Support NeoGAF

[Peggies]

I don't get the question.

Are we talking about "God" as if he existed?

But he's more like a lovable collacatble. Like Popculture.

He's not real. Not like the Prince from Zamunda or so.

 

[Fugitive Sex]

I'm not sure how to break this to you... but Jesus wasn't white.

Eastern Mediterraneans have white skin. I don't know what else you people want.

 

[Tertullian]

We'd probably further along without the dark ages happening.

No, this is nonsense. See, for example, this article, and all Tim O'Neill's other work:

The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist Reviews "God's Philosophers"

My interest in Medieval science was substantially sparked by one book. Way back in 1991, when I was an impoverished and often starving post-graduate student at the University of Tasmania, I found a copy of Robert T. Gunther's Astrolabes of the World - 598 folio pages of meticulously catalogued Islam

strangenotions.com

 

[QuantumZebra]

Eastern Mediterraneans have white skin. I don't know what else you people want.

A) Jerusalem isn't Eastern Mediterranean.
B) No, they don't. They also aren't Caucasian.
C) Who is "you people"?

 

[showernota]

Most people do. Just because people have heard the name "Jesus", doesn't mean they've heard the gospel or even understand it. Also, tell that to the billions of humans who existed in the 100,000 years before the birth of Christ.

This is all covered in the Bible, it’s very clear.

Romans 1:20 For 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.

Is there a reason the general revelation of God isn’t sufficient in convicting the very specific subset of people you’re talking about? It fits in with the “God doesn’t care about billions of people, I’m so much smarter than God” narrative, but there’s no reason to think that is the case. It is far more apparent that God is merciful:

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

So in tandem with Romans 2:14-16, it is more likely that there is a provision made for the small number (current day) who have never heard the full gospel.

In regards to the OT era people (if we’re presupposing the validity of Scripture, 100k years is incorrect), that is very well explained in the Bible. They were justified, saved, made righteous, by faith.

Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Romans 4:
6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7 “BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
8 “BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.”

Habakkuk 2:4 Behold, his soul [which] is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

That doesn't solve anything. Are you claiming that you can reject the divinity of Christ, but still go to heaven, as long as you're a "good" person?

Please point to anything in my post about “rejecting the divinity of Jesus” and still being saved. This is a bad attempt at a gotcha. We’re talking about people ignorant of the gospel of Jesus because of geography and time. I can do a full post on how incredibly damned people who reject Jesus are. Which is MUCH more topical, considering that is the era we’re living in. Jesus is the most well known person in history, very few have the excuse of ignorance anymore.

 

[mansoor1980]

What if Bruce Willis saves us from an asteroid that is making it's way towards earth? Ultimately sacrificing himself for humanity.

 

[FunkMiller]

He’d have done far better by actually existing.

Always been the major flaw in his plans, that one.

 

[gamescoltsfan]

 

[showernota]

He’d have done far better by actually existing.

Always been the major flaw in his plans, that one.

Do you doubt Socrates existed? Denying the historicity of Jesus is a pretty extreme viewpoint, even among atheists. There is plenty of extra-biblical confirmation of Jesus. Tacitus, Josephus, the Jewish Talmud (you’d think they of all people would avoid that), etc.
Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor, is one of my favorites:

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.

 

[Epic Sax CEO]

This idea makes me remind that Netflix series, Messiah.
A shame that it wasn't renewed.

 

[lukilladog]

He could have left a video documentary of Jesus ministry playing every night on the firmament too, but that is too much to ask for a guy who believed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

 

[daveonezero]

This idea makes me remind that Netflix series, Messiah.
A shame that it wasn't renewed.

Ugh that was a bummer. Watching it and then getting into it and realizing it was going to end.

 

[RaptorGTA]

Hate to say it, but has been mentioned already.

Seriously was scanning this thread for someone to post this. Thank you.

 

[UnravelKatharsis]

Had he simply waited 2 thousand years all of his works would have been documented in 4K/HDR/120hz and there wouldn't be holy wars and confusion?

Why bestow this kind of wisdom to illiterate people in the desert?

Right? Why give billions of people the chance at salvation between then and now? Let em all rot!

I mean if you believe that sort of thing

 

[Blade2.0]

Right? Why give billions of people the chance at salvation between then and now? Let em all rot!

I mean if you believe that sort of thing

With that thinking he should have come when man first experienced the fall. All those poor souls that didn't know him...

 

[Azurro]

God isn't real, so.

 

[Fugitive Sex]

A) Jerusalem isn't Eastern Mediterranean.
B) No, they don't. They also aren't Caucasian.
C) Who is "you people"?

1. Your geography is awful, Israel is clearly a Mediterranean country.
2. You have no idea what Caucasian means.
3. 'You people' are the weirdos on this forum.

 

[UnravelKatharsis]

With that thinking he should have come when man first experienced the fall. All those poor souls that didn't know him...

There was a path to salvation before Jesus. It required sacrifice. I mean I guess we could have Kept killing goats for a few thousand more years. A little more effort though than just saying a prayer

Besides "with that thinking" I guess he shouldnt have created hell at all. But we're working with what we've got here. As far as the discussion is concerned.

 

[UnravelKatharsis]

God isn't real, so.

Is consciousness? C'mon fam. You can have a hypothetical discussion about anything.

 

[showernota]

There was a path to salvation before Jesus. It required sacrifice. I mean I guess we could have Kept killing goats for a few thousand more years. A little more effort though than just saying a prayer

This is actually the opposite of what God says.

Hosea 6:
4 “O Ephraim, what shall I do to you? O Judah, what shall I do to you? For your faithfulness is like a morning cloud, And like the early dew it goes away.
5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets, I have slain them by the words of My mouth; And your judgments are like light that goes forth.
6 For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Isaiah 1:
11 For what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me? says the Lord. I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed animals. I do not delight in the blood of bulls or of lambs, or of male goats.
12 When you come to appear before Me, who has required this at your hand, to trample My courts?
13 Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to Me. New Moons, Sabbaths, and convocations— I cannot bear with evil assemblies.
14 My soul hates your New Moons and your appointed feasts; they are a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you reach out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even when you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil from your deeds, from before My eyes. Cease to do evil,
17 learn to do good; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Micah 6:
6 “With what should I come before the Lord, and bow down before God on high? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old?
7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”
8 He has told you, O man, what is good— and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

It's always been about faith. The Law was to make us conscious of sin. It's never been a path to salvation.

Romans 3: 20 Therefore by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

Galatians 3: 11 Now it is evident that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, for “The just shall live by faith.”

Galatians 3:
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? God forbid! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, righteousness would indeed come through the law.
22 But the Scripture has confined all things under sin, that the promise through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were imprisoned under the law, kept for the faith which was later to be revealed.
24 So the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

 

[UnravelKatharsis]

This is actually the opposite of what God says.





It's always been about faith. The Law was to make us conscious of sin. It's never been a path to salvation.

Shows what I know

 

[triplestation]

have you never heard of kanye west

or nicolas cage

 

[TheAdlerian]

Had he simply waited 2 thousand years all of his works would have been documented in 4K/HDR/120hz and there wouldn't be holy wars and confusion?

Why bestow this kind of wisdom to illiterate people in the d

Spinoza wrote a great book in the 1600s debunking judaism as a narcissistic and vague cult that made up lame stuff that took off like a rocket, via violence and threats.

My guess is that god hasn't spoken yet. That's kind of what Spinoza said and that he never will because all people already get what god wants, so he doesn't have to talk.

 

[Azurro]

Is consciousness? C'mon fam. You can have a hypothetical discussion about anything.

The thing is, the question itself is flawed. The reason why there are so many religions and why groups of people fight over their religion's supremacy is because humans created God in their image, it's part of the group's identity. If it wasn't Christianity/Islam/Buddhism/whatever, it would be something else. God's existence is irrelevant.

 

[UnravelKatharsis]

The thing is, the question itself is flawed. The reason why there are so many religions and why groups of people fight over their religion's supremacy is because humans created God in their image, it's part of the group's identity. If it wasn't Christianity/Islam/Buddhism/whatever, it would be something else. God's existence is irrelevant.

I don't believe in ghosts but I still like to discuss them hypothetically. If someone brings up ghosts to me I don't shut down the conversation by saying "it's irrelevant, ghosts aren't real."

You don't believe there is a god? Great. You have plenty of company, but I don't see why you feel so compelled to let everyone know considering it's off point of the topic.

 

[kingkaiser]

So let’s say that an omnipotent entity actually exists and decides to send a messiah to earth in present days. What kind of person would you think that entity would choose for that purpose? A random YouTube celebrity? An environment activist? The world’s most talented hacker? Or just Kevin Sorbo?

 

[Azurro]

You don't believe there is a god? Great. You have plenty of company, but I don't see why you feel so compelled to let everyone know considering it's off point of the topic.

I mean, it'd be like asking, "what if animals didn't need to eat"? Or, "what if you didn't need to shit"? Fair enough, you can ask the question, but it has little substance and little point to discuss it, since human creativity has created gods as long as we have existed.

I mean, if the question was: "if an actual, real god ever appeared in modern times and asked people to follow it, would people do it?". That'd be more interesting.

 

[UnravelKatharsis]

I mean, it'd be like asking, "what if animals didn't need to eat"? Or, "what if you didn't need to shit"? Fair enough, you can ask the question, but it has little substance and little point to discuss it, since human creativity has created gods as long as we have existed.

I mean, if the question was: "if an actual, real god ever appeared in modern times and asked people to follow it, would people do it?". That'd be more interesting.

You go make that thread then. I don't know why you bother shitting in this one. Is it so hard to ignore a thread you have nothing to add to? Imagine just posting in every thread you think is pointless "this topic is dumb." Save yourself a few characters next time and just say that.

 

[FreedomOfSpeech]

I will never understand why people quote the bible to 'prove' some factoid about jesus.

Obviously the book was designed to make its own case. You are just using the book to prove the book's case. That is silly.

This sentence is true. <-- QED!

 

[showernota]

I will never understand why people quote the bible to 'prove' some factoid about jesus.

Obviously the book was designed to make its own case. You are just using the book to prove the book's case. That is silly.

This sentence is true. <-- QED!

The fact a book was obviously 'designed' over 1,500 years by 40 different authors pointing to Jesus is compelling evidence for proving its case.

 

[BadBurger]

*Me browsing selections in BestBuy*: "Damn, if we had just waited honey we could have gotten The Savior in 4K with HDR for the same price".

 

[Rentahamster]

The fact a book was obviously 'designed' over 1,500 years by 40 different authors pointing to Jesus is compelling evidence for proving its case.

No it isn't.

We have hundreds of authors pointing to Superman. That doesn't mean Superman is real.

40 different authors pointing to Jesus over 1,500 years is evidence that some dude named Jesus may have existed around then. It certainly isn't sufficient evidence that He is divine or the Messiah. That would require much more compelling evidence than mere testimony alone.

 

[lukilladog]

The fact a book was obviously 'designed' over 1,500 years by 40 different authors pointing to Jesus is compelling evidence for proving its case.

The other two abrahamic religions don´t even agree that the old testament points to Jesus. Rabbi Tovia Singer has some very good arguments, check him out on youtube.

 

[showernota]

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

We have hundreds of authors pointing to Superman. That doesn't mean Superman is real.

That’s a bad comparison. Very provocative, though.

40 different authors pointing to Jesus over 1,500 years is evidence that some dude named Jesus may have existed around then. It certainly isn't sufficient evidence that He is divine or the Messiah. That would require much more compelling evidence than mere testimony alone.

32 of those authors lived between 400-1450 years before Jesus entered the world. Evidence of Him being the messiah comes from the OT prophecy He fulfilled. But now we’re back to “it’s only fulfilled because the Bible says He fulfilled it.’

What’s gnarly is that evidence like the OP talks about wouldn’t affect most people’s perspective. We know how this story ends:

Revelation 16:
8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun, and it was given to it to scorch men with fire.
9 Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory.
10 Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom became darkened; and they gnawed their tongues because of pain,
11 and they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores; and they did not repent of their deeds.

EDIT:

The other two abrahamic religions don´t even agree that the old testament points to Jesus. Rabbi Tovia Singer has some very good arguments, check him out on youtube.

Tovia Singer says that Jesus being born of a virgin means He can’t be the messiah, because the actual prophecy is “He will be born of a young woman.”

What kind of goofy prophecy would that be? Don’t get me started on how he butchers Isaiah to play to his majority Muslim audience.

 

[lukilladog]

Tovia Singer says that Jesus being born of a virgin means He can’t be the messiah, because the actual prophecy is “He will be born of a young woman.”

What kind of goofy prophecy would that be? Don’t get me started on how he butchers Isaiah to play to his majority Muslim audience.

That´s what the prophecy says in original masoretic hebrew, young woman (Almah). The Septuagint and therefore the bible got it wrong.

 

[Thurible]

I don't know why G-d chose certain times and certain people. As a practicing Catholic, I've rarely heard anyone talk about revelations or end times and the specific meanings of those passages because it's unknowable.

I'd also say christianity has done pretty well even though it started in age devoid of modern mass media.

 

[showernota]

That´s what the prophecy says in original masoretic hebrew, young woman (Almah).

What is the Hebrew word for virgin, in that case? Is alma ever used to refer to a young married woman, or one who had already given birth? Alma means virgin because a young unmarried woman was a virgin.
Let's just look at it from a "would God say this?" perspective:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
"Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him ‘Immanuel.’"

Which of those would you consider to be "a sign?" Being born is not a sign, it's a prerequisite for life. Tovia's god sounds pretty silly.

EDIT: Let's even look at a verse referencing 'alma.'

Song of Solomon 6:8 There are sixty queens And eighty concubines, And virgins without number.

Song of Solomon 6:8 There are 60 queens and 80 concubines and young women without number.

What is the difference between a concubine and a young woman? I know the difference between a concubine and a virgin.

The Septuagint and therefore the bible got it wrong.

The Septuagint that was written by 72 Jewish scholars 200 years before Jesus was born? Who translated 'alma' as 'parthenos'(virgin), and would be much more qualified than Tovia Singer to know what the meaning of the masoretic text is?

 

[strange headache]

Why bestow this kind of wisdom to illiterate people in the desert?

He should have just sent us his PowerPoint instead of those stupid stone tablets.

 

[sonomamashine]

Why bestow this kind of wisdom to illiterate people in the desert?

It's quit the opposite, people where more intelligent back then.

Why did he create an arch nemesis for himself in the first place?

The same reason he created you to ask these questions and decide for yourself.
This is a TEST and you shall choose what belief / proof you want to pursuit.
Religion is a belief, you yourself believe in something, either science, nature or ..... basically someone (human) wearing an apron or a suit said .... evolution or etc... (whatever you believe in)
whoever clings to someone other than God, he is in him servitude and deified for this other.
You are free to choose what is right and what is not (good, evil) what makes sense and what's not, if you want to worship GOD (the creator) or something else.
If you want to follow evil desires that will lead to deny GOD & the messengers, mock him or turn away from him or if you want to sacrifice those things for GOD.

 

[PleaseDontBanMe]

He should have just sent us his PowerPoint instead of those stupid stone tablets.

he could have sent actual Samsung tablets with infinite charge life

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

Spoiler: awww yeh

Oh dear, now I know the source of this image from that amazing video game anagram thread:

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Not too certain how Mohammed would have gotten away with fucking the nine year old nowadays.

 

[Soodanim]

Do you doubt Socrates existed? Denying the historicity of Jesus is a pretty extreme viewpoint, even among atheists. There is plenty of extra-biblical confirmation of Jesus. Tacitus, Josephus, the Jewish Talmud (you’d think they of all people would avoid that), etc.
Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor, is one of my favorites:

There’s a difference between some bloke named Jesus existing and some bloke named Jesus who was the son of God that went round performing miracles and died to absolve everyone of their sins then came back alive and bamfed out of a cave or however the tale is told.

I will never understand why people quote the bible to 'prove' some factoid about jesus.

Obviously the book was designed to make its own case. You are just using the book to prove the book's case. That is silly.

This sentence is true. <-- QED!

As much as it’s best to avoid going down the path logical fallacies because they have a tendency to derail debate, circular reasoning is all over this thread and I’m not sure who’s convinced by it other than the people posting it.

A good classic one I don’t often seen responded to - Epicurus’ Trilemma:

1. If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
2. If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
3. If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

 

[showernota]

There’s a difference between some bloke named Jesus existing and some bloke named Jesus who was the son of God that went round performing miracles and died to absolve everyone of their sins then came back alive and bamfed out of a cave or however the tale is told.

The post I was responding to was firmly in the Jesus never existed camp.

As much as it’s best to avoid going down the path logical fallacies because they have a tendency to derail debate, circular reasoning is all over this thread and I’m not sure who’s convinced by it other than the people posting it.

A good classic one I don’t often seen responded to - Epicurus’ Trilemma:

1. If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
2. If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
3. If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

That's a very evil-focused thought exercise.

The concept of evil introduces a moral absolute, otherwise nothing could be considered evil. Morals aren't physical, they are not tangible, where do they come from? Humanism/materialism/Atheism can't resolve this.

Can you confirm God is not willing, does not, or cannot prevent evil? The world could be a much worse place, there is really no barometer for how bad life could really be. The reverse of this thought experiment is God should control everything, which would include everyone. Would it make more sense if God were a puppetmaster, and we were simply automatons in a perfect world? That would be a very unsettling kind of god. Humans have free will, and are sinful by nature.

Does 'evil' exist, or is 'evil' the absence of good? Would you say the hole in a doughnut exists, or is it just the absence of doughnut? The same could be said for a shadow and light. Evil is not a thing or a force, it is an absence of good. Everything created by God is good, evil is just the absence of good. I'm sure most will disagree, but there is logic to this.

Mankind's sinful nature causes that absence of good, the appearance of evil. Mankind has free will, otherwise there would be no reason for us to exist. If we all trusted Jesus as our savior and followed God there would be much more good.

 

[strange headache]

he could have sent actual Samsung tablets with infinite charge life

 

[Rickyiez]

It's just a successful Multilevel Marketing scheme

 

[ArtemisClydeFrog]

Not too certain how Mohammed would have gotten away with fucking the nine year old nowadays.

Same with Jesus' mom sayin she didn't have unprotected sex with multiple people and then just magically got pregnant. Both stories are fucking ridiculous.

 

[Ten_Fold]

Probably didn’t think we would be this stupid as a society.

 

[nkarafo]

That's the challenge you're presented with. God set the stage. Now you must perform. You will be judged.

This is a TEST

I love how god is supposedly an all knowing entity who knows everything, including everyone's future, down to every microsecond of their future lives.

But he still needs you to "perform" and "test" you so you can prove yourself to him... Even though we already established that god already knows the results beforehand.


The whole concept of "testing" is completely human. Humans aren't all-knowing beings. So in order for a human to know something, they have to try/test/research. The concept of testing a thing, to prove something about it, is useful only to someone who seeks knowledge about that thing. Why would god, who already possess all knowledge, need to test anything at all?

Basically, your fate is sealed before you are even born. Whether you end up in hell or heaven, god already knows beforehand and you can't do anything to change it, because that would mean you can prove god wrong. And we all know god can't be wrong. So what's the point of this whole shitshow again? Especially from god's own perspective?

This is one of the many contradictions of religion. They can't even follow the rules of their own fiction.

 

[lukilladog]

What is the Hebrew word for virgin, in that case? Is alma ever used to refer to a young married woman, or one who had already given birth? Alma means virgin because a young unmarried woman was a virgin.
Let's just look at it from a "would God say this?" perspective:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
"Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him ‘Immanuel.’"

Which of those would you consider to be "a sign?" Being born is not a sign, it's a prerequisite for life. Tovia's god sounds pretty silly.

EDIT: Let's even look at a verse referencing 'alma.'



What is the difference between a concubine and a young woman? I know the difference between a concubine and a virgin.


The Septuagint that was written by 72 Jewish scholars 200 years before Jesus was born? Who translated 'alma' as 'parthenos'(virgin), and would be much more qualified than Tovia Singer to know what the meaning of the masoretic text is?

"despite its importance to the account of the virgin birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, scholars agree that it has nothing to do with virginity.[2]"

Almah - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As for those 72 Jewish scholars, that´s just a myth imo.