Just want to try out an argument I've thought up...

[deadboy]

I'd like to put forward an argument that I thought of last night that seems to prove that Jesus cannot have been the son of God. I'm just testing it a little, and I'd actually like you to pick it to shreds. I've labelled the statements for easy referral

1.To begin with, we must make the assumption that God exists, and that for Jesus to be the son of God he must be like God in all ways, otherwise he couldn't be a true son of God

2.God is the source of all goodness

3.Something that is good can have no evil or sin in it whatsoever, nor commit any evil or sin

4.Jesus teaches that vanity and pride are sins. He also teaches that in order to have no pride good acts must be done in private. ie. he teaches this about prayer.

5.God lets humans contemplate his existance, and him creating the earth

6.In order to have no pride he must have done this private to us, and make certain that we didn't know of his good acts, rather than letting us contemplate it and telling our ancestors

7.Therefore God must have been guilty of the sin of Pride, proved by the fact that he lets us worship him rather than being modest. A contradiction

8.Therefore the only logical explanation, if God must exist, is that Pride is not a sin.

9.However, Jesus teaches that it is a sin, and to be modest is virtuous, he therefore must be telling a lie.

10.Something that is God has no use for falsehoods, and must detest them as they involve the covering up of truths, in which something purely good must love

11.Therefore Jesus could not have been a God, nor the son of God

[SekoETC]

But Jesus was also human which means he also had human weaknesses and his knowledge was limited when he was in that body. However that has nothing to do with the rest of what I'm writing here.

Pride is not sin in all cases. The word can be interpreted in two different ways: one of them is bragging and pushing others down by raising yourself and the other way is healthy pride over doing something successful that others could rejoice alongside you. The problem is that people use the same word for these two very different concepts although any emotionally sane person can tell the difference between them. Also any emotionally sane person can figure out which one of those Jesus declared as sin.

If one creates something good then they should be proud of what they did. Also if one is omnipotent then thinking that he is better than everyone else is not bragging but merely acknowledging a fact.

Also I believe that when God created human as an image of himself it means that God has emotions just like people do. God wants to be loved but he doesn't force people to love Him because he knows that wouldn't mean anything without free will. His intelligence is also superior and he knows what's best for people but again he lets people make their own stupid choices because he has loved them enough to give them free will.

[Zanthos]

10.Something that is God has no use for falsehoods, and must detest them as they involve the covering up of truths, in which something purely good must love

not true.

And even if god has no use for falsehoods, technically speaking we have no use for videogames, but we still use them.

personally, i see god as looking down and being amused at what his creations do. watching, like if you were playing black and white with really good ai for your townspeople.

well, sorta. but saying "god has no use for it" does not make a good foundation for an argument.

[Dee]

Jesus is not the son of God, but not for those reasons. There doesn't have to be any reason, really... It's just a fact, Jesus is not the son of God.

[Piscator]

I agree with that, but most probably for other reasons.

I think that already the first argument is faulty. Why does a son have to be like his father in all ways?

[the_antisocial_hermit]

Jesus is not the son of God, but not for those reasons. There doesn't have to be any reason, really... It's just a fact, Jesus is not the son of God.

It is not a fact. It is your belief and many others' belief, but belief is not fact. Just as it is many people's belief that he is, but that does not make it a fact.

And deadboy, I can't make sense of your logic showing him to not be. None of those give me any reason to believe either way.

Some points:

It is never stated that Jesus must be like God in all ways to be a true son of God. In some beliefs, all people are the sons and daughters of God (not directly like Jesus but as his creation made in his image), and I think you can agree, that none are like God in all ways.

God is not the source of all goodness. Much pain comes from him and his works, even if it is a test.

Good does not equal pure. A person can be good, but everyone commits sins. Not all forms of pride are a sin. Sinful pride is that in which one does good for selfish reasons.

And I am tired of thinking about it. Those are just some points I thought of.

[Dee]

Well, okay, a belief. But I believe it to be a fact. But it's my belief.. Whatever.

Well.. Can someone explain to me why you think he IS God's son?

[Piscator]

Bible says so. I can't imagine there's another reason.

[notsure]

Please, p l e a s e, PLEASE, refer to the religion thread and don't start this again.

notsure going insane

[DELGRAD]

deadboy I am an atheist and I feel the need to ask. WHAT?
I will not debate religion, but all of your points make no sense, even to me.
Do you have any knowledge of religion?

[Zanthos]

Well, okay, a belief. But I believe it to be a fact. But it's my belief.. Whatever.

Well.. Can someone explain to me why you think he IS God's son?

It has to do with the immaculate conception, being that god (being the father) put the baby in mary's womb.

Now, by modern science terminology, she was a surrogate mother, because im pretty sure god didnt knock her up.

[west]

This is a test of the emergency thread response system. Thread's future easily predictable following the established model.

1. half-thought-out anti-religious sentiment

2. half-assed reply

3. agreements, disagreements, tangents

4. blanket statements as to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of original poster's point, methodology, and possibly parentage

5. cliches, poorly argued disagreements, personal attacks, various idiocy by all parties.

Cycle repeats.

Honestly, people, there are several nice forums in this wide Internet of ours devoted solely to religious discussion, not to mention several millennia worth of eschatology, epistemology, theology, philosophy, and histrionics in the pursuit of religious truth. Do we really need a bargain-bin rehash of this ages-old, unresolveable debate?

Because if we do, I have some long lovely Technodiscordian theories of my own to expound and I would love to do so ad nauseum.

[formerly known as hf]

Please, west, please do.




In the meantime. I'm right. You're wrong. Ner ner ne ner ner

?

[Zanthos]

Well, as a fond supporter of HF's theory applied to myself, i must say nobody here can prove to them that their theory on rightness is incorrect

[Sunni Daez]

I agree with HF... Tell us West..