Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 271 of 321 (478488)
08-16-2008 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Dawn Bertot
08-15-2008 9:57 AM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
Reply to post 270 & 268
bertot & Jaywill:
I will attempt a coherent response to the two posts cited above. I will begin with post #270 and conclude with post 268.
What I perceive as our principle difficulty in conversing with one another is our differing understandings of the dictionary definitions of certain English words. Until this semantic disparity can be resolved we are never going to be able to reach any kind of consensus.
Jaywill wrote or quoted in post 208 of Eden 1. Any definition of history stated so as to methodically exclude the possibility of a historical divine miracle is question begging. It is jury rigging the definition of history so as to ensure only naturalistic and uniform events will be considered no matter how powerfully evidenced a non-repeatable and unusual supernatural event is reported.
The following definition of historical was obtained from
Historical Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
3. having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief: to doubt that a historical Camelot ever existed; a theologian's study of the historical Jesus.
This is exactly the same definition that I have previously cited a number of times from Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, © 2003.
I am not fully certain why Jaywill feels that the above definition of historical “beggs any questions” or is “jury rigging the definition of history so as to ensure only naturalistic and uniform events”? If we cannot rely upon established dictionary definitions of words in the English language to make our case then we have no foundation at all upon which to establish coherent conversation.
What the above definition of historical states in a clear and concise manner is that the New and Old Testaments of the English Holy Bible are NOT regarded as historical documents because they are regarded as documents of “religious belief.” The Old and New Testaments, whether composed in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or English, are regarded as documents espousing “religious belief”.
quote:
AM wrote: Regardless of the amount of historically corroborated material that may be a part of the New Testament Scriptures, and regardless of the amount of archaeological evidence that may support certain aspects of the New Testament Scriptures, the very idea that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin who was impregnated by the Hebrew God yhwh, and that this divinely propagated individual walked on water, changed water to wine, raised the dead, and was bodily resurrected after being put to death on a cross; all of these and any other “supernatural” events described in the New Testament must in fact be accepted on blind faith and blind faith alone. There is absolutely no empirical evidence or experience, or experiments that can confirm that any of these two thousand year old, literary described supernatural events had ever actually occurred.
However, there is a vast abundance of empirical evidence that has been accumulated over the past two thousand years of human history that unequivocally prove that these supernatural divine interventions had in fact never occurred. That is a considerable amount of evidence against, and virtually no evidence for.
Let’s first try to clear up any confusion that may be connected with the dictionary terms applied above regarding “religious belief”.
Religious Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
religious
quote:
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.
2. imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly: a religious man.
Religion Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
religion
quote:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
To be “imbued with religion” means, “to inspire with beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency...and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
The New Testament and the Old Testament documents are in fact “imbued with religion.” They contain numerous “religious documents” that espouse sets of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...and...contain moral codes that govern the conduct of human affairs.
Therefore, the New and the Old Testaments are NOT regarded as historical documents because they pertain to religious belief, as cited in the above dictionary definition of the English term historical.
The above dissertation is also directed to bertot’s comments.
quote:
AM wrote: Regardless of the amount of historically corroborated material that may be a part of the New Testament Scriptures, and regardless of the amount of archaeological evidence that may support certain aspects of the New Testament Scriptures, the very idea that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin who was impregnated by the Hebrew God yhwh, and that this divinely propagated individual walked on water, changed water to wine, raised the dead, and was bodily resurrected after being put to death on a cross; all of these and any other “supernatural” events described in the New Testament must in fact be accepted on blind faith and blind faith alone. There is absolutely no empirical evidence or experience, or experiments that can confirm that any of these two thousand year old, literary described supernatural events had ever actually occurred. However, there is a vast abundance of empirical evidence that has been accumulated over the past two thousand years of human history that unequivocally prove that these supernatural divine interventions had in fact never occurred. That is a considerable amount of evidence against, and virtually no evidence for.
Your statement above is only partially true. Demonstratable, accurate history and facts do not absolutley prove anything that occoured in the past or distant past, that is recorded in any source, no matter how reliable it is.
It appears as though you no longer recognize the difference between what is real”a.k.a. empirical and what is not real”legendary, mythical, and fanciful. This confusion on your part makes it extremely difficult for me to employ English terms that distinguish between the two in my attempt to communicate my thoughts to you.
If a document, any document, describes an empirical event, i.e. an event that can in fact be experienced in the real world, or an event that can be reproduced through an experiment in the real world, then that empirical event is associated with “absolute proof.” For example: If someone long ago wrote that they walked from the land of Canaan to the land of Egypt that statement can in fact be reproduced today by walking from Israel or the Palestinian Territories to Egypt. There is no reason to suspect guile, deception, or fantasy in that particular statement. And, if there are corroborating sources from ancient Canaan, ancient Egypt, and/or the territories through which the long ago author had to have traveled confirming that the journey had indeed taken place, then there is no reason to suspect that such a journey had not transpired. That is called “absolute proof” of an empirical historical event. The event is both empirical in that it can be reproduced in the real world, and the event is historical in that it is corroborated by other ancient sources and does not invoke “religious belief.”
Now, take what has been conveyed from the beginning of this post and apply it to your next statement:
This is where the difference between belief, faith and blind faith come into play. A few illustrations will suffice.
Belief and blind belief, faith and blind faith are all focused on what is referred to as “religious belief.” One does not have to “believe” that the Roman Catholic Church began in the four century CE. One does not have to “believe” that Rome conquered Europe and that the Roman Catholic Church became the religious power in Europe until the Reformation in the 1500’s CE that gave birth to Protestantism - essentially the religious doctrine followed by Fundamentalist Christians. These empirical and historical events are not only documented in numerous sources, but the effects of these historical events are still unfolding in the real and experiential world to this very day. To suggest that empirical and historical events such as these fall under your assertion that
Demonstratable, accurate history and facts do not absolutley prove anything that occoured in the past or distant past, that is recorded in any source, no matter how reliable it is
is an absolutely absurd statement. And to suggest that “bodily resurrection”, “walking on the waters of the sea of Galilee”, or any other supernatural stunt is some how believable because a religious document connects these supernatural events to historically or archaeologically corroborated empirical events is also quite absurd.
It appears as though you have completely lost your ability to determine and acknowledge what is “real and true” and what is NOT.
quote:
AM wrote: However, there is a vast abundance of empirical evidence that has been accumulated over the past two thousand years of human history that unequivocally prove that these supernatural divine interventions had in fact never occurred. That is a considerable amount of evidence against, and virtually no evidence for.
bertot asks: What is this overwhelming amount of evidence that has been collected over 2000 years to indicate those events in the NT never occured?
These are some of the “events in the NT” that we are discussion there being an “overwhelming amount of evidence collected over 2000 years to indicate ... {they} never occurred”:
quote:
AM wrote: Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin who was impregnated by the Hebrew God yhwh, and that this divinely propagated individual walked on water, changed water to wine, raised the dead, and was bodily resurrected after being put to death on a cross; all of these and any other “supernatural” events described in the New Testament must in fact be accepted on blind faith and blind faith alone.
A virgin in this context is a human female who has never had her vagina penetrated so that a male sperm can fertilize one of her eggs. According to the basic biology of the female human body a virgin giving birth to a child is an absolute impossibility. Because it is an absolute impossibility for a virgin to give birth to a child that is why no virgin in human reality has ever given birth. Only in the ancient literature of myth, legend, and religion has a human female virgin ever been said to have given birth to a child.
To honestly believe that the virgin Mary actually and literally gave birth to yhwh God in the flesh and named that child Jesus one must employ “blind faith” for there is nothing in the real world that can confirm or corroborate such a feat.
Due to the molecular structure of water and the absolute force of gravity, water will not sustain a human body that attempts to walk upright upon it. The feet of a human being do not displace enough water for human feet to be sustained by it. To actually and literally believe that a human being walked on the water of the Sea of Galilee one must employ “blind faith” for there is nothing in the real world that can confirm or corroborate such a feat.
The only way in the real world to “change water into wine” is to irrigate a vineyard, harvest the grapes and then distill the grape juice into wine. To actually and literally believe that a human being can somehow miraculously turn a pitcher of water into wine one must employ “blind faith” for there is nothing in the real world that can confirm or corroborate such a feat.
To actually and literally believe the account of Jesus {yhwh God in the flesh} bringing the four day old rotting and smelly corpse of Lazarus back to mortal life as it is described in the New Testament one must employ “blind faith” for there is nothing in the real world that can confirm or corroborate such a feat. I do certainly hope that no more of explanation is needed. The same goes for the bodily resurrection of Jesus himself.
On to the next series regarding God:
bertot asks: Again, not what he is not, what is god in your estimation.
I dont think you answered my question directly then or now. Is he a thinking, real, actual, reasoning, living personality, that is conscouos of his existence, or is your god simply natural processes which you regard as a mystery?
Let me begin by asking you a question: Is this “thinking, real, actual, reasoning, living personality that is conscious of His existence” God a human being? Or is your conception of God that He is “omnipresent, i.e. present in all places at all times?” It is an oxymoron to suggest that your conception of your supernatural God is that He is “real and actual” but He is not “omnipresent”, and therefore not to be found in any aspect of “nature.” Either your God is omnipresent or He is not. I believe He is, isn’t He?
As for my conception of God: God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Omnipotent means, “having unlimited authority or influence.”
Omnipresent means, “present in all places at all times.”
Omniscient means, “having infinite awareness, understanding and insight.”
bertot proclaims: AM, "proof of a mystery" is a nonsensical statement.
The English term mystery is also defined as “something not understood or beyond understanding”. There is so much that I can absolutely prove exists in this mortal experience we share, but that is either “not understood” or that remains “beyond understanding.” Just because aspects of reality are “not understood” or “beyond understanding” does not mean that they are not real, true, empirical aspects of our reality and as such one can have actual proof that they exist. I really think you need to rethink the above assertion.
bertot asks: Besides all of this what is mysterious about natural laws emerging and decreasing to another form of existence and this continual process throught an eternity. If it is eternal in and of itself, what and where is God in this mix, in your view?
Check out the above definition of “omnipresent”! If indeed the Fundamentalist Christian God is “omnipresent”, and I state that my conception of Deity is also that He/It is “omnipresent”, then “where is God in this mix”? Ah! The non-anthropomorphic God is “present in all places at all times”. It would be a little difficult to be an anthropomorphic God and at the same time actually be really “present in all places at all times”!
bertot asked: "God is", what? Without telling me what God is not, tell me exacally what he is from your point of view. What are you "alluding" to God as. Is he a physical territory as you describe above?
This is what I “described above”:
quote:
AM wrote: To me, "Iam that I am", means "God Is." Let's say that we are mortal human beings on planet earth on a mountain we regard as "desolation" and yet all around us "life" is burning in all things. The tamarisk-bush is in full blossom amidst the stifling heat of summer. God and what Is are one and the same. Without God there is not such thing as "cosmic nature" "earth nature" or "human nature."
God and “What Is” are one and the same. There is no other way to describe an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and therefore non-anthropomorphic Deity. Any attempt to “humanize” such a Deity is to diminish the Deity. To associate a human personality, human knowledge, thought, reasoning, and self-awareness with an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Supreme Being is to lose the essence of What and Who (for the lack of better terms) that Supreme Being actually Is.
I am again telling you precisely what my conception of Deity is:
Omnipotent means, “having unlimited authority or influence.”
Omnipresent means, “present in all places at all times.”
Omniscient means, “having infinite awareness, understanding and insight.”
If that is not enough for you, I am not certain what you are asking.
bertot states: If I understand the above statement, you are now saying, or have always said and I missed it, that "God" is not a real actual personality apart from the universe, cosmos and the natural things, the universe is god and god is the universe. Is this what you are discribing as the supreme natural diety?
God cannot be omnipresent and at the same time be “a real, actual personality apart from the universe, cosmos and the natural things.” God’s real, actual personality must be part of the universe, cosmos, and natural things if God is perceived as being omnipresent. That is what the English term omnipresent means.
If your conception or perception of this Supreme God/Being is that He/It is not omnipresent then I must say that the God you worship is not as Almighty, or All-knowing as you suggest. Something is blatantly missing!
To conclude this post I will respond to Jaywill’s post #268 which employs Old Testament symbolism to depict the presence of the Hebrew God yhwh.
Jaywill cites the following Old Testament verses: And Jehovah appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre as he was sitting at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and there were three men standing opposite him. And when he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to meet them. And he bowed to the earth and said, My Lord, if I have found favor in You sight, please do not pass on from YOur servant. (Genesis 18:1-3)
And the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before Jehovah. Genesis 18:22
And Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. And when the man saw that He did not prevail against him, He touched the socket of his hip; and the socket of Jacob's hip was dislocated as he wrestled with Him. (Gen. 32:24,25)
And Jacob said to Joseph, The All-sufficient God appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me. (see Gen. 28:19; 35:6).
And he [Moses] said Please show me your glory. And He [Jehovah God] said I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of Jehovah before you; ... But He said, You cannot see My face, for no man shall see Me and live. Then Jehovah said, Here, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand upon the rock; And while My glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with My hand until I pass by. And I will take away My hand, and you will see My back; but My face shall not be seen. (Exodus 33:18-23)
And above the expanse that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, like the appearance of a sapphire stone; and upon the likeness of the throne was One in appearance like a man, above it..... This was the likeness of the appearance of the glory of God. (Ezek. 1:26,28)
This is all the Old Testament speaking. So AM's idea of the anthropomorphic appearance of God as purely Hellenistic is false.
The Judeo Hebrew symbolism in the above verses are NOT depicting the Jewish God yhwh as an anthropomorphic God. Fundamentalist Christians often have considerable difficulty with the concept of metaphor and symbolism. The Judeo Hebrew God yhwh cannot be contained within a human form. Nowhere in the Judeo Hebrew Old Testament is God depicted as being an actual human “body”.
Furthermore, Genesis 18:22 concludes by stating:
quote:
and Abraham still stood to the face of yhwh. Heb. ‘ — ‘
At this time all three human-like {) forms had turned their faces from Abraham; the Hebrew plural form of humans {) indicates that all three “men” turned, and went toward Sodom.
This clause in Gen. 18:22 certainly appears to be in contrast to Exodus 33:20 where yhwh supposedly tells Moses:
quote:
Thou Canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me, and live.
The Hebrew term for “face” in Ex. 33:20 is = face. Yet Abraham stood to the face of yhwh in Gen. 18:22. These verses make it quite clear that neither Abraham nor Moses actually perceived the God yhwh in anthropomorphic form.
The Canaanite supreme god El is depicted in anthropomorphic form, as is the Canaanite God Baal. It is quite doubtful that Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, or Ezekiel were describing the God yhwh as being an anthropomorphic entity. When yhwh God states in the Ten Commandments, “Thou shall not make unto you...any likeness that is in heaven, or in the earth, or in the water” (paraphrase KJV), making yhwh God in the likeness of one, two, three or even four “men” was probably understood as not being an appropriate act. What do you think?
But I am quite certain that you guys feel quite comfortable with the supernatural “man” Jesus Christ as being “God in the flesh”, and there is nothing I can say or point out that will ever change your mind. But, you are left with the difficulty of making your Trinity (3) and/or Tetragrammaton (4) Judeo Hebrew God fit the “omnipresent” description and the human form at the same time. An omnipresent God is in all of us, not just Jesus. And God cannot only be in one man if God is in everything. You figure it out. I have not doubt that you already have.
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-15-2008 9:57 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by jaywill, posted 08-16-2008 6:58 AM autumnman has not replied
 Message 273 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-16-2008 11:22 AM autumnman has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 272 of 321 (478500)
08-16-2008 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by autumnman
08-16-2008 12:18 AM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
The Judeo Hebrew symbolism in the above verses are NOT depicting the Jewish God yhwh as an anthropomorphic God.
AM may assert that as forcifully s/he wishes. However, it indicates to me that AM simply doesn't receive what the Scripture said. In these instances God appeared in the form of a man for it names YHWH as the One appearing.
"And Jehovah appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre as he was sitting at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day" (Gen. 18:1)
The burden is on AM to explain exactly where in that chapter are the details of the appearance of YHWH to Abraham. It is most logical to understand that the following discussions relates the details of how God appeared to Abraham. And it does. We'll look at AM's objections shortly.
God cannot be anthropomorphic, AM asserts. Well to be fair there are places where God says He is not like a man. But we learn not just what the Bible says. We have to learn what else the Bible says.
In Genesis for God to create man in His own image and in His likeness (Genesis 1:26,27) has to prove that there is at least some fundamental correspondence between the created human being and the eternal uncreated God.
Now it may be a discussion as to what exactly image and likeness mean. But whatever they mean the fact that man shares that image and likeness with God necessitates that we are like Him and He is like us.
Remember, here I have not defined exactly what God's image and Gods likeness are. I am, however, stating that God and man SHARE those attributes whatever they mean. So AM's attempts to make God totally not like people would be unbiblical. And we will see AM's contradictions in this below.
Fundamentalist Christians often have considerable difficulty with the concept of metaphor and symbolism. The Judeo Hebrew God yhwh cannot be contained within a human form. Nowhere in the Judeo Hebrew Old Testament is God depicted as being an actual human “body”.
This is simply straight out denial of what the Bible said in a number of places. Then AM blames "Fundamentalist Christians" for reading and comprehending what the Scripture is trying to tell the reader in a few places.
"Fundamentalist Christians" did not write that God would not allow Moses to see His "face", and that God would shield Moses with His "hand" and allow Moses only to see His "back". These words were written in the Hebrew Bible before "Christians" came into existence Fundamentalist or otherwise.
Furthermore, Genesis 18:22 concludes by stating:
AM:
quote:
and Abraham still stood to the face of yhwh. Heb. ‘ — ‘
At this time all three human-like {) forms had turned their faces from Abraham;
I agree. All three men turned their faces. Two who turned thier faces left the scene and went down to Sodom. The third who also turned His face remained there to speak further with Abraham. And the Scripture says:
"And the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before Jehovah." (Gen. 18:22)
There seems no way out for AM. Afterall, a central point of the chapter is that this Jehovah God appeared to Abraham that day.
the Hebrew plural form of humans {) indicates that all three “men” turned, and went toward Sodom.
Two is a plural. Three is also a plural.
The fact that all three turned their faces toward Sodom does not prove that God was not one of the three men.
This clause in Gen. 18:22 certainly appears to be in contrast to Exodus 33:20 where yhwh supposedly tells Moses:
AM:
quote:
Thou Canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me, and live.
I quite agree. It does present a problem. It does present a paradox.
The appearance of God manifest as a man to Abraham is in contrast with a number of other biblical passages. But my reaction is to embrace the paradox and read on until the end of the entire Bible.
But I sympathize with AM that it does present a mysterious contrast to what God told Moses in Exodus. We have to seek to understand why there is this paradox. Denying that it is there is not honest IMO.
The Hebrew term for “face” in Ex. 33:20 is = face. Yet Abraham stood to the face of yhwh in Gen. 18:22. These verses make it quite clear that neither Abraham nor Moses actually perceived the God yhwh in anthropomorphic form.
No it doesn't. It does however present this paradox - in one instance God did NOT allow a prophet to see His face and in another instance God DID allow a prophet to see His face.
I think the place to look is in the manner in which God manifested Himself. I do get the feeling that God's appearance to Moses in Exodus 33 was with supernatural splendour and gloriously radiant. It probably was rather fearful.
But in Genesis 18 there is an emphasis on the humaness with which God fellowshipped with Abraham. They had a nice tasty lunch together. The Bible takes time to discribe the heat of the day and the preparation of a delicious meal. Is speaks of the three men eating and Abraham standing dutifully nearby to fetch them whatever they might need.
I think that the appearance of God in Genesis 18 is a foreshadow and hint of the incarnation of God in Jesus in the future.
So the nature of the two appearances are not exactly the same. God was much more approachable in Genesis 18 than He was in Exodus 33. Yes, it is mysterious and a paradox. My answer to the theological difficulties the passages present is NOT to deny anthorpomorphic manifestations of God in the Old Testament.
Furthermore, AM's argument seems self defeating because God speaks to Moses in Exodus 33 as well as in Genesis 18. So already you have God anthropmorphic enough to communicate with human beings in language of human beings obviously.
The Canaanite supreme god El is depicted in anthropomorphic form, as is the Canaanite God Baal.
That may be true. It does not follow that God did not appear to the prophets Abraham and Moses in Genesis and in Exodus.
It is quite doubtful that Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, or Ezekiel were describing the God yhwh as being an anthropomorphic entity.
It is only doubtful if you doubt what is written before your eyes as you read it.
When yhwh God states in the Ten Commandments, “Thou shall not make unto you...any likeness that is in heaven, or in the earth, or in the water” (paraphrase KJV), making yhwh God in the likeness of one, two, three or even four “men” was probably understood as not being an appropriate act. What do you think?
I think that Genesis 18 presents a paradox to the ten commandments. However, Abraham did not MAKE anything. Sarah made a lunch. That is all.
God appeared and had lunch with the prophet. It is not as if the prophet made idols.
I have to discontinue at this moment.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by autumnman, posted 08-16-2008 12:18 AM autumnman has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 273 of 321 (478508)
08-16-2008 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by autumnman
08-16-2008 12:18 AM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
Hey AM, innocuous Bertot here, ha ha.
AM writes:
What I perceive as our principle difficulty in conversing with one another is our differing understandings of the dictionary definitions of certain English words. Until this semantic disparity can be resolved we are never going to be able to reach any kind of consensus.
It can be resolved by understanding that history is history no matter if you describe its sources as a "historical dcoument or not. Many of the items are forceably corroborated by verifiable and demonstratalble means. Further, there veracity is usually without question. Once again let me say this lends viable support, not abso;ute proof to assist one in making an informed decision.
I am not fully certain why Jaywill feels that the above definition of historical “beggs any questions” or is “jury rigging the definition of history so as to ensure only naturalistic and uniform events”? If we cannot rely upon established dictionary definitions of words in the English language to make our case then we have no foundation at all upon which to establish coherent conversation.
What the above definition of historical states in a clear and concise manner is that the New and Old Testaments of the English Holy Bible are NOT regarded as historical documents because they are regarded as documents of “religious belief.” The Old and New Testaments, whether composed in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or English, are regarded as documents espousing “religious belief”.
If you would simply post the full definition of the word history or historical you would see that what I am advocating falls well with in its parameters and that Jaywills earlier statements mask perfect sense. We can rely on established words in the dictionary if we are honest about thier complete definitions and understand that they can only be applied to a certain degree. They are not meant to be exhaustive in nature, but provide a starting point for application. Example,go look up the word "spirit" as you described God and see if it will explain in detail all that God really is or is not. Look at definition "one" of history
Am you always seem to be a master of words, but of very little common sense, when reasoning out a simple point. . All I need to do to dispose of all this rehtoric about History and such is actually post the "complete" definitions of the word offered by the dictionary concering history, here it is my simple friend:
History
1. of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events: historical records; historical research.
2. based on or reconstructed from an event, custom, style, etc., in the past: a historical reenactment of the battle of Gettysburg.
3. having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief: to doubt that a historical Camelot ever existed; a theologian's study of the historical Jesus.
4. narrated or mentioned in history; belonging to the past.
5. noting or pertaining to analysis based on a comparison among several periods of development of a phenomenon, as in language or economics.
6. historic (def. 1).
Now look at the definition of "facts":
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
The New Testament and the Old Testament documents are in fact “imbued with religion.” They contain numerous “religious documents” that espouse sets of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...and...contain moral codes that govern the conduct of human affairs.
Therefore, the New and the Old Testaments are NOT regarded as historical documents because they pertain to religious belief, as cited in the above dictionary definition of the English term historical.
You are over stating and ad-libbing what the actual definitions will allow. Nowhere does it say the scriptures are not historical documents, this is you conclusion from the definitions. It is unwarrented. You are taking two definitions and making them say something they do not.
It appears as though you no longer recognize the difference between what is real-a.k.a. empirical and what is not real-legendary, mythical, and fanciful. This confusion on your part makes it extremely difficult for me to employ English terms that distinguish between the two in my attempt to communicate my thoughts to you.
Lets see, ok?
If a document, any document, describes an empirical event, i.e. an event that can in fact be experienced in the real world, or an event that can be reproduced through an experiment in the real world, then that empirical event is associated with “absolute proof.” For example: If someone long ago wrote that they walked from the land of Canaan to the land of Egypt that statement can in fact be reproduced today by walking from Israel or the Palestinian Territories to Egypt. There is no reason to suspect guile, deception, or fantasy in that particular statement. And, if there are corroborating sources from ancient Canaan, ancient Egypt, and/or the territories through which the long ago author had to have traveled confirming that the journey had indeed taken place, then there is no reason to suspect that such a journey had not transpired. That is called “absolute proof” of an empirical historical event. The event is both empirical in that it can be reproduced in the real world, and the event is historical in that it is corroborated by other ancient sources and does not invoke “religious belief.”
The New and Old Testaments produce and offer the best possible evidence to suggest tha there is no reason to suspect, guile deception or fantasy. This is why they are connected with the best possible information and verifiable documentation and historically corroborated data. Why would say, Luke take the time to be so technically correct abouut minute details and circumstances and ultimatley die for fanciful reasons, that makes no logical sense.
There you go again, with that absolute proof thing. Do you need me to reproduce statements from yourself where you have indicated that it does not exist. The man on his journey in your story could be either real or fictional, complete in details or incomplete. there is simply no way to know absolutley weather he took that journey or not, it requires faith on your part to believe it and the specific deatails.
You are dismissing the supernatural because you have never seen it first hand. This is no indication it is not real, in any shape form or fashion. This is the reason Jaywill made his comments about begging the question.
Belief and blind belief, faith and blind faith are all focused on what is referred to as “religious belief.” One does not have to “believe” that the Roman Catholic Church began in the four century CE. One does not have to “believe” that Rome conquered Europe and that the Roman Catholic Church became the religious power in Europe until the Reformation in the 1500’s CE that gave birth to Protestantism - essentially the religious doctrine followed by Fundamentalist Christians. These empirical and historical events are not only documented in numerous sources, but the effects of these historical events are still unfolding in the real and experiential world to this very day. To suggest that empirical and historical events such as these fall under your assertion that.
This my friend is an absurd statement. Belief, faith and blind faith have to do with life and not necessarily religious anything. Belief about anything is either supported or unsupported, corroborated or otherwise. One "does' have to believe the above information you cite, because it is either real or not, supported or not. Theexact details of those situation are what you must exercise some blind faith in. Again, I never said that the miracles could be demonstrated with absolute proof , only that they are supported by the best possible information. Your belief about exact details in history is not actual proof AM. I did not see or hear the order by Nero to burn portions of Rome, I believe it because it is supported by good evidence.
is an absolutely absurd statement. And to suggest that “bodily resurrection”, “walking on the waters of the sea of Galilee”, or any other supernatural stunt is some how believable because a religious document connects these supernatural events to historically or archaeologically corroborated empirical events is also quite absurd.
It appears as though you have completely lost your ability to determine and acknowledge what is “real and true” and what is NOT.
Not at all. Ill let the reader decide if this is indeed the case. It appears you have lost the ability to be objective about you application and over application of words and thier meanings. the words history and religious do not make the conclusions you wish. The items you describe above are believable, first because God exists every indication is that he intervens in the affairs of men, weather natural or supernatural. secondly, those events are connected with facts that have stood the test of time and scrutiny. Thirdly, not having seen the miraculous is not sufficient to reject it absolutley. In otherwords for these reasons it not absurd at all.
To honestly believe that the virgin Mary actually and literally gave birth to yhwh God in the flesh and named that child Jesus one must employ “blind faith” for there is nothing in the real world that can confirm or corroborate such a feat.
Ye there is , the scriptures!!! They corroborate not prove its viability
You are digging a hole logically that you cannot extricate youself from AM. If you believe in God AM, yet cannot see him or him acually doing anything, yet you believe he sustains by intervention life and things you involve yourself in the worst form of contradiction. To maintain one and reject at all cost event even the possibility of the other is "absurd". Your love of the natural and view of it as emperical evidence of the supernatural (or what ever you call your god today) dosent help you absolutley prove anything.
Let me begin by asking you a question: Is this “thinking, real, actual, reasoning, living personality that is conscious of His existence” God a human being? Or is your conception of God that He is “omnipresent, i.e. present in all places at all times?” It is an oxymoron to suggest that your conception of your supernatural God is that He is “real and actual” but He is not “omnipresent”, and therefore not to be found in any aspect of “nature.” Either your God is omnipresent or He is not. I believe He is, isn’t He?
As for my conception of God: God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Omnipotent means, “having unlimited authority or influence.”
Omnipresent means, “present in all places at all times.”
Omniscient means, “having infinite awareness, understanding and insight.”
I agree, so whats your point. God is and can be all of these things and create man in is own image. Do you not believe that God created man with the ability to be creative. Isnt that your big deal about the Eden narrative? How could God create at all or create creativity in man and not himself be creative or intelligent. I think you are being obviously evasive, in not wanting to mention or acknowledge God hsa the characteistics as well. But og ahead Ill play along.
The English term mystery is also defined as “something not understood or beyond understanding”. There is so much that I can absolutely prove exists in this mortal experience we share, but that is either “not understood” or that remains “beyond understanding.” Just because aspects of reality are “not understood” or “beyond understanding” does not mean that they are not real, true, empirical aspects of our reality and as such one can have actual proof that they exist. I really think you need to rethink the above assertion.
Its may only be a mystery to you. You do not know that somewhere there is information to answer that question, or that someone may have that information, it is therefore not proof that it is completely a mystery. Since God exists and he is all knowing as you suggest, it follows that there are not myteries ultimatley and therefore no "proof" of a mystery. For this reason it is a nonsensical statement. In this instance, the proof (as you call it) is the data contained in the scriptures you have completly ignored.
God cannot be omnipresent and at the same time be “a real, actual personality apart from the universe, cosmos and the natural things.” God’s real, actual personality must be part of the universe, cosmos, and natural things if God is perceived as being omnipresent. That is what the English term omnipresent means.
If your conception or perception of this Supreme God/Being is that He/It is not omnipresent then I must say that the God you worship is not as Almighty, or All-knowing as you suggest. Something is blatantly missing!
I actually had to read this several times to see if what you were saying is what you were actually saying. How could God "create" the universe, cosmos or whatever and not be sperate from and not actually a part of it. Now I agree that wahtever is in existence is probably God material (from God)but how does this make God equivalent to the actual material itself. The universe is quite obviously not Spirit material but only a manifestation from the spirit world. To assert that Gods personality "has " to be a part of the universe and that this is what constitues omnipresent is the height of assertion. Where in the world did you get the information to explain this mystery?
How do you know emperically the following items.
That God is omnisciencent
That God is omnipresent
Thst God cannot be omnipresent and not be an actual real personality apart form the universe.
Now I understand that you can deduce the logical possibility of the existence of God from the natural but how do you come up with these other amazing extrapolations and constitute them as emperical evidence . How do you know what Gods exact existence will or will not allow him or not allow him?
Where did you learn these facts from, apart form the dictionary written by men. And you say you do not rely on faith, this constitues the epitomie of faith to believe and maintain these positions.
AM writes:
That which we today call “living beings” are more than the mere sum of their scientifically acknowledged parts; a scientist today can take a peach seed and break it down to its most basic aspects”from its shell to its cells, its proteins, its DNA, its atoms, electrons, neutrons, and nucleolus”but when the scientist puts all of that back and makes again the same peach seed, that particular seed is incapable of growing for it is dead. Although the scientist did not even glimpse what escaped during the exhaustive examination process, or the process of reconstituting the peach seed, what would allow a peach seed to grow into a peach tree escaped without leaving a trace of Its/His existence. When I employ the term Deity or God I am referring to that which enables a peach seed to become a peach tree; that is The Sublime Mystery of Life, {a.k.a. The Supreme Natural Deity/God).
The above statement is very insightful, there are those that would not even recognize that such an event possibly took place or ignore the obvious fact, that you have very wonderfully pointed out, that when reconstructed something is lost forever, atleas to us. I applaude and laud you for such insight.
If you believe however, in this context that such was lost and something left that cannot be gotten back it would be your responsibilty to demonstrate several things in this context. A. how do you begin to demonstrate that this was not simply a natural process, material in character,yet unexplainable. B. What was the makeup of that "thing" that left, that caused life. C. How would you equate or emperically demonstrate this "quality" with any Supreme Natural Deity or personality? D. How would you deonstrate that this quality that left is the same thing that is consistent with the same so-called deity?.
These types of extrapolated assumptions on your part require the greatest leaps of Faith imaginable. While I certainly share your view in this connection and that which you so wonderfully described above, I think you will have the greatest problems trying to demonstrate any of these conclusions from an "emperical" standpoint. Do you see what I trying to convey.
And yes, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate these claims if, you uphold these extrapolations and you require the stricktest emperical evidence for everyone else.
You may say to yourself, Bertot, what is the point of all your above rehtoric? I would oblige you by saying that in both instances, yours and mine, we cannot demonstrate the events of miracles or invisible life force, emprically, however, there is connected with each situation the best possible evidence to support the very real possibilty that these things actually occured and even continue to occur. One is general revelation (the natural) in your case and the other is specific revelation (the written/documented word)to the corroboration of Gods existence and divine communicated word.
Continuation of post 265
Here are a few examples of verses in the NT that require “blind faith”:
Matthew 1:23 Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son... (KJV)
Matthew 2:16 Then Herod...sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof... (KJV)
Matthew 14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. 14:29 ...And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water... (KJV) See also Mark 6:48/9 & John 6:19.
John 11:43/4 And when he {Jesus} thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus come forth.” And he that was dead came forth... (KJV)
These are not examples of blind faith. They are example of faith, they would only be blind if they were connected to a document that was unrealistic, innacurate and completley unreliable, there is the difference.
Apparently you have been unable to hear 90% of what I have been sharing with you since we met. Let me try again to establish with you my conception of the non-anthropomorphic Deity {a.k.a. God} to which I refer. Here we go:
That which we today call “living beings” are more than the mere sum of their scientifically acknowledged parts; a scientist today can take a peach seed and break it down to its most basic aspects-from its shell to its cells, its proteins, its DNA, its atoms, electrons, neutrons, and nucleolus-but when the scientist puts all of that back and makes again the same peach seed, that particular seed is incapable of growing for it is dead. Although the scientist did not even glimpse what escaped during the exhaustive examination process, or the process of reconstituting the peach seed, what would allow a peach seed to grow into a peach tree escaped without leaving a trace of Its/His existence. When I employ the term Deity or God I am referring to that which enables a peach seed to become a peach tree; that is The Sublime Mystery of Life, {a.k.a. The Supreme Natural Deity/God).
You and I are also much, much more that merely the sum of our parts. We are also more than the mere sum of our mortal experiences. Although we are objective, real human beings and our mortal experiences - whether real or imagined - have actually taken place according to our senses, what enables us to claim or proclaim mortal existence is The Sublime Mystery of Life. By perceiving The Supreme Natural Deity in every aspect of life that actually and truly exists on this planet that exists within the cosmos, Life become respected and revered at all levels. Loving one’s enemy and respecting one’s food supply, and one’s natural habitat becomes not only much easier, but imperative.
That is the natural reality I live within and share with you and all other beings on this little planet in the cosmos. There is nothing “supernatural” or “divine intervention” about it. Either the Divine & Sublime Mystery of Life is present or we simply do not exist.
The Sublime Mystery of Life. By perceiving The Supreme Natural Deity in every aspect of life that actually and truly exists on this planet that exists within the cosmos.
If you are not willing to admit that the above quote has anything to do with the supernatural and yet define God as real, omnipresent and divine it is obvious you are unwilling to be objective in any sense of the word. A rose by anyother name is still a rose, AM. If God actually exists and is real and is not simple material, yet he is unseen to you and unattainable from a human standpoint, that my friend is supernatural. I dont know anyone besides yourself that would define it otherwise.
I certainly hope that the “camp” I have always been in has become a little clearer to you
Supernatural: Since you like the dictionary so much>
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity
It snot that I dont understand you, its that you have involved yourself in the worst possible contradictions in some instances, that you cannot extricate yourself from.
AM writes
But I am quite certain that you guys feel quite comfortable with the supernatural “man” Jesus Christ as being “God in the flesh”, and there is nothing I can say or point out that will ever change your mind. But, you are left with the difficulty of making your Trinity (3) and/or Tetragrammaton (4) Judeo Hebrew God fit the “omnipresent” description and the human form at the same time. An omnipresent God is in all of us, not just Jesus. And God cannot only be in one man if God is in everything. You figure it out. I have not doubt that you already have.
This seems an odd argument to me, this contention that God is not, has not and will not mainifest himself in anthropomorhic form. I simply dont see why this is a issue.
If God exists and he is omnipresent and includes all that is in existence, then one could clearly ask what would be thepoint of creating or manifesting anything in a "finite" type of existence? What would be the point of creating anything in this seemingly limited fashion, why not just leave it the way it was, piritual, infinite and omnipotent. But since he clearly did create things in our present finite situation, what would be the problem with him also manifesting himself in a finite visual fashion to communicate with those creatures? I dont see what the big problem is and how do you know what God would or would not do in these instances, didnt you say that was out of your pay grade?
Also, Since you did not present any counter material to t he Gnostic question and did not reference any of the "vast" material I presented in that area, I will assume you have given up trying to defend E. Pagels and her caravan of Gnostic nonsense, ha ha.
Thanks
D Bertot
.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by autumnman, posted 08-16-2008 12:18 AM autumnman has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 274 of 321 (478551)
08-17-2008 10:51 AM


A Farewell from autumnman
bertot & jaywill
I apologize for no responding to your posts yesterday. A highly charged weather system came through and I was unable to turn on my computer without fear of getting it fried. This weather event, however, gave me some time to reflect on our weeks of discussion, as well as the ever-increasing adversarial tone of our debate in this final thread. It was never my intent to become anyone’s adversary on this forum. All I wanted to do is share some of what I had found in my research and allow whoever was interested to share their points of view with me. I feel as though that initial intent has been accomplished, and I have learned a great deal from everyone who has posted a reply. But you, bertot, and you, jaywill, have taught me the most; particularly you, bertot, for you have stayed with the discussion far longer than I ever could have hoped. For your insights, wit, and wisdom I thank you, bertot. For your incredible knowledge of Christian Scripture, I thank you, jaywill.
We share very different interpretations of the natural world in which we live, the English Language we speak, and the Scriptures that we respect. I feel that as long as our United States of America remains a secular government and true to its Constitution we will all continue to enjoy the freedom to interpret our world, our language, and our Scriptures as we personally see fit.
Once the grass dries harvest will get into full swing, and I am going to be very busy for at least two full months. For this reason I am going to stop posting on the EvC Forum for a while. I do hope you understand.
bertot, you have my Email address. Feel free to drop me a line if you ever feel inclined to do so. Whether our interpretations of anything are in agreement or not, please know that I respect you as a person whom I have come to know as a friend.
All the best,
Ger

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by doctrbill, posted 08-18-2008 9:42 AM autumnman has not replied
 Message 281 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-19-2008 10:38 AM autumnman has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 275 of 321 (478585)
08-18-2008 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by autumnman
08-17-2008 10:51 AM


Re: A Farewell from autumnman
autumnman writes:
"I feel that as long as our United States of America remains a secular government and true to its Constitution we will all continue to enjoy the freedom to interpret our world, our language, and our Scriptures as we personally see fit.
Just thought this vital message was worth re-iterating.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by autumnman, posted 08-17-2008 10:51 AM autumnman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by jaywill, posted 08-18-2008 9:47 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 276 of 321 (478586)
08-18-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by doctrbill
08-18-2008 9:42 AM


Re: A Farewell from autumnman
"I feel that as long as our United States of America remains a secular government and true to its Constitution we will all continue to enjoy the freedom to interpret our world, our language, and our Scriptures as we personally see fit.
I don't see why that wouldn't be the case regardless.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by doctrbill, posted 08-18-2008 9:42 AM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by NosyNed, posted 08-18-2008 1:28 PM jaywill has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 277 of 321 (478605)
08-18-2008 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by jaywill
08-18-2008 9:47 AM


Theocracies
"I feel that as long as our United States of America remains a secular government and true to its Constitution we will all continue to enjoy the freedom to interpret our world, our language, and our Scriptures as we personally see fit.
I don't see why that wouldn't be the case regardless.
Because every theocracy ever established extinguishes the rights of those who disagree with it. Sometimes slowly sometimes faster.
What would happen in the USA is clear from pronouncements of the fundamentalists who decry a secular government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by jaywill, posted 08-18-2008 9:47 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by jaywill, posted 08-18-2008 1:35 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 278 of 321 (478608)
08-18-2008 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by NosyNed
08-18-2008 1:28 PM


Re: Theocracies
Because every theocracy ever established extinguishes the rights of those who disagree with it. Sometimes slowly sometimes faster.
Yea, I guess under atheistic regimes like that of Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin we did see some tendencies like that.
You wouldn't find me voting for a government mandated national religion.
What would happen in the USA is clear from pronouncements of the fundamentalists who decry a secular government.
Do you mean the Fundamentalist Evolutionists? My goodness we would have to have an amendment declaring the separation of Ape and State.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by NosyNed, posted 08-18-2008 1:28 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by anglagard, posted 08-19-2008 3:16 AM jaywill has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 279 of 321 (478646)
08-19-2008 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by jaywill
08-18-2008 1:35 PM


Re: Theocracies
NosyNed writes:
Because every theocracy ever established extinguishes the rights of those who disagree with it. Sometimes slowly sometimes faster.
jaywill writes:
Yea, I guess under atheistic regimes like that of Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin we did see some tendencies like that.
You seem to have forgotten Hong Xiuquan of the Tiapeng Rebellion. After all, like so many of our Nietzschean fundamentalists, he simply believed he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ and therefore above the rules.
After all what is 20-30 million deaths compared to one person's claims to divinity?
Anyone like to read the Sermon on the Mount again?

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by jaywill, posted 08-18-2008 1:35 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by jaywill, posted 08-19-2008 8:13 AM anglagard has replied
 Message 282 by jaywill, posted 08-21-2008 9:05 AM anglagard has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 280 of 321 (478659)
08-19-2008 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by anglagard
08-19-2008 3:16 AM


Re: Theocracies
You seem to have forgotten Hong Xiuquan of the Tiapeng Rebellion. After all, like so many of our Nietzschean fundamentalists, he simply believed he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ and therefore above the rules.
After all what is 20-30 million deaths compared to one person's claims to divinity?
Anyone like to read the Sermon on the Mount again?
You have body count on how many people died because of the fanaticism not taught by Jesus, but was exploited by a sinner.
Do you have any stats or body count on how many people down through the centries were healed, had cloths put on their naked backs, had food placed on their tables, were sheltered, were assisted, were provided homes, were fed, were bandaged, were guided,were kept from going astray into crime,were educated, were supplied with necessities in the name of Jesus Christ?
Do you have body count on those matters also? I mean we should be historically objective about the matter of things done under the banner of Christ.
You could also include wars not fought or prevented because of prayers to God or because of someone being enfluenced by a conscience under Christ's teachings.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by anglagard, posted 08-19-2008 3:16 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by anglagard, posted 08-23-2008 2:37 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 281 of 321 (478668)
08-19-2008 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by autumnman
08-17-2008 10:51 AM


Re: A Farewell from autumnman
But you, bertot, and you, jaywill, have taught me the most; particularly you, bertot, for you have stayed with the discussion far longer than I ever could have hoped. For your insights, wit, and wisdom I thank you, bertot. For your incredible knowledge of Christian Scripture, I thank you, jaywill.
AM thanks for the kind words and heart felt final message. I also, have learned much from you as well. I hope things work out on the ranch. You have demonstrated in this debate a type of patience that would not be characteristic of others. You are I am sure as fine a person that anyone would want to meet in life.
It concerns me not a little that you believe the tone of the debate had turned antagonistic. I assure you that is not the case. If it were not for the prohibitions in the scriptures, that require me to "not sit down and eat with such a person", I am sure you would be a very fine person to involve myself with. You should never believe that the words I speak in the the debate are any reflection on you character as such, they are not. While I do not agree with your doctrines, I have only the greatest respect and admiration for you.
AM wrote;
These are some of the “events in the NT” that we are discussion there being an “overwhelming amount of evidence collected over 2000 years to indicate ... {they} never occurred”:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AM wrote: Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin who was impregnated by the Hebrew God yhwh, and that this divinely propagated individual walked on water, changed water to wine, raised the dead, and was bodily resurrected after being put to death on a cross; all of these and any other “supernatural” events described in the New Testament must in fact be accepted on blind faith and blind faith alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A virgin in this context is a human female who has never had her vagina penetrated so that a male sperm can fertilize one of her eggs. According to the basic biology of the female human body a virgin giving birth to a child is an absolute impossibility. Because it is an absolute impossibility for a virgin to give birth to a child that is why no virgin in human reality has ever given birth. Only in the ancient literature of myth, legend, and religion has a human female virgin ever been said to have given birth to a child.
To honestly believe that the virgin Mary actually and literally gave birth to yhwh God in the flesh and named that child Jesus one must employ “blind faith” for there is nothing in the real world that can confirm or corroborate such a feat.
Due to the molecular structure of water and the absolute force of gravity, water will not sustain a human body that attempts to walk upright upon it. The feet of a human being do not displace enough water for human feet to be sustained by it. To actually and literally believe that a human being walked on the water of the Sea of Galilee one must employ “blind faith” for there is nothing in the real world that can confirm or corroborate such a feat.
The only way in the real world to “change water into wine” is to irrigate a vineyard, harvest the grapes and then distill the grape juice into wine. To actually and literally believe that a human being can somehow miraculously turn a pitcher of water into wine one must employ “blind faith” for there is nothing in the real world that can confirm or corroborate such a feat.
To actually and literally believe the account of Jesus {yhwh God in the flesh} bringing the four day old rotting and smelly corpse of Lazarus back to mortal life as it is described in the New Testament one must employ “blind faith” for there is nothing in the real world that can confirm or corroborate such a feat. I do certainly hope that no more of explanation is needed. The same goes for the bodily resurrection of Jesus himself.
Since I do not consider this a summation, as you have indicated the possibility of returning to the subject at hand,there is one point I wished to address that I left relativley untouched, that I consider of extreme importance.
Its is you contention that observable nature or natural things are inconsistent with the miraculous. While this is usually the case and the miraculous is that which implies an act of God intervining in the natural order of things to accomplish his tasks or purposes, it does not seem unreasonable that a Deity with omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence would have any trouble accomplishing such small feats. In other words you are correct that nature or man may not be able to accomplish any of the feats, but why would this task be any problem for a deity that brought those same substances into existence in the first place.
Your argument here seems to be incongruent with your views of a supreme natural deity and the characteristics you assign to him, that of omnipotence and omniscience.
Is it also not concievable, that in the distant future, humankind could not learn how to accompish most if not all of the above feats in a slighty different manner that is not with in the natural order of things presently. Is it not concievable that at some point a pill could be devised when introduced into water that changes it into wine. While this is far fetched at this point, it is not inconcievable that at some point the distant future it will be second hand knowledge and capability.
How much more could a ominpotent Deity accomplish. The very existence of the God you believe in is and should be emperical evidence of the very real probablity of the miraculous. whats the big deal for God. Man is beginning to accomplish feats that defy the natural order of things already, that is not to say his action are unatural, he simply circumvents natural order to accomplish a task. A rocket pushing its way twords space defies the law of Gravity, etc.
Your over equivocation of the the word "miraculous" to the supernatural, is I believe, where your main problem exists, in your thinking. When we speak of the supernatural, it usually has to do with the exclusive nature of that which is not natural or visible. The miraculous, while parly supernatural, because God is involved should not be viewed as completley supernatural. A miraculous event is both supernatural and natural at the same time. It is simply God intervining in the natural order of the things he established, altering that order, by his omnipotence, temporarily to accomplish a task.
If we did not witness this event, it then beomes the supporting and surrounding evidence of that event, to suggest wether or not that event could or could not have occured. So far from be "blind faith", the supporting evidence, of his existence and onipotence coupled with his specific revelation, corroborate a supportable belief in that which you call the miraculous.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by autumnman, posted 08-17-2008 10:51 AM autumnman has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 282 of 321 (478843)
08-21-2008 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by anglagard
08-19-2008 3:16 AM


Re: Theocracies
Anyone like to read the Sermon on the Mount again?
I agree that we should read Matthew again. Here are some points to ponder on the Sermon on the Mount.
"Blessed are you when they reproach and persecute you, and while speaking lies, say every evil thing against you because of Me. Rejoice and exult, for your reward is great in the heavens; for so they persecuted the prophetss who were before you. " (Matt. 5:11,12)
We have to remember that for the sake of Jesus Christ all manner of lies and evil speakings will have to be endured. Some apparently with some plausible basis and some with none.
Case in point, implying that who Jesus is and what He taught is responsible for many deaths. The Christian will have to endure much "guilt by association" with those who utlized the name of Christ for selfish purposes.
"You are the salt of the earth ..." (Matt. 5:13)
The salt of the earth is meant to preserve the earth from being totally rotten and corrupted. Salt is a preservative, a stop measure to halt the decline of rotteness.
The Christian church is not on the earth to renovate the world totally. It is only there to be a testimony and preserve the earth from being totally corrupted until Christ returns to establish a kingdom.
Salt is only a preservative. The salt of the earth does not heal all the problems of the world. It only prevents total decay of human society.
"Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth" (MAtt. 5:5)
The planet will not ultimately be ruled by the armies of the world. World rulers will not finally possess the earth through their weopons and power. The meek who believe in Christ and trust their vindication to Him will inherit the earth.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matt. 5:8)
To be pure in heart is to be single eyed and focused on one thing - God Himself. In the midst of so many pressing responsibilities and duties the pure in heart keep a simple single eye of hope on Jesus Christ and His kingdom. A single and simple fixed vision of the divine will cause them to see God. We desperately need to see God in the midst of such tumultuous times.
"Enter in through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction and many are those who enter through it. Because narrow is the gate and constricted is the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it." (Matt. 7:13,14)
The way of the kingdom of Christ will not be popular. It is like swimming upstream like a Salmon. It is much easier to be carried along downward by the current of the age.
Lastly these two points show that we cannot make it to be kingdom people without having the divine life of God implanted into our being. We need the living Person of Christ grafted into our being. He has to indwell us.
"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit." (7:18)
The only good tree in the universe is the man Jesus. He has the life that can produce for the will of God and the kingdom of God. He must impart Himself into us as the good tree that we can bear fruit to God. Otherwise we cannot - "You must be born again" (John 3:7)
( This is the Bible Study Room. )
Human perfection must be derived from being born of the diivne Father. His life must enter into us and saturate us. "You shall be perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Our only hope is to have God beget us to be His sons and daughters with His Spirit and divine nature. Then His perfection will grow and spread within us and ultimately swallow us up into His expression as Jesus expressed the divine Father.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by anglagard, posted 08-19-2008 3:16 AM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 283 of 321 (479002)
08-23-2008 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by jaywill
08-19-2008 8:13 AM


Theocracies Suck for Many Reasons
I am a bit reluctant to respond to you in this particular thread as it seems our conversation is moving it off-topic. However, I have found a good reason to respond to this particular post as it may lead to a new thread.
jaywill writes:
You have body count on how many people died because of the fanaticism not taught by Jesus, but was exploited by a sinner.
He learned about Christianity from Western missionaries, a well documented historic fact. The problem is that much of what he learned came from poorly translated snippets of the Bible. One reason I pointed out the Tiapeng Rebellion as a problem is I wanted to show what tragic consequences can occur when self-proclaimed personal inerrancy in Biblical interpretation is practiced in the real world.
The other reason is that I find it incredibly simple-minded to assert that all atheists are 'bad' while anyone who claims to be divinely inspired is automatically 'good.' In addition to Hong Xiuquan, we have several American examples such as Jim Jones, David Koresh, 'Bo' and "Peep,' and of course the infamous Charles Manson, who claimed to be both Jesus and Satan.
It is also incredibly arrogant of one who purports a desire to convert and save souls to conversely demonize them and therefore help drive them away from Christ just for a warped sense of personal satisfaction.
Of course, I doubt that in your shoot-from-the-hip style of posting, you actually want to open yourself up to these negative connotations, but it is difficult to determine what you really intend with the 'me and mine is saved, everyone else is damned' and 'I am one with Christ and you're not, nyah, nyah, nyah' message I still keep seeing.
Do you have any stats or body count on how many people down through the centries were healed, had cloths put on their naked backs, had food placed on their tables, were sheltered, were assisted, were provided homes, were fed, were bandaged, were guided,were kept from going astray into crime,were educated, were supplied with necessities in the name of Jesus Christ?
Do you have body count on those matters also? I mean we should be historically objective about the matter of things done under the banner of Christ.
You could also include wars not fought or prevented because of prayers to God or because of someone being enfluenced by a conscience under Christ's teachings.
I don't have any offhand but if you do, please post them in a new thread. I think such a discussion (or in our case argument), would provide for a very interesting topic. Perhaps you would learn to appreciate what high regard I have for Christians who actually go out and heal the sick, feed the poor, and bring peace as actually instructed to do in the NT.
Nah, I doubt it.
I will await your PNT for a week or two and if you prove too bashful to propose this as a topic, I think I will.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by jaywill, posted 08-19-2008 8:13 AM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-23-2008 2:46 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 285 by Phat, posted 08-23-2008 6:32 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 284 of 321 (479003)
08-23-2008 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by anglagard
08-23-2008 2:37 AM


Re: Theocracies Suck for Many Reasons
anglagard writes
I am a bit reluctant to respond to you in this particular thread as it seems our conversation is moving it off-topic. However, I have found a good reason to respond to this particular post as it may lead to a new thread.
Hey, Bertot here proceed with Jaywill as you wish I dont think Autumnman is going to return, the rest of the posts are yours, Jaywills or whoever. Have a blast its interesting to watch the thread proceed
Anglagard writes:
Of course, I doubt that in your shoot-from-the-hip style of posting, you actually want to open yourself up to these negative connotations, but it is difficult to determine what you really intend with the 'me and mine is saved, everyone else is damned' and 'I am one with Christ and you're not, nyah, nyah, nyah' message I still keep seeing.
Besides this I think you will find Jaywill much more accomadating than you think.
thanks
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by anglagard, posted 08-23-2008 2:37 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 285 of 321 (479013)
08-23-2008 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by anglagard
08-23-2008 2:37 AM


Re: Theocracies Suck for Many Reasons
anglagard writes:
The other reason is that I find it incredibly simple-minded to assert that all atheists are 'bad' while anyone who claims to be divinely inspired is automatically 'good.'
Actually to carry that argument a step further....IF there were some sort of spiritual impartation and communion with the Holy Spirit that differentiated believers from non-believers, we would expect to see dramatic statistical confirmations that would clearly show the influence of the Holy Spirit, since believers should have lower divorce rates (ideally zero, one would think) lower crime statistics, fewer bankruptcies, and in general a lifestyle pattern that reflected the influence of God operating in and through them.
Sadly, we see no such distinction....and thus question whether "saved" people had a leg up on the ones who do not experience god so vividly and personally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by anglagard, posted 08-23-2008 2:37 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by jaywill, posted 08-23-2008 5:03 PM Phat 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