The New Testament (NT) is very much different from the Old Testament (OT). The God of the Old Testament was meant as a perfect one, the God of the New Testament was not meant as a perfect one, but as one who has to share his power with his son (in certain societies it is the mother of this son; so this God has not only a son, but also a mother who is also the mother of his son! ) and with the holy spirit. So this development was just the other way round: from perfect to non-perfect; from what you call “the idea of an absolutely perfect God” to a God who is not perfect but ethically good (whatever that means) and shares his power. The “change” you are talking about is an argument not for, but against your statement that there is “theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God”:
That is just not true - for several reasons.
Theism did not “evolve” in the sense you mentioned. Also, the word “evolution” should not be used when it comes to religion, because all religions we know are so much different that it has never been a linear or progressive development, no evolution in the sense of the also problematic evolution theory. So instaed of the word “evolution” we should use the word “history”. But that would be another topic. In any case, the “evolution” you are trying to see there, if we really can take it seriously, has absolutely not gone from animism towards a perfect God. Firstly, animism means that the ghosts or gods the so-called “primitive humans” believe in are already perfect, because they are (based upon) their own ancestors. They are so perfect that they have become totem persons and determined the respective taboos. This is an absolutely differnt kind of religion than, for instance, monotheism, so that we should not bring both together in your sense of an “evolution” from “primitive” to “progressive”. There is still animism in the world, and nobody really knows whether animism will end someday or not. Paganism is coming back. Polytheism is increasing again. Except Islam, monotheism is stagnating and will likely decreasing in the future. Secondly, the God of the Old Testament was meant as a perfect one, the God of the New Testament was not meant as a perfect one, but as one who has to share his power with his son (in certain societies it is the mother of this son; so this God has not only a son, but also a mother who is also the mother of his son! ) and with the holy spirit. So this development was just the other way round: from perfect to non-perfect; from what you call “the idea of an absolutely perfect God” to God who is not perfect but ethically good (whatever that means) and shares his power. The “change” you are talking about is an argument not for, but against your statement that there is “theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God”.
So this is just another logical fallacy coming from you.
Also: Are human beings “evolving” towards perfection according to you?
Wow, “ultimate absolutely perfect”! All three words are not gradable, improvable! So, you just use them rhetorically.
Mathematics is not physics, not a natural science - that is what I am saying. And in English spoken societies: mathematics is not a science at all.
This can also be said about anti-theists (the other side of the “coin”) and about certain atheists, namely those who are ideologs.
This can also be said about anti-theists (the other side of the “coin”) and about certain atheists, namely those who are ideologs.
Again:
Prismatic 567 wrote:
Note that I said “you seem …”. I just used a bit statistics and made an assumption according to that - not more. Assumption can be, but do not have to be right. My assumption is based upon statistics, thus upon likelihood. But you should admit finally that this numbers are no lies and “say” something about your posting behavior and also, at least likely, about your real preferences.
I have no problem being identified as anti-theistic but I prefer non-theism, non-theistic or not-a-theist.
But you are not an atheist, but an anti-theist. Most of your postings have shown that clearly. An atheist (I mean a real one) says: “I do not care about theism”. But you are one of those who say: “Theism is my favorite subject”. And the user statistics about you confirms this clearly.
So again: Cou seem to be very religious (see your most active forum: Religion and Spirituality [56.30%]).
To convince such evil prone theists …
Do you really not know the fact that there are evil prone anti-theists and atheists too?
God is illusory and an impossibility will destroy and ‘defang’ the very grounds they are relying on as duty to commit those horrendous evils.
Your logical fallacy again.
Note that there is no proof of the impossibility of God.