[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The evil isn’t the accident, it’s the sentient being who witnesses the accident and chooses to watch it rather than stop it.[/quote]
What ‘evil?’ From which rulebook?
Yeah, I really should get some sleep on my side, too.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
In short, if God (or a gods, fine) exist, they define what is good.
If no existence, then what are we using to judge god(s), exactly? We can’t use opinion, because like choosing a favorite color, it’s just that. An opinion.
.[/quote]
What way do you judge? And how is that the correct way and not just your opinion? And isn’t any answer to this question just your opinion?
Outstanding thread - very enlightening. Do continue!
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]krillin wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…
If I’m going to burn in hell for not believing that Jesus was divine–or, at least, no more divine than anybody else–then…
So, if the conditional clause is fulfilled, then it really doesn’t matter what I say in the consequent clause. Unless, of course, you think I’ll be punished all the harder for what I’ve said here…in which case, while you’re right that it’s unwise of me to say it, He deserves the censure all the more, so far as I’m concerned.[/quote]
You are off the proverbial hook.
And I get to play the Devil’s Advocate. (The pun is intended.)
(Let’s leave the New Testament out of this discussion for a moment–it’s cosmology and dicta are interwoven with Hellenist and Persian notions.)
Where, in the Old Testament, does it command people to believe anything? My answer is, “nowhere.”
Belief is not the same as action, obedience, etc. Since lack of belief (of some dictum) by someone is not commanded, it is not punishable.
Next: Where, in the Old Testament, is there a description of a Hell?
Nowhere. Oh, dear readers, do not bother trotting out references to “sheoul” or to “Gehenna.” These were simply the over-interpreted terms for a pit (or grave) and the valley outside Jerusalem where the garbage was burned. (Hell and an afterlife were concepts which pre-exilic Israelites implicitly abhorred because they were notions nurtured by hated Egyptians, Chaldees, Assyrians.)
So, smh, there is no thoughtcrime, and belief (or lack thereof) is not punishable by exile to a place that does not exist–at least not until after Alexander’s armies came visiting a desolate backwater of the Persian empire. [/quote]
Your statement (Dr. skeptix) about hell not being in the Old Testament interested me, and the only place I can think of that may suggest an everlasting hell is Isaiah 66:24, when he talks about how the faithful will look out and see the dead bodies of those who have transgressed, where “their worm will not die, and their fire will not be quenched.” A few times in this chapter, the fire refers to God’s judgment and wrath; and if it is something that is undying and unquenchable, it could suggest a picture of God’s wrath unending and continually being poured out on those who have died.
Now I know from other threads that you have a very good knowledge of the Hebrew and are extremely familiar with the Old Testament. I ask as a serious question, what do you think the worm and the fire refer to in this text looking into the original hebrew and such? Admittedly, this text is not an extremely clear and straighforward support of hell in the Old Testament but I’d like to hear your take. [/quote]
Isaiah, I am told, is a text redacted from three sources. There used to be Proto-Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and now the scholars subdivided the last chapters to “Trito-Isaiah.” These last chapters are probably post-exilic texts, and indeed this particular chapter includes terms also included in parts of Ezekial and Jeremiah that also have a “late classic Hebrew” vocabulary.
THis chapter also is the tract of prophets which is recited when the Sabbath coincides with the New Moon and serves as a counterpoint to Numbers 28:9-15, which describes the sacrifices requisite on the New Moon.
The points: God does not prefer sacrifices to obedience and righteousness. With the return of the exiles will come the cleansing of Jerusalem of the disobedient, who are condemned to decay in Gehenna, by worm and fire; it is the garbage heap, and they are not even fit for the grave. But it is not hell.
You and Varqanir make good points; is this chapter of Isaiah a vision of eternity or of a prophesied single event? I read it as follows: obedience and righteousness are eternal, from Sabbath to Sabbath and from New Moon to New Moon, and idol worshippers are to be held in contempt (v24 has a very particular word for disgrace or contempt, often mistranslated as “abhorrence.”) and are consigned to burn in the garbage and be eaten by worms. Some will read this as “eternal damnation,” but I do not read it as the punishments of Hell.
Varq asks about the eschatology of Assur-Babylonia. I would not know, and I did not get very far in elementary Ugaritic. These last chapters of Isaiah seem so far from pagan belief–note the disdain for idols and their worshippers–that I think Babylonian heresies are not easily read into this text. [/quote]
Thanks for weighing in on this, I was actually thinking about this today that there are striking parallels with Gehenna with that physical picture presented, so I am not surprised that you interpret it that way.
Very interesting point about Num. 28:9-15 and the mention of New Moon and Sabbath here along with the fact that obedience is more important than only sacrifices/offerings (66:3). This particular point definitely enhances my understanding here, thanks.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
If Jesus is not who he said he was then he’s an abject fraud. What kind of merit can the teachings of an abject fraud have?
[/quote]
I am unaware of any document composed during the life of Jesus by an actual eyewitness which directly quoted him as saying that he was the incarnation of Yahweh on earth.
[/quote]
The many references in the gospel of John will suffice. You can look 'em up.
Now you will doubtlessly argue that John didn’t write his gospel during the life of Christ. Big deal and ho hum.
[/quote]
No, I’ll play nice. I won’t argue that.
But you say that “John” wrote this gospel.
Are you sure?
Are you sure it’s the John you’re thinking of?
(Hint: probably not John the Baptist, probably not John the Divine of Patmos, probably not even John the Evangelist, who was probably not John of Patmos. John was a very popular name in 1st Century Palestine. So was Jesus, but that’s neither here nor there.)
If you’re sure, then you have evidently uncovered hard evidence about the authorship of the Gospel of John that has heretofore eluded the top biblical scholars in the world.
In any case, not contemporary, not eyewitness. Likely written after Paul’s epistles, and after the synoptic gospels, so therefore the farthest removed from the historical Jesus than any of the other gospels, both in time and in content. But I am not arguing this particular point, as I promised.
So yeah, just a bit skeptical about the source material.
But let’s have a look anyway.
“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (17:3)
Hmmm. Only true God…and additionally Jesus, who was sent. Not, “who came personally in human form.” And so as not to forget context, Jesus is at this point looking up at the sky, praying for God to glorify him. Seems a bit odd that God would be praying to God for some glory. And speaking of glory:
“If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my father, whom you say is your god, who glorifies me.” (8:54)
“By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.” (5:30)
“Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.” (6:57)
Okay, here’s one:
“Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (14:9)
That sounds like he’s equating himself with God. Granted, any person created “in the likeness of God”, as all humans are (Genesis 1:27), would be able to make a similar claim.
Here’s another one:
No one has ever seen God, but the only-begotten son, [who is himself God], in the bosom of the Father, has made Him known. (1:18)
Not a direct quote, but it kind of puts the claim in 14:9 in a different light: you can’t see God, but you can understand his nature by looking at Jesus.
And… huh. That’s weird. Other translations don’t even have that “who is himself God” part at all. Like the King James, for instance. Let’s go to the source, and look at the Koine.
Hmmm. The older version says “monogenes heios”, which means “only begotten son”, but a later version says “monogenes theos” which would be “only-begotten god”. I wonder which is correct, and which is a transcription error. Greek cursive can be tricky. Pretty big difference between “god” and “son”. Almost as big a difference as between “72 virgins” and “72 raisins”.
By the way, I seem to recall another “only begotten son” verse. Ah, yes. 3:16. Again, sent by God. Not God himself.
One more:
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” (14:28)
I dunno, Push. Maybe it’s my Iron Cynicism, but I’m not convinced.
So did Jesus actually claim to be God? It’s a mystery, for sure. One that will puzzle skeptics until the end of the world.
And who knows when that will be?
Only God knows. Not you, nor I.
Nor even Jesus, according to Matthew 24:36.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
If Jesus is not who he said he was then he’s an abject fraud. What kind of merit can the teachings of an abject fraud have?
[/quote]
I am unaware of any document composed during the life of Jesus by an actual eyewitness which directly quoted him as saying that he was the incarnation of Yahweh on earth.
[/quote]
The many references in the gospel of John will suffice. You can look 'em up.
Now you will doubtlessly argue that John didn’t write his gospel during the life of Christ. Big deal and ho hum.
[/quote]
No, I’ll play nice. I won’t ague that.
But you say that “John” wrote this gospel.
Are you sure?
Are you sure it’s the John you’re thinking of?
(Hint: probably not John the Baptist, probably not John the Divine of Patmos, probably not even John the Evangelist, who was probably not John of Patmos. John was a very popular name in 1st Century Palestine. So was Jesus, but that’s neither here nor there.)
If you’re sure, then you have evidently uncovered hard evidence about the authorship of the Gospel of John that has heretofore eluded the top biblical scholars in the world.
In any case, not contemporary, not eyewitness. Likely written after Paul’s epistles, and after the synoptic gospels, so therefore the farthest removed from the historical Jesus than any of the other gospels, both in time and in content. But I am not arguing this particular point, as I promised.
So yeah, just a bit skeptical about the source material.
But let’s have a look anyway.
“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (17:3)
Hmmm. Only true God…and additionally Jesus, who was sent. Not, “who came personally in human form.” And so as not to forget context, Jesus is at this point looking up at the sky, praying for God to glorify him. Seems a bit odd that God would be praying to God for some glory. And speaking of glory:
“If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my father, whom you say is your god, who glorifies me.” (8:54)
“By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.” (5:30)
“Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.” (6:57)
Okay, here’s one:
“Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (14:9)
That sounds like he’s equating himself with God. Granted, any person created “in the likeness of God”, as all humans are (Genesis 1:27), would be able to make a similar claim.
Here’s another one:
No one has ever seen God, but the only-begotten son, [who is himself God], in the bosom of the Father, has made Him known. (1:18)
Not a direct quote, but it kind of puts the claim in 14:9 in a different light: you can’t see God, but you can understand his nature by looking at Jesus.
And… huh. That’s weird. Other translations don’t even have that “who is himself God” part at all. Like the King James, for instance. Let’s go to the source, and look at the Koine.
Hmmm. The older version says “monogenes heios”, which means “only begotten son”, but a later version says “monogenes theos” which would be “only-begotten god”. I wonder which is correct, and which is a transcription error. Greek cursive can be tricky. Pretty big difference between “god” and “son”. Almost as big a difference as between “72 virgins” and “72 raisins”.
By the way, I seem to recall another “only begotten son” verse. Ah, yes. 3:16. Again, sent by God. Not God himself.
One more:
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” (14:28)
I dunno, Push. Maybe it’s my Iron Cynicism, but I’m not convinced.
So did Jesus actually claim to be God? It’s a mystery, for sure. One that will puzzle skeptics until the end of the world.
And who knows when that will be?
Only God knows. Not you, nor I.
Nor even Jesus, according to Matthew 24:36.
[/quote]
On what grounds do you discount that John the apostle wrote this? It was almost unanimously the testimony of the early church (Iraneus, Polycarp who was a disciple of John) that this letter was in fact written by John the disciple. I like how liberal scholars/commentators try ridiculously hard to disprove commonly accepted authorship of certain books even though there’s substantial evidence otherwise. More than that, there is an extensive amount of eyewitness detail which does not make for a good flowing story if one is making it up (John 21:11, why mention there were 153 fish, for example; if you’re making up a story to be believable these details are unnecessary). There’s much more to this than I could explain here.
What you mentioned, John 14:9, along with John 1:1, 1:3, and 5:23 (that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father), and Jesus confirming Thomas’s confession of Him being God in 20:28-29 show that Jesus did in fact claim to be God. The verse you mentioned, that “the Father is greater than I” refers to the fact that Jesus during His earthly life submitted Himself to the Father’s will in everything He did (living the perfect life of obedience for all who would believe) and thus voluntarily laid aside the full privileges of His Deity as a man, though He was still fully God (Philippians 2:5-11 - He emptied Himself though He existed as God). Yes there are difficult things to understand when it comes to Christ being fully man and God, but at least the testimony of the New Testament concerning these issues are consistent.
Also in response to Varq, your point about Christ praying for glory, it goes along the similar lines of Philippians 2:5-11; He already had that glory before the world was as it says in John, but temporarily laid that aside to become a man and become a perfect substitute (though not ceasing to be God, which indeed is tough to understand), and after His resurrection He was restored to that glory and highly exalted (Phil 2:9).
[quote]krillin wrote:
On what grounds do you discount that John the apostle wrote this? It was almost unanimously the testimony of the early church (Iraneus, Polycarp who was a disciple of John) that this letter was in fact written by John the disciple. I like how liberal scholars/commentators try ridiculously hard to disprove commonly accepted authorship of certain books even though there’s substantial evidence otherwise. More than that, there is an extensive amount of eyewitness detail which does not make for a good flowing story if one is making it up (John 21:11, why mention there were 153 fish, for example; if you’re making up a story to be believable these details are unnecessary). There’s much more to this than I could explain here.
What you mentioned, John 14:9, along with John 1:1, 1:3, and 5:23 (that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father), and Jesus confirming Thomas’s confession of Him being God in 20:28-29 show that Jesus did in fact claim to be God. The verse you mentioned, that “the Father is greater than I” refers to the fact that Jesus during His earthly life submitted Himself to the Father’s will in everything He did (living the perfect life of obedience for all who would believe) and thus voluntarily laid aside the full privileges of His Deity as a man, though He was still fully God (Philippians 2:5-11 - He emptied Himself though He existed as God). Yes there are difficult things to understand when it comes to Christ being fully man and God, but at least the testimony of the New Testament concerning these issues are consistent.
[/quote]
I will let V answer for himself, but he is correct that the vast majority of Biblical scholars believe that John did not write it, and to say that they are only the liberal ones is incorrect.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…I am satisfied with neither of these…
[/quote]
You will never be satisfied with any explanation except nihilism. So embrace it.
Then see if you can enjoy your life. See if you can live a life with purpose.[/quote]
Too bad we can’t up-vote intelligent comments and down-vote stupid ones.
No God = nihilist, lol. Another gem push.[/quote]
Nihilism is the inevitable conclusion of no God.[/quote]
Did your priest tell you that whopper or did you come up with that lie all by yourself?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…I am satisfied with neither of these…
[/quote]
You will never be satisfied with any explanation except nihilism. So embrace it.
Then see if you can enjoy your life. See if you can live a life with purpose.[/quote]
Why do so many believers try to act as if non believers aren’t enjoying life? I seriously hear this all the time from some of my religious friends. I’m extremely happy and satisfied with my life. I closed my eyes and tried to talk to someone when I was younger. I never heard anything in return. I just did the same thing. Silence again.
It really sounds like believers try hard to convince themselves that no one else can leave a happy and successful life without coming to the same conclusion as they did.
H, FWIW, you strike me as one miserable human being. [/quote]
Well you got me wrong. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. But if I had to guess I would say the same about you. Hope I am wrong. You spend a lot of time on here so I hope it gives you purpose and happiness.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…I am satisfied with neither of these…
[/quote]
You will never be satisfied with any explanation except nihilism. So embrace it.
Then see if you can enjoy your life. See if you can live a life with purpose.[/quote]
Why do so many believers try to act as if non believers aren’t enjoying life? I seriously hear this all the time from some of my religious friends. I’m extremely happy and satisfied with my life. I closed my eyes and tried to talk to someone when I was younger. I never heard anything in return. I just did the same thing. Silence again.
It really sounds like believers try hard to convince themselves that no one else can leave a happy and successful life without coming to the same conclusion as they did.
H, FWIW, you strike me as one miserable human being. [/quote]
Well you got me wrong. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. But if I had to guess I would say the same about you. Hope I am wrong. You spend a lot of time on here so I hope it gives you purpose and happiness. [/quote]
FWIW I will say that the moment I stopped believing one of the happiest days of my life. Of all the time I prayed and believed, this was the only revelation I ever had. I no longer felt burdened by what would happen to me when I die. I refocused on now. It is very humbling and liberating to simply say “I don’t know, and that’s okay.” To think one can’t be happy and live a purposeful life without [believing in] god is nonsense.
[edit]
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
FWIW I will say that the moment I stopped believing one of the happiest days of my life. Of all the time I prayed and believed, this was the only revelation I ever had. I no longer felt burdened by what would happen to me when I die. I refocused on now. It is very humbling and liberating to simply say “I don’t know, and that’s okay.” To think one can’t be happy and live a purposeful life without [believing in] god is nonsense.
[edit][/quote]
I could write a long post about how this could very well have just been you better understanding the communication between an Almighty and yourself. You know, refinement of the translation between omnipotent communication and human understanding and conceptualization. This could very well have been a personal transition into a better relationship with God.
But I will refrain, because I think you know what I would say. 
I mean, in the end we are all unique individuals in so many ways, so many ways, for many different reasons. The idea that everyone’s relationship with God would have to be the same, following the same rituals, saying the same words, and thinking the same things about it, seems just counter intuitive.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…I am satisfied with neither of these…
[/quote]
You will never be satisfied with any explanation except nihilism. So embrace it.
Then see if you can enjoy your life. See if you can live a life with purpose.[/quote]
Too bad we can’t up-vote intelligent comments and down-vote stupid ones.
No God = nihilist, lol. Another gem push.[/quote]
While I would have to think about it a whole lot more before I could agree or disagree with Push. I do see his point.
I feel like you are too hasty to ridicule it. Mainly because you haven’t thought about it. And I feel like this is true because had you thought about it, you would see his logic here. Right, wrong or indifferent, he has a point. The point comes from his perspective, therefore you’ll be hard pressed to see it, until you view the statement through the lens of someone who sees the world as he does, one created by God.
Again, he could be wrong, very wrong, but it isn’t a statement out of left field. Once just has to put on different spectacles to see his point.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…I am satisfied with neither of these…
[/quote]
You will never be satisfied with any explanation except nihilism. So embrace it.
Then see if you can enjoy your life. See if you can live a life with purpose.[/quote]
Too bad we can’t up-vote intelligent comments and down-vote stupid ones.
No God = nihilist, lol. Another gem push.[/quote]
Nihilism is the inevitable conclusion of no God.[/quote]
Care to elaborate? I would like to understand your reasoning behind that conclusion[/quote]
I’ll leave that one to you to think through. You’ve been a bit too…how shall we say it?..disengaged…and not willing to get into the game but rather just sit on the sidelines and heckle.
[/quote]
That’s about the type of response I expected.
Anytime you get a “tough” question, you simply dodge it.
You made the statement that nihilism is the inevitable conclusion of not believing in God, how did you come to that conclusion?