Of course the Christians worship the same God as the Jews

Submitted by DrRJP (United States), Jan 11, 2015 at 16:16

Christians worship the God of Israel, aka, the eternal, living God They are not direct descendants of Jews, but are Jewish in-laws, having been grafted to the family tree of David. The first family tree of Judaism began with Isaac - the legitimate son of he and Sarah.

Meanwhile, the illegitimate son of Abraham and Hagar, Ishmael, is not the person who received God's promise of a great nation (or conglomerate of nations, depending on your interpretation) but there is no Covenant between the descendents of Ishmael and God like there is between the descendents of Isaac and God.

There exist two promises made by God in reference to Ishmael. #1 that a great nation (or great nations) would grow from his loins and #2 that he would be a Wild Man, his hand against every nation. Ishmael lived down to that prediction, as did his direct descendant, Amalek, and every subsequent descendent of Amalek. Amalek embodied the same, ultimate Evil that was created at the same time as ultimate Good.

Ultimate Evil and Ultimate Good exist and if your statement, Dave Evens, that this is "made up nonsense" is nothing more than your own personal opinion. Every word in English or Arabic or any other language is "made up." But, who gets to qualify one word as being "Nonsense" and another word as being "Established fact" when the fact in question has no more weight than one's opinion.

Global warming is nonsense AND A FRAUD and I have the concrete irrefutable facts to back it up.

What concrete irrefutable facts do you have, Dave that God does not exist? BTW, God and "religion" are not synonymous. You can believe in God irrespective of any religion. Also, not all self-identified religions are religions - again, depending on how one defines religion.

From my theological studies, I cannot find any more basic definition of religion than "organized worship" as it ha only two primary components to it: one is the human act of worship (which need not be a spiritual action but can be totally secular and physical in nature), and two, is the object of that worship. The object is the recipient of the act of worship and need not reside in any physical form at a macro, micro, or atomic level, but it must have the potential to exist at a subatomic or quantum level.

Dave, you would have to call anti-matter, "made up nonsense," since its existence cannot be verified by any of our human senses. All of our instruments are designed to measure matter, not anti-matter. Electrons, not anti-electrons. Sure, trhey can be mathematically proven, just as it can be mathematically proven how impossible it is for the Earth to even exist. By every mathematical proof calculated and every chemical simulation run, their odds of producing a planet with just the right amount of gravity, the right amount of sunlight, the right mixture of hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, or even the virtual and practical impossibility of not having the exact amount of matter as there was anti-matter immediately after the Big Bang (call it BB+1) when Time itself was born - having been separated at birth from Space - only to be recombined into a Space-Time Continuum.

The Big Bang is a lot of nonsense just as a dog is a fish if your reality makes allowances for it.

If God existed before Man, (AND before the Earth, and Moon, and Sun, and Planets, and Stars, and the whole freaking Universe), then how could God be man-made nonsense?

Religions absolutely can (and many are) man-made nonsense for the very reason they operate independently, and often in spite of, God - even if the purpose of having a religion was originally intended to standardize how natural human beings are supposed to interact with a supernatural being.

Science, in case you did not know, arose from theology and there should not be any hostility between the two since both domains are in pursuit of the same thing - the ultimate Truth of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

No, it's not 42.

Exogenesis in religion gave rise to the Scientific Method. It didn't pop out of Sir Francis Bacon's brain like Aphrodite, or pop into Archimedes brain while he was taking a bath one Saturday night.

The reason we exist is the reason why the physical world exists and why "Sh*t happens" and why "Bad things happen to good people."

That reason is the seemingly nonsensical notion that, at t=BB+1, there was this eentsy -teentsy bit of matter left over after every other bit of matter had been completely annihilated by every bit of anti-matter during t=BB.

Then, in the seemingly nonsensical picoseconds that followed, when the electromagnetic and weak forces were decoupling from a single force into 2 separate forces ,that extra matter was enough to cause a chain reaction of subatomic particles to emerge from the energy and produce more matter protons than anti-matter protons.

Physicists have been trying to explain this nonsense as to why we exist despite the fact that Science clearly states that we shouldn't be here. In any other circumstance, scientists would say that the hypothesis is wrong, to begin with, but the problem is that the standard model offers a perfect explanation of the world around us, except for this one, little, tiny "detail."

Did you know that ten years and $10 million were spent in the search for the world's most elusive subatomic particle, the Higgs boson? Do you know what its nickname is? The "God" particle. Do you know how much money and time were spent in the search for God - something far less elusive than a subatomic boson?

Zilch! Zip! Bubkus!

Imagine if they spent as much time and money in the search for God as they did for the God particle? Imagine if pigs could fly? Science would never spend any serious in the search for God out of the fear that they might actually find proof of His existence. So, while physicists had nothing to show us but equations with a hole where the Higgs boson is supposed to fit. We, as nonscientists, were supposed to accept, on faith alone, that Higgs exists.

A belief in God also rests on faith. Both Science and Religion operate on belief in things not yet seen. They can call it a hypothesis, but it is no different than faith. Moreover, I can prove that God exists for a lot less than $10 million and in a lot less time than 10 years.

Proof in science rests on validity, reliability, predictability, and generalization. If I can predict a future event and tie the foreknowledge to a sign from God, how many times would I need to replicate this test to demonstrate its validity? There are other people in the world who can prognosticate future events in the absence of any presence evidence or scientific explanation. The skeptic would have to design a test that could be used to rule out God as an alternative explanation.

For example, by developing a method that could duplicate the phenomenon, an alterative explanation to God would be demonstrated. Well, it just so happens that we have several books hundreds and thousands of years old that foretell of future events. If you interpret them in the context in which they were meant to be interpreted and compare them to other events which seem to provide additional support for their occurrence, it would be pretty hard to argue against them – especially when we are talking about centuries or a millennia in between the prophesy and the event.

Science has enough documented cases of paranormal ability to acknowledge its existence – even if it remains unclassified is nothing to worry about since there are plenty of naturally-occurring events that are sitting in open case files waiting for a valid scientific explanation.

And, none of them are labeled as "nonsense." However,

The interpretations that nonscientific, superstitious people overlay onto these events may, indeed, be called "nonsense," but in doing so, one should not condemn a major class of human behavior on the actions of an atypical group of humans.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".