Open Minded Agnostic Atheist

[RoccoR]

RE: Open Minded Agnostic Atheist
Meriweather, sealybobo, et al,

BLUF: In the Abrahamic Religions, All these various Supernaturals Entities are some sort of Celestrial Emissary crafted by the Supreme Being. with the exception of the Holy Ghost, which is a tripartite identity of the Supreme Being.
(Gen. 8:1; Amos 4:13; Isa. 40:7; Ps. 104[103]:4)

Spirits don't make formal presentations as an apparition, but rather as a presence as the breath of the Supreme Being.
Angels are a separate and distinct creation of the Supreme Being, but not an element of the tripartite identity.

Doesnt the Bible teach you not to lie? You’re just lying to yourself now. You know that you believe you are going to live for all eternity. That’s a god my friend.

An eternal life for a spirit is not a God. For example, angels are spirits, and the Bible defines them more as messengers than a God. Somewhere in the Bible it says mankind are a little lower than the angels.

Trust me or not as you please, but there is more to God than just His eternal existence. What He has, I have not.

According to THE NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY [Volume 1, Originally published in German under the title, THEOLOGISCHES BEGRIFFSLEXIKON ZUM NEUEN TESTAMENT* pp 101] there are two contrasting views of ANGELs in the Old Testiment.

​

(a) There are angels who are heavenly beings, members of Yahweh's court, who serve and praise him (Job 1 :6; cf. Isa. 6:2f.).​

​

(b) We should distinguish these from the angel of Yahweh. He is a heavenly being given a particular task by Yahweh, behind whom the angel's personality entirely disappears. Hence it is wrong for the one to whom the angel has appeared to try and fathom his nature (-- Name) (cf. Jdg. 13:17 f.). The angel of Yahweh appears almost always to help either Israel or an individual. He is virtually a hypostatic appearance of Yahweh, the personified help of God for Israel (Exod. 14: 19; Num. 22: 22; Jdg. 6 :11-24; 2 Ki. 1: 3 f.)​

FOOTNOTE
_________________________
* © 1967,1969,1971 by Theologischer Verlag Rolf Brockhaus, Wuppertal. English Language edition copyright © 1975, The Zondervan Corporation Grand Rapids, Michigan, U.S.A. and The Paternoster Press, Ltd. Exeter, Devon, U.K.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[sealybobo]

Ah so you don’t really believe Jesus walked on water or that Mary was a Virgin?

My personal belief is that there is good reason to believe Mary was a virgin. There are two thoughts about Jesus walking on water. There are places on the Sea of Galilee where the shoreline, also dotted with reeds, makes it possible for someone to walk out into the sea. Especially if mist is present, it can give an impression of walking on water. Or, Jesus may have walked on water. I let it go at that, because the lesson and theme of the story is not walking on water, but about faith.

I worked on faith a lot as a child. I was determined to move one of the small mountains in Nevada--one no one would ever miss. It took me years to figure out that wasn't the kind of mountain faith moved. And, by the way, that wasn't my greatest misunderstanding. Jesus had some harsh things to say about Scribes, so imagine my horror when I was awarded the Scribe and Pen Award for something I had written back in high school.

The Bible is a tricky place, which is why I am such a strong advocate of studying the languages, history, and cultures of Biblical times. It really does lend one a much different perspective.

You didn’t work on faith you always had faith. Remember you said you would hate it if you ever had any doubt?

So if anything you had too much faith as a kid. You certainly didn’t struggle with believing. And that’s why today you so firmly believe. You just no longer believe you can literally move mountains.

You seem to have a lot of practice answering atheists. Like some preachers I’ve met. They had a canned answer for everything. None of it ever convinced me though. I could tell I was talking to someone who doesn’t have an open mind. Maybe even call it brainwashed

 

[sealybobo]

RE: Open Minded Agnostic Atheist
Meriweather, sealybobo, et al,

BLUF: In the Abrahamic Religions, All these various Supernaturals Entities are some sort of Celestrial Emissary crafted by the Supreme Being. with the exception of the Holy Ghost, which is a tripartite identity of the Supreme Being.
(Gen. 8:1; Amos 4:13; Isa. 40:7; Ps. 104[103]:4)

Spirits don't make formal presentations as an apparition, but rather as a presence as the breath of the Supreme Being.
Angels are a separate and distinct creation of the Supreme Being, but not an element of the tripartite identity.

Doesnt the Bible teach you not to lie? You’re just lying to yourself now. You know that you believe you are going to live for all eternity. That’s a god my friend.

An eternal life for a spirit is not a God. For example, angels are spirits, and the Bible defines them more as messengers than a God. Somewhere in the Bible it says mankind are a little lower than the angels.

Trust me or not as you please, but there is more to God than just His eternal existence. What He has, I have not.

According to THE NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY [Volume 1, Originally published in German under the title, THEOLOGISCHES BEGRIFFSLEXIKON ZUM NEUEN TESTAMENT* pp 101] there are two contrasting views of ANGELs in the Old Testiment.

​

(a) There are angels who are heavenly beings, members of Yahweh's court, who serve and praise him (Job 1 :6; cf. Isa. 6:2f.).​

​

(b) We should distinguish these from the angel of Yahweh. He is a heavenly being given a particular task by Yahweh, behind whom the angel's personality entirely disappears. Hence it is wrong for the one to whom the angel has appeared to try and fathom his nature (-- Name) (cf. Jdg. 13:17 f.). The angel of Yahweh appears almost always to help either Israel or an individual. He is virtually a hypostatic appearance of Yahweh, the personified help of God for Israel (Exod. 14: 19; Num. 22: 22; Jdg. 6 :11-24; 2 Ki. 1: 3 f.)​

FOOTNOTE
_________________________
* © 1967,1969,1971 by Theologischer Verlag Rolf Brockhaus, Wuppertal. English Language edition copyright © 1975, The Zondervan Corporation Grand Rapids, Michigan, U.S.A. and The Paternoster Press, Ltd. Exeter, Devon, U.K.

Most Respectfully,
R

Do some angels have a better life than others? Sounds like god has house slaves and field slaves.

 

[Meriweather]

Of course a made up religion is going to say bless those who believe without seeing. Sad.

Not really. Observing is another way.

 

[Meriweather]

Where you will be a Demi god

Not that I have ever heard. Out of curiosity, where did you pick up that notion?

 

[Meriweather]

i think you know what I mean

You give me way too much credit. Seriously, I haven't a clue.

 

[Meriweather]

Angels are gods too. Like hera Zeus and Aphrodite

Quite unlike them.

 

[Meriweather]

Remember you said you would hate it if you ever had any doubt?

Not only do I not remember it, it doesn't sound like something I would say. Can you refer me to the post?

 

[Meriweather]

So if anything you had too much faith as a kid. You certainly didn’t struggle with believing. And that’s why today you so firmly believe. You just no longer believe you can literally move mountains.

Actually, as a kid--and like most kids--I was testing what I was learning. It appears where we differ is that when something did not work as I expected, I went to work on discovering why not. I have a feeling you simply gave it up as a lost cause.

 

[Meriweather]

None of it ever convinced me though. I could tell I was talking to someone who doesn’t have an open mind. Maybe even call it brainwashed

Ah, I see. If someone has an actual understanding of some atheists and atheism, it is because they do not have an open mind. How hard to you think it is to understand a lack of belief? It takes brainwashing to understand a lack of belief? How silly.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

I am totally open to the idea that god is real I just don’t believe any religions are real. I like debating with theists who agree religions are man made up. I agree the universe and this planet are amazing. And it seems like it’s too perfect and there has to be some higher power. But we know so little still. Maybe there are other universes? Maybe there was is or will be life around every star eventually. Maybe not as advance as us but maybe more. And maybe the spirit lives on forever after you die. Just seems like wishful thinking to me. But I hope so. These are unknowable things.

So far I see no evidence of god and I don’t believe one exists. Everything can be explained scientifically. What can’t, may never be known. Those gaps aren’t god.

Most people in England may tick the Church of England/ Catholic box on the census, but its really just the club we where born into.
I think most people if pushed would declare themselves either agnostlc if not atheist.

Wholly believe in the christian teaching, but I go on quantum probability not relative certainty. The abrahamic concept of an omnipotent monolithic being as God in Judaism, Christianity & Islam I find totally improbable. Eastern polytheist religion particularly Taoism I find far more convincing.
I do not however go along with the so called evolutionists Universe by accident theory. Far too much evidence of intelligent design to my mind!

I believe that there is some form of intelligent energy I.E. that permeates the universe. In its perfect state in a zero size multidimensional pre big bang quantum state it is perfect. Post big bang to cover the trillions of square miles of relative space it is diluted down to a mathematical intelligence.
So God to my mind is a form of Intelligent Energy.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Open Minded Agnostic Atheist
sealybobo, et al,

BLUF: The question assumes some personal characteristics, not in evidence, in both the Angelic entities and the Supreme Being.

Do some angels have a better life than others? Sounds like god has house slaves and field slaves.

(COMMENT)

The issue becomes, on what knowledge to you assign personal characteristics on these Supernaturals Entities, Celestrial Emissary, and for that matter, the Supreme Being. Slaves are usually identified by the outside observer as legal property (human capital) of another -- forced to do the masters bidding.

In classic teachings, the Supreme Being is endowed with the powers of the Universe as the creator of all things natural and supernatural. Classically the Supreme Being is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent in space and time. What would such a Supreme Being need slaves? It created the universe, and since it is all-powerful, it could just snap anything in or out of existence.

We humans generally assign human characteristics to such supernatural entities. But that his just illogical. Why would an all-powerful entity be concerned with such things? If anything, humanity is a set of slaves that must ritualistically pay homage to it. Does that make sense at all? If the Supreme Being created all of humanity, strengths, weaknesses, and intellectual capacity. And since the Supreme Being knows everything the Supreme Being must know at the time of creation, the human-created is going to make mistakes. So either the Supreme Being is incapable of making perfect humans. This means either the Supreme Being has limits and is not perfect itself. That opens the possibility that all the errors in the creation of all things is possible.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I do not however go along with the so called evolutionists Universe by accident theory.

That doesn't make any sense. The Theory of Evolution only describes how the diversity of species we observe today and in the fossil record arose from a single-celled, common ancestor. (Evolution itself is a fact)

"Accident"

This also does not make sense. Accidents don't happen in deterministic systems. When water approaches a waterfall, it doesn't then fall over the waterfall "by accident". The earth doesn't revolve about the sun "by accident".

 

[Grumblenuts]

So either the Supreme Being is incapable of making perfect humans. This means either the Supreme Being has limits and is not perfect itself. That opens the possibility that all the errors in the creation of all things is possible.

So either... or ?
...

Okay, I gather you meant more like the following:

Being perfect, a Supreme Being would clearly not need slaves. It could just snap anything in or out of existence.

We humans generally assign human characteristics to such supernatural entities. But that is just illogical. Why would an all-powerful entity be concerned with such things? If anything, humanity is a set of slaves that must ritualistically pay homage to it. Does that make sense at all?

The rest is too unclear to even guess and seems like self-distraction anyway. Yes, of course it makes some sense. No, it does not make complete sense. What you're trying to ultimately say remains unclear. You appear to be arguing that any Supreme Being is perfect by definition (specification?). So everything they do can be presumed intentional, including whatever we lowly humans may consider imperfections. First problem I see with that is presuming us capable of understanding perfection in the first place. Appears a straw man ahead of a confused horse with a whip sort of thing

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

I do not however go along with the so called evolutionists Universe by accident theory.

That doesn't make any sense. The Theory of Evolution only describes how the diversity of species we observe today and in the fossil record arose from a single-celled, common ancestor. (Evolution itself is a fact)

"Accident"

This also does not make sense. Accidents don't happen in deterministic systems. When water approaches a waterfall, it doesn't then fall over the waterfall "by accident". The earth doesn't revolve about the sun "by accident".

As I've already said - I DO NOT believe in a universe by accident!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I do not however go along with the so called evolutionists Universe by accident theory.

That doesn't make any sense. The Theory of Evolution only describes how the diversity of species we observe today and in the fossil record arose from a single-celled, common ancestor. (Evolution itself is a fact)

"Accident"

This also does not make sense. Accidents don't happen in deterministic systems. When water approaches a waterfall, it doesn't then fall over the waterfall "by accident". The earth doesn't revolve about the sun "by accident".

As I've already said - I DO NOT believe in a universe by accident!

Okay, but neither does anyone else. Deterministic events are not accidents.

 

[sealybobo]

Where you will be a Demi god

Not that I have ever heard. Out of curiosity, where did you pick up that notion?

It's a realization that us atheists have when contemplating if your religion or any other religion is true. You christians claim that when your earthly body expires that your sour lives on for all eternity and never gets sick, sad or mad. Where did I get this idea? Christians showed me in the bible where it says you are gods after you die.

Of course it didn't say you will be gods when you die because the story says there is only one god. Only problem is you all become gods when you die. You move on to a rhelm where you never get sick old or angry. If that's not a god what is? Maybe you aren't GOD but you are a god. Small g.

 

[sealybobo]

Of course a made up religion is going to say bless those who believe without seeing. Sad.

Not really. Observing is another way.

Think about it. If your religion ultimately can't prove all the impossible things it claims then of course this religion is going to reward people who believe the unbelievable. Of course it would say , "blessed are those who believe without seeing"

 

[Grumblenuts]

I do not however go along with the so called evolutionists Universe by accident theory.

That doesn't make any sense. The Theory of Evolution only describes how the diversity of species we observe today and in the fossil record arose from a single-celled, common ancestor. (Evolution itself is a fact)

"Accident"

This also does not make sense. Accidents don't happen in deterministic systems. When water approaches a waterfall, it doesn't then fall over the waterfall "by accident". The earth doesn't revolve about the sun "by accident".

As I've already said - I DO NOT believe in a universe by accident!

Okay, but neither does anyone else. Deterministic events are not accidents.

For reference:

determinism

NOUN
Philosophy

• The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.
  ‘Such a view reconciles free will not with determinism but with the highly plausible thesis of universal event causation.’

I don't think anyone here is arguing for absolute determinism, "universal event causation," or against at least some free will. I think Fort Fun is arguing that whether any believe there was a single, original, deterministic "creation event" or not, no one has seriously been arguing that "evolution" was involved. Perhaps us returning that term or "evolve" in sarcastic response may have led to some confusion.

 

[sealybobo]

Remember you said you would hate it if you ever had any doubt?

Not only do I not remember it, it doesn't sound like something I would say. Can you refer me to the post?

So you went through a period where you doubted the jesus myth? It doesn't matter because ultimately you decided to put aside logic reason and facts and instead you have completely cherry picked from Christianity. What is unbelievable, you say it's just an allegory. What you can explain away with Allegories., you do. And what you can't explain,. you say is just a story meant to derive a message. Trust me. I know more about what you are doing than you do. you're doing it because you've been programmed to do it. I have seen through your bs and realize your religion is no more real than any of the other ones and we all know all the others are man made up right?