Question about the Christian God

[Charpig]

A few simple people seeing angels means nothing. Why do only some get to see angels? Do only the "chosen ones" get to see proof of God's existence? If Jesus had instead brought his "legion" of angels, only those who had actually "turned to evil" would have remained being an unbeliever.

Judges 2:4

When the angel had spoken these things to all the Israelites...

"All the Israelites" seems to be a lot more than a "few simple people."

The crucifixion of Jesus was not a private event. Crucifixions were always public, in which the Roman Empire made examples out of criminals. Jesus's crucifixion was public as well, a lot of people would have seen it. The centurion who was there acknowledged that Jesus was the Son of God after Jesus had died (Matthew 27:54). There were quite a few supernatural signs at the death of Jesus. There was total darkness (Matthew 27:45). From the sixth hour to the ninth hour would have been noon to 3:00 p.m. on our time scale. How in the heck could there be total darkness when it was normally broad daylight? Only God could have made it happen, and the people certainly would have noticed it. They all heard Jesus cry out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" There was an earthquake as well, and dead people appeared to many people in Jerusalem after Jesus's resurrection. So yeah, I would say that these supernatural signs appeared to more than a "few simple people." God uses more supernatural signs than just angels. Romans (who were not God's "chosen ones" like the Israelites were) saw these events, and they acknowledged that Jesus was the Son of God (at least the centurion did). But the thing is that Jesus performed many miracles in his lifetime, and people still did not believe. I have heard many people claim that if they saw a miracle, they would believe. But that isn't necessarily true. Some people believed when they saw Jesus's works, others did not. Jesus walked on water, changed water to wine, and raised people from the dead in full view of men. Read the Lazarus story, quite a few people were there.

I do not believe that only God's "chosen ones" get to see proof of his existence. As I mentioned above, even non-Israelites got to see miraculous signs. Let me ask you this. This planet we live on, Earth, is just one tiny speck in the vast expanse of the universe. But how is it that it is the only known planet that is the right distance from the Sun to support life? You can claim that there might be life on other planets, but as far as mankind knows, Earth is the only planet in the universe that has life. We could not have appeared on this planet by mere chance, the universe is so complex that the chances of that happening are astronomically small. No, an intelligent God had to put us here. I believe that the universe itself is proof of God's existence, and both the "chosen ones" and the not chosen ones get to see it. Even if you never look at the stars, you can see it here on Earth. Nature is highly ordered and runs according to physical laws. But this world and the entire universe are very complex! A complex, ordered machine cannot construct itself, can it? No, someone has to construct it. The universe is a complex, ordered machine that was constructed by God. The universe is something that everyone has been able to look at since biblical times. I believe in God even though I have never seen an angel.

EDIT:

By the way, you said that Jesus's death made the Bible a "little more dramatic." Summoning legions of angels would have made it even more so. You claim that everyone would believe in Jesus had he summoned angels. I tell you of other angelic appearances, and you blow it off by saying "a few simple people seeing angels means nothing." The crowd that saw Jesus die would not have been much larger, if any, than the crowd that saw the angel in Judges 2:4 (the entire Israelite community).

Edited August 13, 2010 by Charpig

[Phoenix Wright]

Judges 2:4

When the angel had spoken these things to all the Israelites...

"All the Israelites" seems to be a lot more than a "few simple people."

The crucifixion of Jesus was not a private event. Crucifixions were always public, in which the Roman Empire made examples out of criminals. Jesus's crucifixion was public as well, a lot of people would have seen it. The centurion who was there acknowledged that Jesus was the Son of God after Jesus had died (Matthew 27:54). There were quite a few supernatural signs at the death of Jesus. There was total darkness (Matthew 27:45). From the sixth hour to the ninth hour would have been noon to 3:00 p.m. on our time scale. How in the heck could there be total darkness when it was normally broad daylight? Only God could have made it happen, and the people certainly would have noticed it. They all heard Jesus cry out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" There was an earthquake as well, and dead people appeared to many people in Jerusalem after Jesus's resurrection. So yeah, I would say that these supernatural signs appeared to more than a "few simple people." God uses more supernatural signs than just angels. Romans (who were not God's "chosen ones" like the Israelites were) saw these events, and they acknowledged that Jesus was the Son of God (at least the centurion did). But the thing is that Jesus performed many miracles in his lifetime, and people still did not believe. I have heard many people claim that if they saw a miracle, they would believe. But that isn't necessarily true. Some people believed when they saw Jesus's works, others did not. Jesus walked on water, changed water to wine, and raised people from the dead in full view of men. Read the Lazarus story, quite a few people were there.

I do not believe that only God's "chosen ones" get to see proof of his existence. As I mentioned above, even non-Israelites got to see miraculous signs. Let me ask you this. This planet we live on, Earth, is just one tiny speck in the vast expanse of the universe. But how is it that it is the only known planet that is the right distance from the Sun to support life? You can claim that there might be life on other planets, but as far as mankind knows, Earth is the only planet in the universe that has life. We could not have appeared on this planet by mere chance, the universe is so complex that the chances of that happening are astronomically small. No, an intelligent God had to put us here. I believe that the universe itself is proof of God's existence, and both the "chosen ones" and the not chosen ones get to see it. Even if you never look at the stars, you can see it here on Earth. Nature is highly ordered and runs according to physical laws. But this world and the entire universe are very complex! A complex, ordered machine cannot construct itself, can it? No, someone has to construct it. The universe is a complex, ordered machine that was constructed by God. The universe is something that everyone has been able to look at since biblical times. I believe in God even though I have never seen an angel.

None of those events beyond Jesus' crucifixion were even documented beyond the Bible (not even sure about Jesus' crucifixion, to be honest). What you state has no truth value because it cannot be proven. Now, sending a legion of angels to save him from the crucifixion, that would have been documented in some way.

In the words of Laurence Krauss, "[in the universe,] rare occurrences happen all the time." A universe from nothing, contrarily, is probable. Many things once that to have been true in your "ordered machine" have been disproven. It's only a matter of time before that opinion changes entirely...

You're using the same argument my mom used. Which isn't bad, but it is funny to me.

Edited August 13, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[volkethereaper]

My primary problem with the concept of the "christian" interpretation of God is that he and Christ are one. It seems an inherint contradiction to say that Christ and God are one, yet that Christ is the son of God. Further, there seems to be some (although minor) evidence against the "three in one" theory. In St. Matthew 3: 16-17 it states: "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." In that scenario, it seems to me, three seperate beings make their presence known: The "Father" (i.e. God) in heaven, The "Son" (i.e. Jesus) on Earth, and The Holy Spirit traveling from Heaven to Earth. If God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one in the same, than the fact that all three facets can exist at the same time in seperate forms seems to discredit Christ's sacrifice on the cross, since, after all, just as much as Christ is suffering, the Father and Spirit are not. Further evidence of this is when both abandon Christ while he suffers on the cross. Only one third of "God" suffers. That seems like a strange concept to me.

Now, let's say we throw out the concept of the Trinity, like the Mormons have. In this way God, the Father, can be all seeing and all knowing. He can feel what mankind feels and he can percieve what has happened, is happening, and will happen. Christ, the son, is a human, albeit a super-human half god, who can be perfect in action and thought, like God, but is still physically frail enough to die as men do. The Holy Spirit... well, he's not so relevant to this arguement. Christ is able to die for our sins, as a human, by the request of God, who understands us but is not one of us. Christ, for his great sacrifice, is resurected and made equal to the Father, and thereby they become "one". Not in the sense that they are literally one "person", but that they are the same sort of thing, with the same goals. This is a Mormon sort of belief and it has always made a little more sense to me than the traditional interpretation of God. This, of course, does not adress the other problems, such as Gods abillity to save us without the mess that is crucifixion.

Perhaps God just wanted man to learn a lesson, and although he could save us with ease himself, he had Jesus die so that we could appreciate it better. That seems plausible to me, and it keeps in line with the God shown elsewhere about the Bible.

Also, to all who try to discredit the Bible: You have walked into an arena where it is the ultimate authority, and although it may be contradictory and even innacurate, it is the only source we have for the Christian God, and so all arguements against the Bible are a waiste of time and energy, as this topic is specifically about the deity of that book. An arguement can only exist within context, and the Bible is that context.

[Phoenix Wright]

Why use an inaccurate, outdated source of information?

God could have made us appreciate a fart more if it wanted to. Using the death of Christ as a means of giving a strong lesson is unneeded.

[Charpig]

This topic is about the Christian God. Forgive me for using the Bible which speaks of the Christian God. No matter how old a document is, what's truth remains truth. Even if you find an old document about the War of 1812, the facts about the war remain true no matter how old the document gets. What are current events now will eventually become history and "outdated," that doesn't mean they will become false.

[volkethereaper]

I'm not debating what the point of Christ is. I had an idea, I put it out there. I don't necessarily believe it, but it seemed interesting.

Why should you use an innacurate, outdated source of information? This debate is about the Christian God, and talking about him outside the context of the Bible, the only source of information we have on him, invalidates your arguement. In an arguement you can only use the resources you have in front of you. In some arguements the sources are widespread, but in an arguement about the nature of the Christian God we have one source: The Bible. Taking the arguement out of this context is impossible, because it ceases to be a debate about the nature of the Christian God.

Edited August 13, 2010 by volkethereaper

[Phoenix Wright]

This topic is about the Christian God. Forgive me for using the Bible which speaks of the Christian God. No matter how old a document is, what's truth remains truth. Even if you find an old document about the War of 1812, the facts about the war remain true no matter how old the document gets. What are current events now will eventually become history and "outdated," that doesn't mean they will become false.

Inaccuracy is the reason why I stated it was outdated. What was truth at the time is no longer truth.

EDIT: So you agree it is outdated and inaccurate? Then why remain a Christian?

Edited August 13, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[volkethereaper]

Ah, but is truth transitory, or just what humankind percieves as truth?

[Phoenix Wright]

Ah, but is truth transitory, or just what humankind percieves as truth?

Truth, or fact, is transitory. A paradigm shift concerning the Christian/Muslim/Jewish God CAN happen, but there is an astronomically small chance of that happening unless a prophecy is proven.

[Charpig]

Inaccuracy is the reason why I stated it was outdated. What was truth at the time is no longer truth.

EDIT: So you agree it is outdated and inaccurate? Then why remain a Christian?

A history book can have some errors, that doesn't mean that the entire book is false. I don't claim that the Bible is completely free of errors. I do claim that it is the only reliable source for learning about God and his Son, Jesus Christ. If any other writing wants to expand on God or Jesus, it needs to be based in Scripture.

Jesus was God's Son 2000 years ago. He is still God's Son today. In the same way, the North beat the South in the Civil War. No matter how much time passes, that truth will not change. If it was true that Jesus died and resurrected "at the time," how can it not be true now?

Correct me if I am wrong, but was your edit in response to volkethereaper? Because I don't remember ever saying that the Bible was outdated or inaccurate. I think many of its teachings are quite relevant to today, especially teachings of the New Testament. Yes, some teachings were given to specific people in specific times (in the apostolic letters you see specific instructions given to specific people). But, do you think Jesus only wanted people to have love for each other at only one specific time? No, I think he wanted people to always love their neighbors as themselves.

[volkethereaper]

No, that would be beliefs, ideologies, and facts that are transitory. Truth is truth. It always has and always will be correct. Whether we know any truth, though, is an entirely different matter.

[Zanarkin]

There is something that has been bothering me, that is, why would a Benevolent God desire blood for the forgiveness of people, and more importantly why would he only accept the blood of his Son?

Edit: Bothering goes with th. I knew something was bothering me in this post.

Edited August 13, 2010 by SlayerX

[Phoenix Wright]

No, that would be beliefs, ideologies, and facts that are transitory. Truth is truth. It always has and always will be correct. Whether we know any truth, though, is an entirely different matter.

In one definition, truth is fact (at least a synonym). Therefore, in at least some definitions of the word, "truth" is transitory.

I know what you're trying to philosophically say, but there are truths in this universe that we know.

Edited August 13, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[Charpig]

There is something that has been bothering me, that is, why would a Benevolent God desire blood for the forgiveness of people, and more importantly why would he only accept the blood of his Son?

From what I understand, since the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), death is required to atone for sin. God said in the Old Testament that blood represents life (Leviticus 17:14). So when animals were sacrificed, their blood was shed to atone for sin. One view is that God was using this as a teaching tool, to show people the serious consequences of sin. Sacrifices had to be without blemish. In the same way, Jesus was considered without blemish because he didn't have any sin in him. So Jesus was able to atone for all the sins of the world.

Many of you have said that God could have chosen to forgive mankind through some other way. I don't disagree with you there, but that is the method that God chose according to the Bible. Maybe God could have just wiped us all out instead. I, for one, would rather accept the atonement that cost me nothing than to face the punishment for my sins. Jesus wants people to accept his sacrifice, otherwise he would not have done it. It's not like Jesus stayed dead forever, you know? He was resurrected. But make no mistake, Jesus did suffer. I think that anyone who would accept Christ needs to appreciate what Christ went through, and not make light of sin. We only know what the Bible says, regarding why God needed blood as an atonement for sin.

[volkethereaper]

In one definition, truth is fact (at least a synonym). Therefore, in at least some definitions of the word, "truth" is transitory.

This is a fair point. Both denotation and conotation are with you on this one. However, this has been, and will continue to be, debated by philosophers far greater than you or me. I hold with those who see "fact" and "truth" as something all together seperate. I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree, old boy. But, by your definition of "truth" you have defended yourself nobely, I commend you and withdraw.

[Crystal Shards]

A history book can have some errors, that doesn't mean that the entire book is false. I don't claim that the Bible is completely free of errors. I do claim that it is the only reliable source for learning about God and his Son, Jesus Christ. If any other writing wants to expand on God or Jesus, it needs to be based in Scripture.

Jesus was God's Son 2000 years ago. He is still God's Son today. In the same way, the North beat the South in the Civil War. No matter how much time passes, that truth will not change. If it was true that Jesus died and resurrected "at the time," how can it not be true now?

Correct me if I am wrong, but was your edit in response to volkethereaper? Because I don't remember ever saying that the Bible was outdated or inaccurate. I think many of its teachings are quite relevant to today, especially teachings of the New Testament. Yes, some teachings were given to specific people in specific times (in the apostolic letters you see specific instructions given to specific people). But, do you think Jesus only wanted people to have love for each other at only one specific time? No, I think he wanted people to always love their neighbors as themselves.

Oh yes, advocating and/or condoning rape and genocide is still a very good morality to live by. We totally love that shit here and now, in the current time.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Charpig]

I certainly don't advocate rape or genocide. In the Old Testament the punishment for rape was often death. Nor is there a single passage in Scripture where Jesus advocates rape or genocide. The New Testament church wasn't established through violence. If anything, it was the believers of that time who were threatened. If you're going to claim that the Bible tells modern day believers to rape and kill people, at least back it up with some verses.

[Crystal Shards]

I was under the impression it was common knowledge, but okay. For example:

RAPE

• Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
  
• Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
  
• Exodus 21:7-11 - When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
  

SLAVERY

• Exodus 21:20-21 - When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
  
• Luke 12:47-48 - The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."
  

MURDER

• Deuteronomy 17:12 - Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.
  
• Exodus 21:15 - Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.
  
• Exodus 22:17 - You should not let a sorceress live.
  
• Isaiah 13:15-18 - Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.
  
• Isaiah 14:21 - Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.
  

That's not all of them, obviously, but it's a good start. Obviously rational, moderate people don't follow these tenets (even though they're all prophecies or direct orders from God) but it's in the Bible, whether you like it or not. You can't just throw out the Old Testament and also claim that God's word is absolute and unchanging.

[Charpig]

Deuteronomy and Exodus in no way tell believers "go out and rape someone," which is what you were claiming. You also have to remember that the Israelite culture was quite different from our own. Yes, it doesn't make sense that a woman who was raped should be forced to marry the one who raped her. But this seemed to be a way of protecting sexual and marital purity. Exodus 21:7-11 seems to be very protective of a woman's rights, in contrast to other cultures of that day who had barely any rights for women.

You're right, the Old Testament is a part of the Bible. But God does make specific commands for people at specific times. New Testament believers (and by extension, us as well because we live under Christ's New Covenant) were supposed to respect the human authority ruling over them (1 Peter 2:13-14, Romans 13:1-7). Slavery was allowed back then, it isn't allowed now. So, Christians shouldn't be enslaving people, because that would go against the law of the United States of America. And even when slavery was allowed, there was a command to slave owners to treat their slaves justly and fairly (Ephesians 6:9). Believers are also not to carry out their own judgements on others. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." (Matthew 7:1) There is no command in the New Testament to kill people who are doing certain things.

The verses that you think support murder do not. They show how punishment was carried out in the times of ancient Israel. Murder was also punishable by death, you failed to mention that. So, murder was not supported in the OT. The Isaiah verses are prophecies, which show the brutality of the Medes against the Babylonians, who weren't exactly peace loving people. Isaiah 14:21 answers itself, God was trying to prevent tyrants from rising up. You have no idea how brutal people were back in ancient times. God could have been simply doing unto them what they had been doing unto others. But God is not telling us to be brutal and merciless. No, we are to reserve judgement for him. If you are merciful, mercy will be shown to you (Matthew 5:7).

[Esau of Isaac]

This all forgetting that even if we ignore these Old Testament passages as irrelevant now --which they aren't--, many Christians utilize them today as a means of suppressing and discriminating against others.

[Charpig]

That's a shame, then. I, however, am not one of those Christians. If people are twisting around God's Word as a means of oppression, then those people are at fault. But, it doesn't reflect on every Christian. I wish people would pay more attention to "love your neighbor as yourself," "treat others how you want to be treated," and "judge lest ye be judged."

[Florete]

Old topic, I know, but I got something I want opinions on. Earlier today I overheard two people at my college talking. One of them mentioned how atheists must hate themselves because they have to believe their existence is an accident. The other agreed, saying the teaching's of Darwin pretty much proves mankind is a big mistake. I didn't say anything because I didn't want to get involved in such a conversation, but what do you all think? Is there any truth to what they said, or do they not even know what they were talking about? Both were, of course, hardcore Christians and believers in God.

[NinjaMonkey]

Earlier today I overheard two people at my college talking. One of them mentioned how atheists must hate themselves because they have to believe their existence is an accident. The other agreed, saying the teaching's of Darwin pretty much proves mankind is a big mistake.

As an atheist myself, I have to say that I neither hate myself or believe that my existance (or the existance of mankind for that matter) is either a mistake or accident. Therefore, I'd say that both these statements are nothing but complete rubbish..

[Phoenix Wright]

Old topic, I know, but I got something I want opinions on. Earlier today I overheard two people at my college talking. One of them mentioned how atheists must hate themselves because they have to believe their existence is an accident. The other agreed, saying the teaching's of Darwin pretty much proves mankind is a big mistake. I didn't say anything because I didn't want to get involved in such a conversation, but what do you all think? Is there any truth to what they said, or do they not even know what they were talking about? Both were, of course, hardcore Christians and believers in God.

There is no truth whatsoever to what they said. They are only two more ignorant Christians thinking they know everything.

As far as I know, life was indeed no accident. Balcerzak linked to a video on Youtube about a lecture on the origin of the universe, how we got here, and how the universe will end. Obviously I'm no physicist, although I pay a great amount of attention to it, and I understood the gist of what he was saying throughout the video.

I'm trying to think of a basic way to explain it, but I'm failing.Watch this instead:

I need to get to watching it again so I can understand it better.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[Esau of Isaac]

Old topic, I know, but I got something I want opinions on. Earlier today I overheard two people at my college talking. One of them mentioned how atheists must hate themselves because they have to believe their existence is an accident. The other agreed, saying the teaching's of Darwin pretty much proves mankind is a big mistake. I didn't say anything because I didn't want to get involved in such a conversation, but what do you all think? Is there any truth to what they said, or do they not even know what they were talking about? Both were, of course, hardcore Christians and believers in God.

They're just looking for reasons to continue the hate for atheists they were raised to have.

I wouldn't think much of it.