It's funny how these Christians always appeal to an abstract Platonic-Aristotelian god when the YHWH of the Bible is clearly an old man who came from a mountain and sits on the clouds (Mark 16:19).He is a concrete man who molded a clay figure in a magical garden and breathed life into it as if it were Pinocchio, who shared a meal with Abraham, who got angry because his soldiers were defecating inside the military camp, who was defeated by the enemy god because his soldiers had chariots.He is, literally, an anthropomorphic god of antiquity.It's not a Platonic idea during 90% of the Bible.He only assumes this more abstract Platonic-Aristotelian character from the Gospel of John onwards.
I mean, sure. The bible is not a handbook for how to practice the Christian faith. Christianity evolved out of the bible. The bible is not the end product of that evolution. No historical Christian during the Christian era (Middle Ages) ever thought that the bible alone was enough to understand their faith.
>>18508450John 4:24 explicitly says "God is a spirit".
It's the famous Moat and BaileyMoat is the abstract, faceless, philosophy-based, culturally neutral God you can easily believe in.Bailey is the antropomorphic, historically incarnated Jewish God you're supposed to believe in because that's what the Bible actually talks about
>>18508465Failed reading comprehension award. That was already addressed here.>He only assumes this more abstract Platonic-Aristotelian character from the Gospel of John onwards.Literally nothing before John indicates an abstract philosophical understanding of YHWH.
>>18508450>Christians should be Bible fundamentalists so I can get to win an argument with them for once
>>18508485Not OP but you should be aware that Bible literalists have been a relatively common phenomenon for 5 centuries already
>>18508472>Literally nothing before John>Genesis 1 defines God as a spirit.
>>18508450>the YHWH of the Bible is clearly an old manThat can't be so when Numbers 23:19 says "God is not a man".>and sits on the clouds (Mark 16:19)This says heaven, not the clouds. It actually uses the name term as is used for Platonic Heaven, hyperurania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperuranionEphesians 4:10 says Jesus ascended "hyperanō...ouranōn". Ephesians was likely written before the Gospel of John so you cannot say to this "from the Gospel of John onwards".>who molded a clay figure Is there some problem with God arranging preexisting materials?>in a magical gardenYou've done nothing here but derisively put the word magical in your sentence. It means nothing and carries not weight.>and breathed life into it Well...yeah? If you make something out of nonliving material, you have to make it living.>who shared a meal with AbrahamAnd yet later in 1 Kings 8:27 Solomon says that even heaven cannot contain God. This should tell you God's manifest forms, and God himself, are not identical.>who got angry because his soldiers were defecating inside the military campIt doesn't say they were, it's just banned to do so, which makes sense as a basic sanitary regulation>who was defeated by the enemy god because his soldiers had chariotsIt doesn't say God was defeated. Just Israelite military forces. This is a good lesson: just because you're doing something in God's name does not mean you are unstoppable. Don't underestimate your opponents.
>>18508499Yeah, I don't disagree but OP is essentially saying that all Christians should be Bible literalists for some reason. No serious argument is brought forward against the (Neo)Platonic views of the Christian god.
>>18508580Historically, Christians have often appealed to Platonic philosophy and argued that God is the absolute principle of reality, equating him with the Monad of Platonic philosophy. But the problem with this is that the God of the Old Testament is far too emotional and far too personal to be equated with the Monad of Platonic philosophy. He is shown as dining with Abraham, feeling emotions like anger and jealousy, etc. He only takes this more abstract Platonic interpretation from the Gospel of John and onwards. You cannot reconcile the Old Testament’s depiction of God with Platonic philosophy if you view literally any of it as historical (which it isn’t, but that’s a whole different conversation). The only way to properly reconcile any literal interpretation of the Old Testament with Platonic philosophy would be to view the God of the Old Testament not as the absolute principle of reality, but as a lesser god. But this is Gnosticism and thus can be thrown out the window as a legitimate defense for Christianity since most Christians reject Gnosticism as heresy.If you still want to hold onto the Platonic belief that God is the absolute principle of reality, that’s fine but the only way to reconcile this belief with the Old Testament would be to view the entire thing as an allegory. But Christians only view select parts as allegory, they believe other parts are describing historical events which is problematic since even in these parts, God is shown as being anthropomorphic (especially since Moses literally views his backside at one point).
>>18508593>since most Christians reject Gnosticism as heresy.Actually, all Christians reject gnosticism as heresy. You cannot believe the basic tenants of Christianity found in the Nicene Creed and gnostic beliefs. If you do, you are not Christian because the two contradict.
>>18508593See, that's a good argument now.I'm not familiar with what all Christian denominations take as allegory and what parts they take to be literal, but the sense I get from serious contemporary discourse, is that the understanding of God as 'an old man in the clouds' is not the prevailing belief. Rather, the more abstract, platonic version of the New Testament has been the norm. There are, of course those who believe that everything in the Bible has 100% happened, but to be honest, I've never taken the book at face value, and I don't think it was meant to be taken this way. There is a reason for the numerous shifts in religious thought which have occurred in Christianity during the years, and across denominations, and it is that the word permits interpretation to some extent.Take the above with a pound of salt, as I've been raised an atheist, in an ex-commie state, and have no idea what the godly bible-reciting Americans teach their children.
>>18508615There are people who identify as both Christian and Gnostic, presently and especially historically. They're not numerous, but it's not an incoherent position per se
>>18508629>There are people who identify as both Christian and Gnostic, presently and especially historically.Okay, and there's people who call themselves women even though they've got dicks. There's a difference between a claim and a truth. >it's not an incoherent position per seYes, it is.
>>18508573>and breathed life into it>Well...yeah? If you make something out of nonliving material, you have to make it living.That's just vitalism. Life isn't magic, it's chemistry.
>>18508485>for onceChristians lose every argument regardless of how they argue it. I don't know why you guys cope and pretend this isn't what happens.
>>18508635And that chemistry relies on respiration. You need oxygen to actually run the human machine. Hence the breath of life.
>>18508633Did Jesus Christ ever give any clear sign that Gnostics are bad people who got everything wrong?
>>18508593>Historically, Christians have often appealed to Platonic philosophy and argued that God is the absolute principle of reality, equating him with the Monad of Platonic philosophy. But the problem with this is that the God of the Old Testament is far too emotional and far too personal to be equated with the Monad of Platonic philosophy.That's Neoplatonism. Christian theology is Middle Platonic
>>18508659Many times, yes. In fact one of the most fundamental teachings of His is salvation by forgiveness and faith, not secret knowledge. Canonical texts present salvation as forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and participation in Christ (e.g., John, Paul, the Synoptics’ emphasis on repentance and faith). Gnostics typically emphasize salvation as inner “gnosis” (secret knowledge) freeing a divine spark; that conflicts with the canonical focus on faith, repentance, and atonement.I do realize, however, that Gnostics get off on being rebuked because it reinforces their belief in their "secret knowledge" for mainstream believers to be so dismissive, so I won't argue with you further.
>>18508680>Many times, yes. In fact one of the most fundamental teachings of His is salvation by forgiveness and faith, not secret knowledge. Canonical texts present salvation as forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and participation in Christ (e.g., John, Paul, the Synoptics’ emphasis on repentance and faith). Gnostics typically emphasize salvation as inner “gnosis” (secret knowledge) freeing a divine spark; that conflicts with the canonical focus on faith, repentance, and atonement.Colossians 1:9-10 says"For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the KNOWLEDGE of his will through all the wisdom and UNDERSTANDING that the Spirit gives, so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the KNOWLEDGE of God."
>>18508509HAS a spirit, not IS. the spirit of god, not the spirit that is god, was floating above the waters.
