what if it turns out that there really is a bigfoot??? who's the idiot now?
I wouldn't accept being labeled an idiot for a disbelief in something without sufficient evidence, but rather ignorant for disbelief without sufficient knowledge. It might however, take an idiot, to believe in something without sufficient knowledge.
Obviously the difference being that an idiot is someone with below average intelligence and an ignoramus is someone who is lacking sufficient knowledge.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
that means nothing when we're talking about God here.
I thought it was a question about Jesus.
Or you mean "God created the laws of the universe, but God also circumvents those laws when needed."
Wouldn't God have designed the universe such that he wouldn't have to perform miracles?
Quantify God.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I wouldn't accept being labeled an idiot for a disbelief in something without sufficient evidence, but rather ignorant for disbelief without sufficient knowledge. It might however, take an idiot, to believe in something without sufficient knowledge.
Obviously the difference being that an idiot is someone with below average intelligence and an ignoramus is someone who is lacking sufficient knowledge.
then maybe we'd either be ignoramus.... or just people of faith. but not idiots.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
then maybe we'd either be ignoramus.... or just people of faith. but not idiots.
Clearly "people of faith" and "ignoramuses" are synonymous, since both mean a lack of knowledge.
The word idiot is used very loosely in social contexts, which is why the clinical community was forced to use retarded but now that has been hijacked by myopic ignoramuses as well. I think the PC term is now Neuronally Diverse. But I'm sure in ten years time, that will be considered a socially degrading insult as well.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Or you mean "God created the laws of the universe, but God also circumvents those laws when needed."
Wouldn't God have designed the universe such that he wouldn't have to perform miracles?
Quantify God.
i can't quantify god... it's impossible.
but why does this matter?
Wouldn't God have designed the universe such that he wouldn't have to perform miracles?
from my understanding... he basically could do whatever he wants. i guess i could only quantify god that much.
but if you'd really want to get into the details of it.... this argument reminds me of the one i had with soulsinging that probably went on for about 2 months or so.
suppose that the laws of the universe are, "we live and die".... well, originally, if you'd read the bible, it wasn't God's intention for us to "die". but because sin had entered, it corrupted our immortal states and therefore we became mortals.
sure, God was all-powerful to change that, but the problem was he couldn't interfere with our will (which that would be something you'd have a hard time realizing since you're not a believer in "free-will" i guess i could only help you that much) but bare with me, i beg you.
see, once adam and eve had chosen to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil... they gave the serpent their own rights. spiritually speaking, of course. in hebrews chapter 2 you read jesus goes to hell to take back from satan the power of hell and death. and it was through that power that we, as humans, were held captive.
i tell you this, to tell you the former. the way we see the universe right now it is under this "corrupted" form. see natural disasters, humans killing humans... all deeds of corrupted natures. right now this world is under our very own jurisdiction. and since we've "fallen short from the glory of God" the world is also under a corrupted nature.
therefore, could God have designed the universe in such a way that he didn't have to perform miracles? yes, he did, originally. or wait... switch that around, see cause what you call the laws of the universe were at one point not even laws. there were no laws before.... but now that we see things the way they are we see "laws" of nature, or laws of the universe (which you like to mention).
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Clearly "people of faith" and "ignoramuses" are synonymous, since both mean a lack of knowledge.
The word idiot is used very loosely in social contexts, which is why the clinical community was forced to use retarded but now that has been hijacked by myopic ignoramuses as well. I think the PC term is now Neuronally Diverse. But I'm sure in ten years time, that will be considered a socially degrading insult as well.
so now i guess we are all ignoramuses.... both "believers" and "unbelievers" since clearly we both lack knowledge in the "great unknown".
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
So then does anyone dispute the case that Christ's 'divinity' is largely based on his lineage as a direct descendant of King David? That being through Joseph, the father. Not Mary, the 'virgin' mother.
I question the validity of such a claim. Was he born divine, through the action of no man alone? Or was he a man, born of a man and woman, not unlike any of us, but born during a time of speculation and prophecy, when the stars in the heavens gave a sign that a child would be born (astrotheology).
And because of his upbringing, his teachings, his travels as a youth, his followers including Joseph of Arimathea, who gave him his own tomb for burial, a rich man who was in Pilate's court. Jesus' secret follower. The man who begged Pilate for the body to be entombed instead of placed in a mass grave. The man who when the crucifixion was taking too long and the soldiers asked to break the legs of those crucified, stood up and proclaimed he already being dead, so his legs were spared. This being the same Joseph who brought the teachings of Jesus to Glastonbury after his death. (To the same church of the supposed King Arthur and Gwinevere? - sidenote) There is so much myth enshrouded in the current belief system. I would like to believe that he chose his crucifixion so that he might live through the teachings of his word. I could be wrong and am the first to admit it.
He was named "the chosen one" by his people. And through his death only, was his word carried far and wide, bringing Christianity to its current form. Doubtful that in Christianity's current form, it's meaning is the same.
I want to point out that people who seem to have no power, whether working people, people of color, or women -- once they organize and protest and create movements -- have a voice no government can suppress. Howard Zinn
from my understanding... he basically could do whatever he wants. i guess i could only quantify god that much.
but if you'd really want to get into the details of it.... this argument reminds me of the one i had with soulsinging that probably went on for about 2 months or so.
suppose that the laws of the universe are, "we live and die".... well, originally, if you'd read the bible, it wasn't God's intention for us to "die". but because sin had entered, it corrupted our immortal states and therefore we became mortals.
As much as I hate scripture, I present you with a scriptoral refutation of that claim.
Genesis 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
So, it was the other way around. God didn't want us living forever.
sure, God was all-powerful to change that, but the problem was he couldn't interfere with our will (which that would be something you'd have a hard time realizing since you're not a believer in "free-will" i guess i could only help you that much) but bare with me, i beg you.
see, once adam and eve had chosen to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil... they gave the serpent their own rights. spiritually speaking, of course. in hebrews chapter 2 you read jesus goes to hell to take back from satan the power of hell and death. and it was through that power that we, as humans, were held captive.
i tell you this, to tell you the former. the way we see the universe right now it is under this "corrupted" form. see natural disasters, humans killing humans... all deeds of corrupted natures. right now this world is under our very own jurisdiction. and since we've "fallen short from the glory of God" the world is also under a corrupted nature.
therefore, could God have designed the universe in such a way that he didn't have to perform miracles? yes, he did, originally. or wait... switch that around, see cause what you call the laws of the universe were at one point not even laws. there were no laws before.... but now that we see things the way they are we see "laws" of nature, or laws of the universe (which you like to mention).
Another point, there has been a massive decline in violence since Biblical times. Steven Pinker gave a talk at TED on the history of violence
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
As much as I hate scripture, I present you with a scriptoral refutation of that claim.
Genesis 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
So, it was the other way around. God didn't want us living forever.
all he is saying is that, "now that man has messed up, he is now like us. as in knowing what is good and what is bad.... now let's get him out of the garden cause if not he'll eat of the tree of life and live forever." which would mean we'd be under this a corrupted state eternally and there would be no plan for salvation.... no plan for redemption. just living eternally in a corrupted state.
Another point, there has been a massive decline in violence since Biblical times. Steven Pinker gave a talk at TED on the history of violence
So then does anyone dispute the case that Christ's 'divinity' is largely based on his lineage as a direct descendant of King David? That being through Joseph, the father. Not Mary, the 'virgin' mother.
I question the validity of such a claim. Was he born divine, through the action of no man alone? Or was he a man, born of a man and woman, not unlike any of us, but born during a time of speculation and prophecy, when the stars in the heavens gave a sign that a child would be born (astrotheology).
And because of his upbringing, his teachings, his travels as a youth, his followers including Joseph of Arimathea, who gave him his own tomb for burial, a rich man who was in Pilate's court. Jesus' secret follower. The man who begged Pilate for the body to be entombed instead of placed in a mass grave. The man who when the crucifixion was taking too long and the soldiers asked to break the legs of those crucified, stood up and proclaimed he already being dead, so his legs were spared. This being the same Joseph who brought the teachings of Jesus to Glastonbury after his death. (To the same church of the supposed King Arthur and Gwinevere? - sidenote) There is so much myth enshrouded in the current belief system. I would like to believe that he chose his crucifixion so that he might live through the teachings of his word. I could be wrong and am the first to admit it.
He was named "the chosen one" by his people. And through his death only, was his word carried far and wide, bringing Christianity to its current form. Doubtful that in Christianity's current form, it's meaning is the same.
According to some other literature of the time... Jesus was the son of Pandera/Pantera/Pantheras.
In 178 CE, the pagan writer Celsus, in a polemic against Christianity, claimed that he had heard from a Jew that Mary had been divorced by her husband after having an affair with a Roman soldier named Pantheras who was the real father of Jesus. The similarity between Pantheras and Pandera as well as the detail of the lover being a Roman soldier, suggests that Celsus' claim has its origins in material later incorporated in the Talmud. But whereas the Talmud presents separate anecdotes, in Celsus' version they are conflated. The Toledot Yeshu narratives similarly conflate the various anecdotes, and this may be the source for the later common Jewish description of Jesus as Yeshu ben Pandera.
The claim that Jesus was born of the 'virgin' Mary is entirely unique to the Christian Bible.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So then does anyone dispute the case that Christ's 'divinity' is largely based on his lineage as a direct descendant of King David? That being through Joseph, the father. Not Mary, the 'virgin' mother.
his birth was divine, sure.
I question the validity of such a claim.
you're not the first one.
Was he born divine, through the action of no man alone?
yes
Or was he a man, born of a man and woman, not unlike any of us, but born during a time of speculation and prophecy, when the stars in the heavens gave a sign that a child would be born (astrotheology).
no.
And because of his upbringing, his teachings, his travels as a youth, his followers including Joseph of Arimathea, who gave him his own tomb for burial, a rich man who was in Pilate's court. Jesus' secret follower. The man who begged Pilate for the body to be entombed instead of placed in a mass grave. The man who when the crucifixion was taking too long and the soldiers asked to break the legs of those crucified, stood up and proclaimed he already being dead, so his legs were spared. This being the same Joseph who brought the teachings of Jesus to Glastonbury after his death. (To the same church of the supposed King Arthur and Gwinevere? - sidenote) There is so much myth enshrouded in the current belief system. I would like to believe that he chose his crucifixion so that he might live through the teachings of his word. I could be wrong and am the first to admit it.
well, there's no way in proving anything at this point. it just boils down to whether if you have faith or not.
He was named "the chosen one" by his people. And through his death only, was his word carried far and wide, bringing Christianity to its current form. Doubtful that in Christianity's current form, it's meaning is the same.
he was named the chosen one when they heard the voice coming from heaven when he was baptised, when it said, "this is my beloved son in whom i am well-pleased."
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
all he is saying is that, "now that man has messed up, he is now like us. as in knowing what is good and what is bad.... now let's get him out of the garden cause if not he'll eat of the tree of life and live forever." which would mean we'd be under this a corrupted state eternally and there would be no plan for salvation.... no plan for redemption. just living eternally in a corrupted state.
It says that man will live forever because he has "become as one of us" implying many things, there are more than one God and the apple made men into Gods that are immortal.
this gots nothing to do with anything....
It has to do with your claim
i tell you this, to tell you the former. the way we see the universe right now it is under this "corrupted" form. see natural disasters, humans killing humans... all deeds of corrupted natures. right now this world is under our very own jurisdiction. and since we've "fallen short from the glory of God" the world is also under a corrupted nature.
So, you mean to say that uncorrupted form is murdering disobedient children by stoning and brutally slaughtering and torturing nonconformists?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Was he the son of God, or a man? The Bible contradicts itself claiming both things. An apple is never an orange and an orange is never an apple. So which is right?
Christ's claim to divinity is usually attributed to being born of the stock of David. Joseph being descended from David. Not Mary.
or
Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, having never known any man. Which defies the laws of the universe.
My belief, he was a man who was schooled by a lost arcaine order in metaphysics and had learned how to master the body's energies. Using those energies for the purpose of good, he was before his time, and the people living during those times were still not ready for his word. His message that we all, being lesser parts of a greater divine being, had the capacity to talk to "God" individually and tap into that source personally, not through the church. By deciding to be crucified, for it was the people who named him king if the Jews, not him, he did not do anything other than fulfill a prophecy, which in essence borught his teachings to light. Hence Christianity. Otherwise he would not have been any different than other crucified of the day.
Saved through Christ, but really through the teachings of Christ you find salvation. No one should expect to be forgiven just because they believe in Jesus. If saving is what we are all looking for, we should be looking towards bettering our own lives, righting our own wrongs, making amends when we are able to and looking at every moment as a moral test. We are the makers and deciders of our own fate. Jesus cannot save you anymore than he could save himself. But in dying on the cross, he lived in his word...
We turned him into the solar diety of the age. No different than the Greek's Dyonisis, or Egypt's Osiris and many others. Great leaders of the past, many having 12 followers, performing miracles, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the sick, resurrection on the 3rd day.
There is only one small place in the entire Bible that mentions the trinity. And the word trinity is never used.
1 John 5:7-8
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
When you compare older translations of the Bible, there is no mention of "son"
There is the original Greek text, then the Latin trascrription after many years to satisfy the needs of the Catholic church, where in translation, punctuation and words were changed.
I do believe in the concept of the trinity, though admittedly my viewpoint is not the mainstream veiw. I have been researching many books on metaphysics and have found many references to the trinity. None having to do with a "son" who by praying for forgiveness in his name, will save me.
Peace
My apologies if this was posted before. I'm curious how deeply religious people who follow the Bible can rectify this one in their heads? And am interested in amy answers.
Ultimately,I believe in Jesus Christ because of His words.I've never read anything as profound as what He says in the New Testament and I find it hard to believe that they could be the teachings of a regular man.I'm not offended by anyone not believing and debate is a healthy thing,but the way I see it,it boils down to one of three options as CS Lewis said :
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem,I have to accept the view that He was and is God''
It may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
It says that man will live forever because he has "become as one of us" implying many things, there are more than one God and the apple made men into Gods that are immortal.
where do you get that? just interpret it as it's written.
"man has become as one of us." How God? "knowing right from wrong."
It doesn't say, "man has become as one of us, becoming immortals."
hate to be the mr. obvious here, but it's common sense. just interpret it as it's written.
It has to do with your claim
what was my claim?
So, you mean to say that uncorrupted form is murdering disobedient children by stoning and brutally slaughtering and torturing nonconformists?
i mean to say that everybody, christian or not, are all under this "corruption". including you. luckily, for us, christ is there to get us out of it.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
where do you get that? just interpret it as it's written.
"man has become as one of us." How God? "knowing right from wrong."
It doesn't say, "man has become as one of us, becoming immortals."
hate to be the mr. obvious here, but it's common sense. just interpret it as it's written.
From the New International Version
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
what was my claim?
That we are more corrupted than when we were in "the favor of God" during which time there was a hell of a lot more violence.
i mean to say that everybody, christian or not, are all under this "corruption". including you. luckily, for us, christ is there to get us out of it.
Luckily for us guys like Martin Luther were there to get us out of it. You think Christ alone is responsible from the dramatic decline in violence? Christ has nothing to do with it, and I would suggest that Christ has added to the violence, rather than subtracting from it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
he must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. because otherwise we'd of been living eternally without salvation and without God.
That we are more corrupted than when we were in "the favor of God" during which time there was a hell of a lot more violence.
when did i say that?
Luckily for us guys like Martin Luther were there to get us out of it. You think Christ alone is responsible from the dramatic decline in violence? Christ has nothing to do with it, and I would suggest that Christ has added to the violence, rather than subtracting from it.
you're missing the point entirely. but it's expected since you don't understand what the spiritual meaning of it is.
maybe you're confusing christ with religions. come to think of it, that's why i hate religions more than you think cause they always mess up the perspective and mislead folks like you. assuming that christ is responsible for all of this.
christ came for a spiritual reason. his spiritual reason was to save the souls from sin and bring them back to God where they came from. whether there is a decline in violence than what it used to be... it's completely irrelevant.
the truth is, 100 dead souls doesn't make it any less or any more for 1 or 2 dead souls. my point is, if there was violence 1000 years ago there is still violence now. prior to adam and eve eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil death didn't exist.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
he must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. because otherwise we'd of been living eternally without salvation and without God.
when did i say that?
you're missing the point entirely. but it's expected since you don't understand what the spiritual meaning of it is.
maybe you're confusing christ with religions. come to think of it, that's why i hate religions more than you think cause they always mess up the perspective and mislead folks like you. assuming that christ is responsible for all of this.
christ came for a spiritual reason. his spiritual reason was to save the souls from sin and bring them back to God where they came from. whether there is a decline in violence than what it used to be... it's completely irrelevant.
the truth is, 100 dead souls doesn't make it any less or any more for 1 or 2 dead souls. my point is, if there was violence 1000 years ago there is still violence now. prior to adam and eve eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil death didn't exist.
So that was when neanderthal went extinct? Must have been a powerful apple.
If you can prove that such a thing as a soul or spirit exists, I'd be more inclined to care.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So that was when neanderthal went extinct? Must have been a powerful apple.
If you can prove that such a thing as a soul or spirit exists, I'd be more inclined to care.
sorry i can't. or well, i could probably prove soul exists.
see, people always assume a soul is like a magical entity that lives inside of us. but it's not. soul, "psuche", the breathe of life, or whatever you wanna call it.... it's just referring to us, our being. or who we are. like the emotions you have that describe you, decisions you make or desires that you have... soul is a word coined to describe us as such. so yeah in a sense i can prove that we have a soul.
the mere fact that i am thinking and discussing with you is proof that i am a soul. or just cover your mouth and nose and in about 10-15 min or depending the size of your lungs... you'd be grasping for "the breath of life".
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
sorry i can't. or well, i could probably prove soul exists.
see, people always assume a soul is like a magical entity that lives inside of us. but it's not. soul, "psuche", the breathe of life, or whatever you wanna call it.... it's just referring to us, our being. or who we are. like the emotions you have that describe you, decisions you make or desires that you have... soul is a word coined to describe us as such. so yeah in a sense i can prove that we have a soul.
the mere fact that i am thinking and discussing with you is proof that i am a soul. or just cover your mouth and nose and in about 10-15 min or depending the size of your lungs... you'd be grasping for "the breath of life".
I'll be grasping for oxygen. But this manner of "soul" is not eternal, the body decomposes and upon death, respiration terminates.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
or yet... you speculate.... you can't be entirely sure it's what happens.
You can't be entirely sure you are entirely sure of anything you think you are sure of. But I'm sure I know what I know and I know that I don't know what I don't know, do you know?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You can't be entirely sure you are entirely sure of anything you think you are sure of. But I'm sure I know what I know and I know that I don't know what I don't know, do you know?
no... but i believe.
completely different.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Was he the son of God, or a man? The Bible contradicts itself claiming both things. An apple is never an orange and an orange is never an apple. So which is right?
Christ's claim to divinity is usually attributed to being born of the stock of David. Joseph being descended from David. Not Mary.
or
Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, having never known any man. Which defies the laws of the universe.
My apologies if this was posted before. I'm curious how deeply religious people who follow the Bible can rectify this one in their heads? And am interested in amy answers.
Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary, to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel (meaning "God with us")." The whole story of Mary becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit is in Luke chapter 1: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)
Some scholars have concluded that since there are two different genealogies, one in Matthew and one in Luke, the one in Matthew belongs to Joseph, and the one in Luke belongs to Mary. Jews were encouraged to marry within their respective tribes. Both Mary and Joseph were of the tribe of Judah, descendants of David. This fulfills the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah being of the tribe of Judah, of David's line, through Mary.
So Jesus was the son of God, fully human and fully divine, of both worlds.
He claims to be God's son and the Messiah on several occasions in the Gospels. He even mentions the Holy Spirit to his disciples: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--the Holy Spirit of truth." (John 14:17)
If Jesus wasn't the Messiah, if he didn't rise from the dead, can anything he said be taken seriously? He claimed himself to be the Son of God, and made several other outrageous claims about himself (driving the Jewish leaders to try to kill him on more than one occasion).
It's like C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity: "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher...you must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or a liar, or something worse."
Chicago 2000 : Chicago 2003 : Chicago 2006 : Summerfest 2006 : Lollapalooza 2007 : Chicago 2009 : Noblesville (Indy) 2010 : PJ20 (East Troy) 2011 : Wrigley Field 2013 : Milwaukee (Yield) 2014 : Wrigley Field 2016
I It might however, take an idiot, to believe in something without sufficient knowledge.
What does is mean to believe in something without sufficient knowledge? I'm a philosophy major, not a biology major. Am I an idiot FOR believing in, say, evolution, because of of my lack of knowledge about it? That doesn't seem to make sense, if I'm understanding you correctly. Did you mean to say, an idiot is one who believes in something without sufficient evidence? Again, I may be misunderstanding your claim. Could you please clarify? Thanks
What does is mean to believe in something without sufficient knowledge? I'm a philosophy major, not a biology major. Am I an idiot FOR believing in, say, evolution, because of of my lack of knowledge about it? That doesn't seem to make sense, if I'm understanding you correctly. Did you mean to say, an idiot is one who believes in something without sufficient evidence? Again, I may be misunderstanding your claim. Could you please clarify? Thanks
Do you minor in language?
I said "It might take an idiot" that is, an idiot is a person of below average intelligence. It might take an idiot to believe something without sufficient knowledge/evidence. If you choose to believe in evolution without any knowledge of it at all, then I would say that's rather sad, but nowhere have I said that it absolutely requires an idiot to believe such things.
I thought a big part of philosophy was the interpretation of terms and quantifiably defining terms that are used. But you've seemed to misinterpret my statement quite erroneously. No offense, but, the mere fact that you major in philosophy speaks nothing about your philosophy professor. I've come to learn that some would be better off flipping burgers.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Jesus was a myth. Jesuis, Jezeus, etc... were names of other messiahs in pagan traditions.
Could you recommend a good book on the subject? (not being sarcastic, but I really would like a scholarly book which makes this claim, I'm truly interested) All I have read on this subject (at least, from those who contend that Christ was a myth, perhaps borrowed from Mithra, Apollo, Isis, whatever...) comes from internet sources, such as jesusneverexisted.com (and I think Dawkins may have mentioned this in his book). I would like to read a scholarly book on the subject.
Thanks
Could you recommend a good book on the subject? (not being sarcastic, but I really would like a scholarly book which makes this claim, I'm truly interested) All I have read on this subject (at least, from those who contend that Christ was a myth, perhaps borrowed from Mithra, Apollo, Isis, whatever...) comes from internet sources, such as jesusneverexisted.com (and I think Dawkins may have mentioned this in his book). I would like to read a scholarly book on the subject.
Thanks
Well, I personally picked up The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S. She is a historian and stuffs, but I read about 50% and moved on to more important things, like psychology. All of the claims of Christians and their opposers are matters of speculation mostly. I try not to waste too much time on it. It's a decent book none-the-less.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I said "It might take an idiot" that is, an idiot is a person of below average intelligence. It might take an idiot to believe something without sufficient knowledge/evidence. .
I don't think I misunderstood you, but perhaps my writing was sloppy. My apologies. Still, the question I asked is what you meant by believing in something "without sufficient knowledge" and why "It might take an idiot to believe something without sufficient knowledge/evidence. "
Again, my fault for the poor use of words; I understood what you meant by "idiot".
Actually, you said If you choose to believe in evolution without any knowledge of it at all, then I would say that's rather sad, but nowhere have I said that it absolutely requires an idiot to believe such things.
I never said one would have to believe in x (evolution, or whatever) "without any knowledge of all". I'm not sure "lack of knowledge" implies no knowledge at all.
I thought a big part of philosophy was the interpretation of terms and quantifiably defining terms that are used. But you've seemed to misinterpret my statement quite erroneously. No offense, but, the mere fact that you major in philosophy speaks nothing about your philosophy professor. I've come to learn that some would be better off flipping burgers.
No need for put-downs, especially since in my post I suggested I may have misinterpreted you, and I asked for clarification. I'm not writing a term paper here; this is a PJ message board. Please do not suggest that by a hastliy typed post on a message board (I simply read your post, and had a question about it) I will not be successful in my studies, and that I would be better off at Wendy's.
Well, I personally picked up The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S. She is a historian and stuffs, but I read about 50% and moved on to more important things, like psychology. All of the claims of Christians and their opposers are matters of speculation mostly. I try not to waste too much time on it. It's a decent book none-the-less.
Thanks, I'll look into it. But like you said, I have more important things on my list to read; my "to read" list grows longer and longer thanks to my addiction to Amazon.
I said "It might take an idiot" that is, an idiot is a person of below average intelligence. It might take an idiot to believe something without sufficient knowledge/evidence. .
I don't think I misunderstood you, but perhaps my writing was sloppy. My apologies. Still, the question I asked is what you meant by believing in something "without sufficient knowledge" and why "It might take an idiot to believe something without sufficient knowledge/evidence. "
Again, my fault for the poor use of words; I understood what you meant by "idiot".
Actually, you said If you choose to believe in evolution without any knowledge of it at all, then I would say that's rather sad, but nowhere have I said that it absolutely requires an idiot to believe such things.
I never said one would have to believe in x (evolution, or whatever) "without any knowledge of all". I'm not sure "lack of knowledge" implies no knowledge at all.
I thought a big part of philosophy was the interpretation of terms and quantifiably defining terms that are used. But you've seemed to misinterpret my statement quite erroneously. No offense, but, the mere fact that you major in philosophy speaks nothing about your philosophy professor. I've come to learn that some would be better off flipping burgers.
No need for put-downs, especially since in my post I suggested I may have misinterpreted you, and I asked for clarification. I'm not writing a term paper here; this is a PJ message board. Please do not suggest that by a hastliy typed post on a message board (I simply read your post, and had a question about it) I will not be successful in my studies, and that I would be better off at Wendy's.
Comments
I wouldn't accept being labeled an idiot for a disbelief in something without sufficient evidence, but rather ignorant for disbelief without sufficient knowledge. It might however, take an idiot, to believe in something without sufficient knowledge.
Obviously the difference being that an idiot is someone with below average intelligence and an ignoramus is someone who is lacking sufficient knowledge.
I thought it was a question about Jesus.
Or you mean "God created the laws of the universe, but God also circumvents those laws when needed."
Wouldn't God have designed the universe such that he wouldn't have to perform miracles?
Quantify God.
Clearly "people of faith" and "ignoramuses" are synonymous, since both mean a lack of knowledge.
The word idiot is used very loosely in social contexts, which is why the clinical community was forced to use retarded but now that has been hijacked by myopic ignoramuses as well. I think the PC term is now Neuronally Diverse. But I'm sure in ten years time, that will be considered a socially degrading insult as well.
but why does this matter?
from my understanding... he basically could do whatever he wants. i guess i could only quantify god that much.
but if you'd really want to get into the details of it.... this argument reminds me of the one i had with soulsinging that probably went on for about 2 months or so.
suppose that the laws of the universe are, "we live and die".... well, originally, if you'd read the bible, it wasn't God's intention for us to "die". but because sin had entered, it corrupted our immortal states and therefore we became mortals.
sure, God was all-powerful to change that, but the problem was he couldn't interfere with our will (which that would be something you'd have a hard time realizing since you're not a believer in "free-will" i guess i could only help you that much) but bare with me, i beg you.
see, once adam and eve had chosen to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil... they gave the serpent their own rights. spiritually speaking, of course. in hebrews chapter 2 you read jesus goes to hell to take back from satan the power of hell and death. and it was through that power that we, as humans, were held captive.
i tell you this, to tell you the former. the way we see the universe right now it is under this "corrupted" form. see natural disasters, humans killing humans... all deeds of corrupted natures. right now this world is under our very own jurisdiction. and since we've "fallen short from the glory of God" the world is also under a corrupted nature.
therefore, could God have designed the universe in such a way that he didn't have to perform miracles? yes, he did, originally. or wait... switch that around, see cause what you call the laws of the universe were at one point not even laws. there were no laws before.... but now that we see things the way they are we see "laws" of nature, or laws of the universe (which you like to mention).
I question the validity of such a claim. Was he born divine, through the action of no man alone? Or was he a man, born of a man and woman, not unlike any of us, but born during a time of speculation and prophecy, when the stars in the heavens gave a sign that a child would be born (astrotheology).
And because of his upbringing, his teachings, his travels as a youth, his followers including Joseph of Arimathea, who gave him his own tomb for burial, a rich man who was in Pilate's court. Jesus' secret follower. The man who begged Pilate for the body to be entombed instead of placed in a mass grave. The man who when the crucifixion was taking too long and the soldiers asked to break the legs of those crucified, stood up and proclaimed he already being dead, so his legs were spared. This being the same Joseph who brought the teachings of Jesus to Glastonbury after his death. (To the same church of the supposed King Arthur and Gwinevere? - sidenote) There is so much myth enshrouded in the current belief system. I would like to believe that he chose his crucifixion so that he might live through the teachings of his word. I could be wrong and am the first to admit it.
He was named "the chosen one" by his people. And through his death only, was his word carried far and wide, bringing Christianity to its current form. Doubtful that in Christianity's current form, it's meaning is the same.
As much as I hate scripture, I present you with a scriptoral refutation of that claim.
Genesis 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
So, it was the other way around. God didn't want us living forever.
Another point, there has been a massive decline in violence since Biblical times. Steven Pinker gave a talk at TED on the history of violence
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/163
this gots nothing to do with anything....
According to some other literature of the time... Jesus was the son of Pandera/Pantera/Pantheras.
In 178 CE, the pagan writer Celsus, in a polemic against Christianity, claimed that he had heard from a Jew that Mary had been divorced by her husband after having an affair with a Roman soldier named Pantheras who was the real father of Jesus. The similarity between Pantheras and Pandera as well as the detail of the lover being a Roman soldier, suggests that Celsus' claim has its origins in material later incorporated in the Talmud. But whereas the Talmud presents separate anecdotes, in Celsus' version they are conflated. The Toledot Yeshu narratives similarly conflate the various anecdotes, and this may be the source for the later common Jewish description of Jesus as Yeshu ben Pandera.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Pandera
The claim that Jesus was born of the 'virgin' Mary is entirely unique to the Christian Bible.
you're not the first one. yes no.
well, there's no way in proving anything at this point. it just boils down to whether if you have faith or not.
he was named the chosen one when they heard the voice coming from heaven when he was baptised, when it said, "this is my beloved son in whom i am well-pleased."
It says that man will live forever because he has "become as one of us" implying many things, there are more than one God and the apple made men into Gods that are immortal.
It has to do with your claim
So, you mean to say that uncorrupted form is murdering disobedient children by stoning and brutally slaughtering and torturing nonconformists?
Ultimately,I believe in Jesus Christ because of His words.I've never read anything as profound as what He says in the New Testament and I find it hard to believe that they could be the teachings of a regular man.I'm not offended by anyone not believing and debate is a healthy thing,but the way I see it,it boils down to one of three options as CS Lewis said :
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem,I have to accept the view that He was and is God''
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
www.bebo.com/pearljam06
"man has become as one of us." How God? "knowing right from wrong."
It doesn't say, "man has become as one of us, becoming immortals."
hate to be the mr. obvious here, but it's common sense. just interpret it as it's written.
what was my claim?
i mean to say that everybody, christian or not, are all under this "corruption". including you. luckily, for us, christ is there to get us out of it.
From the New International Version
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
That we are more corrupted than when we were in "the favor of God" during which time there was a hell of a lot more violence.
Luckily for us guys like Martin Luther were there to get us out of it. You think Christ alone is responsible from the dramatic decline in violence? Christ has nothing to do with it, and I would suggest that Christ has added to the violence, rather than subtracting from it.
when did i say that?
you're missing the point entirely. but it's expected since you don't understand what the spiritual meaning of it is.
maybe you're confusing christ with religions. come to think of it, that's why i hate religions more than you think cause they always mess up the perspective and mislead folks like you. assuming that christ is responsible for all of this.
christ came for a spiritual reason. his spiritual reason was to save the souls from sin and bring them back to God where they came from. whether there is a decline in violence than what it used to be... it's completely irrelevant.
the truth is, 100 dead souls doesn't make it any less or any more for 1 or 2 dead souls. my point is, if there was violence 1000 years ago there is still violence now. prior to adam and eve eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil death didn't exist.
So that was when neanderthal went extinct? Must have been a powerful apple.
If you can prove that such a thing as a soul or spirit exists, I'd be more inclined to care.
see, people always assume a soul is like a magical entity that lives inside of us. but it's not. soul, "psuche", the breathe of life, or whatever you wanna call it.... it's just referring to us, our being. or who we are. like the emotions you have that describe you, decisions you make or desires that you have... soul is a word coined to describe us as such. so yeah in a sense i can prove that we have a soul.
the mere fact that i am thinking and discussing with you is proof that i am a soul. or just cover your mouth and nose and in about 10-15 min or depending the size of your lungs... you'd be grasping for "the breath of life".
I'll be grasping for oxygen. But this manner of "soul" is not eternal, the body decomposes and upon death, respiration terminates.
You can't be entirely sure you are entirely sure of anything you think you are sure of. But I'm sure I know what I know and I know that I don't know what I don't know, do you know?
completely different.
Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary, to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel (meaning "God with us")." The whole story of Mary becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit is in Luke chapter 1: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)
Some scholars have concluded that since there are two different genealogies, one in Matthew and one in Luke, the one in Matthew belongs to Joseph, and the one in Luke belongs to Mary. Jews were encouraged to marry within their respective tribes. Both Mary and Joseph were of the tribe of Judah, descendants of David. This fulfills the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah being of the tribe of Judah, of David's line, through Mary.
So Jesus was the son of God, fully human and fully divine, of both worlds.
He claims to be God's son and the Messiah on several occasions in the Gospels. He even mentions the Holy Spirit to his disciples: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--the Holy Spirit of truth." (John 14:17)
If Jesus wasn't the Messiah, if he didn't rise from the dead, can anything he said be taken seriously? He claimed himself to be the Son of God, and made several other outrageous claims about himself (driving the Jewish leaders to try to kill him on more than one occasion).
It's like C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity: "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher...you must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or a liar, or something worse."
What does is mean to believe in something without sufficient knowledge? I'm a philosophy major, not a biology major. Am I an idiot FOR believing in, say, evolution, because of of my lack of knowledge about it? That doesn't seem to make sense, if I'm understanding you correctly. Did you mean to say, an idiot is one who believes in something without sufficient evidence? Again, I may be misunderstanding your claim. Could you please clarify? Thanks
Do you minor in language?
I said "It might take an idiot" that is, an idiot is a person of below average intelligence. It might take an idiot to believe something without sufficient knowledge/evidence. If you choose to believe in evolution without any knowledge of it at all, then I would say that's rather sad, but nowhere have I said that it absolutely requires an idiot to believe such things.
I thought a big part of philosophy was the interpretation of terms and quantifiably defining terms that are used. But you've seemed to misinterpret my statement quite erroneously. No offense, but, the mere fact that you major in philosophy speaks nothing about your philosophy professor. I've come to learn that some would be better off flipping burgers.
Could you recommend a good book on the subject? (not being sarcastic, but I really would like a scholarly book which makes this claim, I'm truly interested) All I have read on this subject (at least, from those who contend that Christ was a myth, perhaps borrowed from Mithra, Apollo, Isis, whatever...) comes from internet sources, such as jesusneverexisted.com (and I think Dawkins may have mentioned this in his book). I would like to read a scholarly book on the subject.
Thanks
Well, I personally picked up The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S. She is a historian and stuffs, but I read about 50% and moved on to more important things, like psychology. All of the claims of Christians and their opposers are matters of speculation mostly. I try not to waste too much time on it. It's a decent book none-the-less.
Nope, Religious studies...
I don't think I misunderstood you, but perhaps my writing was sloppy. My apologies. Still, the question I asked is what you meant by believing in something "without sufficient knowledge" and why "It might take an idiot to believe something without sufficient knowledge/evidence. "
Again, my fault for the poor use of words; I understood what you meant by "idiot".
I never said one would have to believe in x (evolution, or whatever) "without any knowledge of all". I'm not sure "lack of knowledge" implies no knowledge at all.
No need for put-downs, especially since in my post I suggested I may have misinterpreted you, and I asked for clarification. I'm not writing a term paper here; this is a PJ message board. Please do not suggest that by a hastliy typed post on a message board (I simply read your post, and had a question about it) I will not be successful in my studies, and that I would be better off at Wendy's.
Thanks, I'll look into it. But like you said, I have more important things on my list to read; my "to read" list grows longer and longer thanks to my addiction to Amazon.
Nope, Religious studies...
I don't think I misunderstood you, but perhaps my writing was sloppy. My apologies. Still, the question I asked is what you meant by believing in something "without sufficient knowledge" and why "It might take an idiot to believe something without sufficient knowledge/evidence. "
Again, my fault for the poor use of words; I understood what you meant by "idiot".
I never said one would have to believe in x (evolution, or whatever) "without any knowledge of all". I'm not sure "lack of knowledge" implies no knowledge at all.
No need for put-downs, especially since in my post I suggested I may have misinterpreted you, and I asked for clarification. I'm not writing a term paper here; this is a PJ message board. Please do not suggest that by a hastliy typed post on a message board (I simply read your post, and had a question about it) I will not be successful in my studies, and that I would be better off at Wendy's.