Can believing there is a God ever be rational?

158 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
Jo: "The same one. Different

Jo: "The same one. Different titles, (Father, Son, Spirit) but the same entity. Just as I can be a Father and a Son, but one person."

Then who was the father of the father, son, spirit? They are not the same entity. You Christians/Catholics are just too stupid to realize y'all actually talking about three different entities.

rmfr

Jo's picture
@ arakish

@ arakish

The Bible does not indicate three different entities. It presents God as father, son, spirit, provider, protector, healer, and so on. Not all separate entities. One performing many functions, wearing many hats. When he creates he is referred to as a father. When he visits us in spirit he is referred to as a spirit. When he is our sacrifice he is referred to as a lamb. His humanity is referred to as son.
When a warrior a lion, and so on. Not all different entities. "The Lord our God is ONE" I think sums it up nicely.

arakish's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

No where in the Bible does it say they are one. In fact, it always says "us" "we" Never I, me.

rmfr

Jo's picture
@ arakish

@ arakish

How about "Hear o Israel the Lord our God is ONE."

Isaiah 1 24-26 Therefore, the Lord, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies,the Mighty One of Israel, says,
I will take revenge on my enemies and pay back my foes!
I will raise my fist against you.
I will melt you down and skim off your slag.
I will remove all of your impurities.

Jesus said "the father and I are one." He also said " I am the good shepherd."

In Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega—the beginning and the end,”[e] says the Lord God. “I am the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come—the Almighty One.”

arakish's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

How about "Hear o Israel the Lord our God is ONE."

Not evidence it ain't three different gods. Still does not answer why they call themselves "us" and "we."

Yep, Bewitched Lich Virgin and the Illusory Sky Faerie are one in the way they think.

The revelation verse is speaking only of one of the three.

rmfr

Jo's picture
@ arakish,

@ arakish,

God does not refer to himself as us or we, except in rare cases. It is always I or one. "I am" "God is ONE" "I alone created".

The only one that comes to mind is when God says "let us make men". He might be talking to the angels or using the plural as some politicians or royalty might.

Sheldon's picture
Mon, 05/06/2019 - 18:07

Mon, 05/06/2019 - 18:07 (Reply to #36)Permalink
Jo @ arakish,

God does not refer to himself as us or we, except in rare cases. It is always I or one. "I am" "God is ONE" "I alone created". The only one that comes to mind is when God says "let us make men". He might be talking to the angels or using the plural as some politicians or royalty might.

This is a completely unevidenced claim, unless you can demonstrate some objective that what humans wrote in the bible is in any way indicative of a what a deity wants, or has said?

Can you demonstrate some objective evidence for this claim?

Jo's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

The discussion was on what the Bible says about God, and not on evidence the Bible was inspired by God.

Sheldon's picture
Nice straw man, as i never

Nice straw man, as I never claimed otherwise. This is a debate forum, and anything can be discussed. You made a claim and I asked a question about that claim.

This was your claim:

Mon, 05/06/2019 - 18:07 (Reply to #36)Permalink
Jo @ arakish,

God does not refer to himself as us or we, except in rare cases. It is always I or one. "I am" "God is ONE" "I alone created". The only one that comes to mind is when God says "let us make men". He might be talking to the angels or using the plural as some politicians or royalty might.

This was my response and question

This is a completely unevidenced claim, unless you can demonstrate some objective that what humans wrote in the bible is in any way indicative of a what a deity wants, or has said?

Can you demonstrate some objective evidence for this claim?

If the answer is no, then that's the honest thing to say.

Jo's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

I was not trying to do a straw man argument. I was asked by someone else where in the Bible does it say that, and I was answering his question. So I thought you were asking about that question.

I guess your question is how do I know the God of the Bible represents truth?
Based on what I can observe and comprehend about the universe. The most reasonable explanation to me is that one all powerful God made everything. That aligns with the Bible. Does that answer your question?

Sheldon's picture
"I guess your question is how

"I guess your question is how do I know the God of the Bible represents truth?"

No, one more time then

Your claim:

Mon, 05/06/2019 - 18:07 (Reply to #36)Permalink
Jo @ arakish,

God does not refer to himself as us or we, except in rare cases. It is always I or one. "I am" "God is ONE" "I alone created". The only one that comes to mind is when God says "let us make men". He might be talking to the angels or using the plural as some politicians or royalty might.

All you did was roll past this to another unevidenced claim, its all theists ever do tbh. However this was my response and question.

This is a completely unevidenced claim, unless you can demonstrate some objective that what humans wrote in the bible is in any way indicative of a what a deity wants, or has said?

Can you demonstrate some objective evidence for this claim?

Jo's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

I am not trying to roll past, use a straw man, or anything else. I am just trying to answer your question, which I obviously am not understanding.

Here is my attempt to answer your question, as best as I understand it. When I said "God does not refer to himself as us", I am explaining what the Bible says, and the principles within the Bible. That is what the deity in the Bible says about himself, and what he wants us to understand about him. I am explaining internally what the Bible says, not trying to demonstrate some objective that is external.

Did I do any better?

arakish's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

All you did was straw-man the shit out of what I said. The gods of the bible are three, not one. The 3 into one was not made until many, many centuries after the Old Testament, the Torah, was written. All you Christians have brainwashed yourselves with the bullshit of the Trinity being one about 5 or 6 centuries ago. Throughout the ENTIRE old testament, the three gods are ALWAYS referred to as YHWH. NOT god, NOT lord. It w2as not until the 1611 AV KJ translation that the trinity of the three gods was made into one.

Do some God Damn research and find out for yourself. It gets so tiresome dealing with religitards who know NOTHING about their own religion and babble story.

rmfr

Jo's picture
@ arakish

@ arakish

I have never heard that there are three Gods in the OT. How do you explain all the "our God is one" statements in the OT? And many others statements like "... and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me"

You said "Throughout the ENTIRE old testament, the three gods are ALWAYS referred to as YHWH. NOT god, NOT lord." The three Gods have the same name, YHWH? Can you identify the three Gods?

Sheldon's picture
Jo "That is what the deity

Jo "That is what the deity in the Bible says about himself, and what he wants us to understand about him."

The part in italics is a claim, not just an observation on what the bible says. Claims require a demonstration of objective evidence to support them, I may have mentioned this once or twice. The context of the claim doesn't alter the fact they require evidence, unless you're saying you don't believe the claim of course?

Jo's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

OK, now I get it. You are right, that statement I made ( italics) was a claim. It was just my assumption that what he says about himself is what he wants us to understand about him.

arakish's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

You are never going to get it, are you? EVERYTHING in that unholy pile of lies you call the Bible is NOTHING BUT PREPOSTEROUS CLAIMS and UNSUBSTANTIATED PRESUPPOSED ASSUMPTIONS with ABSOLUTELY NO objective hard empirical evidence. Even the best of your Apologist member's are only capable of speaking in piles of word salad and lies. Are you practicing to be the next generation? If so, then I feel sorry for you.

Go back and research the origins of the Old Testament. In the original Torah (Dead Sea Scrolls), everywhere you see "God" or "the LORD" or "the LORD GOD" in the Old Testament, the ORIGINAL Hebrew word was "Elohim" which means Gods. PLURAL, not singular. It was the Holy Roman Catholic Church that forced the switchover to a single "god". Do some goddamn research you lazy wannabe apologist.

The Hebrew word for "god" is eloi. Plural is Elohim. So, originally, the true origins of Christianity, from Judaism, is based on "GODS", not s singular god.

There is no shame in being self-taught, seeking for knowledge. The only shame is not seeking in the first place.

rmfr

Jo's picture
@ arakish

@ arakish

In a previous post you said "Throughout the ENTIRE old testament, the three gods are ALWAYS referred to as YHWH. NOT god, NOT lord."

In your most recent post you said "Go back and research the origins of the Old Testament. In the original Torah (Dead Sea Scrolls), everywhere you see "God" or "the LORD" or "the LORD GOD" in the Old Testament, the ORIGINAL Hebrew word was "Elohim" which means Gods."

These two statements of yours are very contradictory. First you say "Throughout the ENTIRE old testament, the three gods are ALWAYS referred to as YHWH. NOT god, NOT lord." The you say "everywhere you see "God" or "the LORD" or "the LORD GOD" in the Old Testament, the ORIGINAL Hebrew word was "Elohim" which means Gods." So which is it - always YHWH or everywhere Elohim?

I can't really address your question until you explain what you mean in a non contradictory way.

arakish's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

Both actually. Sometimes it is just YHWH. Sometimes just Elohim. Sometimes YHWH Elohim.

If you practiced my favorite saying my dad taught me, "It is always more important to know how to think rather than to be told what to think. Evidently you enjoy relying on the later instead of the former. If you need help, librarians will help you find what you should be seeking on your own. Get out of that bubble you live in. Take off those Rose colored glasses.

DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH OF YOUR OWN!

Quit being a baby. Grow up. Do something for your self. Quit relying on others.

rmfr

Jo's picture
@ arakish

@ arakish

Which of these three statements is true? They contradict each other.
First you say it is always YHWH, then you say it is everywhere Elohim, then you say it could be either.

"Throughout the ENTIRE old testament, the three gods are ALWAYS referred to as YHWH. NOT god, NOT lord."
..."everywhere you see "God" or "the LORD" or "the LORD GOD" in the Old Testament, the ORIGINAL Hebrew word was "Elohim."
Sometimes it is just YHWH. Sometimes just Elohim. Sometimes YHWH Elohim.

Sheldon's picture
Jo "You are right, that

Jo "You are right, that statement I made ( italics) was a claim. It was just my assumption that what he says about himself is what he wants us to understand about him."

Without demonstrating objective evidence for it's existence, it's also an assumption that a deity exists, and therefore that a deity said anything at all.

Cognostic's picture
@Jo" " When I said "God does

@Jo" " When I said "God does not refer to himself as us", I am explaining what the Bible says"
What you are demonstrating is that your God is a contradictory hypocritical liar. or that the Bible itself is wrong. You don't get to "poo poo away" quotes and pretend like they are not there to make a point. IT'S DISHONEST!

"Then God said, "Let US make mankind in our image, in our likeness,...." Genesis 1:26
“And the LORD God said, ‘The man has now become like one of US.’ Genesis 3:22

ELOHIM, - one of the primary titles of God in the Old Testament (occurring over 2,500 times), is in the plural form. Elohim means "US' or "WE." "GODS' and not "GOD." THAT'S TWO-THOUSAND, FIVE-HUNDRED TIMES.

ONCE AGAIN - YOU ARE JUST WRONG!!!

Jo's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

Is it a contradiction or a misunderstanding? The Bible is clear that God is one. It describes him repetitively as one. You are looking at the definition of one word while ignoring what it frequently and emphatically says.

Wiki says
"Elohim is a grammatically plural noun for "gods" or "deities" in Biblical Hebrew. In Hebrew, the ending -im normally indicates a masculine plural. However, when referring to the Hebrew God, Elohim is usually understood to be grammatically singular (i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective). In Modern Hebrew, it is often referred to in the singular despite the -im ending that denotes plural masculine nouns in Hebrew."

Britannica says
"Though Elohim is plural in form, it is understood in the singular sense. Thus, in Genesis the words, “In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth,” Elohim is monotheistic in connotation, though its grammatical structure seems polytheistic. The Israelites probably borrowed the Canaanite plural noun Elohim and made it singular in meaning in their cultic practices and theological reflections."

Cognostic's picture
@Jo: Nicely Cited. Of

@Jo: Nicely Cited. Of course I do not believe a thing you say as you have done nothing but make inane assertions throughout your posts. And of course I wanted something a bit more scholarly than Wikki or Britannica which are both rebound for getting things wrong.
So, I did a bit of digging.... http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/monotheism/context-elohim.html

I ran across several excellent sources that support your position regarding the usage of "Elohim" and it is understood as singular in modern Hebrew. When it is used as a plural it is similar to the "Royal We." I CONCEDE YOUR POINT. Though there is ambiguity regarding the word and its usage among scholars, I do not have the skills or scriptural prowess to move forward with my position and your position appears the stronger.

Nice Job citing sources this time. You will get a whole lot more respect around this site if you continue citing sources as you have done. No one around here is bothered by learning something new. Thanks for the citations.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

And this, as well as the fulsome apology below is an example of an honest person "trying to live their life in truth". Don't you wish you could emulate this example Jo?

Integrity is a very hard act to follow.

Jo's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

Yes I wish to emulate the fine example of Cognostics apology and integrity. I have admitted it, when I realized I was wrong in other posts. I am trying to speak the truth as best as I can, and as best as I know.

Jo's picture
@Cognostic

@Cognostic

Thank you for your complement.

Your citation was a lot better than mine. I have saved your source to my favorites.

Cognostic's picture
ACTUALLY - JO DEFENDED HIS

ACTUALLY - JO DEFENDED HIS POSITION WELL - MY RESPONSE ABOVE IS INCORRECT AND IN THIS CASE JO WAS NOT WRONG, NOT IN ANY WAY THAT I COULD SUBSTANTIATE. JO WAS NOT BEING DISHONEST IN HIS TREATMENT OF "ELOHIM" AND I APOLOGIZE FOR ASSERTING SUCH. (IN THIS THREAD.)

Sheldon's picture
Exactly, Jo's claim they're

Exactly, Jo's claim they're all the same should have any sane rational person asking questions of the bible's claims, like why would Jesus appeal to himself to not forsake himself., and why keep referring to him as the SON of God?

Why would a deity create a rule prohibiting fruit consumption from a specific tree, then having placed said tree directly in fucking harms way, lose its temper, curse all humans forever for the inevitable consumption of aforementioned fruit. Then have a change of heart allegedly 14 billion years later, (slightly out as human didn't arrive until 200k years ago) and take ghostly form to impregnate a virginal Jewish girl in ancient Palestine, with a human version of itself, so it could torture itself, to death, in order to appease itself, over it's own anger.

Best of all Christians claim it's an omniscient, and thus knew beforehand it was going to go tits up the minute it planted a tree in a garden with two human pets, and told them the fruit was both magic and verboten. Throwing in a nefarious talking snake, just for shits and giggles. None of which is remotely evidenced, and is in fact directly contradicted by masses of scientific evidence from multiple fields from evolution & genetics to cosmology & physics.

Yes indeed, all very plausible I must say.

In case anyone's unsure, as there's been some confusion of late, YES, that last sentence was fucking sarcasm.

Tin-Man's picture
@Sheldon Re: Entire post

@Sheldon Re: Entire post ending in "YES, that last sentence was fucking sarcasm."

LMAO... Dammit, Sheldon! Stop it! I shouldn't be laughing this much before having my morning coffee!

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.