Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:
Revelation 19:13 identifies Jesus as “The Word of God.”[/quote]

Revelation says a lot of things, and like I said before, it was written by a John Doe with no relation to Jesus, and perhaps a tangential relationship to some of the Apostles’ apostles.

Just take John as a text in itself. You all are bringing too much to the table, and not taking the text at face value, and also reading from translations with hundreds of years of dogma behind them.

The text basically gives us the origin of reason (I’m not giving the entire Spartiates translation of John), but to paraphrase it says that reason/logic was made corporal (of the world of man), and encamped itself amongst us, we behold reason’s glory as the product of the father, which is full of good quality and truth (reason is good and brings truth). And this (reason) we all receive, grace for grace.

then John: 17: For the custom was given through Moses, but that which is pleasing and true (truth) through Joshua the good.

Joshua (Jesus) looks to be a teacher of divine logic/reason.

It’s a vastly different narrative than the one most Sunday Schools teach when you stop inferring the Logos refers to Joshua the good, and is instead what is itself being brought/given to the people through Joshua.[/quote]

Can you explain how this is “vastly” different. To me it delivers the same message as the translation in, for example, the NIV. It just isn’t in “layman’s terms”. All you have done is replaced Word with reason/logic. The message and meaning are still the same.[/quote]

No they are not. One links jesus with the father or makes a case for his divinity. The other does not. It makes him a messenger. Big difference. Or so the Jews and Muslims would argue This is why I harp all the time about authorship, translation and corruption.

[BackInAction]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]

It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.

Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]

Traditional, but specifically Catholic view. Read the Creed.

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]

First off, I don’t think they would try to define God. That’s what the theists do. So you’re correct in that aspect. But there can be no debate without a definition. I can’t just say “I believe in this” without defining what it is.

For example:

Say I belong to the “Penguin Political Party”. Someone asks why it’s better than “Camel Party”. Without a definition of what “Penguin Party” is, there can be no meaningful discussion or debate.[/quote]

If you don’t believe the Camel Party exists, how can you have a meaningful debate? How do you debate the particulars about something you don’t believe exists?[/quote]

People debate on things that they don’t believe in all the time. Scientists for one. For example, some believe the Big Bang happened, others don’t. They can debate on this once they discuss what they believe and why. This ultimately leads to a better understanding and possibly a solution.

[/quote]

Ok. So I believe in the Camel Party, you don’t. We establish why we believe the way we do, then what? The only thing up for actual debate is the existence. Why (and how) debate the particulars before the existence is hashed out? It doesn’t make sense to debate anything else until that is resolved.

The Camel Party hates rocks, I say.

You say no, that doesn’t make any sense. Why would the Camel Party hate rocks? If there were a Camel Party, it only makes sense they wouldn’t hate rocks?

[/quote]

When I ask for a definition, I’m not asking for proof the Camel Party exists. I’m asking for a definition of what the Camel Party is. You would answer “a political that hates rocks”. Now we can discuss why you believe in that party, why they hate rocks, etc. That’s what I’m really after.

If a person can’t define what Camel Party stands for, how they truly believe in it, you know? They are just following it without understanding it.[/quote]

Ok. Fair enough. However, you realize this does bring us back to the question of wether we can ever understand God in the first place or not, right? And by extension, if you as an agnostic can’t fully comprehend God, you choose not to believe. I as a theist know I won’t ever fully comprehend, and realize this is what makes Him so great and capable of everything I believe.

So am I wrong for following something I can’t fully understand, just because I can’t fully understand it? Have you ever followed your “gut”, even though your gut didn’t explain it to you?[/quote]

I agree that we cannot truly know God if he exists. There are many mysteries in this universe and assuming we will discover everything is arrogant.

I’m not here to judge you or your “gut” feeling. I can tell you I’ve follow my “gut” for many different things, but not all of them have been correct or turned out how I wanted. So while I still listen to my “gut” (as it’s usually right), I think through why I should follow it.[/quote]

I would say that is what Christians do. We have a “gut” feeling, but we have to make sure that gut feeling is in line with scripture. If it is not inline with scripture it is not from God. You see where I am coming from?[/quote]

Yes, I understand that. My only concern is if people use scripture as their only source. If other sources conflict with scripture, one should be ready to give it up and accept it’s not perfect. That does not mean people should lose faith, but they should lose faith in the teachings from their scripture.
[/quote]

That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

If scripture told you to do an act you personally find reprehensible, would you still do it?

If you do the act, you would be sacrificing your personal morals and humanity. If you don’t do the act, you are sacrificing your faith. Which is more important to you?[/quote]

Give me an example.[/quote]

“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.”
-Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB[/quote]

That is under the law. Christians are not under the law, but grace. Jesus has said that he who has no sin cast the first stone. I personally have sin so I will not be the judge and jury.[/quote]

So why do Christians have this in their Bible if it’s not meant to be followed?

[BackInAction]

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]

It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.

Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]

Traditional, but specifically Catholic view. Read the Creed.

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]

First off, I don’t think they would try to define God. That’s what the theists do. So you’re correct in that aspect. But there can be no debate without a definition. I can’t just say “I believe in this” without defining what it is.

For example:

Say I belong to the “Penguin Political Party”. Someone asks why it’s better than “Camel Party”. Without a definition of what “Penguin Party” is, there can be no meaningful discussion or debate.[/quote]

If you don’t believe the Camel Party exists, how can you have a meaningful debate? How do you debate the particulars about something you don’t believe exists?[/quote]

People debate on things that they don’t believe in all the time. Scientists for one. For example, some believe the Big Bang happened, others don’t. They can debate on this once they discuss what they believe and why. This ultimately leads to a better understanding and possibly a solution.

[/quote]

Ok. So I believe in the Camel Party, you don’t. We establish why we believe the way we do, then what? The only thing up for actual debate is the existence. Why (and how) debate the particulars before the existence is hashed out? It doesn’t make sense to debate anything else until that is resolved.

The Camel Party hates rocks, I say.

You say no, that doesn’t make any sense. Why would the Camel Party hate rocks? If there were a Camel Party, it only makes sense they wouldn’t hate rocks?

[/quote]

When I ask for a definition, I’m not asking for proof the Camel Party exists. I’m asking for a definition of what the Camel Party is. You would answer “a political that hates rocks”. Now we can discuss why you believe in that party, why they hate rocks, etc. That’s what I’m really after.

If a person can’t define what Camel Party stands for, how they truly believe in it, you know? They are just following it without understanding it.[/quote]

Ok. Fair enough. However, you realize this does bring us back to the question of wether we can ever understand God in the first place or not, right? And by extension, if you as an agnostic can’t fully comprehend God, you choose not to believe. I as a theist know I won’t ever fully comprehend, and realize this is what makes Him so great and capable of everything I believe.

So am I wrong for following something I can’t fully understand, just because I can’t fully understand it? Have you ever followed your “gut”, even though your gut didn’t explain it to you?[/quote]

I agree that we cannot truly know God if he exists. There are many mysteries in this universe and assuming we will discover everything is arrogant.

I’m not here to judge you or your “gut” feeling. I can tell you I’ve follow my “gut” for many different things, but not all of them have been correct or turned out how I wanted. So while I still listen to my “gut” (as it’s usually right), I think through why I should follow it.[/quote]

I would say that is what Christians do. We have a “gut” feeling, but we have to make sure that gut feeling is in line with scripture. If it is not inline with scripture it is not from God. You see where I am coming from?[/quote]

Yes, I understand that. My only concern is if people use scripture as their only source. If other sources conflict with scripture, one should be ready to give it up and accept it’s not perfect. That does not mean people should lose faith, but they should lose faith in the teachings from their scripture.
[/quote]

That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

If scripture told you to do an act you personally find reprehensible, would you still do it?

If you do the act, you would be sacrificing your personal morals and humanity. If you don’t do the act, you are sacrificing your faith. Which is more important to you?[/quote]

Give me an example.[/quote]

“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.”
-Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB[/quote]
Yes the penalties for adultery and fornication back in the days of the Israelites were tough. God dealt differently with the nation of Israel than he does with the Christian congregation. This was to keep the Iraelites morally and spiritually clean so God clearly stated what they could and could not do along with the penalty for breaking the commands. Remember the promised seed Jesus was going to come from the nation of Israel so God put these measures in place to ensure that the commands would be followed and that the seed would be produced.[/quote]

Did this passage from Deuteronomy mean that it should be followed today?

[Sloth]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

What makes you think John is referring to Jesus in 1:1?

In reference to my previous post about the Aristotelianess of the NT, John 1 is a perfect example. Logos, in a gross oversimplification/mistranslation is rendered “word” in most English translations, but that’s not what it means. Logos is one of those great Aristotle words. Lexis is the word that would have been used if John were talking about words, like “The word of God”.

Logos is more like logic, reason, or order: it’s an abstract concept. Very Aristotelian no?

“In the beginning was reason/logic, and the reason/logic was with the divine, and logic/reason was the divine.” [/quote]

They don’t want to hear this, but thanks for making the effort.[/quote]

Your support is misplaced. His post was his responsded with verse showing that the ‘The Word,’ was in fact Jesus. Yeesh. Guys, if you had read just a for more verses past, this wouldn’t have even been up for debate.

[Spartiates]

[quote]cueball wrote:
Can you explain how this is “vastly” different. To me it delivers the same message as the translation in, for example, the NIV. It just isn’t in “layman’s terms”. All you have done is replaced Word with reason/logic. The message and meaning are still the same.[/quote]

…well, Jesus is not “The Word”. The story is not about Jesus, the Messiah, son of God! The story is about divine logic being brought to the people through a teacher, to supplant the laws of Moses (and other mystical beliefs).

Edit: Didn’t see this:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

No they are not. One links jesus with the father or makes a case for his divinity. The other does not. It makes him a messenger. Big difference. Or so the Jews and Muslims would argue This is why I harp all the time about authorship, translation and corruption. [/quote]

Yes.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Your support is misplaced. His post was his responsded with verse showing that the ‘The Word,’ was in fact Jesus. Yeesh. Guys, if you had read just a for more verses past, this wouldn’t have even been up for debate.[/quote]

Read the followup posts. John is clearly not saying Jesus is divine, but brings some thing from the divine for us (is a messenger/teacher). later in the Gospel, Jesus himself denies being “The Good”, a prophet or divine himself.

[dmaddox]

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]

It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.

Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]

Traditional, but specifically Catholic view. Read the Creed.

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]

First off, I don’t think they would try to define God. That’s what the theists do. So you’re correct in that aspect. But there can be no debate without a definition. I can’t just say “I believe in this” without defining what it is.

For example:

Say I belong to the “Penguin Political Party”. Someone asks why it’s better than “Camel Party”. Without a definition of what “Penguin Party” is, there can be no meaningful discussion or debate.[/quote]

If you don’t believe the Camel Party exists, how can you have a meaningful debate? How do you debate the particulars about something you don’t believe exists?[/quote]

People debate on things that they don’t believe in all the time. Scientists for one. For example, some believe the Big Bang happened, others don’t. They can debate on this once they discuss what they believe and why. This ultimately leads to a better understanding and possibly a solution.

[/quote]

Ok. So I believe in the Camel Party, you don’t. We establish why we believe the way we do, then what? The only thing up for actual debate is the existence. Why (and how) debate the particulars before the existence is hashed out? It doesn’t make sense to debate anything else until that is resolved.

The Camel Party hates rocks, I say.

You say no, that doesn’t make any sense. Why would the Camel Party hate rocks? If there were a Camel Party, it only makes sense they wouldn’t hate rocks?

[/quote]

When I ask for a definition, I’m not asking for proof the Camel Party exists. I’m asking for a definition of what the Camel Party is. You would answer “a political that hates rocks”. Now we can discuss why you believe in that party, why they hate rocks, etc. That’s what I’m really after.

If a person can’t define what Camel Party stands for, how they truly believe in it, you know? They are just following it without understanding it.[/quote]

Ok. Fair enough. However, you realize this does bring us back to the question of wether we can ever understand God in the first place or not, right? And by extension, if you as an agnostic can’t fully comprehend God, you choose not to believe. I as a theist know I won’t ever fully comprehend, and realize this is what makes Him so great and capable of everything I believe.

So am I wrong for following something I can’t fully understand, just because I can’t fully understand it? Have you ever followed your “gut”, even though your gut didn’t explain it to you?[/quote]

I agree that we cannot truly know God if he exists. There are many mysteries in this universe and assuming we will discover everything is arrogant.

I’m not here to judge you or your “gut” feeling. I can tell you I’ve follow my “gut” for many different things, but not all of them have been correct or turned out how I wanted. So while I still listen to my “gut” (as it’s usually right), I think through why I should follow it.[/quote]

I would say that is what Christians do. We have a “gut” feeling, but we have to make sure that gut feeling is in line with scripture. If it is not inline with scripture it is not from God. You see where I am coming from?[/quote]

Yes, I understand that. My only concern is if people use scripture as their only source. If other sources conflict with scripture, one should be ready to give it up and accept it’s not perfect. That does not mean people should lose faith, but they should lose faith in the teachings from their scripture.
[/quote]

That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

If scripture told you to do an act you personally find reprehensible, would you still do it?

If you do the act, you would be sacrificing your personal morals and humanity. If you don’t do the act, you are sacrificing your faith. Which is more important to you?[/quote]

Give me an example.[/quote]

“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.”
-Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB[/quote]

That is under the law. Christians are not under the law, but grace. Jesus has said that he who has no sin cast the first stone. I personally have sin so I will not be the judge and jury.[/quote]

So why do Christians have this in their Bible if it’s not meant to be followed?[/quote]

Good question. This might not be the answer you are looking for, but to me is shows where we have come from. This is what happens to man when under the law and not under Grace. When compared to God we are off the mark because of sin. God hates sin and it is sin that separates us from him, but when under Grace God sees us through the blood of Jesus where we are all unblemished. God wants to be with us and that is why Jesus came to Earth to die for us. God demands blood for sin as seen through all the sacrifices in the Old Testament. The blood of animals is not a one time sacrifice and that is it. You have to continue to sacrifice every year. Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice. Some might say that Jesus is only the Son of God and angel, but I say he is both the Son of God and God himself. God giving up himself to bring us into fellowship with us. He loves us that much. You see where I am trying to go with this? Some others on here might be able to put this in thesis form, and better to comprehend, but this is what I understand the Bible to say.

[dmaddox]

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
Can you explain how this is “vastly” different. To me it delivers the same message as the translation in, for example, the NIV. It just isn’t in “layman’s terms”. All you have done is replaced Word with reason/logic. The message and meaning are still the same.[/quote]

…well, Jesus is not “The Word”. The story is not about Jesus, the Messiah, son of God! The story is about divine logic being brought to the people through a teacher, to supplant the laws of Moses (and other mystical beliefs).

Edit: Didn’t see this:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

No they are not. One links jesus with the father or makes a case for his divinity. The other does not. It makes him a messenger. Big difference. Or so the Jews and Muslims would argue This is why I harp all the time about authorship, translation and corruption. [/quote]

Yes.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Your support is misplaced. His post was his responsded with verse showing that the ‘The Word,’ was in fact Jesus. Yeesh. Guys, if you had read just a for more verses past, this wouldn’t have even been up for debate.[/quote]

Read the followup posts. John is clearly not saying Jesus is divine, but brings some thing from the divine for us (is a messenger/teacher). later in the Gospel, Jesus himself denies being “The Good”, a prophet or divine himself.[/quote]

You, being agnostic, and mse2us, being Jehovah’s Witness, have the same thoughts on this passage. You are not a Christian, but mse2us claims to be a Christian. I find this kind of ironic.

[Spartiates]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

You, being agnostic, and mse2us, being Jehovah’s Witness, have the same thoughts on this passage. You are not a Christian, but mse2us claims to be a Christian. I find this kind of ironic.[/quote]

I know very little about Jehovah’s Witnesses. I do know that Gnostic Christians, who were pre-Nicene Council Christians (and most of the rest were soon thereafter exterminated by the Holy Church) preached this (my reading in the previous posts), and had a number of non-canon gospels that added to this view of Jesus as a teacher of divine knowledge, of this “good” i.e. logic and reason, that would permeate society.

This reading is nothing new, and predates the canonization, by a bunch of Greek priests in the 4th century, of the Bible we all know. It was however, an interpretation violently suppressed once official Church dogma became canonized, and The Church got an army under its belt.

[mse2us]

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:
Revelation 19:13 identifies Jesus as “The Word of God.”[/quote]

Revelation says a lot of things, and like I said before, it was written by a John Doe with no relation to Jesus, and perhaps a tangential relationship to some of the Apostles’ apostles.

Just take John as a text in itself. You all are bringing too much to the table, and not taking the text at face value, and also reading from translations with hundreds of years of dogma behind them.

The text basically gives us the origin of reason (I’m not giving the entire Spartiates translation of John), but to paraphrase it says that reason/logic was made corporal (of the world of man), and encamped itself amongst us, we behold reason’s glory as the product of the father, which is full of good quality and truth (reason is good and brings truth). And this (reason) we all receive, grace for grace.

then John: 17: For the custom was given through Moses, but that which is pleasing and true (truth) through Joshua the good.

Joshua (Jesus) looks to be a teacher of divine logic/reason.

It’s a vastly different narrative than the one most Sunday Schools teach when you stop inferring the Logos refers to Joshua the good, and is instead what is itself being brought/given to the people through Joshua.

Edit: I’m not going to be hurt if you don’t like my translation, but I would suggest that you check all preconceived notions on Christianity at the door, and read John as a text unto itself and see what you get. Take it at face value.[/quote]
Revelation was written by the apostle John the writer of the gospel that bears his name and the writer of John 1, 2 and 3. The apostle John was with Jesus and has a first hand account of Jesus.

[mse2us]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
Can you explain how this is “vastly” different. To me it delivers the same message as the translation in, for example, the NIV. It just isn’t in “layman’s terms”. All you have done is replaced Word with reason/logic. The message and meaning are still the same.[/quote]

…well, Jesus is not “The Word”. The story is not about Jesus, the Messiah, son of God! The story is about divine logic being brought to the people through a teacher, to supplant the laws of Moses (and other mystical beliefs).

Edit: Didn’t see this:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

No they are not. One links jesus with the father or makes a case for his divinity. The other does not. It makes him a messenger. Big difference. Or so the Jews and Muslims would argue This is why I harp all the time about authorship, translation and corruption. [/quote]

Yes.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Your support is misplaced. His post was his responsded with verse showing that the ‘The Word,’ was in fact Jesus. Yeesh. Guys, if you had read just a for more verses past, this wouldn’t have even been up for debate.[/quote]

Read the followup posts. John is clearly not saying Jesus is divine, but brings some thing from the divine for us (is a messenger/teacher). later in the Gospel, Jesus himself denies being “The Good”, a prophet or divine himself.[/quote]

You, being agnostic, and mse2us, being Jehovah’s Witness, have the same thoughts on this passage. You are not a Christian, but mse2us claims to be a Christian. I find this kind of ironic.[/quote]
Diggity D, I don’t know why you can’t understand this when I write it. Yes Jesus is divine. Any spirit being from heaven is divine. So I don’t deny Jesus is divine; he is divine. However, I do deny that Jesus is God Almighty because the Bible clearly states that they are two seperate spirit beings and God is head of Jesus(1 Corinthians 11:3) and Jesus is subject to God (1 Corinthians 15-24-28.

Do you now understand my position?

[BBriere]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]

It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.

Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]

Traditional, but specifically Catholic view. Read the Creed.

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]

First off, I don’t think they would try to define God. That’s what the theists do. So you’re correct in that aspect. But there can be no debate without a definition. I can’t just say “I believe in this” without defining what it is.

For example:

Say I belong to the “Penguin Political Party”. Someone asks why it’s better than “Camel Party”. Without a definition of what “Penguin Party” is, there can be no meaningful discussion or debate.[/quote]

If you don’t believe the Camel Party exists, how can you have a meaningful debate? How do you debate the particulars about something you don’t believe exists?[/quote]

People debate on things that they don’t believe in all the time. Scientists for one. For example, some believe the Big Bang happened, others don’t. They can debate on this once they discuss what they believe and why. This ultimately leads to a better understanding and possibly a solution.

[/quote]

Ok. So I believe in the Camel Party, you don’t. We establish why we believe the way we do, then what? The only thing up for actual debate is the existence. Why (and how) debate the particulars before the existence is hashed out? It doesn’t make sense to debate anything else until that is resolved.

The Camel Party hates rocks, I say.

You say no, that doesn’t make any sense. Why would the Camel Party hate rocks? If there were a Camel Party, it only makes sense they wouldn’t hate rocks?

[/quote]

When I ask for a definition, I’m not asking for proof the Camel Party exists. I’m asking for a definition of what the Camel Party is. You would answer “a political that hates rocks”. Now we can discuss why you believe in that party, why they hate rocks, etc. That’s what I’m really after.

If a person can’t define what Camel Party stands for, how they truly believe in it, you know? They are just following it without understanding it.[/quote]

Ok. Fair enough. However, you realize this does bring us back to the question of wether we can ever understand God in the first place or not, right? And by extension, if you as an agnostic can’t fully comprehend God, you choose not to believe. I as a theist know I won’t ever fully comprehend, and realize this is what makes Him so great and capable of everything I believe.

So am I wrong for following something I can’t fully understand, just because I can’t fully understand it? Have you ever followed your “gut”, even though your gut didn’t explain it to you?[/quote]

I agree that we cannot truly know God if he exists. There are many mysteries in this universe and assuming we will discover everything is arrogant.

I’m not here to judge you or your “gut” feeling. I can tell you I’ve follow my “gut” for many different things, but not all of them have been correct or turned out how I wanted. So while I still listen to my “gut” (as it’s usually right), I think through why I should follow it.[/quote]

I would say that is what Christians do. We have a “gut” feeling, but we have to make sure that gut feeling is in line with scripture. If it is not inline with scripture it is not from God. You see where I am coming from?[/quote]

Yes, I understand that. My only concern is if people use scripture as their only source. If other sources conflict with scripture, one should be ready to give it up and accept it’s not perfect. That does not mean people should lose faith, but they should lose faith in the teachings from their scripture.
[/quote]

That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

If scripture told you to do an act you personally find reprehensible, would you still do it?

If you do the act, you would be sacrificing your personal morals and humanity. If you don’t do the act, you are sacrificing your faith. Which is more important to you?[/quote]

Give me an example.[/quote]

“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.”
-Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB[/quote]

That is under the law. Christians are not under the law, but grace. Jesus has said that he who has no sin cast the first stone. I personally have sin so I will not be the judge and jury.[/quote]

So why do Christians have this in their Bible if it’s not meant to be followed?[/quote]

Good question. This might not be the answer you are looking for, but to me is shows where we have come from. This is what happens to man when under the law and not under Grace. When compared to God we are off the mark because of sin. God hates sin and it is sin that separates us from him, but when under Grace God sees us through the blood of Jesus where we are all unblemished. God wants to be with us and that is why Jesus came to Earth to die for us. God demands blood for sin as seen through all the sacrifices in the Old Testament. The blood of animals is not a one time sacrifice and that is it. You have to continue to sacrifice every year. Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice. Some might say that Jesus is only the Son of God and angel, but I say he is both the Son of God and God himself. God giving up himself to bring us into fellowship with us. He loves us that much. You see where I am trying to go with this? Some others on here might be able to put this in thesis form, and better to comprehend, but this is what I understand the Bible to say.[/quote]

You can also think about things from the Old Testament as relative to the Jews of the time. God revealed himself to a small, fairly obscure group of people that had no political, economic, or military power in the ancient Near East. They weren’t the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. They never established a large empire to spread God’s word. So he had to ensure that it was protected for what it was. Within a few centuries of the coming of Christ, which was meant to take the place of the law, word spread rapidly to first the Roman Empire and then Europe. Mankind no longer needed those laws to keep the word uncorrupted because many more were receiving it.

[Spartiates]

[quote]mse2us wrote:
Revelation was written by the apostle John the writer of the gospel that bears his name and the writer of John 1, 2 and 3. The apostle John was with Jesus and has a first hand account of Jesus.[/quote]

No, it wasn’t.

John was likely not written by the Apostle John (given that the Gospel wasn’t written till decades after Jesus’s death).

But even the most die-hard of Christian scholars don’t argue that Revelation was written by that John… Revelation was written 90-100 years after the death of Jesus, so if you believe that the Gospel of John is a first hand account, that precludes them having the same author. Not to mention that the John who wrote Revelation was on a Greek Island, and not in Palestine.

Also, the writing style is totally different, the Gospel of John is well crafted, artful, and full of Aristotelian aesthetic. Revelation is clunky, and full of bad Greek (grammatical errors/bad spelling).

Edit:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
That’s the most strained, nonsensical pile of horseshit on this entire thread. Don’t quit your day job.[/quote]

Then ignore my posts.

Greek takes work to make into decent English, and much of the original sense is lost. The KJV Bible is a great example of good English and poor translating, which has helped forever shape the beliefs of the English speaking Christian world.

If you don’t like my translation, learn Greek. I’d be happy to defend the word choices of my translation.

[cueball]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:
Revelation 19:13 identifies Jesus as “The Word of God.”[/quote]

Revelation says a lot of things, and like I said before, it was written by a John Doe with no relation to Jesus, and perhaps a tangential relationship to some of the Apostles’ apostles.

Just take John as a text in itself. You all are bringing too much to the table, and not taking the text at face value, and also reading from translations with hundreds of years of dogma behind them.

The text basically gives us the origin of reason (I’m not giving the entire Spartiates translation of John), but to paraphrase it says that reason/logic was made corporal (of the world of man), and encamped itself amongst us, we behold reason’s glory as the product of the father, which is full of good quality and truth (reason is good and brings truth). And this (reason) we all receive, grace for grace.

then John: 17: For the custom was given through Moses, but that which is pleasing and true (truth) through Joshua the good.

Joshua (Jesus) looks to be a teacher of divine logic/reason.

It’s a vastly different narrative than the one most Sunday Schools teach when you stop inferring the Logos refers to Joshua the good, and is instead what is itself being brought/given to the people through Joshua.[/quote]

Can you explain how this is “vastly” different. To me it delivers the same message as the translation in, for example, the NIV. It just isn’t in “layman’s terms”. All you have done is replaced Word with reason/logic. The message and meaning are still the same.[/quote]

No they are not. One links jesus with the father or makes a case for his divinity. The other does not. It makes him a messenger. Big difference. Or so the Jews and Muslims would argue This is why I harp all the time about authorship, translation and corruption. [/quote]

Please cite references for why we should accept Spartiates “paraphrased” translation over any other widely used translation.

[Spartiates]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
A tip for an easier thread to follow: Quit quoting the entire wall of text/quotes above the pertinent one.

Spart, learn to spell canon. A “cannon” is something one fires. [/quote]

Fixed, thanks. If only John of Patmos had had you around, maybe he could have passed for the author of the Gospel of John.

[cueball]

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
Can you explain how this is “vastly” different. To me it delivers the same message as the translation in, for example, the NIV. It just isn’t in “layman’s terms”. All you have done is replaced Word with reason/logic. The message and meaning are still the same.[/quote]

…well, Jesus is not “The Word”. The story is not about Jesus, the Messiah, son of God! The story is about divine logic being brought to the people through a teacher, to supplant the laws of Moses (and other mystical beliefs).

Edit: Didn’t see this:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

No they are not. One links jesus with the father or makes a case for his divinity. The other does not. It makes him a messenger. Big difference. Or so the Jews and Muslims would argue This is why I harp all the time about authorship, translation and corruption. [/quote]

Yes.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Your support is misplaced. His post was his responsded with verse showing that the ‘The Word,’ was in fact Jesus. Yeesh. Guys, if you had read just a for more verses past, this wouldn’t have even been up for debate.[/quote]

Read the followup posts. John is clearly not saying Jesus is divine, but brings some thing from the divine for us (is a messenger/teacher). later in the Gospel, Jesus himself denies being “The Good”, a prophet or divine himself.[/quote]

Ok. I’ll use your “divine logic” term. The scripture then says:

JOHN 1:1-3
In the beginning was the DIVINE LOGIC, and the DIVINE LOGIC was with God, and the DIVINE LOGIC was God. HE was with God in the beginning.

JOHN 1:14
The DIVINE LOGIC became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

It does not say the divine logic came into flesh. It says it BECAME flesh. Verse three doesn’t say “it” was with God, but HE. So a DIVINE LOGIC, or He, became flesh as stated in verse 14.

How is this story NOT about Jesus? What part of “was God” isn’t clear? This certainly makes Him divine.