7 Questions to ask

RichieO

These 7 questions I have asked myself and others, the number of different responses is truly amazing and if you can get honest answers it speaks volumes about yourself and others...

Do you ever have the slightest doubts about your truths?
Is there anything in your life that you are 100% certain about?
Have you ever thought about why or how you can be certain?
Do you know the difference between truth, belief, fact, law, rule, theory and hypothesis?
Do you study the history of every science and religion?
How do you know if you are correct in your beliefs?
Do you try to understand why others doubt or ridicule your beliefs?

Pherekydes

My 7 questions:

• Will the Packers win the SB?
• Will Aaron Rodgers win the MVP?
• Will Stoke finish higher than 9th this season?
• Is pineapple ok on pizza, even for atheists?
• Is a jaffa cake a biscuit or a cake?
• Why can I not touch my toes any more?
• Is the meaning of life really 42?

smacl

RichieO wrote: »

These 7 questions...

I'll bite

Do you ever have the slightest doubts about your truths?
No, I don't have any truths per se, just a small amount of imperfect knowledge.

Is there anything in your life that you are 100% certain about?
Yes, 100% certain I love my wife and kids. 99.999999999999% death is pretty much a given. That whole head in a jar thing going on in Futurama, Elon Musk's living in a simulation, God, the Flying Spaghetti monster etc... and any other fantasy that can be imagined but not disproved make up the missing bit.

Have you ever thought about why or how you can be certain?
Not really, more interested in probable and possible than certain.

Do you know the difference between truth, belief, fact, law, rule, theory and hypothesis?
Largely, but my definitions might not agree with yours.

Do you study the history of every science and religion?
Nope.

How do you know if you are correct in your beliefs?
Which beliefs? The belief that the value of information decays over time as our understanding of things improves perhaps?

Do you try to understand why others doubt or ridicule your beliefs?
I suspect that people can become very invested in their beliefs and become very concerned when those beliefs get contradicted.

magicbastarder

who is spain?
why is hitler?
where are the snowdens of yesteryear?
where was that stooped and mealy-coloured old man i used to call poppa when the merry go round broke down?

smacl

Pherekydes wrote: »

My 7 questions:

• Will the Packers win the SB?
• Will Aaron Rodgers win the MVP?
• Will Stoke finish higher than 9th this season?
• Is pineapple ok on pizza, even for atheists?
• Is a jaffa cake a biscuit or a cake?
• Why can I not touch my toes any more?
• Is the meaning of life really 42?

Who are the packers?
Who is Aaron Rodgers?
Who is Stoke?
No, heresy. Burn the heretics!
No.
You lost both your legs in an altercation with a shark.
Yes.

kelly1

Do you ever have the slightest doubts about your truths?
>>> Quite a bit. It's healthy to always keep your mind open to new evidence, view etc.

Is there anything in your life that you are 100% certain about?
>>> I exist and a square circle cannot exist (and other logical contradictions).

Have you ever thought about why or how you can be certain?
>>> I have nothing but my senses and reason to go on.

Do you know the difference between truth, belief, fact, law, rule, theory and hypothesis?
>>> Pretty sure I do. Not 100% on law vs rule, they're pretty similar.

Do you study the history of every science and religion?
>>> I have done. Read a number of books on the history of science and maths. Also read quite a bit about different religions and philosophies.

How do you know if you are correct in your beliefs?
>>> I can only work with the most plausible explanation for what I experience, very little if 100% certain.

Do you try to understand why others doubt or ridicule your beliefs?
>>> Doubt, complete understandable. ridicule is just despicable. I'm ok with a snigger when it comes to young earth creationists and flat-earthers.

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

a square circle cannot exist

It can, but you just need to add a dimension. Consider a cylinder such as a can of beer with height the same as its diameter. Looked at from above it is a circle, looked at from in front it is a square.

RichieO

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you ever have the slightest doubts about your truths?
>>> Quite a bit. It's healthy to always keep your mind open to new evidence, view etc.

Is there anything in your life that you are 100% certain about?
>>> I exist and a square circle cannot exist (and other logical contradictions).

Have you ever thought about why or how you can be certain?
>>> I have nothing but my senses and reason to go on.

Do you know the difference between truth, belief, fact, law, rule, theory and hypothesis?
>>> Pretty sure I do. Not 100% on law vs rule, they're pretty similar.

Do you study the history of every science and religion?
>>> I have done. Read a number of books on the history of science and maths. Also read quite a bit about different religions and philosophies.

How do you know if you are correct in your beliefs?
>>> I can only work with the most plausible explanation for what I experience, very little if 100% certain.

Do you try to understand why others doubt or ridicule your beliefs?
>>> Doubt, complete understandable. ridicule is just despicable. I'm ok with a snigger when it comes to young earth creationists and flat-earthers.

Kelly you do surprise me, from your answers I would have guessed you were atheist or at least agnostic... Which means either I am missing something or you are, not sure at this point...

RichieO

Pherekydes wrote: »

My 7 questions:

• Will the Packers win the SB?
• Will Aaron Rodgers win the MVP?
• Will Stoke finish higher than 9th this season?
• Is pineapple ok on pizza, even for atheists?
• Is a jaffa cake a biscuit or a cake?
• Why can I not touch my toes any more?
• Is the meaning of life really 42?

I deduce you are a sports nut with a large appetite and matching gut and a strange idea about life and digits...;)

kelly1

RichieO wrote: »

Kelly you do surprise me, from your answers I would have guessed you were atheist or at least agnostic... Which means either I am missing something or you are, not sure at this point...

My faith in God is quite strong (for now), thanks.

I see no contradiction at all between science and God/the supernatural.

e.g. I accept the evidence that the earth is ~4.5bn years old. Clearly the bible is wrong in this regard. But then the bible isn't a science book. It's more of a history book which tells the history of God's love for humankind, with lots of figurative speech.



I've read both sides of the debate and it's easy to be swayed by the likes of the God Delusion, especially when you don't bother to read counter arguments.
when Dawkins asks, who created God, I just have to laugh. It's childish tbh.

smacl

Your diagram is flawed in that there is nothing out there that would fit into the supernatural category that is objectively observable. Not a huge fan of Dawkins myself but I would agree that belief in the supernatural is delusional.

RichieO

There was a time many years ago when I may have been tempted to go along with your diagram, but from my current viewpoint, no way..
I can agree on the natural and super but not supernatural... From your first post, I thought you were very young 18 - 30 decidedly catholic and relatively inexperienced, not sure now, but I know how difficult it is to free your mind from childhood brainwashing, which I believe is the main reason all religions persist in this modern world, the other main reason is people prefer being told what to do and how to behave, it's the easy option....

ginger_hammer

kelly1 wrote: »

when Dawkins asks, who created God, I just have to laugh. It's childish tbh.

Why is it childish asking who created god? Seems a reasonable question to me. Or where did he/she/it come from? Another dimension?

Also why are the other tens of thousands of gods make-belief but this one is totally real?

RichieO

ginger_hammer wrote: »

Why is it childish asking who created god? Seems a reasonable question to me. Or where did he/she/it come from? Another dimension?

Also why are the other tens of thousands of gods make-belief but this one is totally real?

There are around 3k gods that are known to have been imagined by humans, some with a strikingly similar story to the one in the bible, coincidence or copied?

magicbastarder

the universe has been around for a finite time, but god has been around for an infinite time. so god waited for infinity before deciding to create the universe? what was he doing for that infinity - did he just get bored? or are we the latest iteration in a long running experiment?

these are questions i am not seeking answers to.

kelly1

RichieO wrote: »

From your first post, I thought you were very young 18 - 30 decidedly catholic and relatively inexperienced, not sure now...

Care to explain why you thought I was/am 18-30? I'm heading for 50. And inexperienced in what?

RichieO wrote: »

...but I know how difficult it is to free your mind from childhood brainwashing, which I believe is the main reason all religions persist in this modern world...

I could say something similar about atheists who have listened to only one side of the debate.

ginger_hammer wrote: »

Why is it childish asking who created god? Seems a reasonable question to me. Or where did he/she/it come from? Another dimension?

Also why are the other tens of thousands of gods make-belief but this one is totally real?

Because God, for the purposes of this discussion, is defined as the uncaused cause of everything that it not God. The starting point of the causal chain. Under that definition, it makes no sense to ask what created that God.

kelly1

magicbastarder wrote: »

the universe has been around for a finite time, but god has been around for an infinite time. so god waited for infinity before deciding to create the universe? what was he doing for that infinity - did he just get bored? or are we the latest iteration in a long running experiment?

these are questions i am not seeking answers to.

Even though you're not seeking an answer, the answer I give is that God is timeless and that he created time (and space). Of course it's hard for us to imagine no time but it makes sense in the uncaused cause idea.

endacl

RichieO wrote: »

There are around 3k gods that are known to have been imagined by humans, some with a strikingly similar story to the one in the bible, coincidence or copied?

Archetypical.

ginger_hammer

kelly1 wrote: »

Because God, for the purposes of this discussion, is defined as the uncaused cause of everything that it not God. The starting point of the causal chain. Under that definition, it makes no sense to ask what created that God.

That sounds like an overly elaborate way of ducking the question.

kelly1

ginger_hammer wrote: »

That sounds like an overly elaborate way of ducking the question.

I'm ducking nothing. In light of what I said, "Or where did he/she/it come from?" makes no sense. Obviously God did not come from anywhere if God never began.

Does that make sense to you?

ginger_hammer

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm ducking nothing. In light of what I said, "Or where did he/she/it come from?" makes no sense. Obviously God did not come from anywhere if God never began.

Does that make sense to you?

So God came from nowhere and at no point in time came into being?

Quite frankly no, it makes no sense to me.

magicbastarder

kelly1 wrote: »

Even though you're not seeking an answer, the answer I give is that God is timeless and that he created time (and space). Of course it's hard for us to imagine no time but it makes sense in the uncaused cause idea.

'in the beginning, there was nothing but a disembodied, all-powerful, all-wise, all seeing consciousness'.
i just find that a gloriously arbitrary way of explaining existence. you're trying to build the pyramid from the top down.

kelly1

ginger_hammer wrote: »

So God came from nowhere and at no point in time came into being?

Quite frankly no, it makes no sense to me.

In that case you're bound to accept that space-time has always existed. infinite time to the past and future.

I would argue that this is impossible because actual infinities are impossible, only potential infinities are possible.

There's also the 2nd law of thermodynamics/entrophy to consider, which is a defeater.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

when Dawkins asks, who created God, I just have to laugh. It's childish tbh.

Perhaps you might find it less childish if, instead of laughing at it, you thought about it?

It's actually quite a good question given that most religious people insist on causality (many atheists don't) and believe that the question "who created the big bang" is a killer question. When exactly the same line of reasoning cuts the legs off of their arguments - hence, I suppose, the laugh instead of thinking?

ginger_hammer

kelly1 wrote: »

In that case you're bound to accept that space-time has always existed. infinite time to the past and future.

I would argue that this is impossible because actual infinities are impossible, only potential infinities are possible.

There's also the 2nd law of thermodynamics/entrophy to consider, which is a defeater.

This doesn't answer the question of where this god came from, who created it and when it came into being. Then what about the other gods? Do the same rules apply?

After reading hawkins book about the universe we are still leaning about how time can be manipulated via black holes, etc - but that is science and real - not based on a 1900 year old book written by dozens of different men over centuries, changed, edited, translated, edited, etc.

kelly1

ginger_hammer wrote: »

This doesn't answer the question of where this god came from, who created it and when it came into being. Then what about the other gods? Do the same rules apply?

What??
Seriously, I'm not to bother arguing with you when it's clear you're not reading or understanding my posts.

robindch wrote: »

Perhaps you might find it less childish if, instead of laughing at it, you thought about it?

It's actually quite a good question given that most religious people insist on causality (many atheists don't) and believe that the question "who created the big bang" is a killer question. When exactly the same line of reasoning cuts the legs off of their arguments - hence, I suppose, the laugh instead of thinking?

I refer you to post #16.

When Stephen Hawking said that philosophy is dead, maybe some of you accepted that all too readily?

Gaillimh1976

Pherekydes wrote: »

My 7 questions:

• Will the Packers win the SB?
• Will Aaron Rodgers win the MVP?
• Will Stoke finish higher than 9th this season?
• Is pineapple ok on pizza, even for atheists?
• Is a jaffa cake a biscuit or a cake?
• Why can I not touch my toes any more?
• Is the meaning of life really 42?

• No
• No
• No
• NO NO NO NEVER NEVER NEVER !!
• A Cake
• Too many jaffa cakes
• Yes, but only until age 42

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

the universe has been around for a finite time, but god has been around for an infinite time. so god waited for infinity before deciding to create the universe? what was he doing for that infinity - did he just get bored? or are we the latest iteration in a long running experiment?

I'm open to correction here, but I believe that the religious belief is that god always existed - the uncaused cause, as the deepity goes - so that means that he had three things to do on the timeline - decide to create the universe, then he had to create the conditions for the universe, then he had to trigger the conditions to create the universe - each of these three events being separated from the next by either no time, some time or an infinite amount of time.

I'm not sure how the religious ties these together. If they've thought about them at all, I would like to think that they do more than laugh at it :rolleyes:

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Because God, for the purposes of this discussion, is defined as the uncaused cause of everything that it not God. The starting point of the causal chain. Under that definition, it makes no sense to ask what created that God.

No, you are solving the problem by saying that it doesn't apply to you.

Might make a good sermon. Does not make a good explanation.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

No, you are solving the problem by saying that it doesn't apply to you.

Might make a good sermon. Does not make a good explanation.

Oh man, this is hard work!

You have 2 possibilities:

1) Infinite series of cause and effect into the past and future.
2) A starting point to the chain, beginning with the first uncaused cause. Call it X.

Which is it gonna be?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Which is it gonna be?

Physicists have proposed solutions involving both of these, but (1) seems to be preferred and plausible, reasoned solutions exist.

Your side of the discussion is quite different though. You have defined a solution into existence - being a deity which was always there, and which had no cause. Then you define that this deity is the same as the guy who, some stories report, manifested as a carpenter in first century Palestine and who ultimately got nailed to a cross and died.

Your argument works just as well if you substitute "deity" with "flying spaghetti monster".

That's not "defining" a solution - that's simply "making things up"!

magicbastarder

why does it have to be caused?

a particle decaying into two other particles does so by chance. there's no 'trigger'. unless you're saying whatever creator is at play oversees every quantum event in the universe? and the implications of that would be profound.

RichieO

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieO View Post
From your first post, I thought you were very young 18 - 30 decidedly catholic and relatively inexperienced, not sure now...

Care to explain why you thought I was/am 18-30? I'm heading for 50. And inexperienced in what?
Because at 30 you should have started to accumulate the wisdom you need to start thinking "outside the box" and to detach from your beliefs, (if only on temporary basis) but it does allow for more clarity... Inexperienced at making a statement that is tenable and supportable with facts...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieO View Post
...but I know how difficult it is to free your mind from childhood brainwashing, which I believe is the main reason all religions persist in this modern world...

I could say something similar about atheists who have listened to only one side of the debate.

Indeed you could but it's simply not true, most atheists do listen and far are more open minded than most of the religious folk, you appear to be firmly locked in your beliefs and not very good at explaining the basis for having the belief...

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Physicists have proposed solutions involving both of these, but (1) seems to be preferred and plausible, reasoned solutions exist.

ok, and as I argued in another thread #2 is an uncomfortable option for science.

Option #1 then brings up the question about the possibility of actual infinities and the BGV theorem implications.

I thought the Big Bang was the preferred view around here?

robindch wrote: »

Your side of the discussion is quite different though. You have defined a solution into existence - being a deity which was always there, and which had no cause

The uncaused cause argument is solid if you pick the "universe had a beginning" option.

robindch wrote: »

Your argument works just as well if you substitute "deity" with "flying spaghetti monster".

You guys are fond of that nonsense.

If it's a physical FSM which had a beginning, then no.

Pherekydes

kelly1 wrote: »

Oh man, this is hard work!

You have 2 possibilities:

1) Infinite series of cause and effect into the past and future.
2) A starting point to the chain, beginning with the first uncaused cause. Call it X.

Which is it gonna be?

X.

Now tell me why X needs to be worshipped? Why would X consider Christianity as the one true religion?

Seems to me that Christianity is a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the market. Couldn't be the one true religion.

kelly1

RichieO wrote: »

Because at 30 you should have started to accumulate the wisdom you need to start thinking "outside the box" and to detach from your beliefs, (if only on temporary basis) but it does allow for more clarity...

We all have the same facts available to us. I've come to a different conclusion.
Does that make you smarter than me?

RichieO wrote: »

Indeed you could but it's simply not true, most atheists do listen and far are more open minded than most of the religious folk, you appear to be firmly locked in your beliefs and not very good at explaining the basis for having the belief...

Can you cite any works you've read by Christian apologists?
e.g William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, Lee Strobel, John Lennox.

kelly1

Pherekydes wrote: »

X.

Now tell me why X needs to be worshipped? Why would X consider Christianity as the one true religion?

Seems to me that Christianity is a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the market. Couldn't be the one true religion.

Before I answer that, can you tell me how much theology you have read?

Pherekydes

kelly1 wrote: »

Before I answer that, can you tell me how much theology you have read?

No. Assume I'm from Mars/the Amazon Jungle/another galaxy.

kelly1

Pherekydes wrote: »

No. Assume I'm from Mars/the Amazon Jungle/another galaxy.

-->

Pherekydes wrote: »

X.
Now tell me why X needs to be worshipped? Why would X consider Christianity as the one true religion?

Seems to me that Christianity is a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the market. Couldn't be the one true religion.

ok, we're into theology now, so bear with me.

1) God deserves our worship because he created us, loves us, provides for us, forgives us, sent his son to die for us etc.

2) People are free to do whatever they like, to invent religion, worship false gods etc but the truth is what matters. And the truth about God can only be revealed by God. My belief is that God chose to reveal his true nature to the Jews, at a time when the human race was ready to hear the message and when writing and philosophy had advance to a sufficient point.

3) Christianity is the fulfillment of the Jewish religion. In the Old Testament, God promised a Messiah and Jesus is that promised Messiah. He proved this by rising from death.

God revealed his true nature bit-by-bit because we "couldn't handle the truth".
There was a very gradual movement in humans from "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek".

looksee

kelly1 wrote: »

I could say something similar about atheists who have listened to only one side of the debate.
.

If you asked you would find that a good proportion of atheists actually started on 'the other side of the debate' (some of us spent years there) and only went over when they realised the other side did not make a lot of sense.

Pherekydes

kelly1 wrote: »

1) God deserves our worship because he created us, loves us, provides for us, forgives us, sent his son to die for us etc.

OK, I'm not here long, but I've been observing your Earth for a while now. And none of this makes any sense.

I've studied biology and it seems young people are produced the same way young of other species are: their parents mate.

I've studied your societies and it seems (if it's at all true) that this God you speak of loves and provides for white people mostly. Many non-white people seem to die in the worst way possible, or live in abject poverty.

I've studied your so-called history books, and they seem to disagree about the historicity of this so-called son of God.

2) People are free to do whatever they like, to invent religion, worship false gods etc but the truth is what matters. And the truth about God can only be revealed by God. My belief is that God chose to reveal his true nature to the Jews, at a time when the human race was ready to hear the message and when writing and philosophy had advance to a sufficient point.

What is truth? Is it objective truth? It seems to me from studying your belief systems that people are expected to just accept religious so-called truths without question. But many people, even many previously religious people, choose to inquire, question, investigate and experiment to find out more about the way the universe really works.

3) Christianity is the fulfillment of the Jewish religion. In the Old Testament, God promised a Messiah and Jesus is that promised Messiah. He proved this by rising from death.

God revealed his true nature bit-by-bit because we "couldn't handle the truth".
There was a very gradual movement in humans from "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek".

Do people look in old books for cures for sickness? Do they look in old books to find out how the universe works? Some of your people create fine new books with objective truths and facts in them.

I'm curious about this God character. Tell me less...

magicbastarder

kelly1 wrote: »

God ... loves us

citation required.

kelly1

magicbastarder wrote: »

citation required.

Any particual peer-reviewed journal?

magicbastarder

you tell me.

you've gone from asking people for evidence for their claims to making claims not based on evidence, but on wishful thinking.

kelly1

magicbastarder wrote: »

you tell me.

you've gone from asking people for evidence for their claims to making claims not based on evidence, but on wishful thinking.

I was asked a theological question and you want, what, scientific evidence??

RichieO

kelly1 wrote: »

I was asked a theological question and you want, what, scientific evidence??

YES, that would nice, and a little more convincing than divine revelation...

kelly1

RichieO wrote: »

YES, that would nice, and a little more convincing than divine revelation...

How about you first give me evidence that a square circle is impossible?

RichieO

kelly1 wrote: »

How about you first give me evidence that a square circle is impossible?

I did not make any claims on this issue, a square circle is a contradiction in terms, at least in 2D...

Pherekydes

kelly1 wrote: »

I was asked a theological question and you want, what, scientific evidence??

The famous meme springs to mind:

Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.

Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.

Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there, and shouting "I found it!"

Science is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat using a ****ing flash light.

oldrnwisr

kelly1 wrote: »

1) God deserves our worship because he created us, loves us, provides for us, forgives us, sent his son to die for us etc.

Created us? No. Or at least not in the way the Bible describes. There is no special creation for humanity. We weren't created in God's image unless by some strange coincidence God happens to look like an evolved ape. We evolved from earlier primates who evolved from monkeys, from basal mammals, from basal synapsids, from basal tetrapods etc. etc. Now God may have kickstarted the process or he may not but there's no evidence to suggest that God created us or anything else we see alive today.

Loves us? Hmmm. Well, unless you're part of a group of kids who laugh at a prophet's bald head in which case God will send bears to maul you to death (2 Kings 2), unless you worship a different God in which case God will punish you by making you eat your own children (Jeremiah 19:9), unless you live in a peaceful town that one of God's chosen tribes wants for themselves in which case you all get massacred (Judges 18), unless you're gay (Leviticus 20:13) or a blasphemer (Leviticus 24:10-16). Unless you're a Midianite (Numbers 31) or an Amalekite (1 Samuel 15) or a Philistine (Judges 15). Except for those, sure, God loves us.

Provides for us? How exactly? It's not like he plants crops, we do that. It's not like he makes it rain, physics does that. It's not like he makes the sun shine, nuclear fusion does that. What does he provide for us? Food? Water? Job security? The chance to watch Conor McGregor get his head kicked in?

Forgives us? For what? For breaking a set of rules he borrowed from Hammurabi which he breaks several of all by himself and which his son continues to break?

Sent his son to die for us? According to who? Four anonymous authors writing 40 years after his death. Really?

kelly1 wrote: »

2) People are free to do whatever they like, to invent religion, worship false gods etc but the truth is what matters. And the truth about God can only be revealed by God. My belief is that God chose to reveal his true nature to the Jews, at a time when the human race was ready to hear the message and when writing and philosophy had advance to a sufficient point.

So why couldn't your God reveal himself to the Jews in a way that the things he told them wouldn't be shown to be dead wrong. Like the idea that showing striped patterns to pregnant cows would result in striped offspring or that pi is a round number or that whales are fish or bats are birds. Why did God get involved in petty local politics involving one single band of Middle Eastern primitives? If your God really did guide the people through the Exodus by a pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night (forgetting for a second that there's no actual volcano between Egypt and Canaan), how did it take them forty years to travel a distance you could walk in six days. How did God make prophecies that failed so completely and spectacularly like the destruction of Tyre or the "virgin birth" prophecy in Isaiah.

kelly1 wrote: »

3) Christianity is the fulfillment of the Jewish religion. In the Old Testament, God promised a Messiah and Jesus is that promised Messiah. He proved this by rising from death.

God revealed his true nature bit-by-bit because we "couldn't handle the truth".
There was a very gradual movement in humans from "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek".

No, he really isn't. Jesus fulfills none of the criteria for the Messiah.

Firstly, the Messiah would be a descendant of David as stated in Jeremiah 23:5

"“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord, “When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land."

While both Matthew and Luke make a genealogical connection between Jesus and David, it should be noted that a) their genealogical records don't agree with each other (Matthew's being an edited version of the one found in Chronicles) and b) Jesus is connected to David through Joseph who he wasn't actually biologically descended from. Moreover, Luke's genealogy is objectively wrong since it traces David's lineage through his son Nathan despite God promising that the Messiah would come from Solomon's lineage in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and 1 Chronicles 22:9-10.

Secondly, the Messiah would be knowledgeable and observant of the Old Testament laws as outlined in Isaiah 11:2-5. While Jesus was certainly knowledgeable, observant he wasn't. He violates the dietary laws in Mark 7:18-19, the Sabbath law in Matthew 12:3-5, the commandment to honour your father and mother in Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 14:26 and the circumcision law in John 7:22-24.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, in several places the Old Testament authors speak about the Messiah's political prowess in addition to his spiritual ones. In Isaiah 11:11-12, Hosea 3:4-5 and Jeremiah 23:7-8 and 30:3 it is stated that the Messiah will reunite the Jews in Israel and restore Jerusalem. In Isaiah 2:2-4, 11:10 and 42:1, it is stated that the Messiah would create a single world government in Israel. Furthermore, despite the Christian claims about Jesus' body as a temple, the Old Testament makes it clear that the Messiah would rebuild a physical temple in Jerusalem and resume sacrifices in it (Jeremiah 33:17-18, Ezekiel 37:27-28 and Malachi 3:3-4). Jesus never accomplishes any of this and he would need to accomplish all of that before he could be called Messiah.

Speaking of peace, the arrival of the Messiah is supposed to herald the beginning of the Messianic age, accompanied by a number of signs. These include an era of perpetual peace (Isaiah 2:4), predators and prey will coexist peacefully (Isaiah 11:6), the entire human race worshipping Yahweh (Zechariah 14:9) and following all his laws (Ezekiel 37:24). None of these, obviously, came to pass, then or at any time since.

And this is all before we get to the idea that Jesus fulfilled so-called Messianic prophecies cited by the gospel authors.

I think it's fair to say that the idea of a spiritual and political Messiah is the result of a degree of optimistic wish-fulfillment on behalf of the Jews of the period. To a people who had historically and recently undergone huge suffering and upheaval at the hands of various other cultures (i.e. Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans), a political leader who would come and save them from all of that and create a land where everything would live in peace is a nice idea but not one grounded in any kind of reality.

oldrnwisr

RichieO wrote: »

These 7 questions I have asked myself and others, the number of different responses is truly amazing and if you can get honest answers it speaks volumes about yourself and others...

Do you ever have the slightest doubts about your truths?
Well, yes and no. Generally no, since among the labels I use to describe myself the relevant one here is apistevist, in that I don't use faith as a means to form my positions on anything. Yes in the sense that I do try to continually seek out opposing viewpoints, counterarguments and actual research to see if my opinions still hold. I guess the constant behaviour of trying to disprove everything comes from being a scientist (by education).


Is there anything in your life that you are 100% certain about?
No. Everything is possibly wrong. In fact, like Richard Feynman said, if this was our view on things, especially religion, the world would be a better place.


Have you ever thought about why or how you can be certain?
Well I would agree with AronRa's statement, if you can't show it, then you don't know it. You can be certain of something (to a degree) if you can demonstrate it.


Do you know the difference between truth, belief, fact, law, rule, theory and hypothesis?
Yes. I wish more people would understand this difference though. Especially creationists. It would make my time on the internet much easier.


Do you study the history of every science and religion?
I used to. I have studied Christianity and Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Mormonism etc. but there's no end to people's differing concepts of God and only so much time so now it's a case of being reactionary of waiting for religious people to put their arguments to me instead of proactively finding out about them in advance. I think TheraminTrees explains this idea very well here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcw1YEtTQCw

As for science, there are, in truth, some sciences which just hold no interest for me (economics and political science spring immediately to mind). I try to keep up with sciences that are important to our understanding of the universe and ourselves like systematics, cosmology, quantum physics, molecular biology etc.


How do you know if you are correct in your beliefs?
I don't really have beliefs. At least not in a religious or epistemological sense. My signature kind of elaborates on my position on this. I'm not religious or superstitious so there's very little belief involved.


Do you try to understand why others doubt or ridicule your beliefs?
Yes. Well, at least when I engage with others in debate about beliefs it's useful to understand where the other side is coming from. I understand that people don't necessarily hold beliefs for the same reason that I don't, that people believe for non-evidence based reasons like comfort or community or indolence.