Strands #269 “Come Fly With...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Why The Abrahamic God?
90 Answers
Of all the alleged creator Gods imagined by man (a couple of thousand at least), why do you (if you're religious) opt for the Abrahamic God in particular?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hazi-Hammenuhoth, //who never met Jesus,/ Not in the days of His flesh, but certainly met him on the road to Damascus- see Acts 9.
/never heard him speak, / I'm afraid thats not right either- see Acts 9 verse 5 when Paul and Christ spoke to one another.//
Certainly? Jesus was already dead so if Saul thought he saw and spoke to Jesus, he could only have been dreaming – or hallucinating.
//Read the next verse and you will see what Jesus did for her- healed her!//
I've read the next verse many times. The woman was healed only after Jesus had been persuaded to act. His innate altruism didn't extend that far.
///Would anyone like to answer the original question?/ Why would they, when you clearly have no respect for those who have?///
You’re mistaken. I respect people – but I have no respect for self-centred fantasy or for irrational and damaging belief systems. Wanting it to be so doesn’t make it so.
Even though scripture has been altered time and time again in order to suit a purpose, Jesus was a devout Jew who had no intention of founding a new religion. Never has a man’s name been so misused and so abused. Saul was a self-aggrandising attention seeker - and if you like that sort of thing - a successful one because without him Christianity would never have been invented.
Theland, you’re welcome.
/never heard him speak, / I'm afraid thats not right either- see Acts 9 verse 5 when Paul and Christ spoke to one another.//
Certainly? Jesus was already dead so if Saul thought he saw and spoke to Jesus, he could only have been dreaming – or hallucinating.
//Read the next verse and you will see what Jesus did for her- healed her!//
I've read the next verse many times. The woman was healed only after Jesus had been persuaded to act. His innate altruism didn't extend that far.
///Would anyone like to answer the original question?/ Why would they, when you clearly have no respect for those who have?///
You’re mistaken. I respect people – but I have no respect for self-centred fantasy or for irrational and damaging belief systems. Wanting it to be so doesn’t make it so.
Even though scripture has been altered time and time again in order to suit a purpose, Jesus was a devout Jew who had no intention of founding a new religion. Never has a man’s name been so misused and so abused. Saul was a self-aggrandising attention seeker - and if you like that sort of thing - a successful one because without him Christianity would never have been invented.
Theland, you’re welcome.
erm can I inject a bit of intellectual thought into all this ?
Vet will call it mischief.
why do we think the Abrahamic God of 2000 y ago is the same as we think of God now ?
[Hey anyone who has done Eighteenth century scottish philosophy will recognise a bit of Hume ripped off there!] The others um won't
and hey guess what again ? My Dean of Chapel - I was on the same quest as Kval 50 y ago - wrote a book about this.
God B.C. Hardcover – 3 Mar 1977
by Anthony Phillips (Author)
2.3 out of 5 stars
now remaindered at 0.05p
go there - read that !
Vet will call it mischief.
why do we think the Abrahamic God of 2000 y ago is the same as we think of God now ?
[Hey anyone who has done Eighteenth century scottish philosophy will recognise a bit of Hume ripped off there!] The others um won't
and hey guess what again ? My Dean of Chapel - I was on the same quest as Kval 50 y ago - wrote a book about this.
God B.C. Hardcover – 3 Mar 1977
by Anthony Phillips (Author)
2.3 out of 5 stars
now remaindered at 0.05p
go there - read that !
// Certainly? Jesus was already dead so if Saul thought he saw and spoke to Jesus, he could only have been dreaming – or hallucinating. //
ignores the fact (!) that jesus before the crucifixion was seen by anyone you know alive
and after resurrection - was only seen by apostles et al
(Paul was later an apostle)
and this supplied intense theological debate over the next five centuries over the nature of jesus.
it boils down to three
all human ( Nigh's view)
all divine ( monophysite for 1900 y now miaphysite ( 100y) - ( not only-nature but one-nature)
half n half ( Christian view ) - human during erm life and divine after resurrection
Helloo - nigh ? Jesus wasnt Abrahamic - - - ergo.
our views will be different....
hey isnt there a lady on AB who goes on about 'useful fools' ? I dunnot I really dont
hey Nigh - you still there ?
Trinity doesnt occur in the NT
( see the bit above about intense theological debate over 500y - needless to say the trinitarians won)
ignores the fact (!) that jesus before the crucifixion was seen by anyone you know alive
and after resurrection - was only seen by apostles et al
(Paul was later an apostle)
and this supplied intense theological debate over the next five centuries over the nature of jesus.
it boils down to three
all human ( Nigh's view)
all divine ( monophysite for 1900 y now miaphysite ( 100y) - ( not only-nature but one-nature)
half n half ( Christian view ) - human during erm life and divine after resurrection
Helloo - nigh ? Jesus wasnt Abrahamic - - - ergo.
our views will be different....
hey isnt there a lady on AB who goes on about 'useful fools' ? I dunnot I really dont
hey Nigh - you still there ?
Trinity doesnt occur in the NT
( see the bit above about intense theological debate over 500y - needless to say the trinitarians won)
It really seems to depend on how you view the sacred texts of the Hebrew bible / Qu'ran / Old/New Testaments.
Some think of them as the literal word of God, and therefore should be heeded as a literal and specific instructions.
Others think of them as products of particular cultures and societies written by men (and occasionally women) - perhaps inspired by God, but reflecting the values and beliefs of those societies.
THose in the former group essentially wish everyone throughout time and across all cultures to revert back to the types of society and belief systems that were described in those ancient texts.
Those in the latter group interpret the ideas conveyed in those ancient texts, along with the fundamental rule of 'treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself' and try to apply those concepts to modern society and culture.
Each group — as amply demonstrated on this thread — is convinced theirs is the 'correct' and the only valid truth, and no amount of persuasion or debate is going to convince either group to move its position.
These are emotional beliefs; not rational ones. Rational debate will never resolve the differences (as with other hot topics on this site).
Perhaps its fun for a while to rehearse all those old arguments about Paul/Saul's theology (deeply suspect by any measure in my view), but in the end, it seems to get us nowhere, except more and more divided.
Some think of them as the literal word of God, and therefore should be heeded as a literal and specific instructions.
Others think of them as products of particular cultures and societies written by men (and occasionally women) - perhaps inspired by God, but reflecting the values and beliefs of those societies.
THose in the former group essentially wish everyone throughout time and across all cultures to revert back to the types of society and belief systems that were described in those ancient texts.
Those in the latter group interpret the ideas conveyed in those ancient texts, along with the fundamental rule of 'treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself' and try to apply those concepts to modern society and culture.
Each group — as amply demonstrated on this thread — is convinced theirs is the 'correct' and the only valid truth, and no amount of persuasion or debate is going to convince either group to move its position.
These are emotional beliefs; not rational ones. Rational debate will never resolve the differences (as with other hot topics on this site).
Perhaps its fun for a while to rehearse all those old arguments about Paul/Saul's theology (deeply suspect by any measure in my view), but in the end, it seems to get us nowhere, except more and more divided.
erm and
jesus only does miracles froo his Father before crucifixion ( human geddit )
and then goes all the way after resurrection
( divine )
The Feast of the Circumcision - is there to show the humanity of Christ, fr'instance
hey I really didnt expect arch atheist Nigh to kick off a discussion of the dual nature of christ as evidenced by the NT .... ho hum - - miracles do abound.
jesus only does miracles froo his Father before crucifixion ( human geddit )
and then goes all the way after resurrection
( divine )
The Feast of the Circumcision - is there to show the humanity of Christ, fr'instance
hey I really didnt expect arch atheist Nigh to kick off a discussion of the dual nature of christ as evidenced by the NT .... ho hum - - miracles do abound.
Naomi, in reply:
/see Acts 9 verse 5
Certainly? Jesus was already dead so if Saul thought he saw and spoke to Jesus, he could only have been dreaming – or hallucinating./ I think you may have missed the fact that Jesus died and was raised again, something commonly known as the Ressurection. Why not do a little bit of bible research Naomi- you appear to be very confused as to the basics of Christian belief.
/The woman was healed only after Jesus had been persuaded to act. His innate altruism didn't extend that far/ The Lord was clearly proving her faith, like He did to many others throughout the Gospels.
/ I respect people/ Really? It's a shame that isn't borne out by your replies.
/ but I have no respect for self-centred fantasy or for irrational and damaging belief systems./ We are in full agreement on that one, Naomi.
/Wanting it to be so doesn’t make it so. / Excellent, well at least you admit it.
/Jesus was a devout Jew who had no intention of founding a new religion./ Ah, so even you, Naomi is now claiming to know the intentions on Jesus! How did that come about, Naomi? Did you ask Him, perhaps?
/Never has a man’s name been so misused and so abused./ I agree, his name is on the lips of millions of people every day in blasphemy.
/ Saul was a self-aggrandising attention seeker / The apostle Paul never held back from telling people openly about his failings and actions before he found Christ.
/without him Christianity would never have been invented/ I and millions of others will be eternally grateful to him for bringing Christianity to Europe.
/see Acts 9 verse 5
Certainly? Jesus was already dead so if Saul thought he saw and spoke to Jesus, he could only have been dreaming – or hallucinating./ I think you may have missed the fact that Jesus died and was raised again, something commonly known as the Ressurection. Why not do a little bit of bible research Naomi- you appear to be very confused as to the basics of Christian belief.
/The woman was healed only after Jesus had been persuaded to act. His innate altruism didn't extend that far/ The Lord was clearly proving her faith, like He did to many others throughout the Gospels.
/ I respect people/ Really? It's a shame that isn't borne out by your replies.
/ but I have no respect for self-centred fantasy or for irrational and damaging belief systems./ We are in full agreement on that one, Naomi.
/Wanting it to be so doesn’t make it so. / Excellent, well at least you admit it.
/Jesus was a devout Jew who had no intention of founding a new religion./ Ah, so even you, Naomi is now claiming to know the intentions on Jesus! How did that come about, Naomi? Did you ask Him, perhaps?
/Never has a man’s name been so misused and so abused./ I agree, his name is on the lips of millions of people every day in blasphemy.
/ Saul was a self-aggrandising attention seeker / The apostle Paul never held back from telling people openly about his failings and actions before he found Christ.
/without him Christianity would never have been invented/ I and millions of others will be eternally grateful to him for bringing Christianity to Europe.
Hazi-Hammenuhoth, //I think you may have missed the fact that Jesus died and was raised again//
It’s not a fact – it’s hearsay founded upon wishful thinking. People who are truly dead don’t come back to life. That’s a fact.
//Jesus was a devout Jew who had no intention of founding a new religion./ Ah, so even you, Naomi is now claiming to know the intentions on Jesus! //
I’m not claiming to know. I read the gospels. Jesus said he came only for the Jews and he told his followers to keep the law. That’s simple enough to understand. As I said wanting to believe otherwise doesn’t make it so. Christianity (which I do know a bit about) is fantasy. If it didn’t promise life after death (saving you from the dreaded retribution of your own God in fact) there would be no reason for you to believe any of it.
It’s not a fact – it’s hearsay founded upon wishful thinking. People who are truly dead don’t come back to life. That’s a fact.
//Jesus was a devout Jew who had no intention of founding a new religion./ Ah, so even you, Naomi is now claiming to know the intentions on Jesus! //
I’m not claiming to know. I read the gospels. Jesus said he came only for the Jews and he told his followers to keep the law. That’s simple enough to understand. As I said wanting to believe otherwise doesn’t make it so. Christianity (which I do know a bit about) is fantasy. If it didn’t promise life after death (saving you from the dreaded retribution of your own God in fact) there would be no reason for you to believe any of it.
In reply to Naomi:
Hazi: //I think you may have missed the fact that Jesus died and was raised again//Naomi:
/It’s not a fact – it’s hearsay founded upon wishful thinking./ I completely disagree with you Naomi, based on 1 Corinthians 15 v 4-8. There is witness, but you can choose to ignore it, if you wish.
/People who are truly dead don’t come back to life. That’s a fact./ Absolutely, it would have to be something miraculous for that to happen.
//Jesus was a devout Jew who had no intention of founding a new religion./ Ah, so even you, Naomi is now claiming to know the intentions of Jesus! //
/I’m not claiming to know. I read the gospels. Jesus said he came only for the Jews and he told his followers to keep the law. That’s simple enough to understand./ So you choose to disregard the verses I pointed out (John 4) and the one you pointed me too also, which show that Christ held out salvation for gentiles too? The instances of non-Jews receiving healing? Perhaps you need to read the gospels again.
/Christianity (which I do know a bit about) is fantasy./ Absolutely not, it's the surest thing there is. You can never disprove the reality of Christianity or the experience of those who know what God has done for them.
/If it didn’t promise life after death (saving you from the dreaded retribution of your own God in fact) there would be no reason for you to believe any of it./ What a completely irrational and illogical conclusion, Naomi! Christianity isn't just enjoyed after death- many of the promises don't relate to eternity at all, but to our life here on earth. The satisfaction and peace that is offered is not just some future promise, but a reality that is enjoyed today by millions.
Hazi: //I think you may have missed the fact that Jesus died and was raised again//Naomi:
/It’s not a fact – it’s hearsay founded upon wishful thinking./ I completely disagree with you Naomi, based on 1 Corinthians 15 v 4-8. There is witness, but you can choose to ignore it, if you wish.
/People who are truly dead don’t come back to life. That’s a fact./ Absolutely, it would have to be something miraculous for that to happen.
//Jesus was a devout Jew who had no intention of founding a new religion./ Ah, so even you, Naomi is now claiming to know the intentions of Jesus! //
/I’m not claiming to know. I read the gospels. Jesus said he came only for the Jews and he told his followers to keep the law. That’s simple enough to understand./ So you choose to disregard the verses I pointed out (John 4) and the one you pointed me too also, which show that Christ held out salvation for gentiles too? The instances of non-Jews receiving healing? Perhaps you need to read the gospels again.
/Christianity (which I do know a bit about) is fantasy./ Absolutely not, it's the surest thing there is. You can never disprove the reality of Christianity or the experience of those who know what God has done for them.
/If it didn’t promise life after death (saving you from the dreaded retribution of your own God in fact) there would be no reason for you to believe any of it./ What a completely irrational and illogical conclusion, Naomi! Christianity isn't just enjoyed after death- many of the promises don't relate to eternity at all, but to our life here on earth. The satisfaction and peace that is offered is not just some future promise, but a reality that is enjoyed today by millions.
Hazi-Hammenuhoth, //You can never disprove the reality of Christianity or the experience of those who know what God has done for them.//
The requirement for the provision of proof doesn’t lie with me. The onus is on you and all the others who urge the rest of us to believe the irrational to provide proof. As you must know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and if that evidence existed, these arguments wouldn't take place.
I’m away now until at least late tomorrow night so for the time being I’ll leave you with that thought.
The requirement for the provision of proof doesn’t lie with me. The onus is on you and all the others who urge the rest of us to believe the irrational to provide proof. As you must know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and if that evidence existed, these arguments wouldn't take place.
I’m away now until at least late tomorrow night so for the time being I’ll leave you with that thought.
With regard to Paganism the two main Christian festivals are actually renamed Pagan celebrations.
Christmas is the Pagan festival of Yuletide commemorating the return of Spring following the winter solstice on 20th December. Easter is the Pagan festival of fertility and birth originally celebrated in May, by dancing around a representation of an erect penis, the Maypole.
No one knows when Christ was born, (the best guess is in April in the year 4 BC.) So it was convenient to just adopt the far older Pagan festival of Yuletide as a Christian celebration.
Christmas is the Pagan festival of Yuletide commemorating the return of Spring following the winter solstice on 20th December. Easter is the Pagan festival of fertility and birth originally celebrated in May, by dancing around a representation of an erect penis, the Maypole.
No one knows when Christ was born, (the best guess is in April in the year 4 BC.) So it was convenient to just adopt the far older Pagan festival of Yuletide as a Christian celebration.
Hi Naomi
Just to reply:
/The requirement for the provision of proof doesn’t lie with me./ If you make blanket claims like “Christianity is fantasy” you have to back them up with your evidence if you are truly being objective. As I said, “you can’t disprove it.”
/The onus is on you /Not at all, I have no need to prove anything to anyone. You asked about my beliefs, I told you.
/and all the others who urge the rest of us to believe the irrational to provide proof./ I’m not urging anyone- the choice whether to accept or not accept the gospel is entirely yours to make.
/As you must know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Yes, I know Sagan’s quote is widely held as truth by the Hitchens crowd, but the problem for naysayers is he didn’t define “extraordinary”. Personally, I would describe the Bible as the most extraordinary book in the History of the world.
/and if that evidence existed, these arguments wouldn't take place./ I very much doubt that- this whole site is proof that two human beings can argue about just about anything- we’re all different, thank God :)
Just to reply:
/The requirement for the provision of proof doesn’t lie with me./ If you make blanket claims like “Christianity is fantasy” you have to back them up with your evidence if you are truly being objective. As I said, “you can’t disprove it.”
/The onus is on you /Not at all, I have no need to prove anything to anyone. You asked about my beliefs, I told you.
/and all the others who urge the rest of us to believe the irrational to provide proof./ I’m not urging anyone- the choice whether to accept or not accept the gospel is entirely yours to make.
/As you must know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Yes, I know Sagan’s quote is widely held as truth by the Hitchens crowd, but the problem for naysayers is he didn’t define “extraordinary”. Personally, I would describe the Bible as the most extraordinary book in the History of the world.
/and if that evidence existed, these arguments wouldn't take place./ I very much doubt that- this whole site is proof that two human beings can argue about just about anything- we’re all different, thank God :)
jim, //The irony is strong with this one. ^^//
That classifies as an extraordinary claim. You know the rest …..
Hazi-Hammenuhoth, //Personally, I would describe the Bible as the most extraordinary book in the History of the world.//
Extraordinary not least because is clearly in error and yet those errors are ignored so much so that the faithful cite it as a reason to believe.
//this whole site is proof that two human beings can argue about just about anything//
Indeed they can, but common sense dictates (or should dictate) that arguments that can clearly be disproven must be invalid.
That classifies as an extraordinary claim. You know the rest …..
Hazi-Hammenuhoth, //Personally, I would describe the Bible as the most extraordinary book in the History of the world.//
Extraordinary not least because is clearly in error and yet those errors are ignored so much so that the faithful cite it as a reason to believe.
//this whole site is proof that two human beings can argue about just about anything//
Indeed they can, but common sense dictates (or should dictate) that arguments that can clearly be disproven must be invalid.
Naomi: /Extraordinary not least because is clearly in error and yet those errors are ignored so much so that the faithful cite it as a reason to believe./ The Bible is 'clearly in error'? Come off it... There may be some grammatical imperfections etc but the basic tenets and principles are certainly not 'in error'.
//this whole site is proof that two human beings can argue about just about anything//
/Indeed they can, but common sense dictates (or should dictate) that arguments that can clearly be disproven must be invalid./ You have been unable to disprove anything with your arguments, so this 'clearly' doesnt apply here.
//this whole site is proof that two human beings can argue about just about anything//
/Indeed they can, but common sense dictates (or should dictate) that arguments that can clearly be disproven must be invalid./ You have been unable to disprove anything with your arguments, so this 'clearly' doesnt apply here.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Law20 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles46 mins ago
