Can believing there is a God ever be rational?
Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Given my earlier faux pas, I felt I ought to practice some sarcasm, just to make make sure I've still got it you understand.
NO THEISTS WERE HURT IN THE MAKING OF THESE POSTS So suck it up theists, cos no one likes a crybaby.
But you do know that sarcasm is the lowest form if wit right? ;)
In Acts when it records people being baptized they are baptized "in the name of Jesus". The NT following Acts is generally written to people who were already Christians and so probably already baptized. No Christians are baptized in the Gospels. The only recorded instances of people being baptized is in Acts.
The name of the son is Jesus. What is the name of the father? Not "father", that is not a name. You could say Jehovah, but not father. What is the name of the Holy Spirit? Holy Spirit is a descriptive term, not a name. If it is the spirit of Jesus than the name of that spirit would be Jesus. Since Jesus is God become human, we have to ask what God became human. The God of the OT or Jehovah is the answer. Since Jehovah became human, we would be accurate in calling him (the father that became human) Jesus.
So the NAME of those three titles or descriptive terms is Jesus.
I am a father, a son, and a blogger. If you were to baptize in the name of the father, son, and the blogger, you would baptize in the name of Jo. My name is Jo, so the name of those three is Jo. My name is not father, son, blogger.
Yes, I speak English so I gave his English name. Probably Joshua is a more literal name going directly from the original to English.
But I think you missed my point.
And nobody has a clue what that name was......there is not one single contemporary record, as we know.
We can state for certain sure...it was not "Jesus"
Just had a very hilarious “amina saliros demoi ocularum.” Anyone remember the TV series "Dinosaurs?"
I saw a little baby dinosaur with a grown up dinosaur named Yosum, and the little baby dinosaur is smacking the shit out of him with a very heavy iron cast skillet on his head while yelling, "NOT the Jesus! NOT the Jesus!"
I can't pray to God in my own language? If I call him Yehoshuʿa is that OK? I think that is the original pronunciation.
They are two different baptisms. John's was for repentance, not to become a christian.
To "fulfill all righteousness" or to " carry out all that God requires". In my words, because it was the right thing to do and as an example to us.
The story you are referencing concludes with Jesus granting her request. He was asking a rhetorical question to test her. That is evidenced because he granted the gentile women's request. Jesus also healed a Roman in Matt 8. He also said in John 10:15-16 "... So I sacrifice my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They will listen to my voice, and there will be one flock with one shepherd."
You can become a member of his congregation. We are all equal with him. Gal 3 says there is no difference to God between a Jew and a Gentile.
The trinity was invented 290 years after the death of Jesus (if he ever actually existed) at the council of Nicea in an attempt to bring all the bizarre Christian faiths under a single umbrella. The Nicean Creed was the first attempt at establishing a trinity and then the Church argued about it for another 700 years. You could actually contend that the Church is still arguing about it today. Not all Christians are Trinarians. Not all Christians believe in the divinity of Christ. Not all Christians believe in a personal God. Granted; prior to Constantine there was a much wider variety of Christian beliefs, the Church did a great job of killing off anyone who disagreed with the orthodox view, but some of these non-orthodox views still survive today.
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 06:09
Cognostic "There are 30 thousand Christian sects and NONE OF THEM AGREE WITH EACH OTHER"
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 21:04
Jo "I would not say the Bible was inerrant....But definitely inspired, and ***highly reliable for its intended purpose.****"
As Cognostic just pointed out, it's so reliable it's produced over 30 thousand different sects, and has been roundly refuted by multiple fields of scientific study.
The god you describe, of the bible, (I will take it as an amalgamation of all the various bibles literature etc, old testament, the new, the popular KJB etc. Then no I don't think it could ever be "rational" at least by standard definition of rational I have in mind.
You just described why this is. Logical, rational, unbiased, scientific, reasonable, with no presuppositions. Look up each word. You are not going to find in their definitions words like: emotional, "faith," "feelings," "popular," or the old historical answer.
Actually yes in my opinion. I have been debating with theist for years about this subject. They can justify it for themselves, and may even quite often successfully justify it for others. However with the atheist regulars here that won't work. I would say just about all of us stick to the evidence, the logic, the rational, the scientific, the reason.
I hear all the time that "belief" in god requires faith, requires opening up your "heart" (this really means the emotional/spirtual response.)
Here is an example of a justification, even if I do not agree with it:
Venezuela has fallen hard in the last decade, from an oil rich country that allowed for large (if unsustainable) government services that, while the oil flowed freely allowed for much prosperity for many people in the country. When the oil money stopped flowing and the country descended into chaos fighting over who is president among other things, and millions fled the country, those that were unable to flee have increasingly turned to religion in great numbers, people's lives have changed greatly and gotten a lot harder in the last few years. People are literally starving in the streets. The "god" answer is increasingly the best answer available to these people in hard times. The soup kitchen put on by the church is one of the most popular places around, (partly due to aid shipments being halted or stolen,) if I was one of those people I feel turning to "god" would be increasingly justified. Go with god or go hungry is a powerful justification.
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
Can you give me the standard definition of rational that you mentioned?
You start a thread asking about rationality, without a definition of the term...and then claim ambiguity of the term when confronted with reason?
How typically christian of you.
Something is considered rational if the reasoning behind it adheres to the strict principles of validation contained within logic.
Do ALL aspects of your belief do this?
I can help you out with a clue if you're struggling Jo. Since you have used known common logical fallacies, and NOTHING that contains a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rational.
No, I doubt all aspects of my belief adhere to the strict principles of validation contained within logic.
Jo "No, I doubt all aspects of my belief adhere to the strict principles of validation contained within logic."
Then you have answered the thread OP.
@Jo: " I doubt all aspects ...." Seriously Jo, do any aspects of your belief adhere to strict principles of validation contained within logic. Any at all?
You have demonstrated over and over and over that you do not even know the teachings of your own Bible. Not only have you not read the text but you do not understand it. You have been called out so many times on your false logic and erroneous assertions. You make yourself look ignorant. Isn't it time to STOP making these inane comments and wallowing in ignorance. What if you just STOPPED and began asking questions instead. Questions will lead you to new information and new ways of understanding. Idiotic statements just make you look foolish. Have you not grasped the FACT that the ATHEISTS on this site are more well versed in Biblical Scholarship than you appear to be. And even when we don't know shit, we do not make inane assertions, we go and look it up. We do the research before we make comments. On top of that, when we do stick our feet in our mouths, we simply admit our mistakes, thank the person for the information that demonstrated our error, and then move on. You are like an autistic child who keeps bashing his head against a wall. We all feel sorry for you but you are the only one that can stop the behavior. So, just stop~
A google search would work, but hey it takes me 2 seconds to do your work for me and you can know exactly which definitions I am using.
A combination, a total, an average of all these definitions:
1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
2. A: having reason or understanding, B: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason
3. consistent with or based on or using reason
4. showing clear thought or reason
Thanks for the definition. I did look it up before posting, but I wanted to make sure I understood what you meant.
Jo: "Thanks for the definition. I did look it up before posting, but I wanted to make sure I understood what you meant."
What other definition could there be for RATIONAL?
So far, you ain't been.
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 21:09
Jo "Can you give me the standard definition of rational that you mentioned?"
1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic.