What a day and what a night. By day, I hosted the Winter Solstice party where I met Dartemis (sorry I didn’t get more time with you) and got commitment from 15 people to spend 20 hours each on a political campaign of their choice next year. That’s 300 hours of time, by Atheists! The speakers were great, and the food was great.It was announced that we are seeking a paid lobbyist in Washington DC. Email Ellen if you want more info at ej@atheists.org.By night, I went to a kick-a$$ holiday party with some kick-a$$ friends. Such a tremendous release to be able to party with friends. Special nod goes to Matt for a great original Christmas song! Got home at 2am. Kill me.
Seeker,
I don’t think Phred knows your background, perhaps you could share with him, as he seems to be second-guessing your knowledge on this particular text.
I also find it interesting that Mithra was also the “son of god” had 12 “disciples” at his final dinner, and died for the sins of man. All before 200 BCE(before common era, equivalent to 200 BC for those who do not wish to bastardize history with a person who cannot be verified to exist). Talk about unoriginality.
Actually, the first known depiction of Jesus clearly shows him as Apollo, the God of the sun (not the son of God), surrounded by the 12 Zodiac signs (not appostles). It is located in the Vatican.
The alpha and Omega also predates Christianity, as does the concept of Christ (Hindu), the birth on the Winter Solstice (The Sun itself, pagan), the three wise men, the crucifixion, the resurrection, salvation, the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Birth, it ALL predates Christianity. You can find out more in the little book “pagan origins of the Christ myth”, available from American Atheists. Or find it for yourself on-line.
Spanders, let me know when you get in the area.
Mr. Silverman is absolutely correct!! Here is a great link to understanding the astrology that surrounds the Jesus myth.
http://www.taroscopes.com/astro-theology/astrotheology2.html
According to the church about 3/4 mile from my house, “Jesus is Christmas”, not God.
But until this discussion began, I didn’t realize that it actually doesn’t say in the Bible “Jesus is God”. By Jingy, I do believe your’re correct! Hmmm.
Hairless raises a good point…what does it really matter? The believers will believe as they’ve convinced themselves to believe no matter what the silly book says. Find a spot where it says “Black” and they’ll swear it says’ “white.”
SNTC-I had the best dream. We were in a women’s studies class together. It was a cool class, but it was over and we were walking past walls lined with cuneiform and drawings from really olden times. We had armloads of books. You were going to show me all of your paintings. Just as you opened the door to your studio, i woke up.
There was a lot more to the dream, but can’t recall it now.
Seeker:
Well, not so bad at Evangelical Atheist, but Raving Atheist?
Yow, some of those atheists are f___ing nuts!
Sometimes, I wanted to ask ‘em, “You kiss your mother w/that mouth?”
This, luckily, was the 1st blog I came to. Everyone (well, almost) is intelligent, thoughtful, the cussing’s kept to a minimum (hey, I ain’t no wilting violet when it comes to swearing, but when some folks use the F word every 3rd time, 1 wonders at the intelligence level. English major? Not hardly).
Mostly the anger shows when 1 is poked w/a stick 1 too many times.
Gets old fast.
For Solstice,
(Last year we did sing to Saturnalia, who by custom had a person picked to be feted for a week, then gruesomely killed. But it was an impromtu deal and we didn’t have time and forethought to lavish sex and food and goods on a sacrificial volunteer.) ☺
I will get together with my pagan and agnostic friend. We gather a bunch of children. My friend’s, and their neices and nephews. We light a yule log, turn it into a bonfire. We wear solstice headdresses and dance and chant and sing sround the fire. We drink hot cocoa. Then we go inside and exchange gifts. We do this on Solstice Night. Then for xmas we get together with our own families and do the other thing.
I asked my husband if he wanted to come, but he said it sounded pretty ritualistic, and didn’t want to be picked for the sacrifice. Chicken!
“Karen:
“But it was an impromtu deal and we didn’t have time and forethought to lavish sex and food and goods on a sacrificial volunteer.) ☺ “
Ach! Missed my chance!
Hairless
I’ll put you on the list for the spring equinox. We’ll be wanting fertile crops then, so I’m sure there’ll be some appropriate sacrificial rite. Maybe you won’t even have to die.
Karen!
Thou dost misjudge the veritable power of thine very own pelvic musculature to think that I would not lose my essence in thy vise-like
embrace!
Hairless One
essence, would be to the point.
Essence, I don’t think so.
Better practice my Kegels.
Tape it for me and I will. I gave up cable a while ago, and now I get most of my television programming from the internet. But every time I have an opportunity to watch cable news I am utterly sickened, especially but necessarily exclusively by Fox. It isn’t even news anymore. It’s just a bunch of snarky, asshole bullies yelling and screaming at and about them ‘godless liberals.’ Nobody ever goes on location. Nobody even bothers to get up off their lazy fat ass and actually investigate anything. It’s just one big talking points echo chamber, and the fact that you actually take that shit seriously speaks volumes.
Faith-based news reporting: If the facts don’t gel with your agenda, just make something up.
“Comment from: karen [Member]
…Better practice my Kegels.”
*LMAO*
karen — While the precise phrase isn’t there, the concept is credible. It’s clear the writer of Paul’s letter to the Colossians considered Jesus to be the creator of the universe and, as such, was considered God. The point: One would think such a vitally pivotal docrine as the deity of Jesus would have be explicitly stated. It wasn’t.
“Hairless raises a good point…what does it really matter?”
It was a secondary thought. “If Jesus were alive today, would he be an atheist?” gave birth to the presumption that Jesus was a philosopher [as opposed to God] who, like today’s atheists, boldly confronted the absurdities of religion.
Seeker,
Thanks for clearing up the whole ‘alpha and omega’ thing for me. I guess I used to hear it so often at church that I failed to notice that it wasn’t actually in the four gospels themselves. Funny how that happens.
Believe and you will believe.
seeker
Yeah…you would think it would come right out as say as much if that’s what the truth was…but then the Bible is choc-a-bloc with contradiction and plot failings.
I don’t see how someone who thinks he’s the son of god could be an atheist. Even if he doesn’t think HE’S god, he thinks his daddy is. He could maybe be deistic, thinking dad spun the top in motion and then just let it go…
Hey. What happened to your Colts? I was rooting for them to win yesterday and they let me down.
Check out my friend’s song.
http://www.mysticworks.com/tunes
He wrote everything, and played everything. Must be nice to have talent!
Seeker…..which comment do you want me to respond to? You keep moving the line.
Comment from: mxracer652 [Member]
No, I’ve heard of his claimed credentials. That’s why I’m amazed at his comments.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us….
Heb 1:8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…..
Sure it was. And you should know it.
But what does it matter? Most on this board don’t believe Jesus was real, but that’s a different story.
As I stated before, a thread such as this shows the depths of bible knowledge by those posting.
OK……..have fun.
So the Bible is God?
Once again Phreedm, WEAK! Your circular logic is nothing compared to Seeker’s unique attention to detail.
r4d….
In a sense……………..yes.
Nice job.
Those who have studied the letter to the Hebrews are aware that Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation taken from Psalms 45:6,7 which reads, “Your throne, God, is forever and ever;the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of justice. (7)You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you, more than your companions, with the oil of joy.”
It is clear the person being addressed in verse 6 is different from the person being addressed in verse 7. God is not the same as the one anointed by God. He isn’t annointing another version of himself.
The writer of Hebrews refers to this passage in his thesis concerning the difference between angels and the Son. His argumet isn’t that the son is God, but that the son is annointed of God.
Granted, fundamentalists claim this passage in much the same manner as they point to Colossian 1:17,18 as evidence that Jesus is God. That the writer of Hebrews is noting that God’s throne has been consigned to the son would be a more likely understanding in light of the passage from which it is taken.
What’s more, the writer of Hebrews declares that the Son was “made.” That, of course, is routinely explained away by fundamentalists who realize that a created Son cannot be eternal and, therefore, cannot be God. But the Mormons, I understand, are quite pleased with that rendering.
The passage in Colossians is much more suitable text if one cares to argue in favor of the deity of Jesus.
One could also point to Paul’s letter to Titus where we read of “the great God and savior Jesus Christ.” Was Paul calling Jesus God in this passage? Nope.
Again, the deity of Christ is implied and inferred, but nowhere does the Bible expressly state, “Jesus is God.”
No.
The term “word” in John 1:1 come from the Greek word “logos.” It incorporates the meaning of concept or idea as well as a literal spoken word. It also embodies the idea of doctrine or teaching.
John is confirming what Jesus said of himself, “I am … the truth.”
John’s first epistle includes a passage that reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word [logos], and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” John substitutes “Jesus” with the “the Word.” (Critics say this verse wasn’t in the original.)
The Bible is ink and paper. The logos would be the truth expressed with ink on paper.
Now for those who believe Jesus is a fanciful myth; that he exists only on paper and in the minds of the faithful, then perhaps we could say he is, in a sense, inseperable from the written Bible. Was John hinting at this? Perish the thought.
seeker
You are ducking the toughest question of all, from Karen.
What happened to dem Colts?? lol
gently
☺ lol
The Seeker:
If that?s so, then how do you interpret John?s quoting Jesus in John 10:30??I and the Father are one.? ?
jcc
No matter what Christ said, you say he was human while on earth. So he could not be god.
Here we go again, right?
HeatheNZ
Did ypu ever find any active xian blogs worth visiting?
Karen,
I did not. I tried a few sites but they seemed disappointingly uneventful. I feel that there must be some with worthwhile debates ongoing. But I have thus far been unable to locate them.
karen:
I have, twice?those 41 factual interdependent characteristics of the universe that objectively indicate design; plus my personal, subjective experience.
You?re right on the money except for that last sentence?Christ used His supernatural power to prove He was who He said He was?not to tyrannically wield it over us.
HZ
I’ve had same luck as you. Seems like there was a fairly active one I happened across when I first started blogging here, but can’t for the life of me remember what it was or how I came upon it. Just checking.
karen:
Why do you presume that being both God and human are mutually exclusive? Can you explain to me the logical inconsistency of being both fully human and fully God?
Only if you want to.
jcc
How can one have superpowers and be merely human?
How can one be merely human yet have superpowers?
If one somehow has both, but “turns off” the powers or disregards the mere humanity, then the word “Fully” does not apply.
Besides, the word god and logical don’t belong in the same phrasing.
Please explain to me how one can be a god, and human at the same time.
karen:
It is not illogical for an omnipotent (infinitely powerful) being to take the form of a human being and still remain omnipotent. Taking such form requires physical restrictions for that being?Jesus was not omnipresent while on earth?but there is nothing illogical in asserting that the ?essence? of God was not diminished while Jesus walked the earth.
Any being capable of creating the entire universe also means being able to do anything within that universe.
It is not ONLY illogical for an omnipotent (infinitely powerful) being to take the form of a human being and still remain omnipotent, it is illogical for an omnipotent eing to even exist. So do you believe Zeus became a goat, or ram or whatever?
Jesus was not omni-anything. Yet he seems to have switched his powers on and off for convenience and martyrdom. He could walk on water, heal the sick and dead, change water to wine, but no save himself from suffering. I know, I know. His sufferning was necessary to save us. I am not impressed with his suffering or his saving considering the great suffering of others at the time and the great miracles he could have used to enlist believers and didn’t.
Want me to believe? Show up. In a way I understand. If you’re all-mighty, you can do that, and you can do it for each and every person on the planet even if each one has a different need.
Want me to not believe? Say you’re all-mighty and fail. By my standards. Not fair? Sure it is. If he made me, then he made my standards and knows what to expect. No problem. After all,
As for being two things at one time…
Can the apple be the tree…at the SAME TIME/
Can a bird be a snail?
Can a watchmaker be a steel girder in the Statue of Liberty? Can he hold together the statue while he makes a watch? Can he make a watch while he’s made of steel?
How do YOU know god’s power wasn’t diminished by taking part of himself and putting it into human form? What did he do during that time to prove he was a spowerful? How do you know he was still omniscient? Is there a measurement for how much energy is subtracted from an all-powerful being when part of him is made human? After all, on the 7th day, he had to rest, he must have got tired sometimes.
We know he wasn’t omnipresent, in either father or son form. A human can only be in one place at a time and we know christ said “Father, why hast Thou forsaken me?” So he wasn’t even with himself when he needed himself!
It contravenes a logical axiom. ie that something cannot be both A and not A at the same time.
Of course this assumes that a human is not also a god. If that is so then this blog is in sooooooooo much trouble.
Even if one were to take the Gospels literally (which of course I do not,) Jesus is anything but “omnipotent (infinitely powerful).” He complains about being hungry and instead of making a fig tree grow fruit he throws a fit and kills the thing. He complains about being overwhelmed with too much work when all the lepers crowd around him demanding to be cured (my favorite part in Jesus Christ Superstar.) Most of his supposed miracles sound a lot like a combination of simple slight-of-hand and psychosomatic faith healing. The only two exceptions I can think of are 1) walking on water,which sounds like a pretty typical exaggeration that could be drawn from a number of different scenarios, and 2) raising Lazaris from the dead, which conspicuously only appears in 1 gospel – why would the other three overlook his most amazing trick?
NOTHING ILLOGICAL??? Do you ever even listen to yourself? At the very least, this brand of ‘logic’ that you’re pushing on us is based on a range of incredibly illogical and insoluble assumptions. You can not reason your way to god. People ten times smarter than you have tried many many times and have failed miserably. Give it up. Religion is faith, and faith has zero epistemological value.
Believe and you will believe.
There’s the word: assertion. Omnipotent being exists, eh? Prove it.
karen:
Why? You haven?t provided a counter-argument or demonstrated the fallacy of my assertion; you?re simply engaging in gainsaying.
I never said He was.
Do you not possess the ability to not act according to your will as well?
HeatheNZ said it most succinctly in his post immediately following yours:
It seems you (as well as HeatheNZ) have assumed that an omnipotent being cannot exist.
jcc,
Well you know what happens when you assume things…. Actually I think it is logically possible for an omnipotent being to exist … I think (but I could be wrong – happy to discuss the logical possibility with anyone). However, if you start adding omni-other stuff in it quickly becomes logically farcical.
I also think it’s logically possible that the universe and all therein is just a figment of my imagination. I hold that the two concepts have about the same truth value.
Of course my posting stating that “this assumes that a human is not also a god.” was intended to be a bit of light relief. The core point was the claiming to be both human and not human (or god and not god) at the same time contravenes a basic logical axiom.
jcc
You are the one saying there is an elephant in the room. If you have proof of this elephant, show me. I do not have to prove it is not there.
You said Jesus was god. You said God was omni-this and that. Ergo, you’re saying Jesus is omni-this and that.
Depends on whether my will is actually “free” or not, doesn’t it?
I say there is no god manipulating me, so let’s say I do have free will. I AM able to not act upon my will, if I so choose. I am NOT able, however, to be two of me at the same time. I am also not Omnipotent. If I were, I could act against my will or with my will and make you think I was doing whatever I wished you to think about it.
Why would Christ not use his powers to ease his own suffering? Was the brutality of his end that important? Or is it as Natasha pointed out, that great men of the time, in their stories, had to have great lives and great deaths to enhance their importance?
As HeatheNZ pointed out, and I had already correctly assumed, his point about humans being gods was in jest.
As for assuming an omnipotent being cannot exist…I say that none has come forward and demonstrated itself to meover my lifetime, and I have not seen, read nor heard of any evidence from anyone else to that effect. If it were omnipotent, it would certainly have the power to do so. So, yes, I will go out on a limb and say that until shown otherwise, I assume an omnipotent being cannot and does not exist.
HeatheNZ:
But only if one?s logic excludes the possible existence of an omnipotent being who transcends the physical constraints of our existence.
karen:
If you?ll recall, the ?elephant? to which I was referring was the historic event responsible for the nomenclature of our chronology?not the logical possibility of an omnipotent being.
No, that was a logical conclusion you drew by operating on the assumption that the properties of God and Jesus were commutative (i.e. each must possess the same attributes as the other). It seems you (as well as HeatheNZ) may also be assuming that God could only take one form or the other, and not both simultaneously. Again, it?s not illogical to say that that is not impossible for a being who is both omnipotent and omnipresent.
Confining your conclusion to your personal experiences (or lack thereof) is not using logic objectively. If that were all it took to prove that a concept cannot exist, then it would be perfectly reasonable for me to say that Paris, France cannot possibly exist simply because I have never seen it first hand.
Jcc,
My contribution was to point to a logical axiom that states that something cannot be both A and not A at the same time.
As I recall you were positing that Jesus was both fully human and devinely omnipotent at the same time. Correct me if i am wrong.
Consider what it means to be fully human. I think it means that being devinely omnipotent makes one no longer fully human (it at least makes them super-human.
Therefore according to my wee brain that makes this entity NOT fully human, while at the same time you are positing that it is fully human.
Therefore it is directly defying a basic logical axion that states that something cannot be both A and not A at the same time.
jcc
I also said I hadn’t seen heard or read about ” any evidence from anyone else to that effect.” So tho, I have not been to Paris either, I know people who have been, have seen pictures, heard tales, read about it in factual literature, etc. There is evidence I can accept for it existing. There is no factual evidence for an omnipotent being. If I am wrong, present such evidence to me.
I understand that as the story goes, God was still god, even as christ was on earth. I never questioned, until now, whether or not he still had all the same powers. You are correct, I did assume that Christ, being of god, would have the same powers. That was what I thought the point was of having him perform miracles; to show that he had godly powers and was not simply human. Otherwise, wouldn’t he be just another traveler, spreading words of good will towards one’s neighbor? But he asked more than that, didn’t he? Loving your neighbor wasn’t enough; you had to believe in him and his father also. How do you get people to buy into your story over the one being sold by the next fellow? You embellish it with magic and make the people think you and your father-god have power over them; power to reward and to punish.
But I digress.
You are correct again. I did forget that’s what we had been discussing.
Again, it was just a marker that was used in its day, around an event that may or may not have actually happened. Whether it actually happened is of no consequence now, because the standard has been set and accepted by and large. Too much is centered around the present calendar to worry about changing it or how it got the way it is. I don’t see that it validates Christianity at all.
HeatheNZ:
I disagree. Being ?super-human? means being fully human, first and foremost, but with additional attributes. It?s like the difference between a Mustang and a Mustang GT?they both possess the same chassis and body style, but the GT has a bigger engine, and a higher performance suspension?one is a superset of the other?but both are intrinsically ?Mustang.?
Again, I disagree with your basis for disqualification.