This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
DudeistPriest · M
This syllogistic deduction rings true and sequitur as one segues reasonably into the other. In addition other observations of His behavior also follow this pattern as when He permits Joshua and his army to burn down the entire city of Jericho and everything/everyone in it. Then there's Sodom and Gomorrah. These cities must have certainly had babies in them.
However, consider that if the God of the Bible is truly a God of Love, a God of Peace, a God of Forgiveness and a God of Wisdom that we are led to believe then it stands to reason that He would not act in hypocritical and capricious ways changing His mind at the drop of a godly hat. You would expect that He would behave in consistent ways as a Supreme Being.
Therefore I propose that the God of the Bible and the God\Supreme Being of the Universe are two different things yielding two different sets of expectations. One more mythical making sense when conveniently necessary while the other more self-explanatory making increasing sense logically. It then follows that the Supreme Being would supersede the deified narrative presented in the Bible. How's that for syllogism?
However, consider that if the God of the Bible is truly a God of Love, a God of Peace, a God of Forgiveness and a God of Wisdom that we are led to believe then it stands to reason that He would not act in hypocritical and capricious ways changing His mind at the drop of a godly hat. You would expect that He would behave in consistent ways as a Supreme Being.
Therefore I propose that the God of the Bible and the God\Supreme Being of the Universe are two different things yielding two different sets of expectations. One more mythical making sense when conveniently necessary while the other more self-explanatory making increasing sense logically. It then follows that the Supreme Being would supersede the deified narrative presented in the Bible. How's that for syllogism?
@DudeistPriest
There certainly exists the idea even within the abrahimic religions that god is one among many. I suppose there could well be a supreme being.
Although it would be easier for the christian to espouse a fallible god rather than an infallible one.
There certainly exists the idea even within the abrahimic religions that god is one among many. I suppose there could well be a supreme being.
Although it would be easier for the christian to espouse a fallible god rather than an infallible one.
DudeistPriest · M
^Bingo!^