Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How, specifically, does your god differ from a magic man in the sky? If your explanation is apt I promise I will never use that phrase again.

Interesting how the people who object to the term can't, or won't answer this question.

"Magic man in the sky" is (as PP admitted) pejorative and derisive. It is a caricature of what religious people believe, not an accurate description of the religious conception of God. It's not a good faith engagement with the complexity of belief about the nature of God. It's not an argument against God so much as an over-simplification so that the idea can be dismissed out of hand.

To give you a cursory answer to your ridiculous question:

God isn't a "magic man in the sky." God is not gendered and doesn't have a body. Anthropomorphizing God can help us conceptualize a Divine being beyond our language and earthly experience, but that doesn't mean that God literally has arms or that referring to God as "He" denotes a literal maleness. The Bible uses different pronouns for God depending on the context; most often male, but sometimes female when referring to God's mercy or nurturing nature. Not having a body also means that God doesn't have a specific place of residence (God is everywhere, not literally in the sky).

Doesn’t the bible always refer to god as “he”?

Doesn’t the bible say man was made in god’s own image?

Doesn’t the bible constantly refer to him being in “the heavens”?

Doesn’t the bible say god is all powerful?

Sounds exactly like a magic man in the sky.

1. No, the Bible does not always refer to God as "He" as I already noted above. Also, as I already explained, the use of gendered pronouns for God does NOT mean that God has a gender. Gendered pronouns can convey attributes of God (strength, nurturing, etc). It's metaphor.

2. The Bible says mankind/humanity was made in God's image. Both man and woman were made in God's image. It's not about physical similarities (because, as I said before, God has no boost). It's about mankind's capacity for creativity, stewardship, etc.

3. "The heavens" is not literally the sky.

4. "All powerful" doesn't mean "magic."

1) Educate me and tell me where god's gender is not he. And before you tell me to "google it", I did:

Yes, the Bible consistently uses masculine pronouns ("He," "Him") and titles ("Father," "King") to refer to God, though it explicitly states God is a Spirit without human sexual characteristics. While masculine language is dominant (e.g., Theos in Greek), female metaphors—such as a mother comforting a child or a mother hen (Isaiah 66:13, Matthew 23:37)—appear occasionally to describe His love, explains GotQuestions.org.

2. This is your interpretation, and it is fine but absolutely requires acceptance of non-standard meanings for the terms "image" and "likeness". So how would a rationalization to have it mean whatever you wanted differ?

3. This one I am calling you on. They meant heavens, they meant the sky

Psalm 68:4: Explicitly calls God the "One who rides on the clouds"
Deuteronomy 33:26: "There is no one like the God of Jeshurun, who rides the heavens to help you, and in His excellency on the clouds."
Psalm 18:9: "He bowed the heavens also, and came down; dark clouds were under his feet."
Exodus 16:10: "And as Aaron spoke... they looked toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud."
Matthew 24:30: Jesus predicts that people "will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
The Tower of Babel: The people said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens" (Genesis 11:4). This indicates they believed a sufficiently tall building could physically enter God's space.
Jesus’ Ascension: After His resurrection, Jesus "was lifted up before their very eyes, and a cloud took him out of their sight" (Acts 1:9). Two angels then asked the disciples, "Why do you stand looking into heaven?".
A "Vaulted Dome": The Bible describes God as "The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens and has founded His vaulted dome over the earth" (Amos 9:6).
Jesus Praying: When Jesus performed miracles or prayed, He often began by "looking up to heaven" (Mark 6:41; John 17:1).
A "High" God: Multiple verses emphasize God's literal height: "For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love..." (Psalm 103:11).
God Looking Down: "The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand" (Psalm 14:2).

I literally could fill pages with this. Again, if you want to claim it means other than what the words say, well, then that means it can be whatever you want, and therefore pretty meaningless as a guideline.

4. Would you like another bunch of quotes like above or would you just like to stop at "water into wine"?

Man. Sky. Magic.

:eye roll:

This is why people don't answer your question. Your interpretation of pronouns and likeness and heavens as a non-religious person is not valid when asking what they mean to a religious person. You asked what the difference is between God and a magic man in the sky. I answered with the religious understanding of God as: Not one gender; Everywhere, not just in "the sky."

Calling God's power "magic" trivializes belief and allows you to feel superior. You belittling people and calling it a win makes no difference to my faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How, specifically, does your god differ from a magic man in the sky? If your explanation is apt I promise I will never use that phrase again.

Interesting how the people who object to the term can't, or won't answer this question.

"Magic man in the sky" is (as PP admitted) pejorative and derisive. It is a caricature of what religious people believe, not an accurate description of the religious conception of God. It's not a good faith engagement with the complexity of belief about the nature of God. It's not an argument against God so much as an over-simplification so that the idea can be dismissed out of hand.

To give you a cursory answer to your ridiculous question:

God isn't a "magic man in the sky." God is not gendered and doesn't have a body. Anthropomorphizing God can help us conceptualize a Divine being beyond our language and earthly experience, but that doesn't mean that God literally has arms or that referring to God as "He" denotes a literal maleness. The Bible uses different pronouns for God depending on the context; most often male, but sometimes female when referring to God's mercy or nurturing nature. Not having a body also means that God doesn't have a specific place of residence (God is everywhere, not literally in the sky).

Doesn’t the bible always refer to god as “he”?

Doesn’t the bible say man was made in god’s own image?

Doesn’t the bible constantly refer to him being in “the heavens”?

Doesn’t the bible say god is all powerful?

Sounds exactly like a magic man in the sky.

1. No, the Bible does not always refer to God as "He" as I already noted above. Also, as I already explained, the use of gendered pronouns for God does NOT mean that God has a gender. Gendered pronouns can convey attributes of God (strength, nurturing, etc). It's metaphor.

2. The Bible says mankind/humanity was made in God's image. Both man and woman were made in God's image. It's not about physical similarities (because, as I said before, God has no boost). It's about mankind's capacity for creativity, stewardship, etc.

3. "The heavens" is not literally the sky.

4. "All powerful" doesn't mean "magic."

1) Educate me and tell me where god's gender is not he. And before you tell me to "google it", I did:

Yes, the Bible consistently uses masculine pronouns ("He," "Him") and titles ("Father," "King") to refer to God, though it explicitly states God is a Spirit without human sexual characteristics. While masculine language is dominant (e.g., Theos in Greek), female metaphors—such as a mother comforting a child or a mother hen (Isaiah 66:13, Matthew 23:37)—appear occasionally to describe His love, explains GotQuestions.org.

2. This is your interpretation, and it is fine but absolutely requires acceptance of non-standard meanings for the terms "image" and "likeness". So how would a rationalization to have it mean whatever you wanted differ?

3. This one I am calling you on. They meant heavens, they meant the sky

Psalm 68:4: Explicitly calls God the "One who rides on the clouds"
Deuteronomy 33:26: "There is no one like the God of Jeshurun, who rides the heavens to help you, and in His excellency on the clouds."
Psalm 18:9: "He bowed the heavens also, and came down; dark clouds were under his feet."
Exodus 16:10: "And as Aaron spoke... they looked toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud."
Matthew 24:30: Jesus predicts that people "will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
The Tower of Babel: The people said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens" (Genesis 11:4). This indicates they believed a sufficiently tall building could physically enter God's space.
Jesus’ Ascension: After His resurrection, Jesus "was lifted up before their very eyes, and a cloud took him out of their sight" (Acts 1:9). Two angels then asked the disciples, "Why do you stand looking into heaven?".
A "Vaulted Dome": The Bible describes God as "The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens and has founded His vaulted dome over the earth" (Amos 9:6).
Jesus Praying: When Jesus performed miracles or prayed, He often began by "looking up to heaven" (Mark 6:41; John 17:1).
A "High" God: Multiple verses emphasize God's literal height: "For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love..." (Psalm 103:11).
God Looking Down: "The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand" (Psalm 14:2).

I literally could fill pages with this. Again, if you want to claim it means other than what the words say, well, then that means it can be whatever you want, and therefore pretty meaningless as a guideline.

4. Would you like another bunch of quotes like above or would you just like to stop at "water into wine"?

Man. Sky. Magic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How, specifically, does your god differ from a magic man in the sky? If your explanation is apt I promise I will never use that phrase again.

Interesting how the people who object to the term can't, or won't answer this question.

"Magic man in the sky" is (as PP admitted) pejorative and derisive. It is a caricature of what religious people believe, not an accurate description of the religious conception of God. It's not a good faith engagement with the complexity of belief about the nature of God. It's not an argument against God so much as an over-simplification so that the idea can be dismissed out of hand.

To give you a cursory answer to your ridiculous question:

God isn't a "magic man in the sky." God is not gendered and doesn't have a body. Anthropomorphizing God can help us conceptualize a Divine being beyond our language and earthly experience, but that doesn't mean that God literally has arms or that referring to God as "He" denotes a literal maleness. The Bible uses different pronouns for God depending on the context; most often male, but sometimes female when referring to God's mercy or nurturing nature. Not having a body also means that God doesn't have a specific place of residence (God is everywhere, not literally in the sky).

Doesn’t the bible always refer to god as “he”?

Doesn’t the bible say man was made in god’s own image?

Doesn’t the bible constantly refer to him being in “the heavens”?

Doesn’t the bible say god is all powerful?

Sounds exactly like a magic man in the sky.

1. No, the Bible does not always refer to God as "He" as I already noted above. Also, as I already explained, the use of gendered pronouns for God does NOT mean that God has a gender. Gendered pronouns can convey attributes of God (strength, nurturing, etc). It's metaphor.

2. The Bible says mankind/humanity was made in God's image. Both man and woman were made in God's image. It's not about physical similarities (because, as I said before, God has no boost). It's about mankind's capacity for creativity, stewardship, etc.

3. "The heavens" is not literally the sky.

4. "All powerful" doesn't mean "magic."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How, specifically, does your god differ from a magic man in the sky? If your explanation is apt I promise I will never use that phrase again.

Interesting how the people who object to the term can't, or won't answer this question.

"Magic man in the sky" is (as PP admitted) pejorative and derisive. It is a caricature of what religious people believe, not an accurate description of the religious conception of God. It's not a good faith engagement with the complexity of belief about the nature of God. It's not an argument against God so much as an over-simplification so that the idea can be dismissed out of hand.

To give you a cursory answer to your ridiculous question:

God isn't a "magic man in the sky." God is not gendered and doesn't have a body. Anthropomorphizing God can help us conceptualize a Divine being beyond our language and earthly experience, but that doesn't mean that God literally has arms or that referring to God as "He" denotes a literal maleness. The Bible uses different pronouns for God depending on the context; most often male, but sometimes female when referring to God's mercy or nurturing nature. Not having a body also means that God doesn't have a specific place of residence (God is everywhere, not literally in the sky).

Doesn’t the bible always refer to god as “he”?

Doesn’t the bible say man was made in god’s own image?

Doesn’t the bible constantly refer to him being in “the heavens”?

Doesn’t the bible say god is all powerful?

Sounds exactly like a magic man in the sky.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How, specifically, does your god differ from a magic man in the sky? If your explanation is apt I promise I will never use that phrase again.

Interesting how the people who object to the term can't, or won't answer this question.

"Magic man in the sky" is (as PP admitted) pejorative and derisive. It is a caricature of what religious people believe, not an accurate description of the religious conception of God. It's not a good faith engagement with the complexity of belief about the nature of God. It's not an argument against God so much as an over-simplification so that the idea can be dismissed out of hand.

To give you a cursory answer to your ridiculous question:

God isn't a "magic man in the sky." God is not gendered and doesn't have a body. Anthropomorphizing God can help us conceptualize a Divine being beyond our language and earthly experience, but that doesn't mean that God literally has arms or that referring to God as "He" denotes a literal maleness. The Bible uses different pronouns for God depending on the context; most often male, but sometimes female when referring to God's mercy or nurturing nature. Not having a body also means that God doesn't have a specific place of residence (God is everywhere, not literally in the sky).

Anonymous wrote:

How, specifically, does your god differ from a magic man in the sky? If your explanation is apt I promise I will never use that phrase again.

Interesting how the people who object to the term can't, or won't answer this question.

Anonymous wrote:

How, specifically, does your god differ from a magic man in the sky? If your explanation is apt I promise I will never use that phrase again.

Interesting how the people who object to the term can't, or won't answer this question.

How, specifically, does your god differ from a magic man in the sky? If your explanation is apt I promise I will never use that phrase again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there perfect physics down to the stone and then subatomic particles? Why are their physical universes that follow patterns? Why are there tiny cells with amazing functions? Believing all this happened at random takes faith. Believing all this is knitted together by God takes faith. At least the later has the Bible as evidence and the places and events of the Bible are traced.

It does not take any faith whatsoever.

All of the physics things are explained by the big bang. If evidence is found of a better explanation, we'll switch to that one.

All of those biological things are explained by evolution, with the exception of abiogenesis, and there is mountains of evidence explaining how that might have happened.

Asking how it "happened" implies there was a before it happened. There is no evidence of that, and no reason to think there was. It's quite likely time began with the big bang so there was nothing for it to come from.

None of this is simple, but it is all easy to believe once you understand.

You know what is hard to believe? A magic man in the sky who existed forever outside of time but then decided to create time and everything in it on a nearly infinite scale but place his personal fishtank on the third stone from a sun in the corner of one of billions of galaxies. And he stays hidden except for a short while to a bunch of illiterate shepherds 2 millennia before mass media. And he allowed thousands of similar stories of gods to exist but those are all false and just his is true.

That is the definition of preposterous.

Oh, nonsense. We have good Physics explanations from a very very short time after the big bang until now. We have no widely accepted Physics explanation for the big bang itself or its creation.

Let me repeat since you fail to understand. There is no evidence that the big bang was “created”, or hasn’t always existed, or that there was anything before it. There is no evidence there was time before it.

That is the “nonsense”, and it is your nonsense.

Nah. Pretty clear from the words above you don't actually understand Physics. Maybe buy a Physics textbook - I recommend Feynman's Lectures - and work through it all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there perfect physics down to the stone and then subatomic particles? Why are their physical universes that follow patterns? Why are there tiny cells with amazing functions? Believing all this happened at random takes faith. Believing all this is knitted together by God takes faith. At least the later has the Bible as evidence and the places and events of the Bible are traced.

It does not take any faith whatsoever.

All of the physics things are explained by the big bang. If evidence is found of a better explanation, we'll switch to that one.

All of those biological things are explained by evolution, with the exception of abiogenesis, and there is mountains of evidence explaining how that might have happened.

Asking how it "happened" implies there was a before it happened. There is no evidence of that, and no reason to think there was. It's quite likely time began with the big bang so there was nothing for it to come from.

None of this is simple, but it is all easy to believe once you understand.

You know what is hard to believe? A magic man in the sky who existed forever outside of time but then decided to create time and everything in it on a nearly infinite scale but place his personal fishtank on the third stone from a sun in the corner of one of billions of galaxies. And he stays hidden except for a short while to a bunch of illiterate shepherds 2 millennia before mass media. And he allowed thousands of similar stories of gods to exist but those are all false and just his is true.

That is the definition of preposterous.

Oh, nonsense. We have good Physics explanations from a very very short time after the big bang until now. We have no widely accepted Physics explanation for the big bang itself or its creation.

Let me repeat since you fail to understand. There is no evidence that the big bang was “created”, or hasn’t always existed, or that there was anything before it. There is no evidence there was time before it.

That is the “nonsense”, and it is your nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:I like the balanced approach of PP and what the benefits are. In my mind, the benefits do not outweigh the manipulation and violence of religion that we have seen proven out time and again. Usually by people who are using the religion for their own purposes, unfortunately, and are not true followers.

Anonymous wrote:It’s “rationale” and enjoy hell