…I would argue that Christianity is a Hellenistic religion, and shares many of the Hellenistic archetypes, and even the tone in, and use of, Greek [/quote]
You suppose that might have something to do with the fact that even in Palestine at the time of Christ Greek was the commonly used language?[/quote]
Why yes it does.
If I wasn’t clear there, I’ll be here: I’m not just talking about the it being written in Greek. Newton wrote in Latin, but you’d know he wasn’t a Roman reading it. The NT (Gospel of John is probably the best example) was written by good Aristotelian-thinking citizens of the Hellenistic world, not as Palestinian Jews writing in Greek because that’s what they knew.
Like I said, the NT oozes Aristotelian dogma. It’s no accident that Christian Scholastics then spent the next millennium after the Bible was canonized writing treatises explicitly melding Aristotelian Metaphysics to Church dogma.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Dmaddox and Mse2us - i got sidetracked by the other discussion - are you two discussing whether or not Jesus is Divine? if so, great DEBATE - goes all the way back to the 3rd century - shall we rehash the old lines or are we onto a new rationale? Bring me up to speed![/quote]
mse2us and I will always debate the Divinity of Jesus. It is the foundation of both or our religious beleifs. He is Jehovahs Witness so Jesus is just an angel. I on the other hand beleive that Jesus is God. This kind of streams over from the Catholic thread where we had a great discussion.[/quote]
Gotcha - ok - well, if you need some more input on that - or if you want to start its own thread - let me know
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Dmaddox and Mse2us - i got sidetracked by the other discussion - are you two discussing whether or not Jesus is Divine? if so, great DEBATE - goes all the way back to the 3rd century - shall we rehash the old lines or are we onto a new rationale? Bring me up to speed![/quote]
mse2us and I will always debate the Divinity of Jesus. It is the foundation of both or our religious beleifs. He is Jehovahs Witness so Jesus is just an angel. I on the other hand beleive that Jesus is God. This kind of streams over from the Catholic thread where we had a great discussion.[/quote]
Yes we did have a great discussion. I do like to talk about the Trinity and show from the Bible that God and Jesus are not the same spirit beings. I just can’t get past the fact that people like Push would rather believe something that he admitted he can’t understand and is beyond him when there are dozens of scriptures that specifically address both God and Jesus and clearly state who has greater authority in any translation of the Bible. Why believe a teaching that has to be inferred upon and not clearly stated when there are scriptures like 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 which states:
“24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that 'all things have been subjeced, it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him . 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.”
Why not believe a scripture that is clear and direct like the verses above instead of believing something that is hard to understand and mysterious?
The belief is so dangerous because we have the largest Christian religion praying to Mary instead of God because they think she is God’s mother when Mary is not held in any high esteem anywhere in the Christian-Greek scriptures.
We have people directing their prayers to the second most important being in the universe instead of the most important. Jesus said no one gets to the father except through him. So we’re supposed to pray to God through Jesus not to Jesus directly.[/quote]
Sounds like a great topic - if you would start a new thread, I’ll be happy to join in
Which camp would you put yourself in? It helps us all to know where you are coming from.[/quote]
I’d put myself in the Agnostic camp, but on the “It’s not knowable.” side of the camp at the moment.
I was raised Jewish when I was young, then the parents divorced and my mom turned the kids Catholic for the rest of minorhood (for a little more where I’m coming from).[/quote]
Understandable of why you are agnostic. Thanks for the info. At least you are asking questions and not just judging us.[/quote]
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Simply put, I don’t believe anyone can know for sure when discussing things of metaphysical nature. None of us where there (moment of creation, biblical events, etc) so nobody can argue that their point is correct unless they have direct evidence.
Truthfully, I cannot tell you whether God exists or not. And you cannot tell me he does exist. You don’t have magic powers or incite I don’t have. Getting messages in your prayers or feelings doesn’t count either as these can be delusional.
My position is purely to find the truth and cut through the bullshit. I just happen to see far more bullshit on the theist side with claims that have minimal evidence.
[/quote]
BIA - I agree with you that from a metaphysical perspective we can never have 100% absolute certainty on the existence of the divine until we encounter him directly and personally - ie, direct evidence.
I also appreciate your honesty concerning being able to say whether or not God exists. That is why faith and reason have to be part of the whole of your worldview. Faith should never violate reason, and reason should never violate faith - they have to work in harmony and if that is the point you are at - kudos - that’s an excellent place to be.
I stood there myself. As I have described in other (much lengthier debates) i came to a settled faith in the existence of the Divine via my studies in Taoism - from my settled faith in the existence of the Divine I came to a settled belief in God as revealed thru the Bible and have adopted Christianity as my religion.
If you ar ehonest about your search for the truth - I know you will find it - because truth is searching for you as well.[/quote]
But, no, they can’t. Not if they’re trying to have an honest debate. Atheists don’t get to determine who/what God must be. Let me say it a bit better. They don’t get to make an argument for who/what God must be. Once they do, they’ve stopped participating honestly in the debate. [/quote]
This tactic by atheists gets boring. Example: “I hereby allow you to have a loving God but not a righteous judge. I, the atheist, do hereby decree this. It’s either one or the other for you silly Christians. God cannot be both.”[/quote]
Doesn’t your own doctrine preach an absolute on what God must be? Only bizarre if it doesn’t agree with your faith? Hmmmm. I’d say the only one with a notion of “absolutes” is the dogmatic among us.[/quote]
Of course my doctrine does. It’s your doctrine that doesn’t. Which is why your arguing what God must or mustn’t be is bizarre. Or your doctrine that we musn’t consider doctrine when debating if God (which you don’t believe in) is “the same one.” Anyways. Dogmatic, me? Thanks![/quote]
You’re clueless as to what I think so don’t assume. I believe in God. I do not think the Bible is his infallible word however. I think it is the corrupted work of man. Nowhere did I ever say I did not believe in God. If you can’t even get that right, where lies the credibility of your rebuttals?
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Simply put, I don’t believe anyone can know for sure when discussing things of metaphysical nature. None of us where there (moment of creation, biblical events, etc) so nobody can argue that their point is correct unless they have direct evidence.
Truthfully, I cannot tell you whether God exists or not. And you cannot tell me he does exist. You don’t have magic powers or incite I don’t have. Getting messages in your prayers or feelings doesn’t count either as these can be delusional.
My position is purely to find the truth and cut through the bullshit. I just happen to see far more bullshit on the theist side with claims that have minimal evidence.
[/quote]
BIA - I agree with you that from a metaphysical perspective we can never have 100% absolute certainty on the existence of the divine until we encounter him directly and personally - ie, direct evidence.
I also appreciate your honesty concerning being able to say whether or not God exists. That is why faith and reason have to be part of the whole of your worldview. Faith should never violate reason, and reason should never violate faith - they have to work in harmony and if that is the point you are at - kudos - that’s an excellent place to be.
I stood there myself. As I have described in other (much lengthier debates) i came to a settled faith in the existence of the Divine via my studies in Taoism - from my settled faith in the existence of the Divine I came to a settled belief in God as revealed thru the Bible and have adopted Christianity as my religion.
If you ar ehonest about your search for the truth - I know you will find it - because truth is searching for you as well.[/quote]
I’m confused. Or maybe you’re confused. You are Christian? Correct? And the Bible is the uncorrupted word of God. Correct? Well then you 100% absolutely sure of his existence and moreover, his nature - shouldn’t you?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s arguing just to argue. [/quote]
You nailed it - he and Body are simply trying to trip someone up in order to validate their own conclusions. They jump from issue to issue in order to bait someone into an argument. Thye do not understand or choose to ignore the difference between debating an issue and arguing over an issue.
Lemme splain - Arguing: “I belive A” - (well you’re wrong) - “no, I really do believe it” - (well you can’t, because I believe B) - “well, I still belive A” - (your just ignoring the issue) . . .
Debating: “I believe A” - (well, I believe B, why do you believe A ) - " I believe A because of 3, C and Blue" - (oh, well, I believe B because of 3, C and Yellow) - “I see, why do you choose Yellow over Blue?” - and so on and so forth.[/quote]
Precisely. I see SOME give and take and honest questions with BiA (and a whole lot of insults). I see nothing but insults and “I’m right no matter what you say” with BG. He’s here strictly to brawl. [/quote]
No. I was here for a debate, the ending of which I already know - irreconcilable differences. However, in the interim, I was quite willing to examine the Gospels and such. There were no takers. Instead, we are talking about serpents and arguing about Allah.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m confused. Or maybe you’re confused. You are Christian? Correct? And the Bible is the uncorrupted word of God. Correct? Well then you 100% absolutely sure of his existence and moreover, his nature - shouldn’t you?[/quote]
Still looking for an argument?
Yes I am 100% absolutely certain in the Existence of God.
Doesn’t your own doctrine preach an absolute on what God must be? Only bizarre if it doesn’t agree with your faith? Hmmmm. I’d say the only one with a notion of “absolutes” is the dogmatic among us.[/quote]
Of course my doctrine does. It’s your doctrine that doesn’t. Which is why your arguing what God must or mustn’t be is bizarre. Or your doctrine that we musn’t consider doctrine when debating if God (which you don’t believe in) is “the same one.” Anyways. Dogmatic, me? Thanks![/quote]
You’re clueless as to what I think so don’t assume. I believe in God. I do not think the Bible is his infallible word however. I think it is the corrupted work of man. Nowhere did I ever say I did not believe in God. If you can’t even get that right, where lies the credibility of your rebuttals?[/quote]
So one doctrine of your religious faith is that the Bible is a corrupted work of man. Ok, we’re now clear on the foundation for your own dogma.
This is now a disagreement between two conflicting faiths =P
