Why There Most Certainly Is No God

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Good, then you are well aware that Jesus was born into a jewish household, was taken through the jewish rituals as a boy, and worshiped in jewish temples as a young child. You should also see that as he became an adult he strayed from the common rituals that the jews practiced and his preaching was drastically different from that of any rabbi. Not only did he not claim judaism, he also condemn the actions of some of them during the time. He claimed no religion, but only professed his beliefs in sets of truths. Again, someone can not speak for Jesus. Jesus left no written word. And as a cynic I would think that you would be the first to distrust a book that has been translated many times, for many different reasons.

[Eclogite]

Your evidence is nothing more than regurgitated information that anyone with any studies in the bible could have come up with.

And this makes it invalid how, exactly?

[TruthChaser]

I read with interest that first long and exhausting monlogue about "why there most certainly is no God" and by the time I got to the end of it felt like I had run a thousand laps of the same oval and came to the same single point with no advnace in knowledge to prove or disprove God. All you did is ramble on and display a long stream of apparent scientific regurgitation. You still came to the conclusion that the existance of God could not be proven, nor disproven so I do not believe you answered the original question. You also said that God's existence was irrelevant so that by definition makes the whole monologue irrelevant ... (a waste of your time and everyone who reads it... dah!)

 

One thing that intrigued me was your idea about a perfect being being incompatible with this current imperfect world. You say that the perfect is not able to become imperfect. Yet, your alternate is the perfect zero. If that was the beginning then surely the presence of an imperfect world came from it which is contradictory to your belief.

 

So, please, if you really want me to cross a line of belief or disbelief in God, answer the question because I am tired of the pointless laps that take us no where. Or, in the end you may think that irrelevant and you too are therfore a contradictory imperfect being (who therefore cannot fathom nor explain away all the missing equations yet to be located in our universe).

[TruthChaser]

Besides, doing good things in this life because you expect to be rewarded with eternal life in a quid pro quo kinda way, means that your good deeds are salted with ulterior motives, and aren't geniune or honest in any way.

 

 

Thanks for this. Just for the record... the Bible doesn't actually promise reward simply for doing good deeds... for the reason stated above... it states that God recognizes such selfishness and such good deeds are as filthy rags in his eyes (Isaiah 64:6). For those who take the time to understand the Bible as a complete and tie all bits into one congruous whole (as is needed in the pursuit of science and physics) one would see that the underlying thread is not about deeds and the such but in how we respond to God at all. Whether it is total rejection of him or trying to manipulate him for reward, all that is self promoting is defined as sin.

 

As far as Chen is concerned, he thinks he is able to define, limit, contain, explain, declare and object to something that is pure and perfect... yet none of us are pure and perfect so are not in a position to place such limits and definitions. To do so would be arrogance (much of what is displayed on these pages smells strongly of this intoxicating substance called arrogance).

 

To say that people's opinions are irrelevant, to close your mind to all possibilties, to think you are of higher intellignece than others, to refuse to believe anything that remains an open possibilty simply because you don't want to (and that's what it amounts to) is pure arrogance. That is also an aspect of what the Bible terms as sin.

 

Good deeds can be evil deeds. Atheists never do anything for the sake of doing it... you stated it was because it felt good.... there you have it... an ulterior motive (the way it makes you feel).

 

Carry on then.

[charles brough]

Truthchaster, what good posts! Did you actually read all that material in the first post? Why would anyone post something so repetitive and poorly organized? What a nusance!

 

 

My position is clearer: it is impossible to prove something exists that does not exist, and it is impossible to prove anything does NOT exist.

 

To me, that applies to everything that is classifiable as "spirit."

 

 

I see the whole social/cultural development of the human race as a progression of being able to more accurately understand natural cause and effect, and as this process occured through pre-history and since, less and less needed to be explained by "spirit" causation. That is why we have now reached at least a level where there is only One "spirit" believed in by the leaders of the mainstream world.

 

In the future, human religion will involve a non-"spirit" world-view and way of thinking.

[TruthChaser]

 

My position is clearer: it is impossible to prove something exists that does not exist, and it is impossible to prove anything does NOT exist.

 

To me, that applies to everything that is classifiable as "spirit."

 

 

I see the whole social/cultural development of the human race as a progression of being able to more accurately understand natural cause and effect, and as this process occured through pre-history and since, less and less needed to be explained by "spirit" causation. That is why we have now reached at least a level where there is only One "spirit" believed in by the leaders of the mainstream world.

 

In the future, human religion will involve a non-"spirit" world-view and way of thinking.

 

Thanks CB. Your thoughts are great too. I wonder if the progress to one spirit is similar to the progress we have in scientific discoveries. People once thought lots of ludicrous things (about the way things function) in the past which have been clarified by science and propelled us closer to what we think are more factual. Does this mean that we may progress past the facts? Unlikely isn't it.

 

You make an interesting point that one day human religion will one day involve a non-spirit way of thinking. That would be impossible to tell since we cannot scientifically prove the existence or non existence of the one spirit. On what basis would we abandon that way of thinking? And what if the one spirit is actually real? Why would we abandon that?

 

Then again, I think that human religion has already made that move (hence the title human religion). I think that much of what we see in organized religion is indeed man made (hence the contradiction between the notion of good deeds and what the Bible actually says). Perhaps this is the whole problem. We have relied more on our limited understanding and misapplied a truth which could actually be freeing and remarkable as I think may have been originally intended in the Bible. My studies of the Bible (which earned me a bachelor degree) actually led me to more freedom and joy... and incidentally more fascination and excitement in science.

 

Thanks for the interaction... and yes, I did actually read that entire monologue... yes, quite. Hmmm :) :eek_big:

[TruthChaser]

 

That is why we have now reached at least a level where there is only One "spirit" believed in by the leaders of the mainstream world.

 

 

 

o... just for the historical and anthropological record... monotheism has been around for a long, long time (like 6,000 years) for some particular peoples.... :eek_big:

[arkain101]

"That matter can feel emotions is a mystery enough. But what we feel is even stranger: it is not that each part of our body, each molecules feels emotions. It is "I" that feel those emotions. A body is made of parts that interact, and each one has its own life. But a consciousness is an "I" that feels all of the emotions related to that body. My consciousness is not distributed the same way that matter is distributed in my body. Let us assume that everything is conscious to some degree. Every atom, every molecule, every tissue, every organ, every being is "conscious". And that "I" is just what I am conscious of. If I were born a finger, I would only be conscious of what a finger does. "I" happen to be born the part of the brain that is conscious of what I am conscious."

 

-taken from Towards a Science of Consciousness Conference 2001

[modest]

monotheism has been around for a long, long time (like 6,000 years)

 

So has malaria. :confused:

 

- modest

[charles brough]

Thanks for the interaction... and yes, I did actually read that entire monologue... yes, quite. Hmmm :) :)

 

Cheer up! The other day I read through 110 hymns in the Rigveda! What a drudge! Most of it consisted of exhorting Indus and Agni to help them defeat their enemies so they could get more loot!

 

TRUTHCHASER . . . yes, someone somewhere has thought of everything. What I do is concentrate on the evolution of mainstream culture as that is what is responsible for the growing cultural heritage of the human race. In it, there is a definite trend away from "spirit" causation (such as worship of ever fewer "spirits") and more natural (non-"spirit") causation.

 

If "religion" means worship of God,"then a better word for the functioning systems that bind people into societies would be "world-view and way-of-thinking systems." IN my work, I use WV to represent that. It is a better word than "religion" for the key element driven by natural selection process of social evolution.

[Biomajor]

While it may have been long, it was excellent! i really enjoyed it.

[palmtreepathos]

The term Jew comes from the name of Jacob’s fourth son, Judah, and at first applied only to his family and descendants. The first one to use the term “Jews” was the writer of Second Kings (16:6; 18:26, 28; 25:25). That the two terms, Hebrew and Jew, were considered synonymous as early as the seventh century B.C.E. is apparent from Jeremiah 34:9, where we read: “Let each one his manservant and each one his maidservant, Hebrew man and Hebrew woman, go free, in order not to use them as servants, that is, a Jew, who is his brother.”

 

That Jesus was a Jew by birth is established by his genealogy at the book Luke chap 3 ... At Matthew chapter 1, Matthew being a publican/tax collector had access to public records and was moved to share the lineage that showed his legal right by being the step-son of Joseph. Jews were sure to check out public records verifying if indeed Jesus of Nazareth was possibly the Christ (Anointed one)foretold to come. The public records of his lineage were lost at the destruction of Jerusalem at 70 C.E. But scriptural records were saved and used and spread abroad.

 

As to the claim of being Christ he thought it needed to be highlighted here in Matthew chapter 16:13-17....

“Who are men saying the Son of man is?” They said: “Some say John the Baptist, others E·li′jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” *He said to them: “YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?” *In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did."

And to the Samaritan women at the well he was quite clear on it...

(John 4:25-26) *The woman said to him: “I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one arrives, he will declare all things to us openly.”

*Jesus said to her: “I who am speaking to you am he.”

 

Jesus acted in harmony with the Anointing (to be the Christ)that was done at his baptism, so he WAS a Christian... Those who verified and believed by living in accord with his role and course of life came to be called Christians.

 

Accuracy not 'political correctness' is of greater concern in the Bible record.

[palmtreepathos]

There was a standing prophecy that the Jewish nation would be punished for having left the covenant.(Daniel 9:26,27) Jesus came as the Greatest of the Jewish prophets, as the SON of the God who made them a nation and became the Anointed Christ to finish out the promise to Abraham that ALL the earth would be blessed by means of one of his offspring. He showed by his life and teachings that is was possible to follow Jehovah's will successfully , even to die with integrity in defense of it. He advocated that fellow Jews do their best to live up to it as well (Matthew 23:3) "Therefore all the things they tell YOU, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but do not perform." He wanted to save them all but knew that each had to make his own choice. (Matt 23 vs 37)

 

Yes, he was outspoken in condemning those who were falsely using 'the commands of men' as doctrines. Terms like offspring of vipers and hypocrites comes to mind. He was truer to the worship of His God Jehovah that anyone ever had been. The prophecy of Christ at Matthew 23:39 thru Matt 24 came true in 70 C.E. (verse 15 was key to getting away safe) Those who payed attention to the Christ and followed his instructions got out alive.... There is nothing metaphorical in this message, history proves that it happened "just so"...

[CraigD]

The prophecy of Christ at Matthew 23:39 thru Matt 24 came true in 70 C.E. (verse 15 was key to getting away safe) Those who payed attention to the Christ and followed his instructions got out alive....

To what event in 70 CE are you referring, palmtreepathos? My familiarity with the history of this period is lacking. :D

[palmtreepathos]

Siege of Jerusalem (70) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

Actually I believe that the saving event that Jesus spoke of happened in 66 of the common era. The roman armies showed up with the emblems of roman gods on their flags and besiged the city but for some reason left only to return 4 years later and devastate it. Those who were familiar with the teaching of Christ (given before his death in 33C.E.) knew this pagan encampment was the "disgusting thing in the holy place" a signal they had been warned of. Those who left per instructions were saved. I don't recall the "official reason for the withdrawal of the forces in 66 C.E. but this word given at the time of the prophecy always sticks with me...(Mark 13:20) "In fact, unless Jehovah had cut short the days, no flesh would be saved. But on account of the chosen ones whom he has chosen he has cut short the days." Matthew has the same info. It is thought odd that the Romans left when they were so close to success...

[CraigD]

Siege of Jerusalem (70) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

Actually I believe that the saving event that Jesus spoke of happened in 66 of the common era. The roman armies showed up with the emblems of roman gods on their flags and besiged the city but for some reason left only to return 4 years later and devastate it.

I don’t believe this is an accurate description.

 

According to the linked wikipedia article, and the more comprehensive wikipedia article “First Jewish-Roman War”, the Romans had a garrison in Jerusalem, presumably one that had been present for many years. Following the outbreak of civil war in nearby Caesarea Maritima, Eliezar ben Hanania attacked this garrison, routing and driving out the Romans and the pro-Roman Hebrew king of Judea, Agrippa II.

I don't recall the "official reason for the withdrawal of the forces in 66 C.E. but this word given at the time of the prophecy always sticks with me...(Mark 13:20) "In fact, unless Jehovah had cut short the days, no flesh would be saved. But on account of the chosen ones whom he has chosen he has cut short the days." Matthew has the same info. It is thought odd that the Romans left when they were so close to success...

The reason, “official” or otherwise, for the Roman departure from Jerusalem in 66 CE appears to have been simple military defeat – they were fleeing for their lives. Rather than being close to success, they were ill prepared to defend their long-standing presence in Jerusalem, and gave over control to the Jewish rebels after offering no resistence worthy of note. The Roman general Cestius Gallus attempted to retake Jerusalem that year, but was badly beaten and driven into disorderly retreat.

 

The Roman Emperor Nero sent a larger force under Vespasian. By 68 CE, the Jewish rebellion in the north had been crushed.

 

Nero died and Vespasian was proclaimed Emperor in 69 CE. In March of 70 CE, Vespacian’s son, Titus Flavius, besieged Jerusalem, and in by September of 70, had crushed all Jewish resistance in Jerusalem, killing possibly more than a million of its residents and enslaving as many as 100,000.

 

The surviving Jewish rebel forces were hunted down and killed or captured, the final large-scale resistance ending with the mass suicide of nearly a thousand Jewish soldiers at Masada in 73 CE.

Those who were familiar with the teaching of Christ (given before his death in 33C.E.) knew this pagan encampment was the "disgusting thing in the holy place" a signal they had been warned of. Those who left per instructions were saved.

This doesn’t seem to me an accurate interpretation, as the Roman garrison in Jerusalem had been present since roughly 6 CE, well before the time of Jesus’s ministry. More likely, I think, is that the statues ordered erected in temples throughout the Roman empire, including in Jerusalem, by the Emperor Caligula, who in 39 CE declaired himself a god would have been interpreted as such an offense.

 

Tragically, first and second century Jewish leaders appear not to have followed either palmtreepathos’s interpretation of Matthew 24:15-16:

Matthew 24, King James version

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains

or sound political sense, choosing instead a path of armed insurrection against the militarily superior Romans, resulting in the untimely death of several million Jews, and the breaking and scattering (diaspora) of the kingdom of Judea, a condition that would last more than a thousand years.

[palmtreepathos]

Seems you are up to speed now...:phones:

I don’t believe this is an accurate description.

The reason, “official” or otherwise, for the Roman departure from Jerusalem in 66 CE appears to have been simple military defeat – they were fleeing for their lives. Rather than being close to success, they were ill prepared to defend their long-standing presence in Jerusalem, and gave over control to the Jewish rebels after offering no resistence worthy of note. The Roman general Cestius Gallus attempted to retake Jerusalem that year, but was badly beaten and driven into disorderly retreat.

I appreciate your "appears to have been" as history is so often subjective to the writer, political correctness of the times, who's side you want to take, etc. Also, "they were fleeing for their lives" could also have been wishful thinking on the part of the Jewish defenders/historians of the time. My apologies for posting a wiki link (not what I consider reliable) my only defense is it was late and it contained enough info to jumpstart a search. Wouldn't build a defense on it (wiki info)though.

The Roman Emperor Nero sent a larger force under Vespasian. By 68 CE, the Jewish rebellion in the north had been crushed.

ah yes the "official reason" from the Roman perspective. Now they could give undivided attention to the big issue....

Tragically, first and second century Jewish leaders appear not to have followed either palmtreepathos’s interpretation of Matthew 24:15-16 or sound political sense, choosing instead a path of armed insurrection against the militarily superior Romans, resulting in the untimely death of several million Jews, and the breaking and scattering (diaspora) of the kingdom of Judea, a condition that would last more than a thousand years.

Well, of course "they" wouldn't have....:phones:

After causing the death of the Christ and harrassing his followers they carried on in apostate worship and mingled with it their desire to disregard the ongoing judgement of "gentile rule" that had been forced on them as a precursor of their full removal as a national group representing the Creator.

 

Of couse there are many ways to slant this politically and you have the floor. Maybe you think it deserves it's own thread? I only posted to add a few verses to refute the often quoted "Bible doesn't say this" or "Christ never claimed that" authorities ....