[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i still call that hypocrisy because, to me, believing one way or another does not change the reality of things…
sloth:
I’m not sure it means what you think it means.
…it means that, if I believed something to be true that can’t be proven to be true, I’d be lying to myself, hence the hypocrisy…
[/quote]
No.
Once you’ve figured out what hpocrisy actually is, you might want to deal with the dissapointment of not being able to give me “I told you!” IF you’re right. Neither one of us would know I was wrong, and it’s really ticking you off. Heh.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…sure, but the numerous threads on religion shows us that more than a couple of people attach so much value to their opinion on religous matters that those religous matters become a matter of fact, and skews their outlook on reality…[/quote]
Oh don’t limit that to religion. That is common in all threads on this site. As well as any area of study. There are very few people that actually look at both sides of the evidence and still accept that they can be wrong with the side the choose to accept. I only know of a few people that are that honest.
Now as a side note. Christianity would go over alot better if with the rational explination, if we actually lived it. The problem is we tend to get so focused on the “converting” that we forget the Human being.
I often think of this quote
“I love Christ, but I despise Christians because they do not live as Christ lived.” ~ghandi
[/quote]
…but only religion has such an impact on society that it invokes war and bloodshed on a grand scale. Not to mention the pain and suffering scores of people go through every day by being ostracised for being different. The inherent appeal to authority of man, not the message, that permeates religion is the cause of this, and that won’t change…[/quote]
Is that your opinion, or are you stating that as a fact?
[/quote]
…it is fact?[/quote]
yeah right. That is such a non sustainable claim and you know it. You gave your opinion and nothing else. Do people get all caught up in religion and can it be used as a tool for evil people? yes, but that is not the only thing that people do that over. If it was then half the wars in Europe of the last 500 years wouldn’t exist, but they do not because of religion, but because of greedy men who are in control. In some cases religion was used and in many others it wasn’t.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Once you’ve figured out what hpocrisy actually is, you might want to deal with the dissapointment of not being able to give me “I told you!” IF you’re right. Neither one of us would know I was wrong, and it’s really ticking you off. Heh.[/quote]
…i was talking solely from my perspective on this; how i would feel in this situation. I also realise that the definition of the word hypocrisy does not fully cover what i’m going for, but if you have a better suggestion, i’m all ears…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote]
Of course there is Alan Plantinga’s solution to the logical problem of Evil and God.[/quote]
…not without interpreting God’s reasons for allowing evil from a human point of view, which amounts to nothing but opinion…
[/quote]
Lots of things only amount to an opinion. Every conversation I have ever had with someone usually ends up with little facts and lots of opinion. Some opinions though have merit and are worthy of concideration for being valid.
[/quote]
…sure, but the numerous threads on religion shows us that more than a couple of people attach so much value to their opinion on religous matters that those religous matters become a matter of fact, and skews their outlook on reality…[/quote]
Importance people attach to a lot of things not just religion. You’d find that if most people lived out that base tenets of their religion, the world would be quite peace, vs. the random subjective, feeling based morality that atheism offers.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…sure, but the numerous threads on religion shows us that more than a couple of people attach so much value to their opinion on religous matters that those religous matters become a matter of fact, and skews their outlook on reality…[/quote]
Oh don’t limit that to religion. That is common in all threads on this site. As well as any area of study. There are very few people that actually look at both sides of the evidence and still accept that they can be wrong with the side the choose to accept. I only know of a few people that are that honest.
Now as a side note. Christianity would go over alot better if with the rational explination, if we actually lived it. The problem is we tend to get so focused on the “converting” that we forget the Human being.
I often think of this quote
“I love Christ, but I despise Christians because they do not live as Christ lived.” ~ghandi
[/quote]
…but only religion has such an impact on society that it invokes war and bloodshed on a grand scale. Not to mention the pain and suffering scores of people go through every day by being ostracized for being different. The inherent appeal to authority of man, not the message, that permeates religion is the cause of this, and that won’t change…[/quote]
You’ll want to back this shit up with facts. For instance, the vast majority of wars were not religious in nature.
http://www.timelineindex.com/content/select/1311/912,1385,1311?pageNum_rsSite=5&totalRows_rsSite=88
The blood shed and human suffering caused by moral relativist, atheists is EPIC. These people with these ideas have murdered more people just in the 20th century, than those who pervert religion to support their own purposes, in all of history.
And who is ostracized for being different? Christians are ostracized by non-Christians all the time, for instance. If this ^^ is what you really believe, you simply do not have your facts strait, period. You are applying some unmitigated anger toward religion as a fact, not truth for truth’s sake…Don’t say you don’t actually care, because apparently you do.
If the NT is indeed the inspired word of God, and Christianity is based upon the OT and Torah, and given that God gave the Torah in form of national revelation (meaning, he spoke to all jews at Mt. Sinai), why then did he choose only to speak to or thru an otherwise obscure historical character of the time, rather than mass revelation as at Mt. Sinai? Why are religious claims ALWAYS based on claims of PERSONAL revelation?
If the Mt. Sinai revelation occurred, how then can you accept a following specious claim, based on the former? If you’re Christian, you accept the OT. You therefore accept the national revelation at Mt. Sinai by default. Following, why then, if you’re Christian, do you so willingly accept the alleged claims of PERSONAL revelation of the man named Jesus, who, purporting to fulfill biblical prophesy, did not and who was not descended from the bloodline of prophesy?
So one day, God spoke to a nation. Since that time, he has only chosen to speak to individuals. You got some splainin to do Lucy.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
If the NT is indeed the inspired word of God, and Christianity is based upon the OT and Torah, and given that God gave the Torah in form of national revelation (meaning, he spoke to all jews at Mt. Sinai), why then did he choose only to speak to or thru an otherwise obscure historical character of the time, rather than mass revelation as at Mt. Sinai? Why are religious claims ALWAYS based on claims of PERSONAL revelation?
If the Mt. Sinai revelation occurred, how then can you accept a following specious claim, based on the former? If you’re Christian, you accept the OT. You therefore accept the national revelation at Mt. Sinai by default. Following, why then, if you’re Christian, do you so willingly accept the alleged claims of PERSONAL revelation of the man named Jesus, who, purporting to fulfill biblical prophesy, did not and who was not descended from the bloodline of prophesy?
So one day, God spoke to a nation. Since that time, he has only chosen to speak to individuals. You got some splainin to do Lucy.[/quote]
You’ve already said you believe in a God. And since you have never answered as to what revelation provides the foundation of this belief, I’m assuming none.
…if only … then the world be a better place. Wishful thinking pat, devoid of realism…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote]
Of course there is Alan Plantinga’s solution to the logical problem of Evil and God.[/quote]
…not without interpreting God’s reasons for allowing evil from a human point of view, which amounts to nothing but opinion…
[/quote]
Lots of things only amount to an opinion. Every conversation I have ever had with someone usually ends up with little facts and lots of opinion. Some opinions though have merit and are worthy of concideration for being valid.
[/quote]
…sure, but the numerous threads on religion shows us that more than a couple of people attach so much value to their opinion on religous matters that those religous matters become a matter of fact, and skews their outlook on reality…[/quote]
Importance people attach to a lot of things not just religion. You’d find that if most people lived out that base tenets of their religion, the world would be quite peace, vs. the random subjective, feeling based morality that atheism offers.[/quote]
It sounds like you’ve made some huge assumptions here so I’m going to make sure I have this right.
Are you implying an atheist’s moral code is based purely from feelings without consideration for the greater good, society, or rational thought? Are you also implying that atheist are morally inferior to someone who practices a religion?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
If the NT is indeed the inspired word of God, and Christianity is based upon the OT and Torah, and given that God gave the Torah in form of national revelation (meaning, he spoke to all jews at Mt. Sinai), why then did he choose only to speak to or thru an otherwise obscure historical character of the time, rather than mass revelation as at Mt. Sinai? Why are religious claims ALWAYS based on claims of PERSONAL revelation?
If the Mt. Sinai revelation occurred, how then can you accept a following specious claim, based on the former? If you’re Christian, you accept the OT. You therefore accept the national revelation at Mt. Sinai by default. Following, why then, if you’re Christian, do you so willingly accept the alleged claims of PERSONAL revelation of the man named Jesus, who, purporting to fulfill biblical prophesy, did not and who was not descended from the bloodline of prophesy?
So one day, God spoke to a nation. Since that time, he has only chosen to speak to individuals. You got some splainin to do Lucy.[/quote]
You’ve already said you believe in a God. And since you have never answered as to what revelation provides the foundation of this belief, I’m assuming none.[/quote]
I’m asking how Christians reconcile this? National revelation v. revelation to an otherwise obscure man from an obscure birth (saving for the alleged virgin birth which has been admitted by many christian scholars to be embellishment to fit legend). So again, I ask you - one day God chose to address a nation. Following this logic, no one could deny that God had spoken - assuming of course you believe Mt. Sinai occurred - and you do believe this by default if you’re Christian as you accept the OT. Why then, did the next time God deem it time to speak to his people, he chose a man, allegedly to be incarnate (which is antithetical in the first place to any idea of the divine, the ineffable, the eternal, with no birth, and no death), and that man chose to speak to other obscure historical figures? One day, God chose to appear on a Mountain, in the form of fire, and address 3 million Hebrews. And the next he appears, he incarnates in a man from an undistinguished family, and speaks to only a few along the way - his so called disciples and such.
Hmmm. Yeah, that all makes sense to me. I’ll wait for you to make sense of it for me. I also find it remarkable, that among you, you argue over the interpretation of scripture. One day, God chose to speak clearly, and unambiguously - ostensibly so that the message could not be corrupted. Next, he chose several unidentified writers and interpreters to deliver his message. Hmmm.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
If the NT is indeed the inspired word of God, and Christianity is based upon the OT and Torah, and given that God gave the Torah in form of national revelation (meaning, he spoke to all jews at Mt. Sinai), why then did he choose only to speak to or thru an otherwise obscure historical character of the time, rather than mass revelation as at Mt. Sinai? Why are religious claims ALWAYS based on claims of PERSONAL revelation?
If the Mt. Sinai revelation occurred, how then can you accept a following specious claim, based on the former? If you’re Christian, you accept the OT. You therefore accept the national revelation at Mt. Sinai by default. Following, why then, if you’re Christian, do you so willingly accept the alleged claims of PERSONAL revelation of the man named Jesus, who, purporting to fulfill biblical prophesy, did not and who was not descended from the bloodline of prophesy?
So one day, God spoke to a nation. Since that time, he has only chosen to speak to individuals. You got some splainin to do Lucy.[/quote]
You’ve already said you believe in a God. And since you have never answered as to what revelation provides the foundation of this belief, I’m assuming none.[/quote]
I’m asking how Christians reconcile this? National revelation v. revelation to an otherwise obscure man from an obscure birth (saving for the alleged virgin birth which has been admitted by many christian scholars to be embellishment to fit legend). So again, I ask you - one day God chose to address a nation. Following this logic, no one could deny that God had spoken - assuming of course you believe Mt. Sinai occurred - and you do believe this by default if you’re Christian as you accept the OT. Why then, did the next time God deem it time to speak to his people, he chose a man, allegedly to be incarnate (which is antithetical in the first place to any idea of the divine, the ineffable, the eternal, with no birth, and no death), and that man chose to speak to other obscure historical figures? One day, God chose to appear on a Mountain, in the form of fire, and address 3 million Hebrews. And the next he appears, he incarnates in a man from an undistinguished family, and speaks to only a few along the way - his so called disciples and such.
Hmmm. Yeah, that all makes sense to me. I’ll wait for you to make sense of it for me. I also find it remarkable, that among you, you argue over the interpretation of scripture. One day, God chose to speak clearly, and unambiguously - ostensibly so that the message could not be corrupted. Next, he chose several unidentified writers and interpreters to deliver his message. Hmmm.[/quote]
So, this is all a one way conversation for you?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
If the NT is indeed the inspired word of God, and Christianity is based upon the OT and Torah, and given that God gave the Torah in form of national revelation (meaning, he spoke to all jews at Mt. Sinai), why then did he choose only to speak to or thru an otherwise obscure historical character of the time, rather than mass revelation as at Mt. Sinai? Why are religious claims ALWAYS based on claims of PERSONAL revelation?
If the Mt. Sinai revelation occurred, how then can you accept a following specious claim, based on the former? If you’re Christian, you accept the OT. You therefore accept the national revelation at Mt. Sinai by default. Following, why then, if you’re Christian, do you so willingly accept the alleged claims of PERSONAL revelation of the man named Jesus, who, purporting to fulfill biblical prophesy, did not and who was not descended from the bloodline of prophesy?
So one day, God spoke to a nation. Since that time, he has only chosen to speak to individuals. You got some splainin to do Lucy.[/quote]
You’ve already said you believe in a God. And since you have never answered as to what revelation provides the foundation of this belief, I’m assuming none.[/quote]
I’m asking how Christians reconcile this? National revelation v. revelation to an otherwise obscure man from an obscure birth (saving for the alleged virgin birth which has been admitted by many christian scholars to be embellishment to fit legend). So again, I ask you - one day God chose to address a nation. Following this logic, no one could deny that God had spoken - assuming of course you believe Mt. Sinai occurred - and you do believe this by default if you’re Christian as you accept the OT. Why then, did the next time God deem it time to speak to his people, he chose a man, allegedly to be incarnate (which is antithetical in the first place to any idea of the divine, the ineffable, the eternal, with no birth, and no death), and that man chose to speak to other obscure historical figures? One day, God chose to appear on a Mountain, in the form of fire, and address 3 million Hebrews. And the next he appears, he incarnates in a man from an undistinguished family, and speaks to only a few along the way - his so called disciples and such.
Hmmm. Yeah, that all makes sense to me. I’ll wait for you to make sense of it for me. I also find it remarkable, that among you, you argue over the interpretation of scripture. One day, God chose to speak clearly, and unambiguously - ostensibly so that the message could not be corrupted. Next, he chose several unidentified writers and interpreters to deliver his message. Hmmm.[/quote]
So, this is all a one way conversation for you? [/quote]
I’m asking for an intelligent retort. This is a “debate” isn’t it? Or is it Bible study for the like minded?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m asking for an intelligent retort. This is a “debate” isn’t it? Or is it Bible study for the like minded? [/quote]
A debate? Ok, then please, share what revelatory material your belief in your God is based on. Or, is it just Christians here who have to answer all your questions? See, I’m thinking it’s about time to hear what concrete foundation your own faith is built upon. After all, we (us Christians) have already tackled and put to rest the John issue.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m asking for an intelligent retort. This is a “debate” isn’t it? Or is it Bible study for the like minded? [/quote]
A debate? Ok, then please, share what revelatory material your belief in your God is based on. Or, is it just Christians here who have to answer all your questions? See, I’m thinking it’s about time to hear what concrete foundation your own faith is built upon. After all, we (us Christians) have already tackled and put to rest the John issue. [/quote]
You didn’t put to rest any John issue or, for that matter, the serious issues confronting the gospels or, any other part of the bible for that matter. While you quote from the Gospels, I can provide you reference material from leading Church scholars throwing much of the content of the Gospels “under the bus”. I don’t suppose either of us know more than just one such scholar, so any debate there would be fruitless.
My “faith” as you wish to label it is based upon two things; “something”, the idea of God or the divine, is definitely imprinted upon man and has been chronicled in one form or the other for ages. It’s hard to ignore and it’s proof enough to me. I don’t have to define what cannot be comprehended. Next, my years of interest in the topic, reviewing various religions and beliefs, makes it hard for me not to recognize the hand of man within “religion”. Seeing the hand of man does not make the idea of God disposable to me, but quite the opposite. However, the doctrines of man are just that - doctrines of man. I also think the idea and claims of “personal revelation” to be quite ridiculous. I know more accept the idea of Jesus as the son of God as I would that man from Vermont who founded Mormonism. I similarly reject Mohammad, et als. In fact, the Jews argue this very point relative to “personal revelation” and I find it compelling. As you know, they claim “national revelation”. If you’re Christian, you accept this as you accept the OT. I’m not a Jew, but I do find the idea of “personal revelation” to be utterly ridiculous. On that basis, I quite comfortably reject dogmatic religious claims and sleep well at night. Looking at the world with a broader lense, you do realize that everyone else thinks they are right about their religion. Even within Christianity itself, there is disagreement. I don’t believe for one minute the divine would leave his message to chance or corruption. No. But I do think there is something. I do think that the basic message of all religions is a good one, useful to man’s survival and well being and I see that thread of good in ALL religions - and therein lies the kernel of truth for me in a sea of corruption. I accept those universal truths, woven thru EACH known religion and I try to abide by them, and I continue to thirst for more wisdom.
Now, would you care to answer my Q as a Christian? That one day God chose to speak to a nation, and then the next time, chose an obscure man, who did not fulfill biblical prophecy, was not born of the proper lineage and has even Church scholars admitting he was no more born of a virgin divine birth than you or I.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m asking for an intelligent retort. This is a “debate” isn’t it? Or is it Bible study for the like minded? [/quote]
It’s a circle jerk for the Christians.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
You didn’t put to rest any John issue…[/quote]
Spartiates, with you agreeing:
[quote]
Spartiates:
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.”
You wrote:
They don’t want to hear this, but thanks for making the effort[/b][/quote]
Me quoting the verses, the chain of descriptors, and underlining the payoff:
[quote] Seriously, this isn’t complicated. It’s stated plainly.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
The Word/the One and Only, whose Father is God, who was there from the beginning, became flesh and dwelt among them. Now what else did it say about the Word/One and only? Ah! Full of grace and and truth. But wait, wait! What name is given to the flesh which is dwelling among them? The flesh through which this grace and truth comes? Jesus…
It’s so plainly stated that I can’t begin to figure out how this became a topic.[/quote]
And, just like that, the argument died. But not only did you guys get that wrong, you’d been cheering on a guy who claimed that Jesus himself denied being the Christ. Problem was, that verse was of John the Baptist denying that he himself was the Christ.
[quote]
Spartiates wrote:
Check out 1:20 is you want Jesus himself to back me up.
Sloth wrote:
Are you serious? That’s not Jesus denying he’s the Christ. It’s John the Baptist…
19 Now this was John’s testimonyp when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.
20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Christ.” [/quote]
And, what honest response did I get back? Nothing. So, you’ll have to excuse me for treating you as a troll, while others are actually trying to have a discussion.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m asking for an intelligent retort. This is a “debate” isn’t it? Or is it Bible study for the like minded? [/quote]
It’s a circle jerk for the Christians.[/quote]
for someone opposed to Christianity you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about our sex lives . . . disturbing . . . really really disturbing . . . .
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
My “faith” as you wish to label it is based upon two things; “something”, the idea of God or the divine, is definitely imprinted upon man and has been chronicled in one form or the other for ages. It’s hard to ignore and it’s proof enough to me…[/quote]
So, basically, you have less to go on than us. Just a feeling that God is imprinted on you. Ok, got it.
Well, you just defined it as being incomprehensible. There’s one definition.
No idea what you’re trying to say here.
You do? But you just now said the The Divine, God, is imprinted on us. So, if you’re claiming God is imprinted on you, you’ve just claimed a ‘personal revelation’ of his existence. God has revealed his existence through your genes, I guess.
[quote]
I don’t believe for one minute the divine would leave his message to chance or corruption.[/quote]
But you believe that God is imprinted on man…
What universal truths? If you speak you to Univeral Truths as dictated by God…Well, maybe you’re not really picking and choosing Universal Truths from man’s “corrupted” works. Maybe you’ve been abiding by Universal Wrongs, woven through each religion.
