Why I raise my children without God.

[Bodhi]

You have a deep misunderstand of what you think you are talking about.

 

[zombie]

You have a deep misunderstand of what you think you are talking about.

Eddie murphy is a christian so he would be on my side and would most likely slap the shit out of

 

[zombie]

also, you quote 2 Corinthians, whose author claimed to have literally seen God/Jesus, so he would probably claim to have had direct experience of it as well.

The author of Corinthians is usually considered to be Paul. Just sayin.

He also wrote Timothy:

1 Timothy 6:16

Who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever

the problem is that you're using "knowable" according to what YOU consider knowable.

I'm using context clues.

Not visibly seeing god is not the same thing as not knowing god so your whole point is meaningless, you are just too fucking stubborn to admit that you are wrong and that many of points you have been making through this entire thread are either just flat out wrong or logically non sensible.

 

[Bodhi]

Eddie murphy would most likely slap the shit out of you

I doubt it.

 

[zombie]

Eddie murphy would most likely slap the shit out of you

I doubt it.

Stop trolling. The flaws in your argument you have no answer for. NOT HAVING SIGHT DOES NOT EXACTLY EQUAL NOT HAVING KNOWLEDGE. You quoted from the bible but did not have an understanding of what you quoted. Stop fucking changing my quote quote the whole thing stop fucking cutting my words up.

 

[janklow]

The author of Corinthians is usually considered to be Paul. Just sayin.

really? why, you would think i would have mentioned-

you think Paul is saying he didn't know there was a god?

Paul, however, is talking about their knowledge being based on faith and not a more tangible reason. again, really, you're saying PAUL of all people in the Bible is making a "God is unknowable" argument?

is THAT what Paul is arguing there?

oh, right, i repeatedly mentioned this. you'd think i would have remembered!

and it's cute to strike out God as if we're saying "i saw a vision of the resurrected Jesus, who i consider to literally be God" is not seeing God, but probably, you know, inaccurate.

He also wrote Timothy:

as well as writing about the time he saw God/Jesus and thus converted as a result. one might even suspect he could write about Christians as a whole while simultaneously not being the best example of a Christian who says God is "unknowable."

I'm using context clues.

no, what you're doing is disagreeing with a lot of Christians.

 

[Bodhi]

really?

Really. Actually, he didn't see anybody because he was on the ground the whole time with his eyes closed. You would know this if you read the Bible. Nobody knows the true story of what happened that day if it indeed did happen but he believed he heard Jesus who he believed to be divine. He did not claim to see God directly and this is evident in the verses I mentioned which is why I brought them up.

He says that God has not been seen and cannot be seen in Timothy and in Corinthians he says he lives by faith and not by sight. So if he saw God literally at any time and then claims that God cannot be seen, he's lying somewhere; which if he is, it wouldn't be a surprise or his first time but if we examine John's account along with Paul's writings, we can come to the conclusion that Paul is telling the truth by saying no one has seen God. We now have two authors who agree.

no, what you're doing is disagreeing with a lot of Christians.

it happens

 

[janklow]

Really. Actually, he didn't see anybody because he was on the ground the whole time with his eyes closed. You would know this if you read the Bible.

oddly enough, i have actually read the Bible. so i guess we should talk about Acts.

And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.

And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

now, perhaps you want to say, "if he doesn't see a specific image of blah blah blah," it doesn't count. and clearly, as the remainder of your post goes into, you don't believe Paul. but i am not arguing that you have to believe, i'm arguing that he's not calling God "unknowable" for several reasons, one of which is the whole "road to Damascus conversion" thing.

your argument that he "believed he heard Jesus who he believed to be divine" is based on you disagreeing with him --and go nuts, that's fine-- but it does not mean you can THEN say, "also, Paul agrees with me."

He says that God has not been seen and cannot be seen in Timothy and in Corinthians he says he lives by faith and not by sight.

it's also possible he's sometimes referring to Christians as a group.

So if he saw God literally at any time and then claims that God cannot be seen, he's lying somewhere; which if he is, it wouldn't be a surprise or his first time but if we examine John's account along with Paul's writings, we can come to the conclusion that Paul is telling the truth by saying no one has seen God. We now have two authors who agree.

so let me follow: you state it's possible he saw God and lies/whatever somewhere else, and yet if someone ELSE didn't see God, it automatically means Paul never did? because i am pretty sure this logic does not work.

it happens

maybe go back and revisit that argument, then

 

[Bodhi]

now, perhaps you want to say, "if he doesn't see a specific image of blah blah blah," it doesn't count. and clearly, as the remainder of your post goes into, you don't believe Paul. but i am not arguing that you have to believe, i'm arguing that he's not calling God "unknowable" for several reasons, one of which is the whole "road to Damascus conversion" thing.

Here's the rest of the story:

Acts 9:7-8

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing

This account tells us three things:

1. Paul saw nothing (his eyes were closed) but was supposedly blinded by a bright light.

2. The men traveling with Paul heard Jesus speaking.

3. Paul fell to the ground while the travelers stood.

Now if we then skip to Acts 22, we find a contradiction:

Acts 22:9

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Later translations tried to cover up this contradiction by translating heard as understood but if we were to translate Acts 22:9 as "understood", we would also have to translate Acts 9:7-8 as "understood" and the contradiction remains.

Note also how in Acts 9, the travelers stood speechless while Paul fell. As Paul Estella the story in Acts 26, we get a different version:

Acts 26:13-14

About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. We all fell to the ground

In this account, Paul says they all fell to the ground.

I point these contradictions out to show you how shaky this whole story is to begin with. Paul was a well documented liar; he even admitted to it in 2 Corinthians:

2 Corinthians 12:16

Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!

it does not mean you can THEN say, "also, Paul agrees with me."

My point is that Paul knew he saw no one at Damascus and he was telling the truth in saying no one has seen god. Not only does he say it but so does the author of John and Jesus himself is quoted as saying the same thing.

so let me follow: you state it's possible he saw God

No, I'm saying he did not see God. He didn't see anybody. It's right there in the Bible.

The only reason I said this:

So if he saw God literally at any time and then claims that God cannot be seen, he's lying somewhere

…was to give you your options because you first claimed that Paul saw God/Jesus when the truth is he didn't see anybody. I know he didn't see anybody and that's the reason I continued by saying this:

but if we examine John's account along with Paul's writings, we can come to the conclusion that Paul is telling the truth by saying no one has seen God.

 

[alissowack]

@oceanic. I think you are getting hung up on what is meant by "unknowable" in respect to the Bible.

 

[janklow]

This account tells us three things:

1. Paul saw nothing (his eyes were closed) but was supposedly blinded by a bright light.

2. The men traveling with Paul heard Jesus speaking.

3. Paul fell to the ground while the travelers stood.

first, if his eyes were closed (which Acts 9 does not seem to imply), it would be hard for him to be blinded by the vision. but look, again, his continuing claim (despite your contradictions) is that he directly experienced God, which would make him personally unlikely to call God unknowable. and this still doesn't change the fact that the average Christian wouldn't call God unknowable.

I point these contradictions out to show you how shaky this whole story is to begin with.

unless the issue is in the translation or changes later (something you already alluded to yourself). this is, of course, the issue with books of this nature.

My point is that Paul knew he saw no one at Damascus and he was telling the truth in saying no one has seen god. Not only does he say it but so does the author of John and Jesus himself is quoted as saying the same thing.

actually, the way YOU should be writing this is "my point is I BELIEVE that Paul knew he saw no one at Damascus." because you don't KNOW that, right?

I know he didn't see anybody-

if you state this, then i don't see why you're even making the argument that God is unknowable.

 

[Bodhi]

first, if his eyes were closed (which Acts 9 does not seem to imply), it would be hard for him to be blinded by the vision.

Well, first, he was blinded by the light:

Acts 9:3-4

As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground

We know he closed his eyes after the light flashed because he opened them later:

Acts 9:8

Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes

We also know he had his eyes closed while he was on the ground because he did not know who spoke to him:

Acts 9:5

“Who are you, Lord*?” Saul asked.

*"Lord", in this sense, means something like "sir".

but look, again, his continuing claim (despite your contradictions) is that he directly experienced God, which would make him personally unlikely to call God unknowable.

First, they're not "my" contradictions. They are the contradictions within Paul's numerous accounts of his conversion.

and this still doesn't change the fact that the average Christian wouldn't call God unknowable.

By "knowable", I mean knowing based on empirical evidence of god's existence. Proof of God is nonexistent, which is why the issue of faith plays such a large role in Christianity. So yes, by claiming to have "faith", you are admitting you do not "know":

Faith

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

actually...

Actually, you read that the way it was intended.

because you don't KNOW that, right?

I'm going by what the Bible says.

if you state this, then i don't see why you're even making the argument that God is unknowable.

Why not?

 

[janklow]

Well, first, he was blinded by the light:

Acts 9:3-4

As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground

now, you have just said "saw nothing (his eyes were closed) but was supposedly blinded by a bright light" only to switch over to stating he was blinded by the light. and if you accept he was blinded, that could also be the reason (other than keeping your eyes closed) that you don't immediately recognize the person who spoke to you. it might ALSO be because Paul presents himself as a non-believer having a conversion experience.

First, they're not "my" contradictions. They are the contradictions within Paul's numerous accounts of his conversion.

i am calling them "your" contradictions because you're the one calling them contradictions in his account. however, what you did by picking on that is neatly dodge my actual point: "his continuing claim ... is that he directly experienced God, which would make him personally unlikely to call God unknowable."

By "knowable", I mean knowing based on empirical evidence of god's existence. Proof of God is nonexistent, which is why the issue of faith plays such a large role in Christianity. So yes, by claiming to have "faith", you are admitting you do not "know":

again, the problem here is that YOU have a standard for knowing that differs from Christians who consider God knowable. it's fine for you to take that position, but you have gone on to claim that the average Christian considers God unknowable. your basis for this is your interpretation of their beliefs. can you demonstrate in any way that Christians actually consider God unknowable?

Actually, you read that the way it was intended.

right, i'm implying that you're being inconsistent with your previously stated beliefs. you know, since you cannot actually prove anything about what Paul did or did not see?

I'm going by what the Bible says.

the Bible also seems pretty convinced that God exists and interacts with people in a way that would make him knowable. so you accept this as legitimate all of a sudden?

Why not?

because you're demanding a standard for evidence that you don't apply to yourself.

 

[Bodhi]

now, you have just said "saw nothing (his eyes were closed) but was supposedly blinded by a bright light" only to switch over to stating he was blinded by the light. and if you accept he was blinded, that could also be the reason (other than keeping your eyes closed) that you don't immediately recognize the person who spoke to you. it might ALSO be because Paul presents himself as a non-believer having a conversion experience.

I didn't switch over to anything. Both those statements are the same. He was supposedly blinded by the light; he closed his eyes (which is not specifically said but can be inferred since he opened them and in order to open something first it must be closed) and from that point saw nothing. He had his eyes closed while on the ground. He didn't open his eyes until later and it was during that point he realized he had been blinded.

and if you accept he was blinded, that could also be the reason (other than keeping your eyes closed) that you don't immediately recognize the person who spoke to you.

Either way, he didn't see anybody which is the reason he asked who was there. He didn't know, because he didn't see him.

i am calling them "your" contradictions because you're the one calling them contradictions in his account. however, what you did by picking on that is neatly dodge my actual point: "his continuing claim ... is that he directly experienced God, which would make him personally unlikely to call God unknowable."

They're not "my" contradictions. I pointed them out. They are contradictions in the accounts of Paul's conversion. You could have pointed them out if you were paying attention to what you were reading. The reason I pointed them out though was to address your statement that you claim I didn't acknowledge. He's claiming he directly experienced god yet he didn't see anybody firstly, and secondly, his entire story may be false, evident in the contradictions within it.

can you demonstrate in any way that Christians actually consider God unknowable?

The establishment of faith.

right, i'm implying that you're being inconsistent with your previously stated beliefs. you know, since you cannot actually prove anything about what Paul did or did not see?

I'm not being inconsistent as I have yet to go back on anything I've said although you have:

1. First, you stated that Paul saw God/Jesus at Damascus.

2. I showed you the Bible verses that explicitly state he didn't see anybody.

3. You're now switching up your story to interpret the verses differently.

If I can't prove it, neither can you; all we have to go on is the Bible. The only reason you're not accepting what's there is because your argument doesn't fit around it.

the Bible also seems pretty convinced that God exists and interacts with people in a way that would make him knowable. so you accept this as legitimate all of a sudden?

No it's not legitimate because there are contradictions throughout the Bible i.e. the contradicting crucifixion dates. Simply using your mind will help you determine what's what. Likewise, my reading of Shakespeare will help me to determine whether or not Hamlet was truly insane. Reading the Bible with blind faith will only cause you to believe in all sorts of tales and stories that have no factual basis. For all I know, Paul didn't even exist in real life but going by what the Bible says, I can understand his character in the literary work and point out the contradictions in his conversion accounts and come to the conclusion that his story was most likely false; simple reading will tell you he didn't see anybody that day.

 

[janklow]

I didn't switch over to anything.

in the former, you're taking it that he wasn't blinded ("was supposedly blinded by a bright light"), presumably because you don't believe Paul. in the latter, you drop the supposedly. seems like a switch.

Either way, he didn't see anybody which is the reason he asked who was there. He didn't know, because he didn't see him.

the thing is, if he's describing it as "a light from heaven," there's probably a little more contained in that phrase that "saw a bright light." how he then addresses this deity/vision is then up to him, i suppose.

...and again, it might also be because Paul presents himself as a non-believer having a conversion experience. it seems like a person who does not believe in God who then experiences God is going to have some questions.

They're not "my" contradictions. ...You could have pointed them out if you were paying attention to what you were reading.

since we're being pissy now, i will point out that you could have paid attention to MY post and noted why i called them "your" contradictions. but hell, you could also argue your point without getting mad on the internet because i used the phrase "your contradictions."

The reason I pointed them out though was to address your statement that you claim I didn't acknowledge. He's claiming he directly experienced god yet he didn't see anybody firstly, and secondly, his entire story may be false, evident in the contradictions within it.

this does not address my claim, because your argument that you don't believe Paul does not tell us why we should presume Paul would think God is unknowable. remember, you're not arguing that God is unknowable, you're arguing Christians agree that God is unknowable. but all you're telling us is why YOU consider God unknowable.

The establishment of faith.

which, as we've discussed, makes sense for you, but which doesn't seem to lead to any actual Christians calling God unknowable.

I'm not being inconsistent as I have yet to go back on anything I've said although you have:

nope, as i still consider Paul to be saying he saw God/Jesus at Damascus. this would presumably be the light from heaven that blinded him, subsequently identified by as God/Jesus/whatever.

If I can't prove it, neither can you; all we have to go on is the Bible.

i am not trying to prove God exists or that Paul saw God. i am trying to prove that Paul would not consider God unknowable. this is the actual point.

No it's not legitimate because there are contradictions throughout the Bible i.e. the contradicting crucifixion dates. Simply using your mind will help you determine what's what.

if your argument is that the Bible is not reliable, then perhaps "I'm going by what the Bible says" should be restated?

also, we're probably entering threefold repetition territory if we're going to keep debating "do Christians call God unknowable"

 

[alissowack]

@oceanic. You are doing what a lot of so called Christians do when it comes to the Bible...you are convinced you know what it says. Just as it has gotten the world of Christendom in a lot of trouble, it can do the same to you. Surprisingly @janklow understands the Bible better than most of us Christian posters...and he's the UFC champ!!!!

 

[janklow]

Surprisingly @janklow understands the Bible better than most of us Christian posters

i don't know that i agree with this

 

[Bodhi]

in the former, you're taking it that he wasn't blinded ("was supposedly blinded by a bright light"), presumably because you don't believe Paul. in the latter, you drop the supposedly. seems like a switch.

Nah, you're making it deeper than it's supposed to be. Going by what the Bible says, that's allegedly what happened??? I don't always type the same things verbatim every time I say them; that doesn't mean I don't feel the same way I did when I first typed it 2 or 3 posts ago.

???

That wasn't a switch.

the thing is, if he's describing it as "a light from heaven," there's probably a little more contained in that phrase that "saw a bright light." how he then addresses this deity/vision is then up to him, i suppose.

...and again, it might also be because Paul presents himself as a non-believer having a conversion experience. it seems like a person who does not believe in God who then experiences God is going to have some questions..

Idk.. All I read was that he saw a bright light. Maybe something like this:

Bright enough for him to close his eyes and bright enough to supposedly blind him.

since we're being pissy now, i will point out that you could have paid attention to MY post and noted why i called them "your" contradictions. but hell, you could also argue your point without getting mad on the internet because i used the phrase "your contradictions."

I'd like to know why you think I'm "mad" about anything. Aggression in debate does not equal anger.

"a good fighter is never angry"

--- Tao Te Ching

Maybe you're projecting.

which, as we've discussed, makes sense for you, but which doesn't seem to lead to any actual Christians calling God unknowable.

I'm arguing that Christians have no direct proof of god's existence which then requires strong belief or faith. If they had empirical evidence, they would provide it. They can't, so they say things like, "we live by faith, not by sight".

nope, as i still consider Paul to be saying he saw God/Jesus at Damascus. this would presumably be the light from heaven that blinded him, subsequently identified by as God/Jesus/whatever.

Paul was blinded by the light but the light per se is not God or Jesus as Paul established:

1 Timothy 6:16

who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.

Paul didn't see any being. You said he did.

if your argument is that the Bible is not reliable, then perhaps "I'm going by what the Bible says" should be restated?

The Bible isn't reliable but that doesn't mean I can't show you what it says.

also, we're probably entering threefold repetition territory if we're going to keep debating "do Christians call God unknowable"

Probably. I was getting bored anyway. Actually, I've received a new book in the mail from amazon that I've been reading at work now instead of logging onto the IC so if you're willing to wrap it up, I'm cool with that.

 

[Bodhi]

Actually, I'll wrap it up for you..

[faith] doesn't seem to lead to any actual Christians calling God unknowable.

^^^I know that. I'm saying that the absence of evidence, which Christians admit in lacking, requires faith, which Christians claim to have. You've just admitted that belief and knowledge is not the same thing (as I've continuously said) and distinguished gnosticism/agnosticism from theism/atheism. So maybe your words will help you to understand my position in claiming that agnosticism is compatible with theism and/or atheism.

Since faith = belief, and belief or the absence of belief can be termed, when speaking of god, either theism or atheism respectively, it has nothing to do with whether someone claims that god to be knowable or unknowable.

 

[janklow]

okay, final post incoming unless a whole new thing develops later; last couple points here:

Idk.. All I read was that he saw a bright light. Maybe something like this:

fundamentally, you know that Paul's narrative is that he experienced God/Jesus/whatever and converted as a result. whether or not he saw anything, or saw a bright light that wasn't God, or actually saw what he claims ois a debate, but it's separate from what i am (was) talking about when i say Paul is not going to call God unknowable due to this claim. what would be more relevant is if there was something indicating that Paul backed down from this story, as opposed to arguing why you think the story's false; absent the former, i would presume he would continue to claim "i saw (in whatever sense) God on the road to Damascus."

I'd like to know why you think I'm "mad" about anything. Aggression in debate does not equal anger.

i stated what i meant when i said "your" contradictions. continuing to fuss about it qualifies as getting pissy about it in my book. now, typed out, i suppose some nuances are lost, but i find it easier to believe you were being pissy about it as opposed to that you didn't follow what i meant.

I'm arguing that Christians have no direct proof of god's existence which then requires strong belief or faith.

i know this, but the argument stemmed from the claim that the majority of Christians would claim God is unknowable. ultimately, this is still you saying they believe God is unknowable while we actually have no evidence that's a popular opinion with Christians. you don't have to convince me that they should consider God unknowable; you have to convince me a majority of Christians agree with you.

Paul didn't see any being. You said he did.

i'm going to have to be redundant here, but in the end, if you see a bright light of supernatural origin that blinds you, and all of a sudden you're talking to Jesus, it's fair to assume seeing that light WAS seeing God. i mean, we're talking about a deity here, so we should perhaps forgive a vision of him that isn't a old white guy with a beard.

Actually, I'll wrap it up for you..

[faith] doesn't seem to lead to any actual Christians calling God unknowable.

^^^I know that.

then why argue that they would say that? because that is the point i have being arguing here.

Probably. I was getting bored anyway. Actually, I've received a new book in the mail from amazon that I've been reading at work now instead of logging onto the IC so if you're willing to wrap it up, I'm cool with that.

i'd rather kill it without closing the thread, basically. rebut as appropriate and i'll call this my last post on the current topic.