FWIW, as a teenager I was very interested in Project Blue Book, the writings of Frank Edwards, etc., and was struck by the fact there’s no solid evidence aliens have ever been to earth. Ergo, it didn’t even occur to me.
The hearing of the angels singing is the miracle in question.
So if someone else gets a personal miracle and doesn’t end up attributing it the god of the New Testament, they are wrong? Between this and your interpretation of unseen entities singing an unintelligible song as a message from the same god of the New Testament, I’m seeing a definite pattern.
No, I said the words and language were unintelligible. The import of the message was to let me know that God existed, which it accomplished.
As opposed to all the evidence we have that gods exist, right?
No, it was a moral fable, a story devised to teach a lesson in social mores. Couching it with talking animals is an age-old way of getting attention and adding humor. There is never an intent to present it as actuality.
Why do I describe Genesis’s origin stories as allegory rather than literal interpretation? Having discussed this here I realize allegory was probably the wrong choice of word, one I used hastily because I really didn’t want to try to argue from several different parts of the Bible at once. It’s actually a redaction of several mythic accounts put together into a single, but contradictory narrative. I don’t think it’s a literal translation because it has a talking snake, because there are too many left out pieces of information, because humans don’t live 900 years, and so on. What reason would I have to consider it literally?
The author of Luke, in his stated purpose as telling the story of Christ from eyewitness accounts, knowing of the existence of Mark’s gospel, and, understanding that the work was reported to be by Peter’s companion and generally accepted after about 20 years of circulation among the churches, was duty bound by his original intent to use Mark as a basis for his work. The doubts as to who the author was didn’t occur until centuries later.
Early on, yes, as seen many places in the OT, but even then such statements as having the Hebrews take “an eye for an eye” were in advance of other similar cultures of the day, where it was “a life for an eye”. When the Hebrew nation went through the diaspora they gained insights by comparison with their Zoroastrian conquerors, hence the appearance of Satan (earliest probable appearance, the Book of Job, role: prosecuting attorney against humanity); and as the centuries pass and more revelations are received, the nature of God becomes less “This and only this”, but “This AND That”, as in Isaiah’s statement that God is the source of both fortune and misfortune. By NT times the ongoing stream of revelation lead to the concept of a personal, loving God, which was in sharp contrast to the harsher, national God of the OT.
The essential nature of God, as I’ve said before, is unknowable. To quote Aquinas: “God may be apprehended, but not comprehended.”
Thank you.
Yes, to the outside observer it is inconsistent. We are talking about 60+ books written by different hands over three millenia, and in some cases the books were repeatedly re-edited. To an inside observer it is often inconsistent.
The burning bush? If it happened as stated in the Bible, I’d probably go with a revelation that looked like a hallucination to an outsider. But one that was of enough significance to Moses that it turned a stammering murderer-in-exile into the leader of his people.
That little rule may stop the believers from asking essential questions, but it doesn’t apply to the rest of us. It’s about as authoritative as “Because I said so-that’s why!”.
Because, having had a religious/spiritual experience, I decided to focus on the religious and spiritual. Not that I haven’t read Blake, Goethe and Shakespeare, but that’s just because I enjoy literature.
People with much worse physical and ethical problems have become great leaders. Can we attribute their successes to your god?
The works of the New Testament were included based on two criteria: they had to be be divinely inspired, AND they had to have apostolic authority (direct or indirect). Enough people thought that the apostle John wrote the book of Revelation that it made it in, but it was heavily debated. Modern scholarship indicates through textual studies that it doesn’t match the writing style or vocabulary of the author of the Gospel of John, nor of the letters, 1-3 John.
No, they aren’t wrong. Repeating again: if I was in India, I’d be taking this whole thing through the Rig-Veda instead of the Bible. I don’t make a claim to Christianity being the unique way God reveals himself to mankind.
…that was culturally most familiar to you. You’ve said previously that if you had lived elsewhere you might have attributed your experience to another deity. Since this experience convinced you of the authenticity of your regionally local god, does this mean that this experience happening to someone in another country would confirm the authenticity of other gods?
Repeating, if it wasn’t for my experience I’d be agnostic or atheist. I agree there is a lack of evidence.
Are you actually going the “They’re all the same God using different methods” route? How hard did you really study other religions?
Okay, for the sake of argument, IF God has existed before the creation of the universe, and has existed throughout the entire universe in all time and space, and will continue to be after the universe ends, and created the universe, is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, IF all of that: do you really mean you can understand what God truly is when you are a finite human with a birth, a brief lifespan and a death in one small portion of the universe?
Depends. Does their story call for them to be called forth by divine selection to lead their people? If so, maybe.