These are some interesting questions, but going into them doesn't really belong in an election thread, so it's probably better if I just start another thread about them. 1) Yes, Jesus could be the President of presidents, too. But in the cultural context where the New Testament was written there was no such thing as a president. The term simply means he is the ruler above all other rulers. Jesus didn't really "embrace" monarchical rule; he simply let governments be governments. He did not rebel against governments, even unjust ones, and did not encourage his followers to do so, because political reform was not his agenda. Delivering man from sin was his goal, and he was not about to let himself be distracted from that. The idea of him being "King of kings" is not that there has to be a king, but that no matter what kind of authority structures man puts in place, at whatever level, God is above all that. He is the ultimate authority. I realize that this touches on what is probably the reason many Wordforgers hate the very idea of God: the notion that he is in charge. The most fundamental nature of sin is the refusal to submit to God's authority, which is itself rooted in a fundamental distrust of God's goodness. Several of the most virulent "anti-Christians" here like to throw around the most vile denunciations they can about God (things like him "raping" Mary, which is so stupid since she explicitly consented to being the mother of Jesus, and there was no sex involved anyway -- that kind of accusation shows how far the grasping at straws will go to find any possible negative interpretation that is somehow supposed to demonstrate that God is evil), but in a less blatant form that distrust of God's benevolence the root problem of all of mankind. It is ingrained in us from birth: don't trust God, he is not good, letting him be in charge will be bad for you. It is the lie that Satan told humans, after falling into it himself, and it is the lie on which most people base their entire existence. Despite all the evidence of hman history, showing how much of mess people have made of life, we persist in believing that we are somehow "better" than God, that we know better than he does what is right and what is wrong, and are able to get along better without him than with him. There are good answers to all of that, but if I even try to develop them here, this will simply turn into a "tl;dr" post that won't do anyone any good. (It's already long enough as it is...) 2) The concept of "power-sharing" between God and Jesus flows from a fundamental misconception of who Jesus is. The most widespread understanding of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is actually tri-theistic: God is seen as a sort of "committee" composed of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who split up the divine functions among themselves. That is pure nonsense. There is only one God. It is not for nothing that most full expositions of the doctrine of the Trinity include the words "and these three are one". That God exists, at the same time, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is merely the result of his nature being such that three different aspects of his person seem to us, from our point of view, to be distinct. God as "Father" refers to his transcendence: he is above and outside of everything. God as "Holy Spirit" refers to his immanence: he is also present and active in every part of creation. God as "Son" refers to the fact that, somehow, he managed to insert himself into creation as a human being, in order to manifest himself to us in a way that we have a little more hope of understanding, since we have rejected the spiritual values and life that otherwise would have made it possible for us to perceive God directly. But when "God becomes a man", that means he really is a man. He isn't just pretending. As to who he is, he is God. But as to what he is, he is a human being, with all the limitations that implies: the omnipresent God is only in one place at a time, the omnipotent God can get tired, the omniscient God does his thinking with the same three pounds of gray matter between his ears that everone else does. He uses it much better than the rest of us do, but you still can't fit omniscience into a human brain; there just isn't enough room on the hard drive for infinite data. So of course God, manifesting himself in human history with human limitations, does the will of "the Father", the totality of his person who is above and outside of everything. Of course he constantly seeks to know "the will of the Father", not because "the Father" has some better idea, but because "the Son", though he is an unlimited manifestation of the person of God (he is fully God), is a limited manifestation of the capacities of God (he is fully human). But there is no "power-sharing". The Father rules over all. The Son rules over all. Both are ultimately the same God, though we perceive them differently.
This jumped out at me: For many of us who don't believe in God(s), this doesn't accurately hit home. Many religious types will say that without God there can be no source of morality. However from my perspective all the good that has come in human existence from a belief in God(s) has actually come from human minds since they are the ones who created the God(s) in the first place.
As for the rest of your post, I'll have to read it later since it's a lot to properly absorb in a short work break.
I think there is more involved in the difference between kings and presidents than a choice of metaphor. It is not just that doubting God's benevolence leads to questioning his absolute rule. His absolute rule in itself suffices to directly call into question his benevolence. The example of Mary (which I had not seen used in this fashion by antitheists) illustrates that quite well: you say she consented; but for a modern understanding of power and freedom, consent is inherently impossible when there is a disparity in power. Mary's words actually fit this situation quite well: she never says that she wants or welcomes what is happening, instead she states as fact that she is the Lord's slave, and that's that. Nor, by the way, is she ever asked. And why would she? When one party is all-powerful, questions hardly make sense.
Yup. I reject any form of absolutism, no matter how benign. Otherwise I could get into a debate with you (again) about what Jesus's attitude was to earthly rule. I think it's fairly clear that he literally wanted to be a king and that all of the rest is later church dogma that has nothing to do with him. It has in fact, more to do with submission to secular powers. The Christian God was used both as a reflection of and extention of European kings, who expected their subjects to do as they were told.
This bit is really the heart of it all, and why for me the atheist argument will never hold an ounce of logic. They're trying to "explain away" the concept of an infinite being, as if (to misquote a good movie line) their ape's brain can hold the knowledge of infinity. A human being has no conception of what "infinite" means. The capacity is not there. Even our mathematical definitions of infinity are just very crude approximations. As I've said before, a finite being cannot even apprehend, let alone comprehend, an infinite one. Which is why I personally think of "faith" and "trust" as being the same thing in this regard. If you quiet your chattering little brain and listen, you can hear the whisper of the infinite and you have to let yourself trust (have faith) that the Maker is there and knows what he/she/it/they is/are doing.
Actually, in your example, the atheist argument is logical and the faith argument is entirely illogical. Trying to put "logic" in faith is what destroys faith. this is where Christianity has gone wrong.
You're essentially arguing that q cannot imply p because you believe not-p. Which is just as useful an argument as "some say that without the forces of evolution we wouldn't have zebra stripes, but I believe in Noah's ark."
Logic is simply the recognition of cause and effect. We need to have a recognition of cause and effect to understand what we should and should not believe, and how to act on it, if we're to do any good. The lack of logic is where a lot of American Christians go off the rails. (I think we can all agree on that!) Your bolded statement might be true if this were all a game, like picking a sports team to root for. It's not. It's part of real life. Jesus says "Love everyone." Certain denominations, or congregations, say "Hate gays." Well, which is it? Logic says that it can't be both. Logic also says that if Jesus came to save us from our sinful natures, and he is God's chosen messiah to show us how to live our lives, then we should listen to him over ourselves. Therefore, we should love gays regardless of whether we think they're living lives of sin.
This is very much yes, and I'm as guilty as anyone. I want to be in charge of my life, or at least have something visible that I've vetted to entrust part of it to. So many times I've had to be dragged kicking and pouting into being a better me, or doing something I should be doing. But you know what, I always come out the better for it. And it's a key to how you can tell that the Christian God is for real: nobody wants him to be. He isn't the old kind of god who you can keep in a box and feed a few sheep every so often to guarantee the harvest. He isn't the new kind of god who tells you you can just keep doing what you want to do, who magicially shares the exact same opinions you do, and you deserve all the materialism you can get your hands on. Nobody would have invented this god who keeps pushing boundaries into uncomfortable, even offensive places and demanding you love your enemies in thought and deed.
I can't recall myself or anyone else ever trying to do that. Actually, infinity is a relatively simple mathematical concept, much more simple than many others. But if you like, please explain how our mathematical definitions are "crude" or "approximations". Can you record this "whisper of the infinite" and record it back so that the rest of us can hear it? What does it sound like?
I think almost all of us here at Wordforge are worker-bees of one sort or another. Don't think we have any CEOs or suchlike posting here. Certainly no Absolute Dicatators and Emperors For Life. So a way to think about it is that you are, in fact, in charge of you. But way above your paygrade is someone who is in charge of the big picture and who is trying to encourage you to do your bit the right way instead of the "fuck it, good enough" way.
Really? Is not the core of the atheist argument "God does not exist because . . . "? Or are you redefining "atheist" to mean something else? Count to infinity for me. I'll wait. Our mathematical infinities are approximations many times removed from the reality. A form of shorthand. They make the math work . . . well, most of the time . . . for certain equations and calculations. That doesn't mean you understand the result. Hell, we don't even know if there's universe past the observable one because light only travels so fast. You can write an equation with infinities in it, but that doesn't mean you understand it. Can you record your thoughts and dreams? Say you're standing out in a field somewhere, just you by yourself. Then you come home and remember the sound of the wind and the birds and stuff. Can you play that back for me? Unless you've been toting around some high-end audio gear I think not, and even if you have been, that isn't the same as replaying your memory of the event. It's an analogue of it, a representation. Playing back the audio doesn't include the scents, the feel of the wind on your skin, the warmth of the sun, or any of that. You either hear the whisper or you don't, and if you don't then odds are it's because you won't let yourself hear it. You're too wrapped up in your you-centric view of the universe.
God does not exist because X" is not an attempt to "explain God away", since explaining something away is predicated on its existence in the first place. What you're attempting here is a version of the ontological argument, which was overthrown even earlier than most of the others. It relies on all kinds of sloppy logic. I mean, it can be applied to literally anything you attach the word "infinite" to. The infinitely green gargonzoop? Yep - it exists. No point in trying to explain away its infinite green-ness. Yeah, no. I can't count to infinity any more than I can fly but that does not mean that the mathematical concept is not well-defined and very precise. It is because it is well-defined that I know I can't count to it. There are arguments about how or if infinity is realised in the physical world but that's something different. I think you're unfortunately trying to argue about concepts on which you don't have a firm grounding. Well, that's just the usual circular argument - you have to want to believe and if you don't experience my chosen fantasy, then you just don't want it enough. I wasn't being entirely facetious - if it's not literally a sound that you're claiming can be listened for, or something that engages the senses in a literal way, then what is to seperate it from a delusion?
The key to your point of view here (which I state up front I do not share, though that is probably not a surprise to you) is "a modern understanding". In a modern understanding, power means control: if you have power, you can, will and even should use it to control others. God chose not to do it that way. He gave us the freedom to choose. (If he didn't, then none of our "choices" are more than illusions, intentionally meant to deceive us, and God is himself the author of sin.) The greatest privilege, and the greatest risk of being "in God's image" is that we have the right to say "no" to God Almighty. To give a Biblical illustration of what is at play here, look at the opening verses of Revelation 5. The scroll in God's right hand ("right" being the symbol of action; it is fairly obvious the scroll represents in a sense the "script" of what God had planned) is perfectly sealed (the number seven is normally used as a symbol of what is total, complete). The drama of human history is: who can fix that? Verse 5 uses images that convey immense power. "The Lion of the tribe of Judah" is already a very powerful title: the lion was the most powerful animal commonly known in the Middle East at the time, and the tribe of Judah was the tribe from which the kings had come (unless you consider the Hasmoneans as legitimate kings, but their dynasty didn't last very long). This Lion has overcome (literally "conquered": ἐνίκησεν) and can thus fix what went wrong. If this were a Hollywood movie, or even a well-written comic-book, with such a build-up you would expect an incredibly powerful person to appear. But in verse 6, it is a Lamb, that has been offered in sacrifice, that appears. This is a fundamental principle in God's outlook: victory does not come through power that forces others to do what you want, but through sacrifice. In sin, whether we are talking about Satan's kingdom or human history, victory comes through power that crushes and humiliates your opponent. If you are the most powerful, you can force others to do what you want. To God, sacrifice that comes from caring about others and putting their well-being ahead of your own is infinitely more important. So the reason you see Mary's consent as having no validity is because you look at it from the point of view of power: when you're in charge, you can impose your will on others. But if God wanted to impose his will on everyone, you would have been a true believer from the moment you were old enough to think about it. The very fact that you reject the notion of God thus invalidates your argument: if God doesn't exist, then he can't be responsible for "raping" Mary, and if he does exist, then he obviously does not impose his will on his creatures.
None of that logically flows. What makes you think it's all or nothing? If god is all powerful, why do you assume that his choice is limited between imposing his will on everyone or no one at all? Hell, we have examples from the Bible where he deliberately imposes his will/wrath on select people and saves others from his wrath. That he doesn't impose his will on every single person ever doesn't preclude him from imposing his will on some people.
Pretty sure what the people you're describing actually hate is the concept of God being used by immoral people to intimidate and gaslight decent people into accepting all manner of horrors, violence, and abuse. Well, that and the Bible stories themselves that depict God as an awful, awful deity who'd fit in just fine with the jerkass Greek Pantheon, despite simultaneously attempting to describe him as a flawless abstract entity. It's some Kurtzman-level disrespect for continuity.
Darth Vader and Grand Moff Tarkin don't exist either, but they're still responsible for blowing up Alderaan with the Death Star.
It's the narcissism... "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" Kind of implies that there are other just as real gods for one thing. Also worth noting that that sort of ego tripping pride runs in tricksters throughout many polytheistic faiths, including their own Lucifer.
That one kind of depends on interpretation. If you read "before me" as "in my presence," then that means there are no other gods, or at least none with any validity. If you read it as "you don't pray to Cthulhu before you pray to me," then that's a bit different. There are other gods, but you should ignore them because Yahweh is the Big Cheese (which makes sense since the judeo-christian version of God derives a lot of his schtick from previous gods like Marduk).
As you know, I do believe that God does not exist, and so I do believe that he obviously never committed rape. But that didn't seem to be the point of your original argument: if God doesn't exist, it is equally meaningless to ask whether he is king of kings, president of presidents, and so on. You pointed out instead that part of the reason why antitheists don't want God to exist is that we don't like the idea of an all-powerful being. Indeed, most of us believe that that if he did exist, that would be bad. That being part of the morality of antitheists, we can now also inquire about the morality of the stories of God in the Bible, since their values don't become meaningless just because they aren't literally true. And part of that morality is that God's omnipotence leaves no room for substantial consent. My Catholic priest was fond of saying that accepting Jesus as your personal saviour was like accepting gravity as your personal force that binds you to the planet: Thank you for your opinion, but if you change your mind, reality will still continue. Mary does not consent, nor is she asked for consent. That anyone would even consider her resigned observation that she is God's slave as giving consent demonstrates how little room for the concept of freedom remains once one has introduced the contrary concept of omnipotence.
If the God of the Christian bible did exists, he's a fucking dick. This is why I've looked elsewhere, as an adult, for answers to faith-based questions - where did we come from? Where does our ... "me", our ... uniqueness ... go when we die? Is there something beyond 'the veil'? I might even have continued with Christianity if my early experiences hadn't shown the hypocrisy of the teachings vs the way people acted. and that has only worsened over the last 40 years.
