Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,910 Year: 4,167/9,624 Month: 1,038/974 Week: 365/286 Day: 8/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Must religion be logical?
Brian
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 4 of 164 (338687)
08-09-2006 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by robinrohan
08-09-2006 8:55 AM


Somebody could just make up something if they wanted to and call it their religion.
Like that guy Saul from Tarsus did you mean?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 08-09-2006 8:55 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 08-09-2006 9:14 AM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 6 of 164 (338697)
08-09-2006 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
08-09-2006 9:14 AM


Re: Even snake oil needs to be convincing
would think that in order to have a large following, the religion either needs a convincing orator, lots of smoke and mirrors, or numerous pretty women who have already joined.
Apart from the chicks, Paul fits in really well here!
We only have Paul's word that anything happened on the Damascus road, and Israel was a ripe place to find a gullible audience. Just think, they had that guy withthe beard who said he would die and return very very soon to save them, but when that guy obviously lied, there was an opening for another charasmatic dude, Paul probably couldn't believe his luck.
If religion were too neat and tidy, it would be human derived versus the alternative possibilities----which are the bedrock of faith.
So, what you mean is the more absurd the religion the more chance of success?
However, you raise a good point because what fundies are trying to do, and this includes our resident fundies, is to actually make Christianity 'neat and tidy'. To do this they see the need to provide rational explanations for many biblical events, which is only succeeding in acheiving the opposite of that they think they are doing.
The attempts by many here to achieve what you say only succeeds in making their faith appear even more absurd.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 08-09-2006 9:14 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Legend, posted 08-09-2006 1:11 PM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 7 of 164 (338700)
08-09-2006 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by kalimero
08-08-2006 5:50 PM


The problem with logic..
All religions are logical.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kalimero, posted 08-08-2006 5:50 PM kalimero has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 78 of 164 (374451)
01-04-2007 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by jar
01-04-2007 3:05 PM


Re: more "so what?" assertions.
It is likely that one of us is wrong.
And equally likely that both are wrong!
But, regarding Jesus' divinity, He either is or isn't God, there is no 'partial' ground on that issue.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 01-04-2007 3:05 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 01-04-2007 3:56 PM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 80 of 164 (374456)
01-04-2007 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Kader
01-04-2007 3:32 PM


Re: more "so what?" assertions.
So then can we agree that believing that Jesus is the son of God is illogical ?
I think it is safe to conclude that the Trinity is illogical.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Kader, posted 01-04-2007 3:32 PM Kader has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 88 of 164 (374517)
01-04-2007 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by jar
01-04-2007 3:56 PM


Re: more "so what?" assertions.
Made man. Not pretending to be man, or part man part god, but Man.
But the Nicene Creed claims that Jesus was God, "true God from true God," it doesn't say he gave up his divinity.
So as a Christian I believe that before His birth, and after His Ascension, Jesus is totally divine, however while He lived among us, He was totally Human.
Someone who can bring themselves back to life after three days, and then make himself a God has to be more than totally human!
Did He set a timer or something before He became a man so that after a certain amount of time He reverted back to being a God?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 01-04-2007 3:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 01-04-2007 5:23 PM Brian has replied
 Message 95 by Rob, posted 01-05-2007 9:40 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 92 of 164 (374644)
01-05-2007 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by jar
01-04-2007 5:23 PM


Re: more "so what?" assertions.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man;
But this just says he was made man, it doesn't say he was changed from God into a human. It could be that He was made to look like a man.
Brian says: Someone who can bring themselves back to life after three days, and then make himself a God has to be more than totally human!
Did He set a timer or something before He became a man so that after a certain amount of time He reverted back to being a God?
Jar replies: No, Jesus did not do that, GOD did. GOD raised Him from the dead.
But you said that God (Jesus) had become a man, so since there is only one God, who was the God that turned Jesus back into God again and who was the God that raised Jesus from the dead?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 01-04-2007 5:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Rob, posted 01-05-2007 9:28 AM Brian has replied
 Message 103 by jar, posted 01-05-2007 10:43 AM Brian has replied
 Message 109 by anastasia, posted 01-05-2007 12:09 PM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 94 of 164 (374659)
01-05-2007 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Rob
01-05-2007 9:28 AM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
You have a point?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Rob, posted 01-05-2007 9:28 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Rob, posted 01-05-2007 9:42 AM Brian has replied
 Message 97 by Rob, posted 01-05-2007 9:51 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 99 of 164 (374667)
01-05-2007 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Rob
01-05-2007 9:42 AM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
Oh right I never made the connection so I should apologise.
I always believed that Jesus resurrection was unique because He raised Himself. There are other resurrections in the Bible but the raising was done by others such as Paul.
Cheers.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Rob, posted 01-05-2007 9:42 AM Rob has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 107 of 164 (374690)
01-05-2007 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by jar
01-05-2007 10:43 AM


Re: more "so what?" assertions.
The passage says "made man" not dressed as man, or appearing as man, or look like man. All of those concepts were familiar to the writers at the time and had been used often. In the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah we see agles that appear as men. But they are angels in disguise.
I think there is a vast difference between the writers of the ancient Hebrew world and the world of 4th century Rome!
The creed cannot be compared to the Old testament jar, the creed is just a list of beliefs.
For there to be a sacrifice, GOD must become man, to live as man. Not pretend to be man.
Not at all, in fact I find it rather silly for an omnipotent being to HAVE to become a human in order to understand humans.
Anyway, it wasn’t really a sacrifice at all. Three days in the earth and Jesus Knew that he was going to rise again.
It’s not as if He believed that he was going to die and that would be it, he knew what was coming next, it can hardly be called a sacrifice.
The tale of Jesus only makes sense if He is really just man.
I don’t think it makes sense at all, no matter whose interpretation we take.
But no I did not Brian. I did not say that GOD (Jesus) had become man.
You said So as a Christian I believe that before His birth, and after His Ascension, Jesus is totally divine
How else can I read this?
I’ll give you my understanding of what you have posted and maybe you can show me where I misunderstand.
Before his birth Jesus was God (divine), therefore Jesus is God. The when he was born as a human from Mary’s womb, he was a human and therefore not a God anymore, thus God ceased to exist because He became totally human. Then Jesus ascended and became God again. Hence we have Jesus the God becoming human, dying and then becoming a God again. A human who can turn Himself into God is quite a trick.
If Jesus was divine before His birth then He must be one and the same as Yahweh since the Bible teaches that Yahweh is the only God there is. If God becomes man, then God ceases to exist since there is only one God.
This is the mystery of the Trinity.
Like Gene Scott’s ”smoke and mirrors’?
Are God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit three entities or three aspects of one entity? I don't imagine that will get solved in this thread or any other.
Don’t think so either.
But there is ample support for the idea of GOD still being in existence while Jesus walks the Earth.
Which could suggest that Jesus isn’t God
Jesus prays to GOD, expresses the concept that it is still GOD who is in charge and determining outcomes.
There are different opinions about why Jesus prayed to God.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 01-05-2007 10:43 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 01-05-2007 12:15 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 117 by anastasia, posted 01-05-2007 12:35 PM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 111 of 164 (374697)
01-05-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by anastasia
01-05-2007 12:09 PM


Re: more "so what?" assertions.
So it is that the doctrine of the Trinity, no matter how insensible, is the only sensible thing which works based on our knowledge.
It only works if you really want it too.
At face value it is a mess and really looks like an apologetic for an unwanted explicit polytheism.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by anastasia, posted 01-05-2007 12:09 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 121 of 164 (374709)
01-05-2007 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by anastasia
01-05-2007 12:35 PM


Re the trinity
In 1997 I had toyed with the idea of researching the Trinity for my honours dissertation.
After discussing it with my advisor John Drane, and the dissertation being limited to 20 000 words, I decided against it!
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by anastasia, posted 01-05-2007 12:35 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by anastasia, posted 01-05-2007 1:07 PM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 124 of 164 (374712)
01-05-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ringo
01-05-2007 12:54 PM


Most important, they are willing to be wrong about their beliefs.
It may well be a hangover from my Christian days but anyone who wasn't convinced 100% that Jesus is God, that is convinced in their heart, then they weren't considered to be a Christian at all.
If I really thought I could be wrong about my atheism I would be an agnostic.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ringo, posted 01-05-2007 12:54 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by ringo, posted 01-05-2007 1:04 PM Brian has replied
 Message 128 by anastasia, posted 01-05-2007 1:13 PM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 127 of 164 (374715)
01-05-2007 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by ringo
01-05-2007 1:04 PM


Yeah, that's the rhetoric.
But I think a lot of them are just trying to convince themselves that they're convinced.
More than likely yes.
Why don't you ask Jaywill, he might know?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by ringo, posted 01-05-2007 1:04 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by anastasia, posted 01-05-2007 1:22 PM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 131 of 164 (374724)
01-05-2007 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by anastasia
01-05-2007 1:13 PM


What are they? Muslim? Or Jehova's Witness?
They were just people who wanted to be Christians but weren't fully convinced.
Which equals 'I KNOW GOd does not exist'
Atheism is a belief. I believe 100% that there isn't a God, fully convinced beyond all doubt.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by anastasia, posted 01-05-2007 1:13 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024