For Christians, define god

[Learner]

As an atheist, I find the Bible defines God. God is good. God is merciful, God is just. God is fair. God is compassionate. God is a being with will, intelligence, and on and on. The basics as defined by the Bible. Then we can discuss if God lives up to his claimed attributes and so on.

A definition that suits me. Well spotted.

 

[Lion IRC]

People faking Christianity ?

...I never did believe those abnormally low atheists in prison stats.

Do you also believe the, "there are no atheists in foxholes", line too?

Read what I said.
I didn't believe those stats - meaning I agree that atheists do fake it.
Of course there are atheists in foxholes. Communist regimes think atheists make great soldiers.

I hear there's even closet atheists hiding in the clergy. Imagine all the horrible things they must have seen.

 

[Jobar]

Refusing to give strong, specific answers to questions that no one honestly has an answer to, does not make me less honest than someone who is selling you some bill of goods about the lot.

If no one can answer questions about God, why believe in Him?

What's the point of believing a mystery?

How can you know that *you* haven't been sold some bill of goods, if you do so believe?

If someone said they were Christian and didn't believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ they really aren't Christian.

There probably are exceptions but if you can't accept that definition then why bother attempting to figure out what defines Christians?

Why bother in the first place?

I don't know, why?

Er- so you can all make sure you haven't been sold a bill of goods?

If God is a mystery, you can't know if you're worshiping something benevolent, malevolent- or non-existent.

 

[Jobar]

A failure to move towards consensus is generally diagnostic of an erroneous hypothesis. If any of the religions or sects were based in fact, that sect would tend to dominate over time, if only because their expectations about the best course of action in any given circumstances would tend to be dashed less often than those of their heretical brethren.

Religions look exactly as we might predict them to look under the hypothesis that no gods exist outside fiction. They look nothing like we would predict under the hypothesis that there is a single god, or even a most powerful god amongst a pantheon.

Observed reality is consistent with atheism, or with a highly diverse polytheism of almost powerless small gods who are in constant competition for influence on reality. The latter is needlessly unparsimonious, and suffers from being almost universally disbelieved, which is a major blow against the likelihood of any religion's being non-fictional.

Just so. Rather than converging on a common truth, religion diverges, constantly splitting off new sects.

 

[Jobar]

Parallel to the above (Rhea's post) and to some extent ,when atheists say to those who do not believe in certain things in the bible. You can often get the remark: "How can you be Christian and not believe what it says in the bible?" Some Christians would agree with the atheists.

Shouldn't affect the Gospel itself or Jesus and the teachings ...which IS the main thing!

But it does. The Bible says Jesus taught contradictory things. Do you resist not evil, or do you sell your cloak and buy a sword? Which is truth?

The Gospel is interpreted differently by every single Christian, or so it seems to me. And that divergence isn't what one would expect, given an all-powerful and merciful God. However, as bilby and others point out, it *is* what you'd expect if the Christian faith is empty, and no God exists to fulfill it.

 

[Learner]

But it does. The Bible says Jesus taught contradictory things. Do you resist not evil, or do you sell your cloak and buy a sword? Which is truth?

Jobar old chum, is that really a contradiction ?

The Gospel is interpreted differently by every single Christian, or so it seems to me. And that divergence isn't what one would expect, given an all-powerful and merciful God. However, as bilby and others point out, it *is* what you'd expect if the Christian faith is empty, and no God exists to fulfill it.

True, people interpret diffrently like you have in the first quote. Christians finding it difficult trying to absorb everything need only focus on the main factor e.g. The two greatest commandments in which I'm sure that Jesus knew there'd be many interpretations and distortions so to speak.

Another good thing is that Christians are "learning" from each other, (those who have ears to llisten) in short: Many Christians from all the various areas in Christianiity; interprets something he discovers when read in which another didn't see before, because all Christians individuals are all looking from different angles.

The bible will reveal itself as the saying goes and conceptual contexts newly discovered by "many" looking from different angles while adding to the much better understanding on the whole, which is how the Gospel truth is gained.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The bible will reveal itself as the saying goes and contexts newly discovered by "many" looking from different angles while adding to the better understanding, is how the Gospel truth is gained.

And the discussion of these different angles. Is that building a consensus? Are congregations merging as people come to perceive the REAL Christain attitude on any of today's topics impacted by religious views?

Real simple, is the creationist interpretation of an Old Earth or New Earth gaining dominance in 'Christainity?'

 

[Learner]

The bible will reveal itself as the saying goes and contexts newly discovered by "many" looking from different angles while adding to the better understanding, is how the Gospel truth is gained.

And the discussion of these different angles. Is that building a consensus? Are congregations merging as people come to perceive the REAL Christain attitude on any of today's topics impacted by religious views?

Real simple, is the creationist interpretation of an Old Earth or New Earth gaining dominance in 'Christainity?'

It becomes clearer to all, as to what makes better "sense" but updating is also running parallel with science and new discoveries or correcting interpretations of data or changing theories. . Give it a little more time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The bible will reveal itself as the saying goes and contexts newly discovered by "many" looking from different angles while adding to the better understanding, is how the Gospel truth is gained.

And the discussion of these different angles. Is that building a consensus? Are congregations merging as people come to perceive the REAL Christain attitude on any of today's topics impacted by religious views?

Real simple, is the creationist interpretation of an Old Earth or New Earth gaining dominance in 'Christainity?'

It becomes clearer to all as to what makes "sense" but its also running parallel with science and new discoveries or correcting interpretations of data. Give it a little more time.

Time?
It's been just short of 2000 years, according to the Faithful. 2000 years of sects, schisms, splitters, heresologists, reformations, up to three Popes at one time, and scientists being suppressed for disagreeing with dogma.

God didn't know that these scientific discoveries were coming? Science isn't discovering the universe that your God created in the first place?

So, if bibl study is NOT building a consensus (yet), then what drives you to say it is becoming clearer?

Because it looks like that's just wishful thinking on your part, and the usual apologist IOU for supporting documentation of confident claims.

 

[Learner]

Time?
It's been just short of 2000 years, according to the Faithful. 2000 years of sects, schisms, splitters, heresologists, reformations, up to three Popes at one time, and scientists being suppressed for disagreeing with dogma.

Yes there were disageements (as today) but funny enough, those against Jesus and the church etc wouldn't know each interpretation of texs i.e. NOT sure which texts to erase or corrupt that would have important conceptual meanings and truth ,especially for the future generations.

Obviously can't be corrupted today. "Copies of copies of copies are all about".

God didn't know that these scientific discoveries were coming? Science isn't discovering the universe that your God created in the first place?

Science in this regard would be better suited for you atheists (those who are really curious not just being lazy) to see if there are such things to be discovered.

So, if bibl study is NOT building a consensus (yet), then what drives you to say it is becoming clearer?

Because it looks like that's just wishful thinking on your part, and the usual apologist IOU for supporting documentation of confident claims.

Still putting us all in the Church building I see.

 

[Keith&Co.]

God didn't know that these scientific discoveries were coming? Science isn't discovering the universe that your God created in the first place?

Science in this regard would be better suited for you atheists (those who are really curious not just being lazy) to see if there are such things to be discovered.

Yes, you said that scientific discoveries compete with this 'coming together' you claim from growing biblical study.

Sounds like an excuse.

So, if bibl study is NOT building a consensus (yet), then what drives you to say it is becoming clearer?
Because it looks like that's just wishful thinking on your part, and the usual apologist IOU for supporting documentation of confident claims.

Still putting us all in the Church building I see.

HuH?

YOU said that the faithful are being brought together by increased understanding of God's word. That's not what I think history shows. You won't identify what you see that supports your claim. What this has to do with 'the church building' is anyone's guess.

 

[Politesse]

If no one can answer questions about God, why believe in Him?

What's the point of believing a mystery?

How can you know that *you* haven't been sold some bill of goods, if you do so believe?

What is the "point" of believing anything? Whatever you've been convinced of, you've been convinced of. Religion is not an skymall catalog. I like to think that I would never be so foolish as to assume that I haven't been sold a bill of goods. Skepticism is critically important to clear thinking.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If no one can answer questions about God, why believe in Him?

What's the point of believing a mystery?

How can you know that *you* haven't been sold some bill of goods, if you do so believe?

What is the "point" of believing anything? Whatever you've been convinced of, you've been convinced of. Religion is not an skymall catalog. I like to think that I would never be so foolish as to assume that I haven't been sold a bill of goods. Skepticism is critically important to clear thinking.

But skepticism involves analyzing the rationale behind what you've been convinced of and understanding why it is that you find it convincing, so that you can have better confidence that your reasoning in becoming convinced was sound. The "point" in believing anything is the knowledge that you have a good reason to assume that your beliefs are an accurate reflection of reality.

 

[Politesse]

If no one can answer questions about God, why believe in Him?

What's the point of believing a mystery?

How can you know that *you* haven't been sold some bill of goods, if you do so believe?

What is the "point" of believing anything? Whatever you've been convinced of, you've been convinced of. Religion is not an skymall catalog. I like to think that I would never be so foolish as to assume that I haven't been sold a bill of goods. Skepticism is critically important to clear thinking.

But skepticism involves analyzing the rationale behind what you've been convinced of and understanding why it is that you find it convincing, so that you can have better confidence that your reasoning in becoming convinced was sound. The "point" in believing anything is the knowledge that you have a good reason to assume that your beliefs are an accurate reflection of reality.

Well, I agree with that. Hence my agnosticism about most things religious.

 

[Rhea]

Lion referenced this thread in another thread and claimed that he has answered the prompt, "Christians, define god"

Quote - wait! What do you mean by the word God?

Hey, yeah - you never did say.

Yeah - I did
I said I use the atheist definition of God
(Please tell me you know what it is you say doesn't exit. Please tell me you don't go round rejecting evidence for God without knowing what you mean by God. Please don't tell me your disbelief is nothing more than ignorance.)

Well of course, since there are hundreds of millions of atheists, and they obviously don’t all think the same (you didn’t think they did, do you?!) and they don’t have a holy book, which one are you using? You can take your answer to that other thread.

AS we can see from the thread on atheists describing what they don’t believe in, including Keith’s helpful list of explicitly named gods, here, there are hundreds of gods that atheists don’t believe in.



Therefore, we have logically concluded that Lion believes in all of them.
And indeed, from his first post on page one of this thread, he describes all the god(dess)(es) in his description of the god he believes in:

1. Gender neutral but typically presents attributes of maleness (if that matters).
2. Didn't come from anywhere.
3. "Out of" nothing. (It's a quantum thingy)
4. Yes. He makes rules. (Eg. Gravity has no free will. God does.)
5. Yes. Logos.
6. No. God isn't a machine you can dismantle

So we have our answer for one Christian, he defines “God” as any god ever described, and he believes in all the gods that anyone has ever described – including the gods that his god described and tells him to not believe in.

…
Lion, if I’m wrong, and I could be since I’m just going on a very sparse, timorous and ambiguous and set of words that you’ve chosen to give as reply, please feel free to actually describe your god the way you would describe him in a way that doesn’t include all of the gods that you do NOT believe are gods, if there are any. You may wish to avoid ambiguity going forward.

 

[Lion IRC]

If a Native American refers to a sky spirit, I know Who they mean.
Aborigines refer to Altjira/Dirawong/Banaitja - I know Who they mean.
Muslims (Allah) and Jews (YHWH) and Christians have some major differences in doctrine but if you put all three side by side and compare/contrast with atheism, then they look virtually indistinguishable. Practically identical.

You can go ahead and run that trope about atheists being people who believe in one less God than Christians. But I don't need to debunk every other religion and deity. That's your job.
There's a LOT!!! You'd better get cracking. Time is short.

If even just one minute tenet or claim of any religion is even partially true, then atheism is 100% false. So I'll defend theism versus atheism until such time as you concede (arguendo) that at least one of the blind men below is experiencing some sort of evidence for theism.

 

[Angry Floof]

Well, that's convenient! I thought you were a Christian, though. Are you now a pantheist or something? Because Christians absolutely do not think other religions' gods are the God of the Bible. They are considered false gods. Heretic!

But I imagine a lot of Hindus would be happy that you agree with them that their gods are God.

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't think of myself as being one of those blind men feeling the 'elephant'

 

[Angry Floof]

I don't think of myself as being one of those blind men feeling the 'elephant'

So then you haven't actually answered the question with your definition of God. You've given what seems like it might make more intellectual or logical sense than the God of the Bible.

So what is your definition of God?

 

[bigfield]

I don't think of myself as being one of those blind men feeling the 'elephant'

Neither does any other theist, I imagine.

A bit like this:

https://www.xkcd.com/610/