So if Jesus Christ returns for the second time. What miracle must he do.....

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: George P Burdell
World peace.

He'd have to kill an awful lot of people to accomplish that.

 

[RandomFool]

Turning water into funk would about do it for me.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: manowar821
It doesn't matter if he somehow made the oceans rise into the sky or suddenly gave everyone the gift of enlightenment, I still wouldn't believe in an all-powerful being, and I most certainly wouldn't start worshiping him. I'd probably think "wow, that's a pretty advanced life-form, aren't we lucky to meet him and befriend him", maybe I'd look up to him, even. But worship is something I will never do, for anyone or anything.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "perfect all-powerful being".

So what you want to believe trumps any type of verifyable proof?

You're chastising me for NOT believing something. I'm not actively participating in this hallucination, that's totally different from BELIEVING there is no god.

You cannot prove the existence of a highest power, it's logically impossible. So I don't need to be believing in crap that has absolutely no evidence what-so-ever.

And like I said, if a being were to present itself to us in such a grand way, it very well could be a more evolved creature than our-selfs. It doesn't have to be an all powerful infallible alpha/omega. Hell, even if this being were to be "perfect" in our plane of existence, that doesn't mean it's invincible or perfect someplace else.

You deny the scientific method if properly applied due to its conclusion?

Isn't that what religious people are always told?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: SXMP

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: kranky
I don't participate in these threads precisely because I am not going to change anyone's mind nor is anyone going to change mine. But I wanted to say simply

Originally posted by: lyssword
I noticed that Gamingphreek only responds to easiest cliche questions and completely ignores other much more convincing arguments vs faith. They didn't write the manual on how to refute those yet? The only way you can stay Christian is to ignore these threads and don't even read any debates. Just ignore everything. If you will honestly search for truth, and be open-minded, you will lose your faith.

That is exactly how I found mine.

worked for CS Lewis, too

It also worked for Lee Strobel, an atheist who decided to investigate on his own after his wife decided to convert to Christianity - to him, that was one of the most horrible things that could happen. He decided to try to disprove the existence of Christ so he could explain to his wife how silly/misguided her faith was. His subsequent investigations and interviews caused him to GAIN faith that he didn't have before.

He went on to write several books, including The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith.

Translation: he realized there was money to be made in the biz

:thumbsup:

What doctrine of Christianity claims that Christians should live abject and in poverty, never seeking to earn compensation for their work? Unless you are willing to concede that everyone who ever wrote a book was tainted by the knowledge they would receive money for it (which is a big claim to make) then your jab is very weak and actually quite problematic for the objectivity of non-Christian writers alike.

Peace
john

:thumbsdown:

.........

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: manowar821
It doesn't matter if he somehow made the oceans rise into the sky or suddenly gave everyone the gift of enlightenment, I still wouldn't believe in an all-powerful being, and I most certainly wouldn't start worshiping him. I'd probably think "wow, that's a pretty advanced life-form, aren't we lucky to meet him and befriend him", maybe I'd look up to him, even. But worship is something I will never do, for anyone or anything.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "perfect all-powerful being".

So what you want to believe trumps any type of verifyable proof?

You're chastising me for NOT believing something. I'm not actively participating in this hallucination, that's totally different from BELIEVING there is no god.

You cannot prove the existence of a highest power, it's logically impossible. So I don't need to be believing in crap that has absolutely no evidence what-so-ever.

And like I said, if a being were to present itself to us in such a grand way, it very well could be a more evolved creature than our-selfs. It doesn't have to be an all powerful infallible alpha/omega. Hell, even if this being were to be "perfect" in our plane of existence, that doesn't mean it's invincible or perfect someplace else.

You deny the scientific method if properly applied due to its conclusion?

Isn't that what religious people are always told?

reread his last post. raising the ocean to the sky, or some shit like that does not prove that this person is God. It could be some advanced creature, alien species, perhaps...whatever.

Most logical conclusion if such a being were encountered would be to detain or kill it, and harvest the organs for research.

I mean seriously...who in their right mind would allow something with that power to brazenly roam free?

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: ryanmw2002
Ive always had a question that stumps religious minds and they never have a rebuttal. Most Christians I have met agree that babies go to heaven automatically when they die based on "Age of Accountability". This being true, it is not impossible for one person or group of people to literally kill every newborn baby from here to the end of time, eventually wiping out humanity. This essentially would result in every person on earth starting from the first baby killed would all be in heaven and the killer or killers would be sent to Hell.

That being said. The killer is actually playing God and sends everyone to heaven even would God himself could not. This would make that killer more powerful than God correct? Because in the end that is where we all want to go right?

This is a serious question that I would like Kevin to answer and do not twist the words around or dance your way around it with multiple questions.

God works in mysterious ways, man.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: manowar821
It doesn't matter if he somehow made the oceans rise into the sky or suddenly gave everyone the gift of enlightenment, I still wouldn't believe in an all-powerful being, and I most certainly wouldn't start worshiping him. I'd probably think "wow, that's a pretty advanced life-form, aren't we lucky to meet him and befriend him", maybe I'd look up to him, even. But worship is something I will never do, for anyone or anything.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "perfect all-powerful being".

So what you want to believe trumps any type of verifyable proof?

You're chastising me for NOT believing something. I'm not actively participating in this hallucination, that's totally different from BELIEVING there is no god.

You cannot prove the existence of a highest power, it's logically impossible. So I don't need to be believing in crap that has absolutely no evidence what-so-ever.

And like I said, if a being were to present itself to us in such a grand way, it very well could be a more evolved creature than our-selfs. It doesn't have to be an all powerful infallible alpha/omega. Hell, even if this being were to be "perfect" in our plane of existence, that doesn't mean it's invincible or perfect someplace else.

You deny the scientific method if properly applied due to its conclusion?

Isn't that what religious people are always told?

reread his last post. raising the ocean to the sky, or some shit like that does not prove that this person is God. It could be some advanced creature, alien species, perhaps...whatever.

Most logical conclusion if such a being were encountered would be to detain or kill it, and harvest the organs for research.

I mean seriously...who in their right mind would allow something with that power to brazenly roam free?

Because if you ask for proof and it is given and is verifyable then what is there to not believe?

Stay on one side of the road(proof) or the other(belief) play in the middle no matter how good you are you will get run over.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: manowar821
And like I said, if a being were to present itself to us in such a grand way, it very well could be a more evolved creature than our-selfs. It doesn't have to be an all powerful infallible alpha/omega. Hell, even if this being were to be "perfect" in our plane of existence, that doesn't mean it's invincible or perfect someplace else.

Ding! You have reached level 2 in the quest for proof.

 

[Maximilian]

Ive changed my mind, screw starcraft II development, its ready when its ready. I want jesus to return and DESTROY THE EVIL THAT HAS GRIPPED THE GAMING INDUSTRY!! Im am speaking of course about EA!! Jesus must return and destroy EA and wipe out all traces of them and if hes got time restore the companies they wrecked and their former franchises.

 

[ryanmw2002]

Originally posted by: SXMP
ryanmw2002
You present a fun problem. The answer I'd give is that: 1) As a Christ-follower, I do not accept this "Age of Accountability" you refer to as credible. I understand what you mean by it, and respect Christians who believe this doctrine, but I believe there is room to disagree on the issue. Also, there are Christians whom I respect which would disagree even more to the "Age of Accountability" argument.

But, to not "dance around" your question as you are implying Kevin is doing, (which, if that is his prerogative does he have any less right to do so than you do to imply this?) I'll theorize for you an answer assuming that I would believe in "Age of Accountability"... Because, after all, questions like this don't seem to be seeking truth, they seem to be seeking to satisfy one's own desire to be right. And if that's the case, I'd like nothing more than to turn your question into one of truth than of a value judgment to make you or me feel good about ourselves.

This essentially would result in every person on earth starting from the first baby killed would all be in heaven and the killer or killers would be sent to Hell.

So up to here, I see where you are going. But this claim is based on a lot of assumption about Christianity. First, not all Christians believe that all killers are going to be sent to Hell. That's an easy enough concept to grasp I think, but it often is completely ignored: Christianity is not an "acts" or "deeds" based religion. That is to say, how "good" one is does not merit there "salvation" or being sent to heaven. (I realize I used a lot of scare quotes there, they were intentional.) In other words, most adherents to Christian faith (cf. Christian religion) would claim they are saved by grace and not works.

The killer is actually playing God and sends everyone to heaven even would God himself could not

I am very empathetic to why you think this, and it is because of my understanding of why you think this that I can say this statement is the least logical of all; an illustration before the explanation: If I gather a bunch of my friends on a bridge and systematically push them off, and they all fall to their deaths, what is scientific cause of their death? Well it wasn't me, it was probably a combination of crushing of their body/asphyxiation, the result of gravity acting upon their bodies. I, being the pusher, participated in a system which already exists and defines what happens based on the input I give it. In a corrected understanding of your statement, the killer is the person pushing the people off the bridge, God is the gravity, or the law to put it another way.

This would make that killer more powerful than God correct?

Neat supposition, but it is just that, something that is supposed. I don't see any reason for your claim to be valid. Another perspective, if we are going to acknowledge there is a God, I would imagine God would be more powerful that a simple logical argument, otherwise God really wouldn't be God in the way we normally conceptualize God.

This is a serious question that I would like Kevin to answer and do not twist the words around or dance your way around it with multiple questions.

I hope this is satisfactory "answer" to your "question". If not, feel free to let me know why it isn't. Honestly though, I don't plan on discoursing on your question anymore as it's a fairly weak logical argument.

Peace,
john

Thank you for a detailed analysis however you still danced around my question. Your first statement of "Age of Accountability" shows that you believe in a different view. Please quote from the bible where God explains what happens to murdered babies then.

Second, you say not all Christians believe killers go to hell. Are you saying that this one person who murdered everyone in the world would not go to hell, and why not? Because he thought he was just in his actions?

Third statement, your analogy does not make sense. If I understand you right, God (gravity) was the force that "caused" these babies to be murdered and the killer just "pushed" them.

What your really saying is that like gravity, God is a constant force that "allows" the death and allows things to happen. The killer is the instigator. This still brings us full circle and back to the fact that the killer started the action. God did not start the action, he allowed the killer to send everyone to heaven even when he could not. Even though God said it was ok, the killer still took the initiative and that would make him the greater being in many people's minds.

Fourth statement, what I said can only and will only ever be summed up as mere opinion. It was more of a rhetorical question. Of course the killer cannot be more powerful than God at all times, God has the ability to stop the killer any time. Being more powerful and being the more logical/compassionate being in terms of eternal life is a more posing question.

I'm glad you took the time to break it down but wen it really comes down to it, no one is right and no one knows what is truly right. It is all a matter of faith and/or individual belief. The bible gives us no more clear cut answers than evolution does.

I personally believe in God, however you cannot tell me an all-perfect being could create such a carelessly slapped together humanity. An omniscient being would have the foresight to see what is coming in the future and safeguard against the failings. This leaves me to believe that even God is not perfect, although close. Otherwise, we are NOT in the likeness of him.

 

[jandrews]

If this did happen I dont think it would work out well for the people who said I wont believe you unless you do a miracle for me lol.

 

[mrizvi66]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: JohnCU
the cubs win the world series

That's not possible, even for Him. Championships have to be won on their own, it's a rule.

angels in the outfield...?

 

[Vic]

Topic Title: So if Jesus Christ returns for the second time. What miracle must he do.....
Topic Summary: ........to convince you of his return???????????

He won't and we'll kill him all over again.

That's the whole point of the Christian message. It asks, "What if God were one of us?" We'd fscking kill him, and in the most horrible way possible, that's what.

And who can deny that isn't true? Or that we shouldn't fix that? Because if we'd kill this God, this person (imaginary or not, it doesn't matter) who wants nothing but to help us, what does that say about how we treat each other?

And the rest, as they say, is commentary.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: ryanmw2002

Originally posted by: SXMP
ryanmw2002
You present a fun problem. The answer I'd give is that: 1) As a Christ-follower, I do not accept this "Age of Accountability" you refer to as credible. I understand what you mean by it, and respect Christians who believe this doctrine, but I believe there is room to disagree on the issue. Also, there are Christians whom I respect which would disagree even more to the "Age of Accountability" argument.

But, to not "dance around" your question as you are implying Kevin is doing, (which, if that is his prerogative does he have any less right to do so than you do to imply this?) I'll theorize for you an answer assuming that I would believe in "Age of Accountability"... Because, after all, questions like this don't seem to be seeking truth, they seem to be seeking to satisfy one's own desire to be right. And if that's the case, I'd like nothing more than to turn your question into one of truth than of a value judgment to make you or me feel good about ourselves.

This essentially would result in every person on earth starting from the first baby killed would all be in heaven and the killer or killers would be sent to Hell.

So up to here, I see where you are going. But this claim is based on a lot of assumption about Christianity. First, not all Christians believe that all killers are going to be sent to Hell. That's an easy enough concept to grasp I think, but it often is completely ignored: Christianity is not an "acts" or "deeds" based religion. That is to say, how "good" one is does not merit there "salvation" or being sent to heaven. (I realize I used a lot of scare quotes there, they were intentional.) In other words, most adherents to Christian faith (cf. Christian religion) would claim they are saved by grace and not works.

The killer is actually playing God and sends everyone to heaven even would God himself could not

I am very empathetic to why you think this, and it is because of my understanding of why you think this that I can say this statement is the least logical of all; an illustration before the explanation: If I gather a bunch of my friends on a bridge and systematically push them off, and they all fall to their deaths, what is scientific cause of their death? Well it wasn't me, it was probably a combination of crushing of their body/asphyxiation, the result of gravity acting upon their bodies. I, being the pusher, participated in a system which already exists and defines what happens based on the input I give it. In a corrected understanding of your statement, the killer is the person pushing the people off the bridge, God is the gravity, or the law to put it another way.

This would make that killer more powerful than God correct?

Neat supposition, but it is just that, something that is supposed. I don't see any reason for your claim to be valid. Another perspective, if we are going to acknowledge there is a God, I would imagine God would be more powerful that a simple logical argument, otherwise God really wouldn't be God in the way we normally conceptualize God.

This is a serious question that I would like Kevin to answer and do not twist the words around or dance your way around it with multiple questions.

I hope this is satisfactory "answer" to your "question". If not, feel free to let me know why it isn't. Honestly though, I don't plan on discoursing on your question anymore as it's a fairly weak logical argument.

Peace,
john

Thank you for a detailed analysis however you still danced around my question. Your first statement of "Age of Accountability" shows that you believe in a different view. Please quote from the bible where God explains what happens to murdered babies then.


Quite simply... It doesnt. Ideas for several opposing theories can be inferred from certain passages pertaining to other situations about what happens. But no direct passage addresses this situation.


Second, you say not all Christians believe killers go to hell. Are you saying that this one person who murdered everyone in the world would not go to hell, and why not? Because he thought he was just in his actions?

There is a difference between a killer and a murderer. The bible would seem to observe a difference between the two.
Not everyone who kills is a murderer, and not all murderers go to hell. Anyone who finds salvation and sincerely repents of murder would not go to hell. Premeditation would seem to change this scenerio somewhat to a more complex and altogether seperate situation.


Third statement, your analogy does not make sense. If I understand you right, God (gravity) was the force that "caused" these babies to be murdered and the killer just "pushed" them.

What your really saying is that like gravity, God is a constant force that "allows" the death and allows things to happen. The killer is the instigator. This still brings us full circle and back to the fact that the killer started the action. God did not start the action, he allowed the killer to send everyone to heaven even when he could not. Even though God said it was ok, the killer still took the initiative and that would make him the greater being in many people's minds.

this entire circuilar logic only hold true, if you believe in the age of accountability. Mothers in dire situations try to use this logic as a justification for killing their babies. But nevertheless this same circular logic could be used to address... why spread the gospel: if you never hear it, you cant be accountable, and therefore someone who never hears the gospel should also go to heaven. But that situation is a falsehood also.


Fourth statement, what I said can only and will only ever be summed up as mere opinion. It was more of a rhetorical question. Of course the killer cannot be more powerful than God at all times, God has the ability to stop the killer any time. Being more powerful and being the more logical/compassionate being in terms of eternal life is a more posing question.

I'm glad you took the time to break it down but wen it really comes down to it, no one is right and no one knows what is truly right. It is all a matter of faith and/or individual belief. The bible gives us no more clear cut answers than evolution does.

Im not sure where you are going with this other than using a invented circular logic to attempt to discredit god?

I personally believe in God, however you cannot tell me an all-perfect being could create such a carelessly slapped together humanity. An omniscient being would have the foresight to see what is coming in the future and safeguard against the failings. This leaves me to believe that even God is not perfect, although close. Otherwise, we are NOT in the likeness of him.

wow so much to say about this and so little time. So because god gave us free will and a choice to make, he is imperfect? I dont agree with this position, simply because i believe there is some truth to the creation story. Man was perfect, its his fault he no longer is.

 

[SXMP]

ryanmw2002
I appreciate your response as well. I'm not going to quote it this time (the post could get awfully long =)

Shucks, I didn't think I danced around the question. But, as you said though there really isn't a clear answer. The Bible never mentions anything specifically about murdered babies, people are left to their own doctrines and systematic theologies to decide that one. Whatever the case, I'm sure to God it makes perfect sense, but I wouldn't want to claim that I had *the* answer. Sorry if it came off that way. I will not concede that an "Age of Accountability" has any more validity than not. To support that a little (not exhaustively) I'll quote some verses from Romans, although there is stuff from the entire Bible which led me to my understanding:
Romans 1:

20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Romans 3:

...Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found false...

Romans 3:

10as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

Now until this point, it may seem irrelevant to include these verses so far, as they seem might be understood to only pertain to adults (in the age of accountability theory) but here's the first problem:
Romans 5:

12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

19For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

1Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Humans become justified by faith (by grace). Not through any other way. Justification is very important, without it, we lose.
But even more problematic:
Romans 8:

29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

13Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." 14What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!15For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." 18So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

I want to be clear that there are many different interpretations of the last bit And to be honest, it is slightly irresponsible of me to copy and paste that in there without any other context or commentary. But suffice to say, there is a systematic theology which supports the way it reads: God is sovereign and who are we to argue with that? Again, he *created* justice, His understanding of it will always trump ours. I realize this doesn't sit well with a lot of people, is hard to wrap one's mind around, and even many Christians (whom I still respect) don't agree with this. But it's where I'm coming from.

As for the killer going to hell? I'll paraphrase this time, but if you want specific quotes feel free to ask: All have fallen short of the glory of God. All sin is equal in God's eyes. The one who kills is as unrighteous as the one who murders as the one who lies *in God's eyes* (clearly society needs to have different standards). Anyway, I'm as much of a sinner as the next man, or the killer. Remember that the thief on the cross right next to Jesus is told by Jesus he will see heaven that very day. All people are given the chance of salvation. It is impossible for man to judge who has been saved or not (as Jesus alludes to often, and as Christians hypocritically often judge anyway). I believe that in God's mind it doesn't matter what our motivations were. To Him, we don't create justice, we participate in it.

It is an analogy (and it does break down like analogies do) but I understand why it doesn't make sense to you. It doesn't make it inappropriate or even flawed. The point of the illustration was that as human beings we exist inside of a world governed by the Law and Grace of God. That is to say, sin deserves wrath, but through the Grace of the undeserved death of Jesus, God justly withholds His wrath and instead placed it upon His son, until the day of judgment, when Jesus (not God) will judge the the living and the dead. It is in that sense that God still remains more powerful. The illustration was not meant to imply that God killed the kids, although I see how that could be what was understood.

I agree with you very much that God did not start the action. Whether he allowed it or just didn't care (some might say they are the same) doesn't matter. Because I agree too that we are given a free choice. But, apart from God we are free to do what we want, not free to do what we ought.

It sounds like your theoretical situation is really asking the question: how can God be sovereign (all powerful) and just (not contradictory to His other characteristics) at the same time. The debate on that one has been out for a long time. There are two major camps, but they are not irreconcilable.

As a personal note: many people would consider me a "born-again Christian" etc. And yet I believe that evolution is a valid theory and was most likely what took place. I don't see how it contradicts anything the Bible says. And I think that most non-Christians have mislabeled Christians as a collective of unscientific thinkers. As well, many Christians have labeled non-Christians as cold. So it goes both ways, sadly.

An omniscient being would have the foresight to see what is coming in the future and safeguard against the failings.

I think if you examine this statement in light of the other statements, as you correctly assert you are left with God not being perfect... or one other possibility, man's understanding of God not being perfect. I chose the believe the latter.

Seriously, thanks for the cool question, it's made me think!

Peace,
John

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: manowar821
It doesn't matter if he somehow made the oceans rise into the sky or suddenly gave everyone the gift of enlightenment, I still wouldn't believe in an all-powerful being, and I most certainly wouldn't start worshiping him. I'd probably think "wow, that's a pretty advanced life-form, aren't we lucky to meet him and befriend him", maybe I'd look up to him, even. But worship is something I will never do, for anyone or anything.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "perfect all-powerful being".

So what you want to believe trumps any type of verifyable proof?

You're chastising me for NOT believing something. I'm not actively participating in this hallucination, that's totally different from BELIEVING there is no god.

You cannot prove the existence of a highest power, it's logically impossible. So I don't need to be believing in crap that has absolutely no evidence what-so-ever.

And like I said, if a being were to present itself to us in such a grand way, it very well could be a more evolved creature than our-selfs. It doesn't have to be an all powerful infallible alpha/omega. Hell, even if this being were to be "perfect" in our plane of existence, that doesn't mean it's invincible or perfect someplace else.

You deny the scientific method if properly applied due to its conclusion?

Isn't that what religious people are always told?

reread his last post. raising the ocean to the sky, or some shit like that does not prove that this person is God. It could be some advanced creature, alien species, perhaps...whatever.

Most logical conclusion if such a being were encountered would be to detain or kill it, and harvest the organs for research.

I mean seriously...who in their right mind would allow something with that power to brazenly roam free?

Because if you ask for proof and it is given and is verifyable then what is there to not believe?

Stay on one side of the road(proof) or the other(belief) play in the middle no matter how good you are you will get run over.

Umm, because there is no proof you could possibly give that would :
1)prove the existence of God (how do you prove omnipotence, an already flawed concept) 2)justify the worship of such a being

If Jesus came back and somehow proved that everything in the Bible is factual, what could possibly be more horrific than worshiping the God of the Old Testament? Satan is a saint compared to this guy.

Worship is self-imposed slavery. And God is a psychological despot.

 

[grrl]

Prove this is really his second return.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Vic
He won't and we'll kill him all over again.

That's the whole point of the Christian message. It asks, "What if God were one of us?" We'd fscking kill him, and in the most horrible way possible, that's what.

And who can deny that isn't true? Or that we shouldn't fix that? Because if we'd kill this God, this person (imaginary or not, it doesn't matter) who wants nothing but to help us, what does that say about how we treat each other?

At one level, you're wrong about every point here, and so it can be denied. At another, you're not substantially wrong -- the crucifixion illustrates man killing God, as does this thread (both, so to speak).

 

[JTsyo]

Originally posted by: BudAshes
Will people still be wondering when Jesus will get here in another 1000 years? Assuming christians and there assumption that this planet will support us no matter wtf we do to it doesn't kill us all first.

Well first we would have to colonize other planets. Why, you ask. Well int he Old Testament it is stated that the Jewish people would be as numerous as the gains of sand. It's clear that Earth won't be able to support that many people so to fulfill this we will have to get to other planets.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: Vic
He won't and we'll kill him all over again.

That's the whole point of the Christian message. It asks, "What if God were one of us?" We'd fscking kill him, and in the most horrible way possible, that's what.

And who can deny that isn't true? Or that we shouldn't fix that? Because if we'd kill this God, this person (imaginary or not, it doesn't matter) who wants nothing but to help us, what does that say about how we treat each other?

At one level, you're wrong about every point here, and so it can be denied. At another, you're not substantially wrong -- the crucifixion illustrates man killing God, as does this thread (both, so to speak).

I'm curious as to which level I'm wrong about. I'm not arguing, as I understand that this is all interpretation, I'm just looking for some elaboration.

I'm not a follower of the "great man" theory (i.e. Ayn Rand), but OTOH I do believe that the mass mob mentality of humanity despises greatness and non-conformity, and seeks to squash it and kill it, and I see the Christian message of the crucifixion, contrasted against Christ's message of love, as emblematic of that. And then you have the irony of the forced conformity of the Christian culture and organized religion.
It makes IMO for a fascinating study of humanity, and I have no doubt that, if Christ were to return, that it would be the most fundamentalist of Christians who would seek to kill him, just as it was the most fundamentalist of Jews who sought his death 2,000 years ago.

People, it seems, want a champion to save them. Someone to wield the sword for them against evil. A Jesus Barabbas instead of a Jesus Christ. We want to make the world to be good, whether it wants to or not. And that doesn't work, as it's just fighting evil with evil.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm curious as to which level I'm wrong about. I'm not arguing, as I understand that this is all interpretation, I'm just looking for some elaboration.

Yes, they are interpretations, yours and mine and others, and I regret the somewhat unadorned "wrong" I used as there are no fair assertions of wrong and right in faith as faith (or non-faith).

As for elaboration, my opinions of wrongness apply on two aspects. One, the admittedly unfair specific assertion of my own set of beliefs, which believes some things other than what you believe on this topic (which I'll leave for now although I've broached them in other threads here); the other, essentially a logical position which has a broad belief in its premise. That belief is simply the divinity of Jesus, as was mentioned in this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=38&threadid=2141586

The divinity of Jesus is of course only a belief from our point of view, but it is a pre-requisite to discussing the Jesus of Christianity.

Once you have the divinity of Jesus, which is nothing less than His Godhood and essential unity with the One God, assertions such that mankind killed God and that He won't come again because we'd just kill him again are absurd, because God as God or God as a Christ can do anything He wills, including live as a man and yet arrange events such that he does not end up being crucified. The crucifixion in this view was a deliberate choice made by the Christ, a trading off of events and appearances to some desired set of effects and meanings. Similarly the presence or absence of miracles should be interpreted as deliberate choices -- I interpret the apparent absence of miracles as a de facto assertion of the meaning, value and a purpose of life as such.

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm not a follower of the "great man" theory (i.e. Ayn Rand), but OTOH I do believe that the mass mob mentality of humanity despises greatness and non-conformity, and seeks to squash it and kill it, and I see the Christian message of the crucifixion, contrasted against Christ's message of love, as emblematic of that. And then you have the irony of the forced conformity of the Christian culture and organized religion.
It makes IMO for a fascinating study of humanity, and I have no doubt that, if Christ were to return, that it would be the most fundamentalist of Christians who would seek to kill him, just as it was the most fundamentalist of Jews who sought his death 2,000 years ago.

I enjoyed reading some of Any Rand's fictional works some time ago, and still regard some of them fondly. She expressed a reaction to oppression poignantly and personally. Others of course have felt that same oppression and reaction and expressed accordingly, but hers are more approachable works than say the music of Shostakovitch.

I also think that she got some of her objections to religion profoundly correct, and yet, I manage to be a theist while she was the opposite, and to hold opposite views in other matters.

The "great man" theory is of course true to a significant extent, but it's also misleading as the "great man" is often only the first or most expressive or most successful or forceful, etc., to identify and take a branch in the path of humanity and Nature -- a path though not perhaps pre-determined, but yet a path which would have been taken at some time as a logical consequence of the existing forces, legacy of past and desired development of the future. This view is elaborated further in the writings of Aurobindo, and also glimpsed in the nearly simultaneous appearance of similar inspiration in different areas in history.

The view of mankind as herd is of course also true to a degree, particularly as they individually assert through action that they like being herd and not thinking for themselves. I'm of course guilty of that too -- I like reading Aurobindo for example; drawing on his thought. However, as one reads Aurobindo, or tries to read the messages of our times and past as he did, one sees, or at least hopes to see, that the essential progress of our times or times to come won't be from the select few doing the remarkable, but by the masses awakening to degrees, and doing the remarkable -- for that is essentially what is needed; because we cannot substitute a great man for ourselves, nor the great man move the world but by the masses.

People, it seems, want a champion to save them. Someone to wield the sword for them against evil. A Jesus Barabbas instead of a Jesus Christ. We want to make the world to be good, whether it wants to or not. And that doesn't work, as it's just fighting evil with evil.

I agree, however the somewhat trite "be the change you want in the world" and even the golden rule from so long ago tell us to look within. Don't wait. Great men have come and gone, and their message and legacy is with us for the grasping if we want.