Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

But the very concept of honesty is fundamentally anthropomorphic (or at least limited to animals with higher consciousness for which honesty as a concept has meaning) so you are engaging in a circular argument. But having higher consciousness does not imply the importance of honesty - a species with just as much higher consciousness as humans but which lives in an entirely solitary manner would be unlikely to recognise honesty as it has no fundamental relevance to their existence.

I suspect AB might think of honesty as being as much in relation to one's self/soul as social. In which case your example, which I agree with as a general point, might be seen to fail - except AB still has an illogical idea of free will.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I suspect AB might think of honesty as being as much in relation to one's self/soul as social. In which case your example, which I agree with as a general point, might be seen to fail - except AB still has an illogical idea of free will.

Just to expand on that a little bit, AB seems to oscillate between logic being important and it being irrelevant. One the one hand he claims to have “sound logic” to justify his beliefs (though he never produces it here), but when his occasional attempts at logic are quickly falsified he resorts to claiming logic itself to be “man-made” so not to apply to his beliefs at all. Rather, by some unknown process he claims access to a “bigger picture” albeit with no means to justify this claim. Essentially “magic” is “logic” enough for his purposes.   

[ippy]

NS,

Just to expand on that a little bit, AB seems to oscillate between logic being important and it being irrelevant. One the one hand he claims to have “sound logic” to justify his beliefs (though he never produces it here), but when his occasional attempts at logic are quickly falsified he resorts to claiming logic itself to be “man-made” so not to apply to his beliefs at all. Rather, by some unknown process he claims access to a “bigger picture” albeit with no means to justify this claim. Essentially “magic” is “logic” enough for his purposes.   

Quiet!

[Alan Burns]

I have just been reading John 15:9-17 and come to realise that the title of this thread is misleading.  We do not need to search for God.  History shows that man made attempts to search for God end up with a man made God rather than the true God. 

You did not choose me, but I chose you

The Christian bible is not about mankind's search for God - it portrays God's quest to make Himself known to a race of people who are initially reluctant or indifferent to His approaches through the prophets and ultimately Himself.

We just need to take down the barriers and let God come into our lives, and we will discover the love God has for us.  And then by following his command to share this unconditional love with others, we will discover the true joy of being a Christian:

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.
I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have just been reading John 15:9-17 and come to realise that the title of this thread is misleading.  We do not need to search for God.  History shows that man made attempts to search for God end up with a man made God rather than the true God.

Except of course, so far at least, you’ve provided no good reason to think that there is a god, “true” or otherwise. You’re begging the question again – a basic mistake in reasoning. 

You did not choose me, but I chose you

The Christian bible is not about mankind's search for God - it portrays God's quest to make Himself known to a race of people who are initially reluctant or indifferent to His approaches through the prophets and ultimately Himself.

If you say so, fine. The Harry Potter books portray schoolchildren flying around on broomsticks too. So? 

We just need to take down the barriers and let God come into our lives, and we will discover the love God has for us.  And then by following his command to share this unconditional love with others, we will discover the true joy of being a Christian:

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.
I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.

See comment 1 above. Perhaps if you spent some time trying at least to demonstrate the claim “god” to begin with you’d be off to a better start than continually begging the question? Lots of books say lots of thinks about lots of fictional characters. What makes you think that this particular character should be treated as less fictional than all the others?     

[torridon]

I have just been reading John 15:9-17 and come to realise that the title of this thread is misleading.  We do not need to search for God.  History shows that man made attempts to search for God end up with a man made God rather than the true God. 

You did not choose me, but I chose you

The Christian bible is not about mankind's search for God - it portrays God's quest to make Himself known to a race of people who are initially reluctant or indifferent to His approaches through the prophets and ultimately Himself.

We just need to take down the barriers and let God come into our lives, and we will discover the love God has for us.  And then by following his command to share this unconditional love with others, we will discover the true joy of being a Christian:

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.
I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.

This overlooks that the Bible was written by people, not by God.  All the work of human hand and mind from start to finish.

[ProfessorDavey]

History shows that man made attempts to search for God end up with a man made God.

There you go AB - fixed it for you. All that needs to be said - nothing further is needed.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Except of course, so far at least, you’ve provided no good reason to think that there is a god, “true” or otherwise. You’re begging the question again – a basic mistake in reasoning. 

If you say so, fine. The Harry Potter books portray schoolchildren flying around on broomsticks too. So? 

See comment 1 above. Perhaps if you spent some time trying at least to demonstrate the claim “god” to begin with you’d be off to a better start than continually begging the question? Lots of books say lots of thinks about lots of fictional characters. What makes you think that this particular character should be treated as less fictional than all the others?   

Harry Potter is an excellent example of human creativity.
You and I are excellent examples of God's creativity.

[ProfessorDavey]

Harry Potter is an excellent example of human creativity.
You and I are excellent examples of God's creativity.

Wrong - god is another excellent example of human creativity.

[torridon]

Harry Potter is an excellent example of human creativity.
You and I are excellent examples of God's creativity.

Assertion without evidence (yet again )

[ProfessorDavey]

History shows that man made attempts to search for God end up with a man made God ...

So you are accepting that there are man-made gods. In which case how do you know that your god is not a man-made god - indeed how do you know that all gods aren't man-made gods.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Harry Potter is an excellent example of human creativity.
You and I are excellent examples of God's creativity.

I just explained to you the begging the question fallacy, and your response is to repeat it. Why even bother to claim that you have “sound logic” to justify your beliefs (albeit that you never produce it) when you’re demonstrably indifferent to logic itself?   

[torridon]

So you are accepting that there are man-made gods. In which case how do you know that your god is not a man-made god - indeed how do you know that all gods aren't man-made gods.

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/569705421593787111/

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/569705421593787111/

Indeed

[Alan Burns]

So you are accepting that there are man-made gods. In which case how do you know that your god is not a man-made god - indeed how do you know that all gods aren't man-made gods.

You can ascertain this by studying the various scriptures to discern what is obviously a man made, but sincere, attempt to find God and what is God making Himself known, initially through the divine revelations given to numerous prophets, and finally by becoming one of us.

The Christian bible does not show any evidence of mankind seeking God.

[ProfessorDavey]

You can ascertain this by studying the various scriptures to discern what is obviously a man made, but sincere, attempt to find God and what is God making Himself known, initially through the divine revelations given to numerous prophets, and finally by becoming one of us.

The Christian bible does not show any evidence of mankind seeking God.

All of the scriptures are man made - how is that going to help you to discern the difference between a man-made god and a non man-made god, if the latter even exists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You can ascertain this by studying the various scriptures to discern what is obviously a man made, but sincere, attempt to find God and what is God making Himself known, initially through the divine revelations given to numerous prophets, and finally by becoming one of us.

The Christian bible does not show any evidence of mankind seeking God.

You do this a lot – you’re asked why the scriptures should be treated as authoritative and you tell us it’s because they contain the word of “God”. You’re asked why you think there’s a god in the first place, and you tell us that it’s because it says so in the scriptures.

Does your circular reasoning strike you as problematic at all?

Anything?   

[ProfessorDavey]

The Christian bible does not show any evidence of mankind seeking God.

Actually the christian bible sets all the 'man-made' god alarm bells ringing right from the off.

So at the start of the old testament the apparently non man-made god creates man in his image - and all other things on earth (let alone the rest of the universe, on which the OT is silent) are effectively created as adjuncts to man.

And at the start of the new testament this apparently non man-made god comes down to earth as ... err ... a man.

In reality the christian bible is solely concerned with people and their relationship with the apparently non man-made god - nothing else is important. It is the most anthropomorphised god imaginable, which is of course exactly what you'd expect if this god was conjured up by man.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You do this a lot – you’re asked why the scriptures should be treated as authoritative and you tell us it’s because they contain the word of “God”. You’re asked why you think there’s a god in the first place, and you tell us that it’s because it says so in the scriptures.

Does your circular reasoning strike you as problematic at all?

Anything?

You need to discern the obvious difference between the God depicted in the Christian bible and the Gods portrayed in the many other religious faiths.  There is not enough space on this forum to go into detail, but there are many scholarly works which depict the great difference which sets the Christian god far above any conceivable human idealism of what God should be.

[Gordon]

You need to discern the obvious difference between the God depicted in the Christian bible and the Gods portrayed in the many other religious faiths.

I can't discern any difference: they all involve religious superstitions dating from more credulous times and involve ridiculous claims (like dead people not staying dead).

There is not enough space on this forum to go into detail, but there are many scholarly works which depict the great difference which sets the Christian god far above any conceivable human idealism of what God should be.

So what?

The core issue here isn't whether the self-referential navel-gazing of 'theology' satisfies the already convinced, but whether these 'scholarly works' present any credible reasons to take the claims of (in your case) Christianity seriously - and they don't. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You need to discern the obvious difference between the God depicted in the Christian bible and the Gods portrayed in the many other religious faiths.

First, you’re still left with you a priori problem of explaining why the Christian Bible should be considered authoritative at all, regardless of what "depictions" it happens to contain.

Second, what “obvious differences” are there in any case that would lead a thinking person to treat one supposedly “holy” text any more seriously than any other (without that is collapsing into your circular reasoning)?

There is not enough space on this forum to go into detail, but there are many scholarly works which depict the great difference which sets the Christian god far above any conceivable human idealism of what God should be.

Then give us a summary – from memory the Christian god is very evidently full of the human weaknesses, prejudices and biases of the people who clearly authored “Him”. Often he’s petty, insecure, intolerant, vengeful, bigoted and, when he feels like it, deeply unpleasant. In what possible way is that exactly not indicative of being a work of fiction imagined by the people who created him?   

[ippy]

I have just been reading John 15:9-17 and come to realise that the title of this thread is misleading.  We do not need to search for God.  History shows that man made attempts to search for God end up with a man made God rather than the true God. 

You did not choose me, but I chose you

The Christian bible is not about mankind's search for God - it portrays God's quest to make Himself known to a race of people who are initially reluctant or indifferent to His approaches through the prophets and ultimately Himself.

We just need to take down the barriers and let God come into our lives, and we will discover the love God has for us.  And then by following his command to share this unconditional love with others, we will discover the true joy of being a Christian:

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.
I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.

Obviously you need to change your choice of reading matter, to something a lot more realistic and forward thinking!

Commiserations Alan, ippy.

P S Alan, here's a quote from Douglas you need to take in and do your very best to remember it as well: “Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!” ― Douglas Adams.

This quote of Duggies sums up how useless all of your, promotional in your mind only, posts are in a nutshell!

More commiserations Alan.

[Alan Burns]

I can't discern any difference: they all involve religious superstitions dating from more credulous times and involve ridiculous claims (like dead people not staying dead).

So what?

The core issue here isn't whether the self-referential navel-gazing of 'theology' satisfies the already convinced, but whether these 'scholarly works' present any credible reasons to take the claims of (in your case) Christianity seriously - and they don't.

I presume you have not studied in depth any scholarly works which compare the Christian bible to other religious faiths. 
So how can you possibly claim that they do not present any credible reasons to take the claims of Christian bible seriously?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

.... the Christian god is very evidently full of the human weaknesses, prejudices and biases of the people who clearly authored “Him”. Often he’s petty, insecure, intolerant, vengeful, bigoted and, when he feels like it, deeply unpleasant. In what possible way is that exactly not indicative of being a work of fiction imagined by the people who created him?

You clearly have not understood the profound message of God's love given to us in the Christian bible and practised by the many people who have followed this this teaching with the help of God's grace.

[Gordon]

I presume you have not studied in depth any scholarly works which compare the Christian bible to other religious faiths. 
So how can you possibly claim that they do not present any credible reasons to take the claims of Christian bible seriously?

Ah - so you're trying a 'Courtier's Reply' for a change.

They present no evidence, supported by a relevant methodology, that justifies treating them as being anything other than codified religious superstitions, so not serious propositions.

Moreover, those advancing the cause of particular religious superstitions, as you do in relation to Christianity, offer only a mix of incoherence and fallacies - making it easy to dismiss the claims they make.