Is Jesus God?

@timur,

Quote:

Exodus 20:5 wrote:
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Old Testament.

Quote:

Deuteronomy 7:10 wrote:
But those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction; he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.

Old Testament.

Quote:

Deuteronomy 32:35 wrote:
It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them."

Old Testament.

Quote:

Deuteronomy 32:41 wrote:
when I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengeance on my adversaries and repay those who hate me.

Old Testament.

Quote:

Joshua 24:19 wrote:
Joshua said to the people, "You are not able to serve the LORD. He is a holy God; he is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins.

Old Testament.

Quote:

Psalm 94:1 wrote:
The LORD is a God who avenges. O God who avenges, shine forth.

Old Testament.

Quote:

Jeremiah 28:8 wrote:
From early times the prophets who preceded you and me have prophesied war, disaster and plague against many countries and great kingdoms.

Old Testament.

Jesus changed everything.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

FBM wrote:
Scientists have buttloads. . .
True.
Sorry. I couldn't resist.
Quote:
. . . .theists have absolutely no evidence for their god hypothesis. . .
I find evidence just looking into the evening sky on a clear night. And I am not swayed by the fact the evidence has been interpreted ambidextrously by others

So you see stars and jump to a god? Or was the god hypothesis really put there first in your childhood, and you're working backwards to confirm the cognitive bias?

1 Reply

@neologist,

God did.

1 Reply

@timur,

timur wrote:

What? A vengeful god, love or a thug?

I have no problem with any of those...I love rough geometry and bumps in the road serve my musculature and blood circulation...it seems to me some atheists are still to attached to the classical childish comical definition of God...but that is not my problem either ! Drop Eden and you might actually come to a more abstract definition that is more palatable and digestible for unity in the Cosmos...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Drop your ignorance and you might actually be able to see something other than yourself.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I thought you would recognize my watered down version of the design argument.
I know it's not a bullseye.
Just a well considerd opinion.

But you asked for evidence.

1 Reply

@Johnjohnjohn,

Are you saying God resurrected himself?
Or, that Jesus is God but didn't really die?
I am quite confused by your assertions

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Really, my point isn't even that you're wrong; it's that since you have no evidence to support your god hypothesis, your hypothesis has no merit.

How can you possibly know that no one has any evidence of God? If God chose to reveal himself to someone other than you, why does that conclusively prove he does not exist? To declare that you are privy to the life experience of every human who ever lived strikes me as the height of hubris.

Quote:

Why do I oppose this and other god hypotheses? Because they're so closely related to discrimination of numerous varieties, violence of numerous varieties, sex abuse of numerous varieties, science denialism, deadly faith healing, etc, of numerous varieties. All for something that can't be show to exist outside your head. Grow up. Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and your god are just so many pacifiers for children. Your contributions to the cult of wilfull
ignorance are not welcomed by me; they are opposed.

And here you set yourself up as saying that every man who declares his belief in God as being guilty of you list of evils. Really?

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I thought you would recognize my watered down version of the design argument.
I know it's not a bullseye.
Just a well considerd opinion.

But you asked for evidence.

The teleological argument is another claim, not evidence.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Really, my point isn't even that you're wrong; it's that since you have no evidence to support your god hypothesis, your hypothesis has no merit.

How can you possibly know that no one has any evidence of God? If God chose to reveal himself to someone other than you, why does that conclusively prove he does not exist? To declare that you are privy to the life experience of every human who ever lived strikes me as the height of hubris.

Read what I wrote more carefully. Either your reading comprehension is off, or you're deliberately setting up a strawman argument. I didn't claim what you claim I claimed.

Quote:

Quote:
Why do I oppose this and other god hypotheses? Because they're so closely related to discrimination of numerous varieties, violence of numerous varieties, sex abuse of numerous varieties, science denialism, deadly faith healing, etc, of numerous varieties. All for something that can't be show to exist outside your head. Grow up. Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and your god are just so many pacifiers for children. Your contributions to the cult of wilfull
ignorance are not welcomed by me; they are opposed.

And here you set yourself up as saying that every man who declares his belief in God as being guilty of you list of evils. Really?

[/quote]

Again, read what I actually wrote. Try replying to that instead of extrapolating something that I didn't write. When you or anyone else has some unambiguous evidence for your god hypothesis, then you'll have a strong argument. Until then, it's just so much word wrangling and wishful thinking.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

The teleological argument is another claim, not evidence.

It is an argument which attempts to explain the evidence.
You asked for evidence.
I cited evidence for which there is little doubt.
Then I presented the argument, knowing that it is logically insufficient.

I said nothing (until now) about my corollary assertion that the scientific evidence so far presented against the existence of God is also logically insufficient.

Our problem, as I see it, is not whether evidence exists; it is in our interpretation of the evidence.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

the scientific evidence so far presented against the existence of God

Who has presented any of that?

1 Reply

@FBM,

A generalized statement
Am I not making any sense?

1 Reply

@neologist,

From what I've read, I got the clear impression that the people on the science side of the aisle are saying that there's nothing in empirical data that points towards a supernatural source. I don't know anybody who claims to have evidence that there is no god. Absence of evidence not being evidence of absence, and all that. Absence of evidence just means that the god hypothesis is feeble, at best, compared to the mundane cosmological model(s). It's over-reaching the evidence.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Your contributions to the cult of wilfull
ignorance are not welcomed by me; they are opposed.

My poiint was that you make this blanket statement about every believer in God. Even if it were true of the vast majority of those who profess to know God, this statement and countless repetitions of it elsewhere amounts to ad hominem. It sounds like the bitter protest of a man who wanted his own revelation of God, didn't get it, and is angry that someone else may have.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

The only blanket statement about theists I intend is that none of them have presented the slightest shred of credible evidence that their invisible friend exists. Feel free to change that whenever you're able.

As for the relationship between theism and science denialism, vaccine denialism, faith healing, various kinds of discrimination and violence, etc, I stand behind that. It's not a blanket statement about every theist, just an observation of history and the present state of things.

1 Reply

@onevoice,

Do you have any meanigful comment to make ? Any conection at all between tic and tac on your brain ? No ? Then leave fool...no patience for moronic pseudo philosophers on the web...

1 Reply

@FBM,

I don't wish to question the efficacy of science.
But it appears to me that the default rants of many atheists are severely lacking in critical thinking.

Applies to believers as well.

1 Reply

@neologist,

I can't argue with that.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

The only blanket statement about theists I intend is that none of them have presented the slightest shred of credible evidence that their invisible friend exists. Feel free to change that whenever you're able.

No argument there. I know you view it as part of my imaginary scenario but I contend that the lack of what you call credible evidence is also by design. The only evidence God intended was:
1. What you find in your own character and longings.
2. The word of mouth from those who have experienced him.

I also think there are some very useful hints in the book that he had a hand in the making of.

I will admit that #2 can be problematic in that for every genuine article there are a thousand counterfeits. The book does warn about that.

Quote:

As for the relationship between theism and science denialism, vaccine denialism, faith healing, various kinds of discrimination and violence, etc, I stand behind that. It's not a blanket statement about every theist, just an observation of history and the present state of things.

I don't have any more use for those idiots than you do.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know