21 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo response?
[b] if they had no knowledge of good or evil, how could they be expected to know which to choose from, satan or god?
Using terms He knew they would clearly understand, God told the man and the woman, the day they eat of the fruit, dying, they would die. Wishing knowledge (experience) over faith, the woman saw that the fruit was good and ate thereof. ...[text shortened]... ased on, um, nothing. Your motto could be "We know that nothing can be known."[/b]
21 Mar 08
Originally posted by cpbrownSurely the issue is---is ToO without sin and has he overcome sin 100%? If he has then why doesn't he just tell us how he did it so we can do it too? If he hasn't then why is he banging on about something he has no experience of?
"Was Jesus without sin? Was Jesus ever 'irritated'? With money lenders, perhaps? Was it even beyond 'irritation'?" - ToO
But in RC tradition, even Jesus isn't without sin.
You see he has in the past thrown stones at Christianity and Ephin thought of him as an "accuser of the brethren". He also places great store on the words of Jesus and stresses that sin must be overcome 100% in order to be accepted by God. So what does he make of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"???
The implications are clear , he either is 100% sinless but won't tell us if he is or how to achieve this or he isn't and he's falling foul of Jesus's own words (words which he seems to love so dearly).
It's not hard to hoist ToO by his own petard but don't expect him to have the self knowledge to see it. I'm getting ready to duck now.......!
21 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterHaving trouble following through on your own suggestion?
Surely the issue is---is ToO without sin and has he overcome sin 100%? If he has then why doesn't he just tell us how he did it so we can do it too? If he hasn't then why is he banging on about something he has no experience of?
You see he has in the past thrown stones at Christianity and Ephin thought of him as an "accuser of the brethren". He als ect him to have the self knowledge to see it. I'm getting ready to duck now.......!
KM "I'm not doing this anymore. All this does is drag us both down really. We obviously can't stand each other so why not just agree that
we find each other repulsive and then take it from there?
You're about as delusional as they come. You're the only person I've known who believes that two opposing beliefs can both be true. Enjoy your "special gift".
21 Mar 08
no as far as i'm aware (having been brought up a r.c. and had a lot of discussions / sermons with/by priests etc.) the only ever sinless human was the virgin mary. mary is never portrayed as anything other than mild and beautiful in personality - jesus however (as ToO points out) sometimes breaks out in anger (e.g. in the temple).
21 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, all I can suggest is to go back and re-read my post. In all honesty I think you've misunderstood what is actually quite a simple explanation of the Fall.
Using terms He knew they would clearly understand ... etc.
The point I'm trying to make is that morals as we see them today did not exist in the garden of Eden. They had no knowledge of right or wrong, even the threat of death would have been meaningless as they had no knowledge of what it entailed. How could anything be seen as "bad" when they had no knowledge of what "bad" means? What this implies is that their choices were meaningless, as they knew not the meaning behind them, only that they were obeying one or the other of the people telling them what to do.
"If you've learned anything about me in the scant two or three weeks you've been on this forum, it is that I am unflinchingly un-emotional with regards to my thinking and theology. Any other suggestions?
Sounds like you've really stumbled onto something with that. Just think, if you get enough ground support, you could start your own religion based on, um, nothing. Your motto could be "We know that nothing can be known.""
I see these two statements as mildly contradictory. In the first, you claim to be without emotion with regards to your theology. In the second, you seem to suggest you don't want "nothing" to believe in, something which is quite easily seen as an emotional argument.
My own religion based on, "um, nothing" already exists - its known as weak atheism. Doubt is the first place to start searching for truth, and when no certainty is found, doubt is where I'll remain.
21 Mar 08
Originally posted by cpbrownWell, then either they were wrong or you misunderstood.
no as far as i'm aware (having been brought up a r.c. and had a lot of discussions / sermons with/by priests etc.) the only ever sinless human was the virgin mary. mary is never portrayed as anything other than mild and beautiful in personality - jesus however (as ToO points out) sometimes breaks out in anger (e.g. in the temple).
Consider the passage read at today's Good Friday service:
Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son
of God, let us hold fast to our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to
sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way, yet without
sin.
Hebrews 4:14-15
Theoretically, God the Father demonstrates anger as well; righteous anger is not considered a
sin. Thus, Jesus' anger in the Temple is commensurate with the circumstances in question and
not a sin.
Mary has a very small role in the Bible. She is portrayed as mild and beautiful by tradition;
there's hardly enough in the Bible to get any sense of her personality. To my knowledge,
only the Roman and Eastern Orthodox Churches think that she's sinless. It's not an article of
faith for any of the Protestant denominations (I believe...).
Nemesio
22 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWith regards to "not doing this anymore" I was refering to silly salad dressing arguments about spellings (eg complimentary) rather than the meat and two veg of your contradictory stance on Jesus's statements and sin. It is your stance on Jesus that I find repulsive and your unwillingness to back up your argument with any experiential evidence. My "special gift" is to see you hoisted by your own petard.
Having trouble following through on your own suggestion?
[b]KM "I'm not doing this anymore. All this does is drag us both down really. We obviously can't stand each other so why not just agree that
we find each other repulsive and then take it from there?
You're about as delusional as they come. You're the only person I've known who believes that two opposing beliefs can both be true. Enjoy your "special gift".[/b]
22 Mar 08
Originally posted by cpbrownIn all honesty I think you've misunderstood what is actually quite a simple explanation of the Fall.
Well, all I can suggest is to go back and re-read my post. In all honesty I think you've misunderstood what is actually quite a simple explanation of the Fall.
The point I'm trying to make is that morals as we see them today did not exist in the garden of Eden. They had no knowledge of right or wrong, even the threat of death would have been meaningless as ...[text shortened]... rching for truth, and when no certainty is found, doubt is where I'll remain.
That'd be unusual, don't you think? You, a self-described atheist, offering an explanation regarding a topic from a source that your very beliefs keep you from embracing that I, a professing believer in the Bible as the word of God and have been earnestly studying as His very words, would find not only simple but acceptable? I giggle just considering the lunacy it would require of me to consider such a situation.
The point I'm trying to make is that morals as we see them today did not exist in the garden of Eden.
That point has already been established, but not by you.
They had no knowledge of right or wrong, even the threat of death would have been meaningless as they had no knowledge of what it entailed.
Sheer and unadulterated arrogance, with a pinch of ignorance for good measure, it is assumed. The Bible clearly reveals the issues facing the man and woman as they understood them. Your take on the passage requires all manner of contorted thinking and assumptions otherwise found nowhere within the text.
In the second, you seem to suggest you don't want "nothing" to believe in, something which is quite easily seen as an emotional argument.
Not at all. In the second paragraph, I am entreating you to start your own religion, absolutely unrelated to anything I believe. I don't have a religion, but I recognize the fact that they are consistenly employed by those who do not have a relationship with reality. Just such a scenario is being suggested for you and your lack of belief.
Doubt is the first place to start searching for truth, and when no certainty is found, doubt is where I'll remain.
Are you sure? Sounds like you haven't really thought it through yet.
24 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBH(I've numbered your replies for easier referencing)
1) That'd be unusual, don't you think? ...
2) That point has already been established, but not by you ...
3) Sheer and unadulterated arrogance, with a pinch of ignorance for good measure, it is assumed.
4) Not at all.
5) Are you sure? Sounds like you haven't really thought it through yet.
1) I should rephrase what I wrote initially as: "In all honesty I think you've misunderstood what is actually quite a simple explanation of what I believe to be a major problem with the account of the Fall. Your response suggests that you acknowledge that from my rational scientific background, of course I would find problems with the account - whereas from your position of having already chosen to believe, you've been able to convince yourself that the account does indeed make sense. This is what's known as circular logic - you're admitting that your acceptance of the story (and somewhat dodgy denial of the inherent problems) is a result of your belief - which is taken in part from the bible. Circular logic doesn't go down very well in scientific circles, though I guess you already realise that my standards are very different to yours when it comes to logical analysis.
2) Yes, so the implication of this is ... that really Adam and Eve had no meaningful choice to eat the fruit or not - which undermines free will.
3) No no no you've reverted to your condemnation sans explanation mode of reply - If you could go some way to actually explaining where you see me as going so wrong, then I have a chance of redemption, whereas at the moment, I am lost. I don't believe my interpretation of the creation story and fall is contorted, I've read them at face value, I've been read them only the other day at the Easter Vigil Mass.
4) I think you're now in the realms of useless semantics. In a Venn diagram, belief is confined within circles, religion is confined to circles, hope and faith in anything which can not be known - are confined to circles. Where I stand however, is in the vast sea of nothing which all the others are floating in. Belief is not binary, there is not believing, and then a whole host of things to believe in. A religion then is certainly not what I see my beliefs aligning best with.
5) I think we all have issues with what to believe in - most people don't see these issues - some, like you and I, try and grapple with them. People like you, alter their interpretation of what they have the original issues with, so that they are more comfortable with them - that way, none of the benefits of belief are removed. Those like myself remove the issues by removing the source - i.e. the belief. This leaves all the problems belief can help - mostly to do with feeling fulfilled in life. My position requires less analysis of the text - granted, but that's the point.
01 Apr 08
Originally posted by rwingettyeah--it might be that your dad and God could be considered on equal footing--oh, except for those annoying abilities: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, ...
My dad never drowned almost the entire population of the earth. He never killed a bunch of Egyptians either. Come to think of it, my dad seems like a pretty even tempered guy compared to your god.