God is not to Mock

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shibolet
  • Start date Start date
I have a hard time believing what I don't have evidence of. As a magician, an amateur charlatan, I know tricks... as did they back then. I also know of the hyperbole required to keep oral traditions alive, and the nature of a jongleur, a story teller, that goes from town to town relating news...

I also know of idioms, like for instance... the last of the wine bottles is used...someone gets a glass of water, another is requested to change his water into wine....so he goes to the wine locker and gets a few more bottles out, and turns the water into wine. How would we read it if it said it was raining cats and dogs.

While the jury isn't out, there is a preponderance of evidence that anything could have happened, and beyond a shadow of a doubt that no magic occurred. (except that Mary didn't slap her son and say "First, don't call me WOMAN, I am your MOTHER, and second don't be so stingy and go bring out the good stuff you've been saving"
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
You can be plainer: Paul was banished because you think the religion he preach, Christianity, is a mockery of God.
Click to expand...

You have missed the target. It is not because the religion Paul used to preach ended up by being Christianity but because he was so to speak camouflaged in the Temple as if fulfilling a vow probably thinking he could hide from God and man as Law-oriented Jew. But, since God is not to mock, he was identified by Asian Jews who had come to Jerusalem on that festival and was arrested for preaching his gospel everywhere against our People, our Law and the Sanctuary, including profaning the place by introducing Greek into the Jewish area of the Temple. (Acts 21:28)
 
wil said:
meh....

Any G!d so insecure as to worry about the gossip or words of his creations isn't worth worship...and deserves mocking...
Click to expand...

God is not so. That's how man paints God with the anthropomorphic traces of man.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
I mock Gods all the time. And they are always in on the joke! Probably that all-knowing thing going on. It has been my experience Gods have a grandiose sense of humor. They do not take themselves so seriously as so many on this planet do.
Click to expand...

There are many ways to mock God as in a dream, allegory, parable or joke. The mocking in the case of Paul was a demonstration of his hypocrisy. So the problem is with man, not God.
 
Thomas said:
As the old saying goes, nothing amuses the Gods more than a man with a plan!
Click to expand...

The saying above applies in the sense that man ought to leave the doors open for different options alien to him at the moment he plans because we never know the bottom line of our plans.
 
BigJoeNobody said:
I'll say I agree with the title completely, I wouldn't dare engage in some of these responses. You may not see the punishment in this life, but that doesn't mean you will not in the hereafter.

As for Paul, I'll leave that topic for something a bit more non-aggressive audience.
Click to expand...

Worry not about the hereafter. Any thing else but nothing in the afterlife. There is no punishment in the hereafter but a forever endless night in Sheol aka the grave.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
You are presupposing a hereafter. For which there is absolutely no proof whatsoever. Of course there is no proof there isn't either. So we spins the wheel and we takes our chances. I am comfortable with the chances I take.
Click to expand...

All of us are eyewitnesses of physical evidences about the hereafter. The reason for your doubt about the hereafter is only in the confused understanding of what the hereafter is. They are especially religious people who carry that misunderstanding in their minds. There is no other hereafter besides the grave.
 
wil said:
But what if you are wrong defense.... awfully early for last ditch efforts.

Gotta have faith to get faith...gotta first believe the book is true than you can know the book is true because it says so...

works for jews, muslims, christians, mormons...for all of their books...and each uses the same circular reasoning to prove they are right.
Click to expand...


Jews use obedience to the Law to keep them our of troubles. Would you doubt that? I give you my word, and am ready to change it if you prove otherwise; I mean, that if we keep the Law, we will be free of trouble.
 
BigJoeNobody said:
Once you establish that there is a God, then it becomes a reason to find his message, once you find his message it is reinforcement for the belief of God.

If I was to debate someone, I could bring up many proofs that to me, prove beyond a doubt that there is a God. Then beyond that I could prove that (again for me) his message is the Quran. And that his message had been brought in pieces before by his prophets. It isn't so circular, and I admit it may not have been stated fully in the last post that there is a process that would have to take place before a belief (any) is established. IMO the process is something like
1. Establish possibility of a god
2. Establish probability of a god
3. Establish proof of a god
4. Establish the god's message
5. Establish proof the message is the truth (at least to you)
6. Establish personal doctrine based on understanding of text
7. Realize other proofs of the god
8. Use realization and doctrine to grow toward that god.

IMO, this is the process most people who actually think their way into a religion. I am not perfect and this list may not be correct. But it outlines a different picture than a circular belief system. (Also want to state that I say a god, maybe you could use the same process for polytheistic ideals). I don't believe blind faith should be established with anything, but I realize for some people it is just the way it is.
Click to expand...

IMHO, you could replace all the items above to demonstrate the existence of God with simply two evidences: First that matter could not have cased itself to exist. The universe is made up of matter. Therefore it could not have caused itself to exist. So, it was caused by some thing else from outside of it. What or Who could have caused the universe to exist if not something of the size of God?

And the second logical evidence is in the concept of Causality. Since the universe could not be composed of only caused elements, it is only obvious that all caused things answer to a cause. Since the concept cannot report back ad infinitum, the Primal Cause by necessity caused the universe to exist.

IMHO, there is no further need of evidence to prove the existence of God.
 
wil said:
Not quite....the big difference is when science discovers its errors, improves its knowledge on a topic, they change the textbook.

Similarly I suppose, we had the Jews....Jesus updated their book...Mohamed updated that book...Jefferson updated, Joseph Smith updated, .... but we don't have any consensus (like science strives for)...to move forward in a new direction...

Not many scientists are still stuck in a flat earth centric universe...not many surgeons still wear their scrubs from patient to patient....because we learned about communicable diseases and germs...

Any idea when we are gonna have bibles with Parables in green and Metaphor in blue and mythology in yellow? You know so we don't have short earthers?

Nah...instead we say science contains circular reasoning....baby bathwather.

Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence? | A conversation on TED.com
Click to expand...

Jesus did not update the Tanach. He declared rather the opposite: "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law; no, I have come to fulfill it and to confirm the whole thing down to the letter." (Mat. 5:17-19) To update is to make alterations and amendments into the text. That never happened with Jesus. Again, rather the opposite, as he said that to escape 'hell-fire' one must listen to 'Moses' aka the Law." (Luke 16:29-31)
 
wil said:
Exactly....so by definition....G!d don't give a crap about folks mocking...otherwise you are anthropomorphizing
Click to expand...

I am glad to be fully agreement with you on that one. Credits to you though.
 
Shibolet said:
Jesus did not update the Tanach. He declared rather the opposite: "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law; no, I have come to fulfill it and to confirm the whole thing down to the letter." (Mat. 5:17-19) To update is to make alterations and amendments into the text. That never happened with Jesus. Again, rather the opposite, as he said that to escape 'hell-fire' one must listen to 'Moses' aka the Law." (Luke 16:29-31)
Click to expand...

According to the book... he did offer a new commandment.

He also provided some clarifications/interpretations which he was questioned on working on the Sabbath... family relationships... who is our father...etc.
 
wil said:
According to the book... he did offer a new commandment.

He also provided some clarifications/interpretations which he was questioned on working on the Sabbath... family relationships... who is our father...etc.
Click to expand...
An interpretation I usually attribute to all this is that Jesus (PBUH) did not abolish the law. He did not destroy it. He fulfilled it by bringing the last parts, such as forgiveness amongst men for sins against one another. He also fortold of the End Days and Eternal Punishment for the unbelievers (something not mentioned before). All the laws were still in place, especially to the Jews.

Now here is where we will probably deviate ideas completely. IMHO, Mouhammed (PBUH) is the truth Jesus (PBUH) fortold would come. Mouhammed also did not come to change the law, but to correct the things that had been lost or changed over time. Also to establish a law for all people Jews/non-Jews.
 
Ah we don't disagree completely there... Moses came for Jews, as Jesus came for Christians and Mohammed came for Muslims, and the Bahaulla came for the Bahai, and Smith came for Mormons, and Sellasie came for Rastas, Krishna for Hindus, Buddha for Buddhist....etc..

I am quite open minded on this....are you?
 
Shibolet said:
You have missed the target. It is not because the religion Paul used to preach ended up by being Christianity but because he was so to speak camouflaged in the Temple as if fulfilling a vow probably thinking he could hide from God and man as Law-oriented Jew. But, since God is not to mock, he was identified by Asian Jews who had come to Jerusalem on that festival and was arrested for preaching his gospel everywhere against our People, our Law and the Sanctuary, including profaning the place by introducing Greek into the Jewish area of the Temple. (Acts 21:28)
Click to expand...

I must have misunderstood you completely, I thought this whole time you have been saying Christianity is a mockery of God. So Christianity is alright?
 
wil said:
According to the book... he did offer a new commandment.

He also provided some clarifications/interpretations which he was questioned on working on the Sabbath... family relationships... who is our father...etc.
Click to expand...

How about quoting what you say? I can't identify any thing you say above with being written in the gospels.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
I must have misunderstood you completely, I thought this whole time you have been saying Christianity is a mockery of God. So Christianity is alright?
Click to expand...

If you do not identify Christianity as a result of the gospel of Paul it is all right but it can't dissociated from Paul who was the founder of it. So, the whole thing is Hellenist.
 
I understand that hellenistic makes it not Jewish but that in itself isn't a bad thing, unless you clarify with context. And I'm unsure if it makes Christianity a mockery or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top