If God Is Real

I mean reasonable in a reasonable sense. Like Doc Brown. He's completely out of his mind, but he's not going to hurt anybody.

How can God really understand us without being baffled too? I don't think he could truly understand morality or care for us in any other way. How else could he have any idea of our predicament.

 

People don't worship Classical Greek Gods anymore.

All refutations to the Problem of Evil argument that I have seen require changing semantics.

 

True, the classical Greek gods aren't generally worshipped these days, although there may be some pagan types who do worship them still. But I'm not sure that 'refuted' is the right word for the twilight of the Olympians. More that they were thrown down by Christianity. There were attempts to revive their cults as late as the 4th century under emperor Julian, but by then the Christians had the upper hand.
In 19th century England, the Hermetic order of the Golden Dawn did have some rituals based on the Greek pantheon.

By refuted I mean proven not to exist by means of logical argument, not simply gone out of style for the masses.

 

I qualified it by saying 'reasonably refuted.' Do you or anyone seriously entertain the idea that if the vast majority of the human population has not been worshipping certain Gods for millenia with no apparent upheaval in reality, that they still potentially exist?

If that is so, I think Flying Spaghetti Monster and Flying Teapot have to be entertained to truly exist aswell, even if they are suggested as joke/thought experiments.

 

In my view, the majority of the human population are somnambulant worshippers of whatever is put before them to worship. Reason plays very little part in it. Now it's Apollo, now Yahweh, now $£$£.

Anyway, what do you think was the upheaval in reality that led to the demise of the cults of the Greco-Roman gods? I don't think it was Platonic philosophy, or an age of reason, but the new cult of Christianity, which was not designed to appeal so much to the rational side of human beings, as to their emotions. In a sense, a new barbarism, which lasted for 1400 years or so.

As to whether the old gods potentially 'exist' - some think they do.

 

I pretty much only know about the Greek Philosophers and a basic understanding of Greek mythology. I don't know much about the specifics of Greco-Roman history.

Based on some of Plato's works, many of the people who Socrates have dialogues with seem to have a very rigid approach in their thoughts. I got the impression in a few parts, that responses seemed borderline automated. If that is a microcosm of the culture, I'm not sure that lends to the best stability when having to face wars, famines, disease etc.

 

Why complain about the grass growing? Truth is like a fragile crystal that has exploded into trillions of pieces and has been scattered in all directions. Some people search for and collect the pieces for discovery and advancement, and others are happy to not gather the pieces. How is it logical to discourage others from seeking truth? It’s egotistical for one to believe that they’re the highest form of life in all of existence.

 

In regards to the Gods specifically, perhaps polytheism has a harder time surviving a culture than Monotheistic Gods because the polytheistic Gods usually correlate with particular facets of society, which may not be equally adaptable/relatable in another culture. As an example, it's difficult to imagine a civilization in the middle of the desert around that time, having the same connection with the God of the Sea- Posiedon as a civilization close to an ocean.

Contrast that with a monotheistic God where he can kind of just be given a makeover, as many make the case in the Old Testament vs. New Testament God and apply it to the culture.



There's a whole section on love and Eros- The God of love in one of Plato's books, so I don't necessarily think the Greeks had a less emotional depiction of or connection to their deities.

 

where the hell did you get all that from what I said?

 

From a shaman riding on the wings of a white owl.

 

"“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”

oh look, another piece of scripture than can be read and understood 5 different ways.

 

What if the gods are real, and the only true holy book was written in Runes, and was destroyed hundreds of years ago by the Holy Roman Empire as it spread the word of Jesus accross Northern Europe...

...Man, we're screwed...

 

Twisted 5 different ways yes, understood 5 different ways no. The Christians believe that Jesus Christ did fulfill the laws from his birth and to the cross.

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"

It's not hard to understand what Christians believe. It's not hard to understand why people would choose a god like that to worship--a god that sacrificed himself, instead of demanding human sacrifice like most all of the other gods. Speaking logically--there is extra-biblical proof of the historical man Jesus, but there is not extra-biblical proof of his divinity or miracles. I wouldn't fret too much over understanding the bible in its entirety. The bible was canonized by slavers, and its many transliterations cannot be trusted by anyone rational to be accurate or even truthful.

 

Understood thousands of ways, actually. There are a lot more than 5 significant denominations of Christianity.

Christianity is more of an umbrella term for individuals who in some way share a cultural heritage with those who conquered the Americas. Britain, Portugal, Spain, ect....

Its still a death cult when you think about it like that though.

Instead of frequent offerings, you worship a single sacrifice that happened thousands of years ago.

 

You confuse denominations and transliteration. Even 80,000 denominations can agree on the understanding of one line of scripture. I'm not a Christian, but I was able to use the bible to explain itself. Lets look at things logically--Christians worship a living God, who they believe came in the flesh, died, and then resurrected. For Christianity to be a "death cult," we would need archeological evidence--the remains of Jesus Christ. If such evidence were provided, then it could be proven that Christianity is a death cult. It is sane to say that Jesus Christ was crucified then was thrown into a grave, and that he did not resurrect, but saying so is still an assumption and is illogical to suggest as being factual, even if it is a good assumption. One could say that when you're dead you're dead, but that would be setting up illogical and unrealistic parameters. Is it impossible to resurrect from death? It would be ignorant and egotistical to say that anything is impossible, even resurrection.

 

if god is real, i doubt very much that it is pleased by 'christians', nor by what is written about it in their book.

 

Finally, someone who is able to consider the subject matter honestly while being aware of how their own bias effects how they perceive it.

don't know why it is so hard for people to give it a fair and unbiased appraisal devoid of influences by modern cultural conceptions of the topic.
you don't need to drink the Kool-Aid in order to understand those who do.

and yes, Mr. Writer and others who have tossed out that same quote fail to understand that, according Christian beliefs, it WAS fulfilled by Jesus and when his last words were "it is finished" THAT is what he was referring to, not his own life being finished, but the fulfillment of the "law and prophets".

 

goofed

 

Sure its possible that they could agree, anything is possible. But don't pretend like there is a grand consensus among Christians when there is not one.

The high number of denominations indicates that there are frequent disagreements between them in their interpretations. Some of these differences are very dramatic, and that is only at the group level. Individual understandings and interpretations have much more room for diversity.

And so what if its a theoretical sacrifice, there is still worship taking place in practice today. I would also imagine that there are some people eating the wine and crackers at church who actually believe they are eating the flesh of Christ, while drinking his blood. Really weird. I'm not judging though, just saying that this sounds a lot like a death cult.

But that is only the literal interpretation. You could pretty much spin it any way you'd like and say they meant "lifeblood" rather than real blood or something...

 

So can the bible be trusted or not? Because you start your post out refuting mine, with a biblical quotation, and then you couch your refutation with the cautionary note of "It can't be trusted by anyone rational to be accurate or even truthful" . . . then we have a major problem, don't we. It appears a large portion of the human population think it a good project to structure their lives around an inaccurate and false document lionizing a single act of human sacrifice. Well, not totally human, he was really God. God came down to earth to die for us so that God could forgive us. As Richard Dawkins asks, and has never been answered, why couldn't god just skip that part and just, you know, forgive us? He's God!