Is Satan being present in many places at once Biblical?

[Jarhyn]

I don't get this 'outside of time' idea. Time is relative and so flows at different rates, but being outside of time as in 'no time' implies that nothing happens, no events, no thoughts, no actions because all of these take time and are time.

Important thing here, and I think it bears observation: having some dimension along which there is a single direction of change that is not perpendicular to the single dimension of mono-directional change we experience is entirely possible.

The problem is that some people have a very weak understanding of what "time" is, or what makes some dimension "temporal".

For an example, yet again, look at the simulation/host boundary.

I am not strictly bound by simulation time. I can wind the simulation forward, I can restore it back to a previous state. I am outside of simulation time because I can play it back and forth like a tape in a drive, it's "time" is to me merely "location".

Being "outside of time" doesn't mean there is no time dimension for the agent, it just means that the time dimension of the observer being invoked is more a "locational" dimension for the entity being observed.

Indeed. From a higer dimensional perspective, spacetime is just a four-dimensional block of stuff that never changes. The future isn't known to an observer embedded in the block, but then, such observers don't even agree on which parts of the block are "future" and which are "past".

This is an interesting way to think about time, but from a religious perspective it is of little value; A posited observer (or even creator) in the form of a supra-dimensional intelligence is nothing like the Gods proposed by any major religion, and does nothing to help answer the question of origins - even if a higher dimensional being made the four dimensional block universe, we still need to understand the origins of that higher dimensional being - the question isn't being adressed, it's just kicking the can down the road.

Well, I think that's more a function of asking bad questions. "Why is there something" is not a useful question. There is no fundamental "why" to something like "math", it just is, such that it is.

Even so, I am going to dispute your claim that simulation creators are "nothing like" the proposed religious gods. Religions are just the result of people thinking about the simulation/host divide without having a simulation/host divide to directly observe.

Indeed, such creators have omnipotence after a fashion (through direct memory access), and omniscience too (also through direct memory access). These are limited, interestingly, by the same things that limit us: they cannot yet observe a location that has not been generated within the system any more than we can, so if they haven't already calculated our future in the way the system calculated its future, they can't know it any more than we do (excepting scripted events, but even the event triggering event is going to be impossible to predict without simply observing it as it is).

I could, for instance (and have) engaged in thought experiments wherein i "play the part of a hypothetical creator of a hypothetical universe" in such a way the cosmology actually resembles the christian cosmology well enough.

Moreover, the concerns philosophically dealt with by observations about that boundary inform exactly the discussions religious folks wish to have in terms of ie, Pascal's Wager.

 

[DBT]

I don't get this 'outside of time' idea. Time is relative and so flows at different rates, but being outside of time as in 'no time' implies that nothing happens, no events, no thoughts, no actions because all of these take time and are time.

Important thing here, and I think it bears observation: having some dimension along which there is a single direction of change that is not perpendicular to the single dimension of mono-directional change we experience is entirely possible.

The problem is that some people have a very weak understanding of what "time" is, or what makes some dimension "temporal".

For an example, yet again, look at the simulation/host boundary.

I am not strictly bound by simulation time. I can wind the simulation forward, I can restore it back to a previous state. I am outside of simulation time because I can play it back and forth like a tape in a drive, it's "time" is to me merely "location".

Being "outside of time" doesn't mean there is no time dimension for the agent, it just means that the time dimension of the observer being invoked is more a "locational" dimension for the entity being observed.

Indeed. From a higer dimensional perspective, spacetime is just a four-dimensional block of stuff that never changes. The future isn't known to an observer embedded in the block, but then, such observers don't even agree on which parts of the block are "future" and which are "past".

This is an interesting way to think about time, but from a religious perspective it is of little value; A posited observer (or even creator) in the form of a supra-dimensional intelligence is nothing like the Gods proposed by any major religion, and does nothing to help answer the question of origins - even if a higher dimensional being made the four dimensional block universe, we still need to understand the origins of that higher dimensional being - the question isn't being adressed, it's just kicking the can down the road.

But if a higher dimensional being is able to observe and act outside of the block universe, they have their own time continuum and are as bound by their own time flow rate conditions as the inhabitants of the block time universe, as just another layer of relativity?

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't get this 'outside of time' idea. Time is relative and so flows at different rates, but being outside of time as in 'no time' implies that nothing happens, no events, no thoughts, no actions because all of these take time and are time.

Important thing here, and I think it bears observation: having some dimension along which there is a single direction of change that is not perpendicular to the single dimension of mono-directional change we experience is entirely possible.

The problem is that some people have a very weak understanding of what "time" is, or what makes some dimension "temporal".

For an example, yet again, look at the simulation/host boundary.

I am not strictly bound by simulation time. I can wind the simulation forward, I can restore it back to a previous state. I am outside of simulation time because I can play it back and forth like a tape in a drive, it's "time" is to me merely "location".

Being "outside of time" doesn't mean there is no time dimension for the agent, it just means that the time dimension of the observer being invoked is more a "locational" dimension for the entity being observed.

Indeed. From a higer dimensional perspective, spacetime is just a four-dimensional block of stuff that never changes. The future isn't known to an observer embedded in the block, but then, such observers don't even agree on which parts of the block are "future" and which are "past".

This is an interesting way to think about time, but from a religious perspective it is of little value; A posited observer (or even creator) in the form of a supra-dimensional intelligence is nothing like the Gods proposed by any major religion, and does nothing to help answer the question of origins - even if a higher dimensional being made the four dimensional block universe, we still need to understand the origins of that higher dimensional being - the question isn't being adressed, it's just kicking the can down the road.

But if a higher dimensional being is able to observe and act outside of the block universe, they have their own time continuum and are as bound by their own time flow rate conditions as the inhabitants of the block time universe, as just another layer of relativity?

Was there actually a question in there?

 

[DBT]

I don't get this 'outside of time' idea. Time is relative and so flows at different rates, but being outside of time as in 'no time' implies that nothing happens, no events, no thoughts, no actions because all of these take time and are time.

Important thing here, and I think it bears observation: having some dimension along which there is a single direction of change that is not perpendicular to the single dimension of mono-directional change we experience is entirely possible.

The problem is that some people have a very weak understanding of what "time" is, or what makes some dimension "temporal".

For an example, yet again, look at the simulation/host boundary.

I am not strictly bound by simulation time. I can wind the simulation forward, I can restore it back to a previous state. I am outside of simulation time because I can play it back and forth like a tape in a drive, it's "time" is to me merely "location".

Being "outside of time" doesn't mean there is no time dimension for the agent, it just means that the time dimension of the observer being invoked is more a "locational" dimension for the entity being observed.

Indeed. From a higer dimensional perspective, spacetime is just a four-dimensional block of stuff that never changes. The future isn't known to an observer embedded in the block, but then, such observers don't even agree on which parts of the block are "future" and which are "past".

This is an interesting way to think about time, but from a religious perspective it is of little value; A posited observer (or even creator) in the form of a supra-dimensional intelligence is nothing like the Gods proposed by any major religion, and does nothing to help answer the question of origins - even if a higher dimensional being made the four dimensional block universe, we still need to understand the origins of that higher dimensional being - the question isn't being adressed, it's just kicking the can down the road.

But if a higher dimensional being is able to observe and act outside of the block universe, they have their own time continuum and are as bound by their own time flow rate conditions as the inhabitants of the block time universe, as just another layer of relativity?

Was there actually a question in there?

An invitation to argue against what I said. That an observer, be they imbedded within a block universe or outside it, is experiencing time as a local, relative rate of change.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't get this 'outside of time' idea. Time is relative and so flows at different rates, but being outside of time as in 'no time' implies that nothing happens, no events, no thoughts, no actions because all of these take time and are time.

Important thing here, and I think it bears observation: having some dimension along which there is a single direction of change that is not perpendicular to the single dimension of mono-directional change we experience is entirely possible.

The problem is that some people have a very weak understanding of what "time" is, or what makes some dimension "temporal".

For an example, yet again, look at the simulation/host boundary.

I am not strictly bound by simulation time. I can wind the simulation forward, I can restore it back to a previous state. I am outside of simulation time because I can play it back and forth like a tape in a drive, it's "time" is to me merely "location".

Being "outside of time" doesn't mean there is no time dimension for the agent, it just means that the time dimension of the observer being invoked is more a "locational" dimension for the entity being observed.

Indeed. From a higer dimensional perspective, spacetime is just a four-dimensional block of stuff that never changes. The future isn't known to an observer embedded in the block, but then, such observers don't even agree on which parts of the block are "future" and which are "past".

This is an interesting way to think about time, but from a religious perspective it is of little value; A posited observer (or even creator) in the form of a supra-dimensional intelligence is nothing like the Gods proposed by any major religion, and does nothing to help answer the question of origins - even if a higher dimensional being made the four dimensional block universe, we still need to understand the origins of that higher dimensional being - the question isn't being adressed, it's just kicking the can down the road.

But if a higher dimensional being is able to observe and act outside of the block universe, they have their own time continuum and are as bound by their own time flow rate conditions as the inhabitants of the block time universe, as just another layer of relativity?

Was there actually a question in there?

An invitation to argue against what I said. That an observer, be they imbedded within a block universe or outside it, is experiencing time as a local, relative rate of change.

So, you are trying to start an argument?

Time has different meanings depending on where in a system hierarchy you are at and one person can be clearly outside the time dimension of another.

 

[DBT]

I don't get this 'outside of time' idea. Time is relative and so flows at different rates, but being outside of time as in 'no time' implies that nothing happens, no events, no thoughts, no actions because all of these take time and are time.

Important thing here, and I think it bears observation: having some dimension along which there is a single direction of change that is not perpendicular to the single dimension of mono-directional change we experience is entirely possible.

The problem is that some people have a very weak understanding of what "time" is, or what makes some dimension "temporal".

For an example, yet again, look at the simulation/host boundary.

I am not strictly bound by simulation time. I can wind the simulation forward, I can restore it back to a previous state. I am outside of simulation time because I can play it back and forth like a tape in a drive, it's "time" is to me merely "location".

Being "outside of time" doesn't mean there is no time dimension for the agent, it just means that the time dimension of the observer being invoked is more a "locational" dimension for the entity being observed.

Indeed. From a higer dimensional perspective, spacetime is just a four-dimensional block of stuff that never changes. The future isn't known to an observer embedded in the block, but then, such observers don't even agree on which parts of the block are "future" and which are "past".

This is an interesting way to think about time, but from a religious perspective it is of little value; A posited observer (or even creator) in the form of a supra-dimensional intelligence is nothing like the Gods proposed by any major religion, and does nothing to help answer the question of origins - even if a higher dimensional being made the four dimensional block universe, we still need to understand the origins of that higher dimensional being - the question isn't being adressed, it's just kicking the can down the road.

But if a higher dimensional being is able to observe and act outside of the block universe, they have their own time continuum and are as bound by their own time flow rate conditions as the inhabitants of the block time universe, as just another layer of relativity?

Was there actually a question in there?

An invitation to argue against what I said. That an observer, be they imbedded within a block universe or outside it, is experiencing time as a local, relative rate of change.

So, you are trying to start an argument?

Not in the way you seem to be assuming.

Time has different meanings depending on where in a system hierarchy you are at and one person can be clearly outside the time dimension of another.

Sure, but that's not the point of contention with theists who claim that God is 'outside of time,' yet able to think and act, which is a measurement of time.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't get this 'outside of time' idea. Time is relative and so flows at different rates, but being outside of time as in 'no time' implies that nothing happens, no events, no thoughts, no actions because all of these take time and are time.

Important thing here, and I think it bears observation: having some dimension along which there is a single direction of change that is not perpendicular to the single dimension of mono-directional change we experience is entirely possible.

The problem is that some people have a very weak understanding of what "time" is, or what makes some dimension "temporal".

For an example, yet again, look at the simulation/host boundary.

I am not strictly bound by simulation time. I can wind the simulation forward, I can restore it back to a previous state. I am outside of simulation time because I can play it back and forth like a tape in a drive, it's "time" is to me merely "location".

Being "outside of time" doesn't mean there is no time dimension for the agent, it just means that the time dimension of the observer being invoked is more a "locational" dimension for the entity being observed.

Indeed. From a higer dimensional perspective, spacetime is just a four-dimensional block of stuff that never changes. The future isn't known to an observer embedded in the block, but then, such observers don't even agree on which parts of the block are "future" and which are "past".

This is an interesting way to think about time, but from a religious perspective it is of little value; A posited observer (or even creator) in the form of a supra-dimensional intelligence is nothing like the Gods proposed by any major religion, and does nothing to help answer the question of origins - even if a higher dimensional being made the four dimensional block universe, we still need to understand the origins of that higher dimensional being - the question isn't being adressed, it's just kicking the can down the road.

But if a higher dimensional being is able to observe and act outside of the block universe, they have their own time continuum and are as bound by their own time flow rate conditions as the inhabitants of the block time universe, as just another layer of relativity?

Was there actually a question in there?

An invitation to argue against what I said. That an observer, be they imbedded within a block universe or outside it, is experiencing time as a local, relative rate of change.

So, you are trying to start an argument?

Not in the way you seem to be assuming.

Time has different meanings depending on where in a system hierarchy you are at and one person can be clearly outside the time dimension of another.

Sure, but that's not the point of contention with theists who claim that God is 'outside of time,' yet able to think and act, which is a measurement of time.

Except it is: their inability to articulate what they think is happening in the face of their insistence they know what is happening is exactly the issue here.

There's a relationship with FLERF logic, in that they can't generalize down to "center of gravity well". They think "down" and "time" are absolutes rather than observer-dependent "relative" local phenomena (although the paradigm of time "observer dependence" is slightly different in that time is dependent on "observer layer" rather than "observer position").

 

[DBT]

I don't get this 'outside of time' idea. Time is relative and so flows at different rates, but being outside of time as in 'no time' implies that nothing happens, no events, no thoughts, no actions because all of these take time and are time.

Important thing here, and I think it bears observation: having some dimension along which there is a single direction of change that is not perpendicular to the single dimension of mono-directional change we experience is entirely possible.

The problem is that some people have a very weak understanding of what "time" is, or what makes some dimension "temporal".

For an example, yet again, look at the simulation/host boundary.

I am not strictly bound by simulation time. I can wind the simulation forward, I can restore it back to a previous state. I am outside of simulation time because I can play it back and forth like a tape in a drive, it's "time" is to me merely "location".

Being "outside of time" doesn't mean there is no time dimension for the agent, it just means that the time dimension of the observer being invoked is more a "locational" dimension for the entity being observed.

Indeed. From a higer dimensional perspective, spacetime is just a four-dimensional block of stuff that never changes. The future isn't known to an observer embedded in the block, but then, such observers don't even agree on which parts of the block are "future" and which are "past".

This is an interesting way to think about time, but from a religious perspective it is of little value; A posited observer (or even creator) in the form of a supra-dimensional intelligence is nothing like the Gods proposed by any major religion, and does nothing to help answer the question of origins - even if a higher dimensional being made the four dimensional block universe, we still need to understand the origins of that higher dimensional being - the question isn't being adressed, it's just kicking the can down the road.

But if a higher dimensional being is able to observe and act outside of the block universe, they have their own time continuum and are as bound by their own time flow rate conditions as the inhabitants of the block time universe, as just another layer of relativity?

Was there actually a question in there?

An invitation to argue against what I said. That an observer, be they imbedded within a block universe or outside it, is experiencing time as a local, relative rate of change.

So, you are trying to start an argument?

Not in the way you seem to be assuming.

Time has different meanings depending on where in a system hierarchy you are at and one person can be clearly outside the time dimension of another.

Sure, but that's not the point of contention with theists who claim that God is 'outside of time,' yet able to think and act, which is a measurement of time.

Except it is: their inability to articulate what they think is happening in the face of their insistence they know what is happening is exactly the issue here.

Nevertheless that is the claim that regularly comes up.

There's a relationship with FLERF logic, in that they can't generalize down to "center of gravity well". They think "down" and "time" are absolutes rather than observer-dependent "relative" local phenomena (although the paradigm of time "observer dependence" is slightly different in that time is dependent on "observer layer" rather than "observer position").

The power of faith in action, I guess.

 

[steve_bank]

The far right's attempt to cram religion into schools and everywhere is going
to cause a backlash. One way to fight that is to point out the commands of
Jesus. No praying in public. Sell all you have and give to the poor. Help the poor
or burn as per Matthew 25. In England, all schools have religion classes for
school children. And now in England, non-Christians out number Christians.

Luke 14
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,
and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Maybe a wandering Christian mystic will walk in from the desert after 40 days and nights into a rich mega church and call them out for 'turning a house of prayer into a place of business' or something like that.

 

[EricH]

The final battle at the end of LOTR is an apocalyptic end of days battle. In the tale Gandalf The Grey falls down a deep underground abyss battling a demon. He emerges transformed into Gandalf The White. Cleansed.

This is not correct. @Politesse is correct. There are larger battles before that, and the "climax" of the book is when the ring is cast into the fire of Mount Doom following a fight between Frodo and Gollum leading to the fall of Barad-dur.

Apparent;y LOTR devotees are as passionate about their scripture as are Christians.

I was pointing out a factual error in your post. A factual error that serves as the foundational premise for the hypothesis you provided later in the post.

Which goes to my chubby points, religion is one manifestation of a common human behavior and non religious will defend whatever it is they are emerged in as aggressively as Chisrtians.

Perhaps you should stick to making skinny points in the future. Your chubby points don't have the wind to make it to the finish line.

The original Trekkies waking around in Star Trek uniforms and LOTR enthusiasts walking around New Zealand in costumes and Hobbit feet.

While I have read LOTR book several times and enjoyed it thoroughly, I'm not a trekkie and I have never walked around in Hobbit feet. You must be thinking of @Politesse here.

 

[Politesse]

I don't recall wearing hobbit feet at any point. I do know how to read critically, though.

 

[Jarhyn]

The far right's attempt to cram religion into schools and everywhere is going
to cause a backlash. One way to fight that is to point out the commands of
Jesus. No praying in public. Sell all you have and give to the poor. Help the poor
or burn as per Matthew 25. In England, all schools have religion classes for
school children. And now in England, non-Christians out number Christians.

Luke 14
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,
and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Maybe a wandering Christian mystic will walk in from the desert after 40 days and nights into a rich mega church and call them out for 'turning a house of prayer into a place of business' or something like that.

Well, I think that depends a lot on what metaphors you are willing to invoke. Do you need a guy with experience for the job? I'd ask what it pays, but I think the answer to that is "a kiss in the garden", and some silver for the other guy.

 

[steve_bank]

Politesse

Do you agree that LOTR may reflect the geopolitics of the day and Tolkien's experience in WWI?

And in turn the gospels as we have them not being cryptic but a reflection of the geopolitics of the day, and that the Jesus character may be a composite depicting what was gong on in Israel? What we today call docu-drama. Loosely based on historical facts with fictional characters and dialogue.

The image of hated Roman oppressors torturing and executing a Jew? Turning a Jewish preacher into a all suffering all wise mystic demigod?

Or does your critical reasoning see the Jesus narrative as an accurate account of what a single individual said and did?

 

[Learner]

If you've read the Gospels, do any of those actions sound like Jesus's Commandments to you? As it's written many come in his name but not all who do will be accepted.

Then, were all Christians who in past centuries burned witches, tortured and killed heretics, or warred on other Christians...not Christians at all?

I've been in, and seen debates where atheists has often come up with the line 'people claiming to be Christians today don't act like Jesus or do what he commands" etc. & etc..

If these Christians acted against what Jesus preached then they're not the Christians as according to Jesus. Sure they may believe strongly in their faith while committing atrocious things but they will be judged accordingly and case by case.

But then, isn't your god omniscient and outside time? Couldn't he see where this was headed?

Ok, but wouldn't omniscience be much more than seeing only one single foreseeable outcome in your description? The ability to see various parallel outcomes - analogous to the concept of there being different variants of you in many parallel worlds, where each of you in their world chose different paths on all the forked roads the many versions of you comes across.

Omniscience as the word implies imo, should foresee all these variable outcomes equally at the same time - although, only one world gets etched in stone becoming the reality.

The emphasis of the biblical idea is for you to make your own path etc.There'd be absolutely NO value or meaningful validity or significant worthiness to declare yourself or humans as 'independent thinking entities' otherwise.

Instructions have been provided to walk on the right path etc.. via scripture.

Couldn't he have provided a scripture which, with just a few added verses, would have made clear that he didn't support violence for promoting the faith?

Promoting the faith with violence of course isn't supported by God. But that's a different context to defending the faith and yourself. We see the example of the Israelites who had to, countering against the violence that was against them.

"You shall never harm another man for his faith. I repeat, you will never do that. Whoever harms or, worse, kills another man because his faith is different, you do not do this for me, and you shall never reach heaven, for this is wickedness and a sin against your god." Christians back then read the gospels and were preached to about Jesus' Commandments, and it seemed to them that to enforce his church with bloodshed was an ultimate good.

As I previously discussed about people who identify themselves as Christian are a mixture of all sorts of people with all types of views.

An American mentioned on the news is caught after murdering an innocent person, doesn't automatically mean this murderer is representative of the USA, its laws and the American people but he's still an American.

Didn't your god foresee that?

As the above. God should be able to see various futures at the same time, if we are to use omniscience as a major attribute.

(For all that, was god okay knowing that there'd be a Catholic/Protestant schism, and that torture, persecution and war would then characterize his church for centuries?

There's division yes indeed. But if purposely dividing believers this way, this then can only be advantageous to those who oppose Jesus.

Jesus has his opponents which is not a thing that's remembered with arguments like yours.Sabotage, corruptions, distortions, misleading the crowd etc. against Jesus should absolutely be expected!! The method to cause divisions and doubts among all people about the faith. That's in the biblical narrative.

Couldn't a few verses have clarified things like the need for a pope, whether one true church would start with Peter, church authority, Jesus' mom having powers of her own or not, whether there are saints with intercessory powers, and a number of other doctrinal controversies that 'Christians' actually killed and died for? Is he okay today with radically different beliefs on these issues?)

Yes I see where you're coming from..but the guide for the church has always been there! I'll say briefly as this post is long.The example of the two churches out of seven had Jesus's full approval. The Church of Smyrna and the Church of Philadelphia.

 

[DBT]

If you've read the Gospels, do any of those actions sound like Jesus's Commandments to you? As it's written many come in his name but not all who do will be accepted.

Then, were all Christians who in past centuries burned witches, tortured and killed heretics, or warred on other Christians...not Christians at all?

I've been in, and seen debates where atheists has often come up with the line 'people claiming to be Christians today don't act like Jesus or do what he commands" etc. & etc..

If these Christians acted against what Jesus preached then they're not the Christians as according to Jesus. Sure they may believe strongly in their faith while committing atrocious things but they will be judged accordingly and case by case.

But then, isn't your god omniscient and outside time? Couldn't he see where this was headed?

Ok, but wouldn't omniscience be much more than seeing only one single foreseeable outcome in your description? The ability to see various parallel outcomes - analogous to the concept of there being different variants of you in many parallel worlds, where each of you in their world chose different paths on all the forked roads the many versions of you comes across.

Omniscience as the word implies imo, should foresee all these variable outcomes equally at the same time - although, only one world gets etched in stone becoming the reality.

The emphasis of the biblical idea is for you to make your own path etc.There'd be absolutely NO value or meaningful validity or significant worthiness to declare yourself or humans as 'independent thinking entities' otherwise.

Instructions have been provided to walk on the right path etc.. via scripture.

Couldn't he have provided a scripture which, with just a few added verses, would have made clear that he didn't support violence for promoting the faith?

Promoting the faith with violence of course isn't supported by God. But that's a different context to defending the faith and yourself. We see the example of the Israelites who had to, countering against the violence that was against them.

"You shall never harm another man for his faith. I repeat, you will never do that. Whoever harms or, worse, kills another man because his faith is different, you do not do this for me, and you shall never reach heaven, for this is wickedness and a sin against your god." Christians back then read the gospels and were preached to about Jesus' Commandments, and it seemed to them that to enforce his church with bloodshed was an ultimate good.

As I previously discussed about people who identify themselves as Christian are a mixture of all sorts of people with all types of views.

An American mentioned on the news is caught after murdering an innocent person, doesn't automatically mean this murderer is representative of the USA, its laws and the American people but he's still an American.

Didn't your god foresee that?

As the above. God should be able to see various futures at the same time, if we are to use omniscience as a major attribute.

(For all that, was god okay knowing that there'd be a Catholic/Protestant schism, and that torture, persecution and war would then characterize his church for centuries?

There's division yes indeed. But if purposely dividing believers this way, this then can only be advantageous to those who oppose Jesus.

Jesus has his opponents which is not a thing that's remembered with arguments like yours.Sabotage, corruptions, distortions, misleading the crowd etc. against Jesus should absolutely be expected!! The method to cause divisions and doubts among all people about the faith. That's in the biblical narrative.

Couldn't a few verses have clarified things like the need for a pope, whether one true church would start with Peter, church authority, Jesus' mom having powers of her own or not, whether there are saints with intercessory powers, and a number of other doctrinal controversies that 'Christians' actually killed and died for? Is he okay today with radically different beliefs on these issues?)

Yes I see where you're coming from..but the guide for the church has always been there! I'll say briefly as this post is long.The example of the two churches out of seven had Jesus's full approval. The Church of Smyrna and the Church of Philadelphia.

If the outcome is perfectly known, given omniscience, the 'various parallel outcomes' were never in the running. The 'various parallel outcomes' being the perception of a limited mind, a mind that cannot see the pathway that events are going to take.

 

[bilby]

Promoting the faith with violence of course isn't supported by God.

Pretty much the entire Old Testament says you are wrong.

 

[Learner]

If the outcome is perfectly known, given omniscience, the 'various parallel outcomes' were never in the running. The 'various parallel outcomes' being the perception of a limited mind, a mind that cannot see the pathway that events are going to take.

Omniscience and a limited mind in the same paragraph, ok.
I wasn't saying that ALL the parallel worlds would be played out along side each other in regards of the God of the bible. I was using the analogy of parallel worlds in contrast to omniscience - the ability to know 'alternative endings' to the one only big show. IOW YOU choose how it ends.

 

[Learner]

Promoting the faith with violence of course isn't supported by God.

Pretty much the entire Old Testament says you are wrong.

If by your intriguing reading of the OT by ignoring things like the commandments for example, you may have something there. If you should include the NT then it's saying your reading of the OT is wrong.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Promoting the faith with violence of course isn't supported by God.

Pretty much the entire Old Testament says you are wrong.

THIS. THIS. THIS,
The OT is "credentialed by Jesus" and was Jesus' scripture. Please show the NT verses where anyone says that Exodus, Leviticus, Joshua, etc. are lies and libels on the true nature of God.

 

[Jarhyn]

Politesse

Do you agree that LOTR may reflect the geopolitics of the day and Tolkien's experience in WWI?

And in turn the gospels as we have them not being cryptic but a reflection of the geopolitics of the day, and that the Jesus character may be a composite depicting what was gong on in Israel? What we today call docu-drama. Loosely based on historical facts with fictional characters and dialogue.

The image of hated Roman oppressors torturing and executing a Jew? Turning a Jewish preacher into a all suffering all wise mystic demigod?

Or does your critical reasoning see the Jesus narrative as an accurate account of what a single individual said and did?

Steve, I wrote a joke post over in the Jesus thread, and a series of other jokes about that joke post. It will give you background in what I am about to say.

Note here that I am one of the people on these forums who has strongly sold the idea that the Jesus character could be a composite. I still accept this fact.

You should start with a concession though insofar as aspects of a life even such as mine, if editorialized towards such an intent, could be said to satisfy implementation of that story, again with the understand of deep editorial liberty and outright fabrication at times.

I do make this concession that it could happen because I believe the story was written about the exploits of a couple people, mostly assigned to just one of those few people, who did all exist in that time period.

I do think someone ended up getting executed for the belief that they, in coming to understand key concepts of the idea of 'god', believed they had become it. This is not inconsistent even with modern concepts of memetics, in a number of 0ce contemporary interpretations of 'god' particularly among the Jewish community at the time (Jewish beliefs about God are often and always have quite often been quite different from Christian ones).

Regardless of whether it is a story about a single individual of inspiration or some amalgam of persons, it is, and it feels a bit gross to say this, an unfairly and problematically exaggerated, but otherwise accurate account about how certain rare individuals live their lives, depicting the sort of metaphysical considerations that those sorts of people make.