Why Should God Appear/exist At All?

[nailit]

I asked this in naomi's 'Atheist Authors' thread, below, in response to khandro's query.
He did what all good religionists do and ignored it, so thought I'd put it out here.
Religionists....WHY does your God exist?

[Theland]

Clanad, you must realise by now that the majority of these posts are not interested in the Truth, but only in mockery. Another prophecy fulfilled.

[grasscarp]

Very informative post Clanad.
Too right Theland.

[jomifl]

From my point of view Theland what seems like mockery to you seems to be about as close to the Truth as anyone is likely to get.

[vulcan42]

Theland , it appears to you as mockery because it doesn't agree with your beliefs, which are not necessarily true. Prove to us they are true and then the mocking, as you see it, will cease.

[naomi24]

//The Old Testament is replete with appearances of the pre-Incarnate Yeshua… glad to point them out if requested... //

Please don't bother. None of it is "fact".

[naomi24]

Theland, //Clanad, you must realise by now that the majority of these posts are not interested in the Truth//

You don’t know the truth. With so many contradictions the notion that because the bible says it, it must be true is severely flawed. In the absence of verifiable evidence common sense dictates that if one bit is flawed then the rest must be called into question. Tell me what happened at Easter.

[jomifl]

Truth.....when an infallible pope changes his mind..

[jomifl]

http://bibviz.com/
for a bit of sunday afternoon amusement

[Clanad]

Well, birdie, glad you cleared that up… you say you chose your words carefully, such as this: "...As I'm sure you're aware, earlier civilisations such as the Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Sumerians, etc. were all polytheistic religions. Not one religion prior to the Abrahamic religions were monotheistic…."

Of course (disregarding your pithy, personal comments) you are, once again, just wrong according to a list of scholars to include:

"...The term "monotheism" was coined in 1660 by Henry More (1614-1687), a member of the Cambridge Platonists, in order to better organize and categorize religions on a continuum (as progressing in an evolution from "primitive" levels such as animism through to polytheism, eventually ending up at monotheism). Monotheism was seen as the most "civilized" notion for conceiving of divinity and placed at the top of this hierarchy. Scholars such as Max Müller (1823-1900) believed that monotheistic religions such as Islam and Christianity were reflections of advanced civilizations and advanced levels of thought. Although the theory of "Ur-monotheism" or original monotheism was put forward by Wilhelm Schmidt (1868-1954) in a series of volumes beginning in 1912 to claim, in direct opposition to this evolutionary viewpoint, that monotheism was the original belief of humankind, and that subsequent beliefs such as polydaemonism and pantheism, among others, gradually arose out of the degeneration of this primordial monotheism, nevertheless this theory has been largely discredited in academic circles…" (Source: New World Encylopeadia).

Moreover, one of your examples, the Greeks, are referenced as well as "…The Greeks were also among the first cultures to propound monotheistic ideals, at least in a philosophical sense. Generally, the idea of a unified, divine principle was seen by the Greeks to express a sense of reasonableness or order in the cosmos. For Pre-Socratic philosophers, including Xenophanes, such an idea seemed to be the highest manifestation of religious thought. For example, Xenophanes depicted the spiritual union of the so-called "All-One" as uncreated, unchangeable, and ubiquitous throughout the universe. Plato construed the ultimate principle as a unity of the good, and identified God this way. In a world of evil, in constant flux, God represented the single good, which was ultimately unchanging in its embodiment of perfection. Likewise, Aristotle conceived of a First Mover who derives from physical unity; that is, a solitary supreme being who is one, eternal, and immutable… (Source: ibid )

Naomi, perhaps you could supply one or two (or more) of the contradictions you're fond of referencing? You 'common sense' can best be described as common but not sense… This is especially evident when you claim nothing offered in defense of Biblical truth is "fact" yet disregard equally factual studies of other ancient documents accepted on face value… It really is the subject matter that concerns you, not the equivalent supporting study and documentation...

[jomifl]

Clanad., is there a point to your argument, other than to outdo Birdie in the verbosity stakes. It has little to do with the existence of god.

[naomi24]

Clanad, I'll overlook your rudeness....

//Naomi, perhaps you could supply one or two (or more) of the contradictions you're fond of referencing? //

.... and ask you the question I asked Theland. Tell me what happened at Easter.

[Hypognosis]

@Birdie

Did you overlook this chap? 1350s-1330s BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten


Ithangyoww

[Clanad]

Naomi… Death, burial, resurrection and thereby completion of God's eternal plan to reconcile man unto himself with the only sacrifice that would avail itself for the completion… that supplied by the Eternal and unchanging Yahweh… Himself (Just as prophesied centuries before, by the way…)

[Clanad]

Naomi, forgot to say "I'll overlook your rudeness…"

[naomi24]

Clanad, I haven't been rude to you. The question of what happened at Easter is, due to biblical contradiction, unanswerable - which is why you have avoided answering it. Not terribly honest is it?

[Clanad]

Rudeness is as rudeness does, no? "...You don’t know the truth..." is rude in extremis in my book and, of course, implies you do know the truth...

That aside, I'm as flummoxed by your "...The question of what happened at Easter is, due to biblical contradiction, unanswerable - which is why you have avoided answering it. Not terribly honest is it?" as being inteneded (apparently) as some sort of intelligent reply or at least an attempt to add value to this exchange... You asked the question, I answered it in thoroughness but not detail...

What, exactly, do you see as the 'unanswerable bibilical contradiction'?