2 ms·

If God is the source of all that exists, then wouldn't He be the source of "daily bread"? This doesn't imply that the bread magically appears (though admittedly

If God is the source of all that exists, then wouldn't He be the source of "daily bread"? This doesn't imply that the bread magically appears (though admittedly the OT has manna in the desert), nor does it mean that sustenance doesn't derive from human labor. All it implies is that God is all-powerful, the creator of everything, and this is a request that He look after our material as well as spiritual well-being. Also, I won't concede that things in the Bible are not often rhetorical or metaphorical when they in fact are. The Gospels themselves are full of the disciples having no friggin clue what Jesus is talking about, and asking him to "speak plainly." I think for maybe a child who can only interpret things literally, the concept of God as wish-granter might make sense. Also, your own citation conditions the grant on "good" gifts. What are good gifts in God's eyes? Ultimately, this is a matter of faith whether you believe this or not. But I only ask that you reconsider your juvenile straw-man of what we believe.

cogman10 6y ago
> though admittedly the OT has manna in the desert Didn't Jesus split the loaves and the fish to feed thousands? Didn't Jesus turn water into wine? Or were those also metaphors? Why was manna in the desert literal while Jesus miracles metaphors? The only reason you are saying "Oh, those were just metaphors" is because believing them literally is crazy. You have to insert meaning into Jesus's words because otherwise what he's told you is obviously false (and Jesus can't say something false, right?). And yet the bible is filled with miracles both in the old and new testament. Miracles that directly contradict the notion that "Oh, they were speaking metaphorically when they said god would do miracles!" Ultimately, this is a matter of reality whether you accept it or not. I only ask that you reconsider your juvenile beliefs.
- baryphonic 6y ago
  You're misunderstanding me. I believe God did, can and still does perform miraculous signs. That was never at issue. I said that the simplistic Jinn-granting-wishes interpretation of God is silly and is not what I believe. There is no actual contradiction.
  - cogman10 6y ago
    Do you believe god performs miracles based on prayer? If you do, that's a "Jinn-granting-wishes interpretation of God". If you don't, why don't you? Given the scripture references I gave you (and there are plenty of others), NT and OT are all about performing magic based on spell casters saying the right magic words the right way. Of course, in modern times there are plenty of examples of failed Jutsus. (Not enough faith! Not in God's plan!) And I'd contend that all the examples of successful spell incantations are no more convincing than a wiccan's spells. The success rate of Buddhism has curing cancer will exactly mirror the success rate of Christianity or the Roman parathion interfering with humanity.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > You have to insert meaning into Jesus's words because otherwise what he's told you is obviously false Jesus didn't describe the miracle of the loaves and fishes, he was described as having performed it. Even if one accepts the traditional authorship of the Gospels (which even modern Christian scholarship doesn't consistently), Christ isn't the traditional author, just the subject (a small percentage of each of the Gospels is words attributed by the author of the gospel to Christ, but that's not the description of any miracles, though it's often the takeaway message associated with a described miracle.) > And yet the bible is filled with miracles both in the old and new testament. Miracles that directly contradict the notion that "Oh, they were speaking metaphorically when they said god would do miracles!" This is really only a contradiction if you assume that nothing in Bible can itself be metaphorical.
  - cogman10 6y ago
    Biblical authorship is a huge issue all unto itself. Particularly if you are someone that believes the new testament is the word of god. The only sources we have were written 90+ years after the events they describes. It's very likely that Jesus said and did nothing written in the bible. Hell, it's even possible he did not exist as a person (Though, I tend to believe he did, I don't think Christianity would have formed without Jesus existing). > This is really only a contradiction if you assume that nothing in Bible can itself be metaphorical. Christianity has this interesting trick where their sacred texts are metaphorical whenever they say something they don't like or impossible. What good is the bible if it's all metaphors yet nobody agrees on which parts are metaphors?

cogman10 6y ago

> though admittedly the OT has manna in the desert Didn't Jesus split the loaves and the fish to feed thousands? Didn't Jesus turn water into wine? Or were those also metaphors? Why was manna in the desert literal while Jesus miracles metaphors? The only reason you are saying "Oh, those were just metaphors" is because believing them literally is crazy. You have to insert meaning into Jesus's words because otherwise what he's told you is obviously false (and Jesus can't say something false, right?). And yet the bible is filled with miracles both in the old and new testament. Miracles that directly contradict the notion that "Oh, they were speaking metaphorically when they said god would do miracles!" Ultimately, this is a matter of reality whether you accept it or not. I only ask that you reconsider your juvenile beliefs.

baryphonic 6y ago
You're misunderstanding me. I believe God did, can and still does perform miraculous signs. That was never at issue. I said that the simplistic Jinn-granting-wishes interpretation of God is silly and is not what I believe. There is no actual contradiction.
- cogman10 6y ago
  Do you believe god performs miracles based on prayer? If you do, that's a "Jinn-granting-wishes interpretation of God". If you don't, why don't you? Given the scripture references I gave you (and there are plenty of others), NT and OT are all about performing magic based on spell casters saying the right magic words the right way. Of course, in modern times there are plenty of examples of failed Jutsus. (Not enough faith! Not in God's plan!) And I'd contend that all the examples of successful spell incantations are no more convincing than a wiccan's spells. The success rate of Buddhism has curing cancer will exactly mirror the success rate of Christianity or the Roman parathion interfering with humanity.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> You have to insert meaning into Jesus's words because otherwise what he's told you is obviously false Jesus didn't describe the miracle of the loaves and fishes, he was described as having performed it. Even if one accepts the traditional authorship of the Gospels (which even modern Christian scholarship doesn't consistently), Christ isn't the traditional author, just the subject (a small percentage of each of the Gospels is words attributed by the author of the gospel to Christ, but that's not the description of any miracles, though it's often the takeaway message associated with a described miracle.) > And yet the bible is filled with miracles both in the old and new testament. Miracles that directly contradict the notion that "Oh, they were speaking metaphorically when they said god would do miracles!" This is really only a contradiction if you assume that nothing in Bible can itself be metaphorical.
- cogman10 6y ago
  Biblical authorship is a huge issue all unto itself. Particularly if you are someone that believes the new testament is the word of god. The only sources we have were written 90+ years after the events they describes. It's very likely that Jesus said and did nothing written in the bible. Hell, it's even possible he did not exist as a person (Though, I tend to believe he did, I don't think Christianity would have formed without Jesus existing). > This is really only a contradiction if you assume that nothing in Bible can itself be metaphorical. Christianity has this interesting trick where their sacred texts are metaphorical whenever they say something they don't like or impossible. What good is the bible if it's all metaphors yet nobody agrees on which parts are metaphors?