Why Is God So OBSCURE to Us?

[egkelly]

As I see it, God is very difficult to communicate with, and he seems (for whatever reasons of his own) to be getting even more so! Consider the following:
-in the beginning, God walked, and talked with mankind (see Genesis, Adam and eve)
-later, he talked direct with certain people, whom we now call "prophets"-see Moses, eg the burning bush, etc.
-for Christians (at least) all direct communication with the almighty ended with the deaths of the last apostles-Paul was probably the last to have had a direct experience of god
My question: why is this? it is now more than 1900 years since we have had direct revelations. meanwhile, the number of people who CLAIM direct communication with God seems to be geometrically increasing! Throwing aside the obvious charlatans (people like Jimmy Swaggart), we seem to be ever-more fragmented with regard to our communications with god!So why is this-are we being prepared for a new phase of the relationship? What's going on here?

[Tranquilis]

Originally posted by egkelly
As I see it, God is very difficult to communicate with, and he seems (for whatever reasons of his own) to be getting even more so! ... why is this-are we being prepared for a new phase of the relationship? What's going on here?

Maybe he's bored with us now? Maybe we're getting big enough to to stand on our own two feet? Or maybe it's because we can't comprehend God?

As for the larger numbers of people claiming direct communication with God: Most are deluded, but also, there are a lot more people around, too.

[puddleglum]

I don't think God has stopped communicating with men. In fact I know dozens of people who think God has communicated with them.

[Sterra]

The reasons are obscure

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Originally posted by egkelly
Throwing aside the obvious charlatans (people like Jimmy Swaggart),...

I would interested how one is able to pick and choose a human who claims to commune with God. It is problematic considering that God is unknown and Satan is revealed to be fooling people.

[dal_timgar]

if God created the universe then it is a manifestation of God and should give clues to his aspects, like fingerprints at a crime scene. i think the study of physics and asrtonomy should be regarded as forms of worship. so what can you figure out about God from todays info?

all i can be SURE about so far is: GOD CANNOT BE STUPID!

but that blows away a lot of religious nonsense. the stuff in the OP is all from the bible. why that limitation and how do you know it's correct?

Dal Timgar

[Freedom]

There was a great thread around here awhile ago(6 months?) where Libertarian was discussing this point. I will never in a million years be able to explain it the way he did, but here is the short and simple answer he saw:


The only to truly have free will is for God to shut off all direct knowledge of him during our life. If God was always hanging out and doing stuff, freewill wouldn't exist, since you would KNOW that you would be punished for everything you did wrong.


If I remember, I will try and dig up the old thread when the server is not so slow.

[CalMeacham]

Well, it could be that God doesn't exist.


It could also be that, contrary to what everyone says, he doesn't want to reveal His existence, and may never actually have done so in the past, despite what everyone says.

I haven't read Libertarian's writings, but based on Freedom's rendering of it (and I acknowledge that this might not do the original justice) it seems to me that God revealing himself has nothing whatsoever to do with Free Will -- you are still free to do as you wish, even if you know a Supreme Being exists. If you believe Exodus, it certainly didn't stop the Egyptians from acting against His Will. (The Eqgyptians in Exodus qualify as either the most determined and resolute of people, or else the most stupid, considering what they are alleged to have seen.) If you "buy" Libertarian's argument about Free Will, it seems to me that you would have a problem with the Bible, which speaks of many clear and distinct manifestations of God, which would seem to go against his argument.

For my part, it seems that a Supreme Being that could condemn people to eternal punishment for not believing in Him on such poor and flimsy evidence as stories in a book several millennia old (and resembling stories of manifestations of gods in many other cultures) is severely flawed.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

I think that faith is not really opposed to knowledge, but opposed to reason itself. Faith does not use reasons, and since scientific knowledge of supernatural beings who defy the laws of physics is problematic, this is made worse by "faith" attempting to eliminate good reasons for not believing anything (if we don't know how/what/why God is, how can we know how/what/why he should be?).

We cannot know God in an honest sense because we couldn't fathom him regardless if he is in fact the creator of the universe, etc. If we cannot fully know God if he was in our presence, then there is not necessity to have faith in the unknowable to be judged as worthy. If God chooses to be unknown it is because he has reasons, and it does not follow that he would demand that we make a life out of praying to our false image of him. In fact, it merely demonstrates bad faith when we support other people for their claimed knowledge of God (especially considering their belief in Satan as deceiver). They want us to have faith in THEM on behalf of God, which is contrary to God's direct will to be unknown or hidden, (for good reasons, we assume). But, if God has reasons, so can we, yet faith is our dismissal of reasons. So, church leaders are expoiting a bad faith in God opposed to reason, who as supreme being would never have a reason to make any churches, true or false, to fight over his reasons.

Logic dictates that we have no right to make any assertory claims about the divine realm at all if we can't perceive it or even fathom it. This is ultimately about honesty and integrity. To have faith in a mystery is a contradiction in terms. If god was testing us, we wouldn't know the answers, and therefore he would be obviously testing us to see if we can live without him, or perhaps who would fall for his faith-based imitations. Furthermore, if this is not the case, then it doesn't matter, because either he forgot, or doesn't care or doesn't exist. It does not logically follow from his unknowable absence that God is playing an illogical game with us, nor does it follow he would contact anybody in secret about his will and attempt to promote confusion about it. So, faith is not merely illogical, but anti-logical, since it denies and discourages the use of mental faculties and makes us the opposite of God at all times, when there is no reason to conclude he is opposed to us.

To complicate matters, faith implies that we desperately want something to be true (because we fear it is not). This could also mean that the faithful merely want their personal image of God to be true, denying the possibility of an unexpected God or unwanted reality. The fact that most people seem to have faith enough in their own interpretations that they should dare think they know what God should be and have the nerve to suggest what they expect from him in return makes this faith an obviously insane projection of their infantile will. This, in turn, leads to other over-confident projections of will.

[jmullaney]

John 14:

21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?"
23 Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

So, perhaps today there are less people keeping Jesus's commandments.

Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt
I think that faith is not really opposed to knowledge, but opposed to reason itself.

Faith is merely trust in God. If God is true to his promises, why is that unreasonable?

We cannot know God in an honest sense because we couldn't fathom him.... If we cannot fully know God if he was in our presence, then there is not necessity to have faith in the unknowable to be judged as worthy.

We are spiritual beings. Just because we can't build a machine capable of detecting God (except by making babies) doesn't mean we can't know God.

If God chooses to be unknown it is because he has reasons

Why would he want people who don't have faith in him to know him? (I'm picturing the Pope having Ozzy Osbourne as a roommate.)

it does not follow that he would demand that we make a life out of praying to our false image of him.

If you don't know him, it is because you don't keep Jesus's teachings. That is your own fault.

In fact, it merely demonstrates bad faith when we support other people for their claimed knowledge of God (especially considering their belief in Satan as deceiver). They want us to have faith in THEM on behalf of God, which is contrary to God's direct will to be unknown or hidden, (for good reasons, we assume).

It isn't God's will to be hidden. It is God's will for you to love him, and then he will reveal himself to you. There are false teachers of course and it does require some discernment to figure out who is who. That is, ultimately, the only tricky part.

church leaders are expoiting a bad faith in God opposed to reason, who as supreme being would never have a reason to make any churches, true or false, to fight over his reasons.

If he wished people to know the truth, and turn from their evil ways, wouldn't he have one true church, however non-heirarchical, to disseminate that truth?

Logic dictates that we have no right to make any assertory claims about the divine realm at all if we can't perceive it or even fathom it.

Well, that is like saying logic dictates we have no right to make any assertory claims about what a strawberry tastes like if we can't taste a strawberry. But, anyone can obey Jesus's teachings.

To have faith in a mystery is a contradiction in terms.

Do you trust anyone?

The fact that most people seem to have faith enough in their own interpretations that they should dare think they know what God should be and have the nerve to suggest what they expect from him in return makes this faith an obviously insane projection of their infantile will. This, in turn, leads to other over-confident projections of will.

I could be wrong about God existing, I'll admit, but I've found no one willing to try keeping Jesus's teachings (who is not now keeping them) for a time to see if their results match my own. :shrug:

[kgriffey79]

If we saw God and knew for sure about him, believing wouldn't be hard. That is why we have to have faith. It is hard, but that is the whole point.

[cmkeller]

The Orthodox Jewish point of view regarding this question:

First of all, you seem to be erring in your assessment of Genesis. Yes, G-d talked to the earliest humans...Adam and Eve, Cain...but that was pretty much a matter of necessity. There was no one for them to learn from other than G-d himself. After Cain, the next record of G-d - to - man communication is with Noah, more than one thousand years later. And Noah was said to have been outstanding in his generation, and don't forget, his prophecy was in a pretty exceptional circumstance as well...G-d intended to destroy the world's population and wanted Noah to be the exception. So prophecy was always limited to particularly exceptional individuals, or exceptional circumstances, or both.

And that, I think, is the nub of the answer to why there does not seem to be any genuine prophecy these days: it takes an exceptionally righteous individual to receive prophecy. To achieve a state in which one's soul is in contact with the divine, one's soul must be very unattached to the physical. Not that Judaism believes in asceticism (far from it), but that it takes a rare individual who has the necessary, proper perspective of the relationship between his physical existence and his spiritual existence to be capable of having his soul receive contact from G-d.

There were a few folks before Moses who managed to achieve some degree of this...Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. Moses was the human being who achieved this to the greatest degree, and he was able to teach, inspire and elevate those around him to some measure of this. As the generational distance increased, the number of people with ability to achieve such heights decreased.

Also, there is the matter of circumstance. G-d prefers to run the world through natural law as much as possible, and only when he feels there is a need that cannot be met without a breach of this does he perform miracles or give prophecy. The creation of the nation of Israel, the giving of the Torah and the conquest and settlement of the land of Israel were such circumstances. As the Israelite nation became established and settled down, the need for such exceptions to natural law decreased, and the requirement of righteousness in order to receive such an exception increased proportionally, until the point where there has not been, since the early days of the second Holy Temple (approx. 350 BCE), the combination of person and circumstance that would lead G-d to perform a breach of natural law, which would include prophecy.

[egkelly]

However, I have a question. I assume, from your post, that the age of phophets is long past. What is your position on the "messiah"? Would he be a prophet?
A few years back, I was crossing the GW bridge-on the Jersey side, there was a billboard displaying a verly elderly Chasidic rabbi- who was touted (by his follwers) as the fabled 'Messiah". How will we recognize the messiah-would he (of necessity) be a prophet?

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

You wrote:

"If you don't know him [God], it is because you don't keep Jesus's teachings. That is your own fault."

I reply:

Jesus has nothing to do with God, and this illustrates my point that a hidden God has opened the door to charlatans claiming to be the door to God. Your comment also shows the basis for all religious misunderstandings and wars. It contains a false relation (Jesus to God), a false cause (that I don't know God for lack of Jesus), and a false accusation (It is never my fault if God is hiding behind a man named Jesus), with blame and responsibility attached or implied. A real whopper, Jmull.

[cmkeller]

egkelly:

I assume, from your post, that the age of phophets is long past. What is your position on the "messiah"? Would he be a prophet?

Not necessarily. According to Maimonides, whose text on the subject is pretty much considered the starting point for all subsequent discussions of the issue, says that the Messiah will be a king, descended from David (through Solomon). He will be someone who is observant of and extremely knowledgeable of the Torah's laws and will educate the Jewish people in them. He will "fight the wars of G-d." He will gather in the Israelites from foreign lands to Israel, rebuild the Holy Temple and re-instate the sacrificial service there. None of these things necessarily requires prophecy.

In fact, Maimonides states explicitly that there is no requirement that this individual do anything supernatural (presumably including prophecy) in order to qualify as Messiah.

A few years back, I was crossing the GW bridge-on the Jersey side, there was a billboard displaying a verly elderly Chasidic rabbi- who was touted (by his follwers) as the fabled 'Messiah".

Yeah...this is a bit of a sore point between the Lubavichers and other Orthodox Jews. That Rabbi is no longer alive, though.

How will we recognize the messiah-would he (of necessity) be a prophet?

As said earlier, he will not necessarily be a prophet. First of all, anyone meeting the above definition would be recognizable as the Messiah. In addition, it is believed that Elijah the prophet, who never died, will reveal himself publicly to declare the Messiah's coming imminent immediately prior to that event. And, on that subject...

I assume, from your post, that the age of phophets is long past.

Let's just say it's "not current." Another aspect of the Messianic era will be that "the Earth will be filled with knowledge of G-d." Add this to the expected return of Elijah, and it's certainly possible that there will be another age of prophets in the future (according to Orthodox Jewish belief about the Messianic era).

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Your comment is the main issue in a nutshell. If we saw God, we wouldn't need faith, but it doesn't follow in reverse order (We can't see god, therefore we need faith). That is my whole point: That the necessity of faith does not logically follow from assuming a hidden creator. It doesn't even remotely follow. There are other assumptions that lead us to this faith business, and it has alot to do with people claiming to know God (faith in THEM). It's a bait and switch situation.

I can accept the possibility of God in argument, fine, but faith is completely beside the point, especially if it contains rewards or punishments and involves warnings of deceptions. This makes it necessary without being logically necessary. Therefore, it does not logically follow, but leads.

What does it mean to logically follow? A pun for example: A duckling follows a duck (for reasons). A cat or dog sometimes follows a duck (for reasons). A duck follows a bag of popcorn (for reasons). Everything else is not generally known to follow a duck or vice versa just because cats, dogs, and ducklings happen to follow ducks. I cannot simply say that a horse follows a duck because it is also an animal, or just because I saw it once by coincidence, or because I NEED it to be the case to survive the next life.

Saying we need faith for no reason other than a fear or desire to get or avoid something is begging the question. Begging the question means that we have a conclusion contained in our premise, as in, "God exists because it says so in the Bible, and the Bible is the word of God (therefore God exists)."

Here is another fine example of circular reasoning:

"Only those with faith can be saved."

"We need to be saved because we will surely die or rot in hell otherwise."

"We need faith that we will surely die or rot in hell in order to want to be saved."

[Polycarp]

Brian Bunnyhurt commented to jmullaney:

Jesus has nothing to do with God, and this illustrates my point that a hidden God has opened the door to charlatans claiming to be the door to God. Your comment also shows the basis for all religious misunderstandings and wars. It contains a false relation (Jesus to God), a false cause (that I don't know God for lack of Jesus), and a false accusation (It is never my fault if God is hiding behind a man named Jesus), with blame and responsibility attached or implied. A real whopper, Jmull.

Whoosh! What a spectacular assertion! Your privilege to assert it, of course: everything is free game here.

But consider: suppose 513 supernovae became visible tonight in a pattern that spelled out "Repent!" in Times New Roman across the sky. I have very little doubt that Czarcasm would respond to the obvious comments tomorrow: "Spectacular light display. And an amazing coincidence. But of course it doesn't prove anything."

And the funny thing is, he'd be right. Even such a phenomenon would not prove the existence of God. Nothing can. People down through history have tried to come up with ontological proofs from creation to creator, from logical axioms to their source, and so on.

It doesn't work that way. Whatever he may or may not be, he is not demonstrable through deductive or inductive logic, because a skeptical argument can always defeat the most ingenious of "proofs."

What Christians say, at rock bottom, is that when we see Jesus, we see God. If somebody started an OP based on that goofball song, "What would it be like if God became one of us? What sort of person would he be?" Our answer would be, and is, "Jesus. Because that is precisely what he did." In Jesus we see what God wants humanity to be -- not necessarily a wandering prophet/teacher who explains things in parables, but someone compassionate, with a strict moral standard expressed in what you individually need to hold yourself to, not a corporate standard by which to judge each other -- which he prohibits, someone willing to take to task legalists who snag from the laws Moses supposedly was given on the mountain strictures to enforce on others while finding loopholes for themselves, someone willing to give all that he had for the sake of others. Someone willing to love to the extreme.

And we are called to do exactly the same thing, as he gives us strength to follow his example and as circumstances call for it.

You need not believe any of this. But you should accept it as the truth about what we believe. And if anyone, be he First President Hinckley, John Paul II, Jerry Falwell, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, tells you different, he is perverting the root message of who and what Jesus was and calls us to be, in favor of his own personal agenda. And you should spit in his face.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt
Jesus has nothing to do with God

You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand the basis of your opinion.

this illustrates my point that a hidden God has opened the door to charlatans claiming to be the door to God.

I agree with you that can be a problem. Jesus wasn't completely obtuse regarding how to tell a false prophet from a true one.

Your comment also shows the basis for all religious misunderstandings and wars.

All of them?

It contains a false relation (Jesus to God), a false cause (that I don't know God for lack of Jesus), and a false accusation (It is never my fault if God is hiding behind a man named Jesus), with blame and responsibility attached or implied.

You might as well say Gaudere doesn't exist. I can tell you if you go to the Straight Dope message boards, you will see that Gaudere exists.

You reply, while refusing to go to the SDMB, that is is a false relation (the Straight Dope to Gaudere), a false cause (you don't know Gaudere exists for lack of going to the SDMB), and a false accusation (it isn't your fault if Gaudere is hiding herself away on the SDMB), etc.

And that would be your opinion, and you'd be entitled to it. That hardly makes my claim that Gaudere exists a whopper.

cmkeller -- you know, Jesus said (most explicitly in the Gospel of Thomas, but in the canon as well) that the temple would never be rebuilt. So far, so good, but your messiah ever did show up to rebuild it most of Christianity would regard him as the anti-Christ. Boy -- that is a mess waiting to happen!

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Regarding my post to Jmull, you wrote:

"Whoosh! What a spectacular assertion! Your privilege to assert it, of course: everything is free game here."

For the record, I am counter-asserting. Jmull made the assertion that Jesus was the door to God, an idea also self-asserted by Jesus. So, Jmull is also claiming that this self-assertion from Jesus is valid, hence my point that faith in God is really a faith in the person who dares self-assert themselves as the door to God. Therein lies all the problems, confusion, and misunderstandings.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Jmull,

You are adamant that you pretend to know that a human named Jesus represents God. This is your opinion. There is no logic, reason, or proof that Jesus has anything to do with God, this is merely your hope from investment. I have nothing hard against it, of course, its just that you and Polycarp have assumed that I am the one making assertions and offering opinions. Is this not arrogant? Or at least provincial, perhaps?

May I suggest that you have gone past rationality here into your own definitions and reasons (and false analogies: Gaudere does not claim to be the door to God, and you can't even prove Gaudere isn't the door to God either!). Note: You can't logically or objectively argue about an unprovable or speculative topic by first asserting that it is obvious. Likewise, you can't logically assert that if it isn't obvious, then it is merely my opinion that it isn't. Lastly, both you and Polycarp suspiciously claim I am entitled to my counter-assertion. Are you sure about that? I mean, is it really okay?

[cmkeller]

jmullaney:

cmkeller -- you know, Jesus said (most explicitly in the Gospel of Thomas, but in the canon as well) that the temple would never be rebuilt.

Really? Does that mean that he predicted it would be destroyed? After all, when he died, it was still standing. He died in the year 33, and the Temple wasn't destroyed until 70 CE.

Also, how then do Christians interpret Isaiah 56:6-7

"And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant, these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations"

Do they interpret this as referring to a different house or mountain? Do they consider this prophecy already fulfilled? Do they consider it no longer valid?

So far, so good, but your messiah ever did show up to rebuild it most of Christianity would regard him as the anti-Christ. Boy -- that is a mess waiting to happen!

Is this part of the plot of the "Left Behind" series?

Chaim Mattis Keller

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt
There is no logic, reason, or proof that Jesus has anything to do with God, this is merely your hope from investment.

Just because something is subjective, doesn't mean it can't be proven. I can't prove that if you rub your eyes hard, you'll see colored spots -- only you can prove this to yourself. That doesn't mean it isn't true, merely because you refuse to rub your eyes.

Offer all the assertions and opinions you like. It's no skin off my nose.

May I suggest that you have gone past rationality here into your own definitions and reasons

Which may be the pot calling the kettle black!

and false analogies: Gaudere does not claim to be the door to God, and you can't even prove Gaudere isn't the door to God either!

I said, the SDMB is a door (link) to Gaudere. That is a perfectly valid analogy.

You can't logically or objectively argue about an unprovable or speculative topic by first asserting that it is obvious.

I'll admit if you never went to the SDMB, it wouldn't be obvious that Gaudere exists. But, you can't logically or objectively argue about an obvious topic by first asserting that it is unprovable or speculative.

Likewise, you can't logically assert that if it isn't obvious, then it is merely my opinion that it isn't.

I never made that assertion.

And yes, you are entitled to your opinion.

cmkeller

a) Yes, really.

Thomas 71: Jesus said: I shall destroy this house, and nobody will be able to restore it.

Not much for context, of course -- but this is akin to Matthew 24: Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

Who can restore what God has put asunder? :shrug:

b) I don't know -- but whoever wrote this predicted it wouldn't be rebuilt, which is somewhat more remarkable.

c) Essentially overriden by Jesus in John 4:21-3: "the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. ... But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him."

d) Could be refering to heaven, or the New Jerusalem. :shrug:

e) no

f) no

g) I hope not!

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Jmull,

Here is a strict definition of false analogy, with only two examples, yours not being good enough to be the third:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/falsean.htm

By comparison here, you are attempting to validate Jesus as a door to God and validating his existence by using Gaudere and SDMB, because they are known to exist. In this case it is not even a workable point. Gaudere could in fact be a door to SDMB for the sake of argument, which is why you would want to use them both for the analogy (to legitimize Jesus by association). However, the real problem is that by your analogy, anybody at all could likewise be the door to God and can be compared to Gaudere and SDMB. Your analogy doesn't even pretend that A and B share any property, P. Accordingly, it has nothing to do with Jesus and does not even make the point that a door to God is needed. Hence it is a double-false analogy, coming and going, by being a completely empty statement to begin with. It might work better if you had said: "Gaudere is like God, because Jesus is a hot topic on SDMB." But this would be made in jest, of course.

Thankyou for re-informing me that I have a right to counter-assert your assertions. It was a trick question, obviously, to see if you were able to understand the connotation and my bewilderment. No further comment.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt
By comparison here, you are attempting to validate Jesus as a door to God and validating his existence by using Gaudere and SDMB, because they are known to exist.

No, that isn't the analogy I'm making. Let me present the analogy again.

I said: If you keep Jesus's teachings, you would see that God exists.

You said: That is a false analogy.

I said: If you go to http://boards.straightdope.com/ you would see that Gaudere exists.

You say:

In this case it is not even a workable point. [SDMB] could in fact be a door to [Gaudere] for the sake of argument, which is why you would want to use them both for the analogy (to legitimize Jesus by association).

I am not trying to legitimize by association. I am saying your refusal to do what is required to know God doesn't mean God doesn't exist, in much the same way as someone who refuses to vist the SDMB doesn't mean Gaudere doesn't exist. Ignorance of a truth doesn't mean it is false.

However, the real problem is that by your analogy, anybody at all could likewise be the door to God and can be compared to Gaudere and SDMB.

That is certaintly true. I could claim Gaudere is a moderator at some other site, and then you could click on that site and prove to yourself that that is not in fact the case. It is not terribly difficult.

[Polycarp]

Brian, I could not agree more with your point about rationality. In fact, that was precisely what *I* had to say.

I don't see Jesus as the "door" to God (except in the sense He himself used the term of himself). I don't see him as the anything-in-particular in the sense of being an interface.

He is, for me and most Christians of any denomination, the means by which God revealed Himself in human form. This is a non-rational call, a matter of metaphysical, symbological interpretation. He is the means by which one knows the love of God -- as mediated through the Holy Spirit -- in much the same sense. It is not a factual assertion but a point in which one puts one's trust.

Or not. I don't demand anyone accept my views as anything but what they are. I do insist that I have the right to hold them, recognizing them as non-rational in genesis, and to act upon them.

It was in this sense and this sense only that I took exception to your "counter-assertion" to jmullaney's post. You are more than welcome to believe that he was a misguided Palestinian Jew with a goofball religious viewpoint, if you so choose, or whatever you may personally think about him -- including the improbable idea that he in fact never existed, something that has been asserted on this board in the past but which strikes me as highly unlikely; generally any heroic figure has some historical referent, however unlike the character of the myth he or she may actually have been.

I would also suggest that "counter-assertions" are not an effective means of arguing. If someone makes a wild-haired assertion with which you disagree, disassemble it and hold up the bleeding pieces for inspection; don't make the equal but opposite wild-haired assertion. That merely makes you look as abvallative as he (or she).

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Jmull and Poly,

Not to beat anything to death or make enemies (for that is counterproductive to knowledge besides stress inducing), but I would point out that A. Counter-asserting is dealing with an assertion in any way other than agreement, and B. that by following Jesus' teachings to believe in God is not a false analogy at all, it is a logical absurdity, and not because I think so, but because it is completely circular and self-referential (ie, Jesus claims to represent God and it would be a contradiction to believe in his words and not believe in God). For the record, I don't think anything Jesus ever said sounded god-like.

By the way, Jmull, here is the counter-example: To believe in God does not automatically lead one to believe in Jesus. That is my point. Are you sure you folks have the right guy? (Have you considered that he promises the most for the least work?) There is no logical way to know, is there? A feeling, an instinct? Purely problematic. We might as well follow any ethical person to find God. Oh, but not all them claim to be God's representive (another joke). Is there any way to prove that God would announce himself, even assuming his little test of faith?

Bottomline: The entire disconnect here is necessarily linking faith with God (no logical connection) and necessarily linking Jesus with God (no logical connection). However, faith in Jesus, well, there is a connection there, because a claim is made. So, to have faith in Jesus assumes both faith and God, but does not prove or legitimize either of them.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt
by following Jesus' teachings to believe in God is not a false analogy at all, it is a logical absurdity, and not because I think so, but because it is completely circular and self-referential (ie, Jesus claims to represent God and it would be a contradiction to believe in his words and not believe in God).

Why is it a logical absurdity? You can't see what is behind you right now without looking into a mirror or turning around. That doesn't mean what is behind you doesn't exist, nor is this a horribly cruel unfair world that makes you acutally have to do something in order to see what is behind you.

To believe in God does not automatically lead one to believe in Jesus.

The Christian God?

That is my point.

Well, your point doesn't seem to make any sense. Of course belief in the Christian God leads you automatically into believing in Christ.

Are you sure you folks have the right guy? (Have you considered that he promises the most for the least work?)

He provides an equal reward to each of the repentant, if my gloss on the scriptures is correct.

There is no logical way to know, is there?

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

We might as well follow any ethical person to find God.

But there is none good but God.

Is there any way to prove that God would announce himself, even assuming his little test of faith?

Try it for forty days. If you aren't satisfied, you can have your money back.

The entire disconnect here is necessarily linking faith with God (no logical connection)

There's that word again. If God exists, then of course you can trust him. Just as much as you can trust anyone who exists. What isn't logical about that?

necessarily linking Jesus with God (no logical connection).

We are talking about the Christian God, are we not? How can you say this with a straight face?

to have faith in Jesus assumes both faith and God, but does not prove or legitimize either of them.

You could certaintly try trusting what Jesus said was true and following his instructions and maintain an open mind.

[erislover]

OK. Self-referential statements. Jesus vs DesCartes, live on pay-per-view.

Good ol' Rene said, "I think therefore I am," perhaps punctuated into english as, "I think; therefore, I am." This takes the form, A (implies) B, which is what we seem to have here. We don't, though. If we did, it would simply be thought implies existence. Instead we have my thought implies my existence.

The subject is assumed in the first statement, and so cannot be the object of proof.

As far as what [b]brian[/i] is saying in his flowery but correct way, having faith in God to know God is the same logical error. That is, "I believe God exists; therefore, God exists." We step it up a notch with the addition of Jesus, but not much.

"Know God by following the teachings of Jesus." Or, to keep parallel structure... "I follow the teachings of Jesus; therefore, I know God exists." Nothing seems logically incorrect there. Jesus is the subject, God is the object. HOWEVER, and this is the crucial point, implicit in Jesus's teachings is the existence of God, his Father. And so, expanding a bit, "I follow the teachings of Jesus which states that we are following God's will; therefore, God exists."

Assumes what is to be proved. Logically void of truth.

As far as gaudere goes, one can personally verify that she exists without believing in her existence in the first place. The analogy is incorrect.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by aynrandlover
implicit in Jesus's teachings is the existence of God, his Father. And so, expanding a bit, "I follow the teachings of Jesus which states that we are following God's will; therefore, God exists."

There is nothing in keeping Jesus's general commandments which requires believing God exists. If you want to keep all of them except the "love your God" one in his "summation" that is good enough.

As far as gaudere goes, one can personally verify that she exists without believing in her existence in the first place. The analogy is incorrect.

One more time: you can't prove she exists (as Gaudere, more or less) without coming here. That is the analogy I have formed, like it or not -- but please stop distorting it. :wally

[erislover]

I said: If you keep Jesus's teachings, you would see that God exists.

You said: That is a false analogy.

I said: If you go to http://boards.straightdope.com/ you would see that Gaudere exists.

This is not a distortion to say they are not the same analogy. The existence or non-existence of God is implicit in the teachings of Jesus. The existence or non-existence of Gaudere is not implicit in the postings of the SDMB.

As far as God not being implicit in Jesus, try reading the passage John 14 you posted on this very page. It is possible that I may twist what you say, and would then stand corrected, but try to keep yourself straight before you call someone else a putz. _{not meant to be hostile, of course, but you know how posts have a distinct lack of intonation}

Poly also said,

He is, for me and most Christians of any denomination, the means by which God revealed Himself in human form.

Not to say you agree with polycarp explicitely, just to note that it has been noted here twice that Jesus and God go hand in hand.

NOW, it is possible, of course, to believe that Jesus existed as a man with teachings about how to exist among each other. But the basis for morality assumed the existence of a God which enforced this morality, and so, again, God is implicit in the teachings of Jesus. God was the "because." This, in fact, was brian's reasoning behind the statement "Jesus has nothing to do with God." He was just a man who said some stuff. But the use of Jesus's teachings as a method to aquire a sense of God creates a false connection in that light.

So, either Jesus has nothing to do with God, in which case following him won't help us find God anyway, or in Jesus God is implied, in which case it is a tautology.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Jmull,

We have no LOGICAL or reason-based necessity to believe that God would require a Jesus or require us to have faith in him or Jesus (nor do we know this from first-hand source, hence the use of reason). If we have faith in Jesus and accept his version of God, this is the circular trap of reason-based absurdities, because anyone could claim to be the messiah at anytime at will. The reason this is absurd is because we are told that God sent Jesus because Jesus said so, and Jesus is God's son because Jesus said so. Get it? God never said so, only Jesus did.

Furthermore, faith is only a necessity when someone claims to speak for God. God is only the burning issue if you believe someone is speaking for God. Otherwise it is all calm and quiet. God's will only becomes an issue when someone demands faith and pretends to speak for God. ANYONE can demand it, because God doesn't limit the number of wackos who can speak for him. Therefore it is moot, because anyone can claim this without God enforcing it. If God doesn't enforce it, we are left to wonder which wacko is the real McCoy. God never said this was his will, it makes no sense.

Note: If we assume God said his will or fortold this messiah, (that would be the Hebrew God) and this means that Jesus probably not the messiah, because most Jews were unconvinced and didn't buy his miracles (so I conclude they were made up after the fact). If someone appeared today claiming to be Jesus, wouldn't you demand a sign or a miracle? If not, then take your pick of wackos, the asylums are full of them. If so, then you can demand it anytime.

[FriendofGod]

for Christians (at least) all direct communication with the almighty ended with the deaths of the last apostles-Paul was probably the last to have had a direct experience of god

I disagree with this statement. *EVERY* believer in Christ has the opportunity to hear God's voice on a regular basis. It's a routine part of living the Christian life. Not a big booming voice out of the sky, but a "still, small" voice, a nudging, a sense of direction from God, an idea ... it's hard to describe but it's very real.

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. (John 10:27)

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

It was just a coincidence that the post below (excerpted)showed up on the exmormon.org board today. If one insists on claiming that his sheep hear voices, it helps to remember this:



Subject: I think I am sick.. PLEASE HELP
Date: Feb 26 11:20
Author: Somebody
Mail Address:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Last friday, I was doing some homework in a psych class and I heard these voices to kill myself. I took it for about 10 minuetes and then I got up and turned some music on. It went away for abit, and then later that evening I got into the tub and thought I saw a big spider. The voices contiuned throughout the weekend. I have had odd thoughts, like when I am in the store to scream, I hear screaming. I could go on but I won't.... I kept a journal of some of the things I was experencing and I wrote my therapist. I talked with her friday about the first incident and she wants me to see the "doctor" I agreed. I also made an appointment with the medical doctor tomorrow, just to rule out anything medical. I am sitting here writing this as I venture out to english class soon. Please help me figure out this.
Thanks, I'll check back later...

[Ben]

Originally posted by FriendofGod

I disagree with this statement. *EVERY* believer in Christ has the opportunity to hear God's voice on a regular basis. It's a routine part of living the Christian life. Not a big booming voice out of the sky, but a "still, small" voice, a nudging, a sense of direction from God, an idea ... it's hard to describe but it's very real.

FriendofGod, let me ask you a question, and I expect you to answer it honestly:

Did you read the "Could you Believe" thread I directed you to?

Because not every believer in Christ hears the voice you describe. For that matter, you've already proven yourself to be quite able to mistake your own imagination for the voice of God, when you uttered false prophecies. How can we believe that this voice is real when the information you claim to get from it is so wrong?

-Ben

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by aynrandlover

This is not a distortion to say they are not the same analogy. The existence or non-existence of God is implicit in the teachings of Jesus. The existence or non-existence of Gaudere is not implicit in the postings of the SDMB.

Who said anything about existence? You did.

"Captain Hook is to Never-Never-Land as King George is to the 13 colonies"

Is that a false analogy? No. Does that statement somehow imply that Captain Hook and Never-Never-Land actually exist? No. Now go away or I will putz you a second time.

But the basis for morality assumed the existence of a God which enforced this morality, and so, again, God is implicit in the teachings of Jesus. God was the "because."

Talk about a false analogy. You keep trying to change the topic from Jesus's commandments to his teachings in general. You can't even cite an example of what you are talking about.

in Jesus God is implied, in which case it is a tautology.

Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt
We have no LOGICAL or reason-based necessity to believe that God would require a Jesus or require us to have faith in him or Jesus

OK. We have no LOGICAL reason to believe gravity exists either. What's your point?

If we have faith in Jesus and accept his version of God, this is the circular trap of reason-based absurdities, because anyone could claim to be the messiah at anytime at will.

I don't mean to sound patronizing, but in case you learned the scientific method in Kansas, let me give you a quick lesson:

One could say "the reason things fall is because there a big vacuum cleaner 3 feet under ground." That is called a hypothesis. One could then construct and experiment, involving a shovel. One could then "run the experiment" which would involve digging a 3 foot hole. Then you record what you find. This is called "data." Then, you see if your data matches the hypothesis, and write down your conclusion as to whether and how close they matched.

Now you are very wise, and you will no doubt wish to point out that many people have dug holes in the ground and found no vacuum cleaner. And you are correct. And that the scientific method has in fact yielded a much better explanation of why objects fall called gravity. This is true also.

The reason this is absurd is because we are told that God sent Jesus because Jesus said so, and Jesus is God's son because Jesus said so. Get it? God never said so, only Jesus did.

Then don't believe any of that. I don't believe gravity exists because Newton said so. In fact, everyone agrees Newton was wrong on some of the details. Newton died a poor nut trying to turn lead into gold, which is the kind of thing that casts doubt upon his scientific process.

I believe gravity exists because I ran the test which Newton and his followers said would demonstrate its existence. I dropped a few weights. I swung a few pendulums. I observed and plotted the motions of the planets.

So I can safely say to some nut that comes along and tries to tell me gravity doesn't exist, that they are wrong and don't know whereof they speak.

God doesn't limit the number of wackos who can speak for him.

I agree. There are no end to wackos.

Therefore it is moot, because anyone can claim this without God enforcing it.

Circular reasoning. There is no truth, hence people lie, therefore there is no truth.

we are left to wonder which wacko is the real McCoy

Yup.

God never said this was his will, it makes no sense.

I believe you when you say God never personally told you this was his will.

But you know what it is like. It is like a man in a jail cell. The door is unlocked, and there is a note from the jailer saying it is unlocked and he can go and if he picks up the phone down the hall the govenor wishes to formally pardon him. He can hear a phone ringing down the hall. But, he waits there in his cell patiently for a call from the governor until he dies. Oh well.

If someone appeared today claiming to be Jesus, wouldn't you demand a sign or a miracle?

There is a definite lack of workers in the field. Sorry about that.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

As for your attempt to digest the scientific method, well, there is irony here. An attempt to validate a belief in Jesus by wavering between two competing definitions/sets of truth-values, one scientific, the other non-scientific, is invalid, and I would even suggest that one of them is false. (In a strict mathematical sense, it is not even functional to have two different results from the same input). So, everytime you attempt a scientific experiment you can comfort yourself with the truth that God might have changed the results, or that you are measuring another realm perhaps. And if you really have faith, you can freely alter the results yourself to reflect the way "it should be" because, well, all things done in faith is (self)righteousness.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt
An attempt to validate a belief in Jesus by wavering between two competing definitions/sets of truth-values, one scientific, the other non-scientific, is invalid, and I would even suggest that one of them is false.

When have I suggested a non-scientific method?

everytime you attempt a scientific experiment you can comfort yourself with the truth that God might have changed the results, or that you are measuring another realm perhaps.

I said the experience may be subjective. I can tell someone that they will feel pain if they touch a hot stove, but there isn't any way for me to prove it to them. That doesn't mean it isn't true.

And if you really have faith, you can freely alter the results yourself to reflect the way "it should be" because, well, all things done in faith is (self)righteousness.

If you don't believe my results (and the results of thousands of others), conduct the experiment yourself. Don't take my word for it.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

The Christ-Satan love-hate experiment you speak of was conducted fully for a thousand years during the dark ages, and is currently being conducted in about 80 countries where I would not want to live. Furthermore, there are third-world non-religious spinoff successors to the opposition control theories of the messianic eschatology concept, namely dogmatic communism.

Currently and locally, the massive worldwide experiment of socially low expectations and anti-intellectualism (employing self-righteousness) is being conducted in segments of the American population, ie, ultra-conservatives. Everywhere it goes, it fears the facts presented by realism as it spreads the foreign idea of hierarchy, and accordingly attempts to deny government services to economic victims of elitism (yet blames crime on the lack of top-down morality they are selling). Fo course, they tend to offer feelings instead, perhaps knowing no other way to figure the world, but these are hostile feelings, towards others (blaming the victim), the environment (end of the evil natural world) and ourselves (guilt).

This experiment of yours is toxic and poisonous, and your special Christology is worse than addictive drugs and likewise feeds on ignorance and passion, including all the negative passions. Did you ever stop to consider that you are selling blindness with your gospel of renunciation? Fortunately, you are benign. No one will ever see your hybrid point of view, it is ineffective by being unique, because it is not pure enough nonsense. I've seen the pure, and makes perfect sense to people when nothing can possibly make sense to them anymore. Christ is an empty life-raft for desperate and diseased mass ignorance to float forever without direction or power, it is not a sane luxury for healthy people.

I don't expect you to see it this way, of course, not with two sets of values to draw from, one being objective, the other being necessary.

[erislover]

jmull, it is almost an act of faith to think that you are just humoring my dissent here, but in case you aren't, 'round we go again...

Who said anything about existence? You did.

No, you did. Look at what you quoted immediately preceding that reply. I will quote it again for you here...

I said: If you keep Jesus's teachings, you would see that God exists.

You said: That is a false analogy.

I said: If you go to http://boards.straightdope.com/ you would see that Gaudere exists.

I feel like I'm arguing with Jodi about stereotypes here. I almost don't have to say anything, just copy and paste.
---------

Is that a false analogy? No. Does that statement somehow imply that Captain Hook and Never-Never-Land actually exist? No.

Agreed, given the context of "is an enemy of" analogy. This does nothing to further a connection between SDMB and Jesus.
---------

Talk about a false analogy. You keep trying to change the topic from Jesus's commandments to his teachings in general. You can't even cite an example of what you are talking about.

I didn't need to cite an example when you had already done it for me. The John passage above did that quite nicely.
As well, I covered Jesus's commandments. They were in relation to a divine power...that is, "Do <this> because <god said so>." Thus, implicit in the teachings and commandments of Jesus is the idea of God." Jesus as a man in no way implies a God, much like my existence does not imply God's existence. Jesus argued from a position of authority as being the son of God, and so anything which relies on the teachings, opinions, or commandments therein imply divinity.

[erislover]

originally posted by brian
[stuff]

Holy shit. Remind me never to ask you what you think of deifying the second law of thermodynamics.

[FriendofGod]

Brian said:

If one insists on claiming that his sheep hear voices, it helps to remember this . . .

Good point. I'm not saying every voice you hear is God's, not by a long shot. But one of the marks of maturity for a believer in Christ it the ability to discern the difference between your own thoughts, the devil's temptations, and God speaking to your heart. There is a difference.

Ben said:

Did you read the "Could you Believe" thread I directed you to?

I didn't realize it was directed to me. Is it still on page 1? I will look for it after I post this response.

For that matter, you've already proven yourself to be quite able to mistake your own imagination for the voice of God, when you uttered false prophecies.

Where on earth are you getting 'false prophesies' from? I've seen you mention that several times. Are you talking about last summer when I missed hearing God? How was that a false prophesy? Why do you call it that?

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by aynrandlover
No, you did.

OK. I'm sorry if I confused you. If I wanted to say God exists, I'd just say it. The point of my analogy was to counter Brian's assertion that somehow it was a false idea to claim you couldn't perform an action and get a certain result, and contrariwise -- that you couldn't not perform a certain action and not get a certain result.

I didn't need to cite an example when you had already done it for me. The John passage above did that quite nicely.

I still don't see what you are seeing.

As well, I covered Jesus's commandments. They were in relation to a divine power...that is, "Do <this> because <god said so>." Thus, implicit in the teachings and commandments of Jesus is the idea of God."

You and I appear to have a different definition of the word "implicit." The "because" clause isn't a part of the commandment proper, which is the "do this" part.

Jesus as a man in no way implies a God, much like my existence does not imply God's existence. Jesus argued from a position of authority as being the son of God, and so anything which relies on the teachings, opinions, or commandments therein imply divinity.

Are you trying to say that anyone who keeps any of his commandments automatically believes in God? I don't buy it.

Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt
The Christ-Satan love-hate experiment you speak of was conducted fully for a thousand years during the dark ages, and is currently being conducted in about 80 countries where I would not want to live.

Love is being done in many countries, but in truth, God's kingdom is all one kingdom.

Furthermore, there are third-world non-religious spinoff successors to the opposition control theories of the messianic eschatology concept, namely dogmatic communism.

I was under the impression that Communism was a spin off of capitalism, not Christianity. By all mean, start a new thread on this idea.

Currently and locally, the massive worldwide experiment of socially low expectations and anti-intellectualism (employing self-righteousness) is being conducted in segments of the American population, ie, ultra-conservatives.

OK. What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Everywhere it goes, it fears the facts presented by realism as it spreads the foreign idea of hierarchy, and accordingly attempts to deny government services to economic victims of elitism (yet blames crime on the lack of top-down morality they are selling).

What is "it" and how can "it" fear? Can you give some examples of these "foriegn ideas of hierarchy" which "it" spreads? You seem to have switch gears entirely now to talking about capitalism. Did you perhaps post this to the wrong thread?

Fo course, they tend to offer feelings instead, perhaps knowing no other way to figure the world, but these are hostile feelings, towards others (blaming the victim), the environment (end of the evil natural world) and ourselves (guilt).

Ah, I see. You are talking about capitalism. If you are so hostile to this system, why are you a part of it?

This experiment of [Jesus's] is toxic and poisonous, and your special Christology is worse than addictive drugs and likewise feeds on ignorance and passion, including all the negative passions.

If one was not ignorant, one would never need to conduct an experiment. Is it my fault people are ignorant?

Did you ever stop to consider that you are selling blindness with your gospel of renunciation?

Blindness to what, exactly?

No one will ever see your hybrid point of view, it is ineffective by being unique, because it is not pure enough nonsense.

Oh, my point of view is hardly unique. I'll admit that I don't know if love will triumph over hate in the end.

Christ is an empty life-raft for desperate and diseased mass ignorance to float forever without direction or power, it is not a sane luxury for healthy people.

It is the ultimate power because a Christian is directed by no one. One you perfect the commandments, you are a completely free spirit, and you have the dangerous power of a voice, and a real presense. You have never had this freedom, so you can not appreciate it.

I don't expect you to see it this way, of course, not with two sets of values to draw from, one being objective, the other being necessary.

I don't see it your way because you are wrong and ignorant. If you were only willing to love, you would keep Jesus's teachings, and then the Holy Spirit would teach you the truth. If not, you can continue being a slave to those who do love, and save yourself that way. I don't have a problem with that.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Originally posted by jmullaney
I don't see it your way because you are wrong and ignorant. If you were only willing to love, you would keep Jesus's teachings, and then the Holy Spirit would teach you the truth. If not, you can continue being a slave to those who do love, and save yourself that way. I don't have a problem with that.

Bravo, Jmull,

You gave me the bingo. You never needed to contradict yourself to expose your delusion so much as condescendingly assert your own moral superiority to prove my point. Notice the seamless blame, the effortless appeal to personality cult, the fateful conclusion to spiritual possession, the symbolism of slavery, and the assumptions of condemnation and salvation. So, is this the dogma of love-hate? As they say in Utah: You betcha! Save yourself, Jmull, Mormonism and such cults make a heathen out of you all over again. It never ends.

(BTW, I never switched gears, all dogmas of opposition are related by their assumptions, in this case absolutism, and the NT teaches communism accordingly. Absolutism leaves nothing to nature, and imposes will and order on the entire universe--control theory. In a nutshell, personality cults are never about the personality, but submission itself. And, did I say blindness? Correction: Self-absorbed thought leads the victim to roll their eyes back into their head and see their own world, like in the zombie movies).

[erislover]

You and I appear to have a different definition of the word "implicit." The "because" clause isn't a part of the commandment proper, which is the "do this" part.

Ok... I think we're getting lost here. The point of keeping Jesus's teaching is to know God. If I <do this> then <something occurs>. There is no reason to follow Jesus's commandments otherwise.

If we are following Jesus's commandments because jmull said so then that's fine, and we'll know nothing of God in that case. It seems to be your position here, though, that we will come to know God merely by following Jesus's commandments because you said so. That is a teneble position. Right now my bible isn't handy so I can't elaborate more. I'll check back later.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt
Bravo, Jmull,

You gave me the bingo. You never needed to contradict yourself to expose your delusion so much as condescendingly assert your own moral superiority to prove my point.

My own moral superiority? But I'm not even a Christian. What are you talking about?

Notice the seamless blame, the effortless appeal to personality cult, the fateful conclusion to spiritual possession, the symbolism of slavery, and the assumptions of condemnation and salvation.

Oh, I appreciate you don't believe it, nor do you feel any need to love your fellow man. I understand.

all dogmas of opposition are related by their assumptions, in this case absolutism, and the NT teaches communism accordingly.

Where does the NT teach communism? If it does, what is wrong with the form of communism it teaches?

Absolutism leaves nothing to nature, and imposes will and order on the entire universe--control theory.

A will of freedom isn't a will of control.

In a nutshell, personality cults are never about the personality, but submission itself.

What do you have to complain about a system which gives more freedom than any other? You have to submit to something -- why not submit to that which makes you most free? Propose an alternative if you think I'm wrong.

Self-absorbed thought leads the victim to roll their eyes back into their head and see their own world, like in the zombie movies

Renunciation is the complete opposite of self-absorbtion though. How can you claim Jesus taught both at the same time?

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by aynrandlover
The point of keeping Jesus's teaching is to know God. If I <do this> then <something occurs>.

I don't think that is the point, only a biproduct. You can always do an action without a reason. But, yes, as an experiment, that is an hypothesis which can be tested, and a possible reason for doing the experiment is to see what the results are.

If we are following Jesus's commandments because jmull said so then that's fine, and we'll know nothing of God in that case.

If that is your counter-hypothesis, run your own experiment.

It seems to be your position here, though, that we will come to know God merely by following Jesus's commandments because you said so.

I am saying I have run such an experiment and seen the results. I can tell you other things -- like the sky is blue, the earth circles the sun, water freezes at 32 degrees, and so on, all of which I have also run experiments to show to myself and which I believe should you run experiments yourself you would have similar results.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/myth-bible.html

All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.(Acts 2:44-45).

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had ... There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. (Acts 4.-32,34,35)

"But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry." (Luke 6:24,25)

"Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:25)

People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evil. (I Timothy 6:9,10)

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich and to be generous and willing to share (I Timothy 6:9,10 )

"Listen, my dear brothers :
Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who loved him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?" (James 2:5-7)

"Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourself in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you." (James 5:1-6)


Note 1: It is noted among many histories of Marx that he was deeply indebted to an 19th Century work on the life of Jesus (last name of Strauss, I believe) which had a tilt towards social reform. Like I said, it is not about Jesus, it is about submission to a primitive ideal.

Note 2: These accounts, as I read through them, lacked the specific one I had in mind where God struck two people dead for holding onto a portion and not giving the communist cult of Jesus everything they had, as commanded. Also, Jesus commanded a young prince to divest himself of everything, also signifying that the Christian movement was intended for the poor, even by institutionalizing it.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt
Note 1: It is noted among many histories of Marx that he was deeply indebted to an 19th Century work on the life of Jesus (last name of Strauss, I believe) which had a tilt towards social reform. Like I said, it is not about Jesus, it is about submission to a primitive ideal.

Oh, so you mean socialism. But, socialism has all the wealth controled by the government. It Acts said people sold their houses and gave the money to Pontius Pilate you might have a valid point. Note that the apostles didn't take the money -- they merely left it for those who had a need. That is no way discribes the way communism or socialism work. (I suppose I could tell you to go to a communist counrty and see for yourself, as I myself have done and seen, but I know you'll say that is an illogical false analogy for me to suggest you might want to do so before making such claims.)

The teaching of the Catholic Church is quite clear:

The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies
associated in modem times with 'communism' or 'socialism.' She has
likewise refused to accept, in the practice of 'capitalism,' individualism and the
absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.[Cf. CA 10;
13; 44.] Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the
basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails
social justice, for 'there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by
the market.'

Note 2: These accounts, as I read through them, lacked the specific one I had in mind where God struck two people dead for holding onto a portion and not giving the communist cult of Jesus everything they had, as commanded.

I vaguely remember that. Yeah, people die. I believe Herod is struck dead in Acts as well.

Also, Jesus commanded a young prince to divest himself of everything, also signifying that the Christian movement was intended for the poor, even by institutionalizing it.

I don't recall that. You mean Herod's son? I know his daughter is in the story. No one is poor who has God, for what or who is greater than he?