Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 9:46 am
I have stated many times,
a Christian is one who has entered into a divine contract [covenant] with Christ/God and the terms of the contract is confined within the Gospels [words of Christ] ONLY which is in the New Testament.
Whatever is in the OT cannot be part of the contract as contractual terms.
First off, as I have pointed out before, Jewish people regard what Christians call the OT as the Pentateuch or Torah, so whatever you are trying to say doesn't count for Christianity sure does count for Judaism. So, what you tell theists in general is false. And you seem to know this or you wouldn't try to say that OT is not relevant.
However, the OT is abrogated and act as an appendix or guide to the Christian contract.
Second, Christianity is very complicated. Whatever version of Christianity you were brought up in is just one version.
Third, even Jesus doubts, there on the cross, in the NT.
The Contract/Covenant With God
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24687
Ontology of God?
The ontology of God's existence, becoming and reality is that of an ontology of illusion.
And now you are changing the topic.
And those linked posts have been countered
There is no real God to decide whether it is perfect or imperfect.
Also not relevant. No one said God is determining what is perfect or not.
The ways people talk and claim about their illusory ontological God is perfect or imperfect is irrelevant to this OP and topic.
It's you who keep saying that theists must describe their God in a certain way and thus God cannot exist. Now you are saying it is irrelevant.
What is relevant is what is claimed in the holy texts [the Constitution] that is supposed to be from their illusory God. That is the only authority for theists to make their claims, not based on their own subjective personal views whether their god is perfect or not.
You are directly contradicting yourself. You have repeatedly explained why people must say their God is absolutely perfect. And look what you just did
1) you are telling theists what they must believe
2) you are labelling the scriptures OBJECTIVE in contrast to believers SUBJECTIVE beliefs - iow you are telling theists that their scriptures as you interpret them are objective in relation to their subjective beliefs. An atheist is telling theists, all of them, what their beliefs must be and how one must interpret their scriptures.
And not for one second can you either admit or see the utter hypocrisy of doing that.
As I had claimed and supported with references, the Christian God and Islamic God claimed in the texts from God, God is perfect.
As such all Christians and Muslims must believe and accept God's claim the God is perfect. Their personal opinion is not relevant on Judgment Day and ignorance is no defense.
You are treating religious texts of worship as scientific assertions. As if you've never heard of poetic language and romantic idealization.
As for Hinduism, certain Hindu religions claim their God is the ultimate, Absolute and thus perfect.
Thank you for conceding, right there, that some do not claim this. Therefore your generalizations are incorrect.
My argument;
Where God is claimed to be perfect, such a God cannot exists as real.
New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
this it applicable to at least 5 billion theists.
If a theist claims their God is absolutely perfect that applies to what those theists believe.
It doesn't prove anyting about the possiblity of a God. People could, for example, be correct there is a God, but go to far, those that do, in their claims about the qualities of that deity. Humans do that about people they love, leaders, pop stars. That people go overboard is not evidence of the impossiblity of a God.
If a theist says to you that God is absolutely perfect, then you can use your argument about absolute perfection AGIAINST THAT PERSON'S CLAIM ABOUT GOD.
It shows absolutely nothing at all about the ontological possibility of a God or God's existence.
Summary:
You generalized incorrectly about religions and you have conceded this in this post without admitting you are conceding that you generalized.
You tell theists what they must believe and how they must think.
You avoid admitting the Judaism is not like what you say.
You have a strong habit of NEVER conceding anything, even when it is clear that you have something to concede. For example about making sure to distance Christianity from the OT without conceding that there is something that you do not want associated with Christianity because it would cause problems for your generalization about theism, given that Judaism is based on the OT.
There are other problems that have been pointed out by me and others. You repeat yourself over and over. And you change your focus when you realize you may have a problem, without conceding that anyone had a good point or that you needed to change your position or your support for it.
You disingenousness is clear to many people and they have taken pains, some very, very politely - like Flannel Jesus, for example - and this is all simply rejected, though in the ways you avoid responding to certain points, for example, it's clear you at least intuitively feel there has been a problem with your position but cannot bring yourself to admit this openly for some reason.
At times, and in the post I am responding to here, there are so many problems in logic and relevance and cohesion that it's hard to know where to begin in responding.
The way you deal with criticism harms you, not others. Because in the long run you cannot improve your tests or lines of reason, because it seems to you that you can no longer make any mistakes or admit to any.
If you have long term goals in academia or with your various projects for future books, you are cutting yourself off that the knees.