immediately, squashing events together.Kind of think of it like watching reality TV, obviously there is stuff that happens between the different things that we are shown on the screen, e.g. Masterchef, that is sequential as you would think, but in reality it is compiled in a way to make. That is similar (but not identical) to how the gospels come across.

Sam, Steve, Nary flee USA while there was a Tsunami
One would assume that Sam fled the USA very close to the time there was a tsunami

You refer to reality Tv and say that I do not understand the authors style of writing.
Please tell tell me in what context one would not assume that I fled during the Tsunami

Honestly, I think it is very simple and straightforward.

Now,

1. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt while Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old. Mt.2:13-16. (Note: Jesus' cousin, John, was also under 2 and survived without having to flee.)

2. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not flee to Egypt, but remained for temple rituals. Lk.2:21-39.

Did they, or did they not flee to Egypt?
Did Herod slaughter infants or not?
You can not give me an answer that is does not contradict at least one of the two statements.

Well I looked a bit closely myself, and noticed Matthew does not trace the lineage as far back as Luke does, so that would account for the most part a significant difference in generations. (I haven't done the maths to see whether it checks out though yet)
Goes to show that even I miss things (I think from memory).

:///////
There were 28 generations from David to Jesus. Mt.1:17.
There were 43 generations from David to Jesus. Lk.3:23-31

For anyone else reading this^

Well at least this is a better reason than "He intentionally lied about the numbers so it includes the special digit 7"

Also, still no response on

As mentioned before, you give very little reasons

Be clear. Reasons for what?

 

[braintic]

There were 28 generations from David to Jesus. Mt.1:17.
There were 43 generations from David to Jesus. Lk.3:23-31

Perhaps Luke is related to Donald Trump.

 

[SammyT123]

Perhaps Luke is related to Donald Trump.

Shit dude ur onto something

 

[Squar3root]

but its not sincere repentance so im fucked

dw hell can't be that bad considering how the world is going rn

 

[dan964]

Jesus dude pls learn to quote
hehe


I have two grandfathers, agreed
I only have one father, and we are talking about fathers here...


Trace my lineage however you want. I have one biological father. End of story.
Odd wording is not a proper representation of the point
Blatant contradiction is better



Lk.2:21-39



Sam, Steve, Nary flee USA while there was a Tsunami
One would assume that Sam fled the USA very close to the time there was a tsunami

You refer to reality Tv and say that I do not understand the authors style of writing.
Please tell tell me in what context one would not assume that I fled during the Tsunami

Honestly, I think it is very simple and straightforward.

Now,

1. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt while Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old. Mt.2:13-16. (Note: Jesus' cousin, John, was also under 2 and survived without having to flee.)

2. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not flee to Egypt, but remained for temple rituals. Lk.2:21-39.

Did they, or did they not flee to Egypt?
Did Herod slaughter infants or not?
You can not give me an answer that is does not contradict at least one of the two statements.



:///////
There were 28 generations from David to Jesus. Mt.1:17.
There were 43 generations from David to Jesus. Lk.3:23-31

For anyone else reading this^

Well at least this is a better reason than "He intentionally lied about the numbers so it includes the special digit 7"

Also, still no response on

Ok, I haven't had time to respond. and because you seem to just ignore anything I've mentioned so far. Let me summarise:
Since you are repeating yourself. this will be last reply to your concerns. I will raise/ repeat key things which you have not addressed either. I am not going to respond to analogies that lack the same detail/rigour as the text.
Read carefully and closely:

- Differences between Mattthew's genealogy and Luke's geneaology is one is tracing through Jesus father and one through his mother to different starting points (hence difference in numbers) Is it blatant contradiction?
Maybe if I one takes the view that Luke is saying what he is on face value without proper examination. He isn't. (and that is where you get problems). The text wording suggests that Mary is in view and so Jesus lineage is traced in Luke through Mary and in Matthew's Gospel through Joseph. One traces back to Abraham, one traces back further (Luke). We have good reason that Luke has written much of the nativity Gospels with material from her eyewitness experience.

You or myself may resort to analogies but actually a careful study of the text would note these differences are perfectly expected if you eliminate the assumption which you have, that they are both tracing Joseph's lineage. They are not.

- Actually it would seem, may not be the case, you have been not properly reading and just recycling. Let me address your second thing/set of questions:

Yes they did go to Egypt, however Jesus could be anywhere to 2 when this happened. And so these events happened way after the temple rituals happened. I have said several times and even gone to rear lengthsbut you seemingly have not bothered to actually carefully consider the details of both nativity accounts in context.

You need to get past the assumption that the wise mans visited immediately after Jesus' birth, before the temple rituals, because if that were true. which when examination of the thinking behind Herod's slaughter (which was only of a small local area in Bethlehem) of the infants in Matthew's text, he mentions of all under 2 years old. Jesus is not specified as a newborn at all in Matthew's Gospel chapter 2 account of wise man, and you are importing a well meaning view that simplifies all the events of the nativity to happening all at once and all immediately one after the other. The way in which the Gospels wrote was trying to summarise 33 years of Jesus life in single 24 chapters at most book, of course there would a tendency for not every time period and detail mentioned.

Let me order the events so you can see again:

A - Jesus birth and Shepherd's visit
B - Exactly 8 days, temple rituals and all that jazz.
(Possibly travels between Nazareth/Bethlehem possible, although I personally don't see that)
C - Some period of time, not too long, wise men visit in Bethlehem
D - flight to Egypt / Herod's slaughter
E - return to Nazareth
What doesn't make sense in that?
(It is difficult so I understand because Jewish don't retell with all the details)
Context and understanding of Jewish literature styles of writing, is important with approaching the Bible, even though it is a text containing religious stuff.

I will address the unaddressed thing in a separate comment. cool.

 

[dan964]

the unaddressed thing would require me to scroll through pages. I personally cannot be bothered. I think I have addressed as much as is necessary.

I think the original reason for asking that question, has either been satiated or forgotten.

====

 

[Squar3root]

how did jesus manage to survive in the desert for 40 days without any food or water

cos ur body starts to shut down after about 3 days of not drinking water. according to a quick google, some people have lasted up to 10 days without it but jesus did it for 4x that.

something doesnt seem right [thinking emoji]

 

[dan964]

Correct


Actually I refer to my dog as "he". I refer to objects without gender (real or fictional) as "it". As it should be.


Really? I think of the royal family as quaint, nothing more. They are certainly not deserving of any honour for anything they have done.


Pride is defined as "a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements". It has nothing to do with how highly you regard yourself in comparison to others. If there were only two people in the world, me and a chess master, I could feel pride at stretching him further and further each game, without actually beating him or feeling better than him. It is only christians who add the negative connotation to pride.

Concerning royal family comment: fair enough. I don't know your personally to know what example would be relevant for you.

Perhaps you haven't encountered the type of christian who believes that everyone should be forced to bow down to their god. I have.

If you make mention of the negative connotation added by Christians, it is worth
mentioned pride is also defined slightly differently so worth pointing out that often thi is a problem between different world views, is different words mean different things, ever so slightly.

With your last statement, I wouldn't know, I would probably perceive the person you have in mind very differently. So I don't know, sorry. It would for me depend on what context those things are said.