inconsistencies ???

  1. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    I am glad that I do not have to be judged for every allegation that everyone that thinks they know me makes concerning me. 
        Everyone that knows me does know a little about me.
        But to take the entirety of what each of them might believe about me would be totally wrong.
        To take only the correct concepts that each one of them have and put it all together, they still would not know me in all that I am.
        How logical would it be for someone else that has never met me, does not know me and does not want to; to insist that because every one's beliefs about me are inconsistent therefore I do not exist.
        And how logical would it be for that one person to believe that on this basis alone, My mother, brother, sister and children should agree with their logical analysis that I do not exist. 

       The concept of God is much more complicated than I am. Therefore to argue about the inconsistencies of beliefs held by all believers; attempting to prove God's non-existence on this basis alone would be nonproductive and therefore irrational. 

      Would it then be true to say that because that one person was irrational in that one statement concerning my existence that they are irrational in their entirety?
                   certainly not!

    1. getitrite profile image81
      getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This statement presupposes that God has the same attributes as you.  Are you invisible and imaginary?  Has no one ever seen you?  If you were invisible and your family insisted that you existed, I think that would be another matter altogether.  It would have nothing to do with the inconsistencies.  Your God is invisible.  He is non detectable to all the human senses.  Are you non detectable?  I could deny you exist, but you could prove me wrong by appearing to me[not as an apparition, of course]

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

           I was comparing the process by which the arguements are made. I was not comparing the subjects of argument. And Jesus was visible. And all that knew him and saw him, described those attributes that they saw in him. Those people described as best as they could the teachings that they learned.
            I intended to convey the fact that there would naturally be inconsistencies in their descriptions of Jesus and those things that he taught.
            To deny the validity of the teacher because of the inconsistencies described by the students would not be rational.
             I am not comparing myself to Jesus when I say that in a hundred years if people read  inconsistencies in the descriptions written about me; to denying that I had ever existed based upon those differences would be irrational.