Originally posted by BadwaterHi badwater,
That's all fine and dandy if one happens to be Christian; however, I don't take an exclusionary approach to spirituality. To insinuate that Christianity is the end-all and be-all of spirituality, that your existence is only assured if you belong to the Christian Club, is dangerous and errant. I know of far too many non-Christians that are entirely entitled ...[text shortened]... n in judging others in the stead of God. Leave the judging to God and worry about yourselves.
*To insinuate that Christianity is the end-all and be-all of spirituality, that your existence is only assured if you belong to the Christian Club, is dangerous and errant.*
Do you therefore feel it is ok to tell me what I believe is errant and dangerous simply because you hold a different opinion? What danger am i in please?
*I will suggest that the shrill cry of belief in Jesus is fine for oneself, but at the time you or anyone else extends that to others in judgment of what they should do and how they should be, then you are guilty of holding up righteousness as a weapon in judging others in the stead of God. Leave the judging to God and worry about yourselves.*
I don't believe i ever do what you are suggesting here, but isn't this exactly what you have done to me - see my point above re "errant and dangerous"?
Originally posted by divegeesterHey divegester!
Hi badwater,
*[b]To insinuate that Christianity is the end-all and be-all of spirituality, that your existence is only assured if you belong to the Christian Club, is dangerous and errant.*
Do you therefore feel it is ok to tell me what I believe is errant and dangerous simply because you hold a different opinion? What danger am i in please? ...[text shortened]... isn't this exactly what you have done to me - see my point above re "errant and dangerous"?[/b]
Contrary to your post, I understood that our friend just claimed that there is not a sole specific “right and righteous doctrine”, and that therefore it is errant and dangerous to state that there is just a specific “right and righteous religious doctrine” and that every other philosophical or religious doctrines are false. All in all, I had the feeling that Bawater means that there are many roads that they lead to Rome..
Of course I may be wrong due to my poor English, for I cannot see which way Badwater stated that your beliefs, my beliefs, the Christian beliefs, the atheist beliefs in general etc are “errant and dangerous”😵
Originally posted by black beetleHi black beetle, good day to you on this easter morning (am here).
for I cannot see which way Badwater stated that your beliefs ....... the Christian beliefs, ........ are “errant and dangerous”
what part of this can't you see my friend....?
badwater: To insinuate that Christianity is the end-all and be-all of spirituality, that your existence is only assured if you belong to the Christian Club, is dangerous and errant.
I have no issue with badwater believing whatever he wants but i'll defend my right to do the same and the fact that it is not errant or dangerous.
Originally posted by divegeesterHave a good day you too🙂
Hi black beetle, good day to you on this easter morning (am here).
what part of this can't you see my friend....?
badwater: [b]To insinuate that Christianity is the end-all and be-all of spirituality, that your existence is only assured if you belong to the Christian Club, is dangerous and errant.
I have no issue with badwater believing what ...[text shortened]... wants but i'll defend my right to do the same and the fact that it is not errant or dangerous.[/b]
Oh, I am sure that Badwater would be ready to fight for your right to express your beliefs no matter if he agrees or he disagrees with you. And I assure you that I would do it too, regardless of your beliefs.
But I would also state that I disagree with your views in case I could really agree not, and I would not hesitate to claim that your view is dangerous once I had this feeling plus the ability to back up my opinion properly. There is not any contradiction over here I reckon.
Now let's be a bit more specific: every religious doctrine is a matter of faith at its core, nothing less and nothing more. So let's say that "I believe" whilst "you believe not". Do I have the right to state that my religious doctrine is the sole one that can lead you to a higher level of understanding? I think that I cannot, because there will be always a part that you have to accept it "as is". Furthermore, if this "as is" stands against your intelligence, you will simply reject "my beliefs" and you will keep up living with "your beliefs" -with the beliefs that are accepted in full by your intelligence.
Now, the reason why you believe that I cannot back up efficiently "my beliefs" is that I cannot use philosophy and science in order to convince you. This is how I interpret Badwater's opinion. I hope you comprehend😵
This post is not about Easter. It is about the resurrection of Christ.
It is a little shortsighted to only consider the resurrection of Jesus as Jesus "coming back" from death. It is true that He did. But His resurrection is more significant than that in the New Testament.
Christ resurrection was Him entering into an entirely new realm in which a man is divinized and brought into God. It is the ultimate uplifting and exalting of our race. And He did this not only for Himself but for humanity that follows Him. This is why in resurrection He is called "the Firstborn from the dead" (Col. 1:18). Firstborn indicates that He is First to be followed by others.
"Firstborn from the dead" also indicates a whole new beginning. In this new beginning, Christ takes the lead and is the Head. But other men and women will follow the Firstborn to be the other ones "born" in this resurrection. So we should not consider that Christ's resurrection is solely for Himself alone. He is Firstborn and His redeemed people will be those "born" in resurrection after Him.
More than simply "coming back to life" the resurrection of Jesus caused a Man to be brought into God and exalted as God for eternity. He as Man exalted into God is the Head of a whole new humanity, a whole new race. He is the sole object of worship as the Head of this entity. But the subsequent redeemed people who follow Him in this resurrection, not being the Head but the Body of this entity, are also brought into God and divinized into divine humanity.
Christ uplifted and exalted the human race (particularly those saved) into the divine mingling of God and man. In eternity past God had only divinity. This God then became incarnate as the Word Who was God Who became flesh (See John 1:1,14) And God clothed Himself in this human nature.
He then lived 33 and 1/2 years on this earth as God concealed in flesh - a perfect and sinless life. He died for our sins on the cross and resurrected on the third day. In this resurrection, more than "coming back" He brought the human part which He had clothed Himself in, into an uplifted and exalted status of a glorified humanity. He went back with this nature and returned to the eternal throne of God.
In incarnation God brought God into man. In resurrection He brought man into God. This was the ultimate exaltation of our race - the divinization and deification of humanity - the "Firstborn from the dead" to be followe by "the rest-born" because of Him and after Him.
The Resurrection of Christ is the deification not only of a man but of Man. So I agree that it is perhaps a most significant event in human history. As the "Firstborn from the dead" (Col. 1:18) Christ adds to His "Preeminence in all things" (Col. 1:18) and is a new beginning of a new creation. As this new beginning of a new creation He is called in Revelation "The Amen ... the beginning of the creation of God" (See Rev. 3:14).
"And He is the Head of the Body, the church; He is the beginning, the Firstborn from the dead, that He Himself might have first place in all things; For in Him all the fulness was pleased to dwell. (Col. 1:18,19)
A Man is God the Head of a new creation. And His redeemed people who follow Him in this resurrection and exaltation are God dispensed into His members, the Body. The Head is our object of worship. The Body is the expression, the extension, the expansion of this union, not as an object of worship. But the Body is the humanity brought into mingling with God through salvation.
A man, Jesus Christ, is now on the throne of the eternal and divine God of the universe. He will never put off His humanity which He clothed Himself in as God incarnate, and uplifted in resurrection and glorification. This universe is under the authority of a Man - Jesus. He went back a man to the throne.
This matter is like a slow spiritual "Big Bang" in which the resurrected Jesus is the singularity. His Body of the saved are the expansion of God into humanity to be the creation of God of which Jesus is "the beginning".
"These things says the Amen, the faithful Witness, the beginning of the creation of God" (Rev. 3:14)
I praise this resurrected God-man Jesus Christ. He is our future and our destiny who trust in Him and enjoy His salvation.
The resurrection of Christ is taught not merely as Him "coming back to life" but as a birth. Or it is as the sprouting of a seed to reproduce many other plants like itself:
"And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.
Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." (John 12:23,24)
For Christ to be glorfied was for Him to be resurrected (Luke 24:26). The resurrected Jesus told His doubting disciples:
"And He said to them, O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory?" (Luke 24:25,26)
Christ speaks in John 12 of His death and resurrection as the grain dying to produce much fruit. He is the "Firstborn from the dead" (Col. 1:18) Who in resurrection produced many "grains" or many sons of God. This is according to God's eternal purpose to have many brothers of Christ - the Firstborn among many brothers:
"Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." (Rom. 8:29)
The one grain, Jesus, was a man who with the uncreated divine life of God concealed within the shell of His humanity. In death that shell was broken and the life was released to be dispensed into His believers. He then is the one grain who died that He could produce man grains. His resurrection is a new beginning for human race and includes that part of the human race which He has predestinated to be conformed to the image of the Firstborn Son.
The Apostle Paul also speaks of the resurrection and transfiguration of the Christians as a sowing and sprouting up of new plants:
"But someone will say, How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come? Foolish man, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies; and what you sow, you do not sow the body that will be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of some other of the rest. But God gives it a body even as He willed, and to each of the seeds its own body ... So also is the resurrection of the dead, it is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; It is sown a soulish body, it is raised a spiritual body ..." (See 1 Cor. 15:35-44)
Imagine a pyramid coming up out of the ocean. The tip is seen coming first. Then that same shape continues to rise from beneath the water - larger and larger and larger. But the initial shape is the same.
Christ's resurrection was the tip of this great pyramid structure. The rising of this pennacle of the structure can only continue to be enlarged in greater and greater degree. The Firstborn is the Head and the many brothers are the followers of this Head, even the members of His Body.
The one grain did not want to remain alone. He chose to die, split the shell of His concealing humanity and release the eternal life of God into His people. The one Son of God died and rose to produce many sons of God - the many grains produced by the one grain.
In eternity God will secure for Himself many sons conformed to the image of the "Firstborn among many brothers".
"He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to Me." (Revelation 21:7)
Here "son" does not mean male. It means to have the same life. The New Testament at one place does speak "you shall be sons and daughters to Me [God] " perhaps to assure us that God does not mean only male sons. See Second Corinthians 6:18.
Originally posted by Scriabini like Cecile B. DeMille films, i have The ten commandments and Samson and Delilah, awesome! i love the famous scene, 'Samson!, Samson! the Philistines are coming!'. But i do not think we can deny the resurrection on human terms, to do so, is to ignore the divine element!
The "resurrection" didn't happen; neither did the events described by the Jewish passover service -- at least not as written.
The first did not happen because the dead do not come back to life after the brain has been deprived of oxygen for more than a short period of time. Days afterwards the human body is no longer human -- it is a piece of decayed mea ...[text shortened]... have to rely on the supernatural to get by, your mental state is more irrational than not.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieexactly.
i like Cecile B. DeMille films, i have The ten commandments and Samson and Delilah, awesome! i love the famous scene, 'Samson!, Samson! the Philistines are coming!'. But i do not think we can deny the resurrection on human terms, to do so, is to ignore the divine element!
there is no such thing as the "divine element" except as conceived, propagated, and maintained by human beings.
there is no evidence whatsoever of any "divine element," nor any agreed upon definition of what those words might mean.
there is the world in which we live, and there are thoughts and beliefs that human beings prefer to believe instead of that which is the case.
the "divine element" to which you refer is simply more studiously written about and used as a tool for political, social, and economic power -- and even as a public health tool.
but there is no more evidence that this "divine element" has any real existence or is in fact the case than what old Cecile depicted in his overblown and somewhat tedious Hollywood bible epics.
Myth is myth.
and I choose to ignore it.
I live in the here and now -- not merely between my own ears.
To be precise, I am not an atheist.
I consider myself to be an apatheist, because I consider the question of God's existence or nonexistence to be of little or no practical importance.
Originally posted by ScriabinI dunno, if life has taught me nothing else, it has taught me never get into an argument with a lawyer, anyhow,
exactly.
there is no such thing as the "divine element" except as conceived, propagated, and maintained by human beings.
there is no evidence whatsoever of any "divine element," nor any agreed upon definition of what those words might mean.
there is the world in which we live, and there are thoughts and beliefs that human beings prefer to believe i ...[text shortened]... question of God's existence or nonexistence to be of little or no practical importance.
there is no such thing as the "divine element" except as conceived, propagated, and maintained by human beings. - this in itself is simply a conception and not at all well founded, for there are many Biblical and even scientific phenomena which are inexplicable except for the, 'divine element', whether you hold these to be valid or not, to me they seem perfectly reasonable ,and to dismiss them on the basis of nothing, is simply unsatisfactory and unreasonable.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is nothing probative in the Bible -- nothing that can be established as fact in the same way as one can establish something as a fact contemporaneously. Everything in the Bible in order to be proved true must be assumed to be true, absent any standard of evidence applicable today in order to prove anything as a matter of fact.
I dunno, if life has taught me nothing else, it has taught me never get into an argument with a lawyer, anyhow,
there is no such thing as the "divine element" except as conceived, propagated, and maintained by human beings. - this in itself is simply a conception and not at all well founded, for there are many Biblical and even scientific phenomen ...[text shortened]... ble ,and to dismiss them on the basis of nothing, is simply unsatisfactory and unreasonable.
You are making, in effect, the ontological argument, a well-worn and quite tired old religious argument for the existence of "God" or the "divine element."
The ontological argument examines the concept of God and argues that if we can conceive of God he must exist. The argument commits the bare assertion fallacy, as it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent to the unproven statement.
Thus, you are making a circular argument, because the premise relies on the conclusion, which in turn relies on the premise.
That which is inexplicable can only be explained by an assumed "divine element," which must, therefore, exist.
Nonsense. We cannot now explain how the theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics -- in short, how the universe, we, the world, everything, really works. So, that must mean there is a "divine element," as only that could be fabricated in our minds to explain everything.
Has it occurred to you that not everything need have an explanation of which we can conceive right now, but may find out later on?
When did we learn about the existence of and how to use the electron, subatomic particles, atomic fission, fusion> What about how to make gasoline from oil, fuel from alcohol, from grass?
When did we learn how to convert sunlight into electricity?
When mankind was unable to explain factual or real phenomena, such as the rotation of the Earth around the Sun rather than vice versa, what stories did we make up to "explain" it all?
Are you made all that uncomfortable by not knowing everything or being able to "explain" it all?
I'm not. I expect I won't know a lot about what is actually happening as it happens. I also expect I will know what I can and the rest may or may not become clear over time. But in the meantime, I will avoid creating mythological reasons for things -- making up arguments out of "whole cloth," as it were.
When you want to get down to brass tacks -- let me know.
Otherwise, you are merely pissing into the wind, telling stories, and not "explaining" anything at all. You are simply making it up.
that isn't reasonable at all -- I know a little about the reasonable man standard. Under that legal standard, you do not appear reasonable, you appear to assume facts not in evidence and insist they are true.
BTW, I do not accept the existence of extraterristrials here on Earth, ancient astronauts, or other pseudo-scientific "explanations" for things we cannot apparently explain.
As it turns out, we can explain these things, but it takes time and study to do so.
If there is a place for faith in life, I would opt for having faith in my fellow man to lift himself out of the ignorance of circular arguments, the cowardice of religion, and the intellectual dishonesty of myth and into the light of reason, compassion, and awareness for its own sake.
Else, faith is merely a crutch by which we decide it is ok to remain intellectually and morally crippled, and thus retard our progress toward a better understanding and higher awareness of that which is the case.
It is that ignorance, that retardation, that makes slaves of many, justifies the many and various abuses of authority inherent in religion, such as the shameful treatment of women by Islamists in so many places, such as Afghanistan.
Greg Mortenson is right -- the cure for this kind of criminal mistreatment is the education of girls. Any faith that discriminates against women in any way has, per se, earned my contempt.
Originally posted by Badwaterthe sermon on the mount has no new ideas in it, it is simply represented in a new way.
Well, no - there is a great deal in the Synoptic Gospels that is quite different from what you'll find in other scriptural writings, enough so to be unique. Everything from the Sermon on the Mount, to any of the Parables, to any number of encounters he has with persons in the course of his teachings; it is all unique and stands apart from the resurrection. I can call him my savior, not because he died and was supposedly raised from the dead.
parables were a common form of teaching, not unique to christ. I stand by my original post.
Originally posted by Scriabinno no, my friend, you are attributing to me spheres of thought that are beyond my knowledge and almost my understanding. It is much more simple than that, for the basis of faith is not a philosophical argument with regard to the existence of God or otherwise, but the internal evidence as found in the Bible, that is all.
There is nothing probative in the Bible -- nothing that can be established as fact in the same way as one can establish something as a fact contemporaneously. Everything in the Bible in order to be proved true must be assumed to be true, absent any standard of evidence applicable today in order to prove anything as a matter of fact.
You are making, in ef hat discriminates against women in any way has, per se, earned my contempt.
for example we find that there is a theme, running from beginning to end, in that Gods name will eventually be sanctified and his sovereignty established, thus for over a period of almost 2 millennium, men from different strata of society have contributed to this understanding, in the beginning, it was the patriarchs, then the prophets etc etc, to put these 66 little books together and form a coherent and internally harmonious whole is nothing short of miraculous!
however, as you are aware, there are prophesies fulfilled, hundreds of years in advance, in startling detail, we think of the rise and fall of world powers, the Medo-persians, the Assyrians, the Greeks , the Romans, the Anglo-american world power etc etc the ascension of Alexander the great, his over throw of Tyre, etc etc and as yet we have not even touched upon the Messianic prophecies, although not a scientific text book when it covers aspects of science it is accurate, otherwise how was the ancient Oriental Job, supposed to know that the earth was a sphere, that it was hanging upon nothing? when men insisted that the earth was flat, some religions like Hinduism insisting that it was held up by four giant sea turtles, we think of its practicality, for family life, the dietary laws, the miracles, each in themselves proving nothing, but when added to the body of 'evidence', weaving a fabric that is not so readily refutable on philosophic grounds.
i knew it was a mistake to get involved in an argument with a lawyer!🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI won't try to refute all or any of this on philosophical grounds. Again, you have nothing but instinct, internal feelings, thoughts, beliefs, etc. That's fine -- glad you are so easy to please.
no no, my friend, you are attributing to me spheres of thought that are beyond my knowledge and almost my understanding. It is much more simple than that, for the basis of faith is not a philosophical argument with regard to the existence of God or otherwise, but the internal evidence as found in the Bible, that is all.
for example we find that th ...[text shortened]... losophic grounds.
i knew it was a mistake to get involved in an argument with a lawyer!🙂
But you have shifted your ground and now offer an idea more similar to the mind-body argument than the previous, ontological argument. The mind-body problem argument suggests that the relation of consciousness to materiality is best understood in terms of the existence of God.
Of course, I see it otherwise. Unless I must see no other explanation but the supernatural one, I will not accept it based on hearsay evidence, or witnesses whose credibility I have to doubt on their faces. You tell me you've seen a ghost, do I believe 1) you did see a ghost, and 2) there are such things as ghosts?
Clearly not 1) and not 2), as there are a plethora of other possible explanations and the one involving the existence of ghosts is simply lunacy.
You would be happier, if no wiser, to avoid Umberto Eco's magical novel "Foucault's Pendulum." In that work you find the semiotics of all the various threads to which you refer woven into a plot that helps explain the influence all these "books" have had on the development of Western culture over the last two thousand or so years.
Originally posted by duecer===============================
the sermon on the mount has no new ideas in it, it is simply represented in a new way.
parables were a common form of teaching, not unique to christ. I stand by my original post.
the sermon on the mount has no new ideas in it, it is simply represented in a new way.
==================================
The audience seemed to think that what they heard was quite unique.
"And when Jesus finished these words, the crouds were astounded at His teaching. For He taught them as One having authority and not like their scribes." (Matt. 7:28,29)
They were "astounded" at His teaching. It must not have therefore sounded like old rehash.
And confirming miracles occured immediately after that demonstrated His divine authority.
Originally posted by Scriabinas my friend beetle is want to say, I bow ya leggedy beastie!😀
I won't try to refute all or any of this on philosophical grounds. Again, you have nothing but instinct, internal feelings, thoughts, beliefs, etc. That's fine -- glad you are so easy to please.
But you have shifted your ground and now offer an idea more similar to the mind-body argument than the previous, ontological argument. The mind-body problem arg ...[text shortened]... have had on the development of Western culture over the last two thousand or so years.