Why Jesus is not God and can't be God.

But God isn’t your actual parent. Yes I know people use the term Father when describing God but he’s not your parent.

What if you thought of God more like a state, a supreme law giver?
The state allows you to choose to do whatever you like but there will be consequences should you choose to break the law.

Would you extend your argument to say that anyone living in any kind of society that has consequences for breaking laws is essentially not free? Their free will is meaningless?

“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” type thing?

The Holy Trinity (HT) is a paradox that has perplexed Christian scholars for many centuries. I have engaged in original research and analysis on this very subject since the beginning of my professional career and am now ready to submit my manuscript for peer review in professional publications.

The HT model, as I see it, is actually quite logical, elegant and, if I may be so bold…beautiful. Let me explain in layman’s terms: the Holy Trinity can best be conceptualized as being Siamese triplets, whereby God is the healthy sibling in the middle, containing the sole gastrointestinal track. Jesus and the Holy Ghost are the parasitic siblings on either side of God, attached at the gut. God is made out of dark matter and he eats dark energy to make him all-powerful. Parasitic Holy Ghost is made out of ectoplasm just like any old ghost, and he saps away just enough of God’s energy to give him some impressive, if not awesome powers, like floating through walls and throwing his voice. Parasitic Jesus is made of matter, just like you and me, and he saps away just enough energy from God to allow him to do some remarkable parlor tricks, like walking on water and moving large rocks out of the way.

Satan is best conceptualized as being an evil Siamese triplet made of antimatter, anti-dark matter, and anti-ectoplasm. The Holy Trinity and the Evil Trinity don’t mix well together.

The next big question is, “what gave birth to the Holy Trinity.” This is, indeed a deeper question and one that I have only begun to tackle. But, first, we must think of the Big Bang’s singularity as a large celestial vagina…

  • I’m still debating about which scientific and/or theological publications I should submit to, but I want the word “meta” in there somewhere.

You left out the tissue connection between the Holy Ghost and the Son, forming a circle, so that no one of them can truly be said to be in the “middle.”

Now, I’m guessing they’re standing facing outward…

By gum, you’re right, I forgot to mention that the Son and [del]Casper [/DEL] the Holy Ghost are co-joined at the little toe.

See? A major theological issue, settled and agreed upon, in the space of only three posts. Who says it has to be contentious? All churches and sects could learn a lesson of wisdom from this.

If: as the psalmist says all are gods, then God is human, male or female, and spirit it would be a way to call that a trinity of natures?

The religious people I know state that God is all knowing, and loving, but there is a contradiction to that statement.

In a society a free will is limited. If one must do the will of the father( as some teach) then it is not free will! If one’s will is opposite of the Father’s they are punished. Being called a child of God makes him a parent, that is why they pray “Our Father”! A good father doesn’t allow his child to go or do what is harmful to his child or others he encounters!

Well, yes and no. In society, although I may not murder, I can still want to. I can still dream of it, and make secret plans (buy weapons, accumulate chemicals, whatever.) My will is not limited, save as I limit myself because I don’t want to get caught.

I agree I’m not “free” to act however I might want. But if the situation changed – if the government fell and lawlessness prevailed – my will is not altered in any way. Internally, I’m still exactly the same.

Free Will is tricky, when we act against our own choices. i.e., when we’re on a diet, but eat a candy bar anyway. We have internal conflicts, and our will contests against itself.

With all due respect for anyone’s OPINION that is what we are dis/agreeing upon. The fact is, the words/verses/books selected for inclusion in the “Holy Bible” were selected a LONG time ago. IMHO, it all comes down to power and control over others.

I look forward to having a great discussion with any of you. I promise to respect your rights to any/all opinions even as I maintain my own right to differ.

Some background info about me is that I attended the Salvation Army Officer’s School several years ago before eventually quitting the course in confusion & even disgust at what I was being taught about a so-called “loving God” who seemed to me to have a lot of mortal/ethical imperfections. I am currently in the process of writing a book about the failures of religion as clearly & honestly as I am capable.

I realize that this discussion could become grand enough to be a thread of its own, and if the volume warrants it, I will be happy to start a thread of my own.

Thank you for your attention.

I don’t have the answer but there are now many secular Jews. The Jewish people do not make a big deal out of their religion as Christians do. They do not run around try9ig to convert people, or send out Missionaries.

How do you KNOW that God said or did anything? It is the work, and words of another human,

The state doesn’t give free will. Laws of any kind curb free will. I don’t believe any good father would allow his child to do harm to himself and others, if the human knew ahead of time.

I should have added that God allowed the killing of Job’s family and in a way he is responsible for letting the family be killed, It makes no sense for an all powerful being to have bets with a monster that he created. And Adam and Eve were as innocent as a new born baby, yet God put the punishment of death on them and all their prodigy.

Amen, I agree completely. Surely an all-knowing and infinitely-powerful GOD would not have ANY problems with its own creations?

Definitely, opinion is the only final arbiter, as there are no tests we can apply to God to determine his one-ness or three-ness.

We do have a semi-scientific process, by examining the Bible. This requires postulating that the Bible is true. It is well, of course, occasionally to step back and remember that this postulate is not accepted. But we can accept it “for the sake of argument,” and see where it leads.

It’s a little like people who get into lovely deep debates over Sherlock Holmes. The only “evidence” we have are the stories and novels, but, when one grants, “for the sake of argument” that the stories and novels are valid, then you can have some fun seeking truth within that framework.

Start the thread if you want, could be a fun debate. I can say i already agree with you about religion being a failure and racket. (and disgusting) But i believe religion will be banned and outlawed worldwide soon enough. (the fall of Babylon the Great)

And still i believe. (i’m just selective about it)

As I see it, there are three basic ways of looking at Scripture …

  1. God exists and has inspired the oral traditions and writings of the Bible in such a way that it is largely inerrant, perhaps with the exception of a few translation quirks or period colloquialisms.

  2. God exists, but His message to humanity, if any, has been twisted, edited, rephrased, and corrupted to the point of complete confusion … we can’t know where His word starts and human lies and deceptions stop. In short, we can guess at what is Holy Scripture and what is manipulative, politically motivated filler, but we probably have no real way of knowing.

  3. God is a myth … the Bible is a superstitious collection of fables and parables, largely lifted from other cults or manufactured in an effort to control the masses.

Option 1. is the least interesting to me, since it really only prompts nit-picking by linguists and anthropologists.

Number 2. can keep you busy arguing, but there’s no conclusive evidence involved, so it’s all subjective.

The third choice is an easy target, and it plays well to the atheists who continue to upbraid believers, as though those believers will suddenly be swayed by their arrogance, shamed into admitting their delusions by scathing displays of condescension.

A thread aimed at criticizing religion most resembles option three, even among believers, because the adherents to the first choice will stolidly resist the suggestion that their particular brand of faith is flawed. In other words, to strict literalists, you may as well be an atheist if you don’t agree with them.

Since atheists are essentially threadshitters in any sincere discussion of a Deity, only the befuddled devotees of the 2nd option have any real potential for a useful debate … that is if you consider confusion to be useful. Please proceed, looking forward to your new thread.

You forgot option 4: God exists and has inspired the writing of the Bible in such a way that it is accurate both in history and foretelling the future.

Not trying to be funny but this is also a well known stance of millions of people. Why leave it out even if you might not agree?
Option 4 works for me. I don’t have to change my opinions every decade when some “scholar” writes a book or the “church” shrugs.
And so far, all God’s advice has improved my life and solved my problems. I’m not just believing, i am finding out everyday it’s true.
I could never have seen it if i had let myself be peer pressured into thinking what most people think of the Bible.

Think for yourself, examine it and **then **make a decision. Give the book a try.

That’s option 1. … inerrant.

You know who else isn’t God and can’t be God? Matt Damon. There, I said it.