The biblical god has a funny way of showing it.
No they don’t.
So, we’re basically a Real Doll to God’s pathetic basement dwelling neckbeard?
This is why I will never be religious. Even if there is a god, I cannot worship or like him in any way.
Okay, “well before” is embellishment, but it is usually dated in the 60s at the latest.
Maybe God is just that big of an asshole. Worship and accept me sometime before you die in your infinitesimal time alive or suffer unimaginable pain forever. In that case, maybe there is a good point in pascal’s wager.
I have no idea where you get that idea at all. Are your children Real Dolls to you, created for your selfish amusement and satisfaction?
It’s unfortunate that so many people (both inside and outside the church) get hung up on this misconception of Hell – or on any conception of Hell, really. Our knowledge of what Hell is like based on the fleeting mentions in the Bible is so scant that rejecting the entire religious tradition because of it - is the epitome of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
(And on the other hand, building an entire theology around the common conception of Hell is building a castle on a foundation of sand).
That’s better, but the dating of the gospels, all of them, is actually arbitrary. Some higher critics place them much later. 68-70 would be about the earliest dates, basing it mostly on the destruction of the temple. Conservative scholarship generally tries to get away with as early date as possible, even going to fifties and even forties depending on what latest find of papyrus they think tells them this or that.
One piece of papyrus they latched on is a very small piece found in Qumran, that is only one inch squared, of which are only a few lines, only a very few good letters can be made out of it, and I understand only one complete word. Higher critics are not impressed, but many conservatives went with it anyway, for determining Mark is a much earlier date.
You know, as an atheist, I’m not sure that labels like “evil”, “full of himself”, “sociopathic” etc. can actually be applied in any meaningful sense to an omniscient, omnipotent intelligent force which represents the only being of its kind and has existed since before the dawn of time.
As an atheist who believes man makes “God” in his own image, I’m not at all surprised at such a contradiction.
Missed my edit window, but referring mostly to Mark with the 68-70 date as being the earliest for it. Obviously, most think the other gospels came much later.
From your description of God, which sounds creepy as all fuck.
No. But then, I’m not God.
<hijack>
Wow, thanks for the links. I was not familiar with those specific terms and views. Seems like a great starting point for these types of debates but I also think these concepts would have a difficult time gaining ground within the argument. Most “godful” folks have already conceived their ideas of what “god” would be and they’d be fearful to step this far back to take a broader look at “it”. But I think it’s interesting and plan to ponder it deeper.
</hijack>
“God split himself into a myriad parts that he might have friends.” This may not be true, but it sounds good–and is no sillier than any other theology.
– Lazarus Long (a.k.a. Robert A. Heinlein)
Can you elaborate - which part? That God loves us and wants us to live fulfilling lives? That the more we know God the greater our desire to worship God? Or some other part? I don’t see the parallels to sex toys.
The part where God got lonely, so he built something that would love him.
Also, the general conflation of “love” and “worship.” Deeply icky.
I mean, you’re miles ahead of the “God loves you and will torture you forever if you don’t love him back,” types, but still. Really not someone I’d want in my life in any capacity.
God made Man in His own image.
We’re assholes.
That makes God …
That’s the most interesting new piece of theology I’ve seen in decades. I like it.
Sorry; if I implied that God was lonely, I was mistaken. Humankind was created out of an abundance of love on God’s part, not a lack of reciprocation.
I feel like it’s a pretty straight line from love->adoration->worship but we may have different feelings about those words. And if we were talking about a relationship with another human being, then I agree it would be creepy.
I’m not sure I entirely understand the distinction you’re making here.
So why is it not creepy when it’s God on the other end?
Really? When did Christianity define God this way?
Christians believed that Christ’s death on the cross lead to the atonement for sins before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The idea is clearly present, and at the center, of Paul’s letters, which were written before that date.
Perhaps if you don’t want to continually be posting untrue statements and having them debunked, you should stop blindly believing everything that Richard Carrier tells you and start reading some books and articles by real Bible scholars instead.
More wrong statements on your part. First of all, no epistles is a “proven forgery”. It has been suggested that some epistles are pseudepigraphic, and some scholars find it likely; other don’t. But there is no proof that the claim is true regarding any of the Pauline epistles.
There are seven epistles entirely agreed to have been written by Paul (Romans, I and 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Phillipians, and Philemon). No serious scholar disputes that these were written before 70 AD, since Paul died before that date.