So I'm a Christian, I guess. Just not sure about what is true or real and what is untrue or unreal. Is this forum for atheists only, or for anyone?
Its an atheist forum pretty much, but since nobody likes an echo chamber we have theists come here too if they want to discuss things and even get some insight onto why people are atheist.
Quote from: Spockrates on August 14, 2015, 12:25:14 PM
So I'm a Christian, I guess. Just not sure about what is true or real and what is untrue or unreal. Is this forum for atheists only, or for anyone?
All are welcome here. Most are atheist. But that doesn't limit any discussion; especially since the only thing that unites atheists is that atheists don't believe in god/gods. So, join in--ask questions and make replies.
Quote from: Munch on August 14, 2015, 12:36:33 PM
Its an atheist forum pretty much, but since nobody likes an echo chamber we have theists come here too if they want to discuss things and even get some insight onto why people are atheist.
So it's not offensive to ask someone why he's an atheist, I suppose.
:)
Great handle! Live long and souvlaki!
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 14, 2015, 12:55:56 PM
All are welcome here. Most are atheist. But that doesn't limit any discussion; especially since the only thing that unites atheists is that atheists don't believe in god/gods. So, join in--ask questions and make replies.
Well, I suppose that depends on how someone defines gods. I have something in common with some atheists, which is a love of the science of science fiction. Such teaches that alternate universes existing in the same space as our own might have beings different than, and with greater abilities than our own. Such beings, were they to cross over to our universe, might be seen as gods.
Not that such a thing does happen. It's just fun to think of such a possibility. Those atheists who believe such is possible would not say it is impossible such "gods" exist.
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2015, 01:09:47 PM
Great handle! Live long and souvlaki!
Guess I can sincerely say I hope Lenord Nemoy continues to live long and prosper, as well as Socrates!
:)
welcome.
Quote from: Spockrates on August 14, 2015, 01:05:58 PM
So it's not offensive to ask someone why he's an atheist, I suppose.
:)
nah, just be prepared though since it can be a little brutal when discussing religion here.
Quote from: Munch on August 14, 2015, 01:26:27 PM
nah, just be prepared though since it can be a little brutal when discussing religion here.
I don't take any shots taken on my religious beliefs personally. I guess that's because I'm not afraid to be proven wrong. If what I believe is found to be untrue, I just believe something more likely to be true, instead.
Quote from: Spockrates on August 14, 2015, 01:05:58 PM
So it's not offensive to ask someone why he's an atheist, I suppose.
:)
Nope. And I hope you don't take offense when we ask why you are a theist. :)
Okay, Spockrates, I'll bite. What do you mean when you say you think you are a christian. Seems to me that is either you are or you aren't. Why the hesitation?
And I'm an atheist because there is simply no proof of any kind that a god or gods exist. And there is not any proof that Jesus existed either. And no, the bible is not proof of anything, much less that Jesus existed; he is simply a myth.
Much to chew on--so please, chew away.
Welcome to the Madhoose Spock...
Are you a Christian? Do you believe Jesus Christ is your savior? Christians believe that. If you are not sure, you are not a Christian. Sure, you can call yourself one. I used too, because I was too frightened not too, but not being sure, by definition I didn't believe the required basics. Perhaps you just believe there is some sort of god out there.
But you can futz around with such thoughts until the cows come home. You either believe or you don't. We do not accept a position in-between. Not because we don't approve. We don't accept it because there is no such thing. Sometimes we argue about that too. It's kind of nuts around here.
Quote from: Spockrates on August 14, 2015, 12:25:14 PM
So I'm a Christian, I guess. Just not sure about what is true or real and what is untrue or unreal. Is this forum for atheists only, or for anyone?
Technically this is a forum for everyone. In practice, most of the atheists here are very short on patience when it comes to anything theistic, mainly because our theist visitors tend to trot out the same arguments and don't know when to stop arguing.
Quote from: SGOS on August 14, 2015, 03:39:47 PMYou either believe or you don't. We do not accept a position in-between. Not because we don't approve. We don't accept it because there is no such thing.
Or as the Argument Ref would say:
(http://i.imgur.com/0FqorOA.jpg)
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 14, 2015, 02:59:54 PM
Nope. And I hope you don't take offense when we ask why you are a theist. :)
Not at all. I suppose I'm as much a simple, unintelligent philosopher as much as a theist.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 14, 2015, 03:03:22 PM
Okay, Spockrates, I'll bite. What do you mean when you say you think you are a christian. Seems to me that is either you are or you aren't. Why the hesitation?
Yes, sorry for being clear as mud. There is a kind of in-house debate among people who call themselves Christians. For example, a Fundamentalist or Evangelical might say a Catholic, Mormon or Orthodox person is no Christian. They don't see this as merely a matter of their own opinion but as a matter of God's opinion. So the Evangelical and Fundamentalist might say God excludes the Catholics, Mormons and Orthodox from the club.
So when I say I guess, I mean I don't know if I've met the requirements to be or remain in the club.
Quote
And I'm an atheist because there is simply no proof of any kind that a god or gods exist. And there is not any proof that Jesus existed either. And no, the bible is not proof of anything, much less that Jesus existed; he is simply a myth.
Much to chew on--so please, chew away.
Fascinating! For me, personally I wouldn't say it is impossible God doesn't exist. For there is so much I don't know, and it is entirely possible I discover something I don't know that would change my mind.
Please tell me what you have discovered that convinces you that you will never change your mind.
Quote from: Spockrates on August 15, 2015, 08:57:03 AM
Yes, sorry for being clear as mud. There is a kind of in-house debate among people who call themselves Christians. For example, a Fundamentalist or Evangelical might say a Catholic, Mormon or Orthodox person is no Christian. They don't see this as merely a matter of their own opinion but as a matter of God's opinion. So the Evangelical and Fundamentalist might say God excludes the Catholics, Mormons and Orthodox from the club.
So when I say I guess, I mean I don't know if I've met the requirements to be or remain in the club.
Sounds like you're trying to figure out who are the true Christians. Do you think God is that particular? "Here's a whole country of people that believe in me, but I'm sending the Catholics to Hell, because they kind of fucked up on condemning the outsiders enough," or: "I really appreciate the devotion of the fundies and all, but I'm sending them to Hell, because they get so caught up in finding passages to justify their own bigotry that they don't look at the big picture I'm trying to create."
God has not sent mankind enough information to know that he exists, let alone which nuance invented by man is the right nuance. When I was a Christian, I went through the same thing looking for the correct sect. Then one day it dawned on me that before I could decide which sect was correct, I needed to establish whether God was real or not. All my picking an choosings meant nothing if there wasn't a god, and if there was, I'd probably never get it right anyway. So I put the horse before the cart and did things in order.
Well I don't know if you are Christian or not, but you do know about American Christians. I am a student of comparative religion ... and Christianity is a set of religions, not just one religion (no matter what sectarians say). This is the norm for every religion. If you support and attend a congregation that identifies as Christian, then you are one. Religion is social, not individual.
People continue to develop throughout their lives ... it might be a bit pissant to say that they changed their minds ;-)
And no, you aren't simple or unintelligent.
Quote from: Spockrates on August 15, 2015, 08:57:03 AM
Yes, sorry for being clear as mud. There is a kind of in-house debate among people who call themselves Christians. For example, a Fundamentalist or Evangelical might say a Catholic, Mormon or Orthodox person is no Christian. They don't see this as merely a matter of their own opinion but as a matter of God's opinion. So the Evangelical and Fundamentalist might say God excludes the Catholics, Mormons and Orthodox from the club.
So when I say I guess, I mean I don't know if I've met the requirements to be or remain in the club.
Fascinating! For me, personally I wouldn't say it is impossible God doesn't exist. For there is so much I don't know, and it is entirely possible I discover something I don't know that would change my mind.
Please tell me what you have discovered that convinces you that you will never change your mind.
I am familiar with the judgments each christian sect renders on all other sects. They all believe they have the most direct if not the only, pipeline to god. That is endlessly fascinating to me in that their all everything and perfect god (aren't they all???!) wants to narrow down those who make it to heaven such a minute number of people--people that he created in his own perfect all everything image. Doesn't that alone demonstrate that this god is not perfect nor all everything. Doesn't make sense--but then, theists use belief and not reason to figure out if there is a god or not. So, I guess, it does make sense. Theists do not need nor particularly reasons or facts to enter into this decision--only beliefs.
What I'm interested in, is what about god makes you a believer? And it matters not if other 'christians' think the way you do--only interested in what you think--or believe.
What have I discovered? Much--and nothing. The nothing part. This is not one single data or fact that leads me to think there is a god. It is all based on belief. It is not possible for a god that creates the universe and wants to communicate to his 'children' to leave not a single piece of actual data to prove that. Or to even suggest that it/he/she exists. The 'fact' there is not any data at all is a proof to me that god/gods only exist in the minds of man. Nothing real here.
The much part--the history of the bible (and all other 'sacred literature') offers no 'facts' other than the 'I say it is so, therefore it is so' type of fact. The bible is clearly man made and for clearly human reasons. The same can be said of Jesus. He is not mentioned by one person outside the bible as being real. The most one can get is that some writers use the word 'christian', which only indicates that there were those who believed--and offer no proof of a flesh and blood person. There is nothing but beliefs to support the bible or the jesus myth. Nothing.
I will change my mind if some empirical data ever shows up. I don't have a problem with changing my mind about much of anything. Well, I will never change my mind about ice cream--it is simply the best food group out there! Other than that, my mind is open. And I have changed my mind about Jesus/jesus a couple of times. And I have tried to make Christianity fit my life a couple of times--it just did not work out. But with some empirical data, it must might.
Theological reasoning in the Roman Empire was legalistic reasoning, not scientistic reasoning. The Romans killed Archimedes and burned the library at Alexandria when Caesar was there.
Quote from: SGOS on August 15, 2015, 09:23:28 AM
Sounds like you're trying to figure out who are the true Christians. Do you think God is that particular? "Here's a whole country of people that believe in me, but I'm sending the Catholics to Hell, because they kind of fucked up on condemning the outsiders enough," or: "I really appreciate the devotion of the fundies and all, but I'm sending them to Hell, because they get so caught up in finding passages to justify their own bigotry that they don't look at the big picture I'm trying to create."
God has not sent mankind enough information to know that he exists, let alone which nuance invented by man is the right nuance. When I was a Christian, I went through the same thing looking for the correct sect. Then one day it dawned on me that before I could decide which sect was correct, I needed to establish whether God was real or not. All my picking an choosings meant nothing if there wasn't a god, and if there was, I'd probably never get it right anyway. So I put the horse before the cart and did things in order.
Thanks for telling me. Did you decide there was no God because you found insufficient evidence for the being'sexistence? Or did you decide there was no God because you found there was sufficient evidence the being couldn't possibly exist?
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2015, 09:25:24 AM
Well I don't know if you are Christian or not, but you do know about American Christians. I am a student of comparative religion ... and Christianity is a set of religions, not just one religion (no matter what sectarians say). This is the norm for every religion. If you support and attend a congregation that identifies as Christian, then you are one. Religion is social, not individual.
People continue to develop throughout their lives ... it might be a bit pissant to say that they changed their minds ;-)
And no, you aren't simple or unintelligent.
Thanks for the compliment. :)
Then I suppose my thinking that it's possible to be a Christian without a church is in error. I guess that means who I associate with, rather than what I believe makes me a Christian. Would you say?
There is no rule against having theists here. We've had long-lasting christians, theists, and deists get along with the other members here that are atheists pretty well in the past on rare occasion.
As long as you can be respectful of the other members and the rules, you won't have any problems for the most part.
So anyway, welcome.
Quote from: Spockrates on August 15, 2015, 03:09:36 PM
Thanks for telling me. Did you decide there was no God because you found insufficient evidence for the being'sexistence? Or did you decide there was no God because you found there was sufficient evidence the being couldn't possibly exist?
What is the difference???
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 15, 2015, 10:12:47 AM
I am familiar with the judgments each christian sect renders on all other sects. They all believe they have the most direct if not the only, pipeline to god. That is endlessly fascinating to me in that their all everything and perfect god (aren't they all???!) wants to narrow down those who make it to heaven such a minute number of people--people that he created in his own perfect all everything image. Doesn't that alone demonstrate that this god is not perfect nor all everything. Doesn't make sense--but then, theists use belief and not reason to figure out if there is a god or not. So, I guess, it does make sense. Theists do not need nor particularly reasons or facts to enter into this decision--only beliefs.
What I'm interested in, is what about god makes you a believer? And it matters not if other 'christians' think the way you do--only interested in what you think--or believe.
Good question. After thinking a moment, I guess I'd say it's a presupposition. I presupposed God existed as a child. As an adult, I've not yet found any evidence sufficient to convince me my presupposition is incorrect. But I'm willing to learn!
Quote
What have I discovered? Much--and nothing. The nothing part. This is not one single data or fact that leads me to think there is a god. It is all based on belief. It is not possible for a god that creates the universe and wants to communicate to his 'children' to leave not a single piece of actual data to prove that. Or to even suggest that it/he/she exists. The 'fact' there is not any data at all is a proof to me that god/gods only exist in the minds of man. Nothing real here.
The much part--the history of the bible (and all other 'sacred literature') offers no 'facts' other than the 'I say it is so, therefore it is so' type of fact. The bible is clearly man made and for clearly human reasons. The same can be said of Jesus. He is not mentioned by one person outside the bible as being real. The most one can get is that some writers use the word 'christian', which only indicates that there were those who believed--and offer no proof of a flesh and blood person. There is nothing but beliefs to support the bible or the jesus myth. Nothing.
I will change my mind if some empirical data ever shows up. I don't have a problem with changing my mind about much of anything. Well, I will never change my mind about ice cream--it is simply the best food group out there! Other than that, my mind is open. And I have changed my mind about Jesus/jesus a couple of times. And I have tried to make Christianity fit my life a couple of times--it just did not work out. But with some empirical data, it must might.
I guess I don't understand. Perhaps my ignorance is getting the best of me? One example: I work for a software company and it seems to me DNA is like a complex kind of three dimensional programming. So I tend to think such has a kind of programmer. Is my thinking somehow illogical?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 15, 2015, 03:28:42 PM
What is the difference???
Perhaps there isn't. Just trying to understand why you believe so that I might see if I should believe the same.
:)
Quote from: Green Bottle on August 14, 2015, 03:11:38 PM
Welcome to the Madhoose Spock...
As Alice said to the Mad Hatter, "All the best people are!"
Quote from: SGOS on August 14, 2015, 03:39:47 PM
Are you a Christian? Do you believe Jesus Christ is your savior? Christians believe that. If you are not sure, you are not a Christian. Sure, you can call yourself one. I used too, because I was too frightened not too, but not being sure, by definition I didn't believe the required basics. Perhaps you just believe there is some sort of god out there.
But you can futz around with such thoughts until the cows come home. You either believe or you don't. We do not accept a position in-between. Not because we don't approve. We don't accept it because there is no such thing. Sometimes we argue about that too. It's kind of nuts around here.
I'm confused. Sounds like you mean you don't believe there is such a thing as an Agnostic.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on August 14, 2015, 06:57:47 PM
Technically this is a forum for everyone. In practice, most of the atheists here are very short on patience when it comes to anything theistic, mainly because our theist visitors tend to trot out the same arguments and don't know when to stop arguing.
Or as the Argument Ref would say:
(http://i.imgur.com/0FqorOA.jpg)
Good. I don't like to argue, or debate. Though I don't mind someone who becomes confrontational. I usually respond to such with question and a genuine curiosity in what they have to say, regardless of how they say it.
:)
Quote from: Spockrates on August 15, 2015, 03:09:36 PM
Thanks for telling me. Did you decide there was no God because you found insufficient evidence for the being'sexistence? Or did you decide there was no God because you found there was sufficient evidence the being couldn't possibly exist?
The first was true.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 15, 2015, 03:18:46 PM
There is no rule against having theists here. We've had long-lasting christians, theists, and deists get along with the other members here that are atheists pretty well in the past on rare occasion.
As long as you can be respectful of the other members and the rules, you won't have any problems for the most part.
So anyway, welcome.
Thanks for welcoming me. :)
Quote from: Spockrates on August 15, 2015, 03:46:11 PM
Good question. After thinking a moment, I guess I'd say it's a presupposition. I presupposed God existed as a child. As an adult, I've not yet found any evidence sufficient to convince me my presupposition is incorrect. But I'm willing to learn!
I guess I don't understand. Perhaps my ignorance is getting the best of me? One example: I work for a software company and it seems to me DNA is like a complex kind of three dimensional programming. So I tend to think such has a kind of programmer. Is my thinking somehow illogical?
A presupposition. That's as good an answer as any, I suppose. I did not have a presupposition. My parents did not talk about it, one way or the other. They did go to church when my brothers and I went for a few years in my preteens. But nothing there made me believe that god existed. But I did not see any 'proof' the other way either. So, I guess I would have been a true agnostic for most of my life. But in elder years, I see the lack of any proof of any god/gods as proof against it. If there is a god who is interested in the 'salvation' of his creation, then he should make it crystal clear what his requirements are. And that just has not happened. Not in any religion or any region of this world. It sounds to me you are saying you believe out of habit.
As for how DNA works, you are way beyond me. But I do know that scientists who work on that work according to the scientific principle. If I wanted to become an 'expert' on the subject, there are plenty of peer reviewed tests to refer to. What kind of test does one perform that tests god?
Quote from: SGOS on August 15, 2015, 03:59:36 PM
The first was true.
I guess, then we disagree about DNA. I don't understand how random chance and time is sufficient to account for its existence.
Quote from: Spockrates on August 15, 2015, 03:54:15 PM
I'm confused. Sounds like you mean you don't believe there is such a thing as an Agnostic.
I'm an agnostic and an atheist. But chances are we define terms differently. Here is a description of the definition that I use and a discussion of atheism and agnosticism that describes most atheists. Theists generally disagree with this. They seem to want atheists to actively deny the existence of a god. Most of us don't. We just don't have a reason to believe in a god.
Opps, there was supposed to be a hyperlink in there somewhere. Go to http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/Atheist-vs-Agnostic-Difference.htm if you are interested.
Jesus says ... "Where two or more are gathered in my name (spirit)". That defines the followers of Jesus. If you are not in communion (another related concept) then you are a "fellow traveler" a Christian-like person, not a full member. Though not necessarily in the process of entering or leaving the Church. Religion is from a Latin word, meaning "to bind together".
On DNA vs programming ... in software, there is a binary code, located in a particular machine, in a particular place. The point of software isn't something static, but something that is dynamic, that does something. To do this the software must exist in a runtime environment, and not just the machine, but the glitches (not bugs) and the incoming data (it might be in firmware, so it is still incoming to the CPU). Software under execution under these necessary and unavoidable conditions is the point. This applies to DNA as well, DNA being only part of a vastly complicated cellular (for eukaryotes) machine, including the RNA that it manufactures as necessary, and the mitochondrial DNA that only comes from the mother's egg. Nuclear DNA is shared between mother and father, but not the mitochondrial DNA. That is just a part ... the actual reality is the whole cell, which is the computer, with the two kinds of DNA as the software, and what many parts (peripherals) that operate autonomously from the DNA. This is a whole room of supercomputing equipment operated at a molecular level that has a runtime environment of what is outside the primary cellular wall.
So really nobody knows how this arose. There is only speculation (including alien spores and ID). Based on philosophy or ideology, some speculation is supported or discounted. All the laboratory evidence we have, has to do with highly developed biological systems and simpler systems that operate as parasites (bacteria, viruses etc). Fossil evidence indicates that advanced multicellular plants and animals and bacteria existed in the late pre-Cambrian. We will probably only know more, if we can travel to other planets that are in a primitive state of biological development.
My metaphysical position on reality, won't support random creation of vast 3-D supercomputer rooms by any physics or chemistry I know. Others have different metaphysics, whether they own it or are driven unconsciously.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 15, 2015, 04:00:27 PM
A presupposition. That's as good an answer as any, I suppose. I did not have a presupposition. My parents did not talk about it, one way or the other. They did go to church when my brothers and I went for a few years in my preteens. But nothing there made me believe that god existed. But I did not see any 'proof' the other way either. So, I guess I would have been a true agnostic for most of my life. But in elder years, I see the lack of any proof of any god/gods as proof against it. If there is a god who is interested in the 'salvation' of his creation, then he should make it crystal clear what his requirements are. And that just has not happened. Not in any religion or any region of this world. It sounds to me you are saying you believe out of habit.
I find Agnosticism to be more logical than Atheism. For to be certain God does exist seems as illogical as to be certain God does not. But perhaps I misunderstand what each are. What kind of proof would you like to see that would give you some reason to think such a being does exist?
Quote
As for how DNA works, you are way beyond me. But I do know that scientists who work on that work according to the scientific principle. If I wanted to become an 'expert' on the subject, there are plenty of peer reviewed tests to refer to. What kind of test does one perform that tests god?
Right, if God does exist apart from that which he or she creates, then he or she cannot be put in a test tube. I guess the best one can do is look at the alleged creation and examine the evidence that it could come into being on its own.
:)
Quote from: SGOS on August 15, 2015, 04:21:07 PM
I'm an agnostic and an atheist. But chances are we define terms differently. Here is a description of the definition that I use and a discussion of atheism and agnosticism that describes most atheists. Theists generally disagree with this. They seem to want atheists to actively deny the existence of a god. Most of us don't. We just don't have a reason to believe in a god.
Correct. The Christian teachers to whom I've listened define an atheist as one who has no doubt God does not exist. Consequently some of them also define a Christian as--among other things--one who has no doubt God does exist. So these teachers would say I am not a Christian.
What I wonder is if most atheists and Christians do in fact have doubts, and so they are all agnostics--some who are more inclined to believe God does exist and some who are more inclined to believe God does not exist.
Religious support or antipathy ebbs and flows, in my experience. But it is hard to get people (not just Christians) to be honestly introspective, and convey the results of that outside the confessional (if you are Catholic). Conformism is a powerful thing.
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2015, 04:23:25 PM
Jesus says ... "Where two or more are gathered in my name (spirit)". That defines the followers of Jesus. If you are not in communion (another related concept) then you are a "fellow traveler" a Christian-like person, not a full member. Though not necessarily in the process of entering or leaving the Church. Religion is from a Latin word, meaning "to bind together". ...
Yes, if we can believe the quote, Jesus did say:
"For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.â€
(Matthew 18:20)
What I wonder is what he meant by the word
with. Did he mean he was in agreement with them? Or did he mean he was present metaphysically? In what sense do you think a gathering of two people makes them Christians?
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2015, 04:42:41 PM
Religious support or antipathy ebbs and flows, in my experience. But it is hard to get people (not just Christians) to be honestly introspective, and convey the results of that outside the confessional (if you are Catholic). Conformism is a powerful thing.
I think I try to be honestly introspective and don't mind being so with others. But in what way is conformity opposed to such sincerity?
Edit: No need to answer. I guess what I'm saying is two people might conform to the idea that one should be introspectively honest. In such case conformism would not be opposed to such honesty.
Quote from: Spockrates on August 15, 2015, 04:35:26 PM
Correct. The Christian teachers to whom I've listened define atheism as one who has no doubt God does not exist. Consequently some of them also define a Christian as--among other things--one who has no doubt God does exist. So these teachers would say I am not a Christian. What I wonder is if most atheists and Christians do in fact have doubts, and so they are all agnostics--some who are more inclined to believe God does exist and some who are inclined to believe God does not exist.
As far as I know, most atheists probably do. A good synonym for atheism might be skepticism. As far as theists, I don't know. I had doubts when I was a Christian, but some Christians would have denied me the title like they do you. I also doubted most Christians were as sure as they said they were about God. How could they not have doubts? But then I really can't speak for their confidence. I can only measure the quality of the evidence they provide.
I think the answer to your question about "communion" depends on a whole lot of metaphysics, it depends on the individual.
By "name" in that culture, it means "power" not some magic word like "abracadabra". Of course simple men probably at times have gone into battle as Christian soldiers, shouting "Iesou Pantokrator" ... which is the Greek phrase for the theology and ideology of Emperor Constantine.
My personal view, that what was understood by the early faithful, was that the power of forgiveness and friendliness ... aka the coherence of will in a positive way between two people (not eros or even philos but agape), represented the metaphysical presence of G-d's Salvation aka Yehoshua. People then, including Jewish people, believed in archangels (personified ideals), because the presence of a transcendental and infinite Being is incomprehensible.
This is my view based on my understanding of Kabbalah. Theologically, gnostic theologians presupposed a whole hierarchy of partial divinity that extended from G-d at the center to the ordinary believer at the periphery. Kabbalah is in this family of theology. This still exists as a belief system in later centuries, as Shekhinah ... the Presence of G-d, of which faithful Jews are the human manifestation. But Shekhinah is feminine, while Yehoshua is masculine (the idea and the lieutenant of Moses). In latter-day Hasidic belief, this intermediary represents the hieros gamos between G-d and G-d's wife in Heaven, but also between the Hasid and his wife during Shabbat (Friday night) who mirror on Earth, what is Above. Making the intermediary masculine, neutralized the sexual content ... and the wife of G-d was demoted to Earth as the Virgin Mary ... though partially elevated again in Marian devotion.
Quote from: SGOS on August 15, 2015, 05:06:14 PM
As far as I know, most atheists probably do. A good synonym for atheism might be skepticism. As far as theists, I don't know. I had doubts when I was a Christian, but some Christians would have denied me the title like they do you. I also doubted most Christians were as sure as they said they were about God. How could they not have doubts? But then I really can't speak for their confidence. I can only measure the quality of the evidence they provide.
Agreed. The truth might very well be that all Christians are agnostics, but not all agnostics are Christians. For all atheists are agnostics but not all agnostics are atheists!
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2015, 05:08:01 PM
I think the answer to your question about "communion" depends on a whole lot of metaphysics, it depends on the individual.
By "name" in that culture, it means "power" not some magic word like "abracadabra". Of course simple men probably at times have gone into battle as Christian soldiers, shouting "Iesou Pantokrator" ... which is the Greek phrase for the theology and ideology of Emperor Constantine.
My personal view, that what was understood by the early faithful, was that the power of forgiveness and friendliness ... aka the coherence of will in a positive way between two people (not eros or even philos but agape), represented the metaphysical presence of G-d's Salvation aka Yehoshua. People then, including Jewish people, believed in archangels (personified ideals), because the presence of a transcendental and infinite Being is incomprehensible.
This is my view based on my understanding of Kabbalah. Theologically, gnostic theologians presupposed a whole hierarchy of partial divinity that extended from G-d at the center to the ordinary believer at the periphery. Kabbalah is in this family of theology. This still exists as a belief system in later centuries, as Shekhinah ... the Presence of G-d, of which faithful Jews are the human manifestation. But Shekhinah is feminine, while Yehoshua is masculine (the idea and the lieutenant of Moses). In latter-day Hasidic belief, this intermediary represents the hieros gamos between G-d and G-d's wife in Heaven, but also between the Hasid and his wife during Shabbat (Friday night) who mirror on Earth, what is Above. Making the intermediary masculine, neutralized the sexual content ... and the wife of G-d was demoted to Earth as the Virgin Mary ... though partially elevated again in Marian devotion.
I only partially understood what you said, but the gist seems to me to be that it is the metaphysical presence of G-d when two people are together that makes them Christians. Yet I have my doubts. Let's say the two are kind to each other, meeting one another's needs. Christ is metaphysically in the same location with them. This gathering of the three is what makes two of them Christians.
But then they depart--one going to his home alone and the other going to her home alone. They are no longer two gathered together but now each one alone. Have they now ceased to be Christians?
Edit: But if that of which you speak is potential togetherness rather than actual togetherness, then would you say the desire to be together--not the actual being together--is what makes two people Christians? Perhaps this is what Paul meant:
For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this.
(1 Corinthians 5:3)
Or perhaps I'm delving too deeply into the question of what a Christian really is? I'm asking such questions because you seem to be a deep thinker about spiritual matters and thought you might want such a conversation. It's OK if you don't.
:)
Well the NT recommends that they gather periodically to encourage and support each other, and since the Babylonian captivity, and the invention of the synagogue, they have done just that. In the case of Jewish Christians, this would have been in the context of the Shabbat ... and Paul seems to have followed that (his sermon at Alexandria Troas, where the boy falls out of the window) ... the conclusion of Shabbat is called Havdalah ... and that occasion/meal is the final meal of three on the Shabbat. So a full Shabbat would have included three pot luck meals .... probably on normal days people were lucky to get two meals. There may have also been special post-Shabbat service at dawn on Sunday ... by Jewish Christians, though not by other Jews. Easter Sunday is the grand yearly version of that practice. For other folks reading, I am talking about my own reconstruction of early cultural practice, I am not claiming this as my own practice or belief. The prophet Muhammad emphasized the need for Friday noon services in the mosque, because people are forgetful. That if we were fully conscious of G-d's presence, then we wouldn't lose the power that provides the individual. In this case the emphasis is on the personal relationship with G-d, more than the mystical power that occurs during congregating, though this is by degree, a difference between Christians and Muslims. In mystical terms, the power of G-d is everywhere, and it is only on a human plane that there is any diminishment, provided that one is thinking of the other, the common good, the agape ... rather than egotism.
And yes, per my reconstruction, Paul is clearly saying that as he is in Christ, then he is present when Christ is present with believers. This is a macrocosmos/microcosmos view of metaphysics. BTW ... in Kabbalah, G-d has ten hypostases ... not the three of orthodox Christian theology.
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2015, 06:36:54 PM
Well the NT recommends that they gather periodically to encourage and support each other, and since the Babylonian captivity, and the invention of the synagogue, they have done just that. In the case of Jewish Christians, this would have been in the context of the Shabbat ... and Paul seems to have followed that (his sermon at Alexandria Troas, where the boy falls out of the window) ... the conclusion of Shabbat is called Havdalah ... and that occasion/meal is the final meal of three on the Shabbat. So a full Shabbat would have included three pot luck meals .... probably on normal days people were lucky to get two meals. There may have also been special post-Shabbat service at dawn on Sunday ... by Jewish Christians, though not by other Jews. Easter Sunday is the grand yearly version of that practice. For other folks reading, I am talking about my own reconstruction of early cultural practice, I am not claiming this as my own practice or belief. The prophet Muhammad emphasized the need for Friday noon services in the mosque, because people are forgetful. That if we were fully conscious of G-d's presence, then we wouldn't lose the power that provides the individual. In this case the emphasis is on the personal relationship with G-d, more than the mystical power that occurs during congregating, though this is by degree, a difference between Christians and Muslims. In mystical terms, the power of G-d is everywhere, and it is only on a human plane that there is any diminishment, provided that one is thinking of the other, the common good, the agape ... rather than egotism.
And yes, per my reconstruction, Paul is clearly saying that as he is in Christ, then he is present when Christ is present with believers. This is a macrocosmos/microcosmos view of metaphysics. BTW ... in Kabbalah, G-d has ten hypostases ... not the three of orthodox Christian theology.
Then are you saying the man and woman of my example who spend the night alone are still actually together? Or are they not actually together, but merely symbolically together? Take Paul, for instance. Though he was writing his letter far from Corinth, he said he was with the Corinthians in spirit. Did he mean he was actually with them--as his soul existing in two places at the same moment in time--or only metaphorically with them?
It's a question that might be asked if many a New Testament passage: Is it speaking literally or figuratively?
Edit: Or are you saying that since G-d was with both the Corinthians and Paul at the same time, Paul was also literally with the Corinthians at that time? (This alternative I find illogical and hard to believe and so think he must have meant he was symbolically with them.)
Your notion of what and who you are ... is conventional. If you think of a beloved, then you are with them. And if your beloved thinks of you as well, and your love is pure (agape, not philos or eros) ... then as per Epistle of John 1 ... you are together. You don't have to be physically in the same room or same bed ;-) This is a strong inducement for monogamy/monoandry.
If you understand words, not just know them ... then you will see that they are tools, which allow us to manipulate reality symbolically. Since all words are symbolic, then the literal, properly understood is metaphorical. And metaphor, as words on a page or spoken out loud, are in that way literal. The problem is with the human mind, not with reality. We use our word tools ignorantly, and thus create problems for ourselves, like using a saw incompetently on a piece of wood. The problem with using logic in terms of words (rather than numbers and geometrical figures) is that we produce word salad or philosophical cole slaw. For example, high/low aren't opposites, they are complements.
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2015, 08:15:26 PM
Your notion of what and who you are ... is conventional. If you think of a beloved, then you are with them. And if your beloved thinks of you as well, and your love is pure (agape, not philos or eros) ... then as per Epistle of John 1 ... you are together. You don't have to be physically in the same room or same bed ;-) This is a strong inducement for monogamy/monoandry.
If you understand words, not just know them ... then you will see that they are tools, which allow us to manipulate reality symbolically. Since all words are symbolic, then the literal, properly understood is metaphorical. And metaphor, as words on a page or spoken out loud, are in that way literal. The problem is with the human mind, not with reality. We use our word tools ignorantly, and thus create problems for ourselves, like using a saw incompetently on a piece of wood. The problem with using logic in terms of words (rather than numbers and geometrical figures) is that we produce word salad or philosophical cole slaw. For example, high/low aren't opposites, they are complements.
Yes, I think I understand, but I'm not sure you answered my question fully. That Paul was with the Corinthians even though he wrote his letter from the other side of the Mediterranean Sea is true. But this is not what I asked of you. Sorry for being unclear, and please let me ask again: In precisely
what way was Paul present in Corinth?
(And don't worry about confusing me. I think I will enjoy the salad you serve, no matter how you might toss it!)
I can think of at least one way. Let me give an example. Tonight I, my wife, my son and his girlfriend were in the same room. I said, "I'm hungry for a pizza! Whose with me?"
Now someone who took my words too litterally might say, "What a ridiculous question! They are all with you, since they're all in the same room."
But I did not mean to use the word with in such a literal sense. I was not asking who was physically present with me. I was asking who was in agreement with me about what we would eat for dinner.
You see?
I think that the babble must be taken absolutely literal in every since of the word and in every way. If god is indeed the greatest thing since Dijon then indeed he/she/it would surely be able to get that point across in a very easy and forward way, after all, the babble was written when 98% of the populace couldn't eve n read let alone count. So for me, there is no "grant", either you accept the babble at face value, horn swaggling bullshit and all, or be a cherry picking hypocrite.
Quote from: aitm on August 15, 2015, 09:53:14 PM
I think that the babble must be taken absolutely literal in every since of the word and in every way. If god is indeed the greatest thing since Dijon then indeed he/she/it would surely be able to get that point across in a very easy and forward way, after all, the babble was written when 98% of the populace couldn't eve n read let alone count. So for me, there is no "grant", either you accept the babble at face value, horn swaggling bullshit and all, or be a cherry picking hypocrite.
It's hard to excuse a religion that depends on a continually growing basket of metaphorical apologetics and thoughts that must be interpreted to mean something other than what is written in it's divine guidebook. Mysterious poetic sounding writing that requires a group of theologians to interpret sort of works in book clubs, philosophy, and literature classes. It may be brain teasingly fun. But this is a book that explains the divine plan of an all powerful creator, who expects his minions to understand it, live by it, or suffer eternal fire. And it's written in a code of disguised meanings. I can't think of a worse way to describe a formula for life, death, and eternal salvation. Make it so that it can be interpreted any way by anyone to suit their needs. It may be the worst attempt at writing a self help book, ever.
Actually there is no need for polemics or apologetics. Real Men (tm) don't need any of that shit ;-) Let your yea be yea or your ney be ney. Particularly if you are horsing around ... Mr Ed.
Yes, Spockrates ... your pizza example is perfect. I am not saying that Paul had a transporter or video screen that allowed him to be "with" the Corinthians in some other way. But then to many people, the idea of being with someone, except in the same room, is unintelligible. They don't see things mind first, but body first. Of course, in another language, we wouldn't have such ambiguities about "with" ... though we would with other words that are perfectly clear in English. In exegesis there are at least 4 levels of interpretation ... the elementary school level is the literal ... and most people are content with their milk, cookies and noon-time nap. The levels are Denotational, Connotational, Situational and Metaphorical. Of course some people just can't do metaphor and its counterpart ... analogical thinking. They must color inside the lines, or they will develop cooties ;-)
...
Quote from: aitm on August 15, 2015, 09:53:14 PM
I think that the babble must be taken absolutely literal in every since of the word and in every way. If god is indeed the greatest thing since Dijon then indeed he/she/it would surely be able to get that point across in a very easy and forward way, after all, the babble was written when 98% of the populace couldn't eve n read let alone count. So for me, there is no "grant", either you accept the babble at face value, horn swaggling bullshit and all, or be a cherry picking hypocrite.
Yes, that would certainly be easier! But then, that would mean no one in the pages of such babble ever used a figure of speech. These words of Jesus' disciples indicate the opposite, I think:
Then Jesus’ disciples said, “Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.â€
(John 16:29-30)
Also there are several obvious uses of figurative language by Jesus, calling himself the light of the world, the vine, the gate. So for example, I don't know of any Christians who insist Jesus was some kind of intelligent plant life.
:D
Edit: But then, Jesus said he was the bread of life, and many Catholics take his words literally, while many Protestants don't. The trick for someone not aligned with any particular denomination like myself is to figure out what is figurative and what is not.
But do you think the presence of such ambiguity is evidence against the existence of God?
Quote from: SGOS on August 15, 2015, 10:31:42 PM
It's hard to excuse a religion that depends on a continually growing basket of metaphorical apologetics and thoughts that must be interpreted to mean something other than what is written in it's divine guidebook. Mysterious poetic sounding writing that requires a group of theologians to interpret sort of works in book clubs, philosophy, and literature classes. It may be brain teasingly fun. But this is a book that explains the divine plan of an all powerful creator, who expects his minions to understand it, live by it, or suffer eternal fire. And it's written in a code of disguised meanings. I can't think of a worse way to describe a formula for life, death, and eternal salvation. Make it so that it can be interpreted any way by anyone to suit their needs. It may be the worst attempt at writing a self help book, ever.
Extremely well put. It is what I wonder and why I have not found a church "home".
Jesus as "logos" was his own authority. Teachers of the law were not like that ... like lawyers, they relied on quoting an authoritative rabbi when not quoting the legal aspect of scripture. Of course rabbinic Judaism was and remains exactly of that character (the Orthodox Jews). But back then and even now, most Jews are not orthodox. But Jesus isn't unique, anytime one speaks for oneself, in an inspired way, one is not speaking like a lawyer.
Quote from: Spockrates on August 16, 2015, 07:44:42 AM
Yes, that would certainly be easier! But then, that would mean no one in the pages of such babble ever used a figure of speech. These words of Jesus' disciples indicate the opposite, I think:
I would suspect that when the babble specifically says that it is a parable or a figure of speech then most idiots would understand that indeed it is a parable or a figure of speech.
However, jebus nonsense aside, when the OT claims that the sky is water and that the entire earth was covered in water for 40 some days then it means exactly that, and not some bullshit that it was only meant as some type of you know, not real but kinda whimsical, and a little allegorical with a smidge of wink wink and nudge nudge…..
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2015, 11:12:24 PM
Actually there is no need for polemics or apologetics. Real Men (tm) don't need any of that shit ;-) Let your yea be yea or your ney be ney. Particularly if you are horsing around ... Mr Ed.
Yes, Spockrates ... your pizza example is perfect. I am not saying that Paul had a transporter or video screen that allowed him to be "with" the Corinthians in some other way. But then to many people, the idea of being with someone, except in the same room, is unintelligible. They don't see things mind first, but body first. Of course, in another language, we wouldn't have such ambiguities about "with" ... though we would with other words that are perfectly clear in English. In exegesis there are at least 4 levels of interpretation ... the elementary school level is the literal ... and most people are content with their milk, cookies and noon-time nap. The levels are Denotational, Connotational, Situational and Metaphorical. Of course some people just can't do metaphor and its counterpart ... analogical thinking. They must color inside the lines, or they will develop cooties ;-)
Yes. With this clarification, then it seems that when Paul said,
For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this.
(1 Corinthians 5:3)
he was speaking of pizza more than location. He was saying he and the Corinthians were in agreement. In the case for which he wrote the letter, they were in agreement that the man who was sleeping with his father's wife should be asked to leave their church.
Is this, then what Jesus meant when he said, "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am with them"? That is, is what makes a person a Christian the fact that she agrees with Christ about wrong and right?
so when jebus says that "indeed, there are those here who will still be alive when.. I return" means that or like most who recognize that this is patently false, you will surmise that a "generation" in THIS case means a hundred million billion trillion years if need be…whereas elsewhere in the babble a "generation" earns exactly one generation of approximately 16 to 30 years.
Spokrates - See, you are not slow ... but can apply something to a different circumstance. Americans are egomaniacs. They think that a Christian spirit is more like ... me and my fishing buddy Jeebus ;-) As long as you can escape solipsism, then yes, that is also what Jesus (the fictional character of the Gospels) meant ... or rather that is Paul (a historical figure) meant. But unless both parties have the "holy spirit" ... which in Hebrew and Greek is feminine ... then they cannot come together in agape in the way it is imagined. In that way the Christian and Jewish views coincide ... because Shekhinah is also feminine. But such a spirit might be incubated alone (as Jesus describes proper prayer), it cannot be birthed except thru sharing with real people of like mind. Of course before Descartes, nobody used "mind", they used "spirit". Descartes birthed that modern secular view, and had to dodge the Inquisition because of it.
Aitm - thou kibitzing knave ;-) If Jeebus is talking eternally, not temporally, then what he said was tautological. Alas we only have the poor efforts of the early Church Fathers as Cliff's Notes to the hellenistic dramatic novellas that are the Gospels. Think of these as Buck Rodgers shows from the 1930s, with sparklers out the back of the toy spaceships to indicate thrusting rocket engines. Often if you get into the actual Judeo-Greek, the meaning is quite different than the Church influenced translation.
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2015, 11:33:20 AM
Aitm - thou kibitzing knave ;-) If Jeebus is talking eternally, not temporally, then what he said was tautological.
No. I will not allow it. If we allow some sentences to mean "anything that doesn't disprove it" then we might as well claim a rock is a tree and fish is a camel turd if it makes the sentence help "prove" the babbles accuracy. You may splay and gavel about if you wish, but I will not.
I love your way with words. If words are like matter, and matter is all the same, in some sense being mere rearrangements of atoms, as words are mere rearrangements of letters ... then Newspeak is our mother tongue ... because then all words, in a certain sense, are the same. Welcome to 1984, Winston Smith. But the play is reversed ... I am Yorick, at the cemetery holding the exhumed skull of Hamlet ... as my soliloquy begins ...
Quote from: aitm on August 16, 2015, 11:18:14 AM
so when jebus says that "indeed, there are those here who will still be alive when.. I return" means that or like most who recognize that this is patently false, you will surmise that a "generation" in THIS case means a hundred million billion trillion years if need be…whereas elsewhere in the babble a "generation" earns exactly one generation of approximately 16 to 30 years.
I don't believe Jesus did say that, but please let me know what passage of the Bible proves me wrong.
:P
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NIV&quicksearch=Return&begin=47&end=73
Edit: I did find these words of Jesus:
22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.†23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?â€
(John 24)
But as the author says, the notion that Christians who knew Jesus would still be alive when he returned was just a rumor with no basis in fact.
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2015, 11:33:20 AM
Spokrates - See, you are not slow ... but can apply something to a different circumstance. Americans are egomaniacs. They think that a Christian spirit is more like ... me and my fishing buddy Jeebus ;-) As long as you can escape solipsism, then yes, that is also what Jesus (the fictional character of the Gospels) meant ... or rather that is Paul (a historical figure) meant. But unless both parties have the "holy spirit" ... which in Hebrew and Greek is feminine ... then they cannot come together in agape in the way it is imagined. In that way the Christian and Jewish views coincide ... because Shekhinah is also feminine. But such a spirit might be incubated alone (as Jesus describes proper prayer), it cannot be birthed except thru sharing with real people of like mind. Of course before Descartes, nobody used "mind", they used "spirit". Descartes birthed that modern secular view, and had to dodge the Inquisition because of it.
Aitm - thou kibitzing knave ;-) If Jeebus is talking eternally, not temporally, then what he said was tautological. Alas we only have the poor efforts of the early Church Fathers as Cliff's Notes to the hellenistic dramatic novellas that are the Gospels. Think of these as Buck Rodgers shows from the 1930s, with sparklers out the back of the toy spaceships to indicate thrusting rocket engines. Often if you get into the actual Judeo-Greek, the meaning is quite different than the Church influenced translation.
Yes, and so it seems Christians are those who are in agreement. But now I ask myself, "What are we saying?" For this passage comes to mind:
11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
(Galatians 2)
Since Paul disagreed with Peter about such an important issue (is Christianity a reformation of Judaism or a new religion for both Jewish and non-Jewish people) does this mean one of the two was not a Christian? If it does not mean this, then it seems the simple question still remains unanswered, and please forgive me for asking you once again:
What is a Christian?
What is a Christian? Depends on who you ask. Why do you suppose there is only one answer to this question, or any other question?
Now I can give contemporary evidence from Messianic Judaism. There are two groups now, as there were (at least two) groups 2000 years ago. Josephus says that there were 23 kinds of Jews in his day, and he wasn't even counting Gentiles who leaned Jewish. These two groups today ... Messianic Judaism got its restart after 1500 years of silence, because of the fall of Jerusalem's old city, to the Israelis, in 1967. This sparked several messianic movements, including the Jewish settlers on the West Bank. In the West, some of this fervor manifested in Jews who were unable to be atheist or agnostic (as most Jews are), but were also not connected to modern Israel in a secular way (the modern state is secular), nor were they connected to one of the rabbinic groups.
There has been a strain of Judaism throughout history, that was anti-rabbinic ... the Karaiites ... who are Biblical, not Talmudic. Perhaps out of those tendencies, modern Messianic Judaism was born. Most Jews simply call these Christians, because in Jewish dogma today, you can be anything; a Muslim, an atheist, a Buddhist and still be a Jew ... except if you are Christian. Out of the mists of the collective unconscious, the same problems arise. Some Messianic Jews are Torah law following, and others are not. And among either formation, you find a second division ... what to do with G-d Fearers (Gentiles). Can they attend worship? Can they be first class members of the congregation, or are they second class members. And if they are second class members, then can that status be changed, and how can it be changed. These same forces were at work 2000 years ago.
So if you wanted to associate with a Jewish messianic group, and you weren't Jewish by parentage ... some would say you couldn't attend. Others would say you could attend, but you couldn't be a full member. Yet others (the Pauline) would say you could attend and have full membership. After the many Jewish-Roman wars, only one or two Christian (this didn't initially imply Gentile) group remained ... the pacifist, pro-Roman, Pauline groups (and other gnostic groups like the Johannine, if in fact they were different). Initially the Pauline/Johannine communities were gnostic in theology ... but this changed over time as non-Christian gnostics challenged them ... these other gnostics being anti-Semitic, world-denying, sometimes pagan/sometimes Abrahamic, but pacifist as well. But it was illegal to have any religion, other than one that is licensed ... same as it is in China today. So these illicit religions were harassed for 200 more years. It wasn't enough to be pacifist. Rome demanded your sole allegiance ... both to the Emperor cult and to militarism. America is the incarnation of Rome today, but latitudinarian in regards to religion (except you must follow the civic religion/patriotism).
Now we are talking scholarship, which is usually just informed speculation. A physicist measures an electric current with a voltmeter ... but it isn't possible to measure the value of a Shakespeare play with a voltmeter (unless it is a way of measuring the acoustic applause).
Quote from: Spockrates on August 16, 2015, 11:58:43 AM
I don't believe Jesus did say that, but please let me know what passage of the Bible proves me wrong.
Sigh! Anther christer who proclaims to "know" that babble but has yet, apparently to actually read it.
since you proclaim that words only mean what they mean to those who understand that what they really mean is whatever they mean to those who need them to mean whatever they want them to mean…..easy enough…
see Matt chapter 10 to 25, many references, do the reading yourself.
see Mark chap 13 I believe and Luke 21 or 22. perhaps a half dozen keepers unless your a liar about it.
I am sure you can make up some illusion that they actually meant "when the moon is stood upon my mankind and metal tubes fly about filled with humans will the son of man return to grant the believers great flocks of rams"…..gotta love the OT, ,a great flock of rams is the reward…woo-hoo!
Quote from: aitm on August 16, 2015, 01:45:19 PM
Sigh! Anther christer who proclaims to "know" that babble but has yet, apparently to actually read it.
since you proclaim that words only mean what they mean to those who understand that what they really mean is whatever they mean to those who need them to mean whatever they want them to mean…..easy enough…
see Matt chapter 10 to 25, many references, do the reading yourself.
see Mark chap 13 I believe and Luke 21 or 22. perhaps a half dozen keepers unless your a liar about it.
I am sure you can make up some illusion that they actually meant "when the moon is stood upon my mankind and metal tubes fly about filled with humans will the son of man return to grant the believers great flocks of rams"…..gotta love the OT, ,a great flock of rams is the reward…woo-hoo!
Sorry I don't see it. Any specific verse you have in mind?
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2015, 01:44:31 PM
What is a Christian? Depends on who you ask. Why do you suppose there is only one answer to this question, or any other question?
Now I can give contemporary evidence from Messianic Judaism. There are two groups now, as there were (at least two) groups 2000 years ago. Josephus says that there were 23 kinds of Jews in his day, and he wasn't even counting Gentiles who leaned Jewish. These two groups today ... Messianic Judaism got its restart after 1500 years of silence, because of the fall of Jerusalem's old city, to the Israelis, in 1967. This sparked several messianic movements, including the Jewish settlers on the West Bank. In the West, some of this fervor manifested in Jews who were unable to be atheist or agnostic (as most Jews are), but were also not connected to modern Israel in a secular way (the modern state is secular), nor were they connected to one of the rabbinic groups.
There has been a strain of Judaism throughout history, that was anti-rabbinic ... the Karaiites ... who are Biblical, not Talmudic. Perhaps out of those tendencies, modern Messianic Judaism was born. Most Jews simply call these Christians, because in Jewish dogma today, you can be anything; a Muslim, an atheist, a Buddhist and still be a Jew ... except if you are Christian. Out of the mists of the collective unconscious, the same problems arise. Some Messianic Jews are Torah law following, and others are not. And among either formation, you find a second division ... what to do with G-d Fearers (Gentiles). Can they attend worship? Can they be first class members of the congregation, or are they second class members. And if they are second class members, then can that status be changed, and how can it be changed. These same forces were at work 2000 years ago.
So if you wanted to associate with a Jewish messianic group, and you weren't Jewish by parentage ... some would say you couldn't attend. Others would say you could attend, but you couldn't be a full member. Yet others (the Pauline) would say you could attend and have full membership. After the many Jewish-Roman wars, only one or two Christian (this didn't initially imply Gentile) group remained ... the pacifist, pro-Roman, Pauline groups (and other gnostic groups like the Johannine, if in fact they were different). Initially the Pauline/Johannine communities were gnostic in theology ... but this changed over time as non-Christian gnostics challenged them ... these other gnostics being anti-Semitic, world-denying, sometimes pagan/sometimes Abrahamic, but pacifist as well. But it was illegal to have any religion, other than one that is licensed ... same as it is in China today. So these illicit religions were harassed for 200 more years. It wasn't enough to be pacifist. Rome demanded your sole allegiance ... both to the Emperor cult and to militarism. America is the incarnation of Rome today, but latitudinarian in regards to religion (except you must follow the civic religion/patriotism).
Now we are talking scholarship, which is usually just informed speculation. A physicist measures an electric current with a voltmeter ... but it isn't possible to measure the value of a Shakespeare play with a voltmeter (unless it is a way of measuring the acoustic applause).
OK, no problem. It was good talking with you.
:)
Quote from: aitm on August 16, 2015, 03:52:27 PM
yeah, like thats a surprise.
Let's say you have a favorite book, which you've been reading for years. You've spent time not just reading it, but trying to figure out what the authors mean to convey on each page. If someone quotes a few words of a sentence from that book, you can usually quote the rest of the sentence, or at least find the chapter from where the sentence came.
Now someone who hasn't spent much time reading your favorite book tells you one of the authors wrote something in the book that you know she didn't write. You ask where in the book, and the person gives you a few different chapters. You read them and don't find anything like what the person said was written and politely let him know. He accuses you of being insincere.
How would you respond?
Aitm is a cute doggy, just don't get upset at the barking ;-)
It was nice talking with you too. You can post on the regular strings too, if you like. I think you have met the minimum posting requirement.
Quote from: Spockrates on August 16, 2015, 04:35:38 PM
Let's say you have a favorite book, which you've been reading for years. You've spent time not just reading it, but trying to figure out what the authors mean to convey on each page. If someone quotes a few words of a sentence from that book, you can usually quote the rest of the sentence, or at least find the chapter from where the sentence came.
Now someone who hasn't spent much time reading your favorite book tells you one of the authors wrote something in the book that you know she didn't write. You ask where in the book, and the person gives you a few different chapters. You read them and don't find anything like what the person said was written and politely let him know. He accuses you of being insincere.
How would you respond?
As a person who has obviously read the book several more times than you, and as this particular quote in Matthew Mark and Luke are very well known and a point of contention for quite awhile, I would say the same thing we atheist always say: It is well known the average atheist knows the babble far better than the pretender christian.
To you I would say, stop pasting your babble search quotes and maybe, you know, really read the piece of shit for the first time. Front to back and no skipping and no asking Siri what she thinks it means.
Quote from: aitm on August 16, 2015, 05:19:04 PM
As a person who has obviously read the book several more times than you, and as this particular quote in Matthew Mark and Luke are very well known and a point of contention for quite awhile, I would say the same thing we atheist always say: It is well known the average atheist knows the babble far better than the pretender christian.
To you I would say, stop pasting your babble search quotes and maybe, you know, really read the piece of shit for the first time. Front to back and no skipping and no asking Siri what she thinks it means.
OK, I appreciate your answering my questions. Peace A dog!
:)
Quote from: Spockrates on August 16, 2015, 06:11:39 PM
OK, I appreciate your answering my questions.
Figs are for the poor but lamb as well goes to the pharaoh and the branch has nothing but roots..
(that is how I interpreted your response, you know, make up something if you don't like what it really says eh?) :)
Quote from: aitm on August 16, 2015, 06:18:22 PM
Figs are for the poor but lamb as well goes to the pharaoh and the branch has nothing but roots..
(that is how I interpreted your response, you know, make up something if you don't like what it really says eh?) :)
:)
These are the passages in question, Spockrates.
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.â€
- Matthew 16:28
And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.â€
- Mark 9:1
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.â€
- Luke 9:27
It's a false prophecy.
Yes, false ... according to literal reading. But it depends on what Kingdom of G-d means ... and apologetics has explained that many centuries ago. But we speak of a literature ... I don't expect any prophecies of Naruto to come true either in our universe. In our universe according to how I understand the passage (which is the same as yours) ... but in the infinity of parallel universes, which to our POV are fictional, the logic of those narratives come true ... many parallel universes breathed into life by us. In the universe of the Gettysburg Address ... the US is a decent place to live in ... wish I could portal over to it ;-)
I mean this as a compliment, Baruch: you are an eloquent bullshitter.
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2015, 06:49:10 AM
Yes, false ... according to literal reading. But it depends on what Kingdom of G-d means ...
You're jerkin' our chain, right?
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2015, 06:49:10 AM
and apologetics has explained that
It depends on what you mean by apologetics.
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2015, 06:49:10 AM
many centuries ago.
It depends on what you mean by centuries.
"I didn't have sex with that woman."
"It depends on what you mean by sex." - Bill Clinton
Yes, but by god he means every word exactly when he says: He that layeth with a man like a woman shall surely be put to death..... no fucking changing the words there eh?
Y'all are projecting on me like Playboy porn at a Catholic youth group slide show (remember those slide projectors back in the day).
And yes, if I must live in a cess pool (this world), I want my shit to be the most eloquent of the bunch, that way I got something for my edumacation ;-)
Well, apologetics is apologetics does. "Momma always had a way of explaining things so I could understand them."
Solomon - it was kind of you to look things up for him.
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2015, 01:03:41 PM
Y'all are projecting on me
No we're not, just yelling in general. Not at you at all...well, I'm not anyway.
QuoteSolomon - it was kind of you to look things up for him.
cause them christers which brag about how often they have read the book can't seem to find the verses they don't recall "seeing"..LOLOL
Welcome to the forum! I'm not here often... but I do pop in from time to time.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 15, 2015, 10:12:47 AM
I am familiar with the judgments each christian sect renders on all other sects. They all believe they have the most direct if not the only, pipeline to god. That is endlessly fascinating to me in that their all everything and perfect god (aren't they all???!) wants to narrow down those who make it to heaven such a minute number of people--people that he created in his own perfect all everything image. Doesn't that alone demonstrate that this god is not perfect nor all everything. Doesn't make sense--but then, theists use belief and not reason to figure out if there is a god or not. So, I guess, it does make sense. Theists do not need nor particularly reasons or facts to enter into this decision--only beliefs.
What I'm interested in, is what about god makes you a believer? And it matters not if other 'christians' think the way you do--only interested in what you think--or believe.
What have I discovered? Much--and nothing. The nothing part. This is not one single data or fact that leads me to think there is a god. It is all based on belief. It is not possible for a god that creates the universe and wants to communicate to his 'children' to leave not a single piece of actual data to prove that. Or to even suggest that it/he/she exists. The 'fact' there is not any data at all is a proof to me that god/gods only exist in the minds of man. Nothing real here.
The much part--the history of the bible (and all other 'sacred literature') offers no 'facts' other than the 'I say it is so, therefore it is so' type of fact. The bible is clearly man made and for clearly human reasons. The same can be said of Jesus. He is not mentioned by one person outside the bible as being real. The most one can get is that some writers use the word 'christian', which only indicates that there were those who believed--and offer no proof of a flesh and blood person. There is nothing but beliefs to support the bible or the jesus myth. Nothing.
I will change my mind if some empirical data ever shows up. I don't have a problem with changing my mind about much of anything. Well, I will never change my mind about ice cream--it is simply the best food group out there! Other than that, my mind is open. And I have changed my mind about Jesus/jesus a couple of times. And I have tried to make Christianity fit my life a couple of times--it just did not work out. But with some empirical data, it must might.
True Christianity is the following of The teachings of Crist to the fullest ability of the flesh.
You made a statement that caught my attention.
Something along the Lines of " God resides in the faithful"
This is a true statement. It is relative to Faith and the proof of God that by nature is nonemperialic.
Thanks, respectfully
Faith in selfless Unity through Good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 23, 2015, 10:18:28 AM
True Christianity is the following of The teachings of Crist to the fullest ability of the flesh.
Me--That is exactly the same as saying True Toothists are those who follow the teachings of the Tooth Fairy. Equal nonsense!
You made a statement that caught my attention.
Me--Whoopty fucking do...........................
Something along the Lines of " God resides in the faithful"
Me---That is true. But faith is a belief in that which cannot be proven. So, god resides in the Stupid! And gullible.
This is a true statement. It is relative to Faith and the proof of God that by nature is nonemperialic.
Me--Yeah, I know it is. Which is why I don't think god exists. Yes, god is without proof of any kind. I have not one single reason to believe in god/gods. Faith matters not to me--it is as meaningless as your god.
Thanks, respectfully
Me--Yeah, sure.
Faith in selfless Unity through Good
Me--God and good don't go together. Good can be proven and demonstrated--god cannot.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 23, 2015, 11:14:04 AM
Your self deception may unfortinatly only be proven to you upon death. I pray that this not be the case. Thank you.
Faith in selfless Unity through Good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 23, 2015, 11:48:58 AM
Your self deception may unfortinatly only be proven to you upon death
Your self deception may unfortinatly only be proven to you upon death, but you will never know it, this is reality.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 23, 2015, 11:48:58 AM
Your self deception may unfortinatly only be proven to you upon death. I pray that this not be the case. Thank you.
Faith in selfless Unity through Good
Pops--with all due respect-you are an idiot.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 23, 2015, 01:13:53 PM
Pops--with all due respect-you are an idiot.
Your all encompassing negativity towards mere possibilities of your confusion only further my point.
I do not need your sarcasm, and prefer the blatant obvious negativity over the slippery sort, as it at least shows some spine on your behalf.
Faith in selfless Unity through Good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 23, 2015, 02:06:42 PM
Your all encompassing negativity towards mere possibilities of your confusion only further my point.
I do not need your sarcasm, and prefer the blatant obvious negativity over the slippery sort, as it at least shows some spine on your behalf.
Faith in selfless Unity through Good
Pops, if you don't like my responses, then don't direct any toward me. I could give a shit if you need my sarcasm or not. I can care less what you need. You have demonstrated quite well that you are as mindless a sheeple as there are. Your world is made up of belief and faith. Be my guest. You are willfully ignorant and the king of stupid observations. As for having spine--I'm surprised that you know what that is since you have not used yours from birth. You are simply a spineless, willfully ignorant, poster child of the typical brainless shepple of your stripe. Get a life and post somewhere else!
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 23, 2015, 02:23:57 PM
Pops, if you don't like my responses, then don't direct any toward me. I could give a shit if you need my sarcasm or not. I can care less what you need. You have demonstrated quite well that you are as mindless a sheeple as there are. Your world is made up of belief and faith. Be my guest. You are willfully ignorant and the king of stupid observations. As for having spine--I'm surprised that you know what that is since you have not used yours from birth. You are simply a spineless, willfully ignorant, poster child of the typical brainless shepple of your stripe. Get a life and post somewhere else!
Wow that whole freedom of speech thing must really suck for you huh? The fact of the matter is if you knew any small little details of my very existence as opposed to your blatant assumption you would know that I am more man then perhaps you will ever become. Thanks again for your negative all encompassing assumption. By the way how can you assume that I am willfully ignorant when I have been through all phases thus far and have experienced all things to the fullest of my capacity and as opposed to just experiencing them I have actually learned from them. The direction of my existence today at this time is the culmination of my very existence and experiences it is in no way mindless or ignorant or willfully so. You can speak of such things when you open your own eyes until then all your speaking is a little b*******. Thank you.
Faith in selfless Unity through Good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 23, 2015, 02:52:00 PM
Wow that whole freedom of speech thing must really suck for you huh? The fact of the matter is if you knew any small little details of my very existence as opposed to your blatant assumption you would know that I am more man then perhaps you will ever become. Thanks again for your negative all encompassing assumption. By the way how can you assume that I am willfully ignorant when I have been through all phases thus far and have experienced all things to the fullest of my capacity and as opposed to just experiencing them I have actually learned from them. The direction of my existence today at this time is the culmination of my very existence and experiences it is in no way mindless or ignorant or willfully so. You can speak of such things when you open your own eyes until then all your speaking is a little b*******. Thank you.
Faith in selfless Unity through Good
Pops, maybe you would be better served having a puffer fish for an avatar. Full of hot air and empty sentences. Where is all of your crist teachings now? Get a little pressure and you fold like a popped balloon. Your life experiences have only lead you to a blind end and empty beliefs. You would not know what a reason would be and empirical facts are way beyond your grasp. Keep groveling before your make believe god--he/she/it may be the only thing to listen to you. You are free to speak as you wish--and I am free to reply as I wish. What's your problem with that? And I am quite sure you are more the man than I'll ever hope to be; but then you base your entire existence on beliefs and faith. And yes, your entire existence is based on willful ignorance, which translates to stupidity. And you have no idea what my life experiences are either--so what is your point? Oh, I keep forgetting you deal only in beliefs and faith. I really do feel sorry for you.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 23, 2015, 03:07:12 PM
Pops, maybe you would be better served having a puffer fish for an avatar. Full of hot air and empty sentences. Where is all of your crist teachings now? Get a little pressure and you fold like a popped balloon. Your life experiences have only lead you to a blind end and empty beliefs. You would not know what a reason would be and empirical facts are way beyond your grasp. Keep groveling before your make believe god--he/she/it may be the only thing to listen to you. You are free to speak as you wish--and I am free to reply as I wish. What's your problem with that? And I am quite sure you are more the man than I'll ever hope to be; but then you base your entire existence on beliefs and faith. And yes, your entire existence is based on willful ignorance, which translates to stupidity. And you have no idea what my life experiences are either--so what is your point? Oh, I keep forgetting you deal only in beliefs and faith. I really do feel sorry for you.
Sadly, more assumption on your part. Imagine that! In reality my beliefs go hand in hand with what has been proven by science. Your denial of a higher power doesn't even go along the lines of current scientific knowledge. By claiming your nonsense is nonsense is not me folding under anything I assure you and if you ever met me face to face he would but have to look me in the eye one time to know that I am a man. You also seem to assume that you have some sort of effect on me let it be known now that there is no negative thing that you will ever affect to me . Thank you.
Faith in selfless Unity through Good
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 23, 2015, 02:23:57 PM
Pops, if you don't like my responses, then don't direct any toward me. I could give a shit if you need my sarcasm or not. I can care less what you need. You have demonstrated quite well that you are as mindless a sheeple as there are. Your world is made up of belief and faith. Be my guest. You are willfully ignorant and the king of stupid observations. As for having spine--I'm surprised that you know what that is since you have not used yours from birth. You are simply a spineless, willfully ignorant, poster child of the typical brainless shepple of your stripe. Get a life and post somewhere else!
By the way, I didn't really say that I didn't care if your responses or the manner in which you project them. All I was attempting to state is that your refusal to stand like a man and state your claims as such makes you seem sort of like a bitch.
Faith in selfless Unity through Good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on August 23, 2015, 03:57:38 PM
By the way, I didn't really say that I didn't care if your responses or the manner in which you project them. All I was attempting to state is that your refusal to stand like a man and state your claims as such makes you seem sort of like a bitch.
Faith in selfless Unity through Good
Re-read the entirety of our posts and you will find that you have not once offered a reason or a fact in support of your beliefs. I don't care to talk in circles with you. BTW, I can care less if you are a man or a thing. You are whatever you want to be. And I'm finished.
Now that THAT mess is over, welcome to the club
popsthebuilder : your beliefs do not go hand in hand with what has been proven by science because that is just
not possible. Belief is an article of faith that requires neither proof or evidence. Science is an inductive discipline
which uses observation or experimentation to determine the validity of a hypothesis. And it investigates physical
phenomena and its properties but it has nothing at all to say about it beyond that. Where as belief pertains more
to philosophy and particularly ontology which is beyond the remit of science. So any belief you have pertaining to
existence is non scientific by definition even if it does not contradict scientific knowledge as such. Also science can
not prove any thing since proof is a formal procedure of axiomatically deductive systems like mathematics. Though
what it can do is disprove something or use evidence to determine the validity of any hypothesis by subjecting it to
potential falsification. It is an eternally self correcting system so it can not use proof like mathematics only evidence