Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Must religion be logical?
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 91 of 164 (374597)
01-04-2007 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kalimero
08-08-2006 5:50 PM


Does religion have to comply with formal logic?
Would you like my answer to your question to be logical?
Of course religion must comply. Ultimately, logic is the only tool we have to tell us that anything is reasonable. 'Reason' is itself dependant upon such. Otherwise, what's the difference between an unreasonable worldview, and a reasonable one?
What is the difference between religion and any other ideology in terms of its demands on the person holding it?
None! And this is one of the things lacking in modern philosophy. The word-smiths have done a marvelous job of confusing the issues. Humanism, for example, is thought to be irreligious. But that ends up being illogical if morality is meaningful. I'll explain...
The point is, that at the heart of evey worldview (philosophy) is a foundation. And that foundation is the assumption of purpose. It is a theological position be it monotheistic, polytheistic, or atheistic etc...
It boils down to this... Does being have a purpose, or not? Or, is being ordered or not?
Order or chaos?
The reason I said being and not simply the universe is very critical. Because many see the world through a lens of only the material or physical with serious illogical implications.
If being does not have purpose, then we have no direction with which to assume in terms of morality or even survival. In fact, if our physical sciences are as correct as people think, then we are doomed. The universe will wear out and then nothing will be relevant in terms of our ever being here.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion if we want our assumptions of pleasure and enjoyment, peace and security to have any meaning whatsoever, is to conclude that the universe does have a purpose, and that that purpose is ordered and good beyond what the physical sciences project.
There are three main areas that have to logically cohere:
1. Logical consistency
2. Emperical adequacy
3. Experiential relevance
To give an example of what I mean, Nazism was very logical assuming social Darwinism and evolutionary theory. It also had emperical adequacy to back it up. but it failed to meet the test of experiencial relevance.
That test includes our assumptions of virtue and morality and are not just mere fairy tales. We simply must have them. To not have hope of them in some sense (even a transcendant one ergo Go) is to lose any purpose for living. To kill those needs would be to kill part of what makes us human.
"Nature is cruel; therefore we are also entitled to be cruel. When I send the flower of German youth into the steel hail of the next war without feeling the slightest regret over the precious German blood that is being spilled, should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?"
(Hitler / Joachim Fest )
All worldviews (philosophies) fail these three tests except one in my experience. A philosophy that combines them all is not just truer than the others (it is that as well) but it is reality.
G.K. Chesterton the famous theologian put it this way:
"The modern habit of saying, "Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me"--the habit of saying this is mere weak mindedness. A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos. A man can no more possess a private religion than he can possess a private sun and moon."
(Introduction to THE BOOK OF JOB
"Man is most comforted by paradoxes."
by G.K. Chesterton)
I know that's not going to be the end of this discussion.

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

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 4959 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

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 93 of 164 (374657)
01-05-2007 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Brian
01-05-2007 5:11 AM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
Jar replies:
No, Jesus did not do that, GOD did. GOD raised Him from the dead.
Brian asks:
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?
John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Brian, posted 01-05-2007 5:11 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Brian, posted 01-05-2007 9:40 AM Rob has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 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

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 95 of 164 (374660)
01-05-2007 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Brian
01-04-2007 5:17 PM


Re: more "so what?" assertions.
But the Nicene Creed claims that Jesus was God, "true God from true God," it doesn't say he gave up his divinity.
That's too much for some to believe. How can one thing be two things at the same time? And if in one thing is two things, then that duality becomes a third...
1+1+1=1?
It's the mystery of the trinity...
The proper formula is 1x1x1=1
C.S. Lewis does a god job explaining this in Mere Christianity in the chapters, 'Making and Begetting' and 'The Three Personal God'.
What I wanted to add is that there is something we are all familliar with that has these properties; Light.
That is why John Polkinghorne at Cambridge is a quantum physicist as well as a devout Christian. He makes the comment in one of his books that with the discovery of the quantum, the dimension of the transcendant can no longer be denied.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Brian, posted 01-04-2007 5:17 PM Brian has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 96 of 164 (374661)
01-05-2007 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Brian
01-05-2007 9:40 AM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
You have a point?
Yes, the point is that Jesus claimed He would raise Himself! I thought you'd catch that. My apologies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Brian, posted 01-05-2007 9:40 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Brian, posted 01-05-2007 9:54 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 97 of 164 (374665)
01-05-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Brian
01-05-2007 9:40 AM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
John 8:12
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
He is not speaking of physical light just so you know. He is speaking of truth. But truth has the same dual qualities.
Does this make any sense to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Brian, posted 01-05-2007 9:40 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Kader, posted 01-05-2007 9:59 AM Rob has replied

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 98 of 164 (374666)
01-05-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by jar
01-04-2007 5:26 PM


Re: Gish Gallop
Kader keeps bouncing around and never seems to follow any subject or line of thought.
He had asked me why I believe the divinity of Jesus to be logical, and I responded. His next response though had nothing to do with that issue but instead wandered off into signs or something.
It is tiresome work for an old man to have to prance like a pony.
I asked thoses questions to know a bit more.
But that has little to do with the value of the Bible or any other scripture.
No the error that plague the bible have a lot to do with its value. The value of the bible isn't like the value of any book. Because people hold it to be the truth. And that means it deals with reality. So we can't treat it like any fiction book like you seem to do and just accept the "message". We need to verify the allegation of the bible.
I find the story of Jesus life and ministry logical because it is the type of sweeping example and lesson a GOD, one that really did create the Universe might present.
And for that you need to assume that God is more or less a biblical God. And befor you do that, you need to first validate how true can the bible be (accurate).
What more awesome lesson could there be than GOD, instead of simply telling us, became one of us, lived among us, suffering all the little indignities of humanity, having to learn how to control His bowels, to walk, to talk, to stumble, fall, get cut knees and boo-boos.
That would be assuming God did all thoses things. And all you have as a "proof", is the bible.
No this is far from the best possible lesson he could have given us. Look around you, did we look like we even understood his lesson ? 10000 different branches of christianism, other religions, war... No no, the lesson isnt as awesome as you would like it to be. Appearing to a handfull of people and claiming to be God...
All the rest of the post follow the same line of thoughts
You base all your assumption on the existance of Jesus and that this story isn't just what it seems to be (a very nice and well written story with a great moral ?) No you take it to the next level when you start believing that actually came to pass.
And how can you explain to me that the christianity is logical when you simply assume a bunch of illogical things to start with ?
But God didn't show you anything, why ?
Really?
Are you saying that God showed you personally the truth ?
Why doesn't he speak to me ?
I have no idea.
Are you telling me he speaks to you ? or anyone for that matter ?
I can see no reason you should learn about GOD through me.
Well I have to learn from someone, I can't find God (as the bible describe him) or even know about jesus if I don't read the bible. I can't get that "knowledge" myself. I need someone to teach me (or give me a bible)
I learn through what others have learned and what I experience.
If I may, you learned from other, but that your experience confirm what you've learned from the bible is quite another thing.
Your experience might confirm that the message of most religions is logical. (Treat the other like you would like to be treated etc..) But in the whole world, there is no personal experience prove the existance of Jesus for example.
If you don't understand, well simply put. If you never heard of Jesus, you will not experience anything concerning Jesus. It has never happened that a missionary went to some indian village to preach Jesus and found an little indian who already found him. You get my point ?
If you want to take into account your personal experience (if you still think that what you experienced prove in your eye the existance of Jesus for example) Well then think about all the other followers of other religions who thinks the same exact way as you.
Why isn't God self evident ?
For me GOD is self evident. But that is just me.
How is God self evident if you need the bible to understand him ?
It is self evident to you that there is only 1 God?
It is self evident to you that this God is all loving ?
Make a point starting from "reality" and not some "story".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 01-04-2007 5:26 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by jar, posted 01-05-2007 11:40 AM Kader has replied
 Message 112 by anastasia, posted 01-05-2007 12:17 PM Kader has replied
 Message 129 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-05-2007 1:15 PM Kader has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 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

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 100 of 164 (374668)
01-05-2007 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Rob
01-05-2007 9:51 AM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
John 8:12
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
He is not speaking of physical light just so you know. He is speaking of truth. But truth has the same dual qualities.
Does this make any sense to you?
Anything can make sense
You know the fable of the hare and the tortoise make SENSE. But does that means anything past that it is a good story ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Rob, posted 01-05-2007 9:51 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Rob, posted 01-05-2007 10:03 AM Kader has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 101 of 164 (374670)
01-05-2007 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Kader
01-05-2007 9:59 AM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
Sorry for the length Kader, but it is difficult to explain in a sentance.
Like light, the Spirit of Truth that Jesus spoke of has dual characteristics. This is my best attempt as yet to explain.
Genesis 1: 3-4 And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness...
It has long been known that the quantum realm reveals the possibilities, or duality of light in relationship to the observer (specifically the Niels Bohr interpretation). This denotes the observer’s ability to affect reality. I think it is a very interesting point, and believe that Christians have failed to consider it carefully enough. Bohr’s observations are a reasonable proof that we certainly do affect reality, and in some minds quantum potential suggests that we create it. Personally I do not suppose that manipulation is equal to creation. Either way, as the philosophically sound cliché says; ”no man is an island’.
I am going to keep this as simple as I am able but let us explore the implications by first recognizing that a photon exists both as a wave and a particle. However, once observed, a photon can no longer be both a particle and wave and looses it's 'duality', in one sense, becoming 'real' in relationship to the observer. This either / or relationship bears a striking resemblance to the either / or relationship in the fundamental principle of what is known as Aristotelian logic. What I would like to focus on is that in the same way, ”truth’, once observed and therefore affirmed, becomes real in relationship to the observer. As a result, the alternative potential or potentials are excluded.
I would like to assert that if we choose to observe these entities, we cannot have it both ways, either in the case of light in the physical sense, or logic (light in the metaphysical sense). If we choose to observe reality, be it physical or metaphysical, we will inherit the consequences of that decision. The consequences of manipulating physical light do not contain any discernable tragic ramifications. On the other hand, the consequences of observing truth as a light and thereby defining ”reality’ in the metaphysical realm carries some enormous implications for all of mankind. In the metaphysical sense, if we conform to reality as it is, we will by definition get the 'objective' reality. One of my assumptions is that the original purpose or design, the ”objective reality’, is what we are all seeking. We may only differ on 'the way' to get there. In any case, every assumption of justice or morality; and every affirmation of truth necessarily implies an objective reality and therefore an absolute reality. If we make absolute statements such as, ”all is one’, ”there are no absolutes’, ”truth is relative’ , or ”I am the truth’ (notice the affirming words ”is’, ”are’, and ”am’) without the knowledge that we are in fact making an absolute statement, then as G.K. Chesterton noted in his Orthodoxy, we are then engaged in undermining our own mind.
When one ponders the concept of 'truth' from an ambivalent vantage point, it seems the possibilities defy observation, for once observed and affirmed, the realm of possibilities is then reduced to mere perspective. Or is it? It is true that once truth is affirmed, the observer excludes it’s opposite, effectively closing the door on other alternatives. Let there be no deception that the decisive metaphysical observer is 'all inclusive' in his/her affirmation. However, just because every affirmation excludes its opposite, this does not mean that such a conclusion is always subjective. For example, 1+1 only equals 2. Once we use reason to establish that objective and universal reality, we have ourselves conformed to reality and have moved beyond open mindedness, yet we remain objective. For the record, I do not mean by moving beyond open-mindedness, that we cease to question a challenge to our reasonable conclusion. The question is really whether or not the challenge is reasonable. We should always be ready to entertain a question, and more importantly, to question ourselves tortuously.
On the Monistic theme, if we choose to believe that we are God, we should not deceive ourselves that we have remained open-minded. Open-mindedness would not allow such a conclusion. This works as well with any affirmation that we are not God. Neither worldview can ultimately claim an unbiased vantage point. They are both fundamentalist positions and must exclude their opposite. As stated in the last paragraph, this does not necessarily mean that we are being subjective. Open-mindedness and objectivity are two distinct entities even though they do overlap at times. Objectivity and open-mindedness will lead to the conclusion that 1+1=2, but once affirmed we are rightly no longer open-minded and move forward with the ”objective’ of finding more of reality. It is a logical necessity to reject the alternative answers such as 1+1=3. The practical implication is that the truth (the objective) precedes us, and we must conform to it. At the beginning of our journey, objectivity and open-mindedness overlap. Once the objective is reached, all opposites are excluded.
Jesus claimed to be the wholeness of absolute reality and promised that if we give up our own subjective and relative ”realities’, we could exchange them for the ”absolute’ and ”objective’ reality. Mathew 10: 39 "He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it." John 14: 6 'I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through me.'
It occurs to me that the will of the individual is given enormous latitude and power to interpret the duality of the information and make an affirmation. Another way to put it is that the observer is faced with an enormous test of his heart. It does appear that this test is of the observer’s deepest intentions. It is inevitable that ”truth’ is defined within the heart of the observer. The observer may perceive reality in any fashion he/she chooses (2+2=9), but to be certain, creating reality would involve more than believing he/she has the power to do so by shear will and subjection. One must be able to explain (logically show, or ”shed light’ on) why they believe that what may only begin in the heart, is indeed the objective reality. If the heart and mind do not converge into a coherent fabric, then he/she must attempt to achieve the presumed end in spite of reason. I assume we all believe that the end does not justify the means.
Assuming the power to create reality ultimately involves changing the cosmological constants and laws of physics. In the very least, such power should demonstrate mastery over them by essentially manifesting God Himself. Jesus is reliably documented to have done just this when He demonstrated the miraculous and these feats ended with the grandest of all conceivable miracles when He ultimately rose from the dead. If we are God (as some claim), then it is true that we should lay hold of our destiny even without the ability to reasonably explain our position and vigorously pursue our ends. If we are not God, then we are underestimating the consequences of our actions in the most dangerous and subjective fashion. We should have no ambivalence about making or denying such an utterly profound affirmation. Jesus made it plain when He said, "I came into this world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me" (John 18:37-38) His bold affirmation makes a black and white claim that if we are honest in our hearts, we will listen to Him and that our search is inevitably found in Him. The Bible says that in Him, all of reality consists. Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
To be more specific, when contemplating the nature of divinity, only two possibilities exist. One of these is the possibility that ”all is one’, the classic pantheist philosophy of monism in which we and all of creation are God (Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, etc.). The other is a very different divinity in the form of the Biblical all powerful and infinite God and His sovereignty over all his creatures and creation. One view defines man as divine, and the other acknowledges a separation from divinity as a result of man seeking divine power for himself (pride/ego). The attitude of the observer to the either / or decision in this regard, most assuredly hinges on the moral implications of the two views.
They are not compatible. Notice that the monistic worldview exists to separate itself from the ”narrow’ Christian orthodoxy, whereas the Christian exists to unite Himself with God within the narrow framework of truth. For the 'monistic' worldview to survive, they will inevitably have to argue against a part 'of the all' (Christians) who disagree. This is self defeating and exposes a contradiction in their presupposition that 'all is one'. The Christian is consistent, acknowledging the necessity of exclusivity in the nature of an objective reality. Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
It is a difficult concept to differentiate by any measure. It is like an optical illusion that shifts perspective as we look longer at its qualities. The temptations of Monism are intense and easy to believe; yet, the veracity and logic of Dualism demands consideration by the honest thinker because of its overwhelming conviction and the shear power of its coherence.
It is interesting that the classical concept of ”free will’, in the Biblical sense, is confirmed by the discovery of potential in quantum physics. As a follower of Christ, my observation of this connection is given as a means of illustrating the incredible coherence of a Biblical worldview. It is my opinion that such a connection is no mere coincidence. It is simply true. Conscious free will + potential = God given dignity. Have it your way or God's way. God does not impose Himself on us. For Him to do so would make Him a fascist. He would have to create a perfect world containing nothing but unthinking, uncaring, yet undeniably perfect nonliving robots. In a Monistic reality, we would have no power at all and would only do what is inevitable by evolution, chance and necessity. Ironically, it is the Monist that claims to create reality, which is the most powerful position one could have.
Truth remains undefined and unobserved until the potential observer makes a conscious decision to seek and observe it. Not seeking truth is inevitably a conscious decision as well. In this arena, remaining open-minded is really a decision to not make a decision and is therefore illogical. In regard to the two contradictory views of divinity, once defined by an act of the will, the implications of the affirmation into reality (even if only subjective) become immediate and apparent. One can choose to believe all is well and thereby attempt to keep his life by subjectively interpreting it as ”part of the evolving all’, or conform to the implication of his separation from divinity by seeking the help of the divine in order to become a person in the objective reality.
We are manipulating reality in a sense, as the quantum sciences prove, or rather, making real by way of consequences in the material, our decision to observe reality the way we choose. One should not confuse the reality that is perceived within, thereby confined to perception, with the reality that exists before and after the observer exists. Individually, we are not the only observers. Self can only define reality by the self’s DNA and experience (heart). But by the rejection of self and a repositioning into relationship with the divine, one can experience a new birth that transcends DNA and experience (subjection). Only the latter allows the self to exist in both states; as an individual (' I '), in relationship with the divine who is also a distinct being. Though some suggest that to call ones self ' I ' is an egoist response to the dilemma, it is interesting to note, that this negative (black and white) view is held as a way of avoiding conformity for the sake of the divine, and maintains the ego. It is the acknowledgement of the ' I ' that reveals the individuals responsibility to the whole and recognizes the power to alter reality. This sheds light on the need for individual rehabilitation if one is out of sorts with the objective (reality).
Stating fact or arguing with reason is not, by any means, necessarily egoic or fear based in nature. However, the denial of fact, or the inability to accept a reasonable and logical argument is always motivated by ego and fear. Some claims demand serious attention because the implications are so inescapably enormous.
That being said, the most offensive thing anyone could say to the fear and ego driven heart is, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me."
That is the ultimate, staggering, and exclusive claim to sovereignty. It is also a completely reasonable statement. Even so, such a statement is either motivated by the purest form of ego, and/or, it intends to manipulate by the most blatant use of fear, or such a statement is the most selfless expression and profound truth that any man will ever hear. It is a claim that only God can make consistently.
I believe that is why C.S. Lewis wrote the following:
“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 a 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 patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
The monistic worldview is nothing more than an attempt to escape from individual responsibility and the only way to maintain such a position consistently, albeit an obstinate and rebellious posture, is to declare 'one’s self' as God. For most monists, it is far less confrontational to speak without such clarity. They like to avoid the necessity and inevitability of the conflict. The monist prefers to say that we are evolving into the divine. But by implication this is a theology of default divinity be it evolving or not. As in the disagreement over Jesus Christ’s claims, this claim is either the greatest blasphemy, or the greatest truth. The stakes are enormous.
Since much of the quantum’s incredible properties involve light and the difficulty of putting a finger on its true nature, it is exceptionally noteworthy that Jesus said the following: 'I am the light of the world' (John 9; 5) ”I have come into the world as a light’ (John 12; 46). ”This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God (John 3; 19).
Monism can explain our unity but not our diversity. Evolution can explain our diversity but not our unity. We seek unity in diversity (University, Quintessence, E Pluribus Unum), and the only way to have unity in diversity in the effect (creation) is to have unity in diversity in the first cause (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Only Christianity offers that. The Creator, the triune God, is a being that is also an eternal relationship. He is one though making up three distinct forms of Himself. With God’s plan, we are allowed to become sons of God, by denying ourselves as God, and accepting the wisdom of the only God. It is there that we awake and begin to understand the hymnist when he wrote, “I once was lost, but now I’m found, was blind, but now I see”.
According to Christ, there is unity in Him and Him alone. All is not unity, only that which is in Christ. Christ forces us to either accept Him, or reject Him. If we accept, then that begins with careful consideration of his words and their implications. He did not ask us to jump in blindly. Rather He warns us to weigh the issue with intensity and actually seems to attempt to talk us out of following Him by making it so clear. Luke 14: 27-33 And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.' "Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
If we reject Him, the only alternative is for man to claim himself and all of his conflicting and chaotic ambitions to be his and his life alone. Either Jesus is God, or we are. Matthew 12; 30 " He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me, scatters abroad." A monist cannot say this either because there is no ”against’, there are only different sides of the same one, and therefore Jesus was not a monist.
Look at the following verse and see how Jesus describes the Spirit that created all things coming to make His home in the heart of a mortal, thereby making known to him the immortal and eternal God. This is the 'real', personal, and daily relationship with divinity (Christ). John 14; 23 "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My words; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."
He often expands on the depth of the spiritual rebirth and further confirms the differential between powers and perceptions. John 14;17-20 " The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you." "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. A little while longer and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. At that day you will know that I Am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you."
The monist proclaims that we cannot 'know' that these things are true lest we risk being controlled by the ego (because all is individually subjective); but, if you did not notice in these verses before, see that Jesus proclaims that ”you will know, or see’. "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8; 32) It is just the same way as mentioned in the beginning of this article, that we may close our minds to alternatives while remaining objective, since what we have found is the objective reality.
The monist is forced to accept all that is as part of the evolving divine oneness. This allows them to see themselves as divine yet in a state not yet fully realized (and keep their sin without the internal conflict). Genesis 3; 5 Then Satan said, "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God . "
Only God can be God by logical necessity, even if we disagree as to who He is. That is one reason I put my life and faith in Jesus Christ, for He spoke plainly and in truth. Even the monist knows and is forced to say that God is one, they just misunderstand the implications of their philosophy. Many of them do so intentionally, constantly seeking to find a way out of the inevitable trap of logic.
Mark 12: 28-34 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: ”Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ”Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these." "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
Christ spoke no doubletalk about being all inclusive. We cannot have it both ways. 1+1 cannot = both 2 and 3 and 5 and 8 etc. To attempt such is to eat the fruit of ”the tree of knowledge of good and evil’. Jesus said, ”Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division’ (Luke 12:51). A monist cannot say this for their concept of deity only works to unite. The truth always divides and separates reality from subjection, which is why Monism cannot be true.
John 9:16 Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." But others asked, "How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?" So they were divided.
Acts 23:7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.
Psalm 78:13 He divided the sea and led them through; he made the water stand firm like a wall.
Matthew 25: 31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
John 8:43-45 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
In conclusion, I wish to point out that in the Biblical sense, Jesus was most assuredly not a monist. Now, many claim and make an interesting point now and then that Jesus’ words were manipulated and mistranslated. I disagree, for no texts have been protected like the Cannon of scripture. I believe that He did in fact say all of these outrageous and incredible things. It is why He was crucified and tortured more than any man who ever lived. You can believe all you want that He was a monist. You can even believe that he was a form of both. I am not the type who will tell you what you should believe. I think the evidence speaks for itself. I suppose I can agree with any philosopher that Jesus was a dualist, but more importantly, that He is God. He is good, and evil is evil. That is either true, or it isn’t. But we can’t have it both ways because in the very beginning God said, "Let there be light." And there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness (Genesis 1: 3-4)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Kader, posted 01-05-2007 9:59 AM Kader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Kader, posted 01-05-2007 10:39 AM Rob has replied
 Message 105 by ringo, posted 01-05-2007 11:08 AM Rob has replied

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 102 of 164 (374674)
01-05-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Rob
01-05-2007 10:03 AM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
Scottness, damn you type fast.
Okay you didn't quite address my point, or maybe I just didn't understand.
My point was how do you determine that the bible isn't just a story.
One of my assumptions is that the original purpose or design, the ”objective reality’, is what we are all seeking.
And I want to know why do you make this assumption ?
Please don't shower me in pages, lets do this...slowly ?
PS : If you accept to use science to explain some things then, you cannot be "picky" on what knowledge you chose to use. You have to accept all of science. Don't you agree ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Rob, posted 01-05-2007 10:03 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Rob, posted 01-05-2007 11:05 AM Kader has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 103 of 164 (374677)
01-05-2007 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Brian
01-05-2007 5:11 AM


Re: more "so what?" assertions.
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.
I can only tell you how I read it and that is for me, pretty clear. 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.
For there to be a sacrifice, GOD must become man, to live as man. Not pretend to be man.
The tale of Jesus only makes sense if He is really just man.
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?
But no I did not Brian. I did not say that GOD (Jesus) had become man.
This is the mystery of the Trinity. 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.
But there is ample support for the idea of GOD still being in existence while Jesus walks the Earth. Jesus prays to GOD, expresses the concept that it is still GOD who is in charge and determining outcomes.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Brian, posted 01-05-2007 5:11 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Brian, posted 01-05-2007 11:59 AM jar has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 104 of 164 (374680)
01-05-2007 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Kader
01-05-2007 10:39 AM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
My point was how do you determine that the bible isn't just a story.
And I want to know why do you make this assumption ?
Please don't shower me in pages, lets do this...slowly?
Just so you know, I don't type that fast. I wrote that a long time ago. Ponder on it some. I know it is wordy and cumbersome but it is the best I can do to answer to your question in terms other than the ones I offer below.
As for your questions, you cannot, overnite, determine these things.
I never started with the assumption that it was all true. I just knew that Jesus was speaking the truth and that I was a sinner. I knew that I did not understand what reality was. I knew that I am just a man.
I don't know how to explain it!
I just genuinely asked for forgiveness and was broken. Their were no magic words, just internal honesty. I offered to give Him my life in exchange for the answers and He opened my eyes. Not on my terms mind you, but on His.
I had taken the time to go back to church after years. I listened and listened. Litle by little it all came together so that I could come to that point. I didn't do it, God did.
It wasn't until after I met Him that I understood. But I did meet Him, and that is what Jesus promised would happen.
Faith, is believing that God exists. Once you meet Him, it's really not faith anymore in the way we typically think of faith being blind. It is a seeing faith. Jesus opens eyes He doesn't close them. And not so much physical eyes, but opens your spiritual eye to the truth.
The movie 'The Matrix' is full of excellent metaphors. It is about the New Birth. And no-one can explain it, you have to see it, by choosing to follow the white rabbit. Then you can take the seed of faith (red pill) and begin the journey to finding out what is really going on.
Keep talking to Him and be patient. If you really want to know more than anything else, you will find Him.
I hope that helps...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Kader, posted 01-05-2007 10:39 AM Kader has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 105 of 164 (374681)
01-05-2007 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Rob
01-05-2007 10:03 AM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
scottness writes:
He is God. He is good, and evil is evil. That is either true, or it isn’t. But we can’t have it both ways because in the very beginning God said, "Let there be light." And there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness (Genesis 1: 3-4)
Non sequitur.
God didn't "equate" light with good. He said that a lot of things were good: the land and seas (Gen 1:10), the plants (Gen 1:12), the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:18), the whales, etc. (Gen 1:21), the beast of the earth (Gen 1:25) and finally, everything that He had made (Gen 1:31).
And notice that He called it "good", not "perfect". Anything "good" can be "better" or "worse" than anything alse that is "good".
So you can't just say that light is good and darkness is evil. It's all good. (Of course, the degree of goodness is relative - it all depends on the situation.)
The good/evil, true/false dichotomy doesn't work.
Congratulations. You've just demonstrated that (your) religion is illogical.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Rob, posted 01-05-2007 10:03 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Rob, posted 01-05-2007 7:36 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024