Continuation of Christianity debate.

[naxus]

Well to tell you the truth i think that christianity is a joke as one god couldnt do all that.

but he's GOD!!!!!! he is an all powerful being and is fully capable of doing everything you think he can't do. he's God!!! thats why we can't comprehend and understand everything about him.

Even so i still dont believe in him.

Also If humans are made in gods image then did he make the way we think?
If so then God is suseptable to human nature and could possibly change his Rules of christanity.

[Mr_Adams]

Why do you assume that God is male?
Did Adam have a belly button?
What colour were Adam and Eve?
Did Noah have freshwater fish on the ark?
Termites?
Has God made intelligent life on other planets?
Do those planets have their own Jesus? (OR does He have to do that stuff over and over again?)

Some serious questions, some a little mocking, all worthy of an answer.

FATHER son and holy spirit
probably not.
probably one black, the other white.
intresting question. I personaly believe the answer is no, but that the water was all fresh water, and that due to the process of micro evolution, and the gradual salinization of the ocean.
maybe. possibly in a large log or something. The ark only had to float for 30 days.
no
no

[rocky mountain]

Why do you assume that God is male?
Did Adam have a belly button?
What colour were Adam and Eve?
Did Noah have freshwater fish on the ark?
Termites?
Has God made intelligent life on other planets?
Do those planets have their own Jesus? (OR does He have to do that stuff over and over again?)

what the others have said
not sure.
no one knows for sure. probably the colour of middle eastern people nowadays.
probably not. i agree with Mr_Adams.
dunno
i don't think so, no
seeing my above answer, then no.

Also If humans are made in gods image then did he make the way we think?
If so then God is suseptable to human nature and could possibly change his Rules of christanity.

he gave us free will and we can decide what to do with it. obviously you choose not to believe, so in a way, its fine. you have a title to your opinion. God is not suseptible to human nature. he is perfect, we are not. he made us perfect, Adam and Eve (humankind) ruined it with the help of Satan. yes he did make the way we think, but its not exactly like the way He thinks.

[muy_thaiguy]

Why do you assume that God is male?
Did Adam have a belly button?
What colour were Adam and Eve?
Did Noah have freshwater fish on the ark?
Termites?
Has God made intelligent life on other planets?
Do those planets have their own Jesus? (OR does He have to do that stuff over and over again?)

Some serious questions, some a little mocking, all worthy of an answer.

1. Already been done (the only people that actually seem to have a problem with God being a "he" or the feminazis, but that's for another thread)
2. Most likely similar to that of people of the Middle East, though there has been so much immigration in that area from both Europe and Africa, it 's hard to say, though I don't really think it matters that much.
3. Possibly, it wouldn't have been unheard of, after all, the Romans were able to create naval battles in the Colosseum, I think they would have been able to create an area for some fresh water fish.
4. Probably so.
5. If he has, he has.
6. Nope, that was a onetime deal, as it has said in the Bible.

[Frigidus]

Why do you assume that God is male?

Because the only thing that the Bible definitely says about him is that he has an enormous wang.

[heavycola]

The problem heavycola is that this is not an argument; this is a dismissal. Mind you it's a nice dismissal, a viagra for the ego as it were, a means of distinguishing yourself from those who went on before. Yet it remains a dismissal. Just because something is a folk tale doesn't mean it is automatically incorrect.

Well thanks for the analysis, doctor. The historical fact remains that yahweh was a local, tribal god, one of many at the time. The Israelites only worshipped him - i.e. they were monolatrous - but they acknoweldged the existence of others. Baal, for example, was one. Their contemporaries the Babylonians had Marduk. Monotheism came later. It is survival of the fittest ideas, that's all.

[joecoolfrog]

Well to tell you the truth i think that christianity is a joke as one god couldnt do all that.

but he's GOD!!!!!! he is an all powerful being and is fully capable of doing everything you think he can't do. he's God!!! thats why we can't comprehend and understand everything about him.

Do you believe everything you read in books, especially old ones that have been carefully edited a few times ?

[jonesthecurl]

OK: if God created man in his own image, does God have a physical body? Specifically one like a man, with lungs, eyes, genitals, digestive system, legs, hair and nails, etc etc?

[CrazyAnglican]

OK: if God created man in his own image, does God have a physical body? Specifically one like a man, with lungs, eyes, genitals, digestive system, legs, hair and nails, etc etc?

Yes, his name is Jesus of Nazareth. The whole creatining in his own image thing I think had more to do with spiritual image though.

[Neoteny]

OK: if God created man in his own image, does God have a physical body? Specifically one like a man, with lungs, eyes, genitals, digestive system, legs, hair and nails, etc etc?

Yes, his name was Jesus of Nazareth.

Trickery!

[CrazyAnglican]

OK: if God created man in his own image, does God have a physical body? Specifically one like a man, with lungs, eyes, genitals, digestive system, legs, hair and nails, etc etc?

Yes, his name was Jesus of Nazareth.

Trickery!

not me

Just calling 'em like I see 'em.

[tzor]

The problem heavycola is that this is not an argument; this is a dismissal. Mind you it's a nice dismissal, a viagra for the ego as it were, a means of distinguishing yourself from those who went on before. Yet it remains a dismissal. Just because something is a folk tale doesn't mean it is automatically incorrect.

Well thanks for the analysis, doctor. The historical fact remains that yahweh was a local, tribal god, one of many at the time. The Israelites only worshipped him - i.e. they were monolatrous - but they acknoweldged the existence of others. Baal, for example, was one. Their contemporaries the Babylonians had Marduk. Monotheism came later. It is survival of the fittest ideas, that's all.

First of all, we can argue the points (thanks for the promotion, but my highest degree is only an MA, not a PhD. I'm the Master, not the Doctor, so be a nice poster or I'll end this discussion with my tissue compression eliminator) but your argument in effect breaks down to realitivism; that there exists other examples of gods (tribal or otherwise) therefore they must all be wrong.

We then come to your notion of the "survival of the fittest ideas." I would hardly call the evolution of Judasm the "survival of the fittest ideas," as most of the ideas were effectively scupted by outside events. This continued through the evolution of the early christian church which was technically called "athiest" by the Roman authorities. While the notion of pantheons had fallen into compete disfavor at the time of Christianity, there was a definite competition between them and the Gnostics, who used a similiar message and were not as actively presecuted (or rather made the scapegoat du jour) by the authorities.

But then the question begs the underlying question. Was the evolution of all of this the result of Asimovian Liars or was there an underlying hand that pushed the idea across in spite of all the messingers? I am not going to suggest that such can be proven, but such cannot be dismissed off hand.

This is the reson for the "viagra of the ego" comment. The notion that all tribal religions must be equivalent is roughly the same non argument that all forms of governmetn must be equivalent or that all theories in science must be equivalent. That's why we constantly get comparisons to the "flying spaghetti monster" and so forth because it's easier to build a straw man and fun to watch him burn.

[herndawg]

I have seen 3 different legs grow out

Sorry to pick this out dude - I did read and enjoy the rest of your post - but what did you mean here? regenerating limbs?

We had some guests come from Redding, CA from Bill Johnson's church and they are seeing deaf ears opened blind eyes see and things like this on a regular basis. Their youth room is decorated with leg braces and crutches from the people the kids pray for in stores and whatnot, anyway. During the service they were praying for people and this one dude had a leg about an inch and a half shorter that the other. he sat, propped his legs up on another chair and the guy was praying for his leg. I was watching VERY close right next to him and was looking for this guys leg muscles to shift or anything that looked like he was imagining it and his leg just got longer. In about 5 seconds it just creeped out and lined up with his other one. The look on his face was good. This was a guy from our church and no set up I am sure. Then a good friend of our had her leg about an inch lower and they video taped it growing out. I only saw the video on this one but she had bad back pain and couldn't run because of hip pain from this disorder. She is a wonderful woman and couldn't believe it hardly herself. She was so escited. The video os good too. Then there was one other just like the guy I watched where I was standing right next to her. Same deal. Many other things happened this was for me a change in the reality of God touching people to get to feel his presence and watch a few miracles. So I guess that is regeneration of limbs, not like a stump growing out or anything but I have heard of that happening also. Nothing like being an eye witness and knowing the people it happens to.

[Neoteny]

The problem heavycola is that this is not an argument; this is a dismissal. Mind you it's a nice dismissal, a viagra for the ego as it were, a means of distinguishing yourself from those who went on before. Yet it remains a dismissal. Just because something is a folk tale doesn't mean it is automatically incorrect.

Well thanks for the analysis, doctor. The historical fact remains that yahweh was a local, tribal god, one of many at the time. The Israelites only worshipped him - i.e. they were monolatrous - but they acknoweldged the existence of others. Baal, for example, was one. Their contemporaries the Babylonians had Marduk. Monotheism came later. It is survival of the fittest ideas, that's all.

First of all, we can argue the points (thanks for the promotion, but my highest degree is only an MA, not a PhD. I'm the Master, not the Doctor, so be a nice poster or I'll end this discussion with my tissue compression eliminator) but your argument in effect breaks down to realitivism; that there exists other examples of gods (tribal or otherwise) therefore they must all be wrong.

We then come to your notion of the "survival of the fittest ideas." I would hardly call the evolution of Judasm the "survival of the fittest ideas," as most of the ideas were effectively scupted by outside events. This continued through the evolution of the early christian church which was technically called "athiest" by the Roman authorities. While the notion of pantheons had fallen into compete disfavor at the time of Christianity, there was a definite competition between them and the Gnostics, who used a similiar message and were not as actively presecuted (or rather made the scapegoat du jour) by the authorities.

But then the question begs the underlying question. Was the evolution of all of this the result of Asimovian Liars or was there an underlying hand that pushed the idea across in spite of all the messingers? I am not going to suggest that such can be proven, but such cannot be dismissed off hand.

This is the reson for the "viagra of the ego" comment. The notion that all tribal religions must be equivalent is roughly the same non argument that all forms of governmetn must be equivalent or that all theories in science must be equivalent. That's why we constantly get comparisons to the "flying spaghetti monster" and so forth because it's easier to build a straw man and fun to watch him burn.

The difference between scientific and governmental theories and deity hypotheses is that the former are based on observable evidence while the latter, when we really come down to it, are based on internal faith and fit to observable evidence. The process is entirely reversed. I'm sure you won't say that religions tend to be created based on observations of the universe. They are modified by these observations, sure, but the primary basis of most religions is a uniquely human creation. I do not think the FSM is a straw man in this sense because it is of human origin, like all religions (made up, revealed, whatever).

[Neoteny]

I have seen 3 different legs grow out

Sorry to pick this out dude - I did read and enjoy the rest of your post - but what did you mean here? regenerating limbs?

We had some guests come from Redding, CA from Bill Johnson's church and they are seeing deaf ears opened blind eyes see and things like this on a regular basis. Their youth room is decorated with leg braces and crutches from the people the kids pray for in stores and whatnot, anyway. During the service they were praying for people and this one dude had a leg about an inch and a half shorter that the other. he sat, propped his legs up on another chair and the guy was praying for his leg. I was watching VERY close right next to him and was looking for this guys leg muscles to shift or anything that looked like he was imagining it and his leg just got longer. In about 5 seconds it just creeped out and lined up with his other one. The look on his face was good. This was a guy from our church and no set up I am sure. Then a good friend of our had her leg about an inch lower and they video taped it growing out. I only saw the video on this one but she had bad back pain and couldn't run because of hip pain from this disorder. She is a wonderful woman and couldn't believe it hardly herself. She was so escited. The video os good too. Then there was one other just like the guy I watched where I was standing right next to her. Same deal. Many other things happened this was for me a change in the reality of God touching people to get to feel his presence and watch a few miracles. So I guess that is regeneration of limbs, not like a stump growing out or anything but I have heard of that happening also. Nothing like being an eye witness and knowing the people it happens to.

o_O

[naxus]

The problem heavycola is that this is not an argument; this is a dismissal. Mind you it's a nice dismissal, a viagra for the ego as it were, a means of distinguishing yourself from those who went on before. Yet it remains a dismissal. Just because something is a folk tale doesn't mean it is automatically incorrect.

Well thanks for the analysis, doctor. The historical fact remains that yahweh was a local, tribal god, one of many at the time. The Israelites only worshipped him - i.e. they were monolatrous - but they acknoweldged the existence of others. Baal, for example, was one. Their contemporaries the Babylonians had Marduk. Monotheism came later. It is survival of the fittest ideas, that's all.

First of all, we can argue the points (thanks for the promotion, but my highest degree is only an MA, not a PhD. I'm the Master, not the Doctor, so be a nice poster or I'll end this discussion with my tissue compression eliminator) but your argument in effect breaks down to realitivism; that there exists other examples of gods (tribal or otherwise) therefore they must all be wrong.

We then come to your notion of the "survival of the fittest ideas." I would hardly call the evolution of Judasm the "survival of the fittest ideas," as most of the ideas were effectively scupted by outside events. This continued through the evolution of the early christian church which was technically called "athiest" by the Roman authorities. While the notion of pantheons had fallen into compete disfavor at the time of Christianity, there was a definite competition between them and the Gnostics, who used a similiar message and were not as actively presecuted (or rather made the scapegoat du jour) by the authorities.

But then the question begs the underlying question. Was the evolution of all of this the result of Asimovian Liars or was there an underlying hand that pushed the idea across in spite of all the messingers? I am not going to suggest that such can be proven, but such cannot be dismissed off hand.

This is the reson for the "viagra of the ego" comment. The notion that all tribal religions must be equivalent is roughly the same non argument that all forms of governmetn must be equivalent or that all theories in science must be equivalent. That's why we constantly get comparisons to the "flying spaghetti monster" and so forth because it's easier to build a straw man and fun to watch him burn.

The difference between scientific and governmental theories and deity hypotheses is that the former are based on observable evidence while the latter, when we really come down to it, are based on internal faith and fit to observable evidence. The process is entirely reversed. I'm sure you won't say that religions tend to be created based on observations of the universe. They are modified by these observations, sure, but the primary basis of most religions is a uniquely human creation. I do not think the FSM is a straw man in this sense because it is of human origin, like all religions (made up, revealed, whatever).

on the last part here all religions are actually made by man.So what if christianity was just thought up by some crazy guy?People could have read his work and misinterpeted, but the point is you'll never know

[jonesthecurl]

OK: if God created man in his own image, does God have a physical body? Specifically one like a man, with lungs, eyes, genitals, digestive system, legs, hair and nails, etc etc?

Yes, his name is Jesus of Nazareth. The whole creatining in his own image thing I think had more to do with spiritual image though.

So I repeat, if the image was "spiritual" what made it male?

[tzor]

So I repeat, if the image was "spiritual" what made it male?

First of all, the notion of male/female in terms of sperm/egg is a relatively new concept (at lest it is relatively new when you look at the entire history of mankind) and the general notion of male/female as it existed in the classical sense was the creator/womb container difference. So in calling god "male" we refer to the metaphore of the creater/father as opposed to the birth-giver/mother.

Second of all, since most of the Old Testament was written by guys, this is a "guy" thing.

[kletka]

OK: if God created man in his own image, does God have a physical body? Specifically one like a man, with lungs, eyes, genitals, digestive system, legs, hair and nails, etc etc?

God created your immortal beuatiful soul in its image, not your wretched body Your body is like your midterm exam, to show God what you will do with it...

[jonesthecurl]

We seem to be getting vaguer on the very first question, or at least to have as many faith-supported answers as there are posters...

[kletka]

We seem to be getting vaguer on the very first question, or at least to have as many faith-supported answers as there are posters...

I am not really a faith supporter, at least not of christian faith. So I am arguing from an intellectual viewpoint solely.

So the answer is a physical body is irrelevant to god as he is a creator of everything. He has no problem creating a body for himself with hair, armipits, genitalia, etc if he wishes so...

And your attempt to poke a hole in the building of religious belief is pitiful

[jonesthecurl]

We seem to be getting vaguer on the very first question, or at least to have as many faith-supported answers as there are posters...

I am not really a faith supporter, at least not of christian faith. So I am arguing from an intellectual viewpoint solely.

So the answer is a physical body is irrelevant to god as he is a creator of everything. He has no problem creating a body for himself with hair, armipits, genitalia, etc if he wishes so...

And your attempt to poke a hole in the building of religious belief is pitiful

Hey, I'm not the one who answered "how do you know god is male" with "He created Man in HIS image".

I'd be quite happy with "God is beyond gender", I'm just trying to establish how fundamental peoples' beliefs are, given that we are often told(in this thread and others) to "read the bible" as if it supported one point of view or another, or that the bible is valid documentary or historical evidence.

[tzor]

God created your immortal beuatiful soul in its image, not your wretched body Your body is like your midterm exam, to show God what you will do with it...

Let's not go "gnostic" by insulting the body to praise the soul, "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?" (1 Cor 6:19)

[kletka]

we are often told(in this thread and others) to "read the bible" as if it supported one point of view or another, or that the bible is valid documentary or historical evidence.

It is none! It is a written contract between the humankind and the christian God. If God wanted to answer these questions, the answers are in the bible. Just read. If not, tough luck....

I just pray that God thinks that the humanking have moved forward a bit since the last contract, and would come out and give us a renewed contract in the next 40-50 years or so, explaining a few bit about Genetics, Superstrings, and Riemann Hypothesis...

[Juan_Bottom]

we are often told(in this thread and others) to "read the bible" as if it supported one point of view or another, or that the bible is valid documentary or historical evidence.

It is none! It is a written contract between the humankind and the christian God. If God wanted to answer these questions, the answers are in the bible. Just read. If not, tough luck....

I just pray that God thinks that the humanking have moved forward a bit since the last contract, and would come out and give us a renewed contract in the next 40-50 years or so, explaining a few bit about Genetics, Superstrings, and Riemann Hypothesis...

Didn't you just say that you are not of the Christian faith? What faith are you?