Do these people think about what they tell us of their god


God does not inflict correction on the world as if he were some unskilled laborer who is incapable of building something properly the first time around; God has no need to purify what he has built by means of a flood or a conflagration (as they teach)

Celsus arguments against the Christians

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

41 thoughts on “Do these people think about what they tell us of their god

  1. Eric Alagan says:

    An old priest told me that god is almighty and knew all that had happened, is happening and will happen.

    My question to that old man – if god knew that many of us will end up in hell – starting with the priests – then, why create.

    The priest’s answer – it’s a mystery.

    Yes, it remains a mystery for me too. LOL!

    Like

  2. john zande says:

    The unskilled laborer: what a perfect description for the god of the ID’ers

    Like

  3. paarsurrey says:

    And what evidence did Celsus give to support his arguments.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Unless your understanding of English is below average, I would expect the statement Celsus makes is quite clear.
      The believers claim their god drowned people and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with an earthquake because he was disappointed at what man had become. What type of evidence do you need?

      Like

    • shelldigger says:

      Logic is its own evidence. Some things explain themselves easily enough. You just have to be able to follow a line of reasoning to the ineveitable outcome, without delusional dogmas muddying up the waters.

      If your preconceptions influence your reasoning, your reasoning is flawed.

      Like

      • paarsurrey says:

        shelldigger says: February 13, 2014 at 15:56
        “If your preconceptions influence your reasoning, your reasoning is flawed.”
        Same way for the Atheists. Once they have formed an opinion; they cannot change it.
        And they support one another just to reassure one another; with little patience for a different opinion.
        Always looking for ridiculing and deriding others.

        Like

        • shelldigger says:

          Project much? Us atheists, and I cannot speak for all, but I assume most could change their minds on numerous subjects providing some paradigm shifting evidence comes to light.

          Got any of that?

          Like

          • paarsurrey says:

            @ shelldigger says:February 13, 2014 at 23:10
            For instance; the Atheists demand from us evidence, provable evidence and proofs; if we ask them for the same; they are not prepared to give us one.
            They are not even ready to define as to what they mean from evidence with their own words.
            Is only a scientific evidence to be considered as evidence?

            Like

          • shelldigger says:

            That is a damned lie and you know it. The one thing science has, and I subscribe to science, is evidence.
            Science does not exist without it.

            Evidence is evidence. What makes it scientific is its ability to withstand scrutiny…investigation. Evidence is verifiable, repeatable, and conclusive in its existence, or it does not qualify as evidence.

            Speaking of evidence, where is yours exactly?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            You will have to wait for quite a while for that to come in.

            Like

          • shelldigger says:

            I can try to be patient, though since their hasn’t been any for 2000 years or so let’s not hold our breath. I did not forsee this one coming, and forgive me for clogging up your blog with this sort of back and forth.

            Once this kind of merry go round gets wound up we all know how it goes. Lots of dancing around in the possibilities, and the what if’s and the maybe’s but zero evidence to support the baseless assertions that tend to crop up.

            I think it is time for me to walk away from this troll.

            When that evidence shows up, give me a call Mak 🙂

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Should any evidence be made available, you will definitely hear it. In the case of paasurrey, his kind of delusion is a few years old.

            Like

      • paarsurrey says:

        shelldigger says:February 13, 2014 at 15:56
        “Logic is its own evidence.”
        Now if I say likewise that the One-True-God needs no evidence and He is self-evident; you won’t agree with me.

        Like

  4. paarsurrey says:

    Further,
    I think physical, ethical, moral and spiritual phenomena are inter-connected.
    One could affect the other.

    Like

  5. shelldigger says:

    Woo, whodathunkit? Nice Deepak Chopra impression…Wait, is that you Deepak?

    Like

  6. themodernidiot says:

    Celsus is clearly an idiot.

    Like

  7. themodernidiot says:

    Let me finish that thought: he’s an idiot because his question is from a place of his own limitations, which does not apply to God. If God is all, then God is as perfect as it is fallible. Belief in one’s spirit, force, higher power, whatever can be a very personal and self-modeled ideal; God can be whatever the believer requires. God is a malleable thing, ever -appropriate to ever-changing lives. He’s trying to stick a round peg in a square whole and claiming the mismatch proves the pegs aren’t real. That’s not only silly, but lazy as well. Surely he has a better argument than, “Their God does not fit MY image, therefore there is no God.” Really?

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      First, in defense of Celsus, most of his works come to us as fragments and mainly from Origen contra Celsus. Scholars have been able to reconstruct portions of the work because Origen quotes entire passages.

      That said, I don’t see how Celsus is trying to fit god in a box. His response is to a particular claim; that the god of the Christians created a perfect world and that this same god, is portrayed as immutable and so why would such a god flood the universe to correct the misdeads of minions and then after a short time destroy a portion of it in an earthquake. Was it impossible for such a god as portrayed to create beings not capable of stirring it’s anger?

      I agree with you, god is whatever the believer wants it to be and as such is so nebulous that to have an argument against it is sometimes a daunting task since the believer can easily retort, that ain’t my god.

      Like

      • themodernidiot says:

        No need to defend. I am only referring to the small bit you posted because it just doesn’t fly as written. He puts limits on his description of God, makes God a conditional entity that He is not. Celsus starts with his assumptions from his own beliefs rather than accept the flexibility of the Christian idea. That is close-minded, and very narrow in viewpoint and in spirit. He is also mistaken about what Christians believe, and leans on the literal too much. Perfection is subjective. God is fluid. Celsius does not work from that belief, rather he works purely from his own rigid ideas. This is bad rhetoric.
        As for the rest of his work, if you like him, I gladly just assume he’s pretty darn smart because you, are so very darn smart 🙂

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          I think we can agree that not all Christians or believers in general see their god as unchanging.
          I think, Celsus isn’t mistaken in what he thinks Christians believed at his time. A reading of material from that time show that they believed many of the things as written in the scripture such as an imminent end of the earth, and so much more.
          You interpretation is one that I don’t think would have been held by the 3rd Century Christians. It follows many years of apologetics, exegesis and reinterpretations.
          We can also agree that a literal reading of mythology should be discouraged.

          Like

          • themodernidiot says:

            How is it that they would not have believed these things when people had a history of polytheism that was even more flexible? And also, since they were sitting around deciding what would go into the final bible as soon as the next century, these ideas surely would have been present in the second. Especially since Jesus and crew had already come and laid these ideas down.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Interesting question. At the beginning of the conversion from polytheism, those who joined the new religion appear to have shunned everything that they had hitherto do. I think you would not be surprised to find a number of people who believed in a literal reading of the scripture.

            Whereas the fights over what is authentic scripture went on for a long time, the different sects were devout in their beliefs, whatever they were.

            Like

          • themodernidiot says:

            Well at the time they could have a literal meaning of the scripture because it was a contemporary work. Even the crazy metaphor parts probably were real to their belief system, which we know was based more on guessing than science.
            I would imagine the coverts would have made an effort to discard old beliefs, but you’re talking about a transition than spanned hundreds of years, well actually a hours and since we still have polytheism. The fighting continues still.

            Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s