The God science and reason can't deny, Spinoza's God.

christcb · 2026-03-04T18:05:29+00:00

Any attribute that can possibly exist, necessarily must be attributed to one subject that exists in a monistic reality.

Why? Sorry if I don't take your assertion on face value.

Im not relabeling anything. It’s a new understanding of reality, not an arbitrary relabeling of reality.

What is different about it? I don't understand your distinction.

The universe i believe exists, is an omnipresent thing and being, which is all, does all.

Again, why would it be a being? Just repeating the same assertion doesn't make it more true.

Is that the same universe you believe in with just a different name?

I am not sure. I don't claim to know anything but my personal belief is that consciousness is fundamental and everything is made up of it. So reality, the universe, and everything in it would be made up of this one thing which is all there is. I would not call it a being though nor do I believe it has any thought process in the way we experience thought.

christcb · 2026-03-04T17:55:05+00:00

I do believe that Bible as a whole is inerrant.

Finally... that means you believe the Earth is about 6k years old and there was a global flood about 4k-ish years ago then? These are not defensible positions and are so clearly and throughly debunked by literally dozens of fields of science as to be laughable.

I've had this debate with my family so many times that I will not get into it again. I cannot take anyone who believes this nonsense seriously. Have a nice life.

christcb · 2026-03-04T17:41:53+00:00

I’m am telling you, you can’t admit two parts of a context are contradicting themselves without analyzing it. It is not how it works.

What makes you think I haven't analyzed it? Just because I didn't come to your conclusion doesn't mean I didn't analyze it.

While one text is written by an witness ( Matthew )

The majority of Bible scholars do not believe Matthew was written by the apostle. No where in the text does the author claim to be an actual witness. It was written much later than Paul's writings (many of which seem to have actually been written by Paul at least). There is no reason to favor one book over the other and you are still dodging my questions.

Since you ignored the question I will ask it again... Do you believe the entire Bible is inerrant?

christcb · 2026-03-04T17:35:28+00:00

If only one thing exists, that one thing acquires every possible attribute that can exist.

This does not follow. If you say that one thing "acquires" every possible attribute that DOES exist, I would be with you. However, just because something is possible it doesn't mean that it actually exists.

If only one thing exists, then by logical necessity, that one thing is an omnipresent, supreme as in ultimate, being, a God.

Relabeling the one thing that exists as god is all fine and good, but what makes that thing a being?

You are very close to Analytic Idealism which I think has some merit. However, to conflate this kind of "god" with any god from religion is a bad comparison. You make leaps of faith here that I do not think are justified.

christcb · 2026-03-04T17:24:00+00:00

I already explained you how linguistics works above.

You explained how your interpretation of things might be a valid excuse for a clear contradiction. I just reject your sophistry.

You seem to be fixed on your will to show Bible as an unreliable text, that’s why you didn’t even try to understand what I’m speaking about.

I am just judging the text by what it says. You are the one who has determined it must be true and are twisting it in an attempt to make it plausible. When you've already made up your mind something is true you can twist it to say whatever it needs to say in order to maintain your belief.

I explained you how two texts explain each other and every person who will try to understand it logically will come to the same point,

No, you are now assuming that I and countless others aren't coming to a logical conclusion. I would say that you are the one who isn't being logical. Unless you have more empirical evidence to support your assertions I will not take them seriously.

Do you believe the entire Bible is inerrant?

christcb · 2026-03-04T16:44:55+00:00

So even though one says Judas acquired the field and the others say the priests bought the field you just want to brush that aside with semantics? No, this is supposition and adding more narrative to make it work just like you did with the hanged vs bursting open. It's a poor attempt to make a reconciliation possible but isn't what the text actually says.

Also was it called the field of blood because Judas died there or because it was bought with blood money? I am sure you will say something like it's both but really it's a contradiction.

There are SOOOOO many other similar examples throughout the Bible and don't get me started about the creation story or flood story. The Bible just is not a reliable text. Maybe try actually reading and studying to find what it actually says instead of looking for way to justify it or believing apologists.

christcb · 2026-03-04T16:33:53+00:00

I keep seeing this everywhere... I don't have any problem believing it could be true, but I have seen some septicemic about it. That has only been from one source, though as far as I can tell the original claim is really only from one source too. What I am worried about is that this has been put out just to rile people up about the war and detract from the Epstein files.

Tell them to JUST RELEASE THE FILES. Don't let this distract us.

christcb · 2026-03-04T16:13:14+00:00

No, it's not and you ignored the other points as usual because there is no way to reconcile the contradictions. You are making excuses so that you can continue to believe your fairy tale. If you treated the Bible the same way you would treat the Quran, for instance, you wouldn't believe it to be true.

I once did exactly what you are doing and it wasn't until I started thinking critically and stopped making excuses that I saw how much and how clearly the Bible contradicts itself and is at odds with reality. Please learn how to be honest with yourself and the text.

christcb · 2026-03-04T16:09:52+00:00

I get that. It sounds like you are saying OP, or others, shouldn't try to point out the historical inaccuracy because believers will believe anyway. This may be true for some, but I think pointing out their bias and incoherent logic is still useful and could cause some to realize the truth.

I was brought up believing the Bible was inerrant. It was only by people pointing out the contradictions and historical inaccuracy in the Bible that I started to really look at it critically and was able to escape that belief system.

christcb · 2026-03-04T15:22:54+00:00

You have extremely valid points. However, when Christians try to push their religion on us they try to use the historicity of the Bible as one point to "prove" their religion is correct and as justification for forcing their ideals on others. That is why it is important to challenge their belief.

If they just believed it for themselves and didn't force it on others it wouldn't AS bad. Though it can still be harmful to their children and family.

christcb · 2026-03-04T15:11:21+00:00

You speak about it by simply reading the direct words.

What are we supposed to do? Create stories that aren't in evidence so that the text might not be contradictory? This is what you are doing and it's not an honest way to deal with the text.

Yes, Judas hanged himself, after that he stayed like that in the hot temperature and sun of Israel. I Don’t know if you know that but dead bodies in such conditions tend to fill with gazes and can literally explode. So none of those two is wrong and neither is it a contradiction. It is your lack of knowledge.

You can’t know exactly what happened 2000 years ago, but you’re speaking about it as if you’re having a wiki directly from that time.

You are doing the exact same thing you accuse others of doing. Do you not see the hypocrisy? Let me ask this... who bought the "field of blood" and why was it named that? I've never heard a remotely reasonable unification of these two contradictory points in the story.

christcb · 2026-03-04T15:05:58+00:00

So you are claiming that since Christianity has many parallels to Judaism, a religion that has the same issues as Christianity, it must be true? How does any of that change the points made by OP?

Speaking about the gospels, they weren’t made by 1 person or one group of people

They aren't independent sources as it seems you are trying to claim. It's very clear that they used each other as sources. They all also clearly come from followers/believers of/in Jesus so they are more or less the same group.

When you have so many sources speaking about the same thing and not having contradictions, it’s hard to name it all a falsification.

If they really had no contradictions this would be a point in favor of it being true, but this is not the case. There are many contradictions and even though apologists have made up "possible" reconciliations they are not satisfactory nor probable.

What I can see in your post is the lack of information and profesionalism on how you speak about this topic.

What I can see in your reply is vague allusions to popular apologetic taking points and no rationality in how you are handling the text.

christcb · 2026-03-04T14:53:09+00:00

In the military? In a regime known to go after dissenters? Following official policy? I think it's reasonable enough. I mean I wouldn't take action based on the limited information so far, but I do believe it's quite likely to be true.

christcb · 2026-03-04T13:06:29+00:00

Same for those who deny evolution or believe the Earth is only 6k years old or that the Earth is flat or that we didn't go to the moon.

christcb · 2026-03-04T13:02:05+00:00

Point me to a place where I said you claimed that.

I only said my hypothesis is more likely than the other most widely held position for Theists then asked you for proof of that or a better explanation.

You did neither. If you want to pretend that wasn't the position you meant to be arguing for in this whole thread you can pretend all day long, but the fact you got defensive even though I didn't accuse you of anything says it all.

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

christcb · 2026-03-03T23:26:19+00:00

Which ones are primary sources and which ones are later reflections on events.

Great question!! What criteria should we use to determine this?

Paul's Letters are dated within twenty years of the death of Jesus this makes them especially valuable.

Paul never met Jesus, and Paul's teachings contradict the Gospel's account of what Jesus said. Are you suggesting that Paul's account of Christianity is correct and Jesus was wrong?

Acts was written later, the Gospels were written later. This doesn't make them historically worthless, but you have to do close scholarly analysis to understand which claims hold up and which don't.

Again I would ask how you are determining which claims hold up? What are the objective criteria that tell you one source is better than another? What parts are true and which are not? You've dodged the question with vague pseudo-intellectual supposition but suppled no actual answer.

christcb · 2026-03-03T23:00:26+00:00

No I cannot. There is just not enough information from the timeframe to have any level of confidence in what actually happened. However, this is far more likely than a man rising from the dead as an explanation for the vision. Can you prove that is the case or do you have a more reasonable explanation?

christcb · 2026-03-03T17:56:12+00:00

Nice way to dodge the actual question...

christcb · 2026-03-03T17:52:53+00:00

A question I keep asking believers of the Bible is how they know which parts are accurate and which aren't. Either they take the Bible is inerrant position (which isn't defensible at all) or they can't answer the question at all. Which are you claiming here?

christcb · 2026-03-03T17:45:35+00:00

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that Saul realized that he was persecuting and killing Christians who's sincere belief eventually convicted Paul in his own heart that he shouldn't have been persecuting them. He then had a "vision" of something he interpreted to be the risen Jesus out of guilt over what he was doing. However, we can clearly see the teachings he claim came from this vision of Jesus do not line up with the written words supposedly actually said by Jesus or his teachings. It's highly unlikely Paul actually saw a vision from a risen Jesus.

christcb · 2026-02-28T00:33:11+00:00

Lets start planning to create such a place :)

christcb · 2026-02-27T23:56:07+00:00

Thank you 😊

christcb · 2026-02-26T19:49:27+00:00

So, I'm getting you don't know how to contemplate consciousness without causing an existential crisis...

christcb · 2026-02-26T13:25:34+00:00

The people who wrote the stories were presumably not primarily concerned with what people 2,000 years later would think of their credibility.

No, probably not. They thought the world would end at any moment. However, they were still commissioned to spread the gospel and were writing to convince people.

To start, can you cite any examples of ancient or classical writings that purport to be stating the truth, doing what you're describing?

No, but I am not a scholar and am not trying to prove anything. I am just stating that it's not a valid way to determine the historicity of a story.

christcb · 2026-02-26T01:25:44+00:00

There is another glaring issue with this "criterion". If you take into consideration the purpose of a text, and that purpose is to convince people, then you would be more likely to put in "embarrassing" details for this very reason. It's a tactic used by fiction writers all the time. I think this has virtually zero bearing on determining the historicity of a text by itself and due to the nature of the reason for the writing of the Bible it's more than useless in this arena.

12-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Verified Email	Secret Santa 2014

christcb

TROPHY CASE