There is no God

[So It Goes]

I haven't had time to read this entire thread.

Have we all mutually come to a conclusion?

Should I google the Sparknotes version to study for the test?

 

[dadapolka]

Have we all mutually come to a conclusion?

I think you might be asking a bit too much from a thread entitled 'there is no God' Unless you are being sarcastic.

 

[So It Goes]

I think you might be asking a bit too much from a thread entitled 'there is no God'. Unless you are being sarcastic

I'm being a little silly today.

Too much cold medicine and procrastination.

I apologize for any interruptions to this thread.

<puts on his serious face>

Commence!

 

[dadapolka]

I'm being a little silly today.

Too much cold medicine and procrastination.

I apologize for any interruptions to this thread.

<puts on his serious face>

Commence!

Yes, let's be very serious and adult about this. We'll have no more silliness from you.
It is a debate after all.

 

[So It Goes]

Yes, let's be very serious and adult about this. We'll have no more silliness from you.
It is a debate after all.

Aw, gee.

<kicks pebble>

 

[Lark]

In life, I concur. Lark and I were talking about the afterlife.

In life, the Atheists suppress their inner testimony concerning the reality of God. In other words, they know, but they don't want to believe...

"By their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them," (Romans 1:18-19).

On judgment day, God will say to them, "I never knew you," just as they said to God in life.

I'm inclined to agree with Riva, I do think that God loves everyone, I even think sometimes, when I'm in a good mood, that Rob Bell's love wins hypothesis is true that God loves so much that wether in this life or the next anyone who has behaved as a prodigal son will be received all the same.

There's a author whose books I've order, I think they're called Shackelton I'm not sure, the title of the book is The Science Delusion, he has given interviews in which he has written about consciousness and expectations shaping any possible after life, I think the way he put it was that people get what they want, like in dreams, so if an atheist believes that after death they have no memory, no comprehension, no nothing, that its just blank, then that could be what they get. Pretty hellish if you ask me but not what I would expect God has intended or wants for them.

 

[Lark]

This God fellow seems petty.

A very human assessment.

 

[Lark]

I don't think this is true. Maybe for some atheists. But I know for a fact that there are many atheists/agnostics who want to believe, but just can't.

I know what that is like, when I experienced a period of profound doubts and a bit of a spiritual crisis I felt that way, I had, pretty unwisely in retrospect, proudly believed that my faith was solid and unassailable. Funny how God can use life to teach you lessons.

 

[A window to the soul]

I'm inclined to agree with Riva, I do think that God loves everyone, I even think sometimes, when I'm in a good mood, that Rob Bell's love wins hypothesis is true that God loves so much that wether in this life or the next anyone who has behaved as a prodigal son will be received all the same.

<--I think we're all on the same page. In the case you mentioned, does the prodigal son believe Jesus was crucified to provide permanent forgiveness of sin?

 

[Mole]

Isn't god the father, the son and the holy spirit/ghost?

Sure Lucid, just as you hava a father the universe has a father. Makes sense, doesn't it?

 

[Mole]

God and Gödel

Gödel has shown that the language of God, mathematics, is incomplete.

And he is shown the language of God is necessarily incomplete, and forever incomplete.

And worse Gödel has shown that the language of God is inconsistent, and is necessarily inconsistent and forever inconsistent.

So we worship an incomplete and inconsistent God. Perhaps we should now write, Göd.

 

[Lark]

<--I think we're all on the same page. In the case you mentioned, does the prodigal son believe Jesus was crucified to provide permanent forgiveness of sin?

I was talking about the prodigal son from the parable who asks for his inheritance, goes and squanders it, returns to his father and is given a celebration and welcomed home, the good son who has always honoured his father is unhappy about this and decides that the father isnt handing out just deserts as he should be.

The story doesnt mention Jesus, since he's telling it, this is the sort of spirituality and religious beliefs which I profess personally, I believe in and follow the direct teachings of Jesus, as opposed to following or speculating about he himself and his sacrifice because I dont like a lot of the ideas of original sin or predestination which used to form the core theology of both the RCC and reformed/schismatic churches and protestant congregations. And I dont consider it a case of being something I dont like which is none the less true, there are aspects of religion which I would consider that I dislike but have to acknowledge as true but that is not one of them, it seems too much at odds with the bigger picture of God and Jesus in the scriptures or even God in the world and my life.

I tend to believe that the good son who objects to the prodigal son being welcomed back is the archetype of the individuals who believe that others are beyond redemption or undeserving of redemption for some reason, both religious and secular creeds have their versions of that sort of person.

I dont know if it will work, depending on were you're accessing it from I guess, but the BBC iPlayer Radio 4 has a programme on Erasmus which I think speaks to this issue and its very interesting besides. Erasmus is one of my favourite thinkers.

 

[A window to the soul]

I believe in and follow the direct teachings of Jesus, as opposed to following or speculating about he himself and his sacrifice because I don’t like a lot of the ideas of original sin or predestination which used to form the core theology of both the RCC and reformed/schismatic churches and protestant congregations. And I don’t consider it a case of being something I don’t like which is none the less true, there are aspects of religion which I would consider that I dislike but have to acknowledge as true but that is not one of them, it seems too much at odds with the bigger picture of God and Jesus in the scriptures or even God in the world and my life.

What do you think about the following scripture?

2 Timothy 3:16

"All scripture is God-breathed..." NIV
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." KJV
​

I found this article from Dr. Dan Hayden regarding the correct interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16:
----
The phrase "given by inspiration of God," is one word in the Greek text. It is the word theopneustos, which means "God-breathed." Theopneustos is a compound word, with theo the Greek word for God, attached to the word pneustos which means "wind, or spirit, or breath." We have this word in our English word pneumonia – a disease of the breath, or lungs.

So, this verse literally says that all scripture is "God-breathed." When you think about it, that’s what words are. They are breath resonated over the vocal chords and shaped by the tongue and lips and teeth. When we speak – it is our breath.

Therefore, all Scripture is God’s breath, or God’s spirit. When the human authors like Moses, or David, or Isaiah, or Paul, wrote Scripture – that Scripture was God’s inspired Word. These men were guided in such a way that what they wrote was exactly what God wanted them to write. God actually spoke through them so that the result was a book that was really written by God. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." It is "God-breathed."
----

EDIT: For clarification, the reason I posted the above is because it doesn't sound like you believe that everything that's written in the Bible is the word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16 confirms that everything in the Bible is the word of God.

I tend to believe that the good son who objects to the prodigal son being welcomed back is the archetype of the individuals who believe that others are beyond redemption or undeserving of redemption for some reason, both religious and secular creeds have their versions of that sort of person.

According to the Bible, the only unforgiveable sin is disbelief (aka, blasphemy of Holy Spirit) at the end of one's life, but I also understand once saved, always saved; no matter how far one strays. That's a loving God.

I consider the possibility of an exception where someone suddenly has disbelief, but I don't see where the scriptures support that someone would suddenly disbelieve after they are saved.

Examples...

(Romans 8:38-39) Neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

(Ephesians 1:13) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

(2 Corinthians 1:22) Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

(John 10:28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

I don’t know if it will work, depending on where you're accessing it from I guess, but the BBC iPlayer Radio 4 has a programme on Erasmus which I think speaks to this issue and it’s very interesting besides. Erasmus is one of my favourite thinkers.

I will try to locate it. I may follow-up later.

 

[Ginkgo]

2 Timothy 3:16

"All scripture is God-breathed..." NIV
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God.." KJV
​

Does this exclude scripture added? Apocrypha, and texts considered "non-cannon"? Honestly, I don't see a reason why it should.

 

[Aquarelle]

Therefore, all Scripture is God’s breath, or God’s spirit. When the human authors like Moses, or David, or Isaiah, or Paul, wrote Scripture – that Scripture was God’s inspired Word. These men were guided in such a way that what they wrote was exactly what God wanted them to write. God actually spoke through them so that the result was a book that was really written by God. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." It is "God-breathed."

This is exactly why I currently consider myself agnostic. I was raised in the Christian faith, and I was always taught that believing in God implies belief in the absolute truth (whether in a literal or metaphorical sense) and infallibility of everything in the Bible. There are many things in the Bible that I just don't agree with and cannot hold to be true. According to my early Biblical education, if God exists, then the Bible is all true and right. So to me, the fact that (I believe) that there are some very wrong and untrue things in the Bible implies that God is not real.

Based on the Bible, I think once saved, always saved. No matter how far one strays; that's a loving a God.

According to the Bible, the only unforgiveable sin is disbelief (aka, blasphemy of Holy Spirit) at the end of one's life. I consider the possibility of an exception where someone suddenly has disbelief, but I don't see where the scriptures support that someone would suddenly disbelieve after they are saved.

At earlier times in my life, I considered myself "saved" as was defined by my church at the time, I had accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior and all that. Now I'm not even sure I believe in God, which according to this would be an unforgivable sin if I died right now. So am I saved or am I damned? This all seems very contradictory.

 

[EcK]

So to me, the fact that (I believe) that there are some very wrong and untrue things in the Bible implies that God is not real.

So your own perception of good and bad defines the existence of inexistence of a being?
To me, I mean as long as we stay close to a self referential frame (the bible etc) the main issue is the lack of coherence of the whole thing.

 

[Aquarelle]

So your own perception of good and bad defines the existence of inexistence of a being?

No; the faith that I was raised in defines belief in God/the Bible/churchly teachings as kind of all or nothing. I can't believe all, so I have to believe nothing.

I know it's kind of silly; I've stopped believing a lot of things my church taught me, but I can't seem to shake the the all-or-nothing bit. Other people have no problem believing that some parts of the Bible are true and some aren't, but still believing in God. Maybe one of these days I'll stop believing the all-or-nothing bit too and I will be able to believe in God, but for now it's agnosticism for me.

 

[Lark]

I think those selections from scripture are more important if you believe solo scripture or are a biblical literalist, I dont, in fact I would consider that to be a form of idolatry and its part of the reason I dont follow any of the reformed or protestant traditions of Christianity (or Islam or some varieties of Judahism too). I mean no offense by that BTW, I know lots of people can be offended to read that, I dont mind that reformed or protestant churchs that I know of consider my RCC church to be errant from before the middle ages.

One of my biggest reasons for not believing or practicing solo scripture is that the actual books which constitute together the Christian bible have changed over time, the King James Bible, as I understand it, does not contain the book of maccabees nor other books which Luther deselected at the time of his breaking with the Catholic Church because these were seen to support belief in the existence of purgatory in the afterlife.

In both the book of Maccabees and some passages in the new testament Jesus indicates that there is no forgiveness in this life or the next for those who blasphem against the holy spirit. These sources would suggest that there is forgiveness in the next life as well as this one, hence it can not be a matter of life and then judgment resulting in eternal damnation at the point of death, nor can it mean there predestination as indicated in Paul and as treated as crucial by Luther. A pretty big deal if you ask me, even if you dont accept the traditions which rely upon the testamony of mystics or saints from within the RCC. Yet all that is omitted because Luther, rightly, attacked the corruption of theology of purgatory to permit the sale of indulgences, money for salvation, those times are past but the books are still omitted.

Further to that there are differences in texts arising from what language is used, Greek, Latin, olde english, there are matters of interpretation. Erasmus got into trouble and tried to back track as corrections he made in earlier translations called into question entire theological edifices which the church had erected.

An example of which is the need to be penetant and do penance, founded upon what John the Baptist told people who followed him into the wilderness, when in reality John the baptist did not say do penance but said to those who asked what they had to was turn 180 degrees, turn around. He could simply have been saying you need to turn around and walk away.

So you see, with those two examples, and I'm no scholar, which are simple enough it is possible to question the efficacy of biblical literalism steming from quotes indicating divine inspiration, which I dont doubt, although I occasionally doubt the medium, things can be lost in translation between humans, which share much more in common with one another than a human and the divinity.

There's also some ideas derived from Jewish mysticism (I'm loath to say kabbalah but anyway) that the breath of God and the original Torah relate to and mean or involve the Jewish nation or people, rather than written scriptures, first and foremost. I'll not go into that because I know less about it than I do about reasons why solo scripture is questionable.

 

[EcK]

No; the faith that I was raised in defines belief in God/the Bible/churchly teachings as kind of all or nothing. I can't believe all, so I have to believe nothing.

Isn't the bible more about agreeing with the supposed unique-yet-multiple deity than stating whether it exists or not (the bible tends to assume existence )

 

[tinker683]

At earlier times in my life, I considered myself "saved" as was defined by my church at the time, I had accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior and all that. Now I'm not even sure I believe in God, which according to this would be an unforgivable sin if I died right now. So am I saved or am I damned? This all seems very contradictory.

I'd like to know the answer to this myself. I was a very devout Lutheran earlier in my life. Am I still OK then even though I am now an atheist?