NationStates Jolt Archive

I went to the second page of the forum and found an interesting thread that had to deal with religion. I am not very religious and I have nothing against religious people except for the ones who are overly zealous and a bit crazy. I was wondering if God made everything than who made God?

Also would it not make more sense that if deities exsist and deities made everything that it was a male and female pair? Why would a male make a world where men needed women to reproduce and vice versa? Why not make them self sufficient? It makes more sense that if deities created us that it was a male and female who made us like them. Interested to see people's ideas. Please don't be bashing any religion or anyone's lack there of. I've seen too many threads go from mild debate to bashing threads.

I'm not religious, but I go to catholic school, and I've probably read more scripture than alot of pious christians. GOD is the alpha and the omega. he was always there, no one created him. God made women from man because it was the only thing that fulfilled Adam's need for company after none of the animals had been sufficient community for Adam. Alot of pagan religions do believe in a female/male pair of major dieties. When you speak of "religious" it seems to me you really mean to say "christian." people who practice other religions such as pagan religions are just as religious.

Also the Christian God is AFIK genderless, not counting Jesus would be considered both God and human.

I'm not religious, but I go to catholic school, and I've probably read more scripture than alot of pious christians. GOD is the alpha and the omega. he was always there, no one created him. God made women from man because it was the only thing that fulfilled Adam's need for company after none of the animals had been sufficient community for Adam. Alot of pagan religions do believe in a female/male pair of major dieties. When you speak of "religious" it seems to me you really mean to say "christian." people who practice other religions such as pagan religions are just as religious.

I generally mean not religious in any way. I happen to be a Wiccan Pagan but eh... Anyways you are right I guess when I say that I usually mean Christian, Islamic, or other religions that believe in a male deity with no female.

That reminds of our little not so flourishing cult of Dick and Jane....

Also the Christian God is AFIK genderless, not counting Jesus would be considered both God and human.
I've heard that but the God is always refered to as him and he from everything I have read of the Bible.

I've heard that but the God is always refered to as him and he from everything I have read of the Bible.
Usually, it was Jesus who talked of God in this way. Until then, most people really didn't mention God (ever seen Life of Brian?). There are varying views on this one, but I am of the belief that Jesus referred to God as "the Father" as a metaphor indicative of his fatherly nature rather than a reference to his gender.

I've seen a lot of the "If X god made mankind out of Y, where did X come from?" questions in philosophy classes. It's a vicious cycle with no end, because even if you do manage to answer that, does it ever end? Does it need to? Is there an "unmoved mover" that started the whole chain of creation?
Even if you believe in God, and believe that he created everything we know, and that He has always existed... what made Him decide to create us? Time is obviously irrelevant to a godlike figure, since time exists for us, but any omnipotent, omniscient god would need to exist outside of our understanding of time.
So, what made God make us?
And it doesn't just have to be God... lots of religions have creationist views of humanity.

If we're taking the Biblical stance, I'm guessing it was a debate/argument in Heaven. Since God allegedly created mankind, and somehow Satan came into the picture to introduce a flaw into humanity... where did that conflict come from? Why were they opposing each other?
I think THAT comes before the creation of the universe, and we're a friendly (or unfriendly!) bet. :P
Part A: Create universe.
Part B: Mostly leave it alone and see what happens with minimal guidance.

In this way, evolution makes sense, as does the creationist theory. Maybe God smacked the Cosmic Egg, causing the Big Bang, allowing evolution to take its course.

Now, I see an argument coming. "Why would God have to do this if He knows everything??"

How can He know something unless it exists? He'd have to set the universe into motion, at which point He'd know everything that happened in it, and the debate would be settled immediately, as far as God and Satan are concerned. For us, we still have to go through it all, wondering about our own existence, and the way the universe works.

Anyway, that's just a poke at it. :) Feel free to ridicule. I'm no more right than anyone else taking shots in the dark.

Usually, it was Jesus who talked of God in this way. Until then, most people really didn't mention God (ever seen Life of Brian?). There are varying views on this one, but I am of the belief that Jesus referred to God as "the Father" as a metaphor indicative of his fatherly nature rather than a reference to his gender.

Apparently (so I've been told by people who know much more about the Bible than I do) there IS a female element in the Bible, called Sophia, or wisdom. There wasn't a lot of stress put on it, but apparently somebody dug that up and said it's God's feminine side, making him "complete."
Dunno if I buy it, but whatever. :) Just food for thought.

I've heard that but the God is always referred to as him and he from everything I have read of the Bible.

god can't have a gender because god isn't a physical being

that is mainly because in the structure of society during the time of the bible, and even today, God represented what could best be described a "father" figure. One must keep in mind that despite what many think, the bible(specifically the old testament) was mostly written as allegory and symbolic anecdotes meant to teach lessons, not historical fact.

god can't have a gender because god isn't a physical being

that is mainly because in the structure of society during the time of the bible, and even today, God represented what could best be described a "father" figure. One must keep in mind that despite what many think, the bible(specifically the old testament) was mostly written as allegory and symbolic anecdotes meant to teach lessons, not historical fact.
Is there an echo in here :p

I generally mean not religious in any way. I happen to be a Wiccan Pagan but eh... Anyways you are right I guess when I say that I usually mean Christian, Islamic, or other religions that believe in a male deity with no female.

okay, just wanted to clarify cause it sort of bugs me when people say "religious" and are usually just referring to Christian

This is somewhat unrelated. I was raised wiccan and thought it was all well and dandy until I found out it's not a real religion. It's actually a compilation of pagan religions effectively made up by Gerald Gardner in 1954. My mom is well aware of this and fine with it, but finding that out really shook my faith.

would not the difference in time for god and us mean that to him, we were just created, and to us we have existed for millenia? Our perspective of time is so fast that whilst god made us in a second, for whatever reason, we are the process of the creation of whatever it was. when our existence is over, gods creation & destruction of us is done in what to him is an incredibly small amount of time

I've seen a lot of the "If X god made mankind out of Y, where did X come from?" questions in philosophy classes. It's a vicious cycle with no end, because even if you do manage to answer that, does it ever end? Does it need to? Is there an "unmoved mover" that started the whole chain of creation?
Even if you believe in God, and believe that he created everything we know, and that He has always existed... what made Him decide to create us? Time is obviously irrelevant to a godlike figure, since time exists for us, but any omnipotent, omniscient god would need to exist outside of our understanding of time.
So, what made God make us?
And it doesn't just have to be God... lots of religions have creationist views of humanity.

If we're taking the Biblical stance, I'm guessing it was a debate/argument in Heaven. Since God allegedly created mankind, and somehow Satan came into the picture to introduce a flaw into humanity... where did that conflict come from? Why were they opposing each other?
I think THAT comes before the creation of the universe, and we're a friendly (or unfriendly!) bet. :P
Part A: Create universe.
Part B: Mostly leave it alone and see what happens with minimal guidance.

In this way, evolution makes sense, as does the creationist theory. Maybe God smacked the Cosmic Egg, causing the Big Bang, allowing evolution to take its course.

Now, I see an argument coming. "Why would God have to do this if He knows everything??"

How can He know something unless it exists? He'd have to set the universe into motion, at which point He'd know everything that happened in it, and the debate would be settled immediately, as far as God and Satan are concerned. For us, we still have to go through it all, wondering about our own existence, and the way the universe works.

Anyway, that's just a poke at it. :) Feel free to ridicule. I'm no more right than anyone else taking shots in the dark.

No, that's actually a very intelligent way to look at it. Kudoz to you. :p

I dont believe god has a gender at all, and gender was jst a form of making humankind able to swap genes around more randomly

if god exists at all, i doubt anyone is able to truely understand in what form religions based of the (possibly existent) god are all different interpretations of the uninterpretational

would not the difference in time for god and us mean that to him, we were just created, and to us we have existed for millenia? Our perspective of time is so fast that whilst god made us in a second, for whatever reason, we are the process of the creation of whatever it was. when our existence is over, gods creation & destruction of us is done in what to him is an incredibly small amount of time

exactly. actually, since god is the only thing that has always and will always exist, the existance of anything else is to "him" immesurably small since not fraction of infinity can be discerned.

would not the difference in time for god and us mean that to him, we were just created, and to us we have existed for millenia? Our perspective of time is so fast that whilst god made us in a second, for whatever reason, we are the process of the creation of whatever it was. when our existence is over, gods creation & destruction of us is done in what to him is an incredibly small amount of time
Which brings us to the question: Does God have a sense of time? I think this owuld be something to consider, because if God has always existed, he would not have a concept of time such as we do.

Draw your own conclusions about God, because your ideas of her/him/it are just as valid as those of the most ancient religion or the most glorified religious figure. Remember that everything in our world is based on belief, or faith- everything. Even truth is determined by faith in it, science be damned. A thousand years ago it was true that the earth was the center of the universe, and it was true that there was no life smaller than an ant. It was true that man couldn't fly, and that our insides were filled with "humours" that had to be balanced with prayer and sexual abstinance. I might bea bit ethnocentric in my examples, but what Im trying to say is, believe whatever will make you happy, because life is too short...

No, that's actually a very intelligent way to look at it. Kudoz to you. :p

Thanks! Glad someone liked it. :) I spent far too much time mulling it over in my first 4 years of university, applying math and philosophy in an attempt to reach a good middle ground between creationists and evolutionists. :)
Whether it works or not is another matter altogether.

If we're taking the Biblical stance, I'm guessing it was a debate/argument in Heaven. Since God allegedly created mankind, and somehow Satan came into the picture to introduce a flaw into humanity... where did that conflict come from? Why were they opposing each other?
I think THAT comes before the creation of the universe, and we're a friendly (or unfriendly!) bet.

everything else you said I thought was brilliant.

Actually, satan didn't introduce anything, Satan isn't meant to be seen as a being in the same way god is. Satan is meant to be a term to represent all temptation for people to stray from God. God gave people the freedom to choose. They were tempted by the serpent(which by the way was never meant to be a snake in the first place. that's somewhat unrelated, but it's my pet peeve of common misconceptions concerning the bible) which many belive to be put there by God to test the people, and they chose to stray from god by eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge(which wasn't an apple, the type of fruit is never mentioned in scripture, and apples cannot be grown in the area where the garden of eden would have been, had it existed.) people chose, so the conflict between good and evil came from god's giving people free will and people using it to betray god.

that's my opinion mostly anyway.

everything else you said I thought was brilliant.

Actually, satan didn't introduce anything, Satan isn't meant to be seen as a being in the same way god is. Satan is meant to be a term to represent all temptation for people to stray from God. God gave people the freedom to choose. They were tempted by the serpent(which by the way was never meant to be a snake in the first place. that's somewhat unrelated, but it's my pet peeve of common misconceptions concerning the bible) which many belive to be put there by God to test the people, and they chose to stray from god by eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge(which wasn't an apple, the type of fruit is never mentioned in scripture, and apples cannot be grown in the area where the garden of eden would have been, had it existed.) people chose, so the conflict between good and evil came from god's giving people free will and people using it to betray god.

that's my opinion mostly anyway.


I always like to hear differing points of view, especially on this. My idea has evolved a lot over time, looking at different opinions offered by others.
Personally, I find the whole creationist story a bit dodgy. I PREFER the idea of evolution, where there probably wasn't a perfect Garden of Eden at all, but rather steps were taken in our creation over time, and we weren't ever really perfect.
But going with the Biblical thing... what sort of serpent was it, if it's not the commonly believed snake?
And I didn't mean to put Satan on the same level as God... but just that I believe they both existed previous to the creation of the universe. Now, were they the only two? I doubt it. My idea is open to the possibility of other gods and related beings existing. The only thing in the Bible that makes me think this is the commandment that states that God is a jealous God, and doesn't want us worshipping other gods. First off, isn't jealousy a flaw? Wasn't Satan jealous? But that's another can of worms. Second, would God have any real reason to be jealous if those other gods didn't exist? After all, in Biblical terms, He's the one who gave us free will, which includes the freedom to choose religion. I REALLY don't understand why it matters what people believe in, if that was part of the design in the first place...

Thanks for your opinion. :) It's something new for me to mull over.

I always like to hear differing points of view, especially on this. My idea has evolved a lot over time, looking at different opinions offered by others.
Personally, I find the whole creationist story a bit dodgy. I PREFER the idea of evolution, where there probably wasn't a perfect Garden of Eden at all, but rather steps were taken in our creation over time, and we weren't ever really perfect.
But going with the Biblical thing... what sort of serpent was it, if it's not the commonly believed snake?
And I didn't mean to put Satan on the same level as God... but just that I believe they both existed previous to the creation of the universe. Now, were they the only two? I doubt it. My idea is open to the possibility of other gods and related beings existing. The only thing in the Bible that makes me think this is the commandment that states that God is a jealous God, and doesn't want us worshipping other gods. First off, isn't jealousy a flaw? Wasn't Satan jealous? But that's another can of worms. Second, would God have any real reason to be jealous if those other gods didn't exist? After all, in Biblical terms, He's the one who gave us free will, which includes the freedom to choose religion. I REALLY don't understand why it matters what people believe in, if that was part of the design in the first place...

Thanks for your opinion. :) It's something new for me to mull over.

the serpent was a lizard. God's punishment for the serpent after it tempted eve to eat the fruit was that it should "crawl on its belly" for eternity. If it had been a snake in the first place, this would make no sense.

I agree with you on evolution over creation, although evolution was probably imo helped along by some higher being, or else alot of complex parts in nature wouldn't have developed. I'd suggest reading the portion of "darwin's black box" on the bombadeer beetle that adresses that. it's really quite interesting.

god's being jealous is another kind of contradiction because I agree that god would have no reason to be jealous if there were no other. However, god also calls "him"self "the one true god." In my opinion as my previous post stated, i believe evil didn't always exist but was rather a result of mankind's giving in to temptation.

also, just because someone believes something else doesn't mean it's true

I think the ideas of an eternal God(s) or ones that have been made/created ect. have been pushed at different times and in different ways.

Abrahamic (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) come to mind for an eternal god. Various mythologies for one that's made, or created. (Zeus, Baby!)

..We need more Zeus worshippers. And Thor. It's time to combine these powerhouse gods. It's time for the homosexual Viking philosopher berserkers!

I just had this thought that seems to torpedo religious bigotry, so I figured I throw it out there to see if there were any objections: if one has a concept of an omnipresent deity, how could anyone worshiping anything not be worshiping the deity in question?

the serpent was a lizard. God's punishment for the serpent after it tempted eve to eat the fruit was that it should "crawl on its belly" for eternity. If it had been a snake in the first place, this would make no sense.

I agree with you on evolution over creation, although evolution was probably imo helped along by some higher being, or else alot of complex parts in nature wouldn't have developed. I'd suggest reading the portion of "darwin's black box" on the bombadeer beetle that adresses that. it's really quite interesting.

god's being jealous is another kind of contradiction because I agree that god would have no reason to be jealous if there were no other. However, god also calls "him"self "the one true god." In my opinion as my previous post stated, i believe evil didn't always exist but was rather a result of mankind's giving in to temptation.

also, just because someone believes something else doesn't mean it's true

Hmm... maybe people just call it a snake, because that's what it became, and we don't know what sort of lizard it was beforehand. Brings up an interesting question: Are snakes uncomfortable with slithering along the ground? :p

I agree with you that evolution likely had a guiding hand. It's not because I "don't know how it could have happened" but rather because of my belief in God, and that He did play a role. So, my theory may deviate from those who are hardcore non-believers in religion. But, they're free willed and quite able to live their lives without it. I wonder if God gets jealous of non-believers? Hmm. I'll definitely look up Darwin's black box. Sounds interesting.

Calling himself the one true god may indicate that there are other gods in existence, but He simply views them as lesser beings. And, of course, whether those other gods agree with that assessment opens up interesting questions as to the dynamics of Heaven, or the heavens.

On the existence of evil... I differ with you here, in believing that evil always had to exist. How would God know of temptation in order to tempt humanity if it didn't already exist for him to know about? Was it a creative achievement? That's a bothersome idea in itself, since it challenges God's perfection, and all-knowingness. Or was there an element of evil beforehand for Him to model temptation on? Could a being of infinite good and love CREATE an idea of evil? Could such love exist without evil in the first place? That's a question I can't know the answer to for certain, but I tend to lean to the belief that evil was necessary, pre-human creation.

Being the agnostic Christian I am, I believe God exists, but that there can be no proof for or against. As soon as we begin discussing something as conceptual as an infinite being we limit the concept to the words of our understanding. Therefore, I consider debate or attempts to posit the existence of a God fruitless and irrational. This belief is compounded by the fact I've yet to see anything fruitful come out of any such discussion.

If the concept of God truly is irrational, and I'm willing to accept that, then why should it matter? So I'm a bit looney or have an imaginary friend, to those who don't believe in God. I'm a fellow believer and one who embraces a creator, to the others. Regardless, arguing back and forth does nothing but anger people, so why do it?

I've heard that but the God is always refered to as him and he from everything I have read of the Bible.
Keep in mind that those who interpreted the Bible used to be predominantly male, so it's a tradition that stuck. There is no reason to assume that a God would be male or female. It would be genderless.

I just had this thought that seems to torpedo religious bigotry, so I figured I throw it out there to see if there were any objections: if one has a concept of an omnipresent deity, how could anyone worshiping anything not be worshiping the deity in question?

So you're saying to worship anything is to worship the actual being, no matter what they call it?
That is a nice ideal, to think we're all worshipping the same thing, just in different ways. With that line of thought, it would be possible to bring all religions into step with one another, and achieve a real sort of understanding and peace.
Again, however, I bring up the problem of God being jealous. Or how about idol worship? Or Jesus' temper tantrum in the temple, kicking out the merchants? Wouldn't they all be aspects of the one omnipresent deity? Simply different forms of worship?
Just another reason I figure there has to be more than one god/higher being in the mix... I simply cannot come up with an answer for why the 'one' god would need to be jealous, unless there was something there to be jealous of. Above all, this one point makes me look with skepticism towards the Bible. I certainly believe in God, and try my best to hold to ideals of love, but I don't think He's alone.

Being the agnostic Christian I am, I believe God exists, but that there can be no proof for or against. As soon as we begin discussing something as conceptual as an infinite being we limit the concept to the words of our understanding. Therefore, I consider debate or attempts to posit the existence of a God fruitless and irrational. This belief is compounded by the fact I've yet to see anything fruitful come out of any such discussion.

If the concept of God truly is irrational, and I'm willing to accept that, then why should it matter? So I'm a bit looney or have an imaginary friend, to those who don't believe in God. I'm a fellow believer and one who embraces a creator, to the others. Regardless, arguing back and forth does nothing but anger people, so why do it?

I certainly don't argue in any attempt to convert. It's more for personal growth in my own belief patterns. Sure, to some it may seem like a waste of time, but anything that gets me thinking to broaden my horizons is a good thing in my eyes. :) I also have a strong distaste for argument, because that is fruitless. Saying, "My god is better than yours, and here's why..." is really pointless. I'm more interested in the existence of god(s) and what others think to try and form an overall picture that might somehow make sense. Because I don't think any one single dogmatic religious viewpoint is going to get any sort of reasonable answer. I think IF (big if, because I doubt we'll ever know for certain) there is an answer, it's to be found through looking at the whole, rather than a tiny part. If there isn't an answer... at least I've had fun looking, with those who are interested in looking with me! :)

So you're saying to worship anything is to worship the actual being, no matter what they call it?
That is a nice ideal, to think we're all worshipping the same thing, just in different ways. With that line of thought, it would be possible to bring all religions into step with one another, and achieve a real sort of understanding and peace.

The notions of universal energy further promote this (mainly found in Zen). Reincarnation to the point of Nirvana could easily be a part of Catholic Christian doctrine, say, in the form of Purgatory. Religions could find a lot of common ground if they tried.

As for the rest, I too am inclined there is a God, to which I ascribe no form though. I am Christian insofar as I believe in the notions set forth by Jesus, but asign no form to the actual deity God. As for the existence of multiple deities, well who knows. ;)

Interesting. I had never thought of the "jealous god" idea inferring that there were other gods to be jealous of. Thank you for that insight.

Of course, it does beg the question of what sort of interaction gods from different pantheons, if the term can be applied to a religion with only one god, have.

Interesting. I had never thought of the "jealous god" idea inferring that there were other gods to be jealous of. Thank you for that insight.

Of course, it does beg the question of what sort of interaction gods from different pantheons, if the term can be applied to a religion with only one god, have.
Which would turn the idea of godhood into a theocentric soap opera. :p I am of the belief that there is one universal creator force, and definitely not one that can be personified as traditionally thought.

About the male/female god thing, I heard that there was a female god originally in Hebrew mythology, but she got written out of Judaism. That's why Yahweh seems so male.

About the male/female god thing, I heard that there was a female god originally in Hebrew mythology, but she got written out of Judaism. That's why Yahweh seems so male.
I wonder if you're referring to Lilith. She allegedly became the Queen of all Demons, though not a goddess per se.

I wonder if you're referring to Lilith. She allegedly became the Queen of all Demons, though not a goddess per se.

Wasn't she created at the same time as Adam as his equal?

Which would turn the idea of godhood into a theocentric soap opera. :p I am of the belief that there is one universal creator force, and definitely not one that can be personified as traditionally thought.

Yeah, it's hard to put your finger on what it is. I suppose force is a good a word as any, although one can start thinking Jedi. My thinking tends more towards law than force though.

Wasn't she created at the same time as Adam as his equal?
That is her. She rebelled against being his vassal, and she claimed lesser godhood at once. There was supposedly no limit on human power at that point. She became a goddess of a sort according to the myth, but not on the same level as God.

Yeah, it's hard to put your finger on what it is. I suppose force is a good a word as any, although one can start thinking Jedi. My thinking tends more towards law than force though.
Ordered chaos ;)

Interesting. I had never thought of the "jealous god" idea inferring that there were other gods to be jealous of. Thank you for that insight.

Of course, it does beg the question of what sort of interaction gods from different pantheons, if the term can be applied to a religion with only one god, have.

I know! It's interesting to think about, if nothing else. :) If God is jealous of worship of other gods, how do the other gods view each other, and God!?
This is one reason I fell in love with the ideas that lead me here... totally different and brings up whole new realms of ideas I never thought of when I thought from only one religious perspective.
And since it's a bit of a different twist, it's something everyone can mull over and talk about, hopefully without getting in a huff because they have preconceived, dogmatically driven notions! Although I guess it could still happen, if people say something like, "That's ridiculous. There's only one God. Period." But that's not a discussion. That's poking for a fight. :)

That is her. She rebelled against being his vassal, and she claimed lesser godhood at once. There was supposedly no limit on human power at that point. She became a goddess of a sort according to the myth, but not on the same level as God.

I really wish they hadn't cut that part. It sounds a LOT more interesting than just skipping to Eve being made out of Adam's rib. Plus, it gives some sort of solution to the problem of Cain wandering off to make cities (Cities with who!? There's no one else!). At least if Lilith were around, it might give some sort of reason for other similar beings existing outside of the garden, and give a touch of credibility to the creation story. Alas, no...

Bottom line: Is it more logical to believe that everything came from nothing, or that everything came from something, regardless of whether we can conceive of what that somehing might actually be. (Just because we can't really understand what that something might be, doesn't mean that we don't understand the difference between something and nothing.)

I really wish they hadn't cut that part. It sounds a LOT more interesting than just skipping to Eve being made out of Adam's rib. Plus, it gives some sort of solution to the problem of Cain wandering off to make cities (Cities with who!? There's no one else!). At least if Lilith were around, it might give some sort of reason for other similar beings existing outside of the garden, and give a touch of credibility to the creation story. Alas, no...
They rubbed it out because it went against a doctrine of male supremacy they were attempting to enforce. Lilith was a symbol of feminine power. Many even try to reject the notion of Eve being Adam's equal, since she was created from his rib. They will use any excuse they can get to belittle women. It irritates me.

They rubbed it out because it went against a doctrine of male supremacy they were attempting to enforce. Lilith was a symbol of feminine power. Many even try to reject the notion of Eve being Adam's equal, since she was created from his rib. They will use any excuse they can get to belittle women. It irritates me.

That irritates me, too. Women and men should stand together, not one ruling over the other. Each brings something different to the table, but neither is better than the other. I just think accepting both makes for a more complete picture. I'll always lock horns with people who inherently believe that they're better than some other group. We're all human. We all add to the pallette of colours in the world... we paint a much better picture together. :)
That being said, I not only have a problem with men who feel they should dominate women, I have a problem with the extreme (minority) feminists who feel they should be above men as some sort of weird justice for past wrongs. Granted, it was wrong of men to subjugate women, but it would be equally wrong for women to do the same to men.
It's probably years/decades off, but I think true equality is attainable.

...If we're taking the Biblical stance, I'm guessing it was a debate/argument in Heaven. Since God allegedly created mankind, and somehow Satan came into the picture to introduce a flaw into humanity... where did that conflict come from? Why were they opposing each other?
I think THAT comes before the creation of the universe, and we're a friendly (or unfriendly!) bet. :P
Part A: Create universe.
Part B: Mostly leave it alone and see what happens with minimal guidance.

In this way, evolution makes sense, as does the creationist theory. Maybe God smacked the Cosmic Egg, causing the Big Bang, allowing evolution to take its course.

Now, I see an argument coming. "Why would God have to do this if He knows everything??"

How can He know something unless it exists? He'd have to set the universe into motion, at which point He'd know everything that happened in it, and the debate would be settled immediately, as far as God and Satan are concerned. For us, we still have to go through it all, wondering about our own existence, and the way the universe works.

Anyway, that's just a poke at it. :) Feel free to ridicule. I'm no more right than anyone else taking shots in the dark.In my understanding, God decided that He wanted to make creatures with free will. In God's reality (and please understand that there can, by definition, be no other), the existence of free will demanded that there be the possibility of exercising that free will against the will of God. What other standard could there be? Also, if there is nothing upon which to exercise this free will, what value (or measure) is there to this free will? Without the possibility of rebelling, the whole free will thing would be pointless. However, given that the possibility of rebellion against the will of the source of creation (God) was a necessary facet of the reality of free will, God had to have some sort of plan in place to deal with that inevitable possibility, otherwise the whole endeavor would have been meaningless &/or doomed to failure. That is where Jesus comes in. He is the mechanism by which God provided for the (almost enevitable) chance that man would choose something other than the reality of God. And please try to envision that that would mean our own destruction, sort of like a lamp with free will that decides to unplug itself. I don't yet understand all the nuances of what has actually been done, but I do understand that somehow Jesus has given us a way to reconcile ourselves with a God who wants nothing more than that we should be creatures with free will that are able to exist. He gives us a way to plug ourselves back in...

P.S. Just because you are taking shots in the dark, doesn't mean you might not hit the target!

God didn't create man in his image. Man created God in his image.

It infuriates me that people automatically assign human emotions, values and other characteristics to the concept of a supreme being. Humans are filled with such self importance that they can't seem to fathom that a supreme being or unifying force for the universe might not hold them foremost and be patterned like they are. Virtually all religions are guilty of this and there is no logic to back up such an assumption. They believe we hold some special place in the master plan or that the plan revolves around mankind, when logicly mankinds place in the cosmos is minor, almost random, replacable and of little importance in the grand scheme.

Of course no religion wants to face such a prospect, they're in the business of calming the masses, erasing their natural fear of the unknown and death with assurance that they are important and eternal. Religion is mankinds security blanket to ward off the boogie man of uncertainty so it can sleep at night.

In my understanding, God decided that He wanted to make creatures with free will. In God's reality (and please understand that there can, by definition, be no other), the existence of free will demanded that there be the possibility of exercising that free will against the will of God. What other standard could there be? Also, if there is nothing upon which to exercise this free will, what value (or measure) is there to this free will? Without the possibility of rebelling, the whole free will thing would be pointless. However, given that the possibility of rebellion against the will of the source of creation (God) was a necessary facet of the reality of free will, God had to have some sort of plan in place to deal with that inevitable possibility, otherwise the whole endeavor would have been meaningless &/or doomed to failure. That is where Jesus comes in. He is the mechanism by which God provided for the (almost enevitable) chance that man would choose something other than the reality of God. And please try to envision that that would mean our own destruction, sort of like a lamp with free will that decides to unplug itself. I don't yet understand all the nuances of what has actually been done, but I do understand that somehow Jesus has given us a way to reconcile ourselves with a God who wants nothing more than that we should be creatures with free will that are able to exist. He gives us a way to plug ourselves back in...

P.S. Just because you are taking shots in the dark, doesn't mean you might not hit the target!

I wonder how God would have conceived of the idea of people not sharing His ideals and vision? Would that have had to exist previous to our creation, like I think for evil? I suppose IF the argument for evil is true, then this would have to naturally follow... that either God has these qualities (I am thinking of religious beliefs that we must accept that we are both good and evil, and recognize our whole selves, rather than trying to block one half), or someone else with Him did/does.

Would a total loss of belief in God result in our destruction? What about cultures who do not worship God, but still go on existing? I don't think we can answer that one, because the odds of every God worshipping person dying, and there being any sort of civilization left is slim to none. I don't think that so much proves that we need to worship God to exist, as it shows that there are a lot of believers, and it would take some pretty massive forces to wipe them all out. :p But, suppose far in the future, religion is phased out as a simple superstition, and people stopped believing... would that necessarily spell the end of humanity, or could they go on with a good set of athiest morals? That one may not be worth thinking about, since it's so unlikely.

Heh. I still like to let people know that I'm shooting in the dark, just so they don't look to me for answers. :p I don't have them. I'm just looking. I think the odds of me being TOTALLY off the mark are higher than me randomly hitting the mark. ;)

I wish I could keep myself awake to continue talking about this... this is, without a doubt, one of my most favourite topics to discuss. I'll have to check back in the morning and see if it's continued. I certainly hope so! Thanks for the interesting chat, everyone! :)

...suppose far in the future, religion is phased out as a simple superstition, and people stopped believing... would that necessarily spell the end of humanity, or could they go on with a good set of athiest morals? That one may not be worth thinking about, since it's so unlikely.Do you see how you have used an absolutist argument in an attempt to support a relativist point of view? Without an external authority (God), there is no basis for deeming anything to be either "good" or "bad."

Heh. I still like to let people know that I'm shooting in the dark, just so they don't look to me for answers. :p I don't have them. I'm just looking. I think the odds of me being TOTALLY off the mark are higher than me randomly hitting the mark. ;)

I wish I could keep myself awake to continue talking about this... this is, without a doubt, one of my most favourite topics to discuss. I'll have to check back in the morning and see if it's continued. I certainly hope so! Thanks for the interesting chat, everyone! :)I think this topic is fascinating also. I don't know that anyone can prove that their answers are the right ones, but I do nevertheless believe that right answers do exist. I think our "commission" is to try to get as close as we can to the right answers, while always keeping an open mind because we know that we might not have it quite right... yet.

I got to get to bed too... 'night all.

There have been many suggestions that there is a possibility of several different gods, and that it could be impossible to confirm the existence of even one god. I want to bring up a point, however, that many seem to miss: if God exists the way I (a Christian) believe He does, then, like it or not, there is judgement after death, and God does not judge based on whether you care. Please understand I have no intention of insulting anyone, but, on that note, I challenge you, if you haven't already, to seriously consider the scientific, archeological, and prophetic evidence the Bible exhibits, because quite franky, I think there's a ton.
Author Josh McDowell (forgive me if I mispelled his name) said that Jesus was either a "Lord, lunatic, or liar," and unless I'm mistaken, there are no other possibilties about His character. Let's look at these for a second:
-He could not have been a lunatic since He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies, and
-He could not have been a liar since eyewitnesses could not deny what they had seen (not to mention, why would they have been willing to die brutal deaths for something they knew was a lie?).
If two options are incorrect (and if the reasoning I gave is not enough to convince you, ask me to continue), then logically the first option must be correct: He must have been Lord and therefore God of the universe.
Why am I saying these things? I believe there is more than enough evidence to prove God exists, and nothing could give me greater joy than to hear of someone acknowledging that and becoming a Christian.
If you are interested reading about the scientific aspect about all this, I would recommend "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel, and if you have questions about pretty much anything involving Christianity, I would highly recommend visiting www.answersingenesis.org. These are great resources for facts, not just shady and questionable theories.
In the Bible, God says He exists the way I believe He does, and if nothing can prove otherwise, then that must be true.
This is serious stuff, and like I said, if you haven't already, I challenge you to seriously consider the strong evidence of Jesus' resurrection and the validity of the Bible.
Please, please, please, if you have a question or "rebuttal," post it and if I don't have an answer I will do my best to find one for you. The whole judgement-after-death thing is an enormous deal and it means a lot to me, even though I don't know you, just that you even read this far. So if you did, thank you, and I apologize if this was long and boring for you. (I also noticed that I put a ton of commas in this, so if that was annoying sorry about that as well).

Zooming right back to the first post...

I went to the second page of the forum and found an interesting thread that had to deal with religion. I am not very religious and I have nothing against religious people except for the ones who are overly zealous and a bit crazy. I was wondering if God made everything than who made God?

For my religion... there are conflicting reports about exactly which god it was who was responsible for creation as well as different ways that it came about. If you go with the Heliopolitan theology (as I usually do), then Tem was self-created out of the primeval waters and then he/she either mastrubated or self-impregnated him/herself to get things started. If we head over to Hermopolis, w'e've got the primeval creation mound that rose from the waters and spawned the Ogdoad, a group of four couples of males and females, who set about doing their thing. Or you might have the lotus emerging from the waters and opening to reveal a child god... or.. well, Hermopolitans had a bunch of different ones. Or we can head over to Memphis where Ptah did it all and was, I gather, supposed to have spoken himself (and then everything else) into being.

So for us, it really depends who you ask, but most of the time the original gods created themselves out of nothingness in some fashion. The ancients liked to cover all the bases, you know? Of course, most of us in the modern day do not take the creation stories as literal events.


Also would it not make more sense that if deities exsist and deities made everything that it was a male and female pair? Why would a male make a world where men needed women to reproduce and vice versa? Why not make them self sufficient? It makes more sense that if deities created us that it was a male and female who made us like them. Interested to see people's ideas. Please don't be bashing any religion or anyone's lack there of. I've seen too many threads go from mild debate to bashing threads.

Sure, it makes a bit more sense to me, certainly. While I don't take the stories as accounts of physical happenings, the Heliopolitan theology works best for me, where Tem embodies both the male and the female. If you're going to have a single god who starts thing off, you may as well have both genders, right?

I was wondering if God made everything than who made God?
If God made everything, then isn't it necessary that God made God?

Also would it not make more sense that if deities exsist and deities made everything that it was a male and female pair?
In some religions, it was.

Why would a male make a world where men needed women to reproduce and vice versa? Why not make them self sufficient?
Wouldn't that just make them androgenous, rather than men?

Keep in mind that those who interpreted the Bible used to be predominantly male, so it's a tradition that stuck. There is no reason to assume that a God would be male or female. It would be genderless.

Yes mostly men writing the bible...oh yay. No offense but men back then were total pricks and aparently from all the things in the bible I have read sexist, intolerant, and not people I'd want writing something I'd be believing in...

If God made everything, then isn't it necessary that God made God?


In some religions, it was.


Wouldn't that just make them androgenous, rather than men?

How could God make himself? There had to be something before him, and then what was before that? It's a question no one can answer but interesting to think about.

There have been many suggestions that there is a possibility of several different gods, and that it could be impossible to confirm the existence of even one god. I want to bring up a point, however, that many seem to miss: if God exists the way I (a Christian) believe He does, then, like it or not, there is judgement after death, and God does not judge based on whether you care. Please understand I have no intention of insulting anyone, but, on that note, I challenge you, if you haven't already, to seriously consider the scientific, archeological, and prophetic evidence the Bible exhibits, because quite franky, I think there's a ton.
Author Josh McDowell (forgive me if I mispelled his name) said that Jesus was either a "Lord, lunatic, or liar," and unless I'm mistaken, there are no other possibilties about His character. Let's look at these for a second:
-He could not have been a lunatic since He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies, and
-He could not have been a liar since eyewitnesses could not deny what they had seen (not to mention, why would they have been willing to die brutal deaths for something they knew was a lie?).
If two options are incorrect (and if the reasoning I gave is not enough to convince you, ask me to continue), then logically the first option must be correct: He must have been Lord and therefore God of the universe.
Why am I saying these things? I believe there is more than enough evidence to prove God exists, and nothing could give me greater joy than to hear of someone acknowledging that and becoming a Christian.
If you are interested reading about the scientific aspect about all this, I would recommend "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel, and if you have questions about pretty much anything involving Christianity, I would highly recommend visiting www.answersingenesis.org. These are great resources for facts, not just shady and questionable theories.
In the Bible, God says He exists the way I believe He does, and if nothing can prove otherwise, then that must be true.
This is serious stuff, and like I said, if you haven't already, I challenge you to seriously consider the strong evidence of Jesus' resurrection and the validity of the Bible.
Please, please, please, if you have a question or "rebuttal," post it and if I don't have an answer I will do my best to find one for you. The whole judgement-after-death thing is an enormous deal and it means a lot to me, even though I don't know you, just that you even read this far. So if you did, thank you, and I apologize if this was long and boring for you. (I also noticed that I put a ton of commas in this, so if that was annoying sorry about that as well).


How do we know the stories about Jesus are true? I believe maybe the person Jesus was real, married Mary Magdelene, tried to get people into his what he believed, and I also happen to believe maybe he was either a bit nuts or just extremely imaginative. I have not heard any evidence that proves he exsisted, was crucified and came back to life. He was human in my book therefore once he died he didn't come back. I feel that was more a story that got told again and again and was basically like a lot of conspiracy theories today. Remeber the Bible was written LONG after Jesus was no more.

Do you see how you have used an absolutist argument in an attempt to support a relativist point of view? Without an external authority (God), there is no basis for deeming anything to be either "good" or "bad."

*snipped*

I base 'good' and 'bad' on what I believe is either right or wrong. I need no deity to tell me what is right and wrong and no one has ever needed to tell me right from wrong. People don't need religion for that, all they need is common sense.

How could God make himself?

Bad Wolf.

Not seen the 2005 Doctor Who?

(In summary: You can create yourself if you can travel in time. If you take God as not subject to time, it all gets very complicated, but he can indeed create himself)

Bottom line: Is it more logical to believe that everything came from nothing, or that everything came from something, regardless of whether we can conceive of what that somehing might actually be. (Just because we can't really understand what that something might be, doesn't mean that we don't understand the difference between something and nothing.)
Good point. I just wonder if there is a god/goddess whatever, and they made everything how, why, and WHAT made THEM? Was there at some point nothing and then atoms started forming and made everything, or what? Vey confusing stuff. Maybe we aren't the first universe to be made maybe there have been multiple ones already that are what ours is made up of and if that is so then what made them? Weird thought on a tired crazy persons brains. : )

Bad Wolf.

Not seen the 2005 Doctor Who?

(In summary: You can create yourself if you can travel in time. If you take God as not subject to time, it all gets very complicated, but he can indeed create himself)
He would need to have been created at some point for him to be able to even go back in time and make himself which would in my minds logic would indicate that there was something before him, or another weirder idea, he suddenly just came to be from nothing.

God didn't create man in his image. Man created God in his image.

It infuriates me that people automatically assign human emotions, values and other characteristics to the concept of a supreme being. Humans are filled with such self importance that they can't seem to fathom that a supreme being or unifying force for the universe might not hold them foremost and be patterned like they are. Virtually all religions are guilty of this and there is no logic to back up such an assumption. They believe we hold some special place in the master plan or that the plan revolves around mankind, when logicly mankinds place in the cosmos is minor, almost random, replacable and of little importance in the grand scheme.

Of course no religion wants to face such a prospect, they're in the business of calming the masses, erasing their natural fear of the unknown and death with assurance that they are important and eternal. Religion is mankinds security blanket to ward off the boogie man of uncertainty so it can sleep at night.
Very true, religion has also been used as a form of control and to create fear. The fear of if you do certain things wrong or don't get baptised you go to hell and other things.

I was wondering if God made everything than who made God?


God has always been. Man, however, made God in his own image later.

God didn't create man in his image. Man created God in his image.

Ooops ... someone already said it. :)

Isn't ain soph aur cool?

How could God make himself?
Lots of gods made themselves. It's symbolized in mythology by virginity.

There had to be something before him
Why?

...and then what was before that? It's a question no one can answer but interesting to think about.
Interesting, indeed.

Originally Posted by THE LOST PLANET
God didn't create man in his image. Man created God in his image.
Ooops ... someone already said it. :)
Well, the problem with this is that all that can be claimed that is created by man is the "image of God", not god itself. If wishes were ponies we could create reality, but we can't.

Nothing made God; God has always been and will always be...

John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

(of course the Word is Jesus... this says that God/Jesus have been around forever. Of course, God did not come to earth incarnate until about 2000 years ago)

everything else you said I thought was brilliant.

Actually, satan didn't introduce anything, Satan isn't meant to be seen as a being in the same way god is. Satan is meant to be a term to represent all temptation for people to stray from God. God gave people the freedom to choose. They were tempted by the serpent(which by the way was never meant to be a snake in the first place. that's somewhat unrelated, but it's my pet peeve of common misconceptions concerning the bible) which many belive to be put there by God to test the people, and they chose to stray from god by eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge(which wasn't an apple, the type of fruit is never mentioned in scripture, and apples cannot be grown in the area where the garden of eden would have been, had it existed.) people chose, so the conflict between good and evil came from god's giving people free will and people using it to betray god.

that's my opinion mostly anyway.


It is supposed to be a snake, it just starts out with legs. It's an attack on the snake cults that dominated the ancient middle east.

I went to the second page of the forum and found an interesting thread that had to deal with religion. I am not very religious and I have nothing against religious people except for the ones who are overly zealous and a bit crazy. I was wondering if God made everything than who made God?

Myrth.

i believe in the one and only God who created anything.how can people think that everythin just well happened it just makes no sense.

I'm amazed nobody's torn this post apart yet, If you want something doing properly...

There have been many suggestions that there is a possibility of several different gods, and that it could be impossible to confirm the existence of even one god. I want to bring up a point, however, that many seem to miss: if God exists the way I (a Christian) believe He does, then, like it or not, there is judgement after death, and God does not judge based on whether you care.

Key word: 'if'

Please understand I have no intention of insulting anyone, but, on that note, I challenge you, if you haven't already, to seriously consider the scientific,

None

archeological,

Ridiculously little.

and prophetic evidence the Bible exhibits, because quite franky, I think there's a ton.

From what I've seen all of the 'prophecies' are so vague that they can be interpreted in any number of ways (and so reinterpreted if they are proved to be wrong).

Author Josh McDowell (forgive me if I mispelled his name) said that Jesus was either a "Lord, lunatic, or liar," and unless I'm mistaken, there are no other possibilties about His character. Let's look at these for a second:
-He could not have been a lunatic since He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies, and
-He could not have been a liar since eyewitnesses could not deny what they had seen (not to mention, why would they have been willing to die brutal deaths for something they knew was a lie?).
If two options are incorrect (and if the reasoning I gave is not enough to convince you, ask me to continue), then logically the first option must be correct: He must have been Lord and therefore God of the universe.

This is a vicious, unprovoked attack on logic.

There are plenty of alterative explanations, the two most likely are 'Legend' and 'Later addition'.

The Legend explanation is that the miracles were added on over time.

The 'Later Addition' explanation is that Jesus the man never existed at all.

Why am I saying these things? I believe there is more than enough evidence to prove God exists, and nothing could give me greater joy than to hear of someone acknowledging that and becoming a Christian.

Operative phrase: 'I believe'

If you are interested reading about the scientific aspect about all this, I would recommend "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel, and if you have questions about pretty much anything involving Christianity, I would highly recommend visiting www.answersingenesis.org. These are great resources for facts, not just shady and questionable theories.

I'd recommend visiting this (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/) site for a thorough debunking of everything that AiG have ever said.

It's interesting to note that Ken Ham, the man in charge of AiG, ties abortion, family break-up, homosexuality, drug use and pornography to the teaching of evolution in schools. Rational huh?

In the Bible, God says He exists the way I believe He does, and if nothing can prove otherwise, then that must be true.

I'm sorry? You're making the claim; the burden of proof is on you.

This is serious stuff, and like I said, if you haven't already, I challenge you to seriously consider the strong evidence of Jesus' resurrection and the validity of the Bible.

If you can even produce some reliable, contemporary evidence that Jesus the man existed at all I'll be impressed.

i believe in the one and only God who created anything.how can people think that everythin just well happened it just makes no sense.

As opposed to eminently sensible and reasonable ideas such as 'the fate of every man, woman and child on the planet is dependant on their belief in a Jewish heretic who was nailed to a tree by the Romans over two thousand years ago'?

How do we know the stories about Jesus are true? I believe maybe the person Jesus was real, married Mary Magdelene, tried to get people into his what he believed, and I also happen to believe maybe he was either a bit nuts or just extremely imaginative. I have not heard any evidence that proves he exsisted, was crucified and came back to life. He was human in my book therefore once he died he didn't come back. I feel that was more a story that got told again and again and was basically like a lot of conspiracy theories today. Remeber the Bible was written LONG after Jesus was no more.
I'm curious to know which stories you are questioning... also, how was He nuts? No one taught Him the things He taught, so I'm not quite sure how what He said and did would make him looney provided everything else was correct.
You mentioned the Bible being written long after He was alive. You would be right in saying the Bible was "compiled" centuries after His physical existence, but the letters and documents put into it were not; they were written by His followers and eyewitnesses. The Dead Sea Scrolls, along with many other manuscripts, prove they were from that time. Another thing is that, anyone, even the very Pharisees who wanted Him crucified, could have denied the event ever occurred. But they didn't, and these events were even confirmed by outside historians (like Flavius Josephus).
As for whether He came back I again bring up that hundreds of people saw Him and that no one denied it, and also that many died brutal brutal deaths because they believed it; the transformations in their lives prove this- look at Simon Peter- he was a fisherman who denied Christ even after a couple years of being with Him, yet later, he was crucified and many say it was up-side down. Why would he have been so willingly executed? A simple "No it's not true" would have been all it took to save his life. But he chose death.
So there really is evidence that He first of all existed, and that He was crucified.

Do you see how you have used an absolutist argument in an attempt to support a relativist point of view? Without an external authority (God), there is no basis for deeming anything to be either "good" or "bad."

I think this topic is fascinating also. I don't know that anyone can prove that their answers are the right ones, but I do nevertheless believe that right answers do exist. I think our "commission" is to try to get as close as we can to the right answers, while always keeping an open mind because we know that we might not have it quite right... yet.

I got to get to bed too... 'night all.

I completely disagree with that first point. Good and bad don't need a god to exist. Atheists can still be good or bad people without any religious convictions. I think society could (and does) decide what's wrong or right for itself. For instance: Death penalties. Some regions of the US has them, others don't. And that's differences within one 'whole' country.

Yeah, striving to come to some ultimate answer isn't going to hurt, so long as we keep open minds. Fundamentalists would probably oppose this sort of mixing pot of religious ideas, but I have little time for them anyway. :)

There have been many suggestions that there is a possibility of several different gods, and that it could be impossible to confirm the existence of even one god. I want to bring up a point, however, that many seem to miss: if God exists the way I (a Christian) believe He does, then, like it or not, there is judgement after death, and God does not judge based on whether you care. Please understand I have no intention of insulting anyone, but, on that note, I challenge you, if you haven't already, to seriously consider the scientific, archeological, and prophetic evidence the Bible exhibits, because quite franky, I think there's a ton.
Author Josh McDowell (forgive me if I mispelled his name) said that Jesus was either a "Lord, lunatic, or liar," and unless I'm mistaken, there are no other possibilties about His character. Let's look at these for a second:
-He could not have been a lunatic since He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies, and
-He could not have been a liar since eyewitnesses could not deny what they had seen (not to mention, why would they have been willing to die brutal deaths for something they knew was a lie?).
If two options are incorrect (and if the reasoning I gave is not enough to convince you, ask me to continue), then logically the first option must be correct: He must have been Lord and therefore God of the universe.
Why am I saying these things? I believe there is more than enough evidence to prove God exists, and nothing could give me greater joy than to hear of someone acknowledging that and becoming a Christian.
In the Bible, God says He exists the way I believe He does, and if nothing can prove otherwise, then that must be true.
This is serious stuff, and like I said, if you haven't already, I challenge you to seriously consider the strong evidence of Jesus' resurrection and the validity of the Bible.
Please, please, please, if you have a question or "rebuttal," post it and if I don't have an answer I will do my best to find one for you. The whole judgement-after-death thing is an enormous deal and it means a lot to me, even though I don't know you, just that you even read this far. So if you did, thank you, and I apologize if this was long and boring for you. (I also noticed that I put a ton of commas in this, so if that was annoying sorry about that as well).

To the highlighted points I say this: Unless we've missed something.
To definitively say, "Jesus was x, y, or z. Since he's not x, or y, he must be z" can very easily lead to erroneous conclusions. What if there's an option w? Or many other options that the author of the idea missed due to religious convictions? For instance, Muslims call Jesus a Prophet. That doesn't fit in your model. There was a massive argument back in the 300's AD about whether Jesus even WAS God or not. There were two powerful sides to the debate: one saying he was God, and the other saying he was a holy man. The holy man (prophet) description wasn't even looked at in the equation given, so I hold the equation to be false.

To say that God must exist in the way you think He does because we can't prove it otherwise is again not necessarily sound reasoning. Way back, people believed the world was flat, and persecuted anyone who said otherwise. The world was also the center of the universe. People have unequivocally "known" things in the past for obscure reasons, and were later found to be wrong. I have no problem with people believing in God. I do, myself. But my ideas are not set in stone, and inflexible. I don't think anyone can know, for certain, the exact qualities of God. How could we possibly comprehend something we can't directly relate to? It's a matter of faith, and therefore I think everyone is right and wrong, to some degree, myself included. :)

Lots of gods made themselves. It's symbolized in mythology by virginity.


Why?


Interesting, indeed.

Agreed. The argument given assumes that God cares about "before" which is based in our own understanding of time. If God is outside of time, God would not need a "before" or "after." So far as we're concerned, in our linear understanding of time, God always was, and always will be.

I'm curious to know which stories you are questioning... also, how was He nuts? No one taught Him the things He taught, so I'm not quite sure how what He said and did would make him looney provided everything else was correct.
You mentioned the Bible being written long after He was alive. You would be right in saying the Bible was "compiled" centuries after His physical existence, but the letters and documents put into it were not; they were written by His followers and eyewitnesses.

This is pure speculation, not evidence.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, along with many other manuscripts, prove they were from that time. Another thing is that, anyone, even the very Pharisees who wanted Him crucified, could have denied the event ever occurred. But they didn't, and these events were even confirmed by outside historians (like Flavius Josephus).

The Dead Sea Scrolls don't prove anything of the sort.

Flavius Josephus's reference to Jesus:
1. Was writen long after the events (93 AD) so Josephus never met Jesus or witnessed the events.
2. Is widely agreed to be a later addition to the text.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus)

Over the last century, the consensus seems to have changed, and the subjective nature of many of the arguments used in the 19th century has been recognized. Judging from the 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree. However, a significant number of scholars consider it genuine, on the grounds that all of the passages supposed to be corrupt are upheld by other writers; a significant number of scholars likewise consider the passage interpolated, on the ground that all the passages upheld are likewise demolished by other writers.

As for whether He came back I again bring up that hundreds of people saw Him and that no one denied it,

Source: The Bible.

and also that many died brutal brutal deaths because they believed it; the transformations in their lives prove this- look at Simon Peter- he was a fisherman who denied Christ even after a couple years of being with Him, yet later, he was crucified

Source: The Bible.

and many say it was up-side down.

This isn't even supported by the Bible, it's merely Christian tradition.

Why would he have been so willingly executed?

Source: The Bible.

A simple "No it's not true" would have been all it took to save his life. But he chose death.

Source: The Bible.

So there really is evidence that He first of all existed, and that He was crucified.

Ever heard of Circular Logic?

What really grinds my gears is the insistence that Something or someone must have made the universe because it cant have just come from nowhere. But this creator invariably comes from nowhere or is eternal. And people who deliberately refer to god as female. I usually say "he" but really it makes no sense to assign gender to a supreme being who is the only one.

God dont need no penis. he could just create an orgasmatron if he wanted.

bump

I was wondering if God made everything than who made God?
Time.

Ok, there seems to be a lot of opposition to what I've been saying so I'll just respond to a few of the responses...
First of all, yes, obviously some of my arguments were speculation- but I also think they made sense.
Gargantua City State, you said "what if there's an option w?" Well, what is option w? I think it's fair to say the historical figure was real, and Jesus said He was God. This means either He was or He wasn't. If He wasn't, He either thought He was and was therefore crazy, or He was an outright liar and has fooled billions of people throughout the last 2000 years, not to mention wasted a ton of Sunday mornings. A lot of these things are just kinda straightforward- either they were, or they weren't. And I suppose there could be arguments for either of these three options, but with an open mind I still think the evidence points to Jesus as Lord.
And as for the center of the universe thing and the flat planet, I'll give you that. I can't assume based on a lack of evidence on the other part.
However, Lee Strobel's book I mentioned talks about a lot of science, so Randomlittleisland, I think you're being voluntarily ignorant. Again, I have no intention of insulting, but saying there is none simply isn't true.
Strobel specifically aims to avoid theories, and consistently sticks with cold hard facts. The only thing I regret about his book is that he didn't interview scientists from the other side. Otherwise it's awesome.
Moving on...
The Dead Sea scrolls do prove that the things written in the Bible were the originals, word for word, and I'm sorry, but saying otherwise is flat out wrong, no matter what you believe; they are the original writings of the followers of Jesus (and some writings from the Old Testament, like Isaiah), so there is no way they don't prove the timing of the writings. Yes, scribes made copies by hand of all this, but there were so many people to verify their writings that it makes no sense to keep arguing about it. The scrolls also prove the existence of the historical figure Jesus because those that were with Him wrote the originals, and no changes have been made.
On to the appearances-after-death argument.
You mentioned that the source of what I said was the Bible. Was that trying to prove something? In all honesty I couldn't quite grasp it. The point I was making was that anyone could have denied what was written about what happened. Anyone. Did they? No- the things written in the Bible were written by people that were there, and many of the people involved died horrible deaths. Why would they have been willing to die for something they saw and knew was a lie? It doesn't make sense! There just is no answer.
Also, for the upside-down thing with Peter, I even acknowledged that wasn't directly from the Bible. So I don't think you gained much from that.
I hope this has been a good enough defence, let me know if not

This is in a way not related, but I'm curious- are there people in this forum who agree with me?

Ok, there seems to be a lot of opposition to what I've been saying so I'll just respond to a few of the responses...
First of all, yes, obviously some of my arguments were speculation- but I also think they made sense.
Gargantua City State, you said "what if there's an option w?" Well, what is option w? I think it's fair to say the historical figure was real, and Jesus said He was God. This means either He was or He wasn't. If He wasn't, He either thought He was and was therefore crazy, or He was an outright liar and has fooled billions of people throughout the last 2000 years, not to mention wasted a ton of Sunday mornings. A lot of these things are just kinda straightforward- either they were, or they weren't. And I suppose there could be arguments for either of these three options, but with an open mind I still think the evidence points to Jesus as Lord.

Really? Please present me with some reliable, contemporary evidence for the existance of Jesus the man. I've asked dozens of Christians to do this and not one of them has managed it.

However, Lee Strobel's book I mentioned talks about a lot of science, so Randomlittleisland, I think you're being voluntarily ignorant. Again, I have no intention of insulting, but saying there is none simply isn't true.
Strobel specifically aims to avoid theories, and consistently sticks with cold hard facts. The only thing I regret about his book is that he didn't interview scientists from the other side. Otherwise it's awesome.

A very good refutation of Lee Strobel's book: link (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/creator.html)

Read it and educate yourself. Have you noticed that these Creation 'scientists' have never managed to get even one article published in a peer reviewed scientific journal? This is because to get an article in you have to submit it to a team of experts who will tear apart even the slightest flaw in your work, the 'science' of creationists is only good enough to fool the gullible, it can't match a real scientist.

Moving on...
The Dead Sea scrolls do prove that the things written in the Bible were the originals, word for word, and I'm sorry, but saying otherwise is flat out wrong, no matter what you believe; they are the original writings of the followers of Jesus (and some writings from the Old Testament, like Isaiah), so there is no way they don't prove the timing of the writings. This also proves the existence of the historical figure Jesus because those that were with Him wrote this and no one denied it.

Completely wrong.

The books found were:

Books/No. found

Psalms/ 39
Deuteronomy/ 33
1 Enoch/ 25
Genesis/ 24
Isaiah/ 22
Jubilees/ 21
Exodus/ 18
Leviticus/ 17
Numbers/ 11
Minor Prophets/ 10
Daniel/ 8
Jeremiah/ 6
Ezekiel/ 6
Job/ 6
1&2 Samuel/ 4

In other words not one New Testament text. Here's a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea_scrolls#Frequency_of_Books_Found) to back up my assertions.

On to the appearances-after-death argument.
You mentioned that the source of what I said was the Bible. Was that trying to prove something? In all honesty I couldn't quite grasp it. The point I was making was that anyone could have denied what was written about what happened. Anyone. Did they? No- the things written in the Bible were written by people that were there, and many of the people involved died horrible deaths. Why would they have been willing to die for something they saw and knew was a lie? It doesn't make sense! There just is no answer.
Also, for the upside-down thing with Peter, I even acknowledged that wasn't directly from the Bible. So I don't think you gained much from that.
I hope this has been a good enough defence, let me know if not

Not at all I'm afraid.

The four Gospels almost certainly weren't written by eye-witnesses, most scholars guess that Mark (probably the earliest gospel) was written between 60 and 70AD; the average life expectancy at the time was 25; you do the maths.

And my point was that the huge ammounts of evidence that you claim to have boil down to one book, the Bible, which we can show wasn't written by eyewitnesses or indeed until a long time after the supposed events. The only record we have of people being martyred comes from the Bible. This is why I asked you if you knew what circular logic is.

Ok, there seems to be a lot of opposition to what I've been saying so I'll just respond to a few of the responses...
First of all, yes, obviously some of my arguments were speculation- but I also think they made sense.
Gargantua City State, you said "what if there's an option w?" Well, what is option w? I think it's fair to say the historical figure was real, and Jesus said He was God. This means either He was or He wasn't. If He wasn't, He either thought He was and was therefore crazy, or He was an outright liar and has fooled billions of people throughout the last 2000 years, not to mention wasted a ton of Sunday mornings. A lot of these things are just kinda straightforward- either they were, or they weren't. And I suppose there could be arguments for either of these three options, but with an open mind I still think the evidence points to Jesus as Lord.
And as for the center of the universe thing and the flat planet, I'll give you that. I can't assume based on a lack of evidence on the other part.
However, Lee Strobel's book I mentioned talks about a lot of science, so Randomlittleisland, I think you're being voluntarily ignorant. Again, I have no intention of insulting, but saying there is none simply isn't true.
Strobel specifically aims to avoid theories, and consistently sticks with cold hard facts. The only thing I regret about his book is that he didn't interview scientists from the other side. Otherwise it's awesome.
Moving on...
The Dead Sea scrolls do prove that the things written in the Bible were the originals, word for word, and I'm sorry, but saying otherwise is flat out wrong, no matter what you believe; they are the original writings of the followers of Jesus (and some writings from the Old Testament, like Isaiah), so there is no way they don't prove the timing of the writings. Yes, scribes made copies by hand of all this, but there were so many people to verify their writings that it makes no sense to keep arguing about it. The scrolls also prove the existence of the historical figure Jesus because those that were with Him wrote the originals, and no changes have been made.
On to the appearances-after-death argument.
You mentioned that the source of what I said was the Bible. Was that trying to prove something? In all honesty I couldn't quite grasp it. The point I was making was that anyone could have denied what was written about what happened. Anyone. Did they? No- the things written in the Bible were written by people that were there, and many of the people involved died horrible deaths. Why would they have been willing to die for something they saw and knew was a lie? It doesn't make sense! There just is no answer.
Also, for the upside-down thing with Peter, I even acknowledged that wasn't directly from the Bible. So I don't think you gained much from that.
I hope this has been a good enough defence, let me know if not

This is in a way not related, but I'm curious- are there people in this forum who agree with me?

I see what the problem is, now... Jesus NEVER said he was God. Look in the Bible. I have never had anyone quote me a passage where Jesus directly says he is God. This is simply tradition, based on a decision by the Council of Nicea in the 300's. And human decisions are not infallible.
There are quotes from Jesus (i.e., ye of little faith) where it seems that he wants us to reach further, and be better... where he wants us ALL to reach his level, where we can live and breathe the truth of God... His message was NEVER that he was above us... he went out of his way to humble himself. I think he hoped we could attain his level of peace and love. (operative words "I think")
So, as I stated previously, my "w" in the equation is that he was holy, but not God. A path to God, perhaps, but not God... unless you are willing to say that we are all God. (And really, if God is in all things...wouldn't we be?)

All right, I guess I remembered wrong or something with the Dead Sea Scrolls... I was under the impression they had the gospels but apparently they didn't.
As I said previously, however, there are historians outside of the Bible and Christianity that mentioned Him, and explanations of a few can be found at http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/ (these are beside Josephus). Yes, they lived several years after His death, but I'm sure you'll see they are accurate. Surely if there was a possibility of incorrect entries others would have caught and exposed them (not just later historians, but contemporary readers as well). Now that I think about it- what about the Roman Empire? There's all sorts of evidence for Jesus and His impact on others.
Anyway, going back to what you said, you have asked me for modern evidence of Jesus' existence. I'm afraid, however, we're both at a loss; niether of us can prove anything based on that. Why? Because Jesus lived 2000 years ago; why should anyone expect evidence to "appear" now, instead of when He was actually around? Now, don't get me wrong there are plenty of things proveable today about other things, but I don't see how you can expect anyone to confirm any historical person or event with modern data unless by archeological evidence. Since niether of us would expect to find something like His body, examining archeology for this would be pointless. Other kinds of archeological evidence would most likely support my beliefs anyway, so as far as "modern" evidence it's kinda like a stalemate in my favor. I'm sure you're tired of reading this from me, but in this case, we have to go by the eyewitnesses, many of whom were not only available for "interviews," but were also the actual writers.
Speaking of interviews and articles, one of the main reasons the majority of Christian articles aren't published in big science magazines is because no matter how complex and reasonable-sounding they are, they're not allowed. Don't believe me? Go for it. I haven't personally, but there are hundreds if not thousands who have. I even heard some don't even read the articles- soon as you say something like "God is real" or "I have a Creationist article," their biased views burst into flames and they send them away. This is not always the case, obviously, but it is a reason.
And by the way, just reading one random chapter from Lee's book shows you that there are countless legitimate Christian scientists- one of the ones he interviewed had a double phd, just as a single example.
Anyone... if you haven't read the book I challenge you to read it with an open mind and tell me God doesn't exist. My guess is it will be difficult.
One key point is that if the science checks out (and even if this book doesn't do it for you, there are thousands more to choose from), then no life expectancy can stop the truth that the writers of the Bible were in fact Jesus' followers. Even with the theoretical life expectancy in mind (which i think seems a bit too low, for example the ancient Egyptians' life expectancy was a little under 40), no one is even positive about when the gospels were written. I don't want this to seem like just an excuse, but there it is. To be honest, at this point I can't be sure myself about that.
So on to your latest post... did Jesus directly say He was God? Was he humble? No and yes, in that order. But, I think it's terrifically outlandish to say, because of that, that He wasn't (and isn't) God. This is for several reasons (I'll only mention a couple):
First of all, if what He said was true, then He is the Messiah- the annointed One. He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies made hundreds of years before Him (most of which are in the Dead Sea Scrolls), and there are various references to Him in the Old Testament ("The angel of the Lord," for example, vs "An angel of the Lord"). It's not a sure thing if this was talking about the pre-incarnate Christ, but it's a common view and only one example.
Secondly, the most important reason of all, is His resurrection. Not only is this the ultimate reason for our beliefs, but this is what makes Jesus different. No one raised Him from the dead but Himself (and if you want I'll supply evidence for His rising), unlike others who had been risen by God through humans.
So you're right in saying He didn't directly say "I'm God," but everything else in the Bible suggests that.
I just remembered a verse- I think this is found in Isaiah- regarding the Messiah: "He shall be called Wonderful, Counselor; Almighty God..." My quotation's punctuation might be wrong but the words are not. This is probably the most convincing verse about Jesus' nature according to specifically the Bible.

One more quick thought before I quit for the moment...
At no point does it say it's possible for us to reach His level. See Him face to face? Yes- and I can't wait for that opportunity- but not reach His level. Although, I suppose that depends on what you mean by level. So with that in mind I can't say.
By the way, Christians (or at least the ones who know what they're talking about when they have discussions like this) do not believe God is in all things. Evidence for Him, and amazing beauty, perhaps (as in sunsets or whatever), but not Him. If that's what you were suggesting, we don't believe it. Quite frankly we're not about to worship waterfalls and rainbows and pretty ponies because God is in them. (Those are awkward examples but you know what I mean)

I'm not religious, but I go to catholic school, and I've probably read more scripture than alot of pious christians. GOD is the alpha and the omega. he was always there, no one created him. God made women from man because it was the only thing that fulfilled Adam's need for company after none of the animals had been sufficient community for Adam. Alot of pagan religions do believe in a female/male pair of major dieties. When you speak of "religious" it seems to me you really mean to say "christian." people who practice other religions such as pagan religions are just as religious.

you dont need to "know more scripture than most Christians" to know this...this is basic knowledge. I go to a public school and go to church on Sundays and I know this.

One more quick thought before I quit for the moment...
At no point does it say it's possible for us to reach His level. See Him face to face? Yes- and I can't wait for that opportunity- but not reach His level. Although, I suppose that depends on what you mean by level. So with that in mind I can't say.
By the way, Christians (or at least the ones who know what they're talking about when they have discussions like this) do not believe God is in all things. Evidence for Him, and amazing beauty, perhaps (as in sunsets or whatever), but not Him. If that's what you were suggesting, we don't believe it. Quite frankly we're not about to worship waterfalls and rainbows and pretty ponies because God is in them. (Those are awkward examples but you know what I mean)

First bold: Are you reading what I'm writing? I didn't say His level, I said Jesus'. I have said in my posts that I'm considering them separate. But then, I suppose that means we'll never be able to discuss the topic, since the thought of them being different isn't working on your end. Anyway, that's how I meant it... IF Jesus is a separate entity, a very holy man, then it sounds an awful lot like he wanted us to reach up to his level.

Second: Ah... I've heard some religious folk say that God is everywhere. To me, that implies in and around everything. I don't expect people to worship inanimate objects, so much as I'd expect them to respect the world which God created.

So on to your latest post... did Jesus directly say He was God? Was he humble? No and yes, in that order. But, I think it's terrifically outlandish to say, because of that, that He wasn't (and isn't) God. This is for several reasons (I'll only mention a couple):
First of all, if what He said was true, then He is the Messiah- the annointed One. He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies made hundreds of years before Him (most of which are in the Dead Sea Scrolls), and there are various references to Him in the Old Testament ("The angel of the Lord," for example, vs "An angel of the Lord"). It's not a sure thing if this was talking about the pre-incarnate Christ, but it's a common view and only one example.
Secondly, the most important reason of all, is His resurrection. Not only is this the ultimate reason for our beliefs, but this is what makes Jesus different. No one raised Him from the dead but Himself (and if you want I'll supply evidence for His rising), unlike others who had been risen by God through humans.
So you're right in saying He didn't directly say "I'm God," but everything else in the Bible suggests that.
I just remembered a verse- I think this is found in Isaiah- regarding the Messiah: "He shall be called Wonderful, Counselor; Almighty God..." My quotation's punctuation might be wrong but the words are not. This is probably the most convincing verse about Jesus' nature according to specifically the Bible.

First Bold: These don't say he is God. They say he's an angel of God. That, to me, says rather clearly they're two separate beings.

Second: Could I get that quote from the Bible? I don't remember hearing about the source of his resurrection before...

Third: I'll need to see if I can find the exact phrase, and where it is in context... because if it's "He shall be called..." that's not saying he is. That's just saying what people will call him. There's a difference.

That irritates me, too. Women and men should stand together, not one ruling over the other. Each brings something different to the table, but neither is better than the other. I just think accepting both makes for a more complete picture. I'll always lock horns with people who inherently believe that they're better than some other group. We're all human. We all add to the pallette of colours in the world... we paint a much better picture together. :)
That being said, I not only have a problem with men who feel they should dominate women, I have a problem with the extreme (minority) feminists who feel they should be above men as some sort of weird justice for past wrongs. Granted, it was wrong of men to subjugate women, but it would be equally wrong for women to do the same to men.
It's probably years/decades off, but I think true equality is attainable.
I agree on all points.

That said, I am a closet feminazi (even though I am a gay guy), who would love to see female dominated societies. That is something I suppress though :p

Hmm.. Isaiah 9, 6: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

A part of that confuses me... "the gov't shall be upon his shoulder"
That, and is seems to just come out of nowhere... I'm going to have to read the section from the start apparently to understand where it's coming from. The tone of the passages around it seem to be filled with violence, and a lot of "God is angry" sort of stuff... which wasn't the message of Jesus.
If anyone knows this stuff better, I'd like to hear common theories on what this is all about...

With regard to the "The vs An" thing, I said that it's not a sure thing. So I suppose you're right in the sense that it shouldn't have been my example. But still- it's possible that it's a reference to Jesus.
With your second point, what I said isn't from the Bible. It's just what happened. Whether God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit technically rose Jesus is beyond me, but God rose Jesus (Himself).

I'll be back in half an hour or so after posting this, I've gotta go

All right I'm back...
so what I was saying before about who rose Jesus (assuming for the moment He did in fact rise again)- man could not have brought Jesus from the dead, nor could nature, so that leaves God. And since Jesus was God, that means God rose Himself, as confusing as that may seem.
By the way, Gargantua City State, I think you're totally right if they're seperate- I thought what you were saying was that Jesus as God was wanting us to reach His level, and that doesn't make sense. Otherwise, as you stated, it does. Sorry about the mix-up.

I'm guessing the whole God in 3 parts yet 1 God thing is confusing at least one person who reads this so I'll spill my philosophy on this (and yes it is merely speculation)- to describe an egg, you have to explain the 3 main parts: the shell, the white, and the yolk. You'd be missing the big picture (the egg) if you left out one of those 3. It's the same with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as confusing as it can be for you or me sometimes. So I hope what I said explains it enough for those wondering about that.

One more thing, I just have a question- was what I said earlier enough to convince everyone that if Jesus was who He said He was that He also had to be God?

I went to the second page of the forum and found an interesting thread that had to deal with religion. I am not very religious and I have nothing against religious people except for the ones who are overly zealous and a bit crazy. I was wondering if God made everything than who made God?

Also would it not make more sense that if deities exsist and deities made everything that it was a male and female pair? Why would a male make a world where men needed women to reproduce and vice versa? Why not make them self sufficient? It makes more sense that if deities created us that it was a male and female who made us like them. Interested to see people's ideas. Please don't be bashing any religion or anyone's lack there of. I've seen too many threads go from mild debate to bashing threads.

The bible starts off "In the beginning, God created..." That to me would imply that in the "beginning" God already was. To my way of thinking, he created time itself... so existance outside of time doesn't have a start or an end... it just simply is. So God never had to be made.

As to why male and female, I think God made it pretty clear that "it is not good for man to be alone." I wonder if maybe God created everything to begin with because he didn't want to be alone either. I mean, if we are made "in the image of God" then our motivations for things ought to be somewhat related to his... so why would you create, say, a train set village? Or why would you want a pet?

I went to the second page of the forum and found an interesting thread that had to deal with religion. I am not very religious and I have nothing against religious people except for the ones who are overly zealous and a bit crazy. I was wondering if God made everything than who made God?

the logical answer to who made an all making creator would be, to my mind, that such an entity would in all likelyhood exist outside of time and space and thus require no beggining


Also would it not make more sense that if deities exsist and deities made everything that it was a male and female pair?

hinduism looks at it that way. but i don't see being inclomplete as any gendered individual is, as adiquite to a supreme being.

thus a single NONgendered god is perfectly conceivable, but a single god having only aspects of a single one of multiple genders, as you pointed out, makes little or no sense at all

i like the idea of when a goddess of nurturing and life gets togather with a god of hopes and aspirations, a world is born.

but there's nothing intrinsic to the observable diversity of reality to require the two gamate model to dominate all life in the unimaginably vast universe that surrounds us. rather abundant examples of alternatives can be found on our own world, and such as mitosis were almost unarguably predominant among its earliest life forms.

whatever the truith of nontangable forces and beings, great and small, ultimate or otherwise, the odds of any of them begining and ending with what anyone thinks they know about them are slim to none, if only because the possibilitys are so limitlessly beyond anything that has as yet been immagined by even our species entire collective immagination.

an unknown truth is almost always strainger then anything speculated about it, however popular any one flavour of that speculation might become.

=^^=
.../\...

The bible starts off "In the beginning, God created..." That to me would imply that in the "beginning" God already was. To my way of thinking, he created time itself... so existance outside of time doesn't have a start or an end... it just simply is. So God never had to be made.

As to why male and female, I think God made it pretty clear that "it is not good for man to be alone." I wonder if maybe God created everything to begin with because he didn't want to be alone either. I mean, if we are made "in the image of God" then our motivations for things ought to be somewhat related to his... so why would you create, say, a train set village? Or why would you want a pet?
I totally agree- another thing too is, with gender equality or lack thereof, it's obvious God didn't absolutely need to put Adam to sleep to make Eve. The interesting thing is that He didn't take a skull or foot bone, but a rib. Perhaps this signifies equality between genders, being side by side... just a thought

As I said previously, however, there are historians outside of the Bible and Christianity that mentioned Him, and explanations of a few can be found at http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/ (these are beside Josephus). Yes, they lived several years after His death, but I'm sure you'll see they are accurate.

If by a few years you mean more than 70....

Tacitus is merely reporting on Christian beliefs, not confirming their veracity (and he was writing long after the event). We can prove this by examing the errors in his testimony: he refers to Pilate as a 'Procurator' when he was actually a Prefect and he refers to Jesus by his religous title (Christus) rather than by his name. If Tactitus was getting his information from official records he would have fixed both of these errors so it is clear that he wasn't. The most likely explanation is therefore that he was merely reporting the beliefs of a Christian he spoke to.

Pliny's source is a very useful one if we want to examine the beliefs and rituals of early Christians but it is completely useless for proving the existance of Jesus the man as it doesn't mention him.

The Talmud was written between 70 and 200AD, not contemporary by any stretch of the imagination. Even if it is accurate it is so vague that it is practically useless. Yeshua was a common name at the time and Jesus certainly wasn't stoned. It is worth noting that a several would-be messiahs were executed by Pilate not long before Jesus was supposedly crucified, they were unusually common at the time.

Lucian is, once again, reporting on the beliefs of Christians. He was actually writing after Pliny (who wrote his source in about 112) and he certainly never met Jesus, or anyone who knew him.

Surely if there was a possibility of incorrect entries others would have caught and exposed them (not just later historians, but contemporary readers as well).

Why? I've just shown you that all of those sources are merely reporting on the beliefs of Christians at the time and in that regard they are accurate.

Now that I think about it- what about the Roman Empire? There's all sorts of evidence for Jesus and His impact on others.

I'm sorry?

Anyway, going back to what you said, you have asked me for modern evidence of Jesus' existence. I'm afraid, however, we're both at a loss; niether of us can prove anything based on that. Why? Because Jesus lived 2000 years ago; why should anyone expect evidence to "appear" now, instead of when He was actually around? Now, don't get me wrong there are plenty of things proveable today about other things, but I don't see how you can expect anyone to confirm any historical person or event with modern data unless by archeological evidence. Since niether of us would expect to find something like His body, examining archeology for this would be pointless. Other kinds of archeological evidence would most likely support my beliefs anyway, so as far as "modern" evidence it's kinda like a stalemate in my favor. I'm sure you're tired of reading this from me, but in this case, we have to go by the eyewitnesses, many of whom were not only available for "interviews," but were also the actual writers.

You misunderstand 'contemporary'. It doesn't mean evidence at this time, it means evidence from that time. All of the evidence that we have isn't contemporary as it was written long after the events.

Speaking of interviews and articles, one of the main reasons the majority of Christian articles aren't published in big science magazines is because no matter how complex and reasonable-sounding they are, they're not allowed. Don't believe me? Go for it. I haven't personally, but there are hundreds if not thousands who have. I even heard some don't even read the articles- soon as you say something like "God is real" or "I have a Creationist article," their biased views burst into flames and they send them away. This is not always the case, obviously, but it is a reason.

As far as I know no Creationist has even submitted an article to a scientific journal. If you can present credible evidence to the contrary then I will be interested to see it.

And by the way, just reading one random chapter from Lee's book shows you that there are countless legitimate Christian scientists- one of the ones he interviewed had a double phd, just as a single example.

It's interesting to note that Strobel isn't a scientist, he's a journalist, and of the eight 'experts' he interviewed only three have degrees in science, the rest have degrees in theology or philosophy. It's also interesting to note that every single one of them is a member of the Discovery Institute so they're hardly impartial. The Discovery Institute is widely criticised for intellectual dishonesty in their work:

At the foundation of most criticism of the Discovery Institute is the charge that the institute and its Center for Science and Culture intentionally misrepresent or omit many important facts in promoting their agenda. Intellectual dishonesty, in the form of misleading impressions created by the use of rhetoric, intentional ambiguity, and misrepresented evidence, form the foundation of most of the criticisms of the institute. It is alleged that its goal is to lead an unwary public to reach certain conclusions, and that many have been deceived as a result. Its critics, such as Eugenie Scott, Robert Pennock and Barbara Forrest, claim that the Discovery Institute knowingly misquotes scientists and other experts, deceptively omits contextual text through ellipsis, and makes unsupported amplifications of relationships and credentials.A wide spectrum of critics level this charge; from educators, scientists and the Smithsonian Institute to individuals who oppose the teaching of creationism along science on ideological grounds. Specific objections with examples are listed at the Center for Science and Culture article.

This criticism is not limited to those in the scientific community that oppose the teaching of intelligent design and the suppression of evolution, but also includes former Discovery Institute donors. The Bullitt Foundation, which gave $10,000 in 2001 for transportation causes, withdrew all funding of the institute; its director, Denis Hayes, called the institute "the institutional love child of Ayn Rand and Jerry Falwell," and said, "I can think of no circumstances in which the Bullitt Foundation would fund anything at Discovery today."

The Templeton Foundation, who provided grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, later asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, "They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said. [5]

The Templeton Foundation has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding, Harper states. "They're political - that for us is problematic," and that while Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science," "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth." [6]

Philip Gold, a former fellow who left in 2002, has criticized the institute for growing increasingly religious. "It evolved from a policy institute that had a religious focus to an organization whose primary mission is Christian conservatism," he has said.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute#Criticisms_of_the_institute)

Anyone... if you haven't read the book I challenge you to read it with an open mind and tell me God doesn't exist. My guess is it will be difficult.

You presume too much friend. I've read hundreds of websites, debated with dozens of Christians, and read several books and I have yet to find a convincing argument for the existance of God. Frankly Christian theology has been going downhill since Aquinas.

One key point is that if the science checks out (and even if this book doesn't do it for you, there are thousands more to choose from)

Let me get this straight: you want me to buy this (widely refuted) book, thus putting money into the hands of people who are aiming to overturn science, and, should I find that I was right in assuming that the book is complete bullshit, you want me to buy more books, giving these people even more money, in the offchance that one of them may actually have some genuine science in it?

then no life expectancy can stop the truth that the writers of the Bible were in fact Jesus' followers.

Why? Even if there is a Creator that doesn't mean it's the Christian god, why not Allah or Vishnu?

Even with the theoretical life expectancy in mind (which i think seems a bit too low, for example the ancient Egyptians' life expectancy was a little under 40), no one is even positive about when the gospels were written. I don't want this to seem like just an excuse, but there it is. To be honest, at this point I can't be sure myself about that.


Very true. Nobody knows for sure when the Gospels were written or even who wrote them. This is why they are such poor evidence.

The rest of your post wasn't directed to me so I'll leave it.

With regard to the "The vs An" thing, I said that it's not a sure thing. So I suppose you're right in the sense that it shouldn't have been my example. But still- it's possible that it's a reference to Jesus.
With your second point, what I said isn't from the Bible. It's just what happened. Whether God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit technically rose Jesus is beyond me, but God rose Jesus (Himself).

I'll be back in half an hour or so after posting this, I've gotta go

It's possible it's a reference to Jesus, but in the context of the rest of what I read, it really doesn't sound like it fits very well...

As for what I've bolded... it may be more accurate to say, "It's just what is commonly believed to have happened." As others have pointed out, it's a bit of a pain because we don't have photographic (or equivalent) proof of the situation. You're right that it wouldn't make sense for other people to die over something that never happened, but you can't REALLY prove that they died, either... It'd be nice if we knew for certain who the real authors of the Bible were, and if they were there, but that's just something that isn't provable. It's one of the points that people either have faith about, or don't. Depends on how much you trust in the tradition of stories being passed orally. I can't, because I've seen how stories change from telling to telling.

All right I'm back...
so what I was saying before about who rose Jesus (assuming for the moment He did in fact rise again)- man could not have brought Jesus from the dead, nor could nature, so that leaves God. And since Jesus was God, that means God rose Himself, as confusing as that may seem.
By the way, Gargantua City State, I think you're totally right if they're seperate- I thought what you were saying was that Jesus as God was wanting us to reach His level, and that doesn't make sense. Otherwise, as you stated, it does. Sorry about the mix-up.

I'm guessing the whole God in 3 parts yet 1 God thing is confusing at least one person who reads this so I'll spill my philosophy on this (and yes it is merely speculation)- to describe an egg, you have to explain the 3 main parts: the shell, the white, and the yolk. You'd be missing the big picture (the egg) if you left out one of those 3. It's the same with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as confusing as it can be for you or me sometimes. So I hope what I said explains it enough for those wondering about that.

One more thing, I just have a question- was what I said earlier enough to convince everyone that if Jesus was who He said He was that He also had to be God?

Okay, glad we got that confusion straightened away. :) Now, is it possible for God to raise Himself from the dead? If Jesus is God, then wouldn't it be fair to say Jesus is, and always will be? He simply couldn't die, could he? Because if Jesus died, then God died, if they're the same thing. And that just wouldn't make sense to me...

I sort of like the egg description. I think I like it better than saying God is Jesus. They may be a part of the same whole, but different, in that example. I find that less complicated than them being one and the same.

As for your question: No. The Isaiah thing is the closest I've seen to anyone proving that Jesus is God... but it brings up more questions than answers, I think. The fact that Jesus never said he was God is my big sticking point. I mean, he even avoided the question when Pilate was talking to him, asking him if he was King of the Jews, and he said, "So you say," rather than giving a straight answer. I like Jesus, just because he messed with people like that! At the same time, it makes getting any solid answers to questions very difficult.

the logical answer to who made an all making creator would be, to my mind, that such an entity would in all likelyhood exist outside of time and space and thus require no beggining




hinduism looks at it that way. but i don't see being inclomplete as any gendered individual is, as adiquite to a supreme being.

thus a single NONgendered god is perfectly conceivable, but a single god having only aspects of a single one of multiple genders, as you pointed out, makes little or no sense at all

i like the idea of when a goddess of nurturing and life gets togather with a god of hopes and aspirations, a world is born.

but there's nothing intrinsic to the observable diversity of reality to require the two gamate model to dominate all life in the unimaginably vast universe that surrounds us. rather abundant examples of alternatives can be found on our own world, and such as mitosis were almost unarguably predominant among its earliest life forms.

whatever the truith of nontangable forces and beings, great and small, ultimate or otherwise, the odds of any of them begining and ending with what anyone thinks they know about them are slim to none, if only because the possibilitys are so limitlessly beyond anything that has as yet been immagined by even our species entire collective immagination.

an unknown truth is almost always strainger then anything speculated about it, however popular any one flavour of that speculation might become.

=^^=
.../\...


Or at least have no beginning that we could ever hope to comprehend, since I haven't met anyone who really understands what living outside of time would be like. :p

I agree any almighty creator wouldn't necessarily need a gender, as we know it. It's not a necessity, but it's still possible they're gendered... maybe even in a way we don't know. That question is completely unanswerable, and whether God is male or not really doesn't matter. That was simply the convention, so I follow it for ease of discussion. Anyone who refers to God as She is just trying to pick over unimportant details, and wants attention.

I went to the second page of the forum and found an interesting thread that had to deal with religion. I am not very religious and I have nothing against religious people except for the ones who are overly zealous and a bit crazy. I was wondering if God made everything than who made God?

Also would it not make more sense that if deities exsist and deities made everything that it was a male and female pair? Why would a male make a world where men needed women to reproduce and vice versa? Why not make them self sufficient? It makes more sense that if deities created us that it was a male and female who made us like them. Interested to see people's ideas. Please don't be bashing any religion or anyone's lack there of. I've seen too many threads go from mild debate to bashing threads.
Well, I am religious but to address your question from as unbiased a point of veiw as possible.

If God is the oldest "lifeform" did not the first lifeforms reproduce asexually?
So by implying that a Diety requires male and female is only a desire to see something of yourself represented in the devine.

I dont place a Human face on God myself I think that is trite and simple minded(not you, just the idea of doing that).

Good and Evil I find to be very mundane terms when dealing with the a Diety of the magnitude of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept.

God simply is---

I suppose that might make me a Buddhist Christian, or a Confucian-CHrisitian

I dont see the importance of these big "questions"

I accept God--which means I accept nature, science, human pathology, so forth and so on.

I do not believe in super-natural concepts, something not understood isnot outside of nature...it is simply outside of OUR nature.


Sorry I rambled.

Sorry I rambled.

It was a good ramble. ;) I liked it, anyway.

Tacitus is merely reporting on Christian beliefs, not confirming their veracity (and he was writing long after the event). We can prove this by examing the errors in his testimony: he refers to Pilate as a 'Procurator' when he was actually a Prefect and he refers to Jesus by his religous title (Christus) rather than by his name. If Tactitus was getting his information from official records he would have fixed both of these errors so it is clear that he wasn't. The most likely explanation is therefore that he was merely reporting the beliefs of a Christian he spoke to.There are a few different sources that call him a procurator, so I'm not positive your argument is 100% correct. Partially, maybe, but not completely. If Jesus was known as Christus at the time, why wouldn't he have used the name Christus, regardless of his source? I'm not so sure either that that point was completely valid.
Pliny's source is a very useful one if we want to examine the beliefs and rituals of early Christians but it is completely useless for proving the existance of Jesus the man as it doesn't mention him.I find it a little hard to believe that in all his writings on Christianity that he didn't mention the man who "created" it. I don't think the website I had a link for talked about it, but come on... why wouldn't he have mentioned Jesus at least once? Also is there any evidence that what he said was incorrect to begin with?
The Talmud was written between 70 and 200AD, not contemporary by any stretch of the imagination. Even if it is accurate it is so vague that it is practically useless. Yeshua was a common name at the time and Jesus certainly wasn't stoned. It is worth noting that a several would-be messiahs were executed by Pilate not long before Jesus was supposedly crucified, they were unusually common at the time.
You mentioned the existence of false Messiahs, but does it really make a difference? How could someone who never really lived but was portrayed as a criminal paying the death penalty, made literally billions of times more of a difference than those who did live? Assuming for the moment that the gospels were really written by Jesus' disciples, how could a bunch of fishermen write books like they did without messing things up and contradicting anything else in the Bible? Unless what they said was true...
You misunderstand 'contemporary'. It doesn't mean evidence at this time, it means evidence from that time. All of the evidence that we have isn't contemporary as it was written long after the events.My mistake, but then that makes it even more apparent that we won't be able to agree, since we can't even agree on who the original authors were. So there's not too much that I can say about that.
As far as I know no Creationist has even submitted an article to a scientific journal. If you can present credible evidence to the contrary then I will be interested to see it.
With all due respect, you're being voluntarily ignorant. There are tons of examples and to say otherwise is a lie. Maybe it's possible to say this about the Discovery Institute, but not everyone.
It's interesting to note that Strobel isn't a scientist, he's a journalist, and of the eight 'experts' he interviewed only three have degrees in science, the rest have degrees in theology or philosophy. It's also interesting to note that every single one of them is a member of the Discovery Institute so they're hardly impartial.Well of course they're impartial. That's the whole point of that.
Strobel is a journalist, but he went to great lengths and did his best to provide details and facts as accurately as possible.
I'm not sure about these alleged misquotes and stuff from the Discovery Institute... if they're true then I apologize for respecting their research efforts, but then again why wouldn't they have been taken out of business if at least some of their stuff was decent? Like I said, I'm not sure what to say about that- I had never heard that before.
Let me get this straight: you want me to buy this (widely refuted) book, thus putting money into the hands of people who are aiming to overturn science, and, should I find that I was right in assuming that the book is complete bullshit, you want me to buy more books, giving these people even more money, in the offchance that one of them may actually have some genuine science in it? Put that way, no, and I'm sorry you see it like that. For those willing to read (and avoid paying anything to Christians), you can always visit your local library.
Why? Even if there is a Creator that doesn't mean it's the Christian god, why not Allah or Vishnu?Since religions have different views on a lot of things, different scientific evidence is needed to prove one right or wrong. So what I meant was that if the science checks out specifically for Christianity, meaning it's right, then it doesn't matter how long the life expectancy was- the writers would have to have been men like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That's all I was saying.
Very true. Nobody knows for sure when the Gospels were written or even who wrote them. This is why they are such poor evidence. As I said, it seems we won't be able to agree. So... I guess there's not much more either of us can say about that.

The Disciples of Jesus long to see the days of the Son of Man, but they will not see them. People say "Jesus is coming!" or "Jesus is here!"; don't go running after them. The Kingdom of God does not come with careful observation, nor by people saying "Here it is" or "There it is", because the Kingdom of God is within you.
- Luke 17: 20-23

There are a few different sources that call him a procurator, so I'm not positive your argument is 100% correct. Partially, maybe, but not completely. If Jesus was known as Christus at the time, why wouldn't he have used the name Christus, regardless of his source? I'm not so sure either that that point was completely valid.

The Romans executed a lot of people and they certainly didn't have a central bank of records. He would have had no way of telling if what he was being told was true so he simply reported it.

I find it a little hard to believe that in all his writings on Christianity that he didn't mention the man who "created" it. I don't think the website I had a link for talked about it, but come on... why wouldn't he have mentioned Jesus at least once? Also is there any evidence that what he said was incorrect to begin with?

If you can present a mention of Jesus in his writings then go ahead. My personal explanation for why he didn't mention Jesus: he never existed. A surprisingly strong case can be made for Jesus starting off as a God figure (but only in spiritual form) and it was only later that people began to believe in the man. I can give you a link if you're interested.

And no, there is no reason to assume what he says is untrue:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind

As you can see he is simply reporting the practices of Christians, there is no mention of Jesus the man.

You mentioned the existence of false Messiahs, but does it really make a difference? How could someone who never really lived but was portrayed as a criminal paying the death penalty, made literally billions of times more of a difference than those who did live?

It makes a whole world of difference. As I said Yeshua was a common name and as the description in the Talmud points to stoning rather than crucifixion it seems more reasonable to assume that it refers to someone else.

However the point is moot as the Talmud was written so long after the events that it is near useless as evidence.


Assuming for the moment that the gospels were really written by Jesus' disciples, how could a bunch of fishermen write books like they did without messing things up and contradicting anything else in the Bible? Unless what they said was true...

Are you kidding? There are hundreds of contradictions:

[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.

[John 13:34] A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another
[1 John 3:15] Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

[Ephesians 2:8,9] "For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."
[Romans 3:20,28] "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."
[Galatians 2:16] "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."

[James 2:24] "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
[Matthew 19:16-21] "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he [Jesus] said unto him . . . keep the commandments. . . . The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven."

[John 4:2] Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples

[John 3:22] After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

John even contradicts himself at times. Incidently, if I recall correctly wasn't one of the disciples a doctor and another a tax collector? Both would have been educated men.

With all due respect, you're being voluntarily ignorant. There are tons of examples and to say otherwise is a lie. Maybe it's possible to say this about the Discovery Institute, but not everyone.

I don't take kindly to being called a liar, friend. Please take that back or present me with some evidence to prove me wrong, if you can do so then I will admit to being wrong on this point.

Well of course they're impartial. That's the whole point of that.
Strobel is a journalist, but he went to great lengths and did his best to provide details and facts as accurately as possible.

Members of the Discovery Institute impartial? Isn't that an oxymoron?

I'm not sure about these alleged misquotes and stuff from the Discovery Institute... if they're true then I apologize for respecting their research efforts, but then again why wouldn't they have been taken out of business if at least some of their stuff was decent? Like I said, I'm not sure what to say about that- I had never heard that before.

Who would take them out of business? There are no controls over what people claim as science, they could claim that the entire world is controlled by an invisible pink rabbit if they wanted and there's nothing anyone can do about it. As long as people buy their books because they tell them what they want to hear then they will keep going. This is why I refuse to buy their books.

Put that way, no, and I'm sorry you see it like that. For those willing to read (and avoid paying anything to Christians), you can always visit your local library.

I have no problem with money going to Christians, I just object to funding a group which signs up to the wedge doctrine. I would love to borrow it from the library but here in the UK not many people take Creationism very seriously so libraries don't usually stock books like that.

Since religions have different views on a lot of things, different scientific evidence is needed to prove one right or wrong. So what I meant was that if the science checks out specifically for Christianity, meaning it's right, then it doesn't matter how long the life expectancy was- the writers would have to have been men like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That's all I was saying.

Not really. The three Abrahamic religions all have near identical creation stories so it could fit any of them. If Judaism is proved right then by definition the Gospels can't be true because Judaism holds that Jesus wasn't the son of God.

Okay, glad we got that confusion straightened away. :) Now, is it possible for God to raise Himself from the dead? If Jesus is God, then wouldn't it be fair to say Jesus is, and always will be? He simply couldn't die, could he? Because if Jesus died, then God died, if they're the same thing. And that just wouldn't make sense to me...
I sort of like the egg description. I think I like it better than saying God is Jesus. They may be a part of the same whole, but different, in that example. I find that less complicated than them being one and the same.
I'm not sure if I'm gonna be able to explain this as fully as I would want to, but I'll try. Jesus was 100% man and 100% God (crazy sounding, but all that means is that when He was here on earth 2000 years ago, He was God in the flesh). So that means the body He was "in" was human- He felt pain and emotions just like us. If it was a human body, then that means it could die just like we all eventually will (provided the Rapture doesn't happen yet). So the physical manifestation of God died- Jesus the Son of God died. But since Jesus was (and is) God, death could not keep a hold of Him. So the body lay from that Friday to Sunday, and at that point He rose again.
Now, since He was God, death couldn't really have kept Him dead for more than a second (if that), just because He's God, but I think the reason He stayed dead was just to prove He actually was dead. Even though it was 3 days, some people today think it was all a hoax and that He just "swooned," which is ridiculous when you look at what He went through (especially after watching The Passion of the Christ).